Worldwide, one out of every five people lacks access to modern electricity. Affordability, quality of service, and social and environmental impacts pose great challenges in providing people with the power they need for lighting, cooking, and other activities. Good governance involving open and inclusive practices is essential to overcoming these pressing obstacles.
This is part three of a four-part blog series, ?Improving Electricity Governance,? which explores the key components involved in effective electricity governance. The series draws on the experiences of WRI?s Electricity Governance Initiative, documented in a new report, ?Shining a Light on Electricity Governance.? Read more posts in this series.
Until recently, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) held a monopoly on Thailand?s power generation and transmission since the 1970s. While EGAT provided a relatively stable supply of electricity to consumers, it was unregulated, leading to inefficiencies in the sector, such as wrongly estimated fuel supply. Consumers experienced high prices, while new power projects moved forward with little public consultation, sparking social conflict and concerns over environmental impacts.
The situation worsened in 2003, when Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra set forth a plan to restructure Thailand?s electricity sector and privatize EGAT. Rather than improving Thailand?s electricity sector in the public interest, the plan for privatization was designed to increase capital for powerful stakeholders and upper management employees. It called to maintain EGAT?s unregulated monopoly in order to maximize profits, even at the expense of public needs and environmental vulnerabilities.
Thailand?s electricity sector seemed poised to worsen?until civil society groups stepped in.
An Electricity Governance Assessment for Thailand
During the time of the government?s privatization proposal, a group of WRI?s Electricity Governance Initiative (EGI) partners were carrying out an assessment of the country?s electricity sector. The assessment found that there was no official forum for public participation within the sector, nor was there an independent regulator to balance the interests of EGAT against public needs.
In 2004, thousands of EGAT union members as well as a coalition of civil society organizations (CSOs) protested the impending privatization plan. They voiced their objection to EGAT becoming a profit-driven monopoly and demanded that the electricity sector be made accountable to public needs. EGI partners submitted their findings to the Supreme Administrative Court, which held a hearing to address the impending plan. As a result of union members? and civil society groups? efforts, the privatization was postponed by the court. In 2005, the decision was overturned.
Establishing an Independent Regulator
Since then, EGI partners and other stakeholders helped draft a new law that establishes an independent regulatory commission to ensure accountability in Thailand?s electricity sector. The Energy Regulatory Commission has since helped create 13 Regional Consumer Committees in different parts of Thailand. Each committee represents energy consumers in a specific region of the country. They are expected to address energy complaints and petitions, suggest improvements in energy services, and advise energy consumers on consumer-protection issues.
The presence of the independent Energy Regulatory Commission of Thailand has worked to protect the public interest by ensuring fair prices and reliable service, promoting awareness and knowledge of the energy sector, providing impact assessments, supporting renewable energy, and securing fairness and transparency throughout the sector. In opening up the policy process and providing an independent forum for public participation, electricity sector decision-makers are now accountable to the varied expertise and interests of the public.
Improvements didn?t just stop with establishing an independent Regulatory Commission. EGI partner, Palang Thai, coordinated capacity-building workshops for the Regulatory Commissioners, connecting them to energy decision-makers in the United States. These visits led to the Thai Energy Regulatory Commission entering into a memorandum of understanding with the Washington State Regulatory Commission in order to share knowledge and experiences in regulatory decision-making. These kinds of peer-to-peer partnerships help spread best practices.
A Lesson in Electricity Governance
This example from Thailand highlights a lesson that applies to electricity sectors in countries and communities throughout the world: Bad decision-making processes lead to bad results. The actions that Thai civil society groups took to overturn EGAT privatization and set up an independent regulator provides a powerful example of why involving civil society in decision-making processes is a necessary step in improving decisions themselves.
LEARN MORE: For more information about how EGI helped improve transparency in the electricity sector, check out our outcomes report, Shining a Light on Electricity Governance.
Please check the URL for proper spelling and capitalization. If you're having trouble locating a destination on Yahoo!, try visiting the Yahoo! homepage or look through a list of Yahoo!'s online services.
Please try Yahoo Help Central if you need more assistance.
BOSTON -- Games in June aren't supposed to end with punts. But when you take a mess of players who are equal parts overjoyed and exhausted, weird things happen. So this game ended with a punt.
Jonny Gomes sent a high-arcing homer toward the light tower and off of the AAA sign above the Monster in the bottom of the ninth inning to beat the Rays 3-1, and his celebration started as soon as he laid the black barrel of his bat on Joel Peralta's high 89-mph fastball.
Gomes strutted proudly out of the batter's box, knowing his team's more than 10-hour day at the ballpark was over. Then he raised one arm in triumph as he made his way around first.
Then came the punt.
After he touched third base, he removed his helmet with his right hand, lowered it and drop-kicked it in the direction of Van Ness Street before he touched home and was mobbed by his teammates.
"That was my best [Adam] Vinatieri impersonation," Gomes said, smiling. "I don't know if the Patriots are calling for a tryout. That's my Fenway punt."
Manager John Farrell said Gomes bailed the Red Sox out. That was certainly the case when it came to closer Andrew Bailey, who allowed a homer to Kelly Johnson in the ninth inning, turning a blown save into a win thanks to Gomes.
"To be where we are at the top of the standings, we have to pick each other up," Gomes said. "[Bailey]'s picked us up, we're going to pick him up. And we've done a great job of guys shining in the lineup covering for guys that have been struggling and vice versa. That's definitely the character we have in this clubhouse, everyone's picking one another up."
Gomes has been on both sides. He was signed in the offseason to be a regular in left field. Instead, he's hitting just .209/.327/.372 with five homers, and he's lost playing time to Daniel Nava, who has had a stellar first half and hit his 10th home run in the second inning.
"There's two people that aren't going to struggle this year," Gomes said. "One is going to be the MVP, the other is going to be Cy Young. Everyone else is going through peaks and valleys. If you've got 24 other guys picking up the guy who's down, you're going to be successful."
Gomes said it's a challenge to get his timing down given the number of at-bats he's received, and the irregularity with which they've come. But he's trying to make the most of them. On Tuesday, he struck out twice and flew out to center before homering.
"I'm in a situation where I can't get on hot streaks given my playing time, so I just gotta be ready when my name's called," he said. "With light at bats, sometimes it takes 2-3 at-bats to get on time. I thought my last three at-bats were better than the first."
He admitted, though, he grew more and more weary as the night cap went on. After a three-hour rain delay in the afternoon game against the Rays, it had turned into an endurance test at Fenway.
The clubhouse coffee was flowing, of course. Gomes said he couldn't measure in cups just how much he had consumed over the course of the day. Just enough to make him want to boot a helmet down the third base line after his walk-off homer.
"You never let the cup go to the end. All refills," he said. "Long day at the yard . . . Go home, pack, hopefully get one more and go out on the road."
The contribution of particulate matter to forest declinePublic release date: 19-Jun-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Dr. J?rgen Burkhardt j.burkhardt@uni-bonn.de 49-228-732-186 University of Bonn
Bonn University scientists demonstrate that hygroscopic air pollutants decrease tree drought tolerance
Air pollution is related to forest decline and also appears to attack the protecting wax on tree leaves and needles. Bonn University scientists have now discovered a responsible mechanism: particulate matter salt compounds that become deliquescent because of humidity and form a wick-like structure that removes water from leaves and promotes dehydration. These results are published in "Environmental Pollution".
Nature conservationists call it "lingering illness", and the latest report on the North-Rhine Westphalian forest conditions confirms ongoing damage. Bonn University scientists have now shown that salt deposits on leaves may decrease the drought tolerance of trees, thereby contributing to forest decline. "Our study reveals that so-called wax degradation on pine needles may develop from deposited particulate matter", says Dr. Jrgen Burkhardt from the Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation. Wax helps to protect leaves and needles from water loss.
It has long been known that air pollutants accelerate wax ageing and that "wax degradation" is closely related to forest damage. "Wax degradation was addressed by many studies in the 1980s and 90s, but sound explanations for both the degradation mechanism and the high correlation with forest damage have yet been missing", Dr. Burkhardt reports. Previous approaches assumed chemical reactions for wax degradation, whereas the present study reveals physical reasons. "The deposition of hygroscopic salts is capable of decreasing the drought tolerance of trees", co-author Shyam Pariyar says.
Accelerated dehydration of needles treated with salt solutions
The scientists sprayed salt solutions on Scots pine needles and recorded their weight loss after abscission. The needles treated with salt solutions dried out significantly faster than the untreated control needles. Using an electron microscope, the scientists observed the salts becoming deliquescent and moving into the stomata of the needles. Stomata are tiny pores used by plants to take up carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and release water vapor and oxygen. The deliquescent salts form very thin liquid connections between the surface and interior of the needle, and water is removed from the needles by these wick-like structures. Because the plants are unable to counteract this removal of water, the plants dehydrate more rapidly. Therefore, polluted air containing large amounts of particulate matter may directly reduce the drought tolerance of trees. Simultaneously, the deliquescent salts make wax appear "degraded". "This newly described mechanism was not considered in earlier explanations of Central European forest decline", states Dr. Burkhardt.
Conceivable aggravation of forest decline by climate change
A new type of electron microscope enabled the observation of particle deliquescence and dynamics under changing air humidity. In addition, a long-lasting scientific paradigm had excluded any aqueous movement into the stomata, and only recently had Bonn University scientists confirmed its existence (http://www3.uni-bonn.de/Pressemitteilungen/227-2012).
Recently, regional forest damage has been reported in the western USA and other parts of the world. A relationship with increasing climate change-type drought has been proposed, but the newly discovered mechanism involving particulate matter might contribute to the regional forest damage. "Particularly because air concentrations of hygroscopic particles have largely increased within the last decades", says Dr. Burkhardt.
###
The study was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the European Union (project CLAIRE).
Publication: Particulate pollutants are capable to `degrade epicuticular waxes and to decrease the drought tolerance of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), "Environmental Pollution", DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.04.041
Contact:
Dr. Jrgen Burkhardt
University of Bonn
Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation
Plant Nutrition Group
Phone. +49 228 732186
E-Mail: j.burkhardt@uni-bonn.de
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
The contribution of particulate matter to forest declinePublic release date: 19-Jun-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Dr. J?rgen Burkhardt j.burkhardt@uni-bonn.de 49-228-732-186 University of Bonn
Bonn University scientists demonstrate that hygroscopic air pollutants decrease tree drought tolerance
Air pollution is related to forest decline and also appears to attack the protecting wax on tree leaves and needles. Bonn University scientists have now discovered a responsible mechanism: particulate matter salt compounds that become deliquescent because of humidity and form a wick-like structure that removes water from leaves and promotes dehydration. These results are published in "Environmental Pollution".
Nature conservationists call it "lingering illness", and the latest report on the North-Rhine Westphalian forest conditions confirms ongoing damage. Bonn University scientists have now shown that salt deposits on leaves may decrease the drought tolerance of trees, thereby contributing to forest decline. "Our study reveals that so-called wax degradation on pine needles may develop from deposited particulate matter", says Dr. Jrgen Burkhardt from the Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation. Wax helps to protect leaves and needles from water loss.
It has long been known that air pollutants accelerate wax ageing and that "wax degradation" is closely related to forest damage. "Wax degradation was addressed by many studies in the 1980s and 90s, but sound explanations for both the degradation mechanism and the high correlation with forest damage have yet been missing", Dr. Burkhardt reports. Previous approaches assumed chemical reactions for wax degradation, whereas the present study reveals physical reasons. "The deposition of hygroscopic salts is capable of decreasing the drought tolerance of trees", co-author Shyam Pariyar says.
Accelerated dehydration of needles treated with salt solutions
The scientists sprayed salt solutions on Scots pine needles and recorded their weight loss after abscission. The needles treated with salt solutions dried out significantly faster than the untreated control needles. Using an electron microscope, the scientists observed the salts becoming deliquescent and moving into the stomata of the needles. Stomata are tiny pores used by plants to take up carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and release water vapor and oxygen. The deliquescent salts form very thin liquid connections between the surface and interior of the needle, and water is removed from the needles by these wick-like structures. Because the plants are unable to counteract this removal of water, the plants dehydrate more rapidly. Therefore, polluted air containing large amounts of particulate matter may directly reduce the drought tolerance of trees. Simultaneously, the deliquescent salts make wax appear "degraded". "This newly described mechanism was not considered in earlier explanations of Central European forest decline", states Dr. Burkhardt.
Conceivable aggravation of forest decline by climate change
A new type of electron microscope enabled the observation of particle deliquescence and dynamics under changing air humidity. In addition, a long-lasting scientific paradigm had excluded any aqueous movement into the stomata, and only recently had Bonn University scientists confirmed its existence (http://www3.uni-bonn.de/Pressemitteilungen/227-2012).
Recently, regional forest damage has been reported in the western USA and other parts of the world. A relationship with increasing climate change-type drought has been proposed, but the newly discovered mechanism involving particulate matter might contribute to the regional forest damage. "Particularly because air concentrations of hygroscopic particles have largely increased within the last decades", says Dr. Burkhardt.
###
The study was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the European Union (project CLAIRE).
Publication: Particulate pollutants are capable to `degrade epicuticular waxes and to decrease the drought tolerance of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), "Environmental Pollution", DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.04.041
Contact:
Dr. Jrgen Burkhardt
University of Bonn
Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation
Plant Nutrition Group
Phone. +49 228 732186
E-Mail: j.burkhardt@uni-bonn.de
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Research shows moves to ban pay-to-delay deals are justifiedPublic release date: 18-Jun-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Cat Bartman c.bartman@uea.ac.uk 44-016-035-93007 University of East Anglia
Controversial deals that delay generic versions of drugs coming onto the market can lead to consumers paying significantly more for some treatments, according to new research by an academic from the University of East Anglia (UEA).
Dr Farasat Bokhari's study shows that moves to investigate and ban pay-to-delay deals which typically involve a branded manufacturer holding a drug patent paying a rival generic firm to delay the release of its cheaper version are justified.
The deals are on the rise in the United States and Europe and the practice has prompted concerns from regulators on both sides of the Atlantic that they are anti-competitive, infringe competition laws, and allow branded manufacturers to charge higher, monopoly prices ultimately costing health services and taxpayers millions more.
Dr Bokhari, a health economist in the School of Economics and ESRC Centre for Competition Policy at UEA, analysed the impact of such agreements on US market prices for drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He applied economic models to five years of sales data to estimate the price increases resulting from the delayed entry of a generic version of Adderall XR. The branded version was introduced by Shire in 2001 and is an extended release form of the company's older product Adderall. By 2003 Adderall XR had almost 25 per cent of the market share for ADHD drugs in the US, while sales of all ADHD drugs totalled more than $2.2billion. A generic version of Adderall XR was introduced in 2009.
Published in the Journal of Competition Law and Economics, the study shows that, on average, the percentage increase in prices is 4-4.5 times higher when entry-limiting deals are made and a generic is not available in the market, compared to when the generic is available but the branded and generic firms jointly set their profit-maximizing price.
For example, in the absence of Adderall XR, the price of the drug Concerta would be 4.97% higher ($101.23 per month instead of $96.45), Ritalin SR/LA would be 4.34% more ($61.75 instead of $59.20), while the generic version of Adderall would be 2.45% higher ($27.16 instead of $26.52). Similarly, prices of most other ADHD drugs would be higher - with an average increase of almost 4.6% - with some, such as Dexedrine SR and its generic, increasing by as much as 8.69% ($43.75 instead of $40.25) and 9.38% ($38.42 instead of $35.14) respectively.
"Pay-to-delay is a problem in the immediate future for health services in the US and Europe, and in the long run for taxpayers," said Dr Bokhari. "While the monthly price increases may not seem huge, when you take into account the number of people using these treatments even modest increases have a significant impact on consumer welfare and add millions a year to their overall cost.
"The pay-to-delay deals in this segment of the market highlight the tension between patent laws and antitrust law in an economically significant area. These are blockbuster drugs and pay-to-delay agreements made by the patent holder may ward off the entry threat by other potential challengers. If they are on the market without generic versions to challenge them then companies can maintain monopoly prices, and in doing so harm consumers by preventing or delaying access to cheaper drugs."
In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is challenging the agreements, suing several pharmaceutical firms in the courts. Until recently the payments had been upheld under the 'scope of the patent test' since under the terms of settlement, the delayed generic entry still took place before the branded patent expired. However, one such case is now before the US Supreme Court, which is considering whether the deal is illegal and is due to give its decision this month. The FTC has also supported legislation introduced in the US Congress aimed at banning the agreements.
In April the UK's Office of Fair Trading (OFT) issued a 'Statement of Objections' to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for agreements with three generic makers in relation to its drug Seroxat, commonly used to treat depression. The OFT alleges that these involved substantial payments from GSK to keep the generic versions off the market, and that GSK's conduct amounted to an abuse of its dominant position in the market. The European Commission has also issued a Statement of Objections in three similar pay-to-delay cases in recent months.
Dr Bokhari said: "The drug companies argue that they have a right to protect their intellectual property and that these agreements benefit consumers by enabling generic versions to come onto the market sooner than they would normally have, for example if licensed entry has been allowed at a later date but before the patent expires. But while the deals may be beneficial to some extent, in that they might save courts and administrative bodies, such as patent offices, time and effort, they allow branded drug firms to charge monopoly prices and in a typical deal there may be a two to three year delay in a cheaper version becoming available.
"My research shows that in this respect, the challenges by the FTC, attempts to introduce legislation in the US Congress to ban such deals, and the investigations by the OFT and EU Commission are justified."
In the US, while there were three agreements in 2005, there were 19 in 2009, 31 in 2010 and 40 in 2012. Similarly, in 2011 in the EU there were 13 settlements limiting generic entry and involving payment to a generic drug maker. According to the FTC, pay-to-delay deals have cost US consumers $3.5 billion a year.
###
The paper 'What is the price of pay-to-delay deals?' by Dr Farasat Bokhari is published online in the Journal of Competition Law and Economics. http://jcle.oxfordjournals.org/
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Research shows moves to ban pay-to-delay deals are justifiedPublic release date: 18-Jun-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Cat Bartman c.bartman@uea.ac.uk 44-016-035-93007 University of East Anglia
Controversial deals that delay generic versions of drugs coming onto the market can lead to consumers paying significantly more for some treatments, according to new research by an academic from the University of East Anglia (UEA).
Dr Farasat Bokhari's study shows that moves to investigate and ban pay-to-delay deals which typically involve a branded manufacturer holding a drug patent paying a rival generic firm to delay the release of its cheaper version are justified.
The deals are on the rise in the United States and Europe and the practice has prompted concerns from regulators on both sides of the Atlantic that they are anti-competitive, infringe competition laws, and allow branded manufacturers to charge higher, monopoly prices ultimately costing health services and taxpayers millions more.
Dr Bokhari, a health economist in the School of Economics and ESRC Centre for Competition Policy at UEA, analysed the impact of such agreements on US market prices for drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He applied economic models to five years of sales data to estimate the price increases resulting from the delayed entry of a generic version of Adderall XR. The branded version was introduced by Shire in 2001 and is an extended release form of the company's older product Adderall. By 2003 Adderall XR had almost 25 per cent of the market share for ADHD drugs in the US, while sales of all ADHD drugs totalled more than $2.2billion. A generic version of Adderall XR was introduced in 2009.
Published in the Journal of Competition Law and Economics, the study shows that, on average, the percentage increase in prices is 4-4.5 times higher when entry-limiting deals are made and a generic is not available in the market, compared to when the generic is available but the branded and generic firms jointly set their profit-maximizing price.
For example, in the absence of Adderall XR, the price of the drug Concerta would be 4.97% higher ($101.23 per month instead of $96.45), Ritalin SR/LA would be 4.34% more ($61.75 instead of $59.20), while the generic version of Adderall would be 2.45% higher ($27.16 instead of $26.52). Similarly, prices of most other ADHD drugs would be higher - with an average increase of almost 4.6% - with some, such as Dexedrine SR and its generic, increasing by as much as 8.69% ($43.75 instead of $40.25) and 9.38% ($38.42 instead of $35.14) respectively.
"Pay-to-delay is a problem in the immediate future for health services in the US and Europe, and in the long run for taxpayers," said Dr Bokhari. "While the monthly price increases may not seem huge, when you take into account the number of people using these treatments even modest increases have a significant impact on consumer welfare and add millions a year to their overall cost.
"The pay-to-delay deals in this segment of the market highlight the tension between patent laws and antitrust law in an economically significant area. These are blockbuster drugs and pay-to-delay agreements made by the patent holder may ward off the entry threat by other potential challengers. If they are on the market without generic versions to challenge them then companies can maintain monopoly prices, and in doing so harm consumers by preventing or delaying access to cheaper drugs."
In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is challenging the agreements, suing several pharmaceutical firms in the courts. Until recently the payments had been upheld under the 'scope of the patent test' since under the terms of settlement, the delayed generic entry still took place before the branded patent expired. However, one such case is now before the US Supreme Court, which is considering whether the deal is illegal and is due to give its decision this month. The FTC has also supported legislation introduced in the US Congress aimed at banning the agreements.
In April the UK's Office of Fair Trading (OFT) issued a 'Statement of Objections' to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for agreements with three generic makers in relation to its drug Seroxat, commonly used to treat depression. The OFT alleges that these involved substantial payments from GSK to keep the generic versions off the market, and that GSK's conduct amounted to an abuse of its dominant position in the market. The European Commission has also issued a Statement of Objections in three similar pay-to-delay cases in recent months.
Dr Bokhari said: "The drug companies argue that they have a right to protect their intellectual property and that these agreements benefit consumers by enabling generic versions to come onto the market sooner than they would normally have, for example if licensed entry has been allowed at a later date but before the patent expires. But while the deals may be beneficial to some extent, in that they might save courts and administrative bodies, such as patent offices, time and effort, they allow branded drug firms to charge monopoly prices and in a typical deal there may be a two to three year delay in a cheaper version becoming available.
"My research shows that in this respect, the challenges by the FTC, attempts to introduce legislation in the US Congress to ban such deals, and the investigations by the OFT and EU Commission are justified."
In the US, while there were three agreements in 2005, there were 19 in 2009, 31 in 2010 and 40 in 2012. Similarly, in 2011 in the EU there were 13 settlements limiting generic entry and involving payment to a generic drug maker. According to the FTC, pay-to-delay deals have cost US consumers $3.5 billion a year.
###
The paper 'What is the price of pay-to-delay deals?' by Dr Farasat Bokhari is published online in the Journal of Competition Law and Economics. http://jcle.oxfordjournals.org/
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
House Judiciary Committee members Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sponsor of the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, left, talks with Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, prior to the start of the committee's hearing to discuss the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act. The committee in the Republican-led House is preparing to cast its first votes on immigration this year, on a tough enforcement-focused measure that Democrats and immigrant groups are protesting loudly. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
House Judiciary Committee members Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sponsor of the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, left, talks with Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, prior to the start of the committee's hearing to discuss the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act. The committee in the Republican-led House is preparing to cast its first votes on immigration this year, on a tough enforcement-focused measure that Democrats and immigrant groups are protesting loudly. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sponsor of the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, left, talks with Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, prior to the start of the committee's hearing to discuss the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act. The committee in the Republican-led House is preparing to cast its first votes on immigration this year, on a tough enforcement-focused measure that Democrats and immigrant groups are protesting loudly. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
WASHINGTON (AP) ? A key committee in the Republican-led House moved Tuesday toward approving a tough enforcement-focused immigration bill, over objections from Democrats and disruptions from protesters shouting "Shame, shame, shame!"
Meanwhile in the Senate, a Republican lawmaker floated a compromise border security proposal he hopes can win over support for sweeping immigration legislation under consideration there that opens the door to citizenship for 11 million immigrants now here illegally.
And on a day of fast-paced developments on an issue that is a top priority for President Barack Obama, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, moved to quiet speculation that he might bring the Senate immigration legislation up for a vote despite opposition from many conservatives in his chamber.
"Any immigration reform bill that is going to go into law ought to have a majority of both parties' support if we're really serious about making that happen. And so I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans," Boehner said. He added that border enforcement would be key for any immigration bill, "And I frankly think the Senate bill is weak on border security."
As Boehner addressed reporters, the House Judiciary Committee was meeting to consider a bill, called the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. It would empower state and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws, make passport and visa fraud into aggravated felonies subject to deportation, funnel money into building more detention centers, and crack down on immigrants suspected of posing dangers.
As soon as Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., gaveled the proceedings open, more than a dozen protesters who had been seated in the hearing room stood up and began clapping and chanting, "Shame, shame, shame! More of the same!" They were ushered out but their cries could still be heard in the hallway and Goodlatte stopped the proceedings until the protesters had been dispersed.
Goodlatte said that the bill under consideration ? the first immigration bill to come to a vote in a House committee this year ? "provides a robust interior enforcement strategy that will maintain the integrity of our immigration system for the long term."
But Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said that "this bill must be opposed, it would turn millions of undocumented immigrants into criminals overnight." She predicted mass protests were the bill to become law, along the lines of what happened in 2006 after the House passed a similarly tough enforcement bill.
The move by the House Judiciary Committee comes less than two weeks after the full House voted to overturn Obama's 2012 election-year order to stop deportations of many immigrants brought here illegally as youths.
Together the two moves highlight the challenges ahead in getting a comprehensive immigration bill through Congress this year, as Obama wants. For many House conservatives, the priorities when it comes to immigration remain enforcing the laws and securing the border, not allowing the millions here illegally to gain legal status or citizenship.
Still, No. 2 House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland predicted Tuesday that if the Senate passes an immigration bill with bipartisan support, "I think the Republican leadership will be under great pressure to let the House work its will" ? Capitol Hill jargon for letting the House take up legislation even without majority support from the majority GOP.
"I think the presidential wing of the Republican Party is absolutely convinced they need to be for an immigration bill," Hoyer said, saying they believe they have to "forge some bridge" to the Hispanic community. He added, "That same motivation does not apply to the congressional wing" of the GOP.
As in the House, border security is at issue in the Democratic-led Senate, where senators have been jousting over how to strengthen the provisions in a far-reaching bill being considered on the floor this week to remake the nation's immigration laws. The bill would allow tens of thousands of high- and low-skilled workers into the country, and require all employers to check their workers' legal status. At its heart is a 13-year path to citizenship for people now here illegally, but that is contingent on certain border security goals being met.
Republican critics say those "triggers" are too weak and have been demanding amendments to strengthen them. The Senate planned to vote Tuesday on an amendment by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., requiring 700 miles of double-layered border fencing before anyone here illegally could get a permanent resident green card.
A more far-reaching proposal by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has been getting attention, but Democrats and some Republicans have dismissed it as a "poison pill" because it would require 90 percent of people attempting to cross the border to be stopped before anyone here illegally could get a permanent resident green card.
The underlying bill also has the 90 percent figure as a goal, but doesn't make the path to citizenship directly contingent on achieving it.
Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told The Associated Press Monday night that he has been working on an alternative with Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and others. Hoeven said his proposal also would require the 90 percent apprehension rate to be met before immigrants could get green cards. But he said his plan, unlike Cornyn's amendment, would make the 90 percent rate objective and achievable by specifying all the equipment and technology the border patrol says it needs to achieve the rate in each of the nine southwest border sectors, and carefully tracking attempted crossings.
Hoeven said he hoped to unveil his amendment in the next day or two and said it could garner the support needed to get bipartisan support for the immigration bill.
"Our effort is to get good legislation that truly secures the border," Hoeven said. "That people feel it's fair and it's not amnesty ... so we can get really a bipartisan consensus."
However, Hoeven's amendment could encounter skepticism from immigrant groups and Democrats who want to be sure that the bill doesn't change in a way that makes the path to citizenship harder to achieve.
___=
Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysian state oil and gas firm Petronas expects to spend $20 billion on a project in west Canada to export liquefied natural gas (LNG), a senior company official said on Tuesday.
The project, known as Pacific NorthWest LNG, will build two LNG trains of 6 million tons per year (tpy) each by the end of 2018 or 2019, Arif Mahmood, vice president of corporate planning at Petronas told an industry conference.
The investment cost includes about $5 billion to be spent on a pipeline project to supply the two LNG trains, he said.
Petronas also plans to make a final investment decision on its second floating LNG project in Malaysia later this year, he said. The FLNG project will be at the Rotan Field in Block H and could start production in 2016, he said.
(Reporting by Florence Tan; Editing By Tom Hogue)
(This story was refiled to reflect the following changes: corrects to say Petronas to spend $20 billion, not $5 billion, on LNG project in headline and first paragraph; adds third paragraph to clarify that $5 billion will be spent on a pipeline)
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vh5BMReQkm26rXdY0EopeN3RsXvNxwjE1jNGEWP1L9F9ArAGQdBmVlbeaOhd6JJGFZ-ZJtN423_ZTXdPUIfQ5Jce45VwsvJ4dz3afj0rk=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 19-Jun-2013
Share ]