WASHINGTON — Coal-country lawmakers moved Thursday to impose a two-year moratorium on potential federal regulation of carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases
To read the entire article click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/science/earth/05epa.html?ref=todayspaper
U.S. EPA will need increased funding for climate programs in future years as the agency moves forward on efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday.
President Obama’s fiscal 2011 request would allot $56 million — including $43 million in new funding — for regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The climate funding was increased even as EPA’s total budget was trimmed to $10 billion — about $300 million lower than 2010 enacted levels.
The proposed increase in funding is aimed at aiding states as they begin to implement forthcoming greenhouse gas regulations and for EPA to develop new standards and pollution control guidance. EPA is expected to roll out its first greenhouse gas regulations next month for cars and
light duty vehicles; those rules will also trigger stationary source regulations.
Despite the increased funding request, Jackson and other Obama administration officials continue to voice a preference for comprehensive energy and climate legislation over EPA regulation.
While Jackson predicted that EPA will need even more cash for climate programs, the top Republican on the House panel questioned the proposed spending levels.
“I agree with you, Administrator Jackson, that using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas is not the best way to address climate change,” said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). “That is why I question whether the nearly $50 million in EPA’s FY ‘11 budget for greenhouse gas regulation is prudent.”
Simpson expressed concern that the rulemaking staff at EPA, buoyed by receiving the largest budget in history last year, “are sprinting like thoroughbreds out of the starting gate.”
“Some people will say that these actions are long overdue,” Simpson added, “but I can’t help feeling wary about the rapid pace at which the EPA is implementing broad regulatory changes and the impact these changes are having on our struggling economy.”
Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) applauded the administration’s climate policies and the $43 million requested boost for greenhouse gas regulatory programs. “As you know, we in the House passed our version of a climate bill last June,” Dicks said. “We recognize the need for action, I’m glad to see the administration does too.”
Another Democrat, however, detailed concerns about inequalities that could arise for coal-dependent regions and other areas as EPA moves forward with regulations.
“While there are many of us who live in some of these areas who think that this is a problem that has to be addressed, the whole climate change problem … we’re also concerned that it be done in such a way that some regions of the country are not disadvantaged unfairly,” said Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.), who last year voted for the House climate bill.
That legislation attempted to address those inequalities, Chandler said, “But when the EPA goes about its business of regulating emissions, is there any thought being put into what happens to certain jurisdictions that burn coal, for instance?”
Jackson acknowledged that a climate bill would offer more flexibility than regulations. “Through legislation, there are many more opportunities to address geographic differences, industrial differences, international differences, as well as provide market incentives,” she said.
But the Clean Air Act also provides opportunities to mitigate regional disparities, Jackson said. “There are certainly tools under the Clean Air Act,” she said. “It is a powerful and effective tool for addressing air pollution and it has a proven history over many years.”
Great Lakes
Jackson also faced criticism for the Obama administration’s proposal to slash funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to $300 million in fiscal 2011, a $175 million drop from 2010.
“You understand what concerns those of us in the Great Lakes,” said Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio). “It looks like $175 million for something that is really needed has taken a walk.”
That program — aimed at cleaning up contaminated sediments and toxic chemicals and fending off invasive species — still has money left over from this year, Jackson said.
“This one was one of management and of pragmatic ability to put the money on the street,” she told the panel. By the time the money was authorized so EPA could solicit grant proposals for the $475 million, it was close to the end of calendar year 2009.
“The $300 million is simply a reflection — for this year only — that we have quite a chunk still to spend,” Jackson said.
By James Bruggers
FRANKFORT, Ky — The House passed a resolution on Tuesday that calls on Congress to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating heat-trapping gases.
A similar resolution was introduced Monday in the Senate by Sen. Brandon Smith, R-Hazard. Neither would have the force of law.
The Kentucky action comes the same week the EPA laid out its timetable for regulating greenhouse gasses if Congress doesn’t pass legislation to help reduce risks from potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change.
The Obama administration says the science is clear that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants endanger public health and welfare, and that it is compelled to regulate them under a 2007 Supreme Court decision.
However, Rep. Jim Gooch, D-Providence, the lead sponsor of House Resolution 132, argued that “the science is not settled” and called on lawmakers to “stand up and say, ‘Wait a minute’.”
He said EPA action would “totally disrupt the American economy.” Gooch, who chairs the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee, is the vice president of a construction company that works with coal companies and is among the staunchest supporters of the coal industry in Frankfort.
Kentucky depends on coal for more than 90 percent of its electricity, and is the nation’s third leading coal-producing state.
The vote was 76-16, with eight members not voting. Among those dissenting in House were some of the Democratic legislators from Louisville and Lexington.
Rep. Jim Wayne, D-Louisville, said hundreds of millions of people in the world are already affected by floods, droughts and wind storms brought on by climate change.
“We know from scientific research that we need to do something about this,” he said, making a case for moving forward with “green jobs” through renewable and alternative energy sources.
“We’ve got to be thinking about our children and our grandchildren,” said Tom Burch, D-Louisville.
Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, voted against the resolution and said something must be done someday about global warming, but that Kentucky’s coal-based economy is not ready for change.
But Gooch’s argument won the day. “We can’t allow the EPA to usurp Congress,” he said, adding that any regulations would be detrimental to Kentucky’s economy.
The resolution comes amid growing unease over whether the nation can afford to curb greenhouse gas emissions during a recession.
Several Democratic senators in Washington recently sent a letter challenging EPA authority on greenhouse gas emissions to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. It was signed by Democrats Mark Begich of Alaska, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Carl Levin of Michigan and Max Baucus of Montana.
The Democrats said they did not object to EPA regulation of emissions from cars and light trucks, but questioned the agency’s ability to do anything further under the Clean Air Act.
Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, who is running for a U.S. Senate seat, supports an effort by U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to get Congress to pass a resolution curbing EPA authority over greenhouse gases.
Jackson, in a letter dated Feb. 22, to Rockefeller, said she shares his goal of “ensuring economic recovery” and that the EPA was working on “addressing greenhouse-gas emissions in sensible ways that are consistent with the call for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.”
She said the EPA anticipates phasing in requirements for large industrial sources like power plants in 2011 and that the EPA does not intend to regulate the smallest sources of greenhouse gas emissions any sooner than 2016.
If Congress were to block the EPA, Jackson wrote that it “would be viewed by many as a vote to move the United States to a position behind that of China on the issue of climate change, and more in line with the position of Saudi Arabia.”
Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed a petition Tuesday asking the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its finding that global warming poses a threat to people.
Mr. Cuccinelli, seeking to block the decision, also filed a petition with a federal appeals court for a review of the December E.P.A. finding, in which the agency asserted that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases emitted from automobiles, power plants and factories “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.”
To Read More click here: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/virginia-files-challenge-to-e-p-a-greenhouse-gas-regulation/
The battle surrounding the Obama administration’s efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions opened a new front late last week when the US Chamber of Commerce made good on its threat to launch a legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s right to impose rules that limit carbon emissions.
The group said on Friday that is has filed a petition to challenge the EPA’s decision that it is allowed to regulate carbon emissions under the existing Clean Air Act. The legal challenge will allege the EPA lapsed from the correct processes when reaching the “endangerment finding” that ruled greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health, and as a result can be legislated under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA’s ruling prompted fierce criticism from Republicans and a number of business groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, which controversially vowed to fight the ruling, prompting a number of pro-regulation firms such as Apple and Pacific Gas and Electric to quit the trade association.
The Chamber has subsequently ditched its earlier calls for a series of public hearings on climate science similar to the Scopes Trial that examined the theory of evolution in the 1920s, but maintains the EPA should not be able to impose rules to cut emissions from vehicles and power plants.
Steven J. Law, chief legal officer and general counsel of the US Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement that the legal challenge “will focus specifically on the inadequacies of the process that EPA followed in triggering Clean Air Act regulation, and not on scientific issues related to climate change or endangerment”.
The EPA has long maintained that it carried out a lengthy and comprehensive review before ruling that the impacts from climate change would pose a threat to human health, and is expected to fight the suit.
Environmental groups have also accused the Chamber of Commerce of acting on behalf of carbon intensive industries to delay efforts to tackle climate change that could impose new costs on their businesses.
However, Law said the Chamber “strongly supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere”, but maintains that the Clean Air Act is an ineffective means of doing so.
“The wrong way [to curb emissions] is through the EPA’s endangerment finding, which triggers Clean Air Act regulation,” he said. “Because of the huge potential impact on jobs and local economies, this is an issue that requires careful analysis of all available data and options. Unfortunately, the agency failed to do that and instead overreached. The result is a flawed administrative finding that will lead to other poorly conceived regulations further downstream. “
He added that the “right way” to reduce emissions is through bipartisan legislation that “promotes new technologies, emphasises efficiency, ensures affordable energy for families and businesses, and defends American jobs while returning our economy to prosperity”, as well as a comprehensive international agreement that includes all CO2 emitting economies.
In theory, the Chamber’s assertion that it would support bi-partisan efforts to pass climate change legislation will be welcomed by the Obama Administration, which has long maintained that regulating emissions through the Clean Air Act is a fall back option and that it would prefer to pass specific climate change legislation.
However, the draft climate change bill currently before the Senate has stalled in the face of fierce Republican opposition and while a small bi-partisan group of Senators are working on a compromise version of the legislation, fears are mounting that the bill will have to be hugely watered down if it is to gain any form of cross party support.
Meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce’s legal challenge to the EPA is just the latest in a series of legal maneuvers designed to neuter the agency’s power to address climate change.
The Utah House of Representatives last week passed a controversial resolution calling on the EPA to reverse its decision on the grounds that climate change constitutes a scientific conspiracy, while Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski recently attempted to employ little used powers available under the Congressional Review Act to challenge the EPA ruling in the Senate.
Record snowfall has buried Washington — and along with it, buried the chances of passing global warming legislation this year.
Cars are stranded in banks of snow along the streets of the federal capital, and in the corridors of Congress, climate legislation also has been put on ice.
To read more click here: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/80485-climate-bill-buried-under-record-snowfall
Acting as the “bad cop” in the Obama administration’s unprecedented move to put the entire nation under an internationally mandated regime, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated a so-called “Endangerment Finding” that carbon dioxide is a pollutant harmful to humans and the environment. The resulting regulatory mandates, reported to be more than 600 pages long, will stagger the imagination and cripple American commerce and industry.
The “good cop,” by the way, is the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade (read, cap-and-tax) bill and its kindred making their way through Congress. If you don’t like cap and trade, so goes the cynical strategy of the administration, then you’ll really hate the EPA.
Enter the courts. Southeastern Legal Foundation, which has never shied away from controversial constitutional matters (the 2000 census, McCain-Feingold and President Clinton’s law license), has filed both a Petition for Reconsideration with the EPA and, this week, a Petition for Judicial Review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, challenging EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s effort to “regulate” carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act.
More than a dozen U.S. representatives and nearly two dozen associations and companies represented by our group share the view that the EPA failed to properly consider relevant science before making its Endangerment Finding. The group will argue that the EPA’s reliance on flawed and questionable science was arbitrary and capricious and that the administrator did not exercise proper and independent judgment in making the Endangerment Finding.
What American taxpayers, consumers and employers are facing is a threatening combination of interests that want a new carbon regime. There are many vested interests hoping to reap the profits of doom. Scientists need grants; when they make a loud enough noise, they get those grants — and in the case of global warming, there are billions of dollars at stake.
What American taxpayers, consumers and employers are facing is a threatening combination of interests that want a new carbon regime. There are many vested interests hoping to reap the profits of doom. Scientists need grants; when they make a loud enough noise, they get those grants — and in the case of global warming, there are billions of dollars at stake.
Grant-seeking scientists combine with loud cries for “climate justice” coming from many developing nations. Recent Copenhagen pronouncements by nations like Sudan, essentially demanding “cash for warming” extortion dollars from the developed nations, make clear that global interests (read, the United Nations) see the U.S. as a piggy bank.
Finally, the pro-global warming camp rounds out with various financial institutions, some with ties to Al Gore, that stand to make billions in so-called “carbon trading” between “polluters” and those with carbon “credits.”
But the science is ultimately what should carry the day for public policy on climate change. With huge vested interests pursuing a globalist agenda, it’s been a Galileo-like effort to make the “skeptic” view known to the American people. Yet we are winning.
Though about $300 million is being spent to promote global warming alarmism, less than half the American people still believe it. This continues a decadelong trend of rising public skepticism as the fraudulent claims that the science was “settled” have disintegrated.
Thankfully, common sense and outrage are not the only checks available against overreaching government power. Even a formidable bureaucracy like the EPA must abide by the law, and its decisions must bear a rational relation to the evidence.
Ultimately, it is the courts that provide the final check and balance to curtail the irrational excesses of the legislative and executive branches. Can the courts restrain the anti-scientific juggernaut exemplified by the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”? That is the trillion-dollar question.
Shannon L. Goessling is executive director and chief legal counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation.
By Jeanne Cummings
Defying conventional wisdom that a hardened partisan divide and looming midterm elections will prevent the type of compromises necessary for big reforms, business leaders and environmentalists are redoubling their efforts to advance an energy and climate bill in the Senate.
It’s a seemingly improbable goal, but upending that way of thinking is one of the objectives of a Capitol Hill lobbying blitz launched last week by executives from nearly 200 large and small companies. A dozen CEOs — including Shell Oil’s Marvin Odum, Duke Energy’s Jim Rogers and NRG Energy’s David Crane — are scheduled to meet with lawmakers and administration officials Tuesday.
“Comprehensive climate change legislation is not part of the liberal agenda,” said Crane, whose company operates a wide range of energy facilities that run from wind to coal to nuclear. “It’s a decidedly centrist thing. We reduce carbon emissions, and we reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Both parts of the political spectrum should come together on that.”
“Any capitalist with a pulse knows China is moving forward,” said Tad Segal, a spokesman for U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of business and environmental groups that favor reform. “We can solve a crisis at the same time we grow jobs.”
Another business coalition, called We Can Lead, which includes a mix of pro-reform businesses, is taking the campaign to the public by running television and print ads urging Congress to “move swiftly and boldly” and pass legislation.
The intensive lobbying effort comes at a time when the so-called tripartisan team of Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is working to develop a bill that can pass.
In addition, the White House is working aggressively to demonstrate its willingness to make significant compromises to get a bill passed.
“We’re going to need more than Lindsey Graham,” Carol Browner, who is overseeing the legislative effort at the White House, told POLITICO. “He’s very cognizant of that, as are we. As we demonstrate that we are being pragmatic and open to thinking about all of the energy solutions, that will be important to some Republicans.”
Nowhere has the White House shifted its stance more clearly than in the area of nuclear energy — a topic President Barack Obama didn’t even mention in his first address to Congress last year, outlining his administration’s goals.
In addition to blessing an expansion of nuclear energy in his State of the Union speech last month, the president’s budget calls for increasing Department of Energy loan guarantee authority for nuclear construction projects by $36 billion, to a total of about $55 billion.
Obama also has instructed Energy Secretary Steven Chu to create a commission to study and provide new recommendations about how to manage nuclear fuel and waste — an issue that has bedeviled the industry and tied up Congress.
A strong nuclear plank in a comprehensive bill is critical to Graham and could be a lure for other Republicans, such as Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, who is a longtime nuclear advocate.
Crane, who noted that Obama’s public embrace of nuclear industry was the top water-cooler topic inside the industry the day after his speech, said one mission of the business leaders lobbying Congress is to “see if we can help expand the Lindsey Graham circle. That’s what we are going to try to do.”
Lieberman has taken the lead in drafting a nuclear plank for a comprehensive bill. But it’s unclear whether any other parts of the legislation are even in the drafting stages.
Graham, Lieberman and Kerry, for now, are still privately meeting with members to gauge what each could support and what could become a deal-breaker.
A great unknown is what the Senate might propose to replace the House’s cap-and-trade program, which has been vilified as a “cap-and-tax” system by critics and deemed a nonstarter by Graham.
But putting a price tag on carbon, many believe, is still essential to reform and spurring the kind of free-market, money-making opportunities that would unleash a burst of new investments and inventions that could be sold at home and abroad.
“What business leaders are saying is, if we don’t give them that certainty here, they are not going to build their new facilities here. They are going to build them somewhere else,” said Browner. “That’s just a pragmatic business decision. They are going to build where demand is.”
The White House is monitoring the Senate talks closely. In late January, Graham, Lieberman and Kerry met with chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to assess their progress, and Browner and other White House officials are providing them technical advice.
The Senate has tentatively set aside time for a debate later this spring, but the talks have been slowed by negotiations among Democrats about how to move the bill forward and how many committees could be involved.
Such delays eventually will turn the calendar into the greatest hurdle for the effort.
In any midterm election year, most legislative business is pretty much set aside after the August recess. Given the widespread unrest among voters, the window for action could be even smaller this year as lawmakers insist on more time back in their districts and states.
But with health care reform put on the back burner, the notion of running without a major accomplishment could spook some lawmakers enough to engage in the energy debate, which typically is driven by regional interests rather than party identification.
In addition, the shift in emphasis in the debate to job creation — an issue that better fits the voters’ top priorities — could make an energy and climate bill more appealing.
White House officials point to job expansions in the clean energy industry spurred by last year’s stimulus bill as a rare bright spot in the still sluggish economy.
The American Wind Energy Association recently issued an annual report that credited the stimulus bill with fueling record growth despite the recession.
“The wind manufacturing sector has the potential to employ many more Americans in green jobs, but without a renewable electricity standard to provide a long-term market, the sector will be slow to grow,” it said.
Other business leaders also argue that before they can and will sink billions into new plants and technologies, they first must be assured that there will be enough domestic demand to justify such expenditures.
That helps explain why the business community has decided to become more engaged in the energy and climate debate.
“We are there to say we are concerned about jobs,” said Crane. “We are ready to invest billions of dollars, but we have to follow the plan laid out in Washington.”
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate, which has drawn concern among many scientists in recent years.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced NOAA will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with NOAA’s National Weather Service and National Ocean Service.
To read more click here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/08/administration-proposes-new-agency-study-climate-change/
At issue | Dec. 15 Associated Press article, “GE to expand in Louisville; New line of washers adds 400 jobs, solidifies future for Appliance park;” Dec. 17 Herald-Leader editorial, “Green technology generating jobs; GE plant’s rebirth sign of the future”
By Mark Burris
Kentucky possesses an abundant natural resource — coal — that provides jobs for our people, economies for our communities and affordable electricity for our nation.
In fact, over half of the electricity consumed in our nation’s homes, schools, businesses and factories is generated by coal.
But that is lost on outside activists and their bureaucratic allies in Washington, D.C. All too often we see the crowd from outside of our state descend on coal country in an effort to stop coal mining, and specifically surface mining.
Evidently, Kentucky’s heritage and economy don’t factor in the outsiders’ equation as they work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to kill a critical industry.
What the outsiders don’t want you to know is that coal creates jobs far beyond the coalfields of east and west Kentucky.
A perfect example of this happened in Louisville recently when Jim Campbell, CEO of General Electric’s Consumer and Industrial Appliances division, announced that his company was moving 400 jobs from its operation in China to Appliance Park in Louisville.
There’s nothing physically wrong with the Chinese factory, and it won’t be cheap to move those jobs here.
So why do it? While Louisville has an exceptional work force that makes it an attractive place for any company, one of the chief reasons GE made its decision was because of coal. Plain and simple, electric rates here are low because of Kentucky coal and that’s why GE made its move.
Over half of American electricity comes from coal. In Kentucky, 94 percent of electricity comes from coal and our mining industry supports tens of thousands of jobs.
Coal gives Kentucky some of the most affordable electricity anywhere, the final factor that enabled GE to bring 400 jobs to Louisville.
The company I work for provides good jobs to people in nine states because of the coal industry. We aren’t engaged in mining operations at our headquarters on Poplar Level Road, but the people who work with me at Rudd benefit because of the coal industry.
Along with GE, Rudd is another example of how coal positively impacts the economy even in places where there are no coal mines.
When the professional activists and outsiders attack coal, they are attacking American workers and holding back economic recovery by killing jobs during a terrible recession. Decisions like the one made by GE show that we can speed economic recovery by embracing coal as a part of our national energy plan.
Coal helps create jobs in Louisville and across the country. Businesses like GE and Rudd are taking action and providing real solutions, made possible by coal.
If you want to know the real score when it comes to fixing our economy, don’t ask one of the outsiders who could care less about jobs in our state.
Ask a local business owner what it takes to keep the lights on and to create jobs. I am sure he or she will quickly tell you that lower electric rates brought to you by coal help tremendously.
Mark Burris is president of Rudd Equipment Company, headquartered in Louisville.
