Minority group letters urging congressman to vote against climate bill turn out to be forged

As freshman Democratic U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello was considering how to vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 back in June, the Virginia congressman received at least six letters from two minority organizations urging him to vote no.

"The letters, as it turns out, were forgeries," reports the Charlottesville, Va., Daily Progress.

“They stole our name. They stole our logo. They created a position title and made up the name of someone to fill it. They forged a letter and sent it to our congressman without our authorization,” said Tim Freilich, who sits on the executive committee of Creciendo Juntos, a Hispanic advocacy group in Perriello's district.

The other five forged letters were purportedly from the Albemarle-Charlottesville branch of the NAACP -- an organization which actually supports the bill, better known as Waxman-Markey.

Turns out the forgeries came from Bonner & Associates, "a DC-based lobbying firm specializing in organizing grassroots and minority efforts for big business," Politico says. "The firm, run by Jack Bonner, a former RNC official and aide to late Sen. John Heinz (R-Penn.), has represented the energy and coal industries in the past." It has also been accused in the past of creating fake grassroots campaigns, something known as "astroturf."

After the story broke, Bonner faxed out a statement blaming a temporary employee who has since been fired, according to Talking Points Memo. However, Bonner still has not identified who his client is.

Incidentally, the Daily Progress reports that "Perriello ultimately voted in favor of the bill, which narrowly passed the House on June 26 in a 219 to 212 vote." Meanwhile his press secretary, Jessica Barba, told the paper: "Spreading false information is not healthy for real debate in our democracy. Congressman Perriello voted in favor of the bill because of its potential to create clean energy jobs, which is why the NAACP and many other groups supported the legislation in the first place.”

[U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello]

--Craig Pittman

"Cash for Clunkers" so popular it wipes out funding; White House scrambling for more

UPDATE:  "The House approved a bill Friday afternoon to provide $2 billion to continue the federal government's week-old "cash for clunkers" program..." the Washington Post reports. "The 316-109 vote split Republicans but attracted the support of nearly every Democrat in the chamber. The money will come from funds in the already-passed economic stimulus package that were intended for energy loan guarantees. Congress will seek to replenish the energy program at a later date."

--------------------------

 The "Cash for Clunkers" program, which one consultant estimated could pump up to $25 billion into the flagging U.S. auto market, has really taken off. In fact, although it's been operating for only four days, it's already become a little TOO popular.

"New-car shoppers appear to have already snapped up all the $1 billion that Congress appropriated for the “cash for clunkers” program, leading the Transportation Department to tell auto dealers Thursday night to stop offering the rebates," the New York Times reported. But then a White House official said no, that's not right either.

The Times reported that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement: “We are working tonight to assess the situation facing what is obviously an incredibly popular program. Auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that all valid ... transactions that have taken place to date will be honored.”

The plan offers owners of old cars and trucks $3,500 or $4,500 toward a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle. However, the Detroit Free Press says that "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration told dealers Wednesday that a 'vast majority' of transactions were being rejected for incomplete or illegible paperwork."

And as the St. Petersburg Times has reported, there are a lot of "clunkers" that aren't actually eligible under the rules of the program because their cars are too fuel-efficient to qualify for trade-in.

Nevertheless, enough buyers brought in old cars that Reuters said the head of Ford's marketing department "has been forced to take daily calls (from dealers) as late as 9 or 10 p.m. because of the surge in showroom traffic and sales."

"From the dealers' point of view, the program was a resounding success," the NYT reported, quoting a spokesman for the National Automobile Dealers Association: “Two hundred and fifty thousand vehicles in four weeks? One word comes out of my mouth: Wow.”

[Photo from N.A.D.A.]

--Craig Pittman

U.S. subsidizes renewable energy for $36B -- but spurns nuke project

The U.S. Department of Energy is making available $36 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy projects and for modernizing the electricity grid, the Associated Press reports.

"The government-supported loans are expected to help companies involved in solar, wind, biofuels and other renewable energy projects get private financing," says AP. "It also aims to spur investments in power grid improvements."

"These investments will be used to create jobs, spur the development of innovative clean energy technologies and help ensure a smart, strong and secure grid that will deliver renewable power more effectively and reliably," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.

But the DOE hasn't been so giving when it comes to a $3.5-billion nuclear-enrichment plant in Ohio, notes the Washington Post.

"The Energy Department said that the proposed plant, which would use a series of giant centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants, was not ready for commercial production and therefore ineligible for the loan guarantees," the Post reported.

So the owner, Maryland-based USEC, plans to suspend the project. Company CEO John K. Welch said he was "shocked" by the Energy Department decision, especially since President Obama had endorsed the project while campaigning in Ohio last year.

"It is unclear how DOE expects to find innovative technologies that assume zero risk," Welch said.

--Craig Pittman

Gulf of Mexico oil spill tops 58,000 gallons as debate continues on expanding offshore drilling

An underwater pipeline leaked more than 58,000 gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico on Saturday, the New Orleans Times-Picayune is reporting. The spill, which occurred about 30 miles off the Louisiana coast, has now spread to cover 80 square miles -- up from just 28 square miles on Monday. The cause is still under investigation.

The spill "was among the largest in recent years in U.S. waters," Reuters reports.

The spill from Shell Oil's pipeline may not reach land, but its effects are rippling through Florida. Opponents of expanding drilling in the gulf spread the story as yet another reason to keep the eastern gulf clear of offshore rigs (and the pipelines that would bring the oil onshore).

Legislation was introduced this week by Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mary Landrieu, D-La., that would bring oil drilling to within 45 miles of the coast. Gov. Charlie Crist, who flip-flopped on offshore drilling during last year's presidential race, dodged questions Tuesday about whether he would support this latest bill.

"I've always said it needs to be far enough, clean enough and safe enough to protect Florida's beautiful beaches,'' Crist said. "I also am cognizant of the fact that it sure would be nice to be energy independent. That's a growing concern of an awful lot of people including myself." 

However, state legislators told the Bradenton Herald that they don't think offshore drilling will solve that problem. "“I don’t believe that we’ll ever drill our way to renewable energy,” state Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, said. “Anything that we do in the Gulf of Mexico only delays the inevitable.”

In fact, a study released last week by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory found that Americans used less energy last year, and more of what they used came from renewable sources. "The nation used less coal and petroleum during the same time frame," the report found, "and only slightly increased its natural gas consumption."

--Craig Pittman

Time to limit energy speculators, says top commodities regulator

The country’s top regulator of commodity markets said Tuesday that the government should “seriously consider” strict limits on the trading of purely financial investors in the futures markets for oil, natural gas and other energy products, the New York Times is reporting.

Presiding over the first of three hearings on the subject, Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was "clearly sympathetic" to complaints that speculators "have aggravated the violent swings in energy prices in recent years," the Times reported.

That's a big turnaround for the CFTC. As the Fueling Station noted last fall: "Previously the CFTC had pooh-poohed complaints that such speculation might be driving up the cost of gas. But now the CFTC figures that speculators like Vitol account for about 81 percent of the oil contracts on NYMEX, a far bigger share than had previously been stated by the agency."

Craig Donohue, CEO of the world's largest commodity trader, CME Group, argued against tighter regulation, contending that "speculators have been wrongly targeted in the debate over energy prices," the Wall Street Journal reports. Nevertheless, he said, CME would agree to make changes: "We are prepared to respond to those concerns by adopting a hard limit regime for those products, including single-month and all-months combined limits in addition to the current limits that apply during the last three trading days of the expiration month."

[AP photo: Gary Gensler]

--Craig Pittman

Energy Department wasting energy, says department's own inspector general

Guess who's doing a poor job of saving energy? The U.S. Energy Department, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ cites a just-released report from the department's own inspector general that the DOE often neglects to turn down the thermostat, wasting an estimated $11 million.

"In some cases, according to the latest report, DOE buildings simply didn’t have controls to automatically regulate the temperature," the paper reports. "In other cases, they had the controls but didn’t know how to use them."

--Craig Pittman

South Fla. drivers to test alternate to gas tax, based on actual use of roads

South Florida has been chosen as a test site for a new way to collect the federal gas tax that pays for building roads, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Right now you pay the tax when you fuel up your car. Under the new system, "you would get a bill every month based on how much you use the roads."

How would they do it? Simple: the government would track how much you drive.

"The University of Iowa is looking for 250 volunteers willing to have tracking devices similar to cell phones and SunPass transponders installed in their cars so researchers can record their mileage for the next 10 months," the Sun-Sentinel reports. "The study won't track individual routes. For their trouble, participants will get $895."

Why change a tax that hasn't changed since 1993? Because higher gas prices has led to a new emphasis on fuel-efficiency and driving less.

As people use less gas, gas tax revenues have declined to the point where the federal highway fund is expected to run $8 billion short by August. So a federal transportation commission has recommended raising the tax temporarily, but also switching to a tax on the number of miles driven.

A mileage tax is fairer and more stable than a gas tax, contend its advocates -- but there are privacy issues to deal with, too, with putting a government monitoring device into people's cars.

The Iowa researchers are launching the $16.5-million study today at Florida International University in Miami. Drivers also are taking part in Chicago, Albuquerque, N.M., Portland, Maine, Wichita, Kan., and Billings, Montana, the Sun-Sentinel says.

[AP photo]

--Craig Pittman

Battle of the hybrids - Honda Insight versus Toyota Prius

 Have you seen all the ads lately for the new Honda Insight hybrid and the updated Toyota Prius? It's quite a hybrid battle brewing. The Insight is cheaper but sleeker, and cannot match the Prius' fuel economy.
See here for a comparison between the two.

- David Adams, Times staff writer. 

Will hybrid cars undermine our transportation quality? Think fuel tax dollars for our roads.

A study is being conducted to examine the impact of new, fuel efficient cars on the fuel tax that funds America's roads.
The gas tax may need updating, according to researchers for the Road User Study at the University of Iowa. "Current trends are threatening the ability of the tax to continue to pay for our roads," they say. "As hybrids and hydrogen-fueled vehicles become more common, funds generated will steadily decline. Even higher fuel efficiency means we may no longer be able to afford the quality transportation services that we have become accustomed to."

David Adams, Times staff writer

Smog lowers children's IQ, beginning in the womb, new study says

Air pollution lowers children's IQs, a process that starts even before they're born, according to a new study of New York moms and their babies published today. It marks "have linked air pollution exposure before birth with lower IQ scores in childhood," the Associated Press reports.

"The five-year-old children of city mothers who regularly breathed in car- and truck-polluted air when they were pregnant scored significantly lower on IQ tests than kids with less exposure," the New York Daily News reported.

The study, by the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health at Columbia University, tracked 249 children of New York City women who wore backpack air monitors for 48 hours during the last few months of pregnancy. "The moms lived in mostly low-income neighborhoods in northern Manhattan and the South Bronx," the AP reports. "They had varying levels of exposure to typical kinds of urban air pollution, mostly from car, bus and truck exhaust."

Then, when the kids were 5, they were given IQ tests, and those exposed to the most pollution before birth scored lower than the children with less exposure.

The center has previously done studies suggesting that babies whose moms are exposed to smog while pregnant are more likely to develop asthma, and that the closure of a coal-fired power plant in China helped boost cognitive abilities among children who lived nearby. In short, as center director Frederica P. Perera wrote last year, "Children are likely to suffer most from our fossil fuel addiction."

[AP photo: Smog blankets New York]

--Craig Pittman