Energy & Environment Subcommittee 'Fracking' Hearing

The House Energy & Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, chaired by Ed Markey (D-MA), right, held a hearing today on the recently proposed merger of ExxonMobil Corporation and XTO Energy Inc., and the ramifications for U.S. oil and natural gas markets. The hearing also covered hydraulic fracturing issues, which included whether Congress should ban the practice and whether the drilling technique pollutes groundwater. The formal title of the hearing was, "The ExxonMobil-XTO Merger: Impacts on U.S. Energy Markets."

Witnesses included:

Rex Tillerson, Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil Corporation
Bob R. Simpson, Chairman of the Board and Founder, XTO Energy Inc.

They said that hydraulic drilling would not pollute groundwater. They also agreed that the merger would be cancelled if Congress bans hydraulic fracturing, also called 'fracking.' Congress has requested another study of hydraulic fracturing. A 2004 EPA study concluded that fracking did not pollute groundwater, but the accuracy of that report is being disputed. We are sure Congressman Markey will hold another hearing soon that will include EPA. (More about the hearing at The Wall Street Journal, 1/21/10)

EPA Underground Injection Control Program

Oil and Gas Related Injection Wells (Class II)

What is a Class II well? Class II wells inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production. Most of the injected fluid is salt water (brine), which is brought to the surface in the process of producing (extracting) oil and gas. In addition, brine and other fluids are injected to enhance (improve) oil and gas production. The approximately 144,000 Class II wells in operation in the United States inject over 2 billion gallons of brine every day. Most oil and gas injection wells are in Texas, California, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

Three types of Class II injection wells are associated with oil and natural gas production:

1) Enhanced Recovery Wells inject brine, water, steam, polymers, or carbon dioxide into oil-bearing formations to recover residual oil and—in some limited applications—natural gas. This is also known as secondary or tertiary recovery. The injected fluid thins (decreases the viscosity) or displaces small amounts of extractable oil and gas, which is then available for recovery. In a typical configuration, a single injection well is surrounded by multiple production wells. Production wells bring oil and gas to the surface; the UIC Program does not regulate production wells. Enhanced recovery wells are the most numerous type of Class II wells, representing as much as 80 percent of all Class II wells.

2) Disposal Wells inject brines and other fluids associated with the production of oil and natural gas or natural gas storage operations. When oil and gas are produced, brine is also brought to the surface. The brine is segregated from the oil and is then injected into the same underground formation or a similar formation. Class II disposal wells can only be used to dispose of fluids associated with oil and gas production. Disposal wells represent about 20 percent of Class II wells.

3) Hydrocarbon Storage Wells inject liquid hydrocarbons in underground formations (such as salt caverns) where they are stored, generally, as part of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There are over 100 liquid hydrocarbon storage wells in operation.

What are the requirements for Class II wells? A state has the option of requesting primacy* for Class II wells under either section 1422 or 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act:

Section 1422 requires states to meet EPA’s minimum requirements for UIC programs. Programs authorized under section 1422 must include construction, operating, monitoring and testing, reporting, and closure requirements for well owners or operators. Enhanced oil and gas recovery wells may either be issued permits or be authorized by rule. Disposal wells are issued permits. The owners or operators of the wells must meet all applicable requirements, including strict construction and conversion standards and regular testing and inspection.

Section 1425 allows states to demonstrate that their existing standards are effective in preventing endangerment of USDWs. These programs must include permitting, inspection, monitoring, and record-keeping and reporting that demonstrates the effectiveness of their requirements.

The Center takes issue with the EPA policy position related to disposal of brine, particularly as it relates to hydraulic fracturing. EPA states:

How do Class II wells protect drinking water resources? When oil and gas are extracted, large amounts of brine are typically brought to the surface. Often saltier than seawater, this brine can also contain toxic metals and radioactive substances. It can be very damaging to the environment and public health if it is discharged to surface water or the land surface. By injecting the brine deep underground, Class II wells prevent surface contamination of soil and water. When states began to implement rules preventing disposal of brine to surface water bodies and soils, injection became the preferred way to dispose of this waste fluid. All oil and gas producing states require the injection of brine into the originating formation or into formations that are similar to those from which it was extracted.

This technique would seem to put groundwater at risk. Moreover, evidently EPA's UIC Program does not regulate production wells. This is confusing because isn't hydraulic fracturing (see illustration above) enhanced recovery?

Regardless, hydraulic fracturing was exempted from federal oversight by the Energy Policy Act of 2005:

SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.

Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:

(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION- The term `underground injection'--

(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and

(B) excludes--

(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and

(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Primacy: primary enforcement authority. The authority to implement the UIC Program. To receive primacy, a state, territory, or tribe must demonstrate to EPA that its UIC program is at least as stringent as the federal standards; the state, territory, or tribal UIC requirements may be more stringent than the federal requirements. (For Class II, states must demonstrate that their programs are effective in preventing pollution of USDWs.) EPA may grant primacy for all or part of the UIC program, e.g., for certain classes of injection wells.

(EPA, Underground Injection Control Program)

Who Owns The Groundwater?

Who owns the water in the underground source, known as an aquifer, that supplies your well and drinking water system? It varies from state to state but states generally follow one of five “rules” in deciding “Who Owns the Water?”

1) The Absolute Dominion Rule: Permits a landowner to intercept ground water that would otherwise have been available to a neighboring water user and even to monopolize the yield of an aquifer without incurring liability. Eight states adopted or indicated a preference for the Absolute Dominion rule: Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Texas.

2) The Reasonable Use Rule: Limits a landowner’s use of water to those uses that have a reasonable relationship to the use of the overlying land. The rule is essentially the rule of absolute ownership with exceptions for wasteful and off-site use. Twenty-one states adopted or indicated a preference for the Reasonable Use rule: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. Four of these states adopted the Reasonable Use rule in conjunction with the
with the Prior Appropriation rule: Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri and Wyoming. Another state, Nebraska, adopted a Reasonable Use rule in conjunction with the Correlative Rights rule.

3) The Correlative Use Rule: Maintains that the authority to allocate water is held by the courts. Owners of overlying land and nonowners or transporters have co-equal or correlative rights in the reasonable, beneficial use of ground water. A major feature of this doctrine is the concept that adjoining lands can be served by a single aquifer. Therefore, the judicial power to allocate water permits protects both the public’s interest and the interests of private users. Six states adopted or indicated a preference for the Correlative Rights rule: California, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and Vermont.

4) The Restatement of Torts Rule: Holds that a landowner who uses ground water for a beneficial purpose is not subject to liability for interference if certain conditions are met. The water withdrawal cannot cause unreasonable harm to a neighbor by lowering the water table or reducing artesian pressure, cannot exceed a reasonable share of the total store of ground water and cannot create a direct and substantial effect on a watercourse or lake. Three states adopted or indicate a preference for the Restatement of Torts doctrine: Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.

5) The Prior Appropriation Rule: Maintains that the first landowner to beneficially use or divert water from a water source is granted priority of right. The amount of ground water this priority, or senior, appropriator may withdraw can be limited based on reasonableness and beneficial purposes. Some states have replaced or supplemented the Prior Appropriation doctrine with a permit system. Twelve states adopted or indicate a preference for the Prior Appropriation rule: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and Washington.

(Source: WaterSystemsCouncil.org)

Hydraulic Fracturing and Groundwater Protection

Does the Safe Drinking Water Act provide sufficient protection? Maybe. Maybe Not.

Congress is currently examining whether to ban the hydraulic fracturing oil and gas recovery method. There is also a push to find out which products, particularly proprietary chemicals, are used in this recovery technique. Although the Center does not have a position on whether Congress should ban hydraulic fracturing, we do believe that all public and private drinking water sources should be protected from contanimation.

The Safe Drinking Water Act provides a significant degree of protection for our nation's drinking water supplies. Also penalties under the act of $5,000 to $25,000 per day per violation are significant deterrents to any potential violater. One would hope that an unscrupulous company would not make the calculation that it could afford the penalties and litigation to profit off of selling natural gas at the expense of contaminating groundwater.

The National Ground Water Association has determined that 49% of the U.S. population depends on ground water for its drinking water supply from either a public source or private well. Based on the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established drinking water standards for 20 health-related contaminants including arsenic, nitrate, bacteria, radioactivity, heavy metals such as lead and mercury, and several pesticides. The standards do not presently include many other contaminants sometimes found in drinking water. Proprietary chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing also unnecessarily complicate EPA's job if there is a groundwater contamination event.

Drinking water standards and guidelines place a ceiling on contaminant levels in the drinking water supplied by the public water systems, regardless of whether the source is groundwater or surface water. When a standard or guideline is exceeded in a municipal or community water system, the state requires the operator of the system to take corrective steps. These steps can include treating the water through filtration or aeration, blending water from several sources to reduce contaminant levels in the system, or constructing a new well. There is no regulation for ensuring that private wells meet safe drinking water standards. However, private well owners can have their wells tested and use federal drinking water standards as a guide for assessing water quality.

SDWA Enforcement

EPA's National Drinking Water Regulations are legally enforceable, meaning that both EPA and the states can take enforcement actions against water systems that are not meeting safety standards. EPA may issue administrative orders, take legal actions, or fine utilities for violation of the standards.

Who must comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act?

Any 'person' violating the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations or creating an imminent and substantial endangerment by contaminating a public water system or underground source of drinking water in the U.S. A 'person' is defined as an individual, corporation, company, association, partnership, State, municipality, or federal agency (and includes officers, employees, and agents of any corporation, company, association, State, municipality, or Federal agency).


What are the penalties for noncompliance?

Under Section 1414(b) of the SDWA, an imposed penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day; under Section 1414(g)(3) of the SDWA, an administrative order can result in a $5,000 maximum penalty assessed; up to $25,000 per violation per day; under Section 1431(b), the statutory maximum is $5,000 per violation per day of an emergency order; under Section 1432(c), tampering with a public water system carries a maximum civil penalty of $50,000; a maximum civil penalty of $20,000 can be imposed for an attempt or threat to tamper with a public water system; and under Section 1445(c), the statutory maximum penalty is $25,000 in a civil judical action for failing or refusing to keep appropriate records, make reports, etc.

(Texas Groundwater Protection Committee, EPA, SWDA)

Energy Backed Securities Meet Energy Efficient Mortgages

A federal program that is not getting much response could be enhanced by incoroporating the Center's proposed Energy Backed Securities (EBS) program, which operates like mortgaged back securities.

The federal government is promoting the energy-efficient mortgage (EEM), a government loan granted to borrowers who build or upgrade their homes with energy-efficient features. The problem is most consumers either don’t know about the program, which has been around since the early 1990s, or they are not taking advantage of it. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is jumpstarting the EEM program with $50 million through a fiscal year 2010 appropriation. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Fannie Mae and the Department of Veterans Affairs all have some version of an energy-efficient mortgage.

How the EEM works: Borrowers add the money needed to make green upgrades, for example, $5,000 to the mortgage, even if that means they would exceed the traditional loan limit. Borrowers don’t have to qualify for the expanded loan and 100% of the cost of the improvements can be financed. The idea: Mortgage payments are a little higher, but utility bills drop more. That is the unique part of an energy-efficient mortgage vs. a regular mortgage: An EEM will count the energy savings as income to the borrower. It gives the borrower an opportunity to qualify for a slightly bigger mortgage in order to get a more energy-efficient home.

The borrower needs to get an energy rating of the house, which is a comprehensive assessment of the home’s energy use. It considers everything from the types of windows and insulation the house has to the major appliances, including the heating and cooling systems and the building structure itself. The main method of evaluating homes is the called the Home Energy Rating System (HERS), and it must be performed by a certified HERS rater. The rating calculates the energy savings on an annual basis and net present value of savings. Getting a home energy audit by a certified HERS auditor costs anywhere from $300 to $500. Some local utilities and state energy offices offer incentive programs that help pay for a HERS rating on behalf of the borrower. The audit is a cost that “might discourage borrowers” from actually obtaining an energy-efficient mortgage.

Savings are counted as income to the borrower – enabling them to stretch their debt-to-income ratio, a key factor lenders take into consideration before approving a mortgage. The improvements can be included in a mortgage only if their total cost is less than the total dollar value of the energy that will be saved during their life, according to HUD. (WSJ, 1/18/10,
SmartMoney.com)

Pre-Earthquake: Electricity Production and Use In Haiti

Earthquake Recovery Must Include Electricity Delivery

In Haiti, 12.5% of the 9 million population have access to electricity, which is delivered at 110 volts alternating current at 60 cycles per second. This matches the USA standard. In 2006, total installed capacity was 270 MW, of which about 70% was diesel oil fired thermal and 30% hydroelectric. That is enough electricity for about 270,000 homes.

There are currently three large thermal plants and one hydroelectric plant serving the metropolitan area and some smaller thermal and hydroelectric plants in the provinces. The most important plants are:

Péligre, an hydroelectric plant with 54 MW of installed capacity. However, its actual power varies between 30 MW in the rainy season and 10 MW in the dry one.
Carrefour, a 50 MW thermal plant with just 12 MW of actually available capacity.
Varreux 1 and 2, two thermal plants with installed capacities of 33 MW and 21 MW respectively, which can just provide 12.5 MW

Demand: In 2003, total electricity consumption in Haiti was 510 GWh, Average per capita consumption in 2004 was 75 kWh. The share for each sector is as follows:

Residential: 60%
Industrial : 20%
Transport : 15%
Services : 5%

About a third of the electricity is stolen by unauthorized users.

Demand vs supply: The Haitian electricity sector has a national installed capacity that is largely insufficient to meet a demand of 157 MW in Port au Prince and of 550 MW at the national level.

Electricité d’Haïti (EdH) holds the monopoly for electricity generation, transmission and distribution in Haiti. EdH is unable to meet the electricity demand so other private sector companies sell their electricity to EdH at an agreed price.

APR Energy LLC, a Jacksonville–based power company, a 1-megawatt power plant it operates in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, that stopped operating during the January 12th earthquake. APR operates about 12 other plants around the country. APR has about 40 employees in Haiti. The company’s plants in Haiti are widely scattered with many serve in remote areas. Sensor systems on those plants showed that all but the Port-au-Prince site were working normally, suggesting the others had little or no damage.

Other

About 80% of Haiti's energy needs are met by use of domestic biomass fuel (wood and charcoal), which is used in the household sector mainly for cooking.

(Wiki, JacksonvilleNews, 1/14/10, Haiti Bureau of Mines and Energy)

Using Landfill Methane To Produce Electricity

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is recognizing eight landfill methane capture projects for their innovation in generating renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Awards were given in three categories:

Projects of the Year:

1) University of New Hampshire EcoLineTM Project, Rochester, N.H.;

2) Jefferson City, Missouri Renewable Energy Project, Jefferson City, Mo.;

3) The Altamont Landfill Resource and Recovery Facility, Livermore, Calif.;

4) Ox Mountain LFG Energy Project, Half Moon Bay, Calif.;

5) Sioux Falls Landfill & Poet LFG Pipeline, Sioux Falls, S.D.

6) Winder Renewable Methane Project, Winder, Ga.

7) The State Partner of the Year: Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and

8) The Community Partner of the Year: Kent County Department of Public Works, Byron Center, Mich.

Methane, a primary component of landfill gas (LFG), is a GHG with more than 20 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Using LFG provides a significant energy resource, prevents GHG emissions, and reduces odors and other hazards associated with emissions. This year’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) winning projects will avoid the emissions of 546,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, the equivalent of annual GHG emissions from nearly 100,000 passenger vehicles. EPA’s LMOP has assisted with more than 450 LFG energy projects over the past 15 years.

The United States currently has about 509 operational LFG energy projects. The LFG electricity generation projects have a capacity of 1,563 megawatts (MW) and provide the energy equivalent of powering more than 920,000 homes annually. The direct-use projects provide an additional 304 million standard cubic feet of LFG per day and provide the energy equivalent of heating more than 715,000 homes annually. Direct-use LFG energy projects do not produce electricity, but instead use LFG as an alternative to replace another fuel such as natural gas or coal.
LMOP is a voluntary assistance and partnership program that reduces GHG emissions by supporting LFG energy project development. The program also assists countries throughout the world in developing landfill methane reduction projects through the international Methane to Markets Partnership.

More information on the awards:

More information on the LMOP

(EPA, illustration courtesy Nixon Energy Solutions)

Will Electricity Utility Sector be the Next Wall Street?

Will The Utility Sector Need A Bailout?

The prolonged recession has led to the first reductions in electricity demand in many decades. Our concern is that the uncertainty in the marketplace combined with a maze of government regulations and internal company challenges, could lead to a collapse of the electricity industry that could rival that of Wall Street. Moreover, utilities are being encouraged by regulators to find greener ways to meet customers' energy needs. Yet the demand side of electricity management is unpredictable and most renewable electricity sources have to be backed up by traditional fossil and nuclear power plants. Coal plants are being cancelled in favor of natural gas and nuclear power plants are challenging utility companies due to their large front-end cost.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) electricity output decreased 3.7% last year, the steepest drop since 1938, following a nearly 1% decline in 2008. The downward trend is making it harder for utilities to forecast future power consumption. The EIA expects electricity demand to increase 2.2% this year and 2.5% in 2011. Prerecession levels of annual 2% growth electricity demand growth levels are expected to return by 2013.

Lower energy use is already having an impact on the U.S.'s carbon-dioxide emissions. In 2009, emissions fell by 6.1% to 5.45 billion tons, according to the EIA . Greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to rise 1.5% to 5.53 billion tons in 2010 as a healthier economy lifts industrial demand. A 1.7% increase in greenhouse-gas output is expected in 2011. President Barack Obama has set a goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. The EPA is currently inventorying CO2 emissions. Hopefully, regression analysis and projection methods will be used to establish a reasonable baseline in designing and implementing a national cap-and-trade program. (WSJ, 1/14/10)

Delay In Nuclear Waste Repository To Cost DOE Billions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled (1/12/10) that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) cannot argue that delays in collecting spent fuel from the nation’s nuclear power plants were unavoidable as the government defends against multibillion- dollar claims by utility companies. The case is Nebraska Public Power District v. U.S., 2007- 5083, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington.

Utilities are seeking to recover billions of dollars they have spent over the last two decades on storing spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste while waiting for the government to construct a permanent storage facility. The utilities were obligated by Congress under the Nuclear Waste Management Act of 1982 to collect spent nuclear fuel on site while a permanent storage facility they would help fund was built at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The utility companies paid more than $27 billion into the fund over the years, though the storage facility was never built.

President Barack Obama cancelled funding for developing Yucca Mountain, rejecting the $58 billion project after 20 years of planning. The decision left unresolved what to do with more than 70,000 tons of nuclear waste now held at 122 temporary sites in 39 states. Exelon Corporation, the biggest U.S. operator of nuclear power plants, settled its dispute with the federal government in 2004, saying it would be paid as much as $300 million through 2010 for the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel.

The Center disagrees with President Obama's decision to shutter Yucca Mountain. In fact, the Center is a member of the Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Coalition (NFRC), which is promoting legislation to take the nuclear waste function out of DOE and place those functions in a new stand alone agency called the Nuclear Waste Management Agency.

(Bloomberg.com, 1/12/10)

(photo: Center President Norris McDonald at Yucca Mountain exit opening, 2003)

Congress 2010: Second Session of the 111th Congress

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

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

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

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

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

Senate EP&W Majority United In Opposition To Murkowski

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



January 11, 2010

Dear Colleague:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer, Chairman

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

(Senate EP&W)

No Taxpayer-Backed Loans Unless Nuclear Plants Approved

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

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

States Hypocritical On Climate Change?

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

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

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

"will likely retard, rather than facilitate,"

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

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

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

(WSJ, 1/12/10)

Memorandum From EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

From: Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

To: All EPA Employees

Colleagues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Lisa P. Jackson

Advertisement: Purchase Norris McDonald Autobiography

"Diary Of An Environmentalist"

Congressman Pomeroy Seeks To Limit EPA on Climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recovery Act Projects at SRNS consist of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama Announces Clean Energy Technology Jobs

Clean Energy Manufacturing Jobs Initiative

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

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

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

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

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

EPA Requests Grant Applications For Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Gets Into Electricity Marketing Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schwarzenegger Appoints Lester Snow To Natural Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2008 Electric Utility Operating Performance Report

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

TABLES OF TOP 20 PLANTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Mile Island Unit 1 (NRC)

Partnering Electricity Delivery With Wireless Internet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. EPA Proposes Strengthening of Smog Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information

Richard Branson and his Carbon War Room

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

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

EPA Actions on Two Proposed West Virginia Coal Mines

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

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

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

The Center opposes the mountaintop removal coal mining method.

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

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

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

More on the Hobet 45 Mine:

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

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

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

More on the Spruce No. 1 Mine:

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

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

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

More information on the Hobet letter