SierraActivist » Action Alert

Energy Policy: Kicking Butt and Taking Names

Dennis — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:13:43 +0000

Steve, you write:

This is not just about ceiling insulation and more heat-reflective roofs. It also has to do with the ability of electric generators to convert heat to power, the elimination of line losses from the transmission grid, and the improvement of fuel delivery systems to avoid leakage. It has to do with strategic use of “distributed” generation – those solar cells, wind turbines, and geothermal heating districts we construct right where the demand is.

That seems right to me, but I want names. Distributed power is not some sort of huge technical problem, at least as far as I can tell. Ditto with line losses. We know how to do this relatively cost-effectively, right? And if I’m right, that means it’s a political problem, not a technical one.

In Los Angeles, we don’t have distributed power because the powerful DWP union, Local 18, which basically runs the city, doesn’t want it. Distributed power means that its people don’t get all the installation work, so they veto it. Proposition 16, which the voters narowly rejected last autumn, would have ramped up solar installations by giving Local 18 a monopoly on all the work. With that off the table, Mayor Villaraigosa has suddenly lost interest in distributed power or feed-in tariffs.

But who are the other bad guys? What are the political coalitions? This doesn’t seem to be a technical issue. No?

What a Waste of Energy

Dennis — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:58:54 +0000

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has issued its annual snapshot of our national energy use, based on data collected by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency. The good news is that we used less energy in 2009 than we did in 2008 (almost all of the savings probably attributable to the still-weak economy). The bad news is that we were just as wasteful in 2009 as we were the year before.

The Lab sorts all of the used energy into two bins – one for all of the energy that actually provided service (the darker bands gathering at the right end of the graph), and one for all of the energy that was wasted (the lighter grey bands higher up on the right). Wasted energy outscored used energy 54.6 quads to 40 quads. That means that 58% of all of the energy derived from coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power and renewable energy last year went down the drain with the wastewater, or evaporated into the air with the NOx, SOx, and mercury emissions. This is just about the same ratio as the year before.

Coincidentally, the amount of wasted energy is about the same as the total energy derived from petroleum and coal in 2009. It makes you think about where we could be with significant improvements in energy efficiency.

This is not just about ceiling insulation and more heat-reflective roofs. It also has to do with the ability of electric generators to convert heat to power, the elimination of line losses from the transmission grid, and the improvement of fuel delivery systems to avoid leakage. It has to do with strategic use of “distributed” generation – those solar cells, wind turbines, and geothermal heating districts we construct right where the demand is. It has to do with figuring out which kind of uses are best supported with electricity and which ought to use natural gas or some other fuel right where it is needed.

But it is about end-use efficiency as well. With the ambitious utility and government-backed energy efficiency programs that are currently in place, we are chipping away at the problem. We need to stop chipping and start shoveling.

Ninth Circuit upholds steelhead listing

Dennis — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:25:51 +0000

Steelhead trout. NOAA photo.

Salmonids present a challenge for Endangered Species Act implementation, because they aren’t neatly divided into completely separate reproductive units, the way we expect species to be. Conservation advocates have long argued that behavior should be as important in genetics in deciding which salmonid groups merit protection. The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have struggled to decide whether they should protect interbreeding fish that nonetheless remain distinguishable, and if so how. A decision issued by the Ninth Circuit on Friday correctly upholds the agencies’ current approach.

The issue in the case was whether NMFS had the authority to treat Central Valley steelhead as distinct from rainbow trout in deciding whether the steelhead merited ESA protection. The ESA requires listing of “species” that are endangered (currently in danger of extinction) or threatened (likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future). It defines the term “species” as including “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). The statute does not further define “distinct population segment” (often referred to in shorthand as DPS).

Steelhead and rainbow trout are both classified in the biological species Onchorhynchus mykiss. They are capable of interbreeding, but their appearance, physiology, and behavior are remarkably different. Steelhead are anadromous; after their birth in fresh water streams they migrate to the sea, along the way undergoing physiological adaptations that allow them to survive in salt water. Rainbow trout, on the other hand, remain in their freshwater natal streams, don’t grow as big as steelhead, and don’t go through the physiological changes that go along with migration to salt water.

When it first looked at the relationship between steelhead and rainbow trout, NMFS decided to put interbreeding populations of the two in the same DPS. Recognizing that steelhead are declining but rainbow trout remain abundant, however, NMFS initially listed only the steelhead. That strategy ran into trouble in 2001, when a federal district court ruled that the ESA did not allow for listing of a partial DPS. Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001). That meant that NMFS faced the choice of redrawing salmonid DPSs, removing protection of the steelhead, or adding rainbow trout to the protected unit.

NMFS decided to redraw the DPSs. That could have been done by reconsidering its policy for identifying DPSs of Pacific salmonids (which it calls Evolutionary Significant Units or ESUs), which currently emphasizes reproductive isolation. But NMFS decided to take a different approach. It decided that the ESU policy should not apply to steelhead. Instead, NMFS applied a more general DPS policy it had developed in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service (which is responsible for terrestrial species). The DPS policy describes the criteria for separation more broadly, requiring a finding of “marked separation” rather than of substantial reproductive isolation. Applying that policy, NMFS determined that steelhead should be put in a different DPS than rainbow trout, even when the two interbreed, based on the physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral differences. That decision allowed it to list the Central Valley steelhead, without listing co-located rainbow trout.

In this litigation, a group of Central Valley irrigation districts challenged the steelhead listing, arguing that steelhead could not be treated separately from rainbow trout (the implication being that if the two were considered together the abundance of the rainbow trout would preclude listing). The trial court ruled for the government, and the Ninth Circuit has now affirmed.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is correct on the law. The doctrine known as Chevron deference (from its origin in the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)) requires that courts uphold reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The ESA does not specify how DPSs are to be identified. That leaves the implementing agencies some room to define the term, including defining it somewhat differently for different types of species.

Treating steelhead and rainbow trout as distinct is reasonable, because it serves the purpose of the ESA, which is to conserve species for their “esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531. According to an outside expert review conducted for NMFS in 2005, resident populations of O. mykiss (in other words, rainbow trout) can be established easily from steelhead, but the reverse is not true. The trait of anadromy in O. mykiss can only be effectively protected by protecting steelhead. Because that trait is valuable in many of the ways the ESA recognizes, it makes sense to distinguish between steelhead and rainbow trout.

As I’ve argued before, NMFS should revise its ESU policy so that it can consider these same sorts of differences between hatchery and wild-spawned salmonids. This decision should help shore up the agency’s confidence that such a revision would survive judicial review.

Californians still support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to new report

Dennis — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:38:26 +0000

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs AB 32, California's landmark greenhouse gas reduction law that is now at risk from a ballot initiative

California, for better or worse, is still a bellwether state on many public policy issues. Public opinion here matters, not just as a predictor of our state’s future political direction, but also nationally. And California’s residents’ opinions about environmental issues are particularly important, given our state’s leadership on environmental issues. Right now, there is a fierce battle in the state over whether voters will prevent implementation of our landmark greenhouse gas emissions law AB 32, and the federal climate bill stalled in the Senate. So Californians’ opinion on climate change-related regulation seems particularly important right now.

A well-respected nonprofit organization, the Public Policy Institute of California, recently released the 2010 update of the annual PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment. The results are interesting, and, if accurate, demonstrate that our state’s voters still support robust environmental protection, though there are certainly some internal tensions and even contradictions in the report’s findings. A summary of the report is here, and the full report is here.

The report found that a majority of Californians now opposes offshore oil drilling, an about-face from recent years’ surveys, and that about two-thirds of California residents support AB 32, which will be under attack at the ballot box this November, holding steady from last year.

The increase in opposition to offshore oil drilling follows a period of increased public support for drilling, likely related to concerns about energy security and the perception that drilling off the coast of California would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It seems very likely that the BP oil spill has reversed that trend, at least for now.

The climate change survey answers seem to bode well for California’s future leadership on reducing greenhouse gases. According to the survey, Californians overwhelmingly believe that climate change will threaten our future economy and lifestyle:

Nearly three-fourths say global warming is a very serious (44%) or somewhat serious (29%) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life.

At the same time, Californians are split on whether our climate-change policies will reduce unemployment, with almost half seeing it as a boon to our economy:

Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until unemployment in the state is 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. We asked Californians how the state’s actions to reduce global warming would affect employment. Forty-five percent say the result would be more jobs, 23 percent say fewer jobs, and 24 percent say the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected.

And the poll posed this general question, with Proposition 23 – the voter initiative that would suspect AB 32′s implementaton – in mind:

Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improve? A slim majority (53%) say California should act right away, while 42 percent say the state should wait.

The results seem paradoxical. 73% of poll respondents believe climate change is at least a somewhat serious problem, and 69% of poll respondents said that the state’s actions to combat climate change will either result in more jobs or in no change in the job outlook. But a much smaller 53% of respondents believe California should act right away. This is a puzzling difference.

And many Californians appear to be in the dark about the nature of the policies about which they’re implicitly expressing an opinion, with 54% having never even heard of the idea of a cap-and-trade system — the centerpiece of California’s program implementing AB 32. Interestingly, the survey found that Californians are much more likely to support a carbon tax (60% favor, 33% oppose, with support up several points from last year) than a cap-and-trade system. This flies in the face of the conventional view that voters reject taxes because they are taxes.

Finally, in response to specific questions about whether the government should require emissions reductions from stationary and mobile sources, require increases in energy efficiency in our buildings, and require increased use of renewable energy, the overwhelming majority of respondents supported each of the measures. And perhaps the poll’s biggest surprise was that even a majority of Republicans supported each of these measures, in contrast to the survey’s other questions, which elicited highly partisan responses in which Republicans as a group favored inaction on climate change.

The message in all this? Hard to tell. It’s interesting that Californians of all political persuasions think it’s a good idea for the state to regulate more in specific areas in order to reduce greenhouse emissions (and increase energy security and self-sufficiency), at least when asked a direct question about it. The lack of aversion to a carbon tax is noteworthy. And most fundamentally, most Californians believe that taking action to combat climate change will be either neutral or beneficial to our economy. Perhaps our politicians and policymakers can afford to be bolder in their aspirations and policy prescriptions, and bolder as well in promoting the synergy between environmental protection and economic development. But the concerns about our economy — and Proposition 23′s clear attempt to take advantage of economic fears — may carry the day yet.

Alert: Tell Your Rep. to Sign Pallone ‘Dear Colleague’ to Reduce Mountaintop Removal

Dennis — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:00:50 +0000

We need your help to stop the destruction of mountains and streams in Appalachia from irresponsible coal mining.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has taken some positive initial steps to rein in destructive mountaintop removal mining, but even these insufficient actions have drawn fire from mining companies, coal-state governors and members of Congress beholden to industry lobbyists. Please call your member of Congress today and urge him/her to sign on to Congressman Pallone’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter in support of EPA’s efforts to reduce mountaintop removal. Without political support, EPA may lack the will to put tougher measures in place to stop mountaintop removal.

EPA has a long way to go before it stops mountaintop removal mining, which has destroyed more than 500 mountains and buried 2,000 miles of streams in coal mining waste. Even so, EPA has taken some important steps. It has required tougher environmental reviews of almost 80 mountaintop removal permits. It proposed a rare veto of a new permit for an operating mine, one of the largest surface mines in Appalachia. In April, it issued new policy that, if properly carried out, should put teeth in states’ clean water standards that should stop the most destructive mining.

But the mining industry has organized fierce opposition. States are resisting EPA’s new policies. Coal-state members of Congress are aggressively questioning the legality of EPA’s actions and pressuring the agency to back down. And most recently, the National Mining Association – the lobbying group representing the coal industry – filed a lawsuit arguing that the EPA policies.

We need to show EPA that it has political support for the positive steps it has taken on mountaintop removal – otherwise, EPA is unlikely to go further. Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ) has asked other members of Congress to join him in sending a letter of support to EPA’s efforts. He plans to send the letter in just a few days. Please call your member of Congress and ask him/her to sign on to Congressman Pallone’s Dear Colleague letter to EPA on mountaintop removal. Call today – before it’s too late.

Thank you for your help to stop mountaintop removal.

Here’s how to help:

It’s not necessary, but before calling you might want to see if your member of Congress is a co-sponsor of the Clean Water Protection Act, H.R. 1310, the bill to stop mountaintop removal mining. Co-sponsors are likely to want to help EPA curtail mountaintop removal. (See the list below)

Call the Capitol switchboard (202-224-3121) and ask for your member of Congress.

When connected, tell the receptionist that you are a constituent and give your name and address.

Tell the receptionist that you are opposed to mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia and that want Representative [name] to sign Congressman Frank Pallone’s Dear Colleague letter on mountaintop removal.

That’s all you have to do. The receptionist will forward this information to the appropriate staff person. Most members of Congress are interested in hearing from their constituents. A call like this can have a big impact, so thanks for calling.

Clean Water Protection Act, H.R. 1310 Cosponsors:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] – 4/13/2010
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] – 3/12/2009
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] – 3/30/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 3/4/2009
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] – 3/4/2009
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Butterfield, G. K. [NC-1] – 3/24/2009
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] – 3/4/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] – 3/4/2009
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] – 3/24/2009
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] – 3/4/2009
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] – 3/4/2009
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] – 1/26/2010
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] – 3/24/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] – 3/4/2009
Rep Connolly, Gerald E. “Gerry” [VA-11] – 3/4/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 3/4/2009
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] – 3/12/2009
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] – 4/21/2009
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] – 3/4/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] – 3/4/2009
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] – 7/8/2009
Rep Driehaus, Steve [OH-1] – 10/1/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] – 4/21/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] – 3/4/2009
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] – 3/4/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 3/4/2009
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] – 5/13/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 3/4/2009
Rep Foster, Bill [IL-14] – 3/15/2010
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] – 7/8/2009
Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] – 11/19/2009
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] – 3/30/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] – 4/21/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] – 3/4/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] – 6/9/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] – 3/4/2009
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] – 3/4/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] – 4/14/2010
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] – 3/4/2009
Rep Himes, James A. [CT-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] – 3/4/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] – 3/4/2009
Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2] – 3/4/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] – 3/4/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] – 3/4/2009
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] – 3/18/2010
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] – 4/21/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] – 3/24/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] – 3/24/2009
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] – 9/30/2009
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] – 3/4/2009
Rep Kilroy, Mary Jo [OH-15] – 6/23/2009
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] – 3/4/2009
Rep Kissell, Larry [NC-8] – 3/12/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 3/4/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] – 2/2/2010
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] – 3/4/2009
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] – 3/12/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 3/4/2009
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] – 3/4/2009
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] – 4/2/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] – 3/4/2009
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] – 4/2/2009
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] – 4/13/2010
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] – 3/4/2009
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] – 5/4/2009
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] – 4/2/2009
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] – 10/14/2009
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] – 3/4/2009
Rep McMahon, Michael E. [NY-13] – 3/24/2009
Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] – 3/4/2009
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] – 3/4/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] – 2/25/2010
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] – 3/4/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Minnick, Walter [ID-1] – 3/24/2009
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] – 3/26/2009
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] – 3/4/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] – 3/4/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] – 3/4/2009
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] – 10/13/2009
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] – 3/4/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] – 3/4/2009
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Owens, William L. [NY-23] – 5/11/2010
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] – 3/4/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 3/4/2009
Rep Perriello, Thomas S.P. [VA-5] – 4/21/2009
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 3/4/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] – 3/4/2009
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] – 3/12/2010
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] – 3/4/2009
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] – 3/4/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] – 6/2/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] – 3/4/2009
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] – 5/4/2009
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] – 3/4/2009
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] – 3/24/2009
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] – 3/4/2009
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 3/4/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] – 3/4/2009
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] – 3/4/2009
Rep Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” [VA-3] – 3/12/2009
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] – 3/4/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] – 3/4/2009
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] – 3/4/2009
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] – 3/4/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] – 3/4/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] – 3/4/2009
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] – 6/2/2009
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] – 3/24/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 3/4/2009
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] – 3/4/2009
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] – 3/4/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] – 3/4/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] – 3/24/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 3/6/2009
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] – 3/4/2009
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] – 3/4/2009
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] – 3/4/2009
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] – 3/24/2009
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] – 3/4/2009
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] – 9/10/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] – 3/4/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] – 3/4/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] – 3/26/2009
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] – 3/4/2009
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] – 3/4/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 3/4/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] – 3/4/2009

Alert: Tell Congress to Fully Fund LWCF! (Land and Water Conservation Fund)

Dennis — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:00:34 +0000

From: Land Trust Alliance

Oil Spill Bills Would Dedicate LWCF, Congress May Vote This Week

Oil spill response legislation headed to the House and Senate floors this week may provide the best opportunity in years to secure dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund! But it’s by no means a done deal, so we need your help today.

Ask Your Senators and Rep. to Support Dedicated LWCF in Oil Spill Legislation

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is authorized to receive a small percentage of revenue from offshore leases for oil and gas–$900 million a year—but Congressional appropriators have consistently withheld much of that funding, shortchanging the program by some $17 billion over the past 46 years. The tragedy of the BP Oil Spill reminds us of the vulnerability of wildlife habitat from energy development, but response legislation provides an opportunity to finally ensure that LWCF is fully dedicated, without further appropriation.

House leaders just released a new version of H.R. 3534 that that would fully dedicate $900 million to the fund each year, and we expect the Senate to follow suit this afternoon. Crucial floor votes on these bills could come as soon as Thursday, so please call the Capitol Switchboard today at 202-224-3121 and ask for your Representative, then call back for each of your Senators:

1. Ask to speak with the staffer who handles natural resource issues.

2. Tell them about the organization you represent and any LWCF projects that have supported your work.

3. Ask them to support including full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in legislation addressing the Gulf oil spill AND urge them to support final passage.

4. Ask for the staffer’s email address so you can forward this fact sheet and any local examples.

Click here for more detailed talking points on this legislation and read last week’s New York Times editorial on LWCF.

The Alliance supports full funding for LWCF, but also supports allowing the fund to more directly fund conservation by land trusts. We believe the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative is our best opportunity to secure changes to LWCF that would allow greater flexibility, like that of the Great Outdoors Colorado program, founded when Secretary Salazar headed the Department of Natural Resources in that state.

Tell President Obama: Stop Asian Carp Now, Before It’s Too Late

Dennis — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:50:37 +0000

From: Alliance for the Great Lakes

Help us reach 5,000 signatures. Add your name to this petition.

Dear President Obama:

Asian carp threaten the Great Lakes ecosystem, the $7 billion Great Lakes sport and commercial fishing industry, and the recreational activities of countless residents and tourists. Failure to stop Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes will be devastating to the environment and the economy.

The only viable long-term solution to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes is to permanently separate the Lakes and the Mississippi River System.

In the short-term, we ask you to order federal agencies to immediately describe and implement a “channel-by-channel” control strategy with one unambiguous goal: to keep the Asian carp from establishing a population in the Great Lakes.

We also urge you to direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other federal partners to pursue permanent physical separation of the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River as the only long-term solution to keeping Asian carp out of the Great Lakes.

We understand the damage that Asian carp have already caused in the Mississippi River watershed. We can predict the irreparable harm to the Great Lakes if we fail. We have the tools and knowledge in hand to stop the problem before it starts.

We urge you to stop the Asian carp threat now before it becomes irreversible.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Add your name to this petition.

Alert: Critical Sea Turtle Habitat at Risk – Vote Expected This Week

Dennis — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:14:33 +0000

From: National Wildlife Federation:

Sea turtles have been through enough during the BP oil spill.

Now to make matters worse, this week Congress will be voting on a bill that could result in the destruction of critical sea turtle habitats in Florida, as well as other sensitive wildlife habitat areas throughout the country.

Tell your U.S. Representative to vote against the Multiple Peril Insurance Act.

Construction on top of fragile ecosystems is eroding beaches and destroying the habitat of 90% of U.S. sea turtles, which nest on Florida beaches that are under threat by the Multiple Peril Insurance Act.

This bill would expand a federal program that masks the true cost of this development and will hasten destruction of habitat in Florida and across the country.

Urge your representative to vote against this dangerous bill and make sure important nesting habitat is preserved.

Oiled beaches, tar balls and oil slicks have disastrous consequences for endangered sea turtle eggs, hatchlings and migrating adults.

The last thing that sea turtles need is more of their habitat destroyed.

Don’t make it easy for developers to destroy beach habitats–speak up to protect them for sea turtles and future generations.

Sincerely,

Sue Brown
Executive Director
NWF Action Fund
info@nwa.org
Twitter: @wildlifeaction
Friend us on Facebook

Alert: Help Stop $35 Billion in Oil and Gas Industry Tax Breaks

Dennis — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:20:11 +0000

From CREDO Action:

Before the worst environmental disaster in American history began, BP was claiming almost a quarter of a million dollars in tax deductions per day for its Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf. That’s right, at a time of soaring deficits and record unemployment, a single deepwater offshore drilling facility won $225,000 in taxpayer subsidies for one of the most profitable companies in the world.

Stop Big Oil Bailouts

Take Action!

We are joining Democracy for America and USAction/TrueMajority and calling for a repeal of dirty fuel tax breaks. Click here to join us.

BP, EXXON Mobile and other oil companies are among the most profitable in the world, yet they are given billions in tax subsidies, credits, deductions, and other loopholes.

In fact, EXXON Mobile, the single most profitable company in history, avoided paying any federal income taxes last year and even received a $46 million refund.

If not now, when? It’s time for Congress to stop the annual $35 billion taxpayer bailout to dirty energy companies.

Even while they rake in obscene profits from government contracts and sweetheart deals for mineral leases on public lands, Big Oil companies will stop at nothing to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. They already register their oil platform rigs in Panama and move their corporate headquarters to tax havens like the Cayman Islands. Enough is enough. Now is the time to mobilize massive public pressure and force Congress to end the tax loopholes for Big Oil.

Congress can put an end to these practices, but they need to hear from you. Join CREDO Action, Democracy for America and USAction/TrueMajority in calling for an end to Big Oil tax subsidies.

The BP oil spill has created an opportunity. There is a movement in the Senate of progressive senators who want cut subsidies to Big Oil and gas companies. Dirty energy lobbyists and the politicians they give money to are putting up a massive defense of these subsidies. Reformers in Congress need to know that you are fed up with the special treatment that oil and gas companies receive.

Congress can put an end to these practices but they need to hear from you. Join CREDO Action, Democracy for America and USAction/TrueMajority in calling for an end to Big Oil tax subsidies.

Thank you. Your pressure works.

Adam Quinn, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action

Alert: Stop Unregulated Gas Drilling in the Delaware River Watershed

Dennis — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:34:41 +0000

An unregulated drilling technique is putting the water supply for Trenton, Phillipsburg and many South Jersey towns at risk and we need your help to protect it. (Click this link to send an e-mail message and to take other actions!)

Natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale (PA & NY) is threatening to pollute New Jersey’s drinking water for a million and a half people and to deforest the Delaware River watershed. A new process called hydrofracking , injects chemicals into millions of gallons of clean water to drill horizontally for natural gas. The chemical mixture that remains is difficult to treat and risks seeping in to our drinking water.

Come join the NJ Sierra Club and the Delaware Riverkeeper next Wednesday (7/14/10) to rally outside of a Delaware River Basin Commission Meeting on this important issue. Until federal regulations for hydrofracking are set our organizations are asking for a complete moratorium on all natural gas projects in the Marcellus Shale.

What: Rally at Delaware River Basin Commission Public Meeting

When: 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 14

Where: West Trenton Volunteer Fire Company http://www.wtvfc.org/directions.htm

40 West Upper Ferry Road, Ewing, NJ 08628-2714 (609) 883-0325

Why: We need a complete and total moratorium on all natural gas projects in the Delaware River Watershed until the comprehensive study of the cumulative impact of gas projects is completed and all regulations are adopted. It’s urgent that we act to preserve the high water quality of the Delaware River.

The Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf is a daily reminder what can happen when energy companies go unregulated. Tell the DRBC we don’t want the same to happen in the Delaware River.

Let us know if you can join us at the hearing or send a letter to the commission.

Thank you for your support,

NJ Sierra Club Staff

P.S. There are carpools being organized in the Philadelphia area and a car shuttle running from the West Trenton Septa Train Station. To get more info on carpools or train pick up, contact DRN at 215-369-1188 ext. 110.

More information:

- The Delaware River Watershed supplies drinking water for 15 million people including one million New Jerseyans. Hydrofracking can, and has, contaminated drinking water supplies and streams and rivers.

- Each fracking well will destroy 15 acres of forest and need a half mile of roadway. There are currently proposals for more than 50,000 wells. This could mean the removal of 750,000 acres of woodlands and the construction of 25,000 miles of road. The runoff and pollution will cause irreparable damage to the Delaware River Watershed.

- The EPA is currently researching a comprehensive report due in 2012. The federal government has not yet passed the Frack Act to force the drilling companies to reveal the hundreds of toxic chemicals injected into the wells and comply with the Clean Air and Water Acts and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

- The DRBC has placed a temporary and incomplete moratorium. The current moratorium will expire before the EPA’s impact study is released and full regulations are in place. The moratorium does not include previously permitted drilling projects or related projects like Stone Energy’s application to withdraw 700,000 million gallons per day from a major tributary.

- Consequently, it is essential that the DRBC act by adopting a total moratorium on gas projects while conducting a thorough analysis of the cumulative impacts of extended gas development and then adopts comprehensive regulations to protect and preserve the Delaware River Watershed for us and future generations.

Public Hearing in Delhi Concerns DEP’s Land Acquisition Program

Dennis — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:29:08 +0000

Colchester: Cole Clove Brook emptying into the Pepacton Reservoir.

Walton Reporter (no website) June 30, 2010

By Glenn Graves

DELHI – Delaware County Commissioner of Watershed Affairs Dean Frazier is notifying county residents that a public hearing for comments on New York City’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Complete Water Supply Permit will be held on Monday, July 12, at 6 p.m., at SUNI Delhi’s Evenden Tower, Room 104.

“This is an opportunity for county residents to comment on New York City’s plan for continued acquisition of lands in Delaware County,” Frazier said. “The renewed Water Supply Permit for land acquisition gives New York City the authority to purchase lands in Delaware County within the watershed boundaries that supply water to residents in and around New York City.

“The Watershed permit enables the City to avoid building a filtration plant and maintain their filtration avoidance determination (FAD) status with the New York State Department of Health. The city is seeking to extend its land acquisition permit to 2022. The hearing is an opportunity for folks to learn about the plan, ask questions and/or make a public statement. We strongly encourage the public to attend.”

Included in the DEIS is a description of how the land acquisition program will effect the supply of developable land, tourism and agriculture in the west-of-Hudson watershed and its anticipated impact on [property values.

The DEIS also discusses the potential percentage of land in each town that the city expects to acquire, either by easement or purchase. It also includes mention of the potential introduction of a riparian buffer pilot program to which the city would commit $5 million for three years to acquire easements for or purchase riparian buffers.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for viewing at www.delcowatershed.com and two copies are available for review at the Delaware County Department of Watershed Affairs, 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 3, Delhi.

Written comments are to be post-marked by July 30 to DEC, ATTN: Martha A Wood, Project Manager, Region 4, Field Office, 65561 State Highway 10, Stamford, NY 12167. Comments can also be submitted to R4DEP@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

Additional Info can be found at the NYC DEP page, Extended New York City Watershed Land Acquisition Program.

There will be three public hearings:

1. Monday July 12, 2010 at SUNY Delhi, Evenden Tower, Room 104, 2 Main Street, Delhi, NY 13753,

2. Tuesday July 13, 6 PM at Hunter Elementary School, 7794 Main Street, Hunter, NY 12442,

3. Wednesday July 14, 6 PM at Tri Valley High School, 34 Moore Hill Road, Grahamsville, NY 12740.

Alert: Support Good Planning and Environmental Policy. Call NJ DEP Today!

Dennis — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:24:42 +0000

Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right! Don’t Let PSE&G Undermine Environmental Policy and Good Planning. Tell the DEP NOT to Allow Piecemeal Applications.

We need your help to stop PSE&G from piecemealing its DEP Freshwater Wetlands and Flood Hazard permit applications for the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission lines. PSE&G recently submitted these permit applications to the DEP. The applications were incomplete and flawed, and the DEP responded with a four-page letter requiring PSE&G to provide substantial additional information, make numerous adjustments to the project, and provide mitigation for all loss of forests. In response, PSE&G is trying to split the project into two separate application areas to circumvent the DEP process.

The applications for the project are to be divided at Hopatcong, so that PSE&G can begin construction on the eastern portion of the project – from Hopatcong to Roseland – this summer. In the western portion of this proposed “split” lies the Delaware Water Gap. The National Parks Service hasn’t issued its scoping document for the Delaware Water Gap, as part of the NEPA process. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. By splitting the application, PSE&G is undermining the NEPA process.

The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line expansion is an unnecessary project proposed by PSE&G and its Pennsylvania counterpart, PP&L that is fueled by greed, not need. The project consists of adding 500 kV power lines to the already existing 230 kV. To achieve the increase in transmission capacity they will need to build 75 195-ft towers and create 80 access roads. Environmentalists have been opposing this project from the onset because of serious ecological impacts, negative affects on air and water quality, reduced property values and public health concerns.

Please help us oppose PSE&G’s piecemeal application and support good environmental policy and planning:

Call DEP Commissioner Bob Martin on Thursday, June 10, 2010 and urge him NOT to allow PSE&G to piecemeal its application and undermine the National Park Service.

Today seven organizations are asking their members to do the same thing. Let’s make sure Bob Martin hears the message loud and clear!

DEP Phone Number: (609) 292-2885

Thank you for your help on this important issue!

Sincerely,

The Sierra Club Staff in Trenton

Stop PurGen Campaign: Can you donate two hours in June to stop the construction of a new coal plant?

Dennis — Thu, 20 May 2010 22:36:20 +0000

The Stop PurGen Campaign plans for outreach in Linden every Saturday morning in June, on June 5, 12, 19 and 26. We need your help to make this an effective campaign.

We’ll gather at 10 am, get organized and do a brief training, and then canvass until 12:30. We’ll have routes for those canvassing, clipboards, an information sheet, postcards to Christie and letters to Congressman Leonard Lance whose district we’ll be canvassing in first.

We think this is an important component of our overall work in the state. Thanks to the work of a number of us, the Stop PurGen campaign has participated in 20 community events this spring and collected almost 1,000 post cards and letters to Governor Christie. But it’s important that Christie sees hundreds of post cards from Linden residents, and Linden Congresspeople need to be pushed to come out publicly against Purgen.

Please respond to Ted at indpol@igc.org about your ability to help for one, two, three or all four Saturday mornings.

Alert: Tell the Feds to Save the Frogs (and 247 Other Species)!

Dennis — Sat, 01 May 2010 13:27:46 +0000

Frogs and salamanders are disappearing. Two hundred species of amphibians have gone extinct in the past 30 years, and one-third of the world’s amphibian species are threatened with extinction — while the federal government stands idly by. In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is still refusing to protect 12 U.S. amphibian species declared to qualify for protection under the Endangered Species Act. These amphibians — five frogs, one toad, and six salamanders — are languishing on the “candidate” list, waiting indefinitely for the protections they need to survive.

The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned for full protection for the candidate species in 2004, following up with a lawsuit in 2005; we’re still in court to save all 252 animals and plants on the list, before they go extinct — as 42 species already have due to delays in protection.

Tomorrow, April 30, is Save the Frogs Day: the perfect time to take action. Join our campaign by contacting Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and demanding full Endangered Species Act protection for all candidates, including 12 of our most threatened amphibians. Then learn more about our Candidate Project and Amphibian Conservation campaign.

Alert: Runaway Drilling Disaster Threatens Sea Turtles… Deadline Monday for Action!

Dennis — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:27:36 +0000

Photo courtesty of Leon Steber

Richard Charter
Senior Policy Advisor, Marine Programs
Defenders of Wildlife

Right now, roughly 5,000 barrels of oil a day are being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico southeast of Venice, Louisiana [1] – yet another awful outcome of the tragic explosion at what was supposed to be one of the safest and most advanced offshore drilling rigs in the world.

Help close the door on another drilling disaster. Urge the Obama administration to reject expanded offshore drilling exploration.

Delicate marine ecosystems – and the dolphins, sea turtles and other wildlife that need them to survive – are at risk. Local fisherman fear for their businesses, as an oil slick twice the size of Maryland nears the ecologically fragile Louisiana coastline. [2]

The situation is so desperate that yesterday the U.S. Coast Guard lit contaminated portions of the Gulf on fire in a desperate attempt to eliminate the spill before it reaches the coast. [3]

And as the tragedy unfolds, officials in the Obama administration are considering a proposal that could dramatically expand offshore drilling – and bring the threat of another tragedy like the one now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico to your favorite beach.

Tell the Obama administration to reject Big Oil’s plans to industrialize our coasts. Submit your comments now.

Comments on the administration’s offshore drilling proposal are due Monday (May 3rd), so please send your message to federal officials right now!

It doesn’t take a dramatic explosion and monster oil slick to see the perils of offshore drilling. For some marine wildlife, the simple act of determining whether and where to site an offshore rig can be a prelude to disaster.

Seismic surveys conducted during oil and gas exploration potentially can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss, induce behavioral changes and even physically injure marine mammals like bottlenose dolphins found along the Gulf coastline and bowhead whales in the waters of Alaska’s Chukchi Sea.

Protect whales and dolphins from risky offshore drilling schemes. Say “No!” to more destructive oil and gas exploration off our coasts.

Exposure to petroleum also causes tissue damage in the eyes, mouth, skin and lungs of dolphins and other marine mammals. And because they are at the top of the food chain, marine mammals like polar bears and whales will be exposed to the dangers of bioaccumulation of organic pollutants and metals.

For the threatened and endangered sea turtles found along the Gulf Coast, expanded oil drilling could mean the difference between survival and extinction.
Dredging of nesting beaches, collisions and noise disruptions threaten sea turtles. And hatchlings are particularly susceptible to oiling because they spend much of their time near the water surface, where spilled oil or tar accumulates.

Take action now to protect sea turtles, whales, dolphins and our coasts. Send your message to the Obama administration now.

For the Wild Ones,

Richard Charter
Senior Policy Advisor, Marine Programs
Defenders of Wildlife

Over the last three weeks, Defenders of Wildlife has mobilized hundreds of activists to attend public hearings on the proposal to expand harmful exploration for oil and gas deposits off U.S. Coasts.

Defenders from Texas, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and New Jersey packed local hearings to testify on the dangers of industrializing our coasts and act as a voice for the whales, sea turtles, dolphins, shorebirds and other wildlife threatened by plans line our coasts with new offshore drilling rigs.
Notes

[1] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5gnWbqZ9SqBHvSYqJeE2AT5KebwD9FCN2100

[2] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/29/bloomberg1376-L1N0ET1A74E9-6.DTL

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042901244.html?hpid=topnews

SierraActivist » Action Alert

Energy Policy: Kicking Butt and Taking Names

What a Waste of Energy

Ninth Circuit upholds steelhead listing

Californians still support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to new report

Alert: Tell Your Rep. to Sign Pallone ‘Dear Colleague’ to Reduce Mountaintop Removal

Clean Water Protection Act, H.R. 1310 Cosponsors:

Related Posts

Alert: Tell Congress to Fully Fund LWCF! (Land and Water Conservation Fund)

Oil Spill Bills Would Dedicate LWCF, Congress May Vote This Week

Related Posts

Tell President Obama: Stop Asian Carp Now, Before It’s Too Late

Help us reach 5,000 signatures. Add your name to this petition.

Add your name to this petition.

Related Posts

Alert: Critical Sea Turtle Habitat at Risk – Vote Expected This Week

Related Posts

Alert: Help Stop $35 Billion in Oil and Gas Industry Tax Breaks

Related Posts

Alert: Stop Unregulated Gas Drilling in the Delaware River Watershed

Related Posts

Public Hearing in Delhi Concerns DEP’s Land Acquisition Program

Related Posts

Alert: Support Good Planning and Environmental Policy. Call NJ DEP Today!

Related Posts

Stop PurGen Campaign: Can you donate two hours in June to stop the construction of a new coal plant?

Related Posts

Alert: Tell the Feds to Save the Frogs (and 247 Other Species)!

Related Posts

Alert: Runaway Drilling Disaster Threatens Sea Turtles… Deadline Monday for Action!

Related Posts