Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report it commissioned on the fly ash and bottom ash ponds at American Electric Power's (AEP's) Philip Sporn Generating Plant in New Haven, West Virginia. The full report can be read here.
The report is part of EPA's investigation into the state of coal ash impoundment facilities around the country, in the wake of the massive coal ash spill at a TVA facility in Kingston, Tennessee last Christmas. Coal ash is currently classified by the EPA under RCRA (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq) as non-hazardous, despite massive heavy metal content, and is governed only by (generally lenient) state regulations as a result. (You can read an earlier post on coal ash, how the current regulatory regime came to be, and the Kingston spill here.),
The report concluded that the ash ponds at the AEP facility had a poor prognosis "for continued safe and reliable operation," and that "[r]emedial action is necessary." It is curious in light of this report that, once it received the report, EPA only asked AEP to conduct safety inspections of the facility. (And perhaps explains why EPA announced that it was asking for inspections on October 29th, but embargoed the report until yesterday.)
EPA is (possibly) limited in its ability to act to prevent imminent release of the coal ash under RCRA (because of its decision to classify coal ash as non-hazardous), but should have plenty of authority under CERCLA and leverage under the Clean Water Act (given the proximity of the Ohio River to the site). Obviously, EPA is proceeding gingerly, since AEP isn't used to being regulated for this sort of thing at all. (A more in-depth discussion of the disconnect between the report's conclusions, and EPA's actions, can be read here on the Charleston Gazette's Coal Tattoo blog.)
[Ed's note: "I've been coal miner all of my life. Layin' down track in the hole. . . . I've got no house and I got no job, just got a worried soul. And a blue tattoo on the side of my head left by the number nine coal. Left by the number nine coal." Coal Tattoo, Billy Ed Wheeler.]
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
NGO Reaction to "One Agreement, Two Steps" Framework for Copenhagen
Monday, November 16, 2009
Settlement in Gray Wolf Case
Defenders of Wildlife announced Friday that a coalition of environmental groups had reached a settlement with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in their effort to ensure protection for the endangered mexican gray wolf. These groups, represented by the Western Environmental Law Center, included Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project, New Mexico Audubon Council, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, University of New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, The Wildlands Network, Sierra Club, and Grand Canyon Wildlands Council.
Mexican gray wolf populations began to drop in the early 1900s due to ranching and development in the Southwest, and entirely disappeared from the wild by the 1970s. After being listed under the ESA in 1976, it was bred in captivity and finally reintroduced in 1998. (You can see a FWS chronology of the wolf's ESA recovery program and its milestones here.)
Just a few years later, in 2003, the Bush Administration handed control of managing mexican gray wolf populations in Arizona and New Mexico to the federal and state "Adaptive Management Oversight Committee," which was led by an official from Arizona Game and Fish. The Committee applied a set of "standard operating procedures, which included the rancher-friendly "Standard Operating Procedure 13" that required it to permanently remove a wolf from the wild (by killing or capturing it) if it killed three livestock in one year. According to Defenders' press release, this was done without regard to "an individual wolf’s genetic importance, dependent pups or the critically low numbers of wolves in the wild." According to this AP story on the case, there are only 50 Mexican gray wolves in the wild now, which is about half as many as the Recovery Plan envisioned by this time.
Defenders et al sued to stop SOP 13 in federal district court in Arizona in May 2008. Last week's settlement, which gets rid of SOP 13, settles the suit. FWS will also reassert control over the Committee under the settlement, as you can read in the press release and in the Arizona Daily Star, here. Arizona wildlife officials responded that the environmentalists are exaggerating--that they never controlled the committee, anyway. At the same time, the Arizona officials intimated that they would be working to make sure that the interests of ranchers continued to be represented in future Committee actions.
Mexican gray wolf populations began to drop in the early 1900s due to ranching and development in the Southwest, and entirely disappeared from the wild by the 1970s. After being listed under the ESA in 1976, it was bred in captivity and finally reintroduced in 1998. (You can see a FWS chronology of the wolf's ESA recovery program and its milestones here.)
Just a few years later, in 2003, the Bush Administration handed control of managing mexican gray wolf populations in Arizona and New Mexico to the federal and state "Adaptive Management Oversight Committee," which was led by an official from Arizona Game and Fish. The Committee applied a set of "standard operating procedures, which included the rancher-friendly "Standard Operating Procedure 13" that required it to permanently remove a wolf from the wild (by killing or capturing it) if it killed three livestock in one year. According to Defenders' press release, this was done without regard to "an individual wolf’s genetic importance, dependent pups or the critically low numbers of wolves in the wild." According to this AP story on the case, there are only 50 Mexican gray wolves in the wild now, which is about half as many as the Recovery Plan envisioned by this time.
Defenders et al sued to stop SOP 13 in federal district court in Arizona in May 2008. Last week's settlement, which gets rid of SOP 13, settles the suit. FWS will also reassert control over the Committee under the settlement, as you can read in the press release and in the Arizona Daily Star, here. Arizona wildlife officials responded that the environmentalists are exaggerating--that they never controlled the committee, anyway. At the same time, the Arizona officials intimated that they would be working to make sure that the interests of ranchers continued to be represented in future Committee actions.
Suit filed against FWS over San Francisco Smelt
The Center for Biological Diversity announced last Friday that it had filed suit in federal court against the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) seeking increased protections for two small smelt native to the Bay Area in Northern California. The group's press release can be read here.
The two species of smelt, the delta smelt and the longfin smelt, are at the bottom of a long battle over supplying water for irrigation to farmers in the region, and drinking water to area residents. As in other areas out West, much of this water is supplied through heroic diversions from once free-flowing rivers and streams that have threatened the viability of native fish species. And last week, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an $11bn water bond bill that would fund more engineering feats to get water to thirsty farmers and residents--at the expense of the longfin and delta smelt, according to CBD.
CBD and other environmentalists have been battling to force state and federal officials to take the smelt into consideration in their water use decisions using the Endangered Species Act for some time now. FWS issued a Biological Opinion last December asking that diversions be stopped to protect the delta smelt, already listed as threatened under the Act. But local water districts petitioned to have the protective actions called for by the BiOp enjoined, and the Eastern District of California granted that injunction last May.
Now that the bond bill has been passed, CBD is upping the ante. It wants the longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta area to be granted protection under the ESA as a distinct population segment (DPS)--something that FWS declined to do in this decision from April. It also wants FWS to change the delta smelt's status from threatened to endangered, which would trigger additional protections under the ESA, and possibly change the scope of action California is able to take.
You can read a pretty good article untangling the legal battle and its significance here, and access a FWS timeline of actions in the case here.
The two species of smelt, the delta smelt and the longfin smelt, are at the bottom of a long battle over supplying water for irrigation to farmers in the region, and drinking water to area residents. As in other areas out West, much of this water is supplied through heroic diversions from once free-flowing rivers and streams that have threatened the viability of native fish species. And last week, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an $11bn water bond bill that would fund more engineering feats to get water to thirsty farmers and residents--at the expense of the longfin and delta smelt, according to CBD.
CBD and other environmentalists have been battling to force state and federal officials to take the smelt into consideration in their water use decisions using the Endangered Species Act for some time now. FWS issued a Biological Opinion last December asking that diversions be stopped to protect the delta smelt, already listed as threatened under the Act. But local water districts petitioned to have the protective actions called for by the BiOp enjoined, and the Eastern District of California granted that injunction last May.
Now that the bond bill has been passed, CBD is upping the ante. It wants the longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta area to be granted protection under the ESA as a distinct population segment (DPS)--something that FWS declined to do in this decision from April. It also wants FWS to change the delta smelt's status from threatened to endangered, which would trigger additional protections under the ESA, and possibly change the scope of action California is able to take.
You can read a pretty good article untangling the legal battle and its significance here, and access a FWS timeline of actions in the case here.
Riverkeeper Uses CWA to Challenge Improper CERCLA cleanup
In an interesting coalescence of two different statutes, a company redeveloping a water front Superfund site in Oregon has been sued for violating the Clean Water Act in the process of that redevelopment. According to this article from the Oregon Daily News, Columbia Riverkeepers has sued Chinook Ventures for illegally dumping pollutants it is handling as part of the remediation of a former Reynolds Aluminum manufacturing facility on the Columbia River, using the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act. Chinook is redeveloping the site, which is listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), to make into a private port facility. There's not much more out there on the case, but it is noteworthy, insofar as one would assume that a company conducting a CERCLA cleanup would have swarms of environmental consultants supervising the work to limit liability and ensure the work is completed to the Act's standards.
World Leaders Downgrade Copenhagen to Dress Rehearsal
As hope faded that the U.S. Senate will have even a solid framework for a climate bill before negotiations are scheduled to start on the next international climate treaty in Copenhagen in three weeks, President Obama and other world leaders huddled in Singapore over the weekend to try and salvage the importance of the summit. According to this Politico article, the Danish Prime Minister flew out to Singapore to join President Obama and other world leaders in a last-minute breakfast huddle about the upcoming climate talks over the weekend. There, they decided to come up with a "one agreement, two steps" framework (obviously influenced in spirit by the sort of numerical nomenclature used in Chinese policy discussions) in which Copenhagen will, in essence, be just the first act of climate negotiations that will reconvene a year from now, as well.
Update: Politico also reports that Senator Reid was meeting with various committee chairmen to figure out how to push things along, here.
The New York Times is also reporting on the development, explaining that "this weekend in Singapore, Mr. Obama was forced to acknowledge that a comprehensive climate deal was beyond reach this year. Instead, he and other world leaders agreed that they would work toward a more modest interim agreement with a promise to renew work toward a binding treaty next year."
Tick tock, Senators, tick tock.
Update: Politico also reports that Senator Reid was meeting with various committee chairmen to figure out how to push things along, here.
The New York Times is also reporting on the development, explaining that "this weekend in Singapore, Mr. Obama was forced to acknowledge that a comprehensive climate deal was beyond reach this year. Instead, he and other world leaders agreed that they would work toward a more modest interim agreement with a promise to renew work toward a binding treaty next year."
Tick tock, Senators, tick tock.
Friday, November 13, 2009
All Condemned, and Nothing to Build
The New York Times has a great piece on how the massive private redevelopment of downtown New London at issue in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) . . . never happened. The article can be read here. The Volokh Conspiracy has a discussion of the development here. This development, the folks at Volokh say, helps bolster the argument that the government should not use eminent domain power to override multiple individuals' (i.e., the homeowners in the razed area) decisions about land use in favor of private redevelopment, since the government is prone to capture by large, well organized, monied corporate interests (i.e. Pfizer, which is backing out of its plans for a major research campus in the razed area).
I would posit that this rationale is not as vital, however, when it comes to how we think about "takings" via environmental regulation. In a case like Kelo, the private interest is quite powerful, and one would not suspect a troubling collective action problem on the part of the landowners. But when the government exercises its power in favor of environmental values, the concern about capture is more feeble: no matter how some property rights advocates may kvell about the power of the environmental lobby, corporate and money interests are more powerful, especially at the local level. And the likelihood of a troubling collective action problem is higher, since we can expect individual landowners to discount environmental values, which are all too often (still) externalized.
Frankly, I never understood Kelo. The colossal waste of a lovely neighborhood is unfortunate, but at least this latest development will stand as a cautionary tale for local authorities tempted to try something like this again, or for those state legislatures that have not yet passed laws forbidding the use of eminent domain powers signed off on in the case.
I would posit that this rationale is not as vital, however, when it comes to how we think about "takings" via environmental regulation. In a case like Kelo, the private interest is quite powerful, and one would not suspect a troubling collective action problem on the part of the landowners. But when the government exercises its power in favor of environmental values, the concern about capture is more feeble: no matter how some property rights advocates may kvell about the power of the environmental lobby, corporate and money interests are more powerful, especially at the local level. And the likelihood of a troubling collective action problem is higher, since we can expect individual landowners to discount environmental values, which are all too often (still) externalized.
Frankly, I never understood Kelo. The colossal waste of a lovely neighborhood is unfortunate, but at least this latest development will stand as a cautionary tale for local authorities tempted to try something like this again, or for those state legislatures that have not yet passed laws forbidding the use of eminent domain powers signed off on in the case.
Coal State Senators Push for Bigger Share of (Free) GHG Permits
Even though the Senate Climate Bill is currently more theoretical than real, a hypothetical bill that lies somewhere between Kerry-Boxer, Kerry-Graham-Lieberman, and whatever various Senate Committees might cook up, Senators in states that are heavily dependent on coal for power have already begun angling for a larger share of whatever free GHG emissions credits may be issued in the bill. In a letter issued yesterday, Senators Harkin (D, IA), Franken (D, MN), Dorgan (D, ND), Kohl (D, WI), Feingold (D, WI), Conrad (D, ND), Bennet (D, CO), Klobuchar (D, MN), Udall (D, CO), Byrd (D, WV), Levin (D, MI), Stabenow (D, MI), and Brown (D, OH) asked for a more "equitable" distribution of GHG emissions permits to help power companies that are more dependent on coal:
Given that these are 14 Democrats, and the Senate leadership is going to need every vote it can get to pass any climate bill, we can be assured that the distribution will be shifted as they ask. But you are right if this makes you uncomfortable. The coal-dependent power companies these Senators are defending have been warned for years by groups challenging their decisions to build new coal-fired power plants that the cost of coal power was bound to go up. These groups have consistently included in their comments before state utility commissions, state departments of environmental protection and federal authorities in charge of signing off on the plants the idea that the power companies really should be considering moves to diversify their power portfolio to wind, solar and energy efficiency--suggestions that the power companies have almost uniformly resisted (despite what their web sites often say about renewable energy and energy efficiency). So it is pretty disingenuous of them to act sad and helpless now that they are finally facing the prospect of paying up.
It is also disingenuous for the power companies, and the Senators from states in which they are powerful, to act as if their primary concern are their customers, when the lion's share of the customer rate increases they ask for (and almost always get from state utility commissions) are for building new power plants that are guaranteed to make the power companies money, but that the customers don't necessarily need. (Rate increases for energy efficiency improvements, though often the subject of much teeth gnashing by Republican state legislators all of a sudden concerned with rate payers, too, are generally tiny--especially in light of how much power they free up on the grid.) I may even be justified in saying that this is galling, in light of the sort of things that power companies expect customers to pay for, like $15,000 dinners and corporate spa retreats, as this article from the Colorado Independent discusses.
At any rate, Reuters reports on the letter here, the Hill here, and the Wall Street Journal here.
The House [Waxman-Markey] bill falls short of . . . equitable distribution . . . with its formula for allocating allowances to local distribution companies based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on sales. Unfortunately, the Senate bill currently under consideration includes the same 50/50 allocation provision. Under the proposed 50/50 formula, utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase even more allowances than they would have if all allowances were allocated based on emissions, and those higher costs will be passed on to their customers. Meanwhile, many utilities with relatively lesser emissions will receive sufficient allowances to completely cover their initial requirements. Thus, their customers will experience no price increases resulting from the legislation.The full letter can be read here.
We believe it is essential that we strive to formulate legislation that equitably distributes transition assistance across individuals, as well as states and regions and economic sectors. We urge you to ensure that emission allowances allocated to the electricity sector – and thus, electricity consumers -- be fully based on emissions as the appropriate and equitable way to provide transition assistance in a greenhouse gas-regulated economy.
Given that these are 14 Democrats, and the Senate leadership is going to need every vote it can get to pass any climate bill, we can be assured that the distribution will be shifted as they ask. But you are right if this makes you uncomfortable. The coal-dependent power companies these Senators are defending have been warned for years by groups challenging their decisions to build new coal-fired power plants that the cost of coal power was bound to go up. These groups have consistently included in their comments before state utility commissions, state departments of environmental protection and federal authorities in charge of signing off on the plants the idea that the power companies really should be considering moves to diversify their power portfolio to wind, solar and energy efficiency--suggestions that the power companies have almost uniformly resisted (despite what their web sites often say about renewable energy and energy efficiency). So it is pretty disingenuous of them to act sad and helpless now that they are finally facing the prospect of paying up.
It is also disingenuous for the power companies, and the Senators from states in which they are powerful, to act as if their primary concern are their customers, when the lion's share of the customer rate increases they ask for (and almost always get from state utility commissions) are for building new power plants that are guaranteed to make the power companies money, but that the customers don't necessarily need. (Rate increases for energy efficiency improvements, though often the subject of much teeth gnashing by Republican state legislators all of a sudden concerned with rate payers, too, are generally tiny--especially in light of how much power they free up on the grid.) I may even be justified in saying that this is galling, in light of the sort of things that power companies expect customers to pay for, like $15,000 dinners and corporate spa retreats, as this article from the Colorado Independent discusses.
At any rate, Reuters reports on the letter here, the Hill here, and the Wall Street Journal here.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
More Reaction to Forest Service Denial of Crested Butte Ski Area Expansion
More news outlets in Colorado and environs are reacting to the Forest Service's decision (discussed in this post from Monday) to turn down Crested Butte Ski Area's application for a "special use" permit to expand ski runs and lifts onto Snodgrass Mountain, in the middle of National Forest land.
The Watch out of Telluride is reporting how pleased local environmentalists are, in an article you can read here. Notably, it reports that Rocky (natch) Smith, Forest Watch Program Director for Colorado Wild "said that only once during his 25-year career reviewing Forest Service projects (including the Telluride Ski and Golf Company’s expansion into Prospect Basin that he opposed) has he ever seen the agency turn down a request to expand a ski area or open a new one." So a shift from not only the Bush Administration, but the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan administrations as well.
Meanwhile, the Gunnison Times reports here that the owners of the ski area found the Forest Service's decision to be "on the verge of appalling" and are planning on fighting the decision in court, if necessary. If it gets that far, it will be interesting to hear what the district court and perhaps ultimately the Tenth Circuit say it takes for a special use permit decision--which has a lot of discretion written into it by law--to withstand review. The ski area owners really seem to feel that they are entitled to NEPA review. The question is whether this is based on tradition, rather than anything legal.
The Watch out of Telluride is reporting how pleased local environmentalists are, in an article you can read here. Notably, it reports that Rocky (natch) Smith, Forest Watch Program Director for Colorado Wild "said that only once during his 25-year career reviewing Forest Service projects (including the Telluride Ski and Golf Company’s expansion into Prospect Basin that he opposed) has he ever seen the agency turn down a request to expand a ski area or open a new one." So a shift from not only the Bush Administration, but the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan administrations as well.
Meanwhile, the Gunnison Times reports here that the owners of the ski area found the Forest Service's decision to be "on the verge of appalling" and are planning on fighting the decision in court, if necessary. If it gets that far, it will be interesting to hear what the district court and perhaps ultimately the Tenth Circuit say it takes for a special use permit decision--which has a lot of discretion written into it by law--to withstand review. The ski area owners really seem to feel that they are entitled to NEPA review. The question is whether this is based on tradition, rather than anything legal.
Groups Sue to Save West Virginia Flying Squirrel
Today, the Friends of Blackwater, Wilderness Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, and Wild South filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Interior for taking the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel off the Endangered Species List. (You can check out the flying squirrel's Wikipedia entry here--it looks like an adorable Super Squirrel!!) The delisting took place in August 2008 under the Bush Administration, and was decried by environmentalists as part of the Administration's attempt to "gut" the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. (The CBD's contemporaneous press release on the action can be viewed here, a more balanced discussion on the decision from ESAblawg here, and the delisting decision itself here. The decision was justified by the fact that the population had stayed stable for twenty years, and "persisted" in certain areas of its habitat, despite its scarcity--not that it had recovered.)
Today's complaint, which can be downloaded here, alleges that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ignored the criteria of its own 1990 recovery plan for the squirrel, see 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (requiring FWS to implement Recovery Plans), in its decision to delist. The complaint further charges that FWS failed to look at all the available science on the condition of the squirrel and its habitat in making its decision, something it was also required to do in any delisting decision by 16 U.S.C. § 1533. In fact, the complaint points out, FWS asserted in its decision that it was fine to delist a species "without all criteria [of its Recovery Plan] being met." See 73 Fed. Reg. 50226 (Aug. 28, 2008). The action, the complaint alleges, is therefore a violation of both the terms of the ESA and the APA, insofar as FWS acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of APA § 706.
The group's full press release can be viewed here.
[Update: The Courthouse News has a good article on the case, here.]
Today's complaint, which can be downloaded here, alleges that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ignored the criteria of its own 1990 recovery plan for the squirrel, see 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (requiring FWS to implement Recovery Plans), in its decision to delist. The complaint further charges that FWS failed to look at all the available science on the condition of the squirrel and its habitat in making its decision, something it was also required to do in any delisting decision by 16 U.S.C. § 1533. In fact, the complaint points out, FWS asserted in its decision that it was fine to delist a species "without all criteria [of its Recovery Plan] being met." See 73 Fed. Reg. 50226 (Aug. 28, 2008). The action, the complaint alleges, is therefore a violation of both the terms of the ESA and the APA, insofar as FWS acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of APA § 706.
The group's full press release can be viewed here.
[Update: The Courthouse News has a good article on the case, here.]
More Feedback on Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Plan
Since the federal government issued a draft of its comprehensive plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay last week, local environmentalists have begun to react. According to this article in the Maryland Daily Record, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation is concerned that the plan lacks details. In blog post on its web site, CBF calls the plan "disappointing because it lacks specific goals, deadlines, programs and strategies."
Meanwhile, Environment Maryland is distressed that it leaves too much up to the states, as you can read in their press release, here. The Capital, out of Annapolis, reports on the "wiggle room" left in the plan for the states to try it their way first, here.
On the other side of the issue, the Maryland government is concerned that the plan will unfairly crack down on Maryland poultry farmers for runoff from chicken waste, as the Baltimore Sun reported here. (They may be justified in their concerns that poultry farmers in their state will face tougher regulations. But ultimately, compliance shouldn't impose a huge financial burden, as I mentioned here. And if one Illinois farmer and attorney is to be believed, the EPA is out to get concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs, aka factory farms) anyway, as you can read in his article about how "EPA is targeting CAFOs!" across the country, complete with exclamation points, here!).
The Baltimore Sun, meanwhile, thinks that the concern from both sides is a sign that the plan just may work, as you can read here.
Meanwhile, Environment Maryland is distressed that it leaves too much up to the states, as you can read in their press release, here. The Capital, out of Annapolis, reports on the "wiggle room" left in the plan for the states to try it their way first, here.
On the other side of the issue, the Maryland government is concerned that the plan will unfairly crack down on Maryland poultry farmers for runoff from chicken waste, as the Baltimore Sun reported here. (They may be justified in their concerns that poultry farmers in their state will face tougher regulations. But ultimately, compliance shouldn't impose a huge financial burden, as I mentioned here. And if one Illinois farmer and attorney is to be believed, the EPA is out to get concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs, aka factory farms) anyway, as you can read in his article about how "EPA is targeting CAFOs!" across the country, complete with exclamation points, here!).
The Baltimore Sun, meanwhile, thinks that the concern from both sides is a sign that the plan just may work, as you can read here.
Just in Case You Were Still Hoping
The Senate Climate bill won't go anywhere in the next six weeks, WSJ confirms.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, with plenty of quotes to back up the story, that the Senate Climate Bill won't be going anywhere before next year. Senator Baucus (D, MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee (and was a no vote against Kerry-Boxer on the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)) doesn't seem to be in a hurry to do anything. The article also reports that "Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation."
Of course, Harry Reid (D, NV) promised five weeks of analysis of any proposed bill, as was discussed in this earlier post. And Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are negotiating their own bill behind closed doors. And though it passed out of EPW, Kerry-Boxer is not winning any popularity contests in the Senate right now. This we knew before the EPA sent its endangerment finding on GHGs to the White House last Friday. But I guess this confirms that the move was not a sufficient shock to the system to jolt the Senate into action.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, with plenty of quotes to back up the story, that the Senate Climate Bill won't be going anywhere before next year. Senator Baucus (D, MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee (and was a no vote against Kerry-Boxer on the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)) doesn't seem to be in a hurry to do anything. The article also reports that "Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation."
Of course, Harry Reid (D, NV) promised five weeks of analysis of any proposed bill, as was discussed in this earlier post. And Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are negotiating their own bill behind closed doors. And though it passed out of EPW, Kerry-Boxer is not winning any popularity contests in the Senate right now. This we knew before the EPA sent its endangerment finding on GHGs to the White House last Friday. But I guess this confirms that the move was not a sufficient shock to the system to jolt the Senate into action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
