Boxer

Subscribe to Boxer via RSS

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its final finding that emission of six greenhouse gases endangered the public’s health and the environment because of their effect on climate change, the business community wondered how it should respond to the news.  At first glance, there seems to be blinding maze of legal and policy issues that will affect business decisions.  Although far from clear, there is a way out of the maze – although businesses with significant greenhouse gas emissions should be prepared to tackle the important issues that the Endangerment Finding raises.

Businesses Need to Take a Deep Breath (Irony Intended)

The road to the endangerment finding began in 2007, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Massachusetts v. EPA that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases constituted “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.  To most savvy businessmen this was a clear signal to start planning how their businesses would cope with the establishment of limits on emission of greenhouse gases.  Although the Bush Administration EPA successfully sat on the issue, when the Obama Administration took office, most companies recognized that an endangerment finding would top the EPA’s list of major environmental actions.  Thus, EPA’s announcement this past April of its proposed finding and its announcement of the final endangerment finding should have come as no surprise to anyone who has been monitoring this issue.

The key thing for businesses to remember is that the endangerment finding by itself does not regulate the emission of greenhouse gases from any source, large or small.  That being said, it does have a direct impact on mobile sources (because of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act), with the EPA planning on issuing its final “light-duty vehicle” greenhouse gas emissions rule some time in Spring 2010.

Continue Reading What Does EPA’s Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions Endanger Public Health and the Environment Mean to Business?

John M. Broder, a columnist for the New York Times, writes that:

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held hearing on Thursday, August 6, 2009, on the climate change bill currently under consideration by Senate after being passed by the House earlier this summer.  According to Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.),  "the hearing will focus "on ensuring that America leads the clean energy transformation as we address the threat posed by climate change.

The battlelines were drawn in the opening statements.  The Democrats emphasized the national security aspects of the failure of the United States to address climate change adequately.  Sen Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said in his opening remarks:

We have also heard from our military leaders that global warming is a serious threat to our national security.  As many as 800 million people are going to face water and cropland scarcity in the next 15 years, setting the stage for conflict and breeding the conditions for terrorism.

These sentiments were echoed by Sen. Cardin (D-Md.) who stated that addressing climate change was "important for national security."

The Republicans seemed to acknowledge the fact that movement on climate change is necessary, but that the energy policy of the United States should focus first and foremost on the economy.  This resulted in Sen. Bond (R-Mo.) calling for off-shore drilling for natural gas and oil, Sens. Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Alexander (R-Tenn.) calling for more nuclear energy, and all of them calling for "Clean Coal," describing the United States the "Saudia Arabia" of coal.  Nuclear energy, in particular because of its "no carbon emissions," is high on the Republican’s agenda.

The basic issue between the two parties seems to be this:  the Republicans believe that the status quo should be protected, because the alternative proposed by the Democrats is too costly and uncertain.  The Democrats, on the other hand, believe that while the costs will be high in some sectors, other sectors will pick up the slack.  While Sen. Voinovich is correct that the economy must be protects, Sen. Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is also correct in stating that to

move the government’s hands in a way that supports a better clean energy future is not a distrubance in the "state of nature" . . . it’s actually making better decisions with the same power we use now.

Panel One:  Views From the Obama Administration

Putting aside for the moment the prepared testimony by the witnesses, the nuclear question was addressed through a question from Sen. Boxer to panel by stating "under the analysis of the House Bill, 161 new 1000 megawatt nuclear power plants would result from that bill."  The panelists confirmed that the cap-and-trade system sets up the market mechanisms that would allow the power and energy companies to move forward with the development of nuclear power plants in addition to solar and wind.

Sen. Inhofe attempted to move the discussion away from climate change and toward the issue of reliance on foreign oil.  His point was that we need to develop our oil reserves that we have here, presumably instead of developing solar, wind and nuclear resources.  Hon. Strickland, from the Interior Department, replied that the Interior Department is moving toward developing all of the natural resources of the United States in "responsible manner."  But that should not mean that we should not also develop "renewable" resources.

Panel Two:  Industry and Environmental Group Representatives

The second panel of the day concentrated a little more on reductions of carbon emissions.  Interestingly enough, Mr. Fehrman of the Mid-American Energy seemed to support a hard cap, without any trading of allowances.  His belief is that introducing market mechanisms only raise the costs for energy companies.  In addition, he believes that carbon capture and sequestration will be "commericially available" in 5 to 10 years. 

On the other hand, Mr. Krupp advocated in favor of cap-and-trade to achieve real emission reductions in the nation.  Mr. Krupp also noted that "carbon capture is ready to roll" – in Norway.  The reason why?  Because there is a price on carbon and the rechonology was developed as a result.

Shortly after the hearing was over, the Senate recessed for the rest of the month of August, leaving the big questions regarding climate change until the Fall.

The witness list and a link to the video webcast of the hearing after the jump.Continue Reading Climate Change and Clean Energy Headline U.S. Senate Committee Hearing

The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Highway and Transit is planning to start the transportation reauthorization process on June 24, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. EST by marking up the Surface Transportation Act of 2009 (“Act”). House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman, James Oberstar, has made a proposal which would fundamentally overhaul surface transportation programs drawing on many of the recommendations by a federally mandated Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission as well as on White House policy priorities. The Obama Administration, however, has a completely different political and legislative strategy in mind, causing a public disconnect between leaders of the legislative and executive branches.

First, on a negative note, the Act would consolidate or eliminate 75 existing Federal highway and transit programs including the “Indian Reservation Road Bridges Program,” and “The Public Transportation Participation Pilot Program.

On the positive side, the Act would create a new rail section to promote President Obama’s proposal of a high speed passenger rail network. Also, at the urging of the Administration, Oberstar would create an Office of Livability in the Transportation Department, to link transportation planning to housing and business development. The Act would also overhaul the Transportation Department’s inner workings by creating a position of Undersecretary of Intermodalism. That Undersecretary would help coordinate planning by agencies responsible for different methods of transportation, including the aviation, railroad, transit, highway and maritime administrations, along with Amtrak, the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers. “It’s an opportunity to restructure all of transportation,” Oberstar said at a briefing Wednesday. “Those modal administrators have not done so much as what we’re doing here – sat around a table, had coffee together – in 40 years. It’s time to do that.”Continue Reading Trouble in Paradise – Dissension Surrounds the Surface Trasnportation Authorization Act of 2009

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.Continue Reading U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Holds Hearing on FAA’s Role in the Oversight of Air Carriers