Preview Newsletter
acc june 17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Animating the World of Plastics-to-Fuel Technologies
Jun 17, 2015 | Waste360
By Megan Greenwalt
Sometimes a little animation help makes thing a little clearer, even in the world of plastics-to-fuel technologies. Recently, the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance created several educational tools to showcase plastics-to-fuel technologies as a viable end-of-life solution for keeping non-recycled plastics out of... -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Introduces Bill to Develop Carbon Fiber Recycling
Jun 17, 2015 | Waste360
By Allan Gerlat
A U.S. senator has introduced a bill to develop the carbon fiber recycling business. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) established S. 1432, which calls for a study of the technology and energy savings of recycled carbon fiber and directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to collaborate with the automotive and aviation... -
EPA Decides Against Rebuilding Database On Status of IRIS Chemical Assessments
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency has decided not to rebuild IRISTrack, a database to report the status of chemical assessments undertaken by the agency's Integrated Risk Information System, and will instead update the IRIS Web page by the fall of 2015 to include assessment schedules, the agency said June 15. -
Shell Draws Nearer to Approval for Arctic Exploration, Obtains Incidental Take Permit
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem
Royal Dutch Shell Plc received U.S. permission to disturb marine mammals as part of its plan to resume oil exploration off Alaska's Arctic coast as it neared final sign-off from regulators to drill this summer. The last step in the process, approval of a specific drilling plan from the Interior Department, could come soon, clearing the way ... -
Interior Disputes Parts Of Doe Advisers’ Arctic Drilling Report
Jun 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement today disputed some of the National Petroleum Council’s conclusions issued in its March report on Arctic oil and gas drilling. BSEE chief Brian Salerno told the House Natural Resources Committee’s energy subpanel that he had contacted his... -
House Panel Debates 'Prescriptive' Standards In Interior Rule
Jun 17, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A draft Obama administration rule for how companies search for oil in the Arctic Ocean is heavy on mandates and will stifle the industry's ability to develop new and safer drilling technologies, witnesses told a House Natural Resources panel yesterday. Yet Democrats on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee ... -
Farmers Cite EPA Audit Of UIC Program In RICO Suit Against State, Oil Firms
Jun 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
An agricultural organization that has sued the California officials and several oil companies for allegedly violating federal racketeering statutes by allowing wastewater injection into underground water supplies in the Central Valley is citing EPA audits and reviews of the state's underground injection control (UIC) program, which have been... -
Riders Limiting Federal Rules on Fracking, Ozone Added to EPA, Interior Funding Bill
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
House appropriators moved to limit the federal government's ability to regulate ozone pollution and hydraulic fracturing by adding riders to the fiscal year 2016 bill funding the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and other related agencies. In a June 16 markup, the House Appropriations Committee approved the... -
Senate's Interior-EPA Spending Bill Would Halt WOTUS, Clean Power Plan
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka and Phil Taylor
A Senate fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA contains policy riders and funding levels aimed at "aggressively" curtailing environmental regulations. In opening up a markup of the draft bill today, Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said... -
Senate Clears Bill Slashing EPA Budget And Targeting Regulations
Jun 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The Senate’s Interior-EPA spending panel approved a 2016 spending bill on Tuesday that cuts funding for EPA and includes a series of policy riders designed to hamper key administration environmental initiatives. The $30 billion package includes $7.6 billion for EPA, a $538.8 million cut below 2015’s enacted budget. -
House Panel Approves $30.17b Bill Cutting EPA Funds, Blocking 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 ... -
Senate, House EPA FY16 Cuts, Policy Limits Ensure Fight With White House
Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Senate Republicans are pushing an EPA appropriations bill that would cut the agency's fiscal year 2016 budget $538 million from its existing $8.13 billion funding and block major water and ozone rules, ensuring a fight with the White House which is already opposing a House bill with similar policy riders and a $718 million budget cut. -
Moves Against Obama Green Agenda Via Spending
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate spending panel voted Tuesday to block or weaken key Obama administration environmental rules on climate change, water and other subjects. The bill would fund the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Interior Department and other related agencies at $30.01 billion for the 2016 fiscal year, about $400 million less than what... -
GOP Lawmakers Advance Tight EPA Budgets
Jun 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén and Darren Goode
Congressional Republicans moved to dismantle the Obama administration’s environmental agenda on Tuesday, pushing spending bills through committees that would shrink the EPA and prevent the agency from enacting a range of major rules on issues from climate change to water pollution. -
Environmentalists Lobbying to Keep Rider On Stream Protection Out of Senate Bill
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Environmental groups are lobbying Senate appropriators to forgo a policy rider barring changes to an existing stream buffer rule when they take up a fiscal year 2016 funding bill. A rider to block FY 2016 changes to a rule that governs how close mining waste can be dumped to streams made it into the corresponding $30.2 billion House FY 2016... -
How Mitch McConnell Is Attacking Obama's EPA
Jun 16, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he joined the appropriations subcommittee in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency this year to "fight back against this administration's anti-coal jobs regulations." Looks like he's doing just that. The fiscal 2016 spending bill passed by the Interior... -
Just Two Actions May Stop the Planet's Runaway Warming
Jun 16, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ilissa Ocko
I was 15 and I was trying to impress a boyfriend with my rollerblading skills — from the top of a steep hill. Before I knew it, I was flying uncontrollably toward traffic. I knew I needed to both slow down and change course . . . or things wouldn't end well. I did, and I survived, but I've recently thought about that day and those actions... -
White House Urges Continued Private Investor Partnership in Clean Energy
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
e White House announced more than $4 billion in private-sector foundation investments to fund innovative technologies to reduce carbon pollution during an event June 16, where it released a series of executive actions to help clear the path for such long-term funding. These actions include trimming transactions costs, improving... -
Biden Promotes Private Sector Clean Energy Investments
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Private sector investors should do more to boost spending on clean energy technology, Vice President Joe Biden said on Tuesday. The White House announced $4 billion in private sector pledges on Monday to support green technology and launched a new Department of Energy (DOE) program to facilitate research and development. -
Nevada Governor Signs Bill to Assess Need for Renewable Energy Projects
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By William H. Carlile
Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) signed legislation (A.B. 498) that would allow the state's largest energy utility to delay building renewable energy projects required as part of a plan to replace the loss of coal-fired power produced at the Reid Gardner plant at Moapa. In a statement accompanying the signing June 10, Sandoval...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Animating the World of Plastics-to-Fuel Technologies
Jun 17, 2015 | Waste360
By Megan Greenwalt
Sometimes a little animation help makes thing a little clearer, even in the world of plastics-to-fuel technologies.
Recently, the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance created several educational tools to showcase plastics-to-fuel technologies as a viable end-of-life solution for keeping non-recycled plastics out of landfills. Using animation to break down the process for policy makers, state regulators, waste management professionals, municipal officials, the group produced a “Plastics-to-Fuel: Creating Energy from Non-Recycled Plastics” video to explain that process, also known as pyrolysis technology.
Additionally, the group released a guide to complement the video and help regulators classify and regulate plastics-to-fuel technologies, including a permitting checklist and two-page fact sheet.
Craig Cookson, director of sustainability and recycling for the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division in Washington, DC., sat down with Waste360 to discuss the purpose of the new video and guide and the benefits and challenges involved in plastics-to-fuel technologies.
Waste360: What is the American Chemistry Council and its Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance. Who are the members?
Craig Cookson: The American Chemistry Council’s Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance works to enhance public policy in support of technologies that convert non-recycled plastics into a variety of petroleum based products.
The Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance counts the following as its members: Agilyx Corporation (Beaverton, Ore.), Cynar Plc (London, UK), RES Polyflow (Akron, Ohio), Americas Styrenics (The Woodlands, Texas), Sealed Air (Charlotte, N.C.), and Tetra Tech (Pasadena, Calif.).
Waste360: What is the purpose of the video?
Craig Cookson: Our new animated video, “Plastics-to-Fuel: Creating Energy from Non-Recycled Plastics,” showcases plastics-to-fuel technologies as a viable end-of-life solution for non-recycled plastics and a complement to recycling. It explains pyrolysis technology—commonly known as plastics-to-fuel—and its potential to divert non-recycled plastics from landfills.
Waste360: Who is the target audience and what is its intended use?
Craig Cookson: The video aims to illustrate for policy makers, state regulators, waste management professionals, municipal officials, brand owners and others, the vast potential of these emerging technologies to help manage our post-use plastic resources more sustainably. It also points out some of the current regulatory challenges to wider adoption and explains how to overcome them.
Chief among these is the need to update existing laws and regulations so plastics-to-fuel technologies are classified as manufacturing facilities and/or producers of alternative energy. The process of converting non-recycled plastics to fuels and other petroleum products should not be considered waste disposal, but sometimes is categorized as such under state regulations.
Waste360: What is the “Regulatory Treatment of Plastics-to-Fuel Facilities” guide? What is its purpose?
Craig Cookson: The Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance recently released a guide, “Regulatory Treatment of Plastics-to-Fuel Facilities,” to help regulators better classify and regulate this family of technologies. The guide includes a permitting checklist and two-page fact sheet on regulating plastics-to-fuel technologies.
Waste360: What are the most popular plastics-to-fuel technologies and how do they work?
Craig Cookson: Plastics-to-fuel technologies can convert non-recycled used plastics into a range of useful fuels and manufacturing feedstocks. Depending on the specific technology chosen, these facilities can manufacture a variety of products, including synthetic crude oil or refined fuels for home heating; ingredients for diesel, gasoline and kerosene; or fuel for combined heat and power for industrial uses. Versatility makes plastics-to-fuel an exciting family of technologies.
Plastics-to-fuel conversion processes may vary, but most of them start when plastics that aren’t recycled are delivered to a processing facility. The next step is to remove any contaminants that might be present, like metal or glass, from the plastics stream. Then the plastics are heated without oxygen (a process called pyrolysis) until they melt and then gasify. The resulting gas is cooled and condensed into oil, fuels, and petroleum products, which can be used by manufacturers, by industrial users, or for transportation.
Waste360: What are the benefits and challenges of plastics-to-fuel technologies?
Craig Cookson: Plastics-to-fuel technologies are an emerging set of technologies that could bring about numerous environmental and economic benefits. For example, these technologies complement recycling and offer the potential to divert millions of pounds of resources from landfills annually, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions up to 60 to 70 percent over new crude oil extraction. One study showed that wide deployment of plastics-to-fuel technology across the United States could help create nearly 39,000 jobs, generate more than $2 billion in payrolls, and produce nearly $9 billion in economic output.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Introduces Bill to Develop Carbon Fiber Recycling
Jun 17, 2015 | Waste360
By Allan Gerlat
A U.S. senator has introduced a bill to develop the carbon fiber recycling business.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) established S. 1432, which calls for a study of the technology and energy savings of recycled carbon fiber and directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to collaborate with the automotive and aviation industry to develop a recycled carbon fiber demonstration project, according to a news release from the senator’s office.
Collaboration would better use federal investment and prevent duplicate spending, said the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
“We are ushering in a new era in carbon fiber. … But we also need to usher in this new era of recycling research because we know it’s going to be a highly used material,” Cantwell said.
Cantwell also called for DOE to collaborate with the Port of Port Angeles, Wash., and commended Port Commissioner Colleen McAleer for developing the Composite Recycling Technology Center, which recycles scrap fibers and converted a displaced workforce and unused facilities into a new market.
Carbon fiber composites are projected to have a worldwide market of $27 billion next year as it continues to have a transforming impact on the aerospace, automotive and energy sectors.
Large manufacturers and suppliers have agreed to donate their scrap carbon fiber to the center for recycling into recycled carbon fiber composites. Currently, only nine sites worldwide operate carbon fiber recycling.
“Since 2012, the Port of Port Angeles has spearheaded the idea of an advanced composites manufacturing, where industry and researchers share workspace and workforce,” McAleer said. “It would leverage our existing technologies and assets.”
Dr. Lynn Orr, undersecretary for science and energy at DOE, said that “carbon fiber materials are a very important component to our Vehicle Technologies office. One of the principal ways you can increase the efficiency of vehicle transport is to provide the same strength, but with lighter-weight materials. We have an active program in that area and are very interested in pursuing that going forward.”
The waste and recycling industry continues to pursue new technology opportunities. The American Chemistry Council’s Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance just created several educational tools to showcase plastics-to-fuel technologies as a viable end-of-life solution for keeping non-recycled plastics out of landfills. It came up with a instructional video and separate guide to help policy makers, state regulators, waste management professionals and municipal officials better understand the opportunities.
And metals recycling firm Metallix Refining Inc. further invested in the precious metals recycling industry with the purchase of a precious metals recycling facility in Maxton, N.C., from Umicore Precious Metals Recycling, which allows the company to significantly increase its catalytic converter recycling capacity.
-
EPA Decides Against Rebuilding Database On Status of IRIS Chemical Assessments
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency has decided not to rebuild IRISTrack, a database to report the status of chemical assessments undertaken by the agency's Integrated Risk Information System, and will instead update the IRIS Web page by the fall of 2015 to include assessment schedules, the agency said June 15.
In the interim, the EPA IRIS Web page now posts and updates a table showing the status and next steps for IRIS assessments for 23 chemicals the program currently is evaluating and it identifies which of the seven IRIS assessment stages each chemical is in.
Assessment information to be posted on the table in the future will include the result of EPA's effort to prioritize assessments on the 2012 IRIS agenda, which the agency continues to say will be released later this year.
At the urging of the National Academies and Congress, the IRIS program is trying to transform itself from an operation viewed by many as slow and opaque to one that produces clear assessments in a timely fashion.
One expected element of the IRIS program transformation is the release of its multiyear work plan—called the IRIS agenda—describing which chemicals the agency will work on over the next four or five years.
Kenneth Olden, director of the EPA research center that manages the IRIS program, said in October 2014 that a near-final work plan would soon be released by the agency. In February 2015, Vincent Cogliano, director of the IRIS program, said the IRIS agenda would be released in a couple of months (39 DEN A-18, 2/27/15).
Chemicals being assessed through the IRIS program and the strategies for the assessments are tracked by the regulated community, state agencies, environmental consultants and nongovernmental organizations, among others. They do so because the conclusions the agency makes about the human health hazards the chemicals pose and the doses at which those hazards may occur feed into risk assessments. Those risk assessments, in turn, help determine cleanup levels, water quality standards and other regulations or requirements.
IRIS Meeting, Workshop Rescheduled
In addition to the changes to the IRIS Web page, the agency said an IRIS meeting scheduled for Aug. 26-27 has been rescheduled to Sept. 24, and a risk assessment workshop focusing on exposure assessment that had been scheduled for Oct. 19-21 will be held Jan. 27-29, 2016.
The August meeting was rescheduled to accommodate scheduling associated with the end of summer and the Labor Day holiday. The rescheduled October meeting will focus on state-of-the-science methods to evaluate various exposure scenarios and associated human health effects, exposures to multiple pollutants and other topics.
The IRIS program's next meeting is June 17-18 to discuss health problems other than cancer that are associated with exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
-
Shell Draws Nearer to Approval for Arctic Exploration, Obtains Incidental Take Permit
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem
Royal Dutch Shell Plc received U.S. permission to disturb marine mammals as part of its plan to resume oil exploration off Alaska's Arctic coast as it neared final sign-off from regulators to drill this summer.
The last step in the process, approval of a specific drilling plan from the Interior Department, could come soon, clearing the way for Shell to resume operations that were halted in 2012. The Arctic exploration season begins on July 15.
“There is nothing to indicate any show stoppers” in Shell's application, said Brian Salerno, the director of the Interior Department's offshore safety bureau. The back-and-forth between the company and regulators “are proceeding,” he told reporters June 16 after testifying before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources about Arctic issues.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued an “incidental harassment authorization,” which allows noise from air guns, ice-breaking, drilling and anchor handling that may disturb whales or seals (RIN 0648–XD732; 80 Fed. Reg. 34,371). The permit doesn't allow Shell to injure or kill any marine life.
Shell has won general approval from the department for oil exploration in the coming months. The Hague-based company still must gain backing for a specific drilling plan from Interior's offshore regulator, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and work around ice floes and other vagaries of being 70 miles offshore Alaska in the Chukchi Sea (91 DEN A-2, 5/12/15).
24 Billion Barrels of Oil
The U.S. Arctic seas contain an estimated 24 billion barrels of undiscovered oil reserves, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Environmental groups, citing the difficulties in operating in extreme conditions, say producing oil in the Arctic is a mistake. In addition, they say plans for mammal disturbance show that the risks are too great to threatened species and native communities that rely on them.
“Many of America's most beloved marine creatures thrive here, including whales, walrus, seals and countless birds,” Cindy Shogan, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, said in a statement.
-
Interior Disputes Parts Of Doe Advisers’ Arctic Drilling Report
Jun 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement today disputed some of the National Petroleum Council’s conclusions issued in its March report on Arctic oil and gas drilling.
BSEE chief Brian Salerno told the House Natural Resources Committee’s energy subpanel that he had contacted his Canadian counterparts to follow up on a suggestion in the NPC report that Canada was considering alternatives to a requirement in the Obama administration’s proposed Arctic drilling safety rules that companies have the capability to build a relief well in the same drilling season that the production well is drilled.
Contrary to that suggestion by NPC, “Canada recently affirmed the same season relief well requirement,” Salerno said in his prepared remarks.
Salerno also challenged NPC’s criticism of the limits on drilling during the Arctic shoulder season that Interior included in its safety proposal. “While this does shorten the season for certain types of operations, it ensures there is appropriate time to respond to an oil spill before the water is frozen over,” he said.
Two Democrats on the natural resources panel also slammed NPC as overly dominated by the oil and gas industry, while the GOP noted that its members are tapped by the Energy Department. -
House Panel Debates 'Prescriptive' Standards In Interior Rule
Jun 17, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A draft Obama administration rule for how companies search for oil in the Arctic Ocean is heavy on mandates and will stifle the industry's ability to develop new and safer drilling technologies, witnesses told a House Natural Resources panel yesterday.
Yet Democrats on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee and an administration witness said the Interior Department's draft Arctic rule is a crucial step to preventing an oil spill from fouling pristine Arctic waters.
At issue at yesterday's hearing is a draft rule unveiled in February by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement that would require oil and gas operators in the Arctic to maintain access to well control and containment equipment and have a separate rig available to drill a relief well in the event of a blowout, among other provisions (E&ENews PM, Feb. 20).
The rule imposes exorbitant costs and contains "antiquated prescriptive regulations," rather than performance-based standards, that will stifle innovation, said panel Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.).
Lamborn and pro-oil witnesses said the administration's rule ignores recommendations issued by the National Petroleum Council at the request of the Department of Energy.
The council's draft report released in late March concluded that tapping oil and gas deposits in the U.S. Arctic region would raise the nation's stature as a top energy producer for at least the next 35 years and could offset future slumps in energy production from the continental United States (ClimateWire, March 30). It found that fossil fuels in the region can be developed in an environmentally friendly way due to improvements in the extraction industry's technologies. And while it said oil and gas development in the region poses "some different challenges," it found that the Arctic environment is "generally well understood."
The more than 250 people who collaborated on the NPC report "came from all sectors," said Drue Pearce, a senior policy adviser at the law firm Crowell & Moring LLP who served on a subcommittee of the council’s study and is a former Republican state lawmaker in Alaska. "This is in contrast to the Arctic regulations, which were apparently written with little or no true collaboration and certainly without the debate that we had."
But Democrats on the panel said the NPC was primarily led by industry officials and its findings should be taken with a grain of salt.
"The leadership of this report, it's very clear, was Exxon Mobil, Exxon Mobil, Exxon Mobil," said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). "We should take this study for what it is: It's an industry-sponsored effort."
Brian Salerno, director of BSEE, called the NPC draft a "good study," though he said he disagrees with some of its conclusions, namely its discussion of an "alternative well kill system" that Salerno argued has not been proved to work.
Much of the debate at yesterday's hearing was over the proper balance of prescriptive- versus performance-based standards as the U.S. seeks to develop its vast Arctic oil and gas resources.
Republicans and industry critics have warned that the BOEM-BSEE rule's requirement for an on-site relief rig is costly and ignores other oil spill containment strategies such as the use of a capping stack.
"We need to keep our minds open to technological advances that can accomplish the same goal without being overly prescriptive," said Richard Glenn, executive vice president of the Alaska Native-owned Arctic Slope Regional Corp., which supports drilling in Alaska's outer continental shelf. In his written testimony, Glenn warned the Obama administration rule "could ultimately frustrate development" in the Arctic.
Pearce added in her written testimony that "the requirement for a same season relief well has resulted in the length of the drilling season to be dramatically shortened in order for this outmoded technology to be utilized in the event of an incident, never mind the fact that an incident is highly unlikely due to the shallow water depth and low reservoir pressures extant in the Chukchi Sea."
Christine Resler, who works for the oil and gas service provider Schlumberger Ltd., said regulators should focus on the "primary barriers" preventing oil spills, including blowout preventers, well casing and effective well design, and that regulations should be flexible enough to accommodate evolving technologies.
Salerno said the Interior rule makes room for innovations, but he said other Arctic countries including Norway have imposed similar prescriptive requirements for the availability of relief wells.
He added that the administration's proposed rule does not require that relief wells remain idle (Royal Dutch Shell PLC, for example, plans to use both its rigs to drill at the same time this summer in the Chukchi Sea, with one serving as the other's relief well if needed). Moreover, if there are two companies operating in the Arctic, they could each serve as each other's backup rig, he said.
While Salerno agreed with other witnesses that the risk of a blowout in the Arctic -- where companies are drilling in shallower waters into lower-pressure formations than in the Gulf of Mexico -- is comparatively low, he said there would be far greater challenges to responding to unforeseen events.
"Unlike drilling activities in the Gulf of Mexico, where all of the capabilities needed to respond to emergencies are within comparatively easy reach, the Arctic is remote, there's a lack of infrastructure, frequent adverse weather, ice conditions and a very short open water season," he said. "If the operator does not have the needed capability on hand to respond to an emergency, it is unlikely that that capability will arrive on time before the onset of ice."
Salerno also noted drawbacks to performance-based standards, namely that they are more difficult to administer and are susceptible to legal challenges.
Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel at the environmental group Oceana, said the new Interior rule "is an important but incremental step," but is not enough to make Arctic drilling safe.
"It is not fully precautionary, does not mandate that spill response be demonstrated in Arctic conditions, does not affect currently proposed exploration activities, and does not take the place of needed holistic planning," he said.
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), the panel's ranking member, said accusations that the Obama administration is stifling Arctic drilling are unfounded. Industry, particularly Shell, should be "grateful" that the Obama administration continues to endorse Arctic development despite past missteps in the region, he said.
"When you're dealing with an area as remote, fragile and irreplaceable as the Arctic, the question should be, 'Are we taking every possible precaution?'" he said. "Because mistakes will be made and the unexpected will happen, and if you're not prepared for every possibility, you risk destroying an entire ecosystem and an entire culture."
-
Farmers Cite EPA Audit Of UIC Program In RICO Suit Against State, Oil Firms
Jun 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
An agricultural organization that has sued the California officials and several oil companies for allegedly violating federal racketeering statutes by allowing wastewater injection into underground water supplies in the Central Valley is citing EPA audits and reviews of the state's underground injection control (UIC) program, which have been at the center of controversy as lawmakers have weighed tightening oil and gas drilling regulations.
The case, Committee to Protect Our Agricultural Water v. Occidental Oil and Gas Corp., et al., was filed June 3 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff group describes itself as a "citizen organization comprised of farmers, business owners, and individuals concerned about the environment and quality of life in California." It includes businesses and farms "that grow food products, including almonds, cherries, and pistachios."
In addition to Occidental, defendants named in the lawsuit include Gov. Jerry Brown (D), the Western States Petroleum Association, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., the state Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and current and former DOGGR officials.
The agriculture group alleges that the defendants "formed an 'enterprise' to achieve through illegal means the goal of increasing oil production and maximizing profits and tax revenue by allowing the oil companies to inject salt water into fresh water in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), according to the complaint for conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and deprivation of civil rights.
In addition, the "enterprise" engaged in conspiracy to defraud the United States by obtaining federal funds in 2012, 2013, and 2014 under the SDWA; intimidation of witnesses engaged in free exercise of speech or Constitutional right to protect their community from water contamination; mail fraud; and wire fraud, according to the complaint.
Further, the defendants misappropriated federal funds for the protection of water; made "misrepresentations" at a recent California Senate hearing; interfered with local communities trying to protect their water; participated in secret meetings and communications with regulated companies to adopt public policies, violating the California Environmental Quality Act; withheld information under the California Public Records Act; and intimidated and threatened witnesses who discovered contaminated water, the group alleges.
Program Audit
The complaint cites an audit of the DOGGR UIC program, conducted by EPA in 2011, which concluded that California improperly approved permits for underground injection wells. EPA "noted many problems and ordered DOGGR to adopt regulations to 'clearly require the District Offices to protect [underground sources of drinking water] to the federally defined standard . . . in the permitting, construction, operation, and abandonment of Class II Injection wells,'" the complaint states.
But oil companies continued to violate the SDWA, and asked DOGGR for an exception to the rules, the complaint further states. "One exception requested would be for underground injection wells that replaced another injection well or reworked an oil well. Most injection permits fall into this exception. Thus, the proposed exception would violate the [SDWA] and allow for injections with little or no consideration to underground water."
After the previous DOGGR chief refused to grant the industry requests, the "oil companies complained to [Brown] whose administration met with and ordered [the chief] to approve the permits as requested by the oil companies," the complaint claims, but the chief refused to violate the law.
Brown then fired the chief and transitioned the position to a "political appointment, ensuring that he could direct and control the new State Supervisor," the complaint says.
A new "flexible" approach was then pursued by DOGGR to approve permits "without the required documents," the suit charges. "The oil companies went from receiving the typical 50 permits a year to 1,575 permits in 2012 alone."
Sodium chloride levels increased to such a level that the chloride in underground water exceeded the maximum contaminant level allowed under the law, according to the farmer group. Excess chloride and total dissolved solids began damaging orchards, the complaint says.
DOGGR's flexible approach "became notorious on Feb. 6, 2015 when DOGGR admitted it approved 532 permits to oil companies injecting directly into water protected" by the SDWA, the complaint adds.
Over the past several years, Occidental and Chevron have injected an average of 463 million gallons of contaminated water into fresh water each month, the lawsuit also claims.
Federal Regulations
DOGGR recently asked EPA to allow the oil companies to inject into protected water, as part of a long-term plan to eventually come into compliance with federal UIC regulations.
The suit seeks millions of dollars in alleged lost income and costs for remediation of contaminated water supplies, according to recent media reports. The plaintiffs also seek an injunction mandating the public disclosure of any studies conducted by the state and local officials "who conspired with the oil companies to approve these injections," the complaint says.
In addition, the plaintiffs seek a declaration from the court "revoking any illicitly obtained permits and requiring compliance with the laws designed to protect the water."
Spokesmen with DOGGR and Chevron did not return requests for comment.
During a February press conference call, DOGGR Chief Steve Bohlen said that out of the 532 permits approved to inject waste into federally protected drinking water wells, about 109 are idle. There are 87 active wells in the so-called 11 aquifers whose exemption from the SDWA has been "confused," Bohlen said during the call earlier this year.
Further, Bohlen claimed that wells disposing Class II fluids, or produced water from oil wells, into aquifers that are under 3,000 micrograms per liter of total dissolved solids "are not pristine," but do contain water of a high quality. "But the water would need to undergo some considerable treatment to be actual drinking water," or water defined as useable for beneficial uses, he said. Some of this water contains high boron and arsenic levels and is not potable, he added.
-
Riders Limiting Federal Rules on Fracking, Ozone Added to EPA, Interior Funding Bill
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
House appropriators moved to limit the federal government's ability to regulate ozone pollution and hydraulic fracturing by adding riders to the fiscal year 2016 bill funding the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and other related agencies.
In a June 16 markup, the House Appropriations Committee approved the nearly $30.2 billion federal spending bill on a straight party-line vote, sending it to the House floor. Later in the day, a Senate subcommittee marked up its version of the bill (see related story).
During the session, the committee's 51 members changed little about the bill. They considered more than a dozen amendments but adopted only six, none of which significantly changed the bill's funding levels or removed any of its most ideologically charged policy provisions (111 DEN A-4, 6/10/15).
More Riders
In fact, the committee added several more policy provisions to the bill.
One, from Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.), would block the EPA from implementing tighter ozone pollution standards in fiscal 2016 unless at least 85 percent of counties meet the current standards.
The committee adopted Jenkins' amendment on a 31-20 vote, with Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas) joining all of the committee's Republicans in the majority.
The committee also adopted on a voice vote an amendment from Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) that would prevent the Bureau of Land Management from implementing new regulations on hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands (55 DEN A-14, 3/23/15).
Democrats Unsuccessful
Democrats repeatedly tried to no avail to strip the bill of policy riders. They offered six amendments that would have struck down riders on topics ranging from the listing of the sage grouse to restrictions on the waters of the U.S. rule, all of which were rejected.
Cuellar and Rep. Sanford D. Bishop Jr., (D-Ga.), frequently joined with the Republican majority in voting against these amendments from their fellow Democrats.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee that handled the bill, said allowing these riders is a backdoor way for members to pass measures that couldn't stand on their own.
The backers of these riders “have turned our committee into the people who are going to carry their load,” she said. “We need to stop and return this appropriations bill back from being a legislative grab bag of treats for special interests.”
However, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the chairman of the subcommittee, responded that these riders are necessary to counter executive branch overreach.
Setting Up a Veto?
The day before the House committee's markup, Shaun Donovan, director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent a letter to Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), the committee's chairman, expressing serious concerns with the bill.
Its sequester-level funding would “underfund investments critical to environmentally-sound economic growth,” Donovan wrote.
Donovan particularly objected to the policy riders in the bill, which “threaten to undermine an orderly appropriations process,” he wrote.
The OMB has sent similar letters to appropriations subcommittee chairmen in the House and the Senate listing the Obama administration's concerns with each spending bill they have taken up thus far.
If the White House vetoes this or other appropriations bills, it could set up another government shutdown. The two sides would need to resolve their differences before the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30 to avert a shutdown.
Speaking to Bloomberg BNA after the markup, Calvert said it was “too soon to comment” on the possibility of a White House veto and how his party would respond.
-
Senate's Interior-EPA Spending Bill Would Halt WOTUS, Clean Power Plan
Jun 16, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka and Phil Taylor
A Senate fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA contains policy riders and funding levels aimed at "aggressively" curtailing environmental regulations.
In opening up a markup of the draft bill today, Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said the draft contains language that would stop EPA's final rule to change the water bodies in the United States that get automatic protection under the Clean Water Act.
The bill also would halt EPA from putting in place a federal implementation plan for states that don't comply with the Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and would delay EPA's ability to set a new ozone standard, among other policy riders.
It would also cut funding from EPA's legal department, which Murkowski charged was "finding creative justifications for writing rules that go far beyond Congress' intent."
The bill "aggressively deals with the EPA's regulatory overreach" and "reflects the will of many members to rein in an agency that is overstepping its bounds," Murkowski said.
The subcommittee today reported the draft legislation to the Senate Appropriations Committee without any changes.
Most of the debate over the bill is expected to take place at the full Appropriations Committee markup Thursday. The full House Appropriations Committee today took up its fiscal 2016 spending plan for the combined agencies, which also includes many policy provisions aimed at Obama administration regulations.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee, today slammed the draft Senate language, which has not yet been released to the public, and called it a "backdoor attempt" to undermine environmental regulations.
In a major break from the House spending measure, Murkowski's bill would allow a fire cap adjustment that seeks to prevent "fire borrowing," which happens when the Forest Service runs out of wildfire suppression funds and must raid non-fire accounts.
The provision appears to be a partial win for the Obama administration, which proposed funding about 70 percent of the anticipated cost to suppress wildfires within the discretionary budget, and funding any additional needs from nondiscretionary disaster funds. Murkowski said her bill requires the 10-year cost of suppression to be funded before disaster funds may be accessed.
"Stopping fire borrowing should have enormous benefits for both the Department of Interior and the Forest Service as land managers will not have to hold back funds in anticipation of a catastrophic fire season," she said.
Murkowski said her bill would also authorize a gravel road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to improve emergency medical access for the remote city of King Cove.
Authorization of the road is likely to be strongly opposed by the Obama administration and conservationists who argue it threatens a pristine wilderness. Such language does not exist in the House bill.
Like the House measure, Murkowski's bill also would continue a prohibition on the Fish and Wildlife Service listing the greater sage grouse as a threatened or endangered species.
-
Senate Clears Bill Slashing EPA Budget And Targeting Regulations
Jun 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The Senate’s Interior-EPA spending panel approved a 2016 spending bill on Tuesday that cuts funding for EPA and includes a series of policy riders designed to hamper key administration environmental initiatives.
The $30 billion package includes $7.6 billion for EPA, a $538.8 million cut below 2015’s enacted budget.
It includes policy riders that would block all or parts of EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations for power plants, the forthcoming ozone standard, the Waters of the United States rule and the Interior Department’s fracking rule, among other programs, according to lawmakers.
The bill also authorizes the construction of an emergency access road to the remote Alaskan community of King Cove, a project long sought by Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
“It’s important to me, it’s important to my state,” she said, adding that she has sought a “balance” between environmental protection and saving lives.
In keeping with Senate tradition, no amendments were offered at the subcommittee markup.
The full Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up the Interior-EPA spending bill, with amendments, on Thursday morning, along with the 2016 Homeland Security bill.
The House Appropriations Committee earlier today cleared its own Interior-EPA spending bill that included many of the same policy riders and cut EPA’s budget by about 9 percent. -
House Panel Approves $30.17b Bill Cutting EPA Funds, Blocking 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 regulating 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.”
-
Senate, House EPA FY16 Cuts, Policy Limits Ensure Fight With White House
Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Senate Republicans are pushing an EPA appropriations bill that would cut the agency's fiscal year 2016 budget $538 million from its existing $8.13 billion funding and block major water and ozone rules, ensuring a fight with the White House which is already opposing a House bill with similar policy riders and a $718 million budget cut.
“The inadequate overall funding levels in the Republicans' 2016 budget framework, along with misplaced priorities, lead to a number of problems with the Subcommittee bill specifically,” says White House Office of Management & Budget Director Shawn Donovan in a June 15 letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY), citing the EPA funding cuts and policy restrictions as among the problematic provisions.
The proposed $718 million budget cut in the House legislation would “significantly undermine” the agency's ability to implement its Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and hinder swift implementation of EPA's recent final Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, Donovan says.
Citing the policy provisions that would block the CWA and utility rules, he adds, “The bill also includes numerous highly problematic ideological riders. These riders threaten to undermine the most basic protections for America's special places and the people and wildlife that rely on them, as well as the ability of States and communities to address climate change and protect a resource that is essential to America's health -- clean water.”
But the full House Appropriations Committee at a June 16 markup voted to add further riders to its bill that would barr EPA from revising its ozone air standard, and a separate provision blocking implementation of the recent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule setting requirements for hydraulic fracturing on federal land.
Donovan's letter suggests that those additional riders will also prompt administration push-back. While the letter only addresses the House bill, it could hint at the concerns the administration might raise over the Senate's version of the legislation that the upper chamber's appropriations committee interior panel marked up June 16.
The Senate bill would impose a $538 million cut to the agency's budget -- just $180 million less than the House cut -- and block the CWA rule and a pending tightening of EPA's ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). It would not block the power plant GHG rule but would allow states to opt out of it.
Funding cuts would be mainly targeted at the state revolving funds (SRFs), which support state water infrastructure construction, and EPA's core regulatory programs. However, a statement by the Senate Appropriations Committee's GOP majority says “on-the-ground cleanup programs” would receive a $21.5 million boost.
“This funding level is intended to return the agency to its core mission of cleaning up environmental problems instead of writing costly rules that will harm the economy,” the summary says.
Text of the Senate bill was not available at press time, but it appears to set the SRFs at a slightly higher level than those sought by the House, which would give a combined $1.759 billion to the two funds. Under the House plan EPA's clean water SRF would be cut by $430 million or 30 percent, from the current $1.45 billion to $1.02 billion, while the drinking water SRF would drop from its current $906 million funding to $757 million, a 16 percent cut.
The proposed cuts contrast with President Obama's FY16 budget proposal that would cut the clean water SRF by $332 million down to $1.12 billion, but shift almost the entire amount of the cut into raising the drinking water SRF by $279 million, up to $1.186 billion.
Senate Legislation
Although the Senate GOP's fact sheet does not specify funding levels for individual accounts, a separate statement from subcommittee ranking member Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) says the bill would fund the agency's water infrastructure SRFs at a combined $1.8 billion. Currently the funds receive a combined $2.4 billion per year, with $1.45 billion going to the clean water SRF and $906 million to the drinking water SRF.
Speaking at the upper chamber's June 16 markup, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who chairs the interior appropriations subcommittee, said the cuts were necessary to fit within discretionary spending caps and to rein in EPA's rulemaking activity.
Republicans also say the policy restrictions -- including blocking the CWA rule and stricter ozone NAAQS, and allowing opt-outs of the GHG utility rule -- aim to end “executive overreach.”
“I thank my subcommittee colleagues for the time and energy they spent crafting this legislation that balances responsible spending while still producing a bill that reflects the will and priorities of the nation,” Murkowski said in a statement that accompanied the bill summary. “The last time an Interior bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee was six years ago, and this document represents the Senate’s return to normal order and marks an important occasion that is long overdue.”
Udall, ranking member on the Senate subcommittee, countered that the bill “includes dangerous policy riders that undermine environmental laws that have kept our air and water clean, protected imperiled species and safeguarded sensitive ecosystems for decades. These riders set back efforts to reduce climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions and they put the health of our communities, families and environment at risk.”
White House opposition to the funding cuts and policy limits could lead to many Democrats voting against the House and Senate measures. But Republicans have not indicated any compromise and said they will “dare” the administration to veto the spending bills if they clear both chambers of Congress.
If the Republican majority manages to move the appropriations bills to Obama's desk and the president vetoes them, it could prompt a stalemate if lawmakers supportive of the measures lack the votes to overturn the vetoes. That could lead to Congress having to approve a continuing resolution that would simply extend existing funding levels, something that lawmakers have had to do in recent years given an impasse over budget bills.
At the House markup, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) warned that the policy riders are effectively “veto-bait provisions” that could provoke another budget stand-off with the White House.
Policy Restrictions
Such an impasse could occur again in FY16 due to the policy restrictions in the funding bills. The proposed Senate bill includes a rider mirroring the House bill that would bar EPA from implementing its controversial final rule defining which waters are “jurisdictional” under the CWA and thus subject to permit mandates and other requirements.
But it stops short of blocking the proposed power plant GHG rules -- known as the Clean Power Plan -- as the House bill would, instead allowing individual states to opt out of the federal standards and barring EPA from imposing federal plans on such states that would otherwise force them into compliance with the regulations.
Similarly, while the House legislation would block implementation of the BLM fracking rule entirely, the Senate bill would restrict its application to only those states that have not enacted their own regulations for the practice.
However, the Senate bill mirrors other riders in the House legislation, such as a prohibition on new financial assurance rules for the mining industry that the bill summary calls “duplicative.”
It also introduces new language barring implementation of a White House Council on Environmental Quality guidance on assessing projects' impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Speaking to reporters after the markup, Murkowski said “we don't agree that GHGs are covered under NEPA.”
Both bills would bar EPA from moving forward with its proposed tightening of the 2008 ozone NAAQS until at least 85 percent of counties nationwide are in compliance with the current standard.
The ozone rider was included in the proposed version of the Senate bill, while House appropriators added the rider to their bill in the full committee markup by a party-line vote.
At the House markup, the GOP majority blocked Democratic amendments to strip other riders from the legislation -- including one amendment that would have removed 24 riders at once, and three individual measures aimed at the GHG rider, CWA jurisdiction ban, and SRF cuts individually. While the House bill is almost guaranteed to win passage, the fate of the Senate legislation is unclear since Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has threatened to filibuster spending bills unless the GOP agrees to abandon discretionary spending caps known as the sequester.
-
Moves Against Obama Green Agenda Via Spending
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate spending panel voted Tuesday to block or weaken key Obama administration environmental rules on climate change, water and other subjects.
The bill would fund the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Interior Department and other related agencies at $30.01 billion for the 2016 fiscal year, about $400 million less than what Congress passed for this year.It would overturn the EPA’s rule asserting power over small waterways like wetlands and streams and prevent it from writing a strict new rule on ground-level ozone pollution.
Under the bill, administration officials would not be allowed to enforce the EPA’s carbon limits for power plants in states that object, or enforce the Interior Department’s regulations on hydraulic fracturing in states that already have such rules.
It is the first time the Senate has passed an Interior and EPA spending bill through subcommittee in six years.
“This bill aggressively deals with the EPA’s regulatory overreach on both the funding end and the sensible policy provisions,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the subcommittee responsible for writing the bill, said at the Tuesday meetings to consider it.
The panel did not release the entire language of the bill, though lawmakers announced some of the major provisions and funding levels.
The legislation aims to significantly cut so-called “fire borrowing,” in which federal agencies take funds from other programs to meet wildfire needs that exceed their budgets.
It also slashes funding for the EPA’s legal departments, which Murkowski accused of “finding creative justifications for writing rules that go far beyond what Congress intended when important environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were enacted,” including the rules that the bill would block or weaken.
The bill would also force the Interior Department to allow construction of a 10-mile road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a road that Murkowski has fought to build for years in order to help residents of King Cove reach the nearest port.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) castigated the Republicans for what he called “ideological” policy provisions that do not belong in spending legislation.
“This bill takes dead aim at core environmental laws that for decades protected the health of our communities, our families and our environment, and were for decades bipartisan,” Udall said. “It weakens the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other important laws, and would weaken them permanently.”
But Republicans applauded Murkowski’s provisions.
“I voted for most of the clean air provisions in the Senate, but the Clean Power Plan strikes me as extremely arbitrary,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said of the carbon rules for power plants.
He said the ozone rule from the EPA is “like moving the goalposts just as you’re about to get to the goal line.”
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) applauded blocking the water rule.
“I think there really is bipartisan support that that provision be defunded, and that it truly is a problem as has been proposed by the EPA,” he said.
The Senate panel approved its bill by voice vote, and Udall said that although he wants to try to remove the environmental regulation provisions, he will withhold those amendments until the full Appropriations Committee votes on the bill.
Earlier in the day, the House Appropriations Committee voted to approve its version of the Interior and EPA bill, with some similar policy provisions and a slightly higher funding level.
-
GOP Lawmakers Advance Tight EPA Budgets
Jun 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén and Darren Goode
Congressional Republicans moved to dismantle the Obama administration’s environmental agenda on Tuesday, pushing spending bills through committees that would shrink the EPA and prevent the agency from enacting a range of major rules on issues from climate change to water pollution.
Though Senate appropriators showed a little more finesse on the policy, neither their bill nor the one that passed a House panel would likely escape a White House veto threat.
Some policy riders in the Senate would give the administration more wiggle room than the ones approved by their House counterparts, but Democrats still slammed them both as “veto bait” and “poison pills.”
The House kicked off Tuesday’s appropriations activities when the full spending committee voted 30-21 along party lines to send its $30.17 billion Interior Department-EPA 2016 spending bill to the floor. That legislation put EPA’s budget at $7.4 billion for EPA, down 9 percent or $718 million from 2015 enacted spending.
The Senate’s Interior-EPA appropriations panel was slightly more generous to EPA, passing a $30.01 billion bill that will go to a full committee markup on Thursday that includes $7.6 billion for the agency, a $539 million reduction.
Despite the $200 million difference, Republicans on both sides of the Hill were on the same page in blasting EPA and its regulatory agenda.
EPA is “one agency that can certainly do with less,” said House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), adding that the goal of the proposal was to encourage the agency “to streamline its operations and focus on its core duties rather than meddling in an unnecessary job-killing regulatory agenda.”
Senate Interior-EPA spending Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) echoed that, saying, “This bill aggressively deals with EPA’s regulatory overreach on both the funding and the sensible policy provisions.”
The Senate measure did include some funding increases for activities like Superfund cleanups, but Murkowski said she was happy to cut funds for EPA’s legal division “where they are finding creative justifications for writing rules that go far beyond what Congress intended.”
As expected, the Republican proposals drew sharp rebukes from Democrats in both chambers.
“This is the latest in a series of bills that drastically shortchanges job-creating investments and vital environmental protections while carrying a wish list of special interest giveaways,” House Appropriations ranking member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said at the start of the more-than-three-hour markup. “My friends, how much longer do we have to play this charade before the committee writes bills that could be enacted?”
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) proclaimed he was “extremely disappointed” with the package, though neither he nor any other Democrats tried to stop the subcommittee’s approval of the bill, following Senate tradition of passing appropriations bills out of subcommittee without formal opposition. At least some Democrats are likely to vote against the measure in full committee.
“Although many of these provisions are dressed up as funding limitations, what we’re seeing here is nothing less than a backdoor attempt to rewrite the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws,” Udall said.
At risk for Democrats are some of Barack Obama’s highest environmental priorities: the first-ever climate change rules for the nation’s power plants under the EPA’s Clean Power Power Plan that will be finalized this summer; new standards to govern fracking on federal lands; and plans to reduce ozone pollution.
The House bill emerged from the subcommittee last week full of riders intended to quash EPA’s Waters of the United States rule, a controversial regulation that has become a top target of the GOP, as well as hard-line policy riders regarding the upcoming power plant rules, while others that blocked the Bureau of Land Management from enforcing its regulations on fracking.
The Senate’s bill also went after the EPA’s Clean Power Power Plan and the Interior racking rule, but allowed the administration slightly more room to maneuver. Under that bill, states could still move forward with their own plans to comply with the carbon rule if they wished, but the federal government would not be able to take action against states that refuse to comply.
That means, Murkowski said, that it’s not an outright ban on the rule.
”If the state has moved forward with their plan, not a problem there,” she told reporters after the markup. “But if they have not, it will not mandate or require that a federal plan be put in place.”
States would enjoy similar protection from the fracking rule.
“If a state has a fracking rule or provisions in place, then there is no federal overlay also of fracking regulations,” Murkowski said. “It’s basically deferring to the states.”
Those modest differences aren’t likely to make much of an impression on the White House. The Office of Management and Budget on Monday night wrote to lawmakers that the House bill’s “shortsighted funding cuts would undermine fiscal responsibility, national conservation and environmental priorities, and economic competitiveness.”
The two chambers largely agreed on a bevy of other riders such as preventing EPA from issuing a new ozone standard until 85 percent of counties not yet in compliance with a 2008 standard are in attainment, and going after the potential Endangered Species Act listing of the sage grouse.
The Senate bill includes a measure long sought by Murkowski to bypass the Interior Department and build an emergency access road that would connect King Cove, Alaska to an all-weather airport, an issue that has caused a lot of tension between her and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.
The King Cove road would cut through part of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, and the administration’s rejection of a deal that would have approved the road in exchange for a major land swap enraged the Alaska Republican last year.
“It is not a 300-to-1 [land] exchange that we had actually put into law some years ago,” she said on Tuesday. “But it basically allows for that exchange to take place between the state and the feds, with no cost to the federal taxpayer.”
House Democrats did try to strip many of the Republican “veto-bait” measures, but an amendment by Interior-EPA ranking member Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) that would have eliminated 24 of the riders fell on a 19-32 vote, as did other narrower efforts to remove riders targeting the navigable waters and greenhouse gas rules and Endangered Species Act protections for the sage grouse, grey wolves and northern long-eared bats. It remains unclear whether Democrats will attempt something similar during the full Senate committee markup on Thursday.
Republicans are better positioned this year to keep the riders in the spending bills that make it to the president’s desk, and with the Senate in Republican hands, it can make its own inroads to curbing EPA and Interior decisions.
That doesn’t mean lawmakers have much of a chance to withstand a presidential veto, though Murkowski shrugged off the threat.
“If I lay awake worrying about what the president was or wasn’t going to be doing with an appropriations bill or the other bills that we have in front of us like my energy bill, I’d never get any sleep,” she said.
House floor debate hasn’t been scheduled yet. The Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to mark up the Interior-EPA bill on Thursday morning.
-
Environmentalists Lobbying to Keep Rider On Stream Protection Out of Senate Bill
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Environmental groups are lobbying Senate appropriators to forgo a policy rider barring changes to an existing stream buffer rule when they take up a fiscal year 2016 funding bill.
A rider to block FY 2016 changes to a rule that governs how close mining waste can be dumped to streams made it into the corresponding $30.2 billion House FY 2016 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
It wasn't included in the summary of the $30 billion Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee bill released June 16, but it's unclear if all riders were included.
Some environmentalists worry that if both chambers include the rider, it would drive the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to offer a final rule that is less protective of stream health. Others are concerned that the rider's inclusion could lead to additional delays for the rule.
“We want the stream protection rule to be as strong as possible,” Thom Kay, a legislative associate who has been lobbying on the issue for Appalachian Voices, told Bloomberg BNA June 12. “One of the things that can make it weaker is pressure from Congress.”
Offer Glimpse Into Process
This lobbying effort by environmental groups, including Earthjustice, offers a glimpse into what can be an opaque appropriations process.
Policy riders can restrict funding for specific activities in that fiscal year. But some riders have made it into several consecutive funding bills, effectively barring new policies for years.
A spokesman for the Senate Appropriations Committee didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA's question regarding whether the summary included all policy riders.
The Office of Surface Mining is expected to propose the rule in June to update current stream buffer requirements. The current rule prohibits dumping of mining waste within 100 feet of a stream.
Mining groups are concerned about the potential economic damage that could stem from updating the stream rule, while environmental groups say current protections for streams aren't being adequately enforced.
Efforts in recent years to develop a rule on this issue—the rule hasn't been updated since the 1980s—have been the subject of congressional investigations, bills, hearings and separate court litigation.
But addressing the rule as a policy rider in an appropriations bill is a relatively new approach for this particular issue (98 DEN A-1, 5/21/15).
Earthjustice Meeting With Appropriators
Chris Espinosa, a legislative representative for Earthjustice, told Bloomberg BNA June 16 that his group has been meeting with and reaching out to Senate appropriators, as well as other senators and policy makers, on the stream protection rider and on other riders that could derail President Barack Obama's environmental agenda.
There is significant new science that needs to be taken into account to update the stream protection rule, he said.
“Appropriations legislation is for critical funding decisions on the nation's priorities. It is not to weigh in on complex policy,” Espinosa told Bloomberg BNA, highlighting that agencies have the expertise to deal with these policy issues.
Policy riders can still be changed in both chambers. The House bill passed the full committee with its rider intact June 16 and will next move to the floor (see related story).
The Senate bill, approved by the subcommittee June 16, now moves to the full committee (see related story).
White House Raised Objections
Whatever Congress does to these bills, the fate of the appropriations bills and this rider could be with the president, who can veto the bills. The White House highlighted in a statement June 15 the stream protection rider is one of the “numerous highly problematic ideological riders” the administration opposes in the House EPA and Interior funding bill.
The National Mining Association and the Office of Surface Mining didn't respond to messages from Bloomberg BNA requesting comment. The offices of Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) also didn't respond to messages requesting comment.
-
How Mitch McConnell Is Attacking Obama's EPA
Jun 16, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he joined the appropriations subcommittee in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency this year to "fight back against this administration's anti-coal jobs regulations." Looks like he's doing just that.
The fiscal 2016 spending bill passed by the Interior and Environment Subcommittee Tuesday includes language that would bar federal enforcement of the EPA's rules limiting greenhouse-gas emissions for existing power plants. That would allow states to opt out of the rule without fear of the EPA stepping in with a federal implementation plan.
The rider on the EPA's power-plant rule would represent a significant blow to President Obama's climate plan by giving states the opportunity to sit out rather than crafting an individual plan to clean up its power plants and improve energy efficiency. McConnell has been pushing his "just say no" plan to governors, warning that the climate rule will kill jobs while delivering minimal environmental benefits.
McConnell earlier this year wrote to all 50 governors telling them to sit out the EPA rule, saying the plan was "already on shaky legal grounds" and that EPA was out of bounds in requiring states to write plans to cut their emissions. So far only one governor, Oklahoma's Mary Fallin, has said publicly she would opt out, although Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, an expected presidential candidate, has indicated he would opt out as well.
Overall, the $30.01 billion bill would cut $539 million from the EPA compared to the fiscal 2015 enacted levels, for a total funding level of $7.6 billion. That's also well below President Obama's request of $8.6 billion.
The bill seeks to cut $75 million as well from EPA clean-air and clean-water programs and cuts $7.5 million from civil and criminal enforcement at the agency.
The bill passed by a voice vote, as is traditional in the Senate committee, and will face a full committee markup on Thursday.
The spending bill also looks to block several other landmark EPA rules, like the agency's clarification of its Clean Water Act authority. Republicans have long argued that the so-called Waters of the United States rule is a regulatory overreach and would give EPA too much power over agriculture and construction interests.
Another rider would bar the EPA from lowering the standard for ground-level ozone, or smog, until 85 percent of counties that currently do not meet the standard come into compliance. It would also block EPA from regulating lead fishing and tackle, and block a rule requiring companies to make financial plans to clean up hazardous-waste contaminations, which Democrats say would leave taxpayers on the hook.
Another rider in the bill would stop a White House guidance instructing federal agencies to consider climate-change impacts when they conduct National Environmental Policy Act reviews for major infrastructure projects.
Subcommittee Chairman Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the riders were designed to "rein in the EPA," adding that she was concerned the NEPA requirements would block construction projects.
But Democrats have said the policy language in the bill amounts to a list of poison pills that would keep them from supporting the Interior bill. Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, the ranking member on the panel, said he was "deeply disappointed" in the bill.
"What we see is nothing less than a backdoor attempt to rewrite the Clean Air Act" and other environmental laws, Udall said.
Among the other controversial riders is a provision that would block a Bureau of Land Management rule setting rules for hydraulic fracturing on public lands.
The bill would also block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from enforcing an Endangered Species Act listing for the sage grouse, which Republicans have said would curtail oil and gas development in the West on land where the bird lives. The Interior Department has said it will go ahead with the determination process despite spending riders.
Overall, the bill would provide $11.05 billion for the Interior Department, $1.18 billion for BLM (a $65.5 million increase over fiscal 2015), and $2.73 billion for the National Park Service (a $112 million increase).
Heading into what's projected to be an above-average fire season, the bill also offers $3.61 billion overall to fight wildfires, reflecting the average amount spent over the last 10 years. The spending bill includes $1.05 billion in emergency spending and lifts the fire cap adjustment, ensuring that extra spending on wildfires does not come out of other federal programs.
The House moved its own environment and Interior spending bill Tuesday, with the Appropriations Committee voting through its $30.17 billion spending bill along party lines. Democrats were unsuccessful in stripping the riders from that chamber's bill, which largely lined up with what was included in the Senate bill.
Republicans did manage to attach two more policy provisions, blocking the EPA's new ozone standard and blocking funding for BLM's rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal lands.
-
Just Two Actions May Stop the Planet's Runaway Warming
Jun 16, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ilissa Ocko
I was 15 and I was trying to impress a boyfriend with my rollerblading skills — from the top of a steep hill. Before I knew it, I was flying uncontrollably toward traffic. I knew I needed to both slow down and change course . . . or things wouldn't end well.
I did, and I survived, but I've recently thought about that day and those actions as I have considered the urgency needed for the planet to slow down and change course as the climate warms. With two major actions, we can slow the rate of global warming while also preventing "runaway" warming: nations must reduce emissions of both short-lived and long-lived pollutants.
All emissions are not equal
The way people talk and think about the long and short-term impacts of various greenhouse gasses is critical for making smart policy decisions that can effectively slow how fast the climate changes while limiting warming in the future.
While the maximum extent of warming relies on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions because they last for centuries in the atmosphere, the rate of climate change is controlled by short-lived climate pollutants, such as methane.
Like carbon dioxide, methane is a gas that warms the Earth by trapping heat. Pound for pound, methane is more than 100 times more powerful than CO2 because methane is much more efficient at absorbing heat. But that number changes depending on how far out you look.
Comparing emissions of gases with vastly different radiative impacts and atmospheric lifetimes requires a metric that depends on what timeframe you care about, such as the next decade or next century. One way scientists deal with the temporal differences is by measuring the global warming potential of gases over two time periods: 20 years and 100 years.
Methane is 84 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 over the first 20 years after they are both emitted, and 28 times more effective over 100 years, because most of the methane breaks down in the first 50 years after it is released due to oxidizing chemical reactions. When discussing what actions to take to reduce methane we must think about methane's potency in both timeframes.
Our best chance of combating climate change
Since the Industrial Revolution, methane in the atmosphere has increased by a whopping 150 percent. While in the same period, CO2 levels have gone up 40 percent. Around one quarter of today's human-caused warming is attributable to emissions of methane, while human-caused CO2 emissions account for around half.
The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is currently undertaking efforts to reduce emissions of some of the most damaging greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change: methane pollution from oil and gas operations and carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. This strategy has prompted questions about which climate pollutant should take priority. But the discussion of whether to cut methane emissions first and carbon dioxide later — or vice versa — is not helpful or necessary. We need a two-pronged strategy to stay safe.
Understanding the urgent need to reduce all types of climate pollution, the Obama administration is expected to move forward with rules to mitigate both methane and carbon dioxide in the next few months. This summer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to propose the first ever direct regulation of methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry, and finalize its Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants.
Another agency, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, is also expected to soon propose important rules to reduce wasteful venting, flaring and leaking of methane associated with the production of oil and natural gas on public lands.
Nations cannot solve the climate crisis and prevent serious impacts without simultaneously reducing both short-lived and long-lived climate pollutants. Reducing CO2 will limit the overall warming the planet will experience generations from now, which will have profound impacts on limiting sea level rise and other dangerous consequences.
Reducing warming caused by methane during our lifetime will also reduce the likelihood of extreme weather events and species extinctions — and, a slower rate also provides more time for societies and ecosystems to adapt to changes.
-
White House Urges Continued Private Investor Partnership in Clean Energy
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The White House announced more than $4 billion in private-sector foundation investments to fund innovative technologies to reduce carbon pollution during an event June 16, where it released a series of executive actions to help clear the path for such long-term funding.
These actions include trimming transactions costs, improving financing options, clarifying relevant investment rules and giving more transparency on federal funding for clean energy research.
“You've got a partner in us. If we can do more to make it better for you all, to make it more attractive to invest and be engaged, let us know,” Vice President Joe Biden said to a room full of investors and startup companies at the White House Clean Energy Investment Summit.
The actions also include the establishment of a Clean Energy Impact Investment Center at the Energy Department. The center will provide information about energy and climate programs at the DOE to investors and the public.
The announced investments doubled the initial target the Obama administration had set in February when they set a goal of having philanthropies and other investors pledge $2 billion worth of investment in clean energy, Biden said at the Washington event (28 DEN A-4, 2/11/15).
Investing in clean energy is “not only the morally right thing to do, it's not only in the interest of our national security, it's a smart economic play,” he said.
Biden referred to two Treasury Department actions aimed to make it easier for charitable foundations to invest in clean energy technologies.
First, the Treasury will issue guidance clarifying that foundations are allowed to make certain “mission-related” investments (MRIs) in companies that further the foundation's charitable purpose, according to a White House fact sheet.
Treasury will also release final rules establishing new examples of allowable program-related investments (PRIs) by foundations, including investments in for-profit companies to fight environmental deterioration.
Investments Said for Moral Integrity
“One of the reasons Treasury is clarifying the rules on what you can invest in is because for many of you, the investment is for moral integrity, that's why your organization exists,” he said.
Biden said the federal government's role will range from investing in basic research to expanding and making permanent the tax credits that have led to greater clean energy development.
However, Biden said, “Only in the private sector can we mostly realize the opportunities of this energy transformation. The government can't do this alone.”
-
Biden Promotes Private Sector Clean Energy Investments
Jun 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Private sector investors should do more to boost spending on clean energy technology, Vice President Joe Biden said on Tuesday.
The White House announced $4 billion in private sector pledges on Monday to support green technology and launched a new Department of Energy (DOE) program to facilitate research and development. Speaking at a White House clean energy summit, Biden said more needs to be done — from the government, but especially among private investors — to create new low-carbon energy technology.“Only with the private sector can we fully or even mostly realize the opportunities of this energy transformation. Government can’t do this, government can’t do this alone,” Biden said. “Our energy future is in cleaner, cheaper renewable energy, and all of you understand that clean energy investments have provided financial and social returns.”
Biden highlighted the work the Obama administration has done on clean energy, including spending on energy programs and tax credits for carbon-free energy sources. Energy prices for solar and wind — and their share of the energy generated in the U.S. — have improved since 2009, Biden said.
He also knocked congressional Republicans for proposing spending cuts to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
“Just as we got, in this transformative moment, off the ground, by ramping up private and federal investment, once again — some shortsighted decisions from the outfit I worked in for a long, long time — up on the hill, they’re ramping it down as fast as you all ramped it up,” Biden said.
Part of the solution, he said, is more private sector spending on new clean energy technology.
The Obama administration attracted $4 billion in commitments from would-be clean energy investors, the White House announced on Monday. The pledges are twice what officials had hoped they would receive in February when they launched their Clean Energy Investment Initiative, which they said will help encourage spending on new low-carbon technology among investors who are both concerned about the environment and looking for a financial return.
“It’s not only the morally right thing to do, it’s not only in the interest of our national security,” Biden said. “It’s a smart economic play.”
The speech was Biden’s first public remarks since the funeral for his son, Beau, who died last month.
“This is a critical moment for our country, not only for us but more importantly for our children and grandchildren,” he said. “If we don’t seize the moment now, I hope there’s never a point of no return but, man, we are getting closer.”
-
Nevada Governor Signs Bill to Assess Need for Renewable Energy Projects
Jun 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By William H. Carlile
Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) signed legislation (A.B. 498) that would allow the state's largest energy utility to delay building renewable energy projects required as part of a plan to replace the loss of coal-fired power produced at the Reid Gardner plant at Moapa.
In a statement accompanying the signing June 10, Sandoval said the bill would allow the state Public Utilities Commission to determine whether there is a sufficient need for a renewable energy facility prior to a utility building a new project.
“Assembly Bill 498 will help protect ratepayers from rate increases brought on by costs associated with the development of new facilities.” Sandoval said through his spokeswoman.
A bill summary of A.B. 498 prepared by legislative staff says that an electric utility must demonstrate “to the satisfaction of the commission the need for construction or acquisition of, or contracting for, certain electric generating capacity and certain facilities for the generation of electricity.”
The bill, introduced June 1 by Assembly Speaker John Hambrick (R), the final day of the legislative session, took effect June 10.
Sierra Club Critical
The Sierra Club criticized the bill, saying it would undo an agreement made in 2013 requiring NV Energy Inc. to build at least 350 megawatts of clean energy to replace the Reid Gardner plant.
Elspeth DiMarzio of the group's Beyond Coal Campaign called the signing a partial undoing of the legislation signed by Sandoval two years ago that ordered the state to end coal-fired electricity production by 2019 and invest instead in renewable-energy facilities.
Thomsen, director of the Governor's Office of Energy, disagreed, telling Bloomberg BNA June 16 that he does not believe the new law will affect the closure of old plants or affect renewable projects being built in Nevada
2013 Law Called for Overhaul
The 2013 legislation (S.B. 123) established what was to be a major overhaul of the state's energy policy. It directed NV Energy to eliminate 800 megawatts of coal-fired power generation from its portfolio by Dec. 31, 2019.
It also mandated development of 350 megawatts of renewable energy, as well as ownership by the utility of a 550-megawatt power plant. The 2013 law ordered the closure by 2014 of three-quarters of the Reid Gardner plant, located 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
DiMarzio said the governor “just partially undid one of his and the state's most historic agreements, which was to replace a large part of the Reid Gardner coal plant with clean energy.”
By signing the bill, DiMarzio said, “He just opened the door to more pollution, increased reliance on dirty fuels, and the loss of thousands of renewable energy construction jobs.”
Looking at Energy Situation
Hambrick disagreed, telling Bloomberg BNA, “It was not my intent to undo anything. I was just trying to look at the energy situation.”
He noted that three large gaming companies and Switch, the data storage center company, have considered leaving NV Energy's grid and purchasing power on their own from wholesale markets. That, he said, raises the question of whether there is need for increased capacity at a time of shrinking demand.
The PUC on June 10 turned down Switch's exit application, but left open the possibility that the company might refile its case.
‘The Big Picture.'
Thomsen of the Governor's Energy Office said, “The big picture is: With potential customers leaving in the energy-service territory, the question was, ‘Do we need this additional power to be built to replace those coal units that were retired?’ ”
Simple logic, he said, dictated having the commission evaluate first whether there is a need.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested