Carbon Pipelines Negative T
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Status quo pipelines prove
- The federal government has explicitly disavowed jurisdictional authority
- Solvency – AT: Eminent Domain
- States will provide private industry with eminent domain – solves
- Solvency – Interstate Compacts
- Interstate compacts solve
- Solvency – AT: Interstate Compacts Require Congress
- State parks can adjust to budget cuts- no threat of closure
- The Let’s Move initiative is helping to solve obesity
States Counterplan1ncThe 50 states, DC and territories should form an interstate compact that facilitates regulated pipeline transportation of captured carbon in the United States.The counterplan solves – avoids delay, leads to a coordinated response and reduces private sector uncertaintyAmann 10 Scholarly Group of Environmental and Energy Experts (Rachel Amann, December 31, 2010, “A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the Feasibility of a National Pipeline Infrastructure for the Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide: Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,” http://www.sseb.org/downloads/pipeline.pdf)//DR. H An interstate advisory compact may be the most likely model for developing an interstate CO2 pipeline network for a number of reasons. An advisory compact is most likely to develop on a regional basis in response to market demands. Such a compact also facilitates better collaboration among states because the group is smaller and therefore able to tailor its response to the needs of the local area or region, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach. The collaborative efforts of a regional advisory compact will foster development of uniform criteria, shared timelines, joint hearings, and coordinated response in regulating a CO2 pipeline network. Further, the advisory compact is more palatable to states and allows states to retain their sovereign authority. A regional advisory compact may result in a more rapid creation of a regulatory framework than the creation of a federal regulatory framework. A regional advisory compact reduces the regulatory uncertainty resulting from the absence of a regulatory framework needed to address a national CO2 pipeline infrastructure. An important advantage of advisory compacts is their potential for quick development and rapid regulatory response. Advisory compacts can sometimes form quickly whereas federal regulation may at times require many years. The speed by which the compact is formed is directly related to the number of participating states. Advisory compacts also allow for a quicker and more efficient regulatory response because of the proximity between the regulated community and the regulators. SolvencyUSFG not key—states solve better Amann 10 Scholarly Group of Environmental and Energy Experts (Rachel Amann, December 31, 2010, “A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the Feasibility of a National Pipeline Infrastructure for the Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide: Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,” http://www.sseb.org/downloads/pipeline.pdf)//DR. H Today, no federal role is required in order to develop CO2 pipeline projects. The assumption that a federal mandate will produce the desired result (capture, transportation, and storage of nationally produced CO2) may not follow. Other state-based regulatory solutions should be carefully considered before pursuit of an untested federal strategy that could prove harmful to future CO2 pipeline construction. Status quo pipelines proveAmann 10 Scholarly Group of Environmental and Energy Experts (Rachel Amann, December 31, 2010, “A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the Feasibility of a National Pipeline Infrastructure for the Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide: Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,” http://www.sseb.org/downloads/pipeline.pdf)//DR. H The current pipeline infrastructure was sited, constructed, and regulated by the states in which they operate with federal oversight limited to safety regulations or instances where federal lands are traversed. Today, no federal involvement is required to facilitate the development of CO2 pipelines. The federal government has explicitly disavowed jurisdictional authorityWolfe 10 Holland and Hart Law Firm, Over 400 Lawyers (Lawrence J. Wolfe, September 30, 2010, “TRANSPORTING CO2 – ACCELERATING PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT,” http://www.hollandhart.com/articles/Wolfe_CCSPPT_SummitWashDC.pdf)//DR. H Siting of new CO2 pipelines is not regulated by any Federal agency. Both FERC and the STB (and predecessor agency ICC) have declined jurisdiction over CO2 pipelines. Siting is currently left to the States. Rates charged by CO2 pipelines are not regulated by any Federal agency, except the STB will hear complaints about rates. No Federal eminent domain for CO2 pipelines Solvency – AT: Eminent DomainStates solve – have power of eminent domain and can successfully sitePitlick and Nordhaus 09 Pitlick: Associate at Van Ness Feldman, Nordhaus: Member of the Washington, D.C. law firm, Van Ness Feldman, P.C., serves on the adjunct faculty at George Washington University Law School, Served as General Counsel of the Department of Energy and of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Robert R. Nordhaus, Emily Pitlick, 2009, “CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINE REGULATION,” http://felj.org/docs/elj301/85_-_nordhaus_and_pitlick.pdf)//DR. H As a general matter, the states and not the federal government are responsible for siting both interstate and intrastate CO2 pipelines. In the states reviewed, CO2 pipeline project sponsors have eminent domain authority, which facilitates the ability to site the pipelines there. The power of eminent domain allows pipeline developers to take lands for the public use of pipeline infrastructure development. Lands for pipeline construction are often obtained through leases, with the threat of eminent domain action looming over the transactions. States will provide private industry with eminent domain – solvesMack and Endemann 09 Latham & Watkins, international law firm (Joel Mack, Buck B. Endemann, October 2, 2009, “Making carbon dioxide sequestration feasible: Toward federal regulation of CO2 sequestration pipelines,” http://lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub3385_1.pdf)//DR. H At present, CO2 pipelines are regulated individually by the states in which they are located, for the most part under the states’ common carrier regimes or statutory schemes that approximate common carrier requirements (Yarbrough, 2008). Almost all of the existing CO2 pipelines service EOR projects, although Michigan’s short pipeline is dedicated to a US Department of Energy CO2 sequestration demonstration project.11 EOR has been used for decades, and it involves a variety of technologies that are used to enhance the yields from mature oil fields. As one of the available EOR technologies, CO2based EOR involves capturing CO2 from a man-made source or naturally occurring reservoir, piping it tens or hundreds of miles away, and injecting it deep underground to extend production from mature oil fields. Traveling from the source to the injection site, the pipelines cross through federal, state, and private lands and often traverse state lines. Generally, state regulations allow CO2 pipeline companies to use eminent domain for securing necessary rights of way across state and private lands, a right sometimes conditioned on using the CO2 for tertiary oil recovery. This right of eminent domain turns upon the pipeline serving a ‘‘public use,’’ whether that use is demonstrated by the pipeline company or already embodied by state statute. Although the states’ general public use regimes share a few similarities, the level and detail of regulation varies greatly from state to state. Ten states contain the bulk of the United States’ 3600miles of CO2 pipeline: Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. Not surprisingly, states with a longer history of using CO2 for EOR have more specific laws regulating CO2 pipeline siting and rate-setting. For instance, Louisiana, NewMexico, Texas, andMississippi (which collectively host the bulk of the existing CO2 pipeline infrastructure) have statutes that specifically address pipeline transportation of CO2.12 In Louisiana and New Mexico, the CO2 pipeline company’s right of eminent domain is closely tied to statutory policies furthering EOR or the production of petroleum products for ultimate public benefit.13 Mississippi’s eminent domain statute, for example, has a section specifically granting oil, gas, and EOR-related CO2 pipelines the power of condemnation.14 In each of these states, given the close statutory relationship between CO2 pipelines and producing oil for public use, CO2 pipeline transporters can readily prove the ‘‘public use’’ prerequisite for right of way condemnation. Moreover, these states have interpreted ‘‘public use’’ broadly when contemplating eminent domain for any facilities related to producing natural resources, even for pipelines serving an intermediary role to a single, private customer.15 Solvency – Interstate CompactsInterstate compacts solveevery 1ac solvency deficitAmann 10 Rachel, Scholarly Group of Environmental and Energy Experts, December 31, 2010, “A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the Feasibility of a National Pipeline Infrastructure for the Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide: Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,” http://www.sseb.org/downloads/pipeline.pdf Elements of the Status Quo, Multi-state Compact Option, or the Natural Gas Pipeline Models (NGPM) may be useful for further study to determine which are most compatible with the various business models discussed earlier. The status quo where CO2 pipeline regulation is left to the states and handled on a state-by-state basis has resulted in the development of more than 4,000 miles of CO2 pipeline to date. The current level of oversight provided by the federal government through the Office of Pipeline Safety and its safety regulations is both effective and sufficient as indicated by 40 years of safe operation of CO2 pipelines. Although this option is best suited to intrastate networks, there is no indication that continued operation under the current regulatory framework would inhibit interstate or intrastate pipeline development. The multi-state compact option that allows states to act collectively through shared/common regulatory provisions may offer unique advantages over the status quo decentralized system or a future centralized, federal regulatory system. Compacts can be structured uniquely to accommodate any business model. Furthermore, while maintaining state sovereignty, compacts provide a streamlined process for developing interstate infrastructure that encompasses multiple jurisdictions. Pipeline developers would have greater certainty as requirements for operating across multiple jurisdictions would be readily known, thereby saving time in navigating multiple regulatory requirements and expediting and streamlining the permitting process, saving operators both time and money as they seek to permit future CO2 pipelines. However, a disadvantage to the compact option is the potential for creating geographic windows or competing compacts that would diminish regulatory consistency. Interstate compacts solveAmann 10 Scholarly Group of Environmental and Energy Experts (Rachel Amann, December 31, 2010, “A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the Feasibility of a National Pipeline Infrastructure for the Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide: Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,” http://www.sseb.org/downloads/pipeline.pdf)//DR. H Interstate compacts represent an opportunity for the kind of multi-state cooperation that could promote the development of a national CO2 pipeline network. They facilitate multi-state cooperation, reinforce state sovereignty, and avoid federal intervention. Because broad public policy issues -- such as developing a national network of CO2 pipelines that cross jurisdictional boundaries -- present new governing challenges to state authorities a multi-state compact could be useful. Compacts enable states – in their sovereign capacity – to act jointly and collectively, generally outside the confines of the federal legislative or regulatory process. Compacts afford states the opportunity to develop dynamic, self-regulatory systems over which the participating states can maintain control through coordinated legislative and administrative procedures. Compacts enable states to develop adaptive structures that can evolve to meet new and increased challenges that naturally arise over time. Interstate compacts are contracts between two or more states creating an agreement on a particular policy issue, adopting a certain standard, or cooperating on regional or national matters. Interstate compacts provide a state-developed structure for collaborative and dynamic action to meet new and increased demands over time. Solvency – AT: Interstate Compacts Require CongressInterstate Compacts don’t have to go through Congress—empiricsPincus 09 (Mathew, April 22, 2009, “When Should Interstate Compacts Require Congressional Consent?” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Summer2009/02Pincus.42.4.pdf)//DR. H Nonetheless, certain agreements between states were always thought to be exempt from the congressional consent requirement under both the Articles of Confederation’s and the Constitution’s versions of the clause. The Virginia-Maryland Compact of 1785, which governed the Potomac River, the Pocomoke River, and the Chesapeake Bay, did not receive congressional approval, yet questions concerning its validity under the Articles of Confederation never arose.23 Likewise, states concluded numerous boundary agreements in the first few decades after the Constitution was enacted without Congress’s consent. Courts almost universally sustained the validity of these agreements.24 All in all, in the years after the enactment of the Constitution but prior to 1921, only thirty-six of the numerous compacts between states received the consent of Congress.25 From these facts, it seems clear that in the period when the Constitution was adopted, the Compact Clause was not viewed as applying precisely as written; some set of compacts — perhaps only those that settled boundaries between states — were always viewed as outside of the requirement of congressional consent. Recent examples provePincus 09 (Mathew, April 22, 2009, “When Should Interstate Compacts Require Congressional Consent?” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Summer2009/02Pincus.42.4.pdf)//DR. H The last few years have seen ambitious efforts to utilize interstate compacts to address particularly tough national issues. In the environmental arena, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”), which came into effect in September of 2008,41 originated as a response to federal inaction in the face of rising greenhouse gas levels.42 The RGGI obliges signatory states to implement a cap and trade arrangement for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. States will freeze emissions at approximately current levels and reduce them over the following decade while allowing power plants to trade emissions credits among themselves. 43 Currently, ten states have joined the RGGI.44 It seems likely that, under the current U.S. Steel test, the RGGI would not be found to require congressional approval.45 AT: State Parks DAState parks can adjust to budget cuts- no threat of closureKeating 10 (Michael, senior editor at The American City & Council, “State Parks Adjust to Budget Cuts,” The American City & Council, March 31, 2010, Proquest, ADP) In Idaho, state parks and recreation agencies are facing $4.5 million in budget cuts as the state heads into FY 2011. Instead of closing three of Idaho's 30 state parks to balance its budget, the Idaho Park and Recreation Board has voted to keep all parks open. The board will reduce services and close some parks on a seasonal basis to keep expenses in line. Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) director Nancy Merrill outlined the department's budget-saving strategy: "During the next year, the agency's goal will be to focus on generating revenue to maintain operations long-term. The good news is, our 30 state parks will remain open for public enjoyment, and we're confident that our very supportive customers will understand that changes were necessary." Park Budgets increasingEckroth 09 (LeAnn, government reporter for the Bismarck Tribune, “Parks’ Preliminary Budget Approved,” Bismarck Tribune, August 25, 2009, Proquest, ADP) The Bismarck Park Board approved a $15.08 million preliminary 2010 budget Thursday. General fund expenses will total $10.72 million, compared to $9.43 million in 2009. Operating expenses for a future aquatics center and hosting the Prairie Rose games are credited with part of the spending increase. Finance manager Augie Ternes said the park district expects to receive $7.14 million in property tax money after early payment credits are factored in. The park district's special revenue funds total $2.66 million; this includes $1.84 million in special assessments. The balance of the revenue will be generated from various programs, management contracts and fees the park district collects. Parks and Recreation Director Steve Neu said about half the revenue for the park district comes from non-property tax dollars. "That 52 percent is fees being paid by participants, sponsorships, grants we can generate and fees that help make it up," he said. Parks improvements Five mills will be levied to raise $1.7 million for capital improvement projects throughout the park system. Neu said about $2.5 million in capital improvements are planned for 2010. These involve various phases of park development to be paid for by the general fund, special assessments and construction fund. Hillside will get new shelter work, playgrounds and new restrooms. Four new ball fields will be added at Pebble Creek; asphalt work, parking lots and a new driving range shack are part of new features planned. "At New Generations Park, we're looking at water and sewer, installation of electricity, parking lot, and a shelter up there," Neu said. "At Cottonwood Park, we've got (21/2 miles of) trail projects planned." The Let’s Move initiative is helping to solve obesityThe New York Time 2012 (Lets Move, She Said – And We Did http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/lets-move-she-said-and-we-have/) During the first spring of the Obama presidency, the First Lady broke ground on a White House vegetable garden. Then, in February 2010, she announced the Let’s Move initiative, a campaign to change the way America’s children eat and exercise, with the goal of ending childhood obesity in a generation. In the years since, what has Michelle Obama’s work accomplished, besides (and I can say this from experience) the harvesting of some delicious lettuce, green beans and honey? The answer is: a lot. One of the most important results has been increasing public awareness of the importance of obesity. In 2008, over two-thirds of adults and a third of adolescents and children in the United States were obese or overweight. Although most Americans already saw obesity as a major problem, a majority opposed increasing federal spending to combat it. This attitude has begun to change. By 2011, a Pew survey found that most Americans believe the government should play a significant role in reducing obesity among children. Today, 80 percent of Americans acknowledge that childhood obesity is a serious problem. Mrs. Obama’s campaign has also led to improvements in the access to and content of school meals — which are where many children get the bulk of their calories and nutrition. In late 2010, the lame-duck Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act which, for the first time in 30 years, increased funding for school breakfasts and lunches above the inflation rate. The act also gives the Agriculture Department authority to set health standards for all foods sold on school property — including those in vending machines. Best of all, it reduced government paperwork to establish eligibility for free or reduced-price school meals, ensuring that tens of thousands more children will get healthy food they need. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|