Congress 2010: Second Session of the 111th Congress

Congress gets back to work this month and some important legislation is pending at the beginning of this new decade.

First up might be Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking minority member Lisa Murkowski's “Motion of Disapproval,” which would strip EPA of authority to implement 'Endangerment Finding' and 'Tailoring Rule' regulations. A vote is expected on the Senate floor on January 20th, but it could be delayed.

Next up could be The Jobs For Main Street Act (H.R. 2847), which has already passed in the House and will be taken up in the Senate. Note 'Jobs' in the title of this bill. So it will be on the fast track and includes lots of energy measures and money.

And finally, a climate/energy bill has already passed in the House and the Senate must decide if it is going to take up legislation. Although a bill, Boxer/Kerry, passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, with Republicans boycotting the vote, alternative legislation is being touted by Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman.

The Conference Committee will also try to finalize the health legislation that has passed in both bodies. The Center supports cap and trade legislation and we support the health bill.

Senate EP&W Majority United In Opposition To Murkowski

The letter below from Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer urging Senate members to oppose the proposal by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to overturn EPA's global warming Endangerment Finding was signed by all twelve of the Majority Members of the Committee.



January 11, 2010

Dear Colleague:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and public welfare. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions were covered under the Clean Air Act and the EPA had a duty to determine whether the endangerment finding was warranted by the science. A "Resolution of Disapproval" using expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act or other similar amendment is expected to be introduced in the Senate to overturn EPA's global warming endangerment finding.

Debating policy choices regarding the appropriate response to unchecked climate change is fair, and the Senate will continue to evaluate the best tools for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, but repealing an endangerment finding based upon years of work by America's scientists and public health experts is not appropriate.

The independent work of scientists and public health experts from both the Bush and Obama administrations should stand on its own. We strongly urge you to vote "no" when a Resolution of Disapproval or a similar amendment comes before the Senate.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer, Chairman

Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA).

(Senate EP&W)

No Taxpayer-Backed Loans Unless Nuclear Plants Approved

In response to questions from House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) on the nuclear energy loan guarantee program, Department of Energy Secretary Chu has responded that conditional commitments could be made, but no loan guarantee will be issued with respect to a specific project and technology until the design is certified by the NRC and the construction and operating license has been issued.

Represntative Markey chairs the House Subcommitte of the Energy and Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over DOE and the NRC. Secretary Chu’s response to Markey's letter was included in a letter intended to address concerns about DOE's soon-to-be announced winners of $18.5 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to the nuclear energy industry. DOE is working towards conditional commitments for loan guarantees for nuclear energy designs, but a conditional commitment is not a guarantee; it simply sets forth the terms on which a guarantee may be issued. The funds would also have a time limit—or sunset—for the awardees if the conditions for receiving the funds are not met. (Ed Markey, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Press Release)

States Hypocritical On Climate Change?

Some states are complaining about proposed EPA climate change regulations at the same time many states brag about the success of their climate change cap and trade programs. We do not see how any of the states in the Northeast or California can complain about possible EPA regulations, when they already have operating programs. One would think that the states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Iniaitve (RGGI) and California would be happy to incorporate their current programs into the federal model. The Center is registered in the RGGI program.

Some state regulators are urging the Obama administration to slow the rollout of proposed federal rules curbing industrial greenhouse-gas emissions, saying the administration's approach could overwhelm them with paperwork, delay construction projects and undercut their own efforts to fight climate change. Regulators from around the U.S., including Kansas, Pennsylvania, Florida and California, are calling on the EPA to go slowly with its new rules, and in some cases warning that they lack funding to regulate some of the new emissions sources that would be covered. How can Pennsylvania and California complain when they encourage such regulation when they are already designing and operating their own programs.

In a Dec. 24 letter to the EPA, the California Energy Commission, which oversees energy policy in the state, said the EPA's proposal:

"will likely retard, rather than facilitate,"

reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions from its electricity sector. Huh? California has been leading the charge to implement climate change programs.

A central issue is EPA's 'Tailoring Rule' proposal to require facilities emitting at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year to obtain construction and operating permits. The EPA relies on states and local agencies to administer air-quality permits, and its proposed emissions threshold is high enough that it will effectively exempt small businesses, such as farms and restaurants. The Center wants 'anyone' to able to hold and trade CO2 allowances and offsets. And we agree with the WSJ quote from Sierra Club Chairman Carl Pope:

"The fact that the Clean Air Act permitting authority is not a particularly good way for dealing with my backyard barbecue...does not mean that we should not have a Clean Air Act permit on...major fossil-fuel power stations."

(WSJ, 1/12/10)

Memorandum From EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

From: Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

To: All EPA Employees

Colleagues:

Almost one year ago, I began my work as Administrator. It has been a deeply fulfilling 12 months and a wonderful homecoming for me. As our first year together draws to a close, we must now look to the tasks ahead.

In my First Day Memo, I outlined five priorities for my time as Administrator. We have made enormous strides on all five, and our achievements reflect your hard work and dedication. By working with our senior policy team, listening to your input and learning from the experiences of the last 12 months, we have strengthened our focus and expanded the list of priorities. Listed below are seven key themes to focus the work of our agency.

Taking Action on Climate Change:2009 saw historic progress in the fight against climate change, with a range of greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. We must continue this critical effort and ensure compliance with the law. We will continue to support the President and Congress in enacting clean energy and climate legislation. Using the Clean Air Act, we will finalize our mobile source rules and provide a framework for continued improvements in that sector. We will build on the success of Energy Star to expand cost-saving energy conservation and efficiency programs. And, we will continue to develop common-sense solutions for reducing GHG emissions from large stationary sources like power plants. In all of this, we must also recognize that climate change will affect other parts of our core mission, such as protecting air and water quality, and we must include those considerations in our future plans.

Improving Air Quality: American communities face serious health and environmental challenges from air pollution. We have already proposed stronger ambient air quality standards for ozone, which will help millions of American breathe easier and live healthier. Building on that, EPA will develop a comprehensive strategy for a cleaner and more efficient power sector, with strong but achievable emission reduction goals for SO2, NOx, mercury and other air toxics. We will strengthen our ambient air quality standards for pollutants such as PM, SO2 and NO2 and will achieve additional reductions in air toxics from a range of industrial facilities. Improved monitoring, permitting and enforcement will be critical building blocks for air quality improvement.

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals: One of my highest priorities is to make significant and long overdue progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies. Last year I announced principles for modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act. Separately, we are shifting EPA’s focus to address high-concern chemicals and filling data gaps on widely produced chemicals in commerce. At the end of 2009, we released our first-ever chemical management plans for four groups of substances, and more plans are in the pipeline for 2010. Using our streamlined Integrated Risk Information System, we will continue strong progress toward rigorous, peer-reviewed health assessments on dioxins, arsenic, formaldehyde, TCE and other substances of concern.

Cleaning Up Our Communities: In 2009 EPA made strong cleanup progress by accelerating our Superfund program and confronting significant local environmental challenges like the asbestos Public Health Emergency in Libby, Montana and the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Using all the tools at our disposal, including enforcement and compliance efforts, we will continue to focus on making safer, healthier communities. I am committed to maximizing the potential of our brownfields program, particularly to spur environmental cleanup and job creation in disadvantaged communities. We are also developing enhanced strategies for risk reduction in our Superfund program, with stronger partnerships with stakeholders affected by our cleanups.

Protecting America’s Waters: America’s waterbodies are imperiled as never before. Water quality and enforcement programs face complex challenges, from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff, to invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional and innovative strategies. We will continue comprehensive watershed protection programs for the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes. We will initiate measures to address post-construction runoff, water quality impairment from surface mining, and stronger drinking water protection. Recovery Act funding will expand construction of water infrastructure, and we will work with states to develop nutrient limits and launch an Urban Waters initiative. We will also revamp enforcement strategies to achieve greater compliance across the board.

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice: We have begun a new era of outreach and protection for communities historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making. We are building strong working relationships with tribes, communities of color, economically distressed cities and towns, young people and others, but this is just a start. We must include environmental justice principles in all of our decisions. This is an area that calls for innovation and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our employees to bring vision and creativity to our programs. The protection of vulnerable subpopulations is a top priority, especially with regard to children. Our revitalized Children’s Health Office is bringing a new energy to safeguarding children through all of our enforcement efforts. We will ensure that children’s health protection continues to guide the path forward.

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships: States and tribal nations bear important responsibilities for the day-to-day mission of environmental protection, but declining tax revenues and fiscal challenges are pressuring state agencies and tribal governments to do more with fewer resources. Strong partnerships and accountability are more important than ever. EPA must do its part to support state and tribal capacity and, through strengthened oversight, ensure that programs are consistently delivered nationwide.

These priorities will guide our work in 2010 and the years ahead. They are built around the challenges and opportunities inherent in our mission to protect human health and the environment for all Americans. We will carry out our mission by respecting our core values of science, transparency and the rule of law. I have unlimited confidence in the talent and spirit of our workforce, and I will look to your energy, ideas and passion in the days ahead. I know we will meet these challenges head on, as one EPA.

Sincerely,

Lisa P. Jackson

Advertisement: Purchase Norris McDonald Autobiography

"Diary Of An Environmentalist"

Congressman Pomeroy Seeks To Limit EPA on Climate

Congressman Earl Pomeroy (R-ND), left, is introducing legislation (Save Our Energy Jobs Act, H.R. 4396) that would effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling declaring that the Clean Air Act can be used by EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is introducing legislation similar to Congressman Pomeroy's in the form of a Motion of Disapproval in the U.S. Senate later this month.

The House passed climate change legislation (Waxman/Markey) 219-212 in June and similar legislation is currently pending in the U.S. Senate (Boxer/Kerry).

The Obama administration and Congress prefer Congressional legislation to address carbon dioxide (CO2) limits compared to unilateral use of the Clean Air Act by EPA to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The EPA and Department of Transportation (DOT) are considering greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and trucks. The EPA issued a finding that CO2 and other greenhouse gases pose a risk to human health on December 7, 2009. The Center agrees with the Obama administration that Congress should pass climate change legislation. The Center supports the House and Senate cap-and-trade legislation with the caveat that allowances should be allocated free to major emitters. In addition, anyone should be allowed to hold and trade allowances and offsets.

The EPA’s decision stems from a 1999 complaint filed by environmental and renewable energy organizations. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA must explore if they threaten public health. EPA issued an "Endangerment Finding" and "Tailoring Rule" in response to the Supreme Court decision. Fuel economy is regulated by DOT and EPA's findings will support gasoline mileage standards. (Congressman Earl Pomeroy Pomeroy, GrandForksHerald.com, 1/8/10, photo courtesy AP Photo/Dale Wetzel)

Large Recovery Act Contract(s) For Nuclear Waste Clean Up

The single largest contract from the Stimulus Package has gone to Savannah River Nuclear Solution, LLC (SRNS) in the amount of $1,407,839,884. The Savannah River Site is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy. The management and operating contractor is Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC. SRNS partners include Fluor Daniel, Northrop Grumman and Honeywell.

Recovery Act Projects at SRNS consist of:

Project A - Complete deactivation and in situ decommissioning of the P-Reactor and the R-Reactor, the remediation of 6 miles of underground lines and 220 acres of contaminated soil.

Project B - Complete closure of the former site heavy water production facilities at D Area, deactivation of the D Area powerhouse and support facilities, remediation of 210 acres and 117,000 cubic yards of tritium contaminated soils and concrete, complete closure of the fuel manufacturing facilities at M-Area, remediate 45 acres of contaminated soil and removal of all contamination sources to a 1,500 acre ground water plume.

Project C - at various other site areas deactivate/decommission facilities, remediate soil and ground water and remediate impacted site systems. Remove plutonium-238, characterize A-area waste units, remediate Gunsite-12 and the CMP pits, decommission the heavy water components test reactor, consolidated incineration facility, cooling towers, power houses and excess facilities in various areas.

Project D - Handle waste disposition and impacted site systems, disposition 4,500 cubic meters of legacy waste, consolidate all RCRA waste storage and close excess facilities, disposition 16,000 drums of depleted uranium oxide, and dispose of all waste generated as a result of the previously described processes. Inter-Entity Work Orders (IEWO) - support for development of chemical information for vapor space corrosion testing, and demonstration of batch transfer consistency from scaled double shell tank.

The largest awards in U.S. as reported by recipients are for nuclear clean up, mostly from weapons facilities and laboratories:

1. SAVANNAH RIVER NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS, LLC, SC - $1,407,839,884

2. CH2M HILL PLATEAU REMEDIATION COMPANY, WA - $1,359,715,229

3. CH2M WG IDAHO LLC, ID - $437,675,000

4. UT-BATTELLE, LLC, TN - $338,697,231

5. SAIC-FREDERICK, INC., MD - $302,521,207

6. WASHINGTON RIVER PROTECTION SOLUTIONS LLC, WA - $299,728,838

7. BABCOCK & WILCOX TECHNICAL SERVICES Y-12, LLC, TN - $270,299,243

8. BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, LLC, NY -$257,613,800

9. WASHINGTON CLOSURE HANFORD, LLC, WA - $253,614,000

10. LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC, NM - $230,835,000

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 distributes the $787 billion via tax benefits, contracts, grants, loans and entitlements. (Recovery.Gov)

President Obama Announces Clean Energy Technology Jobs

Clean Energy Manufacturing Jobs Initiative

President Barack Obama has announced new funding for clean technology manufacturing jobs and plans to get the funding from the $787 billion American Reinvetment and Recovery Act. The employment stimulation plan includes the creation of tens of thousands of high quality clean energy jobs and the domestic manufacturing of advanced clean energy technologies including solar, wind and efficiency and energy management technologies.

The Section 48C program will provide a 30 percent tax credit for investments in 183 manufacturing facilities for clean energy products across 43 states. This tax credit program will help build a robust high technology, US manufacturing capacity to supply clean energy projects with US made parts and equipment. These manufacturing facilities should also support significant growth in US exports of US manufactured clean energy products. Approximately $2.3 billion in tax credits is being allocated on a competitive basis. Projects are assessed based on the following criteria,: commercial viability, domestic job creation, technological innovation, speed to project completion, and potential for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

December's unemployment rate was 10%, unchanged from November and an improvement over October's 10.2%. Nonfarm payrolls fell by 85,000 last month, compared with a revised 4,000 gain in November, according to the Labor Department.

Mr. Obama expressed support for a package of clean energy jobs initiatives late last year, and in late fall announced $3.4 billion in investments from the $787 billion economic stimulus package for more efficient "smart grid" electricity distribution projects. In mid-December Vice President Joe Biden announced the administration's support for up to $5 billion in additional funding for a stimulus-related clean energy manufacturing program.

Congress is considering a jobs-creation bill (Jobs For Main Street Act--H.R.2847), which likely will include investments and incentives backed by Mr. Obama to spur clean energy manufacturing jobs. H.R. 2847 has already passed in the House on December 16 by a vote of Passed, 217-212. The Senate will take it up when Congress returns later this month. (WSJ, 1/8/10, Fact Sheet: $2.3 Billion in New Clean Energy Manufacturing Tax Credits, Additional White House Press Release)

EPA Requests Grant Applications For Climate Change

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced it is making up to $5 million in grants available to U.S. and international organizations to fund innovative, international methane reduction and use projects that cut global climate pollution. The grants will be issued through the Methane to Markets Partnership, a public-private partnership that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by promoting the cost-effective, near-term recovery and use of methane, a GHG that is more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Methane capture and use projects supported by the partnership through grants and other means are currently reducing emissions by more than 27.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually – equivalent to the annual emissions from 5 million passenger vehicles.

Non-profit or government organizations in any country may apply for grant funding, but projects should take place in the following Methane to Markets Partner countries:

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Vietnam.

If an organization wishes to submit an application for a project in a developing country or a country with an economy in transition that is not listed above, the country must first apply to the Methane to Markets Partnership before the project can be considered for funding. Grant proposals should support feasibility studies, technology transfer, deployment of technology, training, methane emissions inventories, and other activities that promote methane capture and use. The agency expects to award up to 35 cooperative assistance agreements ranging from approximately $100,000 to $750,000. Proposals are due by April 15, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. EST. EPA estimates that awards would be made at the end of 2010.

Since the launch of the partnership in 2004, EPA has provided almost $13 million for nearly 70 grants to build capacity and promote international capture and use of methane. This work will be highlighted in 2010 when EPA, the Government of India and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry host the 2nd Methane to Markets Partnership Expo on March 2-5, 2010 in Delhi, India. The expo will bring together approximately 1,000 partners and methane experts from around the world to showcase project opportunities and technologies related to the capture and use of methane. More grant information (EPA)

Google Gets Into Electricity Marketing Business

Google has applied for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to become an electricity marketer. This would give Google the authority to buy and sell bulk power at market prices, just the way large utilities and energy traders do. Goggle made the application in December through its Google Energy LLC subsidiary. The company wants to better manage supplies for its own operations and give it greater access to renewable energy sources.

More than 1,500 companies currently have status as energy marketers, the vast majority are utilities or power generators. Google's data centers are the most efficient in the world, with estimates that the company has 24 Google data centers. There are also estimates that data centers consume 30 to 50 megawatts of electrical capacity and Google's largest data centers could use even more. A data center consuming 10 megawatts is about what a subdivision of single-family homes consumes. Based on an estimate of 24 large data centers, Google's energy need would be roughly equivalent to the output of two large conventional power plants.

In 2007, Google announced its intention to become "carbon neutral," meaning it would take actions to neutralize the effects of carbon dioxide produced in the course of furnishing its buildings and data centers with electricity. It installed a 1.6-megawatt solar array on its headquarters building and has been trying to obtain green power.

Google's FERC application could also potentially allow the company to play a much larger role in energy markets, even becoming a wholesaler of electricity to other big buyers. In its application, the company said it was reserving for itself the right to:

"act as a power marketer, purchasing electricity and reselling it to wholesale customers," and trading "in the bulk power markets, such as arranging...transmission and fuel supplies."

Google is partnering with several utilities, including TXU Energy and Sempra Energy, to offer consumers a free energy-use monitoring tool, called Google's PowerMeter, that takes readings from digital "smart" meters and other devices to show a household's energy consumption to help consumers make choices that can save money and cut power industry emissions. That doesn't require permission from FERC. (WSJ, 1/8/10)

Schwarzenegger Appoints Lester Snow To Natural Resources

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced the appointment of Lester Snow, left, to be the state's new Natural Resources Agency (NRA) secretary. Snow, 58, is a Democrat who has headed California's water resources department for the last five years. He succeeds Mike Chrisman, who is retiring from state service Feb. 1 after serving as resources secretary since 2003. The mission of the NRA is to restore, protect and manage the state's natural, historical and cultural resources for current and future generations using creative approaches and solutions based on science, collaboration and respect for all the communities and interests involved.

Lester A. Snow was appointed Director of the California Department of Water Resources by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 24, 2004. Snow was Executive Director of CALFED, now the California Bay-Delta Authority, from 1995 to 1999, leading the coalition of State and federal agencies working to "fix" the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. He left CALFED to become regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation, a post he held for almost two years. At Reclamation, he led operations of the federal Central Valley Project in California. Immediately prior to joining DWR, Snow was a water consultant in the private sector.

Before heading CALFED, Snow spent seven years as General Manager of the San Diego County Water Authority. His prior experience included six years with the Arizona Department of Water Resources, including four years as Tucson area director.

Snow earned a Master of Science degree in Water Resources Administration at the University of Arizona and a Bachelor of Science degree in Earth Sciences from Pennsylvania State University. (California Department of Water Resources)

Light, sweet crude for Feb delivery is $82.66 a barrel on the N.Y. Mercantile Exchange.

The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline is $2.70, according to the AAA auto club.

The 2008 Electric Utility Operating Performance Report

Industry Report By Electric Light and Power - - Teresa Hansen, Editor in Chief

TABLES OF TOP 20 PLANTS

Top coal generator ranked by generation was Southern Company (Scherer Plant)

Top coal generator ranked by capacity factor is AES (AES Hawaii Plant)

Top coal generator ranked by heat rate is Duke Energy (Belews Creek Plant)

Top combined-cycle plant ranked by generation was Florida Power & Light (Martin Plant)

Top combined-cycle plant ranked by heat rate was TVA (Caledonia Plant)

Top combined-cycle plant ranked by capacity factor was Cal. Energy Co./TransAlta of New York (Saranac Facility Plant)

Top nuclear plant ranked by generation was Pinnacle West (Pale Verde Plant)

Top nuclear plant ranked by capacity factor was Exelon (Three Mile Island Unit 1)

Three Mile Island Unit 1 (NRC)

Partnering Electricity Delivery With Wireless Internet

The infrastructure is there to link electricity delivery with the efficiency possibilities of controlling some demand characteristics of appliances and HVAC systems with internet communications. These links can be cable, fiber optic and/or wireless (including satelite).

Wireless communications are becoming more helpful in linking disparate systems from the home, through the distribution systems, to substations, control rooms and beyond to the enterprise. The ubiquitous utility communications of the future will integrate a wide range of systems, some of them owned by the utilities and others leased and contracted by various carriers such as AT&T and others.

A lot of attention is being directed toward so-called "smart meters" today, not only in the U.S. but throughout the world. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 in the U.S. strongly encouraged this attention. As more smart meters are installed, they will serve as gateways into the home to provide utilities demand response capabilities. Smart meters also will enable utilities to more thoroughly embrace distributed generation, a vital, communications-intensive step for solving the critical supply and demand problem.

Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and smart grids will be required to track all the current flows and provide information to CIS and other accounting systems to ensure everyone is compensated fairly. All of this requires ubiquitous communications to and from the field, not just the service trucks that now dominate utility field activities

Utilities are likely to embrace a wide range of new and existing communications technologies over the next 10 years or so as they grapple with their supply/demand disconnect problem. One of these is IP/MPLS (Internet Protocol/Multi Protocol Label Switching), which already is proven in utility communications networks as well as other industries which require mission critical communications.

These WAN (wide area network) solutions are likely to continue to be a mixture of optical and microwave, wireless, leased line, and even satellite communications to cost-effectively address specific substation applications. A typical utility’s IP/MPLS network will likely run over all of these networks.

Standard cell towers are able to support a utility; or communications companies can build them to do so. One of the biggest concerns utilities raise is what happens if something fails. Utilities would receive the same class of service as public safety agencies. If one tower doesn’t work, data is most often sent by another route. In the big picture of cell signals overlap, utilities should not experience interruption of their data packet transmission.

(Source: Sierra Energy Group, "The Intelligent Utility Enterprise and The Role of Telecommunications Providers," July 2008)

U.S. EPA Proposes Strengthening of Smog Standard

Proposed standards, strictest to date, will protect the health of all Americans, especially children

The United States Environmental Protection Agency today proposed the strictest health standards to date for smog. Smog, also known as ground-level ozone, is linked to a number of serious health problems, ranging from aggravation of asthma to increased risk of premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Ozone can even harm healthy people who work and play outdoors. The agency is proposing to replace the standards set by the previous administration, which many believe were not protective enough of human health.

The agency is proposing to set the “primary” standard, which protects public health, at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) measured over eight hours. Children are at the greatest risk from ozone, because their lungs are still developing, they are most likely to be active outdoors, and they are more likely than adults to have asthma. Adults with asthma or other lung diseases, and older adults are also sensitive to ozone.

EPA is also proposing to set a separate “secondary” standard to protect the environment, especially plants and trees. This seasonal standard is designed to protect plants and trees from damage occurring from repeated ozone exposure, which can reduce tree growth, damage leaves, and increase susceptibility to disease.

In September 2009 Administrator Jackson announced that EPA would reconsider the existing ozone standards, set at 0.075 ppm in March 2008. As part of its reconsideration, EPA conducted a review of the science that guided the 2008 decision, including more than 1,700 scientific studies and public comments from the 2008 rulemaking process. EPA also reviewed the findings of the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which recommended standards in the ranges proposed today.

Depending on the level of the final standard, the proposal would yield health benefits between $13 billion and $100 billion. This proposal would help reduce premature deaths, aggravated asthma, bronchitis cases, hospital and emergency room visits and days when people miss work or school because of ozone-related symptoms. Estimated costs of implementing this proposal range from $19 billion to $90 billion.

Ground-level ozone forms when emissions from industrial facilities, power plants, landfills and motor vehicles react in the sun.

EPA will take public comment for 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. The agency will hold three public hearings on the proposal: Feb. 2, 2010 in Arlington, Va. and in Houston; and Feb. 4, 2010 in Sacramento.

More information

Richard Branson and his Carbon War Room

Industrialist visionary Richard Branson, left, has launched the Carbon War Room, a Washington, D.C.-based corporate think tank designed to create and promote the best ways to cut carbon in corporate sectors ranging from aviation to shipping to construction. It's a global-warming remedy by business for business. Branson is initially targeting global marine shipping. Each year, about 100,000 ships contribute some 1.3 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, about 3% of global carbon emissions. The think tank estimates that about 20,000 of the biggest and most polluting ships contribute about half the carbon emitted by the industry as a whole.

They believe that the best solution in the case of shipping may be as simple as installing scrubbers. Is Branson getting into the business of providing scrubbers for ships? Older and more polluting ships will need to be replaced by models that are more efficient. Or is he getting into producing more efficient ships? Branson is already in the air travel business and is already looking into alternative fuels that could reduce carbon emitted by planes. If more people start taking ships and Branson also gets into the carbon dioxide trading business, he could do good and make lots of money. (Time/CNN, 12/31/10)

EPA Actions on Two Proposed West Virginia Coal Mines

EPA today announced a path forward on two coal mountaintop mining operations in West Virginia

EPA is informing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that it supports issuing a Clean Water Act permit for the Hobet 45 mine in Lincoln County, operated by Hobet Mining, LLC. EPA made this decision after extensive discussions between EPA and the company resulted in additional significant protections against environmental impacts.

In a second action, the Federal District Court in Southern West Virginia will extend the court-established deadline to respond to the company's earlier request to end the litigation on the proposed Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County. EPA and the mining operator, Mingo Logan Mining Company, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, agreed to ask for the extension in order to continue discussions to determine if a revised mining plan can be developed that will comply with the Clean Water Act. After close study, EPA determined that the proposed mine raised significant environmental and water quality concerns.

The Center opposes the mountaintop removal coal mining method.

In a letter sent today, EPA advised the Army Corps of Engineers that, as a result of changes agreed to by Hobet Mining LLC after discussions with EPA, the Hobet 45 mine now meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act, clearing the way for a final permit. EPA worked closely with Hobet Mining LLC and the Corps to redesign the proposed Hobet 45 mine to eliminate nearly 50 percent of stream impacts, reduce anticipated stream contamination, and protect public health. The Hobet 45 operation is expected to employ 460 United Mine Workers of America coal miners.

EPA’s request to extend the court deadline for the Spruce No. 1 mine will allow EPA, the mining company, and the Corps to continue their coordination until early March 2010. In the meantime, no additional mining operations may occur at the site until EPA determines the project complies with the Clean Water Act. EPA initiated a process to restrict or prohibit mining activity based on its conclusion that Spruce No. 1 mine, one of the largest mountaintop removal mines proposed in the Appalachian coalfields, presents significant environmental and water quality concerns. The agency made clear it is willing to continue communications with the Mingo Logan Company to amend the project so that it may comply with the nation’s clean water laws. If an agreement with the company can not be reached, EPA may take the next step in the process to prohibit or restrict mining activity under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act.

Appalachian coal mining has buried an estimated 2,000 miles of streams in states including West Virginia. Scientific studies have increasingly identified significant water quality problems below surface coal mining operations that can contaminate surface waters for hundreds of years. Data from coalfield communities also indicate that coal mining is responsible for causing fish kills and contaminating fish and wildlife.

More on the Hobet 45 Mine:

As originally proposed, the Hobet 45 mine would have buried nearly six miles of headwater streams and contaminated downstream waters that now support healthy streamlife and are used by local residents for fishing and swimming. EPA recommended key changes to the mine plan in consultation with Hobet Mining and the Corps that will:

Reduce stream impacts by more than 16,000 linear feet;
Require that contaminated mine drainage be directed away from surface waters;
Ensure more effective compensation for environmental losses;
Establish an adaptive management plan to further protect water quality; and
Protect highly productive streams on the mine site.

The Hobet 45 mine is one of 79 projects identified by EPA as raising environmental concerns under a special enhanced coordination process with the Corps to make decisions on a large group of permits that were delayed for several years because of litigation.

More on the Spruce No. 1 Mine:

The Spruce No. 1 mine is one of the largest mountaintop removal mines ever proposed in the Appalachian coalfields and would clear more than 2,200 acres of forestlands, bury more than seven miles of headwater streams, and further contaminate downstream waters already heavily impacted by previous mining activities. EPA is concerned that the Spruce No. 1 mine may:

Bury 7.5 miles of healthy headwater streams under 6 valley fills;
Contaminate downstream surface waters with pollutants from the mine including selenium, conductivity, iron, and aluminum – pollutants that would continue to drain into streams long after the mine is closed;
Cause additional harm to the Little Coal River watershed already significantly impacted by previous mining activities – 73 percent of streams are already impaired by mining;
Deforest 2,200 acres of mature, productive forestlands; and
Impact human health by contributing to water quality degradation and contaminating fish and wildlife.

The Spruce No. 1 Mine has been delayed for more than 10 years by citizen suits alleging the mine does not meet the requirements of federal laws. The current Clean Water Act permit for Spruce No. 1 has been held up in federal court since it was issued in 2007.

More information on the Hobet letter

Maintaining Server Room Temperatures

A server room is the brain of any effective well-networked company. However, this area is also most susceptible to failure.

Your servers aren’t the only thing you’re paying heavily for in your office environment. For every $1 you spend on computing equipment and services, chances are that you probably spend another $1 for the power and cooling to keep that equipment running. Even with all the cost funneled through just to this one sector of your business, it remains that over heating (in even an otherwise well-cooled establishment) is the number one cause of malfunction and data loss.

The Emerson Network Power, in coordination with the U.S. EPA and the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, released survey data entitled “Report to Congress on Server and Data Center Energy Efficiency”. The report received participation from more than 150 Digital Communications User Group members and companies, as well as non-member Fortune 500 companies. Central issues within this report included issues of power management, precision cooling, energy efficiency, technology implementation and consolidating.

Why Traditional Systems Don’t Work

Computer equipment ages quicker when hot, and for individual machines such as home or office desktops, the internal fans and cooling mechanisms are often sufficient at keeping temperatures within safe operating limits. However, in data centers and server rooms, this may not be the case. Modern server equipment generates enormous amounts of heat, and today's machines run faster and hotter. Moreover, server rooms may even be prone to "hot spots" which can build up behind equipment racks or near larger machines, and if not addressed, this can cause premature failures.

Increased humidity levels can also affect your server room because high humidity levels can damage equipment by causing corrosion and rust. Thus, preventing humidity changes and variations is imperative in order to avoid environmental conditions where there may be excess condensation, so the optimal humidity levels for a server room or data center should range from 40 to 55 percent. Lastly, another problem that can plague server rooms is insufficient airflow often due to the server room's design. As such, all of these environmental temperature problems and fluctuations usually call for the installation of separate cooling systems.

What You Can do to Safeguard Your Server

As seen through the convergence of top companies and associations, cooling and energy efficiency is a major concern in any IT related industry. In a nutshell, the failure to meet requirements that are energy efficient and capable stems from miscommunication between IT professionals and facilities management. As such, even the best and most well-conditioned environments face considerable temperature gaps when it comes to the server room. The best way to gauge the temperature of your server room is with a Honeywell programmable thermostat.

Monitoring Server Room Temperatures is brought to you by Honeywell-Thermostat.

January 20 Senate Vote on EPA Endangerment Finding

The Senate will hold a roll call vote on January 20 on a “Motion of Disapproval” sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski, left, to countermand the EPA’s efforts to push forward regulations aimed at tackling GHG emissions [Endangerment Finding & Tailoring Rule]. Supporters need 60 votes to succeed and will certainly lose. If the motion gets more than 40 votes, it could mean that there is little appetite for the battle ahead on the issue and any legislation is likely off the table until after the 2010 election cycle. (Frank Maisano)

The Center supports Boxer/Kerry and Waxman/Markey [with free allocation of allowances] and believes Congressional legislation is preferred to EPA regulation under the current Clean Air Act. EPA and the Obama administration agree with us.

Motion of Disapproval:

If a disapproval resolution is enacted, the rule may not take effect and the agency may issue no substantially similar rule without subsequent statutory authorization. If a rule is disapproved after going into effect, it is “treated as though [it] had never taken effect.” If either house rejects a disapproval resolution, the rule may take effect at once. If the President vetoes the resolution, the rule may not take effect for 30 days of session thereafter, unless the House or Senate votes to sustain the veto.

Allegheny Energy - AEP Power Line Application Delayed

A hearing judge at the Virginia Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, deferred a decision on whether a 275-mile, $1.8 billion Appalachian electric power transmission line would be needed by 2012 or 2013 until more information is available. Allegheny Energy and American Electric Power Company, the proposed builders of the line, also requested from the hearing judge that it be allowed to withdraw its application and refile later, possibly by the end of 2010, after more work is done on energy-use forecasts.

Although traditional environmental groups generally oppose these power line proposals, the Center generally supports their construction. The Piedmont Environmental Council in Warrenton, Virgina is the primary environmental group opposing this proposal because they believe it is not necessary, will spoil the viewshed and supports coal-fired power plants. We believe the line is necessary, do not mind the look of the power lines and these lines are needed to transport renewable wind power in addition to cheap coal.

Utilities must prove that specific projects are needed for reliability purposes or they aren't granted the certificates of public convenience and necessity that are required to seize land through condemnation proceedings. In normal times, electricity demand grows at a rate of about 2 percent per year. Electric utilities have the fidiciary responsibility to provide the power that society demans. (WSJ, 1/4/10)

Lisa Jackson: New Chair of Chesapeake Executive Council

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, left, takes over as chair of the Chesapeake Executive Council tomorrow, which is part of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a partnership of people and organizations, ranging from federal and state agencies to local governments to non-profits and academic institutions. Individuals involved with the Bay Program work at both CBP's Annapolis, Maryland headquarters and at partner organizations throughout the Bay watershed.

The Chesapeake Executive Council was established by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983. Under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, membership changed from cabinet secretaries to the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia; the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the mayor of the District of Columbia; and the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a legislative body serving Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The Executive Council:

~ Establishes the policy direction for the restoration and protection of the Bay and its living resources.
~ Exerts leadership to marshall public support for the Bay effort.
~ Signs directives, agreements and amendments that set goals and guide policy for Bay restoration.
~ Is accountable to the public for progress made under the Bay agreements.

The Executive Council meets annually. Its Principals' Staff Committee meets as needed to facilitate communication among the Implementation Committee, the advisory committees (Citizens Advisory Committee, Local Government Advisory Committee and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee) and the Executive Council. (CBP, Photo Courtesy Mike Land)

Toxic Substances Control Act Exempts Disclosure Of Certain Proprietary Chemicals

The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TOSCA) requires manufacturers to report new chemicals they intend to market to the federal government, but the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States, nearly 20 percent are secret. The policy was designed to protect trade secrets in a highly competitive industry.

Congress is set to rewrite chemical regulations this year for the first time in a generation. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), in the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy. Their names and physical properties are guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.

The Congressional review holds implication for hydraulic fracturing, which is used to extract natural gas because proprietary chemicals are used in that process.

The Center wants Congress to force manufacturers to prove that a substance should be kept confidential. We also want federal officials to be able to share confidential information with state regulators and health officials, who carry out much of the EPA's work across the country. (WashPost, 1/4/10)

Endangerment Finding & Light Duty Truck Mileage Standards

On December 7, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Perez Jackson, left, signed the Endangerment Finding regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

The finding does not in itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009.

Background: On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

Proposed Rulemaking: Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: On September 15, 2009, EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed an historic National Program that would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.

The combined EPA and NHTSA standards that make up this proposed National Program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (MPG) if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. (EPA Endangerment, EPA Regulations)

Fairness To Ratepayers Under A Cap-and-Trade System

The Center responds to Dan Watkiss, partner with Bracewell & Giuliani (Washington, D.C.), in his analysis of the effects of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation on ratepayers.

The Center supports Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry.

Under Waxman-Markey, the federal government sets a declining cap on overall emissions and issues tradable allowances that authorize holders to emit a metric ton of carbon equivalent within the cap. Those that reduce emissions more cheaply may sell extra allowances to others that otherwise must pay more than the price of an allowance to comply.

The Center supports the market-based cap-and-trade approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We supported the Bush admistration's Clear Skies Initiative too because it utilitized cap-and-trade in seeking to achieve reductions of NOx & SOx emissions. Unfortunately, litigation killed its implementation at the regulatory level just as litigation will kill the Obama administration's regulatory approach to CO2 emissions in the absence of backing Congressional legislation.

Waxman-Markey sets interim caps and an ultimate cap to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels (7.2 billion tons of CO2) by 2050. The electric power industry—responsible for 40 percent of U.S. GHG emissions—is allocated just more than 35 percent of total allowances from 2012 to 2025.

The optimal result of choosing allocation over auctioning or otherwise selling allowances should be to subsidize the cost of transitioning from high carbon emissions for those most dependent on processes that emit high levels of GHGs.

The Center supports the free allocation of allowances and opposes auctioning. Auctioning will only increase the cost to ratepayers and a rebate system is unnecessarily bureaucratic and burdensome. Ratepayers are going to subsidize the transition anyway.

Waxman-Markey distributes allowances to the electric power industry in two ways:

1) Distributes allowances ratably based on the annual average CO2 emissions attributable to a local distribution company’s electricity delivered during a base period (2006-2008 or three consecutive years between 1999 and 2008).

2) Distributes allowances ratably based on a local distribution company’s annual average retail electricity deliveries for the same alternative base periods, adjusted over time for changes in the size of the company’s franchise.

This approach is reasonable. The regression analysis baseline also provides a good barometer for considering other externalities, such as best available control technologies and social justice issues.

A distribution of allowances based purely on retail sales untethered to historical dependence on GHG-emitting resources is not defensible and could erode the political will to enact a cap-and-trade program that applies to all major emitting sources within the electric power industry. Rather, it transfers wealth from customers of coal-dependent retail electricity providers to customers of other providers less dependent on coal.

Yet isn't there a great opportunity for wealth generation via emissions reductions by coal-fired power plants? In fact, states such as New York that benefit from hydro and nuclear power are concerned that they will be penalized for already reducing emissions, thus not having the opportunity to reduce emissions and benefit from banked allowances.

It strains credulity to argue that ratepayers of distribution companies that have relied on coal-fired generation deserve a lesser share of allowances than they need to transition to their mandated emission reductions as some form of moral judgment on their historical fuel choices. Their service providers, without ratepayer input, chose coal because it was close and cheap. Utilities built hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants for the same reasons, not to limit GHG emissions.

Of course, these same coal ratepayers have benefitted from lower kilowatt-hour rates as a result of these choices. Whereas New York City has the highest rate in the country. And it will be very expensive to build the nuclear plants needed to most effectively reduce emissions while providing the electricity we need. Doesn't this equalize the extra cost coal utilities will have for reducing CO2 emissions?

Utilities invested in generating technologies because of availability, cost or both. GHG controls should not create unjustified, inequitable wealth transfers among ratepayers.

Such transfers, regardless of results, will be market-based. The market created high electricity rates in New York (16.97), Connecticut (18.30) and Hawaii (22.19) and low electricity rates in Wyoming (6.29), West Virginia (6.63) and Idaho (6.80) - - (Nebraska State Gov). The CO2 emissions/electricity deliveries scenario of Waxman-Markey cannot necessarily provide some sort of ratepayer fairness with such a resource/price history.

Unprincipled wealth transfers in connection with GHG controls could deprive the proposed cap-and-trade program of political legitimacy.

Wealth transfers are inevitable in a market-based cap-and-trade system. Some consider the market to be unprincipled, but it can work if not burdened with too many confounding regulations.

Waxman-Markey requires recipients of allowance distributions remit the proceeds in lump-sum payments to their rate-regulated customers.

We oppose this unnecessary, bureaucratic and burdensome system. Let the utilies utilize monetary proceeds for best available control technologies or practices.

This should correct allocated allowances based on the annual average CO2 emissions attributable to delivered electricity from becoming a subsidy for increased consumption from GHG-emitting resources.

It is unnecessary interference in the trading system. If anything, duplicate the EPA Acid Rain program whereby 'anyone' can hold and trade allowances. Give the ratepayers a stake in the market approach.

To make the program environmentally and economically effective and politically viable, those who will shoulder the greatest cost in achieving the capped emissions should be the primary (if not exclusive) beneficiaries of freely distributed carbon allowances during the transition to a carbon-capped economy.

Political viability is a moving target. Electricity rates will need to increase regardless of whether America decides to address CO2 emissions. Such increases by their very nature are not politically viable. Technology should be more of a driver of CO2 emissions reductions to the greatest extent possible.

(Electric Light & Power, Cap-and-Trade Success Requires Ratepayer Fairness in Distribution of Emission Allowances, Nov/Dec/2009)

District of Columbia Puts Tax On Grocery Shopping Bags

Shoppers at grocery, drug and liquor stores in Washington, D.C. will have to pay 5 cents for every disposable plastic and paper bag unless they use their own bags.

The Center has a policy against using price as a conservation or environmental tool because it can be abusive to citizens and there are better ways to achieve the same results. For instance, instead of taxing shoppers for bags, rich private environmental groups could offer shoppers $1 for using their own bags. Or these groups could provide free bags for people going in to shop.

Our friends at the Anacostia Watershed Society should find other ways to change behavior because ramming this tax down the throats of DC shoppers is only going to generate resentment. Moreover, this tax will not save the Anacostia River and plastic bags, though unsightly, are not the primary pollutants distressing this treasured water body. The Center will work to repeal this local tax.

Commercial Buildings in D.C. Can Compare Energy Bills

The District of Columbia's "Clean and Affordable Energy Act" aims to motivate property owners to adopt energy-efficient technologies by making their monthly power bills a matter of public record. Companies seeking to lease space in Washington's large commercial buildings will be able to compare the size of their future energy bills at various rental properties. The Center supports this law.

D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), co-authored the legislation. Beginning in 2010, property managers who oversee buildings with more that 200,000 square feet of office space are required by law to record energy and water usage rates on a Web site run by the Environmental Protection Agency. In coming years, smaller commercial buildings will also be required to participate in the program.

New York City has passed a law that takes Washington's legislation a step further by also requiring multifamily dwellings to record their energy consumption rates.

In both cities, the information will be stored online and accessible to all at a site run by the EPA's "Energy Star" program, which assigns buildings a rating of 1 to 100, based on how their energy efficiency compares with similar buildings in the country. For District property managers who enroll in the EPA program in January, their building's "Energy Star" rating will become public record starting in 2012 -- a delay that will give owners time to install energy-efficient technologies.

It is estimated that a building with a "95" rating from the EPA's "Energy Star" program would typically save a tenant about $1.30 per square foot in annual energy bills over the national average for a similar building. (WashPost, 1/1/10)

Norris McDonald: Diary Of An Environmentalist

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

By Norris McDonald

Ah the 21st Century. You can publish your own autobiography. So I did. See excerpt below:

Norris McDonald: Diary Of An Environmentalist

I started as a young man in his mid twenties and now I am a man in his mid fifties. I went looking for a job on Capitol Hill in 1979 after I graduated from Wake Forest University. I answered an ad in The Washington Post to work for an environmental group. It was two blocks from Capitol Hill so I figured it would be a good stepping stone to getting a job in a congressional office. I was just delighted to be in the political power center of the world. I had no idea at that time that I would make a career out of working on environmental and energy issues.

Now I have been working as an environmentalist for over 30 years. I have been committed to being a good steward to our planet and to work for improvements in local neighborhoods. It has been gratifying and I am delighted to have found my calling in life. Of course, life throws you curve balls that makes it interesting. I did not anticipate becoming a chronic, acute asthmatic and a single parent. Plus, my personal worldview has probably limited my success, but I would not change it because it is rooted in my belief in God.