Big Energy-Environmental Issues-House to Vote Friday

Some of the biggest energy and environmental policy votes in years are set for Friday – or Saturday – on the House floor.

Votes expected include amendments to the continuing resolution on: EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; offshore oil and gas drilling permits; mountaintop mining removal; and expanding the use of ethanol in gasoline.

The headliner in the time agreement reached late Thursday night is an amendment from Texas Republicans:

• Ted Poe
• Joe Barton
• John Carter 

to bolster the existing language in the bill that would handcuff EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases — Amendment 466: (page 66 of 220):

The Texas trio’s amendment appears to block funding for any EPA regulation of GHGs(Green House Gas Emissions) from stationary sources for the duration of the seven-month spending bill, while the existing language in the legislation bars such rules only if they are being regulated for their climate effects, according to a Clean Air Act attorney.

None of the Democratic measures that would strike the language in the spending bill that blocks federal funding for EPA’s climate greenhouse gas regulations were included.

There's three big amendments on offshore drilling:

• Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise has one blocking federal funds “to further delay the approval” of offshore energy plans in federal waters, the latest volley in an escalating fight between federal regulators and oil-state lawmakers in both parties following last year's BP spill.

• Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will offer an amendment that blocks funding for any new leases being granted to companies that own ones that are not subject to royalty relief limits. Markey has long fought to address Interior’s Gulf leases from the late 1990s that mistakenly omitted market-based price limits for the granting of royalty relief, which is meant to suspend such payments when oil prices are high.

• Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) has one blocking federal funds for the rejecting of permits in federal Arctic coastal waters.

On ethanol, Republicans John Sullivan and Jeff Flake will get their chance to cut federal goodies for the ethanol industry. Sullivan’s amendment strips funding for implementation of EPA’s recent decisions to allow the use of E15 in passenger cars and trucks for model year 2001 and up.

Flake’s amendment would block funding for installing blender pumps at gas stations that would be used to carry ethanol-blended fuels.

Other major amendments that will come up Friday:

• Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) blocking funds to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

• Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) blocking funds for implementation of new EPA water-quality guidelines for mountaintop mining that toughened the issuance of permits in six Appalachian states.

• Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) blocking legal funds used to enforce the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act as well as funding for an Interior Department climate change adaptation initiative.

House sets up big energy votes
by Darren Goode,Josh-Politico

EPA denies climate change challenges

29 July 2010 -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 determination that climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities and threatens human health and the environment.

EPA said the petitions to reconsider its Endangerment Finding claim that climate science cannot be trusted, and assert a conspiracy that invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The agency said after months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA "finds no evidence to support these claims." In contrast, EPA’s review shows that climate science is "credible, compelling and growing stronger."

The basic assertions by the petitioners and EPA responses follow.

Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data.
Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.

Claim: Petitioners say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question.
Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed two in a 3,000-page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. None of the errors undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare.

Claim: Petitioners say that because certain studies were not included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC itself is biased and cannot be trusted as a source of reliable information.
Response: These claims are incorrect. In fact, the studies in question were included in the IPCC report, which provided a comprehensive and balanced discussion of climate science.

Claim: Petitioners say that new scientific studies refute evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding.
Response: Petitioners misinterpreted the results of these studies. Contrary to their claims, many of the papers they submit as evidence are consistent with EPA’s Finding. Other studies submitted by the petitioners were based on unsound methodologies. Detailed discussion of these issues may be found in volume one of the response to petition documents, on EPA’s website.