Corbin Hiar stories from The Center for Public Integrity

Colombia vows to clean up coltan mining

Colombia — 2013-01-23T13:01:05-05:00

After an International Consortium of Investigative Journalists expose about paramilitaries involvement in the coltan trade, Colombia is moving to curb illegal mining of the highly sought after mineral.

Juan Manuel Santos, the president of Colombia, travelled to the lawless southeastern corner of the country last weekend and declared his intention to designate the coltan-rich region a “strategic reserve, for national security reasons.”

The mining industry there is currently controlled by what Mines and Energy Minister Mauricio Cárdenas called “shady interests” in a tweet on March 11. A ministry official said Monday that the government eventually hopes to auction off mining permits to legitimate companies, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The groups Cárdenas was alluding to are right-wing paramilitaries and rebels-turned-drug dealers in the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia, the FARC. As ICIJ reported earlier this month, those armed groups have coerced the native Indians who live in the region to work the mines or bought their labor with free beer, food, and brand-name athletic shoes. He said that these groups are “a national security concern for us.”

The heavy, black, conductive mineral is used in everything from sophisticated personal electronics to precision weapons. It is used to improve the ability of microchip processors to function in extremely hot or cold temperatures.

Unlike diamonds, the origins of which can be determined via geo-fingerprinting, there is no accurate test to trace coltan. This has made it an attractive new source of revenue for narco-terrorist groups like the FARC.

Their illicit role in the trade may also become an economic concern for the Colombian government, which claims to control 5 percent of the world’s coltan reserves.

Experts think a provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank bill could label Colombian coltan a “conflict mineral” because of the paramilitaries involvement in the industry. Then even legally mined coltan from Colombia would likely be banned from the U.S. market, where manufacturers annually import about 1.1 million pounds of the 3 million produced worldwide each year.

High quality coltan generally sells for around $50 a pound, but it has spiked to as high as $300 a pound in recent years. An estimated $150 million worth of the mineral is sold each year, analysts told ICIJ. The exact size of the global market is unknown because there is no public commodity price index for the mineral and most purchase contracts are confidential.

Fukushima disaster anniversary finds U.S. nuclear regulation debate still raging

Japan — 2013-01-23T13:01:05-05:00

One year ago on Sunday, an earthquake off the coast of Japan and the resulting tsunami triggered a month-long partial meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. In the days leading up to the anniversary of the crisis, advocates and opponents of nuclear power are squaring off in a fight over the lessons U.S. regulators should learn from the disaster.

But both sides are making policy recommendations without a full accounting of the facts. The most definitive, independent study of the disaster isn’t due to be released for months.

In one corner, and at one press conference this week, advocates at the industry-funded Nuclear Energy Institute were eager to highlight the “diverse and flexible” response operators of America’s 104 reactors are taking to improve their disaster preparedness. NEI is touting the $100 million the industry is investing in some 300 additional emergency pumps, generators, and batteries that it says could be used to keep the pools that spent fuel rods are kept in from overheating like they did in Japan.

An initiative approving the investments was unanimously approved by the U.S. industry’s chief nuclear officers last month. The FLEX strategy, as NEI calls it, commits American companies operating nuclear energy facilities to buy or enter into contract for additional plant-specific emergency equipment to be kept in and around the fuel containment structures by the end of March.

“If nuclear power plants lose power from the grid and other sources, the additional portable equipment will provide power and water to maintain key safety functions — reactor core cooling, used fuel pool cooling and containment integrity,” said Tony Pietrangelo, NEI’s senior vice president, in a press release.

In the other corner, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group generally opposed to nuclear energy, is warning that industry might be rushing to implement ineffective safeguards in an effort to fend off more stringent prescriptions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

“The NRC needs to tell the industry in no uncertain terms that it is purchasing FLEX equipment at its own risk,” the report says. UCS wants regulators to study the effectiveness of NEI’s plan versus that of French nuclear regulators, who require the use of more expensive — and potentially more durable — “hard core” emergency equipment.

In the U.S, requiring additional safety equipment is one of 11 post-Fukushima rules changes that were recommended by an agency task force in July. Under consideration are rules to increase monitoring of flooding and seismic risks, to include radiation monitoring in emergency plans, and to clarify what it called the agency’s “patchwork” of voluntary guidelines and rules that govern severe, unexpected, Fukushima-type disasters.

Others are weighing in with their own reports pegged to the Fukushima anniversary, including nuclear energy opponents at Greenpeace and supporters at the Heritage Foundation. In its report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says that the disaster was preventable, a claim disputed by official Japanese government studies.

Meanwhile, the most in-depth, independent investigation of the crisis isn’t due to be released until this summer. After the Japanese government issued an interim report in December that left the ultimate responsibility for the disaster ambiguous, Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, a think tank founded by former newspaper editor and respected intellectual Yoichi Funabashi, set to work.

His team of 30 university professors, lawyers, and journalists has received no money from the government and claims to be funded by businesses and individuals not directly connected to the crisis. They’ve spent over six months interviewing more than 300 people, including top regulators and former Prime Minister Nato Kan.

And next year, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation is expected to issue its first global and independent assessment of the Japanese nuclear disaster. It will give an analysis of radiation dosages among citizens who lived nearby the Daiichi reactors and forecast health risks for them in the coming decades, according to UNSCEAR Chairman Wolfgang Weiss.

While neither of these larger, independent studies is likely to settle the debate over what regulators here should learn from Fukushima, an early preview of Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation’s report suggests that it is likely to lend support for the more stringent, cohesive policies supported by UCS.

Regulators and the operator “were astonishingly unprepared, at almost all levels, for the complex nuclear disaster that started with an earthquake and tsunami,” the authors wrote in its final chapter, which was published last week in the academic journal Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist. Given this finding and the increasing proliferation of reactors, they predict that “risks associated with the peaceful use of nuclear energy are certain to increase.”

Romney campaign directs more than $1.7 million to state officials

South Carolina,United States — 2012-03-06T17:12:14-05:00

Political committees controlled by Mitt Romney’s campaign have made generous donations to prominent Republicans in early primary states, but records show contributions have tailed off as the GOP nominees head in to Super Tuesday.

The former Massachusetts governor has used a network of state and federal political action committees and personal donations to hand out at least $1.78 million to hundreds of local and national Republican candidates and organizations in all 50 states and the District of Columbia since his unsuccessful 2008 bid for the White House.

More than $500,000 was spent on Republican candidates in the first 13 state contests, which accounted for 371 delegates. Republicans in the 10 Super Tuesday states, where 437 delegates are up for grabs, received less than $328,000 from the Romney team.

The dwindling donations suggest the campaign, like the political prognosticators, did not expect the nomination battle to continue as long as it has.

In South Carolina, which hosted the third GOP contest, the Romney-affiliated committees gave more than $100,000 in contributions to state politicians, including more than $62,000 to Gov. Nikki Haley, who endorsed the front-runner. In New Hampshire, which hosted the second primary, $105,000 went to local politicians, the most of any state.

But in Ohio, an important bellwether with 66 delegates at stake, the Romney committees have donated a paltry $37,500. The spending has helped garner the endorsements of Ohio Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman and three of Ohio’s 18 representatives in the House, but Romney has been unable to win the support of Republican Gov. John Kasich, who got at least $6,000 from Romney and his leadership PACs.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is currently polling neck and neck with Romney in the critical battleground state.

Funds came from Romney’s federal Free and Strong America PAC, which amounted to a little more than $1.5 million, as of the most recent filings. Another $300,000 has been donated to state candidates via 11 state PACs registered under some variation of the name “Free and Strong” or “Commonwealth.” The numbers are current through the end of January.

Six states show one or both of those names as registrants: Alabama, South Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Iowa, and New Hampshire. The Center analyzed state and federal campaign finance records and data compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

These so-called leadership PACs are used by politicians donate money to other influential or like-minded candidates. By making strategically timed donations to candidates in need of cash, a politician can gain clout within the party and build allegiances that may come in handy during a tough electoral battle.

“These contributions may help secure endorsements or support from powerful [Republicans] that can be crucial in winning a state's primary or caucus,” explained Kevin McNellis, a researcher at the Institute.

The donations are “not only remarkable in the amount that he’s given,” McNellis added, but also for the “sheer number” of candidates that have benefited and how far back the contributions go. Some of the state PACs were created as early as 2004.

Years of careful contributions to Republicans in need have helped Romney rack up more major political endorsements than his GOP rivals this election season. Romney got a boost on Sunday when prominent Republicans House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia and Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma endorsed the candidate.

Three of the eight Super Tuesday states with Republican governors have lined also up behind Romney, who once led the Republican Governors Association. But endorsements don’t always lead to victory.

In South Carolina, conservative voters backed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich by a thumping 12-point margin over Romney.

Among the Super Tuesday contests, Romney’s home state of Massachusetts, which has 41 delegates, received the most from pro-Romney PACs. Republicans officials have received at least $80,000, many of whom failed to win election to higher office.

Another Super Tuesday state where the Romney team has focused many of its donations is Gingrich’s home state of Georgia. It has the most 76 delegates up for grabs, the most of any state at play tomorrow.

Romney and his PACs have given more than $65,000 to nearly 100 Georgia politicians and Republican groups. That largesse didn’t dissuade Gov. Nathan Deal and five of the state’s 11 GOP representatives from endorsing the former House speaker.

The four former GOP presidential candidates who have received donations from Romney’s team have also been largely un-swayed. Only former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who got a total of $5,000 from Mitt and Ann Romney after he dropped out, has endorsed him.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann got $2,500 from Romney’s federal leadership PAC during her 2010 reelection campaign. And as the Center previously reported, Romney donated $10,000 to Santorum in the run up to the Massachusetts governor’s last presidential run.

The beneficiary-turned-opponent of Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, got $10,000 from Romney’s federal PAC in May 2010 when he was in the midst of a hard-fought re-election battle.

Despite the record of support from Romney, Perry chose to endorse Gingrich when he dropped out of the race on the eve of the South Carolina primary.

Romney’s federal PAC even gave $7,500 to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, son of former and current GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul.

Michael Beckel contributed to this report.

Lawrence Lessig on campaign finance reform: Overturning ‘Citizens United’ isn't enough

2013-01-23T13:01:05-05:00

In contrast with many other campaign finance reformers, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig believes fixing the U.S. election system will require more than just overturning the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission Supreme Court ruling, which removed many restrictions on independent political spending.

Reversing this flood of political cash would be enough to satisfy most reformers, but not Lessig, who spoke last week at the Center for Public Integrity offices in D.C. Overturning the ruling “terrifies” him, he said, because “it imagines somehow that on January 20, 2010 – the day before Citizens United was decided – our democracy was fine and Citizens United broke it. But of course, the democracy was already broken.”

Lessig, director of the Edmond J. Safra Center on Ethics at Harvard, is concerned that if the decision is quickly repealed, it will take the wind out of an effort he’s leading to achieve a more comprehensive overhaul of the election system. Then activists “will have gotten nothing out of this moment when there’s an extraordinary anger and frustration that could be channeled in the direction of real reform,” he said.

The changes Lessig is advocating for, which include but are not limited to the eventual reversal of Citizens United, are outlined in two recent books on campaign finance. He would like to see elections funded by a mix of public and limited, private donations, and a coordinated push by tea partiers, MoveOn.org, and the Occupy Wall Street crowd – a diverse cast he collectively refers to as “outsiders” – to root out the systemic corruption of Washington “insiders.”

Lessig elaborated where Washington went wrong and how to get it back on track during his presentation, the highlights of which are featured in this video by the Center's Emma Schwartz.

After the speech, Lessig, who worked as a clerk for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia before becoming an academic, added that he was confident that Citizens United will soon be reversed by the high court.

“I think it’s quite likely Justice Kennedy is about to flip,” he said, referring to the Supreme Court justice who cast the deciding vote in the controversial 5-to-4 decision. Although Lessig cautioned that he had no inside information, he said Kennedy “is completely surprised by how much damage this decision has done – even Scalia doesn’t like the world where all the money in the world is on one side.”

Republicans, who have so far been the largest recipients of this influx of cash, have come to celebrate the new electoral landscape. As the Center has reported, it is dominated by powerful “super PACs,” – political action committees that can accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, wealthy Americans – and nonprofit groups that can take unlimited cash from anonymous donors and spend half of the take on political activity.

These supposedly independent groups, many of which are run by longtime political operatives with close ties the candidates they are supporting, are legally forbidden from coordinating their political messages with campaigns. But these restrictions are tough to enforce and have been the subject of mockery by comedians like Stephen Colbert, who has launched his own super PAC.

In the political system reshaped by Citizens United, these rich, powerful, election-swaying groups are largely “funded by the tiniest slice of the 1 percent,” Lessig concluded. “And that suggests a problem.”

Lure of lobbying still strong for House staffers

2013-01-23T13:01:05-05:00

A new study finds that nearly 400 House staffers have moved from Capitol Hill to K Street in recent years, suggesting that recent efforts to curb the revolving door between lawmaking and lobbying are having limited effect.

At least 378 of the 5,710 staffers working on the House side of the Hill at the end of 2009 have since left to become registered lobbyists, according to a report from the Sunlight Foundation, a government accountability group.

Corporate America was the biggest beneficiary of this exodus, Sunlight found. Fully 80 percent of the 378 House staffers-turned-lobbyists are working for corporations, industry groups, or Washington lobbying firms with mostly business clients.

On the other hand, nonprofits advocacy groups are only represented by 37 of these recent ex-staffers, the report noted. Only one works directly for a union group, although on K Street some lobbyists have labor clients.

Regardless of which special interest is signing their checks, Sunlight thinks this steady migration from public to private pay is a cause for concern.

“Congress continues to act as a farm team for future lobbyists,” said Lee Drutman, the senior fellow who authored the report released Wednesday. “Staff build up contacts and policy and political experience. Then they often go ‘downtown’ and cash in, taking their expertise and networks with them.”

State and local governments were heavy users of House staffers’ knowledge and contacts, a circumstance that most likely reflects the tradition of relying on personal connections to obtain earmarks for public works projects. They had 295 lobbying contracts associated with the newly-hired congressional staffers, the most of any single group, followed closely by pharmaceutical and medical device companies (263 contacts), education groups (261), computer and internet companies (226), and electric utilities (196).

Business associations were the top spending group; even though they had only 86 contracts with the new hires, they spent a total of $343 million on lobbying since 2009. Other big spenders were phone companies ($253 million) and computer and internet companies ($202 million).

Two-thirds of the staffers snatched up by K Street came from members’ personal offices. The migration was bipartisan, but more of those who left in period studied worked for Democratic lawmakers — 147, compared to 96 from GOP offices — a ratio that likely had to do with the 63 seats House Democrats lost in the 2010 mid-term elections.

Serving as a lawmaker's counsel was the most likely launchpad for a downtown job — 11.2 percent of staffers with that job title have left the House to lobby since 2009, Sunlight found. Legislative director positions (8.9 percent became lobbyists) and legislative counsels (8.8 percent) were the other in-demand titles.

Certain committees were particularly likely to spawn lobbyists. More than 12 percent of staffers who were on the House Financial Services Committee are now lobbyists working to steer the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill they helped craft, according to the Sunlight study. The Judiciary Committee, where seven of its 78 staffers went to K Street, and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where 8.7 percent of aides became lobbyists, were the next two with the highest turnover rates.

The newly-hired lobbyists were competing in 2011 for a share of an estimated $3.27 billion in fees paid by private companies and others for such work. That amount was down from $3.51 billion in 2010, the first decrease in a decade, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics last month.

The reason for the decline in declared expenditures is unclear. Many former lobbyists have de-listed, but are still engaged part-time in lobbying activities that fall just short of the thresholds set by the Lobbying Disclosure Act. As a result, their payments don’t count towards the 2011 total spent on registered federal lobbyists.

Others have sought to avoid registering as lobbyist in the first place, watchdogs say. In the wake of new ethics rules imposed by the Obama administration, having lobbying on one’s resume could make an executive branch position hard to come by.

Complicating any reform is the fact that the revolving door separating lobbyists from lawmakers spins both ways. A CRP study in July found that 128 former lobbyists were employed working for the 112^th Congress, a 130 percent increase from the last session.

Not surprisingly, a recent effort to impose new transparency on lobbyists has stalled in the legislature.

The Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act, a bill supported by Sunlight that would force lobbyists to disclose who they met with and when, was introduced in June by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.). It has since languished in the Judiciary Committee.

FCC sends wireless broadband firm LightSquared back to square one

SkyTerra Communications, Inc. — 2012-02-15T15:51:25-05:00

Wireless broadband company LightSquared’s fast-tracked approval process came to a screeching halt late Tuesday when the Federal Communications Commission decided to “indefinitely suspend” its conditional waiver to operate.

The decision came in the wake of a second government study confirming the concerns raised by congressional Republicans and global positioning system users about the potential for the company’s planned network to interfere with millions of GPS devices.

The FCC described its decision as a setback for competition in the wireless market. It is also a huge blow for Philip Falcone, a major donor to President Barack Obama, and his hedge fund, Harbinger Capital Partners, which owns most of LightSquared. Falcone has invested more than $3 billion in the venture.

Until recently, the administration had shown strong support for the politically connected company.

As the Center for Public Integrity first reported in July, the president was an early investor in LightSquared’s precursor company and is tight with many of its biggest backers. White House visitor logs and emails obtained by the Center showed that the company executives met with administration officials before the FCC fast-tracked LightSquared’s approval in January 2011.

The company also repeatedly mentioned the campaign contributions it had made to Democrats and the president in communications with White House staffers.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), members of the military, and the Federal Aviation Administration raised concerns about possible signal interference from LightSquared’s planned high-speed, fourth-generation wireless Internet network. The government conducted two studies to examine the risk.

The first multi-agency review, concluded on Jan. 12, found that there were “no practical solutions” to resolve the GPS issues. A second, released shortly before the FCC announced its decision, also said that “there is no practical way to mitigate the potential interference at this time.”

LightSquared ran into problems because GPS devices have not been built to effectively screen out the company’s signal. Falcone purchased the under-used spectrum to run the network in 2010. It had originally been set aside by the government for low-energy satellite transmissions, but the FCC strongly supported his bid to increase competition in wireless Internet market by repurposing the spectrum.

LightSquared accused its opponents of playing politics.

“The GPS industry has leveraged years of insider relationships and massive lobbying dollars to make sure that they don’t have to fix the problem they created,” wrote Executive Vice President Jeff Carlisle in a blog post Monday.

The company has vowed to challenge the suspension, but how long it can stay financially solvent is in question. For example, one of its biggest contracts — a $13 billion, 15-year deal with Sprint, the third largest U.S. wireless carrier — required that LightSquared resolve the FCC concerns about GPS before March. The value of Harbinger, which is heavily invested in LightSquared, fell by half last year.

Falcone and LightSquared have few options left, according to analysts. They can try to sell the spectrum, swap it for better airwaves, or sue the government and reduce costs to stay afloat until a solution is found.

Grassley cheered the FCC’s decision but vowed to keep investigating the agency.

“Now that the interference issue is settled, we need to find out more than ever why the FCC did what it did,” he said in a statement Wednesday. “The agency put this project on a fast track for approval with what appears to have been completely inadequate technical research. After all of this time and expense, still, no one outside of the agency knows why.”

Media execs, companies gave more than $350,000 to conservative super PACs

2012-02-03T13:23:52-05:00

Conservative complaints about a liberal bias in the media do not hold up, at least not when it comes to the free-spending groups known as “super PACs.”

News companies and their executives donated more than $350,000 to conservative super PACs in 2011, according to financial disclosure forms filed Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission.

The donations included $100,000 from St. Paul-based Hubbard Broadcasting to the American Crossroads super PAC, which was created by Bush White House strategist Karl Rove. Hubbard is a family-owned media company with a dozen local TV stations, 21 radio stations — including D.C.’s leading news channel WTOP — and a national cable channel.

The broadcaster did not respond to inquiries about the donation.

This appears to be the first time Executive Chairman Stanley S. Hubbard has made a political donation directly from corporate coffers. But the 77-year-old businessman and his wife Karen have already donated $210,759 to Republican candidates, parties and political action committees this election cycle, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of FEC filings.

Minnesota media reporter David Brauer notes that Hubbard, in the 2010 Minnesota gubernatorial race, donated $100,000 to Minnesota Forward, a group backing Republican nominee Tom Emmer. HBI subsequently donated $25,000 to Minnesota's Future, a group attacking Emmer's opponent, Mark Dayton, and $10,000 to Pro-Jobs Majority, which supported two legislative Republicans.

The donations have created problems for those at KSTP TV, the Hubbard-owned ABC affiliate in the Twin Cities. The newsroom was red-faced two years ago when it failed to disclose corporate entanglements in news stories about Minnesota Forward's ads.

Super PACs are political organizations that accept unlimited amounts of money from individuals and corporations to spend on political races. These groups were made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and another lower court decision.

The Los Angeles Times noted Tuesday that its beleaguered owner Sam Zell contributed $100,000 to Crossroads. He also chipped in another $50,000 for the Restore Our Future, a super PAC supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential bid and $50,000 to the New Prosperity Foundation, a conservative group.

Restore Our Future scored support from at least two other notable media executives. Steven Price, the chairman and CEO of Greenwich-based Townsquare Media, a company with 176 radio stations, donated $50,000. The group also received $10,000 from Michael White, the chairman and CEO of satellite dish company DirecTV.

A quick search of FEC filings for names or organizations associated with the news media did not turn up any donations given to progressive super PACs this election cycle.

But the stereotype about big-spending “Hollywood liberals” certainly held true in 2011.

One of the biggest super PAC donations in 2011 was $2 million from Jeffrey Katzenberg, one of the co-founders DreamWorks Animation, to Priorities USA Action. Famed director Steven Spielberg also donated $100,000.

This story has been updated.

Did we miss any interesting media donors to super PACs? Search the California Watch’s database and let us know what you find via email (chiar@publicintegrity.org) or in the comments below.

TransCanada, developer of controversial pipeline, boosts lobbying spending

TransCanada Corporation — 2013-01-23T13:01:05-05:00

TransCanada, the pipeline company pushing the recently rejected Keystone XL project, spent $410,000 on federal lobbying during the last three months of 2011 – a new quarterly high for the company.

The total is $20,000 more than TransCanada spent in the previous quarter and nearly double the $220,000 it spent in the second quarter of 2011. Altogether, the company paid $1.33 million on lobbying in D.C. last year.

The lobbying total is small considering what was at stake. TransCanada was seeking State Department approval of the proposed 1,702-mile-long Keystone XL pipeline. The $7 billion project would have connect Canadian tar sands deposits to Texas refineries.

On Jan. 18, President Barack Obama denied the company's permit request. But the company quickly vowed to reapply, which suggests its surge of lobbying spending may continue in 2012.

TransCanada officials met with Republican lawmakers Monday to push for the pipeline. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) even had “folks from Keystone management as his guests at last night’s [State of the Union speech],” according to Brookings Institution's Stephen Hess.

Republican Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska has proposed legislation to streamline approval of TransCanada's next application. The North American Energy Access Act (H.R. 3548) would move authority for Keystone XL from the State Department to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – even though FERC's director of energy projects said at a hearing this morning that his agency lacks the authority to regulate pipelines.

Boehner has also considered reviving the pipeline fight by linking the project's approval to the upcoming payroll tax cut extension.

As the Center for Public Integrity has reported, TransCanada had already been lobbying heavily for the pipeline project in D.C. and Nebraska, the state most concerned about possible leaks. The pipeline would have crossed directly through Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.

The project continues to draw protests from environmentalists, primarily because of concerns about climate change. Refining gasoline from tar sands produces more climate warming greenhouse gases than processing conventional crude oil.

Four reasons GOP lawmakers aren't backing Gingrich

2013-01-23T13:01:05-05:00

Mitt Romney lost the South Carolina primary to Newt Gingrich by a double digit margin. But in the race for congressional endorsements, the former Massachusetts governor is way ahead of the ex-Speaker of the House.

Romney, who has never held a seat on Capitol Hill, has nevertheless racked 72 endorsements to Gingrich’s nine.

Why are GOP lawmakers so reluctant to support their former colleague? Here are a few of the likely reasons.

Personal problems

Gingrich has been married three times, a fact that rankles some of his more traditional colleagues.

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma spoke for many conservative Republicans in August 2010 when he said Gingrich is “the last person I'd vote for for president of the United States.”

He won’t back his former colleague because “his life indicates he does not have a commitment to the character traits necessary to be a great president.” Coburn was first elected to the House in 1994 as Gingrich became speaker.

Lacking leadership

Coburn is also one of many former House GOP lawmakers who has criticized Gingrich’s management skills.

"I'm not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich's having served under him for four years and experienced personally his leadership," the Oklahoma Republican told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace in December of last year. "I found it lacking often times."

“It was leadership by chaos,” said Rep. Susan Molinari last week during a conference call in support of Romney. Molinari was one of 20 Republican House members who staged an unsuccessful coup against Gingrich in 1997. The following year, under the cloud of an ethics investigation, the Georgia congressman gave up his leadership position and decided not to run for reelection.

“Newt Gingrich was a disaster as speaker,” said New York Rep. Peter King last month. “Everything was self-centered. There was a lack of intellectual discipline.” King has already thrown his support behind Romney.

Lobbying questions

Since leaving the House, Gingrich has made millions as an advisor to companies. Although he vehemently denies that this constituted lobbying, Gingrich’s explanation has been called into doubt by conservative commentators, politicians supporting Romney, and even disgraced Republican uberlobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Gingrich was “engaged in the exact kind of corruption that America disdains,” Abramoff said in a November interview to promote his new book. “This is exactly what I’m talking about: people who came to Washington, who had public service, and they cash in on it. They use their public service and access to make money, and unfortunately Newt Gingrich is one of those who’s done it.”

Some GOP lawmakers may not want to be seen cozying up to a candidate who for some embodies Washington influence peddling.

Mitt’s money

Politicians’ personal opinions of Gingrich only matter so much. Many lawmakers have gotten campaign contributions from groups supporting Romney and these politicians want to show them — and other potential donors — that they appreciate the support.

Ambitious, methodical candidates like Romney often give thousands of dollars to other lawmakers in the hopes that they will return the favor. Take, for example, Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Romney in 2008 — a favor that he no doubt now wishes he could take back. Two years earlier, when Santorum was in the midst of a hard-fought reelection campaign, Romney’s leadership political action committee donated $10,000 to the Pennsylvania senator.

Gingrich is at a disadvantage in this regard because he has less money to work with. He has raised far less than Romney and the outside groups supporting him have spent significantly less.

Anniversary of 'Citizens United' decision draws protesters

2013-01-23T13:01:04-05:00

Two years after a controversial Supreme Court ruling lifted many restrictions on political spending, America’s campaign finance laws have officially become a joke.

Stephen Colbert, a comedian who says he wants to be the “president of the United States of South Carolina,” has used the "Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC" to highlight the weak separation between candidates and the outside spending groups that support them.

But the new power corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals have to sway elections in the wake of the Citizens United decision is not a laughing matter to many Americans. People are organizing protests Friday and over the weekend to draw attention to the lack of disclosure and accountability in the U.S. campaign finance system.

Citizens United and a lower-court ruling in 2010 allowed corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to give money to "super PACs," political organizations that can receive unlimited corporate, union, and individual contributions. The groups can use these funds to make unlimited expenditures on advertisements in support of or opposition to candidates.

Move to Amend, one of the groups protesting Citizens United Friday, is pushing to change the Constitution. The organization’s amendment would limit rights protected by the Constitution to “natural persons only” – not corporations – and force the courts to “not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech.”

Common Cause, another advocacy group seeking to overturn Citizens United, has also launched a pro-amendment project, Amend2012. The effort is being led by Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich. “Our goal is to have as many states as possible pass ballot resolutions calling on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment,” the group’s website explains.

Decisions by the high court invalidate conflicting state laws. But the Montana Supreme Court in December stuck to its guns.

The state supreme court upheld a law barring campaign corporate spending on the grounds that the Citizens United ruling only applies to national elections. Attorney James Bopp Jr., an opponent of campaign finance restrictions who successfully argued Citizens United, is expected to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the arguments made in the 5-4 decision was that shareholders would monitor corporations’ political contributions. But those donations are not so easy to find thanks to weak disclosure rules.

Now the Corporate Reform Coalition, a group mainly composed of institutional investors, is petitioning the Securities and Exchange Commission to increase corporations’ disclosure of political spending.

Supporters of increased corporate disclosure point to studies that show companies with higher levels of political activity – lobbying and political action committee expenditures – tend to be less valuable and correlate with weaker shareholder governance and more corporate jet use by CEOs.

Could SOPA and PIPA interfere with State Dept.’s global Internet freedom agenda?

2013-01-23T13:01:04-05:00

Update, Jan. 20, 12:19pm: Implicitly acknowledging concerns about its Internet anti-piracy bill raised by online protesters and the State Department, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided Friday morning to delay a vote on the Protect Intellectual Property Act. But the Nevada Democrat still supports the increasingly controversial legislation. “There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved,” he added in a statement. House leaders are also having second thoughts about the Stop Online Piracy Act, their version of the legislation.

Two Internet anti-piracy bills working their way through Congress that are heavily backed by the movie industry could have significant impacts on technology companies, a threat highlighted Wednesday by Wikipedia, Reddit, BoingBoing and other sites that went offline for the day in protest. As a result, some reporters have characterized the standoff over the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act and the Senate’s Protect Intellectual Property Act – SOPA and PIPA for short – as a fight between Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

But at an event put on by The New Republic Wednesday, Alec Ross, the State Department’s senior advisor for innovation, pointed out that that this issue is bigger than California. If done wrong, anti-piracy legislation could restrict the rights of Internet users across the country – and put U.S. diplomats in a very awkward position.

“Any attempt to combat online piracy cannot have the unintended consequence of censoring legal online content,” Ross said, referring to SOPA. He suggested that some measures in that bill could be inconsistent with the State Department’s Internet advocacy.

The department’s global Internet freedom agenda was outlined by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a speech nearly a year before the uprising in Tunisia. In the wake of the Arab Spring revolutions that followed the overthrow of Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali – some of which were catalyzed or sustained by online communication — it has become a central tenant of the department’s so-called 21st Century Statecraft.

As Clinton explained back in January 2010, lawmakers should ensure that citizens have the right to access the open Internet:

"Governments should not prevent people from connecting to the Internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate."

But this does not include the right to freely share copyrighted material online, she cautioned.

"Those who use the Internet to … distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the Internet for peaceful political purposes."

These principles could be compromised by the broadly written anti-piracy bills under consideration, opponents allege. In a letter submitted to Congress, Harvard law Professor Laurence Tribe pointed to one section of SOPA that authorizes suits by the attorney general against foreign websites that allegedly “facilitate” infringement. He explained that this provision would likely shutdown websites unable or unwilling to plead their cases, effectively restricting citizens’ rights to enjoy content that very well may not be in violation of copyright law.

"If the owner or operator cannot be located … it appears highly unlikely that there would ever be an adversary hearing testing the merits of the government’s allegations. Even where the owner or operator of a foreign site is known, it seems doubtful that the government’s allegations would be tested, since foreign sites will often be unwilling to enter a U.S. court. In the meantime, the blacklist would deny the right of U.S. audiences to receive constitutionally protected information — at the very time our government criticizes other countries for denying their citizens access to websites that lack official approval."

The administration addressed some of Tribe’s concerns in an official blog post published Saturday. It called for the bills’ authors to more effectively tailor the language of the legislation and ensure “strong due process” for websites hit by its provisions. While Ross praised the post for “unequivocally communicating a policy that is consistent with our Internet freedom agenda,” legislators have still not resolved the all of the issues raised by the White House.

In spite of these shortcomings, a vote to consider PIPA — the Senate’s version of SOPA — is planned for Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - Nev.) is one of a dwindling number of senators who still support the controversial measure. (His office did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.)

If PIPA fails to muster enough support to proceed, State Department diplomats like Ross may be among the many opponents to the anti-piracy bill that will cheer its demise.

Keystone XL pipeline rejection a setback for Canadian tar sands development

Canada — 2013-01-23T13:01:04-05:00

The Obama administration's decision to reject a pipeline that would have carried crude from Canada’s tar sands deposits to Texas oil refineries isn’t likely to end investment in the carbon-rich fuel, industry analysts say.

In killing the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama blamed congressional Republicans, who he said “forced this decision” by requiring an expedited 60-day review of the pipeline as a provision of the recent payroll tax extension.

Obama also reaffirmed his support for domestic oil and gas exploration and expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. “In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” he said.

But industry analysts question this rationale. “If your objective is improving our energy security, then Keystone should have been built,” said Sarah Emerson, president of Energy Security Analysis, Inc., an energy forecasting firm.

Environmentalists have reason to temper their excitement over the pipeline's defeat. They opposed pipeline builder TransCanada's project because of fears about spills and the climate-change implications of refining tar sands, which give off more carbon dixoide than traditional crude oil. But Obama threw his support behind additional U.S. drilling. And analysts say production of tar sands in Canada will continue.

“Is it a setback? Yes,” Emerson said. “Does it spell the end of the oil sands development? No.”

She predicts that America’s northern neighbor will go forward with a stalled pipeline to its Pacific coast. “I suspect that [Canada looks] at this as a rejection and they’ll say ‘OK, well, you don’t want our oil? We’ll sell it to China.’”

Investors in Canada’s tar sands, who had been closely following the Keystone battle, are not likely to pull out just yet. “I don’t know exactly what kind of message this sends, just because it’s an election year,” said Jacob Correll, a commodities analyst at Summit Energy, a consulting firm. “There’s still money to be made.”

Romney's small tax bill could be a big problem

Bain Capital, LLC. — 2013-01-23T13:01:04-05:00

Mitt Romney, who made millions buying and selling companies for a private equity firm, pays an effective tax rate that is lower than a family earning less than $70,000.

“It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything,” Romney told reporters in South Carolina Tuesday, when asked about his taxes.

The Bain Capital founder and current GOP presidential front-runner has been under pressure to release his tax returns. Romney is estimated to be worth as much as $264 million. If he had earned all that cash from salaried work, he would likely be in the top federal tax bracket of 35 percent.

But because private equity partners and hedge fund managers make most of their money from carried interest — a cut of profits off investments that are taxed at the lower 15 percent capital gains rate — the Romney household likely pays a lower overall tax rate than many middle class American families.

Not all of Romney's earnings are taxed at the capital gains rate: The $374,328 in speaker's fees that the former Massachusetts governor disclosed in his candidate financial disclosure filing will likely be taxed at the higher 35 percent rate when he files in April.

Romney told reporters Tuesday that the money he made from his paid appearances was “not very much,” a quote that has already found its way into an attack ad from American Bridge, a Democratic-aligned super PAC.

Even before admitting his low tax rate, Democratic groups had targeted Romney over the carried interest loophole. In October, the Democratic super PAC American Priorities renamed it the “Romney Rule” after an analysis from the advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that Romney paid a rate of 14 percent.

Romney’s exact tax rate will remain a mystery until he makes public his federal income tax returns, a move most recent presidential candidates have voluntarily made.

Fellow GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has promised to release his taxes by Thursday, two days before the upcoming South Carolina primary. Romney will only release his in April after filing his 2011 returns, he said Tuesday.

Other venture capitalists have succeeded in paying even less than the 15 percent capital gains rate.

Todd Dagres, a former partner at private equity firm Battery Ventures, managed to use the carried interest loophole to avoid paying income tax altogether in 2003 despite earning $3.5 million that year. This loophole, which critics say allows the rich to get richer, has enraged Occupy Wall Street protesters, hundreds of whom converged on the Capitol Tuesday to protest the role of money in politics as the House returned from recess.

“My income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past,” Romeny added in the Tuesday press conference. He may have been referring to the lucrative retirement package he secured when he left Bain Capital, the private equity firm he helped found in 1984.

Romney left Bain in early 1999, but continued to collect profits on deals made by the firm through February 2009, the the New York Times reported in December.

Six things you didn’t know about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Wisconsin,United States — 2013-01-23T13:01:04-05:00

Scott Walker has been a polarizing figure since becoming Wisconsin's governor one year ago. Only months after moving into the Madison governors' mansion, the 44-year-old Republican sought to fix the state’s budget gap by pushing a bill that cut pay and benefits for public sector workers and strictly curtailed their rights to collective bargaining.

Walker's surprising move was controversial – and ultimately successful. National labor activists fought and lost while he became a Fox News regular.

But now, largely as a result of his brazenness, the first-term governor is facing a potential recall election. State Democrats and local union organizers have until Jan. 17 to gather the 540,208 signatures needed to force an early vote sometime this year.

Walker defended his actions and attempted to explain the flood of cash he's received from outside the state since his standoff with organized labor in a three-part profile by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, the final installment of which was published Tuesday.

Out-of-state donors have given the embattled governor $3.2 million as of Dec. 10, the final campaign contributions disclosure deadline in 2011. That sum accounts for an unusually high 42 percent of his total war chest.

“Not a penny of that would be here if it weren’t for the recalls,” Walker said.

Here are six facts about Walker from the series for Wisconsin voters -- and the rest of us -- to consider:

Walker is the first governor in Wisconsin history to face a recall attempt. If he loses a potential recall election, he would be only the third governor in U.S. history to be thrown out of the statehouse mid-term.
PolitiFact Wisconsin has deemed 27 statements the governor has made about the state finances, the public sector protestors, and school staffing numbers “Mostly False,” “False” or, worse, “Pants on Fire.” The fact-checking group has reviewed 39 statements from Walker.
In a taped phone call with a blogger posing to be conservative mega-donor David Koch in February, Scott Walker admitted that he had “thought about” planting troublemakers among the labor protestors in an effort to discredit the movement.
As Milwaukee County executive in 2009, Walker sent layoff notices to public sector employees in an effort “to get their attention,” as he put it in an interview with a Madison radio host.
As a sophomore at Wisconsin’s Marquette University, which Walker attended but did not graduate from, he ran for student body president. The future governor lost the election after he was sanctioned for illegal campaigning and called “unfit” by the student paper for his “blatant mudslinging.”
Walker’s first experience in fundraising was for an Iowa flag. As an 8-year-old living in Plainfield, Iowa, he collected money in a mayonnaise jar to help buy a state flag to fly in front of the building where city meetings were held, according to his mother, Patricia Walker, a retired bookkeeper. His father was a Baptist minister.

For more on the controversial Republican, check out all three stories in the series and the full interview with Walker.

EPA's Toxics Release Inventory doesn't offer full picture of pollution

2012-01-09T19:03:05-05:00

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has unveiled its analysis of the 2010 Toxics Release Inventory, a database containing information on the disposal or release of 650 potentially dangerous chemicals used by almost 21,000 facilities. Though there were some increases between 2009 and 2010, it found that releases of these chemicals have generally decreased, with the total down 30 percent since 2001.

But, as the EPA acknowledged, the database provides only a snapshot of the pollution produced by American industry. “Users of TRI data should be aware that…it does not cover all toxic chemicals or all sectors of the U.S. economy,” the analysis warned. “Furthermore, the quantities of chemicals reported to TRI are self-reported by facilities and are often estimates.”

These estimates in some cases dramatically understate the extent of pollution, as the Center for Public Integrity and NPR reported in the Poisoned Places series, an investigation of lax Clean Air Act enforcement.

In Tonawanda, N.Y., a small town outside of Buffalo, citizens used buckets and hand-held vacuums to test the air after dozens of residents suffered ailments that they attributed to emissions from an aging plant that produces coke for smelting iron. They found levels of benzene – a chemical associated with blood disorders, infertility, and cancer, especially leukemia — some 500 times higher than the New York State health guideline during a test in 2004. Regulators forced the plant to make some fixes, but the emissions and related health problems continued.

When EPA inspectors finally raided Tonawanda Coke Corp. some five years later, they found benzene seeping out of the plant at a rate of 91 tons per year, according to an EPA analysis. That was almost 30 times higher than the 6,754 pounds the firm had reported to the TRI in 2009. Since the 2009 raid, the company and its environmental manager have been hit with criminal charges and the facility has been forced to install pollution controls, fix leaks, and clean up toxic waste.

Another shortcoming in the TRI review released Thursday is that “trends in pounds of disposal or other releases do not account for potential risk of chemical releases,” the EPA wrote. “Risks can vary depending on chemical toxicity, how chemicals are released (e.g., to the air or water), where chemicals travel, and where human populations are located.” But risk estimates for people in affected communities are only current as of the 2007 TRI. More recent data will not be analyzed until later this year “because modeling exposure of TRI chemicals is time and resource intensive,” the agency said.

TRI’s coverage of the utility sector is also surprisingly spotty: Only coal- and oil-powered facilities must report to the database. That excludes the growing number of natural gas-burning power plants around the U.S. and facilities that use other types of fuel to create energy, like the tire-burning Geneva Energy plant in Ford Heights, Ill., which has been the subject of an unresolved civil rights complaint filed with the EPA.

Even without emissions data from such facilities, electric utilities reported releasing or disposing of the second-largest quantity of TRI chemicals of any industry sector in 2010. This included the largest amount of air pollution of any sector and “represented over 36% of air emissions from all industries,” the EPA found. These emissions will likely be significantly reduced in the coming years due to the mercury and air toxics rule issued by the EPA in December, which will force many of the dirtiest coal- and oil-fired power plants to install new pollution controls or shut down.

Record-setting $736,000 paid for bluefin tuna poor indicator of scarcity

Japan — 2013-01-23T13:01:04-05:00

While the bluefin tuna is widely acknowledged to be a threatened fish, the price paid Thursday for one 593-pound catch is more a show of nationalism and marketing saavy than a sign of how endangered the tuna has become.

Bluefin tuna is a long-lived, highly migratory fish prized by sushi eaters for its red meaty flesh. The Eastern and Western Atlantic stocks of bluefin tuna have been so severely plundered that they were proposed for listing as an endangered species in 2009 – a designation strongly opposed by Japan, which consumes around 80 percent of the bluefin caught in the world. A recent investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists found that the black market trade in the Eastern Atlantic stock included nearly one in three fish caught.

It would stand to figure that the price paid by Kiyoshi Kimura, a Japanese restaurateur, would have been far higher had these black market fish not been driving down the price. But his big bid has more to do with national pride and salesmanship than the economics of scarcity.

Every year, the first auction of a Japanese-caught Pacific bluefin tuna attracts the attention of the sushi-loving nation. And for the past four years, the winning bidder has been from Hong Kong – a significant blow to the national psyche. The Chinese company, the Taste of Japan, set a record last year when it paid nearly $396,000 for a 754-pound tuna at the first fish auction of 2011.

The Chinese news service Xinghua in March put the average price of bluefin tuna in Japan around $10,000 for a single fish. That's a lot, even for a fish that can weight more than 1,000 pounds. But Kimura paid 70 times than that more for his New Year's delicacy: $1,238-per-pound.

Kimura, who is the president of a company that runs the Sushi Zanmai restaurant chain, told AP he wanted to keep the fish in Japan, “rather than let it get taken overseas.” The Wall Street Journal reported that cuts of the record-breaking tuna will be sold at regular prices ranging from $1.75 for a piece of the “akami” red meat to $5.45 for a slab of “otoro,” or fatty tuna, draped over a nugget of pressed rice. If sold at cost, each piece could be sold for as much as $96.

“Japan has been through a lot the last year due to the disaster,” Kimura added, referring to the tsunami and subsequent nuclear disaster. “Japan needs to hang in there. So I tried hard myself and ended up buying the most expensive one.”

But the spectacle surrounding the first bluefin tuna auction of the season leaves a bad tase in conservationists' mouths. “We don't agree with the use of an overfished and endangered species as a promotional gimmick,” Allen To, a marine conservation officer at the World Wildlife Fund, told the South China Morning Post after last years' record-setting sale.

New consumer finance watchdog vows to regulate predatory lenders

2013-01-23T13:01:04-05:00

The newly appointed director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau pledged Thursday to keep a close eye on so-called "non-bank" lenders, a supervisory role the agency was denied as it awaited the appointment of a full-time boss.

“Nearly 20 million American households use payday lenders, and pay roughly $7.4 billion in fees every year," Richard Cordray, the 52-year-old former Ohio attorney general told a crowd at the Brookings Institution. "Many subprime loans during the housing bubble were made by non-bank mortgage brokers. We must establish clear standards of conduct so that all financial providers play by the rules.”

Even though the hour-long talk was only announced the night before, the new director had no problem filling the room. It was easy to see why. The power of his position and the politics of his appointment had the overflow crowd of consumer advocates and Washington reporters abuzz with interest.

The CFPB, created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, has the power to regulate the non-bank financial sector, a relatively lawless corner of the financial universe. But a Republican filibuster kept Cordray from being confirmed in the Senate. Without a director, the agency did not have the power to regulate non-bank lenders.

Members of the Washington press corps in attendance seemed more interested in how Cordray would deal with a combative Congress.

President Obama angered Republicans Wednesday when he used a "recess appointment" to install Cordray as the first head of the watchdog agency – even though Congress had technically not gone into recess. The House and Senate have continued to hold so-called pro forma sessions every three days, lasting seconds at a time.

In addition to Cordray, three new members to the National Labor Relations Board, also targets of Republican filibustering, were appointed.

Q&A: Former Bush official touts ‘market-based’ air toxics regulation

2012-01-09T18:01:39-05:00

With Mitt Romney at or near the top of the polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, the Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News wanted to find out how his administration might regulate toxic air pollutants. Although James L. Connaughton insists that he doesn’t speak on behalf of the campaign, he is a prominent supporter of the former Massachusetts governor and has been dubbed “the next EPA administrator” by some GOP insiders. Connaughton was chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality during both of George W. Bush’s terms. Since 2009, he has been an executive vice president at Constellation Energy. (The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.)

Q: How well have air toxics been regulated, in your view?

A: There’s been really good, strong regulation of industrial air toxics that were of high concern. The Toxics Release Inventory is wildly successful in creating an information-based incentive for companies to get out of air toxics. The two places where action on air toxics had been lagging is power plants and some of the toxics associated with petroleum fumes.

Q: Do you support a cap-and-trade regulatory system for air toxics?

A: The more market-based approach creates opportunities to optimize your pollution control of both [smog-forming compounds] and air toxics. Performance-based [regulations] set the target, usually based on benefit/cost, and then let the private sector sort out the most cost-effective way to get there. And there’s no better example of that than the acid rain trading program. Its main purpose was to deal with the acidification associated with power plant emissions. And no program has been more successful at lower costs, with lower bureaucracy, with virtually no litigation.

Q: How can you be sure that a cap-and-trade program won’t lead to pollution “hot spots” near poorer communities?

A: If you have a really effective and stringent market-based approach to air pollution, you’re going to get rid of a lot of your air toxics. Now, are you still left with peaks and valleys from one region to another? Yes. But are the peaks and valleys a lot smaller than they were before you did the market-based regulation? Absolutely. The “hot spot” becomes a less and less applicable concept as we get dramatic pollution reductions. You’re always going to have an unequal distribution of emissions of some sort, but pollution is so low now that, relatively speaking, the highs are just not that far away from the lows. Before, there used to be big differences.

Q: But what about people who live near industrial areas with heavier pollution?

A: That’s not an air pollution control issue; that’s a development issue. That’s a zoning issue. That’s not anything for a pollution regulator to deal with, other than to make sure that those facilities comply with applicable standards. As long as [a plant] is meeting the air quality standards, then it’s in compliance. Now, if you’re suggesting the air quality standards should be lower, there’s a process for doing that. But the whole point of the Clean Air Act is to set a reasonable ceiling on allowable pollution and let the communities sort out what kind of economic activity they want to meet air quality standards.

Q: In some communities the Center for Public Integrity and NPR visited for our Poisoned Places series, reporters found that enforcement has been uneven or absent. Is that finding consistent with your experience in the Bush administration?

A: That was an enormous frustration for me when I was doing policy. I think you’re right there, but it cuts in ways that are not popularly discussed. California holds itself out as being the most progressive when it comes to clean air control, but it remains the case that Southern California is still the area of the country most hopelessly out of compliance with air quality standards. What does it mean for California to have the strictest air quality standards when they have the worst air quality outcome? That’s the question that needs to be asked. Is it that you hide behind the more aggressive aspirational goal? If you think of the incredible steps that Texas has [taken] – or Ohio – to achieve federal air quality standards, how fair is it that Southern California [hasn’t]?

Q: Many facilities included on the EPA’s air pollution “watch list” are located in Texas and Ohio. Why do you praise their regulatory records?

A: In Texas or Ohio, they have a higher number of industrial facilities, where in Southern California they don’t and the pollution loads are much more diverse and people-centered, not industrial-centered. The fact is that [Texas and Ohio] have large emitters, but the states [are] making tradeoffs somewhere else. That’s the way the system is supposed to work. The feds set the standards, and the states say, ‘We’re going to achieve it these 200 different ways.’ So you can decide to have one mega-factory or a million transportation sources like California has. That’s a state choice as to how they’re going to allocate their [air pollution] load to stay in compliance with the standard.

Q: To what extent does the political influence of large industries affect Clean Air Act enforcement at the state level?

A: We are well past the point where that’s a real issue. The states are more locally accountable to their own constituencies and have very sophisticated institutions now and, quite frankly, some of the best experts I’ve encountered. And that runs from Ohio to Texas, to California to Maine, New York to Minnesota.

Q: What about facilities that continue to rack up violations?

A: All right, that’s something different. That’s just noncompliance. So those folks should be either penalized or shut down.

Q: How would you rate the Obama administration’s record on air pollution?

A: Their hands are kind of tied. They’re pressing ahead as they should. But it’s not optimal. At the end of the day, Congress has not taken a look at the Clean Air Act in 22 years. [Updating the law would diminish] the prospect of litigation on both sides. The biggest [barrier] to progress over the past few decades has been litigation and delay. Industry and environmental groups – both sides of the equation litigate, and [this leads] to delays. There’s no way to make up the cumulative emissions reductions that would have been avoided if we hadn’t suffered through all this litigation.

EPA releases long-awaited power plant air toxics rule

2011-12-21T18:34:18-05:00

Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson released the details of a regulation that would cut air emissions of mercury and other toxics from coal- and oil-fired power plants for the first time.

The new standard is seen as a victory for environmentalists and public health advocates, who have pushed the EPA to reduce emissions from the power industry since the passage of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. While the standard was issued last Friday, interest groups said the Obama administration made supporters wait until bickering in Congress died down so the landmark rule could have the spotlight.

“Last week, we finalized the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, a rule that will protect millions of families and, especially, children from air pollution,” Jackson said at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington on Wednesday. “Before this rule, there were no national standards that limited the amount of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases power plants across the country could release into the air we breathe.”

Mercury, a coal combustion byproduct, is a potent neurotoxin linked to decreased motors skills and lower IQs. It’s among nearly 200 hazardous chemicals, known as air toxics, which have been the subject of the Poisoned Places series by the Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News and NPR.

The EPA predicts the new standard will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 cases of childhood asthma annually when it is fully implemented in 2016. At that point, the agency estimates, the total health and economic benefits could be as much as $90 billion a year – nearly 10 times more than the $9.7 billion in costs associated with the rule.

The rule is a personal victory for Jackson, who told the audience of her children’s struggles with asthma. “Fifteen years ago, my youngest son spent his first Christmas in the hospital fighting to breathe. Like any parent of a child with asthma, I can tell you that the benefits of clean air protections like MATS are not just statistics and abstract concepts,” she said.

The only significant change made to the rule before Wednesday’s announcement was the addition of more flexibility for power plants seeking to add pollution controls. The 150 oil-burning and 1,500 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. will now have an additional year to install smokestack scrubbers and other pollution-catching filters. Building and deploying this technology could provide 46,000 short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs for American workers, the EPA said.

Jackson also used the event to bolster the Obama administration’s clean air credentials. “EPA is rounding out a year of incredible progress on clean air in America with another action that will benefit the American people for years to come,” she said, citing the previously finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

Although environmental groups and public health advocates had near- universal praise for the administration after the announcement, President Obama has not been as supportive of air pollution restrictions in the past. In September he personally asked Jackson to withdraw a stronger ozone rule that would have prevented an estimated 4,300 premature deaths annually, citing “the importance of reducing regulatory burdens.”

The unveiling of the rule came a day after the U.S. Geological Survey reported that mercury levels in lakes near several major cities was about four times higher than in rural lakes. Coal-fired power plants are the largest single source of mercury emissions, the USGS noted.

“The results illustrate the importance of reducing mercury emissions in the U.S. and not only focusing on emissions globally,” said USGS scientist Peter Van Metre, who authored the study.

Mercury falling: Groundbreaking power plant emissions rule imminent

2012-01-23T20:20:51-05:00

It’s an important moment for Americans who eat fish or use electricity. After more than two decades of delays, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is poised to issue a new regulation restricting some power plant emissions that have polluted the nation’s air and water.

Even though the rule won’t take effect until at least 2015, it’s a big deal. For the first time, all of America’s 150 oil-burning facilities and 1,500 coal-fired power plants would have to limit emissions of mercury and other air toxics — a class of nearly 200 hazardous, haphazardly regulated chemicals that have been the subject of the Poisoned Places series by the Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News and NPR. The EPA is required to issue the new standard today, but some observers predict that the Obama administration will wait until Congress is out of session Monday to release the final language.

The draft Mercury and Air Toxics Standard proposed in March, which will likely mirror the final rule, would cost $10 billion to implement according to EPA estimates. But supporters say the 17,000 premature deaths avoided and $100 billion of health and environmental benefits realized annually would more than compensate for the $3 to $4 a month that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the regulation will cost homeowners when it’s fully implemented. Coal plants, which provide nearly half of the U.S. electricity supply and two-thirds of the nation’s airborne mercury, are likely to bear most of the costs for implementing the new standard.

While the rule will make electricity slightly more expensive, it also should make fish, and the people who eat them healthier, environmentalists say. Mercury, a coal combustion byproduct, is a potent neurotoxin linked to decreased motors skills and lower IQs. After it leaves the smokestack, mercury falls back to earth, polluting lakes and streams and accumulating in fish. As a result, consumption of contaminated fish is now the main source of human exposure to mercury, according to a recently released report by the public interest group Environment America.

The coal industry and its friends in Congress argue that the proposed emission limits for power plants are too expensive, would cost too many jobs and threaten the reliability of the electricity supply. Most of these claims have been debunked by independent experts. Nonetheless, House Republicans have begun to consider measures to block or delay the utility regulations.

Regulation of power plant emissions was required by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 but has languished for years. “I think from day one everybody knew that regulating mercury from especially power plants wasn’t going to be easy,” Lynn Goldman, who headed the EPA’s toxics office during the Clinton administration, said in an interview with NPR. “I don’t think anybody thought that today, 21 years later, we would still be in a position where this had not been controlled.”

States have had more success cutting mercury pollution from power plants. Seventeen have already enacted their own mercury-control programs. And, as the World Resources Institute has pointed out, “six of those states have standards more stringent than those proposed by EPA, and several of them have timelines more stringent than those imposed by the Clean Air Act.”

If nothing else, environmentalists and coal executives can agree that the forthcoming utility mercury rule is one of most significant — and costly — national air toxics standards to emerge from Washington in the past two decades. Others have stalled because of bureaucratic dawdling, industry resistance and legal maneuvering, iWatch News found.

Still, it’s too soon for pescetarians and public health advocates to start celebrating. As Frank O’Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch points out, there’s no guarantee that the rule that emerges this week or next will be as protective as the one proposed in March.

“We are informed reliably that the White House Office of Management and Budget, at the behest of the coal-burning electric power industry, is now pushing the EPA to weaken its mercury pollution control requirements in its upcoming toxic pollution rule for power plants,” O’Donnell told reporters last week. “Power companies could emit almost 20 percent more mercury under the dirty power industry scheme being promoted by OMB bean counters.”