Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment: October 2015

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ENVIRONMENT POLICY-Masthead.png

October 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.

October 26, 2015

Presidential candidate Jeb Bush releases Western land management plan

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

In October 2015, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush released his plan on federal land management in the Western United States, which would give greater deference to state and local governments. Bush announced his plan in Nevada, where the federal government owns more than 80 percent of the state's land. Federal land management is an important issue in the West. As of 2012, the federal government owned 52 percent of the land in 11 Western states, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.[1][2]

In his plan, Bush criticized the Obama administration's federal land policies as "relentless over-regulation." Bush's proposal would prevent the federal government from acquiring any more land and would create more deference to states in deciding local land use policies. The proposal also called for the repeal of the "Waters of the United States rule," which regulates smaller streams and wetlands. "Washington, DC needs to acknowledge that people who live on the land in the West are the best stewards of the land. ... I will fix the relationship between the federal government and the West," Bush's plan stated.[3]

Bush's other proposals include moving the U.S. Department of the Interior from Washington, D.C., to a city in the Western United States, such as Salt Lake City, Utah, or Denver, Colorado. According to Bush, moving the department would build trust between local communities and the federal government. He stated, "Historically, presidents export a Secretary of the Interior from the West to Washington, D.C. It is time to import the Department from Washington, DC to the West."[3]

Other Republican presidential candidates have gone further than Bush. In June 2015, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) said that he supported transferring all federal land management to the state governments.[4]

Bush's proposal received some criticism from local conservation groups such as Friends of Nevada Wilderness, a group that supports keeping public lands under federal ownership. "Western people in particular use public lands for all kinds of recreation and we don’t want any policies that will get them sold off or traded to get rid of the debt. We believe that they’re a national treasure and they need to stay in the public’s hands," said Shaaron Netherton from Friends of Nevada Wilderness. In contrast, some of Bush's supporters, such as former Nevada Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki (R), said Bush understood the state's problems with current federal land policy. Bush "has been to northern Nevada several times, he has really reached out to know our problems," Krolicki said.[5][6]

Federal report faults EPA for preventable mine spill

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

An October 2015 investigation by the U.S. Department of the Interior faulted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a wastewater spill at a Colorado gold mine that released 3 million gallons of toxic water into the rivers of three states. According to its report, the Interior Department said the EPA cleanup crew had failed to acknowledge the complex engineering of its work, which prompted the blowout.[7][8]

Heavy metals, such as arsenic and lead, polluted rivers in Colorado, Utah and New Mexico as well as on the Navajo Nation, an American Indian-governed territory. The August 2015 spill also temporarily closed drinking water supplies and cropland irrigation in specific areas.[7][8]

In the 132-page report, federal investigators found that the spill could have been avoided if the EPA had monitored water levels inside the Gold King mine before it began digging. "A collapsed flooded mine is in effect a dam, and failure must be prevented by routine monitoring, maintenance, and in some cases remediation. ... However, there appears to be a general absence of knowledge of the risks associated with these facilities," according to the report. The report estimated that the total cost of containing and remedying the spill could be $50 billion.[8]

After the blowout, the EPA's own investigation found that the spill was "likely inevitable." The Interior Department report contradicted the EPA's statement. The Interior Department identified EPA documents showing that officials knew in June 2014 about the mine's potential to cause a spill. The Interior Department's report also found that the EPA crew could have prevented the spill by drilling into the mine tunnel differently. "This error resulted in development of a plan to open the mine in a manner that appeared to guard against blowout, but instead led directly to the failure," the report stated. The EPA countered that the mine was already leaking at its entrance and could have blown out despite the crew's actions, which the Interior Department also acknowledged as a possibility.[7][8]

Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), whose district contains the mine, criticized the EPA's lack of technical expertise in handling the cleanup, calling it "obviously a glaring weakness." Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said the EPA must answer questions about its "insufficient and untimely recovery efforts and its proactive measures to prevent a disaster of similar magnitude in the future." Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said he supported "hard rock mining reform to help clean up these mines and reduce the risk they pose to communities throughout Colorado."[7][9][10]

The full Interior Department report can be found here.

Nevada Attorney General joins lawsuit challenging federal sage grouse policies

Click to read more about sage grouse and Ballotpedia's coverage of Endangered Species Policy.

In October 2015, Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt (R) joined a lawsuit challenging federal land use policies to protect the sage grouse, a ground-dwelling bird in the Western United States that was kept off the endangered species list in September 2015. The federal government has set aside federal land for sage grouse conservation in states like Nevada, Utah and Wyoming, among others.[11]

"The federal government's one-size-fits-all sage-grouse plan will greatly hinder Nevada’s growth and success," Laxalt said. Although the sage grouse is not an endangered species and does not receive full federal protection, the federal government will spend $211 million on sage grouse conservation over the next three years.[11][12]

At least four Republican members of Congress from Nevada supported Laxalt's decision to join the lawsuit, including U.S. Sen. Dean Heller and Reps. Cresent Hardy, Mark Amodei and Joe Heck. The lawsuit was joined by at least nine Nevada counties as well as interest groups such as the Nevada Petroleum Marketers Association, the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation and the Nevada Cattleman's Association.

Laxalt's decision was criticized by the office of Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R). "Prematurely embroiling the state in costly litigation at this juncture threatens to compromise future collaborative efforts," said Sandoval spokeswoman Mari St. Martin.[11] Sandoval's office recommended an approach to the sage grouse issue that differed from Laxalt's. According to his spokeswoman, Sandoval supported "ongoing discussions between the state and Department of Interior" rather than a lawsuit.[13][14]

October 19, 2015

Presidential candidate Marco Rubio releases national energy plan

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

On October 16, 2015, Republican presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) released a national energy plan that would lift the federal ban on exporting crude oil and approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The plan would also repeal the Obama administration's major environmental initiatives, such as carbon regulations on power plants and the expansion of water regulation under the Clean Water Act.[15][16]

"To achieve our full energy potential in the 21st century, I will follow three guiding principles: optimizing America's resources, minimizing government bureaucracy, and maximizing private innovation," Rubio stated in his plan.[16]

The crude oil export ban is a 1975 prohibition on the exportation of most crude oil from the United States to other countries. "Lifting the crude oil ban will help break the stranglehold of OPEC, lower gasoline prices, create jobs, and boost the economy," Rubio's plan stated. Opponents of the ban have argued that lifting the ban would lower gasoline prices, while proponents of the ban have argued that lifting the ban would lead to higher gasoline prices.[16]

Rubio also stated that, if elected president, he would approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Canadian oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Proponents of the pipeline have argued that its construction would create jobs and economic growth, while opponents have argued that the pipeline would have a negative impact on the environment and climate change. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently announced her opposition to the pipeline.[16]

Rubio's energy plan targeted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan, which limits carbon emissions at coal-fired power plants. "The final rule will result in the closure of coal-fired power plants around the country, hurting the communities that depend on affordable energy for their livelihood. ... As president, I will stop this massive illegal mandate that will raise costs for Americans." Although the EPA expects the plan to have benefits of $26 billion to $43 billion, a study commissioned by oil and gas industry representatives has predicted the plan will increase consumer energy costs by $366 billion by 2030.[16]

Rubio would also repeal the "Waters of the United States" rule, which allows the EPA to regulate 60 percent of previously unregulated bodies of water under the Clean Water Act. According to Rubio's plan, the rule will "dramatically expand federal control of private bodies of water" and "undermine the role of the states in protecting their water resources." Opponents of the rule, including many agricultural groups, have argued that routine agricultural activities will be negatively affected, while proponents of the rule have argued that it does not interfere with agriculture.[16]

The full text of Rubio's energy plan can be found here.

Congress lets federal conservation program funding expire

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

On September 30, 2015, Congress let the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund expire. The main revenue sources for the fund were royalties and fees paid by offshore oil and natural gas producers. The fund, created by Congress in 1964, provides federal money to federal, state and local governments to buy land, water and wetlands. Since 1964, the program has received more than $17 billion to finance recreation areas, wildlife habitat, water conservation and wilderness areas.[17][18]

The House Natural Resources Committee is responsible for overseeing the fund. Its chairman, Rob Bishop (R-Utah), has argued that the fund has been used by the federal government to acquire more land, rather than being used to fund state and local governments. "Under my chairmanship, the status quo will be challenged. Any reauthorization of [Land and Water Conservation Fund] will, among other improvements, prioritize local communities as originally intended," Bishop said. Bishop supports letting state and local governments benefit more from the fund, rather than allowing the federal government to purchase more land.[17][18]

Environmental groups have criticized Congress for failing to reauthorize the fund. "Congress has broken an enduring promise to the American people. ... oil drilling will continue, but the American people won't see a penny of the proceeds reinvested in outdoor conservation and recreation," said Alan Rowsome, a senior director of government relations at the Wilderness Society, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that supports conservation and public land protection.[19]

Bishop has said that the fund still has $20 billion in unspent funds from previous years and has argued that the fund is used by interest groups "to expand the federal estate and divert even more monies away" from state and local governments. "How many billions more do these special interests groups need?" Bishop asked in a statement.[20]

In July 2015, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wa.) proposed legislation to reauthorize the fund permanently and to require that at least 40 percent of the federal funds be used for non-federal projects. As of October 16, 2015, the measure had not passed the Senate.[17][18]

Yale-led study of fracking and groundwater released

Click to read more about fracking in the United States.
An example of a horizontally drilled well

A study led by researchers at Yale University found no evidence of groundwater contamination from deep wells that had been hydraulically fractured (fracked) in Pennsylvania. The study, so far the largest of its kind, reviewed groundwater aquifers that lie above the Marcellus Shale, a natural gas-rich area covering much of northeastern Pennsylvania. Fracking is the process of injecting fluid—mostly water and sand, but with additional chemicals—into the ground at a high pressure to fracture shale rocks and release the crude oil and natural gas inside. This technology is often used in combination with deep, horizontal wells (pictured to the right) to access oil and natural gas reserves, including those in the Marcellus Shale. The increased use of these technologies has led to concerns that well construction problems could contaminate aquifers and other water sources.[21][22][23]

Because many of the wells being drilled across Pennsylvania are deep—around 10,000 feet below the earth's surface—environmental groups and others have voiced concerns that if these wells are not built properly, oil or natural gas could migrate from the wells into drinking water sources. Researchers found no evidence of this migration occurring. The study did find that some surface water sources had been contaminated, likely as a result of surface spills or other fracking-related operations occurring above a well.[21]

To conduct the study, researchers collected water samples from 64 drinking water wells over a three-year period. These water samples then underwent a "suite of chemical analyses" that found low levels of organic compounds. Further review of these samples "also indicated that these compounds most likely entered the groundwater supply from gas extraction operations above the ground surface — and not subsurface migration." Researchers found some of the chemicals used in fracking in their samples, but in amounts too small to violate state and federal limits.[21]

The study can be found here.

October 12, 2015

Federal court temporarily blocks federal water rule nationwide

Click to read more about the waters of the United States rule and the implementation of the Clean Water Act.

On October 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit temporarily blocked a federal water rule regulating streams and wetlands. The rule, commonly called the "Clean Water Rule" or "Waters of the United States rule," applies to 60 percent of previously unregulated bodies of water throughout the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the rule in May 2015, but the Sixth Circuit's ruling temporarily blocked the rule's implementation nationwide. The Sixth Circuit went further than a prior federal court decision from August 2015 that temporarily blocked the rule's implementation only in certain states.[24]

The Sixth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, said that there would be no "imminent injury" to U.S. waters if the rule was temporarily suspended. It also said that delaying the rule would not bring any immediate, irreparable harm to the 18 states that brought the lawsuit, which the court said justified the rule's temporary suspension. "A stay allows for a more deliberate determination whether this exercise of executive power ... is proper under the dictates of federal law," the court said.[24]

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), one of the 18 attorneys general challenging the EPA's water rule, told the Associated Press, "This decision is a critical victory in our fight against this onerous federal overreach."[25]

The EPA said it respects the court's decision but believes the rule is legal. "The agencies respect the court’s decision to allow for more deliberate consideration of the issues in the case and we look forward to litigating the merits of the Clean Water Rule," said EPA spokesperson Melissa Harrison.[26]

Business groups such as the National Federation of Independent Business, a nonprofit association of 350,000 small business owners, supported the court's ruling. "The court very properly acknowledged that the [waters of the United States] rule has created a 'whirlwind of confusion' and that blocking its implementation in every state is the practicable way to resolve the deep legal question of whether it can withstand constitutional muster," the group said in a statement.[26]

Environmental organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy organization, disagreed with the court's decision. "We strongly disagree with this irresponsible decision that lets polluters continue to put the drinking water of one in three Americans at risk," said Madeleine Foote, a representative from the League of Conservation Voters.[26]

The court will look at the rule more fully before it issues a final ruling, which could declare the rule unlawful. The official ruling will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.[26]

House votes to lift ban on oil exports

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

On October 9, 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation to lift the federal ban on crude oil exports by a vote of 261-159. The ban is a 1975 prohibition on the exportation of most crude oil from the United States to other countries. When the ban was first passed in 1975, the domestic production of oil was decreasing, which caused imports to increase. The goal of the ban was to encourage domestic crude oil production and discourage the importation of crude oil from other countries.[27][28][29][30]

Supporters of lifting the ban have said that it would raise the supply of oil and lower gasoline prices, making the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil. "This bill is a market-based bill. ... U.S. oil can go anywhere in the world if we allow it to. That is an economic asset, it is a military, strategic asset," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Amendments to the legislation were also approved, including an amendment calling for a study on how expanded oil exports would affect greenhouse gas emissions. The House voted down an amendment to decrease funding for maritime shipping companies.[27]

Congressional Republicans supported lifting the ban, with 26 congressional Democrats voting with them. The majority of Democrats, meanwhile, opposed lifting the ban, arguing that it would hurt U.S. refineries because crude oil would then be sent to other countries to be refined. Democrats also said that removing the ban would encourage more oil production at the expense of alternative energy production and use. "This legislation eagerly embraces short-term profits and benefits without understanding—or even considering—the cost of such a major action," said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.[27]

Oil industry representatives such as the American Petroleum Institute supported lifting the ban, arguing that exporting crude oil would give the United States a competitive advantage in the global oil market. "American producers would be able to compete on a level playing field with countries like Iran and Russia, providing security to our allies and accelerating the energy revolution that has revitalized our economy," said American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard in a statement.[27]

Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club opposed lifting the ban, arguing that it would entail environmental risks. "Ending this ban is bad for our environment and our wallets. ... But, Congress has once again shown that it would rather do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry than listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the crude oil export ban," said Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune in a statement.[28]

The U.S. Senate Banking Committee voted to lift the ban in October 2015 by a vote of 13-9, largely on party lines (Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota was the only Democrat who voted to lift the ban). The bill will now go to the full Senate for a vote. The Obama White House has threatened to veto the bill.[31]

BP and federal government finalize $20.8 billion settlement over Gulf oil spill

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

In October 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice finalized a $20.8 billion settlement with BP over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP was responsible for spilling approximately 3.19 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 after its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded. The spill also killed 11 workers.[32][33]

According to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, "This resolution is strong and fitting. ... BP is receiving the punishment it deserves while also providing critical compensation to the damage to the Gulf region." The settlement is more than the $18.7 billion BP had agreed to in July 2015. It will include $5.5 billion for BP to settle claims made under the Clean Water Act. BP will also spend $7.1 billion on environmental cleanup in addition to $700 million to compensate those affected by any unknown environmental damage in the region. A total of $4.9 billion will go to Gulf Coast states affected by the spill, including Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. An additional $1 billion will go to local communities in those states.[32][33]

"As BP said in July, this settlement resolves the largest litigation liabilities remaining from the tragic accident, providing BP certainty with respect to its financial obligations and allowing us to focus on safely delivering the energy the world needs," said BP spokesman Geoff Morrell. The settlement is the largest environmental penalty ever made under the Clean Water Act. According to Gina McCarthy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, the final settlement requires BP to pay approximately $1,725 for each barrel of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.[32][33]

Admiral Paul Zukunft, the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, said the last report of oil from the spill occurred in March 2015. According to Zukunft, the Gulf region's tourism and fishing industries have recovered since the spill, although the spill's effects can be seen in some wetlands throughout the region.[32][33]

The settlement is open to a 60-day public comment period before it is officially approved by a federal court.[34]

October 5, 2015

EPA lowers federal ozone standard

Click to read more about ground-level ozone standards and implementation of the Clean Air Act.

In October 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it will lower the federal ground-level ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. The new standard will go into effect in 2025. Ozone is one of the six pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, and it is emitted into the atmosphere by power plants, factories and manufacturing centers.[35]

The 2015 standard requires each state to develop and implement ozone reduction plans that match the federal standard. Ozone levels cannot exceed 70 ppb in an eight-hour period, and states will have to meet that standard between 2020 and 2037, depending on the state.[36]

"This strengthened standard will improve public health protection across the country and provide the adequate margin of safety that is required by law and that the science supports," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. The EPA had considered enforcing a more restrictive standard between 60 ppb and 70 ppb before it settled on the 70 ppb standard.[36]

According to the EPA's calculations, the new standard will prevent up to 660 premature deaths each year by 2025, and the standard's "respiratory health benefits" will be between $2.9 billion and $5.9 billion each year if the standard is met in each state. The EPA has estimated that meeting the new standard will cost a total of $3.9 billion each year beginning in 2025.[35]

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Texas' chief agency for environmental policy, analyzed the EPA's ozone standard and disputed several of the EPA's key findings, particularly the claims of the standard's health benefits. Specifically, the Texas commission highlighted research showing that improved air quality nationwide has occurred alongside an increase in asthma diagnoses in the United States, which undermines the EPA's claim that decreased ozone will produce fewer asthma diagnoses.[37]

The ozone standard has been criticized by both industry representatives and environmental organizations—by the former as too restrictive and by the latter as too lax. The National Association of Manufacturers, an industrial trade association, said the new standard will "destroy job opportunities for American workers." In contrast, Environment America, a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization, said the new standard is "inadequate" to control air pollution.[36]

Many congressional Republicans criticized the new standard as unnecessary and costly. Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the 70 ppb standard was "another frivolous and costly mandate." Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said the new standard "could be the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public."[38]

Most congressional Democrats have supported the EPA's new ozone standard as beneficial and cost-effective, but claimed the standard should be more restrictive. Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), the ranking member of the Senate Environment Committee, said the new standard "brings health benefits and promotes more job growth," but added that she was "disappointed that a more protective standard was not set." Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said the new standard will "improve air quality" and "result in significant public health benefits," but also said that the standard was "not as strong as [Pallone] had hoped."[36][39]

Hillary Clinton announces opposition to Keystone XL pipeline

Click to read more about the Keystone XL pipeline.

In September 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, a proposed pipeline that would transport crude oil, oil sands and other types of oil from Canada to the United States.[40]

"I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is -- a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change. ...Therefore I oppose it," Clinton said at a town hall meeting in Iowa.[40]

The Keystone XL pipeline would cross the United States-Canadian border and thus requires a presidential permit from the U.S. State Department, where Clinton served as secretary between 2009 and 2013. Clinton had not made her position on the pipeline known prior to the September 2015 announcement. TransCanada, the Canadian-based company proposing the pipeline, last applied for a federal permit in May 2012. As of September 2015, no federal decision to approve or to reject the proposed pipeline had been made.[41]

When asked at a campaign event in New Hampshire in July 2015 whether she supported or opposed the pipeline, Clinton said, "If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer [that] question." One of Clinton's Democratic presidential opponents, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, criticized Clinton's delayed answer on the pipeline, saying, "[Clinton] has followed -- not forged -- public opinion." Another Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), said he was "glad" Clinton opposed the pipeline's construction. Sanders has said that he "vigorously opposed the Keystone pipeline from the beginning."[40]

A number of Republican presidential candidates criticized Clinton's opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said Clinton was favoring "environmental extremists over U.S. jobs." Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) said Clinton intended to continue the "failed polices [sic] of the Obama Administration."[40]

Federal court blocks fracking rules pending lawsuits

Click here to read Ballotpedia's updated coverage of fracking in the 50 states.

On September 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court of Wyoming blocked federal regulations for hydraulic fracturing—or fracking—until federal lawsuits against the regulations are settled.[42][43]

The states that sued the federal government were Colorado, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming—along with the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, both nonprofit organizations representing oil and natural gas producers.[42]

The U.S. Interior Department (DOI) finalized its federal fracking regulations in March 2015. The DOI would regulate oil well design and the disposal of wastewater, and drillers would disclose all chemicals used during their operations. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was tasked with implementing the regulations.[42]

Judge Scott W. Skavdahl, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled that the Bureau of Land Management cannot implement its fracking regulations because of the number of lawsuits challenging the regulations. These legal challenges had been brought by state governments and industry groups claiming they will be harmed if the regulations go into effect.[43]

In his opinion, Skadvahl also questioned whether the U.S. Department of the Interior, which contains the Bureau of Land Management, has the authority to regulate fracking on federal land. "One of the fundamental questions presented in this case is whether Congress granted or delegated to the [Interior Department] the authority or jurisdiction to regulate fracking - despite having specifically removed such authority in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 from another federal agency [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]," Skadvahl wrote. Skadvahl placed the regulations on hold until other lawsuits surrounding them have been decided. The U.S. Interior Department announced it would respect the court's ruling.[43]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Colorado Independent, "Jeb Bush outlines plans to limit federal control of Western lands," October 23, 2015
  2. ↑ owned-now-some-states-want-their-land-back/ Washington Post, "More than half the West is federally owned. Now some states want that land," October 15, 2013
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Jeb2016.com, "Western Land and Resource Management," October 21, 2015
  4. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Rand Paul in Nevada speech favors federal land transfer to states," June 29, 2015
  5. ↑ KUNR.org, "Jeb Bush Shines National Spotlight On Public Lands In Nevada," October 23, 2015
  6. ↑ KRNV-DT Reno, "Jeb Bush wants more local control over federal public lands decisions," October 21, 2015
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 The Associated Press, "EPA mine spill was preventable, points to broader problem," October 23, 2015
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, "Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine Incident," October 2015
  9. ↑ U.S. Senate Office of Cory Gardner, "Gardner Statement On DOI Report on Animas River Spill," October 22, 2015
  10. ↑ U.S. Senate Office of Michael Bennet, "Bennet Statement on Interior Department’s Investigation of Gold King Mine Spill," October 22, 2015
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 The Associated Press, "Nevada attorney general joins lawsuit against federal sage grouse rules," October 23, 2015
  12. ↑ The Associated Press, "Ag secretary promises more sage grouse spending," August 28, 2015
  13. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Laxalt, Sandoval remain frosty over land-use policy, other issues," October 24, 2015
  14. ↑ Las Vegas Review Journal, "Sandoval, Laxalt clash over sage grouse lawsuit," October 22, 2015
  15. ↑ The Hill, "Rubio targets environmental regs in energy plan," October 16, 2015
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 MarcoRubio.com, "Powering the New American Century," October 16, 2015
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 USA Today, "Popular conservation fund expires, sparking debate over impact, motives," October 12, 2015
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 The Hill, "Reid slams GOP over expiration of conservation funding," October 1, 2015
  19. ↑ LWCF Coalition, "Congress Terminates America’s Most Important Conservation Program," accessed October 16, 2015
  20. ↑ U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, "Bishop: Special Interests Will Not Prevent Congress from Modernizing LWCF, Protecting State and Local Recreational Access," September 25, 2015
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Yale News, "Study: Elevated organic compounds in Pennsylvania drinking water from hydraulic fracturing surface operations, not gas wells," October 12, 2015
  22. ↑ Frack Wire, “What is Fracking,” accessed January 28, 2014
  23. ↑ Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, "Marcellus Shale," accessed September 22, 2015
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Reuters, "Court Places Hold On Clean Water Rule Nationwide," October 9, 2015
  25. ↑ Christian Science Monitor, "Appeals court puts the brakes on EPA's clean water rule," October 9, 2015
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 The Hill, "Court blocks Obama’s water rule nationwide," October 9, 2015
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 The Hill, "House votes to end ban on oil exports," October 9, 2015
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Washington Post, "House approves lifting of crude oil export restrictions, but hurdles remain," October 9, 2015
  29. ↑ 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
  30. ↑ The Brookings Institute, "Changing Markets Economic Opportunities from Lift the U.S. Ban on Crude Oil Exports," September 2014
  31. ↑ The Guardian, "House votes to lift crude oil export ban despite opposition from White House," October 9, 2015
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 The New York Times, "BP Settlement in Gulf Oil Spill Is Raised to $20.8 Billion," October 5, 2015
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 The Hill, "Feds, BP reach $20B settlement over Gulf spill," October 5, 2015
  34. ↑ The Associated Press, "US, States Announce Settlement With BP Over Gulf Oil Spill," October 5, 2015
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Washington Examiner, "EPA tries to appease green groups mad about ozone rules," October 1, 2015
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 The Hill, "EPA to tighten federal limits on ozone," October 1, 2015
  37. ↑ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, "Will EPA’s Proposed New Ozone Standards Provide Measurable Health Benefits?" October 9, 2014
  38. ↑ The Hill, "Republicans vow to fight EPA's new ozone rule," October 1, 2015
  39. ↑ U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, "Pallone Statement on Plan to Strengthen Ozone Standard & Protect Public Health," October 1, 2015
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 40.2 40.3 CNN.com, "Hillary Clinton opposes Keystone XL pipeline," September 22, 2015
  41. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments," January 5, 2015
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 The Associated Press, "Judge blocks federal oil, gas drilling rules pending lawsuit," September 30, 2015
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 The Hill, "Judge in Wyoming blocks fracking rule," September 30, 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:_October_2015&oldid=9067575"