Obama & Clean Energy vs Tax Breaks For Oil Companies (Decision 2012)

Obama Calls for an End to Subsidies for Oil and Gas Companies


With his re-election fate increasingly tied to the price Americans are paying at the gas pump, President Obama called on Congress to end $4 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies, and vowed to tackle the country’s long-term energy issues while shunning “phony election-year promises about lower gas prices.”

Mr. Obama, in an appearance at Nashua Community College here, took a page out of his jobs strategy of last year, calling on Americans to contact their Congressional representatives and demand a vote on the oil subsidies in the next few weeks.

“You can either stand up for the oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people,” Mr. Obama said. “You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean-energy future.”

The president aggressively tackled Republicans who have called for the country to increase its own oil production, declaring that “anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this problems doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” With the United States consuming more than 20 percent of the world’s oil while having only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, Mr. Obama said “we can’t rely on fossil fuels from the last century.”

Calling for renewed investment in alternative energy, he vowed to make a “serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem that may not be solved in one year or one term or even one decade.”

Mr. Obama’s decision to spotlight his proposal to end oil and gas subsidies immediately opened him up to criticism from Republicans, who noted that the proposal was unlikely to help lower the price of gas at the pump. The office of the House Speaker, John A. Boehner, sent an e-mail to reporters citing an analysis by the Congressional Research Service last March that found that ending the subsidies could make oil and natural gas more expensive.

Mr. Boehner also told reporters that, after meeting with Mr. Obama at the White House on Wednesday, it didn’t appear that the president would support tapping into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to curb rising gas prices.

“It didn’t appear to me that the president believes using S.P.R. would have any meaningful effect on gas prices,” Mr. Boehner said.

The oil reserve was created four decades ago to help the country deal with emergencies in oil supply.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, declined to say whether the president would tap into strategic oil reserves if gas prices continued to rise. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to New Hampshire, Mr. Carney maintained that the president was fixed on long-term solutions to the country’s oil dependence.

Mr. Carney said oil companies “do not deserve and do not need” subsidies or tax breaks financed by American taxpayers. He described the president as “very concerned” about the impact the spike in gas prices is having on American families.

Mr. Obama’s political advisers are concerned as well, and have indicated privately that Mr. Obama will have a tough time getting re-elected if the price at the pump reached or exceeded $5 a gallon.

In New Hampshire on Thursday, Mr. Obama chided Republicans who he said were hoping to gain political advantage from the rise in oil prices. “Now I know this is hard to believe, but some politicians are seeing higher gas prices as a political opportunity,” Mr. Obama said. “You’re shocked, aren’t you? And right in the middle of an election year. Who would’ve thought?” “Only in politics do people respond to bad news with such enthusiasm,” he said.

Appearing in North Dakota on Thursday, one of Mr. Obama’s Republican challengers, Mitt Romney, said the president was out of touch. North Dakota has benefited from the discovery of the Bakken Shale, an oil-rich deposit.

“Today the president is going to be in New Hampshire talking about energy in North Dakota,” Mr. Romney said. “He’s about as far away from North Dakota as he can get and still be in the United States. His idea of course is to be far enough away from the people who know what’s really going on right here to maybe try and blow one past folks.”

Mr. Obama did not mention North Dakota in his speech.

Republicans in Congress, struggling to regain their message as the economy improves, have latched on to rising oil prices and lobbed new accusations of culpability at the White House almost every day this week. But neither Republicans, nor Democrats, have been able to get legislative traction on their proposed solutions.

House Republican leaders tried to pay for a major transportation and infrastructure bill with receipts from federal lands they would open to oil drilling, but that legislative move appears to have collapsed. They continue to press the Obama administration to approve an oil pipeline that would stretch from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

“We are seeing some positive economic news, but it is being overshadowed for many families by soaring oil costs,” Mr. Boehner said on Thursday, as he pressed the president to issue more oil leases in offshore areas and to hasten oil drilling permits.

For their part, Democrats blame the spike in oil prices on speculators, but efforts to mandate a review by the Federal Trade Commission have not gotten far, and the party is divided on whether to press for the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Largely absent from the partisan bickering has been the role tensions over Iran have played in the price rise. Leaders of both parties have pressed the administration and American allies to target Iranian oil exports and gasoline imports as a way to tighten the noose in the Iranian economy. Now that such efforts are starting to bite, neither Democrats nor Republicans want to discuss the collateral damage being done to the American economy.


View Larger Map


Sources: C-Span, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP's Next 2012 Anti-Obama Tool: Gas Prices & Gouging

Since Our Nation's Unemployment Numbers Have Been Reduced, Donald Trump's "Birther" Claims Have Fizzled & Paul Ryan's Budget Backfired, What's The GOP's Next 2012 Anti-Obama Tool?

Scaring American Voters With Rising Gas Prices By Allowing Gas Price Gouging & Speculation To Occur!

President Obama Was Right About His Administration Investigating & Stopping Such Corrupt Behavior Just For Short Term Political Gain.

I Hope Attorney Holder Eric Holder Finds & Prosecutes The Culprits Responsible Soon!




High Gas Prices cut into driving habits — and Obama’s approval rating


Soaring gasoline prices are biting into household incomes and nibbling at Americans’ fuel consumption and support for President Obama, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

About six in 10 respondents said they had cut back on driving because of rising fuel prices, and seven in 10 said that high pump prices are causing financial hardship.

Obama, like previous presidents in times of high oil prices, is taking a hit. Only 39 percent of those who call gas prices a “serious financial hardship” approve of the way he is doing his job, and 33 percent of them say he’s doing a good job on the economy.

The Energy Information Administration said Monday that gas prices climbed last week to $3.88 a gallon, up 81 cents since the start of the year. It is the highest that pump prices have been since August 2008, before the financial meltdown.

Evidence of motorists’ hardships are littering the roads. The Automobile Association of America says the number of motorists running out of gas has been surging. John Townsend, a AAA spokesman, said that cash-strapped members “are pushing the envelope” and that emergency gasoline deliveries to stranded members jumped nationwide, including up 40 percent in the District.

That sort of hardship could slow the Obama reelection campaign. The Post-ABC poll results show that 60 percent of independents who say they’ve been hit hard by surging gas prices also say they definitely won’t support Obama in his bid for reelection.

In a theoretical match-up with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the top GOP performer in the Post-ABC poll, Romney wins by a 24-point margin among the independents who have taken a severe financial hit because of gas prices, and the president is up 7 percentage point among others.

At a fundraiser in Southern California last week, where pump prices are the highest in the country, Obama acknowledged the political peril of high gas prices. He said, “My poll numbers go up and down depending on the latest crisis, and right now gas prices are weighing heavily on people.”

He tried to show that he feels motorists’ pain. “I admit, Secret Service doesn’t let me fill up the pump anymore,” he said. “But it hasn’t been that long since I did.”

The poll also shows the stubborn nature of gasoline consumption, and the difficulty of weaning the country off its dependence on imported oil. About a quarter of all Americans say they would not alter their driving habits until prices, which are about $1 a gallon higher than a year ago, climb another $1.10 or to more than $5.

Even though gasoline prices are just a quarter of a dollar short of their all-time record of $4.11 for a gallon of regular set in July 2008, the Energy Information Administration forecast this month that gasoline consumption would average about 9.3 million barrels a day over the peak summer driving season, a 0.5 percent increase over last summer.

“Population growth and a recovering economy contribute to gasoline consumption growth,” EIA said, adding that high gas prices and better fuel efficiency standards would dampen demand. Consumption of diesel fuel is expected to climb 2.3 percent because of higher industrial output and trade.

“I think the evidence is strong that people are not very price responsive and that there are no magic thresholds where the effect changes suddenly,” said Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California Berkeley business school and director of the California Energy Institute.

In 2008 when prices last spiked, motorists carpooled, households drove the more efficient of their cars when a choice was possible and many people opted for public transportation. But the impact was slight.

Borenstein says the drop in consumption was 3 to 4 percentage points. “That’s a pretty small demand response when the price of gasoline nearly doubles,” he said. Moreover, he said, “this was happening in context of a giant recession, so there were income effects as well.”

Christopher Knittel, a professor of applied economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that “consumers are less responsive today than in the past, especially when compared to the 1970s.” With the growth of families with two income earners and other social changes, motorists are less likely to regard their day-to-day driving as discretionary.

But, Knittel said, “if prices continue to be high, they start to change what cars they buy and manufacturers start to change the cars they offer. So it really depends on the time frame.”

Knittel said that the increase in gasoline prices is partly a result of the recovering economy. “One of the reasons gas prices are high is that we are coming out of the recession,” he said. “So it’s sort of bitter sweet. The economy is getting strong, but it’s hurting our pocketbook.”

That could circle around and undercut the recovery. Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland’s business school, estimates that the spike in gas prices since September translates into a 5 percent cut in discretionary income and that Americans “will be eating fewer restaurant meals, wearing fewer new clothes, curtailing summer vacation plans, and postponing furniture purchases and home improvements.”

In the Post-ABC poll, 12 percent of people who consider gas prices a financial hardship said they had slashed spending elsewhere.

The telephone poll was conducted April 14 to 17 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults. The margin of sampling error is 3.5 percentage points.


Sources: AP, Washington Post, Youtube

BP Continues Business As Usual With U.S. Dept Of Defense

BP Has Steady Sales At Defense Department Despite U.S. Scrutiny


The Defense Department has kept up its immense purchases of aviation fuel and other petroleum products from BP even as the oil company comes under scrutiny for potential violations of federal and state laws related to Gulf of Mexico well explosion, according to U.S. and company officials.

President Obama said last month that the company's "recklessness" in the gulf contributed to the disaster, and he promised that BP will "pay for the damage." Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on June 2 that Justice Department lawyers were looking into possible violations of civil and criminal statutes. "If we find evidence of illegal behavior, we will be forceful in our response," he said.

BP, meanwhile, remains a heavy supplier of military fuel under contracts worth at least $980 million in the current fiscal year, according to the Defense Logistics Agency. In fiscal 2009, BP was the Pentagon's largest single supplier of fuel, providing 11.7 percent of the total purchased, and in 2010, its contracts amount to roughly the same percentage, according to DLA spokeswoman Mimi Schirmacher.

"BP is an active participant in multiple ongoing Defense Logistics Agency acquisition programs," Schirmacher said, without providing details. BP spokesman Robert Wine said he was aware of at least one "big contract" signed by the U.S. military after the oil rig explosion on April 20, involving the supply of multiple fuels for its operations in Europe.

So far, members of Congress have discussed barring BP from any new oil and gas drilling leases, not from fuel sales to the government. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who co-chairs the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, said last week that he would introduce legislation to shut BP out of such leases for the
next seven years, as punishment for what he described as "serial" legal violations.

But Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said in a statement that "the U.S. government needs to look at all possible options when it comes to showing BP, or any corporate bad actor, that a continued culture of cost cutting and increased risk taking will absolutely not be tolerated."

Even before the gulf debacle, the Environmental Protection Agency had begun to explore cutting off BP from all federal contracts -- including those with the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which buys all fuel for the military services. The EPA plays the lead role in debarment proceedings related to the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, and its probe was sparked by BP's 2006 oil spill in Alaska and a 2005 explosion at a refinery in Texas.



The EPA's deliberations, however, are suspended until the gulf spill investigations conclude, according to an EPA spokeswoman. The agency may decide to shut off federal contracts with specific divisions within BP, or with the whole company "if it is in the public interest to do so," it said in May. Any such action would be meant to punish "environmental noncompliance or other misconduct," it said.

Jeanne Pascal, a former EPA lawyer who until recently oversaw the review of BP's possible debarment, has said she initially supported taking such action but held off after an official at the Defense Department warned her that the Pentagon depended heavily on BP fuel for its operations in the Middle East. "My contact at DESC, another attorney, told me that BP was supplying approximately 80 percent of the fuel being used to move U.S. forces" in the region, Pascal said. She added that "BP was very fortunate in that there is an exception when the U.S. is involved in a military action or a war."

Pascal then sought a settlement to allow contracting with BP while forcing the company to elevate an internal office dealing with health, safety and environmental issues within its corporate structure. She also demanded that the company keep an ombudsman, retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin, whom BP first hired after the Alaska spill but had sought to let go. BP resisted both demands, and the talks were stalemated when the Deepwater Horizon rig sank, Pascal said.

"At some point, debarment attorneys throughout the government need to look at BP's record," she said. "This is one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. . . . Do we want to do business with this foreign corporation, which has a horrendous record of chronically violating U.S. law? You have to look at the overall behavior pattern."

A spokeswoman for the Defense Department, Wendy L. Snyder, gave a different account of the internal debarment discussions. She said the Defense Logistics Agency "informed the EPA that there are adequate procedures and processes to protect the U.S. military missions should EPA determine that BP should be debarred."

That claim was reinforced by Schirmacher, who said that "none of BP's current energy contracts are in direct support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan" and that the department could meet its requirements without BP fuel. But she indicated that the Pentagon had no intention of taking such action in the absence of an EPA decision.

Wine, the BP spokesman, said that although he is not familiar with details of the company's negotiations with EPA, Sporkin's tenure was extended earlier this year until the middle of 2011. He did not challenge Pascal's claim that BP's health, safety and environmental unit had been moved lower on the corporate structure before the gulf spill, reporting to the head of a business unit instead of directly to the top executive. But, Wine said, "what difference does that make?"

"Safety comes through the organization through every root," he said, and remains "paramount in every part of the business."

Several federal agencies have continuing contracts with BP, although none worth as much as the Pentagon's. Since 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration has contracted to spend at least $2.26 million to station weather, communications and aerial surveillance devices on several BP platforms in the gulf, including the Atlantis oil production platform roughly 100 miles from Deepwater Horizon's former location. Critics, including a former BP contractor, have alleged that the Atlantis was built without proper safety controls, which BP denies.

FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown said that BP's environmental and legal record was not a consideration in her agency's contracts. The Atlantis platform was selected "based purely on how it would support air traffic," she said.


View Larger Map



Sources: National Geographic, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

World's Worst Polluters To Attend Copenhagen Climate Summit

Is Emissions Trading the Carbon Solution?
Emissions trading is expected to create a US$ 1 trillion carbon market with links to all sectors of the Global Economy.
What is the appetite for a market-based solution to climate change?







Biggest Polluters Will Attend Copenhagen


On the eve of the international climate summit in Copenhagen, world leaders are hopeful for a credible climate deal. A main focus has been on the divide between developed and developing nations. Entering into the summit, developed countries will likely agree to cut their emissions by 2020 and finance developing countries so that those nations can reach their goals. Those goals include curbing the growth of emissions and agreeing to short-term financing.

The U.S., India, and China, the world's largest polluters, have pledged to cut down on emissions, behind countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Japan, and the European Union. A climate economist said the commitments come "very close" to what is needed to avoid catastrophic climate change. Obama's last-minute decision to attend the final stages of the summit makes a positive outcome more likely, as all major world leaders will be present.





Hopes increase for a credible climate deal

When Pres. Barack Obama, decided late last week to attend the final stages of the fortnight-long United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen, which begins on Monday, the gasp of relief from delegates heading to the Danish capital was almost audible.

Mr Obama’s presence means a credible deal is much more likely because the leaders of almost all the world’s big economies and emitters are now planning to attend the summit on the final day, when any agreement will be reached.

Wen Jiabao of China, Angela Merkel of Germany, Yukio Hatoyama of Japan, Manmohan Singh of India, Gordon Brown of Britain and Nicolas Sarkozy of France are among the more than 100 leaders who have confirmed their attendance.

“World leaders will not want to leave empty-handed,” one senior official said of the conference, which is attempting to forge a global framework on greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto protocol, the main provisions of which expire in 2012.

Also raising delegates’ hopes is the flurry of statements from countries in the past few weeks because the broad contours of the probable deal, the negotiations for which began two years ago, are now clear.

Developed countries will agree to cut their emissions substantially between now and 2020, while developing countries will curb the future growth of their emissions. Developed nations will agree some form of financial assistance for poor countries and there may be agreement on the governance structures that will be created to oversee this.

As with any such global negotiations, much has happened at the last moment. “We have seen a lot of movement in the last two weeks,” Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate change official, told the Financial Times. “We seem to be almost there [on the key issues].”

Almost every big emitter had made a commitment on emissions, with the US, India and China being the last to make announcements. They followed pledges from other big developing economies, such as Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico, and longstanding commitments from the European Union, Japan and a few others.

According to analysis published on Sunday by Lord Stern of Brentford, a climate economist, these commitments take the world “very close” to the cuts scientists say are needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

However, he added that politicians would need to work hard to ensure the commitments were maximised. “With goodwill and the right collaborative spirit, it will be possible to do a deal.”

Another of the issues that has delayed progress on the talks has been the thorny question of financial assistance from rich to developing countries. The UN has said this should reach $100bn (€67bn, £61bn) a year by 2020. Mr de Boer’s recent decision to seek an aggregate commitment, which absolves rich countries of making individual long-term commitments, has greatly simplified this part of the negotiations.

But he said developed countries still needed to agree short-term financing of at least $10bn a year over the next three years. There has been progress towards that, with several countries indicating a willingness to contribute. The US will probably be able to supply $1.4bn already in its budget for next year and the UK has promised £800m ($1.3bn, €887m) over the period.

If the figure can be reached, with a promise on an aggregate amount of assistance to be available by 2020 guaranteed in strong language, that could be enough to satisfy developing countries.

However, these are UN negotiations and they can easily be derailed by a country refusing to back the consensus. Mr de Boer said the involvement was what made the process “complex and satisfying”.

The perils were illustrated by the walkout by African nations at the last round of negotiations in November, in protest at the lack of finance offered. This time, small island states might propose lowering the temperature target from the widely agreed 2ºC to 1.5ºC, requiring far stiffer emissions cuts.

Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme, warned: “Do not underestimate the power of small nations or least developed countries to significantly affect the outcome in Copenhagen.”

Mr de Boer said a deal was “certainly possible”. But, in a measure of the tension that will endure to the final minutes, added: “If Copenhagen achieves all [it is supposed to], I will do a dance round the Christmas tree.” He may yet be picking pine needles out of his socks next Friday night.



View Larger Map

Sources: The Daily Beast, FT.com (Financial Times), World Economic Forum, CBS, Youtube, Google Maps

"Climategate" E-mail Scandal May Damage Green Energy Agenda...Hoax Or Science?

Hacked e-mails about Climate Change Data has caused heated debate among Scientists and u.S. Congressional Members.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Cautious optimism precedes Climate Summit. Over the next two weeks in Copenhagen, 192 nations will try to find common ground on how to reduce global warming. NBC’s Anne Thompson examines what’s at stake.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans push on "Climategate"



A series of embarrassing e-mails stolen from a British climate research center last month has wreaked havoc in the obscure academic circles of climate science.

Now Republicans hope the "Climategate" e-mail scandal will do the same to the Obama Administration’s Environmental Agenda.

Global warming skeptics believe that the correspondence, which shows scientists debating whether to manipulate scientific data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming, is a smoking gun that will change the dynamics of the climate debate. Activists also hope the purloined e-mails will derail Democratic climate negotiations on Capitol Hill and the upcoming International Talks in Copenhagen.

“The elephant in the room is the questions raised by the e-mails which have been made public,” said Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday. “Anyone who thinks that the e-mails are insignificant, that they don’t damage the credibility of the entire movement, is naive.”

The controversy has rallied and outraged conservative activists who believe the exchanges stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit prove that climate scientists colluded to suppress data on how humans have affected climate change.

They’re pointing to comments that show scientists using a science journal “trick” to manipulate data, vowing to keep challenging studies out of journals even if “we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is” and deriding questions from climate skeptics as “crap criticisms from the idiots.”

“This is a sea change in our culture,” said Marc Morano, a former Republican staffer turned prominent climate change skeptic. “Wait until January or February; you’re going to see numbers [on belief in global warming] that have dropped through the floor.”

The scandal thus far has not gained significant traction with voters beyond the conservative base, given that a majority of Americans — and most policymakers — still believe global warming to be a scientific fact. But Republicans hope that their ongoing investigation will push the issue into the mainstream.

On Friday, a top official at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change promised to investigate claims that the scientists purposely manipulated their data.

And Republicans know that the issue will continue to energize their base as they move toward the 2010 elections. Support for curbing greenhouse gases has become toxic among conservatives, who have made opposition to cap-and-trade proposals a key tenet of their party purity test. Recent polling has also shown a dramatic drop in the number of Republicans who believe in man-made global warming.

Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina has already jumped on the scandal as a way to attack Sen. Barbara Boxer, her liberal Democratic opponent in environmentally friendly California.

The Fiorina campaign slammed Boxer for focusing on the legal questions surrounding the stolen information instead of the validity of the science.

“While the legal issues in this case merit a full investigation, Americans also deserve to know the truth, especially as Boxer continues to force job-killing ‘cap-and-trade’ legislation through the Senate,” Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager for communications Julie Soderlund said in an e-mail.

Boxer, who’s known as one of the most outspoken environmentalists in Congress, called for the prosecution of the hackers who stole the e-mails on Wednesday.

“You call it Climategate; I call it e-mail-theft-gate,” she said Wednesday. “It seems to me they must have been hacking this for years, and just before Copenhagen, they came out with them.”

Boxer’s comments echo those of other Democratic climate supporters, who say that skeptics are taking passages from the more than 1,000 e-mails out of context to undermine public confidence in climate science.

“The key point is, however this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding about how the climate works or how humans are affecting it,” top White House top science adviser John Holdren said in testimony before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on Wednesday.

Democrats have largely dismissed the whole controversy; Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse described it Wednesday as a “little e-mail squabble.”

“While I would absolutely agree that these e-mails show a lack of interpersonal skills,” said Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, “I have not heard anything that causes me not to believe that the overwhelming consensus [is] that climate change is happening and that man-made emissions are contributing to it.”

But Democratic dismissals haven’t stopped Republican climate skeptics from hoping that climategate will do everything from kill the cap-and-trade bill to derail the international negotiations in Copenhagen.

Republicans used several congressional hearings this week to question top White House officials about the controversy.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), in a hearing before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said the e-mails could suggest “a massive scientific international fraud.”

“The scientists may be able to change their story and do more research, but once Congress passes a law, it will be as difficult to undo the consequences of that law as putting milk back in the cow,” he said.

In the Senate, Republican members of the Environment and Public Works Committee turned a hearing on the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act into a referendum on the e-mails.

“The allegedly unethical and potentially illegal behavior by climate scientists may undermine the legality of the EPA actions,” said Missouri Sen. Kit Bond.

Republicans in the House and Senate have called for a Congressional investigation into the dispute.

Reps. Joe Barton of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon sent letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on Wednesday asking the administration officials to disclose any role their agencies played in funding or data sharing with the climate scientists exposed in the e-mails.

“Whatever one’s position on the science of global warming,” said Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, the top GOP member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “One cannot deny that the e-mails raised fundamental questions: among other things, transparency and openness in science.”

But not all Republicans see the e-mails as quite as big a crisis for climate science.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) dismissed the controversy as more of a public relations problem than a serious scientific meltdown.

“There’s always been some skepticism about some of that,” he said. “I think that from a public relations view, that’s not really the best way to go to Copenhagen, very frankly.”



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, Daily Mail, BBC, The Daily Beast, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Pres. Obama Optimistic About New Climate Plan Deal

According to recent Scientific research Mega Tsuanmis are headed for Miami Beach, Fl., Virginia Beach, VA., New York City and Boston, MA.

More Information on East Coast Mega Tsuanmis can also be found on the History Channel website at this link.












Obama's New Climate Plan


Could Obama actually return from Copenhagen with a deal? The White House is suddenly feeling a gust of optimism. Richard Wolffe on how he might earn that Nobel Prize after all. Plus, read our user's guide to the state of the climate-change debate.

The last time President Obama made a late schedule change to travel to Copenhagen, the gamble failed badly: Despite a spirited speech, he returned empty-handed as his hometown of Chicago lost the contest to host the 2016 Olympics.

But late Friday afternoon, the White House repeated the gamble. Less than two months since their last Copenhagen debacle, the president’s staff moved his plan for travel to the Danish capital back a week—from the start of the U.N. climate talks, to the end of the tortured process.

It could turn out to be another reckless wager risking the president’s prestige. But the White House is betting this one turns out differently. Obama’s aides seem confident that several months of patient diplomacy is about to pay off.

The mood inside the West Wing late Friday was cautiously, but palpably, optimistic about securing a Copenhagen deal. By pushing back Obama’s arrival date, the president’s aides have significantly recalculated the risks involved in the talks. A summit that seemed, just a week ago, doomed to failure is suddenly suffused with a burst of hope.

The initial plan allowed for Obama to leave early if it looked like the talks were heading for deadlock. That scenario seemed fraught—raising the very real prospect that close on the heels of the widely criticized Asia trip, the president could once again travel abroad only to return home empty-handed. But as of late Friday, the mood shifted; a deal once considered out of reach might now be in sight.

The details of such an accord remain elusive at this hour. And any climate deal coming out of Copenhagen is likely to be seen by environmentalists as an inadequate disappointment. But by the same token, any agreement will be hailed as a significant change from the deadlock that marked the Bush era. It could also change the complexion of the debate over whether Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize he’s slated to accept next week in Oslo.

So what changed?

While the Washington press corps and much of the country was obsessing over the party crashers and Tiger Woods’ transgressions, the White House was quietly building momentum toward a deal. Obama returned home from his much-maligned Asia trip to announce specific targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions—pledging to cut them 17 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. China followed with pledges of its own. While the cameras were trained on the Salahis, Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were carrying on off-air talks. The results: India promised to cut carbon intensity (relative to India’s economic growth) by 20 to 25 percent below 2005 levels over the next decade.

The second step came among the richer nations this week, in Obama’s face-to-face sessions with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as well as his phone calls with the British, German, and French leaders. Together, they negotiated an arrangement they hope will effectively silence the complaints of the poorer countries of the developing world, who could still stymie any deal in Copenhagen.

Their offer: $10 billion a year by 2012 to help developing countries deal with and adapt to climate change. The promised cash amounts to a big boost in development aid, and was justified by the White House on humanitarian and security grounds to mitigate the impact of climate change.

The aid also represents a dramatic effort to secure the support of smaller, less-wealthy countries in Copenhagen. Those nations form the G-77 group of developing countries, an unwieldy and unpredictable bloc currently chaired by the government of Sudan.

For all the optimism, the risks of a Copenhagen collapse remain real. At the same time, the White House cannot afford to invest too much attention on yet another foreign-policy challenge—so close on the heels of the Afghan speech—while most Americans are focused on the still-weakened state of the U.S. economy.

After this week’s jobs summit and a surprising decline in the unemployment rate, Obama’s aides are determined not to let this month’s European travel eclipse a focus on U.S. jobs.

So the president will deliver a speech on the economy before departing for Oslo next week. And during the Copenhagen talks, the administration will highlight the presence of American businesses that seek to profit from—and create jobs in—the clean-energy economy that Obama hopes to jump-start.

When the president returned from Asia two weeks ago, many pundits panned the trip as an epic failure that effectively doomed the climate talks. One Politico headline read: How Copenhagen Died During Obama’s Asia Trip. Now Obama hopes he can resurrect Copenhagen before Christmas, and enjoy not one but two victory laps in Europe.



View Larger Map


Sources: The Daily Beast, History Channel, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Shuffles Copenhagen Trip To Attend International Climate Talks

President Obama changes summit trip plan


President Barack Obama is pushing back his trip to Copenhagen in order to be at the international climate talks during the critical negotiating period.

The president was scheduled to attend the conference immediately before receiving his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 9 but changed his plans after decisions by China and India to curb greenhouse gases boosted the chances for real progress to be made at the talks.

He now plans to travel to the talks on Dec. 18.

“Based on his conversations with other leaders and the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the president believes that continued U.S. leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference,” the White House said in a statement.

Roughly 100 world leaders plan to attend the talks, largely at the end of the conference. The change in Obama’s schedule is a strong signal that U.S. negotiators believe the negotiations could result in a political agreement to curb greenhouse gases worldwide and a framework for signing a legally binding treaty in 2010.

As the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China is considered key to laying the groundwork for a global agreement to cut emissions. Last month, after bilateral talks with the administration, China agreed to a carbon intensity target that would lower emissions 40 percent to 45 percent per unit of gross domestic product. India announced its own 20 percent to 25 percent carbon intensity target earlier this week.






W.H. raises Climate Summit stakes


President Barack Obama is heating up his efforts on climate change, with decisions that have some Democrats in Congress starting to sweat.

The announcement Friday that Obama is pushing back his appearance at the Copenhagen summit to its final weekend, the critical negotiating period, signals a willingness to pour significant political capital into his climate agenda – and raises expectations that the White House will reach agreements both internationally and at home.

The impact of the scheduling change is magnified by expectations that the Environmental Protection Agency will finalize a key move toward regulating greenhouse gases, with the final release of its endangerment finding expected as soon as Monday.

“There’s no question that this is a game changer,” said Carter Roberts, president of the World Wildlife Fund. “It’s huge, it’s important, and it’s logical given the momentum that’s developing around the world and in next the two weeks.”

The moves have cheered environmentalists worldwide, who in closed door conversations had previously admitted some frustration with what they saw as a lack of public action by the White House on its climate agenda.

“Having decided to join dozens of other world leaders in the right place, at the right time, President Obama is now reinvigorating the U.S. approach to the climate talks at this defining moment in history,” said Oxfam spokesperson Antonio Hill.

And they’re putting new pressure on the Senate, which has stalled in its efforts to pass a cap and trade bill amid skepticism from coal, manufacturing, and rural state Democrats. Any international agreement to curb greenhouse gases would need Congress passing legislation capping emissions in the U.S., the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas polluter, after China.

“The road to Copenhagen goes through the U.S. Senate,” said Peter Goldmark, the head of the climate and air program for the Environmental Defense Fund.

The White House said Friday that Obama would travel to Copenhagen at the end of international climate talks, rather than in the first week of the talks, as originally planned.

The change in schedule is a strong sign of confidence by the administration that they will reach a political agreement in Copenhagen – and that they want to take credit for leading the process.

“Based on his conversations with other leaders and the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the President believes that continued US leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference,” said the White House in a statement.

Typically, major decisions at international climate forums come during the last weekend of the conference. Nearly 100 world leaders plan to attend the Copenhagen talks, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The original plan for Obama attend in the middle of the first week would have allowed the White House to demonstrate an American commitment to curbing greenhouse gases while putting it a distance from the conference if negotiators fail to reach agreement by its end.

Now, much of the deal is on his shoulders.

“They’re going to be faced with the question of whether they really did something or did we just have a bunch of press conferences and claim victory at the end, which is generally what happens at these meetings,” said Frank Maisano, an energy specialist at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which lobbies for utilities and coal interests.

But the concessions that will be necessary to get an international agreement could be risky domestically. A deal in Copenhagen will require the United States to commit billions of dollars to help developing nations deal with the severe storms, droughts, and other destructive impacts of global warming.

On Friday, the White House promised to pay “its fair share” of the $10 billion annual payment to poorer countries.

That could be a tough sell domestically, given the country’s’ high unemployment numbers, mounting debt, and deep economic recession.

“I’m surprised the president would commit our nation to billions in new and long-term spending, particularly in a year that has seen our government rack up a record deficit, and before our economy is back on track,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska), the highest ranking Republican member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee.

“My home state of Alaska literally has villages falling into the ocean – where’s the support for the people in our own country being affected by climate change?”

The scheduling decision comes as advocates and lawmakers prepare for the expected release next week of the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding that will formally announce that greenhouse gases are a danger to human health and welfare. The decision opens the door for the agency to begin regulating emissions across the economy by imposing new rules on auto manufacturers, utilities, and other industrial polluters.

The finding puts new pressure on Congress to pass climate change legislation that would preempt the new regulations before the EPA begins acting.

It also raises the stakes for the Administration and for moderate Democrats.

The only other ways to stop the EPA from regulating, say experts, is with a lawsuit or for Congress to vote to defund the EPA.

If climate change legislation fails to pass and a lawsuit doesn’t stop the new rules, manufacturing and coal state Democrats could find themselves stuck between attacks that they are hurting hometown economies and defunding a key White House initiative.

“The Administration appears to be playing for keeps here,” said Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners.



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, TIME, Google Maps

Climate Bill Faces Major Hurdles...Possibly No Hope For Passage

Climate bill faces hurdles in Senate


The climate-change bill that has been moving slowly through the Senate will face a stark political reality when it emerges for committee debate on Tuesday: With Democrats deeply divided on the issue, unless some Republican lawmakers risk the backlash for signing on to the legislation, there is almost no hope for passage.

Like the measure adopted by the House, the legislation favors a cap-and-trade system that would issue permits for greenhouse gas emissions, gradually lower the amount of emissions allowed, and let companies buy and sell permits to meet their needs -- all without adding to the federal deficit, according to projections. But key Republicans are making their opposition clear, even as Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has enlisted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) as his most visible GOP ally in gathering support for the bill.

Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee who was initially seen as one of the few Republicans who might consider backing the majority, is helping lead the opposition.

"Why are we trying to jam down this legislation now?" he asked during a hearing last week. "Wouldn't it be smarter to take our time and do it right?"

He wrote Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson twice this summer to ask for a more detailed economic analysis of the House-passed climate legislation, and he has joined the other six Republicans on the committee in boycotting the climate bill's markup, scheduled for Tuesday.

The measure has deeply divided Democrats. With states in the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain West dependent on fossil fuels for energy, many senators are worried about the legislation's impact on industry and consumers.

"I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home will be disadvantaged," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNBC on Friday, explaining why he did not think the bill Kerry had sponsored along with Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) could pass.

So Democratic leaders, with the support of the Obama administration, are trying to sway at least half a dozen Republicans by offering amendments to speed along their top priority: building nuclear power plants.

Graham has suggested provisions on nuclear power and offshore oil drilling that could win his support for a cap-and-trade climate bill. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) has established a bipartisan working group of 17 Senate offices that is close to producing a detailed amendment aimed at hurrying the construction of U.S. nuclear reactors.

But it remains unclear whether that approach will hold currency in the current era of political polarization. One of the top Republicans whom Democrats hope to recruit in this effort -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), whom Graham and Kerry recently buttonholed on the Senate floor -- has voiced skepticism about the legislation.

"A tepid nuclear title isn't enough to get her to support a bad climate bill," said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski.

Graham and Kerry are set to meet Wednesday with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, as well as with Obama's top climate adviser, Carol M. Browner, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to discuss a possible compromise. They are also setting up meetings with colleagues on the issue.

"I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home will be disadvantaged," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNBC on Friday, explaining why he did not think the bill Kerry had sponsored along with Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) could pass.

So Democratic leaders, with the support of the Obama administration, are trying to sway at least half a dozen Republicans by offering amendments to speed along their top priority: building nuclear power plants.

Graham has suggested provisions on nuclear power and offshore oil drilling that could win his support for a cap-and-trade climate bill. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) has established a bipartisan working group of 17 Senate offices that is close to producing a detailed amendment aimed at hurrying the construction of U.S. nuclear reactors.

But it remains unclear whether that approach will hold currency in the current era of political polarization. One of the top Republicans whom Democrats hope to recruit in this effort -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), whom Graham and Kerry recently buttonholed on the Senate floor -- has voiced skepticism about the legislation.

"A tepid nuclear title isn't enough to get her to support a bad climate bill," said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski.

Graham and Kerry are set to meet Wednesday with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, as well as with Obama's top climate adviser, Carol M. Browner, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to discuss a possible compromise. They are also setting up meetings with colleagues on the issue.

It is what Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope calls "the old formula for bipartisanship."

"They would agree on a goal, they would not agree exactly on the means to a goal, and they'd come up with a legislative solution that takes elements from both sides," he said.

And Graham, for his part, has become a lightning rod for controversy back home. On Oct. 22, the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group funded in part by energy companies, launched a radio, TV and online advertising campaign in South Carolina that has cost "close to $300,000" so far, according to the group's spokesman, Patrick Creighton.

Featuring a Halloween theme, the TV commercial warns of "some scary stories coming out of Washington" and says, "The latest is Senator Lindsey Graham's support for a national energy tax called cap-and-trade."

Creighton said the group questions why Graham says a deal will help offshore drilling, which Congress has already allowed.

Groups backing the climate bill came to Graham's defense last week. They aired radio and television ads that featured state Sen. John Courson, a conservative Republican who became concerned about global warming after witnessing the decline of polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba.

"Out-of-state interests are attacking our Senator Lindsey Graham," Courson says in an ad underwritten by Republicans for Environmental Protection, "because he's backing an energy plan that produces more power in America."

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said he is optimistic that the parties can reach an accord because Americans are not divided along party lines on global warming. "Is there bipartisanship in the country? I think clearly there is," he said.

State lawmakers who came to advise the White House last week on climate saw a different picture. "We looked for any Republican, in any state legislature in the country, who supported a bill," recalled Minnesota state Rep. Jeremy Kalin. "We found not a one."


Sources: Washington Post, MSNBC

Pres. Obama Signs Executive Order On Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance

(On September 30, 2009, local elected officials came to Washington along with clean energy and environmental group leaders as part of a group organized by the Environment America and the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. The group was invited to the White House Complex to share ideas with, hear from, and ask questions of leading Administration officials about the need for a comprehensive energy plan that will spur job creation in the clean energy sector while reducing dangerous pollution.)






President Obama signs an Executive Order on Federal Leadership in Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Performance

Demonstrating a commitment to lead by example, President Obama signed an Executive Order (attached) today that sets sustainability goals for Federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to set a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target within 90 days; increase energy efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum consumption; conserve water; reduce waste; support sustainable communities; and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.

"As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the Federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies," said President Obama. "This Executive Order builds on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help create a clean energy economy and demonstrates the Federal government’s commitment, over and above what is already being done, to reducing emissions and saving money."

The Federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs more than 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services. The Executive Order builds on and expands the energy reduction and environmental requirements of Executive Order 13423 by making reductions of greenhouse gas emissions a priority of the Federal government, and by requiring agencies to develop sustainability plans focused on cost-effective projects and programs.

Projected benefits to the taxpayer include substantial energy savings and avoided costs from improved efficiency. The Executive Order was developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, with input from the Federal agencies that are represented on the Steering Committee established by Executive Order 13423.

The new Executive Order requires agencies to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward agency-defined targets. It describes a process by which agency goals will be set and reported to the President by the Chair of CEQ. The Executive Order also requires agencies to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including:

* 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
* 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
* 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
* 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;
* Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;
* Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and
* Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Implementation of the Executive Order will focus on integrating achievement of sustainability goals with agency mission and strategic planning to optimize performance and minimize implementation costs. Each agency will develop and carry out an integrated Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan that prioritizes the agency’s actions toward the goals of the Executive Order based on lifecycle return on investments. Implementation will be managed through the previously-established Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, working in close partnership with OMB, CEQ and the agencies.

Examples of Federal employees and their facilities promoting environmental stewardship exist throughout the country. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Energy Business Center has recently awarded a design-build contract for a wind turbine electric generation system to serve their Medical Center in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The 600-kW turbine installation, to be completed in spring 2011, is projected to supply up to 15 percent of the facility’s annual electricity usage.

The U.S. General Services Administration’s Denver Federal Center (DFC) in Lakewood, Colorado will be installing an 8 megawatt photovoltaic system as part of a large modernization effort. The primary goal of the project is to provide a reliable utility infrastructure to service tenant agencies for the next 50 years. This facility will feed renewable energy back into the grid at night and cover 30-40 acres.

Many federal agencies have received recognition for their work to integrate environmental considerations into their daily operations and management decisions including: the Air Force Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas for their "Sheppard Puts the R in Recycling" program, the Department of Treasury for their petroleum use reduction, the Department of Energy Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee for pollution prevention, the United States Postal Service for their Green Purchasing Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture "Sowing the Seeds for Change" Extreme Makeover Team in Deer River Ranger District in Minnesota; and the Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health in Maryland for their laboratory decommissioning protocol.



Piedmont Natural Gas shut-offs surge as others fall

Piedmont Natural Gas shut-offs have surged around Charlotte and the state in the cold-weather months, as some consumers struggle with deciding what bills they can pay in a deteriorating economy.

From November through February, shut-offs in the Charlotte region increased by 86 percent compared with the same time a year ago, an Observer analysis of state data shows. The utility's shut-off rate also increased statewide, even as other utilities' rates for shut-offs dropped statewide.

State officials say Piedmont, which is the dominant gas provider in Charlotte and the state, is doing nothing wrong in its shut-off procedures. And company officials say that they believe the increase is due both to the economy and to internal changes that delayed some cutoffs until last fall. They also say that overall, shut-offs declined slightly last year.

"We are very concerned for our customers," said June Moore, Piedmont's customer service vice president. "We hate to do (shut-offs) but sometimes it becomes necessary."

Interviewed at Charlotte's Crisis Assistance Ministry, which provides emergency financial assistance for people facing eviction or utility loss, several clients said their gas bill is the last one they pay, and they were having a tough time dealing with big gas bills.

Kiesha Lastrapes, who is unemployed and lives with her 8-year-old daughter in east Charlotte, recently avoided getting her gas turned off because of help from the ministry.

"This month I'm struggling," she said. "I'll pay the rent first because I worry about my daughter" and being able to stay in their home.

Lastrapes didn't understand why her gas bill was so high, at $257 over two months.

"(Piedmont) acts like they are the only ones I have to pay. I have to pay rent, food, electricity. It's not fair," she said.

After rent, Lastrapes said she pays the electric bill because she can use an electric heater if she needs to.

"People will use their stove or kerosene for heat. It's not what we like to hear but that's the reality," said Doug Hartjes, the ministry's development officer. "People are making these very, very difficult choices on a daily basis."

Because of the economy's impact on customers, Piedmont spokesman Loree Elswick said, the company put a customer-service representative at Crisis Ministry for the first time last year. The worker assisted about 1,150 people in November and December.

Piedmont is the state's dominant natural gas provider and the Charlotte company is the only utility that voluntarily details monthly disconnects by region with the N.C. Utilities Commission.

While Piedmont's shutoffs grew, other utilities saw declines from November through February, when compared with a year earlier. Duke Energy's rate fell 7 percent and gas company PSNC Energy dropped 43 percent.

Several factors might explain why Piedmont's spiked as PSNC's plummeted, state and company officials said.

PSNC, the state's other major gas company, decided last fall to be more flexible when disconnecting customers behind on their bills, spokeswoman Jodie Roberts-Smith said. That new process is similar to what Piedmont already does, state officials said. PSNC also added a second reminder to customers about spreading out their bills evenly through the year, Roberts-Smith said.

It's also possible that the utilities' customers are feeling the economic pinch differently. Unemployment around the Raleigh area, PSNC's largest metro region, was 7.9 percent in January, while the rate in the Charlotte area, Piedmont's biggest metro area, was nearly 3 points higher, at 10.5 percent.

Jeff Davis, natural gas division director at the state's consumer advocacy agency, said Piedmont is following proper procedures and was not being overly aggressive. "I think you are just seeing some fallout from what is happening in the economy," Davis said.

Piedmont wants to work with customers to avoid turning off service, Elswick said.

"Certainly we recognize in this economy, people have new pressures, and people are struggling to pay their bills," Elswick said. "The biggest thing we need to do is get the message out: Call us before service is disconnected."

PSNC has about 450,000 N.C. customers and Piedmont has 671,000, including about 275,000 in the Charlotte area. Piedmont's N.C. customer base grew by about 2 percent last year, N.C. records show.

Piedmont handled 2,910 shut-offs in the Charlotte area in the past four months. Statewide during that time, Piedmont made 9,039 disconnects, a 68 percent increase from the same time the year before. PSNC disconnected 5,592 customers from November through February, a 43 percent decrease.

Last Monday, Casandra Watson arrived at Crisis Ministry at 5:30 a.m. to avoid getting her gas turned off. She was laid off last November from her job as an administrator in a health-insurance office.

Watson lives with her 11-month-old and 17-year-old children in north Charlotte. Like Lastrapes, Watson pays rent first, then the electric bill, before dealing with Piedmont.

"You have to keep a roof over your head, and you don't want to be in a home with no lights," she said. "I'm just glad my 17-year-old understands the situation with me being unemployed."



Chicago Gas Companies Disconnecting Thousands

Gas Companies Disconnecting Thousands - On the brink of the cold-weather months, more than 56,000 natural-gas customers in the Chicago area remain disconnected for lack of payment. That's up 36% from last year, putting pressure on utilities and local officials to get disconnected households back online before winter begins in earnest.

Peoples Gas and Nicor Inc. are offering new programs to help customers who are behind on their bills. In a pilot that began last month, Peoples has stopped shutting off customers as long as they pay 60% of their monthly bill. For two weeks last month, Nicor offered to reconnect customers who paid half of their outstanding debt and agreed to a payment plan for the rest. Some 1,400 took advantage of the offer.

With the souring economy making it increasingly difficult for people to pay their bills, consumer advocates say the programs are not enough.




Peoples Gas wins $17.4M military contract
Peoples Gas was awarded a $17.4 million contract by the U.S. Navy to provide energy conservation measures.

The Tampa-based utility will institute various measures at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, a release said.

The work is slated for completion by November 2010.

Peoples Gas already won a $900,000 contact for reducing power usage at the base by providing lighting retrofits and new equipment at water and wastewater treatment plants.


Florida Public Service Commission Votes on Peoples Gas Base Rate Increase

Moderate Increase of 10 Percent Expected for 20-Therm Residential Bill

Today, the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) voted to increase Peoples
Gas System`s base rates for the first time since 2003, effective June 18.
Peoples Gas will continue to collect annual interim rates of $2.38 million that
were granted in October 2008 until the time permanent rates go into effect.

President Bill Cantrell said, "Peoples Gas is committed to safe and reliable
delivery of economical, low-carbon natural gas to Florida citizens. We are
working hard to manage costs and efficiently serve our customers."

While the FPSC will vote to decide final rate structures May 19, based on
today`s vote, a residential customer using 20 therms per month could expect an
increase of about 10 percent to their total bill.

The approval for a base rate increase of $19.2 million comes after a nine-month
regulatory review of the company`s books and records, and is less than Peoples
Gas requested in its August 2008 filing.

Base rate charges, as approved in the company`s rate case, are used to cover the
utility`s cost of building, operating and maintaining the infrastructure it uses
to serve customers. The largest part of a customer`s gas bill is typically the
fuel charge, representing the cost of natural gas paid by Peoples Gas to fuel
suppliers, and is passed on to customers without any mark-up or profit to
Peoples Gas. The fuel charge is monitored and approved by the FPSC and is
adjusted periodically to reflect actual and projected costs.

Since its last base rate increase in 2003, Peoples Gas has added approximately
100,000 new customers. To serve that demand and address new federal
requirements, the company has installed or replaced more than 1,500 miles of gas
main in the more than 200 communities it serves throughout Florida.

As approved by the FPSC, Peoples Gas` new base rates reflect a return on equity
of 10.75 percent, which is the middle of a range between 9.75 percent and 11.75
percent. The allowed equity in the capital structure is 54.7 percent from all
investor sources of capital (and 48.5 percent including other regulatory sources
of capital such as deferred taxes, and customer deposits) on an allowed rate
base of $561 million. A final order addressing today`s decision and the rates
decision to be taken up by the FPSC on May 19, 2009 is expected to be issued by
the FPSC on or about June 8, 2009.

Peoples Gas System, Florida`s largest natural gas distribution company, is one
of the four core businesses of TECO Energy, Inc. (NYSE:TE), an energy-related
holding company, with regulated electric and gas utility operations in Florida
through Tampa Electric and Peoples Gas System. Peoples Gas serves approximately
335,000 customers in most of Florida`s major metropolitan areas and beyond.
Other TECO Energy subsidiaries include TECO Coal, which owns and operates coal
production facilities in Kentucky and Virginia, and TECO Guatemala, which is
engaged in electric power generation and distribution and energy-related
businesses in Guatemala.

Note: This press release contains forward-looking statements, which are subject
to the inherent uncertainties in predicting future results and conditions.
Actual results may differ materially from those forecasted. The forecasted
results are based on the company`s current expectations and assumptions, and the
company does not undertake to update that information or any other information
contained in this report, except as may be required by law.The company`s ability
to realize the benefit of base rates increases is dependent upon many factors,
including customer usage. Additional information is contained under "Risk
Factors" in TECO Energy, Inc.`s and Tampa Electric Company`s combined Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the period ended Dec. 31, 2008.



View Larger Map


Sources: Whitehouse.gov, WCNC, Charlotte Observer, Huffington Post, Chicago Tribune, Tampa Bay Biz Journal, Silobreaker, Piedmont Gas, Peoples Gas, Recovery.gov, Youtube, Google Maps