Republicans Join Lawsuit To Nullify Endangerment Finding

The Center believes climate change and global warming are real and represent the most important environmental issues facing us today.

However, Republican lawmakers have seized on what they refer to as “Climategate” as proof that the scientific research driving global warming concerns is fraudulent. A coalition of 13 Republican House members and 17 southeastern companies and industry associations Wednesday asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The litigants are charging that the ruling is based on a flawed 2007 scientific assessment.

The lawmakers join the companies and industry groups in asserting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on which EPA heavily relied in making the endangerment finding is based on faulty science. The finding was triggered by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in which the court held that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a Clean Air Act pollutant, and that if EPA finds the gas endangers public health and welfare the agency must regulate motor vehicle CO2 emissions. Those regulations, in turn, would trigger Clean Air Act requirements that EPA regulate CO2 from large stationary sources.

The suit was brought by Reps. John Linder (Ga.), Dana Rohrabacker (Calif.), John Shimkus (Ill.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.), Tom Price (Ga.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Steve King (Iowa), Nathan Deal (Ga.), Jack Kingston (Ga.), Michele Bachman (Minn.), Kevin Brady (Texas) and Joe Barton (Texas), senior GOP member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and perhaps the most outspoken House skeptic on climate change. The industries joining Wednesday’s lawsuit are spearheaded by Valdosta, Ga.-based Langdale Co. and seven Langdale affiliates, six southeastern trucking companies, the Georgia Motor Trucking Association and the Georgia Agribusiness Council.

The legal attack on the EPA endangerment finding is based on the contents of some 1,000 private e-mails, documents and computer codes hacked from the servers of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University in Great Britain, which houses one of numerous sets of climate change data and other materials used in preparing the 2007 IPCC report.

The biggest controversy stemming from the release of the stolen e-mails involves the scientists referring to their solution of a modelling problem as a “trick” that would “hide” the faulty data set to preserve the modeling results they preferrred. The other controversy involved a discussion of excluding the views of a CRU scientist who was hostile to the climate change theory. (The Energy Daily, 2/11/10)

Blizzard of 2010

What a wonderful Winter of 2010. The Blizzard of February 2010 will be remembered for a long time. And of course, global warming deniers will have a field day mocking the Hockey Stick. Some Washington, D.C. politicians are even building igloos in honor of former Vice President and global warming guru Al Gore. This snow will surely purify the earth and the air. Oh the smell of pure air in the middle of the night during a snow storm such as this.

Yet climate change easily embraces this blizzard. The very phrase 'climate change' indicates that there will be huge swings in the weather. From droughts that contribute to wildfires to increased ocean temperatures that contribute to larger hurricanes, climate change will manifest itself. Should we brace for a super hot summer sooner or later? You can take it to the bank. Hopefully with a wheel barrow full of carbon offset credits. Snowpocalypse. Snowmegeddon. The federal government shut down in Washington, D.C. Some are celebrating that fact alone. School cancellations. The U.S. Postal Service shut down for the day. And they have told the snow plows to cease and desist due to white out conditions. Game over. The Blizzard of 2010.

Iran Gives Commercial Nuclear Power A Bad Name

Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is using commercial power plants and lab-scale uranium enrichment efforts to cover its tracks. The general public probably does not distinguish between the commercial program, research programs and weapons programs when they read and hear about 'nuclear' developments in Iran. Iran's leadership has been completely disingeneous in negotiating with the United Nations, the United States and other countries. The United Nations can pursue economic sanctions, but Israel is not going to sacrifice its security in order to placate other nations. The Center believes the Iranian nuclear program has to be eliminated. (WSJ, 2/10/10)

Jordan Civilian Nuclear Cooperation With The USA

Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), America assists developing nations in pursuing civilian nuclear-power programs in exchange for guarantees they won't seek to produce atomic bombs. Is the Obama administration going to rename or resurrect the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which was designed to address programs such as the one being considered with Jordan? President Obama instructed the Department of Energy on June 29, 2009 to cease preparation for a nuclear recycling program under the GNEP.

Jordan is about to conclude a civilian nuclear-cooperation agreement with the U.S., which would make Jordan the second Arab state in less than a year, following the United Arab Emirates, to secure nuclear assistance from Washington. Any pact would constitute an international treaty and need the approval of Congress. An accord with Jordan would allow U.S. firms to transfer nuclear equipment, fuel and expertise to Jordan.

A potential stumbling block in the Jordan-U.S. deliberations is whether Jordan will provide guarantees that it will not enrich uranium domestically. Jordan's agreement could face problems in Congress if Jordan does not approve a zero-enrichment clause. Jordan is willing to ship its uranium-ore deposits to third countries for processing into nuclear fuels. Jordan is also coordinating closely with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, but is cautious about negotiating a deal with the U.S. that would surrender its rights to enrich under terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Jordan wants to use its large supplies of recently discovered uranium ore to build a number of nuclear reactors within the next ten years. Jordan's government also seeks to use the uranium to power desalination plants that can produce potable water from the sea. Jordan is 96% dependent on importing petroleum and its uranium assets give them the hope that we won't be entirely energy dependent on other nations in the future.

The Jordanian government has signed nuclear-cooperation agreements or had extensive discussions with a string of countries in addition to the U.S., such as France, Canada, China, South Korea and Japan. The Jordan Atomic Energy Commission formed a joint-venture with France's Areva SA in 2008 to mine Jordan's uranium-ore deposits, which are estimated to exceed 100,000 tons. A South Korean consortium headed by the Korea Electric Power Corporation also recently signed a contract with Jordan's government worth nearly $200 million to build a research reactor. (WSJ, 2/10/10)

President Obama's Nuclear Power Political Calculations

President Obama has figured out that nuclear power will putter along as a marginal part of the future energy mix. So while he has said nuclear power may well play a role in America's energy future, he instructed the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on February 2 to file the paperwork to withdraw its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop the Yucca Mountain site as the repository for nuclear waste. This action followed the news on Monday, February 1 that President Obama would eliminate funding in the FY 2011 budget proposal for the underground repository. President Obama probably estimates that Congress will restore funding for Yucca Mountain in the FY 2011 budget. The Center supports Yucca Mountain.

Going back to a pronuclear stance, President Obama proposed increasing DOE loan guarantees for nuclear power plants from $18.5 billion to $54.5 billion in the FY 2011 budget proposal ($36 billion increase). We support this proposal and it is a carrot to Republicans to support Cap and Trade climate change legislation. But if global warming legislation sputters in early Spring, the president has to know the $36 billion will not be approved either. So although loan guarantees at the $18.5 billion level would still be enough to support the construction of two or three plants, it is not nearly enough to ignite a renaissance in building new nuclear power plants.

Now some are talking about reprocessing at Yucca Mountain instead of retrievable storage, but President Obama instructed the Department of Energy on June 29, 2009 to cease preparation for a nuclear recycling program under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The Center supports GNEP. And we propose reprocessing spent fuel at Yucca Mountain, left.

Finally, President Obama has instructed the Energy Department to from a blue ribbon commission to study management of nuclear waste. This issue was studied to death for the past three decades. The last thing we really need is more study on this issue. We are recommending that the nuclear waste function should be taken out of DOE and a new agency should be created to manage America's nuclear waste (NFRC-Nuclear Waste Mangement Agency)

So in review, although an increase in loan guarantees would be nice for increasing support from 2 to maybe 8 reactors, plugging Yucca constipates the nuclear renaissance. Nuclear fuels reprocessing would reduce the amount of spent fuel that would need to go into a repository, but killing GNEP voids recycling this waste. Fortunately, some politicians in Nevada see jobs and funding benefits for the state in getting on with construction of Yucca Mountain. We do too.

NOAA Climate Services Portal

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has embarked upon an ambitious program to develop a NOAA Climate Services Portal (NCS Portal). NOAA's goal is for the Portal to become the "go-to" website for NOAA's climate data, products, and services for all users. The NCS Portal will be a central component of NOAA's commitment to enhancing the access to and extensibility of climate data and services, timely articles and information, education resources, and tools for engagement and decision-making.

The NOAA Climate Services Portal, for its initial prototype, has focused on developing the infrastructure and capacity to showcase a wide breadth of climate information to our users. The process of adding content to this infrastructure is in its early stages and has initially focused on several datasets and products from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, Coastal Services Center, and Climate Prediction Center, among others. The initial intent is to highlight some of most popular datasets/products based on customer usage of the data. These initial datasets and products represent only a very small fraction of the climate information available across NOAA.

Support Letter For Commissioner Nominees to NRC

February 9 , 2010

Honorable Barbara Boxer
Room 112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Boxer:

The Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy supports the nominations of George Apostolakis, William Magwood and William Charles Ostendorff to be members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Center, founded in 1985, is an environmental organization dedicated to protecting the environment, enhancing human, animal and plant ecologies and promoting the efficient use of natural resources. The Center's outreach arm, the African American Environmentalist Association, seeks to expand participation in the environmental movement.

Dr. Apostolakis is a nuclear science professor at MIT and a member of NRC's scientific advisory committee. He is a professor of Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and received his Ph.D. in engineering science and applied mathematics from the California Institute of Technology in 1973. He is a Fellow of the American Nuclear Society and the Society for Risk Analysis. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2007. Dr. Apostolakis is a member and former chairman of the statutory Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards of the U.S. NRC.

Mr. William (Bill) Magwood was director of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy under former presidents Clinton and Bush from 1998 to 2005. From 1984-1994, he managed electric utility research and nuclear policy programs at the Edison Electric Institute in Washington, DC and he was a scientist at Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Mr. Magwood holds a B.S. degree in Physics and a B.A. degree in English from Carnegie-Mellon University. He also holds an M.F.A. degree from the University of Pittsburgh.

Mr. William (Bill) C. Ostendorff previously served as Counsel and Staff Director for the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, a Director of Mathematics and Science at the U.S. Naval Academy, commanded Submarine Squadron Six in Norfolk, Virginia and was Director of the Submarine Force Atlantic Prospective Commanding Officer School. He served on six submarines and graduated from the United States Naval Academy with Merit in 1976, with a B.S. in Systems Engineering. He received a J.D. from the University of Texas and an LLM in International and Comparative Law from the Georgetown University Law Center. He is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Sincerely,
Norris McDonald
President

The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Act of 2009

The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Act of 2009 (S. 1816), sponsored by Senator Benjamin Cardin, left, replaces section 117 of the Clean Water Act, which governs the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. Key provisions of the bill are:

· The legislation gives the states of the Chesapeake Bay strong new tools to restore the Bay and for the first time sets a firm deadline of 2025 for all restoration efforts to be in place. The internal and final deadlines for action coincide with the Executive Council’s timeline for Chesapeake restoration. Unlike earlier, missed deadlines, this one will become a legally binding part of the Clean Water Act.

· The bill also significantly expands federal grants. The Chesapeake Restoration bill authorizes a new $1.5 billion grants program to control urban/suburban polluted stormwater, the only pollution sector that is still growing. Grants to the states, small watershed organizations, and for comprehensive monitoring programs are all newly created or expanded in the draft bill.

· At least 10% of state implementation grants are set aside for NY, DE and WV. These headwater states have never been guaranteed any access to these funds in the past.

· At least 20% of the implementation grants are allocated for technical assistance to farmers and foresters to help them access Farm Bill funds and implement conservation practices on their farms.

· The bill codifies President Obama’s Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, which requires annual Federal Action Plans across all federal departments to restore the Bay.

(Office of Senator Benjamin Cardin)

Indirect Land-Use Regulation of Biofuels

Indirect land use theory goes something like this:

the U.S. biofuels industry creates more demand for domestic corn,
which causes less soybeans to be produced,
which in turn creates more demand for Brazilian soybeans,
which in turn causes more rainforests to be converted.

Since Brazilian rainforests sequester carbon and green house gases, therefore U.S. biofuels should be regulated for indirect land use impacts on rain forest conversion. Does the logic make sense for regulatory purposes? Brazil has more land area than the continental U.S. Brazil only uses 19 percent of its 790 million cultivable acres, so an obvious question is whether there is room for agricultural expansion without harming the rain forests?

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, right, introduced legislation to prevent EPA from regulating GHGs and also has a provision blocking its land-use biofuels rule as well. Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski has similar legislation in the Senate.

What are the risks of imposing an extra U.S. regulatory policy on indirect land use? Some of the risks are that the policy may:

interfere with U.S. agricultural competitiveness,
not achieve desired results in rain forest preservation,
impede maximum potential in reducing domestic carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, and impede progress toward less dependence on imported oil.

It is important to note that for the U.S. indirect land use policy proposed there appears to be no direct institutional authority or policy linkages that effectively assure less rain forest conversion. In the final analysis, the approach of pursing a unilateral indirect land use policy appears to run the risk of imposing extra costs on a domestic sector while having no apparent impact on rain forest preservation. (Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, )

Sara Palin Will Support Cap-and-Trade Again

Sarah Palin supported Cap and Trade when she was Senator John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate. John McCain was the guru of Cap and Trade in the Senate for years. He led the movement to adopt Cap and Trade. Sarah Palin opposes the current Cap and Trade legislation but we believe she would support a properly constructed Cap and Trade program.

At the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel, she once again spoke out against Cap and Trade by calling it Cap and Tax. She did praise President Obama for supporting nuclear power. A Cap and Trade program actually enhances the budding nuclear power renaissance. It frustrates us when technology becomes political. Why is nuclear power considered to be the Republican domain and Cap and Trade the Democrat domain? President George W. Bush was an aggressive proponent for Cap and Trade just as the Obama adminstration has turned out to be an aggressive proponent of nuclear power.


Instead of being politically correct on Cap and Trade, Sarah Palin should propose a Cap and Trade program that she could believe in. We think such a program would allow nuclear power to used as offsets for fossil fuels. Give us a call Sarah. We will help you design a program that you can take out onto the road. Our Green Carbon Bank (GCB) can serve as a model for you in promoting a dynamic Cap and Trade program. In fact, Sarah Palin could also embrace solar, wind and other alternative technologies for reducing our unlimited CO2 input into the atmosphere. She can promote nuclear power as the back-up for these intermittent sources of electricity. Our Carbon Mercantile Exchange (CMX) can also serve as a model for embracing alternative technologies in a Cap and Trade system. And we are sure that Sarah would love our Energy Defense Reservations (EDR) concept. A good Cap and Trade program would enhance all of these methods. It would also put Sarah Palin on the cutting edge of climate change mitigation.

Senate Hearing On Comcast & NBC/Universal Merger

The Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights held a hearing entitled, “The Comcast/NBC Universal Merger: What Does the Future Hold for Competition and Consumers?” on February 4, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. The hearing explored the potential impact on the media marketplace of the proposed joint venture agreement between Comcast and NBC Universal. Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Herb Kohl. Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy.

Witness List:

Brian L. Roberts Chairman and CEO Comcast Corporation Philadelphia, PA

JOINT STATEMENT ROBERTS & ZUCKER (pictured above left)

Jeff Zucker President and CEO NBC Universal New York, NY

Colleen Abdoulah President and CEO WOW! Internet, Cable & Phone Denver, CO

Mark Cooper Director of Research Consumer Federation of America Washington, D.C.

Andrew J. Schwartzman President and CEO Media Access Project Washington, D.C.

Same day House Hearing (9:30 a.m.)

National Academy of Sciences in Environmental Film Festival

The Cultural Programs of the National Academy of Sciences (CPNAS)will participate in the Environmental Film Festival for the first time this year. Each March the Festival presents a diverse selection of quality environmental film, including documentaries, features, animations and shorts as well as archival, experimental and children’s films at a wide variety of venues throughout the D.C. area. Selected to provide fresh perspectives on global, national and local environmental issues, most Festival films are enhanced by discussion with filmmakers, scientists and environmental experts and are free to the public. On March 26 and March 27, CPNAS will show "Division Street" and "Last Call for Planet Earth." Visit www.cpnas.org for show times and details. The complete film schedule will be available on the Festival Web site.

Friday, March 26 and Saturday, March 27
National Academies’ Keck Center
500 Fifth St., N.W., Room 100
Reservations required.
Email cpnas@nas.edu or 202-334-2415

Tea Party Movement Wrong In Opposing Cap-and-Trade

The Center supports the ideals of lower taxes, less government and more freedom, but we are baffled as to why the Tea Party Movement is opposing the market-oriented cap-and-trade concept. We believe that, if properly implemented, a cap-and-trade program will simultaneously work to reduce the danger of climate change and create a dynamic commodity market mechanism that will lead to innovative environmental capitalism. In our opinion, opposing appropriate cap-and-trade is equivalent to a movement opposing Bill Gates' development of the Windows operating system. The potential for carbon dioxide (CO2) reuse and manipulation is about as limitless as the innovations that came from the development of the internet.

Let us look at the Tea Party Movement objections. Freedom Works, which has become an umbrella for the Tea Party groups, lists "Top 10 Reasons To Oppose Cap-and-Trade:

1. It will raise energy costs
2. It doesn’t help the environment
3. It doesn’t work where it has been tried
4. It will cost Americans jobs
5. It is in effect a hidden regressive tax
6. It sets a dangerous precedent
7. It prevents market forces from working for the environment
8. It threatens to put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with other countries
9. It opens the door to massive fraud and corruption
10. It threatens to bust the federal budget at a time when the United States can scarcely afford it

Freedom Works is wrong on every count. The Center supports the delivery of energy at reasonable prices. Utilizing energy efficiently will reduce the total costs of energy. American innovation will figure out how to significantly reduce emitting limitless amounts off greenhouse gases into a finite atmosphere. Cap-and-trade properly implemented will create a significant number of new jobs and entrepreneurs. The operation of a cap-and-trade market system would be no more regressive than our National Highway System (NHS) and would, like the NHS, enhance the flow of capitalism. We are as wary of extremist environmentalists as Tea Party members, but George W. Bush aggressively advocated cap-and-trade and we supported him in doing so. Cap-and-trade would actually creates a market that would work to protect the environment. Countries would work to duplicate America's successfully implement cap-and-trade program just as they have in other areas. Massive fraud and corruption are possible in any human endeavor. Cap-and-trade is no more succeptible to it than any other human endeavor. Properly implement, cap-and-trade will have no impact at all on the federal budget.

Center Supports President Obama On Clean Coal CCS

The Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy supports President Obama's Comprehensive Federal Strategy on Carbon Capture and Storage. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal and it makes no sense to not use it. Our challenge is to use it in a more environmentally friendly way. President Obama is aggressively pursuing this challenge and not only do we support his strategy, we have our own recommendation for him to consider.

President Obama states in his Memorandum on the CCS Strategy:

To further this work and develop a comprehensive and coordinated Federal strategy to speed the commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, I hereby establish an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (Task Force). You shall each designate a senior official from your respective agency to serve on the Task Force, which shall be Co Chaired by the designees from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Task Force shall develop within 180 days of the date of this memorandum a proposed plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. The plan should explore incentives for commercial CCS adoption and address any financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, social, or other barriers to deployment.

FULL MEMORANDUM

The Center is promoting Energy Defense Reservations (EDR) as a multifaceted approach to CCS. We believe such facilities would significantly complement any sequestration approach. Morever, EDR makes carbon dioxide a valuable commodity--transportation fuel. In addition to utilizing oxycombustion for more efficient electricity production, EDR produces hydrogen for fuel cell production. Converting CO2 to gasoline is very expensive and that is part of the reason we include the Department of Defense (DOD) in the process. There are national security implications to climate change and DOD acknowledges this reality. As such, we recommend that the president add DOD to the Task Force.

A Comprehensive Federal Strategy on Carbon Capture & Storage

Presidential Memorandum

MEMORANDUM FOR THE: SECRETARY OF STATE, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, SECRETARY OF LABOR, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, SECRETARY OF ENERGY, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

SUBJECT: A Comprehensive Federal Strategy on Carbon Capture and Storage

For decades, the coal industry has supported quality high-paying jobs for American workers, and coal has provided an important domestic source of reliable, affordable energy. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and coal accounts for 40 percent of global emissions. Charting a path toward clean coal is essential to achieving my Administration's goals of providing clean energy, supporting American jobs, and reducing emissions of carbon pollution. Rapid commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.

My Administration is already pursuing a set of concrete initiatives to speed the commercial development of safe, affordable, and broadly deployable CCS technologies. We have made the largest Government investment in carbon capture and storage of any nation in history, and these investments are being matched by private capital. The Department of Energy is conducting a comprehensive clean coal technology program including research, development, and demonstration of CCS technologies and is pursuing important international cooperative initiatives to spur demonstration and deployment of CCS. The Environmental Protection Agency is developing regulations that address the safety, efficacy, and environmental soundness of injecting and storing carbon dioxide underground. The Department of the Interior is assessing, in coordination with the Department of Energy, the country's geologic capacity to store carbon dioxide and promoting geological storage demonstration projects on public lands. All of this work builds on the firm scientific basis that now exists for the viability of CCS technology.

To further this work and develop a comprehensive and coordinated Federal strategy to speed the commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, I hereby establish an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (Task Force). You shall each designate a senior official from your respective agency to serve on the Task Force, which shall be Co Chaired by the designees from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Task Force shall develop within 180 days of the date of this memorandum a proposed plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. The plan should explore incentives for commercial CCS adoption and address any financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, social, or other barriers to deployment. The Task Force should consider how best to coordinate existing administrative authorities and programs, including those that build international collaboration on CCS, as well as identify areas where additional administrative authority may be necessary. The Co Chairs shall report progress periodically to the President through the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Ultimately, comprehensive energy and climate legislation that puts a cap on carbon pollution will provide the largest incentive for CCS because it will create stable, long-term, market-based incentives to channel private investment in low carbon technologies. My Administration's new CCS strategy will pave the way for this energy transition by identifying and removing barriers to rapid commercial deployment and by providing greater legal and regulatory clarity. This will help to spur private investment in CCS in the near term -- investment that will create good jobs and benefit communities.

This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

(The White House)

House Hearing On Comcast & NBC/Universal Merger

The Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing titled, "An Examination of the Proposed Combination of Comcast and NBC Universal," on Thursday, February 4, 2010 (9:30 a.m.). The hearing explored the potential impact on the media marketplace of the proposed joint venture agreement between Comcast and NBC Universal.

Witnesses:

Brian L. Roberts, Chairman and CEO, Comcast Corporation [left in photo]
Jeff Zucker, President and CEO, NBC Universal [right in photo]
Colleen Abdoulah, President and CEO, WOW! Internet, Cable, and Phone
Mark Cooper, Ph.D., Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America
Michael J. Fiorile, President and Chief Operating Officer, The Dispatch Printing Company, Chair of the NBC Affiliates Board
Adam D. Thierer, President, Progress and Freedom Foundation

Excerpt Brian Roberts & Jeff Zucker [Joint Statement]:

The new NBCU will advance key policy goals of Congress: diversity, localism, innovation, and competition. With Comcast’s demonstrated commitment to investment and innovation in communications, entertainment, and information, the new NBCU will be able to increase the quantity, quality, diversity, and local focus of its content, and accelerate the arrival of the multiplatform, “anytime, anywhere” future of video programming that Americans want. Given the intensely competitive markets in which Comcast and NBCU operate, as well as existing law and regulations, this essentially vertical transaction will benefit consumers and spur competition, and will not present any potential harm in any marketplace.

Same Day(2:30 p.m.) SENATE HEARING

Chu Testifies Before Senate E&NR Committe On DOE Budget

Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Stephen Chu, left, testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the FY 2011 budget for the agency at a hearing on Feb 4, 2010. Senator Jeff Bingaman, right, chairs the committee.

FULL STATEMENT

Excerpts:

The President’s FY 2011 budget request of $28.4 billion...builds on the investments in the American Recovery andReinvestment Act. Through the $36.7 billion...

Nuclear energy must also be a part of our clean energy mix.

The budget request also supports the Department’s three new, complementary approaches to marshalling the nation’s brightest minds to accelerate energy breakthroughs. The first approach is the Energy Innovation Hubs. The second approach is the Energy Frontier Research Centers. The third funding approach is the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E).

Security: The President has also made clear that, as long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, it is essential that we ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. With the $7 billion in funds we have requested, we can upgrade our infrastructure that has been allowed to decay in the past decade, support the cutting-edge work of our National Labs, and recruit the skilled workforce we need today and in the future.

$2 million to establish a new Management Reform initiative to provide strategic direction, coordination and oversight of reform initiatives. For example, we eliminated more than $2.7 billion in tax subsidies for oil, coal and gas industries. This step is estimated to generate more than $38.8 billion in revenue for the federal government over the next 10 years.

The Department will also promote nuclear energy through the Loan Guarantee Program, which is requesting an additional $36 billion in loan authority for nuclear power in FY 2011 (for a total of $54.5 billion).

The FY 2011 budget includes $6 billion for the Office of Environmental Management to protect public health and safety by cleaning up hazardous, radioactive legacy waste from the Manhattan Project and the Cold War.

The Administration has determined that the Yucca Mountain repository is not a workable option and has decided to terminate the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The core functions and staff to support efforts under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to meet the obligation of the Government will transfer to the Office of Nuclear Energy by the end of FY 2010.

The FY 2011 budget request continues to work to transform the Nation’s energy infrastructure by investing over $650 million in a variety of renewable sources of electrical generation such as solar ($302 million, a 22 percent increase over FY 2010), and wind ($123 million, a 53 percent increase over FY 2010), as well as deploy clean technologies to reduce our dependence on oil.

The FY 2011 budget requests $758 million to accelerate deployment of clean, cost-effective, and rapidly deployable energy conservation measures inorder to reduce energy consumption in residential and commercial buildings, and the industrial and Federal sectors. The Department will invest $231 million in the Building Technologies program, a 16 percent increase over FY 2010 for built environment R&D. Federal assistance for state-level programs such as State Energy Program grants ($75 million) and Weatherization Assistance Program ($300 million), will continue to help citizens implement energy conservation measures, lower energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, and build a technical workforce. The FY 2011 request also includes $545 million to accelerate research, development and deployment of advanced fuels and vehicles to reduce the use of petroleum and greenhouse gas emissions. The FY 2011 budget complements the Recovery Act funding for these programs ($3.1 billion for State Energy Programs, $5 billion for Weatherization Assistance, $2 billion for Advanced Battery Manufacturing and $400 million for Transportation Electrification).

The mission of the Office of Environmental Management (EM) is to complete the safe cleanup of the environmental legacy brought about from over six decades of nuclear weapons development, production, and Government-sponsored nuclear energy research. This cleanup effort is the largest in the world, originally involving two million acres at 107 sites in 35 states, dealing with some of the most dangerous materials known to man. The FY 2011 budget request for $6.0 billion will fund activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM complex and make progress against program goals and compliance commitments, including reduction of highest risks to the environment and public health, use of science and technology to reduce life cycle costs, and reduction of EM’s geographic footprint by 40 percent by 2011.

The FY 2011 budget request of $7.01 billion for the Weapons Activities appropriation provides funding for a wide range of programs. Some activities provide direct support for maintaining the nuclear weapon stockpile, including stockpile surveillance, annual assessments, life extension programs, and warhead dismantlement.

The FY 2011 request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $2.7 billion, an increase of 25.8 percent over the FY 2010 appropriation...to protect our national security by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials to terrorist organizations and rogue states.

Congress Will Fund Yucca Mountain Over Obama's Objection

Although it is great political theater for President Obama and Department of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu to recommend zero funding in the FY 2011 federal budget for Yucca Mountain, it is not good science and Congress will verify our assertion. Zero funding will kill the project and several hundred current jobs related to the development of the repository. Moreover, Congress already approved Yucca Mountain as the repository for our nation's nuclear waste. The Center supports the restoration of funding to continue with the development of Yucca Mountain as the repository for the nation's nuclear waste.

The issue came to Congress in April 2002 after Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn vetoed President Bush's designation of Yucca Mountain as the nation's High Level Waste (HLW) repository. Bush, acting on the recommendation of Energy Secretary Spenser Abraham, approved the site on February 15. The Center supported the designation of Yucca Mountain as the HLW repository and lobbied hard for passage of legislation to make it so.

Norris McDonald at Yucca Mountain in 2002

According to the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which was designed to fast-track the Yucca Mountain project through Congress, both the Senate and the House only had 90 days to override Governor Guinn's veto once it had been made. After that, Guinn's veto would stand – and the nation would be forced to look elsewhere for a solution to the nuclear waste problem. The Yucca Mountain legislative battle came to an end on July 9, 2002, when the Senate voted 60-39 in favor of S.J. Res 34, overriding Governor Kenny Guinn's veto of the Yucca Mountain project. The House passed H.J. Res. 87 on April 25, approving Yucca Mountain with a margin of 306-117.
Congress will again override the Obama/Chu veto and will restore funding to develop Yucca Mountain. And that is a good scientific decision that we support. (YuccaMountain.org)

Linda Travers, EPA's Data & IT Guru

Linda Travers, right, is the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Information. She has worked to develop Data.gov and President's Open Government Directive. Travers was Acting CIO of the Environmental Information office until the end of November.

A Maryland native, Travers is a "charter member" of EPA, meaning she has been working at the agency since it was created in 1970. She has a master's in Public Administration from American University. In 1988, Travers worked on EPA's "first public access program" that made public data on chemicals released into the environment.

Travers will help EPA comply with the Open Government Directive by getting more of her agency's data sets registered on Data.gov, launching EPA's new open government site and helping develop the agency's open government plan. EPA has actively been using social media tools to get the public more involved. During Administrator Jackson's major announcement on air emissions on December 7, video of the event was streamed live on its web site and Facebook page, and at the same time EPA tweeted about it. (DOT.gov)

EPA Employees Instructed To Be Careful With Social Media

EPA's interim social media policy encourages employees to use the emerging technology responsibly

Environmental Protection Agency officials have issued interim policies on how the agency's employees should use social media (i.e., Facebook, Wikipedia) to interact with members of the public in a memo published on the Internet. The policy's guidance includes not making anonymous comments, stating facts rather than opinions and protecting nonpublic information.

The memo, dated Jan. 26, is from Linda Travers, left, principal deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Environmental Information, and Seth Oster, right, associate administrator of the agency's Office of Public Affairs. The guidance suggests that when employees participate on EPA’s behalf in social media as part of their official duties, they should exercise the same decorum and professionalism that they would if they were speaking for the agency at a conference or public meeting, the memo states.

It also directs employees to obtain a supervisor's approval before representing EPA online and said they must not post opinions on behalf of EPA in areas outside their assigned duties.

The interim guidance does not apply to employees’ online activities while not on official duty. However, the officials acknowledged that the lines between personal and professional can sometimes get blurred in online social networks. Officials are still developing a final social media policy, according to the memo. (Federal Computer Week, 1/28/10)

DOE Withdrawing Yucca Mountain Application To NRC

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) filed the paperwork on February 2 to withdraw its application to develop the Yucca Mountain site as the repository for nuclear waste, which was being considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. This action followed the news on Monday, February 1 that President Barack Obama would eliminate funding in the FY 2011 budget for the underground repository.

DOE submitted its application to the NRC for the Nye County, Nevada project on June 3, 2008.

The Center supports the Yucca Mountain site as the national repository for our nation's nuclear waste.

Obama Proposes Elimination of Oil, Gas & Coal Subsidies

President Obama is proposing to:

Eliminate more than $2.7 billion in tax subsidies for oil, coal and gas industries. This step is estimated to generate more than $38.8 billion dollars in revenue for the federal government over the course of the next 10 years.

The Center disagrees with this proposal. It sounds good to the public on its face, but these subsidies help energy companies to keep energy prices at reasonable levels.

Terminate Ultra-Deepwater exploration program, saving $50 million.

We support this proposal because we oppose expanded offshore oil drilling.

Cancel planned expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saving $71 million.

The Center oppose this proposal because we need to fill and maintain the SPR at a level of one billion barrels for our national security.

DOE FY 2011 Budget Request

Electric Utility Fly Ash Pond Improvements Report

EPA Releases Electric Utility Plans to Improve Safety of Coal Ash Impoundments

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today released action plans developed by 22 electric utility facilities with coal ash impoundments, describing the measures the facilities are taking to make their impoundments safer. The action plans are a response to EPA’s assessment reports on the structural integrity of these impoundments that the agency made public last September. Coal ash was brought prominently to national attention in 2008 when an impoundment holding disposed ash waste generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority broke open, creating a massive spill in Kingston, TN, that covered millions of cubic yards of land and river and is regarded as one of the worst environmental disasters of its kind in history. Shortly afterwards, EPA began overseeing the cleanup, as well as investigating the structural integrity of impoundments where ash waste is stored.

Since May 2009, EPA has been conducting on-site assessments of coal ash impoundments and ponds at electric utilities. EPA provides copies of the structural integrity assessment reports to each facility, and requests the facilities implement the reports’ recommendations and provide their plans for taking action. The action plans released today address recommendations from assessments of 43 impoundments at 22 facilities. Many of these facilities have already begun implementing EPA’s recommendations.

In addition to the action plans released today, EPA is also releasing assessment reports on the structural integrity of an additional 40 coal ash impoundments at 16 facilities across the country. Most of the 40 impoundments have a rating of “high” or “significant” hazard potential, indicating the potential for harm in the event of impoundment failure. A high hazard potential rating means if an impoundment fails, it can cause loss of human life. A significant hazard potential rating means impoundment failure can cause economic loss, environmental damage, or damage to infrastructure.

The assessment reports have been completed by firms, under contract to EPA, who are experts in the field of dam integrity, and reflect the best professional judgment of those engineering firms. A draft of these reports has been reviewed by the facilities and the states for factual accuracy. The comments on the draft reports are also posted on EPA’s Web site. EPA is continuing to review the reports and technical recommendations, and is working with the facilities to ensure that the recommendations are implemented in a timely manner. Should facilities fail to take sufficient measures, EPA will take additional action, if the circumstances warrant. EPA will continue to provide additional information to the public on the impoundments and facilities as it becomes available.

More information

Presidential Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage

Today, President Obama announced a Presidential Memorandum creating an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to develop a comprehensive and coordinated federal strategy to speed the development and deployment of clean coal technologies. The President calls for five to ten commercial demonstration projects to be up and runningby 2016.

The Presidential Memorandum for a Comprehensive Federal Strategy on Carbon Capture and Storage includes:

Charting the path toward clean coal is essential to achieving the Administration’s clean energy goals, supporting American jobs and reducing emissions of carbon pollution.

Rapid development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the U.S. as a leader in the global clean energy race.

Establishes an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage to develop a comprehensive and coordinated federal strategy to speed the development and deployment of clean coal technologies.The Task Force will be co-chaired by representatives of from DOE and EPA and include participants from at least 9 different agencies and offices. The Task Force shall develop within 180 days a plan to overcome the barriers to the deployment of widespread affordable CCS within 10 years, with a goal of bringing five to ten commercial demonstration projects on line by 2016. The plan should address incentives for CCS adoption and any financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, or other barriers to deployment. The Task Force should consider how best to coordinate existing federal authorities and programs, as well as identify areas where additional federal authority may be necessary. The Task Force shall report progress periodically to the President, through the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Full Memorandum

Renewable Fuel Standard Final Rule v. Proposed Ozone Rule

Does the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) conflict with the proposed Ozone Rule to tighten smog standards? We suspect it might. The Center participated in a stakeholder briefing sponsored by EPA today to discuss the RFS2 Final Rule. We raised the issue with two senior EPA officials* and we all agreed that we would have to wait and see what effect the RFS2 rule would have on the Ozone Rule. Our concern is derived from the emissions and air quality issues described by EPA below regarding the RFS2 Rule:

The increased use of renewable fuels will also impact emissions with some emissions such as hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), acetaldehyde and ethanol expected to increase and others such as carbon monoxide (CO) and benzene expected to decrease. However, the impacts of these emissions on criteria air pollutants are highly variable from region to region. Overall the emission changes are projected to lead to increases in population-weighted annual average ambient PM and ozone concentrations, which in turn are anticipated to lead to up to 245 cases of adult premature mortality.

NOx is one of the components of smog and EPA clearly states that there will be an increase in emissions of the gas via use of ethanol. In contrast, EPA is proposing to reconsider the ozone standards that were set at 0.075 ppm in 2008 and to set a new “primary” standard at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million measured over eight hours. We are concerned that the RFS2 could be an impediment to meeting the December 2013 EPA deadline for State Implementation Plans to outline how states will reduce smog to meet the standards. We are further concerned about the 2014 to 2031 deadlines for States to meet the primary standard (deadlines depending on the severity of the problem).

We understand that some areas and states are already using 10% ethanol blends, but we are still concerned that NOx emissions could increase in areas not currently utilizing the blend and that NOx emissions could be transported to areas already using the blend, thus exacerbating smog in both areas.

* Paul Machiele: Director, Fuels Center, Assessments and Standards Division, OTAQ; Paul Argyropoulos, Senior Policy Advisor, OTAQ

EPA Renewable Fuel Standard: Final Rule

EPA signed off on the Final Rule for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program on February 3, 2010. This action is also setting the 2010 RFS volume standard at 12.95 billion gallons (bg). Further, for the first time, EPA is setting volume standards for specific categories of renewable fuels including cellulosic, biomass-based diesel, and total advanced renewable fuels. For 2010, the cellulosic standard is being set at 6.5 million gallons (mg); biomass based diesel standard is being set at 1.15 bg, (combining the 2009 and 2010 standards as proposed).

EPA is finalizing changes to the RFS program, as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United State contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The new requirements increase the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The rule was developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders.

About half of the gasoline used today in the United States is blended with ethanol at levels of up to 10% by volume (this is called "E10"). Ethanol blends at higher volumes, such as 85% ("E85"), are available in some areas for use in specially designed "flexible-fuel vehicles." Biodiesel has been used most widely in Minnesota, and can now be found in many other states.

Manufacturers expect ethanol blends of up to 10% to be fully compatible with current and previously manufactured gasoline-powered vehicles and engines. Biodiesel’s compatibility with vehicles and engines depends on the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel blend as well as the specific vehicle or engine. Most diesel-powered vehicles and engines are compatible with a level of up to 5% biodiesel, while some vehicles and engines are compatible with a higher percentage.

EPA estimates that the RFS program will cut petroleum use by up to 3.9 billion gallons and greenhouse-gas emissions by up to 13.1 million metric tons annually by 2012 -- the equivalent of eliminating the greenhouse-gas emissions of 2.3 million cars.

The rule is expected to increase the cost of food $10 per person in 2022.

EISA Renewable Fuel Volume Requirements (billion gallons)

EPA Renewable Fuel Standard Program

(Source: EPA)

The EPA Climate Change Budget For Cap-and-Trade

FY 2011 EPA Budget in Brief

We have concerns about whether EPA will have sufficient funding to manage tens of thousands of new greenhouse gas (GHG) permits for the construction, upgrade or operations of large industrial emitters. The Center does not envy the agency in this task to do Congress' work in formulating a cap-and-trade program without appropriate legislative guidance. We are also concerned about whether 'anybody' will be allowed to hold and trade allowances and offsets. It appears that only large emitters are being allowed to participate in EPA's cap-and-trade program.

EPA plans to catalog major greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters for the first time, implement GHG limits for cars and light-duty trucks, write new GHG limits for other mobile sources such as aircraft, finish permitting rules, and give technology guidance for large industrial emitters.

The $1.1 billion devoted to EPA's clean air and global climate change program -- one of five funding priorities for the agency -- represents about 12 percent of the agency's budget. Of that, the proposal sets aside $169 million to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The FY 2011 EPA Budget requests:

$43.5 million more for additional regulatory efforts aimed to reduce GHG emissions.

$25 million to help state air pollution agencies process a potential influx of tens of thousands of new GHG permits for the construction, upgrade or operations of large industrial emitters.

$5 million more for state guidance.

$13.5 million in additional funding for the development and implementation of new emission standards that will reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles.

$4 million for implementing the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, to ensure the collection of high quality data.

$2.3 million to support community pilot programs as they develop andimplement air toxics approaches tailored to their local needs.

An additional $1.1 million will be invested to improve children’s health through the delivery of effective asthma management strategies in schools and communities.

GHG Rule Rollout: $20.8 million to support the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Enable EPA to receive, quality-assure, and verify data submitted electronically
from 10,000-15,000 covered facilities.

Energy Efficiency Coordination/ENERGY STAR: $55.5 million to expand the ENERGY STAR
program across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.

CAA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permitting: $30 million for developing and deploying the technical capacity needed to address greenhouse gas emissions in permitting large sources as part of their Clean Air Act programs.

GHG Standards for Transportation Sources: $6 million to support the promulgation of GHG standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: $7.1 million to analyze the applicability of Clean Air Act Authority, and conduct further analyses related to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.

GHG New Source Performance Standards: $7.5 million to support the assessment, and
potential development, of greenhouse gas limits for several categories of major stationary sources of greenhouse gases through means that are flexible and manageable for businesses.

Green Travel / Conferencing: $5 million to support the Agency’s effort in promoting green travel practices and increasing the use web-based video conferencing to facilitate EPA meetings.

Renewable Fuel Storage: $2 milion to assess the Underground Storage Tank compatibility with alternative fuels.

In addition, in the Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water title, there is a Climate and Clean Energy Challenge that includes $1.1 million to support the Agency's work on geologic sequestration to ensure the integrity of underground drinking water aquifers.

(FY 2011 EPA Budget in Brief, NYT, 2/2/10)

EPA Ozone Public Hearing

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency held two public hearings on the proposal to strengthen the nation’s air quality standards for ground-level ozone (smog) today in Arlington, Virginia and Houston, Texas. Another hearing will be held in Sacramento, California on Feb 4. Center President Norris McDonald, left, presented testimony at the public hearing in Arlington, Virginia.

Excerpts:

The Center has a tighter standard for determining smog nonattainment than EPA. Our standard is: if you can see the air, it is not healthy to breathe. The EPA proposal moves us in the direction of assuring that we cannot see the air we breathe. Thus, we support reconsideration of the identical primary and secondary ozone standards that were set at 0.075 ppm in 2008.

As a chronic asthmatic with a history of acute attacks, I am personally invested in this proposal to strengthen the nation’s air quality standards for ground-level ozone (smog). I was intubated for four days in an intensive care unit due to a smog-induced asthma attack in July 1991. I was intubated again for four days in 1996 with another smog and toxic chemical-induced asthma attack. There were numerous visits to the emergency room during the past two decades. Exposure to smog clearly increased my risk of a premature death and ultimately was a primary component in turning me into a chronic asthmatic. Clearly, the earlier standards were not sufficient to protect my health.

Exposure to smog 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. The agency is proposing to reconsider the ozone standards that were set at 0.075 ppm in 2008 and to set a new “primary” standard at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million measured over eight hours. EPA is also proposing to set a separate, seasonal “secondary” standard to protect the environment, especially plants and trees.

EPA Ground Level Ozone

Nancy Stoner Rejoins EPA In Office of Water

Nancy Stoner, right, is joining EPA's Office of Water as the Deputy Assistant Administrator starting today, February 1st. This is her second tenure with EPA, as she directed the Office of Planning and Policy Analysis in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance from 1997 to 1999. Prior to that, she served as project director and attorney for the Clean Water Project for nearly ten years. She was a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment & Natural Resources Division before that. Since 1999, she was the co-director and senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Water Program.

Nancy is a national expert with vast experience in using the Clean Water Act to protect rivers, lakes, and coastal waters from contaminated stormwater, sewer overflows, factory farms, and other sources of water pollution. She earned her J.D. from Yale University Law School in 1986 and B.A. in 1982 from the University of Virginia. She is admitted to the bars of the District of Columbia and Maryland.

President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
President Obama presented a $3.8 trillion budget blueprint today that includes a $1.6 trillion deficit. He proposes to reduce deficit by imposing new fees on some large banks and by allowing some tax cuts to expire for families earning more than $250,000 a year. President Obama also proposes to freeze non-security spending for three years.

DOE $ 28.4 Billion
EPA $ 10 Billion
DOI $ 12 Billion
DOA $ 26 Billion