The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment: February 2015

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ENVIRONMENT POLICY-Masthead.png

February 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.

February 23, 2015

Arizona is one of six Southwestern states to receive solar energy zones.

See also: Environmental policy in Arizona

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has created a program intended to increase solar energy development by designating solar energy zones in six Southwestern states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The goal of the program is to promote utility-scale solar energy developments that generate at least 20 megawatts of electricity that can be transferred to the electricity grid.[1][2]

Across the six states mentioned above, the BLM manages 99 million acres. Of this land, the BLM identified 677,400 acres (0.68 percent) that were well-suited for development. In order for lands to be considered well-suited, they must follow these requirements (read the BLM's report to see all 25 exclusions):

  • Have a slope of less than 5 percent
  • Not be critical habitat areas for endangered species
  • Not have wilderness characteristics in their land use plans
  • Have necessary right of way designations
  • Not be national recreation trails, national historic landmarks or national back country byways
  • Not have old growth forests

The BLM identified three areas in Arizona that were well-suited for utility-scale solar power: Agua Caliente, Brenda and Gillespie. These zones in Arizona represent 13,735 acres, or 0.11 percent of the land managed by the BLM in that state.[3]

Despite the long list of criteria required for these zones to be considered well-suited, the BLM has still received push back for its plan, even from groups that generally favor renewable energy development. When the BLM reached out for comment about its proposal, the Sierra Club, an influential environmental conservation group, opposed the use of certain lands in Arizona, California and Nevada for the project due to threatened and endangered species in those areas. The Sierra Club even accused the BLM of violating federal environmental laws, including the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, in its attempt to create the solar energy zones.[4]

Proposed New Jersey pipeline receives opposition from local lawmakers and groups.

See also: Environmental policy in New Jersey

A $1 billion proposed crude oil pipeline, the Pilgrim Pipeline, would traverse seven New Jersey counties and nearly 30 New Jersey towns. The pipeline would span 178 miles beginning in Albany, New York, and conclude at Linden, New Jersey. It would carry millions of gallons of crude oil that has been fracked in North Dakota's oil fields. Spokespeople for the pipeline have argued that the pipeline is a more efficient and safer way of transporting crude oil through the state than the current system. The pipeline's opponents have argued that it could negatively affect local towns, town residents and protected environmental areas like the New Jersey Highlands. Several Republican members of the New Jersey Legislature have come out against the Pilgrim Pipeline, including Republican Minority Leader of the New Jersey House Jon Bramnick and Republican New Jersey Senate Minority Leader Thomas Kean. Republican-controlled towns that would be affected by the pipeline have passed opposition resolutions to the pipeline as well, including 13 New Jersey towns and Passaic County. Other opposition groups include environmental groups like the New Jersey Sierra Club.[5][6][7]

In December 2014, the New Jersey State House passed a resolution opposing the pipeline's construction, and a similar resolution was introduced in the New Jersey State Senate. More city councils near the proposed pipeline's area have responded to the project. In February 2015, the Newburgh City Council voted unanimously to oppose the pipeline's construction near the city. On February 20, 2015, the city council of Linden, New Jersey, the end point of the proposed pipeline, passed a resolution opposing the project. Other resolutions opposing the pipeline have been passed by the governing bodies of Chatham, N.J., Madison, N.J., and Florham Park, N.J. The proposed pipeline must be reviewed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection before it can be approved, and a final decision is expected by the end of 2015.[8][9][10][11]

Company responsible for the Dan River coal ash spill is fined.

See also: Environmental policy in Virginia and Environmental policy in North Carolina

On February 2, 2014, a coal ash spill occurred in the Dan River in North Carolina and Virginia. After a break in a pipe, waste and sludge seeped into the Dan River in Rockingham County, North Carolina, which stretches for more than 200 miles across both states. In response, federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies like the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources implemented the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration program. The state governments implemented this restoration project throughout 2014, which included a long-term monitoring plan to gauge the effects of the spill on Virginia and North Carolina waters and wildlife.[12][13][14]

On February 20, 2015, Duke Energy Corporation, the company responsible for the spill, agreed to pay $102.2 million to the federal government in penalties and restitution. The company was put on a five-year probationary period during which the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina will monitor the company for compliance. Duke Energy's shareholders will also be responsible for the $102.2 million rather than the company's customers, according to a Duke Energy spokesperson. The case was investigated by United States attorneys in North Carolina in 2014, and the company was found to be in violation of the federal Clean Water Act on nine counts due to the magnitude of the spill and the discharge of pollution into the river. The incident has sparked attention to the issue of coal production near rivers. The Dan River in particular spans 200 miles across Virginia and North Carolina, where its shallow areas are often used for recreation. The Dan River spill was the latest in a series of spills involving coal ash. In 2005, a power plant accidentally discharged 850,000 cubic yards of coal ash into the Delaware River. In 2008, a coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, discharged 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash and cost $1.2 billion to clean up.[12][13][14]

February 16, 2015

California Senate introduces sweeping climate change proposals.

See also: Environmental policy in California

Governor of California Jerry Brown called for a series of new goals for addressing climate change in his January 2015 inaugural address. His proposals included requiring 50 percent of California's electricity come from renewable sources by 2030, cutting the use of gasoline by California drivers, requiring older buildings be more energy efficient by 2030, and further restricting greenhouses gas emissions. In February 2015 California Senate Democrats submitted proposals that echo Brown's own initiatives. According to State Senate Leader Kevin de León, "We want the same goal...We're on the same page."[15]

The bills require stricter standards for greenhouse gas emissions and an expansion of renewable energy generation, as well as requiring less gasoline by used on state roads by 2030. The reduction of gasoline use in particular would the use of more alternative fuels, further requirements for fuel efficiency in motor vehicles, and fewer miles driven by California residents. Other proposals restrict California's pension funds from investing in coal companies. This new round of climate proposals reflect earlier legislation on the issue, including a 2006 state law requiring greenhouse gas reductions to 1990 levels by 2020. One of the proposed bills would require an even further reduction (80 percent) in emissions by 2050.[15][16]

Oil companies have expressed opposition to the proposal for reducing gasoline use and have questioned whether the proposal is feasible. According to an official statement from the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, "Legislative mandates designed to constrain the availability of conventional energy supplies are not a smart or effective way to encourage development of available or affordable alternatives."[15]

Idaho Republicans offer different proposals for potential national monument.

See also: Environmental policy in Idaho

Idaho Representative Raul Labrador introduced legislation requiring approval from Congress and legislatures in states where national monuments are being proposed. Labrador's legislation, which Idaho Senator Mike Crapo echoed in a Senate version of Labrador's bill called the National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act, would require that national monument proposals be approved from both the state legislature where the land is located as well as Congress. The 1906 Antiquities Act, a law passed during the height of the conservation movement, allows the president to designate national monuments unilaterally, although Congress possesses the power to overturn or change a designation.[17][18]

The legislative proposals have triggered a debate over whether to designate the Boulder-White Clouds Mountains, a 700,000-acre scenic area in central Idaho, as a national monument. "Presidents in both parties have overstepped the original intent of the law...In Idaho, the current threat of a presidential designation of a Boulder-White Clouds monument has distorted the debate on how to manage those lands," Representative Labrador said.[17][18] Supporters of the designation include Boise, Idaho mayor David Bieter. Bieter met with President Barack Obama on the issue, although the administration has not taken any position. Republican Representative Mike Simpson supports alternative legislation called the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, which would grant some federal protection to Boulder-White Clouds in the areas of wilderness and grazing but would not designate the area as a monument.[19][17]

Idaho counties are split on the national monument proposal. Commissioners from Blaine County, Idaho have supported the proposal while Custer County, Idaho officials have opposed it.[19]

Utah Governor signs executive order to increase sage grouse protection.

See also: Environmental policy in Utah

On February 10, 2015, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed an executive order requiring state agencies to give further protection to the sage grouse, a potentially threatened bird species in the state that could receive federal protection under the federal Endangered Species Act in late 2015. Herbert's order requires state agencies to minimize their impact on the bird and its habitat in order to stave off federal involvement with the species, which the governor has said could have "a significantly devastating" impact on the state's economy. At at a press conference, the governor also stated, "We care about the greater sage grouse. We care about its habitat and we want to make sure its habitat and sage grouse are preserved and protected and can continue to flourish as part of our overall flora and fauna of Utah." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has until September 2015 to make a decision over whether the sage grouse should receive federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.[20]

Meanwhile, the executive order requires that the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources serve as a consultant to other state agencies on state decisions that could potentially impact the sage grouse or its habitat. Much of the state's activities will involve mandatory habitat protection and preservation efforts. The order also requires that state oil and gas regulators go through additional steps before permitting any new oil and gas development that could potentially affect sage grouse areas.[20][21]

In 2014 Herbert estimated that the bird's placement as an endangered species could potentially cost Utah $41.4 billion in economic development and 211,523 jobs in the oil and gas industry. The state government's efforts to preserve sage grouse habitats are often seen as a way to increase the bird's population, thus keeping it from receiving federal protection. The sage grouse population in the state has been on the rise since 2013.[22][23]

Utah is also one of 11 Western states with sage grouse populations and is also one of seven Western states that has contributed between $1 million and $2 million in support of delaying a decision on federal sage grouse protection.[20]

February 9, 2015

Oregon Senate to vote on permanent low-carbon fuel standards

See also: Environmental policy in Oregon

In 2009 the Oregon State Legislature passed legislation authorizing the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to adopt a low carbon fuel standard for transportation fuels. The standard seeks to reduce the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of fuel energy by 10 percent from 2010 to 2020. The Oregon State Legislature is expected to decide in 2015 whether to make the low-carbon fuel standards permanent.[24][25]

All oil distributors are required to meet the low-carbon standard. About 90 percent of Oregon's oil imports come from international companies like BP, Chevron and Exxon Mobil, each of which will be required to lower the level of carbon emissions from their oil and gasoline products. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality measures the "carbon intensity" of all emissions from petroleum production and use. The department begins its carbon measurement with the actual extraction of the oil itself and takes into account carbon emissions from refining, transporting and burning the oil. If any oil distributors exceed the standard, they will face a fine from the state government. The Oregon state government hopes that the standard will create incentives for cleaner oil and penalize companies using dirtier oil. Companies with oil higher than the carbon standard will be required to purchase "credits" from oil companies with products that emit fewer carbon emissions than the state standard.[26]

The Oregon State Senate's environment committee approved making the standard permanent in February 2015 and will put it to a full Senate vote in the near future. The committee voted 3-2 along party lines, with Democratic senators voting to make the standard permanent while Republican senators voted against it. The standard has also been opposed by companies like American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), which argued that the state's low-carbon standard is unconstitutional. The low-carbon standard has also been tied to a political controversy involving Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon First Lady Cylvia Hayes. Hayes admitted to collecting $118,000 in payments from an out-of-state clean energy group when she was advising Governor Kitzhaber on clean energy policy. A Washington, D.C.-based consulting company called Clean Economy Development Center paid Hayes $30,000 in 2011 and $88,000 in 2012, with a total payment of nearly $213,000 in consulting fees since 2011.[27][28][29][30][31][32]

Utah receives federal funding for wildfire prevention and river restoration projects

See also: Environmental policy in Utah

Utah received $3 million in federal funding from the most recent "Farm Bill" to combat wildfires and to improve stream water quality and irrigation in the northern area of the state. Utah was selected out of roughly 600 applications as part of the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, a federal program that funds conservation assistance to private producers and landowners. The program received a total of $370 million in federal funds from the Farm Bill to go toward conservation assistance. The projects are administered by a variety of groups and organizations, including local communities, non-government organizations, nonprofit organizations, state and federal agencies, conservation groups and others.[33]

The Utah projects to receive federal funding include statewide wildfire relief and a project for stream restoration and irrigation improvement, particularly along Utah's Bear River, a water source that helps benefit sensitive wildlife throughout the area. The Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy, a statewide and locally-led project to reduce wildfires, received $1.7 million in federal funding. The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands will partner with local communities to identify high-risk wildfire areas and to organize activities to fight wildfires. The Upper Bear River Stream Restoration and Irrigation Efficiency project received $1.2 million in federal funds. The project will involve a partnership of 14 organizations to begin conservation work on the East Fork and Upper Bear River in Utah and parts of Wyoming. The project seeks to improve irrigation management and efficiency in order to improve fish passage and stream flow. Improving river flow is said to benefit native fishes and other aquatic species.[34]

Georgia nuclear power expansion delayed

See also: Environmental policy in Georgia and Energy policy in Georgia

Although the Georgia Environmental Protection Division approved several water permits for new nuclear reactors near the Savannah River in December 2014, the nuclear plant expansion, called Plant Vogtle, was delayed for 18 months. The plant, which includes two nuclear reactors, is the first newly licensed nuclear power plant in the United States in almost 30 years. The two nuclear reactors were initially expected to be completed in 2017 and 2018, but the plant's delay now puts the project roughly 1.5 years behind schedule.[35][36]

The project, owned by Georgia Power and its parent company Southern Company, would have eventually taken in almost 74 million gallons of water daily from the Savannah River, and the two reactors would have consumed more from the Savannah River than the cities of Augusta and Savannah combined. The Southern Company filed with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission in late January 2015 regarding how its two main contractors will not complete the first reactor until mid-2019 and the second reactor until mid-2020. Project Vogtle's delay could affect power bills for consumers as the project's costs continue to grow.[35]Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag

In an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Southern Company chief executive Tom Fanning expressed confidence in the overall project despite its delay. "We remain committed to nuclear as a dominant solution in the future to the nation’s energy portfolio," said Fanning.[35]

The cost of construction had been estimated previously at $14 billion, with a large percentage of the project paid by Georgia Power. However, the delay could cause overall costs to increase by hundreds of millions of dollars. Georgia Power customers pay for the project's costs in their monthly power bills.[35][36]

February 2, 2015

The barred owl threatens endangered owl species

See also: Endangered Species Act

In an experimental program run by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) one owl population is being hunted as a means of protecting an endangered owl species. Announced in fall 2013, the program allows residents to hunt the aggressive barred owl in an attempt to help the declining spotted owl. In large portions of the Pacific Northwest, barred owls outnumber spotted owls as the latter's population declines in areas where barred owls have resided the longest. Barred owls are known to be larger and more aggressive, leading the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to respond with a four-year experiment aimed at managing the barred owl population by allowing residents to kill up to 3,600 barred owls in roughly 2 percent of the spotted owl's habitat throughout Washington, Oregon, and northern California. According to the study's coordinator Robin Bown, a FWS biologist, "The experiment will provide us with the information to decide whether this is a reasonable management tool to maintain spotted owl populations...And if so, what are the difficulties and the cost?"[37][38]

The experiment has created controversy, leading animal advocacy group Friends of the Animals to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Killing barred owls is just not a morally acceptable approach to ecosystem management," Michael Harris, legal director for Friends of the Animals, said in an interview. "It is really micromanaging animals and habitats."[38] According to Bown, the study's coordinator, the Endangered Species Act legally requires the protection of endangered or threatened species. "We spent 20 years hoping that the two species would work it out," Bown said. "Now we are in a hurry, because we see the writing on the wall." The FWS hired an ethicist from Clark University, a private university in Massachusetts, to advise the barred owl shooting study.[38][37]

Support and opposition grows to a New England natural gas pipeline

See also: Environmental policy in New Hampshire

In December 2014 alternative routes were proposed for a potential natural gas pipeline, known as the Northeast Energy Direct project, a project spearheaded by Kinder Morgan, a large Houston-based energy company. These alternative routes combined two previously proposed pipeline routes and directed the pipeline from New York through southern New Hampshire to its conclusion in western Massachusetts. According to the owner of the pipeline, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan), the proposed pipeline routes were designed to minimize environmental impact and to expand natural gas services in New Hampshire. The company is submitting the alternative routes to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for approval. The pipeline would deliver natural gas (likely extracted from wells that were fracked) to distribution companies throughout the New England area. The revised plan for the pipeline came as a result of some public opposition from western Massachusetts residents whose towns could be affected by the pipeline. The pipeline is expected to transport 2.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from Marcellus shale fields to New England and Canada. Potential customers for the natural gas would include local gas distribution companies, power plants fueled by natural gas and liquified natural gas producers.[39][40][41]

In December 2014 trade union leaders in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine announced support for the natural gas pipeline. Representatives from the New Hampshire and Massachusetts Building Trades Councils expressed approval of the pipeline and its promise of nearly 3,000 new construction jobs for the region. Frank Callahan, head of the Massachusetts Building Trades Council, stated that his organization would lobby in favor of the pipeline. On the other side, opponents of the pipeline, including environmental groups, have banded together to lobby against the pipeline's approval across three states. The Stop NED Coalition is a group of environmental activists that include the groups Climate Action Now, Stop NY Fracked Gas Pipeline and the Massachusetts Pipeline Awareness Network, among others, which oppose the pipeline. The opponents have argued that the pipeline's environmental risks outweigh the economic benefits. The groups point to the burning of natural gas as exacerbating the problem of climate change and the potential risks of leaking or explosions in the pipeline.[42][39]

Congress and the White House at odds over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska

See also: Environmental policy in Alaska

Activity in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), especially oil and natural gas exploration, has been a point of contention in environmental and energy policy debates. ANWR, the largest wilderness area protected by the federal government, spans 19 million acres in Alaska. About 2,000 acres have been considered for oil and gas exploration, although drilling has never occurred. Environmental advocates argue that oil and gas activity could produce harmful environmental consequences, including an impact on wildlife throughout the area. Meanwhile, pro-drilling groups argue that oil royalties could help fund the Alaska state government while the area proposed for drilling could produce an estimated 5.7 billion barrels of domestic oil. After the Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate in January 2015, a renewed push for drilling in ANWR began when Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski becomes chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Murkowski supports drilling in ANWR and opening up 2,000 acres for oil and gas exploration.[43][44]

In January 2015 the political battle over ANWR drilling began when the Obama administration announced a plan to block oil and gas exploration along the northern Alaska coastline. The plan permanently bars drilling and other forms of oil and gas development in ANWR's coastal plains, and the proposal also directs the U.S. Department of the Interior to designate over 12 million acres of ANWR for conservation. The complete plan must be approved by Congress, which Murkowski in particular opposes. "It's clear this administration does not care about us, and sees us as nothing but a territory," a statement by Murkowski said. "I cannot understand why this administration is willing to negotiate with Iran, but not Alaska," Murkowski continued. "But we will not be run over like this. We will fight back with every resource at our disposal."[45] Although only Congress can designate the areas as wilderness (which is the highest form of federal protection for land), even if the plan is rejected by Congress, the Interior Department will continue to bar oil and gas development.[46]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Solar Energy Program," accessed November 19, 2014
  2. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Solar Energy Zones," accessed November 19, 2014
  3. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Draft Solar PEIS," December 2010
  4. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Programmatic Land Use Plan Amendments for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States," p. 53, October 11, 2012
  5. ↑ NJ.com, "Christie mum on N.J. pipeline opposed by state GOP as he pitches XL pipeline with eye on 2016," December 14, 2014
  6. ↑ The Daily Record, "Trenton bill would oppose Pilgrim Pipeline," December 8, 2014
  7. ↑ NJ.com, "Proposed Pilgrim oil pipeline worries Roselle residents, officials," December 5, 2014
  8. ↑ New Jersey Hills, "'Community Rally' on Pilgrim Pipeline to be held Wednesday in Madison," February 23, 2015
  9. ↑ NJ.com, "Linden joins fight against Pilgrim oil pipeline; 26 of 28 towns now opposed," February 20, 2015
  10. ↑ MidHudson News, "Newburgh council opposes Pilgrim Pipeline," February 12, 2015
  11. ↑ NorthJersey.com, "N.J. officials try to stop pipeline," February 13, 2015
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Street Insider, "Duke Energy (DUK), US Reach Pact Related to Dan River Coal Ash Spill," February 20, 2015
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Duke Energy Agrees to Pay $102.2 Million for Coal-Ash Spill," February 20, 2015
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Associated Press, "One Year After Dan River Coal Ash Spill, Regulators Work To Determine Fines Against Duke Energy," February 2, 2015
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Los Angeles Times, "Lawmakers take step toward fulfilling state climate change goals," February 7, 2015
  16. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Sides square off over climate change proposals by California Democrats," February 10, 2015
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Idaho Statesman, "Labrador, Crapo bills aim to revamp Antiquities Act," February 12, 2015
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Magic Valley, "Obama Mum on Boulder-White Clouds, but Gets an Earful," January 22, 2015
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Magic Valley, "Crapo, Risch Look to Block Boulder-White Clouds," January 23, 2015
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Salt Lake Tribune, "Utah guv directs state agencies to protect sage grouse," February 10, 2015
  21. ↑ Deseret News, "Herbert signs executive order ramping up Utah protections for sage grouse," February 11, 2015
  22. ↑ Desert News, "Gov. Gary Herbert: Threat of sage grouse endangered species listing is real, could cost Utah billions," February 18, 2014
  23. ↑ Utah Office of Energy Development, "Overview," accessed August 14, 2014
  24. ↑ Yahoo Finance, "AFPM Argues Oregon's Proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard is Unconstitutional," November 20, 2014
  25. ↑ Blue Mountain Eagle, "Legislature poised to make low-carbon fuel standards permanent," November 11, 2014
  26. ↑ Oregon Live, "4 things you should know about Oregon's low-carbon fuel standard," January 29, 2015
  27. ↑ Yahoo Finance, "AFPM Argues Oregon's Proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard is Unconstitutional," November 20, 2014
  28. ↑ Blue Mountain Eagle, "Legislature poised to make low-carbon fuel standards permanent," November 11, 2014
  29. ↑ OregonLive.com, "Oregon's fuel standard opposition group admits oil industry ties, fueling accusations of 'astroturfing'," November 20, 2014
  30. ↑ Oregon Live, "4 things you should know about Oregon's low-carbon fuel standard," January 29, 2015
  31. ↑ Oregon Live, "Clean fuels controversy: Low-carbon bill sent to Senate floor in party-line vote," February 4, 2015
  32. ↑ Oregon Live, "Cylvia Hayes discloses another $118,000 for consulting fees," January 28, 2015
  33. ↑ KSL.com, "Utah gets $3M to prevent wildfires, boost Bear River restoration," January 16, 2015
  34. ↑ KSL.com, "Utah gets $3M to prevent wildfires, boost Bear River restoration," January 16, 2015
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 35.3 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Georgia Power slows pursuit of another nuclear project," February 5, 2015
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Utility Dive, "Georgia Power's Vogtle nuclear plant delayed another 18 months," January 30, 2015
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Encroaching Competitor Adds to Spotted Owl's Struggle," accessed January 29, 2015
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 National Geographic, "Shooting Owls to Save Other Owls," July 17, 2014
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Mass Live, "Gas pipeline foes form three-state coalition to fight Kinder Morgan's Northeast Energy Direct project," January 30, 2015
  40. ↑ Telegram.com, "Gas pipeline, once targeted for north Central Mass., rerouted to NH," December 6, 2014
  41. ↑ WAMC Northeast Public Radio, "Northeast Energy Direct Pipeline Route Moves North," December 11, 2014
  42. ↑ Boston Globe, "Union leaders back N.E. gas pipeline plan," December 22, 2014
  43. ↑ The Independent, "ANWR debate will be revisited by Congress," November 30, 2014
  44. ↑ The Hill, "Republicans renew push for drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge," November 23, 2014
  45. ↑ CNN.com, "Obama's Alaska move triggers fight," January 26, 2015
  46. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Obama proposes expanding oil-drilling ban in Alaska wildlife refuge," January 25, 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:_February_2015&oldid=9067567"