In The News
Inhofe Praises Bald Eagle Delisting - But Voices Concern Over New ESA-Like Restrictions
Thursday June 28, 2007
"Today’s announcement to remove the Bald Eagle from protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) recognizes decades of great work done by all levels of government, private industry and local landowners to ensure our majestic national symbol did not disappear," Senator Inhofe said. "Since the Bald Eagle was added to the list in 1974, it has made a remarkable comeback, now boasting population numbers not seen since World War II."
"I am concerned, however, about the recent guidelines issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) that will go into effect when ESA protection is removed. It appears that in some cases the guidelines place the same, ESA-like limitations on the backs of landowners under the guise of different law. We need to ensure that when an animal is taken off the ESA list, burdensome restrictions on property owners are removed as well. I hope to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service as they continue to finalize and implement these guidelines."
Opening Statement of Senator James Inhofe: Full Committee Hearing on Examining Global Warming Issues in the Power Plant Sector
Thursday June 28, 2007
For instance, we had a hearing to examine perspectives of religious leaders and little was learned. Indeed, you used the hearing to imply one of our witnesses of misrepresenting the views of the Southern Baptists Convention. But in a direct vindication of his statements, on June 13, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) approved a resolution on global warming that questions the belief that humans are largely to blame for the phenomenon and also warns that increased regulation of greenhouse gases will hurt the poor.
Madame Chairman, you need to hurry if you want to pass legislation and you should have hearings on each of the bills. Just last month, it was discovered that increasing wind shear from warming will reduce hurricanes, not increase them. Increasingly, prominent scientists are beginning to reject the global warming hype. Some recent converts include Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, and Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
AMERICA’S ENERGY FUTURE NEEDS TO BE STABLE, DIVERSE AND AFFORDABLE (Senator Inhofe, The Hill, June 27, 2007)
Wednesday June 27, 2007
THE HILL
AMERICA’S ENERGY FUTURE NEEDS TO BE STABLE, DIVERSE AND AFFORDABLE
BY SENATOR JAMES INHOFE
June 27, 2007
Democrats recently managed to pass legislation they labeled as a “green energy bill.” The fact is that the bill lacks energy and the green will be the higher prices families will have to pay if it is signed into law. The Democrats’ plan for our energy future is to force Americans to cut back on energy consumption at a time when Americans are starving for affordable energy.
By passing this bill, Congress is telling the country to go on an energy diet.
The majority’s bill fails to provide for any meaningful increase in energy supplies or production, will increase the price of gasoline, and impose new mandates on energy providers translating to higher electricity prices for all consumers, but will hit low and fixed income Americans the hardest.
It is important for Americans to realize how this bill was created and what the costs will be. Democrats have successfully obstructed and frustrated meaningful energy proposals since 2001. Now after assuming the majority, they claimed that they would solve the energy crunch that they helped to create — they claimed that they would do something to lower the price at the pump. Yet, their legislative product lacked energy and they opposed amendments that would have provided the action necessary to lower prices. Perhaps the most notable example was when the Democrats voted against the Gas Price Act, the only amendment that would have lowered gas prices at the pump and improved U.S. energy and economic security. One estimate of the energy bill’s legacy — with its so-called price gouging provisions and new mandates on energy providers — has the price of fuel at the pump more than doubling by 2016.
America’s energy supply should be stable, diverse, and affordable. That means we must work to increase domestic energy production, especially by expanding domestic refining capacity of oil, coal, and cellulosic biomass ethanol. Throughout my experience on the Environment and Public Works Committee I have worked to craft legislation and conduct hearings to meet these goals.
In addition to the Gas PRICE Act, I have worked to pass legislation and conduct extensive oversight of the EPA and other federal agencies in order to reduce regulatory and administrative burdens on oil and natural gas producers and other forms of energy including wind to ensure America has a strong energy future. I am proud of several provisions I authored that were in EPACT (Energy Policy Act,) including provisions on hydraulic fracturing and stormwater compliance for oil and natural gas production facilities. As chairman of EPW, I held a hearing on the administration’s spill prevention control and countermeasures program (SPCC) highlighting deficiencies and data gaps to the current program and advocating for changes that would reduce the burden and its costs on small, independent oil producers.
The development of a safe, clean and affordable nuclear energy future remains one of my top priorities. Since joining the EPW Committee in 1995, I’ve worked closely with my committee members to increase critical oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). As a result of our vigilant oversight, the NRC has moved to a risk-based regulatory process that is more objective, efficient, and predictable. For the first time in over 30 years, utilities are planning to build new nuclear plants, and the NRC is far better prepared to process those applications because of these improvements.
I successfully worked with my colleagues to create a comprehensive program to increase the use of renewable fuels in the United States in a measured way that makes economic sense. The Reliable Fuels Act, ultimately incorporated into the EPACT, encourages the production and use of bio-fuels. Today many in Congress argue in favor of increasing the RFS, but I believe we should maintain the current standard and take a closer look at the impact on related industries. Growing bodies of interested parties are speaking out against increasing the corn ethanol mandate, ranging from Ducks Unlimited to a coalition of groups including Coke, Pepsi, the National Pork Producers Council, and Turkey Federation. We should take the time to hear them out.
Coal-to-liquids (CTL) continues to gain ground in the Senate because it’s domestic, abundant, and environmentally friendly. Everyone acknowledges the tremendous reserves of coal in the United States. Yet, many Americans might be surprised to learn that CTL is far cleaner than conventional fuels, and does not have the seasonal variability or transportation and deliverability issues of ethanol.
The development of cellulosic biofuels is another critical component of future energy goals. The key now is to promote investment in this exciting area, and nothing would speed the rapid expansion of the cellulosic biofuels industry more than investment by the nation’s traditional providers of liquid transportation fuels.
We must continue to look for new energy opportunities. I am proud that my bipartisan energy bill amendment to encourage the use of geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) in federal buildings was included in the energy bill. GHPs are a proven, effective, and efficient technology that can help meet heating and cooling needs at federal facilities while conserving energy and saving taxpayer dollars.
Today more than ever before, our energy policy is a matter of natural security. Developing energy at home translates to energy security, ensures stable sources of supply, fuels economic growth and keeps well-paying jobs for American workers.
Inhofe is the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Inhofe Opening Statement: Protecting Water Quality at America’s Beaches
Wednesday June 27, 2007
The Beach Act has been very successful in increasing the public’s awareness of potential problems at their local beaches. In 1997, 1,000 beaches were monitored for pathogen indicators. Thanks to the Beach Act, 3,500 of the nation’s 6,000 beaches are now regularly monitored providing potentially valuable information to the public about the safety of these recreational waters.
However, the information we are getting may not be accurately predicting the risk to people swimming in the water. According to a recent Government Accountability Report, local officials at 96 percent of the beaches in the Great Lakes states indicated it took between 18 and 36 hours to get test results back. By the time the beach is closed, the contamination has likely cleared up negating the need to close the beach but potentially having left the visitors from the previous day exposed. EPA is in the process of developing rapid response testing procedures. Further, our Chairman, as well as our two colleagues from the House each have bills that include provisions addressing real time testing. While having access to quick information is important, we need to be sure we are testing for the right indicators.
PRESS RELEASE: INHOFE PRAISES SUPREME COURT ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT RULING
Monday June 25, 2007
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling limiting the scope of the Endangered Species Act is a huge victory for states’ rights and property owners in America. The Court took a strong stand against judicial activism in overturning a Ninth Circuit Court decision that would have essentially voided a section of the Clean Water Act,” Senator Inhofe said.
“While Defenders of Wildlife and others may want the Endangered Species Act to trump all other environmental laws, the Supreme Court has once again reaffirmed that it is the Constitutional duty of Congress to write the nation’s laws; not for the courts to reinterpret statutes to add requirements that are clearly not there.”
INHOFE: Senate Passed Energy Bill Will Increase Costs to Consumers
Friday June 22, 2007
“The three principles of a secure energy supply are ensuring energy is stable, diverse and affordable. Unfortunately, the Democrat bill that passed last night fails to meet these goals,” Senator Inhofe said.
“This energy bill will increase the price of gasoline. It does nothing for supply and production. It also imposes new mandates on energy providers which will increase the cost of electricity for all consumers.
“Despite all the recent rhetoric on energy independence, and increasing supplies of fuels, this bill will continue to put already energy starved Americans on a diet for years to come. The Democrats voted against my Gas Price Act, the only amendment that would have lowered gas prices at the pump by decreasing our dependence on foreign refined products. The energy bill’s biggest victims will be lower income Americans who will be hit with higher gas and electricity costs for at least the next decade. One estimate of the bill’s legacy, with its so-called price gouging provisions and new mandates on energy providers -- has the price of fuel at the pump more than doubling by 2016.
VOCAL CRITICS TURNED SILENT
Tuesday June 19, 2007
DAILY OKLAHOMAN: LACKING ENERGY: DEMOCRATS' BILL DOESN'T ADDRESS NEEDS (Editorial, June 19, 2007)
Tuesday June 19, 2007
THE DAILY OKLAHOMAN
LACKING ENERGY: DEMOCRATS' BILL DOESN'T ADDRESS NEEDS
Jun. 19--SENATE Democrats' first swing at national energy policy might be boiled down to a couple of broad statements: Alternative fuels are good, big business is bad and Americans stung by higher energy costs shouldn't expect help any time soon.
With the legislation's direct cost to government (read: taxpayers) at $140 billion to $205 billion over 15 years, you'd think there'd be something in it for average folk. Hardly. Democrats are putting their stock in subsidies, tax preferences and other incentives for futuristic fuels -- mandating increased use of ethanol, for example, and requiring utilities to use more wind, solar and other renewable sources in the future.
Don't get us started on ethanol, a fuel that has yet to demonstrate any real-market viability without heavy government subsidies. Renewables are fine as they go, too. Yet Democrats' lack of balance with respect to production and supply should concern every American who fills a gas tank.
Sen. Jim Inhofe's amendment to give states the option of streamlining the permitting process for building greater refining capacity was defeated on a party-line vote after Democrats complained it was a giveaway to the oil companies. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California suggested Big Oil isn't building new refineries because it makes it easier to manipulate fuel prices. Another production-side amendment, to let Virginia lift a 25-year freeze on offshore drilling, was defeated by Democrats talking of environmental concerns as if it were 1977, not 2007.
The bill would make price gouging a federal crime -- a solution in search of a real-world problem. Meanwhile, Democrats are split on increasing car fuel efficiency standards, with Michigan's senators trying to stave off standards that would damage the auto industry.
Stay tuned as the legislation proceeds. But unless you're into windmills, solar panels or corn there's not much most Americans can look forward to.
In Case You Missed It...Steamed About Energy (Roll Call, June 18, 2007)
Monday June 18, 2007
So, Ellis — along with his colleagues in the formerly Washington, D.C.-shy geothermal heat pump sector — has embarked on an intensive lobbying effort in recent weeks to push Congress to include tax incentives and other measures to promote their business in the energy bill.
“I should’ve been there earlier,” Ellis said. “Our industry is not very good at working the Washington side of things. We kind of woke up and said, ‘We’ve gotta go out there. We have, like, an answer that really solves a lot of the problems. We better get out there and start telling our story.’”
Ellis’ geothermal heat pump effort offers a glimpse into how myriad alternative energy industries are trying to find opportunities in the hotly debated Congressional effort to tackle global warming and reduce reliance on foreign fuels. For their part, geothermal pump advocates say they are trying to get their industry the same recognition as solar and wind alternatives.
And perhaps their work is paying off. On Friday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced a bill that would establish a geothermal heat pump technology acceleration program to encourage the federal government to use the pumps to heat and cool its buildings.
“My home state of Oklahoma has long been an energy leader for our country,” Inhofe said in a statement. “I am proud of Oklahoma companies like ClimateMaster that are developing promising technologies, such as geothermal heat pumps, that could substantially reduce energy demands and pollution from the operation of federal buildings.”
Steamed About Energy (In Case You Missed It...Roll Call, June 18, 2007)
Monday June 18, 2007
Roll Call
Steamed About Energy
By Kate Ackley, Roll Call Staff
June 18, 2007
Dan Ellis, president of Oklahoma-based ClimateMaster Inc., doesn’t want his little-known industry left out when it comes to energy legislation.
So, Ellis — along with his colleagues in the formerly Washington, D.C.-shy geothermal heat pump sector — has embarked on an intensive lobbying effort in recent weeks to push Congress to include tax incentives and other measures to promote their business in the energy bill.
“I should’ve been there earlier,” Ellis said. “Our industry is not very good at working the Washington side of things. We kind of woke up and said, ‘We’ve gotta go out there. We have, like, an answer that really solves a lot of the problems. We better get out there and start telling our story.’”
Ellis’ geothermal heat pump effort offers a glimpse into how myriad alternative energy industries are trying to find opportunities in the hotly debated Congressional effort to tackle global warming and reduce reliance on foreign fuels. For their part, geothermal pump advocates say they are trying to get their industry the same recognition as solar and wind alternatives.
And perhaps their work is paying off. On Friday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced a bill that would establish a geothermal heat pump technology acceleration program to encourage the federal government to use the pumps to heat and cool its buildings.
“My home state of Oklahoma has long been an energy leader for our country,” Inhofe said in a statement. “I am proud of Oklahoma companies like ClimateMaster that are developing promising technologies, such as geothermal heat pumps, that could substantially reduce energy demands and pollution from the operation of federal buildings.”
Unlike geothermal power plants, which drill down into the Earth’s core as much as 20 miles and draw on the earth’s heat to create energy, geothermal heat pumps are individual systems that can heat and cool homes or commercial buildings. While gas and propane furnaces, for example, must burn fuel to heat a home, geothermal heat pumps use the Earth’s natural heat, which is collected through a series of fluid-filled, looped pipes installed several feet underground. In the summer, the process works like a refrigerator; instead of cooling the home with cold air, the hot air from the house is sucked out and expelled through the pipes back into the ground.
Jack DiEnna, executive director of the D.C.-based Geothermal Heat Pump National & International Initiative, said geothermal heat pumps help increase U.S. energy independence because they reduce the need for foreign fuel. They also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the use of water, he said.
DiEnna added that he is lobbying on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) energy proposal to get geothermal heat pumps specifically included as renewable energy sources. “What Sen. Reid’s bill addresses is geothermal energy and production, and I want it to include geothermal heat pumps,” he said.
He said Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) have expressed an interest in the heat pump technology and several sources said Inhofe’s stand-alone bill is expected to be incorporated as an amendment to the energy bill, perhaps this week, and could be co-sponsored by Clinton.
The geothermal heat pump industry also is pushing for a bill introduced by Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, that would extend business tax credits to the pump systems.
“Bart believes more businesses would choose this technology if it were more affordable, so his bill expands existing energy tax credits to geothermal heat pumps,” wrote Gordon’s press secretary, Julie Eubank, in an e-mail.
John Kelly, the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium’s executive director, said his group has focused on Members of Congressional committees with tax-writing authority: the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees.
“We’re supportive of having geothermal heat pumps on a level playing field with the other renewable energies,” Kelly said. “It’s important to have geothermal heat pumps included explicitly so that people understand the tax credits do apply.”
Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist with Bracewell & Giuliani, who represents ClimateMaster, said wind and solar alternatives often overshadow geothermal. “Solar doesn’t work when the sun doesn’t shine, and wind doesn’t work when the wind doesn’t blow, but geothermal heat pumps work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,” he said.
It’s not just the pump industry that’s pushing for the measures, either.
Kevin McCray, executive director of the National Ground Water Association, said tax or other incentives for geothermal heat pumps would be a boon to his members, who construct wells and have the technology to dig the bore holes required for the pumps.
“That’s why we’ve been supportive of legislation that would increase the use of that technology,” he said. McCray’s group has been working with lobbyist Cartier Esham of Dutko Worldwide to push the issue on Capitol Hill.
James Bose, executive director of the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association, said the pumps are “by far the No. 1 energy conserving technology we have in this country and around the world,” adding that they probably save more energy than all other energy alternatives combined.
It’s not just the manufacturers who wax poetic about the systems. Technical experts also agree that geothermal heat pumps come with many advantages. “What Dan says is generally highly credible,” said Harvey Sachs, director of the buildings program at the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, referring to ClimateMaster’s Ellis. “He’s an advocate, he believes in it. He’s betting his career on it.”
But, Sachs added: “It is not a panacea. There is no technology that is a panacea.” On the downside, for example, it costs about double to install a geothermal heat pump system than a traditional one.
That high initial cost pays for itself in regions with cold winters like New England, Sachs said. But in areas such as Oregon’s Willamette Valley, where temperatures remain more constant throughout the year, it’s harder to justify the cost, he said. “The payback on heating and cooling is not that great.”
Ellis acknowledged the hurdles, particularly those in coming late to the lobbying scene. “Our biggest problem is most people aren’t aware of it,” he said. “We’re an underground technology, pun intended. We got in late, but I’m optimistic that we will somehow prevail.”
###
