The Senator sent a letter to the agency’s director last week that outlined the unique and difficult situation Fairbanks is in when it comes to cleaning up air pollution during challenging winters.
“In a community where electricity costs more than twice the national average ... and where residents face the coldest winter temperatures in urban America; I would hope that the EPA would show greater awareness of the extreme economic hardship that the new air-emission enforcement standards may cause,” Murkowski said.
The EPA has set a 2014 deadline for the state to clean up an area of the borough that is in non-attainment of federal air quality standards. That area includes Fairbanks and North Pole. If the area can’t meet those goals, there’s the risk state and local government could lose millions of dollars in federal highway funds.
Since the letter was sent, the EPA has provided about $70,000 for a wood exchange program, far less than the $1 million for continued wood stove change outs Murkowski asked for.
“We appreciate the grant, but we think they should provide more support,” said spokesman Robert Dillon.
Previous state and local requests for funds were met with the response that the EPA doesn’t have the funds available for such grants. That’s left most efforts up to the state and local governments, with some funding coming from the Department of Transportation’s congestion and clean air transportation grants.
Murkowski countered the EPA’s reasoning, saying it doesn’t make sense to fund educational and foreign research projects with limited federal funds while there are existing domestic problems.
“At a time of tightening federal budgets, it is extremely painful for me to see your agency favoring foreign nations over American citizens in the provision of grant aid to meet tightening air standards,” she said.
Murkowski’s message has been echoed by Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Luke Hopkins, who has criticized the EPA’s spending of millions to study coal smoke in Russia as the borough and state piece together funds for voluntary air quality improvement programs.
Re link: I'm convinced.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/is_rampant_speculation_driving_up_the_price_of_oil_20110428/
Tarbaby..... You say a tax is a forced payment to government....I agree. Your division of $100 a barrel is fine, but no one is FORCING the greedy Koch brothers to buy from the state.
--- I have no evidence nor do you the Koch brothers are greedy and they certainly are not marking up the price of fuel up 19 times cost which would make the price $49.78.
You know, Harvard business graduates have wet dreams about marking up 3 times cost.
Socialism is not cheap all business add on the wholesale cost of any thing they sell; if they don't they go out of businesses. However, the government can loan money to people who have no ability to pay back. That is called student loans and investing in America.
I miss Ted. He made it easy to decide what to think.
These are federal jobs, and they do come with benefit packages. But, for the sake of argument, let's go with your average salary of $51,000 per. Even if the entire $23 M stated earlier goes to employee wages at the EPA that would still only total to 451 employees. Is it your contention that there are only 451 employees at the EPA averaging $51 G per?
What nuclear energy has the Dept of Energy ever produced? What energy has the DOE produced? Their job is to regulate energy, and they have regulated energy until it is cost prohibitive. Then Secretary Steven Chu uses his position to determine which of their "friends" to pass the people's money out to in the form of green loans. Government loans passed out like thank you gifts to Solyndra, the Beacon Power Corp., and the Nevada Geothermal Power--all gone bankrupt.
Let me ask you--is there any function of the federal government, other than the military, that you would concede could be done away with?
We're Alaskans! We're burly and self-sufficient! We don't need none of that federal government around here...except when we have to go crawling to the federal government for funding.
Heh, if you accept federal money, you accept the entire federal government along with it. You can't say 'give us the money, but we won't follow your rules'. And I thought Murkowski was against government intrusion.
Correction to:
Keep in mind the refinery must burn $100 per barrel oil to produce additional fuel oil.
-----------------
A lot of folks believe just corporations etc are greedy while they hallucinate about the "government" is purer than the driven snow.
Then they sleep in the park wanting to soak the rich union members who making 10 or more times the min wage than could make if they were clean and sober.
True Believers and their kool-aid drag us all down.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/12budget/Content/Orgsum.pdf
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-EPA
$51,000 sure is different from $100,000.
More than half of the EPA's staff are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists, NOT an army of lawyers hell bent against corporations. In addition they operate 30 labs all around the country and 9 national labs including the national homeland security research center for such tiny issues like terrorists poisoning our water supply.
BTW trained scientists don't make 100k a year with bennies, maybe if you get tenure 15 years down the road at a university would you make that. I was considered an "employee" at NOAA even though I was an unpaid intern, all because I got a free bus pass.
sonofchulio, give up on the straw men arguments against the EPA your claims have no merit
"The easy way to make money is to get special political privilege. From the beginning of time business has cozied up to government and gotten restrictions on competition and subsidies and stuff," ....http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/11/07/charles-g-koch-addicted-to-the-cause-of-economic-freedom?google_editors_picks=true
Sounds like Lisa is helping Koch with his addiction.....
Tarbaby..... two things wrong with your post. Yes the state sells its royalty oil to the Koch refinery. I dont see where you come up with this 2.50 per gallon tax.
----A tax is defined as the forced payment of money to the government. when the price of crude is one hundred dollars per barrel. It costs the state approximately $5 to transport the crude oil from the North Slope to the refinery here Fairbanks. Dividing $100 -5 by 42 equals $2.26 per gallon. That's the minimum price of each gallon of fuel oil purchased in Fairbanks. The remaining $1.61 visited attributed to the cost of refining and distribution. Keep in mind the refinery must burn $100 per gallon oil to produce additional fuel oil.
You can verify this by contacting your legislator and get a copy of the DNR spreadsheet showing the price and profit to the State of Alaska for the sale of royalty oil.
It figures to a 19 :1 cost profit for the State.
Before you state my views, let me correct you. I am for responsible military cuts. I believe that we can save with far-flung base closures and less politicized defense spending.
I am also for drastically cutting or dismantling the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the Department of Urban Development and possibly others.
It's really simple. I didn't mention any of those views because we weren't talking about that--plus the fact that we are limited to the number of characters per comment.