Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Report: TSCA Risk Assessments Could Take a Decade
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
At its current pace, it would take the US EPA at least ten years to complete risk assessments of the 83 chemicals that it has identified for action in the work plan programme under the Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 23 October 2014 ), according to the agency's watchdog. -
US EPA to Launch New IRIS Website in Autumn
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The website of the US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is being refurbished as part of a larger redesign of the agency's online presence. -
Seac Considers Restrictions Proposals
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
At its meeting last week Echa’s Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) adopted a final Opinion on a Restriction dossier on ammonium salts used as flame retardants in cellulose insulation. -
SC Johnson Begins Disclosing Fragrance Ingredients
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
SC Johnson, a major US household cleaning products firm, has begun to disclose detailed fragrance ingredients on a product-by-product basis, expanding its online ingredient disclosure guide for its Glade line of products (CW 21 October 2014). -
US Apparel Group Updates Restricted Substance List
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) has published the 16th edition of its restricted substance list (RSL). Updated every six months, this outlines international bans and restrictions of chemicals and substances for use in consumer textiles, apparel and footwear. -
(ACC Mentioned) Planned Investments in U.S. Chug Along Despite Low Oil Prices
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Planned investments in U.S. chemicals have expanded in spite of collapsing crude oil prices, signaling a surge in capacity by this decade's end. -
Keeping Export Ban Would Spur Big Drop in U.S. Production -- Hamm
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Continental Resources Inc. founder Harold Hamm said today that most U.S. refiners support lifting a decades-old crude export ban and warned domestic production will drop by a million barrels a day without the ability to sell overseas. -
Interior Defends Authority to Regulate Fracking on Public Lands
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Bureau of Land Management has full authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands, and any delay of the agency's new rule would put the public at risk, Obama administration attorneys argued in a legal brief last week. -
House Panel Approves $30.17B Bill to Cut EPA Funds, Block Climate Rules
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House Appropriations committee approved a $30.17 billion Interior and Environment spending bill on Tuesday that cuts Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding by 9 percent and blocks key Obama administration climate rules. -
House Panel Clashes on Spending, Policy Provisions of Interior-EPA Bill
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Persistent partisan deadlock on spending levels and policy riders was on full display this morning as the House Appropriations Committee considered an Interior Department and U.S. EPA funding bill that faces long odds to enactment. -
Private Investors Pony up $4B for Clean Energy
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A collection of investment firms, foundations, universities and other private institutions have pledged $4 billion to invest in new clean energy technology, the White House announced on Monday. -
Obama Takes Heat from Both Parties on Arctic Drilling Regulations
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration fielded heavy criticism from both the right and the left Tuesday over its policies on oil and natural gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean. -
Are the Politics of Climate About to Change?
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Paul Bledsoe
President Obama and other leaders at the G-7 Summit in Germany made headlines last week pledging to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 to 70 percent by 2050, the first time leading Western nations have committed to such specific long-term targets. -
Crude-by-Rail Rule 'Just Isn't Going to Work' -- BNSF Exec
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A recent federal overhaul of oil and ethanol safety standards "will have to be changed" for the rail industry to keep up, according to the executive chairman of BNSF Railway Co.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
Report: TSCA Risk Assessments Could Take a Decade
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
At its current pace, it would take the US EPA at least ten years to complete risk assessments of the 83 chemicals that it has identified for action in the work plan programme under the Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 23 October 2014 ), according to the agency's watchdog.
“Limited authorities and data on chemical toxicities and exposures inhibit the EPA's effective implementation of laws that regulate chemical use and production,” the Office of Inspector General (OIG) said in a report listing the agency's management challenges for 2015.
Saying the agency is “falling short” in implementing several programmes, the report said it needs to “enhance programme management and overcome statutory limitations on data availability to effectively ensure that the production and use of chemicals does not harm human health or the environment.”
Even the Government Accountability Office has voiced concerns about the “EPA's ability to conduct credible and timely assessments of the risks posed by the chemicals,” the report added. The GAO had stressed the need for the agency to ensure that sufficient resources are set aside to implement TSCA and to demonstrate progress in its risk assessment and risk reduction initiatives.
The agency also needs to complete work to establish criteria and procedures for identifying classes of chemicals to undergo assessments for low-level and cumulative exposure assessments. The EPA is yet to propose a regulation, setting a timeline for expiration of confidential business information claims, the report said.
It noted that the agency plans to conduct reviews in 2017 of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program and Antimicrobial Testing Program.
Aside from a brief reference to the six principles the EPA has set for TSCA reform, the report makes no mention of the TSCA updated bills making their way through Congress that would give the agency more authority to act on risk assessments and provide it with the financial resources to do so (CW 4 June 2015) and (CW 25 April 2015).
-
US EPA to Launch New IRIS Website in Autumn
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The website of the US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is being refurbished as part of a larger redesign of the agency's online presence.
As a consequence, IRISTrack, a database that reports on the progress of IRIS assessments, will not be updated during the rebuild, the agency says.
It adds that the new website – expected to be launched in the autumn – will present in an easier format data that has been on IRISTrack, along with new releases, meetings, comment deadlines and other information.
-
Seac Considers Restrictions Proposals
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
At its meeting last week Echa’s Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) adopted a final Opinion on a Restriction dossier on ammonium salts used as flame retardants in cellulose insulation. There was a final change, lengthening the transitional period before the Restriction comes in to force from 12 to 24 months.
The committee also agreed the final authorisation Opinion for the use of tricholoroethylene (TCE) as an industrial degreasing agent.
On the socio-economic impacts of proposed Restrictions, however, the committee left a pile of work for its September and November meetings this autumn. It will then discuss bisphenol A (BPA) after allowing members time to consider the Opinion of Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) favouring a Restriction on its use in thermal paper, which Rac adopted last week (CW 11 June 2015). Seac expects to adopt a final Opinion in December.
And, following further input from the ongoing public consultation, Seac will also continue to discuss a Restriction dossier on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and substances that degrade to it, in the autumn.
However, a draft Opinion on restrictions on the flame retardant deca-BDE was agreed by consensus. It will be a blanket Restriction with minor derogations for electrical and electronic articles already on the market and for aircraft, and will be adopted in the autumn.
Two Restriction dossiers just making their way onto Seac’s agenda are those for methanol, from Poland, and the cyclic siloxanes D4 and D5 from the UK.
The committee heard a key-issues report on the methanol dossier, which found that there was only information on the abuse of methanol in Poland and Finland, Seac chairman Tomas Oberg said. More information from other member states was requested for inclusion. A draft Opinion will be discussed in September.
The D4/D5 dossier was found to be in conformity and a first draft Opinion will be prepared for Seac’s next meeting.
The committee agreed draft Opinions for all but one of 12 authorisation applications for trichloroethylene at its last meeting in March (CW 26 March 2015). The draft Opinion for use of the substance as a degreasing agent was agreed last week, alongside another on an application for the use of lead chromatein naval delay devices.
-
SC Johnson Begins Disclosing Fragrance Ingredients
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
SC Johnson, a major US household cleaning products firm, has begun to disclose detailed fragrance ingredients on a product-by-product basis, expanding its online ingredient disclosure guide for its Glade line of products (CW 21 October 2014).
The products offering ingredient details in the expanded disclosure programme include air fresheners, candles, wax melts and scented sprays.
From 8 June, customers can access Glade fragrance ingredients present at higher concentration values atWhatsInsideSCJohnson.com, the ingredient disclosure website launched by the company in 2009. Depending on the product, this may include those fragrance ingredients present at more than .09% of the total formula, or the 10 most concentrated ingredients.
Consumer advocacy groups, such as the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE), have long called for increased disclosure of fragrance ingredients in cosmetics, cleaners and other consumer products, amid human health and allergen concerns.
A 2011 study commissioned by WVE, Dirty Secrets: what's hiding in your cleaning products?, evaluated the content of 20 household products, including several Glade products, and discovered the presence of chemicals such as phthalates, galaxolide and allergens. The report said that “consumers deserve to know what chemicals they are being exposed to, so that they can easily avoid products that may cause allergic reactions or serious long-term health impacts like cancer, birth defects or infertility.”
WVE executive director Erin Switalski said SC Johnson's fragrance disclosure “sets an important industry precedence that cannot be overlooked”. However, the group called for further transparency. “The next step we’d like to see is for them to take their ingredient disclosure efforts over the finish line, to disclose all the fragrance ingredients, down to .01%,” said Ms Switalski.
But the industry contends that full transparency is unfeasible. “The consumer products industry has a responsibility to balance the protection of trade secret information, while providing the information that product users want and need,” said Phil Klein, executive vice president of legislative and public affairs at the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA). “Simply providing all the product-specific fragrance information provides a roadmap for counterfeiting of consumer products,” said Mr Klein.
Many consumer product manufacturers rely on an ingredient list, developed by the International Fragrance Association (Ifra), as a means of disclosing fragrance ingredients that may be in their products. Ifra maintains an industry safety programme and houses a list of more than 3,000 fragrance ingredients currently in use worldwide.
Advocacy groups argue that such a broad ingredient list does not allow consumers to avoid specific chemicals, when shopping for products.
SC Johnson points out that fragrance suppliers consider their formulations proprietary information. “It took a lot of dialogue to convince them to allow us to share details about specific fragrances,” said the company. “We negotiated with our key suppliers to be allowed to share the vast majority of a product's fragrance ingredients, with just a bit held back for confidentiality.”
SC Johnson expects to extend its fragrance disclosure programme to several cleaning product lines, later this summer, including Pledge, Windex, Shout and Scrubbing Bubbles.
-
US Apparel Group Updates Restricted Substance List
Jun 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) has published the 16th edition of its restricted substance list (RSL). Updated every six months, this outlines international bans and restrictions of chemicals and substances for use in consumer textiles, apparel and footwear.
Changes since the last edition include listing alterations for acrylamines, fluorinated greenhouse gases, metals and pesticides.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Planned Investments in U.S. Chug Along Despite Low Oil Prices
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Planned investments in U.S. chemicals have expanded in spite of collapsing crude oil prices, signaling a surge in capacity by this decade's end.
Companies have announced 238 investment projects worth some $145 billion, a boost from $136 billion at the end of last year and roughly $90 billion from one year ago, said the industry group, the American Chemistry Council.
Dropping crude prices potentially threaten the U.S. producers of bulk chemicals like ethylene, because they use feedstocks that are usually joined to gas prices, and compete against rivals in Asia and Europe that use feedstocks based on oil.
But the plummet in oil prices has stalled new U.S. investments somewhat, while also delaying some projects accounting for about 5 percent of the total value of planned investments, according to the ACC.
Kevin Swift, ACC's chief economist, said the United States is taking an expanding share of investments in the global chemicals industry.
Swift added that the U.S. capacity for bulk chemicals could also rise 35 to 40 percent by the end of the decade (Ed Crooks, Financial Times, June 14). -- KS
-
Keeping Export Ban Would Spur Big Drop in U.S. Production -- Hamm
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Continental Resources Inc. founder Harold Hamm said today that most U.S. refiners support lifting a decades-old crude export ban and warned domestic production will drop by a million barrels a day without the ability to sell overseas.
Hamm made his pitch during a keynote speech at the 2015 U.S. Energy Information Administration conference in Washington, D.C.
Domestic production is expected to fall by a million barrels a day from current levels by May 2016. Oklahoma City-based Continental is already expecting a drop of up to 73,000 barrels a day this month, he said. Continental is one of the country's top independent oil producers with operations in the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana and significant positions in Oklahoma.
With U.S. rig counts dropping, he said, producers have cut capital expenditures by 50 percent and slashed 126,000 in direct jobs, leading to indirect job losses more than three times that in the oil industry. Allowing international crude sales, he said, would raise demand and restore a half-million jobs lost in the production slowdown.
"We believe this thing will happen," Hamm said. "We believe it needs to happen sooner than later."
Hamm rejected arguments that say lifting the ban would hurt refiners. "Are they opposed to crude exports? No," he said.
While there are some small groups of independents that oppose lifting the ban, he said majors like Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. are for exporting crude.
"Only a few aren't," he said.
But Jay Hauck, executive director of the anti-export Consumers & Refiners United for Domestic Energy, said allowing crude exports would enrich large, integrated oil companies and billionaires like Hamm while American consumers paying more at the pump will lose out.
"Independent U.S. refiners are some of the best customers of America's oil producers," Hauck said. "Exporting crude will profit Hamm at the expense of good-paying refinery jobs being shipped abroad."
Hamm also reiterated that foreign countries and companies have converted U.S.-based refineries to process their heavy, sour crude, and the export ban blocks U.S. producers' access to refineries abroad that can process their light, sweet crude.
In the past, Hamm has taken a combative position, arguing the export ban plays into a "deliberate, calculated takeover of American refining" by foreign entities (EnergyWire, May 12).
"We can't export our oil, but the refiners can export refined products," Hamm said. "That's kind of silly, they're sending out everything we use."
Showing a slide of the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian shale plays, Hamm said analysts have found production is slated to drop about 700,000 barrels a day as of May 2016. Other shale plays throughout the country will come online, but they'll likely not be the level of magnitude producers have seen thus far.
"I don't know how many Bakkens there are going to be laying around," he said.
-
Interior Defends Authority to Regulate Fracking on Public Lands
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Bureau of Land Management has full authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands, and any delay of the agency's new rule would put the public at risk, Obama administration attorneys argued in a legal brief last week.
The filing is one of the administration's first substantive responses to legal challenges that accuse BLM of overstepping its authority in crafting a new rule for fracking on public and tribal lands. The rule, unveiled in March and set to take effect this summer, regulates well construction, chemical disclosure and wastewater management, and establishes a new federal permit for fracking.
Industry groups and affected states filed separate lawsuits arguing that the Safe Drinking Water Act and Energy Policy Act remove fracking from BLM's jurisdiction and that the agency underestimated the cost of the new rule to industry. The assorted plaintiffs -- the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Western Energy Alliance, Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota -- asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to approve a preliminary injunction of rule, blocking its rollout until the court decides on the legal challenges.
Department of Justice attorneys representing BLM and the Interior Department issued their response to the states' challenge Friday, emphasizing BLM's role in oversight of development on public lands.
"This authority is premised on the unexceptional notion that BLM, the federal agency charged with management and stewardship of those lands, would be able to set terms and conditions for their use," the filing said.
Specifically, the attorneys argue, the Mineral Leasing Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act delegate authority over public lands to BLM as a proprietor and regulator.
Advertisement
"The Final Rule provides BLM with the tools needed to administer oil and gas leases on federal and Indian lands in compliance with these statutory objectives and obligations," they wrote. "Thus, these provisions fall squarely within the grant of authority to BLM under its governing statutes. And even if such authority were ambiguous, BLM's interpretation is permissible and therefore entitled to deference."
As for the alleged fracking exemption, the DOJ attorneys say the plaintiffs have misunderstood the legislative history of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which they say intended to preserve Interior's authority over oil- and gas-related injection.
Finally, the brief argues that a delay in the rule would "deny BLM the tools needed to respond to risks and public concerns associated with the growth of hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells."
Environmental groups that intervened in the lawsuit on BLM's side echoed that sentiment in their own filing last week, reiterating arguments that a delay in the rule will cause new oil and gas wells to go without adequate oversight (EnergyWire, June 10).
The industry and state challenges have recently been consolidated. A hearing on the motions for injunction is scheduled for June 23 in Casper, Wyo.
Also on the docket last week was a new prospective plaintiff in the fracking rule litigation. The state of Utah made good on earlier promises to join the case by filing a formal motion to intervene, seeking to join other affected states in challenging BLM's authority. No parties to the lawsuit have signaled opposition to the state's involvement.
-
House Panel Approves $30.17B Bill to Cut EPA Funds, Block Climate Rules
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House Appropriations committee approved a $30.17 billion Interior and Environment spending bill on Tuesday that cuts Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding by 9 percent and blocks key Obama administration climate rules.
Lawmakers approved the bill on a mostly partyline vote, and much of the debate centered on measures in the bill targeting EPA policies. Republicans said the measures are necessary to rein in what committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) called an “unnecessary, job-killing regulatory agenda.”
“This administration has been hell-bent on implementing all sorts of regulations that are harmful to both our economy and our energy security,” Rogers said. “Bill-wide, we have included several important policy provisions aimed to stop this sort of overzealous bureaucratic red tape.”
Democrats slammed the bill for both the EPA funding levels — it cuts the agency’s funding by $718 million — and provisions blocking its rule-making, including a water oversight rule and forthcoming greenhouse gas regulations for power plants.
Republicans also approved an amendment to the bill Tuesday stopping an upcoming EPA smog rule. They also approved a provision blocking funding for a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule banning hydraulic fracturing on federal lands.
“The air every American breaths, the water every American drinks, are all at risk because of the funding cuts and policy attacks in this bill,” said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations interior and environment subcommittee.
Republicans defeated her amendment to undo the riders, which she called “veto-bait” for President Obama, and a handful of other Democratic attempts to change the bill’s policy provisions.
“This administration’s appetite for new regulations and disregard for Congress has left us little choice but to block the president’s overzealous regulatory agenda in this bill,” Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee’s interior and environment subcommittee, said.
Shaun Donovan, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Monday that the White House opposed the bill. He cited the riders, as well as funding levels below those Obama proposed for most programs in the budget.
“These riders stand in the way of meeting these responsibilities - hamstringing permitting and future regulatory work, and creating significant ambiguity regarding existing regulations and guidance,” Donovan wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
Overall, the GOP's bill spends $30.17 billion next fiscal year, $246 million less than current levels and $3 billion less than what Obama requested in his budget.
The bill increases funding for wildfire prevention and some Native American programs. It includes small cuts to the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and provisions blocking Endangered Species Act listings for certain animals, something Democrats fought on Tuesday.
The bill, as with all other appropriations measures this session, turned into a proxy for the broader fight over top-line government spending levels. Republicans wrote the bill so it conforms to the sequestration spending caps, and Calvert said they made a “sincere effort to prioritize needs” within those caps.
In his 2016 budget proposal, Obama undid those caps and looked to increase funding for most of the provisions in the Interior and Environment budget. In his letter, Donovan wrote that the administration opposes funding levels below what he had proposed.
Appropriations ranking member Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said the caps “led to a bill that severely underfunds far too many priorities.”
But Republicans defended the budget and the provisions within it.
“This bill makes great strides to budget responsibly, investing in proven programs while making cutbacks were we can,” Rogers said. “The EPA is one such agency that can certainly make do with less.”
-
House Panel Clashes on Spending, Policy Provisions of Interior-EPA Bill
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Persistent partisan deadlock on spending levels and policy riders was on full display this morning as the House Appropriations Committee considered an Interior Department and U.S. EPA funding bill that faces long odds to enactment.
The measure would provide $30.17 billion in funding for fiscal 2016, $246 million below current spending levels and $3 billion below President Obama's fiscal 2016 request for Interior and EPA. EPA would take a hit of about $718 million compared with current funding levels and $1.17 billion less than the president requested.
The markup will continue into the afternoon.
The committee's low allocation is in line with the restrictions of the Budget Control Act of 2011. Panel Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said the bill was responsible, especially when it comes to EPA's funding.
"EPA is one such agency that can certainly make do with less," said the chairman.
The agency under President Obama has been "hell-bent" on introducing new regulations for air, water and industrial byproducts, he said. The House bill's numerous policy riders and EPA funding allocation will work together to prohibit the agency from crippling industry, Rogers said, while its language to bar the Bureau of Land Management from increasing user fees as the administration has proposed will ensure that ranchers and oil and gas producers don't face new burdens.
Advertisement
"We must do whatever we can to keep the government from inhibiting economic growth and overregulating and overtaxing American business and industry, and this appropriations is a great place to start," Rogers said.
But Appropriations Committee ranking member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said the committee -- and Congress in general -- already faces a difficult task in shepherding funding legislation to enactment. While committees on both sides of Capitol Hill are currently working to advance individual bills, the annual appropriations process is expected to end with some form of omnibus bill, as it has for many years.
"Clearly there are already distinct differences associated with many of the funding decisions in this bill," she said.
"We already have our work cut out for us on the job we're supposed to be doing, determining funding levels," she said. "We should not allow this process to be bogged down by controversial riders."
Interior and Environment Subcommittee ranking member Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) floated an amendment that would have struck 24 of the bill's amendments prohibiting agencies from moving forward with EPA's newly finalized Waters of the U.S. rule, greenhouse gas curbs for power plants and other sources, and lead paint restrictions, among other policies. It also would have removed language barring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from promulgating rules for the protection of sage grouse -- a prohibition subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) touted in his opening remarks as a means of ensuring states take the lead in balancing species conservation with local economic development. The amendment fell on a party line vote of 19-32.
Democrats on the committee also made a bid to boost the bill's support for EPA's water infrastructure revolving funds, which the measure would cut by nearly $500 million compared with enacted levels. They did so by seeking to designate some firefighting costs as emergency spending, moving them outside the subcommittee's budget allocation and freeing up funds to direct toward grants and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
Lowey cast the amendment as a way to ensure the escalating cost of forest fire management doesn't continue "to burn through all the funds in our appropriations bill."
Grants to states and tribes would have increased by just over $400 million under the amendment, while the water infrastructure fund would have increased by a quarter-billion dollars, and the State Drinking Water State Revolving Fund would have seen a boost of $157 million.
The firefighting redesignation proposal tracks with a bill by former subcommittee chairman Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) that would overhaul the way forest fire management would be funded, requiring Congress to budget for it each year (E&E Daily, Jan. 9). The measure enjoys broad bipartisan support and currently has 87 co-sponsors. Several Democrats spoke in favor of it at this morning's markup.
But while he said he appreciated the support, Simpson said the bill should be moved through regular order and not attached to a spending bill.
"It is something that needs to be done," he said. "This is not the way to do it."
The amendment fell on a voice vote.
-
Private Investors Pony up $4B for Clean Energy
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A collection of investment firms, foundations, universities and other private institutions have pledged $4 billion to invest in new clean energy technology, the White House announced on Monday.
The funding comes in response to an Obama administration call for more private sector research into low-carbon energy technology. The government will also launch a new Department of Energy program to provide technical assistance for investors.
Obama administration officials launched their “Clean Energy Investment Initiative” in February, hoping to secure $2 billion from the private sector to fund new energy research. The White House doubled that goal, receiving major pledges from the University of California system, Goldman Sachs and other investors.
“The response over only a couple of months has exceeded even our ambitious expectations,” Brian Deese, a senior adviser to President Obama, said in a call with reporters on Monday. “And our hope is that by highlighting these commitments … we’ll be able to build on that progress and be able to generate more commitments and more enthusiasm.”
The announcement comes ahead of a White House clean energy summit on Tuesday. Vice President Joe Biden, White House science adviser John Holdren and Deese will speak at the event.
“A growing number of mission-driven investors have committed to investing in clean energy innovation and solutions for our climate change challenges, and they do so in pursuit of both financial returns and mission-aligned impact,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said Monday. “I think this is a tremendously important development.”
DOE’s new program, dubbed the "Clean Energy Impact Investment Center," will provide government information and technical assistance to those investing in new energy technology.
Moniz said investments in low-carbon energy sources will play a key role in U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of a United Nations climate change deal that will be hashed out in Paris later this year.
“What we are emphasizing very, very strongly on the road to Paris is, in fact, the role of technology innovation, and associated cost reduction, as really key to meeting the global commitments that we need to reduce greenhouse gases,” he said.
Moniz didn’t any specifics Monday about the types of projects the DOE program would support, but he said he expects technology investors to begin coordinating with the department as soon as the effort formally launches.
“I view this, ultimately, as a kind of one-stop-shop, multi-dimensional information resource [for] investors who have obviously expressed their interest and their desire to get into this space,” he said.
“I can’t give you an example yet, but check back in a year and I certainly hope I’ll have a bunch.”
-
Obama Takes Heat from Both Parties on Arctic Drilling Regulations
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration fielded heavy criticism from both the right and the left Tuesday over its policies on oil and natural gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
In a House hearing on Arctic drilling, Republicans accused President Obama of trying to stifle development with unattainable rules and restrictions. Democrats, meanwhile, said the president is going out of his way to allow unsafe exploration.
The Interior Department’s regulations for offshore drilling in the Arctic, proposed earlier this year, were a main focus of the hearing, along with a report from the industry-backed National Petroleum Council that called for more Arctic drilling.
“We have an Arctic rule published by the Department of the Interior — largely prescriptive in nature — that could significantly slow exploration and development and possibly curtail industry interest in future offshore lease sales that are currently scheduled,” Rep. Doug Lamborn, chairman of the House Natural Resources subcommittee with jurisdiction over offshore drilling, said at the hearing.
“The rule, which was published just weeks before the final release of the NPC study, does not take into account many of the well-thought-out conclusions of the study — the most striking being that most of the U.S. Arctic offshore oil and gas potential could be developed today using existing, field proven technology,” he continued.
The controversial rule includes requirements that a driller have a rig in the Arctic ready to make a relief call in the case of a blowout. It also restricts the drilling season to avoid ice and requires Arctic-specific plans.
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) accused the administration of “hysteria” with its Arctic rules.
“The problem I have is, I believe the administration has a ‘mother may I’ approach. I don’t think that really will work,” he said.
Young asked Brian Salerno, director of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, if he had considered the low pressure in the Arctic Ocean when developing the rule, since the risk of well blowouts is lower.
“I’ve heard the word blowout, blowout, blowout,” he said. “It will not happen at that pressure.”
“We do agree that the risk is low,” Salerno responded. “But it’s not zero.”
While Democrats welcomed the rule, they criticized the approval last month of Royal Dutch Shell’s exploratory drilling permit, less than three years after its last error-prone attempt.
They also criticized drillers who said the rules are too strict.
“The majority points out that there are so-called barriers to development in the Arctic,” said Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel.
“But I don’t see it. Instead, it seems to me that the administration is supporting Arctic development, and I think that’s a mistake.”
He said the United States should set an international example and declare that the Arctic is too fragile for drilling.
“But unfortunately, the administration continues to move forward with the plans to allow additional onshore and offshore drilling in the Arctic,” he said. “The oil and gas industry should be exceptionally grateful for this opportunity that they’re being given, that even after Shell’s failure of three years ago, they are being given the chance to try to drill again.”
Salerno focused mostly on the proposed rules, and said that they are reasonable, given the particular weather, remoteness and other concerns in the Arctic.
“The proposed rule is intended to provide the clarity needed to pursue these resources safely,” he said.
“In our view, these requirements are necessary to provide the assurance that drilling can be managed safely, and that emergencies can be effectively addressed.”
While Shell will not be subject to the rules for its planned drilling this summer, the Interior Department has put similar requirements on Shell’s drilling approval.
-
Are the Politics of Climate About to Change?
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Paul Bledsoe
President Obama and other leaders at the G-7 Summit in Germany made headlines last week pledging to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 to 70 percent by 2050, the first time leading Western nations have committed to such specific long-term targets.
But even as the targets were being announced, deep skepticism emerged, at home and abroad, about the U.S. ability to meet such ambitious goals. Republicans in Congress, many states and all but one of the Presidential primary candidates, have thus far fought any serious effort to cut emissions, including most immediately fierce resistance to regulations on existing power plants emissions now pending at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Yet there is mounting evidence that the GOP’s long political free ride regarding climate inaction is about to end. A series of political, religious and economic developments beginning this summer seem likely to turn climate change inaction into a serious political liability for Republicans, at least at the national level, setting off an intra-party struggle.
Just last week, Republican businessman Jay Faison launched a $175 million advocacy effort to get the Republican Party to change its views on climate change and clean energy. “We think that there are real Republican solutions to the problem,” Faison said, observing that GOP candidates needed to debate policy solutions to climate change, and stop disputing the science.
Not to be outdone, Senator Lindsey Graham, who supports a carbon tax to cut greenhouse gas emissions, recently announced his Presidential campaign. Asked about the climate issue earlier this year, Graham noted “I'd like to have a debate within the party. Can you say that climate change is a scientifically sound phenomenon, but can you reject the idea you have to destroy the economy to solve the problem is sort of where I'll be taking this debate." The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute hosted the unveiling of carbon tax legislation only a few days after Graham’s announcement.
Perhaps most significantly for Republican voters and officials down the ticket in 2016, Pope Francis will issue a Papal Encyclical this week (June 18) making climate change protection a key tenant of church doctrine for America’s 50 million (and 1 billion global) Catholics. He also will become the first pontiff to address the joint session of Congress, this September, when he will no doubt reprise his appeal directly to the GOP majority.
Public opinion on climate change has been moving away from Republicans for some time. Surveys that find two-thirds of Americans are more likely to vote for candidates who campaign on climate change action, including almost half of Republican voters in some surveys. Polling also indicates that of 15 major policy issues, Democrats enjoy the largest favorability margin—of about 20 percent over Republicans--on the handling of climate change. (WP 2014 poll). Critically, independents favor climate action by a 61-32 margin (polling from the Washington Post and ABC News )
Democrats clearly sense political vulnerability for Republicans, starting with Obama who has pushed the issue this year more forcefully than ever. At an event last month in Florida, the president took direct aim at the GOP and one its leading issues, national defense:
“Denying [climate change], or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces,” Obama said.
Senate Democrats, for their part, forced a series of votes on climate change science earlier this year, getting 15 Republicans on the record acknowledging a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing global temperatures, even as a majority of Republicans denied it.
Of greater immediate concern to most Americans, domestic climate change impacts are becoming more pronounced, especially extreme heat, which in addition to drought in the West is expected to lead to a massive wildfire season this summer. “It’s a witch’s brew,” Tom Harbour, the national fire and aviation director for the U.S. Forest Service, said of the challenges his firefighters face. The western wildfire season this year is two months longer than it was in 2000, now beginning in mid-March and lasting until November. And 2015 is already on pace to be the hottest year ever, surpassing the record set in 2014.
None of this is to say that Republican climate skeptics and their allies will give in on the issue easily. On the contrary, Republicans in Congress led by Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have made the EPA regulations a major political issue, especially in key coal dependent states, urging not only governors to defy the EPA, but even writing an open letter to foreign leaders suggesting that U.S. will not honor the emissions targets the president has committed to.
Nonetheless, Republican presidential hopefuls, largely given a pass on the issue by the media in 2008 and 2012, are certain to be hard pressed during the upcoming campaign to clarify deliberately obfuscating views on climate science and specific policy proposals. Some like Tea Party favorite Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have already been forced to reverse earlier statements outright denying warming and the role of greenhouse emissions.
Of course, the coming election will be dominated by economic issues, and populist appeals from both parties. But the economics of fighting climate change have improved substantially in recent years. The cost of renewable wind and solar sources have fallen dramatically. Cheap natural gas has eased the transition away from coal. Energy efficiency measures for cars and appliances have cut costs and emissions. As a result US emissions have fallen even as the economy has grown; America is on track to make its current international emissions pledge of cutting emissions 17 percent over 2005 by 2020.
Meanwhile, more and more Republicans have important clean energy businesses—and jobs—in their districts as renewable energy has grown far more quickly than other forms of electric power in recent years. More young voters, a key battleground demographic, say the issue is of high importance to them. And Democrats are likely to make protecting the American people from extreme climate change a populist issue of its own.
“I’m not here to talk about climate change,” said Jeb Bush earlier this spring when asked about the issue by a citizen in Iowa. Given recent trends, he, and all his Republican counterparts, might want to get used to it.
Bledsoe is an energy and climate policy consultant in Washington. He was director of strategy for the Bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy from 2002 to 2010, and communications director of the White House Climate Change Task Force from 1998-2000.
-
Crude-by-Rail Rule 'Just Isn't Going to Work' -- BNSF Exec
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A recent federal overhaul of oil and ethanol safety standards "will have to be changed" for the rail industry to keep up, according to the executive chairman of BNSF Railway Co.
Matt Rose, whose railway hauled more than 830,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak, took issue with Department of Transportation's requirement for advanced braking systems to be installed on mile-long oil and ethanol trains over the next eight years.
"The costs were very high with this rule, [while] the benefit, because we are so safe, was hard to come up with," Rose said at a U.S. Energy Information Administration conference yesterday in Washington, D.C. "It was a lot of creativity in rulemaking, even for the feds. They put it together, and it just isn't going to work."
Rose said he supports the new tank car standards in the final rule published last month, noting the "only thing we don't like about it is the electronic braking."
The rail industry has argued against the need for electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems, which can stop a train several seconds faster than conventional brakes but must be installed in all cars and locomotives to work properly. A string of recent crude and ethanol train derailments and fires have brought heightened scrutiny on oil shippers and the railroads supporting them.
On Friday, the Association of American Railroads filed an administrative appeal to the final rule, urging the Department of Transportation to toss out the braking provisions and require tougher thermal protection on tank cars instead. The industry group also wants federal regulators to close a "gap" in the rule that allows oil companies to keep using older, riskier equipment in strings of 19 or fewer cars.
Advertisement
AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg said the rule was a "good start" but called ECP brakes an "unproven technology that will not prevent derailments and will not provide meaningful overall safety benefits that our industry and the general public want."
A spokesman for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said the agency received four other administrative appeal requests on the final rule, including filings from the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and a coalition of five American Indian tribes (EnergyWire, June 10). An appeal from environmentalist groups was withdrawn Friday in lieu of pending court challenges.
PHMSA now has 90 days to respond to the appellants, although the agency can also request an extension of time "if warranted," said the spokesman, Joe Delcambre.
Regulators defended the braking provisions in analyses attached to the final rule. Modeling by PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration found that 20 percent fewer tank cars would fail during derailments involving trains equipped with electronic brakes, compared with conventional types.
Rose of BNSF suggested derailments aren't common enough to justify the cost of installing newer brakes. The freight giant, owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, shipped its millionth tank carload of crude oil earlier this year, Rose said, and of those only 40 cars had jumped the tracks and cracked open.
Still, he acknowledged such statistics may be of little comfort for residents near recent fiery derailments involving BNSF oil trains in Galena, Ill., and Heimdal, N.D.
"If you're in Galena, Illinois, where you had seven cars explode, you're not thinking about the world-class safety of BNSF railway," he said.
Rose noted that record capital investments by BNSF into its track network in the past two years had put the company "in a much better place to handle that next surge" in oil transport safely.
"This all came so quickly, and quite frankly, we didn't get ahead of it," he said of record crude production in North Dakota's Bakken Shale play. "But we have now, as I've said, we've spent enough money to be able to solve that problem."
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested