FERC & CFTC Duel Over Energy Derivatives Contracts

Congress is currently considering legislation that would establish jurisdiction over energy derivatives contracts. Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)are dueling over jurisdiction over energy derivatives contracts in this pending Congressional legislation. The arcane turf war is very important to the regulatory framework and agency oversight for America's energy future. The CFTC believes that exempting financial contracts overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Authority from pending over-the-counter derivatives legislation could create a "significant and problem-filled loophole" in the future.

CFTC wants the financial restructuring bill to encompass a wide range of over-the-counter products, and if jurisdictional issues arise between regulators, they can simply deal with it through cooperative agreements. CFTC believes that wholesale exemptions preventing CFTC regulation -- including futures and swaps contracts, clearing or exchange trading -- for anything regulated by the FERC "undermine the effectiveness of comprehensive reform. CFTC wants Congress to avoid any bright-line exemption that runs the risk of creating the next regulatory loophole.

The U.S. House version of the regulatory reform bill, which passed in December, would give the CFTC and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission authority to police the swaps market. But FERC and some lawmakers believe the definition of a swap is much too broad and might apply to certain financial products and entities regulated by FERC, thereby hindering its ability to police wholesale energy markets. Now as the Senate prepares to tackle the financial overhaul, FERC is seeking to convince lawmakers to make changes before a final bill is approved.

FERC is urging lawmakers to more clearly define jurisdictional boundaries. FERC believes that if the agency's role was reduced by legislation, it could adversely affect customers. Uncertainty could chill investments in energy infrastructure by raising the cost of capital and jurisdictional shift could limit their ability to pursue market manipulation cases.

Power companies have integrated financial trading into their strategies to manage the physical flows of supply and demand, and balance their ledgers. At issue in particular are contracts called "financial transmission rights," which are used by firms to manage congestion and hedge against the costs of moving power onto high-voltage lines. Also in question is whether the managers of the contracts, which are currently regulated by FERC, should fall under CFTC regulation. (WSJ, 3/9/10)

Calera: Converting CO2 Into Calcium Carbonate For Concrete

Calera has developed a process to combine CO2 with seawater, or any kind of briny water, to produce calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which can be used as a building material. Specifically, it takes CO2 emissions from a coal or gas-fired power plant and sprays seawater into it and naturally converts most of the CO2 into calcium carbonate. It is then spray-dried into cement or shaped into little pellets that can be used as concrete aggregates for building walls or highways — instead of letting the CO2 emissions go into the atmosphere and produce climate change. Calera is demonstrating the process at a plant near Santa Cruz, California. In essence, the company is making chalk. The Calera cement can be used as a replacement for the Portland cement that is typically blended with rock and other material to make the concrete in everything from roads to buildings.

If the process can be made cost effective, it would eliminate the need for expensive carbon-sequestration and could make “clean coal” a possibility. A major challenge for most CO2 capturing technologies is to overcome the high costs of capture. The Department Of Energy (DOE) has reported that capturing a ton of CO2 from an existing coal fired power plant could cost $58. That means that until the price of carbon remains below $58 per ton, the emitter will suffer an important economic loss. This loss will have a direct impact on electricity rates, the price of cement and the price of all services that are energy intensive. Bechtel Renewables and New Technology has formed an alliance to build more Calera plants. Peabody coal company also intends to invest in Calera. (Calera-Economic Viability)

Cement, which is mostly commonly composed of calcium silicates, requires heating limestone and other ingredients to 2,640 degrees F (1,450 degrees C) by burning hydrocarbon fuels and is the third largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Making one ton of cement results in the emission of roughly one ton of CO2—and in some cases much more. While Calera's process of making calcium carbonate cement wouldn't eliminate all CO2 emissions, it would reverse that equation. For every ton of cement we make, we are sequestering half a ton of CO2. The Calera process could be applied to cement production, reducing CO2 emissions even more. The U.S. used more than 122 million metric tons of Portland cement in 2006, according to the Portland Cement Association (PCA), an industry group, and China used at least 800 million metric tons.

FROM THE CALERA WEBSITE (Carbonate Formation Science):

The heart of the Calera process is the technology associated with carbon capture and conversion to stable solid minerals. We refer to this new process as Carbon Mineralization via Aqueous Precipitation or CMAP for short. In its simplest form CMAP involves contacting gas from the power plant with water (aqueous) containing hardness and a base buffer (alkalinity). The water chemistry is controlled such that the carbon dioxide in the power plant gas is absorbed into the water and reacts with the water hardness to form solid mineral carbonates, which are very similar to fine limestone particles. These solid mineral carbonates now contain carbon dioxide that would have been emitted into the air. After removal from the water and appropriate processing the solids have value in a number of construction applications. The versatility of CMAP also allows the generation of bicarbonates using half the amount of input materials but still mineralizing carbon dioxide that can be pumped into any underground saline zone for storage without the possibility of leakage of carbon dioxide.

(NYT, 3/6/10, Scientific American, Calera)

Lisa P. Jackson Speaks At National Press Club

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson was the keynote speaker at a National Press Club luncheon today [Video]. She answered about 15 questions after her 20 minute speech. Center President Norris McDonald attended the luncheon (see photo at right). Questions are written down in advance at the National Press Club. Although his question was not asked, we will post it now:

"Will anyone be eligible to hold and trade carbon dioxide allowances and offsets under EPA's cap and trade program?"

Jackson covered a range of issues from mountaintop removal to global warming. We agree with EPA on many of the issues that Administrator Jackson covered today. We particularly agree with her comments about environmental protection creating jobs through innovation. But we oppose mountaintop removal and believe EPA should deny water permits for this practice. We also oppose expanded offshore oil and gas drilling.

Excerpts:

FULL STATEMENT

Well-conceived, effectively implemented environmental protection is good for economic growth. Let me repeat that: environmental protection is good for economic growth. Don’t get me wrong – environmental regulations are not free. But the money that’s spent is an investment in our country – and one that pays for itself.

First, environmental protection makes us healthier. It eliminates contributors to costly and often deadly diseases like asthma, cancer and heart disease. When the air is dirty, or the water is contaminated, and people are getting sick, those kinds of health costs are multiplied by millions of families. And they’re a burden to small businesses trying to provide health care to their workers. Good environmental protection is critical to our health, and because of that it’s critical to our economy.

Second, environmental protection makes our communities more prosperous and our workforce more productive. Those of you with kids in college will understand the words of man who said to me, “Businesses come to communities like parents come to colleges. They look at the environment to make sure it’s health. This is something we see all the time in our ongoing work on environmental justice. The idea that environmental degradation is an obstacle to economic prosperity is a pillar of the environmental justice movement.

This is our convenient truth: smart environmental protection creates jobs. So – we all want a clean environment. And we all want a strong economy. The question is: How does that happen? The answer is: innovation. Innovation is the “sweet spot” where our economic and environmental interests meet. It’s where business leaders and conservationists can come together to hash out solutions – solutions that have filled American history with environmental achievements and helped us lead the global economy. New environmental protections. New innovations. New jobs.This is the direction we are moving in 2010 as well.

Rumors About "Death of Cap & Trade" Premature

Is Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) a trojan horse? He was supposed to bring bipartisanship to the climate change debate in the U.S. Senate. Now he is running around saying "Cap and Trade is dead." His supposed partners, Senators John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) should take him aside and remind him that the only real alternative to Cap and Trade is taxes. Nobody wants more taxes. The Center opposes increasing taxes as a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation tool. Cap and Trade is the way to go and the success of the Acid Rain Program proves it.

Republicans, environmental justice activists and much of industry oppose Cap and Trade legislation even as they admit that climate change is a very serious environmental problem. Some mainstream environmentalists are also willing to jettison Cap and Trade in order to get legislation before the midterm elections. This is ridiculous. What happened? Last year this time, Cap and Trade looked like a sure thing. If we have to wait until after the midterm elections to get Cap and Trade legislation, so be it, because it is the only real solution to adequately addressing the problem. And it is market-based. Republicans seem to have forgotten this since they supported the Cap and Trade Clear Skies Initiative during the Bush administration.

Needed: Catalina Island Water & Gas Utility

Southern California Edison (SCE) wants to sell its old water and gas utility in Avalon, Santa Catalina Island. Island ratepayers fear rates would increase sharply and that supplies might be jeopardized so they have organized a consortium to try to take over the operation before it can be sold to a Canadian company. The water in the Catalina Island water system is a blended supply, with fresh groundwater sources located in the interior of the island and seawater processed by the desalination system located at the Pebbly Beach Generating Station, right.

SCE is entertaining two prospective bids for the gas and water business, which Edison has valued at $35 million; one is from Corix Utilities Inc. of Richmond, a Vancouver suburb, and another comes from the consortium representing the island's 1,800 ratepayers. SCE intends to continue providing the island's electricity service.

The bid from Corix has galvanized environmentalists, commercial fishing operations, hotel and restaurant owners, city officials, private land owners, summer camps to unite under the auspices of the consortium composed of the Catalina Island Conservancy, the Catalina Island Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau, USC, a representative of the island's youth camps, the Hamilton Cove Homeowners Assn. and the Santa Catalina Island Co. Edison says the utility is worth $35 million but the stakeholders think it might be worth $5 million. Corix has submitted a bid for the water and gas company and deposited $1 million in earnest money in a bank designated by Edison.

A sustainable, reasonably priced supply of fresh water is the resource most critical to residents, as well as private land owners and developers planning to build an 18-hole golf course, luxury hotel, restaurants and other amenities. (L.A. Times, 3/6/10)

President Obama's Clean Energy Speech at OPOWER

The White House

Remarks by the President on Clean Energy Jobs

OPOWER, Arlington, Virginia

March 05, 2010, 11:43 A.M. EST

FULL TEXT

Excerpts

Now, even as we fight to help the private sector create more jobs, and even as we fight to bring about a full economic recovery, we know that there have been success stories all across America. OPOWER is one of those success stories. This is a company that works with utilities to help folks understand their energy costs and how they can save money on their energy bills. And for the press, if you weren't able to hear, this board testifies to the number of kilowatt hours that have been saved, the amount of money that's gone back into consumers' pockets, and the amount of carbon that has been taken out of the atmosphere as a consequence of the great work that these people at OPOWER are doing.

And that's also why earlier this week I urged Congress to enact a new initiative we're calling Homestar that would offer homeowners rebates for making their homes more energy-efficient -- rebates worth up to $1,500 for individual home upgrades and up to $3,000 for retrofitting their entire home. So if they're getting this good information from OPOWER and they see that, boy, that drafty window is costing me a couple of hundred bucks a year, they're now going to have an incentive to go to Home Depots or go to Lowes to hire a certified contractor and make the changes that will ultimately pay for themselves, improve our environment, and improve our economy.

EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Rule

On September 22, 2009 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. This rule establishes mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting requirements for owners and operators of facilities and suppliers within specified categories.

Source Categories (no CO2 threshold)

• Electricity Generation*
• Aluminum Production
• Ammonia Manufacturing
• Cement Production
• HCFC-22
• HFC-23 Destruction*
• Lime Manufacturing
• Nitric Acid Production
• Petrochemical Production
• Petroleum Refineries
• Phosphoric Acid Production
• Silicon Carbide Production
• Soda Ash Production
• Titanium Dioxide Production

*See EPA rule for qualifiers

Suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA directly. Also, all entities within specified categories (as defined in the EPA’s final rule) must report, even if they do not exceed the threshold of 25,000 metric tons of GHG emissions. An estimated 10,000 facilities in the U.S. will fall under the new rule.

Source Categories (25,000 metric tons CO2 threshold)

• General Stationary Combustion Sources
(with aggregate maximum rated heat input
capacity of 30 mmBtu/hr or more)
• Miscellaneous uses of carbonates
• Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
(CH4 as CO2e)
• Manure Management Systems
(CH4 plus N2O as CO2e)
• Ferroalloy Production
• Glass Production
• Hydrogen Production
• Iron and Steel Production
• Lead Production
• Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
• Zinc Production

The first annual reports covering calendar year 2010, must be submitted to EPA by March 31, 2011.

(Bureau Veritas, EPA-Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule)

Global Green USA

Global Green, USA held its 7 th ANNUAL PRE-OSCAR PARTY on Wed March 3rd in Avalon Hollywood.

Purpose: GREENER CITIES FOR A COOLER PLANET

Benefitting Global Green's initiatives to fight climate change by creating healthy, green communities

Founded in 1994 by activist and philanthropist Diane Meyer Simon, Global Green is the American Arm of Green Cross International (GCI), which was created by President Mikhail S. Gorbachev to foster a global value shift toward a sustainable and secure future by reconnecting humanity with the environment.

Global Green USA is the only national environmental non-profit headquartered in Southern California with offices in New Orleans, Washington DC, and New York, and is one of 31 national GCI affiliates throughout the world.

Mission

Global Green is working to address some of the greatest challenges facing humanity. In the United States their work is primarily focused on stemming global climate change by creating green buildings and cities.

Internationally, Global Green and its affiliates are working toward:

Eliminating weapons of mass destruction that threaten lives and the environment
Providing clean, safe drinking water for the 2.4 billion people who lack clean water
Results: The organization was founded in order to create a new approach to solving the world's most pressing environmental challenges. Global Green's unique approach merges innovative research, cutting-edge community based projects and targeted advocacy that:

Educates hundreds of millions of people annually
Leverages billions of dollars for environmental initiatives
Implements ground-breaking environmental policy
Improves the lives of tens of thousands in low-income communities

Climate Change: Right Science, Now Get The Politics Right

The idea that a mounting weight of scientific evidence would gradually overwhelm ideological opposition to the climate policy regime is not just false but backwards. The crucial point here is that no amount of reform of the IPCC, or rooting out of bad science — or of scientists behaving badly — will begin to correct the flaws in the dominant approach to climate policy. Rehabilitation of climate policy is a matter not of getting the science right, but of getting the politics right.

--Daniel Sarewitz, Nature, 4 March 2010

Daniel Sarewitz is Professor of Science and Society and Co-Director of the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University. His work focuses on revealing the connections between science policy decisions, scientific research and social outcomes.

Center Time Machine Takes Us Back To 1992

DOE Secretary Before Senate Appropriations Committee

Statement of DOE Secretary Stephen Chu
U.S. Department of Energy

Before the

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations

Hearing Regarding the FY 2011 Budget Request
March 4, 2010

Excerpt

Energy

To transition to a low-carbon future, we must change the way we generate and use energy. The President’s budget request invests in clean energy priorities, including an investment of $2.4 billion in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. It also promotes innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy projects through $500 million in credit subsidy that will support $3 to $5 billion in lending. It expands the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit by $5 billion to help build a robust domestic manufacturing capacity for clean energy technologies. Through this budget, we will increase research, demonstration, and deployment of wind, solar and geothermal energies; make buildings and homes more efficient; develop energy efficient vehicles; and pursue carbon capture and sequestration.

Nuclear energy must also be a part of our clean energy mix. During his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.” The President and I are committed to restarting our domestic nuclear industry. Our budget request includes an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority for the nuclear power sector to help construct the first new nuclear plants in decades, as well as $495 million for research and development to support the competitiveness, safety and proliferation resistance of nuclear energy in the United States and abroad. On February 16, President Obama announced conditional commitments for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades.

Webcast

Jobs Bill 2010 Progressing Through Congress

The Senate approved a $15 billion jobs bill on Feb 24 by a vote of 70 to 28. The House passed a $154 billion jobs bill in December but House leaders settled on a strategy for proceeding with the Senate bill this week. The House passed the $15 billion jobs bill today (3/4) on a vote of 217 to 201. The Senate will have to approve it again before President Barack Obama can sign it into law because the House modified it to satisfy the concerns of centrist Democrats and black lawmakers. The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (House Amendments H.R. 2847), was heavily amended, particularly the cost, from the original bill (The Jobs For Main Street Act).

The House bill includes payroll tax relief for businesses that hire new employees, costing $13 billion over 10 years. Employers wouldn't have to pay their share of federal payroll taxes for any new workers that have been unemployed for at least 60 days for the rest of 2010. If that worker is still on the books in a year, the business owner would receive an additional $1,000 tax credit. The bill includes an extension of the Build America Bonds program. It also extends a highway-construction fund through the end of the year. (NYT, 2/25/10, Reuters, 3/2/10, Market Watch, 3/4/10)

EPA Announces Superfund Cleanup Progress for FY 2009

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released today the annual summary of the Superfund program’s fiscal year (FY) 2009 progress. The report shows that the program continues to make significant progress in achieving its mission of cleaning up the country’s most complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites and protecting the health of nearby communities and ecosystems from harmful contaminants.

In FY 2009, which ended on Sept. 30, EPA completed all of its construction projects at 20 sites, for a cumulative total of 1,080 sites with construction completed – 67 percent of the top priority sites ranked on the National Priorities List (NPL). Superfund has continued to protect communities and the environment by listing 20 new sites and proposing that 23 sites be added to the NPL in FY 2009.

With $582 million in funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, EPA began new construction at 26 Superfund sites and provided additional support to ongoing construction activities at 25 other sites. The recovery act funding is supporting local economies by creating and maintaining jobs, and is increasing the speed in which Superfund sites are cleaned up and returned to productive use.

When a Superfund site is cleaned up and redeveloped, it can offer significant economic benefits to local communities, including future job creation. EPA conducted or oversaw more than 368 emergency response and removal actions to address immediate threats to communities, such as cleaning up spills and accidental releases of hazardous material in FY 2009. Underscoring EPA's commitment to the "polluter pays" principle, the agency secured commitments from potentially responsible parties to conduct more than $1.99 billion in future response work, and to reimburse EPA for $371 million in past costs.

In 2010, EPA launched the Integrated Cleanup Initiative, which represents a commitment to improve program performance and provide communities with accountability and transparency. As a first step, EPA has developed a new publicly reported performance measure, an increase in the completion of Superfund remedial action projects. The new measure will provide more information regarding the actions necessary to bring site cleanups to completion and reuse.

More on the Superfund National Accomplishments Summary

$2 Trillion CO2 Market at Risk- -Assessment Service Needed

It is being reported by Reuters that investors estimate the global carbon market to be worth about $2 trillion by the end of the decade. These investors believe the absence of a legally binding global climate deal and a federal emissions trading scheme in the United States are standing in the way of the market in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading growing to achieve yearly turnover of $2 trillion by 2020.

The Center is particularly disappointed in the lack of movement by the USA in this area because we have our own GHG allowance trading and offset services [See CMX and GCB]. We are also disappointed that EPA has decided to push back regs on smaller entitities to 2016 because they believe it would represent a burden. We believe it would represent opportunities for innovation.

The market for carbon credits was worth around $136 billion last year, according to analysts Point Carbon. They also predict a lower global carbon price of 31 euros ($41.92) a tonne (2200 lbs) in 2020. The Center's carbon price is currently $20 per ton (2000 lbs). European Union carbon prices are roughly half what they were in mid-2008, trading around 13.45 euros ($18.35) a tonne. Carbon markets allow polluters to buy and emit carbon dioxide, blamed for global warming. Under such "cap-and-trade" schemes, companies or countries face a carbon limit. If they exceed that limit they can buy allowances from others.

The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme, launched in 2005, is the 27-member bloc's main weapon in fighting greenhouse gas and together with a U.S. scheme, is viewed as a crucial first step toward creating a global market. But cap-and-trade legislation faces stiff opposition from Republicans in the U.S. Senate and strong doubts persist that a bill will pass this year. A new climate change bill could make its debut in the Senate soon in what would likely be the last big effort by Democrats to enact major environmental reforms this year.

Financial market intelligence provider Standard & Poor's (S&P) and carbon analysts Point Carbon are considering jointly developing carbon offset project risk assessment products and services. The companies have signed a memorandum of understanding and will work together to determine how they can leverage their expertise in a global carbon market that could be worth 121 billion euros ($163.6 billion) in 2010, according to Point Carbon. Demand for independent evaluation of the risk of carbon offset projects is growing rapidly around the world. (Reuters, 3/3/10, Reuters, 3/2/10)

Rockefeller Seeks 2-Year Suspension of GHG Regulations

Senator John D. Rockefeller's Press Release Below.

The Center opposes the legislation.

ROCKEFELLER INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO SUSPEND EPA ACTION AND PROTECT CLEAN COAL STATE ECONOMIES

Legislation Calls for Two Year Suspension of EPA Action On Greenhouse Gas Regulations to Protect Jobs and Coal Industry

Washington, D.C.—Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV today introduced legislation to suspend potential Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for two years.

“Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology,” said Senator Rockefeller. “This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources—giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue."

“Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson challenging EPA’s potential regulation of greenhouse gases. Administrator Jackson responded quickly and showed some willingness to move the agency’s timetable for regulation to the end of 2010. This is a positive change and good progress, but I am concerned it may not be enough time. We must set this delay in stone and give Congress enough time to consider a comprehensive energy bill to develop the clean coal technologies we need. At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put decisions about clean coal and our energy future into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, not a federal environmental agency.”

Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) is introducing the House of Representatives companion legislation, with Reps. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) as original cosponsors.

Background

Senator Rockefeller has been working to protect West Virginia clean coal and secure the economies in clean coal states. Rockefeller’s legislation will allow two years for Congress to consider comprehensive energy legislation before EPA could begin consideration of regulations. The legislation directs that for two years after enactment the EPA can take no regulatory action and that no stationary source shall be subject to any requirement to obtain a permit or meet a New Source Performance Standard under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane, except for the widely-supported motor vehicle emission standards. The bill will give Congress the time it needs to design and pass well thought-out legislation. Comprehensive energy legislation should be crafted with a combination of certainty and incentives to create the right business atmosphere for coal’s continued use well into the 21st century. In order to give businesses, energy company CEOs, and investors a reason to invest in technology, they need to know there will be a market for that technology and some level of comfort around the certainty of future environmental regulations.

In April 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that EPA must make a determination when it comes to regulating motor vehicle emissions. On December 15, 2009, EPA published its final rule in the Federal Register, stating: “The Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.”

The Supreme Court ruling gives the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. If Congress wants to change or alter that authority—or suspend it long enough to pass comprehensive legislation—Congress must be able to pass a bill that addresses the real life economic impacts that EPA is not equipped to consider.

To address concerns about EPA’s unmitigated authority in regulating stationary sources and the impact on jobs and local economies, Senator Rockefeller recently led a group of eight Senators from clean coal and manufacturing states in sending a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

The letter conveyed concerns and questions about how the Clean Air Act could be used to regulate a host of greenhouse gas emission sources ranging from coal-burning power plants to factories to oil refineries and many other types of facilities that collectively employ millions of Americans. Link to the letter to Administrator Jackson here (LINK).Administrator Jackson indicated in her expedient reply that EPA is moving forward with motor vehicle regulations, but the stationary source regulations that are likely to have far-reaching economic consequences will not be acted upon in 2010, but phased-in beginning in 2011. Link to the letter from Administrator Jackson here (LINK).Senator Rockefeller’s legislation gets to the heart of the matter by providing time for Congress to debate a comprehensive approach to energy policy and its effect on jobs and our economy without hampering EPA’s ability to move forward with important vehicle efficiency rules. Link to the legislation here (LINK).

EPA To Significantly Raise Initial Greenhouse Gas Threshold

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced at a Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on EPA's FY 2011 Budget that it will set an initial stage of stationary-source greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions threshold of at least 75,000 tons a year—and possibly more than 100,000 tons a year—for power plants and other industrial projects for the regulations between 2011 to 2012. EPA may still require projects such as power plants and refineries that applied in prior years to apply for new greenhouse-gas permits.

State regulators warned the EPA that its initial threshold of 25,000 tons a year was too low and would cover far more facilities than the agency realized or regulators are able to process, the EPA has decided to substantially raise the threshold. The new standards EPA is planning to set under new regulations are due out as soon as later this month. EPA is raising the threshold due to the belief that the regulations could potentially compromise business health and econonmic growth.

The EPA says it intends to pursue regulation of smaller sources after 2016. Some state regulators say that would cover up to six million facilities, including large bakeries, churches, hospitals and small mom-and-pop businesses. The Center is disappointed in this delay because we believe most innovations would have come from the creativity of the smaller businesses. The threshold level and timeline is critical to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of businesses such as power plants, refineries, cement kilns, steel mills and chemical plants. With a higher level, fewer facilities would be required to comply.

The regulations are being proposed under the New Source Review (NSR) instead of Ambient Air Quality Criteria Pollutant regulations. The current thresholds for criteria pollutants such as lead, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, are 100 and 250 tons per year (tpy). These thresholds are in effect now, and are appropriate for criteria pollutants. However, they are not feasible for GHGs. Without the tailoring rule, these lower thresholds would take effect automatically for GHGs with the adoption of any EPA rule that controls or limits GHG emissions. The proposed thresholds would continue to preserve the ability of the NSR and title V operating permit programs to achieve and maintain public health and environmental protection goals while avoiding an administrative burden that would prevent state and local permitting authorities from processing CAA permits efficiently.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson appeared before the subcommitttee, which is chaired by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), on Wednesday, March 3 (Webcast). Administrator Jackson stated that if a facility is smaller than 75,000 tons for the next two years, it would not need a permit. The permit requirements are applied to the years 2011-2012. Two-thirds of the stationary-source emissions are from sources emitting more than 100,000 tons per year.

Industry officials are concerned that if EPA requires anybody who's applied for a permit but not obtained final approval to go back and get new greenhouse-gas permits, it will significantly delay any number of important projects already in the pipeline. Administrator Jackson assured that she was making the decision to avoid absurd results and to aid the administrative process. State regulators say they lack the resources—both money and staff—to handle the expected influx of new permit applications. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have warned that the regulations would lead to lawsuits and damage the economy. The EPA said it would regulate with a sensitivity to the economy. (WSJ, 3/3/2010, Fact Sheet -- Proposed Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule)

Municipal Bonds To Finance Georgia Nuclear Power Plant

The Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) is selling more than $2.5 billion in debt to finance its share of two AP 1000 nuclear reactors proposed to be built in Waynesboro, Georgia. MEAG's partners include investor-owned, tax-paying public utility Georgia Power (Southern Company subsidiary) and cooperatively owned Olgethorpe Power Corporation. The deal includes mostly taxable Build America Bonds along with a small tax-exempt portion.

About $2.11 billion of the bonds are rated within the middle of investment-grade credit ratings by Moody's Investors Service, Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings. Moody's, however, rates a $419 million segment at Baa2—within the lowest tier of the investment-grade. That is because the counterparty on the contracts that support debt service on the deal—PowerSouth Energy Cooperative—is also rated in the lower ranges of investment-grade debt.

One thing market participants like about the MEAG deal: the Obama administration $8.3 billion in conditional loan guarantees to the owners of the nuclear-reactor project. MEAG's $1.8 billion share of the guarantees should help alleviate any construction costs running over estimates.

The total cost of the reactors, which are expected to begin operation in 2016 and 2017, has been estimated at $14 billion. MEAG's share is around $3.7 billion. MEAG also has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational.

About $1.2 billion in Build America Bonds, due April 1, 2057, were launched at 205 basis points, or 2.05 percentage points over the yield of comparable Treasurys. Orders totaled over $3 billion. (WSJ, 3/4/10)

EPA's Jackson Kicks Off EPA's 40th Anniversary‏ Celebration

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will kickoff the Celebration of EPA’s 40th Anniversary on Monday, March 8th at the National Press Club.

Administrator Jackson will discuss EPA’s progress in 2009, as well as the agency’s priorities for 2010, and explore the challenges and opportunities of leading an environmental agency in a time of economic challenge and technological innovation.

Center Supports President Obama's Health Care Plan

The Center supports President Obama's Health Care Plan primarily because it eliminates the exclusion of coverage for people with preexisting conditions by insurance companies. It also provides an avenue for insurance coverage to tens of millions of people who are currently not covered. And we support the president's plan because it reforms an out of control health care system in terms of cost.

Excerpts from the President's statement:

FULL STATEMENT

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system.

First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a preexisting condition. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California -- up to 39 percent increases in one year in the individual market. Those practices would end.

Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves -- because if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions -- families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care --- ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

Center Supports Obama/Jackson Cap & Trade Agenda

The Center supports President Obama's Cap and Trade solution to climate change mitigation. In the absence of Congressional legisaltion to address climate change mitigation, we also support EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's 'Endangerment Finding' and subsequent regulations to mitigate climate change. Lawsuits are flying at Administrator like bats in the night. Congress is retreating on climate change legislation mostly because it is an election year. Senator Lindsey Graham is prematurely decrying the end of Cap and Trade as a component of pending energy/climate legislation. Others might blink, but the Center is staunchly behind the president and the EPA administrator in supporting Cap and Trade as a central tool in fighting abnormal climate change. We also want 'anyone' to be eligible to hold and trade allowances and offsets.

We were as disappointed when then Senator Barack Obama opposed the Cap and Trade Clear Skies Initiative as we are now with Republicans who supported Cap and Trade for that clean air and climate change mitigation legislation. We lobbied then Senator Barack Obama to include an Environmental Justice Allowance Reserve (EJAR) amendment to the Clear Skies Initiative legislation in a futile attempt to get him to support the legislation . He deferred in favor of subsequently cosponsoring environmental justice legislation with Senator Hillary Clinton.

McDonald in Red Room with President Bush
We are now disappointed that Republicans are opposing Cap and Trade for climate change mitigation when they supported it under the Clear Skies Initiative. We tried our best to get Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee to support the Clear Skies Initiative. We worked with then Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee James Inhofe to get the Cap and Trade Clear Skies Initiative passed (it failed). The Center worked with then Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chairman James Connaughton and then CEQ communications director Dana Perino to get the Cap and Trade Clear Skies Initiative passed. Yet Republicans are turning their backs on Cap and Trade now and we are deeply disappointed that they reject a concept they once aggressively embraced. The Center maintains its steadfast support for Cap and Trade because it worked superbly in a successful Clean Air Act Acid Rain Program.

50 Ingenious Ways to Keep Your Home Warm This Winter

Those living in climates with particularly frigid winters need to ensure that their residences remain safe and warm from the elements. These handy tips and tricks come straight from experts in the field to help homeowners across the world find the best ways to keep them and their families (if they have a family, of course) properly heated and sheltered from the harsh outdoors for one more season.

10 Ways Listed Below. Full List of 50.

1. Clean and inspect furnace filters, blades, and motors regularly : Making certain that every element of a furnace – from filters to casings – is in proper working order ensures that the machine heats a home as efficiently, comfortably, and safely as possible.

2. Perform regular draft hood tests : Furnace draft hoods must especially undergo rigorous inspection and and testing on a regular basis to prevent carbon monoxide leakage and provide the best possible heating. Erie Insurance offers one method of testing draft hoods on furnaces.

3. Don’t turn the thermostat up beyond a certain point : Winterization experts suggest keeping an occupied room between 68°F and 70°F and an empty one between 60°F and 65°F. Doing so will reduce the stress on a furnace and allow it to heat longer, more evenly, and more efficiently.

4. Keep space heaters in the most-used rooms. : Any rooms needing a little extra heating if the recommended temperatures prove uncomfortable can be warmed up quickly with the addition of a space heater.

5. Avoid using ventilation fans in the kitchen and bathroom : Ventilation fans remove some of the heated air from the room, and if left off can drain an entire house’s worth in around an hour.

6. Think of investing in a programmable thermostat : Using a programmable thermostat allows homeowners to preserve energy and time by keeping their house cooler while on vacation or at work and warmer as they occupy it.

7. Wrap heaters located in unheated areas of the home in insulation blankets : Envelope water heaters stationed in basements - or other rooms with insufficient heating – in insulation blankets to keep them from freezing over and making a home far cooler than it ought to be in the winter months.

8. Take advantage of natural heat and light : Open blinds and curtains on windows facing the sun to add some much-needed heat into a home at no extra cost. In the daylight hours, homeowners can lower their thermostat to preserve energy and money as well.

9. Use curtains made of heavy fabric : During the winter, switch out the curtains to heavier materials that trap more natural heat and light than their lighter, more summery kin.

10. Seal up any holes in walls or foundations : Any leaks, cracks, holes, or other flaws in foundations and walls serve as conduits for bits of precious heat to escape, negatively impacting wallets, energy, and comfort levels.

Construction Management Degree
Guide to online construction management schools and degrees

Criteria For Supporting or Opposing Development Projects

Development Projects

1. Is the project environmentally damaging?
2. If the project is environmentally damaging, is the damage significant?
3. Does the project promote sprawl?
4. Does the project harm African American communities?
5. Is the project outside of a smart growth area?
6. Does the project cause economic disadvantage or have any negative or biased economic consequences?
7. Are there many environmentally damaging projects in the area?
8. Do the majority of residents in the region oppose the project?
9. Does the political decision-making body oppose the project?
10. Do environmental groups oppose the project?

Seven or more “No” responses: Project is eligible for Center support.

EPA Adds 10 Sites to Superfund's National Priorities List

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adding 10 new hazardous waste sites that pose risks to human health and the environment to the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. The NPL is a listing of priority sites that EPA investigates to determine if actions are needed to clean up the waste. Superfund is the federal program that cleans up the most complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country – protecting the health of nearby communities and ecosystems from harmful contaminants. In addition to the final sites added to the list, EPA is also proposing to add eight sites to the NPL.

Contaminants found at these sites may pose a wide range of health effects. The contaminants found include arsenic, benzene, chromium, copper, creosote, cyanide, dichloroethene (DCE), lead, mercury, perchloroethene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and selenium, among others.

To date, there are 1,279 sites on the NPL (including the 10 new sites added today). With the proposal of the eight new sites, there are 61 proposed sites awaiting final agency action. There are a total of 1,340 final and proposed sites.

With all Superfund sites, EPA tries to identify and locate the parties potentially responsible for the contamination to pay for the clean up. For the newly listed sites without viable potentially responsible parties, EPA will investigate the full extent of the contamination before starting significant cleanup at the site. Therefore, it may be several years before significant cleanup funding is required for these sites.

Contaminated sites may be placed on the NPL through various mechanisms:

· Numeric ranking established by EPA’s Hazard Ranking System
· Designation by states or territories of one top-priority site
· Meeting all three of the following requirements:

- The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued a health advisory that recommends removing people from the site;
- EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and
- EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.

For Federal Register notices and supporting documents for these final and proposed sites

The following 10 sites have been added to the National Priorities List:

Salt Chuck Mine (Outer Ketchikan County, Alaska)
JJ Seifert Machine (Ruskin, Fla.)
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Jacksonville (Jacksonville, Fla.)
Chemetco (Madison County, Ill.)
Lake Calumet Cluster (Chicago, Ill.)
Gratiot County Golf Course (St. Louis, Mich.)
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp – Navassa (Navassa, N.C.)
Gowanus Canal (Brooklyn, N.Y.)
Black Butte Mine (Cottage Grove, Ore.)
Van Der Horst USA Corporation (Terrell, Texas)

The following eight sites have been proposed to the National Priorities List:

Sanford Dry Cleaners (Sanford, Fla.)
St. Clair Shores Drain (St. Clair Shores, Mich.)
Vienna Wells (Vienna, Mo.)
ACM Smelter and Refinery (Cascade County, Mont.)
Wright Chemical Corporation (Riegelwood, N.C.)
Black River PCBs (Jefferson County, N.Y.)
Dewey Loeffel Landfill (Nassau, N.Y.)
Smokey Mountain Smelters (Knox County, Tenn.)

Employment Wanted By Highly Qualified Professional

Frank R. Hall, Ph.D.

EDUCATION

Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado
Ph.D. in Oceanography, University of Rhode Island
M.S. in Geology, Lehigh University
B.A. in Earth Science/Geology, Kean University of New Jersey

SELECT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2020 Inc., LLC: 2007-2008, Contractor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

The National Academy of Sciences: 2006 – 2007, Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board

National Science Foundation: 2004-2005, Program Manager

University of New Orleans: 1998-2006, Associate Professor, Department of Geology and Geophysics

(301) 540-8001

USDA Supports Rural Electric Infrastructure

Investments Will Benefit More Than 55,000 Rural Customers in 16 States

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, left, today announced that 29 rural utilities and cooperatives in 16 states have been selected to receive loans and loan guarantees to build and repair more than 5,600 miles of distribution and transmission lines and make system improvements that will benefit more than 55,000 rural customers. Reliable electric service is a key to economic growth and development and the funding that I am announcing today will help many rural utilities improve service to their customers and owner-members.

The funding is being provided under USDA Rural Development's Electric Loan Program. It may be used to expand or improve electric service, support renewable energy efforts and establish energy conservation programs. The loans and loan guarantees are part of USDA Rural Development's annual budget and are not funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Funding of each loan recipient is contingent upon the recipient meeting the conditions of the loan agreement.

Alabama:
Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation - $42,950,000
Alaska:
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. - $10,600,000
Arizona:
Mohave Electric Cooperative Inc. - $28,075,000
Arkansas:
Petit Jean Electric Cooperative Corporation - $10,589,000
Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation - $43,413,000
Colorado:
Morgan County Rural Electric Association - $6,823,000
Georgia:
Coastal Electric Membership Corporation - $18,000,000
Washington Electric Membership Corporation - $13,346,000
Sumter Electric Membership Corporation - $10,000,000
Iowa:
Butler County Rural Electric Cooperative - $12,700,000
Grundy County Rural Electric Cooperative - $732,000
Minnesota:
Lyon-Lincoln Electric Cooperative - $4,483,000
Missouri:
White River Valley Electric Cooperative - $51,427,000
Farmers Electric Cooperative - $9,500,000
Howard Electric Cooperative - $5,249,000
Montana:
Ravalli County Electric Cooperative, Inc. - $6,100,000
New Mexico:
Jemez Mountains Electric Cooperative, Inc. - $28,983,000
Farmers' Electric Cooperative, Inc. - $28,101,000
North Carolina:
Energy United Electric Membership Corporation - $69,000,000
Halifax Electric Membership Corporation - $6,500,000
North Dakota:
Capital Electric Cooperative, Inc. - $15,000,000
Northern Plains Electric Cooperative - $17,000,000
Mountrail-Williams Electric Cooperative - $30,000,000
Ohio:
North Western Electric Cooperative - $4,750,000
Texas:
Karnes Electric Cooperative, Inc. - $6,718,000
Houston County Electric Cooperative - $11,940,000
Greenbelt Electric Cooperative, Inc. - $2,990,000
Central Texas Electric Cooperative - $34,000,000
Wyoming:
Wheatland Rural Electric Association - $4,255,000

USDA Rural Development administers and manages more than 40 housing, business, and community infrastructure and facility programs through a network of 6,100 employees located in the nation's capital and 500 state and local offices. These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers and improve the quality of life in rural America. Rural Development has an existing portfolio of more than $125 billion in loans and loan guarantees.

USDA Sponsors Green Jobs Training Program

Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Harris Sherman has announced a new program for the USDA Forest Service Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers that includes a green curriculum that will train underserved youth to hold jobs in the emerging green economy. The green curriculum will expand opportunities for students in Idaho through the promotion of public service, sustainable lifestyles and skill development to compete for green jobs.

For information on Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers

President Obama's Homestar "Cash For Caulkers" Proposal

President Barack Obama is proposing a $6 billion program to provide $3,000 cash rebates to homeowners who make energy-saving home improvements: insulate, replace windows, or install energy-saving heating, air-conditioning or ventilation systems. The rebates would be provided at the point of sale, by product retailers or contractors. The proposal is part of a plan by the administration to boost employment among U.S. makers of insulation and other materials covered by the rebates, and spur installation-related hiring in the construction sector, where unemployment hovers near 25%. The Center supports the proposal and will lobby Congress to incorporate the legislation in jobs or energy measures.

The program is called Homestar and nicknamed "Cash for Caulkers" contains some provisions similar to those included in the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last year. Under the proposal, consumers who undertake improvements—insulation, duct sealing, water heaters, furnaces or air-conditioners, windows, roofing and doors— would be eligible for 50% rebates on that spending, up to a maximum of $3,000. More comprehensive retrofits would qualify for a $3,000 rebate for a whole home energy audit and subsequent retrofit aimed at annual energy savings of at least homeowners who achieve greater savings would come in for additional rebate amounts. (WSJ, 3/2/10)

Senator Ben Cardin: Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010 (S. 2995), introduced by Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), would amend the Clean Air Act to establish a national uniform multiple air pollutant regulatory program for the electric generating sector. The bill addresses sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury and would mandate steep cuts in these electric utility emissions. S. 2995 is tougher than the EPA's past Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and will aim to cut soot-forming sulfur dioxide (SO2) by 80% by 2018, smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NOx) by 53% by 2015 and mercury by 90% by 2015.

The purposes of the bill are:

(1) to reduce the adverse public and environmental health effects caused by the emission of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, including the effects of acid deposition, particulate matter, and ozone, through reductions in annual emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia;

(2) to effectuate those reductions by requiring compliance by affected sources with prescribed emission limitations by specified deadlines, which limitations may be met through alternative methods of compliance provided by an emission allocation and transfer system; and

(3) to encourage energy conservation, use of renewable and clean alternative technologies, and pollution prevention as a long-range strategy, consistent with this title, for reducing air pollution and other adverse impacts of energy production and use.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, unanimously struck down (7/11/08) the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule, which required 28 states east of the Mississippi to reduce smog-forming (nitrogen oxides) and soot-and acid rain producing (sulfur dioxide) emissions that can travel long distances in the wind.

Glenn Beck is NOT "Fair and Balanced" Re President Obama

Why doesn't Glenn Beck hang us around President Obama's neck? Because it appears that Beck is determined to slime President Obama regardless of the facts. Just as during the campaign, opponents could not find anything ON Obama, so they hung Reverend Wright around his neck. Now Beck is doing the same thing with the radical past of Van Jones. Yet we believe Beck's case is illogical and verges on the edge of paranoia in the service of partisan politics. Here is our case.

The Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy is boldly capitalistic in our world view. We love democracy, small government, low taxes, gun freedom, a balanced energy mix, fur and the marketplace. We support the police and favor the death penalty, particularly for cop killers. All of the aforementioned enhance our environment. We are a conservative environmental group. Go figure. Yet not a peep from Beck.

We believe President Obama reflects our views. President Obama did not take over the car companies. They came to him begging for relief. President Obama did not take over Wall Street. They came to him begging for relief. President Bush admitted to abandoning his core marketplace principles in initiating the TARP. If President Obama had not used government to avert a depression, Beck would be blaming the president for not acting. Conservatives might talk a big game [see President Bush] when it comes to marketplace purity, but they blink in the face of the market 'taking her medicine.' We do wish that America had the backbone to stomach pain in order to pull out of a failed marketplace, but marketeers should not 'game the market' and put the federal government in a position of having no choice but to 'bail them out.' Americans go crazy over high gasoline prices. Does Beck think Americans will 'tolerate' a depression without the government doing something? George Bush sure didn't think so.

On environment and energy, President Obama seems to be pretty market oriented to us. Cap and Trade is a market approach to emissions reductions that were supported by Republicans in the passage of the Clean Air Act Acid Rain Program and the failed Bush Clear Skies Initiative. We supported the Clear Skies Initiative. Senator James Inhofe led the cap and trade Clear Skies Initiative in the Senate. The recent $8 billion in nuclear power plant loan guarantees was a Bush administration initiative. President Obama has proposed expanding on it by adding an additional $36 billion to the $18.5 billion authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Center was a Special Guest of The White House in the signing of that legislation in Albuquerque, New Mexico in August 2005. President Obama favors expanded offshore oil and gas drilling. Well we disagree with him on that. We also disagree with his decision to close Yucca Mountain as the national repository for nuclear waste. But that's about all we disagree with the president on in terms of energy and environmental policies. We have more examples.

Glenn Beck seems to be slanting things in one direction on the president. If he is unwilling or unable to set the record straight, he should give us the opportunity to do so.

Obama & Jackson Should Stick To Their CO2 Guns

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

By Norris McDonald

It might look like the ending of the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" for President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on climate change mitigation right now, but the dynamic duo should 'stick to their CO2 guns.' If Congress does not grow a backbone and pass climate change cap and trade legislation, fast tract the regulations at EPA. Labor unions, Democratic committee chairmen, state governors and their attorneys general, unimaginative energy companies, Republicans and other opposition industry interests should be lobbying Congress to pass legislation instead of writing letters to Administrator Jackson and suing the agency.

If Congress does not act, EPA should limit greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Obama and Jackson would rather not regulate carbon dioxide and other gases under the act and I agree with them. Yet Congress is leaving them no choice. It would be unconscionable for Obama and Jackson to fail to adequately address this most important of environmental issues. I hate that EPA is delaying regs on smaller emitters until 2016. My real desire is to get in the business of CO2 reduction. That is why we established our Carbon Mercantile Exchange (CMX), Green Carbon Bank (GCB) and Carbon Dioxide Reduction (CDR) Program a couple of years ago in anticipation of leveraging efficiency retrofits and innovative energy production. Phase in the largest emitters, medium sized emitters and smaller emitters now. We are just wondering if the EPA regulatory route will allow for 'anyone' to hold and trade allowances in the same manner as the EPA Acid Rain Program and the Northeastern states Regional Greenhouse Gas Iniative. The Center is registered in both programs.

We oppose proposed bills by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D., Minn.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D., Mo.) to cancel the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. We also disagree with the two dozen petitions consolidated by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. challenging the EPA "Endangerment Finding" that triggers regulation.