Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Shell Buys Land for Long Talked-About Ethane Project in Pa.
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Royal Dutch Shell PLC shelled out a collective $27 million for properties in Beaver County, Pa., over the past two years for its much anticipated multibillion-dollar ethane cracker project -- the latest of which is a $13.5 million purchase for the former Horsehead zinc smelter in Potter. -
Shell Buys Horsehead Property for $13.5 Million for Proposed Ethane Plant
Jun 16, 2015 | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
By Anya Litvak
Cracker or no cracker, Beaver County property owners are at least $27 million richer as a result of Royal Dutch Shell’s land grab over the past two years. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Seeks Nominations to New Chemical Safety Panel
Jun 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is setting up an expert panel to provide scientific advice to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics for the programmes it manages under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Pollution Prevention Act. -
CBO Says Senate TSCA Bill Will Cut Net Spending, Boost Penalty Payments
Jun 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says a pending Senate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill could cut net government spending $8 million over four years while increasing civil and criminal penalties under the law, though one industry source suggests the predictions of the spending levels might be an underestimate. -
ChemSec Launches Textile Chemicals Management Tool
Jun 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
NGO ChemSec has released a free online chemical management tool for the textile sector to promote the substitution of hazardous substances. -
Tempers Flare as Senate Panel OKs Interior-EPA Spending Bill
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The Senate Appropriations Committee this morning approved the $30 billion fiscal 2016 spending bill for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA on a 16-14 party-line vote, as Democratic frustration with spending cuts and multiple policy riders boiled over. -
Top Dems Demand Bipartisan Budget Talks
Jun 18, 2015 | The Hill - Finance
By Rebecca Shabad
Top Senate Democrats are demanding that Republicans schedule a first round of bipartisan budget negotiations for next week that would focus on easing sequestration spending caps for 2016. -
Senate Panel Advances $30B Bill That Targets EPA Rules
Jun 18, 2015 | The Hill - Finance
By Rebecca Shabad
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday advanced a $30.01 billion spending bill that takes aim at President Obama’s environmental regulations. -
Draft Fracking Study Could Reinvigorate EPA's Oil & Gas Industry Oversight
Jun 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA's draft study on the potential drinking water impacts of hydraulic fracturing could reinvigorate the agency's oversight of alleged environmental violations by the oil and gas sector, advocates say, because it highlights water supply "vulnerabilities" from fracking that outline possible options for future enforcement or regulation. -
McConnell: EPA Climate Rules 'Probably Illegal'
Jun 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today called President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan regulations “probably illegal,” but he warned that policy riders in spending bills are “no silver bullet” for defeating administration policies. -
Dems, Obama Officials Praise Pope’s Climate Change Letter
Jun 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Congressional Democrats are praising Pope Francis for saying humans are responsible for climate change and calling on the world to fight it. -
Catholic Bishops to Meet with Congress, White House on Climate Change
Jun 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is planning to take Pope Francis’s encyclical on climate change to Congress, the White House and Catholics nationally. -
Sidley Austin's Irvin Talks Opportunities for Transmission, Demand Response Under Power Plan
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E TV
As the electric power and regulatory sectors are taking steps to prepare for U.S. EPA's release of its final Clean Power Plan, what challenges are posed by the U.S.'s current transmission infrastructure? -
Rail Industry Frets Over 'Gap' in Crude Safety Rule
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A leading rail industry group worries older, riskier oil tank cars could roll under the radar of Department of Transportation regulations aimed at fixing them.
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
-
Shell Buys Land for Long Talked-About Ethane Project in Pa.
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Royal Dutch Shell PLC shelled out a collective $27 million for properties in Beaver County, Pa., over the past two years for its much anticipated multibillion-dollar ethane cracker project -- the latest of which is a $13.5 million purchase for the former Horsehead zinc smelter in Potter.
The energy giant hasn't announced a final decision over building the plant complex to turn Marcellus Shale natural gas liquids into feedstock for chemical production.
Shell said it will not make a decision until it has garnered approval for a handful of environmental permits, the most significant of which is an air quality permit.
The company touted the plant as a job creator -- estimating thousands of jobs tied into construction and 400 to 500 operational positions.
However, local stakeholders are not holding their breath for a plant that may or may not be constructed in light of the sluggish natural gas and crude oil prices.
"It's wonderful that they've gone ahead and purchased the property, but are we going to wait another three years for an announcement that they're going to go ahead?" said R.T. Walker, vice president at CBRE, a real estate firm (Anya Litvak, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 16). -- KS
-
Shell Buys Horsehead Property for $13.5 Million for Proposed Ethane Plant
Jun 16, 2015 | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
By Anya Litvak
Cracker or no cracker, Beaver County property owners are at least $27 million richer as a result of Royal Dutch Shell’s land grab over the past two years.
Shell Oil Co., a division of the Dutch petrochemical giant, finally closed its much anticipated purchase of the former Horsehead zinc smelter in Potter. The price on the deed was $13.5 million, although the company is not commenting on the actual amount of money that changed hands.
Shell also has bought 12 other properties in the area totaling $13.8 million. Those purchases ranged from a high of $5 million for a 100-acre site on Frankfort Road to $10 each for two parcels bought from the Beaver County Economic Development Authority.
The two county properties, with about 60 acres between them, had a combined fair market value of more than $1 million, according to the deeds.
Although work at the site progresses, Shell has not yet made a final decision about building the ethane cracker — a multibillion complex to turn Marcellus Shale natural gas liquids into feedstock for chemical production.
The company said it will not make a decision until it has certain environmental permits in hand, most notably the air quality permit it has sought from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. A public hearing on the permit was held last month.
Shell has estimated the cracker plant would create “thousands of construction jobs” in addition to 400 to 500 operational positions.
Site of the plant.
(Click image for larger version)Nevertheless, since Shell signed its first land option agreement with Horsehead Holdings Corp. in 2012 — it extended the option three times — Pennsylvanians have been reading the tea leaves of every property purchase, permit filing and public meeting to gauge which way the company is leaning.
The money spent by Shell so far, while significant by county standards, is less than a drop in the bucket for the multinational, whose revenue last year was about $460 billion.
Shell’s investment in property in Beaver County, as chronicled in deed transfers, is the equivalent of a person who makes $50,000 a year spending $3 as a deposit on something that may or may not materialize.
“It’s wonderful that they’ve gone ahead and purchased the property but are we going to wait another three years for an announcement that they’re going to go ahead?” said R.T. Walker, vice president at CBRE, a real estate firm.
Mr. Walker questioned the $13.5 million price tag recorded in the deed for the Horsehead property, which he valued between $75 million and $100 million.
No other major land deals are expected from Shell at this point.
“We’ve acquired the land that we need to proceed with the continued site evaluation,” said Kayle Macke, a Shell spokeswoman. “This was land needed to advance the permitting process.”
The fall in crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids prices in the past year has tempered excitement for cracker projects, several of which have been put on hold or canceled in other parts of the country.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Seeks Nominations to New Chemical Safety Panel
Jun 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is setting up an expert panel to provide scientific advice to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics for the programmes it manages under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Pollution Prevention Act. The agency is asking the public to nominate members to the panel.
The major objective of the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC) is to provide advice and recommendations on “the scientific basis for risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches,” the agency said in a Federal Register notice.
The EPA has determined that this federal advisory committee is necessary and in the public interest and will assist the agency in performing its duties and responsibilities.
The CSAC will have approximately 10 members and will meet around four times a year. The panel will initially exist for two years and its charter may be renewed if necessary after that. Panelists will represent disciplines such as toxicology, pathology, environmental toxicology and chemistry, exposure assessment, and related sciences.
Establishing such a committee is an “effective method for collaborating with the EPA to provide specific scientific and technical expertise to the agency,” said Doug Frantz, senior science fellow at the Consumer Specialty Products Association. The CSPA has more than 75 different task groups and committees, with technical experts whose members could provide valuable advice, information and recommendations to the federal panel, he added.
The American Chemistry Council is “supportive of creating the committee and believes that it will be helpful to advance chemical assessment and TSCA activities,” said spokesman Scott Jensen.
Comments are due by 13 July. -
CBO Says Senate TSCA Bill Will Cut Net Spending, Boost Penalty Payments
Jun 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says a pending Senate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill could cut net government spending $8 million over four years while increasing civil and criminal penalties under the law, though one industry source suggests the predictions of the spending levels might be an underestimate.
“CBO estimates that EPA would incur additional administrative costs over the 2016-2020 period to meet the new requirements imposed by S. 697; however, we also estimate that under the bill EPA would collect sufficient fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to offset the cost of conducting the activities proposed under this legislation,” says the June 5 report on S. 697, the TSCA bill introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM).
The bill would establish a prioritization system for EPA to screen chemicals currently in the marketplace; boost the agency's chemical testing authority under TSCA; and has a host of other provisions aimed at reforming the decades old chemical safety law that supporters say are vital to address chemicals in commerce.
By 2018, enforcement of the new provisions of TSCA would begin and CBO estimates that EPA would shift funding to cover additional government personnel. CBO estimates that spending on new administrative activities over the next five years would total $72 million if the bill becomes law this year.
In order to pay for the costs of the government implementing the new toxics programs, the legislation would establish a fee structure for industry. S. 697 would allow for EPA to collect fees from manufacturers and processors required to submit pre-manufacturing notices or requests for exemptions, and from manufacturers seeking agency safety assessments of chemicals that have not been designated a priority for evaluation.
The bill would not allow those fees to exceed $18 million annually. “S. 697 specifies that all additional fees collected by EPA would be recorded in the budget as offsetting collections (an offset to appropriated spending),” CBO says, adding that it “estimates that those collections would total $80 million over the next five years.”
Spending Reduction
CBO says that the bill, if enacted, would likely yield a “net reduction in spending of $8 million over the 2016-2020 period,” assuming future appropriations acts are consistent with the estimates -- though the industry source suggests that the estimates about the costs for implementing the bill are an underestimate.
While the CBO report could help the bill's supporters argue it will not add to overall government spending, it also highlights the possibility of increased costs associated with TSCA enforcement.
“Enacting S. 697 could affect direct spending and revenues because the bill would increase some existing civil and criminal penalties for violations of TSCA,” so “pay-as-you-go” principles would apply, the report says. Any changes in revenues and direct spending would not likely be significant, CBO says.
The report also addresses other aspects of the bipartisan bill, such as implementation of changes to section 6 of TSCA, which requires EPA to take action to ensure a chemical meets the “safety standard” of unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. “Based on information from industry experts, CBO expects that the annual cost of any restriction would not be substantial,” the report says. “Also, because of the amount of time involved in assessing the risk of each chemical, any restrictions imposed would apply to few chemicals in the first five years the mandate is in effect,” which would also keep costs lower, according to CBO.
The cost of such action is significant because EPA failed in 1991 to ban asbestos, largely because of the cost considerations required under section 6 of current TSCA, which the bill would revise to disconnect those factors from consideration in whether a chemical meets the safety standard, and because of language requiring the agency to pursue the “least burdensome” option, which has also been stripped in the bill.
Pending Legislation
S. 697 cleared the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee in a 15-5 vote following an April 28 markup. At the markup, Vitter and Udall announced revisions to the bill that came about as a result of negotiations with committee Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Cory Booker (NJ). The changes were aimed at addressing concerns over the bill raised by Democrats, environmental and public health advocates and EPA.
Those revisions include allowing states to be co-enforcers of chemical regulations, modifying the factors for when EPA designates a chemical as a "high priority," and changing the safety standard to be consistent with existing law while clarifying the term "unreasonable risk" to be consistent with the standard.
Nevertheless, the bill's opponents -- led by EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) -- are vowing to pursue dozens of amendments on the floor, fearing the bill is worse than current law.
Boxer acknowledged during the markup that the amended bill contains a number of improvements over the original legislation, including allowing states to co-enforce toxics laws on the condition that there are no duplicative penalties and clarifications that state air and water laws would not be preempted.
But she suggested that she is likely to filibuster the legislation, saying, "I will stand on my feet until I can't stand on my feet anymore" to ensure passage of a stronger reform bill.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently said he expects floor debate on the bill by August. Supporters of the legislation say they are planning to build a core of support from moderate Democrats and Republicans to help defeat “fringe” amendments that could threaten the bill's passage if successful.
Meanwhile, a House counterpart to the bill, H.R. 2576, cleared the lower chamber's energy panel during a June 3 markup. But that debate highlighted growing concerns among Democrats about the bill's preemption provisions -- even though it takes a much narrower approach to preemption than the Senate bill.
The House bill would "grandfather," or preserve existing state chemical safety laws that have taken effect before Aug. 1 and preserve state toxic tort claims, after EPA takes final action on a chemical, unless they "actually conflict" with the new federal requirement. New chemical laws, however, would be preempted once EPA finishes a restriction under TSCA.
The Senate bill also contains grandfathering provisions to preserve existing laws, but preemption for new chemical rules and laws would occur when EPA launches a review of a chemical.
-
ChemSec Launches Textile Chemicals Management Tool
Jun 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
NGO ChemSec has released a free online chemical management tool for the textile sector to promote the substitution of hazardous substances.
The textile guide shows companies how they can identify problematic chemicals in their supply chain and phase them out.
At the core of the tool is a searchable database with information on some 6,500 substances. The data was sourced from several restricted substances lists of multinational brands and trade associations, as well as regional legislation in the EU and US.
ChemSec's own SIN list (CW 9 October 2014) is included in the database, as well as the EU candidate list for substances of very high concern (SVHCs) and the US Prop 65 list of carcinogens and reprotoxic substances (CW 15 June 2015).
Once identified, companies can read through a step-by-step guide on how to start substituting the chemicals, assess alternatives and control and audit the supply chain for future compliance.
The textile guide also features a webpage on problems associated with the most commonly used hazardous substances in the textile manufacturing process. This flags up solvents, surfactants, water repellents, biocides, flame retardants, phthalates and dyes or pigments.
Although anyone can use the guide, ChemSec says its target group is SMEs. To this end, the NGO has created a tool that does not require as much knowledge of chemicals from the user as, for example, the Greenscreen alternatives assessment tool.
“If you search a chemical name or Cas number in the textile guide, you will immediately get an answer on whether it is toxic, as [a toxic] chemical will show up in the colour red,” says a ChemSec representative. “The data you get from Greenscreen has to be evaluated by a toxicologist or another chemical expert.”
ChemSec has tested the tool with companies such as H&M, Gina Tricot, Filippa K and Åhléns, which provided feedback to include more concrete solutions for substitution. They also flagged up how hard it can be to discuss chemical matters with foreign suppliers, ChemSec tells Chemical Watch.
While the NGO tried to implement this feedback, ChemSec says the textile guide is an ongoing project that will be “constantly updated, either with additional information, new solutions, guidance on how to become ecolabel-certified and/or new substances in the database”.
-
Tempers Flare as Senate Panel OKs Interior-EPA Spending Bill
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The Senate Appropriations Committee this morning approved the $30 billion fiscal 2016 spending bill for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA on a 16-14 party-line vote, as Democratic frustration with spending cuts and multiple policy riders boiled over.
However, Republicans remained largely unified in rejecting amendments to strip contentious policy riders from the bill.
Both parties traded barbs over the measure from the outset of the markup, with Democrats slamming the $7.6 billion that the bill would hand EPA, a more than $538 million reduction from current levels. The Interior Department would see $11 billion and the Forest Service $5.12 billion under the bill, which was approved in subcommittee Tuesday (E&ENews PM, June 16).
Appropriations Committee ranking member Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) reiterated that Democrats will block all motions to proceed to spending bills that hew to the current spending levels, in an attempt to force Republicans into talks on replacing across-the-board sequestration cuts.
"We need it sooner rather than later," she said.
But in a twist, all 14 Democrats on the committee voted to oppose the Interior-EPA bill to protest what Mikulski called "11 poison pill riders" targeting EPA's Clean Power Plan, the Waters of the U.S. rule, the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule and EPA's proposed update of federal air quality standards for ozone, to name a few. A majority of Democrats have supported advancing spending bills to the floor this year, and all but four voted to do so for the Homeland Security spending bill today.
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) rejected the "poison pill" label, saying the WOTUS rule "is incredibly important to the people of my state." And she reiterated that the remaining riders reflect widespread congressional frustration with the Obama administration's energy agenda, as well as the limited legislative options for critics to push back.
"I've heard from so many people ... that we must deal" with these issues, she said.
Amid the heated debate on spending and policy riders, the usually reserved Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) lashed out at Democrats for blocking the appropriations process to score political points.
"All you guys are doing is balling up the process and making the Senate look bad," McConnell said, his voice rising. "When does this ever stop?"
But Mikulski blamed Republicans for mucking up the appropriations process over the past five years. "We didn't start this kind of fight," she said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in turn lectured Republicans for using the spending bill to block environmental policies they oppose, arguing that doing so would result in a continuing resolution or omnibus package to fund the federal government come September.
But McConnell argued the riders were necessary to restrain the Obama administration, singling out EPA in particular. "There's been an all-out assault on the American economy," he said. "But in all the overreach, none has been more dramatic than at the EPA."
The committee voted 16-14 for an amendment by Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) that would bar for one year an Endangered Species Act listing for the lesser prairie chicken.
The committee rejected on a 14-16 party-line vote an amendment by Interior-Environment Subcommittee ranking member Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would have increased funding for the programs in the bill.
A second Udall amendment that would have stripped the 11 "poison pill" riders also fell on a party-line vote.
Udall separately tried to strip the rider that would allow states to opt out of EPA's Clean Power Plan, which he called "a backdoor effort to undermine the Clean Air Act." That amendment failed on a 15-15 vote, with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine the sole Republican to join Democrats.
The committee voted 14-16 to defeat an amendment by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) that would have boosted funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund from the bill's proposed level of $292 million to about $380 million, which is about $20 million shy of the amount of discretionary funding requested by the Obama administration.
Tester's funding increase would not take effect until, and unless, Congress passes a new budget agreement to dissolve the sequester caps.
The fund is the government's main vehicle for acquiring new lands, but it has come under criticism from Republicans including Murkowski as fiscally reckless at a time when lands agencies face several billions of dollars in deferred maintenance needs.
"Two-hundred-ninety-two million dollars is not chump change, but it is not near enough to take care of the demand that's out there," Tester said. "The demand is huge, and these areas aren't going to be around forever. They're going to be developed."
Murkowski said the bill's proposed funding for LWCF, which is about $14 million below current levels, is "not insubstantial."
She said it accomplishes her goals to shift funding away from federal land acquisitions toward grants for states and for easements that protect private forests. Stateside grants would be funded at $55 million, their highest level since 2006 and $7 million above current levels. The Forest Legacy program would get about $60 million, its highest level since 2010 and $7 million above current levels.
Murkowski said Tester's bill is not offset and would break budget caps.
But the committee did approve by voice vote an amendment by Collins to restore $14 million to LWCF with offsets elsewhere in the Interior-EPA bill.
That the bill would keep LWCF funding at its current funding level -- despite the Senate's change of hands to spending-averse Republicans -- is viewed as a major victory by conservation and sportsmen's groups, which are among LWCF's biggest fans.
Reporter Phil Taylor contributed.
-
Top Dems Demand Bipartisan Budget Talks
Jun 18, 2015 | The Hill - Finance
By Rebecca Shabad
Top Senate Democrats are demanding that Republicans schedule a first round of bipartisan budget negotiations for next week that would focus on easing sequestration spending caps for 2016.
“We write to urge you to immediately schedule bipartisan budget negotiations for next week to find a fair, reasonable and responsible path forward for funding key national priorities such as national defense and domestic investments in education, health, science, and infrastructure,” the senators wrote in a letter sent Thursday to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other leaders of the Senate Republican Conference.
The letter was signed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who crafted the last bipartisan budget deal with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in December 2013.
The Ryan-Murray deal, which lifted spending limits for 2014 and 2015, expires at the end of September.
Republicans and Democrats have both said the sequestration budget ceilings are “neither smart, nor an effective means to budget for our national defense and our domestic investment priorities,” the Democrats wrote.
“We are alarmed that you have not displayed a greater sense of urgency to address this problem,” they wrote to McConnell, Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), Republican Policy Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Vice Chairman Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
Just last week, Democrats invited Republicans to hold a budget summit, but McConnell rejected the idea of having one now.
Sequestration budget ceilings will take effect again in fiscal 2016, which begins Oct. 1, for both the Pentagon and domestic programs. Appropriators have said the spending limits, totaling $1.017 trillion, are hindering their abilities to fully fund critical programs.
The four Senate Democrats argued that when the sequestration ceilings triggered automatic cuts in 2013, Republicans “repeatedly refused” to enter into budget talks with Democrats, but eventually caved after a 16-day government shutdown.
“In the end, and only after a damaging and unnecessary government shutdown, we reached a bipartisan budget compromise that lifted the sequestration-level spending caps for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015,” they said. “ We’re disappointed to see you pursuing a go-it-alone appropriations strategy designed to fail instead of seeking bipartisan solutions that can pass the Senate and be signed into law.”
GOP appropriators in both chambers have been crafting spending bills for fiscal 2016 based on those caps. So far, the House has passed six out of a dozen bills. The Senate has passed none.
Senate Democrats have threatened to block each GOP spending bill from advancing to a final vote until sequestration caps are relieved for next year.
“We are ready and willing to work with you to produce a fair and balanced Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Therefore, we respectfully request you schedule the first round of these important negotiations as soon as next week,” they wrote.
The White House says it has already done its part by submitting a budget blueprint in February that laid out a plan for lifting sequestration.
-
Senate Panel Advances $30B Bill That Targets EPA Rules
Jun 18, 2015 | The Hill - Finance
By Rebecca Shabad
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday advanced a $30.01 billion spending bill that takes aim at President Obama’s environmental regulations.
The bill would fund the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department for fiscal 2016, which begins Oct. 1, by $400 million below the level Congress enacted for 2015 and $2.2 billion less than Obama’s request.
Lawmakers voted 16-14 to advance the bill to the Senate floor. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), the ranking member on the panel, signaled Democrats would oppose the bill because of its low funding allocation.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee that oversees the bill, offered three separate amendments that would boost funding to various programs, strip all policy riders and specifically remove a policy rider regarding climate change.
All three were narrowly rejected by the GOP-led panel.
The bill, Udall said, would take aim at the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act by permanently weakening them.
Republicans included provisions in the bill that would overturn a new EPA rule that asserts power over the nation’s waterways and would prevent the agency from writing a new rule on ground-level ozone pollution.
Under the measure, the EPA would also be banned from enforcing carbon limits for power plants in states that oppose that regulation, among others.
“These riders are terrible policy. They’re nothing more than a special interest giveaway to polluters. And they also have a proven track record of derailing the appropriations process,” Udall said.
The panel also adopted an amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to list the lesser prairie chicken as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who offered the proposal, argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted prematurely last year by listing the species as endangered, and said his proposal would force the agency to allow conservation plans and “God’s work in providing rain” for the animal’s habitat to play out.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairwoman of the subcommittee that oversees the bill, said while the bill “pulls back on EPA’s regulatory overreach,” it funds critical programs.
The bill, for example, prioritizes funding for the National Park Service to perform maintenance in national parks, for the Bureau of Land Management’s conservation efforts such as those for protection the sage grouse, for the Forest Service and for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, among others. Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
-
Draft Fracking Study Could Reinvigorate EPA's Oil & Gas Industry Oversight
Jun 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA's draft study on the potential drinking water impacts of hydraulic fracturing could reinvigorate the agency's oversight of alleged environmental violations by the oil and gas sector, advocates say, because it highlights water supply "vulnerabilities" from fracking that outline possible options for future enforcement or regulation.
The assessment unveiled earlier this month helps the sector's critics push back on a 2004 EPA study that found no confirmed cases of drinking water harms from some fracking fluid injections, which GOP lawmakers and industry have long cited to show that fracking is safe. The Obama EPA under former Administrator Lisa Jackson tried to pursue more aggressive enforcement and oversight of fracking, but eventually dropped its early landmark fracking cases.
EPA's new draft study helps undermine the 2004 conclusions and should boost the agency in making the case for stricter oversight, enforcement, and potential regulation of fracking, says one environmentalist.
One industry source says the "tone" of the draft study "suggests [EPA is] preserving wiggle room and justification for further rulemaking," given that it suggests some areas where impacts could occur. But the source adds that most of those vulnerabilities are issues industry has flagged and is working to address, such as faulty well casings.
The draft assessment for the first time identifies mechanisms by which fracking could potentially impact drinking water, but EPA did not find evidence that the mechanisms "led to widespread, systemic impacts."
The mechanisms include water withdrawals in areas of low water availability; spills of fracking fluids and wastewater; fracking directly into underground sources of drinking water; underground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate wastewater management, according to the agency's draft assessment.
In contrast, the 2004 study, "Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane (CBM) Reservoirs Study," found "no confirmed cases that linked to fracturing fluid injection into CBM wells or subsequent underground movement of fracturing fluids."
The environmentalist says that the draft findings could reinvigorate the agency's efforts to oversee fracking. "It's a sign of them changing their position from 2004," the environmentalist says. "The [new] report opens the door to say, where we do need to push ahead," and [EPA] doesn't need to trip over its earlier conclusions."
EPA Enforcement
Critics of EPA's early attempts in the Obama administration to pursue stricter oversight of the oil and gas sector seized on the 2004 study to help their push-back on the agency and show that fracking is safe.
They also noted that EPA has not been able to identify any confirmed cases of contamination linked to fracking, despite taking action in pollution cases in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming in which it later pulled back on.
EPA undertook enforcement action in Parker County, TX in 2010 which the agency later dropped, under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and conducted a review of existing EPA authority to oversee the industry.
But EPA appeared to struggle with finding solid statutory authority, and faced major hurdles due to the 2004 study that found that fracking was safe, as well as much-criticized remarks on fracking from a former top EPA official.
Former EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz caused controversy with his remarks likening the agency's oil and gas enforcement to Roman conquests that would "crucify" victims, which critics suggested may have unduly pressured the Texas groundwater investigation and spurred the pursuant order.
The agency also pulled back on its investigations under its Superfund authority in Dimock Township, PA, and in Pavillion, WY, turning the issues instead over to the state agencies without issuing any final conclusions.
Pending Rulemakings
From a regulatory standpoint, EPA currently is working on several rulemakings related to oil and gas development. Those include its proposed first-time zero discharge standard for municipal treatment plants processing wastewater from the oil and gas sector, which it is taking comment on through July 17.
EPA is also working on a proposal for curbing methane and volatile organic compound emissions from new and modified sources in the sector, and plans to issue chemical safety reporting rules for fracking chemicals.
The environmentalist says that EPA is currently has a "bunch of things percolating" on possible enforcement and implementation issues and is particularly looking at "recycling fluids and issues around that."
The source adds that "dealing with the fluid issue is huge," and that the State Review of Oil & Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER) -- a multi-stakeholder group created by EPA to ensure state rules are appropriate for governing oil and gas activities -- is also working on recycling guidelines. "EPA is interested" in what STRONGER is doing on recycling, according to the environmentalist.
On the recycling issue, the source notes the proposed zero discharge standard for publicly owned treatment works, and the agency's ongoing study of centralized waste treatment (CWT) plants that accept shale gas wastewater, saying, "Whether they can compel recycling may be uncertain but they can shift the universe of available options." Water use and recycling should demand a "comprehensive" look by the agency, that source says.
The draft fracking assessment found that while CWTs may be effective at removing total dissolved solids and other contaminants often present in fracking wastewater, "It is unknown whether advanced treatment systems are effective at removing constituents that are generally not tested for."
The agency announced last year that it is launching a study of CWT facilities, or industrial plants, that accept oil and natural gas extraction wastewater, but has not said whether current regulations provide adequate controls for treating such wastes.
The industry source notes that "you can't ignore the fact that those are happening at the same time," talking about the CWT study and the public owned treatment works proposal, given that the CWT study could end up informing the level of contaminants in treated wastewater that is sent to POTWs. "They're oddly disaggregating this issue," that source says.
Environmentalists have also urged the agency to take more a "holistic" approach to regulating wastewater from the sector with a broad rule aimed at oil and gas wastewater, rather than piecemeal policies that only address specific portions of the industry.
-
McConnell: EPA Climate Rules 'Probably Illegal'
Jun 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today called President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan regulations “probably illegal,” but he warned that policy riders in spending bills are “no silver bullet” for defeating administration policies.
McConnell told members of the conservative Federalist Society that legislative efforts to push back on executive-branch actions are “never that straightforward.”
“Sometimes you’re on offense, sometimes you’re on defense,” he said. “You’re not going to win every fight.”
The Kentucky Republican noted that Democrats filibustered “for an entire month to defeat a single rider” that was designed to stop Obama’s executive actions on immigration and was added by the GOP to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill earlier this year.
He did not draw a direct parallel between the immigration riders and the EPA riders currently moving through Congress that aim to stop what he described as “regressive energy regulations that won’t have much of a meaningful impact on global climate” and are “also probably illegal.”
But McConnell added that Democrats “discovered that what they can’t do is filibuster a justice system that’s determined to do its work,” suggesting that legal avenues to stop EPA may prove the most significant weapon in the GOP’s arsenal. -
Dems, Obama Officials Praise Pope’s Climate Change Letter
Jun 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Congressional Democrats are praising Pope Francis for saying humans are responsible for climate change and calling on the world to fight it.
Democrats highlighted the pope's encyclical shortly after its release to call on people to support efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
“Pope Francis writes with beauty, with clarity and with moral force,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters.
“This encyclical stance is an urgent call for governments, to industry and the whole community to honor their responsibility to preserve God's creation,” she said, adding that the letter makes it clear the climate fight is about protecting the poor.
Pelosi used the encyclical to slam House Republicans for voting for an amendment to limit the Obama administration’s ability to include climate provisions in negotiating trade agreements.
“In giving us his message to protect our common home, Pope Francis also has given us a common goal — we must act now to stop climate change,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement.
“Pope Francis’s encyclical offers all people of conscience the opportunity to examine their own lives, their relationship to the planet and its people, and their duty to take action,” said Markey, who, as a House member in 2009, sponsored a bill to institute a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), one of the most vocal climate activists in the Senate, called the encyclical “an inspiring call for action — and a reminder of how harshly our carelessness will fall on the world’s poor.”
“Pope Francis gives voice to the moral urgency of caring better for our home planet,” he said.
In a joint statement, the all-Democratic House Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition said the encyclical makes it clear that Francis agrees with Democrats on the science of climate change.
“For those unmoved by the science of climate change, we hope that Pope Francis’ encyclical demonstrates the virtue and moral imperative for action,” they said. “Today’s announcement further aligns the scientific and moral case for climate action, yet the political will of many is still askew.”
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) applauded Francis for framing climate change as a matter of protecting the future.
“It is a moral imperative to act as a good steward of the environment and the gifts we have been given,” he said.
Secretary of State John Kerry told Time that he welcomes Francis’s attention to the poor and the effects of climate change has on them.
“The Pope’s powerful encyclical calls for a common response to the critical threat climate change poses to our common home,” he said. “His plea for all religions to work together reflects the urgency of the challenge.”
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was similarly thankful.
“Pope Francis’ call to action on climate change is an important milestone in the global effort on this issue,” he said. “His is not just a powerful moral voice, he also graduated as a chemical engineer and understands the consensus of climate scientists that accumulating man-made pollution endangers our planet and people around the world.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and an outspoken skeptic of climate change, said he disagreed with Francis.
“I am concerned that his encyclical will be used by global warming alarmists to advocate for policies that will equate to the largest, most regressive tax increase in our nation’s history,” he said. “Climate science isn’t settled.”
-
Catholic Bishops to Meet with Congress, White House on Climate Change
Jun 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is planning to take Pope Francis’s encyclical on climate change to Congress, the White House and Catholics nationally.
Stephen Colecchi, director of international peace and justice for the group, told reporters Thursday it is planning a pair of briefings with the House and Senate on Thursday and a White House briefing Friday.
Joseph Kurtz, president of the USCCB and the archbishop of Louisville, Ky., said his group will be being a message that the pope is calling for a constructive dialogue on climate change and not prescribing specific actions.
“It’s meant to be a challenging dialogue,” Kurtz told reporters. “We’re always looking for bipartisan solutions; we’re always looking to bring people together.”
Responding to some Republicans who have criticized the Catholic Church for getting involved in political and economic issues like climate change, Kurtz said there’s an appropriate role.
“We know that politics and economics have moral content,” Kurtz said.
“We know that faith and people of good enrich public life. So we don’t see this as an added burden, we see this as an essential part of the solution if we look for the common good. And politics has, as its face, the common good serving all,” he continued.
Kurtz and Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, D.C., and a close confidant of the pope, spoke hours after the Vatican released Francis's letter on climate change, in which he said fighting climate change is a moral issue and fossil fuel use should be reduced dramatically to protect the poor and others who suffer from climate change’s consequences.
Wuerl said Francis is trying to construct a moral framework for policymakers and others without dictating specifics.
Francis, Wuerl said, is asking for “engagement, discussion, and what he’s offering is a moral framework within which that discussion will take place … the moral frame of reference is what the Holy Father is offering, but he’s not saying ‘this is the conclusion of that discussion.’ ”
Wuerl and Kurtz avoided specific policy questions, but the USCCB has previously come out in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency limiting carbon pollution from power plants, one of the agency's most controversial proposals.
Wuerl said he is working to talk with his priests and parishioners about the encyclical, and he said other Catholics should do the same, though they should take time.
“The first thing we’ll do is to help people understand, and our priests to say, this is going to take a lot of unpacking,” he said. “There’s a great amount of richness in this document. Let’s do that. Let’s do that over a period of time.”
-
Sidley Austin's Irvin Talks Opportunities for Transmission, Demand Response Under Power Plan
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E TV
As the electric power and regulatory sectors are taking steps to prepare for U.S. EPA's release of its final Clean Power Plan, what challenges are posed by the U.S.'s current transmission infrastructure? During today's OnPoint, Kenneth Irvin, co-leader of Sidley Austin's global energy practice, discusses the outlook for transmission, demand response and natural gas facilities under the power plan. He also weighs in on ongoing discussions between EPA and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the role the commission should play on power plan compliance.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Ken Irvin, co-leader of Sidley Austin's global practice. Ken, thank you for joining me.
Kenneth Irvin: Monica, thanks for having me in.
Monica Trauzzi: Ken, as we await a final Clean Power Plan rule from EPA, as soon as early to mid-August, all elements of the electric power and regulatory sectors are taking a look at next steps. What doors could the Clean Power Plan open for new transmission infrastructure, and is there enough of an acknowledgment that this is a critical element of meeting the plan, improving transmission?
Kenneth Irvin: I think that's a great question. I think there's a lot of opportunity for new transmission as well as other types of technology in the generation space. Transmission can often be a substitute for generation, and the Clean Power Plan has the potential to result in the closure of certain power plants -- coal-fired power plants, for example. The Clean Power Plan is a pretty dramatic change for what the energy markets have been dealing with. There's a lot of concern about reliability and how that's going to affect the dispatch and the operation of the RTOs, so I look forward to seeing how that all gets digested and rolled out as the markets adapt to the Clean Power Plan.
Monica Trauzzi: And do you think that there's enough of a discussion at this point among stakeholders on the transmission element?
Kenneth Irvin: [Laughs] I think there's a lot of discussion. I don't know exactly that there's enough thinking about transmission. Transmission is complicated because you have a lot of siting issues, you have a lot of "not in my backyard" type of concerns, and prior efforts at locating transmission haven't always been successful, but there is a lot of interest in the private sector to invest in transmission. There are new lines coming on, so I think it's something worthy of exploration. I'd like to see more discussion about transmission development because it allows us to take advantage of the resources and areas that otherwise don't find as broad a market.
Monica Trauzzi: How do you think the power plan affects the long-term viability of natural gas facilities?
Kenneth Irvin: I think it's ultimately positive for natural gas facilities. Natural gas is equal to or maybe even slightly ahead of coal-fired generation on many days, and with the constraint on carbon, natural gas will find support for more penetration in the supply stack. An interesting aspect about natural gas is the just-in-time supply function of it. Unlike a coal plant that will have a big pile of coal in the front yard for fuel, natural gas is delivered just in time, and we've seen that create reliability issues in the cold winter months. As we deal with CPP, managing for that issue will have some complexity, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is attuned to that and trying to adapt to those issues even as we speak.
Monica Trauzzi: Demand response? What do you see as the future under the power plan?
Kenneth Irvin: I think demand response is an important element of the wholesale energy markets. Obviously, it's before the Supreme Court about who has regulatory authority, but demand response is a way to bring an additional type of resource to the energy markets, especially when we have peak demand issues and when it may be cost-effective to throttle back some demand in favor of firing up new generation. So demand response as well as energy efficiency, I think, are key ways to bring about compliance with the Clean Power Plan.
Monica Trauzzi: The utility industry is sort of already rapidly warming to the idea of the evolving business model. We're beginning to see more of a focus on partnerships, which was previously unheard of in this space. What do you think the future of the grid looks like?
Kenneth Irvin: Well, I think we have a lot of opportunity for development. One of the things that I think about with the Clean Power Plan is does it also help us harden the grid, build a resilience into the grid that we have a need for otherwise? I think the development of other types of resources, whether they're efficiency or price response of demand, as well as renewable resources, enhance the reliability of the grid and help us deal with the loss, potentially, of coal-fired power plants that the CPP would otherwise see retired.
So I think it's going to be positive. It's going to take a lot of attention -- the state versus regional issues of state environmental plans versus regional transmission markets will require attention. The effect on FTRs and ARRs and the other kind of congestion products in those markets will require attention. But I have a degree of competence -- confidence and optimism that the markets will be able to adapt, and I look for solutions that look to markets to price the solution as opposed to a regulated mandate.
Monica Trauzzi: Right, but to that end, Colette Honorable, commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, last week, she encouraged a proactive role for FERC in helping stakeholders comply. Do you think that's necessary based on what you were just saying?
Kenneth Irvin: I think there's an important role for FERC. The reliability safety valve issue is going to have to figure prominently, both with regard to planning and review of these implementation plans as well as in the moment. The unique thing about electricity, obviously, is supply and demand must be kept in constant balance, and we could run into situations where a plant that is otherwise qualified to run has used up its allotted time under a CPP plan, but must, nevertheless, be dispatched because some other plant has gone offline or a transmission line has gone down. How we manage for that, how the EPA and FERC coordinate on those issues, is going to be something that requires careful attention.
Monica Trauzzi: And do you see EPA and FERC getting past some of the back-and-forth that's going on right now between the two agencies?
Kenneth Irvin: I do. I certainly hope so. Chairman Bay and the other commissioners at FERC are very serious, highly competent professionals. Ms. McCarthy and the folks at the EPA, obviously, take their job very seriously, and they appreciate, I'm sure, the importance of reliability of figuring out how to deal with this. I think it would be a disappointment for all of us if there came to be a conflict where they couldn't work it out, and somehow, we had to go to court or something to deal with some kind of reliability issue. That would seem disappointing.
Monica Trauzzi: The D.C. Circuit Court recently rejected an attempt by 15 states to block EPA from finalizing its Clean Power Plan. Most analysts say that this doesn't really tell us anything or indicate what future court action might look like. What are your predictions for what the court battles could look like on the plan?
Kenneth Irvin: That's a tough question. The recent decision from the Court of Appeals is really not that surprising to me because there's not a final order, and the courts are pretty clear about, "Bring us final orders. Bring us things that we can actually address and lock horns with." Ultimately, there will come judicial review -- there always is -- and it's pretty common in D.C. that the agencies don't get it right the first time. So it would not surprise me to see parts of it remanded and some further adjustments. That's commonplace with FERC orders, certainly commonplace with EPA orders. Ultimately, I think, probably, it gets approved, some form of it, like we saw with CSAPR and the other EPA rules do go forward, will have an impact on the market, so I look to the power markets to figure out how to digest these, how to adapt to these requirements.
Monica Trauzzi: Just might take a little time.
Kenneth Irvin: Yeah, I think it will take some time.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show. Nice to see you.
Kenneth Irvin: Thank you so much.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Rail Industry Frets Over 'Gap' in Crude Safety Rule
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A leading rail industry group worries older, riskier oil tank cars could roll under the radar of Department of Transportation regulations aimed at fixing them.
The Association of American Railroads said a DOT safety rule published last month fails to account for thousands of oil and ethanol shipments grouped in smaller batches of tank cars. As written, new federal requirements for tougher steel shells and other equipment apply only to trains hauling 20 or more tank cars in a single string, or 35 or more cars spread throughout the train.
More than 100,000 shipments of flammable liquids didn't meet that last criterion during the first quarter of 2015 -- meaning they could have moved in outdated cars even if the May 1 rule had been in place, the trade organization said in an administrative appeal of DOT's rule. AAR also found in its analysis that 25,000 shipments of crude were delivered in older tank cars throughout the first three months of the year, or about 17 million barrels.
The data shed new light on a long-standing dilemma for DOT regulators: How big does a train packed with explosive crude or ethanol need to be to pose a "high hazard"? In the final rule, federal officials defended the 35- and 20-car thresholds, arguing that applying the rule to all tank cars could hurt small companies.
"While we acknowledge applying the requirements to a single tank car may resolve some logistical issues, such a solution would not be cost justified given the number of tank cars affected and the associated risk" with mixed trains versus mile-long "high hazard" ones, DOT said in its final rule.
AAR has said that is a "gap" that needs addressing, pushing DOT to specify a "sunset date" after which older, so-called DOT-111 tank cars can no longer be used.
The DOT-111 cars targeted by the new regulations were involved in a devastating oil train derailment and explosion in Quebec two years ago that killed 47 people. The Canadian government has passed its own set of regulations that largely mirror DOT's -- but Canada's upgraded tank car standards apply to all cars, not just strings of 20 or more.
That key difference could "flood the American market" with old equipment as Canada's rules take effect, AAR argued.
The fact that puncture-prone tank cars could still be used for decades in the United States has raised hackles with environmentalists and community leaders.
Karen Darch, village president of Barrington, Ill., has helped lead an effort to challenge DOT's crude-by-rail safety rule in court (EnergyWire, May 19).
"Leaving such a big gap doesn't make any sense from a safety perspective," she said of DOT's thresholds. "Thirty-four carloads is a million gallons of flammable hazmat. ... Frankly, one or two carloads in many of the accidents that have been studied can create significant havoc."
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
Add recipients
Suggested