Bush Polar Bear Rule Retained by Interior Department

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, left, announced today that he will retain a special rule issued in December for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, but will closely monitor the implementation of the rule to determine if additional measures are necessary to conserve and recover the polar bear and its habitat.

“To see the polar bear’s habitat melting and an iconic species threatened is an environmental tragedy of the modern age,” Salazar said. “This administration is fully committed to the protection and recovery of the polar bear. I have reviewed the current rule, received the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and concluded that the best course of action for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is to wisely implement the current rule, monitor its effectiveness, and evaluate our options for improving the recovery of the species.”

The polar bear is listed as a threatened species under the Act, meaning it is at risk of becoming an endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The law provides civil and criminal penalties for actions that kill or injure bears and bars federal agencies from taking actions that are likely to jeopardize the species or adversely modify its critical habitat.

In addition, the polar bear is protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which provides equal and in some cases more stringent protections, and international treaties such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The rule also states that incidental take of polar bears resulting from activities outside the bear’s range, such as emission of greenhouse gases, will not be prohibited under the ESA.

“We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change,” Salazar said. “However, the
Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions. Instead, we need a comprehensive energy and climate strategy that curbs climate change and its impacts – including the loss of sea ice. Both President Obama and I are committed to achieving that goal.”

Under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Congress granted Salazar authority until May 10 to revoke the 4(d) rule. If Salazar had decided to withdraw the 4(d) rule, a virtually identical “interim” 4(d) rule issued by the previous Administration when the polar bear was first listed as a threatened species would be put back in place.

“Revoking the current 4(d) rule would return us to an interim rule that would offer no more protections for the polar bear and would result in uncertainty and confusion about the management of the species,” Salazar said.

President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget request includes a significant new commitment to helping conserve the polar bear. The budget request includes an increase of $7.4 million for polar bear conservation, of which $3.2 million will be invested through the Fish and Wildlife Service. This new commitment includes a $1.5 million increase for the Endangered Species program specifically to address new and reinitiated interagency consultations on oil and gas projects and to prepare for a range-wide Polar Bear Conservation Plan to guide U.S. and international work to conserve and improve the status of the species. An increase of $1.7 million will allow the FWS Marine Mammal program to intensify work with partners to prepare, review, and publish population assessments, conservation plans, and incidental take regulations. (Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Press Release)

Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems for Particulates

Opacity (coal combustion) - the ratio of coal to air in coal combustion literature.
Opacity (optics) - the degree to which light is blocked. (Wiki)

Of pollutants for which there are no proven continuous mass measurement technologies, particulate matter rates as most harmful. The first opacity standards were promulgated a millennium ago in London. Testers would determine whether a smoke plume was black, some gradation of gray, or white. In the 20th century, this visual test was automated using opacity monitors. The opacity monitor also is used to calculate the weight of emissions. A sample is extracted from the stack and weighed. The results are compared to the opacity at the time and an emission rate is extrapolated.

One problem is to adapt current monitors designed to measure just the fine fraction. Another problem is to define and measure condensable particulates. Whereas regulations have only addressed solid particles, the present definition includes droplets. The condensable 2.5 fraction is often larger than the solid particle fraction.The introduction of condensable or liquid droplets creates many complications. Many stacks discharge gases at (250 to 350˚). Vapors then form droplets some distance from the stack. It is necessary to cool the air to ambient temperatures before measuring the droplets. But there is another problem: some of the non-condensable gases such as NOX and SO2 move downwind and then react with ammonia, calcium or other airborne particles to form sulfates and nitrates. It is necessary to distinguish between primary and secondary particulates. Primary particulates include solids, liquids or potential liquids at ambient temperatures. Secondary particulates include gases that react with other elements to form particulates downwind.

Despite the many hurdles, ongoing efforts to solve the problem of measuring particulates will likely lead to major advances. Some day soon, we should finally be able to abandon the smoke testing method; after a thousand years, it’s about time.

By Robert McIlvane, Pollution Engineering, January 2007

31 Universities Get 71 Nuclear Energy R & D Grants

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has announced the selection of 71 university nuclear energy research and development projects. As part of the Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy University Program, the 71 projects will receive approximately $44 million during a three-year period to advance new nuclear technologies in support of the nation's energy goals.

"As a zero-carbon energy source, nuclear power must be part of our energy mix as we work toward energy independence and meeting the challenge of global warming," Chu said. "The next generation of nuclear power plants … will require the latest advancements in nuclear science and technology. These research and development university awards will ensure the United States continues to lead the world in the nuclear field for years to come."

Selected projects include 31 U.S. universities that will act as lead research institutions for projects in more than 20 states. Other universities, industries, and national laboratories will serve as collaborators and research partners. Contracts for the projects are expected to be awarded by Sept. 30. More information about the 71 awards

(UPI.com, 5/6/09)

Green Energy Bank: Clean Energy Deployment Administration

Senator Jeff Bingaman

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is proposing the creation of a special bank within the Energy Department to provide loans and loan guarantees for clean energy projects using advanced technology. The Clean Energy Deployment Administration would be part of comprehensive energy legislation that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hopes to approve later this month. The new agency would provide various forms of credit to support environmentally friendly technologies that diversify the nation's energy supply and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Proponents believe the green bank would clear the backlog of applications pending at the Energy Department from companies seeking financing for clean energy projects. Funding for the green bank would come by transferring the billions of dollars for such projects already included in the economic stimulus package that the Energy Department now oversees. About $10 billion more would then be appropriated by Congress to the agency. We guess this comes under Deploying Clean Technology in Chairman Bingaman's energy bill. (Reuters, 5/6/09)

EPA FY 2010 Budget: Administrator Jackson Briefing

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson released EPA’s fiscal year 2010 budget blueprint at a briefing today at the agency headquarters in Washington, D.C. She answered questions from the press and from stakeholders. The $10.5 billion budget expands on the investments of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (EPA-ARRA) and allows EPA to provide real solutions to our economic crisis.

Budget Highlights:

Maintaining and Improving Clean Water Infrastructure:

$3.9 billion to maintain and improve outdated water infrastructure and keep wastewater and drinking water clean and safe . The funding will support efforts around the country to build and renovate an estimated 1,000 clean water and 700 drinking water infrastructure projects, support green infrastructure and create thousands of technical and construction jobs.

$475 million multi-agency Great Lakes Initiative to protect and clean up the largest fresh water lakes in the world through restoration efforts, invasive species control, non-point source pollution mitigation and critical habitats protection. The budget also includes funding for crucial efforts to protect, maintain, and restore the Chesapeake Bay and Anacostia River, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, Lake Champlain and other large waterbodies.

Addressing Climate Change:

$17 million GHG registry investment will include data reporting and implementation efforts, data management systems, guidance and materials for the regulated community and source measurement technologies.

An additional $2 million for EPA to continue to reduce its own GHG emissions by 3 percent each year.

Managing Resources Efficiently:

$1.3 billion will go to increase the number of hazardous waste sites ready for anticipated use and fund ongoing site cleanups. The budget proposes to restore the Superfund tax known as the “polluter pays” policy, which expired in 1995, to fund future clean-up efforts. Beginning in 2011, the Superfund tax is estimated to generate $1 billion of revenue a year, rising to $2 billion a year by 2019.

$175 million for the Brownfields program, which will provide additional assessment, clean-up, and job-training grants.

$128 million for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank and Underground Storage Tank programs and $18 million for the Oil Spill Response program.

Managing Chemical Risks:

$55 million will go to an enhanced toxics program to screen, assess and reduce chemical risks. Funding will be invested in monitoring air toxics at schools and to provide technical assistance and coordination with states and local communities.

Reinforcing Scientific Integrity:

$842 million for science and technology.

Protecting Communities:

$600 million will go to the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program.

$1.1 billion for categorical grants to states and tribes.

(Source: EPA)

J. Charles Fox, The Washington Post & the Chesapeake Bay

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

By Norris McDonald

The Washington Post published a provocative article on Monday (5/4/09) entitled: "Evaluation of Chesapeake Goals Killed: EPA Adviser, Others Squashed Review of How Realistic Cleanup Expectations Are." Man I know Chuck didn't need to wake up to that headline. It makes it sound like he 'plotted' to keep something that is obvious to everyone in the know from the public. Nothing could be farther from the truth and The Washington Post should be ashamed of trying to slime this dedicated public servant. I've known Chuck for over 25 years and he has committed his life to environmental protection, particularly water quality. He should have seen this coming though after the paper of record for our nation's capital did that puff piece on him when he was first appointed as adviser [WP, "He's in Deeper Waters Now New EPA Adviser on Bay's Health Skilled in the Art of Politics," 3/31/09]. You know...build you up to tear you down syndrome. We would hope that the Post would stay away from this sort of paparazzi-grocery-store-check-out-rack journalism. Hang in there Chuck. We know who you are and if you need any reference or recommendation about who you are, feel free to call on us.

Of course it is more than a challenge to mitigate the Chesapeake Bay. We're talking 64,000 square miles of watershed here. So put clean up of the bay right up there with mitigation of global warming. But don't try to implicate Chuck in some sort of 'surrender' mentality. Everybody who knows him knows that he will not give up on trying to figure out the conundrum that is bay clean up. The Chesapeake Bay Program is one of the most important estuary protection programs in the world. And Chuck Fox is a world class environmentalist that President Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson should be proud to have in government service.

President Obama Cash-For-Clunkers Program

Congressional Democrats reached agreement with President Obama in a meeting at the White House on a proposal that would entitle consumers to vouchers worth as much as $4,500 to pay for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles, in exchange for the trade of older models. The Cash-for-Clunkers program, which would be authorized for as long as one year, would provide for about one million new car or truck purchases.

President Obama's meeting with about three dozen Democratic members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.,), and Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), calls for curbing U.S. emissions by roughly 80% below 2005 levels by 2050 via a cap and trade program. There are 59 members on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Center supports President Obama's plan and we believe the allowances should be distributed free to utilties the same way they were allocated in the successful Acid Rain Program. (WJS, 5/6/09)

EPA Plan for the Nation’s Increase in Renewable Fuels

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing its strategy for increasing the supply of renewable fuels, poised to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022, as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Increasing renewable fuels will reduce dependence of foreign oil by more than 297 million barrels a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 160 million tons a year when fully phased in by 2022.

EISA will establish four categories of renewable fuels. The new categories include:

· cellulosic biofuels;
· biomass-based diesel;
· advanced biofuels; and
· total renewable fuel.

In 2022, the proposal would require:

· 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels;
· 15 billion gallons annually of conventional biofuels;
· 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels; and
· 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel.

To achieve the volume requirements, each year EPA calculates a percentage-based standard that refiners, importers and blenders of gasoline and diesel must ensure is used in transportation fuel. For the first time, some renewable fuels must achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to the gasoline and diesel fuels they displace. Refiners must meet the requirements to receive credit toward meeting the new standards. The thresholds for new categories would be 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions for renewable fuels produced from new facilities, 50 percent less for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuels, and 60 percent less for cellulosic biofuels.

The 60-day comment period on this proposal will begin upon publication in the Federal Register. During the comment period EPA will hold a public workshop on lifecycle analysis to assure full understanding of the analyses conducted, the issues addressed and the options that are discussed. More information. (Source: EPA)

Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1262)

The Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1262) was introduced in the House on 3/3/09 by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar. It amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide: (1) technical assistance to rural and small municipalities for planning, developing, and financing eligible state water pollution control revolving fund projects; and (2) technical assistance and training to enable rural and small publicly owned treatment works and decentralized wastewater systems to protect water quality and comply with the CWA. The bill passed in the House on March 12 on a vote of 317 to 101.

Authorizes annual appropriations for FY2010-FY2014 for: (1) grants to states for administering programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution; (2) watershed pilot projects (currently called wet weather watershed pilot projects); (3) grants to states for water pollution control revolving funds; (4) a pilot program for alternative water source projects; (5) sewer overflow control grants; and (6) remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern in the Great Lakes.

Expands the types of watershed pilot projects eligible for technical assistance and grants. Revises: (1) the eligibility requirements for grants for sewage collection systems; and (2) provisions concerning state water pollution control revolving funds, including by expanding the types of projects eligible for assistance. Requires states to: (1) establish affordability criteria to identify municipalities that would experience a significant hardship raising revenue for state water pollution control revolving fund projects; (2) establish a list of such projects that prioritizes water quality improvement projects for FY2011 and thereafter; and (3) provide financial assistance to only projects on such list.

Prohibits state water pollution control revolving funds from being used for the construction of treatment works unless the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in such treatment works are produced in the United States.

Revises provisions concerning: (1) state water pollution control revolving fund amounts reserved for Indian tribes; and (2) the use of such amounts.

Changes the tonnage duty (currently, a tax) on specified vessels entering or returning to a U.S. port.

Amends the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to set forth requirements for notifying the public of sewer overflows.

Amends the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 to authorize appropriations for FY2010-FY2014 for research on the development and use of innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for the remediation of sediment contamination in U.S. areas of concern. (GovTrack)

President Obama Nominations For Energy & Interior

President Obama has nominated of Daniel Poneman to be Deputy Secretary of Energy, David Sandalow to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs and Domestic Policy, Rhea Suh to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior and Michael Connor to be Commissioner of Reclamation. The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee will hold hearings this week.

The Center supports the nominations.

David B. Sandalow is an Energy & Environment Scholar and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is chair of the Energy & Climate Working Group of the Clinton Global Initiative. Mr. Sandalow has served as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environment & Science; Senior Director for Environmental Affairs, National Security Council; and Associate Director for the Global Environment, White House Council on Environmental Quality. His opinion pieces and articles have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, Science and many other periodicals. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School and Yale College. He lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife and three children.

Rhea Suh is currently a program officer at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Prior to her current position, Suh was a program officer at The William and Flora Hewett Foundation. She also has served as a consultant for the National Park Service. During the Clinton administration, she served as a senior legislative assistant on the staff of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, where she worked on public lands management and regulatory issues with respect to energy, air and water. Suh is a graduate of Columbia University where she earned a B.A. and Harvard University where she earned a Masters of Education, Administration, Planning and Social Policy. She received both a Fulbright Fellowship and a Marshall Fellowship.

Mike Connor previously worked on water issues for the Senate Energy and Natural Rresources Committee. He managed legislation for both the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S.Geological Survey, developed water resources legislation and handled Native American issues. Connor has more than 15 years of experience in the public sector, including having served as Counsel to the ENRC since May 2001. From 1993 to 2001, Connor served in the Department of the Interior, including as deputy director and then director of the Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Office from 1998 to 2001. Before joining the Secretary’s Office, he was employed with the Interior Solicitor’s Office in Washington, DC and in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Connor received his J.D. from the University of Colorado School of Law, and is admitted to the bars of Colorado and New Mexico. He previously received a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from New Mexico State University and worked for General Electric.

(Gather, DOI, Democracy for New Mexico)

Center Wants Telecommuting For Climate Change Mitigation

Management is reluctant to approve at-home working arrangements because they cannot see workers, which really means they do not trust staffers who are not in their cubicles. At least at the federal level, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Congress want to change that mind-set. OPM has announced a plan to boost telecommuting by federal employees, which would:

1) Convene an advisory group of telework program managers to develop government-wide standards for telecommuting.
2) Direct agencies to submit telework policies for review against standards crafted by the advisory panel.
3) Encourage each agency to establish a telework managing officer, who would ensure that telework policies are applied fairly and supported by agency managers.
4) Encourage agencies to establish an effective and transparent appeals process for employees whose requests for telework or other flexible work arrangements are denied.
5) Assure the provision of high-quality training to remove managerial resistance and to ensure managers and employees are trained and prepared to use telework successfully.

Despite the years of talk, just 7.6 percent of federal workers eligible to telework did so in 2007, according to an OPM report released in December.

Democratic Reps. John Sarbanes (Md.)and Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (R-VA) and Danny K. Davis (Ill.), Stephen F. Lynch (Mass.), James P. Moran Jr. (Va.), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.) and Republican Frank R. Wolf (Va). Sens. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) and George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) have introduced legislation that would ensure that eligible federal employees would be allowed to telecommute at least 1/5 of the time. The Telework Improvements Act of 2009 (HR 1722) proposes teleworking in executive agencies by developing a telework program that allows employees to telework at least 20 percent of the hours worked in every 2 administrative workweeks. The Telework Enhancement Act of 2009 (S. 707) in the Senate proposes similar measures.

The Center has established a Carbon Dioxide Reduction (CDR) Program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by recruiting companies and individuals to participate in a flexible work schedule that will primarily include telecommuting, but could also utilize other practices and technologies. Total emissions of carbon dioxide in the United States and its territories were 5,795.6 million metric tons in 2002, according to the Energy Information Administration . Carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector, at 1,849.7 million metric tons, accounted for 32.3 percent of total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2002. (EIA)(Wash Post, 5/1/09)

A Guide to Telework in the Federal Government

Coal Combustion Waste Storage and Water Quality

On Thursday, April 30, 2009, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment received testimony on the relationship between the storage and disposal of coal combustion waste (CCW) and water quality. The subcommitee is chaired by Dallas, Texas Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, left. [Link to Hearing]

If EPA decides to rule CCW as a hazardous waste, the Center recommends an exemption for beneficial reuses, such as use in concrete production.

Witnesses included:

Barry Wren, EPA, Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response
Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Catherine McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
Shari Wilson, Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment

Eric Shaeffer, Executive Director, Environmental Integrity Project
John M. McManus, V.P. of Environmental Services, American Electric Power
David Goss, Former Executive Director, American Coal Ash Association
Dr. Conrad Volz, Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh

Concrete, Cement, Energy, Air, Environment & Fly Ash

Tuesday, March 31 Hearing

Congress Passes Obama's $3.5 Trillion FY 2010 Budget

Congress passed President Barack Obama's $3.5 trillion budget outline for 2010 on the 100th day of his presidency (April 29). The House voted 233-193, with no Republicans voting for it and 17 Democrats voting against it, while the Senate voted 53-43 with four Democratic defections, including Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who announced in the same week that he was switching from the Republican to the Democratic Party.

Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 2010

Department of Agriculture

Department of Energy

Department of the Interior

Department of Labor

Environmental Protection Agency

National Science Foundation

EPA Administrator Jackson and Transportation Secretary LaHood to Testify on Recovery Act Implementation‏

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on April 29 on implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Administrator Jackson and Secretary LaHood discussed how the EPA and DOT are working to get tens of billions of dollars in recovery act funding out the door to create jobs, protect human health and the environment, and boost local economies.

When Administrator Jackson was asked about the Green Project Reserve (GPR), her answer made Center staff immediately think about how that component of the ARRA could be combined with our Environmental Justice Allowance Reserve (EJAR).

The ARRA requires that at least 20% of each State’s capitalization grant be used to fund projects referred to as the Green Project Reserve. The following is a set of examples for projects EPA believes would be eligible. It should be noted that all project eligibility requirements otherwise applicable to the CWSRF program apply to the Green Project Reserve. Under the Green Project Reserve in the CWSRF both entire projects may be considered for inclusion or appropriate identifiable components of larger projects may be considered for inclusion. Whatever projects or project components are included, such projects or project components must clearly advance the objectives articulated in the specific categories discussed in the Green Project Reserve (see GPR link above).

"60 Minutes" and Nuclear Power

As the first and still only environmental group to aggressively and publicly support nuclear power, we wonder if "60 Minutes" will leave us out, as others have, when they finally get around to a comprehensive piece on nuclear power? We came out for support of nuclear power in 2001, years before any other environmentalists in North America. Yet neither the media nor the nuclear industry acknowledge this fact. Admittedly we are an unknown group, but having the vision to figure out one of the major (controversial) solutions to global climate change would seem to merit some mention. To date, we have hardly received any publicity for our early scientific conclusion. Maybe "60 Minutes" will rectify that. Or maybe not.

We have toured nuclear power plants all over the United States, in China and France. We have toured Yucca Mountain and the French reprocessing plant near Normandie. We have testified at numerous Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hearings and blogged like crazy to get the word out. We took a chance on publicly supporting this technology well before anybody else in America had the guts to step forward. Such vision and practical acceptance of the scientific facts should be recognized. Yet we hold this truth to be self evident that it might not be recognized even in the face of our ongoing lone environmental group support.

Maryland PSC Should Approve EdF Purchase of Constellation Energy Nuclear Unit

The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) is holding hearings this week to determine if Electricite de France (EdF) can buy 49.99 percent of Constellation’s nuclear business. There is some concern, which we find ridiculous, that EdF could have “substantial influence” over Constellation’s regulated entity, Baltimore Gas & Electric (BG&E) Company. If anything, EdF will have a very positive 'influence' on BGE by not only keeping them in business, but also by mitigating global climate change and smog reduction by building a new nuclear power plant at the site. The Maryland PSC should approve this merger with all deliberate speed. The commission expects to conclude its review of the deal in early June.

Constellation and EDF would each choose five board members to vote on company issues, and Constellation would appoint a chairman who would have the deciding vote in all budget, safety and security matters. In December, Constellation accepted a $4.5 billion offer from EDF for nearly half of its nuclear power business, ending a $4.7 billion merger deal with MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. Constellation entered into the merger deal in September to avoid filing for bankruptcy after the state of its commodities business significantly deteriorated. EdF, Constellation’s largest shareholder at the time, also entered a bid in September, but it was denied. The decision to break the merger MidAmerican means that Constellation will remain an independent firm headquartered in Maryland with thousands of employees. EDF also plans on moving its U.S. headquarters to Maryland.

Constellation has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval to build a new nuclear reactor in Calvert County next to the company’s two Calvert Cliffs reactors. Building a new reactor could cost between $6 billion and $10 billion. The Constellation-EDF deal has received approval from federal regulators and from the Public Service Commission of New York state, where Constellation also owns nuclear reactors. (MD Daily Record, 4/27/09) (MD Daily Record, 4/28/09)

President Obama Announces Launch of Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

The President is pleased to announce today the launch of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. The Major Economies Forum will facilitate a candid dialogue among key developed and developing countries, help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the UN climate change negotiations that will convene this December in Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

President Obama has invited the leaders of 16 major economies and the Secretary General of the United Nations to designate representatives to participate in a preparatory session at the Department of State on April 27-28 in Washington, D.C. The preparatory sessions will culminate in a Major Economies Forum Leaders’ meeting, which Prime Minister Berlusconi has agreed to host in La Maddalena, Italy, in July 2009.

The 17 major economies are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.

Clinton Remarks at the Major Economies Climate Forum

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made four main points during her remarks at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate at the State Deparment on April 27:

"I would like to underscore four main points.

First, the science is unambiguous and the logic that flows from it is inescapable. Climate change is a clear and present danger to our world that demands immediate attention.

Second, the United States is fully engaged and ready to lead and determined to make up for lost time, both at home and abroad. The President and his entire Administration are committed to addressing this issue and we will act.

Third, the economies represented here today have a special responsibility to pull together and work toward a successful outcome of the UN climate negotiations later in the year in Copenhagen, and I’m delighted that Denmark could join us because they are going to host this very important meeting.

And fourth, all of us participating today must cooperate in developing meaningful proposals to move the process forward."

Full Statement & Video

G.M., Chrysler, Ford & the United Auto Workers Are....

Smaller and on life support.

Retired pensioners must be very nervous about their future. For even if GM survives bankruptcy, they might still have to abandon health and retirement benefits altogether to survive as an operating company. Maybe those who recommend a diversified retirement portfolio were right after all. Fritz Henderson, chief executive of General Motors, at a press conference on Monday at GM world headquarters in Detroit.

Ford Motor Company is the only major U.S. automaker surviving without federal aid even though they lost a record $14.7 billion last year. The company borrowed $23 billion in 2006 to forgo the U.S. bailouts GM and Chrysler received.

G.M. is eliminating another 21,000 factory jobs, closing 13 plants, cutting its network of 6,500 dealers almost in half and closing its Pontiac division. It will be a company one tenth its size at 38,000 union workers from its heyday in 1970 when 395,000 worked at 150 plants. G.M. is currently subsisting on $15.4 billion in federal loans and Chrysler on $4 billion. G.M. is still negotiating with the United Automobile Workers (UAW) union and the government wants the union to accept company stock to finance half of G.M.’s $20 billion obligation for retiree health care.

The U.A.W. agreed to a similar health care deal with Chrysler, which has borrowed $4 billion from the government and hopes to get $6 billion more. The union’s new retiree health care trust would own a majority stake in Chrysler in exchange for helping the carmaker save $4.5 billion. It is being speculated that Fiat would ultimately own 35 percent and that 10 percent would be held by the government and Chrysler’s lenders. Chrysler will give the union a 55 percent ownership stake to cut its obligations to the health care trust in half. The deal suspends cost-of-living pay increases, limits overtime pay and reduces paid time off. It also provides for Fiat to begin building cars in at least one Chrysler plant.

G.M. and Chrysler have already received $27 billion in loans and want $21.6 billion in additional loans for a total of $39 billion in loans (does anybody think these loans can be paid back?). Another $5 billion in loans have already been approved for the financing arms of GM and Chrysler. Congress also approved funding last year for $25 billion in loans to help automakers convert their plants to produce more fuel efficient cars. And even more will be needed in federal bailout loans to keep these companies alive. Ford will be in line soon too. (NYT, 4/27/09, Bloomberg, 4/23/09, CNNMoney, 2/18/09, CNNMoney Chart)

Bingaman: Energy Bill to Tackle Key Issues

Statement from Senate E&NRC, Jeff Bingaman, right, Chairman, April 22nd, 2009. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been working to produce a bipartisan, comprehensive energy bill since the beginning of this Congress. In developing a new energy bill, the committee plans to tackle several key challenges:

1) deploying clean-energy technology;

2) improving energy efficiency;

3) maintaining adequate supplies of conventional fuels as we make the transition to newer forms of energy;

4) increasing energy innovation; making energy markets more transparent; and

5) maintaining the proper balance between energy and environment policies, especially as it relates to global warming.

1) Deploying Clean-Energy Technology. A national renewable electricity standard will enhance the diversity of domestic electricity generation, position the United States to regain the lead in world technology in these areas and prepare our electricity sector for the inevitable requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to more renewable electricity, America needs to implement a smart and robust national transmission grid.

2) Improving Energy Efficiency. A huge source of potential for energy savings is in improving efficiencies in the way that we use energy, particularly in the building sector and appliances.

3) Promoting Conventional Fuels. Our push for new clean sources of energy and greater energy efficiency does not mean that we can ignore our existing major sources of energy. We must make the transition to an energy future where our reliance on traditional fossil fuels will be lessened.

4) Making Markets More Transparent. Better data and oversight over these new market players and forces, if we want energy markets to function effectively in the future.

5) Maintaining the Proper Balance. A robust debate on how best to construct a mandatory regulatory regime to mitigate global climate change.

NRC Approves 40 Year Nuclear Fuel Fabrication License

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has renewed the operating license of Areva NP’s nuclear fuel fabrication facility in Richland, Washington for an additional 40 years of operation. This is the first 40-year renewal of a nuclear facility license in the United States. The Areva facility is licensed to possess and process uranium enriched to a maximum of 5 percent by weight in the isotope U235 for the manufacture of fuel assemblies for commercial nuclear power plants.

The license terms for fuel fabrication facilities are not specified in legislation or NRC regulations. Previously, the NRC had licensed fuel fabrication facilities for maximum terms of 20 years. In 2006, the Commission authorized extending the maximum license term to 40 years. Actual license terms depend on the facility, its safety programs and procedures, and its aging management program.

Areva submitted its application to renew the license on Oct. 24, 2006. The NRC published a notice of opportunity to request a hearing March 15, 2007; no hearing requests were filed. An Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact was issued April 3, 2009. The staff’s safety review examined Areva’s programs for criticality safety, fire safety, chemical safety, security and emergency planning. A public version of the staff’s Safety Evaluation Report on the Areva license renewal is available through the NRC’s ADAMS online document management system, by entering accession number ML090760702.

Calif Air Resources Board Passes Gas Content Reg 9 to 1

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed regulations expected to cut gasoline consumption by 25% and encourage development of low-carbon fuel sources for cars and trucks. CARB voted 9 to 1 in favor of the complex new rule that seeks to expand the market for electric and hydrogen-fueled vehicles and jump-start a host of biofuels (mostly cellulosic ethanol) to replace corn-based ethanol, as well as oil. The reduction in gasoline will have the result of reducing greenhouse gases. The regulation requires producers, refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to reduce the carbon footprint of their fuel by 10% over the next decade. The state wants to cut greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050.

Under California's proposal, producers, refineries and importers would be forced to reduce the "carbon intensity" of their fuel by 10% by 2020, and by increasing percentages after that. Currently, California gasoline contains 10% corn-based ethanol, most of it from coal-powered Midwestern plants. Its carbon footprint is as high as gasoline's .But by measuring the "cradle-to-grave" effect of various fuels, the new rule would favor ethanol made from non-food sources. Even "low-carbon" corn ethanol -- such as the kind produced in California using gas-fired electricity and efficient machinery -- has a far higher carbon footprint than so-called cellulosic fuel from landfill waste, trees, switchgrass or sugar cane. (L.A. Times, L.A. Times, 4-24-09)

Ed Markey: Over 3 Decades of Energy Service in Congress

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

By Norris McDonald

I first met Congressman Ed Markey, right, about thirty years ago when he served on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He actually offered me a job after I testified before the Energy Conservation and Power Subcommittee in 1983. Richard 'Dick' Ottinger chaired the subcommittee at the time and I was struck that many of the issues that Markey, now chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, covered this week during marathon hearings were covered back then. The big difference is that adequate funding has been provided via the stimulus package this year to genuinely supercharge the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs we championed in the early 1980s. Yet the global warming challenge looms and legislation is needed to address it.

The hearings this week were to take statements on The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), draft legislation introduced by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward J. Markey. (More) Markey is also Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

I attended the hearing when Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson presented their testimony on April 22 (Earth Day). I watched the next two days of hearings on C-SPAN2. Ed Markey sat through three full days of hearings and was attentive to each and every of the over 60 persons giving his or her statement. He was neither distracted, impatient, nor self indulgent. He seemed to be genuinely interested in what each person had to say, even as they read their oral statements.
Norris McDonald
What struck me when Chairman Markey was talking about his 33 years of service on the energy committee is that I almost go back that far with him. It made me remember the days when I testified on the Residential Conservation Service (RCS), Weatherization Assistance and Commercial and Apartment Conservation Service (CACS) energy efficiency retrofit programs, among others. Yet here sat Ed Markey three decades later still pushing just as hard for the programs we pushed thirty years ago. Except global warming was not on the radar screen back then. Now there is a new urgency to implement climate change mitigation programs, but a weakened economy has put a question mark over the solutions being offered. Chairman Markey's stamina is inspirational and I too remain energized in trying to solve our energy and environmental problems.

C-SPAN House Energy and Commerce Subcmte on Climate Change Legislation 4-24

Friday Afternoon Session

Former Vice President Gore

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrinch

Americain Clean Energy & Security Act

The Irvine Nature Center

Sometimes someone finds us and we are just delighted to meet them. This was the case with Christina Royster-Hemby, left & below, Director of Marketing and Communications at the Irvine Nature Center, which is located in Owings Mills, Maryland. Our president and founding board member Dr. Eric Watford, M.D., visited Mrs. Royster-Hemby the day after Earth Day and it was quite a thrill. Center president Norris McDonald picked up a pair of binoculars and the book, "Identifying Trees," by Michael D. Williams at the Irvine Nature Center store.

The new center opened in September of last year and is a great facility. The Center had almost 5,000 people at its opening ceremony. The facility has great exhibits inside and outside with snakes, turtles, lizards, barred owls and more. The Irvine Nature Center is a non-profit environmental education organization whose mission is to inspire appreciation and respect for the natural world, to increase awareness of environmental issues, and to encourage individuals to sustain earth's ecosystem.

Founded in 1975, the Irvine Nature Center has earned a reputation for providing quality environmental education for all ages. Irvine provides programs for Baltimore-area schools and the public. They also offer a number of special events each year. The Center has a museum, nature store and a walking trail. Visitors are welcome Monday-Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and Saturday-Sunday between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

America's Climate & Energy Depend on Constellation Energy

If a new nuclear power plant will be built, it will be built by the partnership between Constellation Energy (parent to Baltimore Gas & Electric) and Electricite de France (EdF). Last year, Electricite de France, the energy arm of the French government, bought a 49.9 percent stake in Constellation's nuclear power division. A foreign company cannot own outright an American nuclear power plant. So how does this lead to a scenario whereby Constellation Energy is the savior of America's climate and energy future you might ask? Well nuclear power has to lead the fight to mitigate global climate change, with wind and solar bringing up the rear. Due to a weakened Wall Street and significant increase in the cost of financing a nuke, the French collaboration with Constellation Energy is the best chance for a new nuke to be built in the U.S. within the next seven years.

The Center has been very protective of the proposed third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. We opposed Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway takover of Constellation because we knew Buffet would not authorize the construction of a new nuclear plant at that site or at the Nine Mile Point site in upstate New York. The switch from acceptance of Buffet's bid to acceptance of the EdF deal cost shareholders more than a million dollars in merger termination costs. But we think the cost was well worth it.

An untimely part of the French deal was a provision guaranteeing 120 senior managers at Constellation $32 million in bonuses meant to keep them on the job at the same time the news came that the company posted a $1.3 billion loss for 2008, cut its dividend, laid off hundreds of employees and pushed through a local rate increase. In response to the criticisms, Constellation's directors fired half of the top management team, including the chief financial officer in response to this debacle. Fortunately, Constellation has hired a climate change visionary and expert in James Connaughton, former chairman of the Counsel on Environmental Quality, as an executive vice president. (Wash Post, 4/24/09)

Lisa Jackson Earth Day Statement Before Congress

Statement of Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hearing on American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives

Chairman Waxman, Chairman-Emeritus Dingell, Ranking Minority Member Barton, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the draft American Clean Energy and Security Act. Let me begin by commending this Committee for embarking on the serious, difficult, and essential work of crafting comprehensive, detailed energy legislation and moving it through an open, careful process in which representatives hold hearings, make amendments, and cast votes. EPA is grateful for your work.

When President Obama was inaugurated ninety-two days ago, the United States found itself in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. So the President worked with Congress to craft the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which he signed into law sixty-four days ago. That law is now creating good jobs for Americans. Thanks to the Act, EPA is putting Americans to work overhauling clean-water systems, restoring and redeveloping polluted properties, installing clean-air equipment on diesel engines, and cleaning up leaking underground fuel tanks. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also injected an essential shot of adrenaline into the American clean energy sector. Economic recovery would not have been possible without that immediate relief.

But President Obama has leveled with the American people: Lasting economic recovery will come only when the federal government looks beyond the quick fix and invests in building the advanced energy industries that will help restore America’s economic health over the long term. So President Obama has called on Congress to pass forward-looking energy legislation. That legislation should create, here in America, millions of the clean-energy jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. It should catapult American innovators past the foreign competitors who, due to aggressive investments by their governments, now enjoy a head start in the advanced energy technologies that represent the new Internet revolution, the new biotech wave. It should reduce our dependence on oil and strengthen America’s energy security. And it should start, in a real and tangible way, to tackle greenhouse-gas pollution, which threatens to leave to our children and grandchildren a diminished, less prosperous, less secure world.

Twenty-two days ago, Chairmen Waxman and Markey released draft legislation that strives to accomplish those goals. The American Clean Energy and Security Act would introduce a clean energy requirement for American electric utilities and new energy efficiency programs for American buildings. Those initiatives aim to create good American jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. The legislation would launch programs to promote electric vehicles and deploy technologies for capturing, pipelining, and geologically storing carbon dioxide produced at coal-fueled power plants. Those incentives aim to help American companies make up for lost time in the advanced energy industries that will be to the 2010s what Internet software was to the 1990s.

The legislation would institute new low-carbon requirements for vehicles and fuels, and programs to help reduce vehicle-miles traveled with increased transportation options and help for communities that want to plan for sustainable growth. Those proposals aim to reduce America’s dependence on oil and cut back on the hundreds of billions of dollars that Americans send overseas every year. And the legislation would put in place a declining cap on greenhouse-gas pollution. That market-based system aims to protect our children and grandchildren from severe environmental and economic harm, and great threats to national-security while further invigorating advanced, American energy industries.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act draws on the thoughtful legislation that Chairman-Emeritus Dingell and Congressman Boucher drafted last October and is a serious effort at constructing comprehensive energy and climate legislation. We look forward to working with Congress as this bill moves forward to ensure that it meets the President’s objectives in the areas of an efficient and comprehensive approach that creates jobs, leverages our tremendous capacity for innovation, reduces our dependence on oil, and prevents the worst consequences of climate change. I would like to note that the Waxman-Markey discussion draft tracks many of the recommendations put forward by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition that includes American manufacturers such as Alcoa, John Deere, Caterpillar, Dow, Ford, General Motors, and General Electric. Those employers of American workers recognize, as they declare at the outset of their Blueprint for Legislative Action, that:

“The United States faces an urgent need to transform our nation’s economy, make the country more energy secure, and take meaningful action to slow, stop, and reverse [greenhouse-gas] emissions to address climate change.”

I believe that the leadership of this Committee is stepping up to provide the kind of “new vision and policy direction” that those companies talk about. Now, the “no, we can’t” crowd will spin out doomsday scenarios about runaway costs. But EPA’s available economic modeling indicates that the investment Americans would make to implement the cap-and-trade program of the American Clean Energy and Security Act would be modest compared to the benefits that science and plain common sense tell us a comprehensive energy and climate policy will deliver.

I ask the members of this Committee to recall the Acid Rain Trading Program, drafted by this Committee and signed by a Republican President in 1990. Beltway corporate lobbyists insisted that the law would cause “death for businesses across the country.” But as the members of this Committee who worked hard on that legislation know well, it ended up delivering annual health and welfare benefits estimated to be over 120 billion dollars at an annual cost of only 3 billion dollars. Our economy grew by 64 percent even as the program cut acid rain pollution by more than 50 percent. And past auto-emissions standards sparked key technological innovations that made cars more appealing to consumers here and abroad.

Achieving energy independence and reducing carbon emissions are not easy challenges. But this Committee has dealt with difficult challenges before. When Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman joined together with other Members of the Committee to pass the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, they were reported out of this Committee by a 42-to-1 vote. That bill dealt with controversial issues – not just acid rain, but also smog, hazardous air pollutants, and the threat to the ozone layer. But you found consensus, and your legislation has ended up cutting pollution at a fraction of the cost that was predicted at the time. There may be more than one dissenting vote this time, but that does not mean that the Committee’s history cannot be repeated this year. We want to work with you in finding consensus in the coming weeks, so that we can reduce our dependence on oil, create millions of new jobs in innovative energy technologies, and significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Thank you. I look forward to the answering the members’ questions. (Source: EPA)

EPA Proposes to Slash Cement Plant Mercury Emissions

EPA is proposing to significantly reduce mercury emissions from Portland cement kilns, the fourth-largest source of mercury air emissions in the U.S. The proposal would set the nation’s first limits on mercury emissions from existing Portland cement kilns and would strengthen the limits for new kilns. The proposed standards also would set emission limits for total hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide from cement kilns of all sizes, and would reduce hydrochloric acid emissions from kilns that are large emitters.

Mercury and other chemicals flowing into these communities are health hazards for children, pregnant mothers, local residents and workers - people who deserve protection. Mercury in the air eventually deposits into water, where it changes into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in fish. Americans are primarily exposed to mercury by eating contaminated fish. Because the developing fetus is the most sensitive to the toxic effects of methylmercury, women of childbearing age and children are regarded as the population of greatest concern.

The majority of the toxic emissions at cement kilns come from the burning of fuels and heating of raw materials. When fully implemented in 2013, EPA estimates that this rule would reduce annual emissions by at least: · Mercury – 11,600 pounds, a reduction of 81 percent · Total hydrocarbons – 11,700 tons, or 75 percent · Particulate matter – 10,500 tons, or 96 percent · Hydrochloric acid – 2,800 tons, or 94 percent · Sulfur dioxide – 160,000 tons, or 90 percent EPA estimates the benefits of this proposed rule will significantly outweigh costs.

The proposal is in response to a request to reconsider the December 2006 emissions standards for Portland cement manufacturing facilities. EPA will take public comments on the proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA will hold a public hearing on the proposal if one is requested. Hearing requests must be received within 15 days of publication in the Federal Register. More information

President Obama Will Not Reopen NAFTA Negotiations

The Obama adminstration has announced, through its Trade Representative Ron Kirk, that they have no present plans to reopen negotiations on the 1992 North America Free Trade Agreement. Such negotiations would have involved the possibility of adding labor and environmental protections into the core agreement instead of being side agreements, as they are now. It is historically interesting that the Clinton administration never sent the Kyoto Protocol up to the U.S. Senate for a vote and promoted a trade agreement that many traditional environmentalists and labor see as inadequate on labor and environmental grounds. Ron Kirk is pictured at left with President Barack Obama.

Although imports from Mexico, particularly oil, have exploded under NAFTA, some Midwestern states that have lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. Mexico is the third largest exporter of oil the the USA. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. and traditional environmental groups are disappointed because candidates Obama and Clinton said they would revisit NAFTA labor and environmental policies during the campaign. Traditional environmentalists, in particular, opposed NAFTA, finding the side agreements inadequate. Alternatively, former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk has been a strong advocate of free trade. (WSJ, 4/20/09)

EPA Reinstates Full TRI Reporting Requirements

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson signed a final rule to reinstate stricter reporting requirements for industrial and federal facilities that release toxic substances that threaten human health and the environment. The final rule reinstates Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements that were replaced by the TRI Burden Reduction Rule in December 2006. The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, signed by President Obama on March 11, 2009, mandated that prior TRI reporting requirements be reestablished. These changes will apply to all TRI reports due July 1, 2009. TRI is a publicly available EPA database that contains information ontoxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by certain industries as well as federal facilities.

The December 2006 TRI Burden Reduction Final Rule expanded Form A eligibility for non-Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (non-PBT) chemicals to 5,000 pounds and allowed use of Form A for the first time for PBT chemicals under limited circumstances. This rule was met with concern over the availability of required data under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and resulted in a lawsuit by 13 states to restore the TRI Form A thresholds and usage to what they were prior to the 2006 rule. Following the rule signature, all reports on PBT chemicals must be submitted on the more detailed Form R. For all other chemicals, the shorter Form A may only be used if the annual reporting amount is 500 pounds or less and less than 1 million pounds of the chemical was manufactured, processed or otherwise used during the reporting year.

TRI-ME software and other reporting assistance materials are being revised and will be available soon. TRI reports for 2008 are due on July1, 2009.

More information on TRI

Questions on reporting requirements

The Future of New Nuclear Power Plants Is At Calvert Cliffs

If there is to be a renaissance in building new nuclear power plants, it will be decided at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant site in Maryland. Located on the Chesapeake Bay, this power plant was the first one to get relicensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Recently, the Center opposed Warren Buffet's attempted purchase of Constellation Energy's nuclear unit and supported the bid by Electricite de France (EdF). We made that decision because we knew Buffet would not build a new plant. We know that EdF, with French government backing, can and will build a third unit with the attendant cooling tower.

Because the price of nuclear power plants has increased so much over the past 8 years, even the consortia among nuclear utilities will be hard pressed to get a weakened Wall Street (to put it mildly) to put up the $6-$10 billion for a new nuke. EdF purchased the nuclear unit for a couple billion or so less. So even though some applications are being processed, at $100 million just for the license to build, the nuclear industry is going to be hard pressed to pull off the needed renaissance in construction of new plants. Plus, new plants will have to have cooling towers. If EdF can start construction, the flood gates could open and the new nuclear power plant construction could begin. However, because EdF is a foreign company, a war of epic proportions will be fought.

The war will pit the nuclear industry coalition against the newly formed Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition (CSEC). The Center will watch this war with interest because, although we support nuclear power and the third reactor at Calvert Cliffs, both coalitions are hostile to the Center and we are ignored by Constellation Energy. Maybe EdF will see that the Center 'called the shot' on rejecting the Buffet deal and will seek our counsel.