In The News
EPW News Roundup: What they are saying about opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Friday June 24, 2011
Oklahoman: Oklahoma-based Domestic Energy Producers Alliance is critical of decision to open oil reserve (6/24/11) - The Obama administration isn't getting any more popular with Oklahoma's oil and natural gas industry, despite the announcement Thursday of plans to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the country's emergency reserves. Mike Cantrell, president of the Oklahoma-based Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, called the plan a "cruel game of ‘bait and switch'" meant to allow the administration to claim credit for gas prices that were falling already. Cantrell said there is no reason to tap the country's strategic petroleum reserve. U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, said President Barack Obama's decision to tap into the petroleum reserve shows the importance of increasing domestic energy production. "Contrary to what President Obama likes to claim, we have plenty of resources here at home. In fact, we have 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil - that's 5,400 times more oil than what Obama wants to release from the (strategic petroleum reserve). "The biggest impediment to developing these resources is this administration."
WSJ Editorial: White House Oil Epiphany (6/24/11) - It wasn't long ago that the Obama Administration was trying to drive up the price of fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions, promote "green jobs" and save the planet from global warming. Gasoline at $3.50 or $4 a gallon has ended that. And yesterday the White House went so far as to join a global effort to release 60 million barrels from oil stockpiles to further reduce prices. The U.S. will release one million barrels a day for 30 days from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve-the nation's 727 million barrel oil stockpile located in salt domes in Texas and Louisiana. The spot price of oil dropped about $5 a barrel on the news, and if that decrease holds it could be the equivalent of a 10 cent a gallon reduction in gas prices. The White House says it is taking this action because of "supply disruptions" in Libya and other countries which pose a threat to global economic recovery. But the Libyan conflict is now four months old, so Mr. Obama's falling approval ratings no doubt also provided motivation. The SPR was created in 1975 to cushion the impact of major supply disruptions. George W. Bush drew on the reserves after Hurricane Katrina when domestic oil supplies from the Gulf of Mexico were curtailed. As a pure business decision, selling oil from the SPR when the price is high, and then replenishing the oil when the price falls, isn't a bad idea. But the effect on gas prices is temporary, as global supply and demand adjust. One irony is that a million barrels a day is about how much oil experts believe we could be producing from the vast oil fields in Alaska's wildlife reserve. President Obama has said that tapping Alaska wouldn't affect oil prices but now says a temporary spurt will do so. How about opening up Alaska, and dropping the de facto Gulf moratorium too?
The Hill: Bingaman: No need to tap Strategic Petroleum Reserve (5/16/11) - Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said there is no need for President Obama to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because global supplies are adequate. Bingaman in early March had said that the crisis in Libya and other market dislocations should prompt the White House to consider tapping the 727-million barrel reserve, noting the U.S. was facing a supply disruption that could worsen. But in a C-SPAN interview broadcast over the weekend, Bingaman said using the stockpile is not needed - at least for now. "In the short term the time has passed when we should be seriously considering using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," he said on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program.
WSJ Editorial: White House Oil Epiphany (6/24/11) - It wasn't long ago that the Obama Administration was trying to drive up the price of fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions, promote "green jobs" and save the planet from global warming. Gasoline at $3.50 or $4 a gallon has ended that. And yesterday the White House went so far as to join a global effort to release 60 million barrels from oil stockpiles to further reduce prices. The U.S. will release one million barrels a day for 30 days from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve-the nation's 727 million barrel oil stockpile located in salt domes in Texas and Louisiana. The spot price of oil dropped about $5 a barrel on the news, and if that decrease holds it could be the equivalent of a 10 cent a gallon reduction in gas prices. The White House says it is taking this action because of "supply disruptions" in Libya and other countries which pose a threat to global economic recovery. But the Libyan conflict is now four months old, so Mr. Obama's falling approval ratings no doubt also provided motivation. The SPR was created in 1975 to cushion the impact of major supply disruptions. George W. Bush drew on the reserves after Hurricane Katrina when domestic oil supplies from the Gulf of Mexico were curtailed. As a pure business decision, selling oil from the SPR when the price is high, and then replenishing the oil when the price falls, isn't a bad idea. But the effect on gas prices is temporary, as global supply and demand adjust. One irony is that a million barrels a day is about how much oil experts believe we could be producing from the vast oil fields in Alaska's wildlife reserve. President Obama has said that tapping Alaska wouldn't affect oil prices but now says a temporary spurt will do so. How about opening up Alaska, and dropping the de facto Gulf moratorium too?
The Hill: Bingaman: No need to tap Strategic Petroleum Reserve (5/16/11) - Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said there is no need for President Obama to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because global supplies are adequate. Bingaman in early March had said that the crisis in Libya and other market dislocations should prompt the White House to consider tapping the 727-million barrel reserve, noting the U.S. was facing a supply disruption that could worsen. But in a C-SPAN interview broadcast over the weekend, Bingaman said using the stockpile is not needed - at least for now. "In the short term the time has passed when we should be seriously considering using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," he said on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program.
Politico Pro: Hill reacts to Gore's climate criticism
Wednesday June 22, 2011
Al Gore's criticism of President Barack Obama's global warming policies doesn't appear to have tarnished his image among congressional Democrats, and it may give him a boost in the eyes of his critics.
Although some Democrats said they'd like to more action on global warming, they said the political hurdles he's up against are a large part of the problem.
"That's good for Al Gore to keep on pushing all of us on this," said Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), adding that she hadn't read the former vice president's 7,000-word Rolling Stone essay.
"There's no question the president hasn't changed an inch on this. We also know that he doesn't have a prayer of getting through the kind of bill we all think is necessary," she said. "While I agree that we all want to see more, I think the president, given the realities here of people who are in denial, he is doing a lot from the executive branch."
When it comes to climate, "no one has done as much as Al Gore," said Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.), "so he may have higher expectations of a lot of people."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) thinks Gore might even help Obama improve his image among critics on the right.
"That's got to be a plus for Obama, that a Looney Tunes like Al Gore - and he is Looney Tunes on the issue of global warming - is not satisfied with that," Rohrabacher said. "I'd be surprised if Obama didn't call him up [and say], ‘Please attack me so I'll look more rational.'"
Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton said he believes Obama and Gore agree on the issue of global warming, but "perhaps the president as president feels obligated to be a little less confrontational and less emotional than the former vice president feels."
Although some Democrats said they'd like to more action on global warming, they said the political hurdles he's up against are a large part of the problem.
"That's good for Al Gore to keep on pushing all of us on this," said Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), adding that she hadn't read the former vice president's 7,000-word Rolling Stone essay.
"There's no question the president hasn't changed an inch on this. We also know that he doesn't have a prayer of getting through the kind of bill we all think is necessary," she said. "While I agree that we all want to see more, I think the president, given the realities here of people who are in denial, he is doing a lot from the executive branch."
When it comes to climate, "no one has done as much as Al Gore," said Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.), "so he may have higher expectations of a lot of people."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) thinks Gore might even help Obama improve his image among critics on the right.
"That's got to be a plus for Obama, that a Looney Tunes like Al Gore - and he is Looney Tunes on the issue of global warming - is not satisfied with that," Rohrabacher said. "I'd be surprised if Obama didn't call him up [and say], ‘Please attack me so I'll look more rational.'"
Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton said he believes Obama and Gore agree on the issue of global warming, but "perhaps the president as president feels obligated to be a little less confrontational and less emotional than the former vice president feels."
Watch: Bryson Explains Cap-And-Trade Support
Wednesday June 22, 2011
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison: Along the lines of what the chairman has started with the coal industry, I have concerns about some of the things you have said regarding energy regulations. In a speech where you came out for the cap-and-trade legislation, you said that it is a tax and that regulations that penalize energy producers for producing more energy than needed by the government, were the best way to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases. The question is-having talked to so many business people and the cost of energy being one of their toughest issues and one of their biggest concerns-are you anti-energy? Are you for taxing energy, raising the cost and letting that have the effect of hurting our businesses while gaining the reported result of having more investment in other forms of energy?
John Bryson: Absolutely no. I think that it draws on this cap-and-trade question, if I have it right. The reason that we in the electric utility industry, substantially every company, maybe we can pick out one or two, wanted in the end to have a sensible cap-and-trade bill as we saw it at the time, was that we couldn't make the investments we needed to make in the infrastructure of our systems, for our customers, under the kind of massive uncertainty that existed at the time. So we utilities got together, I had been chairman of the Edison Electric Institute-I had been on the executive committee for ten years, I worked with others that were senior positions in the industry, I was by far not the only one, we worked together-and we presented to the House. Senator Feinstein said I had actually worked with others to try to find a path to preserve the coal. What we needed was time, and with time we felt we could work a low cost, potential transition, and went into things like clean coal, into things like natural gas with greater utilization in the industry-lots of things that we thought we could achieve. But we needed some predictability and it was chaos at that time. Now, quite a large number of other businesses, across the U.S. as I think you know, likewise made that choice at that time-so Dow Chemical, DuPont, Shell Oil and many others. We all recognize-to my knowledge, no one's raising that now, I certainly would not raise that as the Secretary of Commerce.
John Bryson: Absolutely no. I think that it draws on this cap-and-trade question, if I have it right. The reason that we in the electric utility industry, substantially every company, maybe we can pick out one or two, wanted in the end to have a sensible cap-and-trade bill as we saw it at the time, was that we couldn't make the investments we needed to make in the infrastructure of our systems, for our customers, under the kind of massive uncertainty that existed at the time. So we utilities got together, I had been chairman of the Edison Electric Institute-I had been on the executive committee for ten years, I worked with others that were senior positions in the industry, I was by far not the only one, we worked together-and we presented to the House. Senator Feinstein said I had actually worked with others to try to find a path to preserve the coal. What we needed was time, and with time we felt we could work a low cost, potential transition, and went into things like clean coal, into things like natural gas with greater utilization in the industry-lots of things that we thought we could achieve. But we needed some predictability and it was chaos at that time. Now, quite a large number of other businesses, across the U.S. as I think you know, likewise made that choice at that time-so Dow Chemical, DuPont, Shell Oil and many others. We all recognize-to my knowledge, no one's raising that now, I certainly would not raise that as the Secretary of Commerce.
Boston Globe: Tierney, Frank frown on Obama nominee
Tuesday June 21, 2011
WASHINGTON - For months, Republicans in the Senate have dug in their heels to block many of President Obama's appointments. But his recent choice for commerce secretary has provoked skepticism from an unexpected corner of his own party: Massachusetts Democrats who represent fishing communities.
Representatives John F. Tierney of Salem and Barney Frank of Newton have said they are unhappy about nominee John E. Bryson's long-ago links to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a group that has earned antipathy from fishermen for its efforts to beef up regulation.
"The one area of difference that I've had with some of the environmental organizations is that I think they've been reflexively antifishing. We have complained about unfair enforcement for a long time, and they've tended to dismiss it,'' said Frank, who represents Fall River and New Bedford. "We were disappointed that they [nominated] this guy.''
Representatives John F. Tierney of Salem and Barney Frank of Newton have said they are unhappy about nominee John E. Bryson's long-ago links to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a group that has earned antipathy from fishermen for its efforts to beef up regulation.
"The one area of difference that I've had with some of the environmental organizations is that I think they've been reflexively antifishing. We have complained about unfair enforcement for a long time, and they've tended to dismiss it,'' said Frank, who represents Fall River and New Bedford. "We were disappointed that they [nominated] this guy.''
Oklahoman Editorial: Green lobby discolors air issue
Monday June 20, 2011
At an April hearing on the regional haze issue involving coal-fired power plants, a Sierra Club representative said, "Now is the time to put health before profits."
This is the kind of clueless anti-business, anti-consumer remark we expect from environmental zealots, who continue to frame this issue through the lens of false choices. In their view, it's good health vs. bad health, clean air vs. dirty air and government good vs. corporate greed.
But that isn't what this is about. It's about visibility - the ability of animals to see each other at federal wildlife refuges. Haze linked in part to coal-fired power plants might (but doesn't always) reduce visibility. For this, the Sierra Club and its Environmental Protection Agency sycophants want to make utility ratepayers shell out billions of dollars to install coal scrubbers.
Pfeiffer: Obama's sorry about unfulfilled '08 campaign promises
Friday June 17, 2011
President Barack Obama is sorry he couldn't get cap-and-trade legislation and some of his other top 2008 campaign promises signed into law, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said Friday.
“If he could wave a wand and have them done, he would absolutely do that in a second," Pfeiffer said of climate change, immigration reform and worker rights proposals during an appearance at the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis.
Liberals complain that Obama deserves significant blame for not getting a global warming bill through a Democratic-controlled Congress. But Pfeiffer argued that “there was significant opposition” even with 59 Democrats in the Senate.
"If he could get it passed in Congress tomorrow, he'd sign it," Pfeiffer said.
With fewer Democrats in the Senate, Pfeiffer told the activist crowd that climate legislation is on ice. "That's the reality," he said.
But Obama has also transitioned from cap-and-trade legislation to other energy ideas, including a clean energy standard that sets a national goal for coal, nuclear and renewable power over the next several decades.
“He’ll continue to push for it," Pfeiffer said in general of the climate issue. "He thinks that over time we can make a strong case for this, and we’ll continue to do that.”
James Hohmann contributed to this report from Minneapolis.
“If he could wave a wand and have them done, he would absolutely do that in a second," Pfeiffer said of climate change, immigration reform and worker rights proposals during an appearance at the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis.
Liberals complain that Obama deserves significant blame for not getting a global warming bill through a Democratic-controlled Congress. But Pfeiffer argued that “there was significant opposition” even with 59 Democrats in the Senate.
"If he could get it passed in Congress tomorrow, he'd sign it," Pfeiffer said.
With fewer Democrats in the Senate, Pfeiffer told the activist crowd that climate legislation is on ice. "That's the reality," he said.
But Obama has also transitioned from cap-and-trade legislation to other energy ideas, including a clean energy standard that sets a national goal for coal, nuclear and renewable power over the next several decades.
“He’ll continue to push for it," Pfeiffer said in general of the climate issue. "He thinks that over time we can make a strong case for this, and we’ll continue to do that.”
James Hohmann contributed to this report from Minneapolis.
Watch: Jaczko Keeps NRC in the Dark on Emergency Powers
Thursday June 16, 2011
Sen. Barasso:
The Energy Reorganization Act, that the chairman is exercising his executive administrative functions, it says quote, "Shall be governed by general policies of the commission. The commission through its internal commission procedures sets forth procedures for the chairman to follow in exercising the emergency authority under section three of the reorganization plan" and I have that section here. And there's been some concerns because you have used your emergency authority. I read it, it says you should have it for a limited period of time-any chairman should have it for a limited period of time-and it requires additional reporting to the other members. So, I would ask the other members who are sitting here if you could briefly tell me: when did the chairman inform you that he ceased using his emergency powers under section three? Did that happen?
Kristine Svinicki:
Yeah, I received no such notification.
George Apostolakis:
I did not either.
William Magwood:
I received no notification.
The Energy Reorganization Act, that the chairman is exercising his executive administrative functions, it says quote, "Shall be governed by general policies of the commission. The commission through its internal commission procedures sets forth procedures for the chairman to follow in exercising the emergency authority under section three of the reorganization plan" and I have that section here. And there's been some concerns because you have used your emergency authority. I read it, it says you should have it for a limited period of time-any chairman should have it for a limited period of time-and it requires additional reporting to the other members. So, I would ask the other members who are sitting here if you could briefly tell me: when did the chairman inform you that he ceased using his emergency powers under section three? Did that happen?
Kristine Svinicki:
Yeah, I received no such notification.
George Apostolakis:
I did not either.
William Magwood:
I received no notification.
Politico Pro: Inhofe blasts Jaczko on NRC report
Thursday June 16, 2011
The findings of the recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector general report on Chairman Gregory Jaczko should bring new oversight of the agency, Sen. Jim Inhofe said Thursday.
"His conduct has clearing damaged the credibility of the agency and warrants oversight hearings by this committee," the Oklahoma Republican said at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.
The IG's investigation focused on Jaczko's actions in shutting down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Ultimately, the report cleared him of violating any laws, but the rest of the investigation detailed the chairman's actions to "strategically" withhold information about the process and strongly critiqued his management style.
"[W]hat I find most disconcerting in the IG's report is the image of a chairman who withholds information from his colleagues, acts unilaterally and rules by intimidation," Inhofe said.
"His conduct has clearing damaged the credibility of the agency and warrants oversight hearings by this committee," the Oklahoma Republican said at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.
The IG's investigation focused on Jaczko's actions in shutting down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Ultimately, the report cleared him of violating any laws, but the rest of the investigation detailed the chairman's actions to "strategically" withhold information about the process and strongly critiqued his management style.
"[W]hat I find most disconcerting in the IG's report is the image of a chairman who withholds information from his colleagues, acts unilaterally and rules by intimidation," Inhofe said.
Defiant NRC chief rejects calls to resign over Yucca dispute, says he's ignoring political distractions
Thursday June 16, 2011
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko rebuffed a top House Republican's call for his resignation yesterday, saying he did not break any laws and that only President Obama has the authority to take away his chairmanship.
"I have no intention to leave office and the only other person who has the ability to remove me from office is the president, so if the president makes that decision then that's what will happen," Jaczko said during an interview. "But I have no intention of stepping down."
House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) called on Jaczko to resign this week after an internal agency watchdog report found the chairman had "strategically" withheld information from his NRC colleagues last year to halt the scientific review of the proposed nuclear waste dump under Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Obama administration pulled support for developing the site last year, a decision the Government Accountability Office last month found to be the result of policy, as opposed to science (Greenwire, May 10).
Notably, NRC Inspector General Hubert Bell's June 6 report found that while Jaczko did not break the law, he did withhold information from his fellow commissioners to halt the review. Jaczko has since tried to refute those findings and said he plans to fulfill his full term as chairman through June 2013 (Greenwire, June 15).
Whitfield said in a statement yesterday that the inspector general's report casts doubt on Jaczko's ability to lead.
"I would be disappointed if President Obama would want Chairman Jaczko to continue to serve in his administration after the inspector general's report noted that Chairman Jaczko has been described as manipulative and as someone who withheld information and acted unilaterally on nuclear issues that are so important to this country," Whitfield said.
The White House was not immediately available to comment on the matter.
Jaczko, 40, has had an increasingly contentious relationship with members of Congress -- especially considering that he worked there for several years as a congressional science fellow in the office of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), as a nuclear adviser to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and as a top aide to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who is now the majority leader. Republicans have grumbled that in scotching the Yucca Mountain project, Jaczko is doing the bidding of Reid, a leading foe of the repository.
The years-long Yucca Mountain conflict peaked last year when the Department of Energy moved to pull its application to develop the site. NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board later blocked DOE's attempt to pull the application. DOE appealed the board's decision to the five-member commission, which currently seems to be deadlocked on the matter, although commissioners have not revealed their votes. Commissioner George Apostolakis recused himself from the case because he participated in the project's scientific review while working at DOE's Sandia National Laboratories.
"I have no intention to leave office and the only other person who has the ability to remove me from office is the president, so if the president makes that decision then that's what will happen," Jaczko said during an interview. "But I have no intention of stepping down."
House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) called on Jaczko to resign this week after an internal agency watchdog report found the chairman had "strategically" withheld information from his NRC colleagues last year to halt the scientific review of the proposed nuclear waste dump under Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Obama administration pulled support for developing the site last year, a decision the Government Accountability Office last month found to be the result of policy, as opposed to science (Greenwire, May 10).
Notably, NRC Inspector General Hubert Bell's June 6 report found that while Jaczko did not break the law, he did withhold information from his fellow commissioners to halt the review. Jaczko has since tried to refute those findings and said he plans to fulfill his full term as chairman through June 2013 (Greenwire, June 15).
Whitfield said in a statement yesterday that the inspector general's report casts doubt on Jaczko's ability to lead.
"I would be disappointed if President Obama would want Chairman Jaczko to continue to serve in his administration after the inspector general's report noted that Chairman Jaczko has been described as manipulative and as someone who withheld information and acted unilaterally on nuclear issues that are so important to this country," Whitfield said.
The White House was not immediately available to comment on the matter.
Jaczko, 40, has had an increasingly contentious relationship with members of Congress -- especially considering that he worked there for several years as a congressional science fellow in the office of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), as a nuclear adviser to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and as a top aide to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who is now the majority leader. Republicans have grumbled that in scotching the Yucca Mountain project, Jaczko is doing the bidding of Reid, a leading foe of the repository.
The years-long Yucca Mountain conflict peaked last year when the Department of Energy moved to pull its application to develop the site. NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board later blocked DOE's attempt to pull the application. DOE appealed the board's decision to the five-member commission, which currently seems to be deadlocked on the matter, although commissioners have not revealed their votes. Commissioner George Apostolakis recused himself from the case because he participated in the project's scientific review while working at DOE's Sandia National Laboratories.
Politico Pro: EPA weighing House Dems' request to delay utility MACT
Wednesday June 15, 2011
The Obama administration is considering a congressional request to push back the comment period on a controversial air toxics rule for power plants, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a Senate panel Wednesday.
"We will be responding shortly," Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when asked about a letter sent last week by Michigan Rep. John Dingell and 26 other House Democrats. "We have made no determination."
Dingell and the other Democrats wrote to Jackson on Friday asking the EPA to extend by 60 days the comment period on the agency's pending air toxics rule for utilities, which is aimed at cutting mercury and other pollutants.
They said the rule is "unparalleled in its size and scope" for an air toxics rule, and "presents a set of new regulations with possible wide-reaching impacts on the way our country generates and consumes electricity."
"We will be responding shortly," Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when asked about a letter sent last week by Michigan Rep. John Dingell and 26 other House Democrats. "We have made no determination."
Dingell and the other Democrats wrote to Jackson on Friday asking the EPA to extend by 60 days the comment period on the agency's pending air toxics rule for utilities, which is aimed at cutting mercury and other pollutants.
They said the rule is "unparalleled in its size and scope" for an air toxics rule, and "presents a set of new regulations with possible wide-reaching impacts on the way our country generates and consumes electricity."
