Rep. Diana DeGette

Released late last week, the report (pdf) by the DOE’s Advisory Board Subcommittee on Shale Gas Production (SEAB) concluded that “concerted and sustained action is needed to avoid excessive environmental impacts of shale gas production and the consequent risk of public opposition to its continuation and expansion.”

The seven-member SEAB panel released a draft in August that called for more industry transparency and disclosure of the chemicals used in the controversial drilling practice sometimes referred to as “fracking.” Critics say it can contaminate groundwater, which industry officials deny. The makeup of the panel previously had been criticized by scientists who felt it leaned too heavily toward industry interests.

DeGette and Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey want to hear more about the findings in an open committee hearing.

“To date, the committee has not held a single hearing on the topic of hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development, despite the importance of natural gas to our energy future and widespread public concern about air and water pollution from natural gas production,” the three Dems wrote (pdf) Upton today. “The SEAB report is a good place to start. We request that you schedule a hearing on this issue as soon as possible.”

Fracking is mostly regulated by state agencies, including the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), which is holding a hearing on proposed new chemical disclosure rules next month.

Nationwide, the companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one of the so-called BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene), according to the report produced by Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee, including Colorado’s Diana DeGette. Colorado, along with Oklahoma and Texas, ranked in the top three for the highest volume of fluids containing possible carcinogens.

Rep. Diana DeGette 

“It is deeply disturbing to discover the content and quantity of toxic chemicals, like benzene and lead, being injected into the ground without the knowledge of the communities whose health could be affected,” DeGette said in a release.

“Of particular concern to me is that we learned that over the four-year period studied, over one and a half million gallons of carcinogens were injected into the ground in Colorado. Many companies were also unable to even identify some of the chemicals they were using in their own activities, unfortunately underscoring that voluntary industry disclosure is not enough to ensure the economic benefits of natural gas production do not come at the cost of our families’ health.”

The commonly used gas drilling practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, frees up more natural gas by injecting mostly water and sand, along with undisclosed chemicals, deep into natural gas wells to fracture tight geological formations. The process has been increasingly scrutinized because of concerns about groundwater contamination.

DeGette and Colorado Rep. Jared Polis have introduced legislation that would compel companies to publicly disclose the types of chemicals being used in fracking fluids. Colorado is joining a national effort to set up a voluntary database for companies to disclose the chemical makeup of fracking fluids, but DeGette and Polis want to remove a Safe Drinking Water Exemption for the process that was granted during the Bush administration in 2005.

The latest report also comes from Democrats Henry Waxman, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Edward Markey, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. DeGette, the ranking member of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, joined Waxman and Markey in releasing a report in late January revealing that the same oil and gas service companies injected more than 32 million gallons of diesel fuel into the ground between 2005 and 2009 – a possible violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Colorado natural gas industry officials concurred with national industry representatives in countering that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) never has set any rules for the use of diesel fuel in fracking fluids.

Responding to the latest report, Matt Armstrong, an energy industry attorney, told The New York Times that the methodology of both congressional reports was flawed.

“This report uses the same sleight of hand deployed in the last report on diesel use — it compiles overall product volumes, not the volumes of the hazardous chemicals contained within those products,” Armstrong said. “This generates big numbers but provides no context for the use of these chemicals over the many thousands of frac jobs that were conducted within the timeframe of the report.”

Most oil and gas service companies insist they must maintain the secrecy of hydraulic fracturing ingredients for proprietary reasons. In Colorado, state rules that went into effect in 2009 compel companies to provide the chemical makeup of fracking fluids to regulatory officials and emergency workers upon request.

After taking BP to task for allowing the spill to occur, Markey said, “Now the other companies here today will contend that this was an isolated incident. They will say a similar disaster could never happen to them.”

And so they did. “This incident represents a dramatic departure from the industry norm in deepwater drilling,” said ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. And Chevron chairman John Watson said his company’s “drilling and control practices for deepwater wells are safe and environmentally sound.”

But Markey would have none of it. “What we found was that these five companies have response plans that are virtually identical,” he said.

“The covers of the five response plans are different colors, but the content is ninety percent identical,” Markey continued. “Like BP, three other companies include references to protecting walruses, which have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for 3 million years. Two other plans are such dead ringers for BP’s that they list a phone number for the same long-dead expert.”

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are expected to soon release further details of their cap-and-trade-less climate bill, possibly as soon as tomorrow. And Kate Sheppard reports that moderates seem to be warming to the legislation.

“There were some interesting things that were discussed in there and like everything else in the United States Senate, the devil is in the details,” [GOP Sen. George] Voinovich told reporters after the meeting. He also noted that without final language, it’s still hard to say whether he could endorse it. “There is more meat that has got to be put on the bones.” [Dem Sen. Max] Baucus called the new effort “refreshing,” while [Dem Sen. Debbie] Stabenow also showed enthusiasm.

Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, who has supported an approach in which the majority of proceeds from the sale of carbon permits are returned to taxpayers in the form of a dividend, told Greenwire: “I think all of those things are very positive steps and give me the sense that people here in Congress are getting the message that the American people want us to be transparent about all things we do, including cap and trade.

What’s noteworthy here is that the trio is aiming to line up 60 votes before introducing the legislation; Sheppard writes that “the anticipation among bill-watchers is that they won’t release the legislation until they’ve got 60 senators signed on.” This stands in pretty sharp contrast to the process up to this point. In the House, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) drafted a relatively aggressive bill that had no real chance of passing in its original form. Only after coal and farm interests whittled it down with a series of compromises and amendments was it able to squeak by.

Likewise in the Senate: Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced an even more aggressive bill than the one passed by the House, knowing full well that it couldn’t get 60 votes. But unlike in the House, the compromise process never really got off the ground — hence the recent decision by Kerry to abandon that bill and work with Graham and Lieberman to start from scratch.

This time around, they’re employing a markedly different strategy that will yield a markedly different bill. And the biggest difference could be that the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill has a real shot at passing.

The year 2009 has been monumental for climate news. Featuring breakthroughs and setbacks, scandals and spin, 2009 saw the first-ever passage of a comprehensive climate bill by a house of Congress. But the country ultimately ended the year the same way it began on climate change: mired in uncertainty. TWI has compiled a list of the five players who left the deepest mark on America’s climate policy this year, for better or worse.

Click here to begin slideshow.

“Now we see that that science has been pretty well debunked,” Inhofe told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

And not only that, said the Oklahoma Republican, but the “Climategate” scandal also undermines (1) the EPA’s finding that greenhouse emissions are a public-health hazard, and (2) the need for Congress to pass a climate change bill.

You can’t play this one down. This is a huge, huge deal. The fact that they are going into an endangerment finding using this as that science, that makes it that much worse. It’s a recognition that we have won and they have lost in terms of a legislative cure for this.

Your bill is dead. It’s not going to go anywhere. The [Barbara] Boxer bill is dead and for that reason, in order to save face at the big meeting that’s watching this right now in Copenhagen they had to come up with an endangerment finding.

Markey had other ideas, pointing out the broad scientific consensus that human behavior is affecting global temperatures.

The National Academy of Sciences of every country in the world has endorsed these findings. It’s not just the United States. It’s not just the British. It’s every country in the world.

Still, Inhofe is right on at least one count: Climate change legislation in Congress is going nowhere fast.

But at least one lawmaker has no such worries. Not only will the $2 billion be replaced, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said on the chamber floor this afternoon, but it’ll be borrowed, adding further to the nation’s enormous debt.

“This is the ultimate bait and switch,” Gregg said.

Democratic leaders, from President Obama on down, have repeatedly said that the $2 billion cash for clunkers extension is paid for because it dips into unused stimulus funds earmarked for the loan guarantee program. But if that loan funding is replenished sometime later — and if the replenished funds aren’t covered by increasing revenues or enacting cuts elsewhere — then the clunkers extension will effectively have come from borrowed funds.

“The bill to pay [for] those cars is going to come due on our children and grandchildren,” Gregg said. “This is nothing more than a program which is being funded entirely by debt.”

Indeed, on the House floor last Friday, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) wanted assurance that, if the cash for clunkers extension passed, the $2 billion siphoned from the loan guarantee program would be replaced.

Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, responded:

I share the gentleman’s view that the Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Program is of vital importance to creating a new, green economy. We have talked with the White House. We have talked with the Speaker, and I want to assure you that all of us certainly have every intention of restoring these funds.

Of course there’s always the possibility that Obey could reneg on that promise, but Gregg thinks it’s unlikely. “This is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee,” Gregg said. “When he assures you, you can be assured it’s for sure.”

Observers of this debate might recall that Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), both ardent environmentalists, have already diluted their bill considerably in order to win the support of House Democrats from states with powerful gas, coal and auto industries. In the latest episode, it was the Democrats representing the farm states who threw the fuss, threatening to kill the bill if two key provisions weren’t changed.

The first involved a program allowing polluting farmers and agricultural companies to offset their emissions by planting trees or investing in green technologies. The Waxman-Markey bill proposed that the Environmental Protection Agency would oversee the program, arguing that the agency would be the most reliable monitor of an initiative designed to protect the environment.

But farm-state Democrats, rallying behind Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, insisted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture be given that responsibility — a scenario opposed by environmentalists, who fear the USDA will prioritize farm industry concerns above the effectiveness of the offset program.

Indeed, The New York Times reports today of USDA’s shoddy record when it comes to overseeing environmental programs under its jurisdiction.

In particular, the department’s conservation agency “routinely ignored” compliance standards when giving out wetlands and wildlife grants, an investigator for the House Agriculture Committee found. The Government Accountability Office said there is potential for duplicative payments with the conservation programs, allowing the agency to release billions of dollars in payments to landowners who do not deserve them.

Another assessment from the USDA inspector general found shoddy accounting at the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The agency was unable to provide sufficient information on transactions and account balances.

No matter. The result of the Waxman-Peterson negotiations was to give USDA the job.

The second sticking point revolved around a controversial EPA initiative — mandated by Congress — designed to ensure that the country’s shift to biofuels like ethanol doesn’t lead to a spike in greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere around the globe. This happened in Indonesia, for example, where there was a widespread clearing of rain forest a few years ago to make way for palm plantations to feed Europe’s emerging biofuels market. The EPA proposed to take such global events into account as it pertains to the U.S. shift to food-based fuels.

No matter. For Peterson and the other agriculture-friendly Democrats, the so-called indirect land-use plan was a non-starter. The result? Under the compromise, EPA won’t be allowed to account for indirect land-use when calculating ethanol-production emissions until the USDA has signed off of the methodology.

“We have reached an agreement that works for agriculture and contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States,” Peterson said in a statement last night.

The House is planning to vote on the Waxman-Markey bill Friday.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

As the House works toward a deal setting new limits on carbon emissions, nuclear power is getting a boost from a core group of Democrats – the same lawmakers who have received the bulk of the industry’s campaign donations in recent years.

That electric utilities pushing for nuclear expansion are relying on their longtime congressional champions is not surprising. But the dovetailing of re-election dollars with support for nuclear power masks a more complicated political reality for moderate Democrats, many of whom are shrugging off opposition from environmental groups to embrace the industry as a source of low-carbon energy and a job creator in their districts.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), his energy subcommittee chief, are working overtime to reach a deal with centrist colleagues in time to pass their 648-page climate change bill by Memorial Day (1). Adding to that pressure, Roll Call reported this week, are calls from senior Democrats such as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) to add more benefits for the nuclear industry to the climate measure.

Hoyer and Clyburn ranked No. 3 and No. 5, respectively, among active House members on electric utilities’ list of campaign-money beneficiaries during the 2008 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since 2003, Hoyer has received $348,800 from the political action committees of electric utilities, compared with $247,500 from investment firms and $133,250 from banks. Clyburn has also received more from electric-utility PACs since 2003 ($183,265) than from banks ($132,800) or investment firms ($102,750).

Another Democrat cited by Roll Call as advocating for more nuclear incentives in the climate bill, House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.), has also taken in far more from electric-power PACs than from famously influential banks and investment firms. Electric utilities have contributed $197,900 to Spratt since 2003, while bank PACs have given him just $56,000 and Wall Street PACs $21,000 during that same period.

“The industry can’t build new reactors without unprecedented levels of financial support from the American taxpayer,” Tyson Slocum, the director of Public Citizen’s energy program, said. “When your business model is dependent upon the generosity of the American public in the form of subsidies, they try to accomplish that through giving money to politicians.”

Indeed, the nuclear industry’s biggest players have ramped up their giving to Democrats even further during the first three months of this year. After giving slightly more than half of its donations to Democrats during the 2008 election, the Nuclear Energy Institute PAC sent the majority party more than $56,000 of its $60,000 in first-quarter 2009 campaign donations, according to the Federal Election Commission database.

Duke Energy, which joined NEI as a sponsor of Clyburn’s golf tournament last year, gave $56,000 during the first three months of this year – more than half of what it donated to Democrats during the entire 2008 election season.

“There is no doubt that the tide is moving in favor of nuclear power among Democrats,” Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace turned nuclear advocate at the industry-backed Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, said in an email. Moore said he spoke to the House Nuclear Issues Working Group, which Spratt co-chairs, last week and found a receptive audience.

But not every senior Democrat has benefited from the nuclear industry’s courtship. Waxman has received $27,000 from electric-utility PACs since 2003, with Markey getting a relatively meager $21,000, according to CRP data. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a fundraising powerhouse who has lately softened her criticism of nuclear power, took in only $46,000 from utilities over the past six years.

Are those low fundraising numbers for Waxman, Markey, and Pelosi a smart business decision by nuclear-power companies who want to steer clear of the opposition? Perhaps, Friends of the Earth spokesman Erich Pica said – but it’s also no accident that southeasterners such as Clyburn, Spratt, and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) form the nuclear industry’s strongest Democratic bloc.

“New nuclear power providers have a foothold in the southeast,” Pica said. “That’s where they’re planning their renaissance. The utilities have captured the public-utility commissions and the state legislatures.”

Both Spratt and Hoyer have large nuclear plants in their districts, with operators looking to build new reactors in the coming years. Nuclear energy generates 20 percent of U.S. electricity but more than 50 percent of South Carolina’s power, as Clyburn often notes in public appearances.

“I have always said that any policy that does not include nuclear in the various mix of energy would be unfair to states like South Carolina – and under some options being discussed, could be punitive,” Clyburn said through a spokeswoman. “I would not support any policy that is punitive to my constituents.”

Hoyer is “working to ensure that the programs currently in place for nuclear development, such as tax credits and loan guarantees, match up with the new energy policy in the bill” to help the industry keep pace with rising demand for lower carbon alternatives, spokeswoman Stephanie Lundberg said.

The environmental community continues to oppose new nuclear plants, pointing to the safety risk from aging, waste-producing facilities such as New York’s Indian Point and the massive cost burden of plant construction. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ investigative arm, estimated last year that government loan guarantees for the nuclear industry carried a 50 percent risk of default.

“New reactors are not going to be a good deal for the public in terms of cost or energy issues – it seems to me that these officials should understand that,” Michael Marriotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and a critic of nuclear expansion, said.

Moreover, Marriotte noted that liberal skepticism about nuclear power can still pack a punch, as it did in 2005 when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lost four votes for his climate-change bill after adding new nuclear subsidies. “Most of the people who are pushing to add nuclear power to the Waxman-Markey bill are not going to vote for the final bill anyway,” he added.

The nuclear industry counters with more than just its contributions to campaign coffers. Those asking Congress to fund new clean-energy development banks and loan guarantees point to Gallup’s 2009 environmental poll, which found that more than one-quarter of all Americans strongly favor nuclear – a notable uptick from previous years. Nuclear power was embraced by 71 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats in the survey, representing an eight-year high in support across party lines.

“Over the last four years, we’ve seen a big change in the way Democratic party members are looking at nuclear,” NEI senior political affairs director Hannah Simone said. “At a time when the economy is weak and jobs are needed, we’re actually an industry that wants to build and expand and grow, as opposed to other industries that don’t have that capability.”

But as the nuclear industry’s Democratic allies seek more concessions in the climate bill, both supporters and foes of new plants are reminding Congress of a simple truth: the very concept of regulating carbon emissions gives nuclear power a competitive advantage.

“The best thing for advocates [of nuclear power] is this carbon pricing,” said Judi Greenwald, vice president for innovative solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

The climate bill “is going to add cost to [nuclear’s] competitors,” she added, “so it will function as a subsidy for nukes. I think the nuclear industry should be excited about a cap-and-trade program.”

Elana Schor is a freelance journalist in Washington. She has written for The Guardian, The Hill and Talking Points Memo.

One area of contention is the distribution of carbon allowances, which polluting companies will need to obtain for each ton of carbon dioxide they plan to emit. The Obama administration has called for — and continues to push for — 100 percent of permits to be auctioned off, while some industry leaders and moderate Democrats support giving out some or all allowances for free in order to reduce the economic burden on polluting companies and consumers.

The original Waxman-Markey draft did not specify how the allowances would be distributed, but now Waxman has signaled that he is open to the free allocation of 40 percent of permits to local electricity distribution companies and 15 percent to the industries that would be most vulnerable to international competition under the agreement, according to E&E Daily (via Climate Progress). The free permits would slowly be phased out in favor of a 100% auction within 10 to 15 years.

Another major compromise involves the short-term emissions reduction targets. The Obama administration called for a 14 percent reduction by 2020, while the Waxman-Markey bill stipulated a 20 percent cut. Now Bloomberg reports that Waxman has agreed to a 17 percent target, while E&E Daily says Waxman will settle for 14 percent. The long-term target — an 83 percent reduction by 2050 — will probably remain in place.

While environmentalists will no doubt be disappointed by Waxman’s capitulation — particularly since even the ambitious draft bill was unlikely to reduce emissions as far as some scientists have urged — it was inevitable that some compromise was in order if the legislation was to have any chance of passing. It is still unlikely to win much or any Republican votes, but Waxman may have done enough to address the concerns of moderate Democrats on his committee.

Waxman still hopes to vote the bill out of committee by Memorial Day.