President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways. The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn. “It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Southern Co. (SO) The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials. In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution. “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” Obama said last month during his State of the Union address. He pledged executive actions “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
Remember 1972 and "only Nixon could go to China"? Well now he's taking us to all of Asia:
While some U.S. agencies already take climate change into account when assessing projects, the new guidelines would apply across-the-board to all federal reviews. Industry lobbyists say they worry that projects could be tied up in lawsuits or administrative delays. For example, Ambre Energy Ltd. is seeking a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a coal-export facility at the Port of Morrow in Oregon. Under existing rules, officials weighing approval would consider whether ships in the port would foul the water or generate air pollution locally. The Environmental Protection Agency and activist groups say that review should be broadened to account for the greenhouse gases emitted when exported coal is burned in power plants in Asia.
Ever dealt with a DEIS, EIS, EA or FONSI? Then you can thank Richard Nixon and Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. The law, of course is NEPA, which upon signing on January 1, 1970, Tricky Dick said, "It is particularly fitting that my first official act in this new decade is to approve the National Environmental Policy Act". Four years later I was in DC when Nixon resigned and left for California. He didn't take NEPA with him.
Remember the Obama delay in making a decision on the Keystone pipeline? It was an election year, so most speculated he didn't want to alienate big labor (who supported the pipeline) or the enviros (who opposed). Did he have NEPA & global warming up his sleeve then? Don't know, but look what this may do to the pipeline:
Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) and Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) If the new White House guidance is structured correctly, it will require just those kinds of lifecycle reviews, said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity in Washington. The environmental group has sued to press for this approach, and Snape says lawsuits along this line are certain if the administration approves the Keystone pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Stanley Kurtz, writing at National Review, has this to say about the politics of it all:
The Bloomberg report makes it clear that Obama’s order opens the way for further litigation and substantial delays on Keystone, whether the federal government officially blocks construction or not. That’s because NEPA allows citizens and environmental groups to file claims against projects even after they win government approval. So the Obama administration could green-light the pipeline, file a report that stops short of calling Keystone a major global-warming hazard, and still find the project delayed for years by environmental groups bringing court challenges under the new NEPA guidelines. In this scenario, headlines loudly proclaiming Obama’s approval of Keystone would shield him from Republican attacks. Simultaneously, the president could mollify the left by claiming credit for guidelines that effectively allowed his allies to stop the pipeline. And that would be right. Obama can publicly “approve” Keystone, while simultaneously handing the left the tool they need to put the project on semi-permanent hold.
The State Dept.'s Draft Supplemental EIS is out, and according to the Executive Summary there is a lifecycle analysis in the document. The question is, will it meet the guidelines in the soon to be published Obama Executive Order on global warming or will there have to be a redo?
Thank you Richard Nixon for the Council on Environmental Quality, EPA, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and of course for NEPA and providing political cover for Obama. You are gone, but your legacy lives on.
No comments:
Post a Comment