Amid all the negative publicity that Solyndra’s failure has brought to the Administration’s cleantech efforts, one cleantech program has received broad bipartisan support: DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-e). In 2012, ARPA-e will receive $275 million, a 53% increase from the prior year with both the House and the Senate supporting significant funding for the agency’s third year of operations.

ARPA-e is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which for over 50 years has funded early-stage research projects that show the potential to develop technologies that could yield disruptive advances for the military. DARPA’s projects have resulted in major leaps including, but definitely not limited to, the Internet, stealth technology and the Global Positioning System. Both agencies operate by soliciting proposals from companies, universities, and labs within broad thematic areas and select the most promising proposals for grant awards.

Readers of my blog know that I am not a big fan of some of the Administration’s cleantech efforts. ARPA-e is at least one exception. Authorized in the last year of the Bush Administration and initially funded through the Obama Administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the ARPA-e program may be one government program that can help seed the disruptive advances needed in our energy economy.

Why, given the negative publicity around government funding for cleantech projects, has ARPA-e been able to win bipartisan support?

Focus on early stage R&D
Government-funded R&D has long been an area of bipartisan support. Most members of Congress believe (as do I) that the government has a role in funding early-stage research and innovation in areas of public interest where the private sector is unable to economically justify conducting such R&D given the high degree of risk. Unlike the DOE loan program that funded Solyndra’s factories, the purpose of the ARPA-e grants are to fund high-risk, high-reward R&D projects that industry alone cannot support, but whose success could dramatically benefit the nation.

Grants (of reasonable size) not investments (of enormous size)
The bulk of the Administration’s cleantech investments were funded through the ARRA including the initial funding for ARPA-e. Since ARRA’s purpose was to stimulate the economy, government agencies, including DOE needed to get funds out the door as quickly as possible (unfortunately this failed). That led to many extremely large awards of both grants and loan guarantees. Just a few high profile examples — $527 million to Solyndra (bankrupt), $465 million to Tesla, $249 million to A123, $76 million to Range Fuels (bankrupt), $43 million to Beacon Power (bankrupt) and $25 million to Amyris. Some of these awards were grants; others were loans where the government hoped to get a return on its investment.

Unlike many other programs handing money out for cleantech related efforts, ARPA-e’s awards have all been grants made with the clear understanding that they are for high-risk R&D that often will not work out. In no case is there an expectation of a financial return to the government. Anytime a government program expects to make a return on investment it is, in my opinion, likely to fail both because the government is inherently flawed at making good business decisions and because politics usually won’t allow for even a single failed investment.

ARPA-e grants to date have averaged $2.9 million and have gone to 180 different projects. As a result, ARPA-e largely avoids the minefield of government trying to play businessman as well as the negative PR fall-out from large project failures. In addition, while politics can play a role in any grant process, the smaller the awards the less potential for political influence to outweigh project merit.

Energy Independence & Global Warming
ARPA-e’s guiding legislative mandate is to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development of technologies that reduce energy imports, reduce energy-related emissions including greenhouse gases, and improve energy efficiency in all economic sectors. By combining the goal of energy independence with reduced greenhouse gas emissions the program is able to appeal to a much broader array of elected officials. If the program only focused on reducing greenhouse gases, I strongly suspect there would be much less support from Republicans. By avoiding the polarizing nature of focusing only on global warming or only on energy independence, ARPA-e is able to appeal to a broad audience.

One of the best ways to help solve our energy challenges is through disruptive energy technologies. If ARPA-e can deliver for energy technology even close to how well DARPA has delivered for defense technologies it will ultimately have a large impact on the economy, energy security and the environment. To achieve this, ARPA-e must remain nimble and avoid being sucked into the massive DOE bureaucracy. If it is able to do so, I suspect it will continue to have bipartisan support and will be a long-term shining star in the Administration’s cleantech efforts.

(Note: ARPA-e will hold their annual Innovation Summit February 27-29)

David Gold heads up cleantech investments for Access Venture Partners. He is also the author of the GreenGoldBlog.

Related posts:

• Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduce Renewable Electricity Standard
• Help Consumers Save Money by Saving Energy
• Obama Cleantech Stimulus: Bad Policy, Bad Politics and Bad for Cleantech
• Bipartisan Bill Wants an End to Corn Ethanol Subsidies
• Energy Star’s Video Challenge

The United States has implemented a variety of policies in the effort to cut back gasoline use. For example, the Obama Administration has invested federal dollars into GM’s electric vehicles. The EPA has introduced new fuel economy standards which are to be implemented over time, gradually becoming stricter. The government has also promoted the expansion of biofuels in automobile fuel. However, a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has shown that these policies are not only cost-effective, but do not sufficiently curb fuel usage. What is to be done to reduce fuel use and greenhouse gases from vehicle emissions?

Implementing a gasoline tax, by all measures, would be the most cost-effective way to reduce fuel use. Nothing influences a driver more than the effects on their wallet at the pump. In fact, the researchers found that a moderate tax could elicit the same reduction as all currently implemented policies at a sixth of the cost. Unfortunately, a new gas tax is highly unlikely to be adopted in the United States. It is simply politically unfeasible.

The MIT researchers found that implementing multiple policies to curb fuel use is not cost effective. They found that as the costs of the policies add up, the benefits do not. To come to this conclusion, they created a macroeconomic model which included information on advanced fuels and vehicles, ownership characteristics in different regions, and consumer investment in vehicle and fuel prices. It is an economic model in which advancements in technology is a major component.

The results show that the most politically possible solutions are also the most costly. This creates a great challenge for policy makers who must address this imbalance. It cannot be solved instantly, but instead must be a gradual process. MIT researcher, Valerie Karplus, explains:

“We need to find ways to get past the age-old debate, starting with what is possible today but with an eye to what might be possible tomorrow as today’s policies change underlying incentives. Right now, economists push for the most cost-effective measures, and the policy community responds that such measures are politically impossible.”

“Policies that are politically feasible now can be designed to maximize their cost-effectiveness, and every policy should include clear timelines for revisiting its impacts and for assessing the feasibility of moving to more cost-effective policies over time. That will help us achieve our critical energy security and climate goals.”

The study has been published in the Autumn 2011 edition of the journal, Energy Futures.

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Is the Electric Car’s Tax-Free Ride Coming to an End?
• The New Breed of Cars
• Butanol as Gasoline Substitute from Bacteria
• Cane Ethanol Leader Brazil Considers Using Corn
• What Is The Real Environmental Cost of Electric Vehicles?

When we say at DOT that safety is our number one priority, we are not kidding around. And today, as part of that important goal, President Obama signed into law the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act. 

Last April, following several fatal pipeline accidents, we called upon U.S. pipeline owners and operators to conduct a comprehensive review of their oil and gas pipelines to identify areas of high risk and accelerate critical repair and replacement work.  We also convened a Pipeline Safety Forum with state officials, industry leaders, and other stakeholders to discuss steps for improving the safety and efficiency of America's pipeline infrastructure. 

In one of their final actions for 2011, the House and Senate passed a pipeline safety bill consistent with the legislative proposal we submitted to Congress last year.  This legislation gives the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an important part of DOT, stronger enforcement tools and increases civil penalties for pipeline operators who do not meet safety regulations. It's another terrific step forward for greater pipeline safety. 

Not only will this legislation help keep America's communities safer; it also helps give pipeline operators the certainty they need to run their systems more effectively.

To advance pipeline safety, the bill doubles the maximum fines that pipeline operators face for safety violations. The Bill requires PHMSA to issue new pipeline safety standards requiring operators to install automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves and excess flow valves in new or replaced transmission pipelines.  As U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller said, "Communities can rest a little easier knowing that Congress has implemented tougher safety rules."

The bill authorizes PHMSA to award $110 million in safety-related grants each year. These include state damage prevention programs, technical assistance to local communities, emergency response training, and one-call system improvements.  And PHMSA is authorized to add a number of new pipeline inspectors to support its investigation and enforcement obligations. 

To promote regulatory certainty for the pipeline industry, the new bill prohibits PHMSA during a two to three year Congressional review period, from issuing regulations establishing leak-detection requirements or expanding integrity management requirements beyond high-consequence areas.  However, this restriction would not apply if a condition poses any risk to public safety, property, or the environment. 

As the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee observed, "By providing greater regulatory certainty, the bill will help create a better economic environment for U.S. businesses to create jobs." 

This bill is a win for safety and a win for America's communities. And, by signing it into law on the first business day of the new year, President Obama has sent a clear message that this Administration believes we can achieve greater safety and stronger economic growth at the same time. 

I can't think of a better way to start 2012.

Related posts:

• Massive New Russian Gas Pipeline to Europe Now in Operation
• Oil Leak Is Latest Mishap for Alaska’s Troubled Pipelines
• Tar Sands Pipeline Passes Key Hurdle as Protests Continue
• First Pipeline-Fed Hydrogen Refueling Station Opens in the United States
• North Korean Leader Supports Russian Natgas Pipeline to South Korea

On Dec. 16, the Obama administration is expected to finally release new standards for protecting us from mercury and other toxic heavy metals from power plant emissions. All of us have reason to be glad, but parents (and anyone who might ever want to be a parent) should especially welcome this long overdue protection. My wife Mary and I co-authored a column for Sierra magazine that explains why:

It started before we even brought our first child home from the hospital. Electrical sockets needed to be covered, cabinet doors secured, knives stowed out of the reach of tiny hands. We live in earthquake country, so we finally got around to bolting our bookshelves to the wall.

Like any parents, we’ll do anything in our power to keep our kids safe. We know that our power has its limits, but that doesn’t stop us from trying.

Getting the house ready was just the beginning. We were also determined to protect our daughter from less-obvious dangers. Well aware of the toxic chemicals that increasingly find their way into our bodies, we shopped for the healthiest foods we could find — and still do.

Of course, not all Americans have the same easy access to fresh, organic, and healthy foods that we do. In lots of neighborhoods it can be hard to find decent produce. But even so, you’d think there’d still be plenty of nutritious alternatives to fast food, like the humble tuna sandwich.

Not anymore. Tuna, like many types of fish, is often contaminated with mercury, a neurotoxin that damages the brain and nervous system, particularly in fetuses and young children. Mercury in the bloodstreams of pregnant and nursing women can result in birth defects like learning disabilities, reduced IQ, and cerebral palsy.

We’ve known about the dangers of mercury for a century. (It’s what made the Mad Hatter mad.) We’ve also known how the fish get contaminated: primarily via coal-fired power plants, whose smokestacks spew almost 50 tons of mercury annually into the air we breathe.

A heavy metal like mercury does not stay in the atmosphere for long. It eventually falls to Earth, inexorably working its way up the food chain until it winds up in the tuna sandwich in some kid’s lunch box — or on the sushi platter ordered by a young woman who’s just become pregnant.

And that’s where we get mad — both as environmentalists and as parents: There is absolutely no reason our kids should be exposed to this poison. The EPA was first charged with limiting toxic air pollutants like mercury more than 20 years ago, during the George H. W. Bush administration. The technology to filter mercury from coal-plant smokestacks is widely available. But there’s still no national limit on how much mercury a coal-fired power plant can release into the air. It’s like debating what kind of childproof latches to put on the cabinets while the kids are playing with the knives.

This past March, the EPA finally proposed a standard that would require coal plants to keep more than 90 percent of their mercury emissions out of the atmosphere. The new rule would also apply to such cancer-causing metals as arsenic, chromium, and nickel. Filtering out these poisons would prevent hundreds of thousands of illnesses and up to 17,000 premature deaths each year. It would be the single biggest measure to save American lives in a generation.

Incredibly, it might not happen. As we write this, the EPA is under attack by politicians whose first allegiance is not to American children but to the polluters who don’t want to clean up their dirty power plants. Possible reason: The polluters shelled out nearly $30 million to these members of Congress who continue to vote for dirty air.

We know that it’s impossible to protect our children from every possible harm. Inevitably, knees will get scraped and probing fingers will get pinched in cabinet doors, and that giant leap off the porch might end in a tumble. But to endanger our kids solely for the sake of polluters’ bottom line? As parents, and as Americans, that’s something we can never accept.

Article by Michael Brune, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Mercury rising, controls next
• We Can Clean the Air, Create Jobs and Power the Economy at the Same Time
• Protecting Historic Progress on Clean Air
• EPA Proposes Transport Rule to Aid Downwind States
• EPA Finalizes Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements

As part of Toyota's commitment to our nation's environment and public lands, today we announced that we have made a $3 million grant to the National Environmental Education Foundation to improve the capacity of community-based organizations, often called "friends groups", who are helping to protect and preserve our public lands. We made our announcement today at Baltimore's Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, joined by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley, NEEF President Diane Wood and Baltimore students and residents who are proud to have this public land in their city.

The organizations that support parks and other public lands are invaluable to maintaining and promoting them in their hometowns, but they often lack the resources they need for this critical work. The Toyota grant will support these local organizations in becoming as effective as possible in their work on public lands, whether it's a small city green space or one of our treasured national parks.

Supporting these groups' efforts in communities across the country makes us proud. Their dedication and initiative are tremendous. We have seen this interest in protecting our public lands grow with more than 170,000 volunteers participating in NEEF's annual National Public Lands Day, of which Toyota has been the national sponsor for what will be the 14th consecutive year in 2012.

The public-private partnership that this grant represents echoes President Obama's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, which encourages grassroots, community-based conservation. We hope other members of the business community will join us in supporting the great work of these groups and their volunteers, who exemplify the spirit of this nation.

For more information about the Toyota grant and NEEF's Every Day Grants program for these organizations, please visit www.neefusa.org.

Article by Michael Rouse, Vice President, Philanthropy and Community Affairs at Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

Related posts:

• Value of Conserving Habitats Could be Worth $500B Annually to World’s Poor
• The First Large-Scale Solar Energy Plants on Public Lands
• Salazar: Bush Offered Oil and Gas Industry Candy Store
• Standing Up Renewable Energy on America’s Lands and Oceans
• Why Clean Energy on Tribal Land isn’t Excess-it’s Essential

When a form of technology becomes outdated, jobs in that industry are inevitably lost. However, this is only one side of the coin, as jobs are often created in the exact same way and, the good news is, that these jobs require previously unconsidered skill sets. It almost goes without saying that with the shift toward clean energy usage, the onus is on the clean technology sector to create green jobs.

In the down-spinning economy, clean technology has been a rock. In fact, clean technology continues to be one of the fastest growing segments of the economy. Worldwide, investments in clean technology grew 12 percent in the Q3 of 2011, even as other sectors were tanking around the world. This growth started a few years back and continues to hold strong. In fact, in 2007, the clean technology industry in the United States grew three times as fast as the country’s economy.

Of course, there are stories of failure in the clean technology segment – such as the recent demise of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra – but there are also stories of success. Consider Noveda Technologies, whose real-time, online energy monitoring technology allows users get a better understanding of both their building’s impact on the environment and how they might improve it. Oh, and they can actually see their carbon footprint reduction and utility bill savings – right before their very eyes.

With all this being said, there is no question that clean technology would get even more of a push from the federal government if more consistent clean energy requirements were enacted. In this sense President Barack Obama’s Better Buildings Initiative, which rewards the use of non-traditional energy sources, is a step in the right direction. But more such guidelines need to be brought forth.

Part of the problem is that when legislation that limits the use of old energies comes into play, the loss of jobs that inevitably occurs gets foregrounded by pundits. For example, when President Obama unveiled his sorely needed energy policy in February 2011, CNN talking heads opined that biofuels have been a “colossal failure.” The news network also focused on the bankruptcy of Solyndra as a symbolic example of what happens when people invest in clean energy.

It’s time we focus on the companies that are putting people back to work in industries that benefit every person on this planet. There will always be naysayers to seek out and discuss the “wrongs” of the world.

What if we shifted our focus to the benefits new industries are having on the economy and the world at large? Up and comers with new ideas regarding clean technology are thriving under these conditions. New industries are created in this way. Let’s be a part of the solution, not the problem.

Article by Bari Faye Siegel, a technology writer and marketing consultant at Noveda Technologies, an innovative leader in real-time, web-based energy management, solar PV monitoring and water management. Noveda also offers real-time collaboration tools that leverage social media to educate and empower stakeholder communities and make the smart grid a reality today. For more information, visit www.noveda.com.

Related posts:

• A New Window Opens on Solar Power
• Glass Window Solar Power Closer to Reality
• Saint Gobain, Lafarge Glass and Cement Plants to Install Pollution Controls
• Smart Glass Windows Could Slash Nation’s Energy Bill
• With LCD And Plasma On The Rise, Where Do Old Televisions Go?

President Obama believes that American families should never be asked to choose between the health of their children and the health of the economy. That is a false choice. Four decades of success under the Clean Air Act have shown clearly that strong environmental protections and a strong economy can go hand in hand. 

To build on the tremendous success of the Clean Air Act, the Obama Administration has taken the most significant steps in a generation to reduce harmful pollution and promote public health. The new standards that we have issued or proposed – to curb interstate pollution, reduce mercury exposure, and make our cars more fuel efficient, just to name a few – will result in significant economic and health benefits each year. 

Just over forty years ago, the Senate did something that would be almost unthinkable today: It passed major legislation by a unanimous vote. That legislation was the Clean Air Act of 1970, signed by President Richard Nixon. Two decades later, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were passed, again with large bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed by President George H. W. Bush. 

But today, Republicans in Congress are trying to use our current economic climate as an excuse to roll back clean air protections that Americans have counted on for decades. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is currently leading an effort to block the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that would save tens of thousands of lives each year. In doing so, Senator Paul is using the Congressional Review Act to repeal this important rule and prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting American families from cross-state pollution in the future. 

Let’s be clear – this brazen effort doesn’t just undermine the public health, it also undermines the judgment of the courts. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit found critical flaws in the Bush Administration’s efforts on interstate air pollution and directed the EPA to issue a replacement rule as quickly as possible. After seeking and incorporating extensive input from the public, the states, environmental and public health groups, as well as industry, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution rule in July of this year. 

What does the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Do?

This rule is designed protect the health of millions of Americans by helping states reduce harmful air pollution through the deployment of readily available technologies that are already in use at many facilities across the country. By reducing dangerous pollution emitted by power plants, the rule protects residents in dozens of states who are unknowingly subjected to toxic emissions from plants often hundreds of miles away.

What benefits will the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule provide for American Families?

The emission reductions from this final rule will have significant and immediate public health benefits, each year preventing:

* 13,000 to 34,000 premature deaths,
* 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis,
* 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks,
* 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits,
* 1.8 million days when people miss work or school,
* 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and
* 420,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms.

In addition, the benefits of this rule are expected to far outweigh its costs, producing over $100 billion in net benefits each year.

We will continue to take smart sensible steps that ensure we protect the health of our families, while also opposing efforts to undermine the Clean Air Act.

Article by Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.

Related posts:

• Why Are Investors Bearish on Clean Energy?
• New Orleans Tells Resident Not to Install Solar Panels
• Nations Meet on Climate Cash, U.N. Sees Long Haul
• Developing vs. Developed Nations — A Climate Negotiations Dilemma
• Building Partnerships, Conserving Lands

Across the United States and the world, climate change is already affecting communities, livelihoods, and the environment.  We must understand and adapt to a changing climate, including more frequent extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought and floods, and continued sea level rise.  Taking action now to manage climate risks can be viewed as an insurance policy for the Nation's future health and economic prosperity.  The Federal Government will work in partnership with states and local communities to help make our nation more resilient and prepared to address the challenges and opportunities that will arise from a changing climate.

By considering how climate change may affect people, businesses, and communities, as well as its own services, operations, and assets, the Federal Government will be in a better position to promote economic growth and enhance our security.  Working with diverse stakeholders, Federal agencies are preparing for a range of climate and extreme weather impacts that put people, property, local economies, and ecosystems at risk.

To highlight these actions, yesterday we released a new report that outlines the Federal Government's progress in expanding and strengthening the Nation's capacity to better understand, prepare for, and respond to extreme events and other climate change impacts.  This report, produced by the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, provides an update on actions in key areas of Federal adaptation, including: building resilience in local communities, safeguarding critical natural resources such as freshwater, and providing accessible climate information and tools to help decision-makers manage climate risks. 

Click here to read the full 2011 report.

Based in part on numerous listening sessions and public outreach events with a wide range of stakeholders, "Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation: Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force," highlights the progress toward implementing those recommendations.  This report follows the Task Force's October 2010 Progress Report to the President that recommended the Federal Government strengthen the Nation's capacity to better understand and manage climate-related risks.

The 2010 Progress Report identified freshwater resources as a priority area for greater attention.  On June 2, 2011, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released a draft "National Action Plan: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate," for public review and comment. Yesterday, CEQ also announced the final Action Plan that responds to public input.  This final Plan will be the foundation for Federal agency efforts to manage freshwater resources as the climate changes.  It is designed to help freshwater resource managers assure adequate water supplies, safeguard water quality and aquatic ecosystems, and protect human life, health and property.

Click here to read the full Managing Freshwater Action Plan.

The Obama Administration remains committed to protecting the Nation from the critical impacts of climate change.  Responding to demand from local, state, and Tribal governments and communities, the Task Force will focus in coming years on reducing the Nation's vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events; enhancing regional coordination among Federal and non-Federal actors; strengthening and leveraging non-Federal partnerships; and implementing Federal agency adaptation planning.  The Task Force will provide an update on Federal adaptation progress in March 2014, following the release of the 2013 National Climate Assessment Synthesis Report.

Article by Nancy Sutley, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, and Dr. Steve Fetter.

Related posts:

• The Link Between American Energy and Prosperity
• Schwarzenegger Announces New Climate Change Alliance
• Good News on Climate Change: More Coal Power Leaving the Grid
• Coal and the Road to Copenhagen: Win $10k for Clean Energy Project
• Bolivia Assails Rich, Carbon Market at Cancun Talks

Well, maybe “backs” is too strong a word. Let’s just say that Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not openly critical of the Obama administration’s hard look at the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would bring oil from the tar sands in northern Alberta across the border and deep into the United States.

Chu, who has been an ardent and vocal supporter of electric cars, advanced batteries and other more sustainable modes of transportation that will ween us off fossil fuels, recently called the Obama administration’s backing of the controversial pipeline a “tradeoff,” delicately addressing the topic in an interview with energyNOW! (see video below).

“Well, I think it’s one of those decisions where… you’re going to have to trade off a reliable supply,” Secreatary Chu said. Noting that while the companies working to extract oil from the tar sands have made important strides in cleaning up their operations, Chu said, “it’s not perfect, but it’s a trade-off.”

The proposed project, which has come under sharp fire from environmentalists, is not under the regulatory purview of the Energy Department. Instead, the project is awaiting final word from the State Department, which has the decision-making authority on the international pipeline. The State Department has already given the project a positive environmental impact statement and is now in the midst of a 90-day period to review whether the pipeline is in the nation’s best interest.

So what will Secretary Chu do as his colleague Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes the lead in this important energy decision?

He says he’s sticking with his bread and butter by focusing on batteries for electric vehicles, biofuels, energy efficiency.

Article by Timothy Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Tar Sands Pipeline Passes Key Hurdle as Protests Continue
• Bill McKibben: Get Angry at Corruption in Congress
• The U.S. Has a Responsibility at This Point in History
• Colombian Farmers Sue BP Over Long-Term Effects of Oil Pipeline
• Massive New Russian Gas Pipeline to Europe Now in Operation

Over the last two and half years the Obama Administration, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, has taken some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act four decades ago to protect our environment and the health of our families from air pollution.

On Friday, President Obama asked Administrator Jackson to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time, as work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013.

Several state and local officials spoke out about the President’s announcement and commitment to working with state and local governments.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder:

“The President made the right decision to stop this move by the EPA.  The present ozone standard was last reviewed a mere three years ago.  Michigan companies have worked hard to meet the standard, because we all support a healthy environment. It is important to balance environmental goals with the need for economic development, particularly as Michigan and the rest of the nation work to recover from the recession”

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa:

“In our current economic climate, we must do everything we can to stimulate the economy short of taking a step back in the unprecedented environmental gains this administration has already made. This is the sort of balanced approach we need to create jobs and also improve the quality of air, health and life for countless Americans.”

East Moline, Illinois Mayor John Thodos:

“We in the Quad Cities are very happy with the President’s announcement.  We take clean air very seriously, but it’s difficult enough to create jobs without these new standards.  I fully support the President’s decision.”

Texas State Representative Garnet Coleman:

“I want to thank President Obama and his administration for listening and working with state and local governments. Withdrawing the new standard allows an update of the science and the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013 while granting our state and local governments and businesses more regulatory certainty and flexibility. President Obama and his administration are strong partners with those of us on the state and local level of government in the fight for clean air and public health.” 

Bettendorf, Iowa Mayor Mike Freemire:

“The standards are quite rigorous as they are, and the threat of new standards from a manufacturing standpoint aren’t helpful for the economy or growing jobs.  It’s a prudent move.  Everything is a balancing act.  I applaud the President for his decision.”

Scott County, Iowa Board of Supervisors Chair Tom Sunderbruch:

“I certainly support the President's move to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time…I think delaying the standard change is the right thing to do.  I also believe making sure you have the right science to know what to do next is important.  I believe those responsible for setting the regulations should continue to research the issue.”

Article by Cecilia Muñoz, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Related posts:

• The Case for National Security: Clean Energy
• Winning the Clean Energy Future in Communities Across America
• PV Production Follows Policy In Illinois
• Victory for the Jersey Shore: Governor Vetoes Offshore LNG Port
• White House Backs $5 Billion Clean Energy Tax Credit