Switchboard, from NRDC › Erin Allweiss's Blog

Stop Stalling, Get Working: Opposition Wasting Energy and Time

2009-05-20T18:30:15Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

The Energy and Commerce Committee is working overtime to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act by Friday. The obstructionist tactics by Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) and his opposition allies are meant to run the clock so it won't be finished by the Memorial Day goal.

While Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) have been working since January to pass this clean energy bill, the opposition has refused to come to the table and negotiate. Instead, Rep. Barton and others in the opposition are stalling with more than 400 unproductive and time-consuming amendments that they know won't go anywhere, such as one yesterday from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that required the cost of the legislation to be printed on everything short of a baby's forehead. David Doniger, Policy Director for NRDC's Climate Center, writes more about these tactics in his blog.

Congressman Barton and his cohorts are standing in the way of progress that is widely supported by Americans, will spur investment in clean energy from the wind and sun, and will reduce our dependence on dirty and expensive fuels.

Reps. Waxman and Markey have made the process as open as possible, holding more than ten hearings on the legislation. According to a letter Chairman Waxman sent to Congressman Barton, over the past two Congresses the Committee has held more than 40 days of hearings on energy and global warming policy, at which more than 300 witnesses testified - 130 of them this year alone.

Despite the many opportunities for Congressman Barton to weigh in, shape the bill, and represent the interests if his constituents, he is doing nothing but delaying the process. Either the opposition is out of ideas, which is why they are running the clock, or they are unwilling to work with their colleagues to compromise.

Either way, these tactics are harmful to the Congressional process and are holding back the solutions that America needs to move to a clean energy future. Leaders on the Committee have been doing real work for months, so it's time for Barton and co. to stop stalling and get working.

Obama: Our Clean Energy Future is Now

2009-02-25T02:48:32Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

Tonight Barack Obama delivered an inspirational speech to a country in need of hope, something he was not short on throughout the campaign and not short on tonight. It made me hopeful to hear him make clean energy a fundamental force in our nation's recovery.

As he said, "the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century." Not only did he commit to repowering America with renewable energy, energy efficiency, and a smarter smart grid...but he actually outlined his plan for putting a cap on carbon emissions and creating revenues that will fund renewable energy technologies.

Tonight he asked Congress to send him "legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America." This means, he explained, investing fifteen billion dollars a year on efficiency, on biofuels, and on harnessing the natural power of the wind, sun, and heat of the earth.

This is absolutely the change that America needs, and it is change that will set our nation on the path to a clean energy economy. As the president unveils his budget outline on Thursday, I expect to see - and share - more details about President Obama's plan to refuel our nation and jumpstart our economy.

House Passes Stimulus and Funds Transit

2009-01-28T23:28:41Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

I'm happy to report that the House not only passed the stimulus, but it passed the amendment introduced by Rep. Nadler (D-NY) to increase transit funding by $3 billion. This means a total of $12 billion for transit in the stimulus.

Christopher Conkey at the WSJ reports on this, and Deron Lovaas, NRDC's federal transportation policy director, notes in his blog that "Congress is clearly catching up with public support for more and cleaner transportation choices."

It's exciting to see both Republicans and Democrats come forward in favor of transportation funding. To take a page out of President Obama's book, this isn't a red issue or a blue issue. Investing in public transportation is simply a smart investment with high returns. In fact, transit investments create 19 percent more jobs per dollar than building new roads or bridges.

Also, giving people more transportation options - particularly public transit options - is a surefire way to reduce our dependence on oil and cut back on global warming pollution. Public transportation saves nearly 2 billion gallons of fuel each year, and produces less than a third of the pollution of comparable passenger car travel.

This is a good start to improving America's infrastructure and laying the groundwork for our nation's clean energy economy. The Senate is expected to pass its version of the economic recovery bill next week, and I'll keep you updated on transportation and other green developments...

What's So Green About the Stimulus?

2009-01-28T15:26:44Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

It's been quite the week. Last Tuesday President-elect Barack Obama came to the Hill to be sworn in, and yesterday President Obama returned to meet with lawmakers about the much anticipated economic recovery package.

NRDC's experts have been weighing in on opportunities to make the stimulus as strong and green as possible. Set for a vote in the House later today and next week in the Senate, the stimulus package contains vital provisions to make America's homes and buildings more energy efficient. There are also weatherization programs for low-income families, investments in water and transportation infrastructure, and funding for renewable energy.

The bill is still being shaped. In fact, House members tried to offer 206 amendments to it! Because things are changing so quickly, I want to provide a brief sketch of where NRDC stands on some vital provisions.

Public Transit and Transportation Infrastructure
In his recent Huffington Post blog, Deron Lovaas, NRDC's Federal Transportation Policy Director, made a case for how best to spend our transportation dollars. Currently, the stimulus provides $30 billion for highways, $9 billion for transit, and $1 billion for rail. But to maximize job growth and cut down on global warming pollution, we need to increase transit funding and make sure that highway investment is explicitly targeted to repair and maintenance of crumbling roads and bridges.

This is why Deron is working with other groups and members of Congress to support an amendment that would increase funding for transit and rail to $12 billion. The amendment will be voted on later today...

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Efficiency is the fastest, cleanest, and cheapest energy resource we have. Renewable energy resources such as the sun and wind are plentiful and technologies are just beginning to tap their potential.

The House economic recovery bill contains a number of excellent clean energy provisions, including $3.4 billion for states for clean energy projects.

The bill also includes an urgently needed grants program for renewable energy technologies covered by the renewable energy tax incentives. The value of these tax incentives has been seriously undermined by the economic downturn because business losses are soaking up most of the tax liability, and thus there is far less need for the renewable energy tax incentives.

A good solution to this problem is the renewable energy grants program in the House bill. The program would provide grants to renewable energy technologies in lieu of tax incentives. This funding is essential to keep the renewable industry growing and is estimated to cost very little to the taxpayer.

Other key clean energy provisions in the House bill are $6.2 for weatherization of low income homes, $3.5 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (supports clean energy projects primarily at the city and county levels), $2 billion for clean energy research & development, and $6 billion for increasing energy efficiency in federal buildings.

Jim Presswood, NRDC's Federal Energy Policy Director, told me that "the House bill's clean energy investments are a bold step towards jump-starting America's clean energy economy."

Water
The stimulus package contains funding to improve our nation's drinking and waste water systems and contains billions for ready-to-go water infrastructure projects, although the House and Senate have yet to agree on how much to spend.

Nancy Stoner, Co-Director of NRDC's Water Program, is following these provisions and writes about the value of investing in our water infrastructure on her blog. Stoner told me that "she is excited to see funding for these vital projects, which will have long-term effects on the quality and safety of our nation's water."

While the stimulus doesn't have everything NRDC would like to see in it, it certainly is a refreshing shift away from policies of the previous administratio. As the bill moves through the House and to the Senate, I'll provide updates on any changes to these important provisions.

Robert Redford and NRDC Join Forces to Stop Sale of Utah Wilderness

2008-12-17T17:45:00Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

Normally when Congress heads home, things quiet down in Washington. That really isn't the case right now... particularly today when Robert Redford joined NRDC and Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA) for a press conference on the Bush administration's most recent midnight maneuver: a giveaway of Utah wilderness to their dearest friends - oil and gas companies.

Redford is not only an actor and director, but he is an environmentalist and trustee of NRDC with roots in Utah. As he said today, "you can't put a price on silence or solitude." But if the administration moves forward, hundreds of thousands of acres of Utah wilderness would be auctioned off to the highest bidder, leading to irreparable damage to our nation's most treasured landscape.

At the event today, NRDC, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Earthjustice announced that it was taking legal action to stop the auction, which is scheduled to occur this Friday, December 19.

As NRDC's Sharon Buccino, the director of our land program, said this morning, "Today's lawsuit gives notice to oil and gas companies that the challenged leases may be found unlawful. Anyone buying them at Friday's sale will be proceeding at their peril."

I'm lucky to have her on my team!

The lawsuit challenges the leasing of eighty lease parcels affecting nearly 110,000 acres of some of Utah's most spectacular red rock country. Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration rushed to get these leases out the door. Tim Egan addressed this irreversible - and irresponsible - midnight maneuver in Sunday's New York Times.

While it is both saddening and infuriating to think that we could lose more than 100,000 acres of wilderness to this administration's midnight giveaway, it's uplifting to know that we have people like Robert Redford and Sharon Buccino fighting to protect our land.

With the lawsuit dropped just this morning, and only two days before the fire sale, you can help NRDC take this to court.

In the meantime, I'll be watching to see what happens...

Washington this Week: From the Bailout to New Appointments to Repowering America

2008-12-12T15:29:15Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

I'm embarrassed to admit that I haven't blogged since November 20, but I plead Thanksgiving on my lackluster online performance. Now I'm back with a bang after a hectic week in Washington.

The bailout of U.S. automakers has been on everyone's minds, including those behind the New York Times editorial page, which cites analysis NRDC released early this week. For the companies and workers who were relying on a bailout, late last night the Senate rejected a plan to aid the auto industry that the House passed earlier this week. While a bailout for Ford, GM and Chrysler may still be on the table, any deal should require these companies to retool. For America's automakers to remain competitive at a time of insecure markets, fluctuating energy prices, and rising temperatures, they will succeed only by making better, more efficient vehicles.

This week's intense - and often emotional - debate over the auto bailout highlights the failed policies of the Bush administration. With one of the worst environmental records in history, it is exciting to look ahead to what's next. Frances Beinecke, NRDC's president, notes that although President Bush made a campaign promise to end global warming, he appointed a controversial cabinet that moved an industry agenda rather than an environmental and climate agenda.

President-elect Obama's choices for top energy and environment positions paint a much different picture. Beinecke outlines why his choices for "Energy Czar," Head of the Department of Energy, Head of EPA, Head of Council for Environmental Quality, and Head of the Department of Commerce have bolstered confidence in this administration's commitments to protecting public health, ending global warming and advancing environmental stewardship.

There has been great buzz at NRDC, on Capitol Hill and in the broader environmental community around these choices, and already we are working with the incoming team to spur a green economic recovery. Earlier this week, 16 organizations handed over more than 80 proposals that would repower America with up to 4 million jobs, reduce pollution, save energy, protect public health and safety, and restore the environment. The documents we handed over to the transition team can be found out http://www.saveourenvironment.org/.

Although members of Congress have left Washington, I'm hopeful that they are combing through these proposals and assembling an economic recovery package that will not only create as many jobs as possible, but also end our dependence on dirty fuels and address global warming.

A Green Shake-Up in Washington

2008-11-20T23:11:30Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

Change has come to DC, and it's not just Barack Obama who is shaking things up. This morning, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) took over the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, the committee that will be responsible for writing global warming legislation. Congressman Waxman replaces Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), another great leader on toxics, endangered species, and EPA-related issues, and is known for maintaining scientific integrity and holding polluters accountable. He will work with the new administration to address the global climate crisis - a top priority laid out by the president-elect.

On Tuesday, in a taped statement, President-elect Obama clearly affirmed his commitment to addressing global warming. After eight years of working with an administration that has actively avoided necessary action on global warming, we have a president who recognizes the urgency of the situation and believes it should be a top priority for his administration.

Frances Beinecke, the President of NRDC, said it best in her blog: "U.S. leadership on the climate crisis has arrived."

How right she is, and how good it feels to have a leader who believes we must work together to confront this challenge. As sea levels rise and places like my hometown of New Orleans grow more susceptible to stronger storms, the time to solve global warming is now.

The third green act of the week came this afternoon when Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, echoed President-elect Obama's commitment. She said: "I believe strongly that when we address the threat of unchecked global warming by investing in clean energy technologies and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we also have a recipe for economic recovery. The time to start is now..."

In her speech, Senator Boxer announced plans to introduce two pieces of legislation that will curb global warming pollution, fund clean energy technology, and create good jobs.

It is hard to describe the sense of change in DC. After years of environmentalists playing defense, we are now working together to take on the climate crisis, the greatest challenge of this generation. With all that has happened this week, I can't help but feel hopeful as the shake-up continues.

Oil Shale: Ten Questions, No Answers

2008-10-16T14:32:04Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

On the heels of Congress lifting the moratorium on leasing lands to develop oil shale, Rand released a study that is as interesting for what's in it as for what's been left out.

RAND, a renowned non-profit that provides analyses on key policy issues, recently conducted a comprehensive study of the impacts and viability of all the dirty fuels: tar sands, coal-to-liquids, and oil shale. Interestingly, when confronted with the inherent unknowns that define the currently non-existent oil shale industry, RAND chose not to attempt any further exploration of this key dirty fuel. RAND experts state in their report:

Although oil shale is also an important potential unconventional fossil resource, we do not address it in this report because fundamental uncertainty remains about the technology that could ultimately be used for large-scale extraction, as well as about its cost and environmental implications. The omission from this report of renewable fuel options and other propulsion technologies should not be interpreted as a conclusion that the fossil-based options are superior to others.

The inability to examine oil shale and address critical questions about its costs and environmental impacts speaks to a greater problem regarding this nation's emerging commitment to develop this resource - how can we proceed with creating regulations for an industry when we do not know what technology will be used and cannot identify its consequences?

According to an expert at NRDC, the following are questions that cannot be answered conclusively by anyone associated with the oil shale industry - yet must be if we are to proceed with the development of this fuel:

How much energy will it take to extract fuel from oil shale? Massive power generation will be required to extract the fuel out of the ground. How much and what form it will take - coal generation, nuclear - is something no one can answer.
What will be the impacts to climate change? The latest estimates are that oil shale production and combustion together will produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as current conventional fuels. It may be more.
How will the petroleum products in oil shale actually be extracted? At this point, squeezing oil out of rock at a profitable rate is nothing short of alchemy. We cannot even begin to understand if this feat is an economically realistic proposition.
What will be the economic costs to the region and the nation as a whole? U.S. taxpayers already are on the hook for over two billion dollars of federally backed subsidies for oil shale, as was recently mandated by the bailout bill. This is money set aside for an industry that does not even exist yet. The last time an oil shale industry was attempted in the U.S., in 1982, a bubble collapsed all investment; the impacts of that bubble are still felt to this day in local communities.
What will the impacts be to the air quality of the West? Nearly all of the oil shale resources in the nation reside in the western United States, known for its pristine air quality. It is unknown what an oil shale industry would do to the clean skies that define the region.
The same goes for water; what will happen to the clean water upon which much of the West depends? Oil shale production could contaminate the Colorado River Basin, rendering it unusable for many of the agricultural users who depend on its clean waters.
How much water will be required to produce oil shale? General estimates have shown that for every barrel of oil shale produced, three or more barrels of equivalent water would be required. This shift of water usage could have massive impacts in this arid region where practically every drop of water is more valuable than gold.
What will be the health impacts to those who live in the region? As we've seen with the proliferation of oil and gas drilling in the West, fossil fuel extraction dirties the air, water, and soil - causing unintended impacts to the health and wellbeing of the region's residents.
What will happen to the fish and wildlife of the region? All of these impacts will probably render the land that currently teems with wildlife utterly inhospitable.
What will happen to the wildlands impacted by oil shale drilling? Government estimates show that over two million acres of federally owned land would be subject to oil shale development in the wilds of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Oil shale drilling would require that any vegetation be scraped bare and hilly land would have to be leveled. It is difficult to imagine what the region will look like when the roads and pipelines necessary for oil shale production crisscross the landscape.

With our economy in a state of crisis, now is not the time to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on dirty fuels like oil shale, coal to liquids, and tar sands. Now is the time to make wise investments that will spur a green economy and create millions of new jobs. In excluding oil shale from its report, RAND suggests that we need these questions answered before we can consider oil shale, let alone start investing in its future.

What Says the President on Mercury?

2008-10-10T21:33:44Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

Last week, Congress passed the "Mercury Market Minimization Act," a bill that will protect Americans and people around the world from mercury poisoning by banning the export of elemental mercury, a neurotoxin that is dangerous for pregnant women and young children.

Currently, mercury is exported to developing countries for use in highly polluting industries like mining. It contaminates both the air and water at high levels, impacting not only the local environment but also the environment thousands of miles away when it enters our food chain.

My colleagues at NRDC have been working on the Mercury Market Minimization Act for years, and it was a tremendous victory for them - as well as for people at risk of mercury exposure - when Congress agreed to ban the export of this dangerous substance.

At a time when policy has taken a backseat to partisanship, this bill's passage is a shining light during a tough time in DC. With impressive bipartisan support, the House passed the bill by a vote of 395-5, and the Senate passed it by Unanimous Consent. You can read about the bill in NRDC's press release.

Now the spotlight turns to President Bush, who received the bill more than a week ago and has yet to sign it. As soon as he signs it, the legislation takes effect, banning all exports as of Jan. 1, 2013. If he doesn't sign the bill by October 15th, it automatically takes effect. With only a few months to go before the end of his presidency, I hope he puts down the veto pen and instead uses this opportunity to enact bipartisan legislation that protects people's health both here and abroad.

Shale Baby Shale? The clock strikes 12.

2008-09-30T21:13:19Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

At midnight tonight, the moratorium banning offshore drilling will expire, allowing oil companies to drill as close as three miles from our shores. The energy debate devolved into a narrow argument over drilling, which my colleague Rob Perks addresses in his blog.

The calls for "drill baby drill" provided enough distraction for some members of Congress to push through the expiration of another moratorium - this one on oil shale. According to many of our experts at NRDC, the potential impact of this development could be far worse than drilling for oil.

Oil shale, which is found in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, releases four times the amount of global warming pollution as conventional fuel. It can be converted into liquid petroleum and then transportation fuel, but only after being heated to 900 degrees for five years or more. It's also a technology that is largely untested.

Jad Mouawad writes about oil shale in the New York Times blog Green Inc.

It is mind boggling that instead of investing in our nation's green infrastructure, Big Oil allies in Washington would work to lease more than 2 million acres of public land to develop this energy intensive fuel.

Many in the House and Senate worked to keep this important moratorium in place. Senators Reid and Byrd offered an amendment to prevent the Department of Interior from leasing federal land for oil shale production. Although the bill to keep the ban failed by 8 votes, it sets a mark for the 111th Congress and our new president to reinstate this vital moratorium and start investing in a clean energy future that will create jobs and jumpstart our economy.

Keeping an Eye on the Energy Debate

2008-09-16T22:57:37Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

Right now, the House is in full debate over an energy bill that has some good and some bad energy policies.

You can read the statement NRDC's President issued today in response to this bill: http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080916.asp

Among the good provisions are energy efficiency codes for buildings and incentives for solar and wind energy. Among the bad is oil shale, one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet.

Having worked on Capitol Hill, I understand the compromise that went into crafting this bill and the difficult decisions that must be made. But certain decisions should be easy: we should invest in clean, renewable energy, not more of the same policies that got us into this mess. Right? Wrong.

This legislation is the result of policy being hijacked by politics, and it is clear that Big Oil paid big bucks to sway the politics in their favor. According to the nonpartisan group Public Campaign Action Fund, Big Oil spent more than $200 million on advertising in the first six months of 2008. They fed off the fears of Americans forced to cope with rising energy costs and distorted the facts.

Oil companies know we can not drill our way out of this problem, and even Phyllis Martin, a senior analyst at the U.S. Department of Energy, says they are "wrong to say it'll have a big impact on prices."

Yet as we watch the House debate unfold, we should look for allies of Big Oil to offer even more drilling and other bad alternatives. They will do this through something called a "Motion to Recommit," which in real people's terms means they will vote to amend the bill. This would be an unfortunate outcome, and Americans deserve better energy policies that will move our country forward.

Oil Spills, Hurricanes and a Renewable Future

2008-09-13T22:06:30Z

Erin Allweiss, NRDC alum

Hurricane Katrina’s third anniversary fell on the heels of the Democratic convention, the start of the Republican convention, and in the midst of Hurricane Gustav. Now we are faced with Ike while, on the floors of Congress, the debate continues over how to address our nation’s energy needs. While those allied with Big Oil argue we should drill and only drill, there are serious consequences for expanding offshore drilling in certain areas.

As a native of New Orleans, I feel a deep connection to this issue. Having returned dozens of times to the city since Katrina, my most vivid memory is of St. Bernard Parish, an area adjacent to the Lower Ninth Ward, which was devastated by an oil spill. On my first visit post Katrina, I drove with my family through the wreckage. The floodwaters had lifted a storage tank, spilling more than 25,000 of its 65,000 barrels of mixed crude oil. The spill destroyed 1700 homes and thousands of lives.

While some argue that drilling is safe, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone resulted in 125 spills from platforms, rigs and pipelines, totaling 685,000 gallons. The memory of Hurricane Katrina, and the neighborhoods and wetlands destroyed by oil spills, are grave reminders of the worst consequences of offshore drilling.

As we look to drill off the coasts of Florida, the Carolinas, and Georgia – all members of the infamous “Hurricane Alley” – St. Bernard Parish should serve as a warning.

Three years after Katrina, parts of St. Bernard Parish are still an oil slice.

Three years after Katrina, the Government Accountability Office released a report saying that the city of New Orleans is not even close to being done cleaning up its mess, including the oil residue that cakes parts of the city.

Three years after Katrina, more hurricanes are brewing. Last month, Hurricane Fay hit the coast of Florida not once, not twice, but three times. Early this month, Hurricane Gustav pounded the Gulf shores, forcing my family and millions of others to flee New Orleans and surrounding areas. Now, Hurricane Ike is gaining speed, sending oil companies scrambling.

Exposing parts of our coastal communities to deadly risk just isn’t worth it, yet congressional allies of oil companies believe we should drill, drill, drill and drill more. What we need instead is to invest in clean, homegrown American energy that will end our dependence on foreign oil without destroying our coasts.

This week the House of Representatives unveiled a bill that would invest in renewable energy technologies. Although it would allow for drilling off our coasts, states can choose to opt-out of the drilling. Most importantly, the bill contains important provisions for renewable electricity standards, green building codes, and investments in wind and solar energy – neither of which can spill or run out. This will not only insulate us from global oil spikes, but it will create millions of green jobs to jumpstart the Gulf Coast’s devastated economy.

Unfortunately, Big Oil’s congressional allies want to make this bill just about drilling. Right now, they are planning to change the bill, potentially by stripping the good, renewable energy provisions and allowing drilling everywhere - even in vulnerable, Hurricane-prone areas. It will be to the detriment of America’s energy future if these provisions are removed, especially because America is ready now for bold leadership on a better way forward. Congress needs to make sure this bill does more than just advance our addiction to oil.

The 685,000 gallons of oil spilled in New Orleans is one of the many reasons we should not simply risk our hurricane prone coasts. With the memories of Katrina still fresh and engrained in the American conscience, let’s consider these consequences and move forward with investments in clean, renewable energy.