Aviation and Airport Development Law : Aviation Lawyer & Attorney : Chevalier Allen & Lichman Law Firm : Airport Development, Environmental Law

In a per curiam Abbreviated Disposition that will not be published, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit summarily denied 12 separately-filed petitions for review that questioned the legality of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Environmental Impact Statement for its East Coast Airspace Redesign. The matter, Rockland County v. Federal Aviation Administration, brought 12 lawsuits together that represented a multitude of petitioners from Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The Court kicked all of the citizens’ complaints about the effect the Airspace Redesign would have on their environment to the curb, deferring to the FAA’s analysis.

The Court reached this conclusion without addressing many of the arguments that the Petitioners presented in their briefs and at oral argument. First, with respect to Petitioners’ argument that the EIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the court simply stated that it is deferring to the FAA’s reasoning that they did everything they needed to do. Not mentioned in the Court’s cursory and truncated analysis is the fact that the FAA has said that it will not implement the Night Routing part of the EIS’ “Preferred Alternative,” and the effect that failure will have on the environmental impacts of the Airspace Redesign.

Second, the Court also deferred to the FAA in deciding that the EIS sufficiently took into account the state and local parks and parklands that would be affected by the Airspace Redesign. The Court, states that the Petitioners should have engaged in a “battle of the experts” and should have “impugn[ed] the agency’s screening methodology.” Disposition, p.8. In most cases, impugning an agency’s methodology is looked upon in great disfavor by a court.

Finally, the Court decided that the Airspace Redesign fell within the de minimis exception of the Clean Air Act, thereby releasing the FAA from any requirement to perform any type of analysis as to the impact the project will have on the surrounding area’s air quality programs. The Court admitted that the FAA did not follow the procedures set forth by the EPA in 40 CFR 93.153, but the “fuel burn analysis” that the FAA did create was sufficient. This was true, the Court concluded, despite the fact that the “fuel burn analysis” was devoid of any mention of criteria pollutants or indirect emissions as required by EPA’s regulation 40 CFR 93.153. The Court went on to hold that any error that the FAA committed in not following the required air quality procedures was harmless error.

It is obvious why the Court does not want this decision published. It is rudimentary and lacking in analysis of many of the arguments presented by the Petitioners. Moreover, it is cursory in statements of law and fact. For example, on p. 10 of the Disposition, in a footnote, the court states:

The petitioners also argue that the fuel burn analysis failed to show the redesign will reduce emissions in all relevant nonattainment and maintenance areas, see 40 C.F.R. 93.153(b), but that argument is not properly before us because the petitioners failed to raise it until their reply brief, Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc. v. NLRB, 206 F.3d 1175, 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

In fact, the Petitioners had raised that issue in their opening brief, not once, but twice. See, Petitioners’ Joint Brief, pp. 88 and 93.

In the end, it is sad to see that a Court that prides itself on having many of its members become Supreme Court Justices, hide behind a per curiam decision that is so superficial and so careless. The Petitioners now have 45 days to decide whether to seek a rehearing or a rehearing en banc.

Other Articles on the subject:

• Delaware County Press Release, June 11, 2009.
• Conn. AG loses first round in flight fight,  The Hour.
• Blumenthal Loses First Round In Flight Fight, Hartford Courant
• CT Attorney General: seeks rehearing in FAA Southwestern Ct case
  Hartford Courant
• DC Circuit Sides with FAA in Airspace Redesign Dispute, The BLT: Blog of Legal Times.

Other posts on this blog about the Airspace Redesign:

• East Coast Airspace Redesign Challenge Heard at D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, posted May 18, 2009
• Petitioners File Reply Brief in East Airspace Redesign Case, posted March 8, 2009
• FAA Files Its Brief in the East Coast Airspace Redesign Lawsuit, posted January 13, 2009
• New Jersey Attorney General Files Amicus Brief in the Airspace Redesign Litigation, posted September 12, 2008.
• Sens. Specter and Dodd File a Joint Amicus Brief in the East Coast Airspace Redesign Litigation, posted September 8, 2008.
• Petitioners' Opening Brief, posted September 3, 2008.
• Update of Airspace Redesign Litigation, posted April 28, 2008.
• Airspace Redesign May Not Reduce Fuel Consumption for the Airlines as FAA Claims, posted March 18, 2008

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt told the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Wednesday, June 10, 2009, that small regional airlines are held to the same safety standards as the major carriers. Babbitt says he and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood are ensuring that the FAA is taking steps to ensure that that is the practice as well as the law. However, FAA Inspector General Calvin Scovell  says that is not currently the case.

Subcommittee Chair Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) opened the hearing with the statement that he was concerned that there is a double standard in aviation instead of  "one level of safety for both regional and major carriers."  This issue has come to the forefront since the crash of Colgan Air flight in Buffalo, raising issues of pilot training, proficiency and pay at regional airlines.  The investigation into that crash has revealed that the pilot flew cross country as a passenger on a flight the night before and lacked experience in the deicing procedures for the type of aircraft that crashed.

FAA Administrator Babbitt said that the same safety laws and regulations apply across the board to all airlines, regardless of whether they are regional or national in scope.  That being said, Administrator Babbitt stated that there is much to be done to improve safety and that he and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood are committed to focusing on inspection of aircraft and safety.

FAA Inspector General Calvin Scovell, however, stated that although the laws and regulations may be the same, in practice there are two standards.  He stated that he was particularly concerned about the difference between pilots' training and level of flight experience in the two types of airlines.  The major airlines did not escape the hearing unscathed.  Scovell also testified that  there have been many lapses in oversight of the major airlines' technical programs, similar to the problems that came to light last summer concerning Southwest Airlines. In particular, he was concerned that 7 major airlines missed "Air Transportation Oversight Systems" inspections, some had been allowed to lapse  "well beyond the 5-year inspection cycle."

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker also had some choices remarks for the FAA.  He informed the panel that the FAA has failed to heed recommendations suggested by the NTSB that would produce greater safety.  When asked how many recommended changes were outstanding, Chairman Rosenker stated that there about 450 recommendations still outstanding with some 10 - 15 years old.  Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.) called this an "outrage" and an indictment of the FAA, "it is not about anyone personally, it is the institution, it is the way they think, and it is very disturbing to me."

In the end, Administrator Babbitt promised to consider the NTSB recommendations, and although the FAA will not adopt them all, he would make the FAA "more transparent" about the process.

Click on "continue reading" to see list of written statements and link to the archived webcast of the hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The FAA, on June 5, 2009, issued two Notices of Order to Show Cause requesting "the views of interested persons on the FAA's tentative determination to extend through October 30, 2010, the January 15, 2008, order limiting the number of scheduled aircraft arrivals at John F. Kennedy International Airport [and Newark Liberty International Airport] during peak hours."

In the Notices, the FAA recites the events that have occurred since it instituted the January, 2008, Order, which include that current proposed rule to rescind its rule regarding slot auctions at both of the airports (74 Fed.Reg. 22714 (May 14, 2009); see also, "FAA Proposes Rescission of Congestion Management Rules for JFK, LaGuardia and Newark," posted May 14, 2009).  As result, the FAA states that it does not believe that it will have an "effective final rule" by the time the January, 2008, Order expires.  Without an extension and without an "effective final rule," the FAA believes that there will be a return to the "congestion-related delays that precipitated the voluntary schedule reductions and adjustments reflected in the January 2008 order."

This extension, then, the FAA claims, is necessary to prevent a recurrence of over-scheduling at the two airports between the date that the January, 2008 Order is slated to expire (October 24, 2009) and the effective date of the the replacement rule.  The Notice extends the January, 2008, Order until October 30, 2010.

To submit comments:

• Electronically:  go to http://regulations.gov and search for docket number FAA-2007-29320 or click here for the comment submission form.
• U.S> Mail:  send comments to Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20590-0001
• Fax:  fax to (202) 493-2251.

Other Posts on this topic:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Both houses of the legislative branch of the U.S federal government were at work yesterday on FAA business.  The U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 915, reauthorizing the FAA and the U.S. Senate confirmed Capt. Randy Babbitt as FAA Administrator for a five-year term.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed on a vote of 277-136 HR 915, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2009.  It now goes to the Senate, where a similar bill died last year.  The details of HR 915 have been debated for several months in committee and on the House floor, with the version that was passed yesterday including several amendments. These include: a provision that would make it easier for FedEx employees to unionize by shifting jurisdiction of unionization rules to the National Labor Relations act; authorization of a congressional study of pilot training; and increased inspection of aircraft repair stations abroad.  Click here for a copy of the as-passed version of HR 915.

Other posts regarding FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009:

• "User Fees Continue To Be A Sticking Point To FAA Reauthorization," posted on May 10, 2009.
• "User Fees Issues Probably Will Force Short-Term Extension of FAA's Authorization Instead of Full Reauthorization," posted on March 16, 2009.
• "Several Amendments Made to H.R. 915, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009," posted on March 5, 2009.
• "U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Holds Hearings on FAA Reauthorization Bill," posted on February 14, 2009.

On the other side of the Capitol, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Capt. Randy Babbitt as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for a five-year term.  Administrator Babbitt previously served as President and CEO for U.S. Air Lines Pilots Association, the world’s largest professional organization of airline pilots. The FAA has been run by interim administrators since Marion Blakey's term expired in September, 2007.  The Bush Administration attempted to have Acting Administrator Bobby Sturgell confirmed last year, but his appointment was blocked by the two Senators from New Jersey, which effectively ended his bid for a term as Administrator.  Administrator Babbitt was seen as a "compromise" candidate who was more acceptable than another former ALPA president, Duane Woerth. Woerth was favored by the AFL-CIO.  Administrator Babbitt's confirmation was lauded by both union and aviation groups.

Other Posts concerning Administrator Babbit's Confirmation:

• "President Obama Officially Nominates Capt. Randy Babbitt For FAA Administrator," posted on March 27, 2009

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A multi-year challenge to the Federal Aviation Administration’s reorganization of the airspace in four East Coast states culminated on May 11, 2009 with oral argument at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals before Chief Judge David Sentelle, and Judges Douglas Ginsberg and Ray Randolph.  The litigation team was made up of 12 law firms representing public entities and environmental organizations from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The team designated three of its members to present the oral argument: (1) Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut; (2) Larry Liebesman, of Holland & Knight, representing communities in Rockland County, New York; and (3) Dr. Barbara Lichman of Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, representing Delaware County, Pennsylvania.  The FAA was represented by Department of Justice attorneys Mary Gay Sprague and Lane McFadden.

In the 30 minutes allotted to the opening presentation, the team emphasized the FAA’s failure to adhere to governing statutes and regulations in implementing the Airspace Redesign Project.  Specifically, Attorney General Blumenthal presented the Court with a litany of FAA lapses in conducting the analysis of the project’s noise impacts.  The Attorney General argued that the mistakes and omissions from the analysis resulted in artificial and inaccurate minimization of those impacts.  In addition, the Attorney General challenged FAA’s failure to reveal even the artificially minimized noise impacts to the affected public for review and comment, as it is obligated to do under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Federal Aviation Administration today proposed to rescind the congestion management rules for JFK, LaGuardia and Newark that would have created auctions for slots at those airports.  (Click here for the JFK and Newark proposal, click here for the LaGuardia proposal)  Those rules were ardently opposed by the airlines as well as by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.  These proposed rules would rescind the previous rules regarding the slot auctions, although it would not rescind the order limiting scheduled operations at the airports to 81 operations per hour.  That order remains in place until October, 2009.

Although the FAA admits that the Congestion Management Rules was "highly controversial," it does not admit that its position with respect to the FAA's intangible property rights to the slots was necessarily wrong.  The FAA states that a series of events led to its decision to rescind the rules.  First, in December, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order staying the rule. Then, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, passed on March 11, 2009, contained a provision denying any funds to implement the auctions. Those two setbacks coupled with the souring economy, the FAA realized that "the halt in funding for this fiscal year makes it impossible for the rule to have the 10-year life originally contemplated, even without considering the challenging and widespread change in current economic conditions that led to the adoption of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."  Thus:

Because of the complexity of the issues, the uncertainty caused by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, and the possible impact of the significantly changed economic circumstances on the slot auction program, the FAA believes it would be better to rescind the rule rather than propose to extend it.  Rescission would also eliminate the potential for wasting resources of all parties in the pending litigation.

Put off for another day, however, is the issue of whether government licenses are property.  The proposed rules simply state that the FAA is "in the process of considering its options with regard to managing congestion at the airport[s] in ways that provide a means for carriers to either commence or expand operations at the airport[s], thereby introducing more competition and service options to benefit the traveling public."  Thus, slot auctions may be off the table for the time being - at least until the the funding restriction of the Omnibus Appropriations Act expires on September 30, 2009 - but the FAA has not yet totally abandoned the idea.

Other Posts on this topic:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There were two events this past Thursday, May 7, 2009, that may affect H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization bill, which is currently pending in the U.S. House of Representatives. First, in the Obama Administration’s budget stated in its budget that starting in 2011, the budget “assumes a scenario where most of the air traffic control system would be paid for by direct charges levied on users of the system. The FAA’s current excise tax system, which generated $12.4 billion in 2008, is largely based on taxes that depend upon the price of customers’ airline tickets, not FAA’s cost for moving flights through the system.“ Then, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on the financial status of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. At that hearing, Rep. James Oberstar (D.-Minn.), Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure told Ways and Means that “changes to the current system of excise taxes should be made only if such changes will improve upon [excise taxes’] record of stability, revenue adequacy, and ease of administration.”

Obama Administration Seems to Favor User Taxes

The Obama Administration has been fairly clear about its preference for user taxes to fund the air traffic control system in the United States. The budget framework that the Obama Administration issued in February indicated that it would like to transition some aviation taxes to user fees. Indeed, it was this indication of the Administration’s preference for user fees that caused the Congress to approve another continuing resolution for the FAA instead of passing the 2009 FAA Reauthorization. See, "User Fees Issues Probably Will Force Short-Term Extension of FAA's Authorization Instead of Full Reauthorization" posted March 16, 2009. While the budget released this past week ruled out user fees for fiscal year 2010, the administration indicated that “the FAA should move toward a model whereby FAA’s funding is related to its costs, the financing burden is distributed more equitably, and funds are used to pay directly for services the users need.” But the Budget stopped short of endorsing user fees. It continued: “the Administration recognizes that there are alternative ways to achieve these objectives. Accordingly, the Administration will work with stakeholders and the Congress to enact legislation that moves toward such a system.”

User fees are not only on the White House’s wish list. The Department of Transportation confirmed that the longer-range reauthorization plan for the FAA will include “cost-based user charges for air traffic services starting in 2011.” Although, DOT added that the specifics “are under development and some time will be needed to implement the charges once approved.” The Congressional Budget Office seemed to support a move away from excise taxes, too, although indirectly. Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office stated that “the current financing system provides limited incentives to air carriers and general aviation flyers to use the system efficiently in congested areas – but structured differently, by linking the taxes paid by users of the system to the cost of providing air traffic control services, the financing system could help to reduce the potential for increasing congestion and delays.”

Strong Support in Congress for Current System

The House Ways and Means Committee took up H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization bill of 2009, to consider the financing provisions. H.R. 915 has been approved by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but the financial provisions need to be approved by Ways and Means before it can go to the full House. Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.), Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee stated that the Committee intends “to act on this matter so that we can avoid the need for yet another temporary measure.” All of the witnesses stressed the need to move the legislation along. Rep. Oberstar commented that “we are already almost two years behind schedule in reauthorizing these programs. Airport development capital projects and key NextGen programs need the stability that a multi-year authorization bill provides.” FAA programs can be funded by aviation excise taxes, a reasonable General Fund contribution and a modest increase in General Aviation fuel taxes: an increase from 21.8 cents per gallon to 35.9 cents per gallon for noncommercial jet fuel, and an increase from 19.3 cents per gallon to 21.4 cents per gallon for avgas.   This increase is identical to legislation reported by Ways and Means in 2007 and was passed by the House on September 20, 2007.

The proposed raises in the fuel taxes and other funding mechanisms were the results of years of negotiating, with industry expressing support for the increases in return for the promise of no user fees. Rep. Jerry Costello (D.- Ill.), Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee indicated that the proposed increase in fuel taxes has the support of the General Aviation groups over the imposition of a user fee system. It is the support of the General Aviation groups that seems to be issue here. As Rep. Tom Petri (R. – Wis.), Ranking Member on the Aviation Subcommittee told the Ways and Means Committee, he continues to support the structure of the funding recommendations which were developed in a bipartisan fashion, adding that “General Aviation is strong in the United States compared to other countries and unique. Of all the world’s licensed and active aviation pilots, 62 percent reside here in the U.S.”

Result: Excise Taxes, At Least For Now

Since the leadership of both parties on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee support continuation of the excise taxes, it seems unlikely that H.R. 915 will be amended to include user fees, even in 2011. The feeling among all involved is that the FAA reauthorization needs to be accomplished now and now is not the time for a discussion about the viability of user fees over excise fees. However, fiscal year 2011 is another story. Once Capt. Randy Babbitt has been confirmed as FAA Administrator, excise taxes and user fees can be examined a little more closely.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

 The Waxman-Markey Bill (also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act) hearings ended with a bang, featuring Former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, former Senator John Warner and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. The testimony they gave was no surprise, but it underlined the deep divisions that exist, at least at the political level, and the uphill battle that this Bill faces.

Gore's Testimony

Former Vice President Gore was first in the witness chair. He gave his standard (and very effective) stump speech about climate change: the country is at risk on three fronts: economy, national security and climate. He likened the Waxman-Markey bill to a civil rights bill: “the most important of our lives. It is a moral imperative.” He stated that it is an environmental Marshall Plan, which is what he called for (and outlined) in his book “Earth in the Balance.” Gore then started talking about “tipping points,” his belief that the levels of CO2 in the air and other factors that might tip the balance to a point that it is irreparable. He ended his statement with “the USA is the world’s leader. Once we find the courage to take on this issue the world will also act. We need to act.” 

The Climate Change skeptics on the Committee sought to discredit Gore, but were largely unsuccessful. First, Rep. Fred Upton (R.-Mich.) tried to paint Gore as being anti-nuclear. Gore responded that he is not anti-nuclear, it is just his belief that the problems associated with nuclear energy, i.e., waste, accidents, size, fuel sources, weapons issues, are not easily addressed. Rep. Steve Scalise (R.-La.) took a shot at Gore accusing him of conspiring with Ken Lay of Enron for setting up insider trading deals that are contained in the cap-and-trade portion of the Bill. Gore responded with the respect that such a comment deserves: “there are people that still think the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio.” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R.-Tenn.) also attempted an ad hominem attack, asking whether Gore personally profited “from this push towards a cap-and-trade system?” She specifically referred to Gore’s presence on the Board of the firm Kliner Perkins. Gore responded incredulously “are you serious? Do you think I have devoted the past 30 years of my life to this cause just so I could benefit from a bill that is up for debate right now?” In all, the attacks on Gore did not move the skeptic’s agenda forward.

Warner's Testimony

Former Sen. Warner, a Republican from Virginia, who was the co-author of last year’s Warner-Lieberman Bill which covered much of the same ground as this bill, echoed Gore.  Warner stated that “energy independence, global climate change and national security are very interwoven.” Warner recognized that there will be costs to industry and to the people, but that “if we keep on with business as usual, we will reach a point where the worst effects are inevitable.”

Gingrich's Testimony

By contrast, former Speaker of House Newt Gingrich’s testimony focused on his proposal that instead of clean energy, the U.S. ought to expand off-shore drilling, oil shale, oil refineries, “green” coal, and nuclear energy to resolve its energy security issues. Gingrich heightened the rhetoric by calling the EPA economic analysis “intellectually dishonest” in not presenting both sides of the story. This tactic, reminiscent of the debate over evolution, seeks to paint one side as presenting something that is not certain and claiming that that side is not releasing all of the facts. 

The Democrats ripped into Gingrich. Chairman Henry Waxman (D.-Calif.) excoriated Gingrich for using scare tactics and talking in circles, ending by asking “if you are scared to work with us, what are doing here?” Likewise, Rep. Jay Inslee (D.-Wash.) asked Gingrich “you were asked in 2007 if you supported a cap on carbon. You responded ‘frankly, it is something I would strongly support.’ What happened?” Indeed, Gingrich appeared in ads for Gore’s “We” campaign promoting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Gingrich did not have a reply.

Industry and Regulator Testimony

In the afternoon, various industry officials paraded before the Committee to ask for specific changes to the Bill that would benefit their industry and regulators stating that those changes should not be made. For example, Dr.  Dan Sperling from the University of California at Davis stated that the California Air Resources Board voted for a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the U.S. should follow California’s lead. On the other hand, Charles Drevna, President of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association testified that Low Carbon Fuel Standard is redundant, costly and punitive. There were a few good points made, though. Ian Bowles, from the Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, updated the Committee on Massachusetts’ experience with 100% auctions, concluding that auctions work and they work “brilliantly.”

Click on "Continue Reading" for a Witness List with links to their prepared testimony as well as links to video of the session.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Day Three of the Waxman-Markey Bill (also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act) hearings, perhaps the best place to begin is with Rep. Edward Markey's (D-Mass) closing remarks, where he asked the panelists "do you think we can construct a cap-and-trade system?"  All of the panelists replied in the affirmative.  This session, without the Administration headliners of yesterday and the Pop culture icons that are scheduled for tomorrow (Al Gore and Newt Gingrich), was noticeably less on point and more meandering.  There were, however, several central themes:  cap-and-trade, Carbon Capture and Storage, and renewable energy.

Cap-and-trade

Although this topic was discussed extensively yesterday, the first panel consisted of representatives of various utility groups and consumer groups.  The electric utilities all seemed to want the same thing:  free allowances instead of having to pay for them at auctions.  They claim that this will allow the utilities to keep their prices down.  There is no surprise there.  The only interesting quote from a Congressman came, once from Rep. Joe Barton (R. Texas), who told the witnesses that "hybrid cars never pay off and American won't drive them unless forced by the government, backed by the Army."  How dead was it in the Committee room?  One report indicated that "the Chairman is reading a paper and only about 3 Reps are paying attention to these guys begging for handouts."

Carbon Capture and Storage/Clean Coal

During the hearings there has been talk about "Carbon Capture and Storage."  Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an approach to mitigating the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming, based on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources such as fossil fuel power plants and storing it away from the atmosphere.  The utilities and the coal industry believe that CCS is the way to go because it will allow them to go on using coal without producing CO2.  However, the technology is not there yet, and there is a fear that the development of CCS would draw needed dollars away from the development of other sources of energy.  Interestingly, David Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council stated that CCS can happen if it has adequate policy support.

Renewable Energy

On the other hand you have the advocates for "renewable energy."  Although most people think of solar and wind power when they think of renewable energy, there are other sources.  Geothermal energy is one such source.  Dan Reicher of Google (yes, that Google) testified that "engineered geothermal energy potential in Texas could provide 100% of Texas' electricity needs."  Supporters of renewable energy also came from unlikely sources, Jim Robo, President and COO of Florida Power & Light told the Committee that "we've barely begun to tap renewable energy . . . Unchecked climate change will cost us tens of billions of dollars."  This thinking leads to the Waxman-Markey Bill's call for a goal to be set that a certain percentage of energy be from renewable sources.  This has also led to various Representatives to call for the definition of renewable energy to include nuclear energy, biomass, and "clean coal."

In the end, there was a chorus among the last panel, calling for a strong legislation to deal with climate change and energy.   One can hope that the last day of the hearings, with some heavy hitters taking the witness chair, the questioning will be a little more interesting.

Click on "continue reading" for a complete Witness List with links to the witnesses written testimony and links to the video of the Hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks