Ethanol plant will pay $700,000 pollution fine

United Ethanol agreed to pay $700,000 to settle allegations its plant in Milton, Wisconsin, violated air pollution laws periodically over several years, it was announced November 7. A complaint filed by the Wisconsin Justice Department alleged 15 different violations of air pollution laws. According to the complaint, the company exceeded its air emission limits, and failed to install and maintain air pollution control equipment. The complaint also indicated the company failed to take measures to control odors at the plant. The company agreed to provide the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with an annual environmental compliance audit report for the next 3 years, and hire an independent environmental consultant to conduct a complete audit of the plant. The fine or violations will not affect ongoing plant operations, the company said. According to the complaint, air emissions testing showed violations beginning in 2007 of particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. The plant would periodically meet standards of its air permit for these and other pollutants, and then fall into violation.

Details Here

first published week of:   11/14/2011

Failed Energy Endeavors and their Government Backers
Pet Projects will Get Funded

Republicans are outraged by the loan guarantee given to the failed solar cell maker Solyndra, calling it symptomatic of government largess and favoritism. Careful, now. The same lessons also apply to the nuclear and coal companies that are seeking to get a leg up.

No energy form is puritanical. And all the hand–wrenching should be viewed for what it is -- part of an enduring effort to bring down President Obama. But that does not mean that the points raised are not valid, even though their motives are dressed up. Indeed, anytime taxpayers are put on the hook for businesses that can’t repay their loans, questions need to be asked -- questions that executives of Solyndra have refused to answer before a congressional panel.

In the case of Solyndra, cynics are inquiring whether the $528 million loan, originally applied for in 2005 and which was received in 2009, was rushed to a firm that was doomed from the outset.

Was it cronyism or was it the concern for a truly sick economy? Obama was elected on the promise of creating 5 million new jobs in the green sector -- the vehicle that would lift the nation out of despair and into prosperity. The General Accountability Office has said that the administration skipped steps, however, the White House says that it had to cut red tape in a hurry.

“Taking office amidst the worst recession since the Great Depression, President Obama confronted an unemployment crisis by focusing on the promotion of ‘green jobs,’ ”says a House Oversight Committee report on job creation. “Nearly three years and billions of taxpayer dollars later, Americans have received scant return from President Obama's investment.“

Details Here

first published week of:   10/24/2011

FCC says net neutrality lawsuits filed too soon

The Federal Communications Commission is asking a DC appeals court to throw out the Verizon and MetroPCS lawsuits against the agency’s new Open Internet rules. Verizon filed the initial lawsuit papers on January 20, arguing that the FCC’s move “goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.” Ditto, declared MetroPCS a few days later.

But the government isn’t taking on Verizon’s specific arguments. In fact, the Commission’s response is about as technically procedural as it gets. The FCC says that both companies jumped the gun by suing the FCC before its December net neutrality Order was even published in the Federal Register. That’s the action that makes any federal agency decision live and official.

The Verizon and MetroPCS appeals are “fatally premature and must be dismissed,” the FCC told the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday (response to Verizon here; response to MetroPCS here).

Details Here

first published week of:   01/31/2011

Federal CIO Vivek Kundra to Step Down

Vivek Kundra, the first federal CIO appointed by the White House to lead the nation’s technology initiatives, will step down at the end of the summer to pursue a fellowship at Harvard University, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced Thursday, June 16.

Kundra is expected to join Harvard in mid-August where he will serve as a joint fellow at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, according to the OMB.

President Barack Obama appointed Kundra to the position in 2009. The administration credits Kundra with saving taxpayers at least $3 billion by scrutinizing IT spending and identifying underperforming projects.

Under Kundra’s watch, the federal government also launched Data.gov, implemented a dashboard for federal IT projects, and mandated a “Cloud First” policy that requires federal agencies to look at cloud-based technologies in procurements. Kundra also pushed for a plan that will significantly reduce the 2,000-plus data centers currently run by individual agencies.

Details Here

first published week of:   06/20/2011

Feds Can do Some Good in Transmission
But will it be legal?

The language is very polished and smooth as if designed not to offend. It sounds so benign, so simple, so seductively easy —what’s not to like with this picture?

The U.S. Department of Energy’s proposal is under attack. It wants to “delegate” its responsibilities under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to FERC to conduct transmission congestion studies and designate national interest electric transmission corridors to facilitate action to relieve the congestion. DOE has had a terrible time trying to perform this responsibility, all of which have to do with politics and control.

“To the extent that this proposal is motivated by a desire to reduce barriers to transmission, it fails,” writes Charles Gray, executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. “It relies on a tortured reading of the statute that would cause uncertainty, litigation, damage to State and federal relations, and delays in transmission development.”

But US DOE went through two ‘tortures’’ cycles of congestion studies in 2007 and 2009. In the later it designated two transmission corridors: one in the mid Atlantic region where congestion has always been bad and a second in the Southwest where rapid growth of solar energy capacity needs access to the California markets. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down those designations, concluding the DOE failed to provide sufficient state consultation and failed to perform the required environmental analyses on expected projects.

Details Here

first published week of:   10/31/2011

FERC Transmission Planning, Cost Allocation reforms to benefit consumers

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reformed its transmission planning and cost allocation requirements to benefit consumers by enhancing the grid’s ability to support wholesale power markets and ensuring transmission services are provided at just and reasonable rates.

Order No. 1000 requires public utility transmission providers to improve transmission planning processes and allocate costs for new transmission facilities to beneficiaries of those facilities. It also requires public utility transmission providers to align transmission planning and cost allocation. These changes will remove barriers to development of transmission facilities. Approved after considering more than 200 sets of public comments, Order No. 1000 builds on FERC’s open access reforms of Order No. 888 (1996) and the planning reforms of Order No. 890 (2007).

“This rule is an important step forward, building on FERC’s successful market reforms over the past 15 years,” FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff said. “Our action today promotes efficient and cost-effective transmission planning and the fair allocation of costs for new transmission facilities. These changes will provide consumers with greater access to efficient, low-cost electricity.”

The transmission planning requirements established in the rule include development of regional transmission plans, consideration of transmission needs driven by public policy requirements established by state or federal laws or regulations, and coordination between pairs of neighboring transmission planning regions.

The cost allocation requirements established in the rule include development of regional and interregional cost allocation methods that satisfy certain principles. Under the rule, participant-funding of new transmission facilities is permitted but cannot be used as the regional or interregional cost allocation method.

The rule also promotes competition in regional transmission planning processes by removing from FERC-approved tariffs and agreements a federal right of first refusal for transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation, subject to certain limitations.

Order No. 1000 takes effect within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. Transmission providers must make compliance filings on most issues within one year of the effective date. Interregional transmission coordination and cost allocation compliance filings are required within 18 months of the effective date. Public utility transmission providers must consult with stakeholders in the region in developing and implementing their compliance filings. When it is available, Order No. 1000, and other information regarding the rule, may be found here

first published week of:   08/01/2011

Volume 31

-->