Thursday, March 14, 2013

Comments Wanted On Dems Draft Carbon-Pricing Legislation

Mar 12: Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) released draft carbon-pricing legislation and are soliciting feedback on it from stakeholders and the public. The legislation would establish the polluter pays principle for dangerous carbon pollution, requiring large emitters to pay for the pollution they emit.

    According to a release, the "discussion draft" released today (March 12) contains a new and straightforward approach to putting a price on carbon pollution. The nation's largest polluters would have to pay a fee for each ton of pollution they release. The legislation assigns responsibility for the assessment and collection of the carbon fees based upon the expertise that has already been developed by EPA and the Treasury Department. Under the discussion draft, EPA's database of reported emissions would determine the amount of pollution subject to the fee. The Treasury Department would be responsible for the collection and handling of the fees.

    Rep. Waxman said, "Putting a price on carbon could help solve two of the nation's biggest challenges at once: preventing climate change and reducing the budget deficit. There have been carbon tax proposals made by others. What's unique about this one is its novel design. We are seeking to craft a system in which each agency does what they are good at and that minimizes compliance burdens and administrative costs. Utilities, oil companies, and other major sources are already reporting their emissions to EPA. We build off of this existing program."

    Sen. Whitehouse said, "Putting a price on carbon is the best way to reduce carbon pollution and slow the effects of climate change. For far too long, carbon polluters have pushed the true cost of their pollution onto the American people in the form of dirty air, acidified water, and a changing climate. This framework is the beginning of a collaborative process to craft legislation that will reduce carbon pollution while also upholding an important principle: that all of the revenue generated through this carbon fee will be returned to the American people."   

    Specifically, the discussion draft outlines a legislative framework that would:

  • Establish a carbon pollution fee that applies to all six categories of greenhouse gases.
  • Require large carbon pollution sources to pay the fee for carbon pollution permits based on the quantities of carbon pollution reported by the sources under the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.
  • Create a program to be jointly administered by the Department of the Treasury and EPA. EPA would implement and enforce emissions reporting under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and Treasury would assess, collect, and enforce the fee requirements at the point where carbon pollution is emitted or passed on to consumers, depending on the type of source.

    The Members indicate that the approach would: Drive significant carbon pollution reductions; Generate substantial revenue to be returned to the American people; and, Provide broad coverage of greenhouse gas emissions, while minimizing compliance and administrative burdens and utilizing each agency's area of expertise.

    The Members are soliciting comments on the discussion draft from stakeholders and the public. Although comments on any aspect of the draft are welcome, the Lawmakers are specifically requesting feedback on the following questions and requesting that comments be submitted no later than April 12, 2013:

1. What is the appropriate price per ton for polluters to pay?  The draft contains alternative prices of $15, $25, and $35 per ton for discussion purposes.
2. How much should the price per ton increase on an annual basis?  The draft contains a range of increases from 2% to 8% per year for discussion purposes.
3. What are the best ways to return the revenue to the American people?  The discussion draft proposes putting the revenue toward the following goals, and solicits comments on how to best accomplish each:  (1) mitigating energy costs for consumers, especially low-income consumers; (2) reducing the Federal deficit; (3) protecting jobs of workers at trade-vulnerable, energy intensive industries; (4) reducing the tax liability for individuals and businesses; and (5) investing in other activities to reduce carbon pollution and its effects.
4. How should the carbon fee program interact with state programs that address carbon pollution?

    Access a release from the Members with links to a 1-page summary; a section-by-section summary; a backgrounder; and the draft bill text  (click here). Submit comments to the following Email address: (click here). [#Climate, #Air/GHG]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

GAO Report On Renewable Energy Development On Federal Lands

Mar 13: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Renewable Energy: Agencies Have Taken Steps Aimed at Improving the Permitting Process for Development on Federal Lands (GAO-13-189, Jan 18, 2013). The report was prepared at the request of Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), the Ranking Member on the House Committee on Natural Resources. GAO is not making any recommendations in the report. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Agriculture concurred with its findings, while the Departments of Energy and the Interior had no comments.
 
    GAO indicates that concerns over reliance on imported oil and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel use have led to increased interest in producing electricity from renewable sources, including wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Because Federal lands, including those managed by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, encompass areas with high renewable energy potential, interest has increased in permitting such activity on those lands. Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) includes several provisions intended to increase renewable energy development on Federal lands, including goals for approving renewable energy projects. GAO was asked to look at: (1) the status of renewable energy permitting on Federal land, including time frames for processing permits applied for since EPAct 2005; (2) actions Federal land management agencies have taken to facilitate renewable energy development on Federal land, particularly since the passage of EPAct 2005; and (3) factors affecting renewable energy development on Federal land. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and policies; interviewed agency and industry officials; and surveyed BLM staff responsible for processing applications for renewable energy permits on Federal lands.
 
    GAO found that since passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Federal land management agencies -- primarily the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) -- have received hundreds of applications for utility-scale renewable energy projects and authorized 25 projects: 7 wind, 10 solar, and 8 geothermal projects. Applications for the majority of projects were withdrawn by the applicants or denied by BLM because of insufficient information. Applications for about one-fourth of the projects are still pending with the agencies. Time frames for permitting wind and solar projects ranged from 1.5 to 4 years from receipt of the initial application to approval of the project, with time frames decreasing for applications submitted in later years. For geothermal projects, permitting time frames ranged from 1 to 4 years from receipt of the initial application to approval for construction. In all, for projects applied for since EPAct 2005, BLM has authorized projects with the capacity to generate a total of about 5,450 megawatts of electricity, contributing to the act's goal of approving projects capable of generating 10,000 megawatts of electricity on public lands by 2015.

    Federal land management agencies have taken several steps to foster renewable energy development on Federal lands since EPAct 2005. Specifically, these agencies have developed or revised policies aimed at, among other things, improving the renewable energy permitting process, formalized coordination within and across agencies and with state and local governments, and devoted increased resources to processing applications for renewable energy permits. One of BLM's most comprehensive actions was the completion of programmatic environmental impact statements for renewable energy development, intended to streamline the permitting process. The agencies also took steps to improve coordination through regularly established meetings and development of memorandums of understanding between federal and state agencies. They also added staff and increased funding for this development. For example, BLM tripled its staff devoted to processing wind and solar energy applications. To help ensure that its actions are achieving their intended purposes, BLM issued an instruction memorandum in December 2012 aimed at increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of its renewable energy permitting process.

    According to BLM respondents to a GAO questionnaire, industry representatives, and others GAO interviewed, many factors affect the pace of renewable energy development on Federal lands. Some of these factors are specifically tied to the agencies' permitting processes, primarily BLM's. For example, respondents cited effective coordination among the involved parties and the amount of resources the agency can devote to permitting as factors that facilitated the permitting process. On the other hand, they often cited problems with the quality of applications received as a factor that may hinder or slow the permitting process. Respondents also cited a number of factors outside of permitting agencies' control that can affect the pace of renewable energy development, such as access to transmission lines (which are often scarce in areas where renewable energy is abundant) and competition from electricity generated using conventional energy sources, such as natural gas.

    Access the complete 56-page report (click here). [#Energy/Renewable]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Major Differences Continue On Pros & Cons Of LNG Exports

Mar 12: The Center for International Environmental Law, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Environment America, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society have sent a joint letter to the President strongly pushing for a "timeout on natural gas exports until critical national economic, environmental, and trade concerns are thoroughly analyzed and carefully addressed."

    The letter to the Obama Administration comes following the recent public comment period to the Department of Energy (DOE), who commissioned NERA Consulting to conduct a study of the impacts natural gas exports would have on the nation's economy [See WIMS 12/7/12]. DOE is currently reviewing proposals for 16 export facilities.  If all of these facilities were approved and developed, they would export a volume of gas equal to almost half of the natural gas currently produced in the US. Sierra Club and a number of allied groups also filed extensive technical comments on the NERA economic study, stating it is incomplete, extremely flawed, and favors the interests of dirty fuel investors over those of the majority of Americans.

    In the letter to the President, the groups highlighted shared concerns that natural gas exports will raise domestic energy prices, disproportionately harming the middle class and manufacturing, while further exacerbating the climate crisis and leading to more dirty and dangerous fracking and drilling on our nation's lands.  

    The groups indicated in a release that the expansion of drilling and fracking "will further pollute our air, water and put the health and safety of our communities at additional risk.  Expanded drilling will also substantially increase emissions of methane, which is a powerful climate disrupting pollutant that puts the public at risk of worsening climate change." They said in spite of the many environmental risks, however, DOE has failed to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the national environmental impacts that exports and increased natural gas production would create.
 
    In addition, they said the US is currently negotiating a new trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with ten nations across the Pacific Rim. Additional countries are considering joining the pact, including Japan--the world's largest natural gas importer. They said the agreement, in its current form, would leave the Administration unable to condition or deny export licenses to "hungry international gas markets" in TPP countries, even if those exports would harm public health and the US economy.
 
    In light of the risks and the deficiencies of the DOE's oversight and review process to date, the group letter urges the Obama Administration to thoroughly study and diligently address the economic, environmental, and trade aspects of gas exports before making any final decisions on  proposed export terminals.
 
    The concern about LNG exports is not limited to environmental groups. In December 2012, following DOE's release of the NERA report, Dow Chemical Company's chairman and chief executive officer Andrew Liveris issued a release saying, "The report issued by the DOE on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports is flawed, misleading, and based on outdated, inaccurate and incomplete economic data. The report fails to give due consideration to the importance of manufacturing to the U.S. economy. Manufacturing is the largest user of natural gas in the U.S., and creates more jobs and more value to the U.S. economy from natural gas than any other sector. The value of every unit of energy used by the manufacturing sector is multiplied by as many as 20 times from the production of thousands of high value products though the value chain. Compare this to the 1-time value created by exporting energy as liquefied natural gas. Furthermore, for every manufacturing job created on the factory floor 5-8 more are created in the larger economy."

    Liveris continued, "The report also fails to consider the tremendous competitive advantage that affordable, abundant domestic natural gas offers to the nation. Instead, the report offers the baffling conclusion that the U.S. would be better off using its domestic natural gas advantage to fuel growth and jobs in other regions versus strengthening the U.S. economy through manufacturing and benefiting consumers with lower energy costs. Industry has announced over 100 capital investments representing over $90 billion in spending and millions of new jobs predicated on abundant and affordable natural gas, none of which were captured in this report. Unfortunately, policy makers have been given a flawed report that overlooks vital dynamics, including a manufacturing renaissance that is already underway and much needed by this country."

    Dow has joined a recently-formed group called America's Energy Advantage (AEA), whose members also include the American Public Gas Association, Alcoa Inc., Eastman Chemical, Nucor Corporation, and Celanese Corporation. Today (March 12, 2013), AEA released a report from Charles River Associates (CRA) which they said adds to the growing list of studies that warn against the dangers of unrestricted exports. AEA said DOE should use the to "overcome the rebuttable presumption for LNG exports created by the Natural Gas Act." DOE is required by the Natural Gas Act to determine if exports of LNG are in the public interest and these data from CRA are designed to help the Department make these decisions, and overcome the "rebuttable presumption" contained in the law.

    Peter Huntsman, President and CEO of Huntsman Corporation said, "The U.S. government must ensure that we can meet the present and rapidly growing future demand for natural gas in our country before we launch blindly into massive exports of LNG. The data in this report quite clearly indicates that our nation has much more to gain from using this abundant resource to manufacture value-added products, than from merely exporting this resource as LNG." AEA's position is counter to other major industry associations including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) who are actively supporting increased exports. On January 18, Dow Chemical Company withdrew its membership from NAM over the issue [See WIMS 1/22/13].
 
    The Chamber's President and CEO Thomas Donohue's said, "We are now in a position to export liquefied natural gas and coal, thus reducing our trade deficit and bringing billions of dollars into the United States. The abundance of affordable natural gas is attracting good manufacturing jobs back to America, particularly in the chemical and steel industries. All of this adds up to a lot of jobs, growth, improved national security, and more revenues for government." [See WIMS 1/16/13].    
 
    U.S. Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee, has also questioned the NERA report and LNG exports in general. In December 2012, he released his own report and said in a letter to DOE, "I was disappointed to find fundamental flaws with the study that I fear may have led to conclusions that severely underestimate the negative impacts of large-scale natural gas exporting. Given the important role this study may play in determining U.S. natural gas export policy, I strongly urge that the study's methodology be reevaluated in some key areas, that the most recent projection data available be utilized in the model, and that the model be re-run and re-analyzed." He outlined what he called "major flaws." Rep. Markey introduced legislation in the 112th session, H.R4024, to put the brakes on these applications while a large-scale export policy is analyzed, as well as H.R.4025 to restrict the export of natural gas produced from America's public lands.
 
    On January 24, in an effort lead by Representatives Bill Johnson (R-Marietta, OH) and Tim Ryan (D-Youngstown, OH), 110 House Members (89 Republicans and 21 Democrats), sent a letter to DOE Secretary Steven Chu, urging him to allow America to be a major player on the world energy market by opening America's vast reserves of natural gas to the global energy marketplace. The Representatives said, ". . .we cannot rest until every person who needs a job has one. Exporting natural gas is a chance to provide that employment -- and is a promising development that we cannot afford to miss." [See WIMS 1/28/13].
 
    Access a release from the groups with links to the letter and technical comments (click here). Access more information on the Sierra Club's Beyond Natural Gas website (click here). Access a release from Dow Chemical (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the 7-page letter and analysis from Rep. Markey which contains links to referenced information (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4024 (click here); and H.R.4025 (click here). Access an overview of the CRA report, a release and link to the complete report (click here). Access the AEA website (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access a release from the Ohio Representatives and link to the letter with signatures (click here). Access a notice from DOE and link to the FR notice of availability; the EIA analysis; the NERA analysis; and a summary of LNG export applications (click here). [#Energy/LNG]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Monday, March 11, 2013

Amplified Greenhouse Climate Effect Shifts North's Growing Seasons

Mar 10: An international team of university and NASA scientists examined the relationship between changes in surface temperature and vegetation growth from 45 degrees north latitude to the Arctic Ocean. Results show temperature and vegetation growth at northern latitudes now resemble those found 4 degrees to 6 degrees of latitude farther south as recently as 1982. The study was published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

    Ranga Myneni of Boston University's Department of Earth and Environment said, "Higher northern latitudes are getting warmer, Arctic sea ice and the duration of snow cover are diminishing, the growing season is getting longer and plants are growing more. In the north's Arctic and boreal areas, the characteristics of the seasons are changing, leading to great disruptions for plants and related ecosystems." Myneni and colleagues used satellite data to quantify vegetation changes at different latitudes from 1982 to 2011. Data used in this study came from NOAA's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometers (AVHRR) onboard a series of polar-orbiting satellites and NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on the Terra and Aqua satellites.

    As a result of enhanced warming and a longer growing season, large patches of vigorously productive vegetation now span a third of the northern landscape, or more than 3.5 million square miles (9 million square kilometers). That is an area about equal to the contiguous United States. This landscape resembles what was found 250 to 430 miles (400 to 700 kilometers) to the south in 1982. Co-author Compton Tucker of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD said, "It's like Winnipeg, Manitoba, moving to Minneapolis-Saint Paul in only 30 years. The Arctic's greenness is visible on the ground as an increasing abundance of tall shrubs and trees in locations all over the circumpolar Arctic. Greening in the adjacent boreal areas is more pronounced in Eurasia than in North America.

    An amplified greenhouse effect is driving the changes, according to Myneni. Increased concentrations of heat-trapping gasses, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, cause Earth's surface, ocean and lower atmosphere to warm. Warming reduces the extent of polar sea ice and snow cover, and, in turn, the darker ocean and land surfaces absorb more solar energy, thus further heating the air above them. Myneni said, "This sets in motion a cycle of positive reinforcement between warming and loss of sea ice and snow cover, which we call the amplified greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect could be further amplified in the future as soils in the north thaw, releasing potentially significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane." 

    To find out what is in store for future decades, the team analyzed 17 climate models. The models show that increased temperatures in Arctic and boreal regions would be the equivalent of a 20-degree latitude shift by the end of this century relative to a period of comparison from 1951-1980. However, researchers say plant growth in the north may not continue on its current trajectory. The ramifications of an amplified greenhouse effect, such as frequent forest fires, outbreak of pest infestations and summertime droughts, may slow plant growth. Also, warmer temperatures alone in the boreal zone do not guarantee more plant growth, which also depends on the availability of water and sunlight.

    Researchers found more plant growth in the boreal zone from 1982 to 1992 than from 1992 to 2011, because water limitations were encountered in the latter two decades. Data, results and computer codes from the study will be made available on NASA Earth Exchange (NEX), a collaborative supercomputing facility at Ames. NEX is designed to bring scientists together with data, models and computing resources to accelerate research and innovation and provide transparency.

    Access a release from NASA with images and links to related information (click here). Access information on obtaining the complete paper from the journal Nature Climate Change (click here). [#Climate, #Land, #Agriculture]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Friday, March 08, 2013

USGCRP Releases Our Changing Planet Report

Mar 8: The Administration's interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) delivered its annual report to Congress entitled, Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Global Change Research Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. The report indicates that it is also, "A Supplement to the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013" and highlights recent activities by 13 Federal agencies to strengthen the scientific understanding of global changes -- including climate change -- the threats and opportunities they present, and how they are likely to evolve over time.

    USGCRP's scientific portfolio spans multiple systems and scales, from organisms to ecosystems to the entire planet -- including changes brought about by human behavior as well as by larger natural forces. It incorporates information from nearly all forms of scientific work, including laboratory experiments, field research, computer modeling, scientific assessment, and observations of Earth from land, air, sea, and space. The vast body of work has been carried out by 13 government agencies -- all working together to paint a clearer picture of global change so that citizens and decision makers have the information they need to plan, prepare, and respond.

    USGCRP indicates that the benefits of this work extend far beyond pure science into domains that are directly relevant to the day-to-day lives of Americans and others around the world. They support weather forecasting, water and land resource management, agricultural crop production, and many other functions that impact lives, livelihoods, and communities. The report showcases tangible results of work carried out by USGCRP agencies, including, for example, some of the most detailed, data-rich maps of Alaskan permafrost ever generated; the most precise map ever produced of carbon stored in Earth's tropical forests; critical information about the number and magnitude of extreme weather events in the United States; and updated maps that help gardeners and growers plan for harvesting seasons.

    For more than two decades USGCRP has continued to fulfill the Congressional mandate to "understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change." Building on 20 years of scientific experience, USGCRP scientists continue to expand the knowledge of Earth's past and present climate, improve projections of future climate change, and achieve a better understanding of the impacts and risks associated with global change -- all with the aim of getting practical information, useful tools, and reliable data into the hands of those who need it.

    The report indicates that, "Global change is happening now. Increases in population, industrialization, and human activities have altered the world's climate, oceans, land, ice cover, and ecosystems. In the United States, climate change has already resulted in more frequent heat waves, extreme precipitation, wildfires, and water scarcity. These are serious challenges that directly affect American families, communities, and jobs. The only way to respond effectively is with a sound understanding of the changes underway, the threats and opportunities they present, and how they will change over time. . . "

    The report notes that the USGCRP is designed to coordinate the Federal Government's $2.6 billion annual investment in global change research -- the largest such investment in the world. A new Research Plan for 2012-2021 lays out clear goals and objectives to achieve an ambitious new emphasis, including the expansion of stakeholder participation in all stages of the scientific process, and dissemination of results and information to broad audiences, including the public [See WIMS 4/30/12]. Data collected and reported by USGCRP agencies indicate for example:

  • In 2011, the United States experienced a record-breaking 14 weather disasters producing insured losses of more than $1B each. The previous record was nine, set in 2008.
  • The average temperature for the contiguous United States during July 2012 was the hottest for any month on record (since 1895).
  • In the United States, the 12-month period ending July 31, 2012 was the warmest since recordkeeping began in 1895
    and NOAA announced in December 2012 that 2012 was poised to go down in the record books as the hottest since 1895.
  • During July 2012, 2.01 million acres were burned by wildfires in the United States -- the 4th largest extent on record. In the same month, 9,869 fires burned -- the 5th highest number on record for July over the past dozen years.
  • 62.9 percent of the contiguous United States experienced moderate to exceptional drought at the end of July 2012. The maximum value of 63.9 percent reached on July 24 set a record for the 13-year history of the United States Drought Monitor
  • The National Snow and Ice Data Center -- an interagency center funded jointly by NASA, NOAA, and NSF -- recently reported that Arctic sea ice reached its lowest-ever measured extent in September 2012.
    Increasingly, decision makers are adopting an array of climate adaptation policies, plans, and actions. Moving forward, it will be critical to evaluate what works, what fails, and where more scientific support is needed. USGCRP is working to meet this need by monitoring and evaluating adaptation actions taking place on the ground. This will help decision makers determine whether their adaptation actions are successful and how they can be enhanced.
 
    The report also indicates that, "Climate change poses potentially serious challenges to human health, including increased heat stress mortality, increases in diarrheal disease, degraded air and water quality, changes in vector-borne disease patterns, more severe pollen seasons, and danger from more frequent extreme weather events. In addition to threatening human well-being, these challenges can also contribute to increased healthcare costs."
 
    USGCRP has identified five priority areas of focus for FY 2013 including: Integrated Observations, Research and Modeling for Earth and Social Systems; Adaptation Research; Sustained Assessments; Interagency Global Change Information System; and Communications, Education, and Engagement. The FY 2013 budget request for USGCRP programs is $2.7 billion -- an increase of approximately 7 percent over the 2012 enacted level.

    Access a posted announcement of the new report (click here). Access the complete 67-page report (click here). Access the USGCRP website for more information (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Thursday, March 07, 2013

NatLab Partnership Releases Green Infrastructure Financing Guide

Mar 7: In the wake of Superstorm Sandy and 2012's unparalleled extreme weather events, a new groundbreaking green infrastructure financing guide was released by the NatLab consortium -- a path-breaking collaboration between two of the world's leading environmental organizations, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and The Nature Conservancy, and sustainable asset management firm EKO Asset Management Partners. 

    The report, which was developed in collaboration with the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, focuses on Philadelphia's innovative Green City, Clean Waters program as a model for stimulating investment in natural infrastructure. It demonstrates how local municipalities and state government can potentially drive billions of dollars of private investment to modernize broken, aging stormwater systems and keep stormwater pollution out of waterways. Nearly 10 trillion gallons of polluted runoff -- sometimes mixed with raw sewage -- are currently dumped into local rivers, lakes, beaches, and drinking water supplies annually.

    Dr. Judith Rodin, President of The Rockefeller Foundation said, "Governments across the country must find new and innovative ways to build infrastructure that is resilient to nature's shocks and stresses. The Rockefeller Foundation is proud to support the creation of such a critical tool for local leaders to understand the best practices for leveraging private dollars to support public infrastructure projects such as stormwater system repair.  It will only be through innovative partnerships across sectors that we are able to build truly resilient cities."

    NatLab's report, "Creating Clean Water Cash Flows," and companion report, "Greening Vacant Lots," validates the business case for both innovative public policy and private investment in green infrastructure by drawing from lessons from the energy efficiency finance sphere. The report provides in-depth guidance on key strategies that cities can deploy to attract private capital to green infrastructure development on private as well as public land, including: project aggregation, offsite mitigation and credit trading programs, subsidies, private-public partnerships, and transformation of vacant lands.

    Natural infrastructure -- such as porous pavement, green roofs, parks, roadside plantings and rain barrels -- addresses stormwater pollution by capturing rain on or near where it falls, preventing the rain from carrying runoff from dirty streets to local waterways and oceans, instead storing the rain or allowing it to naturally filter back into the ground. These sustainable practices not only restore the health of local waterways, but also beautify neighborhoods, cool and cleanse the air, reduce asthma and heat-related illnesses, save on heating/cooling energy costs, boost economies and support American jobs -- usually at the same or lower cost than a purely "traditional" gray infrastructure solution.

    Larry Levine, a senior attorney in NRDC's Water Program said, "We already know green infrastructure solves massive urban stormwater problems, but we need to pick up the pace of implementation by using the full toolkit of public investment, smarter regulations, and innovative private financing approaches." Alisa Valderrama, senior project finance attorney in NRDC's Center for Market Innovation said, "The time is ripe for partners from the private and public sector to work together towards cities that have cleaner water, greener neighborhoods, and decreased tax payer burdens."

    NatLab develops large-scale financing solutions to help cities leverage private capital for green infrastructure investments.  NatLab's work since 2012 has focused on Philadelphia, but the efforts in Philadelphia aim to shed light on a range of strategies that many cities can utilize to help draw from private investment capital to "green" their approach to stormwater management. NRDC indicates that this first-of-its-kind resource comes opportunely, as many cities are urgently seeking financing for much-needed upgrades to their sewer and stormwater infrastructure. Additionally, this summer, the EPA considers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand the robust deployment of green infrastructure by reforming its national requirements designed to tackle urban runoff. A proposed clean water rule to reduce polluted runoff and enhance community livability is expected to be announced in June 2013.

    Eron Bloomgarden, partner at EKO Asset Management Partners said, "Harnessing natural infrastructure in the transition from gray to green is of enormous interest to investors, including family offices, foundations, endowments, pension funds and other large institutional investors. Private capital can play an important role to support this transition, and NatLab's work in Philadelphia points the way to several promising investment opportunities that also have meaningful environmental and community benefits."

    According to a release, Philadelphia, which is expected to deploy an estimated public investment of at least $1.67 billion over the next 25 years in stormwater retrofit projects, is leading the way on green infrastructure in America -- developing policies which include innovative fee and credit systems with tremendous potential for stimulating private investment and providing attractive rates of return for project developers. The city's flagship stormwater billing structure provides a significant discount for non-residential property owners if they manage to keep the first inch of rainfall on their property through green practices, rather than letting the stormwater runoff flow into municipal systems.

    Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner of PWD said, "Leveraging public-private partnerships can help transform and green our City water systems in a brilliantly cost-effective way. PWD has long been incubating and testing financial and programmatic approaches to accelerate the pace of green acre development, our community resilience and other community benefits associated with green infrastructure. We appreciate the Rockefeller Foundation's support and NatLab's collaboration with the Philadelphia Water Department in advancing these potentially game-changing tools."

    While Philadelphia is a leader in deploying green infrastructure, cities around the nation are also pursuing significant green infrastructure investments including: New York City: $1.6 billion over 20 years; Los Angeles: approximately $200 million in the next two years; Kansas City, Mo.: $78 million; Portland, Ore.: $68 million from 2008-2013; Detroit: $50 million over 20 years; Cleveland: $42 million; and Seattle: $24-30 million from 2012-2018.

    Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete 87-page Creating Clean Water Cash Flows report (click here). Access the companion 134-page Greening Vacant Lots report (click here). Access NRDC's 36-page report on Financing Stormwater Retrofits in Philadelphia and Beyond (click here). Access the EKO Asset website for more information (click here). [#Water/Stormwater]

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Policy Choices Will Determine Future Of U.S. Clean Energy Industry

Mar 6: A report released by The Pew Charitable Trusts indicates that the United States and China traded more than $8.5 billion worth of clean energy goods and services in 2011, the latest year for which data are available. U.S. companies enjoyed a $1.63 billion sales advantage over their Chinese counterparts. The report, based on data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Pew's research partner for clean energy, provides insight into the complex and interdependent nature of trade between the world's two largest economies. 

    The report, Advantage America: The U.S.-China Clean Energy Trade Relationship in 2011, concludes that America's clean energy trade strength is derived from leadership in innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as the global presence of U.S. companies. China's clean energy industry has an advantage in large-scale manufacturing and high-volume assembly of certain clean energy products. However, tensions have been heightened in recent years by fiercely competitive market conditions affecting companies in both countries, as well as several high-profile trade cases. 

    Phyllis Cuttino, director of Pew's clean energy program said, "The report findings underscore the long-term economic potential for U.S. leadership in the clean energy sector. Advantage America demonstrates the payoff for our leadership in wind, solar, and energy smart technology innovation. U.S. companies are tapping into the growing worldwide demand for clean energy goods and services. But, to maintain our competitive edge, it is essential that policymakers recognize and enhance domestic policies that help position U.S. companies for success -- investing in research and development, encouraging domestic demand, and supporting overseas sales." Among the report's major findings:
  • Solar EnergyThese products constituted the largest component of clean energy trade for both countries. Combined, firms based in the two nations traded more than $6.5 billion worth of products and services in 2011. Chinese firms sell large quantities of finished solar cells and modules to the United States, which led in sales of high value-added goods and services, such as polysilicon and wafers, as well as the high-tech materials and equipment needed in solar manufacturing. On a net basis, the United States enjoyed a $913 million surplus in the solar sector.
  • Wind Energy—This was the smallest of the three clean energy trade sectors examined in the report. Overall, more than $923 million worth of wind energy goods and services were exchanged between the two countries in 2011. As with solar, the U.S. wind industry excels in sales of relatively high-margin specialty materials (fiberglass) and sensitive electronic and other control systems. China's largest sales were in turbine towers and rotors. Overall, U.S. firms held a net trade surplus of just over $146 million. 
  • Energy Smart Technologies—This sector includes a suite of technologies, services, and products that can help improve energy performance and/or efficiency, store energy, and reduce carbon emissions. Energy smart technologies traded between the United States and China include smart meters, light emitting diodes (LEDs), advanced lithium-ion batteries, and electric vehicles. More than $1.1 billion worth of these products flowed between the two countries, with the United States held a net trade surplus of $571 million in the sector.

    Hoil Kim, vice president and general counsel of GT Advanced Technologies said, "Clean energy technologies, such as solar PV and LED lighting, represent growing global markets for U.S. companies like GT Advanced Technologies with increasing competition from countries like China. In order to build on our country's strengths in innovation and advanced manufacturing, we need to establish a long-term, consistent energy and trade policies that will enhance research and development, grow exports and spur job growth in the United States." The report concludes that:

  • The United States held a $1.63 billion trade advantage over China in 2011 across the three sectors. The United States enjoyed a surplus in all three major clean energy sectors, with solar energy accounting for 56 percent of the overall advantage and energy smart technologies accounting for 35 percent of the surplus. 
  • U.S. firms have an advantage based on national leadership in innovation and entrepreneurship. U.S. companies excel in production and sale of complex, high-margin, and performance-critical goods. They include capital equipment for manufacturing solar panels and LEDs, specialty chemicals and materials needed for production of solar and wind products, and controls for energy systems. 
  • U.S. companies are more active overseas than their Chinese counterparts, which have only small U.S. assembly operations for clean energy equipment. The U.S. trade advantage over China increased by more than $1.1 billion (to a total of $1.63 billion) when the global footprints of U.S. firms manufacturing products overseas were taken into account. 
  • China's strength is based on large-scale assembly and high-volume manufacturing. The data show that Chinese firms are relied upon for large-scale manufacture and high-volume assembly of finished products such as solar modules and LED fixtures.
  • Uncertainties surrounding U.S. clean energy policies are likely to have the greatest impact on domestic manufacturing in the clean energy industry. In the United States, clean energy policy is in a state of flux. Much of the demand associated with state-based renewable energy goals and standards has been met. Several key Federal initiatives have expired or will soon expire, such as the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit, the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee program for renewable energy deployment, and the Department of Treasury's clean energy grants initiative. In addition, the Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit face an uncertain future in ongoing tax and budget policy discussions. Policy choices, not China's exports, will determine the direction of the U.S. clean energy industry in the months and years ahead. 
    Access a release from Pew Charitable Trusts (click here). Access an overview and link to related information (click here). Access the complete 36-page report (click here). [#EnergyClean]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Stolen Apes: The Illicit Trade Linked To Organized Crime

Mar 4:  A United Nations report released at the UN-backed Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) now underway in Bangkok, Thailand, indicates that almost 3,000 live great apes are stolen annually from the forests of Africa and Southeast Asia in an illicit trade which they say is increasingly linked to organized crime and trans-boundary networks that move the animals in the same ways as drugs, arms and laundered money. The report, Stolen Apes: The Illicit Trade in Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Bonobos and Orangutans, produced by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) through the Great Apes Survival Partnership (GRASP), estimates that at least 22,218 great apes have been lost from the wild since 2005 -- either sold, killed during the hunt, or dying in captivity -- with chimpanzees comprising 64 per cent of that number.

    UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said in a press release, "The current scale outlined in this report underlines how important it is that the international community and the organizations responsible for conserving endangered species remain vigilant, keeping a step ahead of those seeking to profit from such illegal activities." The report shows that the cause of this illegal trade shifted from traditional conservation threats such as deforestation, mining and bush-meat hunting, to a more sophisticated business driven by demand from international markets.

    According to figures cited in the report, a poacher may sell a live chimpanzee for $50, whereas the middleman will resell that same chimpanzee at a mark-up of as much as 400 per cent. Orangutans can fetch $1,000 at re-sale, and gorillas illegally sold to a zoo in Malaysia in 2002 reportedly went for $400,000 each. Doug Cress, the coordinator of GRASP said, "It is important to establish baseline figures for the illegal trade in great apes, even if these numbers only hint at the devastation. Great apes are extremely important for the health of forests in Africa and Asia, and even the loss of 10 or 20 at a time can have a deep impact on biodiversity."

    The UN General Assembly declared the period 2011-2020 as the UN Decade on Biodiversity to promote the implementation of a strategic plan on biodiversity and its overall vision of preserving and properly managing the different types of animals and plants. According to the report, the loss of natural habitats further drives the illegal trade, pitting people against the animals. Great ape habitat is being lost at the rate of 2-5 per cent annually. By 2030, less than 10 per cent of the current range will remain on current trends.

    Among its recommendations, the report urges increased enforcement of protected areas, to both reduce illegal trade in great apes and to protect their habitat. The report indicates that law enforcement for crimes related to illicit great ape trade is lagging. Only 27 arrests were made in Africa and Asia in connection with great ape trade between 2005 and 2011, and one-fourth of the arrests were never prosecuted. The report is the first report to analyze the scale and scope of the illegal trade and highlight the growing links to sophisticated trans-boundary crime networks, which law enforcement networks are struggling to contain.

    Access a release from the UN (click here). Access a more detailed release from UNEP with links to related information (click here). Access a direct link to the Stolen Apes 56-page report (click here). Access the CITES website (click here). [#Wildlife]

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Monday, March 04, 2013

State Department Issues Draft EIS For Keystone XL Pipeline

Mar 1: The U.S. Department of State (DOS) released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) late Friday afternoon in response to TransCanada's May 2012 application for the Keystone XL pipeline that would run from Canada to Nebraska. The document is a draft technical review of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project, including: impacts from construction, impacts from potential spills, impacts related to climate change, and economic impacts.
 
    A 45-day public comment period will begin when U.S. EPA posts the Draft SEIS on its website, a process that generally takes about one week following today's submission of the document to that agency. Specific instructions about how to submit comments will be provided via the Federal Register and on the State Department Keystone XL website. After the end of the public comment period, the Department will consider comments received and prepare a Final SEIS. The National Interest Determination period will begin following the release of the Final SEIS, during which time the Department will obtain the views of other agencies about whether to grant or deny the permit.
 
    In releasing the draft SEIS, Kerri-Ann Jones the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at DOS conducted a press briefing teleconference to explain the release and the process going forward. The pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canada border near Morgan, Montana, passes through Montana then South Dakota and Nebraska, and terminates in Steel City, Nebraska.
 
    The first question from the press related to one of the major issues raised by environmental organizations in opposition to the pipeline -- i.e. about the greenhouse gas emission impacts of the tar sands in the pipeline. DOS responded:
". . .the greenhouse gas question and the relationship to climate is a very important topic, and what we have done in the draft supplemental is we have looked at the greenhouse gas impact from a number of ways, both the overall lifecycle of greenhouse gas emission related to the oil that would be moving through this pipeline, as well as how the construction of the pipeline might influence the overall development of the oil sands.
 
"And I think that this has been an area of great interest, and as I said in my opening comments, this is a draft SEIS, and it's a preliminary document. We're very anxious to have a lot of public comment. But with this preliminary analysis, we find in this draft that the approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including this proposed project, really remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil in the U.S. But let me reiterate that this is a draft document, and we're anxious to get a lot of comments from the public and to have a lot of discussion about this document. . ."
    The second question indicated that according to the DOS analysis it looks like "part of what the analysis is showing is that, in fact, in terms of the next decade, we would not need this pipeline to get the 830,000 barrels of oil a day to the United States." DOS responded:
"You raise a good question. Certainly, that is one of the areas we look at in the draft and that's sort of in the discussion where we look at alternatives. We have a very robust discussion of alternatives, including the no-action alternative, where what we look at is what would happen if this pipeline were not to be built, what would happen with other forms of transport, not just pipelines, but rail and barge. And also we look at what would happen to -- with the existing pipeline structure. Would there be other changes or modifications for that? So there is a tremendous amount of analysis in this draft on that very issue, and I would refer you to that. . ."
    Considering the fact, that the document was just release and very few people had a chance to even begin review it, a question was asked, "We literally have only just opened this report up and it's very dense and very comprehensive. But could you tell us, overall, if you found the environmental impact of the pipeline would be significant or would it meet the standards that you need for an eventual approval to go ahead?"
Well, as I said in my opening remarks, again, this is a draft. And so while there is a section where there is a summary discussion, I don't think it's -- I think it's somewhat premature to get into that, because we feel that we need to have a public debate. We covered a range of issues regarding what could be environmental impacts, covering what's been already mentioned on this call -- greenhouse gases and climate considerations -- as well as groundwater, as well as the ability when you're passing through somewhat fragile areas, the effects on threatened and endangered species. So I would just refer you to the summary piece and just say I think it's premature at this point to really try to come down with strong conclusions, as we want to make sure we get a lot of comments on this and we have a full public debate about the document.
    Section 4.15, Cumulative Effects Assessment of the SEIS, presents information and analysis regarding indirect cumulative impacts and life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions including the potential impact of further development of the oil sands on climate change. Environmental groups have argued that Keystone XL tar sands project would pipe some of the dirtiest oil on the planet through the breadbasket of America to be shipped overseas through the Gulf of Mexico. It would be a disaster for our climate, producing tar sands crude that kicks out two or three times as much carbon pollution as producing conventional crude oil [See WIMS 2/19/13].
 
    DOS indicates in the SEIS, that previous comments received included requests for analysis of the potential climate impacts of increasing development of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) oil sands associated with the proposed Project. DOS says, "While such a broad review is typically beyond the scope of NEPA, this Supplemental EIS nonetheless presents information and analysis related to the proposed Project's potential life-cycle climate impacts." Among some of the findings, the SEIS concludes:
  • it is unlikely that the proposed Project construction would have a substantial impact on the rate of WCSB oil sands development
  • Producing a barrel of premium fuels (i.e., gasoline, diesel, and kerosene/jet fuel) from bitumen produces roughly the same amount of petroleum coke as a barrel of premium fuels refined from heavy crudes, such as Venezuelan Bachaquero or Mexican Maya.
  • The relative GHG-intensity of both reference crudes and oil sands-derived crudes will change differently over time. Conventional (deep) crude reservoirs require higher energy intensive secondary and tertiary production techniques as the reservoirs deplete and as water cut of the produced reservoir fluids increases. Oil sands surface mining is expected to have a relatively constant energy intensity long into the future.
    Obviously, many groups, organizations and legislators are reacting to the draft SEIS release -- too many to cover in-depth here. The following are a few representative reactions:
 
    TransCanada Corporation, the project developer responded to the draft SEIS saying in a release, "While TransCanada is still reviewing the DSEIS, it builds on more than 10,000 pages of review already completed for Keystone XL. The DSEIS reaffirmed that 'there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed Project route.' It noted that Keystone XL would result in no 'substantive change in global GHG emissions' and it is 'unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.' Finally, it also noted that 'the denial of a Presidential Permit would likely result in actions by other firms in the United States (and global) petroleum market, such as use of alternative modes to transport WCSB and Bakken crude.'"

    Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer said, "Completing the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Keystone XL is an important step towards receiving a Presidential Permit for this critical energy infrastructure project. No one has a stronger interest than TransCanada does in making sure that Keystone XL operates safely, and more than four years of exhaustive study and environmental review show the care and attention we have placed on ensuring this is the safest oil pipeline built to date in the United States."

    The House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) issued a statement saying, "The SEIS findings confirm what we already knew --   this pipeline is safe and in the best interest of the American people. There are no legitimate reasons not to move forward on the landmark jobs project. The president should stand up for families and immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline.  It has been over four years since TransCanada first applied for a permit to build this pipeline that will bring jobs and energy security to America. At a time when gas prices are rising toward $4.00 a gallon, we must use every available tool we can to increase America's access to affordable and secure energy supplies. It should be a no-brainer to approve Keystone and accept Canada's oil. The Obama administration's unnecessary delays have prevented the pipeline's construction from moving forward, and in turn, put the project at risk. As China covets Canada's abundant oil resources, we can't afford to wait any longer.

    "The SEIS findings suggest the president should approve the pipeline's permit, but we were in a similar situation last year and the president chose to ignore the evidence and reject the middle class jobs project. Sadly, there is still no guarantee this pipeline will be approved absent an act of Congress. We fear the delays have allowed the opposition to grow so out-of-control that congressional action is still necessary to get the pipeline built."

    E&C Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued a brief statement saying, "The draft impact statement appears to be seriously flawed. We don't need this dirty oil. To stop climate change and the destructive storms, droughts, floods, and wildfires that we are already experiencing, we should be investing in clean energy, not building a pipeline that will speed the exploitation of Canada's highly polluting tar sands."  

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement saying, "No matter how many times KXL is reviewed, the result is the same: no significant environmental impact. The latest impact statement from the State Department puts this important, job-creating project one step closer to reality. Nebraska has finished its final Keystone XL assessment and the governor has given it his full support. The last approval needed is by President Obama, and we urge him to do so as soon as possible. The president could truly implement his 'all of the above' energy strategy by approving Keystone XL. We hope the president will choose to side with the American people who strongly support the pipeline in poll after poll. The project will create thousands of good paying jobs for the safest, most highly trained workers of the building trades at a time when construction workers have an unemployment rate higher than the national average. Keystone XL will also enhance our energy security. It would be a win win for the U.S."

    Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, issued a statement saying, "The Environmental Impact Statement released today is long overdue, and continues to build a strong case supporting the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL project has become one of the most closely examined infrastructure projects in our nation's history -- and it continues to pass with flying colors. Once again, the State Department has confirmed that this project is environmentally sound. The Keystone XL pipeline will make more Canadian and U.S. oil available to us—oil that will not need to be imported from unfriendly places.  It will create thousands of jobs and generate millions in revenue for state and local governments that badly need them. We'll be working over the next 45 days to ensure that the voice of the majority of American people, who favor this project, is heard loud and clear by the Obama Administration."
 
    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) indicated that its experts have begun analyzing the draft SEIS and indicate that they have found numerous major flaws, including:
  • Climate Impacts:  The analysis minimizes the climate impacts of up to 830,000 barrels per day of tar sands -- which has been termed "the dirtiest oil on the planet" due to its high-carbon liabilities. Building this pipeline would be the same as putting 6 million new cars on the road. And that doesn't even account for emissions that come from petroleum coke, which would increase carbon pollution from Keystone XL by an additional 13 percent. But the draft SEIS discounted this carbon pollution. 
  • Tar Sands Development: The State Department analysis specifically avoids the impact that this project would have in empowering a tripling of tar sands oil production by noting that the oil would be delivered in other ways, despite very clear evidence and press reporting in Canada to the contrary.
  • Water Impacts: In a significant change from the first environmental impact study, the State Department now acknowledges that the acidic and corrosive properties of diluted bitumen (a rawer form of tar sands oil that would flow through the pipeline) has elevated safety risks compared to conventional oil, and requires new response strategies to deal with spills in water. The ongoing cleanup of the nation's biggest inland oil spill two and a half years ago -- in Michigan's Kalamazoo River -- illustrates the danger underplayed in the draft report.
    Access the DOS press briefing (click here). Access a DOS brief fact sheet on the draft SEIS (click here). Access the detailed draft SEIS with executive summary, each section and appendices (click here). Access the DOS Keystone XL New Application website for updates and links to information (click here). Access a release from the E&C Committee Republicans (click here). Access a release from the E&C Committee Democrats (click here). Access a release from TransCanada (click here). Access the TransCanada KXL website for more information (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access a release from NRDC with links to further analysis (click here).  [#Climate, #Energy/KXL]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals