In 1971, The New York Times Published The First Climate Denial Op-Ed
The public mockery of “environmentalists” for concern about climate pollution began with a The New York Times op-ed by an Ayn Rand acolyte on August 28, 1971. Published with the headline “No, Breathe Easier,” mining executive and propagandist Eugene Guccione falsely claimed that “we are winning the war on pollution” and then called the greenhouse effect “idiocy”.
Unaware that particulate concentration is decreasing, “environmentalists” talk about the New Ice Age Theory. The build‐up of dust in the air, so goes the argument, will screen out the sun and we’ll all be turned into ice.Then there is the Greenhouse Effect Theory. The build‐up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so goes this particular idiocy, will cause a temperature increase throughout the planet … and we’ll drown in the tidal wave resulting from the melting of the polar ice caps, or roast to death.
These so‐called theories contradict each other. We cannot both freeze and roast at the same time. It’s either or. But relax. It’s neither. We won’t freeze because there is no such thing as a build‐up of particulates in the air, as lots of tests indicate. Nor will we roast because at the present level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it would take about 957 years to triple the current level. Such speculations have no more scientific validity than the prediction that my puppy dog, at his present growth rate, would be fifteen feet long and weigh 900 pounds at age five.
The next week, the Times published a response from climate scientist Stephen Schneider, noting Guccione’s op-ed was both factually wrong and dangerously optimistic about the threat of pollution-induced climate change.
Guccione, a chemical engineer who embraced the ideology of free-market economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Alan Greenspan, was then the editor of Engineering & Mining Journal. He later edited Mining Engineering journal and chaired the Mountain States Lime cement plant in Utah as well as the free-market Committee for Monetary Research and Education. He continued to rail against environmental legislation for impeding the coal and oil industries, argued for subsidizing the domestic oil industry to compete with the Soviet Union, and fulminated against taxation as a form of mugging.
By the 1980s, the Times was running regular climate-denial advertorials from Mobil (and after a merger, ExxonMobil) on its op-ed pages into the 2000s. The tradition continued in the Internet age with dynamic greenwashing Web campaigns co-developed by the Times and ExxonMobil.
Full text of the Guccione op-ed:
We are winning the war against pollution. And this is the biggest untold story in America today. It is a fact corroborated by evidence avail able to anyone who bothers to look at the results of chemical and physical tests that have been run for many years by private and public institutions.Full text of Dr. Stephen Schneider’s response: To the Editor: The opinion that we are “winning the war against pollution” expressed by Eugene Guccione on his Aug. 28 Op‐Ed column is based upon conclusions that are often inaccurate and certainly misleading.In 1931 and 1932, for instance, after conducting extensive measurements in fourteen of the largest U. S. cities—including New York—the Public Health Service found that the average concentration of particulates in urban air was 510 micrograms per cubic meter, on an annual basis. (The term “particulate” refers to dust and other air borne solid matter.)
In 1957, when H.E.W. began a continuous air‐monitoring program in 56 cities, the average particulate concentration was 120 micrograms. Since then, the air‐monitoring program has been extended to 64 cities and, ac cording to data published by H.E.W. and the Environmental Protection Agency, the average particulate concentration has been decreasing yearly. In 1969, the average was 92, says William D. Ruckelshaus, director of E.P.A.
So, as far as particulates are concerned, our air is far cleaner today than it was during the Depression when industrial activity was at a low ebb.
Then there is the case of those poisonous gases released to the atmosphere. The worst of these gases is sulphur dioxide, according to “environmentalists” who have launched an all‐out war against such industries as copper‐smelting and power‐generating companies. Build‐up of sulphur dioxide is increasing constantly and has reached alarming proportions, we are told. This is untrue. As corroborated by data gathered by the National Air Pollution Control Administration in thirty major cities from 1964 to 1969, seventeen of the cities in 1969 had a lower level of sulphur dioxide than five years earlier, and three cities had the same level.
Yet, “environmentalists” cling to the notion that sulphur dioxide concentration in the atmosphere in creases annually. If that were the case, none of us would be here today because our parents, grandparents and great‐grandparents would not have been born; our distant ancestors would have died suffocated by the catastrophic buildup of sulphur dioxide that began when Prometheus stole the fire from the gods.
Unaware that particulate concentration is decreasing, “environmentalists” talk about the New Ice Age Theory. The build‐up of dust in the air, so goes the argument, will screen out the sun and we’ll all be turned into ice.
Then there is the Greenhouse Effect Theory. The build‐up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so goes this particular idiocy, will cause a temperature increase throughout the planet … and we’ll drown in the tidal wave resulting from the melting of the polar ice caps, or roast to death.
These so‐called theories contradict each other. We cannot both freeze and roast at the same time. It’s either or. But relax. It’s neither. We won’t freeze because there is no such thing as a build‐up of particulates in the air, as lots of tests indicate. Nor will we roast because at the present level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it would take about 957 years to triple the current level. Such speculations have no more scientific validity than the prediction that my puppy dog, at his present growth rate, would be fifteen feet long and weigh 900 pounds at age five.
We are winning the war against pollution. Are the so‐called environmentalists happy? They should be, if a cleaner environment is what they want. But the fact that we are effectively reducing pollution, and that predictions of environmental dooms day are unwarranted, should not lead us into premature victory celebrations. The war isn’t over yet. Pollution does exist. And the problem, as usual, will be solved by men of reason and knowledge.
Eugene Guccione, a chemical engineer, is senior editor of Engineering and Mining Journal.
For instance, Mr. Guccione summarily dismisses an important theory of climate change—that the build‐up of dust in the air might eventually screen out enough sunlight to initiate an ice age. His reasoning is based on statistics showing that the average mass (weight) of suspended particles in the air over American cities has dropped since 1957 due to emission controls. It is misleading to conclude from this evidence that dust particles, therefore, have no potential effect on global climate.
Although the weight of the particles suspended in the air over American cities has gone down, the opacity of the atmosphere has gone up. Opacity is a measure of the “haziness” of the atmosphere and depends upon both the mass and number of particles in the atmosphere. An increase in opacity of the atmosphere results in a decrease of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface. Thus opacity on a global scale is the important variable in studying the effect of particles on climate, not merely the weight of particles suspended over American cities.
In some remote places and even far out in the Atlantic Ocean, in fact, recent studies have shown an increase as large as 100 per cent in opacity of the atmosphere from particles over the last fifty years. The reason that opacity is going up while at the same time emission controls seem to be decreasing particle concentrations in the cities is that controls remove only the large‐sized particles. Since these larger particles carry most of the weight of all suspended particles, it is tempting to assume (as Mr. Guccione did) that the total future effect of particles on the climate is also decreasing.
In supercilious tones, Mr. Guccione also decries the “idiocy” of the Greenhouse Effect Theory of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on warming the climate.
It is again unfortunate that numerous atmospheric scientists do not share his optimistic views. These conclusions were drawn this summer in Stockholm at the international scientific conference “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate,” attended by more than thirty leading atmospheric scientists from all over the world. Their report will be available shortly.
At present, scientists can only show that it is possible that man’s activities might inadvertently affect the climate over the next fifty years. This is particularly important since a recent study has indicated that if the world population increase and energy demands continue at present rates, man’s “potential to pollute” will increase six‐ to eightfold in the next fifty years.
I agree with Mr. Guccione that it is obvious that “we cannot both freeze and roast at the same time.” But serious scientific studies have indicated that CO2 and dust pollution can affect climate, albeit in opposite directions. We do not yet know the magnitude of these influences well enough to be certain which, if either, of these effects might predominate.
Though some “environmentalists” may exploit this issue for its sensational appeal, Mr. Guccione should not counterattack with lullabies. What we do need is an accelerated program of scientific research along with improved international cooperation.
The writer is an atmospheric scientist of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Nearly 500 Fort Myers Residents Trapped in Milton's Path: "Inmates will be evacuated to top floors in case of flooding."
Lee County Jail lies about 1500 feet from the water’s edge in Evacuation Zone A
Nearly 500 Floridians are trapped in Milton’s path as it nears landfall tonight. Fort Myers’ Lee County Jail is 1500 feet from the tidal estuary of the Caloosahatchee River. The jail, a hulking, near windowless facility with 457 beds that serves as the main booking facility for the county, lies in Lee County’s Hurricane Evacuation Zone A. The county ordered all free people in Evacuation Zones A and B to flee by Tuesday evening, but Lee County Sheriff Carmine Marceno decided not to evacuate the 477 inmates in the overstuffed jail to safety.
The National Weather Service is warning that as Hurricane Milton makes landfall tonight, it will push the Gulf of Mexico waters past Cape Coral and into the Caloosahatchee, with tropical-storm-force winds bringing a storm surge of up to 6 feet of water into the estuary.
The Lee County Sheriff’s office confirmed to Hill Heat this morning that there are no plans to evacuate the facility.
“Inmates will be evacuated to top floors in case of flooding,” public information officer Julie Martin told Hill Heat, and the “kitchen is staffed and has two weeks of food for inmates and staff.”
There are contingency plans to evacuate the inmates to Lee County’s Core facility farther inland, Martin stated. The core facility currently has 1169 inmates and 47 spare beds.
Lee County Sheriff spokesman Nestor Montoya told the Fort Myers News-Press that all inmates are “safe”.
Lee County Jail is one of several carceral facilities in Florida not being evacuated from the fossil-fueled Milton.
Update October 10: The Lee County Sheriff’s Office reports that there is power and running water at the jail, with no flooding from Hurricane Milton.
Good Morning Brad,There are currently 477 inmates at the main jail, and 1169 inmates at the Core facility.
Evacuations of the jail are not taking place at this time. Please see a few facts about our jails preparedness below…
- The Jail and CORE facilities are 100% staffed.
- All inmates are in hardened structures.
- Water tanks are on standby if needed for drinking and sanitation.
- Kitchen is staffed and has two-weeks of food for inmates and staff.
- Medical staff will maintain 24/7care.
- Inmates will be evacuated to top floors in case of flooding.
- Both facilities have room and contingency plans if one needs to evacuate to the other. Vehicles and personnel are staged.
Thanks,
Julie
EPA Spending and Regulatory Policies under the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Subcommittee hearing titled “Holding the Biden-Harris EPA Accountable for Radical Rush-to-Green Spending.”
Witness:- Sean W. O’Donnell, Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Roundtable: Holding Big Oil Accountable for Extortion, Collusion, and Pollution
On Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. ET, U.S. House Natural Resources Committee Democrats will host a roundtable discussion with expert panelists titled, “Holding Big Oil Accountable for Extortion, Collusion, and Pollution.”
A recent Federal Trade Commission complaint and multiple class action lawsuits allege that Big Oil has colluded with OPEC to pad their profits by raising energy prices for Americans. This price-gouging adds to the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies Big Oil already receives annually through direct tax breaks and by passing along health and environmental cleanup costs to taxpayers and communities.
Meanwhile, House Republicans continue to put polluters over people, pushing additional handouts and giveaways for the fossil fuel industry, many of which mirror proposals in Trump’s Project 2025. Former President Trump also recently requested $1 billion in campaign contributions from Big Oil executives, promising to roll back environmental regulations, fast-track fossil fuel project permitting, and enhance tax breaks even further.
Roundtable panelists will discuss these issues, the impacts on American communities, and how Congress can support the American people by holding Big Oil accountable for its extortion, collusion, and pollution.
Members:- Vice Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.)
- Kristina Karlsson, Deputy Director of Climate Policy, Roosevelt Institute
- Alex Witt, Senior Advisor on Oil & Gas, Climate Power
- Bekah Hinojosa, Co-Founder, South Texas Environmental Justice Network
- Chris Marshall, Director, Energy & Environment Program, Accountable.US
Harris Campaign: Trump Will Sell America Out to Oil Barons
Vice President Kamala Harris at the COP 28 climate talks, 2023.
At her Tuesday campaign rally in Wisconsin, Vice President Kamala Harris said that Trump “literally promised Big Oil companies and Big Oil lobbyists he would do their bidding for $1 billion in campaign donations.”
The Harris for President campaign issued the following press release today.
The Wall Street Journal reported today that a “megawealthy coterie of oil tycoons” are “banking on promises” from Donald Trump to deliver his dangerous Project 2025 agenda that is even “more stridently pro-fossil fuel than Trump’s first administration.”
Trump already offered control of White House policy to oil barons while asking for $1 billion to his campaign.
These Big Oil donations solicited by Trump are being investigated as a “blatant quid pro quo” by Senate investigators and “make the magnates among some of Trump’s biggest donors and represent an increase from past election cycles.”
Trump promised to issue “immediate approvals” for Big Oil’s dangerous schemes while asking them to put him back in the White House.
Oil lobbyists are already drafting ready-made executive orders for Trump to sign to give them tax handouts, increase costs on Americans, and pollute our environment.
Trump has even said that he would cut “environmental agencies” and the Department of Interior, which are critical to protecting public lands and ensuring clean air and water for all Americans.
Harris for President spokesperson Joseph Costello released the following statement:
“Oil barons are salivating because climate denier Donald Trump promised to do their bidding while asking them to bankroll his run for the presidency. Trump’s promises to Big Oil would sacrifice good paying jobs that are driving an American energy and manufacturing boom, and instead give billion dollar handouts to corporations at the expense of working families and a healthy future for our children.
“Under the Biden-Harris administration, America is more energy independent than ever. Vice President Harris cast the tie breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, creating hundreds of thousands of good paying energy jobs and making the biggest climate investment in world history. But Trump promises to dismantle all this progress and sell out America’s future for his own personal gain.”
Politico Energy Summit: At a Crossroads
The future of energy faces a crossroads in 2024 as policymakers and industry leaders shape new rules, investments and technologies. Join POLITICO’s Energy Summit as we convene top voices to examine the shifting global policy environment in a year of major elections in the U.S. and around the world. POLITICO will examine how governments are writing and rewriting new rules for the energy future and America’s own role as a major exporter.
We invite you to help us take a closer look at the impact and effectiveness of major public and private investments shaping the U.S. energy sector and our global competitiveness. We will delve into policy conversation around the most promising emerging technologies poised to transform our energy mix and carbon footprint.
The Schuyler
1001 14th St NW, Washington, DC 20005
Presenting Sponsor: Southern Company
Supporting Sponsor: Solar Energy Industries Association
Contributing Sponsors: Entergy and NextEra Energy
| 11:15 a.m. | Doors Open |
|---|---|
| Upon entry, attendees will need to show a valid form of government issued ID and copy of confirmation email. | |
| 11:45 a.m. | From the White House: A Conversation with Ali Zaidi |
| Ali Zaidi, Assistant to the President and White House National Climate Advisor Moderated by: Eugene Daniels, Playbook Co-Author & White House Correspondent | |
| Report Card on America’s Infrastructure: A Conversation with Tom Perez | |
| Tom Perez, Senior Advisor & Assistant to the President & Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, the White House Moderated by: Scott Waldman, White House & Climate Politics Reporter, E&E News | |
| Executive Conversation with Southern Company | |
| Kim Greene, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Georgia Power
Moderated by: Heidi Sommer, Vice President, Client Partnerships, POLITICO | |
| Look West: A Conversation with Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) | |
| Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Ranking Member, Fisheries, Water, & Wildlife Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Moderated by: Josh Siegel, Energy Reporter & Host, POLITICO Energy Podcast | |
| Writing the Rules: U.S. Leadership in Global Energy Security & Climate | |
| Part One: A Conversation with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Chair, Clean Air, Climate, & Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Moderated by: Ryan Lizza, Playbook Co-Author & Chief Washington Correspondent
Part Two: What is the Conservative Climate Agenda? Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Co-Chair, Climate Solutions Caucus Moderated by: Emma Dumain, Congressional Climate Reporter, E&E News
Part Three: Where Wall Street is Headed (And Why it Should Matter to Washington) George Bilicic, Managing Director, Lazard Sam Mar, Senior Advisor, Arnold Ventures Regina Mayor, Global Head of Clients & Markets, KPMG Moderated by: Manuel Quiñones, Congress Editor, E&E News | |
| Elections and the Energy Landscape: Toward Renewables or a Rollback? | |
| Betamia Coronel, Senior National Organizer for Climate Justice, Center for Popular Democracy Jon Krosnick, Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences & Professor of Communication, Political Science, Psychology and Sustainability, Stanford University Thomas J. Pyle, President, American Energy Alliance Moderated by: Charlie Mahtesian, Senior Politics Editor | |
| Executive Remarks from SEIA | |
| Abigail Ross Hopper, President & CEO, SEIA | |
| Cabinet Conversation: U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm | |
| Secretary Jennifer Granholm, U.S. Department of Energy Moderated by: Zack Colman, Climate & Energy Reporter | |
| Racing Toward Discovery: How to Speed Up the New Tech Timeline | |
| Daniel Cunningham, PhD, Deputy Director for Technology, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Sarah Kapnick, PhD, Chief Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration David Keith, Professor and Founding Faculty Director, Climate Systems Engineering Initiative, Department of the Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago Moderated by: Corbin Hiar, Reporter, E&E News | |
| The Watchdog: A Conversation with Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) | |
| Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Ranking Member, Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Moderated by: Kelsey Brugger, Congress Reporter, E&E News | |
| POLITICO Energy Live Episode: The Electrification of Everything | |
| Willie Phillips, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Moderated by: Catherine Morehouse, Energy Reporter | |
| The Global Balance Sheet: A Conversation with Treasury Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo | |
| Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo, U.S. Department of Treasury Moderated by: Gavin Bade, Trade & Economics Reporter | |
| LIVE FROM TOKYO: A Virtual Conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel | |
| Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Moderated by: Kevin Baron, Editorial Director, POLITICO Live | |
| 5:15 p.m. | Reception |
| Enjoy our end-of-day networking with some light refreshments. |
EPA's Risk Management Program Rules
The Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials will hold a hearing on May 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (ET) in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The title of the hearing is “EPA’s RMP Rule: Failures to Protect the American People and American Manufacturing.”
Witnesses:- Gentner Drummond, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, testifying the rules are “openly hostile to America’s oil and gas industry”
- Jatin Shah, Senior Principal Consultant, BakerRisk
- Richard Erstad, Vice President and General Counsel, Hawkins, Inc. on behalf of the Alliance of Chemical Distributors
- James “Jim” Savage, Legislative Representative, United Steelworkers International Union
In the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, Congress consciously separated responsibilities at a plant using certain chemicals for activities before an accident and after an accident occurred, as well as those activities inside a plant fence line and outside of it. Section 304 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 directed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to take the lead on protecting workers within a facility’s fence line, thinking OSHA was best equipped to handle these issues. By contrast, Congress, in section 301 of the CAA Amendments of 1990, gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to protect the environment and human health beyond the fence-line.
Section 301 of the CAA Amendment of 1990, which created CAA section 112®, was intended to prevent the “unanticipated emission of a regulated substance or other extremely hazardous substance into the ambient air from a stationary source” and to minimize the consequences of those releases. Paragraph (7) of CAA section 112® grants the EPA the authority to issue accidental release prevention, detection, and correction requirements and guidance that has manufacturers prevent and manage those accidental risks through manufacturers’ risk management program (RMP) plans.
The EPA originally issued the RMP regulations in two stages: the list of hazardous substances and quantities in 1994 and the risk management requirements in 1996.10 Subsequently, and until 2017, the EPA modified the original RMP rules five times (twice in 1999, twice in 2000, and once in 2004).
On January 13, 2017, the EPA published amendments to the RMP rule (82 FR 4594). The 2017 amendments rule was prompted by E.O. 13650, “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security,” which directed the EPA (and several other Federal agencies) to, among other things, modernize policies, regulations, and standards to enhance safety and security in chemical facilities. The 2017 amendments rule contained various new provisions applicable to RMP-regulated facilities. The 2017 amendments rule addressed prevention program elements for natural hazards, incident investigation root cause analysis, and third-party compliance audits; emergency response coordination with local responders (including emergency response exercises); and availability of information to the public. The EPA received three petitions for reconsideration of the 2017 amendments rule under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). In December 2019, the EPA finalized revisions to the RMP regulations to reconsider the rule changes made in January 2017 (“2019 reconsideration rule”). The 2019 reconsideration rule rescinded certain information disclosure provisions of the 2017 amendments rule, removed safer technologies and alternative analysis (STAA) requirements added by the 2017 amendments rule, and modified some other provisions of the 2017 amendments rule. The rule changes made by the 2019 are the current RMP regulations until May 10, 2024. There are petitions for judicial review of both the 2017 amendments rule and the 2019 reconsideration rule. The 2019 reconsideration rule challenges are being held in abeyance. EPA has requested that the Court allow this to occur until the resolution of any legal challenges to 2024 RMP rule amendments or 30 days after the deadline to file such challenges if no challenges are filed. The case against the 2017 amendments rule is in abeyance pending resolution of the 2019 reconsideration rule case. As a result of the EPA review, on March 11, 2024, the EPA promulgated final regulations amending its RMP regulations. The revisions, which are scheduled to become effective on May 10, 2024, include several changes to the accident prevention program requirements for natural hazards, power loss, and STAA, as well as enhancements to the emergency response requirements, expansion of public availability of chemical hazard information, third-party audit and record-keeping requirements, and mandatory employee rights and participation.
Hydrogen Hype's Physics Problem
The Biden administration is spending billions on the National Clean Hydrogen Strategy, even recently celebrating Hydrogen Day on October 8 (because hydrogen’s atomic weight is 1.008) to “mark a symbolic opportunity to celebrate hydrogen—clean hydrogen, specifically—and the crucial role this element plays in supporting a robust, equitable clean energy future for all Americans.”
“There’s a lot to like about hydrogen as a fuel source, climate journalists such as David Gelles gush.
The only problem is that “clean hydrogen,” also known as “green hydrogen”—that is, hydrogen gas generated using renewable electricity—isn’t particularly “clean” or “green,” although it’s less polluting than “gray” and “blue” hydrogen, produced from natural gas.
Unfortunately, even “green” hydrogen is a powerful greenhouse pollutant.
As an important paper from Environmental Defense Fund scientists Ilissa Ocko and Steven Hamburg explains, hydrogen is unavoidably leaky, because it’s such a small molecule, and like methane, has a high short-term warming effect. In fact, one of hydrogen’s main warming effects is to increase the atmospheric lifetime of methane. Methane breaks down in contact with the hydroxyl (OH) radical formed when ultraviolet light interacts with ozone (O₃) and water vapor (H₂O). Hydroxyl also reacts with hydrogen molecules (H₂), so significant hydrogen pollution means atmospheric methane doesn’t break down. Thus, Ocko and Hamburg find:
Hydrogen’s 100-year greenhouse warming potential (GWP) is twice as high as previously thought, and its 20-year GWP is 3 times higher than its 100-year GWP. Hydrogen’s maximum GWP occurs around 7 years after the initial pulse of emissions, with a range of 25 to 60 based on uncertainties, and a central estimate of 40.
In short, “green” hydrogen isn’t.
Regulating Small Offshore Energy Producers
Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and Supply Chains hearing: “Energy Independence: How Burdensome Regulations are Crushing Small Offshore Energy Producers”
Chair: Wesley Hunt (R-Texas)
Witnesses:- Mike Minarovic, Chief Executive Officer, Arena Energy, LLC
- Paul Danos, Chairman of the Board, National Ocean Industries Association
- Alex Epstein, President, Center for Industrial Progress
- Kathleen Nisbet Moncy, Chief Operating Officer, Goose Point Oyster
July Open Meeting
Commission meeting are held in Commission Meeting Room (Room 2C) at FERC Headquarters, 888 First St. N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426
| Meeting agenda | ||
|---|---|---|
| Item No. | Docket No. | Company |
| ADMINISTRATIVE | ||
| A-1 | AD23-1-000 | Agency Administrative Matters |
| A-2 | AD23-2-000 | Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations |
| ELECTRIC | ||
| E-1 | RM22-14-000 | Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements |
| E-2 | RM22-19-001 | Incentives for AdvancedCybersecurity Investment |
| E-3 | ER22-2355-000 | GridLiance Heartland LLC |
| E-4 | ER22-2354-000 | GridLiance High Plains LLC |
| E-5 | ER22-2353-000 | Florida Power & Light Company |
| E-6 | ER22-2466-000 | Cube Yadkin Transmission LLC |
| E-7 | ER22-2358-001 | Versant Power |
| E-8 | ER22-2304-000 | Nevada Power Company |
| E-9 | ER22-2307-000 | Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company |
| E-10 | ER21-2592-000 | Pacific Gas and Electric Company |
| ER21-2592-001 | ||
| EL23-24-000 (not consolidated) | CXA La Paloma, LLC v. California Independent System Operator Corporation | |
| E-11 | EL23-69-000 | Secure-the-Grid Coalition |
| E-12 | EL23-43-000 | arGo Partners GP LLC |
| E-13 | EL23-41-000 | arGo Partners GP LLC |
| E-14 | ER23-729-001 | PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. |
| EL23-19-001 | ||
| HYDRO | ||
| H-1 | P-2290-124 | Southern California Edison Company |
| H-2 | P-14634-007 | New England Hydropower Company, LLC |
| CERTIFICATES | ||
| C-1 | CP22-25-000 | Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC |
| C-2 | CP20-55-000 | Port Arthur LNG Phase II, LLC and PALNG Common Facilities Company, LLC |
| C-3 | CP22-2-000 | Gas Transmission Northwest LLC |
| C-4 | CP22-494-000 | Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC |
| C-5 | CP22-15-000 | Texas Eastern Transmission, LP |
| C-6 | CP22-466-000 | WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. |
| C-7 | CP22-138-000 | Northern Natural Gas Company |
| C-8 | CP22-461-000 | Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC |