http:\/\/www.bna.com\/obama-policy-control-n17179880877\/<\/p>\n
Thursday, December 19, 2013
\nfrom Daily Report for Executives\u2122<\/p>\n
By Paul Shukovsky<\/p>\n
Dec. 18 –Even as President Barack Obama promises to implement
\naggressive regulatory measures to rein in climate change domestically,
\nthis year his administration used the same regulatory authority to
\nquietly position the U.S. to become a global leader in fossil fuel
\nexports.<\/p>\n
Much of the policy is being carried out behind closed doors.<\/p>\n
At its nexus is the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The
\nCEQ exercises oversight, in secret, over the ways that permitting
\nagencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
\nLand Management implement the National Environmental Policy Act.<\/p>\n
In a series of decisions made by regulators under CEQ oversight,
\nproposals for projects to export–for the first time in U.S. history–
\nhuge amounts of coal to Asia and liquefied natural gas globally are
\nbeing evaluated without a comprehensive analysis of the impact of
\nexporting on climate change.
\n‘Chilling Effect.’<\/p>\n
In June, after being summoned to a series of NEPA-consultation meetings
\nconvened by the council–the corps said that it wouldn’t consider the
\nclimate-change impact of burning hundreds of millions of tons of U.S.
\ncoal in Asia in its environmental analysis of export terminals being
\nproposed in the Pacific Northwest .<\/p>\n
There are scant details concerning what happened in those White House
\nCEQ meetings. The CEQ has for more than a year repeatedly declined to
\nanswer Bloomberg BNA’s questions on what guidance it has been giving
\nthe Corps of Engineers as the agency evaluates the environmental impact
\nof proposals to build coal export terminals that would enable U.S.
\ncompanies to become major suppliers to China, Japan, South Korea and
\nTaiwan.<\/p>\n
The CEQ, in response to a Bloomberg BNA Freedom of Information Act
\nrequest seeking documents that would reveal what guidance or
\ninstructions it has been giving regulatory agencies on the proposed
\ncoal export terminals, produced heavily redacted documents. In August,
\na CEQ senior counsel declined a final administrative appeal by
\nBloomberg BNA, citing the deliberative-process exemption under FOIA. He
\nwrote that release of the documents \u201cwould have a chilling effect on
\nefforts to foster open and frank discussions of legal and policy
\nissues.\u201d<\/p>\n
White House press secretary Jay Carney did not respond to a Dec. 5 e-
\nmail message and a Dec. 12 telephone call seeking comment. CEQ
\nCommunications Director Taryn Tuss, in response to several detailed
\nquestions, wrote in a Dec. 12 e-mail: \u201cCEQ encourages coordination
\namong agencies and often brings them together for that purpose, however
\nCEQ doesn’t tell agencies how to conduct their NEPA reviews.\u201d<\/p>\n
Proposals Double Coal Exports<\/p>\n
The three proposed coal terminals in Oregon and Washington would open a
\nconduit for shipping coal mined from federal land in the Powder River
\nBasin of Wyoming and Montana, which contains an estimated 162 billion
\ntons of recoverable coal. Upon build-out, the terminals collectively
\nwould more than match the total of 107 million tons exported from the
\nU.S. in 2011.<\/p>\n
The Gateway Pacific Terminal, which would export up to 53 million tons
\nof coal annually, would be built near the Canadian border with
\nWashington state on north Puget Sound. SSA Marine, which calls itself
\nthe largest U.S. terminal and stevedoring company, is behind the
\nproposal to build Gateway. The Smith-Hemingway family owns a 51 percent
\ninterest in parent company Carrix Inc., with the other 49 percent being
\nheld by Goldman Sachs Infrastructure Partners. Gateway would be served
\nby Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s Railway Co.<\/p>\n
Peabody Energy Corp., which says it is the biggest private-sector coal
\ncompany in the world, has contracted to ship as much as 26.5 tons of
\ncoal through Gateway Pacific, about half of the annual capacity of the
\nproposed export terminal.<\/p>\n
About 200 miles to the south, on the Columbia River, is the proposed
\nMillennium Bulk Terminal. It is a project of Ambre Energy Ltd. with a
\n62 percent interest, and Arch Coal Inc. with a 38 percent interest. The
\nterminal, about 63 mile from the river’s mouth, would be capable of
\nshipping as much as 48.5 million tons of coal annually. Upriver about
\n270 miles is another Ambre project. The proposed Morrow Pacific project
\nwould ship as much as 8.8 million tons of coal annually from the Coyote
\nIsland Terminal.<\/p>\n
Northwest Governors, EPA Rebuffed<\/p>\n
The Corps of Engineers rebuffed the Environmental Protection Agency,
\nalong with the governors of Oregon and Washington in June, when it
\nrejected their calls to go beyond site-specific environmental impact
\nstatements (EIS) that focus on effects in the immediate vicinity of the
\nproposed coal export terminals. The EPA and the governors instead had
\ncalled for a wide-ranging study of the cumulative impacts of all the
\nprojects together, including the effects on climate change from the
\nburning of U.S. coal in China.<\/p>\n
Govs. John Kitzhaber (D) of Oregon and Jay Inslee (D) of Washington, in
\na March 25 letter to CEQ Chairwoman Nancy Sutley, asked for a
\ncomprehensive federal policy review–in essence a programmatic or
\npolicy EIS that would consider the broadest range of impacts from the
\nmines in Wyoming to smokestacks in China .<\/p>\n
Ray Clark, who was CEQ associate director for NEPA oversight in the
\nClinton administration, as well as several environmental attorneys,
\nhave told Bloomberg BNA that if Obama chose to do so, he could simply
\norder such a programmatic or policy EIS to be conducted.
\n“The president could say there are a bunch of different issues
\nassociated with this and so I want the federal government to do an
\nenvironmental impact analysis on whether or not we should promote as a
\nnational policy the export of coal,” Clark said earlier this year.
\n“Then it’s a very good policy EIS.”<\/p>\n
Contradictory Evidence.<\/p>\n
The CEQ is a statutory entity established by NEPA within the Executive
\nOffice of the President as the interpreter of the statute for the
\nexecutive branch. Among its statutory roles under NEPA is to act as
\narbiter when conflict exists between regulatory agencies such as this
\ndifference between the EPA and the Corps of Engineers.<\/p>\n
There is contradictory evidence regarding whether the White House CEQ
\ntook a hands-off role or directly instructed the corps about how to
\nproceed in its NEPA analysis of the coal export proposals. Some corps
\nofficials have told Bloomberg BNA that the CEQ gave no instructions
\nabout how to proceed.<\/p>\n
In contrast, a corps e-mail obtained through a FOIA request recording
\nthe first of several CEQ-convened meetings on the topic says the June
\n7, 2012 teleconference was called by the CEQ so it could “provide
\npreliminary feedback on what direct, indirect and cumulative effects
\nmay be considered within each agency’s control and responsibility.”<\/p>\n
The controversial matter is apparently viewed with some sensitivity
\nwithin the administration. After EPA’s disagreement with the Corps of
\nEngineers first became public, a Region 10 EPA official told Bloomberg
\nBNA that EPA headquarters had forbidden public discussion of the
\ndispute. In November, EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran
\nturned down a Bloomberg BNA request to discuss the EPA’s long list of
\nenvironmental impacts of the coal terminal proposals that it told the
\ncorps to evaluate–to no avail.<\/p>\n
The White House CEQ has repeatedly declined to describe what happened
\nin its meetings with the regulatory agencies or what guidance it has
\ngiven, instead referring Bloomberg BNA to the agencies themselves.<\/p>\n
‘Passive\u2019 Policy Making?<\/p>\n
Georgetown University law school professor Lisa Heinzerling was senior
\npolicy counsel to then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson during the first
\ntwo years of the Obama administration. She finds it difficult to
\nenvision the White House allowing a kind of de facto national climate
\nchange policy to be set by the CEQ, deferring to regulatory agencies
\nlike the corps and BLM.
\nHeinzerling told Bloomberg BNA on Nov. 19, “If CEQ’s position was that
\nthe Army Corps of Engineers was completely free to write an EIS of
\nwhatever scope it chose, then that would be a passive way of making a
\nreally significant policy decision about climate change.”<\/p>\n
Whether or not the White House CEQ fulfilled its statutory role to
\nresolve the conflict between the EPA and the Corps of Engineers;
\nwhether or not the CEQ is telling the agencies to ignore the climate
\nchange impact of overseas combustion of U.S. fossil fuels in their NEPA
\nanalyses or is leaving it to the agencies to make their own decisions,
\nthe result is the same: an Obama administration policy that enables the
\nexport of fossil fuels without considering numerous secondary, indirect
\nand cumulative effects including the exports’ impact on climate change.<\/p>\n
Obama Touts Natural Gas<\/p>\n
On June 25, Obama gave what was billed as a major policy address on
\nclimate change at Georgetown University. It was widely praised by
\nenvironmentalists. While it contained soaring rhetoric on the dangers
\nof climate change and announced significant steps to cut greenhouse
\ngases emitted by domestic coal-fired power plants, Obama didn’t
\ndirectly mention his policy on U.S. fossil fuel exports .
\nScientists, said Obama, have “acknowledged the planet is warming, and
\nhuman activity is contributing to it. So the question now is whether we
\nwill have the courage to act before it’s too late. As a president, as a
\nfather, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act. I refuse to
\ncondemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s
\nbeyond fixing.”<\/p>\n
“Now, even as we’re producing more domestic oil, we’re also producing
\nmore cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on Earth,”
\nObama said. “And, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural
\ngas, but let me say this: We should strengthen our position as the top
\nnatural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only
\ncan provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon
\nemissions.”<\/p>\n
“And it’s the transition fuel that can power our economy with less
\ncarbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy
\nmore of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of
\nthe future.”<\/p>\n
Viewing Mitigation Benefits Skeptically
\nObama’s CEQ is well-acquainted with the “disputes about natural gas” he
\nmentioned to the students at Georgetown. More than a year before he
\ngave the speech, the Sierra Club wrote a letter to a senior counsel at
\nthe CEQ warning that far from being a transition fuel, liquid natural
\ngas exports are the “very dirtiest of a dirty fuel.”<\/p>\n
The April 18, 2012, letter says, \u201cWe urgently need CEQ and EPA’s help
\nto ensure that LNG exports are properly analyzed under NEPA.”<\/p>\n
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had two days earlier issued
\nwhat is the first long-term authorization for a facility to export
\ndomestic liquefied natural gas other than a mothballed plant on
\nAlaska’s Cook Inlet. The Sabine Pass project in Cameron Parish, La.,
\nowned by Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P., initially applied to export 16
\nmillion metric tons of LNG per year.<\/p>\n
The Sierra Club letter to the CEQ, citing a Carnie-Mellon University
\nstudy of the life-cycle emissions of LNG, says that because energy is
\nrequired to liquefy natural gas, transport it and re-gasify it, “LNG is
\nnot an attractive substitute for coal.” And the letter says the
\nanalysis becomes starker when fracking is added to the equation because
\npumping natural gas from shale formations releases into the atmosphere
\nmuch more methane, a greenhouse gas more potent that carbon dioxide.<\/p>\n
The letter cites Energy Information Administration projections that 85
\npercent of LNG exports will be sourced from unconventional sources such
\nas shale formations. “The upshot is that CEQ should view claims that
\nLNG produces significant climate change mitigation benefits with
\nskepticism,” the letter says.<\/p>\n
‘I Don’t Believe CEQ Did Anything.\u2019<\/p>\n
FERC, which chose to conduct a less rigorous environmental assessment
\nas opposed to a full-fledged EIS on the Sabine Pass project, didn’t
\nanalyze the life-cycle emissions of exported LNG. The Sierra Club also
\ncriticized FERC’s decision not to conduct an analysis of the impact of
\nLNG exports inducing increased domestic production of shale gas.
\n“The NEPA failings in the Sabine Pass matter may well be repeated
\nwithout clear guidance from CEQ and EPA,” the letter says.<\/p>\n
Asked what the CEQ did in response to the letter, Sierra Club attorney
\nNathan Matthews told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 22, “I don’t believe CEQ did
\nanything one way or the other on Sabine Pass.”<\/p>\n
‘All these pending export applications are inconsistent with the
\nPresident’s own stated climate policy.’<\/p>\n
‘Cooked-in Accusation.\u2019<\/p>\n
Steve Everley, a spokesman for an Independent Petroleum Association of
\nAmerica advocacy program, Energy in Depth, contests the accuracy of
\nSierra Club assertions that LNG’s life-cycle emissions make it not an
\nattractive substitute for coal. In a Dec. 12 telephone interview with
\nBloomberg BNA, he cited a 2011 Carnegie Mellon University study saying
\nthat it had found fracked Marcellus shale natural gas “adds only 3%
\nmore emissions to the average conventional gas when used to generate
\nelectricity.” The study cited by Everley doesn’t address the life cycle
\nemissions of LNG derived from Marcellus shale.<\/p>\n
While he doesn’t contest that LNG exports will stimulate production of
\nfracked gas, “the sort of cooked in accusation with that–that that is
\na bad thing–is demonstrably false.”<\/p>\n
“Sierra Club has been making these claims about fracking, saying that
\nbecause you are fracking, because you are producing from so-called
\nunconventional reservoirs, the methane leakage rate is so high that it
\ncancels out the greenhouse gas benefit. What I am saying is that
\nexperts for the Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection
\nAgency, state regulators and independent experts across the country
\nhave all affirmed that that is not the case.”<\/p>\n
On Oct. 25, FERC denied a Sierra Club petition for rehearing on a
\npipeline to deliver gas to Sabine Pass. The agency wrote, \u201cThe
\nCommission further found that any impacts which may result from
\nadditional gas production are not ‘reasonably foreseeable’ under the
\napplicable judicial standard or as defined by the CEQ regulations and
\nthus rejected Sierra Club’s contention that the effects associated with
\nthe additional natural gas production needed to be addressed in the
\nEA.”<\/p>\n
Said Matthews, “These energy exports are such a shift in the way energy
\nis done in the U.S. that we have explicitly called for a programmatic
\nEIS in a lot of these export project proposals. Someone needs to stop
\nand look at this in a systemic way.”<\/p>\n
CEQ, BLM Consult on Coal Leases<\/p>\n
Kitzhaber shares the perspective that a systemic analysis is needed. In
\nApril 2012, he wrote to then-Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, the
\nsecretary of the Army, and the director of the Bureau of Land
\nManagement, asking for the formulation of a clear federal policy on
\ncoal exports before further permitting and coal mine leasing decisions
\nare made. The letter got the White House CEQ’s attention.<\/p>\n
On June 25, 2012, the CEQ’s Horst Greczmiel, associate director for
\nNEPA oversight, convened a conference call that included a discussion
\nof the BLM’s Powder River Basin coal leasing program, according to a
\nredacted, handwritten note from a corps official who participated in
\nthe meeting. The note, obtained by Bloomberg BNA through a Freedom of
\nInformation Act request for corps documents, makes reference to
\nlitigation challenging the BLM’s NEPA analysis of coal leases in the
\nWright Area of the basin.<\/p>\n
And a BLM official who participated in the teleconference told
\nBloomberg BNA that there was discussion about the possibility of doing
\na supplemental EIS on the Wright Area to account for future export of
\nthe coal.<\/p>\n
There was no indication in the redacted note of what position, if any,
\nWhite House CEQ staff took on the issues. Since then, there has been no
\nsupplemental EIS on the Wright Area and the Department of Justice has
\nbeen vigorously defending a series of suits challenging the adequacy of
\nBLM’s NEPA analysis of coal leases.<\/p>\n
China Will Get Coal From Somewhere<\/p>\n
The environmental group WildEarth Guardians routinely challenges BLM’s
\nenvironmental impact statements on its Powder River Basin coal leases
\nand has several suits outstanding against the agency. An opening brief
\nfiled Oct. 24 by WildEarth, the Sierra Club and a local group in three
\nassociated cases challenges the adequacy of BLM’s NEPA analysis of
\nWright Area leases on a variety of grounds, most related to air quality
\nissues in general and climate change in particular (WildEarth Guardians
\nv. Bureau of Land Mgmt., D. Wy., No. 2:12-cv-00085, opening brief
\nfiled, 10\/24\/13).<\/p>\n
One WildEarth argument zeros in on a theme that repeatedly arises in
\ndebates over fossil fuel exports and to which Obama alluded in his
\nGeorgetown University climate change address. It can be summarized by
\nthe oft-heard phrase in those debates: \u201cIf we don’t sell it to them,
\nsomeone else will.\u201d<\/p>\n
That perspective is present in the NEPA documents for BLM coal leases
\nand for FERC’s environmental assessment of Sabine Pass. The final EIS
\nfor the Wright Area coal leases says: \u201cIt is not likely that selection
\nof the No Action alternatives would result in a decrease of U.S. CO2
\nemissions attributable to coal mining and coal-burning power plants in
\nthe longer term, because there are multiple other sources of coal that,
\nwhile not having the cost, environmental, or safety advantages, could
\nsupply the demand.”<\/p>\n
The same thought process also appears in the Keystone XL pipeline draft
\nEIS, which included a life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG)
\nemissions and concluded \u201cthat approval or denial of the proposed
\nProject is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of
\ndevelopment in the oil sands.”<\/p>\n
Obama referred directly to this equation in his Georgetown address:
\n\u201cAllowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that
\ndoing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest
\nwill be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate
\nthe problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s
\nimpact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining
\nwhether this project is allowed to go forward.”<\/p>\n
Dueling Princeton Economists<\/p>\n
The question of whether U.S. fossil fuel exports will \u201csignificantly
\nexacerbate the problem of carbon pollution” is deeply controversial and
\nfar from settled. Two economists, both experts in natural resources and
\nboth trained at Princeton University, take divergent views with respect
\nto coal exports.<\/p>\n
Thomas Power is an emeritus professor at the University of Montana,
\nwhere he spent 30 years as chairman of the economics department. He is
\nstill active there as a research professor and authored a paper in May
\n2013, \u201cThe Impact of Powder River Basin Coal Exports on Global
\nGreenhouse Gas Emissions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Power calls himself a \u201cdecentralist\u2019\u2019 and says he often gets invited to
\nlibertarian think tank events \u201cbecause they like some debate.”<\/p>\n
Power told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 1 in a telephone interview: \u201cIf we are
\ngoing to sell it, we are going to be competing against other sources of
\ncoal. We are going to drive down the price and that is going to
\nencourage the use of coal and discourage the use of other fuels. There
\nis no way out. It has to be true.”<\/p>\n
Power’s paper modeled the export of 140 million tons of Powder River
\nBasin coal annually to markets on the south China coast. He found that
\nexports at that level \u201cwould reduce coal prices by 12.4 percent. That
\nwould lead consumption to increase by 14.9 percent.” Power concluded
\nthat 70 percent of the coal exports from the U.S. would represent new
\nconsumption in China and result in \u201can annual increase in GHG emissions
\nof about 183 million tons of CO2.”<\/p>\n
Economically Rational About Energy<\/p>\n
\u201cI have no idea why people say the Chinese are going to burn it no
\nmatter what,\u201d Power said. \u201cThat suggests they are economic morons; that
\nthey don’t care about efficiency. The only way we can sell it is if we
\ncan compete effectively, sell it cheaper than the other sources of
\ncoal, both domestic Chinese and foreign.”<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen people say that the Chinese are going to burn the same amount of
\ncoal no matter what, they are saying that price and costs of coal to
\nthe Chinese doesn’t matter, that the Chinese … are economic morons;
\nthat they don’t pay attention to costs when they make investment
\ndecisions,\u201d Power said. \u201cThey are as economically rational as we are.”<\/p>\n
Robert Nelson is a professor at the School of Public Policy at the
\nUniversity of Maryland. For about a decade, beginning in the mid-1980s,
\nhe played a pivotal role in establishing federal coal-leasing policies
\nat the Department of Interior. He’s a senior fellow at the Independent
\nInstitute, a libertarian think tank.<\/p>\n
Nelson told Bloomberg BNA in a telephone interview Nov. 26: \u201cThe debate
\nis about whether the United States is going to try to limit the use of
\ncoal by not allowing its export. My general view is that there is not
\nmuch the United States can do. If we don’t export it to China, they are
\nstill going to burn the coal.”<\/p>\n
Long-Term Effect Is Greater<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we ship coal to China, will that have any effect on the amount of
\ncoal-fired power production in China?” Nelson asked. \u201cIn the short run,
\nthe answer is probably no. They are going to get it and burn it.”<\/p>\n
Nelson had this caveat: \u201cIf our sending coal to China meant that the
\nsubstitution of gas for coal would be slowed down, that would have a
\nnegative effect on climate change. It is really a matter of time frame.
\nIf you are talking about exports for five years, it wouldn’t have an
\nimpact. China is going to burn the coal one way or another.”<\/p>\n
\u201cBut as you extend the time frame, the possibility of an effect becomes
\ngreater,” Nelson said. \u201cIf you are talking about 30 years from now,
\nPowder River Basin coal going into China could have a significant
\neffect on coal to gas. It also raises the question of how fast is wind
\nand solar going to come along.”<\/p>\n
\u201cIf it were up to me, I would export it,” Nelson said. \u201cBut I couldn’t
\nprove it to you that that is the right thing to do. If I had been in
\nthe Obama administration, I would probably have made the same decision
\nas they did.”<\/p>\n
‘They Simply Wave a Wand.\u2019<\/p>\n
Power also reflected on the long-term economic impact of coal exports.
\nCheap coal sold to China will \u201cundermine the incentives for developing
\nwind and solar energy. They are going to invest more heavily in coal
\nbecause it has been provided more cheaply. Those are 50-year decisions.
\nOnce you’ve built a coal-fired generator, once you’ve put billions of
\ndollars into a large coal-fired generator, you are committing yourself
\nto use of coal for a very long period of time.”<\/p>\n
Asked whether the BLM’s NEPA analysis of Powder River Basin (PRB) coal
\nadequately addresses the cost of coal in terms of its impacts on
\nclimate change, Power said: \u201cAbsolutely not. They ignore the ultimate
\ncombustion of the coal and the GHGs released. They simply wave a wand
\nand say that the amount of coal Americans consume or the world consumes
\nwill be the same whether federal PRB coal is sold or not.”<\/p>\n
Brenda Neuman, BLM’s chief of the solid minerals branch in Wyoming,
\ntold Bloomberg BNA in a series of conversations in December that the
\nagency didn’t ignore the greenhouse gases released. Although BLM coal
\nlease environmental impact statements such as those conducted on the
\nWright Area contain estimates of GHGs released from combustion, BLM
\ndidn’t analyze the resulting climate change impact, Neuman said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is not really any science that says burning a discrete amount of
\ncoal from a pit in Wyoming has some sort of numerical value that we can
\nsay causes a discrete amount of climate change,” Neuman said.<\/p>\n
Coal Industry Supports Regulatory Approach<\/p>\n
The coal industry supports the Obama administration’s NEPA process in
\nthe Powder River Basin. Peabody Energy Vice President Beth Sutton
\nprovided an e-mailed reply Dec. 5 to a Bloomberg BNA request for an
\ninterview. \u201cWe believe the current regulatory approach to surface mine
\npermits is appropriate and protects the environment.”<\/p>\n
In a Dec. 4 telephone interview, National Mining Association General
\nCounsel Katie Sweeney said she has \u201cnot heard suggestions for
\nimprovement\u201d of BLM oversight of the coal resource from NMA’s
\nmembership.
\n“For a while, there were quite a few delays in sales in the early the
\nearly to mid-2000s,” Sweeney said. “It seemed to take five plus years
\nto get between nominations and sales. But that seems to have improved.”<\/p>\n
Luke Popovich, NMA vice president for external communications, told
\nBloomberg BNA, \u201cI think there has been a fairly forceful response from
\nthe administration against claims by the environmental litigants”
\ncontesting the adequacy of NEPA review of coal leases. \u201cThey have
\ndefended the current process.\u201d<\/p>\n
Arch Coal Inc. spokeswoman Kim Link declined to comment Dec. 4.<\/p>\n
‘It’s Speculative at this Point.\u2019<\/p>\n
Major players in the Powder River Basin–including Arch, Ambre and
\nPeabody–have announced plans to export coal from the Basin through the
\nproposed Pacific Northwest export terminals. But the BLM hasn’t
\nanalyzed in its coal lease EISs what the impacts would be of selling
\ncoal to Asia. That question arose in the first meeting convened by the
\nWhite House CEQ, according to the BLM’s Neuman.
\nNeuman said she participated in one of the CEQ meetings. “There was
\nsome discussion,” said Neuman, who noted that her participation was
\nlimited to providing a schedule of various leases. “People were asking
\nthe question of whether we should supplement our EISs that are out
\nthere right now, particularly the Wright Area EIS, to include export
\nfrom ports in Washington.”<\/p>\n
Asked about the outcome, Neuman said, “Our position in BLM Wyoming is
\nthat the coal isn’t being used for export.” She said there are no plans
\nto conduct a supplemental EIS.
\n“We generally assume that the coal is going to be used for domestic
\nuse,” Neuman said. “We can’t say that it will never be used for export,
\nbut right now, we’re not seeing that. It’s speculative at this point.”
\nThat’s one reason BLM cites for its decision not to evaluate the
\neffects of coal export on climate change.<\/p>\n
CEQ Has Statutory Authority<\/p>\n
Heinzerling, the former Obama administration EPA official, said the
\nnotion that the CEQ simply steps back, allowing the BLM or the Corps of
\nEngineers to make these decisions without White House guidance doesn’t
\nmake sense.
\n“CEQ does have a superior role as far as NEPA implementation,”
\nHeinzerling said. “So it would be odd to me if they were saying, ‘Oh,
\nwe don’t really have anything to do with the way agencies implement
\nthis.’?”<\/p>\n
“CEQ’s guidance on NEPA implementation has been deferred to by the
\ncourts. They are one of the few White House offices that actually has
\nstatutory authority. It would be reasonable for them to engage in a
\nkind of coordinating function in this regard. It seems not quite
\nplausible to think that they are not engaged in that kind of
\ncoordinating.”<\/p>\n
“This White House has been extremely, actively involved in agency
\ndecisions; as much as probably any past administration. It’s not a
\nWhite House that is shy about being involved. It would be weird if they
\nsaid hands off in this place where they actually have authority, but
\nthey are all over places where they don’t really have authority.”<\/p>\n
To contact the reporter on this story: Paul Shukovsky in Seattle at
\npshukovsky@bna.com<\/p>\n
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Heather Rothman at
\nhrothman@bna.com<\/p>\n
Special thanks to Richard Charter<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
http:\/\/www.bna.com\/obama-policy-control-n17179880877\/ Thursday, December 19, 2013 from Daily Report for Executives\u2122 By Paul Shukovsky Dec. 18 –Even as President Barack Obama promises to implement aggressive regulatory measures to rein in climate change domestically, this year his administration used the same regulatory authority to quietly position the U.S. to become a global leader in fossil fuel exports. … Continue reading BNA.com: Obama Policy: Control Greenhouse Gases At Home, Enable Export of Fossil Fuels<\/span>