Alaska Mining Guru Steve Borell (NGP Photo) tips us that, "Sea NG Corporation is a Canadian company engaged in the development and commercialization of technology for marine transportation of compressed natural gas (CNG). Sea NG offers its customers a safe, economic and reliable method of transporting natural gas by ship." (We wouldn't be a bit surprised to see this company become more involved with Alaskan and Canadian coastal villages and rural construction and natural resource projects — assuming its net, delivered BTU value meets or reduces prices paid for heating oil. -dh)
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (NGP Photo) today welcomed the release of a new study detailing the potential benefits to the U.S. economy of lifting the federal government’s 1970s-era 
ban on oil exports.
The analysis by Daniel Yergin (NGP Photo) and the consultancy IHS estimates ending the prohibition on exporting most domestic oil supplies could boost U.S. production by more than 2 million barrels a day, inject $750 billion of new investment into the economy, and reduce gasoline prices for American drivers by as much as 12 cents a gallon.
|
.JPG) Resource Development Council for Alaska's Rick Rogers (NGP Photo) sends our readers this ALERT today:
Please consider writing to your local newspaper today in support of the Regulatory Fairness Act (S. 2156). This bill, introduced in March, and cosigned by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski in April, reigns in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority, as was initially intended by Congress.
Currently, the EPA is seeking to expand its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, so that it can effectively veto community and resource development projects before, during, and after the federal permitting process. This expansion of federal regulatory power could have widespread and long-lasting consequences for Alaska’s economy, as it deprives developers of any certainty that permit applications will be fairly considered and fully vetted by existing rigorous processes – or that permits issued will remain valid over the course of the project’s life.
In response to this overreach the Regulatory Fairness Act (S. 2156) was introduced in the U.S. Senate. It requires the EPA to use its 404(c) authority at the appropriate time – during the permitting process and only after a thorough environmental review – rather than preemptively or retroactively.
Please write a brief letter to the editor or your local newspaper, expressing your concern about how the EPA’s actions could impact business, communities, and the economy in Alaska. Additionally, take this opportunity to thank Senator Murkowski for supporting the Regulatory Fairness Act.
HERE is our full action alert, including talking points on the Regulatory Fairness Act.
|
“The IHS analysis reinforces what I’ve been saying for months – modernizing the regulations that govern energy exports will create jobs, boost energy production, and help lower global oil and gasoline prices,” Murkowski said. “The current rules of engagement on energy trade were written at a time of energy scarcity, not abundance, and they are causing distortions in the market that is undervaluing America’s energy resources. It’s time to reverse a policy that has far outlived its usefulness – something that would benefit the entire country.”
The IHS study found that removing the ban on oil exports would have positive impacts on employment, GDP, and energy production, including:
- Increased oil production of 1.2 million to 2.3 million barrels per day;
- Declining gasoline prices by 8 cents to 12 cents;
- Creation of 394,000 to 859,000 jobs;
- Increased government revenues by $1.3 trillion to $2.8 trillion;
- Increased annual GDP of $86.4 billion to $170 billion.
The benefits of free trade would extend beyond oil-producing states, as well, with 24 percent of the new jobs created by lifting the ban occurring in states without production, according to IHS.
ALERT – ALERT – ALERT
RDC Action Alert: Submit a support letter for publication today in support of S. 2156: Regulatory Fairness Act
Overview:
In April, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski co-sponsored the “Regulatory Fairness Act” (S. 2156), in a bipartisan effort to restore rigorous, transparent review so that projects that meet federal and state regulatory agencies high criteria for development can be held up as models for the world to follow.
Introduced in March by U.S. Senators
David Vitter and
Joe Manchin (NGP Photo), the bill works toward regulatory fairness and certainty, while continuing to protect the environment. It prohibits the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from issuing preemptive vetoes of projects in Alaska and the U.S., and only allows the EPA to issue vetoes after the U.S. Corps of Engineers has received a permit application, and not after a permit has been The Alaskan and U.S. economy depend on regulatory certainty, in all industries, from fishing to oil and gas, to community development.
Every project should be allowed to go through and be subjected to the rigorous, transparent, and scientific review process under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Once a project is permitted, it should be able to rely on that permit, subject to robust enforcement and oversight.
Industry and communities rely on the Clean Water Act (CWA) and often Section 404 permits for daily operations.
By clarifying that Congress does not grant EPA authority to block proposed development projects before permit applications have been submitted, or revoke valid permits absent the existing enforcement process, Congress could
avoid devastating impacts to Alaska’s economy, and the economy of the U.S.
Recently, the EPA has sought to expand its authority beyond the original intent of the CWA. S. 2156 aims to define the scope of the EPA, and restore certainty in the permitting process for the regulated community.
Ninety percent of Alaska’s revenues come from oil and gas. Allowing the EPA to condemn projects that have not been fully vetted sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.
No environmental harm can occur if the EPA simply waits for a development plan to be submitted and detailed development proposals are rigorously reviewed through the Environmental Impact Statement process in accordance with NEPA.
Action Requested:
Pebble mine critics have blasted Senator Murkowski for taking this important and principled action. She needs
your show of support. Senator Murkowski is fighting for Alaska by defending due process, not weighing in one way
or the other on the Pebble mine.
You are encouraged to write a letter to the editor or to your local newspaper, as well as your congressional delegation, expressing support for the Regulator Fairness Act, S. 2156. Additionally, thank Senator Murkowski for her courage and defense of due process, and support of S. 2156. Please note some papers require letters to be limited to 350 words or less.
Example letter: Submitted by Rick Rogers, Executive Director, Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. • May 24, 2014 http://www.adn.com/2014/05/24/3485218/letter-murkowski-defends-due-process.html
Anchorage Daily News (Word limits: Letter to the editor, 175; Compass piece, 675): http://www.adn.com/submit-
letter/ or letters@adn.com
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (Word limit: 350): https://newsminer-dot-com.bloxcms-
ny1.com/site/forms/online_services/letter/ or letters@newsminer.com
Juneau Empire (Word limits: Letter to the editor, 400; My Turn piece 700): http://juneauempire.com/letters/submit.shtml or editor@juneauempire.com
Ketchikan Daily News (Word limits: Letter to the editor, 350; Point of View piece 675): http://www.ketchikandailynews.com/contact_us/ or news@ketchikandailynews.com
Peninsula Clarion (Word limit 500): http://peninsulaclarion.com/webform/submit-letter-editor
Sitka Sentinel: http://sitkasentinel.com/7/contact-us or cyndi@sitkasentinel.com
View full text of the Regulatory Fairness Act (S. 2156): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s2156is/pdf/BILLS-113s2156is.pdf
Points to consider in your letters:
• The bipartisan bill will restore rigorous, transparent review so that projects that meet state and federal regulatory agencies high criteria for development can be held up as models for the world to follow.
• The uncertainty the EPA is creating will directly undermine our member’s ability to support Alaska’s public and private sector economy.
• EPA claims authority, under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, to effectively veto projects before, during, and after the permitting process. Specifically, the EPA retroactively vetoed a permit four years after it was
issued in West Virginia, and has now begun a process in Alaska that may result in a preemptive decision to restrict or block development.
• Regardless of how one feels about the potential Pebble Mine, it is hard to consider a preemptive veto as good
news for investment, development, and the economic future of Alaska.
• The Regulatory Fairness Act does not remove the EPA’s authority under the Section 404(c). It simply requires the agency to use it at the appropriate time – during the permitting process and after a thorough environmental review – not preemptively and not retroactively.
• Prior to the Obama Administration, when the EPA did invoke its veto authority, it was appropriately used during the permitting process. It could do that with regard to Pebble, as well, if the permitting process ever starts and a veto is warranted. To let the agency extend its power to this scale – both preemptively and retroactively – is a genuinely monumental shift.
• We have a rigorous federal permitting process for a reason. As part of it, every major project must undergo a thorough and stringent environmental review. Both project developers and federal agencies should respect and abide by that process and neither side should be allowed to subvert or circumvent it.
• A preemptive veto carries great risk for Alaska, and the nation. Community and development proponents already face undeniably grave problems with federal agencies blocking resource production on federal lands in Alaska. Now there is a federal agency looking to block potential activity on state lands. Given everything else we already face, that’s an incredibly dangerous precedent.
• If the EPA can block development on state lands, it can block development anywhere. This is especially concerning in conjunction with EPA’s proposed rule related to the “waters of the United States.”
• The idea that EPA would abuse its power is not speculative. It has already happened in West Virginia, where
the EPA canceled a valid permit years after it had been issued. There have already been disputes with EPA over other Alaska projects – railroad lines, roads, mines – that required 404(c) permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This isn’t about a single project in Alaska. This is an issue that affects the entire state.
• Once the precedent of a preemptive veto is set, EPA could unilaterally target development in other parts of the state and the country as it chooses. Under this Administration, that appears highly likely to occur, whether on the Arctic Coastal Plain, in NPR-A, or elsewhere.
• Thanks to Senator Murkowski for her courage and defense of due process.
• This is NOT about Pebble. Senator Murkowski has not yet decided whether the proposed mine should be developed, and neither have I. The precedent such premature denial would set for future projects all across Alaska could be catastrophic.
Send in your letter of support for publication today!
Leave A Comment