The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment: December 2015

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ENVIRONMENT POLICY-Masthead.png

December 2015

The Environmental Policy Project produces this weekly Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment to report on major national and state environmental issues, including land ownership, energy production, air and water regulations, endangered species, pollution and much more.

December 28, 2015

U.S. lists African lion as endangered species

Click to read more about endangered species policy in the United States.

In December 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—the chief U.S. agency on endangered species—announced it would list part of the African lion population as endangered under the Endangered Species Act; this will limit the importation of dead animals from hunting. The lion population of western and central sub-Saharan Africa, which the Fish and Wildlife Service considers an endangered population, totals around 900 lions. The lion population of southern and eastern Africa, which the agency considers a threatened population, totals around 19,000 lions. The agency first proposed to list the lion as a threatened species in 2014.[1][2][3]

“Today, the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing everything it can with everything it has to set a new course for the conservation of the African lion. ... The threats are largely due to expanding human populations in sub-Saharan Africa, leading to encroachment by settlements and agriculture, and grazing activities encroaching into unfenced lion habitats,” according to Dan Ashe, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.[1]

The Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that around 500,000 lions inhabited Africa in the early 20th century. The populations fell to 200,000 in the 1950s and to roughly 20,000 in 2015. The listings do not ban lion hunting, but individuals who have violated wildlife laws will be prohibited from obtaining a permit to import hunting trophies. Hunting organizations have argued that new protections for the lion will lower the revenue collected from sport hunting, which is used to fund conservation programs and provide aid to residents in African countries. Conservation groups have argued that new protections for the species, including the ban on trophy imports, will deter lion hunting and help the species' recovery.[1][2][3]

Industry groups join lawsuit against EPA ozone rule

Click to read more about ground-level ozone standards.

In December 2015, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, both of which represent businesses and industries, joined a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its ozone rules for power plants. The rules are meant to limit the smog created by power plant emissions, but the two industry groups have argued that the rules are too severe and costly. The lawsuit challenging the ozone standards asks the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rescind the rules.[4]

In October 2015, the EPA lowered the amount of acceptable ozone in the atmosphere from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. The standards are set to go into effect in 2025. The EPA has argued that strengthening ozone standards would produce health benefits for people most at risk from ozone in the air, such as asthmatics, children and older adults. The standards are expected to produce health benefits of between $2.9 billion and $5.9 billion annually beginning in 2025, while compliance costs will total $1.4 billion annually beginning in 2025, according to the EPA. States would have between 2020 and 2037 to meet the ozone standards. Compliance dates for particular areas will vary depending on how much ozone is in those areas.[5][6]

Industry groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, have argued that the lower standards will impose harsh economic costs and will make some national parks—even some with no industrial activity—in violation of federal standards. "The EPA set an unattainable mandate with this new ozone standard that will slow economic growth opportunities. ... This new standard could halt progress in communities across the country as businesses are forced to slow expansion plans and outside development looks to other regions," the chamber's senior vice president for regulatory affairs said in a statement.[4]

December 21, 2015

Crude oil export ban repealed

Click to read more about the crude oil export ban and environmental policy in the United States.

On December 18, 2015, Congress voted to repeal the 40-year-old crude oil export ban, a 1975 prohibition on the exportation of most crude oil from the United States to other countries. At that time, the domestic production of oil was decreasing, which caused imports to increase. Additionally, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed a ban on petroleum exports to the United States, which caused oil prices to increase. The ban's repeal allows U.S. producers to sell crude oil overseas, though U.S. shipments are not expected for at least several months. The repeal was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 316 to 113 and by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 65 to 33. Though originally opposed, President Barack Obama (D) signed the repeal as part of Congress' $1.1 trillion year-end spending bill. Congressional Republicans, who have supported the ban's repeal, agreed to extend tax credits for wind and solar production, which have been supported by congressional Democrats, in exchange for the ban's repeal.[7][8][9]

Opponents of the ban have argued that lifting the ban could increase economic growth and lower gasoline prices. Additionally, opponents have argued that the introduction of Iranian crude oil into the global market (as sanctions on Iran are lifted as part of the Iran nuclear agreement) could hurt U.S. producers without the ban's repeal. Proponents of the ban have argued that the repeal could lead to higher gasoline prices and encourage higher greenhouse gas emissions from increased oil production.[10][11][12][13]

Oil and energy companies—such as ConocoPhillips—and nonprofit groups—such as the American Petroleum Institute (API)— have supported the ban's repeal. "Lifting the ban would create 1 million jobs at its peak in 2018, and add $38 billion to our economy, and lower our trade deficit by $22 billion and our federal budget deficit by $1.4 billion in the coming years," said API president Jack Gerard. Environmental groups have opposed lifting the ban for its potential impact on climate change. "One study shows that the effect of lifting the export ban is the carbon equivalent of the annual emissions of 108 million new cars, or 135 coal-fired power plants," according to Bill McKibben, founder of the environmental group 350.org.[7][14][15]

Federal land conservation fund renewed for three years

Click to read more about federal land policy.

In December 2015, Congress voted to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund for three years. The fund's reauthorization was included in Congress' year-end spending bill, which provided $450 million to the fund in the next fiscal year. The program helps the federal government to buy private land for public uses, such as recreation and conservation. The LWCF is an important part of the debate over federal land policy due to its role in federal land acquisition. The fund is the principal source of capital used by federal land management agencies to acquire additional land, in addition to financing recreation and conservation projects at the federal and state levels.[16][17]

On September 30, 2015, Congress let the LWCF expire, which cut the fund off from federal oil and gas revenue until reauthorization occurred. Congress determines funding for the program each year; the primary sources for funding are royalties from offshore energy development. Between 1965 and 2014, oil and gas royalty revenue for the fund totaled around $36 billion, while Congress gave the fund $16.8 billion during that time. Of Congress' total funding for the LWCF since 1964, 62 percent went toward federal land purchases, while 25 percent and 13 percent went toward state recreational programs and "other purposes" (such as wildlife grants and county payments), respectively. Of the LWCF's total funding in fiscal year 2014, $180 million (58.8 percent) went toward federal land acquisition, $48 million (15.6 percent) went toward state grants, and $78 million (25.4 percent) went toward other purposes.[16][17]

Environmental and conservation groups supported funding the program at $900 million, which is the amount the fund had been provided annually before its temporary expiration on October 1, 2015. Though the groups supported Congress' reauthorization, some groups—such as the Center for Western Priorities—were disappointed that the fund was not permanently reauthorized. “The short-term renewal of America’s most successful parks program is a sign of the ineffectiveness of this Congress and deep dysfunction in Washington. ... The American people are tired of Congress playing kick-the-can with programs that work,” according to the executive director of the Center for Western Priorities.[17]

The chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rob Bishop (R-Utah), has argued that the federal government uses the fund to acquire more federal land at the expense of other federal and non-federal land management priorities, including land maintenance costs and local recreational projects. Bishop had opposed the fund's reauthorization in the annual spending bill without legislative changes to the fund, such as restrictions on federal land acquisition.[18]

San Diego City Council adopts climate change plan

Click to read more about climate change.

On December 15, 2015, the San Diego City Council voted unanimously in favor of a climate change plan that would reduce the city's greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent before 2035. The plan requires the city to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2035, which is more ambitious than California's statewide goal of generating 50 percent of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2030. San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer (R) led the effort to pass the plan after taking office in 2014.[19]

"Today San Diego took a landmark step toward securing a greener and more prosperous future. ... We've done something remarkable, bringing business and environmental interests together in a bipartisan manner to support a cleaner community and a stronger economy," according to Faulconer. Included in the plan are proposals for installing charging stations for electric cars, encouraging greater use of public transportation, requiring energy-efficient city buildings, and boosting development of wind and solar power for electricity generation. The plan's greenhouse gas reduction and 100 percent renewable energy goals are legally binding, allowing private groups to file lawsuits if the city does not comply with the plan's mandates. San Diego is the second California city, after Sacramento, to adopt enforceable climate goals.[19][20][21]

The San Diego plan's approval comes after the United Nations' climate change talks concluded in Paris, France, on December 11, 2015, where around 200 nations, including the United States, voted to adopt a 31-page international agreement to keep any increase in the average global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Those signing the agreement are aiming to reduce enough greenhouse gases to keep the increase at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, sometime after 2050, human-caused emissions must reach a level that can be absorbed entirely by oceans and forests, according to the agreement.[22]

December 14, 2015

United States and world leaders reach international climate agreement

Click to read more about climate change and environmental policy in the United States.

In December 2015, around 200 nations, including the United States, voted to adopt a 31-page international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. The agreement's long-term goal is to keep any increase in the average global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Those signing the agreement are aiming to reduce enough greenhouse gases to keep the increase at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, sometime after 2050, human-caused emissions must reach a level that can be absorbed entirely by oceans and forests, according to the agreement.[22]

Under the agreement, each nation has an emissions target determined by that nation's government, though the target is not legally binding. Each nation, however, will be required to report its emissions levels and its progress to the United Nations and to reconsider its emissions target every five years. Developed countries like the United States are expected to help finance developing countries' emissions reductions and climate change mitigation efforts through the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, which has a goal of providing $100 billion each year to developing countries for climate change purposes by 2020.[22]

President Barack Obama (D) called the agreement a "turning point" in the world's response to climate change. "The Paris agreement establishes the enduring framework the world needs to solve the climate crisis. ... It creates the mechanism, the architecture for us to continually tackle this problem in an effective way," Obama said. The Obama administration has pledged $3 billion for the UN's Green Climate Fund; congressional Republicans have stated they will not approve federal funding for the climate fund without a vote on the Paris agreement.[23]

According to the Obama administration, the Paris agreement is not a binding treaty, which would have to be ratified by the United States Senate, since the agreement's goals are voluntary. The agreement does not contain an enforcement provision to demand compliance. Leaders in Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, have stated they would oppose the Paris agreement if it came up for a vote. "Before his international partners pop the champagne, they should remember that this is an unattainable deal based on a domestic energy plan that is likely illegal, that half the states have sued to halt and that Congress has already voted to reject," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The Obama administration's major climate initiative, the Clean Power Plan, mandates a 32 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the nation's power sector by 2030. The House and Senate voted to repeal the plan in November 2015 and December 2015, though Obama has said he will veto the repeal.[24][25]

Second endangered fish species delisted due to recovery

Click to read more about endangered species policy and delisting a species.

In December 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it will remove the Modoc sucker, a small fish species in California and Oregon, from the federal endangered species list. The species was listed as endangered in 1985 under the Endangered Species Act, which provides federal protection to animal and plant species that are considered endangered or threatened by the federal government. The Modoc sucker was proposed for delisting—the process of removing a species from the federal list—in early 2014. The Modoc sucker's population rose from 1,300 fishes in 1985 to 2,600 in 2015. In 1985, the Modoc sucker inhabited seven streams comprising 13 miles. As of December 2015, the species inhabited 12 streams comprising roughly 43 miles. It is the second fish species ever to be removed from the federal list due to recovery; a species is deemed "recovered" by the federal government if the threats to its survival are eliminated or reduced. The Oregon chub was the first species to be delisted due to recovery, in March 2015.[26][27]

To spur the species' recovery, the California and Oregon state governments kept non-native fish species that were known to prey on the Modoc sucker away from the sucker's habitat. The non-native fishes are not considered as threatening to the sucker as they were earlier. The states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also limited livestock grazing near river banks to prevent erosion from filling the Modoc sucker's habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must monitor a delisted species and its habitat for five years to ensure that the species' population remains in good condition.[26]

Supreme Court to hear case on federal water permits

Click to read more about implementation of the Clean Water Act.

On December 11, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving property owners challenging the federal government's legal requirements under the federal Clean Water Act. The case, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, will address whether property owners can challenge the government's assessment over whether their private property is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Under the law, private property may fall under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority if the land is considered a significant body of water, such as a wetland. If the property does fall under the Clean Water Act, the federal government requires the owner to go through a permitting process before the land can be developed. The case will follow a 2012 Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, where the court ruled unanimously that property owners facing potential fines for forgoing a federal permit can challenge the government before a federal court rather than before the EPA.[28][29]

In the Hawkes case, a private company, Hawkes Co. Inc., is challenging the federal government's permit requirement for the company's proposed peat mine in Minnesota. The case was brought on behalf of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a private property rights group that challenges federal decisions on behalf of private owners in federal court. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled in favor of Hawkes and the PLF that property owners may challenge the federal government's decision to regulate property under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court will hear the case in spring 2016 and will rule on the matter by the end of June 2016.[28][30]

December 7, 2015

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders releases climate change plan

Click to read more about the 2016 presidential candidates and their positions on energy and the environment.

In December 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released his climate change plan, which would reduce the United States' greenhouse gases by 40 percent by 2030 and by more than 80 percent by 2050. The plan would also place a federal tax on carbon dioxide, eliminate subsidies for oil and natural gas, and ban all offshore drilling.[31][32][33]

"We will act boldly to move our energy system away from fossil fuels, toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal because we have a moral responsibility to leave our kids a planet that is healthy and habitable," Sanders said.[31]

Sanders' plan would use the funds collected by a carbon tax to finance renewable energy projects in the geothermal, wind and solar industries. Other initiatives in his plan focus on raising fuel economy standards to 65 miles per gallon for all cars by 2025, placing moratoriums on licenses held by nuclear power plants, and spending federal funds on high-speed passenger railroads.[31][32][33]

During a November 14, 2015, Democratic debate, Sanders claimed that climate change is "directly related to the growth of terrorism," particularly the ISIS insurgency in Iraq and Syria. Asked to expand on his remarks, Sanders argued that extreme weather events brought on by climate change, such as drought, mean that "peoples all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources," which he said would lead to "international conflicts," including terrorism.[34]

In July 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released her climate change plan, which focused on installing more than 500 million solar panels across the country by the end of her first term and generating enough renewable energy to power every household in 10 years.[35][36]

Republican presidential candidates have generally been skeptical about the extent to which human activity can affect climate change. Candidate and Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) held a Senate hearing on December 8, 2015, which questioned the degree to which climate change is a man-made phenomenon. Cruz is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness.[37]

City of San Diego gives initial approval to climate change plan

Click to read more about climate change.

In November 2015, the city of San Diego, California, gave initial approval to a citywide climate change plan, which includes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent in 2020 and by 50 percent in 2035 based on the city's 2010 levels. The plan was passed unanimously by the city council's Environment Committee; the full city council reviewed and voted on the measure at its December 15, 2015, meeting.[38]

The plan focuses on the construction of renewable energy resources throughout the city; the encouragement of walking, bicycling and public transit; and the promotion of recycling to reduce the gases produced by landfills. Other goals found in the plan include producing 100 percent of citywide electricity from renewable sources by 2035 and reducing municipal facilities' energy consumption by 15 percent by 2020. "There are various targets that are included, but broadly speaking, it's renewable energy, mass transit as a way to get around in our city, an urban trees canopy so we have more trees planted in our city, and diverting solid waste from our landfills," according to Environment Committee Chairman David Alvarez.[38]

Climate Action Campaign, a San Diego-based environmental advocacy group, supported the city's plan. "We are modeling success that can be replicated in every city around the world. ... Now, it's all about implementation. We are calling on the mayor and the council to develop a detailed implementation plan with full funding," stated the organization's executive director. The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce said the city council was hurrying the plan through without considering the plan's costs. "Rushing into multibillion-dollar decisions, without time to fully study the impacts, places San Diego residents and businesses at risk of overpaying for unknown climate benefits," according to the organization's president.[38][39]

Federal appeals court hears arguments on EPA mercury standards

Click to read more about mercury and air toxics standards.

On December 4, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments from states requesting that the court annul the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mercury standards for power plants. In June 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated the mercury standards temporarily because the EPA had not properly considered their costs, and remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit Court. The federal appeals court is expected to decide whether to cancel the standards completely or to leave them in place.[40][41][42][43][44]

The EPA's standards limit how many mercury and other toxic pollutants can be produced by coal- and oil-fired power plants. Approximately 600 power plants, including 1,400 oil- and coal-fired electric-generating units, will fall under the standards. According to the EPA, power plants account for 50 percent of mercury emissions, 75 percent of acidic gases and 20-60 percent of toxic metal emissions in the United States. All coal- and oil-fired power plants with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater will be subject to the standards.[45]

Representing several states and power plants, Michigan Solicitor General Aaron Lindstrom argued that the EPA still could not lawfully move forward with federal mercury standards because the agency had not given a proper consideration to their costs during the initial regulatory process. Lindstrom also argued that the compliance costs for power plants under the mercury standards will be "significant."[43][44]

Representing the EPA, attorney Stephanie Talbert argued that the EPA is expected to consider the mercury standards' costs, which the Supreme Court ruled in its summer 2015 decision, by April 2016. Talbert also argued that canceling the standards would have negative environmental and public health effects and that power plants had already made investments to comply with the standards.[43][44]

The panel of judges who heard the case included Chief Judge Merrick Garland, Judge Judith Rogers (both appointed by Bill Clinton) and Judge Brett Kavanaugh (appointed by George W. Bush). During the oral arguments, Judge Garland commented that vacating the mercury standards entirely would be more disruptive than allowing the EPA to perform its cost estimates and begin implementing the standards.[43][44]

December 1, 2015

EPA sets renewable fuel mandate for 2016

Click to read more about energy policy in the United States.

In November 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set a new federal standard for ethanol levels in fuel, requiring oil refiners to blend 18.11 billion gallons of ethanol into their fuel in 2016. The standard was an increase from the EPA's May 2015 proposal of 17.4 billion gallons, but it fell below the target of 22.25 billion set by Congress in 2007. The federal standard, known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, is meant to blend greater amounts of biofuel, including ethanol, into transportation fuel, which would gradually replace more petroleum with renewable fuels.[46][47][48]

"With today’s final rule, and as Congress intended, EPA is establishing volumes that grow the amount of biofuel in the market over time, and that go beyond historic levels and those in our proposal. ... Our standards provide for ambitious, achievable growth — especially in advanced fuels that maximize carbon pollution reductions compared to gasoline," Acting Assistant EPA Administrator Janet McCabe said.[46]

Oil refinery groups have argued that the Renewable Fuel Standard will increase gasoline prices and damage automobile engines by requiring an increasing amount of biofuel in gasoline. "EPA's final rule relies on unrealistic increases in sales of higher ethanol fuel blends despite the fact that most cars cannot use them. ... Motorists have largely rejected these fuels," said a manager at the American Petroleum Institute (API), a national trade association that represents the oil and natural gas industry. According to API, the majority of vehicles are not equipped to manage more than 10 percent ethanol in gasoline (known as the "blend wall"), which the group argued was exceeded by the EPA's 2016 standard.[46] [49]

Ethanol and biofuel groups have argued that vehicles can handle higher ethanol and biofuel levels in gasoline and that the standard results in less air pollution and more employment for renewable fuel producers. "This decision means we will displace billions of gallons of petroleum diesel in the coming years with clean-burning biodiesel. ... That means less pollution, more American jobs, and more competition that is sorely lacking in the fuels market," according to the head of the National Biodiesel Board, a commercial trade association representing the biodiesel industry. Meanwhile, ethanol groups—while supportive of the standard—criticized the EPA's 2016 standard for not going far enough. "EPA’s decision today turns our nation’s most successful energy policy on its head. ... Today's decision will severely cripple the program’s ability to incentivize infrastructure investments that are crucial to break through the so-called blend wall and create a larger market for all biofuels," stated the president of the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade association for the American ethanol industry.[46]

Congressional Republicans oppose federal spending on U.N. climate fund

Click to read more about climate change and federal climate policy.

In November 2015, more than 100 House Republicans wrote to the U.S. House Appropriations Committee in opposition to President Barack Obama's (D) pledge to contribute a total of $3 billion to the United Nations' "Green Climate Fund," a global fund for developing nations to help mitigate climate change. The fund began in 2009 with the goal of raising $100 billion each year by 2020 to fund renewable energy and infrastructure projects in developing countries. Obama requested $500 million for the fund in his 2016 budget proposal, although no funding has been appropriated as of December 11, 2015.[50][51]

Another letter, sent to Obama in November 2015 and signed by 37 Republican senators, stated that the senators will block spending on the green fund if the administration refuses to bring any international climate change agreement to Congress for ratification. House Republicans made a similar request to vote on any climate change agreement before they approved any funding (international climate talks were held in Paris from November 30, 2015, to December 11, 2015).[50][51]

House Republicans have argued that committing the United States to the green fund would increase U.S. obligations to the United Nations beyond what was requested by the Obama administration. "This request from the president appears to be just the beginning of a commitment to the United Nations that could dwarf previous such climate commitments made by the United States government. ... The Green Climate Fund's executive director recently stated that estimated funding needed by developing countries would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020," according to the House Republicans' letter.[50][51]

Congressional Democrats, such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), have said it would be difficult for Republicans to block funding for the green fund, which is already being implemented. "It's already in progress, and it would have to be a herculean effort for Republicans to stop it. ... It's already in existence, the fund. It would be really difficult to try and take us back," Boxer said. In contrast, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) promised that Congress "will have a say" on any federal funding for the UN's climate plan.[50][51]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 The Hill, "Obama officials add African lion to endangered list," December 21, 2015
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Washington Examiner, "U.S. moves to protect lions as endangered species," December 21, 2015
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 The New York Times, "After Cecil Furor, U.S. Aims to Protect Lions Through Endangered Species Act," December 20, 2015
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Washington Examiner, "Chamber, manufacturers sue EPA over smog rules," December 23, 2015
  5. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA's final air quality standards for ground-level ozone standards by the numbers," October 1, 2015
  6. ↑ Washington Examiner, "EPA tries to appease green groups mad about ozone rules," October 1, 2015
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 The Hill, "Spending deal to lift oil export ban," December 15, 2015
  8. ↑ Reuters, "Congress kills U.S. oil export ban, boosts solar, wind power," December 18, 2015
  9. ↑ Bloomberg, "Congress Passes U.S. Spending Bill to End Oil Export Ban," December 18, 2015
  10. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Statement of Adam Sieminski Administrator Energy Information Administration U.S. Department of Energy Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power U.S. House of Representatives," December 11, 2014
  11. ↑ Council on Foreign Relations, "The Case for Allowing U.S. Crude Oil Exports," accessed March 25, 2015
  12. ↑ David Porter Railroad Commissioner, "It's Time to End the Crude Oil Export Ban," March 16, 2015
  13. ↑ Oil Change International, "Should it Stay or Should It Go?" October 2013
  14. ↑ Washington Post, "Inside the lobbying campaign to end the ban on crude oil exports," December 17, 2015
  15. ↑ The Hill, "Oil export ban hypocrisy," December 15, 2015
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 U.S. Congressional Research Service, "Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues," October 21, 2014
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 The Hill, "Conservation fund gets 3-year lifeline in spending bill," December 16, 2015
  18. ↑ The Salt Lake Tribune, "Congress set to renew land conservation fund Utah’s Bishop wanted to overhaul," December 17, 2015
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Huffington Post, "San Diego Adopts Ambitious Plan To Battle Climate Change," December 15, 2015
  20. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "San Diego's climate change plan gets final OK," December 15, 2015
  21. ↑ The New York Times, "San Diego Vows to Move Entirely to Renewable Energy in 20 Years," December 15, 2015
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 The Associated Press, "Paris climate agreement: All you need to know," December 13, 2015
  23. ↑ The Hill, "Obama: Paris climate pact ‘can be a turning point for the world,'" December 12, 2015
  24. ↑ Washington Examiner, "Kerry says Paris agreement crafted to avoid Congress," December 13, 2015
  25. ↑ Washington Examiner, "Senate GOP steels itself for fight over Paris agreement," December 13, 2015
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Scientific American, "Modoc Sucker Recovers, Leaves Endangered Species List," December 9, 2015
  27. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Modoc Sucker Species Profile," accessed December 14, 2015
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Reuters, "U.S. top court to decide federal water permit dispute," December 11, 2015
  29. ↑ Oyez Project, "Sackett v. EPA," accessed April 15, 2015
  30. ↑ Pacific Legal Foundation, "High Court will hear PLF case over 'wetlands' designations," December 11, 2015
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 BernieSanders.com, "Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet," accessed December 7, 2015
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 NBC News, "Bernie Sanders Unveils Climate Plan," December 7, 2015
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Washington Post, "Bernie Sanders puts forward ambitious plan to combat climate change," December 7, 2015
  34. ↑ Washington Post, "Bernie Sanders explains connection between climate change and Paris attacks," November 15, 2015
  35. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Hillary Clinton Previews Plans to Combat Climate Change," July 26, 2015
  36. ↑ YouTube, "Stand for Reality," July 26, 2015
  37. ↑ Bloomberg, "Hearing on Whether Global Warming Science Is 'Data or Dogma,'" December 2, 2015
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 Times of San Diego, "San Diego’s Proposal to Address Climate Change Clears First Hurdle," November 30, 2015
  39. ↑ San Diego Union Tribune, "San Diego climate plan moves to full council," November 30, 2015
  40. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency," June 29, 2015
  41. ↑ CNN.com, "Supreme Court: EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act," June 29, 2015
  42. ↑ Associated Press, "High court strikes down power plant regulations," June 29, 2015
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 Washington Examiner, "Judges suggest court not ready to kill EPA pollution rule," December 4, 2015
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 44.3 Bloomberg BNA, "Judges Question Need to Vacate EPA Mercury Rule," December 7, 2015
  45. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Cleaner Power Plants," accessed January 5, 2015
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 The Hill, "Obama dials back ethanol fuel standard," November 30, 2015
  47. ↑ Washington Examiner, "Ethanol in gasoline to rise, but not as much as Congress wanted," November 30, 2015
  48. ↑ Washington Post, "An embattled EPA declares biofuels volumes for 2016," November 30, 2015
  49. ↑ American Petroleum Institute, "API History," accessed August 26, 2014
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 The Hill, "Republicans vow to deny Obama climate funds to derail Paris talks," November 20, 2015
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 51.3 Washington Examiner, "House GOP plans to block Obama climate funds," November 23, 2015
v • e
The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment
StatesEnvironmental Policy Project
Archives
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Policy_Tracker:_Energy_and_Environment:_December_2015&oldid=9067565"