DOE Testimony On Budget; Climate; Coal; Nuclear Power; Yucca

Mar 11: Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu testified before the Senate Budget Committee, Chaired by Senator Ken Conrad (D-ND), with Ranking Member Judd Gregg (R-NH), to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget for DOE. Chu said, "The President’s Budget recognizes the enormous challenges and threats we face because of the ways we use energy. Today, we import roughly 60 percent of our oil, draining resources from our economy and leaving it vulnerable to supply disruptions. Much of that oil is controlled by regimes that do not share our values, weakening our security. Additionally, if we continue our current rates of greenhouse gas emissions, the consequences for our climate could be disastrous."

He said, ". . .we must decrease our dependence on oil, use energy in the most efficient ways possible, and lower our carbon emissions. Meeting these challenges will require both swift action in the near-term and a sustained commitment for the long-term to build a new economy, powered by clean, reliable, affordable, and secure energy."

He began with an overview of provisions contained within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, the "stimulus bill"). It includes $5 billion to weatherize the homes of low-income families; a $1,500 tax credit to help homeowners invest in efficiency upgrades; $4.5 billion to “green” federal buildings, including reducing their energy consumption; and $6.3 billion for state and local efficiency and renewable efforts. It also includes: $6 billion for loan guarantees and more than $13 billion in estimated tax credits and financial assistance instruments (grants and cooperative agreements) that may leverage tens of billions in private sector investment in clean energy and job creation. Additionally, it includes investments in key technologies, such as $2 billion in advanced battery manufacturing; $3.4 billion for fossil energy research and development in support of clean coal efforts; and $4.5 billion to modernize the electric grid.

He said the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget "will continue this transformation to a clean energy economy, while returning to fiscal responsibility." The FY 2010 Budget provides $26.3 billion for the Department of Energy, with investments in basic science and in clean energy technologies, while securing and properly managing our nation’s nuclear materials. He indicated that the budget is coordinated with the ARRA and complements those investments. The line-by-line details of the FY 2010 budget are not final yet.

Chu highlighted the priorities within the FY 2010 Budget including: Investing in Science; Clean Energy Technology; Smart Electricity Infrastructure; Increased Nuclear Security; and a Cap-and-Trade System. On the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository he said, "the Budget begins to eliminate funding for Yucca Mountain as a repository for our nation’s nuclear waste. Both the President and I have made clear that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option and that we will begin a thoughtful dialogue on a better solution for our nuclear waste storage needs."

On the Cap-and-Trade system he said, "For the longer term, the President has pledged to work with Congress to design a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such legislation will place a market-based cap on carbon emissions and drive the production of more renewable energy in America. It will provide the framework for transforming our energy system to make our economy less carbon-intensive, and less dependent on oil."

In response to questions from Senator Conrad he said, "we have to develop clean coal technology" and carbon sequestration. Senator Gregg asked, "Is the Administration going to support licensing new nuclear power plants?" Chu responded that nuclear power must be part of the overall energy mix and he doesn't think that nuclear licensing should be put on hold. He said he would support more funding to encourage the nuclear power industry to grow. In response to a question -- Shouldn't we be drilling more aggressively for natural gas? He said developing more natural gas should be part of our overall energy plan.

In closing comments Senator Conrad commented on climate change and said, "I think it is very important for the administration to understand what I am hearing. You know, I reported yesterday some of what I had been hearing, and I know it discomforts some in the administration to hear that the budget as is, in my judgment, just as it has been written, probably can’t pass here. I say that because I have colleagues coming to me every day saying to me, 'If this is in, don’t count on my vote.'”

In a release on the hearing, Senator Gregg commented, "I’m also concerned about climate change and I think we should try to move away from carbon-based production of energy and that’s why I’ve been a strong supporter of nuclear power. And I’m genuinely concerned about this Administration’s approach to nuclear power. If you look at the recent stimulus bill that was passed, stripped from that bill was approximately $50 billion of potential loan guarantees, which would have helped us fund an expansion of nuclear power."

Access the complete testimony of Secretary Chu (click here). Access charts used at the hearing (click here). Access a link to a flash player webcast of the hearing (click here, scroll down to "Wednesday, March 11"). Access the statement from Senator Conrad (click here). Access a release from Senator Gregg (click here). [*Energy]

Presidential Memorandum On Scientific Integrity

Mar 9: As part of the well publicized signing of Stem Cell Executive Order, President Obama also signed a separate Presidential Memorandum On Scientific Integrity. Regarding the Memorandum, the President said, ""Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology."

According to the White House, the Memorandum helps to implement one of the President’s key campaign commitments on science policy, which was to "restore scientific integrity in government decision making." A fact sheet indicates that science and technology are essential to achieving a broad range of national goals: driving economic growth and job creation; allowing Americans to live longer, healthier lives; developing clean sources of energy that reduce our dependence on foreign oil; protecting our environment for future generations of Americans; strengthening national and homeland security; and more.

Realizing the potential of science and technology to help achieve all of these goals requires that the Administration’s decisions about public policy be guided by the most accurate and objective scientific advice available. The public must be able to trust that advice, as well, and to be confident that public officials will not conceal or distort the scientific findings that are relevant to policy choices. Accordingly, the President is assigning to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) [Dr. John Holdren, nominated to be Director OSTP, See WIMS 2/13/09], the responsibility of ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological issues.

According to the Memo, within 120 days, the Director of OSTP must develop a strategy for ensuring that: (1) The selection of scientists and technology professionals for science and technology positions in the executive branch is based on those individuals’ scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, and experience; (2) Agencies make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied upon in policy decisions; (4) Agencies use scientific and technological information that has been subject to well-established scientific processes such as peer review; and (5) Agencies have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency, including whistleblower protection.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) indicated that the Obama Memo follows the recommendations they made to prevent the abuse, manipulation and suppression of federal science. Dr. Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS's Scientific Integrity Program said, "Just a few years ago, almost 15,000 scientists across the country signed a UCS-sponsored statement denouncing the politicization of federal science, and today's memorandum is proof that the Obama administration heard their cry. Federal policy decisions that affect public health and the environment must be based on robust scientific analysis free of political interference and manipulation. UCS surveys at nine agencies have documented that, over the past eight years, federal scientists have been working in a climate of fear and intimidation. For example, 60 percent of the EPA scientists who filled out a 2007 survey said they personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in their work over the previous five years. . ."

Access a fact sheet on the Memo (click here). Access the complete text of the Memo (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access UCS's Scientific Integrity website for more information (click here). [*All]

Seven Democrats Introduces Alternative Carbon Tax Bill

Mar 5: Representative John Larson (D-CT) has introduced the America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009 (H.R. 1337), which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United States domestic energy supply by creating a carbon tax. There are six cosponsors of the bill including: Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR); Rush Holt, (D-NJ); Jim McDermott (D-WA); George Miller (D-CA); James Moran (D-VA); and David Wu (D-OR). The bill, which counters the preferred "cap-and-trade" approach favored by most Democrats and President Obama to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.

According to the Carbon Tax Center (CTC), Representative Larson's new bill builds on and improves his 2007 bill with the following provisions: The first-year tax rate is $15 per ton of carbon dioxide; The rate rises by $10/ton per year; After five years, that increase rate is automatically bumped up to $15/ton if U.S. emissions stray from an EPA-certified glide path to cut emissions by 80% from 2005 levels in 2050; To protect domestic manufacturers, the bill authorizes the Treasury Department to impose a "carbon equivalency fee" on carbon-intensive products imported from non-carbon-taxing nations; Clean-tech R&D and investments are eligible for $10 billion a year in tax credits; Impacted workers and industries are eligible for transition assistance of $7.5 billion in the first year; this is phased out after year 10 but still totals $41 billion; and All other revenue is tax-shifted to Americans via reductions in payroll taxes.

Last year, Larson spoke on behalf of his carbon tax legislation and said, "Let's look at what would be revenue neutral. Let's look at taxing polluters upstream but passing the benefits downstream to the consumers, reducing payroll taxes and using our creativity and this committee's authority to create a system that will provide the opportunity and innovation and tax relief they need as well."

One of the major supporters of the carbon tax approach, as opposed to cap-and-trade is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who called carbon tax policy, like the one in Congressman Larson's bill, "the best way forward." He said, "Larson has proposed legislation that will reduce payroll taxes for citizens in exchange for a tax levied on the carbon emissions spewed by approximately 2,000 polluters. It passes the benefits of the tax onto consumers."

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."

Among others, in addition to Bloomberg, supporting a carbon tax, that WIMS has reported on in the past include: Peter Orszag, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and now 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. Even one of the most cynical climate change opponents, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, has said 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].

According to a release from the Carbon Tax Center, the tax would take effect in 2009 and tax emissions at a rate of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide and increase by $10 each year (or by $15 each year if needed to keep emissions falling fast enough). It would be virtually revenue-neutral, with over 95% of carbon tax revenues used to cut payroll taxes to help Americans with higher energy prices.

Charles Komanoff, co-director of CTC said, "Congressman Larson has shown great leadership in introducing this bill and ramping up the debate on carbon pricing in this Congress. It's a debate we urgently need to have. President Obama took a big step forward in proposing carbon pricing in his budget. The strong consensus among economists is that a carbon tax is the quickest, most effective and most transparent approach. Now that we have a well-crafted carbon tax bill to work with (and more such bills in the pipeline), Congress will be able to compare the details of actual carbon tax and cap-and-trade bills, and debate them on the merits. As that debate unfolds, you'll see a groundswell of support and eventual consensus line up behind a carbon tax proposal like Rep. Larson's."

CTC indicated that unlike cap-and-trade proposals, the Larson bill calls for taxing carbon at the source, such as oil refineries and coal mines for domestic fuel, or shipping terminals for imported fuel. A total of $100 billion over the first 10 years, equivalent to three percent of the revenue, would be dedicated to tax breaks for clean energy, while another $41 billion, equivalent to one percent of the revenue (more in the initial years, less in later years) would be used for transitional assistance for workers in industries directly impacted by the carbon tax. All of the remaining carbon tax revenue - over 95% - would be spent on cutting payroll taxes, offsetting increased energy prices for working families, and helping stimulate job growth. This would amount to a tax shift rather than a tax increase. In fact, most working families will actually come out ahead if they conserve energy modestly.

Access a release from the CTC (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1337 (click here). Access a 2008 release from Rep. Larson (click here). Access the CTC website for extensive background and related information (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the carbon issue (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

House Hearing On The Role Of Offsets in Climate Legislation

Mar 5: House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), held a hearing entitled, The Role of Offsets in Climate Legislation. The hearing addressed the potential role of offsets as a cost-containment mechanism in a U.S. cap-and-trade program. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from the: Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office (GAO); Climate Action Reserve; Federal Global Warming Program Director, Environment America; Manager of Business Development, Environmental Products, Shell Energy North America; Forest Carbon Dialogue; and Stanford Law School.

There are major differences between various interests on the use of offsets. Shell Energy testified that, "The use of offsets from non-covered domestic and international sources is critical to making that transition at lowest cost." Environment America testified that, "Because of their inherent risks and [tradoffs], offsets should not be included in a federal climate program -- at least not until the program has matured and proven effective."

The Forest Carbon Dialogue (FCD) a unique environmental-corporate coalition that includes SFM, Environmental Defense Fund, American Electric Power, Shell, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, PG&E, The Woods Hole Research Center, John Deere, Conservation International, Duke Energy, and Defenders of Wildlife testified that there have been "serious mistakes of the flawed model of the Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM, which has done almost nothing to incentivize forest-related efforts"; however it is "committed to only support forest-based credits that have integrity and that make real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. . . We believe that is essential for countries seeking forest credits to move towards a full national accounting framework of sources and sinks in their forest sector."

In the testimony, GAO explains that carbon offsets -- reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from an activity in one place to compensate for emissions elsewhere -- can reduce the cost of regulatory programs to limit emissions because the cost of creating an offset may be less than the cost of requiring entities to make the reductions themselves. To be credible, however, an offset must be additional -- it must reduce emissions below the quantity emitted in a business-as-usual scenario -- among other criteria.

In the U.S., there are no Federal requirements to limit emissions and offsets may be purchased in a voluntary market. Outside the U.S., offsets may be purchased on compliance markets to meet requirements to reduce emissions. The Congress is considering adopting a market-based cap-and-trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Such a program would create a price on emissions based on the supply and demand for allowances to emit. Under such a program, regulated entities could potentially substitute offsets for on-site emissions reductions, thereby lowering their compliance costs.

GAO said its testimony summarized GAO’s prior work examining: (1) the challenges in ensuring the quality of carbon offsets in the voluntary market; (2) the effects of and lessons learned from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an international offset program; and, (3) matters that the Congress may wish to consider when developing regulatory programs to limit emissions.

In an August 2008 report, GAO identified four primary challenges related to the United States voluntary carbon offset market. First, the concept of a carbon offset is complicated because offsets can involve different activities, definitions, greenhouse gases, and timeframes for measurement. Second, ensuring the credibility of offsets is challenging because there are many ways to determine whether a project is additional to a business-as-usual baseline, and inherent uncertainty exists in measuring emissions reductions relative to such a baseline. Related to this, the use of multiple quality assurance mechanisms with varying requirements may raise questions about whether offsets are fully fungible -- interchangeable and of comparable quality. Third, including offsets in regulatory programs to limit greenhouse gas emissions could result in environmental and economic tradeoffs. For example offsets could lower the cost of complying with an emissions reduction policy, but this may delay on-site reductions by regulated entities. Fourth, offsets could compromise the environmental certainty of a regulatory program if offsets used for compliance lack credibility.

In a November 2008 report, GAO examined the environmental and economic effects of the CDM -- an international program allowing certain industrialized nations to pay for offset projects in developing countries -- and identified lessons learned about the role of carbon offsets in programs to limit emissions. While the CDM has provided cost containment in a mandatory emissions reduction program, its effects on emissions are uncertain, largely because it is nearly impossible to determine the level of emissions that would have occurred in the absence of each project. Although a rigorous review process seeks to ensure the credibility of projects, available evidence from those with experience in the program suggests that some offset projects were not additional. In addition, the project approval process is lengthy and resource intensive, which significantly limits the scale and cost-effectiveness of emissions reductions.

GAO summarizes and concludes that, "The findings from these two reports illustrate how challenges in the voluntary offset market and the use of offsets for compliance -- even in a rigorous, standardized process like the CDM -- may compromise the environmental integrity of mandatory programs to limit emissions and should be carefully evaluated. As a result of these challenges, GAO suggested that, as it considers legislation that allows the use of offsets for compliance, the Congress may wish to consider, among other things, directing the establishment of clear rules about the types of projects that regulated entities can use as offsets, as well as procedures to account and compensate for the inherent uncertainty associated with offset projects. Further, GAO suggested that the Congress consider key lessons from the CDM, including the possibility that, (1) due to the tradeoffs involving cost savings and the credibility of offsets, their use in mandatory programs may be, at best, a temporary solution to achieving emissions reductions, and (2) the program’s approval process may not be a cost-effective model for achieving emission reductions."

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). [*Climate]

Interrelations Between Soil And Climate Change

Mar 5: A new report made public by the European Union Environmental Commission underlines the crucial role that soils can play in mitigating climate change. Soils contain around twice the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and three times the amount to be found in vegetation. According to an announcement from the Commission, Europe's soils are an enormous carbon reservoir, containing around 75 billion tonnes, and poor management can have serious consequences: a failure to protect Europe's remaining peat bogs, for example, would release the same amount of carbon as an additional 40 million cars on Europe's roads.

The report, a synthesis of the best available information on the links between soil and climate change, underlines the need to sequester carbon in soils. The technique is cost competitive and immediately available, requires no new or unproven technologies, and has a mitigation potential comparable to that of any other sector of the economy. In line with the Thematic Strategy for soil protection, the current trend of soil degradation needs to be reversed, and soil management practices must be improved if a high rate of soil carbon sequestration is to be achieved.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said, “Properly managed soils can absorb enormous quantities of carbon from the atmosphere, buying us valuable time to reduce emissions and move towards sustainability. But Europe's soils urgently need better protection, and the answer must be a coordinated solution. I welcome this report, which reinforces the message of the June 2008 Commission conference on Soil and Climate Change [See WIMS 6/13/08], and gives a clear indication of the direction we need to take.”

The announcement indicates that "Europe's soils contain an estimated 73 to 79 billion tonnes of carbon. Almost 50% of this carbon is sequestered in the peat bogs of Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Soil plays a huge role in climate change, because even a tiny loss of 0.1% of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from European soils is the equivalent to the carbon emission of 100 million extra cars on our roads -- an increase of about half of the existing car fleet. Conversely, at today's prices, an increase in soil carbon of the same small amount would be worth some €200 million.

"Land use significantly affects soil carbon stocks. Most soils in Europe are accumulating carbon: soils under grassland and forest act as sinks, sequestering up to 100 million tonnes of carbon per year, although soils under arable land act as net emitters, releasing between 10 and 40 million tonnes of carbon per year. Carbon is lost from soils when grasslands, managed forest lands or native ecosystems are converted to croplands, a process that is slowly reversed when cropland is converted back.

"Some of the report's conclusions make for uncomfortable reading. As the world population continues to grow, ever greater areas of grasslands and forests are converted to croplands, and soils that are currently carbon sinks will turn into net emitters. The most effective strategy to prevent global soil carbon loss would be to halt these land conversions -- but this may conflict with growing global demand for food."

The report underlines the importance of protecting soils that are high in carbon -- particularly pristine peatlands many of which have now been lost to agriculture, forestry, urbanization or erosion. The report also underlines how agricultural practices can be improved to minimize carbon losses, at the level of the crop and the crop residues, and by ensuring that soils are protected against water and rain with a permanent vegetation cover, less intrusive plowing techniques and less machinery.

The report calls for a need to improve monitoring of soil carbon stock and trends to ensure that soils play a more prominent role in a future climate change mitigation agreement. The announcement notes that the Commission presented a legislative proposal to protect European soils in 2006, with support from the European Parliament, but opposition from five Member States have resulted in the proposal being blocked in Council.

Access the announcement from the EU Environmental Commission with links to the complete report, the Soil and Climate Change conference (June 2008); the Thematic Strategy for soil protection; and additional soil websites (click here). [*Land, *Climate]

Obama Suspends Bush Endangered Species Rule

Mar 3: At his meeting with Department of Interior employees, President Obama announced that he "signed a memorandum that will help restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act, a process undermined by past administrations." He said, "For more than three decades, the Endangered Species Act has successfully protected our nation's most threatened wildlife, and we should be looking for ways to improve it -- not weaken it." The President's action effectively suspends the Bush Administration rule (See links below) and calls for a review of the regulation. Until such a review is completed, the President said, "I request the heads of all agencies to exercise their discretion, under the new regulation, to follow the prior longstanding consultation and concurrence practices" involving the Fish and Wildlife Services and the National Marine Fisheries Service."

According to the President's Memo, "The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16U.S.C. 1531 et seq., reflects one of the Nation's profound commitments. Pursuant to that Act, the Federal Government has long required a process of broad interagency consultation to ensure the application of scientific and technical expertise to decisions that may affect threatened or endangered species. . . On December 16, 2008, the Departments of the Interior and Commerce issued a joint regulation that modified these longstanding requirements. See 73 Fed. Reg. 76272. . . I hereby request the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to review the regulation issued on December 16, 2008, and to determine whether to undertake new rulemaking procedures with respect to consultative and concurrence processes that will promote the purposes of the ESA."

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) released a statement after President Barack Obama announced, during a visit to the Interior Department, that his Administration will change course on a Bush Administration regulation that would have allowed Federal agencies to decide on their own whether or not to comply with the consultation requirement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), one of the Nation's landmark conservation laws [See WIMS 10/27/08, WIMS 12/12/08, WIMS 12/16/08].

Chairman Rahall said, "I wholeheartedly support the President's proposal to restore the protections for endangered species that the Bush Administration spent so many years trying to undermine. It is one more indication that the new Administration truly represents change for the better and is committed to the protection of our natural resources and our environment. I think we know who would have been the winner in this fox-guarding-the-hen-house scenario advanced by the Bush Administration, and it would not be the hens."

The public interest law firm, Earthjustice who filed litigation challenging the Bush Administration changes in Federal district court in San Francisco on December 16 [See WIMS 12/18/08], issued a statement saying, ". . .we applaud the new administration's leadership in restoring scientific integrity to this agency and its mandate to protect our nation's wildlife. We're heartened that President Obama intends to return wildlife biologists to their rightful role in determining protections for America's plants and animals. What's needed now is for the Senate to defeat an attempt by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that seeks to make it more difficult for the Obama administration to undo this misguided rule change by the former administration. President Obama's directive sends a loud and clear signal that the former administration's political manipulation of science will no longer be tolerated. . ."

John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) said, “This action demonstrates President Obama’s commitment to protecting America’s endangered species and the habitats that both people and wildlife depend upon. Reinstating independent scientific review of the impacts of federal actions on endangered species is a giant first step in restoring the Endangered Species Act after eight years of attacks from the Bush Administration. With just one stroke of the pen, President Obama has done more today to uphold the scientific integrity of the Endangered Species Act than President Bush did during his entire eight years in office. Members of the Senate should follow President Obama’s lead and pass the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill , which includes language making it clear that President Obama has the authority to immediately and completely reverse President Bush's last-minute Endangered Species Act changes.” The House of Representatives approved the $410 billion omnibus FY 2009 appropriations bill (H.R. 1105), by a vote of 245-178, on February 25 [See WIMS 2/27/09]. The bill is now under consideration in the Senate.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which is at the center of many endangered species act decisions said, “This is welcome news for endangered species. Obama has restored independent, scientific oversight to the heart of the Endangered Species Act. Obama’s move today puts expert scientists back in the driver’s seat for management of the nation’s endangered species,” said Suckling. “Obama has acted swiftly to meet an important campaign promise and show that he puts science and endangered species before politics. We are hopeful that the Senate will pass the Omnibus Appropriations bill and the Obama administration will fully rescind both of these rules.”

U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mark Begich (D-AK), introduced an amendment to the FY 2009 omnibus spending bill which they said "would maintain the public process for revisions to regulations under the Endangered Species Act." They indicated in a release that, "The omnibus appropriations bill that passed the House of Representatives last week and is before the Senate this week includes language that would allow the administration to withdraw two current rules under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within 60 days of adoption of the omnibus bill without having to go through any notice or public comment period, and without being subject to any judicial review. The first rule relates to the specific listing of the polar bear, while the second rule deals with regulation of carbon dioxide emissions nationwide, a related issue to the polar bear listing."

The Senators explained, "Last year the Bush administration listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA. The listing decision specifically included a provision -- permitted by Section 4(d) of the ESA -- that prevented oil or gas or subsistence hunting from being impacted by any action plan that the Department will craft to remedy bear population issues in the future. This provision was added after full public comment and was based on a full scientific review." They said the Murkowski-Begich amendment would require that if the secretaries of the Interior and Commerce Departments withdraw or reissue the current rules under the ESA, the action would be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), with at least a 60-day comment period.
Murkowski said, "Withdrawal of the existing rule could mean that any increase in carbon dioxide or any greenhouse gas, anywhere in the country could be subject to legal challenges asserting that those activities are harming a polar bear, or that there has not been sufficient consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding activities that are funded, carried out or authorized by the federal government. The Center for Biological diversity has already stated that it wants to use the polar bear listing to regulate greenhouse gases. While I believe lawsuits by environmental groups would eventually overreach and cause a backlash against the ESA, massive economic harm could result before Congress steps in to remedy the situation.”

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member, James Inhofe (R-OK) also commented on the omnibus budget bill provision calling for "the removal of a rider . . . that would authorize the Department of the Interior to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and reverse common-sense revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation procedures." He said, "The omnibus rider is flagrant attempt to regulate emissions without going through the proper process of public regulatory or legislative debate. This provision is a direct attack on our economy and energy security. Rescinding the polar bear rules with the congressional stroke of the pen means that any emitter of greenhouse gases could be regulated in the name of protecting habitat regardless of whether sufficient scientific evidence justifies that action. ESA was never intended or designed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or air quality. The fact is that activists and their Congressional supporters are selectively ignoring their commitments to transparency in order to improve their odds in court."

Access remarks from the President (click here). Access the President's Memo (click here). Access a release from Chairman Rahall (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from NWF (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a lengthy release from Senators Murkowski & Begich (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1105 including the roll call vote (click here). Access the Bush Administration final ESA rule published 12/16/08 (click here). Access the FWS ESA website for program information (click here). [*Wildlife, *Climate, *Land]

President Announces First Distribution Of Highway Stimulus Funds

Mar 3: President Obama addressed a crowd of 500 gathered at the Department of Transportation in Washington, DC to discuss the release of $26.6 billion in infrastructure spending for roads and bridges as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The President appeared along with Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood listen.

The President said in part, "Two weeks ago, I signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the most sweeping economic recovery plan in history. And already, its impact is being felt across this nation. Hardworking families can now worry a little less about next month's bills because of the tax cut they'll soon find in the mail. Renewable energy companies that were once downsizing are now finding ways to expand. And transportation projects that were once on hold are now starting up again -- as part of the largest new investment in America's infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System.

"Of the 3.5 million jobs that will be created and saved over the next two years as a result of this recovery plan, 400,000 will be jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, repairing our faulty levees and dams, connecting nearly every American to broadband, and upgrading the buses and trains that commuters take every day. Many of these projects will be coordinated by Secretary LaHood and all of you at the Department of Transportation. And I want you to know that the American public is grateful to public servants like you -- men and women whose work isn't always recognized, but whose jobs are critical to our nation's safety, security, and prosperity. You have never been more important than you are right now, and for that we are all grateful.

"Now, in the coming days and weeks, my administration will be announcing more details about the kinds of transportation projects that will be launched as part of the recovery plan. But today, I want to speak about an investment we are making in one part of our infrastructure. Through the Recovery Act, we will be investing $28 billion in our highways, money that every one of our 50 states can start using immediately to put people back to work. It's an investment being made at an unprecedented pace, thanks in large part to Joe Biden, who's leading the effort to get the money out the door quickly. Because of Joe, and because of all the governors and mayors, county and city officials who are helping implement this plan, I can say that 14 days after I signed our Recovery Act into law, we are seeing shovels hit the ground.

"As Secretary LaHood noted, the first contract will be awarded to American Infrastructure, a family business in Pennsylvania that will be resurfacing a road in Maryland. More than 100 other people will begin receiving funds today, as well. Over the next few weeks, we will launch more than 200 construction projects across this country, fueling growth in an industry that's been hard hit by our economic crisis. Altogether, this investment in highways will create or save 150,000 jobs by the end of next year, most of them in the private sector."

Access the complete comments of the President and Vice President (click here). Access a video of the presentation (click here). Access a state-by-state interactive map with the distribution of highway funds by category (click here). Access more about how the funds are being spent, including state-by-state and urban-suburban-rural breakdowns on the Recovery.gov website (click here).

The Debate Over ANWR Drilling Begins Anew

Feb 27: U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), introduced legislation that would allow the use of "advanced directional drilling to tap the vast energy potential" of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) coastal plain without disturbing the unique characteristics of the area. The bill, which is co-sponsored by Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), would allow access to the coastal plain’s oil and natural gas resources through the use of underground directional drilling from state-owned lands to the west of the refuge and state waters from the north.

Murkowski said, “Everybody wins with this bill -- America improves its energy security and the conservation community is ensured that there will be no visible impact on the refuge. I urge those previously opposed to oil and gas exploration in ANWR to take a fresh look at this issue and show a willingness to compromise.” Murkowski indicated in a release that the legislation seeks to find a compromise with those groups concerned with preserving the 1.5 million acre coastal plain while recognizing the need to improve our energy security and economy by meeting more of our energy needs with domestic production.

Begich said, “Directional drilling provides a great opportunity to tap the Arctic refuge’s vast oil and gas potential with minimal disruption to the wild lands and the wildlife which depend on them. have been a long-time supporter of this cutting-edge technology and am hopeful this measure will help lead to an informed discussion about how to address America’s energy needs and how Alaska can help meet them. Developing the enormous energy resources on Alaska’s North Slope should be part of a comprehensive national energy policy which also includes renewable energy and conservation.” Begich added that he appreciates Murkowski’s leadership on this issue as she steers the legislation with her ranking position on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The two Senators indicated that directional drilling would allow energy companies to reach oil deposits up to eight miles away with no surface occupancy in the refuge. Production platforms on state lands and waters would be far away from the calving areas most used by the Porcupine caribou herd that visits the coastal plain in summer. The bill is based on the successful compromise reached in the Wyoming Range Legacy Act of 2007, which permitted resources to be accessed underground through directional drilling in a new wilderness area as long as there was no permanent surface impacts.

Revenue raised from development of ANWR would be distributed evenly between the state and federal treasuries. The bill also includes $15 million of mitigation impact aid to North Slope residents. A portion of the federal proceeds would also be dedicated to renewable energy, energy efficiency and wildlife habitat and mitigation programs nationwide. Development of the coastal plain could create as many as 700,000 new high-paying jobs and provide badly needed revenue ­-- as much as $112 billion in royalties, lease payments and corporate taxes -- for the nation’s new energy priorities.

Wilderness groups called the bill a "distraction." Eleanor Huffines, Alaska Director for The Wilderness Society said, “We are disappointed because we would rather work with Sens. Murkowski and Begich on a comprehensive Arctic climate and energy plan." Kristen Miller, Government Affairs Director at Alaska Wilderness League said, “This bill is nothing more than an attempt to distract us from the real issue -- the out of control leasing and development that’s been going on for the past eight years in America’s Arctic. The region is already under immense stress from the impacts of climate change and there are now close to 100 million acres open for oil and gas development. For eight years, the Bush administration paid no heed to huge gaps in science and potential impacts to this fragile, unique ecosystem. Yet, instead of addressing these important issues, Sens. Murkowski and Begich introduce a dead-on-arrival piece of legislation that aims to keep Congress stuck in the same stale debate.”

The groups argued that oil and gas development requires roads, air strips, gravel mines, pipelines and seismic surveys. And despite industry’s claims, oil companies in Alaska have never drilled a horizontal distance for a production well over three miles and rarely over one mile. Miller said, “Sen. Murkowski isn’t clear where she gets her facts supporting this bill. For example she provides no reference for her claim that 700,000 jobs would be created. This may have come from a long discredited study funded and released by the American Petroleum Institute. It’s undisputed that investment today in renewable and alternative energy will result in a huge number of long-term sustainable jobs.”

The groups said the Arctic Refuge is one of the last true wilderness areas left in the United States. It contains valuable habitat for 250 species of wildlife -- including caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears and migrating birds. The wildlife is a central food source for the people of the Gwich’in Nation. The Porcupine Caribou Herd has sustained the Gwich’in for over 20,000 years. The herd is dependant on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge for the calving and nursery for their offspring. Protecting the calving and nursery grounds is a human rights issue for the Gwich’in people.

Access a release from Senator Lisa Murkowski (click here). Access a release from The Wilderness Society (click here). Access a Memo to Environmental and Political Reporters & Editors from the Wilderness Society (click here). Access legislative details for S. 503 (click here). [*Energy, *Land]

NAS Report On Restructuring Federal Climate Research Program

Feb 26: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) indicates that the Federal government's climate change research program should broaden its focus to include research that would "support actions needed to cope with climate change-related problems that will impact society, while building on its successful research to improve understanding of the causes and processes of climate change."

The report -- Restructuring Federal Climate Research To Meet The Challenges Of Climate Change -- says as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) looks to the future, it should establish a U.S. climate observing system; develop new modeling capabilities for regional- and decadal-scale forecasts; strengthen research on adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability; initiate a periodic national assessment of climate impacts and responses; and routinely provide policymakers with crucial scientific information, tools, and forecasts.

The NAS report comes just one day after leading medical experts, health and environmental groups advised that the CCSP must make public health a strong focus as it undergoes an internal reorganization under the Obama administration. A memorandum signed by 22 medical experts and 10 groups recommended that CCSP correct the program’s historic “relative under-emphasis…on human health and human dimensions in general” and instead address “the important and growing gaps in knowledge and practice.” [See WIMS 2/25/09].

Veerabhadran Ramanathan, University of California, San Diego and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "CCSP has created a robust infrastructure for observations and modeling, which has enabled scientists to document trends in critical climate parameters and identify the human impacts on climate change. Now we need to know how to respond to climate change, while working closely with policymakers on mitigation and adaptation strategies." In 2007, the committee issued its first report, which evaluated the program's progress at the request of CCSP's former director [See WIMS 2/23/07]. For this second report, the Research Council was asked to identify future priorities and lay out a framework to guide the evolution of the program.

The committee found that the "program is hindered by its limited research into the social sciences -- such as research on the role of human actions and behavior in changing climate and how societies can mitigate and adapt to the impacts -- and the separation of natural and social sciences research. Spending on human-dimensions research has never exceeded 3 percent of the CCSP research budget. As a result, research, data collection, and modeling of how people interact with or affect their environments have lagged behind corresponding activities on the physical climate system. The program should make transformational changes to adopt a holistic approach that connects research across disciplines, as well as engages policymakers and other stakeholders."

The report indicates that, ". . . targeted research in the natural sciences could help meet various community needs for climate information and services, such as drought forecasts for a particular region. These research initiatives would help address societal concerns of direct relevance to the program and provide a concrete focus for collecting human-dimensions data, the committee noted. The committee also said another priority should be to help establish a U.S. climate observing system that includes physical, biological, and social observations to ensure that data needed to address climate change are collected or continued.

They said, "Even if people significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, further climate change is inevitable. Therefore, CCSP needs to have the capacity to explain what is happening to climate and why. It should work with federal, state, and international agencies to establish and maintain the system, as well as determine the agencies' different roles and responsibilities for making the observations, archiving, and distributing data.

While CCSP is mandated to carry out a national assessment every four years, the last one involving a broad range of stakeholders was a decade ago. The committee said, "The collection of 21 synthesis and assessment reports published from 2006 to 2008 -- although useful -- did not add up to a comprehensive national assessment."

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

FY10 Budget Focus On Energy, Climate, & Environment

Feb 26: In the President's FY10 Budget remarks he had the following to say about energy and climate change, "Because our future depends on our ability to break free from oil that's controlled by foreign dictators, we need to make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. That's why we'll be working with Congress on legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy. And to support this effort, we'll invest $15 billion a year for 10 years to develop technologies like wind power and solar power, and to build more efficient cars and trucks right here in America. It's an investment that will put people back to work, make our nation more secure, and help us meet our obligation as good stewards of the Earth we all inhabit." More funding is included within EPA's budget for activities on a related GHG emission inventory (see below).

The President's formal budget message included within the budget document states, "The time has come to usher in a new era -- a new era of responsibility in which we act not only to save and create new jobs, but also to lay a new foundation of growth upon which we can renew the promise of America. This Budget is a first step in that journey. It lays out for the American people the extent of the crisis we inherited, the steps we will take to jumpstart our economy to create new jobs, and our plans to transform our economy for the 21st Century to give our children and grandchildren the fruits of many years of economic growth. . .

"To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will make the investments in the next three years to double our Nation’s renewable energy capacity. We will modernize Federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of millions of 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 -- jobs installing solar panels and wind turbines; constructing energy efficient buildings; manufacturing fuel efficient vehicles; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs and more savings, putting us on the path toward energy independence for our Nation and a cleaner, safer planet in the process."

In a comment on the FY10 Budget for the Department of Energy (DOE), the President says, "The pursuit of a new energy economy requires a sustained, all-hands-on-deck effort because the foundation of our energy independence is right here, in America -- in the power of wind and solar; in new crops and new technologies; in the innovation of our scientists and entrepreneurs, and the dedication and skill of our workforce. As we face this challenge, we can seize boundless opportunities for our people. We can create millions of jobs. We can spark the dynamism of our economy through long term investments in renewable energy that will give life to new businesses and industries, with good jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. We will make public buildings more efficient, modernize our electric grid, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect and preserve our natural resources."

The FY10 DOE Budget provides $26.3 billion (down from $33.9 billion) for the Department of Energy. In accordance with the President’s priorities, the Budget supports the Office of Electricity Delivery Discretionary and Energy Reliability in modernizing the electricity grid, and increases support for the Office of Science as a step towards doubling Federal investment in the basic sciences. Several Budget initiatives promote a clean energy agenda, including support for loan guarantees to help deploy innovative, clean technologies; advancement of Carbon Capture Storage (CSS) technology; and other efforts to develop and deploy an array of energy alternatives. Addressing both environmental and safety concerns, the Budget increases efforts to secure, manage, and dispose of nuclear material and invests in technology to detect and deter nuclear smuggling and the development of weapons of mass destruction programs. Additionally, the Recovery Act includes $39 billion in support for energy programs.

Budget information for DOE indicates, "The Yucca Mountain program will be scaled back to those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal." On the subject of coal, the information states that the budget, "Advances the development of low-carbon coal technologies. Supports CCS technology and along with the $3.4 billion provided in the Recovery Act for low-carbon emission power demonstrations, these funds will help allow the use of our extensive domestic coal resource while reducing the impacts on climate change."

On the FY10 Budget for U.S. EPA, the President says, "…the call to save our planet has never been more urgent. In recent years, we’ve seen the harm that more severe weather events can do. We’ve seen it in the droughts that have swept the South, the hurricanes that threaten our shores with increasing ferocity, and the rising sea levels that could one day submerge our cities. This is a challenge unlike any the world has ever faced, and America must lead the world to meet it."

According to a fact sheet, with $10.5 billion in funding for the EPA, the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget is 34 percent higher than 2009 likely enacted funding (up $2.7 billion). To preserve water resources, the President’s Budget accelerates the restoration of the Great Lakes, and includes an historic increase in funding for clean water through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Additional measures to secure our water supply include fully funding the Water Security Initiative (WSI) pilot cooperative agreements and the activities of the Water Alliance for Threat Reduction. This Budget will yield more than $1 billion to clean up the most contaminated sites in the Superfund program.

The EPA budget accelerates the restoration of the Great Lakes and supports $475 million for a new inter-agency initiative to address regional issues that affect the Great Lakes, such as invasive species, non-point source pollution, and contaminated sediment. The budget also lays the groundwork for economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction. The Budget funds a $19 million increase for work and related activities on a GHG emission inventory and for work with affected industry sectors to report high-quality GHG emission data. The data will aid in developing a comprehensive climate change plan to invest in clean energy, and instituting a broad national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions about 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and about 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Access the President's remarks on presenting the FY10 Budget (click here). Access the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010 (click here). Access more information on the DOE budget (click here). Access more details on the EPA budget (click here). Access the Budget Fact Sheets, for various agencies and departments for Fiscal Year 2010 (click here). Access commentary on the budget from OMB Director Peter Orszag (click here). [*All]

President Obama: "It begins with energy. . ."

Feb 24: A major recurring theme of President Obama in his first address to a joint session of Congress and the American people was -- energy, health care, and education. He said the cost of health care is "crushing" and causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. On education he said, "the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow." On energy he said, ''We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. . ." The President also clearly addressed climate change legislation; and called for investments in a "re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry."

In the beginning of his remarks, the President focused on the struggling economy and said, ". . .while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."

On all these critical issues he said the, "day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here. Now is the time to act boldly and wisely -- to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that’s what I’d like to talk to you about tonight."

He said, "It begins with energy. We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea.

"Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders -- and I know you don’t either. It is time for America to lead again. Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years. We have also made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history -- an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but breakthroughs in medicine, science, and technology. We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. And we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills.

"But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

"As for our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad decision-making and a global recession have pushed our automakers to the brink. We should not, and will not, protect them from their own bad practices. But we are committed to the goal of a re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs depend on it. Scores of communities depend on it. And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it. . ."

The President concluded with a plea for bipartisanship and said, "I know that we haven’t agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground.

"And if we do -- if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, 'something worthy to be remembered.'"

Access the complete speech (click here). Access a video of the President's address (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

States & Groups Hail Supreme Court Refusal Of CAMR Case

Feb 23: The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal filed last year by a coalition of utilities, in the case of New Jersey v. EPA, that sought reversal of a Federal Appeals court decision vacating the federal government’s controversial cap-and-trade approach to regulating mercury emissions from power plants -- the so-called “Clean Air Mercury Rule” (CAMR) [See WIMS 2/8/08]. Environmental groups said the High Court's decision "invalidates the Bush rule and sets a new course that will help protect America’s waterways from toxic mercury pollution." New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram lauded the Supreme Court’s denial and said it, "represents another victory for the people of New Jersey, and for our environment. As of today, the protracted legal battle that has delayed proper regulation of mercury emissions from power plants is over, and the practice of allowing those plants to spew harmful quantities of a dangerous neurotoxin into our air in violation of federal law is at an end.”

The court’s denial of an appeal petition from the Utility Air Regulatory Group follows a motion earlier this month by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw its own appeal [See WIMS 2/9/09], and ends a long legal fight by New Jersey and other states to compel the federal government to issue tough new standards for mercury and other toxic air emissions from power plants. New Jersey, 16 other states, dozens of Native American tribes, public health and environmental groups, and organizations representing registered nurses and physicians were involved in the case charging the Federal government failed to impose strict limits on mercury emissions from power plants and, instead, implemented a cap-and-trade approach whereby power plants could buy emissions credits from other plants that had already cut emissions below targeted levels. The states maintained that cap-and-trade contributed to “hot spots” for mercury, a neurotoxin linked to birth defects, learning disabilities and neurological problems.

In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the states and agreed that EPA could no longer avoid its legal duty to impose strict limits on mercury emissions from all power plants -- and do so expeditiously.
EPA subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. However earlier this month, in one of the first actions taken by newly-appointed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Federal government moved to dismiss its appeal petition and pledged to move swiftly in developing tough new mercury standards for power plants. The Supreme Court also granted EPA’s request that its own appeal petition be dismissed.

In the wake of EPA’s action, the Utility Air Regulatory Group -- the group is an association of individual electric-generating companies and national trade organizations -- refused to withdraw its appeal petition before the Supreme Court. Instead, it filed a reply brief restating its argument that the cap-and-trade approach was a legal means of regulating toxic emissions from power plants under a less rigid section of the federal Clean Air Act than that cited by the states. A release from the New Jersey Attorney General indicates that, "Today’s Supreme Court denial amounts to a rejection of that argument, and clears the way for EPA to require power plants to install 'maximum available control technologies' for mercury, an action New Jersey and other states have long advocated.

New Jersey says the original lawsuit that resulted in the February 2008 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the states maintained that EPA illegally removed coal and oil-fired power plants from the list of regulated source categories under a section of the Clean Air Act that requires strict regulation of hazardous air pollutants, including mercury. By removing power plants without meeting the Clean Air Act’s stringent criteria for doing so, EPA under its prior leadership sought to avoid requiring power plants to regulate their mercury emissions by using the “maximum achievable control technology.” Instead, EPA sought to allow power plants to trade mercury emissions to meet a national “cap.”

New Jersey and the other states maintained that a strict mercury emissions standard based on “maximum achievable control technology” -- as required by the Clean Air Act -- could reduce mercury emissions to levels approximately three times lower than the cap established under EPA’s cap-and-trade system, and could do so more quickly. The states contended that EPA’s cap-and-trade approach promised little in the way of immediate mercury emission reductions from the current 48 tons per year nationwide, and would delay even modest reductions by more than a decade.

John Walke, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, “Today’s good news is due in no small part to the leadership of the Obama administration, in renouncing the harmful Bush administration actions and embracing EPA’s responsibilities to protect the American people against mercury and other toxic pollution. Administrator Jackson has a special opportunity to clean up harmful air pollution from power plants once and for all, and her leadership so far bodes well for the future.”

Ann Weeks, attorney for Clean Air Task Force said, “The Supreme Court has now confirmed that EPA must follow the law as it is written. We are looking forward to working on rules that reflect the most stringent controls achievable for this industry, as the Clean Air Act requires. That’s what is needed now, if we are ever to alleviate the problem of mercury contamination in fish and wildlife.” The Clean Air Task Force includes U.S. PIRG, Ohio Environmental Council, Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Conservation Law Foundation. Among the groups involved in last year’s successful court challenge was Earthjustice, who argued the case before the lower court on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club.

Access a release from the NJ Attorney General (click here). Access a release from the NRDC and various environmental groups (click here). Access the Supreme Court docket (click here); and (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]

State Department Clarifies U.S. Position On Mercury

Feb 20: The announcement that some 140 countries have unanimously decided to launch negotiations on an international mercury treaty to deal with worldwide emissions and discharges of the toxic pollutant was largely due to new leadership in the United States. The announcement was made by environment ministers at the end of the UN Environment Programme's (UNEP) Governing Council meeting in Nairobi, Kenya.

According to a release from UNEP, the landmark decision, sets the stage for the lifting of a major health threat from the lives of hundreds of millions of people [See WIMS 2/20/09]. The UNEP Governing Council will now develop a legally binding treaty to be enacted by 2013. The treaty will include actions to reduce global mercury pollution and human exposure to the chemical, by reducing intentional use of mercury in industrial processes and products and reducing emissions from coal plants and smelters. It will also address the problems posed by mercury waste sites.

It should be noted that the two major mercury traders, the European Union and the United States, had already agreed to ban future mercury exports before the treaty announcement. The E.U. plans to phase-out its mercury trade starting in 2011. The U.S. ban will be effective in 2013, according to legislation that President Obama sponsored as a U.S. senator.

On February 16, Daniel Reifsnyder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs spoke to the Committee of the Whole at the 25th Governing Council UNEP meeting. Reifsnyder said, "I believe it is valuable to recall how the Governing Council has arrived at this point in the discussion. In 2001, the international environmental community began to focus on mercury when it launched the global mercury assessment to understand better the significance and sources of mercury as a global pollutant. The report from that assessment clearly set out the threat that mercury poses to human health and the environment, and the nature of mercury as a global pollutant. In 2003 and 2005, the Governing Council began substantively to address concerns over mercury, first by establishing a Mercury Program in UNEP, and second by launching a mercury partnership program. The United States has been a strong supporter of both of these developments and has contributed over $5 million to the Partnership. We are pleased with the significant work done by UNEP and the UNEP Global Mercury Partnership. . ."

In clarifying the U.S. position on mercury, Reifsnyder said, "We have now arrived at a point where there is a call to come together to launch an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international agreement on mercury; The United States now joins that call. We are prepared, Mr. Chairman, to help lead in developing a global legally binding instrument for mercury. We believe that: Now is the time for governments to launch an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC); The first negotiating session should begin this year with the goal of completing negotiations prior to the 2012 Governing Council (GC)/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF); The mandate of the INC should be devoted exclusively to mercury; It should be comprehensive, addressing all significant sources of mercury emissions, with particular attention to sectors that have the greatest global impact such as coal-fired power plants and other sources of unintentional air emissions; Financial resources for implementation should focus on priority issues of greatest global concern; and Governments should support the UNEP Mercury Program and Global Mercury Partnership to continue their work concurrent with the negotiations."

He went on to say, "The United States does not support adding additional substances to an agreement on mercury, or diverting valuable time and attention to other issues by debating criteria and parameters for an adding mechanism. We urge delegates to focus on those issues where we can find agreement. . . We should seek to ensure broad participation among governments in a mercury agreement by including flexibility such as transition periods and phased implementation. We should apply tailored approaches that address the sector-specific nature of mercury emissions and the technologies and methods used to reduce emissions. We need to be creative and flexible in our approaches, while at the same time ensuring that we make significant progress. The United States supports further action by UNEP in the near term to assess options for reducing emissions from coal combustion and other significant sectors, and comparing the relative costs of different options. . ."

Scientists and policy experts at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "This agreement was propelled by the United States’ reversal in policy, which also influenced policy reversals of other countries, including China and India. The announcement is a historic step forward in the fight against mercury pollution." Susan Egan Keane, policy analyst for NRDC said, “This is great news for reducing mercury pollution around the world, and shows a commitment from the Obama Administration to international environmental issues. The United States has taken a leadership role that will chart a new course on mercury protections around the world. We have set a strong example that is already influencing others to do the same. Today we have won a momentous human health victory that will reduce illness and save lives both here and abroad. This globally coordinated plan will substantially reduce mercury contamination in fish, prevent the contamination of our water, and shield our children from a dangerous chemical.”

On February 10, prior to the Governing Council meeting, twenty groups from around the world co-released a new Mercury Policy Project (MPP) report calling attention to the global human health hazards caused by mercury in fish and fish-eating marine mammals. The study, released by the international Zero Mercury Working Group, indicates that the health impacts of methylmercury in fish and fish-eating marine mammals are substantial, and demand an effective response from governments and the United Nations.

Access the complete statement of Deputy Assistant Reifsnyder (click here). Access the UNEP draft decision on the management of chemicals including mercury (click here). Access the UNEP mercury program website for complete information and background (click here). Access decisions and information on the 25th session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Programme (click here). Access more information on the Tenth Session of the Global Civil Society Forum held prior to the 25th UNEP Governing Council meeting (click here). Access the release from NRDC (click here). Access more information including the study from the Mercury Policy Project (click here). Access the Zero Mercury Working Group website for more information (click here). Access EPA's International Mercury Activities website for more information (click here). Access additional information from the Worldwatch Institute (click here). [*Toxics]

EPA Appeals Board Remands Another Coal-Fired Permit

Feb 18: U.S. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has remanded certain issues raised in a petition by Sierra Club for further review and denied review of other issues for the Clean Air Act permit for Northern Michigan University's (NMU's) fluidized bed boiler at the Ripley Heating Plant at its campus in Marquette, Michigan. On May 12, 2008, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) issued a Federal prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit to authorize the construction of the facility which was to function as a cogeneration unit providing both electrical power and heat to NMU’s facilities through the burning of wood, coal, and natural gas.

Importantly, the EAB directed the MDEQ to be guided by its recent decision in In re Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, PSD Appeal No. 07-03 (EAB Nov. 13, 2008) [See WIMS 11/14/08]. In the Deseret Power decision re: the Bonanza Power Plant, near Bonanza, Utah, which was also the result of a Sierra Club petition, the EAB ruled that EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming. That decision, precipitated the controversial memo by former EPA Administrator Johnson rebuffing the Deseret decision [See WIMS 12/23/08] which the new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson just agreed to reconsider on February 17 [See WIMS 2/18/09].

In the Michigan case, on June 13, 2008, Sierra Club filed its petition for review of this PSD permit challenging a number of MDEQ’s decisions and responses to comments. EAB found that MDEQ "clearly erred in selecting BACT limits for the proposed boiler’s emissions of SO2"; "remands the permit for MDEQ to analyze whether CO2 and N2O emissions from the CFB boiler should be limited pursuant to BACT"; "remands the permit for MDEQ to reevaluate and clarify its analysis of PSD increment consumption/expansion in the area affected by proposed CFB boiler emissions"; "remands the permit so that MDEQ can ensure that the source impact modeling analyses for SO2, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide are conducted on the basis of the maximum, “worst-case” emissions rates of those pollutants"; and, "remands the permit for MDEQ to reevaluate the issue of preconstruction monitoring and explain. . . [compliance with] applicable provisions of the statute and regulations and reflect Agency guidance.

Michigan Sierra Club issued a release saying, “This is a yet another clear signal that pollution from coal plants, especially global warming pollution, can no longer be ignored. The increased costs that will come from impending carbon regulations will make coal much more expensive than cleaner energy alternatives, like wind and efficiency. The writing is on the wall; Michigan needs to start moving away from coal if we want to be a player in the 21st century clean energy economy.”

Sierra Club said NMU’s proposal was the first of an "overwhelming" eight proposed coal plants in the State and the first coal plant to receive an air permit from Michigan regulators in more than 20 years. Permits for other coal plants -- many of them containing the same air quality flaws as the NMU permit -- have been put on hold as a result of Governor Granholm’s clean energy executive directive [No. 2009-2] released earlier this month [See WIMS 2/4/09]. The directive requires MDEQ to evaluate, in consultation with our Public Service Commission, "both the need for additional electricity generation and all feasible and prudent alternatives before approving new coal-fired power plants in Michigan."

Lee Sprague, Sierra Club’s Clean Energy Campaign Manager said, “This decision makes it clear that following business-as-usual approaches like new coal plants is no longer an option. Thanks to Governor Granholm’s actions our state is already poised to move beyond dirty coal to newer, cleaner, more efficient energy technologies that can help both our economy and our climate recover.”

Access the complete 69-page decision document (click here). Access a release from MI Sierra Club (click here). Access Governor Granholm's Executive Directive 2009-2 (click here). [*Air, *Energy, *Climate]

Final Rule On Aircraft Impacts For Nuclear Power Reactors

Feb 17: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a final rule that requires applicants for new power reactors to assess the ability of their reactor designs to avoid or mitigate the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact. NRC Chairman Dale Klein, said, “This is a common sense approach to address an issue raised by the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. I am quite confident that this rule will be an important element in the regulatory framework for new reactor applications that will result in a margin of safety far beyond that required to achieve reasonable assurance of public health and safety.” [emphasis in original]

NRC said in a release that nuclear power plants are designed under very stringent requirements to assure they can safely shut down following “design-basis events” such as large fires, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as improbable equipment malfunctions including pipe breaks. These requirements include having two redundant systems to accomplish each safety function. The rule treats large commercial aircraft crashes as "a beyond-design-basis events." Under the rule, any design feature or functional capability adopted solely to comply with the rule will meet high quality standards but is exempt from NRC design-basis regulations, such as regulations for redundancy. The design features and functional capabilities must address core cooling capability, containment integrity, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool integrity following an aircraft impact.

The release indicates, "The agency does not believe nuclear power plant operators should be required to prevent the impact of large commercial aircraft; that responsibility rests with the federal government. The NRC works closely with other federal agencies such as NORAD, the Federal Aviation Administration and the intelligence community to provide layered protection against such a threat. The agency expects these efforts would effectively preclude an aircraft attack from occurring. Should such an unlikely event take place at a new plant designed in accordance with the new rule, the NRC expects the plant would be better able to withstand such a crash than the same design without changes resulting from the rule."

Access a release from NRC (click here). Access an October 15, 2008 draft of the final rule with a information on the purpose, summary, background, discussion, commitments, recommendations and resources (click here). Access the February 17, 2009, NRC final action on the rule, with comments and edits (click here). Access a 4-page issue brief from the Union of Concerned Scientists on New Reactor Designs for Aircraft Threats (click here).