By Jason K. Chen, Carrots & Sticks Project Climate Intern
cross-posted on the Carrots and Sticks Blog

Two bills were discussed in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on December 15th, S. 2052 (Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009, M. Udall) and S. 2812 (Nuclear Power 2021 Act, Bingaman). S. 2052 is a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research and development and demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs relating to nuclear reactors. S. 2812 is a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out programs to develop and demonstrate 2 small modular nuclear reactor designs.

As I was waiting in line, I noticed that there were a couple of colonels waiting in line behind. I do not know why the military had an interest in this hearing, but I thought it was something interesting to note.

The first guest was Dr. Warren “Pete” Miller who is the assistant secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy at DOE. His main point, which was later repeated multiple times by the other panelists, was that modular reactors present many advantages over large reactors. Some of them being that they are much cheaper to construct, their fabrication is quicker due to their simplicity, they can be constructed in more off grid locations and that there is a large market for them.

Dr. Tom Sanders, the president of the American Nuclear Society, further added that 80% of the world’s grid cannot absorb large reactors and therefore shows a growing international market for small reactors. He stated that we can be the head of this nuclear technology as long as we have the collective will.

The third guest was Mr. Tony Pietrangelo, the senior vice president and chief nuclear officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. He stated that one of the focuses of his organization is the safe operation of nuclear plants, specifically large scale reactors. This is due to the fact that large scale reactors already have licenses. However, he did mention that there is a growing demand for small scale reactors. Another point he made was that government industry partnerships are required if we want small reactors to be built in a short time frame. They are eager to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on implementing new designs, but there would be regulatory issues to work out.

The fourth guest was Mr. Michael Johnson, the director of the Office of New Reactors of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He also mentioned that large reactors have higher priority than small reactors. He later added that the speed which new designs can be licensed is determined on how much detail companies can give to the NRC.

The entire feeling of the hearing was that everyone was in favor of small nuclear reactors and wanted to speed up the process of implementing them. Sen. Murkowski asked the panelists to explain what the largest hurdle was for going forward with small reactors. The panelists concluded that commitment was the ultimate impediment.

Sen. Burr and Sen. Landrieu were critical on how structural regulations were slowing down everything. Furthermore, Sen. Landrieu stated that they should invest more money into this area because it shows a lot of potential in creating jobs.

Sen. Barrasso was focused on an issue completely separate from all the others. He was expressing his criticism to the DOE over a management plan regarding the sale of uranium and how this plan has dropped the price of it. Furthermore, he stated that this price drop has affected mining activities in Wyoming. He seemed to be mainly focused on issues pertaining to his own state.

The last point the panelists made was that the process of implementing small reactors will accelerate after the first one is implemented.

By Jason K. Chen, Carrots & Sticks Project Climate Intern
cross-posted on the Carrots and Sticks Blog

Hearing: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, International Aspects of Global Climate Change, 11/17/09

Hearing: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Environmental Stewardship Policies Related to Offshore Energy Production, 11/19/09

Contrary to my expectations, the senate hearing on environmental stewardship policies related to offshore energy production only had to do with drilling; wind energy was completely left out of the discussion.

The witness panel was quite balanced by the presence of two representatives of oil companies and two representatives of environmental groups, the fifth witness being the Deputy Director of the Mineral Management Service. However, as far as I could tell, the witnesses as well as the senators were convinced of the fact that America still needs to drill. This is understandable because switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy will take time, but the length of time is the question that needs to be asked.

The representatives from the oil companies spent considerable time explaining how oil drilling is high tech and how the United States has the strictest standards when it comes to oil production. The representatives from the environmental groups reminded the senators that drilling is still dangerous and that our knowledge of the effects of drilling on the ocean is very limited. Everyone made their point, but I believe the oil companies came out on top; this was due not to their persuasion power, but to the existing opinions of the senators themselves.

Senator Landrieu of Louisiana was very critical of the environmental groups exaggerating the dangers of oil drilling. John Amos, the president of SkyTruth, tried to show that drilling is still dangerous by pointing out that an oil rig off the coast of Australia just recently had an accident. Senator Landrieu defended oil production by saying that the Australian oil rig’s design did not meet American standards implying that this accident would not have happened off the American coast. I don’t believe this is true. It was stated in the hearing that the cause of the accident was unknown, therefore, what actually did cause it might not necessarily have to do with whatever disqualified it from American standards.

A point that was not discussed was the negative effects of burning oil. Oil as a source of CO2 emissions might have been beyond the scope of that particular hearing, but it is definitely not beyond the scope of the general problem of drilling. In conclusion, I say that just because drilling is safer than ever, does not mean it’s ok.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Full Business Meeting
Tuesday 7/21/09, 10:00am, Russell 253

100 Girls release Summary

This markup session was convened primarily to deal with transit funding reauthorization measures, and a number of other matters were dispensed with in the meantime. Almost all of the details at hand were worked out beforehand and behind the scenes, except for one single amendment in the FAA reauthorization bill. Everything was reported out favorably by voice vote immediately after opening statements, and Chairman Rockefeller even had to apologize to the audience for the stunning lack of transparency evident in the process.

The unresolved amendment, introduced by Cantwell and modified by Warner, was somewhat mundane, pertaining to an increase in the number of takeoff/landing slots at Reagan National Airport. Nevertheless, it did generate a considerable amount of engaged debate on the merits. Sen. Ensign had a competing amendment regarding the same matter, but pulled it in favor of further negotiation when the bill reaches the full Senate. Probably because of Sen. Ensign’s opposition to the Cantwell/Warner amendment, most Republicans voted no in the ultimate roll call vote and the amendment failed 12-13. There was some immediately ensuing procedural confusion as to what the Senators had just voted on, but that was quickly resolved.

Topics

1) S.1274 - the American Communities’ Right to Public Information Act
2) S.1451 – Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation Modernization & Safety Improvement Act (aka FAA program funding reauthorization)
3) An Act to Extend the Programs of SAFETEA-LU for an 18-Month Period (aka surface transportation funding extension – a reauthorization postponement the House has strongly opposed, but the Administration supports with some caveats ?????? ???????? ????? ). There is no formal bill number for this measure as of yet.

1)      Polly Trottenberg, to be Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy of the United States Department of Transportation
Young Frankenstein hd
2)      Deborah A.P. Hersman, to be Chairman and Member (Reappointment) of the National Transportation Safety Board
3)      Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr., to be Commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission (PN 623)
4)      Meredith Attwell Baker, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission
5)      Mignon L. Clyburn ????? ?a???????? ?a??? ?????? , to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission

????? ?????? ????

Hearing Review

The major topic of this markup session was the FAA reauthorization package, which is a key responsibility of the Senate Commerce committee. While jurisdiction over surface transportation is shared with a number of committees, most notably Environment & Public Works, jurisdiction over air transportation seems to fall almost exclusively to this committee. This measure received most of the time and attention of the committee members in this meeting, and one amendment in particular generated a considerable amount of controversy.

This was one of the stranger committee business meetings I have seen. I also spoke with one veteran lobbyist who had never seen a markup conducted in the particular way this one was. Perhaps this is a normal style for Commerce under Rockefeller, but it was clear that the process confused many of the folks in the room, including a few Senators.

The hearing started normally. Chairman Rockefeller gave a 5-minute opening statement in which he outlined the day’s agenda, and made clear that the FAA authorization would be the main point of focus. He thanked the Senators who played a key role in crafting that bill – Hutchison, Dorgan, DeMint and himself. He stated there is an urgent need to modernize the air transport system – we are currently behind Mongolia. He also declared his support for the SAFETEA-LU extension, mainly on the grounds that Majority Leader Reid had asked for a “clean” bill out of all relevant committees.

Ranking Member Hutchison also supports the FAA reauthorization as a whole, but is concerned about a few provisions. Unfortunately I did not catch exactly what those provisions were. She is less supportive of an 18-month surface transportation extension, believing it is both too long to delay and that certain trucking and safety concerns should be addressed immediately. She did note the need to replenish the almost-insolvent highway trust fund, but openly wondered whether the HTF is still even necessary. As a donor state (albeit far less than many other states), Texas should not have to subsidize other states, and states should be able to take care of their own road maintenance needs.

Senator Dorgan, the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, lauded the new reauthorization plan. It is a 2-year authorization to allow time for the new FAA administrators to implement basic and needed initial reforms. His favorite new initiative was a move to a new GPS tracking system called NextGen. However, many good provisions were left out because of the need to pass a bill with broad bipartisan support and little controversy.

download Repo! The Genetic Opera movie

Senator DeMint basically concurred with Dorgan’s sentiments and was happy they were able to craft a bill without much controversy or acrimony.

At this point, the hearing started to deviate from the norm. Hutchison moved to report ALL matters before the committee favorably, including the FAA bill as amended

. The motion was approved by unanimous consent, and the proceeding voice vote then passed with no objections. So that was that, hearing over, right?

Well, not quite. The as amended part had not been dealt with yet. In other words, they passed the bills and nominees out of committee with the understanding that amendments would be considered immediately afterwards and included in the committee report. Only then did they tackle amendments to the FAA reauthorization bill.

At that point, Rockefeller gave a quick overview of the bill and announced the amendments to be considered, mostly en masse. He announced 13 member amendments that were to be voted on, and brought them all to a vote by unanimous consent. All 13 amendments were then approved with a single voice vote. Rockefeller then brought up 11 more amendments that had been modified by committee leadership/staff, and those were also approved in a single vote. Now that’s efficiency. Noting the somewhat confused audience of mostly lobbyists and entry-level Hill staffers, Chairman Rockefeller took a step back for a minute and acknowledged that they had worked everything out behind the scenes. He sort of apologized for conducting business in such a non-transparent manner.

The debate turned to the main issue of the day, Sen. Cantwell’s amendment to increase the number of takeoff/landing slots in Reagan National Airport. Cantwell gave an opening statement in which she basically claimed Western states were being punished by not having enough access to this very convenient airport. Sen. Ensign had a counterproposal that would allow for trading of slots among airlines in different metro-region airports. He liked his version because it allowed for a more market-oriented approach. Sen. Warner, whose state plays host to the airport in question, introduced a modification to Cantwell’s amendment that would make it more accommodating to Virginians in the path of the potentially expanded airport. Boxer chimed in to say she worked with Ensign on his amendment, but will support all amendments that come before the committee. Dorgan stated that he chose not to address the issue in the reauthorization language because it was controversial, but he would support the Cantwell/Warner amendment. Ensign announced he would oppose Cantwell/Warner in hopes of reaching a compromise before the full Senate, but would pull his own amendments from immediate consideration. Lautenberg chimed in on his own pet issue by saying they wouldn’t need more plane slots if there was a nationwide high speed rail network.

Finally, they went to a roll call on the Cantwell amendment, as modified by Warner. The bill went roughly down partisan lines, although a few Democrats (Kerry, Klobuchar and Pryor) and Republican Johanns defected. As it turned out, those two net Democratic defections were enough to defeat the amendment, 12-13. A couple votes switched at the last minute, which complicated matters; Kerry’s switch from yea to nay (by proxy) in particular was an intriguing one.

As the committee clerk announced the results of the vote, a murmur arose among the audience, which seemed to have expected passage. Rockefeller immediately proceeded to announce a roll call vote for the original underlying Cantwell amendment, at which point Ensign all but cut him off midsentence. He angrily expressed an impression that the Cantwell amendment had just been defeated, which meant there was no reason to have another vote on the same measure. This touched off a somewhat disjointed stretch in which various senators attempted to figure out exactly what they had just voted on. Since Rockefeller ultimately wields the authority to make such decisions, he maintained that Cantwell had the ability to request a vote on the underlying amendment without the Warner modification. He suggested they have a voice vote as a compromise, and everyone including Cantwell seemed to settle on that idea. They did so, and although the yeas and nays sounded quite similar in volume (probably reflective of another very close vote), Rockefeller immediately proclaimed that it sounded to him that the noes won, and that was that. Cantwell maintained that she would continue fighting for her measure on the Senate floor.

Warner did have an amendment to the surface transit bill related to data collection and performance evaluation, but he pulled it from consideration given the Chair’s desire for a “clean” extension. At that point, it was all over but the closing statements.

• Mad Monster Party? hd

My general takeaway was one of puzzlement. It was unclear whether the intention of leadership was for the Cantwell amendment to fail or whether they had no general position. These sort of situations are hard to read because one never knows what sort of backroom dealing is at play to influence the vote decisions of individual members. Overall, this markup was a valuable reminder that Senate process is often very difficult to understand for outside observers, even those who are familiar with the issues at hand.

Attendees

Total Recall dvdrip Tequila Sunrise buy

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chair
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Ranking Member
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Confessions of an Innocent Man dvdrip ?a??????? ?????? ?????
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Cassandras Dream buy

Jim DeMint (R-SC), Aviation Subcommittee Ranking Member
Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Aviation Subcommittee Chair
John Ensign (R-NV)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
?????? zip ????? Raising Helen full movie
Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Blood Scarab divx

Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)