Let’s hope it makes it intact through the Senate. DV

July 30, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-bill-20100731,0,1548806.story

The bill, passed 209 to 193, would impose new safeguards for offshore drilling, remove a liability cap for spill damages, and hit energy producers with a new tax to fund conservation measures.
By Richard Simon, Reporting from Washington
July 31, 2010

In its most sweeping response to the gulf oil spill, the House on Friday approved legislation that would impose new environmental safeguards for offshore drilling, remove a liability cap for spill damages, and slap industry with a new tax to fund conservation projects nationwide.

The Democratic-drafted legislation passed on a largely party-line 209-193 vote but faces trouble in the deeply divided Senate.

“The Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent damage that has occurred over the past 102 days is indeed a game-changer,” said Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

The measure, which follows dozens of Capitol Hill hearings into the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, would remove a $75-million liability cap on oil firms for economic damages caused by spills. It would also hit energy producers with a new $2 per barrel tax to fund land purchases for national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

The House bill would set new standards for blowout preventers, the safety device that apparently failed on BP’s blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico. And it would repeal an 1851 law that rig owner Transocean has sought to use to limit its liability for the disaster.

The bill, which has become entangled in election-year politics, was backed by Democrats who said it would help prevent another oil spill disaster and hold oil companies more accountable for spills. It was opposed by Republicans who argued it would raise the cost of domestic energy production and increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

“Let’s vote to ensure that a spill of this kind never happens again,” said Rep. Lois Capps, a Democrat whose Santa Barbara district was the scene of a devastating oil spill in 1969.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who heads the House GOP campaign committee, urged Republican colleagues heading home Friday for summer recess to tell voters that Democrats were “sticking it to the consumer again at the gas pump.”

“If you want to apologize for Big Oil, go ahead,” responded Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). “The American people are not on your side on this one.”

Gulf Coast lawmakers were among the bill’s sharpest critics.

“This isn’t the answer to help the gulf,” said Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), contending that the bill would increase the cost of domestic energy production. “It only helps OPEC.”

The oil industry accused lawmakers of acting in haste without waiting for the results of multiple investigations into the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion.

“Congress has not taken the steps to understand not only the causes of the oil spill, but also the full impact of this legislation on the economic and national security of our nation,” said Barry Russell, president and chief executive of the Independent Petroleum Assn. of America.

Rahall dismissed industry criticism as “sheer hyperventilation” and urged critics of the legislation to “take a look at the spill in the gulf to see how an overly permissive attitude can turn into a real horror story.”

The bill would repeal a provision of the 2005 energy law that exempted projects, including the Deepwater Horizon drilling, from detailed environmental analysis. It would bar companies with poor safety and environmental records from receiving new offshore drilling leases. And it would require offshore drilling rigs to operate under the U.S. flag, requiring tougher safety rules than those in effect for the Deepwater Horizon, which was registered in the Marshall Islands.

The measure would prohibit oil companies from bidding on new offshore leases unless they renegotiate royalty-free offshore oil leases that were approved in the 1990s. It would establish new ethics rules for drilling regulators; increase fines to $10 million, from $100,000, for willful violations of drilling rules; and establish new procedures for use of oil dispersants.

A separate measure to provide whistleblower protections to offshore drilling workers was approved.

The House approved an amendment that would lift the Obama administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium for companies that meet new safety rules. Gulf Coast lawmakers have said the moratorium is damaging their region’s economy.

What effect the provision would have is uncertain since a final bill is unlikely to go the White House until September at the earliest. The moratorium is due to expire Nov. 30, but Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said it could end earlier if drilling can proceed safely.

Senators could take up their version of the legislation before they leave town at the end of next week. The Senate Democrats’ bill, like the House bill, would remove the liability cap. Republicans object to this provision, however, saying that removing the cap would drive smaller companies out of the gulf.

Even though Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster. Also, energy politics can sometimes divide lawmakers by region, instead of party affiliation. Democrats from energy-producing states like Alaska and Louisiana may be reluctant to support any measure they believe will hurt an industry that is important to their state’s economy.

One common feature of the House bill and the Senate Democrats’ proposal would provide $900 million a year for land purchases for national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

That would provide a level of funding reached only once since President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 signed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. Environmentalists already are drawing wish lists of projects.

A funding increase would provide “the catalyst to complete our land acquisition plan” for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, said Woody Smeck, acting deputy regional director of the National Park Service’s Pacific West Region. “We have 22,500 acres still to acquire from willing sellers.”

The legislation also would write into law the Obama administration’s revamping of the scandal-plagued federal agency that oversees offshore drilling, in order to reduce potential conflicts of interest.

richard.simon@latimes.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Just 31% of Garden State residents are in favor of drilling for oil or gas off the New Jersey coast while 63% are opposed
also:
“When asked to choose between two priorities for U.S. energy policy, more New Jerseyans would emphasize protecting the environment (55%) over keeping energy prices low (28%). Democrats (66%)

and independents (56%) are more likely than Republicans (37%) to place a higher priority on environmental protection over lower energy prices.”
Richard Charter

Opinion marks about-face from two years ago

Two years ago, most New Jerseyans supported off-shore drilling near the state’s coast. Today, not so much. The latest Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Press Media Poll also finds some concern that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill could eventually wash up on Jersey beaches.

Just 31% of Garden State residents are in favor of drilling for oil or gas off the New Jersey coast, while 63% are opposed. This marks a turnaround from two years ago, when a majority of 56% favored this energy option compared to only 36% who opposed it.

By comparison, support for both wind and nuclear energy remains basically unchanged. Fully 8-in-10 residents support the placement of energy-generating windmills off the New Jersey coast (80% today, compared to 82% in 2008) and just under 4-in-10 support building another nuclear power plant in the state (37% today, compared to 41% in 2008).

Interestingly, support levels for any of these energy options – drilling, wind, nuclear – are no different among those living in the state’s six coastal counties (i.e. Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, Salem) than they are for those living further inland.

“New Jersey has historically been concerned with environmental issues and the specter of
anything washing up on our beaches may heighten anxiety over off-shore drilling. The fact that concern is the same for coastal and inland residents may speak to how much all New Jerseyans value our shore as a state asset,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute.

The three month old oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has captured the attention of Garden State residents, with 85% saying they have read or heard a lot about this incident. More than half of New Jerseyans think that remnants of the oil spill washing up on our state’s shores is a possibility. This includes 17% who consider it very likely to happen and 36% who say it is somewhat likely. Another 22% say the chances of this happening are not too likely and 20% rule it out entirely. [Note: the poll was conducted just prior to the tentative capping of the well on July 15.]

Only 25% of New Jerseyans approve of the U.S. government’s handling of the spill. Another 68% disapprove, including 83% of Republicans, 75% of independents, and 55% of Democrats.

Nearly 6-in-10 residents (59%) believe the accident indicates there are significant safety problems with off-shore drilling. Only 36% view this as an isolated incident that does not suggest there are fundamental problems with such drilling activity. Republicans (53%) are more likely than independents (37%) and Democrats (27%) to believe that the accident was unusual rather than indicative of systematic problems with off-shore drilling.

When asked to choose between two priorities for U.S. energy policy, more New Jerseyans would emphasize protecting the environment (55%) over keeping energy prices low (28%). Democrats (66%) and independents (56%) are more likely than Republicans (37%) to place a higher priority on environmental protection over lower energy prices.

The Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Press Media Poll was conducted by telephone with 801 New Jersey adults from July 7 to 11, 2010. This sample has a margin of error of + 3.5 percent.

The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute and originally published by the New Jersey Press Media newspaper group (Asbury Park Press, Courier-Post, Courier News, Daily Journal, Daily Record, and Home News Tribune).

Please attribute this information to:

Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey

Press Media Poll

For more information:

Monmouth University Polling Institute

West Long Branch, NJ 07764

www.monmouth.edu/polling

Monmouth University Polling Institute 7/21/10

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?p=1037

I hope this translates into support for renewable energy legislation. DV

Support For Policies To Counter Global Warming Holds Steady

SAN FRANCISCO, July 28, 2010- Three months after a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Californians’ support for more drilling off their coast has plunged, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). A solid majority of the state’s residents now oppose more offshore drilling (59% oppose, 36% favor)-a 16-point increase in opposition from last year (43% oppose, 51% favor). The PPIC survey was conducted with support from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and is the 10th in a series about Californians and the environment.

In contrast to the shift in opinion on drilling, Californians’ views on another contentious environmental policy issue have held steady since last year. Two-thirds (67% today, 66% in 2009) favor the state law (AB 32) that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

AB 32 is the focus of renewed debate because Proposition 23 on the November ballot asks whether the law should be suspended until unemployment drops to 5.5% or below for a minimum of one year. Because the ballot language has not been finalized, we posed a more general question about timing: Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improve? A slim majority (53%) say California should act right away, while 42 percent say the state should wait.

“Two crises-a major oil spill and a major recession-have affected Californians’ views on environmental policy in very different ways,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. “After consistently opposing more offshore oil drilling, residents began to waver as gas prices increased. But events in the gulf appear to have renewed opposition to more drilling here. In contrast, the lingering effect of the recession and a continuing state budget crisis haven’t changed Californians’ overall view of AB 32. While support has declined somewhat since 2007, a solid majority still favors the law.”

Little Confidence in Federal Spill Response
Partisan divisions are stark in many of the environmental survey findings. On the question of allowing more drilling, Democrats (72%) and independents (64%) oppose it, while Republicans (64%) favor it.

Californians are more united in their low levels of confidence in the federal government’s handling of the oil spill. Just 21 percent have either a great deal (8%) or good amount (13%) of confidence in the government to make the right decisions in dealing with the spill. Fewer than one in five residents across political, regional, and demographic groups express a great deal of confidence. Residents also lack confidence in the federal government’s ability to prevent future spills. About three in 10 are very (7%) or fairly (21%) confident; 32 percent are not very confident and 37 percent are not confident at all.

Build More Nuclear Plants? Californians Divided
The question about oil drilling is one of four that PPIC asked about U.S. energy policies. On another issue-nuclear power-Californians are divided (49% oppose, 44% favor) about building more nuclear power plants at this time to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources. On this question, too, partisan differences emerge: 57 percent of Democrats are opposed, while 67 percent of Republicans and half of independents (51%) favor building more plants now.
There is considerably more consensus on the two other policies. To address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, overwhelming majorities favor increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology (83%), and favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country (83%). Strong majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups hold these views.

(This year we asked these energy policy questions in two ways. Half of our sample was asked the questions as we have in the past, with the introductory phrase, “Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals?” Half of the sample was asked the policy questions without this introductory phrase, to test whether or not the framing of the question influenced responses. Results for the four questions asked with the introductory phrase and without it are similar. Details on page 31.)

Will Action To Curb Warming Lead To Lost Jobs? Most Say No
Most Californians (54%) say global warming is already having an impact but are somewhat less likely to hold this view than they were last July (61%). Today 28 percent say global warming’s effects will be felt sometime in the future-up 6 points since last year-while just 16 percent say they will never happen. Nearly three-fourths say global warming is a very serious (44%) or somewhat serious (29%) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. These findings are similar to last year but have declined since July 2007 (54% very serious, 28% somewhat serious).
Against a backdrop of state and national debates over climate change policies, Californians (76%) support government regulation of emissions from sources like power plants, cars, and factories, with 85 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents, and 51 percent of Republicans holding this view. Although a majority (67%) support the idea of AB 32, party divisions are strong: 80 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are in favor, but only 39 percent of Republicans share this view.

Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until unemployment in the state is 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. We asked Californians how the state’s actions to reduce global warming would affect employment. Forty-five percent say the result would be more jobs, 23 percent say fewer jobs, and 24 percent say the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected. Most Democrats (57%) and half of independents (50%) foresee more jobs in California as a result of action on global warming. Forty-three percent of Republicans foresee fewer jobs; half of Republicans say there would be more jobs (24%) or no effect on jobs (25%).

About half of Californians say the state (48%) and federal (52%) governments are not doing enough to address global warming. When it comes to ideas about state and federal actions to address global warming, strong majorities of Californians think the government should require: increased use of renewable energy sources by utilities (85%); industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce emissions (81%); all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars (79%); and an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances (75%). They also favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people can drive less (77%). Support for all of these policies is similar to last year.

Most Californians (54%) have not heard of one policy being discussed, the cap and trade system of setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions. After being read a brief description of the idea, 50 percent would support a cap and trade system and 40 percent would oppose it. They are much more likely to support a carbon tax (60% favor, 33% oppose).

Close Races For California Govern.or And U.S. Senate Seat
With the November election approaching, an overwhelming majority (79%) of likely voters say the gubernatorial candidates’ positions on the environment are at least somewhat important. Likely voters are closely divided between Democrat Jerry Brown (37%) and Republican Meg Whitman (34%), with 23 percent undecided. Of those saying that a candidate’s environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, 50 percent would vote for Brown and 16 percent would vote for Whitman. Among those who say a candidate’s environmental positions are somewhat important, Whitman is favored (42% to 33%). Preferences follow party lines, with independents split (30% Brown, 28% Whitman, 30% undecided). (The survey questionnaire lists results for all six candidates listed on the November ballot.)

Most likely voters (79%) also view the U.S. Senate candidates’ positions on the environment as at least somewhat important. Thirty-nine percent of likely voters support Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, 34 percent support Republican Carly Fiorina, and 22 percent are undecided. Those who view candidates’ positions on the environment as very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54%) as Fiorina (18%). Among those who say candidates’ views on the environment are somewhat important, support is evenly divided (37% to 37%). Each candidate has the support of her party’s likely voters. Among independents, 35 percent support Boxer, 29 percent support Fiorina, and 25 percent are undecided.

President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dropped 9 points since last July and 16 points since his record high (72%) in May 2009. Approval of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s handling of environmental issues (34%) is higher than his overall rating (25%). The state legislature’s approval rating is 15 percent.

Most Support Tougher Pollution Standards For New Vehicles
When asked the open-ended question of what is the most important environmental issue facing Californians, air pollution is most often mentioned, as it has been since 2000. But it has declined in importance to residents from 33 percent in 2000 to 23 percent today. Other frequently named issues this year are water supply (12%), energy and oil drilling (11%), and water pollution (6%).

Similar to last year (23%), one in four Californians consider air pollution in their region a big problem (25%). Majorities of residents in Los Angeles (63%), the Inland Empire (57%), and the Central Valley (54%) consider air pollution a very serious or somewhat serious health threat, and 43 percent of Californians say they or an immediate family member has asthma or other respiratory problems.

When it comes to air quality policies, a strong majority (70%) would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles. But there is much less agreement across party lines: 86 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are willing to see stricter standards, compared to 45 percent of Republicans.

The California Air Resources Board is poised to consider easing or delaying implementation of diesel pollution rules because of their economic impact on truck owners and businesses. Asked about tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, an overwhelming majority (75%) of Californians are willing to see stricter standards, a view held by solid majorities across political, regional, and demographic groups. Similarly, 75 percent would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities. A smaller majority (58%) would be willing to see tougher standards on agriculture and farm activities.

ABOUT THE SURVEY
The PPIC Statewide Survey has provided policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents since 1998. This is the 10th survey on the environment since 2000 and is part of an annual series conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. It is intended to inform policymakers and encourage discussion about environmental issues. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,502 California adult residents reached by landline and cell phones throughout the state. Interviews took place from July 6-20, 2010, and were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Korean. The sampling error is ±2 percent for all adults, ±2.2 percent for the 1,971 registered voters, and ±2.7 percent for the 1,321 likely voters. For more information on methodology, see pages 25-26.

Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998.

PPIC is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. As a private operating foundation, PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter

The Obama administration today formally cancelled two lease sales that were once part of President Obama’s plan for “the largest expansion of our nation’s available offshore oil and gas supplies in three decades.”

But in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the administration filed notices for the Federal Register that state the Interior Department needs time to do environmental reviews, scientific analysis and gather public input.

“Cancellation,” the notices say, “will allow time to develop and implement measures to improve the safety of oil and gas development in Federal waters, provide greater environmental protection, and substantially reduce the risk of catastrophic events.”

One of the lease sales was off Virginia and the other was in the western Gulf in waters as deep as 10,975 feet.

Obama had announced the decision on May 27 when he suspended the 33 deepwater exploratory wells then being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. Publication in the Federal Register will make it official. The notices will be published tomorrow, over the signature of Michael Bromwich, the head of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, the agency formerly known as the Minerals Management Service.

The filing drew praise from one of the environmental groups most critical of the Obama administration’s handling of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

“Obama’s decision to cancel these lease sales recognizes that risky offshore drilling needs reform,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Halting controversial lease sales is among the most proactive steps that Obama has taken toward the Gulf disaster.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40316.html
read more at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40316.html#ixzz0uyfIm5wL

I hope the Democrats hold a majority in Congress so we can continue to make at least minimal progress…DV

House and Senate Democratic leaders Tuesday rolled out their big “spill bills” – the main legislative responses to the Gulf oil spill. The proposals are packed with aggressive offshore drilling reforms that Republicans have long fought and were immediately met with fierce pushback from the GOP and the oil industry.

That could make it tough to get the bills passed, especially in the Senate, where a handful of oil-state Democrats may cross the aisle to vote against the package. But strategists say the Republican “no” votes will also benefit Democrats politically – and some Republicans say that’s why the so-called poison pill provisions were included.

“If, after the worst oil spill in the history of the country, Republicans were to vote no against new offshore drilling protections – can you imagine the ads?” asked one senior Democratic aide.

Campaign strategists certainly can. “Republicans have found themselves on the defensive on that issue, and they are sitting on piles of big oil contributions,” said a Democratic strategist. “Absolutely, this is something we will be playing up before Election Day.”

Democratic campaign committees are already preparing lists of Republicans to target with ads over the August recess in the event that they vote against the oil reform package, the strategist added.

Democrats say the spill bills simply represent a robust and long-overdue effort to reform the offshore drilling industry – which hasn’t been subject to a major overhaul since 1978. And they point out that many of the core provisions have already won bipartisan support. For example, at the heart of the Senate bill are provisions to reorganize the Interior Department’s oversight of offshore drilling, co-sponsored by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and the panel’s ranking member, Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska); a title to retrofit heavy vehicles to run on natural gas, co-sponsored by New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez and Utah Republican Orrin Hatch and the Homestar energy efficiency rebate program, Cash for Caulkers, co-sponsored by Bingaman and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham. The House bill includes elements of the Blowout Prevention Act, which passed through the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a unanimous vote, even drawing an “aye” from Texas Republican and BP
apologist Joe Barton.

But Republicans and the oil industry say that, in addition to those core bipartisan measures, Democrats have intentionally shoehorned provisions that are so onerous to the oil industry that Republican allies will be forced to vote no.

Special thanks to Richard Charter