Roy Blunt-How can He Lead in the Right Direction?

With Leaders like this in Washington its no wonder the USA is in economic turmoil.

Top Industries that pay for Representative Roy Blunt 2009 - 2010

Top 20 Industries contributing to Campaign Committee Slush Fund or is it a Hush Fund?)

Download: What is District Rank?View Top 20 | All

MemberRank	DistrictRank	Industry	Total	Indivs	PACs
1	10	Securities & Investment	$647,031	$588,031	$59,000
2	2	Retired	$518,964	$518,964	$0
3	43	Leadership PACs	$499,903	$0	$499,903
4	1	Lawyers/Law Firms	$368,864	$280,764	$88,100
5	3	Health Professionals	$357,595	$213,845	$143,750
6	4	Real Estate	$316,220	$279,320	$36,900
7	17	Insurance	$305,514	$143,114	$162,400
8	61	Lobbyists	$305,416	$300,416	$5,000
9	39	Oil & Gas	$300,300	$148,050	$152,250
10	20	Commercial Banks	$247,983	$149,883	$98,100
11	5	Misc Manufacturing & Distributing	$218,200	$176,300	$41,900
12	22	Republican/Conservative	$207,236	$163,236	$44,000
13	28	Food Processing & Sales	$198,950	$102,450	$96,500
14	19	Misc Business	$197,202	$189,702	$7,500
15	8	Mining	$193,553	$119,053	$74,500
16	6	Misc Finance	$192,995	$156,495	$36,500
17	52	Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$180,850	$45,850	$135,000
18	35	Food & Beverage	$173,850	$68,550	$105,300
19	12	General Contractors	$171,500	$140,500	$31,000
20	7	Automotive	$169,870	$107,370	$62,500

Sector Totals (see table)

Industry Favorite

Roy Blunt is a top recipient from the following industries for the 2009 - 2010 election cycle:

• Automotive  (#1)
• Business Assns  (#1)
• Chemicals  (#1)
• Coal mining  (#1)
• Commercial Banks  (#1)
• Food & Beverage  (#1)
• Food and kindred products manufacturing  (#1)
• Food Process/Sales  (#1)
• Food stores  (#1)
• Leadership PACs  (#1)
• Lodging/Tourism  (#1)
• Mining  (#1)
• Misc Services  (#1)
• Oil & Gas  (#1)
• Republican leadership PAC  (#1)
• Restaurants & drinking establishments  (#1)
• Trucking  (#1)
• Auto manufacturers  (#2)
• Dentists  (#2)
• Livestock  (#2)
• Pharmaceutical manufacturing  (#2)
• Dairy  (#3)
• Railroads  (#3)
• Meat processing & products  (#4)
• Poultry & Eggs  (#4)
• Candidate Cmtes  (#6)

Percent of Contributions Coded

	Coded	$8,981,702	(82.0%)
	Not Coded	$2,026,999	(18.4%)

METHODOLOGY

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2009-2010 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, February 28, 2011. ("Help! The numbers don't add up...") Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center. 

 If you are unable to read between the lines and determine what this information mean for the Average Missourian?  

• He receives an awful lot of money from sources that do not have your best interests at heart.  Many of the Contributors pay or should I say BUY Mr Blunts-votes on the issues that remove the safe guards that are protecting the Average Missourian.

Need I also mention the the Party he belongs too represents Big Business in all their voting affairs.  With Contributions that number in Multi-Millions how can someone keep a clear head and vote for responsible laws that dictate how the Americans Live.

 

View additional Articles in re to Roy Blunts Activities at the following web pages:

• Roy Blunt-Political News-Worst of Washington 

  MO Senator Roy Blunt on the EPA

  Note: I do not support Senator Roy Blunt.  I provided his latest email to me because I think my Fellow Missourian's deserve to know how he stands on the Environmental Issues Facing our State and Nation. Besides his stand with the Big Oil and Big Coal Industry with his fellow Republicans. I believe and the facts from his previous Lobbying / Lobbyist Activities not to mention the Earmarks he supported creates conflicts of Interest-Scotty" 
  
  
• Mr Blunts past behavior of
1. Ear Marks,
2. reckless and wasteful spending habits,
3. Lobbying Activities create Conflict of Interest,
4. He is Part of the Reason that "Washington is Broken"
• Mr Blunt supports Big Business. (from:http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/10/robin-carnahan-election-news-invitation.html)
  

Prior St Louis Renewable Energy Blog Posts in re to Roy Blunt:

• Roy Blunt-Political News-Worst of Washington Sep 19, 2010
• Re: Did Roy Blunt Hire an Illegal Worker? Oct 21, 2010
• Carnahan Election News-Message to Roy Blunt Oct 28, 2010
• A musing about Roy Blunt Oct 05, 2010
• Robin's Carnahan vs Roy Blunt Debate News Oct 14, 2010

Earmarks Data from Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/otherdata.php?cid=N00005195&cycle=2010)

Roy Blunt sponsored or co-sponsored 22 earmarks totaling $22,602,000 in fiscal year 2010, ranking 188th out of 435 representatives. See details. To learn more about earmarks, visit our Earmarks section.

Use the Following Link to -Find Your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician  

 

If your Elected Leaders do not know where you stand on the issues they will not be able to vote for the issues that are affecting: You, Your Family, Work, Health, Jobs, and Educational Needs.   

loan guarantees for renewable energy projects and Budget Cuts

About $41 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy projects are caught up in the bipartisan wrangling over the federal budget, which could derail dozens of projects and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs. Even established companies are concerned, underscoring the nascent industry's reliance on government help.

A Republican proposal to slash the loan-guarantee program was included in a U.S. House of Representatives' budget bill passed last month. Such a move would be a setback for the Obama Administration's push to develop alternate sources of energy, slash greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs.

Renewable energy companies, particularly solar power product makers and developers, say the loan-guarantee program administered by the Department of Energy is crucial to allow projects currently under development to proceed. Loan guarantees for nuclear plants would not be affected.

"The DOE loan program provides an important financing 'bridge' at a time when the U.S. private debt markets have little to no experience financing first of their kind utility-scale solar projects," First Solar Chief Executive Rob Gillette said in an email. He said the program supports large solar projects that create jobs, state and local tax revenue and investment opportunities.

The loan guarantee acts as lenders' insurance in case of default or unforeseen delay for technologies trying to go commercial for the first time. It is meant to push companies out of the so-called valley of death where private equity or debt investors are reluctant to cover huge construction costs on unproven technology given the sluggish growth outlook power demand.

First Solar has more than 2,000 megawatts of solar farms under development in the U.S. Among them is a 290-megawatt Arizona project called Agua Caliente, for which the company obtained a $967 million conditional DOE loan guarantee. Independent power producer NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) agreed to buy the solar farm, but only if the DOE provides the loan guarantee.

"Without the federal loan guarantee program, private sector capital earmarked for this and other clean energy projects will stay on the sidelines," NRG Chief Financial Officer Christian Schade said by email. NRG is seeking DOE loan guarantees for two other solar farms and an offshore wind project.

If the House proposal to slash funding were to proceed, the DOE would be forced to withdraw six conditional loan guarantees the agency has issued to renewable projects, said Ebony Meeks, spokeswoman for the agency. In addition, 25 other renewable energy projects that are currently in the final stages of receiving their loan guarantees would not get them, she said.

Together, these projects are seeking more than $13.6 billion in loans to finance $24.5 billion in new energy infrastructure that are estimated to put more than 25,000 Americans to work, Meeks said. Since 2009, the DOE has issued nearly $4.4 billion in such loan guarantees.

Cutting the DOE program would "kill all clean energy projects with pending DOE loan guarantee applications, causing the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and many other benefits," the Solar Energy Industries Association said in a statement.

Federal loan guarantees, along with a investment tax credit and other incentives helped the U.S. solar power market more than double in 2010, with similar growth expected this year, according to analysts and solar power companies.

While larger companies will be able to continue developing projects, albeit on a smaller scale, without loan guarantees, small business owners may be forced to abandon their projects.

James Taylor and his family have sunk their fortune into a $145 million project in Montgomery, N.Y. that converts waste into electricity. The Taylor BioMass Energy project is close to finalizing terms for a $100 million loan guarantee, which the company needs to obtain a loan of that size from a separate DOE program, said Taylor, the company's chief executive.

"We've got every cent that we own in this project on the faith and belief that it appears that [the loan guarantee] is finally going to happen," Taylor said.

After unsuccessfully shopping the project to 150 venture capital, debt and equity investors, the DOE may be Taylor's only way for retaining control over the landfill technology that he spent more than 15 years developing. "I'm hoping I don't have to give it away," he said.

-By Naureen S. Malik, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-4210; naureen.malik@dowjones.com

By Naureen S. Malik and Cassandra Sweet
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

Solar CEOs to Congress: Don't Ax Our Loans

CEOs of green energy companies including First Solar (FSLR) and SunPower (SPWRA) petitioned Congress on Tuesday to spare two key Department of Energy loan guarantee programs from the Congressional budget ax.

By Eric Rosenbaum - The Street

The deficit hawks in Congress have taken aim at the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program that has helped to finance the development of solar power companies and specific solar power plants. The 1705 DOE loan guarantee program could be completely eliminated, while the 1703 DOE loan guarantee program could see its funding cut in half from roughly $50 billion to $26 billion. In the letter, the green energy CEOs specifically ask that Congress allow section 1705 projects to be transferred to section 1703 of the DoE loan guarantee program.


Solar energy experts have said in the past that if the 1703 DOE loan guarantee program were cut in half, it's possible that there would be no funding for any projects under this program other than nuclear energy -- that, however, was analysis in the pre-Japanese nuclear crisis days. In the case of the broader attack on the 1705 DOE loan guarantee, talk in the solar market has hit the level of hyperbole, with solar sector executives talking about Congress "killing" solar projects.

First Solar CEO Robert Gillette and SunPower CEO Tom Werner were among the signatures on the letter sent to both Senate and House leaders.

The green energy CEOs struck both the rhetorical high note of losing the green energy race to China, and the bottom line reality of U.S. job numbers, in making their pitch for extension of the DoE loan programs.

"We are deeply concerned that eliminating funding for this critical program will not only destroy thousands of pending jobs and hinder the growth of critically-needed U.S. domestic energy production, but also defeat America's effort to compete with China, Germany, and others in the clean technology marketplace," the green energy CEOs wrote. In addition to both public and private solar companies, CEOs of wind, geothermal, biomass, and biofuel companies signed the letter to Congress in defense of the DoE loan guarantee program.

The green energy lobby stated these data points in its letter:

The program's real costs are paid for by the companies that submit applications, and each federal dollar of loan guarantees leverages $13 in private capital investment.
This program has already committed more than $26 billion in loans and loan guarantees to projects that represent $42 billion in investment the U.S. economy.

The green energy lobby continued in its letter:

The investments represent an estimated 58,000 direct and indirect jobs across 19 states.
Projects still in the pipeline for approval that would be killed or put at risk by the proposal in H.R. 1 to take away the funding for the program represent an additional $24 billion in near-term investment in America's energy infrastructure and another 35,000 jobs.

Putting the numbers aside, there is a philosophical divide in the budgetary debate. There is a belief among some politicians that the government should not be in the business of "picking" the winners and losers in the green energy market development, and they argue that aside from budgetary constraints, the DoE loan guarantee program tilts too far in this direction.

There is also a philosophical divide over the idea that green energy draws a straight line to job growth. The conventional economic debate over "broken windows theory" applies to green energy. If a bakery window is broken, the theory goes, it creates a job for the window replacement company, which then goes out and spends the money it has earned on the wares of other merchants. Therefore, the person who broke the window is a benefactor of the economy. Yet there is stiff philosophical opposition from some conservatives that the "broken windows theory" is a fallacy, especially when it comes to green energy, and that replacing one job for another does not create a new job or add to the economy, but in fact, the broken window destroys a job that is not visible to the public.

When it comes to green energy jobs, one fact that can be stated plainly is that the industry is so young the US government does not have enough data on its overall impact on the economy.

In the solar sector context specifically, the Department of Energy loan guarantee program is more important to the solar thermal industry than photovoltaic solar companies -- solar thermal is more expensive and needs more support -- yet it has still been a major source of funding for utility-scale solar projects of all types. Most importantly, any Department of Energy loan guarantee that can't be accessed as part of financing by a solar company like First Solar, as it builds and sells utility-scale solar power projects means one thing: that the company has to sell projects at a lower price overall to make up for the buyer's need to bring more equity to the table.

First Solar recently closed a DOE loan guarantee that enabled it to achieve a higher sales price on its Agua Caliente project. First Solar has applied for DOE loans on many other projects in its pipeline too.

Ken Hansen, a partner at Chadbourne & Parke who works on solar financing, said it would be "an epic breach of faith" for the government to eliminate the DOE loan guarantee programs.

Thomas Amis, partner at Cooley, said that the DOE has done much to respond to many of the criticisms lodged against the loan guarantee program in the past, and that to gouge the program now would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. "It would be the height of irony that precisely at the moment when Jonathan Silverexecutive, director of the DOE loan program office, has his loan guarantee team fully assembled and operating on all cylinders, it is essentially defunded," Amis said.

Amis did not want to employ the hyperbole of the solar market being "killed" as a result of an elimination of the DOE loan guarantee program, but he maintains that it's a serious issue for the growth of the US solar market. While experts including Amis agree that the DOE program is more important to solar thermal companies, they worry that the former primary mechanism for financing of all solar projects -- tax equity under the investment tax credit (ITC) -- has not returned to a healthy enough level to make up for an abrupt end to the DOE loan program.

Amis added that while, to date, the DOE loan program has been more focused on solar thermal, given the continued constraints in the private project finance market an abrupt end to the DOE loan program will have a disproportionate impact.

Additionally, the Internal Revenue Service section 1603 cash grant program, which some solar experts argue is a better way to fund renewable energy than the DOE loan program due to its wider availability, is set to expire at the end of the year. Though the cash grant program could be extended for one more year, as it was in the 2010 tax cut package (current industry outlook is not bright for its extension), any budget hit on the DOE loan program coupled with the cash grant expiration would be a double whammy for renewable energy financing.

"Very few developments can completely destroy an industry, but in a constrained financing environment the disappearance of the DOE Loan Guaranty Program will represent a huge setback to the deployment of innovative renewable energy technologies," Amis said.

Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?

Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?
March 26, 2011

Powder River Basin Distribution Legend Low Res

This weekend’s question may have no good answer.

On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans to auction off 758 million tons of coal in Wyoming over the next few months. Then on Friday, the Bureau of Land Management explained they will be selling off another 1.6 billion tons of coal at a future date.

Salazar claims coal could play a role in the “clean energy future,” but that isn’t true, of course — except in an alternative universe where CO2 has a high and rising price and carbon capture and storage pans out — neither of which seems likely even if Obama weren’t now indifferent to serious climate action (see Harvard: “Realistic” first-generation CCS costs a whopping $150 per ton of CO2 — 20 cents per kWh! and Studyfind leaks from CO2 stored deep underground could contaminate drinking water).

The coal represents a staggering amount of future CO2 emissions, as Wild Earth Guardians, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife explain:

When burned, the coal threatens to release more than 3.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from 300 coal-fired power plants, further cementing the United States as a leading contributor to climate disruption … Salazar’s announcement is a stark contrast to his call for clean energy. Interior, for example, touted that in 2010, 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy development were authorized. And in today’s press conference, Secretary Salazar announced Interior’s intent to authorize more than 12,000 megawatts of renewable energy by the end of next year … Yet in opening the door for 2.35 billion tons of coal mining, Salazar’s announcement effectively enables more than 300,000 megawatts of coal-fired energy — 30 times more dirty energy development than renewable energy.

Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from coal combustion lasts a long, long, long time (see Fossil CO2 impacts will outlast Stonehenge and nuclear waste). And that’s a major reason unrestricted burning of coal is just bad for humans (see Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add “close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated” and A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice).

So this decision just makes no sense, though Grist offers one explanation for cynics: Obama administration can’t wait to sell China all the coal it can burn.

This decision certainly eviscerates Salazar’s green street cred that he had developed by aggressively pushing renewable energy on public lands. It fits into an emerging pattern with offshore drilling and the continued embrace of uber-expensive nuclear power and the abandonment of any effort to pass serious climate legislation that suggests perhaps Obama really doesn’t get it at all. If so, it’s time for people like science advisor John Holdren to contemplate resigning and moving on to a job where he can do more good — like leading a national effort of scientists to inform the public about the extreme dangers of burning all that coal.

What do you think? Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?      Burning The Future - Coal In America  Factors Affecting Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Combustors       Methane emissions from gassy coals in storage silos

How Much Tax Money Goes to Fossil Energy Companies

Q:just how much of our tax money is going to ExxonMobil, Massey, etc.? With the new deficit hawks in Congress going after insignificant items like bottled water expenses, you'd think they'd want to know the size of the really wasteful stuff, right?

A:There have been counts, ranging from $10 billion a year by the Environmental Law Institute, to the more comprehensive, $52 billion a year by Doug Koplow of EarthTrack. But, do taxpayers even have a widely accepted, comprehensive inventory of how of our money is being handed to the dirty energy lobby by politicians?  That includes state-level subsidies, by the way, such as the $45 million that Virginia gives to the coal industry

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested  TellMyPolitician

Why We Still Don't Know How Much Money Goes to Fossil Energy

By Mike Casey   |   February 16, 2011  

The national conversation about wasteful welfare for highly profitable dirty energy corporations has gone from the dramatic statement by the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency that fossil fuel subsidies are one of the biggest impediments to global economic recovery ("the appendicitis of the global energy system which needs to be removed for a healthy, sustainable development future"), to a speech by Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch (in which he called the fossil fuel industry "grotesquely oversubsidized"), to a call by President Obama to cut oil company welfare by $4 billion.
 
Not to be outdone, House Democrats are now calling for a $40 billion cut.
Dirty energy welfare defenders have, predictably, responded with ridiculous, Palin-esque denials of reality, but the voter demands that wasteful spending be cut begs the question: just how much of our tax money is going to ExxonMobil, Massey, etc.? With the new deficit hawks in Congress going after insignificant items like bottled water expenses, you'd think they'd want to know the size of the really wasteful stuff, right?

The problem is, we've long suspected that no one really knows how much of our money goes to dirty oil executives like Rex Tillerson and Gregory Boyce. There have been counts, ranging from $10 billion a year by the Environmental Law Institute, to the more comprehensive, $52 billion a year by Doug Koplow of EarthTrack. But, do taxpayers even have a widely accepted, comprehensive inventory of how of our money is being handed to the dirty energy lobby by politicians?  That includes state-level subsidies, by the way, such as the $45 million that Virginia gives to the coal industry.

Energy trends analyst Chris Namovicz of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) was the latest speaker in our "Communicating Energy" lecture series. We took the opportunity to ask one of the top, neutral energy trends analysts in the country the question, "Do you know if someone has actually done a credible, comprehensive, definitive count of how much taxpayers underwrite fossil fuels in this country?" We added the thought that "there's no one really widely available number whereaverage citizens can say, yeah, this much of my money goes to pay ExxonMobil.
According to Namovicz, there really isn't such a widely available, definitive, comprehensive number.

http://www.youtube.com/v/2B4tgpqjXuY&amp

Right…we're not accounting for the nuclear insurance subsidy, we're not accounting for military oil shipping, we're not even accounting for the tax depreciation benefits that some resources get over others...

The fact is, there is a wide array of government subsidies, both implicit and explicit, that are doled out every year to fossil fuel companies. One estimate, by the Environmental Law Institute, finds that dirty energy companies in the United States alone have run up a $72 billion tab at the taxpayer's bar from 2002 to 2008. Worldwide, it's far worse; as this study by the OECD explains:

The [International Energy Agency] estimates that direct subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by artificially lowering end-user prices for fossil fuels amounted to $312 billion in 2009. In addition, a number of mechanisms can be identified, also in advanced economies, which effectively support fossil-fuel production or consumption, such as tax expenditures, under-priced access to scarce resources under government control (e.g., land) and the transfer of risks to governments (e.g., via concessional loans or guarantees). These subsidies are more difficult to identify and estimate compared with direct consumer subsidies.

As we pointed out in a recent post, these subsidies aren't just reckless and stupid, they aren't even what people want. In fact, only 8 percent of Americans prefer their tax money be given to highly profitable, mature industries such as ExxonMobil and Massey Energy.

Shouldn't there be a definitive count of energy subsidies? As we're looking at cutting waste from our federal (and states') budgets, shouldn't there be a credible accounting of all the ways we pay to grease the way for these mature, highly profitable industries? We're not talking about one done by dirty energy lobbyists or their hired "experts," by the way, but a real inventory done by those who wouldn't profit by a lower or incomplete count. Such an accounting should include:

• Tax breaks
• Dirty subsidies
• The costs of government agencies that are set up to perform functions that these industries should pay full cost for doing – such as figuring out how to stuff their pollution underground instead of wasting it on exorbitant, fantasy projects like "FutureGen."
• Military expenditures to protect oil shipping lanes.
• Pollution forgiveness or remediation
• Rock-bottom priced access to public property – mountains, subsurface property, aquifers, ocean waters -- which fossil energy companies routinely wreck and pay comparatively little to fix.

We need to force politicians to be aggressively honest about how much of our money is going to Tillerson, Boyce., Blankenship, O'Reilly, Lesar, etc. Until they do, the anti-clean energy bigmouths in Congress who are bashing clean energy policy support need to back way off. And, the dirty energy lobby mouthpieces who propagandize how "cheap" dirty energy is, should do the same. Directly or indirectly, we're paying their salaries.

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

Article by: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/02/top-eia-energy-trends-watcher-no-definitive-count-on-dirty-energy-welfare?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-February24-2011
Westinghouse, Westinghouse Solar Systems, Solar Panel, Solar Electricity, Solar Systems, Inverter, Installation Guides, Facts, Solar Warranty Information, Deals of the Week, Solar Panel Electric Systems, Battery, Grid Tie, Off Grid
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Global Warming ie: Climate Change is Science the GOP can’t wish away

Many months ago I posted -EPA denies climate change challenges- that the Climate Scientist Reported: stolen emails undermined the Climate Change Reports.

So I thought it was especially appropriate to include the following email I received from the Alliance to Save Energy-News You Can Use-via New York Times

Before you read the article I have to put my two cents in as I don't feel it takes a report from Climate Scientist to tell me that warmer temperatures are affecting the World.  I use my personal experiences instead and the Climate Scientist's can vouch for my observations.

• I can remember when I was young growing up on the Family Cattle Ranch in North Missouri.  The Winters were long and the Snow Drifts were Huge- (way over my head creating perfect opportunities for Snow Forts and Tunnels in the Back Yard).  
• It seems that the Bad Weather Started in November and Lasted until the month of March (4 months of Brutal Weather).
• Since the early to mid 80's I do not feel we have had extended periods of cold temperatures that keep the snow that falls from thawing out.  
• It seems to me that: the percipitation we now get in our area has more Ice with less Snow and seems to melt within weeks- now seems faster melting times than ever.
• We now know the major cause of the warmed temperatures: Global Warming ie: Climate Change caused by "Exhaust Gases or GHG's Emissions" from using Fossil Fuels from Coal and Oil

So I asked myself- "Why don't the Governments and Politicians of the World act to reduce these GHG Emissions?" I can't speak for the other countries in the World, but I will point out some facts I have been preaching now for months.


The Rich and Powerful Fossil Fuel Industry supports Politicians both Democrat and Republican.  All of which keep the Politicians in-line and in the Pockets of the Coal and Oil Industries- though Donations for Re-Elections, Pet Projects, etc. Read and Research for yourself at: Dirty Energy Money http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress

 Global Warming and Climate Change is Science the GOP can’t wish away-  Step away from the Monetary Feed Trough filled by Big Oil and Big Coal  

The National Academy reports concluded that "scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming." Party affiliation does not change that fact. Link Here-http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/all-republicans-in-office-take-heed.html

Now on with the Article via the New York Times- Emphasis Added by Scotty
Scientists Are Cleared Of Misuse Of Data

Feb 25, 2011

by: LESLIE KAUFMAN

An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday.

The inquiry, by the Commerce Department’s inspector general, focused on e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 (NOAA is part of the Commerce Department). Some of the e-mails involved scientists from NOAA.

Climate change skeptics contended that the correspondence showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity.

In a report dated Feb. 18 and circulated by the Obama administration on Thursday, the inspector general said, “We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data.”

Nor did the report fault Jane Lubchenco, NOAA’s top official, for testifying to Congress that the correspondence did not undermine climate science.

The finding comes at a critical moment for NOAA as some newly empowered Republican House members (see prior post here) seek to rein in the EPA- Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, often contending that the science underpinning global warming is flawed. NOAA is the federal agency tasked with monitoring climate data.

The inquiry into NOAA’s conduct was requested last May by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who has challenged the science underlying human-induced climate change. Mr. Inhofe was acting in response to the controversy over the e-mail messages, which were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, a major hub of climate research.

Mr. Inhofe asked the inspector general of the Commerce Department to investigate how NOAA scientists responded internally to the leaked e-mails. Of 1,073 messages, 289 were exchanges with NOAA scientists.

The inspector general reviewed the 1,073 e-mails, and interviewed Dr. Lubchenco and staff members about their exchanges. The report did not find scientific misconduct; it did however, challenge the agency over its handling of some Freedom of Information Act requests in 2007. And it noted the inappropriateness of e-mailing a collage cartoon depicting Senator Inhofe and five other climate skeptics marooned on a melting iceberg that passed between two NOAA scientists.

The report was not a review of the climate data itself. It joins a series of investigations by the British House of Commons, Pennsylvania State University, the InterAcademy Council and the National Research Council into the leaked e-mails that have exonerated the scientists involved of scientific wrongdoing.

NOAA welcomed the report, saying that it emphasized the soundness of its scientific procedures and the peer review process. “None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA’s understanding of climate change science,” Mary Glackin, the agency’s deputy undersecretary for operations, said in a statement.

But Mr. Inhofe said the report was far from a clean bill of health for the agency and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists “engaged in data manipulation.”

“It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze,” he said, referring to an employee’s failure to provide material related to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a different body that compiles research, in response to a Freedom of Information request.

                                          __________________

Don't let the GOP pull the Wool over your Eyes on the Climate Change Issue-Scotty

__________________

So If you are as sick as I am of the Denial and the GOPs inaction to curtail GHG Emissions.  I encourage everyone to contact your Elected Leaders and tell them: Act to Save Our Planet from Global Warming ie: Climate Change caused mainly by the Exhaust Gases from Fossil Fuels.  For your Convenience You can find your Elected Leaders Information at:

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested #VOTE

Need I mention again that Clean Energy Production will also create JOBS? and Lessen the Demand the US has on Imports of Oil from the Middle East?  It really pisses me off to think about all the prior Service Men and Women who have given so much to protect our Nation from the Damage created from the consumption of OIL, especially from Nations that oppose the Freedoms the USA is best know for.  We can lessen this demand and create Clean Energy Jobs for the USA. 

MO Senator Roy Blunt on the EPA

Note: I do not support Senator Roy Blunt.  I provided his latest email to me because I think my Fellow Missourian's deserve to know how he stands on the Environmental Issues Facing our State and Nation. Besides his stand with the Big Oil and Big Coal Industry with his fellow Republicans. 

I believe and the facts from his previous Lobbying / Lobbyist Activities not to mention the Earmarks he supported creates conflicts of Interest-Scotty" 

• Mr Blunts past behavior of
1. Ear Marks,
2. reckless and wasteful spending habits,
3. Lobbying Activities create Conflict of Interest,
4. He is Part of the Reason that "Washington is Broken"
• Mr Blunt supports Big Business. (from:http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/10/robin-carnahan-election-news-invitation.html)
  

Prior St Louis Renewable Energy Blog Posts in re to Roy Blunt:

• Roy Blunt-Political News-Worst of Washington Sep 19, 2010
• Re: Did Roy Blunt Hire an Illegal Worker? Oct 21, 2010
• Carnahan Election News-Message to Roy Blunt Oct 28, 2010
• A musing about Roy Blunt Oct 05, 2010
• Robin's Carnahan vs Roy Blunt Debate News Oct 14, 2010

Earmarks Data from Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/otherdata.php?cid=N00005195&cycle=2010)

Roy Blunt sponsored or co-sponsored 22 earmarks totaling $22,602,000 in fiscal year 2010, ranking 188th out of 435 representatives. See details. To learn more about earmarks, visit our Earmarks section.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Senator Roy Blunt wrote:

 

 
Dear Scotts Contracting:
 

Thank you for your email on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases. 

The EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions are outside of the authority given to it by Congress.  It stretches the Clean Air Act to include emissions that the authors of the act never intended to regulate, and I will work to prevent the rule from being implemented and further harming our fragile economy. 

I am co-sponsoring the Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act (S. 228).  This bill restores Congress' role in the development and implementation of our nation's climate and energy policy by blocking backdoor attempts by regulatory agencies to regulate carbon emissions.

Environmental regulations, while important, should not place undue burdens on Missourians and all Americans, who depend on economically-priced energy on the job and at home.  Protecting our environment and jumpstarting our economy are not mutually exclusive goals. 

We can create better paying jobs at home by developing more American energy, relying on clean fuel alternatives, and promoting conservation.  I continue to support more reliance on alternative fuels and greater investment in research for our energy future. 

Again, thank you for contacting me.  I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country.  I also encourage you to visit my website (www.blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt
United States Senator

______________________________

Use the Following Link to -Find Your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician  

If your Elected Leaders do not know where you stand on the issues they will not be able to vote for the issues that are affecting: You, Your Family, Work, Health, and Educational Needs.   

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

True Figures Dirty Coals Costs in Environmental and Public Health

Study Shows the True Costs of Dirty Coal at $250 Billion Dollars - Hidden Cost Add Millions More-

Fully accounting for coal's costs in environmental and public health damage would triple the cost of coal-generated electricity and make less-polluting fuels more competitive, according to a new study by Harvard University researchers.

The study, by the Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment, is scheduled to be published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Researchers tried to take a broader look at the full cost of coal, following its life cycle from mining and processing, to transportation and burning. They estimated that coal is costing the U.S. between $174 billion and $523 billion a year.

"Coal carries a heavy burden," the researchers said in a summary of their detailed publication.

"Energy is essential to our daily lives, and for the past century and a half we have depended on fossil fuels to produce it," they said. "But, from extraction to combustion, coal, oil and natural gas have:

• multiple health, 
• environmental and 
• economic impacts 

that are proving costly for society."
The researchers put their "best" estimates of costs from coal's annual air pollution at $188 billion and costs from its contributions to global warming at $62 billion ($250 Billion Dollars Combined).

Researchers also examined deaths from coal-mining accidents and $74 billion a year in early deaths that other studies by West Virginia University have said appear to be linked to pollution from coal-mining sites. They also looked at economic subsidies for coal, deaths from coal-hauling railroad accidents, and a host of other impacts.

The study was funded in part by the Rockefeller Family Foundation, and was being promoted by a news release issued by the group Greenpeace.

"The public is unfairly paying for the impacts of coal use," said Dr. Paul Epstein, associated director of the Harvard center.

"Accounting for these 'hidden costs' doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh, making wind, solar, and other renewable very economically competitive," Epstein said. "Policy-makers need to evaluate current energy options with these types of impacts in mind. Our reliance on fossil fuels is proving costly for society, negatively impacting our wallets and our quality of life."

CHARLESTON, W.Va. --Harvard study details coal's true costs by:Ken Ward Jr.
Feb. 17, 2011 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex)
Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kward@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1702.

Newstex ID: KRTB-0226-100781549

Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO

Collection of Examples for Solar vs. Nuclear- Energy Production Debate and Proposed Bill

• Missourians, Don't let the TV Ads on Senate Bill 50 Fool You. Read the Information for yourself-I've supplied all the web links where I found the Info. 

• Solar is the Best Form of Renewable Energy- I don't consider Nuclear Energy a form of Renewable Energy since the Waste will be placed in the Ground- IE: It could pollute the Water our Bodies Must Have-We Consume Everyday
• I do not Support Nuclear Energy for Our State or any other State

Tell My Politician- Web Site that will direct you to your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician http://tellmypolitician.com/search?

_____________________
Solar and Nuclear Costs —
The Historic Crossover
Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

___________

Easy to understand Solar Vs Nuclear Photos http://www.jeffreyventrella.com/Solar/solar.html

_____________

Which Is Cheaper? Nuclear vs. Solar http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/which-is-cheaper-nuclear-vs-solar/

By Bill Roth | July 20th, 2010

The study's premise is that traditional energy supplies including fossil and nuclear energy are experiencing what economists called "upward cost curves" or in other words, their costs keep going up and are not likely to ever go back down. However, the research claims of Blackburn/Cunningham are that renewable energy has achieved a "downward cost curve" over the last decade, namely that their prices have gone down and there is a strong likelihood that they will continue to fall in price.

____________

Report: Solar Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Energy http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/

Tagged with: nuclear, photovoltaic, solar

Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded "nuclear renaissance" began during the past decade, says Blackburn. "Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor."

The costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have fallen steadily while construction costs for new nuclear power plants have been rising over the past decade, which now makes electricity generated from new solar installations cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear power plants, according to a new report published by a retired Duke University professor.
_________________
http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/solar-information/nuclear-vs-solar-2/
These are the advantages, put simply, that I can see right now. There are proponents of one, the other, or both. I see a brighter future for solar for three reasons:
1. It is completely, even daily, renewable.
2. Solar is fast advancing. We are likely on the cusp of a technological windfall for solar power.
3. The risks for nuclear power are high and unlikely to get resolved soon. So far it seems that, in an attempt to stop polluting the sky, we would throw our toxins into the ground.
_______________________

According to Norman Baker, the environment spokesperson...  turning to nuclear power to tackle climate change is "like jumping from the frying pan to the fire". "Nuclear power may not contribute to carbon emissions, but it generates tonnes of radioactive wastes costing billions to store and will pose a risk to humans for thousands of years after disposal," he added.
Darren Johnson... said nuclear reactors had an operational life of between 30 and 40 years but created waste that lasted "thousands" of years. "It is barking mad to consider nuclear power as part of a sustainable energy policy," he opined.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/441990/nuclear_vs_solar_energy_which/
___________________

SB 50- Allows electric companies to recover costs from ratepayers associated with early site development for certain electrical generation facilities

SB 50 - Beginning October 1, 2011, any electric company seeking an Early Site Permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must submit reports to the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) every 6 months. The reports must document the work completed and costs incurred up to that point toward the acquisition of the Early Site Permit as well as the projected amount of work and costs remaining. If the total cost of obtaining the Early Site Permit is expected to exceed $40 million, the company must also include an explanation in its reports as to why expenditures beyond that amount are prudent.Once the Early Site Permit is obtained, the electric company may recover the expenditures for the permit from its ratepayers through rates and charges over a period not to exceed 20 years. The company may begin the cost recovery on the effective date of tariffs approved by the PSC at the company's first general rate proceeding following the acquisition of the permit. Other electric companies that also incur expenses toward the Early Site Permit may similarly recover their costs through rates and charges.
If an electric company has recovered costs from its ratepayers for an Early Site Permit but the company's interest in the Early Site Permit is subsequently sold or transferred, the company must refund its ratepayers up to the amount that the company collected from the ratepayers for the permit.
ERIKA JAQUESSenate Bill 50 is sponsored by: Kehoe -http://www.senate.mo.gov/-Capitol Office:201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 429,Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-2076 FAX: (573) 751-2582 EMail Senator Kehoe
__________________________

Say NO to SB 50- December 10th, 2010-Consumers Council of Missouri calls on customers of AmerenUE

to say NO to the newest legislative attempt to overturn Anti-CWIP law. http://moconsumers.org/2010/12/10/say-no-to-sb-50/#comment-8171
____________________________

Ameren Missouri; Combined License Application for Callaway Plant Unit 2; Exemption

Posted on: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:37:07 EST- http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/aee_uepcp_ameren-missouri-combined-license-application-for-callaway-plant-unit-2-exemption-1436866.html

Symbols: AEE, UEPCP

Jan 21, 2011 (FIND, Inc. via COMTEX) --
1.0 Background
Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren UE, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a Combined License (COL) Application for a single unit of AREVA NP's U.S. EPR in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), subpart C of part 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." This reactor is to be identified as Callaway Plant (Callaway), Unit 2, and located at the current Callaway County, Missouri site of the Callaway Power Plant. The Callaway, Unit 2, COL application is based upon and linked to the U.S. EPR reference COL (RCOL) application for UniStar's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 (CCNPP3). The NRC docketed the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application on December 12, 2008. In its letter to the NRC dated April 28, 2009, Ameren informed that it was suspending its efforts to build a nuclear power plant in Missouri. Subsequently, by letter dated June 23, 2009, Ameren requested the NRC to suspend all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC informed Ameren by letter dated June 29, 2009, that it had suspended all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC is currently performing a detailed review of the CCNPP3 RCOL application, as well as AREVA NP's application for design certification of the U.S. EPR.
2.0 Request/Action
The regulations specified in 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) require that an applicant for a combined license under 10 CFR part 52 shall, during the period from docketing of a COL application until the Commission makes a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) pertaining to facility operation, submit an annual update to the application's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which is a part of the application.
On February 25, 2009, Ameren submitted Revision 1 to the COL application, including updates to the FSAR. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), the next annual update would be due in December 2010. Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren Missouri (Ameren) as of October 1, 2010, as noted in its letter to the NRC dated October 26, 2010, has requested a one-time exemption from the 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) requirements to submit the scheduled 2010 and 2011 COL application FSAR updates, and proposed for approval of a new submittal deadline of December 31, 2012, for the next FSAR update.
In summary, the requested exemption is a one-time schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update at a later date, but still in advance of NRC's reinstating its review of the application and in any event, by December 31, 2012. The current FSAR update schedule could not be changed, absent the exemption. Ameren requested the exemption by letter dated October 26, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML103090556).
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, including Section 50.71(e)(3)(iii) when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances are present. As relevant to the requested exemption, special circumstances exist if: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was
[Page Number 3928]
adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The review of the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR has been suspended since June 29, 2009. Since the COL application FSAR is directly linked to the CCNPP3 RCOL application, many changes in the RCOL application require an associated change to the COL application FSAR and, because the NRC review of the COL application is suspended, the updates to the FSAR will not be reviewed by the NRC staff until the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application review is resumed. Thus, the optimum time to prepare a revision to the COL application FSAR is sometime prior to Ameren requesting the NRC to resume its review. To prepare and submit a COL application FSAR update when the review remains suspended and in the absence of any decision by Ameren to request the NRC to resume the review would require Ameren to spend significant time and effort and would be of no value, particularly due to the fact that the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR are still undergoing periodic revisions and updates. Furthermore, the adjudicatory proceedings related to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application were terminated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) after agreements were made between Ameren, the NRC, and the petitioners for intervention, as documented in "AMERENUE (Callaway Plant Unit 2) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Terminating Contested Adjudicatory Proceeding) LBP-09-23 (August 28, 2009)" (ML092400189). Ameren commits to submit the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume review of the COL application and, in any event, by December 31, 2012. Ameren would need to identify all committed changes to the RCOL application since the last revisions to the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR in order to prepare a COL application FSAR revision that accurately and completely reflects the committed changes to the RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR.
The requested one-time exemption to defer submittal of the next update to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR would provide only temporary relief from the regulations of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) by submitting Revision 1 to the COL application dated February 25, 2009, prior to requesting the review suspension. Revision 1 incorporated information provided in prior supplements and standardized language with the RCOL application.
Authorized by Law:
The exemption is a one-time schedule exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next Callaway Unit 2 COL application FSAR update on or before December 31, 2012, in lieu of the required scheduled submittals in December 2010, and December 2011. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions. The NRC staff has determined that granting Ameren the requested one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) will provide only temporary relief from this regulation and will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety:
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. The requested exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to the schedule for submittal to the NRC of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. In addition, since the review of the application has been suspended, any update to the application submitted by Ameren will not be reviewed by the NRC at this time.
Based on the nature of the requested exemption as described above, no new accident precursors are created by the exemption; thus, neither the probability nor the consequences of postulated accidents are increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety.
Consistent with Common Defense and Security:
The requested exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update prior to requesting the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, on or before December 31, 2012. This schedule change has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special Circumstances:
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present whenever: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. As discussed above, the requested one-time exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to a one-time schedule change for submittal of revisions to an application under 10 CFR Part 52, for which a license has not been granted. The requested one-time exemption will permit Ameren time to carefully review the most recent revisions of the CCNPP3 RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR, and fully incorporate these revisions into a comprehensive update of the Callaway, Unit 2, FSAR associated with the COL application. This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the COL application when resumed, as well as issuance of the safety evaluation report, and therefore does not affect the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Under the circumstances that Ameren has suspended its pursuit of the COL, the NRC has suspended its review of the application, and the adjudicatory proceedings have been terminated by ASLB, application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would result in Ameren spending significant time and effort in incorporating changes made to the RCOL application into the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application, but not achieve the underlying purpose of that rule; granting a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would provide only temporary relief; and Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR
[Page Number 3929]
50.12(a)(2) for the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) exist.
4.0 Conclusion
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants Ameren a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application to allow submittal of the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, no later than December 31, 2012.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the NRC has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (76 FR 800).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph Colaccino,
Chief, EPR Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2011-1263 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Vol. 76, No. 014
[Docket No. 52-037; NRC-2008-0556]
Notices
For full details on Ameren Corp (AEE) AEE. Ameren Corp (AEE) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on Ameren Corp (AEE) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
For full details on (UEPCP) UEPCP. (UEPCP) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on (UEPCP) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
_________________________

Tell My Politician-

 http://tellmypolitician.com/search?

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com