Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Public Citizen’

Refuting Assumptions About Nuclear Waste

Posted in Nuclear, Radioactive Waste, tagged , , , , on August 15, 2012 |

The agency responsible for approving the construction of nuclear reactors may no longer be able to rely on its old “build reactors now and worry about radioactive waste later” approach.

Learn more about new challenges to nuclear waste policy.

For decades, nuclear reactors have been built under two assumptions:

  • One day there would be a place to permanently store the lethal waste generated from nuclear power.
  • While the final burial place was being determined, the nuclear waste could be safely stored on-site.

But when it comes to waste that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, assumptions can be a reckless gamble.

A federal court agrees.

In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled that these assumptions are no longer good enough, prompting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address the shortcomings of the two rules which translate these assumptions into policy — the waste confidence decision and the storage rule.

In response, 24 groups, including Public Citizen, challenging both new reactor licenses and license renewals for existing reactors filed a petition urging the NRC to respond to the court ruling by freezing final licensing decisions.

On July 8, the NRC voted to suspend a final decision on all new reactor licenses. No doubt this is a short-term win for us.

But the intermediate and long-term implications for nuclear energy and the policies that govern radioactive waste are still unclear.

As these implications unfold, we will continue to keep you updated and when possible provide opportunities to take action toward improving the safety of our country’s mounting stockpile of nuclear waste.

To get more information on the court’s decision, check out the blog post by Allison Fisher of Public Citizen’s Climate and Energy Program, Will nuclear power continue to hobble along despite its radioactive Achilles’ heel?

Read Full Post »

At Energy Future Holdings, Failure Pays Well for Those at Top

Posted in Coal, Consumers, Energy, tagged , , , , , , on June 15, 2012 |

If you think that bonuses are supposed to reward success, you’re not alone, but the reality is more bizarre.  While Energy Future Holdings, formerly TXU, of Dallas continues its downward spiral toward bankruptcy, it’s handing out millions in bonuses to its executives.

The bonuses are called retention bonuses and are supposed to keep executive from fleeing the company as its prospects worsen.  At first glance, that makes some sense.  Recruiting replacements might be difficult.  After all, who is going to want to take charge of a failing company?  But then, who would want to hire an executive whose last job was running a company that failed so spectacularly?  And if bonuses increase as the company does worse, what incentive is there to improve performance?  Against the basic principle of capitalism, this system actually provides an incentive to fail.

Meanwhile, Energy Future Holdings is still making huge payments to the private equity holders that are responsible for over leveraging the company in the first place.  Henry Roberts Kravis, CEO of KKR received $30 million and his cousin and co-CEO, George Roberts received $29.9 million in compensation for 2011.  Clearly, the survival of Energy Future Holdings is not the main concern of either these private equity barons or the executives at the company, or else they wouldn’t be squeezing personal profit out of it when it’s floundering.

While employees at Energy Future Holdings and its subsidiaries may be worrying about what the future holds, those at the top are cashing in big.  No government payments or loans to the company or altering of the energy market will change that dynamic.

Don’t let your money be used to line the pockets of failing executives and private equity CEOs.

If you live in Texas, please sign our petition urging all Texas Legislators to oppose any public or ratepayer-funded bailout of Energy Future Holdings. 

Read Full Post »

Another Bailout for Big Business?

Posted in Coal, Consumers, Energy, natural gas, Texas Legislature, tagged , , , , , , , , , on June 7, 2012 |

No Bailout for Energy Future HoldingsEnergy Future Holdings, formerly TXU, of Dallas might be looking for a handout – from you.

Back in January, Moody’s changed Energy Future Holdings Corp’s rating outlook to negative and made it impossible to ignore what anyone who had been paying attention to the company’s quarterly reports already knew: Energy Future Holdings is on a path heading towards bankruptcy.  Now there are rumors floating around that the company may ask the Texas Legislature to approve a public or ratepayer-funded bailout.

Neither option would benefit majority of Texas citizens and we urge everyone to sign our petition in opposition to any bailout proposal for Energy Future Holdings. 

You might wonder how the profitable TXU end up as the failing Energy Future Holdings.  The answer is twofold.

First, in Texas, electricity prices are set based on the price of natural gas.  When natural gas prices were high, this meant that coal-fired power plants could reap additional profit.  This made TXU an attractive acquisition because the company owned many coal-fired power plants.  But now, natural gas prices have plummeted and those same coal-fired power plants, especially the oldest and most inefficient, are dragging Energy Future Holdings down.  The private equity investors made a big bet on the wrong energy source.

The second problem is that Energy Future Holdings was acquired in a leveraged buyout.  What that means is that instead of the investors paying the full amount to buy TXU, they financed the deal partially through loans to the company.  While the company has done a good job of staving off the day of reckoning by refinancing many of those loans, many are approaching maturity and additional refinancing options are limited by the negative prospects for the company.

So, while TXU was a profitable company with relatively low debt, Energy Future Holdings is an unprofitable company (because of low natural gas prices) with massive debt (because of the leveraged buyout) that is approaching maturity.  This isn’t a good combination and some people are going to lose money on the deal (many already have).  However, those losses shouldn’t be placed on Texas taxpayers or ratepayers.

Tell your state representatives and senators that you oppose bailing out failed corporations.

Most of us have to live with the consequences of our bad decisions.  Help us make sure that Wall Street and private equity firms must do the same.

Read Full Post »

The Game of Thrones (or Texas Politics)

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, tagged , , , , , on April 30, 2012 |

By Michael Tahmoressi, St. Edwards student and Public Citizen intern

Texas can be characterized as a pay to play environment.  Politicians bend to their districts business interests and gubernatorial appointees seem to be selected based on the amounts they contribute to the governor.

Contributions Equal Access and Appointments

Rick Perry has taken this to a new extreme with the deal he appears to have struck with Harold Simmons, a billionaire chemical industry mogul whose latest project is a radioactive waste repository in Andrews county Texas. Simmons single handedly pushed his project forward, boasting about it in a rare interview in 2006.  Click here to read D Magazine’s article “Harold Simmons is Dallas’ Most Evil Genius.

State engineers and geologists strongly objected to licensing the dump, expressing concern that radioactive material could contaminate groundwater in the region.  Three staff scientists at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality resigned rather than sign off on the licenses. Nevertheless, Rick Perry spearheaded the approval of the waste dump, operated by Waste Control Specialists (WCS) and the TCEQ executive director, Glenn Shankle, approved the application, just a few months before he went to work as a lobbyist for WCS.  Click here to read Public Citizen’s report The Repository and the Risk.

The next step of the plan was to open the facility up to allow other states to dump their waste in the site.  That decision lay in the hands of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission (TLLRWDCC), comprised of six Texas commissioners appointed by Perry.  Two additional commissioners appointed by Vermont fill out the Compact Commission.  In 2010, eleven days after Governor Perry was re-elected, the Compact Commission voted 5-2 to approve rules that would make Texas the radioactive waste disposal site for the country.

The Texas Sunset Advisory Commission flagged this potentially huge liability problem in its report on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality:

“Texas, and not the Compact Commission nor the disposal facility licensee, holds liability for compact waste brought into the state. Low-level radioactive waste can be radioactive for a long time, and potential future contamination could not only have a severe impact to the environment and human health, but to the State, which bears the ultimate financial responsibility for compact waste disposal facility site.”

A Texas observer article goes on to explain that the state would not only be forced to take care of any potential contamination problems but also the closure of the waste dump. This is clearly illustrates the biggest problem in our state the power does not lie in the hands of the people but in the business sector. Click here to read the article from the Texas Observer.

Double Dipping: An Acceptable Practice?

The case of State Represenative Joe Driver, (R-Garland) is another example.  Driver, who was convicted of felony abuse of official power, admitted in an interview in 2006 that he pocketed taxpayer money for travel expenses that his campaign had already paid. Click here to read the Texas Tribune article.  For years he had been double dipping, submitting the same receipts to his campaign and the state for airline tickets, meals, incidentals; collecting thousands of dollars in state mileage reimbursements for travel in vehicles for which his campaign had already spent more than $100,000 since 2000. This resulted in his campaign covering these travel costs, while he pocketed the profit by reimbursing himself with taxpayer money.

The Attorney general has not done enough to stop criminals like Driver.  Abbott’s ethics probes have been terribly inadequate.  Of the 57 probes he has started since his term in office began in 2002 only half of those resulted in convictions and a majority of those were for only minor infractions.

Abbott is a power broker with a political war-chest of over 8 million dollars.  Ninety nine percent of that can be traced back to business interests, more than $1 million from the business sector with the top contributors Houston homebuilder Bob Perry who gave the attorney general $470,265 in addition to Houston’s John Nau, Kenny Troutt, who made a fortune from his Excel phone company and energy and water investor T. Boone Pickens following close behind.

Texans need a justice agency they can trust to stop this hijacking of our democracy politicians that are either being rented by big business lobbies or are trying to get a cut of the action.

It Was A Gift, Not a Contribution

Legislative power broking has become normal practice in Texas.  Lobbyists’ daily activities in the capital involve massaging the backs of legislative members and their staff with gifts of food and activities, and functional bribes, in the form of monetary campaign promises or the problem State Representative Kino Flores (D-Palmview) in the valley encountered.

Flores had been receiving money from local businesses for years and not properly filing required reports on them. He was indicted for accepting gifts and failure to report them to the state. Overall, he failed to disclose $115,000 to $185,000 of income each year from 2004 to 2009.

Blatant corruption taints our democracy, how can citizens believe in their governments officials to manage the state, when the balance of power has gradually shifted to the moneyed elite. The general population is so removed from policy implementation they usually only show interest in issues that directly affect them; making it appear that they are okay with a level corruption when the reality is that they are unaware of the corruption or feel powerless to do anything about it. This is inherent to our economic system that demands efficiency and results at the expense of ethics.

Politicians for Sale or Rent, Rooms to Let – 50 Cents

Politicians aren’t for sale in Texas, they are for rent.  There was a study done by Larry Bartels professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Government about economic inequality and congressional response. Bartels found that senators are more likely to respond to concerns brought forward by members of the top ⅓ of their district’s total constituency. Bartels also found that senators never voted or responded to the concerns of the lower economic ⅓.  Click here to read the report.

If the game is rigged towards the top ⅓ of our population because money buys influence, what are the rest of us supposed to do to get our voices heard? 

Tom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen and 15 other advocates from legislative watchdog groups had an answer. On April 10th, testifying in front of the Texas Sunset Advisory Committee they urged the committee to make the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) an enforcement agency and to expand their authority to investigate beyond minor infractions.  In addition, they recommended that a TEC enforcement director be given greater authority to subpoena records, that the legislature expands what is disclosed by candidates each election cycle and that they create a limit on the amount that individuals can contribute.

Public watchdogs speaking out against corruption at the TEC Sunset hearing is tantamount to sustaining what is left of our democracy in Texas. It’s impossible to place personal responsibility on the people for not participating in rooting out corruption because the power is not in their hands and the very folks responsible for representing them are being bought by big business groups.

Public Citizen and other watchdog groups are the vanguard of citizens who are committed to accountability.  We hold those in the government, who believe their positions put them above the law, accountable and demand that there be a reverse in the flow of power back to the people.  Public hearings like the one on April 10th allow us the ability to present our grievances.

The system may be sluggish and cumbersome, but Public Citizen is committed to maintaining and expanding a network of allies who are committed to holding Texas government officials accountable for the misuse and abuses of power.

Read Full Post »

EHF – going broke. Will Texas declare it “too big to fail”

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , on March 29, 2012 |

The Dallas Observer is reporting that there is a good chance that Energy Future Holdings (EFH) (or TXU for most of us) the state’s largest power generator, will go broke – click here to read their story.

The question now becomes – are Texas ratepayers going to have to pay for EHF’s bad bet?  Two weeks ago, in an op-ed by Public Citizen’s Texas director, Tom “Smitty” Smith, and its policy and outreach specialist for coal and renewable energy, Kaiba White, they wrote about this question.  We have published that op-ed below.

Energy Future Holdings is going broke because of coal and it may be time to pull the plug on the old and dirty coal plants that are bankrupting the company.

Utility after utility has looked at the future of coal and made the decision to retire more than 100 coal plants rather than to retrofit them. If we wait for them to go bankrupt, the choice will be made by the courts, who will sell the plants to the highest bidders and you’ll pay the price in higher costs and unrelenting air pollution.

Energy Future Holdings bet on the wrong fuel when it bought the old TXU. The company got smoked.

TXU was worth about $32.3 billion; EFH paid $45 billion at a time when the price of natural gas was high and the cost of coal was lower than it is now. Today, the costs are reversed. Natural gas prices are at a 10-year low and it’s now cheaper to generate electricity with gas or wind than it is with older, inefficient coal plants. EFH’s generating subsidiary Luminant is very dependent on coal and, as a result, EFH is losing money quarter after quarter, and is losing customers as well.

The losses can’t go on much longer. The big Wall Street analysts and even Warren Buffet, a major EFH investor, are predicting that this company will fold unless natural gas prices rise.

We have known for years that pollution from the big coal plants to the south and east of the DFW area affect air quality in North Texas. Pollution from Big Brown, Martin Lake and Monticello, all owned by Luminant, was estimated to cause 136 early deaths; 204 heart attacks and 149 asthma hospitalizations a year, according to an Abt Associates study commissioned by the Clean Air Task Force in 2010. These three plants are the largest sources of sulfur dioxide emissions in Texas and are some of the worst in the country. They also graced the EPA’s top 10 list for nitrogen oxides emissions in Texas.

For more than 20 years the EPA worked on the recently announced rules to reduce pollution from power plants. In order to meet the lower emissions limits, EFH estimates it will have to spend $1.5 billion on pollution controls. The Sierra Club estimates those controls could cost as much as $3.6 billion.

EFH doesn’t have the cash or credit to retrofit these plants. So it has gone on a PR warpath, claiming that the new pollution rules will make the lights go out. Officials are just blowing smoke. We predict they will ask the Texas Legislature to bail them out. Lawmakers shouldn’t rescue these Wall Street slicksters who made a bad investment.

Other Texas coal companies have begun to invest the money and add the pollution control devices needed. CPS of San Antonio looked at the cost to upgrade one of its old coal plants and decided to retire it and invest the money in renewable energy projects, rather than sink the cash into an outdated technology.

Just two weeks ago, GenOn Energy announced it was closing eight coal plants in three states between June 2012 and May 2015 because it would be less expensive to shut them than to fix them up to protect public health.

So what do we do to keep the lights on in Texas? CPS in San Antonio has a plan to replace its old coal plants and create local jobs with energy efficiency, solar and wind energy, and a new natural gas plant. Utilities across the country are doing the same because it’s cheaper than fixing up their old coal plants, reduces healthcare costs and creates local jobs rather than ones at Wyoming coal mines.

The Texas Senate will be studying this issue over the next several months and should develop a plan to reduce air pollution and the risk of bankruptcy while developing new cheaper ways to meet Texas’growing energy needs. But money talks, and EFH has long learned it’s cheaper to invest in politicians and lobbyists than pollution controls. Texans should call their senators and tell them not to let EFH’s smoke get into their eyes. Your tax dollars shouldn’t be used to bail out Wall Street bankers

We’d like to know what you think.            [polldaddy poll=6090363]

Read Full Post »

Comment Period for TCEQ Compliance History rule changes extended to March 23rd

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , on March 19, 2012 |

The comment period for the proposed new TCEQ Compliance History rules was extended in large part due to Public Citizen making the public aware that the TCEQ had run test scores on their data from the previous year’s posting but were not willing to release that information to us, the Austin American Statesman or the public.  When they did release the data and then subsequently extend the comment period, the data was not in a format that was useful to most folks.

After much wrangling with the agency, they finally released the test scores this afternoon and they can be accessed below:

Proposed Chapter 60 Compliance History Test Scores

The test Compliance History scores for proposed revision to 30 TAC Chapter 60 (Compliance History) rule are available here.

The test Compliance History scores available below are intended to provide approximations of what scores might look like under the Commission’s proposed Chapter 60 (Compliance History) rule.  These scores were generated as part of the agency’s proposed rulemaking process.

These are not official Compliance History scores and therefore, are not subject to the Chapter 60 appeal process. Due to computer programming limitations during rule development , individual scores do not reflect all aspects of the formula as proposed. Rather, the scores represent approximate numbers using a simplified model, as explained below. Limitations include the following:

  • The scores were generated using applicable compliance-history data from September 1, 2006–August 31, 2011, made public on October 1, 2011 and thus to regulated entities so they can make corrections, as necessary, since that date.  Upon rule adoption, new compliance-history scores will be generated using data from September 1, 2007–August 31, 2012.
  • The scores do not accurately reduce points for compliance with administrative orders. Under the proposed rule, two years after the effective date of an order, if an entity is compliant with all ordering provisions and has resolved all violations, the points attributable to that order will be reduced.  The reduction will be 25 percent for year three, 50 percent for year four, and 75 percent for year five.  The simplified model does not take into consideration compliance with the order. Therefore, under the simplified model, all orders receive the total reductions allowed each year under the proposed rule.  Entities that have not yet achieved compliance with an order receive a reduction under the simplified model that is not warranted.
  • Points awarded for “small entities” are not completely reflective of the proposed rule.  Under the proposed rule, points are allocated to small entities.  The simplified model allocates points for small businesses but does not allocate points for small cities and counties.
  • Reductions for voluntary programs are not completely reflective of the proposed rule.  The proposed rule allows for a maximum 25% reduction of compliance history points for implementing voluntary programs, such as an environmental management system.  If an entity has multiple voluntary programs, the simplified model does not accurately apply reductions for all programs.
  • Changes to the proposed formula and associated compliance-history components may be made as part of the rule adoption process.  Any changes to the proposed formula or components as a result of the rulemaking process would change scores that will be calculated on September 1, 2012.

To download test Compliance History scores click the link below:

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/enforcement/history/compliance-history-test-data.html

Please note that these reports are large files and, depending on your connection speed, may take several minutes to download.

These scores will only be available to download for the duration of the Chapter 60 public-comment period, which has been extended and will close on March 23, 2012.

You may comment on this rule via eComments.

We have provided sample comments for you to use in submitting your own.  We have also provided information on where and how to submit your comments below.

Comments of _Your name here_ on 2011-032-060-CE: HB 2694 (4.01 and Article 4): Compliance History Draft Rules.

Polluter-friendly amendments, proposed in the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality’s new regulatory rules, serve to increase the degree of noncompliance a company is permitted with no consequence. More noncompliance means more unauthorized toxins in the air, water, and ground in communities across Texas.

We are unsatisfied with the compliance history proposals because:

  • The TCEQ has jurisdiction over 250,000 entities all around the state. Holding one public hearing at 10 a.m. in Austin does not give citizens enough of an opportunity to give feedback. I would like to have a meeting hosted at the TCEQ office in my region so that I can participate in this process.
  • Increased compliance history leniency will cut the percentage of companies considered unsatisfactory from 5% to a mere 3% without reducing an ounce of pollution.  Compliance standards should be raised the longer a regulation has been in place, not made less effective by changing the unsatisfactory rating cutoff from 45 to 55 noncompliance points.
  • The executive director will be able to pardon polluters at his discretion—instead of adhering to a standard protocol. Why have formal classifications if the director can reclassify an entity or decide that a repeat violator charge should not apply? This is a nontransparent, unstipulated and unacceptable loophole.
  • Polluters will improve their compliance history score by signing up for supplemental environmental programs, regardless of effectiveness. Mere participation in a voluntary pollution reduction points does not warrant a 5% reward. The formula should call for measured returns for measured results.
  • The TCEQ has not presented information that calculates how the new formula will affect entities. Given the denseness of the proposal’s language, I would like to have a way to interpret the new compliance history ratings.
  • The proposed language for repeat violations would make it very difficult for any facility with many “complexity points” to ever be considered a repeat violator. Because so many points are given for different kinds of permits, authorizations and even hazardous waste units, getting to “25” complexity points will be easy for any large industrial facility or major entity, meaning that the only way they would be penalized for being a repeat violator would be to have four or more violations over the last five years.

I urge you to utilize TCEQ’s rulemaking process to implement changes that will benefit the health, communities, and resources of Texas citizens and not the pocketbook interests of businesses.

Comments due by 5pm on March 23, 2012.

Texas Register Team – MC 205 General Law Division Office of Legal Services TCEQ P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087

Tips on Commenting Effectively

You will be providing comments for the rulemaking – 2011-032-060-CE: HB 2694 (4.01 and Article 4): Compliance History

  • Identify who you are and why the regulation affects you;
  • Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed rulemaking;
  • Be direct in your comment; and
  • Offer alternatives, compromise solutions, and specific language for your suggested changes.

Read Full Post »

ACT and other organizations sign on to comments on the TCEQ Compliance History Rules

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , on March 15, 2012 |

Last week, Public Citizen filed comments that had been developed with other Alliance for Clean Texas (ACT) partners.  Since we filed our comments, the TCEQ agreed to  extend the  comment period.  We have simple comments in an earlier blog for citizens to submit, but if you want more detailed comments for developing your own, take a look at these. ACT Comments on TCEQ Compliance History Rule

Read Full Post »

Obama’s Rejection of Keystone A Sensible Decision

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , on January 18, 2012 |

In a statement this afternoon, Obama said that he received a recommendation from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton earlier today recommending that the Keystone XL tar sands Presidential permit application be denied.

TransCanada’s first tar sands pipeline leaked 12 times in its first year of operation, although the company estimated it would leak just once in 14 years. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline route would cross Texas’s third-largest aquifer, as well as numerous rivers and lakes that provide water to some of the most populated areas of the Lone Star State, making TransCanada’s leaky history a pretty compelling reason for reviewing Keystone XL thoroughly. But when congressional Republicans forced a 60-day decision on the Keystone XL’s presidential permit, they took the option of a thorough review away from President Obama and the U.S. State Department.

Trevor Lovell with the Texas office of Public Citizen said, “Today’s rejection of the permit application was the only sensible decision the Obama administration could make.”

Read Full Post »

DFW Air Quality Standards – EPA Public Comments Sought

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , , , on January 10, 2012 |

The EPA has published a federal register notice to solicit public comments on their ozone designation recommendations to the states.  This comment period closes on January 19th and we have included the notice for information on where and how to submit your comments.

Public Citizen and Sierra Club believe the inclusion of Freestone, Limestone, McClennan, Navarro and Wise Counties in the designation of the new Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) ozone nonattaiment area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) will be essential to this area being able to effectively develop an implementation plan that will move the area out of nonattainment for federal air quality standards.  We would encourage those in these counties and in the DFW area to submit comments to this effect.

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD – SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the EPA has posted its responses to state and tribal designation recommendations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on the Agency’s Internet Web site. The EPA invites public comments on its responses during the comment period specified in the DATES section. The EPA sent responses directly to the states and tribes on or about December 9, 2011, and intends to make final designation determinations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in spring 2012.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 2012. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the comment period.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-OAR- HQ-2008-0476, by one of the following methods:     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments:

  • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476.
  • Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2008-0476.
  • Mail: Air Docket, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008- 0476, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
  • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
    (Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2008-0476. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be confidential business information or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA is unable to read your comment and cannot contact you for clarification due to technical difficulties, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section II of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this action, please contact Carla Oldham, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-3347, email at oldham.carla@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 1, please contact Richard Burkhart, U.S. EPA, telephone (617) 918-1664, email at burkhart.richard@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 2, please contact Bob Kelly, U.S. EPA, telephone (212) 637-3709, email at kelly.bob@email.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 3, please contact Maria Pino, U.S. EPA, telephone (215) 814- 2181, email at pino.maria@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 4, please contact Jane Spann, U.S. EPA, telephone (404) 562- 9029, email at spann.jane@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 5, please contact Edward Doty, U.S. EPA, telephone (312) 886- 6057, email at doty.edward@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 6, please contact Guy Donaldson, U.S. EPA, telephone (214) 665-7242, email at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 7, please contact Lachala Kemp, U.S. EPA, telephone (913) 551-7214, email at kemp.lachala@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 8, please contact Scott Jackson, U.S. EPA, telephone (303) 312-6107, email at jackson.scott@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 9, please contact John J. Kelly, U.S. EPA, telephone (415) 947-4151, email at kelly.johnj@epa.gov. For questions about areas in EPA Region 10, please contact Claudia Vaupel, U.S. EPA, telephone (206) 553-6121, email at vaupel.claudia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone to provide increased protection of public health and welfare from ozone pollution (73 FR 16436; March 27, 2008). The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407). Following the promulgation of a new or revised standard, each governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for nonattainment areas, to the EPA. The EPA considers these recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the formal area designations and boundaries for the new or revised standards. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required to notify states and tribes of any intended modification to an area designation or boundary recommendation that the EPA deems necessary. On or around December 9, 2011, the EPA notified states and tribes of its intended area designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. States and tribes now have an opportunity to demonstrate why they believe an intended modification by the EPA may be inappropriate. The EPA encouraged states and tribes to provide comments and additional information for consideration by the EPA in finalizing designations. The EPA plans to make final designation decisions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in spring 2012.     The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments from interested parties other than states and tribes on the EPA’s recent responses to the state and tribal designation recommendations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. These responses can be found on the EPA’s Internet Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations and also in the public docket for ozone designations at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476. The CAA section 107(d) provides a process for designations that involves recommendations by states and tribes to the EPA and responses from the EPA to those parties, prior to the EPA promulgating final designations and boundaries. The EPA is not required under the CAA section 107(d) to seek public comment during the designation process, but is electing to do so for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in order to gather additional information for the EPA to consider before making final designations. The EPA invites public comment on its responses to states and tribes during the 30-day comment period provided by this notice. Due to the statutory timeframe for promulgating designations set out in the CAA section 107(d), the EPA will not be able to consider any public comments submitted after January 19, 2012. This notice and opportunity for public comment does not affect any rights or obligations of any state, tribe or the EPA which might otherwise exist pursuant to the CAA section 107(d).     Please refer to the ADDRESSES section above in this document for specific instructions on submitting comments and locating relevant public documents.     In establishing nonattainment area boundaries, the EPA is required to identify the area that does not meet the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and any nearby area that is contributing to the area that does not meet that standard. We are particularly interested in receiving comments, supported by relevant information, if you believe that a specific geographic area that the EPA is proposing to identify as a nonattainment area should not be categorized by the CAA section 107(d) criteria as nonattainment, or if you believe that a specific area not proposed by the EPA to be identified as a nonattainment area should in fact be categorized as nonattainment using the CAA section 107(d) criteria. Please be as specific as possible in supporting your views.     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.     Explain your views as clearly as possible.     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the DATES section above.

II. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information. Do not submit this information to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be confidential business information. For confidential business information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as confidential business information and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as confidential business information. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as confidential business information, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as confidential business information must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as confidential business information only to the following address: Roberto Morales, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0880, email at morales.roberto@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476.     2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).     Follow directions–The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
III. Internet Web Site for Rulemaking Information
The EPA has also established a Web site for this rulemaking at www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations. The Web site includes the state and tribal designation recommendations, information supporting the EPA’s preliminary designation decisions, as well as the rulemaking actions and other related information that the public may find useful.

Read Full Post »

Pipeline of Poison Paused

Posted in Global Warming, Tarsands, tagged , , , , on November 10, 2011 |

Public Citizen joins Texas pipeline opponents in applauding the Obama administration’s decision for a “re-do” on the environmental impact statement and routing decisions for the proposed TransCanada tarsands pipeline.

This is a decision that came quickly on the heels of the U.S. State Department’s Inspector General’s announcement that they were launching an investigation into the alledged bias and conflict of interest citizen’s had complained about in the hearing process.  Click here to read our earlier blog.  At the hearing in Austin, after speakers who had been there for hours were cut off, one man was arrested for complaining about the process (Click here to read that blog post) and many at that hearing were questioning the facilitators about who they were and what exactly was their relationship to the State Department.

“The U.S. State Department’s contractor Cardno Entrix had severe conflicts of interests and their bias showed. They ignored the potential damages to our drinking water, air safety and climate in the Texas section of their environmental impact statement. The hearings they held on the plan were unfair and biased against opponents. Instead of fair hearings – opponents were cut off, the hearings were ended before the witnesses were heard, and those who objected were arrested,” said David Daniel, a land owner whose property lies along the pipeline route through Texas.

“Texas will be the state most endangered by leaks from the pipeline and the pollution from refining. We don’t need this pipeline or any additional proposed diluted bitumen pipeline, Texas refinery communities are already over-burdened by toxic refinery pollution and environmental justice concerns arise from further burdens to these end of market refinery communities in Texas,” said Chris Wilson, a chemical engineer working with Public Citizen in opposing the pipeline.

Ms. Wilson continued, “We don’t need this pipeline, and shouldn’t be running the risk for the temporary jobs it will create. This pause will allow us to rationally review the risks.”

Political experts are postulating that the Obama administration, the Canadian government and TransCanada made the mistake of glossing over the environmental issues in their haste to push this project through.

However, as the political pressure on his administration grew and consious that they didn’t want environmentalists staying home on election day, Obama himself acknowledged the health and environmental risks.

“Folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren’t going to say to themselves, ‘We’ll take a few thousand jobs if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health,’” Obama said in Nov. 2 interview with Nebraska TV station KETV. “We don’t want, for example, aquifers to be adversely affected.

The delay is an opportunity for a more “sober” and“rigorous” assessment of the pipeline on all sides, outside of the politicized climate of a presidential election campaign and we think it needs to made clear here that that any costs this puts on TransCanada are their own fault for lobbying to diminish oversight and cut corners in the permitting process. They took a chance hoping it would reduce their costs and it ended up backfiring because the corner cutting was too egregious and caused thus delay.

The risks taken by TransCanada were not the government’s concern, the health and well being of its citizens are their concern. In free markets risks are sometimes punished and sometimes rewarded.

Read Full Post »

Another hearing for STP expansion license

Posted in Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , , on October 7, 2011 |

An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel will conduct an evidentiary hearing Oct. 31 in Rockville, Md., in the South Texas Project Combined License (COL) proceeding. The ASLB is the independent body within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that presides over proceedings involving the licensing of civilian nuclear facilities, such as nuclear power plants.

This evidentiary hearing will consider a contention (or challenge) originally scheduled to be heard in August but deferred due to the unavoidable absence of an expert witness. The Board has also asked all the parties’ attorneys to be prepared for oral argument on a new proposed contention related to the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in Japan, although the Board is not certain if such oral argument will be necessary. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. EDT in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hearing Facility, Room T-3B45 in the NRC’s Two White Flint North Building, 11545 Rockville Pike in Rockville.

The session is open for public observation, but participation will be limited to the parties admitted to the proceeding (several public interest groups, the applicant – Nuclear Innovation North America (NINA) – and NRC staff). Early arrival at the NRC’s main visitor entrance in the One White Flint North Building is suggested to allow for security screening for all members of the public interested in attending. NRC policy prohibits signs, banners, posters or displays in the hearing room at any time during the proceeding.

The South Texas Project COL application was submitted Sept. 20, 2007, seeking permission to construct and operate two new nuclear reactors at an existing site near Bay City, Texas. The ASLB granted intervenor standing to the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, and Public Citizen, and found they had submitted admissible contentions that challenge the COL application. The contention that will be addressed on Oct. 31 involves the question of whether the application and NRC review properly accounts for energy efficient building code rules in assessing the need for power.

Individuals or groups not admitted to the proceeding can submit “written limited appearance statements” to the ASLB. Anyone wishing to submit a written statement may do so by email to hearingdocket@nrc.gov, by fax to 301-415-1101, or by mail to: Office of the Secretary, Attn. Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. In addition, copies of written statements should be sent to the Chairman of the Licensing Board by e-mail to Michael.Gibson@nrc.gov and Jonathan.Eser@nrc.gov; by fax to 301-415-5599, or by mail to: Administrative Judge Michael M. Gibson, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop: T-3F23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.

Documents related to the South Texas Project COL application are available on the NRC website. Documents pertaining to the ASLB proceeding are available in the agency’s electronic hearing docket. More information about the ASLB can be found at the NRC website.

Read Full Post »

The Public Needs Protection From Fracking Dangers

Posted in Air Quality, Water, tagged , , , , on August 15, 2011 |

Seal of the United States Department of Energy.

Image via Wikipedia

Public Citizen today urged a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) task force to prioritize the safety of water resources at contamination risk from hydraulic fracturing. Among the solutions Public Citizen proposed is repeal of the various exemptions the natural gas industry has received from federal environmental laws; the denial of drilling companies’ “proprietary” right to keep secret the identity of toxic materials they inject underground and an emphasis on improved outreach to affected communities.

The DOE’s Natural Gas Subcommittee should enact procedures to prevent water contamination around abandoned fracking wells, which has happened as fracking fluid and other contaminants have seeped into the groundwater. The public needs to be protected from chemically compromised water.

Just as worrisome, the hydraulic fracturing industry is exempted from elements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. The subcommittee should persuade Congress to repeal these special exemptions, which limit the federal government’s ability to ensure that protection of water resources is prioritized.

The subcommittee also should make every effort to include the input of the people whose lives will be affected by fracking policies, instead of holding 75 percent of the public meetings in Washington, D.C. The public needs a voice in policies that will have an enormous impact on their homes, their water and their safety.

The DOE subcommittee and Congress should work together to ensure the health and safety of the public and the environment.

To read the comments sent to the DOE, visit: http://www.citizen.org/documents/DOEfrackingComments8.15.2011.pdf.

This is a reprint of a Statement from Tyson Slocum, Director, Public Citizen’s Energy Program

Read Full Post »

Heat Wave Renews Call for Renewable Energy

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , on August 11, 2011 |

At the height of the energy crisis last week, Public Citizen’s Texas director, Tom “Smitty” Smith, told the Austin Chronicle, “Austin Energy was one of the first cities in the United States to really aggressively try to do this kind of load management, and days like this show how effective it is in preventing blackouts,” Smith continued. “It’s working, and it’s demonstrably cheaper than burning coal or gas to make electricity.”

To read the story discussing weather crisis and energy in the Texas deregulated market, click here to go to the Austin Chronicle’s story.

Read Full Post »

Urge DOE to regulate fracking

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , , , , on July 15, 2011 |

Yesterday, Public Citizen spoke before the Department of Energy subcommittee tasked with natural gas drilling and outlined the key steps needed to properly oversee the process of fracking. We are calling on the subcommittee to recommend closure of many loopholes that create regulatory exemptions for fracking.

Please join us in urging the DOE to regulate this risky process by signing on to our public comments.

Click here to read our earlier post about environmental advocacy around “fracking” at the national level

Read Full Post »

FEC approves Colbert SuperPAC – hilarity AND sadness to ensue?

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 30, 2011 |

Stephen Colbert and the FEC squared off today in Washington over the fake news anchor’s SuperPAC request. Colbert testified today in an FEC hearing in which he sought a media exemption so he can form his own Super political action committee. The Comedy Central host has been making fun of campaign finance laws for months and today was the moment of truth for the comedian. Colbert has brought attention to the controversial campaign finance laws and has been largely seen as showing how absurd the laws surrounding a SuperPAC can be.

Public Citizen’s Congress Watch (our colleagues in DC) sent a letter to the FEC urging them to deny Stephen Colbert’s request for a media exemption. Public Citizen’s own Craig Holman said that “This would carve out a gaping loophole in campaign finance laws, allowing any company involved in media to foot, in secret and without limit, the electioneering expenses of political committees. If the press exemption were to be so dangerously expanded by the FEC, the next request will be for media companies to directly finance unlimited candidate campaigns under the press exemption – an abuse that is already being advocated in some quarters.”  What does that mean?  Well, it means if Viacom resources can be used to produce ads for ColbertPAC, then Fox could possibly produce ads for their contributors, such as Karl Rove and his SuperPAC, CrossroadsGPS. It would be a terrible slippery slope and stretch our campaign finance laws to the breaking point.

The members of the FEC appeared to take notice of Public Citizen’s request, voting in favor of allowing Stephen Colbert to have a SuperPAC, but with the narrow media exemption we advocated. In a vote of 5-1, the FEC approved a modified version of the Colbert Advisory Opinion request that is fairly narrow and consistent with the current press exemption.

The FEC today has made a good decision in the minds of advocates for campaign finance reform. They have drawn a line in the sand between media companies and political action committees. They have also not been hypocritical in their decisions, and thus have allowed for a comedian to create a SuperPAC (much like the ones Karl Rove and Sarah Palin have created), who may as well be comedians because their campaign finance activities make us laugh because without laughing we’d cry. With the Supreme Court’s recent controversial ruling on public financing of elections, it’s nice to have some comic relief in the twisted world that is campaign finance.

Thanks to our friends at CREW who posted this video on their blog:

Colbert makes some good points here, but also does what we think is really necessary: by “kidding on the square“, he’s using humor to point out exactly how ridiculous our campaign finance laws are. Because when he starts running his ads, people will notice. And hopefully they’ll realize the real jokes are not Colbert, but the other superPACs out there.

Colbert put it best: “Some of you have cynically asked “Is this some kind of joke?” I, for one, don’t think participating in democracy is a joke… that wanting to know what the rules are is a joke. But I do have one federal election law joke.

Knock Knock

(who’s there)

Unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions.

(Unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions who?)

That’s the thing, I don’t think I should have to tell you.”

The joke is serious. Colbert is right. The Supreme Court with Citizens United have created the most absurd unintended consequences ever. We need real campaign finance reform, but we hope Colbert’s laughs will bring others to the cause.


Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »