Senate Hearing On EPA FY 2012 Budget & FY 2011 CR

Mar 2: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) held a hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. The only witness was U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Both Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe delivered opening statements.

 

    Senator Boxer stated, "The President's budget recognizes the importance of EPA's mission while responsibly cutting spending by more than $1.3 billion -- a 13 percent reduction -- from 2010 levels. I respect the President's effort to cut the deficit during these tough economic times and do it responsibly. For example, the President's budget would make vital investments in enforcing our nation's public health laws, including an agency-wide effort to reduce toxic air pollution in at-risk communities and near schools and other places where kids may be exposed. The budget would also assist state and local efforts to reduce dangerous air pollution and to begin the process of getting the nation's largest emitters of carbon pollution to reduce their emissions. Even where this budget proposes to make cuts, such as the reductions in the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Revolving Loan programs -- it does so after significant increases in recent years that make these reductions more manageable.

    "In stark contrast to the President's support for EPA's essential work to protect our children and families, the recently passed House Continuing Resolution [CR] would cut EPA's overall budget -- and the critical public health protections EPA provides -- by 30 percent this year [See WIMS 2/16/11]. This represents the largest cut to any Federal agency. It would cut an astounding $2 billion from EPA's water infrastructure and water quality protection programs. These cuts mean that our drinking water has a far greater chance of contamination. These cuts also mean thousands of jobs lost – jobs that relate to clean water infrastructure. The CR would cut funds to clean up and redevelop brownfields by 30 percent from 2010 enacted levels – threatening the 5,000 jobs that EPA estimates this program supports. The House budget would slash 45 percent from the 2010 enacted level for federal aid to state, local and tribal governments to protect our communities from dangerous pollution. It also includes backdoor efforts to undermine EPA authorities that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. . ."

 

    Senator Boxer concluded saying, "The United States is also the world's largest producer and consumer of environmental technology goods and services. This industry has approximately 119,000 firms. It supports almost 1.7 million jobs and generates $300 billion in revenues -- including $43.8 billion in exports. Why take an axe to these industries? Budgets are clear expressions of priorities. The House-passed Continuing Resolution forces communities to bear the burden of more pollution in our air and water. But the President's budget makes tough choices in a thoughtful way that doesn't sacrifice the huge strides our nation has made towards a clean and safe environment."

 

    Senator Inhofe said, "Administrator Jackson, it is always good to see you. I suspect these are tough times at EPA, for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is the nation's massive deficits and debt. If we want to eliminate them, Federal agencies must make meaningful fiscal sacrifices-and EPA is no exception. But Administrator Jackson-and I say this with all due respect-instead of sacrifice, I'm afraid EPA's budget submission is yet another fiscal bait and switch. We've seen this before, going back to the Bush Administration: EPA proposes significant cuts that appear fiscally responsible-but in truth they are cuts EPA knows Congress will readily restore.

 

    "By my calculations, 83% of EPA's proposed cuts come from three water programs with strong bipartisan support in Congress, including $947 million from State Revolving Funds (SRF). These cuts total $1.1 billion. EPA's overall cuts for FY 2012 amount to $1.3 billion. So it's not hard to see the math here. You can bet these cuts will be restored, because many of my colleagues believe these are worthwhile programs. For example, the SRF supports our nation's infrastructure-an area where the federal government has a crucial role to play. Administrator, I call on you to help us find cuts that are more responsible-and more politically realistic. I can think of many programs that don't deserve funding. Item number one-and this should be no surprise-is EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory regime.

 

    I must say, however, that, due to existing GHG regulations, this is more complicated than it seems. The problem is that EPA, states, and regulated entities have legal obligations stemming from existing GHG regulations. We have to ensure, therefore, that our cuts don't have unintended consequences. The best way to eliminate EPA's carbon regime is through an authorization bill. That's why I released the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 with Rep. Fred Upton. This bill puts Congress in charge of deciding our nation's climate change policy, not EPA bureaucrats. And it will keep our focus on reducing real pollution, ensure people have jobs, and allow our economy to grow.

 

   If we want to make strides in improving public health, we won't do it by regulating carbon dioxide. It's not a pollutant-despite what EPA says. When it comes to real pollution, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, EPA's budget falls short. For example, it eliminates funding for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, or DERA. This is a program with bipartisan support-from me, Chairman Boxer, Sen. Carper, and others-that we passed last year. It would help reduce real pollutants, but EPA has decided to spend elsewhere. This is irresponsible and, if followed, bad for public health. . ."

 

    Administrator Jackson testified that, "This budget reflects that good fiscal sense, and makes many tough choices. FY 2010's budget of $10.3 billion was EPA's highest funding level since its creation. This FY 2012 budget request, while a deep cut resulting in a total budget of $8.973 billion, will allow EPA to carry out its core mission and fund the most critical efforts to protect the health of American families. . .

 

    "This budget represents a nearly 13 percent reduction over the FY 2010 budget and reflects our priorities: supporting action on climate change and improving air quality; protecting America's waters; building strong state and tribal partnerships; strengthening enforcement and compliance; enhancing chemical safety; supporting healthy communities; and maintaining a strong science foundation. Because of the constrained fiscal environment, the Budget decreases the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) by nearly $950 million while supporting a long‐term goal of providing about 5 percent of total water infrastructure spending and spurring more efficient system‐wide planning. The Budget also reduces the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by $125 million, eliminates about $160 million in targeted water infrastructure earmarks, and eliminates $60 million for clean diesel grants. . ."

 

    On the controversial subject of funding for greenhouse gas control and climate change she said, "Our budget requests $46 million for additional regulatory efforts aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge. This includes $30 million in state grants and support for permitting, which will ensure that our state partners develop the technical capacity to address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Also included is $6.0 million in additional funding for the development and implementation of new emission standards that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources such as passenger cars, light‐duty trucks, and medium‐duty passenger vehicles. These funds also will support EPA's assessment and potential development, in response to legal obligations, of standards for other mobile sources. Also included is $7.5 million for the assessment and potential development of New Source Performance Standards for several categories of major stationary sources through means that are flexible and manageable for business. Finally, this amount includes an additional $2.5 million for priority measurement, reporting and verification activities related to implementing the GHG Reporting Rule, to ensure the collection of high quality data. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website with links to testimony, statements and a webcast (click here). Access the 6-page summary of budget details for EPA (click here). Access the detailed 128-page budget summary for EPA (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• NPRA Says Proposed Ozone Changes Could Harm Economy & Jobs
• UN Climate Chief Urges Fast Follow-Up On Cancún Agreements
• Both Parties Grill EPA On Water & Remediation Budget Priorities
• RFP: $1.9 Million For Environmental Education Projects
• UNEP Reminds: "Get Onboard For World Environment Day 2011!"
• Dow Agrosciences L.L.C. v. National Marine Fisheries Service

(Click here for details)

House Hearing On EPA GHG Regulations & Jobs

Mar 1: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY) with Ranking: Bobby Rush (D-IL), held a hearing on "EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Their Effect on American Jobs." Witnesses testifying included representatives from: Ohio Coal Association; Industrial Energy Consumers of America; James River Air Conditioning Company, Inc.; Charles River Associates; Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University; Gina McCarthy, U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation.

 

    In an opening statement Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield said, "The energy debate in America today has been summed up in about six words, and this is where we are: fossil fuels bad, green energy good. Many of us recognize that it's a lot more complicated than that. However, in order to meet our increased demands just on the electricity side, we are going to need electricity produced from all sources. The Obama administration has placed so much emphasis on green energy. Billions of dollars in stimulus money and tax incentives has gone for green energy. And the problem I have is that I think the American people are being misled about the role green energy can play in the immediate future as we use taxpayer money to help develop green energy. . ."

 

    Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (D-MI) said in an opening statement, "This is a hearing about jobs. Jobs and the economy. To imply anything otherwise is misleading. Scare tactics from the other side are meant as a diversion from what EPA's greenhouse gas regulations would do to American jobs. We had this debate last Congress. Studies estimated that a cap-and-trade national energy tax would produce job losses in the millions. Yet EPA is unilaterally acting to impose the very same types of policies that Congress rejected in the 111th. . . Let's dispel a myth. Air quality and public health will not be harmed or affected in any way by efforts to slow and then stop EPA's expansive global warming agenda under the Clean Air Act. Let me repeat that: Air quality and public health will not be harmed by stopping EPA's job-crushing global warming agenda. . . Set aside the scare tactics. Listen to the facts. This issue is not about air quality and public health. It's about jobs. EPA is not looking at the impact on jobs, the Members of this Committee should and we must."

 

    Pursuant to a House rule, full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Democratic Members of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, sent a letter to Chairman Whitfield requesting at least one additional day of hearings on the subject of EPA's greenhouse gas regulations in order to hear from scientific experts. The members said, "we believe it is essential that the Subcommittee hear from our nation's leading scientific experts. At the Subcommittee's first hearing, Senator James Inhofe told the Subcommittee that he believes climate change is a "hoax." We believe the members should have the opportunity to hear from top scientists on this subject and the implications of inaction before we are asked to vote on legislation premised on the assertion that carbon pollution is harmless."

 

    EPA's McCarthy testified on many benefits of the Clean Air Act and then discussed greenhouse gas regulation saying, "We are now starting to address greenhouse gases by applying some of the same Clean Air Act regulatory tools that we have used so successfully for decades. EPA is compelled to do so by the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, and the best available science, which strongly supports EPA's finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. These tools, which require the Agency to take cost into consideration, will allow the Agency to move forward with common-sense, reasonable requirements."

 

    She said, "The first greenhouse gas rule issued under pre-existing Clean Air Act authority is already demonstrating how sensible regulation can make sense for our economy. Last April, EPA and the Department of Transportation completed harmonized standards under the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from new cars and trucks. The vehicles sold in model years 2012-2016 will save us 1.85 billion barrels of oil while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 962 million tons. These rules were supported by both the auto workers and the auto manufacturers, who recognize that the standards provide for certainty, drive technological innovation, and help American automakers stay competitive in a global marketplace where fuel efficiency increasingly matters."

 

    She also said, "EPA is also focusing on energy efficiency as the method of meeting greenhouse gas permit requirements for power plants and other large industrial facilities that are building new facilities or making major modifications at existing facilities. A group of 11 power companies observed that: 'EPA has proposed a reasonable approach focusing on improving the energy efficiency of new power plants and large industrial facilities.' This focus on energy efficiency should promote measures that reduce both emissions and long-term costs for facilities."

 

    America's auto dealers said they "support a single national fuel economy standard and increases in fuel economy that make sense to consumers. Our primary concern is not necessarily over the stringency of the fuel economy standard, but rather the overall structure of the fuel economy regulations that govern automobiles today, which currently emanate from three different programs established by three separate government agencies. A single national standard will more effectively increase fuel economy, enhance economic growth, protect passenger safety, and protect the environment. Unless and until consumers actually purchase new vehicles, none of these benefits will be realized. . . State regulation is completely unnecessary and ineffective because the vigorous CAFE program Congress designed, coupled with EPA regulation of vehicle air conditioners, results in approximately the same amount of fuel saved and greenhouse gases reduced."

 

    Charles River Associates (CRA) discussed "how a study of green jobs released last month by Ceres and PERI gives a biased and incomplete picture of the effects of regulation and of how jobs are created." He discussed CRA model of the effects of EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations on energy prices, employment and competitiveness. He said, "These regulations undeniably raise the cost of doing business. Tradeoffs must be made between economic costs and environmental benefits in designing regulations, and pretending there is no cost does not help those deliberations."

 

    Finally CRA indicated that, regulation of GHG under the Clean Air Act "is likely to take an even more costly course. Our analysis and that of just about every other modeling team has found that command and control regulations EPA must use under Clean Air Act authorities greatly increase costs above even the levels that carbon taxes or a cap and trade system would impose. The reason in simple terms is that command and control regulations are designed by bureaucrats who know next to nothing about the circumstances of individual businesses. Therefore, their orders cannot possible lead to the same cost-effective solutions that managers would find for their own businesses when facing a price on greenhouse gas emissions. So the result is that after the Congress decided not to create a cap and trade system, the EPA is following through with an approach that would impose far higher costs to achieve similar levels of emission reduction."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, a background memo, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the letter from Rep. Waxman, et al (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House & Senate FY 11 Budget Battle Gets 2-Week Reprieve
• Major Enviros Intervene In GHG Reporting Lawsuits
• GAO Report On EPA Major Management Challenges
• DOE & DOD Cooperate On Advanced Clean Energy Technologies
• Groups Urge Senate To Reject Agriculture Conservation Budget Cuts
• NIEHS Begins BP Spill Long-Term Follow-Up Study Of 55,000 Workers

(Click here for details)

EPA Announces Plans To Extend March 31 GHG Reporting Deadline

Mar 1: U.S. EPA announced that its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program has recently completed extensive work to develop GHG data reporting requirements for a wide range of different industries in response to Congressional mandates. The program will provide Congress, stakeholder groups and the public with information about the emissions while helping businesses identify cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. To ensure that the requirements are practical and understandable to the thousands of companies already registered to report under the program, the Agency is in the process of finalizing a user friendly online electronic reporting platform.

    EPA said, "Following conversations with industry and others, and in the interest of providing high quality data to the public this year, EPA is extending this year's reporting deadline -- originally March 31 -- and plans to have the final uploading tool available this summer, with the data scheduled to be published later this year. EPA said the extension will allow it to further test the system that facilities will use to submit data and give industry the opportunity to test the tool, provide feedback, and have sufficient time to become familiar with the tool prior to reporting." The Agency said it will provide more detail on these intended changes in the coming weeks and will ensure that this reporting extension is in effect before the original reporting deadline of March 31, 2011. However, the Agency did not specify the new reporting deadline.

    In addition to the nine rulemakings necessary to comply with Congressional direction for the program, EPA said that over the past two years it has established a public help center that operates through the Agency website and efficient mechanisms for stakeholders to get answers from EPA experts to detailed technical questions. EPA has also conducted training sessions with each affected sector and held hundreds of meetings with stakeholders across the country.

    EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program, launched in October 2009, requires the reporting of GHG emissions data from large emission sources and fuel suppliers across a range of industry sectors. EPA said the program will provide data that will help industries find ways to be more efficient and save money.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on these actions (click here).  Access more information on the GHG Reporting Program (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL NEWS

• EPA Announces Plans To Extend March 31 GHG Reporting Deadline
• DOI Issues 1st Deepwater Drilling Permit Since BP Spill
• Government Shutdown Debate Appears Delayed A Couple Of Weeks
• EPA Report On Benefits & Costs of the Clean Air Act Amendments
• Report Highlights $789 Million In Benefits From RGGI CO2 Auctions
• Arch Coal To Pay $4 Million In Clean Water Act Settlement
• NAS Report Probes Earth's Deep Past & Our Climate Future
• GAO Report On Duplication In Government Program

(Click here for details)

Review Of Low-Carbon Development In China 2010

Feb 25: A study by Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) -- Review of Low-Carbon Development in China 2010 -- found that through 2009, China was on track to meet the 20% energy intensity reduction target in the 11th Five Year Plan (FYP 2006-2010), reversing the trend of increasing energy intensity from 2002 to 2005. Carbon intensity fell as a result of decreasing energy intensity, demonstrating the importance of energy efficiency in the transition to a low-carbon economy; with additional carbon-specific policies, China could expect carbon intensity to fall faster than energy intensity in the future. CPI's initial analysis also found that many of the measures implemented in the 11th Five Year Plan were top-down administrative measures that used significant resources, and that some policies, such as plant closures, will be more expensive to implement moving forward. According to CPI, the key findings of the study included:

Through 2009, China was on track to meeting its energy intensity targets.  These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 2005.  

Through 2009, China was on track to meeting its energy intensity targets.  These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 2005.  

Through 2009, China was on track to meeting its energy intensity targets.  These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 20 Through 2009, China was on track to meet its energy intensity targets.  These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 2005.  

1. Through 2009, China was on track to meet its energy intensity targets. These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 2005.
2. China's carbon emissions intensity fell largely as a result of reduced energy intensity, demonstrating the important role of energy efficiency in the transition to a low-carbon economy. With additional carbon-specific policies, China could expect carbon intensity to fall faster than energy intensity in the future. 
3. Our initial analysis indicates that many of the policies implemented to meet the 11th FYP target are top-down administrative measures. These required significant financial and human resources and may not be the most cost-effective way to achieve future targets.
4. Much of the low-hanging fruit for reducing energy intensity has been picked, for example, replacing old power plants with new, more energy-efficient plants. Further reductions in energy intensity during the 12th FYP period could impose higher costs on the economy.
5. In the power sector, CO2 emission increased 28% during the first three years of the 11th FYP period, but primary energy use per kWh decreased as the efficiency of China's coal-fired generation capacity improved an average of 5%, primarily due to the closure of old plants and replacement by newer, more efficient plants.  CO2 per kWh decreased 6.5% for the power sector as a whole due to this increased efficiency and the addition of low-carbon generation.
6. In the industrial sector, carbon emissions and energy use per unit of industrial value added were, respectively, 14.8% and 13.3% lower in 2008 than 2005, reflecting slower growth in energy-intensive heavy industry relative to other subsectors, a shift to higher value added products, and significant efficiency improvements in several subsectors. 
7. In the building sector, energy use grew by 28% and carbon emissions by 25% from 2005 to 2008, primarily due to higher living standards and increased urbanization. At the national level, energy use per square meter of building stock increased, although this trend slowed in 2008. Policies targeting district heating in northern China delivered significant reductions in energy consumption per square meter. 
8. Energy consumption in the transport sector grew 25% between 2005 and 2008.  While the energy intensity for most transport modes remained stable or improved slightly, the share of energy intensive transport modes such as road and air transport increased.
9. Agriculture is the only sector in which direct energy-related emissions declined during the 11th FYP period.  Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions were stable, however, CO2 emissions embedded in fertilizer production grew, leading to a small net increase in overall agriculture-related greenhouse gas emissions.  China's forestry development, especially the large scale of afforestation, contributed significantly to the building of carbon sinks, adding 420MtCO2 per year on average to the current stock, an amount nearly four times of CO2 emission from direct fossil fuel combustion in agriculture and forestry.

    According to an Executive Summary, in 2006, China began its 11th Five Year Plan (FYP) with the explicit goal of reducing the energy intensity of the Chinese economy by 20%. The goal was set, in part, to address the disturbing reversal in 2002-2005 of the long-term decline in energy intensity, but it also addressed other trends, which increased the energy efficiency imperative: the acceleration of GDP growth and the accompanying expansion of energy-intensive heavy industry; rapidly increasing energy and commodity prices; rapid expansion of the coal industry, leading to infrastructure strains; and China's emergence as the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter.

    Chapter 22 of the 11th FYP set the following strategies to meet the 20% energy intensity reduction goal: "The government shall strengthen policies that induce energy conservation and energy efficiency increase. Energy conservation can be achieved through structural changes (optimizing industrial structure and reducing the share of energy-intensive industries), technology improvement (developing and disseminating energy conservation technologies) and better management practices (institutional development and more effective regulation of energy production, transmission and consumption). Industries with priority for energy conservation are iron and steel, non-ferrous metal, coal, electricity, chemistry, building material and other energy-intensive industries. The implementation of vehicle fuel economy policies shall be enhanced and the inefficient old vehicles shall be phased out. Standards for alternative liquid fuels shall be developed to support the alternative fuel industry. The production and consumption of highly energy efficient products shall be encouraged."    

    Climate Policy Initiative is a policy effectiveness research and advisory service whose mission is to assess, diagnose, and support nations' efforts to achieve low-carbon growth.  An independent, not-for-profit research organization with long-term support from George Soros, CPI has headquarters offices in San Francisco and regional offices in Berlin, Beijing, Rio de Janeiro, and Venice.

    Access a release from CPI (click here). Access the 50-page Executive Summary (click here). Access the summary of key findings (click here). 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- Rep. Markey Probes Radioactive Materials In Fracking Operations
- Study Touts Benefits Of Alaska Arctic OCS Development
- Sierra Club Questions Rep. Upton's Priorities In District Ad
- USDA Signs MOU With Governors' Biofuels Coalition
- New EPA Report On Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage
- Republicans & Democrats At Odds On Strategic Petroleum Reserve
- EPA Approves New Refrigerant - HFO-1234yf - For Auto AC Systems
- ACC Expands With 4 New Chemical Product & Sector Groups
- Center For Food Safety v. Monsanto 

(Click here for details)

Ceres Report On Improving Climate Risk & Opportunity Disclosure

Feb 25: Amid growing evidence that climate change is impacting the global environment and the global economy, the Ceres investor coalition announced a new report aimed at improving corporate disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunities they face. The Ceres report, developed with input from its 90-plus member Investor Network on Climate Risk, outlines generally weak climate disclosure to date by businesses and steps for improving such disclosure, especially in annual 10-K financial filings that are next due from companies by March 31, 2011. It comes just a week after the consulting firm Mercer issued a new study warning that climate change could increase investment portfolio risk by 10 percent over the next 20 years. On February 15, Mercer's Responsible Investment (RI) team released, Climate Change Scenarios - Implications for Strategic Asset Allocation.

    Ceres president Mindy Lubber said, "Adjusting to a world profoundly shaped by climate change is a key challenge for all leading companies. Ensuring that investors are getting timely, material information on climate-related impacts, including regulatory and physical impacts, is essential. This report sets the bar on what investors expect on climate disclosure so that they better understand which companies are well positioned for the future and which are not." Anne Stausboll, chief executive officer of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the nation's largest public pension fund, which provided input on the report said, "As a long-term investor, we need a clear account of the environmental challenges and opportunities facing the companies we choose to invest in. The roadmap offered by this report will guide all of us -- investors and business alike -- as we incorporate climate risk into our due diligence and our overall investment strategy."

    The Ceres report -- Disclosing Climate Risk & Opportunities In SEC Filings, A Guide For Corporate Executives, Attorneys & Directors -- comes one year after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued formal interpretive guidance for companies on climate-related information they should be disclosing to investors in their 10-Ks or 20-Fs, as well as quarterly filings [See WIMS 1/28/10]. The guidance, issued last February, capped a multi-year effort by leading investors, state law enforcement officials and others to boost corporate attention to the quality of their climate-related disclosure. According to a release, the report makes clear that while many more companies are disclosing climate-related information in voluntary reports -- such as annual reports, sustainability reports and Carbon Disclosure Project responses -- the quality of overall disclosure is still less than satisfactory.

    The report concludes that, "Assessments of corporate disclosure practices on climate change show significant improvements in recent years, particularly in voluntary disclosures. However, overall disclosure continues to be highly inconsistent and often inadequate, particularly in mandatory filings, and frequently fails to meet the needs of investors." Still, the report includes a half-dozen concrete examples of "good quality disclosure" in financial filings by companies such as Chiquita Brands International, Siemens, Rio Tinto, AES and Xcel Energy. It also lists examples of "poor" and "weak" disclosure.

    The report also includes an 11-point checklist to help companies to improve the quality of their disclosure and position themselves to respond more effectively. Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Asset Management. Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Asset Management said, "This document will be an important catalyst in the major shift in attitudes towards climate change that is now taking place in the investment industry. Institutional investors everywhere are recognizing that climate change is a risk they must take full account of in their overall portfolios. As DB Climate Change Advisors demonstrated in its own recent report on this issue, Investing in Climate Change 2011, greater  transparency and better information from companies is essential to enable them to assess the risk effectively. Ceres' report is critical in defining what investors need to know in setting the standard of information companies must aim at."

    Access a release from Ceres with more information and link to the complete report and the Mercer report (click here). Access last year's SEC's interpretive guidance (click here). Access the SEC website for more information (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- House Leaders Question DOE On Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository
- EPA Reminds Of Hearing On Proposed Carbon Monoxide Rule
- Commerce Inspector General Issues Report On "Climategate"
- Report Probes Issues Of Cuba Drilling In Gulf Of Mexico
- USDA Pursues Crop Insurance For Producers Of Biofuel Feedstocks
- EWG Urges SAB To Accelerate Approval Of EPA's Dioxin Science Plan
- DOE Cites Battelle For Information Security Violations
- "$100 Oil And Congress Asks for Seconds"

(Click here for details)

More Reaction To EPA's Final "Boiler MACT" Rules

Feb 23: The following represents additional reaction to U.S. EPA's issuance of the final Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators -- the so-called "Boiler MACT" rules [See WIMS 2/23/11]. EPA said the standards will achieve significant public health protections through reductions in toxic air emissions, including mercury and soot, but cut the cost of implementation by about 50 percent from an earlier proposal issued last year. EPA indicates that mercury, soot, lead and other harmful pollutants released by boilers and incinerators can lead to developmental disabilities in children, as well as cancer, heart disease, aggravated asthma and premature death in Americans. EPA said the standards will avoid between 2,600-6,600 premature deaths, prevent 4,100 heart attacks and avert 42,000 asthma attacks per year in 2014. Yesterday WIMS reported on the details of the rules and the early reactions of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Earthjustice and Sierra Club.

 

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) indicated that they were reiterating their concerns about efforts by EPA to finalize boiler and incinerator rules "despite the agency's own acknowledgement of a flawed rulemaking process and product." In mid-January, a Federal district court denied the EPA's request for a 15-month extension on the final emissions standards for boilers and incinerators -- rules that will affect thousands of manufacturing and industrial facilities, small businesses, educational institutions, hospitals, and local agencies. They said they continue to believe the new rules have the potential to impose significant economic harm and underscore the dangers of the agency's flawed regulatory tactics.

 

    In a joint statement the two said, "How can anyone have confidence in rules that the EPA was admittedly unprepared to issue just weeks ago? However, we are not the only ones lacking confidence. It is extraordinary that EPA itself announced that it will be filing for reconsideration of the rules on the very same day they were released. This is not how the rulemaking process is supposed to work. If the rules needs to be reconsidered, then let's take the time to get this done right to protect public health and jobs.

    "At a time when we are enduring 21 consecutive months of 9 percent or higher unemployment, we cannot afford to rush sweeping regulations that have the potential to do more harm than good. For example, the proposed rules were estimated to put more than 300,000 jobs at risk. The EPA was operating under court order to meet this week's deadline, but we continue to believe sound policymaking should trump arbitrary timelines. If congressional intervention is needed to provide EPA the time it needs to provide careful, defensible rules that will not invite additional judicial challenge, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is prepared to act. The American public deserves a thoughtful, deliberative ruling that it can have faith in."

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), the Ranking Member on the Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee issued a statement saying, "The regulations released today provide another example of how EPA can both curb toxic air pollution and save lives cost-effectively, using industry input and sound science. EPA's action stands in stark contrast to the campaign that House Republicans launched on the House floor last week to prevent limits on toxic pollution that endangers the health of children, pregnant women and the elderly. I'm not holding my breath that industry-friendly Republicans will support the EPA's new anti-pollution rules, but the public's health and well-being depend on putting these standards in place as soon as possible."

    The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said it welcomed the EPA changes in the standards; however, it believes further improvements are needed.  Cal Dooley, President and CEO of ACC said, "We commend EPA for its commitment to improving the Boiler MACT standards. The final rules show progress, but because the courts denied EPA's request for more time, more must be done to ensure important adjustments are made. We strongly support a reconsideration of the rules. By listening to stakeholders, seeking new data and revisiting early conclusions, we believe EPA had begun to lay the groundwork for more effective, less costly regulations that can help avoid the loss of U.S. business investment and jobs. Now EPA deserves the time to finish the job. Major industries, small businesses, municipalities and institutions across the country will be affected by the outcome."

    ACC listed what it considered "improvements" EPA made to the final rules as: More realistic emission limits based on its revised methodology; Work practice standards for Gas 2 fired boilers using clean burning fuels; Adjustments to emissions limits based on fuel variability; Work practices for periods of start-up and shut-down; and An acknowledgement that solid fuel boilers can burn a variety of fuels. However, ACC said it will continue to make additional changes including: The use of alternative health-based emissions limits; The use of a pollutant-by-pollutant approach to set limits; and Work practices for periods of malfunction.

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Clean Air Project Director John Walke issued a statement saying, "EPA could have done more, but these standards accomplish long overdue, needed cuts in mercury, benzene, heavy metal and acid gas pollution from industrial plants. While the final biomass standards are notably relaxed in response to industry complaints, overall the safeguards still will save up to 6,500 lives, avoid 4,000 heart attacks, and prevent more than 46,000 cases of aggravated asthma and bronchitis every year. Americans deserve these tremendous health benefits without political interference by Congress."

    The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) issued a release indicating that EPA's actions would "preserve scrap tire markets and ensure the continued success of scrap tire management." RMA said the rule allows annually generated scrap tires that are removed from vehicles to be used as fuel by an industrial facility. Cement kilns, pulp and paper mills and electric utilities are the major users of tire derived fuel (TDF).

    RMA said in its proposed rule, EPA recommended that annually generated tires be processed to remove the metal before being considered a fuel under the Clean Air Act. However, "that provision would have merely increased the energy consumption, air emissions and costs associated with delivering tire derived fuels to industrial customers without any environmental benefit." RMA said it recognizes that "EPA is still requiring processing of whole tires removed from historical scrap tire stockpiles. RMA continues to encourage EPA to consider a more expansive definition of processing to allow these whole tires to be combusted as tire derived fuel." RMA said it continues to evaluate the final rule for additional insights and impacts on the tire industry.

    Charles Cannon, RMA president and CEO said, "EPA clearly listened to the arguments advocated by RMA and other key stakeholders to deliver a rule that ensures continued improvement in scrap tire management efforts in the U.S. While we are still analyzing several aspects of this final rule, the big picture is that this is a victory for the environment and for RMA's scrap tire advocacy efforts."

    Access a release from Representatives Upton & Whitfield (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a release from ACC with link to more information (click here). Access a statement from NRDC (click here). Access the complete release from RMA (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- 75% Of The World's Coral Reefs Are Currently Threatened
- Partnership Aims To Accelerate Environmental Innovation In Business
- EPA White Paper On Cost & Benefits Of The Clean Air Act
- $96.8 Million Loan Guarantee For Geothermal Power Project
- NAS Study Of Cancer Risk Near Nuclear Facilities
- NRDC Polling Shows Strong Support For EPA Clean Air Safeguards
- U.S. Chamber Africa Business Initiative Focuses On Infrastructure

(Click here for details)

EPA Issues Revised, Less Costly, Final "Boiler MACT" Rules

Feb 23: In response to Federal court orders in Sierra Club v. EPA requiring the issuance of final standards [See WIMS 1/21/11], U.S. EPA issued final Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators -- the so-called "Boiler MACT" rules -- that EPA says will achieve significant public health protections through reductions in toxic air emissions, including mercury and soot, but cut the cost of implementation by about 50 percent from an earlier proposal issued last year. EPA indicates that mercury, soot, lead and other harmful pollutants released by boilers and incinerators can lead to developmental disabilities in children, as well as cancer, heart disease, aggravated asthma and premature death in Americans. These standards will avoid between 2,600-6,600 premature deaths, prevent 4,100 heart attacks and avert 42,000 asthma attacks per year in 2014.

 

    Industry and Congressional members have said the originally proposed rules would cost billions and are "unachievable" for manufacturers, universities, and municipalities that use boilers to power their facilities; and put thousands of jobs at risk and could force many manufacturing plants to close their doors. A group of Senators told EPA last week that "Congress stands ready to assist the agency to produce a rule that lowers emissions without putting jobs and manufacturing plants across the country at risk." [See WIMS 2/22/11]. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) indicated that it has estimated that the so-called, "Boiler MACT" rules "would jeopardize some 60,000 jobs and impose capital costs on the order of $3.8 billion in the chemical industry alone."

    In response to a September 2009 court order, EPA issued the proposed rules in April 2010, prompting significant public input. The proposed rules followed a period that began in 2007, when a Federal court vacated a set of industry specific standards proposed during the Bush Administration. Based on the public input received following the April 2010 proposal, EPA made extensive revisions, and in December 2010 requested additional time for review to ensure the public's input was fully addressed. EPA was seeking in its motion to the court an extension to finalize the rules by April 13, 2012. Instead, the court granted EPA 30 days, resulting in today's announcement.

    Based on input from key stakeholders including the public, industry and the public health communities, EPA said its latest announcement represents "a dramatic cut in the cost of implementation, while maintaining maximum public health benefits." As a result, EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to cut these pollutants, the public will see between $10 to $24 in health benefits, including fewer premature deaths.

    The Agency received more than 4,800 comments from businesses and communities across the country in response to the proposed rules. Public input included a significant amount of information that industry had not provided prior to the proposal. Based on this feedback, and in keeping with President Obama's executive order on regulatory review [See WIMS 1/18/11], EPA revised the draft standards based on the requested input to provide additional flexibility and cost effective techniques -- achieving significant pollution reduction and important health benefits, while lowering the cost of pollution control installation and maintenance by about 50 percent, or $1.8 billion.

    Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation said, "The Clean Air Act standards we are issuing today are based on the best available science and have benefitted from significant public input. As a result, they put in place important public health safeguards to cut harmful toxic air emissions that affect children's development, aggravate asthma and cause heart attacks at costs substantially lower than we had estimated under our original proposal."

    Because the final standards significantly differ from the previous proposals, EPA believes further public review is required. Therefore, EPA will reconsider the final standards under a Clean Air Act process that allows the Agency to seek additional public review and comment to ensure full transparency. EPA's reconsideration will cover the emissions standards for large and small boilers and for solid waste incinerators. EPA will release additional details on the reconsideration process in the near future to ensure the public, industry and stakeholders have an opportunity to participate.

    EPA says about 200,000 boilers are located at small and large sources of air toxic emissions across the country. The final standards require many types of boilers to follow practical, cost-effective work practice standards to reduce emissions. To ensure smooth implementation, EPA is working with the departments of Energy (DOE) and Agriculture (USDA) to provide the diverse set of facilities impacted by the standards with technical assistance that will help boilers burn cleaner and more efficiently. DOE will work with large coal and oil-burning sources to help them identify clean energy strategies that will reduce harmful emissions and make boilers run more efficiently and cost-effectively. In addition, USDA will reach out to small sources to help owners and operators understand the standards and their cost and energy saving features.

    The types of boilers and incinerators covered by these updated standards include:

• Boilers at large sources of air toxics emissions: There are about 13,800 boilers located at large sources of air pollutants, including refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities. These standards will reduce emissions of harmful pollutants including mercury, organic air toxics and dioxins at some of the largest pollution sources. EPA estimates that the costs of implementation have been reduced by $1.5 billion from the proposed standard. Health benefits to children and the public associated with reduced exposure to fine particles and ozone from these large source boilers are estimated to be $22 billion to $54 billion in 2014.
• Boilers located at small sources of air toxics emissions: There are about 187,000 boilers located at small sources of air pollutants, including universities, hospitals, hotels and commercial buildings that may be covered by these standards. Due to the small amount of emissions these sources are responsible for, EPA has limited the impact of the final rule making on small entities. The original standards for these have been dramatically refined and updated to ensure maximum flexibility for these sources, including for some sources, revising the requirement from maximum achievable control technology to generally available control technology. The cost reduction from the proposed standard to the final is estimated to be $209 million.
• Solid waste incinerators: There are 88 solid waste incinerators that burn waste at a commercial or an industrial facility, including cement manufacturing facilities. These standards, which facilities will need to meet by 2016 at the latest, will reduce emissions of harmful pollutants including mercury, lead, cadmium, nitrogen dioxide and particle pollution. The cost reduction from the proposed standard to the final is estimated to be $12 million.

    In separate but related actions, EPA announced it is finalizing emission standards for sewage sludge incinerators. While there are more than 200 sewage sludge incinerators across the country, EPA expects that over 150 are already in compliance. These standards will reduce emissions of harmful pollutants including mercury, lead, cadmium, and hydrogen chloride from the remaining 50 that may need to leverage existing technologies to meet the new standards.

    EPA said it has also identified which non-hazardous secondary materials are considered solid waste when burned in combustion units. This distinction determines which Clean Air Act standard is applied when the material is burned. The non-hazardous secondary materials that can be burned as non-waste fuel include scrap tires managed under established tire collection programs. This step simplifies the rules and provides additional clarity and direction for facilities. To determine that materials are non-hazardous secondary materials when burned under the new rule, materials must not have been discarded and must be legitimately used as a fuel. EPA said it "recognizes that secondary materials are widely used today as raw materials, as products, and as fuels in industrial processes. [and] believes that the final rule helps set protective emissions standards under the Clean Air Act." The emissions standards for sewage sludge incinerators and the definition of solid waste are not part of today's reconsideration.

 

    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Senior Vice President for Policy and Government Relations Aric Newhouse reacted quickly to the EPA announcement and said, "The new Boiler MACT rule will have an immediate, negative impact on manufacturers' bottom lines at a time when they are trying to rebound economically and create jobs. This is a harsh, inflexible rule that will cost jobs, hurt global competiveness and may discourage projects that could otherwise lead to environmental improvements. This is the latest example of the EPA's aggressive, overreaching agenda. We urge the EPA to undertake a common-sense approach that encourages economic growth, job creation and thoughtful regulatory policy."

 

    The public interest law firm that represented Sierra Club in the lawsuit, Earthjustice, issued a release saying, "This commonsense air toxics safeguard, often called the "Boiler MACT (Maximum Available Control Technology)," will save thousands of lives, and prevent thousands of cases of asthma attacks, heart attacks and hospital visits." Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club said, "Corporate polluters are literally making us sick, and these long overdue protections from EPA will save lives and improve the health of millions of Americans. Though the announcement today is modest by comparison to the proposals put forth by the EPA last June, we urge Administrator Lisa Jackson to forge ahead to protect our children and families' health." James Pew, staff attorney at Earthjustice said, "If the corporate lobbyists succeed in killing these health protections, Americans will pay the price with the lives and health of their family members. Controlling the toxic pollution from industrial boilers will save lives, prevent billions of dollars in unnecessary health care costs, and put thousands of Americans to work."

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to the final rules, fact sheets, and regulatory impact analyses for each of EPA's regulatory actions (click here). Access more information from EPA's Emissions Standards for Boilers and Process Heaters and Commercial / Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators website (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice including the Sierra Club comments (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- SCOTUS Denies Hearing Endangered Species Act Cases
- EPA Won't Suspend Pesticide Linked To Bee Collapse
- Six Chemical Substances To Be Banned Under EU REACH Regulations
- Three Facilities Get Combined Heat & Power Awards
- Transportation Policy To Save Oil & Reducing GHG Emissions
- Northeast-Midwest Institute Transportation Policy Project
- OIG Finds Problems With EPA Position Management Program

(Click here for details)

"Monumental Accomplishment For Taxpayers" Is "Dead On Arrival"

Feb 22: At about 4:40 AM, Saturday morning (Feb. 19) the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution (CR) providing funding for the Federal Government for the remaining part of Fiscal Year 2011 (ending September 30), by a vote of 235-189 entirely along party lines. No Democrats voted for the bill and 3 Republicans voted with Democrats against the bill.

 

    Republicans and Democrats obviously had strikingly different views on the bill and its passage. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) said the passage was a "Monumental Accomplishment for American Taxpayers"; while the Committee Ranking Member Norm Dicks (D-WA) said the bill was "encumbered with an array of ideologically-driven provisions that will surely render it dead on arrival in the other body and virtually impossible for the President to sign it into law."

 

    The deadline to pass a new CR is March 4, 2011, to avoid a government-wide shutdown. To make matters worse, the U.S. Senate, where the bill now resides, is on recess for the remainder of the week and does not return until February 28, leaving four days to pass and sign a bill. However, efforts are already underway to extend the timelines (see below).

 

    Chairman Rogers said, "This bill is a monumental accomplishment for each and every American who believes that their government is spending too much. It dramatically scales back the size and scope of domestic government programs, eliminates $100 billion in spending compared to what the President asked for last year, and will mark the beginning of a new trend of reductions that will take place throughout the next year. We held no program harmless from our spending cuts, and virtually no area of government escaped this process unscathed. While these choices were difficult to make, we strived to spread the sacrifice fairly, weeding out waste and excess, with a razor-sharp focus on making the most out of every taxdollar. . .

 

    "In addition to spending cuts, the legislation also contains multiple provisions to stop harmful regulations or programs that would hurt the nation's economy and inhibit the ability of American businesses to create jobs, such as onerous EPA 'greenhouse gas' regulations, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility application process, and the Obama Administration's health care reform act. The hand of government has reached too far into Americans' everyday lives, hindering our freedoms and impairing our economic recovery. This legislation will help stop harmful regulations, misguided laws, and over-reaching bureaucracies to allow our businesses to create jobs and our economy to thrive." 

 

    Ranking Member Dicks said, ". . . I believed the Republican approach to deficit reduction was too narrow and too focused on non-security discretionary spending – the smallest segment of spending in the budget.  Those spending levels would undoubtedly have been detrimental to our task of creating jobs and assuring our economic recovery. And I expressed my view that this specious concept of "cut and grow" had no basis in sound economic theory. . . the most conservative members of the Republican caucus objected and demanded that their leaders impose an additional $26 billion in budget cuts simply in order to adhere to an arbitrary $100 billion level that was pulled out of thin air and inserted into a campaign press release last fall. . .

 

    "While the debate has been a healthy debate, exposing the clear divisions in this body between our two parties over what we believe should be our budget priorities, the resulting product does not in any way represent a consensus view of this body and I believe it represents a prescription for further harm to our fragile economy and it imposes unfair cuts that will disproportionately affect many of our citizens who are least able to afford them. . . The Republican leadership knows that there is zero chance for this legislation to pass in the other body, and most likely we will see a completely different bill return to the House shortly before March 4th, presenting the prospect of a government shutdown if a compromise version cannot be achieved by then. While I believe it would be a serious mistake for the Republican leadership to let that happen, I worry that we are headed inexorably in that direction. . ."

 

    The CR was considered in an historic and unprecedented open process on the House floor that included more than 580 amendments offered by both parties and a grueling 60-plus hours of public debate. Of these amendments, 67 were accepted or passed, changing the underlying legislation and according to Chairman Rogers, "reflecting the fair representation of the American people. In all, the successful amendments included more than $620 million in additional spending cuts."

 

    In addition to the major cuts contained in H.R. 1, including for example nearly a 30% cut in U.S. EPA's budget, some of the environmental and energy related amendments in the final bill included:

• An amendment by Rep. Pompeo (R-KS) to eliminate $8.4 million from the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Registry, a program that collects data on industrial greenhouse gas emissions, returning its funding to 2008 levels.
• An amendment from Rep. Whitfield (R-KY) to eliminate $1.5 million for the "Greening of the Capitol" initiative from the Legislative Branch section of the CR.
• An amendment from Rep. McClintock (R-CA) that eliminates $20 million for tropical forest debt reduction, affecting the Department of the Treasury, Debt Restructuring portion of the CR.
• An amendment from Rep. Scalise (R-LA) that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay the salaries and expenses of the following "czars," or special presidential advisers who are not required to go through the Senate confirmation process: Obama Care Czar, Climate Change Czar, Global Warming Czar, Green Jobs Czar, Car Czar, Guantanamo Bay Closure Czar, Pay Czar and Fairness Doctrine Czar.
• An amendment from Rep. Carter (R-TX) that prohibits the use of funds to implement, administer or enforce the rule entitled "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants," published by the Environmental Protection Agency on September 9, 2010, which limits the levels of mercury in cement.
• An amendment from Rep. Lummis (R-WY) to put a moratorium, for the duration of the CR, on the payment of legal fees to citizens and groups who sue the government, in order to study abuses in the system.
• An amendment from Rep. Young (R-AK) to prohibit funds from being used by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to consider, review, reject remand or other invalidate any permit issued for Outer Continental Shelf sources located offshore of the States along the Arctic Coast.
• An amendment from Reps. Poe (R-TX), Barton (R-TX) and Carter (R-TX) that defines specifically what greenhouse gases are and prohibits the EPA from imposing regulations on those gasses emitted by a stationary source for seven months.
• An amendment from Rep. McClintock (R-CA) that prohibits funds from being used to implement the Klamath (California) Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study, conducted by the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
• An amendment by Rep. Herger (R-CA) that prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce the Travel Management Rule, which would close roads and trails on National Forest System land.
• An amendment from Rep. Johnson (R-OH) to prohibit the use of funds for the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from moving forward with a proposed rule that would effectively eliminate the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, a rule that presently allows surface mining operations with qualified permits to work within 100 feet of a stream.
• An amendment from Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) that would prohibit EPA funding for enforcement of total maximum daily loads in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
• An amendment from Rep. Rooney (R-FL) that prohibits funding for the EPA to impose and enforce federally mandated numeric Florida water quality standards.
• An amendment from Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that prohibits funds from being used to construct ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities.
• An amendment from Rep. Hall (R-TX) prohibiting funds to implement a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Service, part of the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request.
• An amendment from Rep. Griffith (R-VA) prohibiting the EPA, Corps of Engineers and the Office of Surface Mining from implementing coordination procedures that have served to extend and delay the review of coal mining permits.
• An amendment from Rep. Jones (R-NC) that prohibits the use of funds from being used to develop or approve a new limited access privilege program – "catch-shares" – for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.
• An amendment from Rep. Luetkemeyer (R-MO) that prohibits the use of funds for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• An amendment from Rep. Sullivan (R-OK) that blocks funds for the EPA to implement a waiver to increase the ethanol content in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent.
• An amendment from Rep. McKinley (R-WV) that prohibits funding for the EPA to deny proposed and active mining permits under Section 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act, specifically to revoke retroactively a permit for the Spruce Mine in West Virginia.
• An amendment from Rep. McKinley (R-WV) that prohibits funding for the EPA to implement regulations to designate coal ash reside as hazardous waste.
• An amendment from Rep. Pompeo (R-KS) that prohibits funds for a government sponsored "consumer products complaints database."
• An amendment from Rep. Noem (R-SD) to prohibit funding for EPA to modify the national primary ambient air quality standards applicable to coarse particulate matter (dust).

     Needless to say there will be a battle in the Senate when the CR is considered there when the Senate returns. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) released a statement and analysis of the Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1) prior to the latest round of amendments. In his statement Senator Inouye said, "The impact of H.R. 1 on the ability of the federal government to perform even some of its most basic functions is, in many instances, severe. The Constitution requires of the government that it '…establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...'. The House Republican proposal would undermine our ability to live up to these ideals, and do little to address the long-term fiscal challenges facing our nation. . .

 

    ". . .many of the reductions proposed by the House were made not because programs were ineffective or wasteful, but out of desire to meet an arbitrary dollar figure cited during a political campaign. Many of the recommendations in this bill resulted from a "meat cleaver" approach to budget cuts, when we should be using a scalpel -- responsibly identifying specific programs that are wasteful or unneeded. . . We cannot win the future by gutting the very programs that make America competitive in the first place. . ."

   

    On February 22, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced his plans to introduce a clean, short-term Continuing Resolution that will give Democrats and Republicans time to negotiate a plan to responsibly cut government spending. Senator Reid said, "Speaker Boehner should stop drawing lines in the sand, and come to the table to find a responsible path forward that cuts government spending while keeping our communities safe and our economy growing. It would be the height of irresponsibility to shut down the government without any negotiations, as Republicans are threatening to do. A shutdown could send our fragile economy back into a recession, and mean no Social Security checks for seniors, less funding for border security and no paychecks for our troops.

 

    "To avoid a shutdown and give us time to negotiate a responsible path forward, I have asked Sen. Inouye, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to prepare a clean Continuing Resolution that I can bring to the floor next week. Since this bill is intended to fund vital services like Social Security, our military and border security, it should have no legislation or riders tied to it. This bill will include the $41 billion in budget cuts that Democrats and Republicans agreed to in December, and will keep the government running for 30 days while both sides can negotiate a common-sense, long-term solution. I have asked my chief of staff, David Krone, to begin negotiations with Speaker Boehner's chief of staff, Barry Jackson, to craft a long-term continuing resolution that cuts waste and excess, while protecting the initiatives that keep us safe, put Americans back to work and keep our economy on the right track. It is time to drop the threats and ultimatums, and work together on a path forward. I am asking Speaker Boehner to simply take the threat of a government shutdown off the table, and work with us to negotiate a responsible, long-term solution."

 

    Access a lengthy release from Chairman Rogers with a summaries of key provisions (click here). Access a release from Ranking Member Dicks (click here). Access complete legislative details with links to amendments and votes on individual amendments (click here). Access the House Appropriations website for links to a table of program cuts, CR summary and  CR savings (click here). Access a release and analysis from Sen. Inouye (click here). Access a release from Sen. Reid (click here). Access a fact sheet from Senate Democrats on the House-passed CR (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- Environmental Groups React To House CR Passage
- UNEP Releases Major Green Economy Report
- Release Of Chief Counsel's Investigation Of BP Oil Spill
- Senators Seek Bipartisan Legislative Solution To "Boiler MACT" Rule
- Next Steps In Gulf Natural Resource Damage Assessment Process
- EPA Recognizes 74 Leading Energy Star Organizations  

(Click here for details)