Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
House TSCA Reform Bill Slated For Floor Vote
Jun 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
The House's version of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation is slated for a floor vote June 23 under a suspension of rules that bars amendments from being offered and provides limited debate -- but requires a two-thirds majority of the House to approve it, suggesting lawmakers believe there is broad backing for the bill. -
Vote Expected Soon on Senate TSCA Bill
Jun 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The bipartisan Udall-Vitter Senate bill (S.697) to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act is set to get a floor vote “in the next few weeks,” according to Capitol Hill sources. The vote is likely to happen next month. -
Safer Substitutes Show Growth Potential
Jun 22, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The market for so-called ‘safer chemistry’ is set to outpace the overall global chemical market during the current decade. Companies are reducing their use and generation of hazardous substances, creating safer products and lowering the impact of processes on human health and the environment. -
Clear, Consistent Regulations will Help Prevent Accidents
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By John McQuaid
On June 8, a fire broke out at an agricultural fertilizer plant in Hanover, Pa., just 90 minutes from my home. -
Dem Governors Call for Strong Ozone Rule
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Regulators should write a stringent new surface-level ozone rule that follows “sound science and settled law,” five Democratic governors said in a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy. -
Democratic Governors Back Tighter Ozone Standard
Jun 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Five Democratic governors Friday called on U.S. EPA to follow the advice of its scientific advisory panel and lower the limit for ground-level ozone. -
Ariz. State Sen. Lesko Warns of Rooftop Installation Issues, Talks Power Plan Compliance Outlook
Jun 22, 2015 | E&E TV
As the state ranked second in the United States for solar rooftop installations, how do Arizona's policies on solar affect the rest of the country? -
Outlook: House GOP to Attack EPA, Senate Takes Another Shot at Trade
Jun 22, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz and Fawn Johnson
Pope Francis's eminently quotable encyclical on the environment couldn't have been better timed for floor debate this week in the House, as the chamber takes two swats at the Environmental Protection Agency's controversial rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants. -
Wrong Direction on Climate, Trade and Development
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lisa Sachs and Lise Johnson
In pushing for Trade Promotion Authority, the Obama administration argues that the agreements it is negotiating (including TPP and TTIP) are true 21st century agreements that correct the failings of past agreements and will promote trade and investment that can both re-launch America as the key economic player and promote broad-based sustainable development at home and abroad. -
Week Ahead: Energy Bills Hit the House Floor
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House is taking up a slew of environmental measures including a bill that would slash EPA funding and block many of President Obama's climate rules. -
EPA Report Touts Big Benefits to US from Global Climate Policies
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration unveiled a new weapon Monday in its fight against climate change, with a report showing billions of dollars in domestic benefits from aggressive international climate policies. -
(ACC Mentioned) AAR, Rail Shipper Groups Applaud Senate's Passage of STB Bill
Jun 22, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015 (S. 808), which was passed late last week by the U.S. Senate, would bring "commonsense improvements" to the board's review of rate cases, Association of American Railroads (AAR) officials said in a press release. -
Enviro Challenges to Crude Transport Rule Heading to D.C.
Jun 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups that sued the Obama administration over new rules for crude-by-rail safety are moving their challenges from regional courts to Washington, D.C.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
House TSCA Reform Bill Slated For Floor Vote
Jun 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
The House's version of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation is slated for a floor vote June 23 under a suspension of rules that bars amendments from being offered and provides limited debate -- but requires a two-thirds majority of the House to approve it, suggesting lawmakers believe there is broad backing for the bill.
The bill, H.R. 2576, known as the TSCA Modernization Act, cleared the House Energy & Commerce Committee during a June 3 markup. At the markup, Democrats continued to highlight existing concerns about language in the bill that would preempt some state chemicals programs, though the measure takes a far more limited approach to preemption than a pending bipartisan Senate bill to overhaul the 1976 TSCA.
H.R. 2576 was placed on the lower chamber's suspension calendar for June 23, which means that debate on the legislation is limited, no amendments may be offered, and a two-thirds majority of lawmakers is required to pass the bill. The process is generally used to quickly approve bills believed to be non-controversial.
During the June 3 House energy committee markup on H.R. 2576, members approved the bill in a unanimous vote, with 47 lawmakers voting in favor of the bill and one Democrat, Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA), abstaining. But the committee chose to punt on an amendment offered by Eshoo that would strengthen protections for state chemical laws, but committee Democrats suggested it must be addressed ahead of a floor vote.
Eshoo agreed to withdraw the amendment after Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), ranking member on the full energy committee, said that there was not ample time to discuss the issue during the markup.
But Pallone vowed that the preemption dispute "is an issue we need to address" before the bill goes to the House floor.
The House bill would "grandfather," or preserve existing state chemical safety laws that have taken affect 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, S. 697, 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.
S. 697 cleared the upper chamber's environment committee April 28 in a 15-5 vote but the panel's ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) strongly opposes the bill, in part over the preemption language. She has vowed to introduce dozens of amendments when the bill is debated on the Senate floor, which could occur later this month.
-
Vote Expected Soon on Senate TSCA Bill
Jun 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The bipartisan Udall-Vitter Senate bill (S.697) to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act is set to get a floor vote “in the next few weeks,” according to Capitol Hill sources. The vote is likely to happen next month.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the measure in April by a 15-5 vote, with four of the nine Democrats on the panel backing it (CW 29 April 2015).
However, it met with opposition from Ranking Member Barbra Boxer (D-California), who has introduced a competing bill (CW 13 March 2015).
After all her amendments were rejected by the committee, Ms Boxer made clear that she had no intention of relenting on the floor. “I will stand on my feet until I can't stand on my feet anymore, because I refuse to bend in the face of serious problems in a bill that is said to fix a broken law. If anybody thinks this fight is over, it is just beginning.”
Asked if there had been any recent negotiations with Ms Boxer to win her over, an aide to Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), co-author of the bill, would say only that Mr Udall and others “continue to talk to everyone about expanding the support for the bill”.
S.697 has 40 co-sponsors, about half of them Democrats.
Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that implementing S.697 would increase the EPA's regulating chemical safety workload by about 30% a year. That would mean that the agency would need about $17m annually over the next five years to cover the costs of additional personnel, contractors and other administrative activities to meet the new requirements of the legislation.
Assuming that the bill would be enacted in 2015, the CBO expects that over the next two years the EPA would focus on “implementing S.697 primarily by producing guidance documents and cost-benefit analyses and performing other administrative tasks related to the rulemaking process for the review of the safety of new chemicals and substances currently in use”.
By 2018, enforcement of the new provisions of TSCA would begin and the EPA is expected to shift funding to cover additional government personnel. The CBO estimates that spending on new administrative activities over the next five years would total $72m.
The legislation authorises the EPA to charge two types of fees. One would be imposed on chemical manufacturers and processors who are required to submit certain types of notices or requests for exemptions under the bill.
In addition, the EPA could charge fees on manufacturers and processors who seek safety assessments and determinations for chemicals.
Based on the EPA's information, the CBO estimates that collections from firms requesting safety assessments and determinations would begin in 2016, and would total $4m in that year, and that by 2019 would total $7m annually.
S.697 specifies that all additional fees collected by the EPA would be recorded in the budget as offsetting collections (an offset to appropriated spending). The CBO estimates that such collections would total $80m over the next five years. Thus, it says, "enacting this legislation would result in a net reduction in spending of $8m over the 2016-2020 period, assuming future appropriations acts are consistent with CBO’s estimates”.
-
Safer Substitutes Show Growth Potential
Jun 22, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The market for so-called ‘safer chemistry’ is set to outpace the overall global chemical market during the current decade. Companies are reducing their use and generation of hazardous substances, creating safer products and lowering the impact of processes on human health and the environment. The impetus comes from a combination of tightening regulations and demand from consumers for more sustainable products.
Adidas and Puma have pledged to remove polyfluorinated compounds from their sports clothing lines © Shutterstock
A recent report, conducted by Trucost for the American Sustainable Business Council and the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council says the global market for ‘green chemistry’ – defined to include biobased chemicals, renewable feedstocks, polymers produced using more sustainable chemistry and less-toxic formulations – is projected to grow from $11 billion in 2015 to nearly $100 billion by 2020.
Although the report says investment in safer chemistry is ‘nascent and difficult to quantify,’ there are signs that it is growing. For example, the number of US patents for more sustainable chemistry jumped from 27 in 2000–2004 to 761 in 2010–2014. This indicates increasing momentum and evolving industry capacity, the report said.Bend, don’t break
The example of phthalate plasticisers is a good case study to highlight these phenomena. In response to concerns about plasticisers leaching out of products that infants and children put into their mouths, companies have developed molecules that work as plasticisers but have higher molecular weight that helps them to stick more effectively inside the polymer structure and not leach out.
The European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates (ECPI) says the plasticisers market is strongly influenced by the EU’s Reach (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) legislation and other EU chemical regulations. ECPI spokesperson Michela Mastrantonio notes that 12 low molecular weight phthalates have been identified in Europe as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) and placed on the Reach Candidate List, which triggers various information requirements and means that they may subsequently be phased out.
ECPI data from the last 15 years show that use of higher molecular weight orthophthalates like di-isononyl- (DINP), di-isodecyl- (DIDP) and bis-(2-propylheptyl) (DPHP) phthalates has significantly increased, while consumption of classified orthophthalates like di-butyl- (DBP) and bis-(2-ethylhexyl) (DEHP) phthalates has decreased. In parallel, non-phthalate plasticisers like di-isononyl cyclohexane dicarboxylate (DINCH) and less problematic para-isomers like di-octyl terephthalate (DOTP) have become more prominent.
Low molecular weight plasticisers are being replaced with heavier versions that are less likely to leach out of polymer products
Beyond plasticisers, other recent examples of products being chemically reformulated to make them less toxic and greener include the yellow and red pigments based on heavy metals like lead, chromium (iv) and cadmium, with azo-pigments, according to Ciara Dempsey, a regulatory affairs specialist with the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Dempsey also points to the lead-free solder that has been introduced following the EU waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) directives. These aim to promote recycling and re-use of materials, while also preventing the use of substances considered hazardous to human health or the environment.
More recently, Dempsey notes, many personal care companies have agreed to stop using plastic microbeads, which can end up in the marine environment and are thought to act as a vector for persistent organic pollutants. ‘This is an example of companies working more pro-actively rather than reactively to regulation,’ she says.
Construction Specialties has developed engineered copolyester interior fittings for areas where PVC is undesirable © Construction Specialties
Libby Bernick, Trucost’s senior vice president for North America, points to other examples of products in which chemicals are being substituted for less objectionable alternatives. For instance, she says Construction Specialties has begun manufacturing non-PVC wall coverings and other building materials for use in hospitals, where volatile chemicals emitted from PVC items can affect indoor air quality. The company uses an engineered copolyester made from glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) for these applications.
In addition, Bernick cites Johnson & Johnson’s reformulation of over 100 of its health and beauty products to eliminate ingredients of concern, including formaldehyde-releasing preservatives likequaternium-15. She says Adidas and Puma have pledged to remove polyflourinated chemicals from their clothing.
There are various reasons why companies are making substitutions towards safer chemicals, but regulation is generally the main driver especially in the UK, according to Dempsey. However, she also says re-branding and marketing issues could be a motivator for some companies, especially when they are under pressure from campaigners or consumers.
-
Clear, Consistent Regulations will Help Prevent Accidents
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By John McQuaid
On June 8, a fire broke out at an agricultural fertilizer plant in Hanover, Pa., just 90 minutes from my home. Coincidentally, the very next day, David Michaels, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), shared an update on the work the agency is doing to improve safety in U.S. chemical plants, especially as it related to the devastating April 2013 fire in West, Texas. While the cause of the Hanover fire is still unknown, the one in Texas has been attributed to improper storage of large quantities of ammonium nitrate.
While I applaud Michael’s efforts to address chemical facility safety in response to President Obama’s Executive Order 13650, directing federal agencies to review safety rules at chemical facilities, more needs to be done.
One key factor in preventing accidents like these is clear, consistent regulation regarding the transportation and warehousing of both hazardous and non-hazardous materials. Unfortunately, a misalignment exists between certain National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) fire codes and related OSHA and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. While this hasn’t received much attention, this disconnect poses a serious threat to public safety, worker safety, property safety and the environment.
This disconnect creates confusion among shippers and customers regarding which industrial packaging materials meet which codes for which products, leading to instances where shipments might meet transportation-related rules but not the latest health and safety standards.
Last week, a consortium of interested parties – the Industrial Packaging Safety Alliance, or PackSafe – sent a letter to Michaels urging OSHA to act. In doing so, we hope to persuade the agency to bring its regulations in-line with the current edition of the NFPA’s fire safety code, NFPA 30, that provides safeguards to reduce hazards associated with the storage, handling and use of flammable and combustible liquids. PackSafe aims to influence legislative and regulatory changes to provide a consistent approach to this critical public safety issue.
In fact, many existing OSHA standards governing explosives like ammonium nitrate, flammable and combustible liquids and hot work date to the early 1970s and are based on fire code guidance from the 1960s. It’s past time to update these regulations. At best, this threatens public safety. At worse, it’s a major disaster waiting to happen. We urge OSHA to work with us to more broadly modernize its regulations and keep the public safe.
McQuaid is a senior adviser to the Industrial Packaging Safety Alliance (PackSafe) and principal at MCQ Management Associates LLC.
-
Dem Governors Call for Strong Ozone Rule
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Regulators should write a stringent new surface-level ozone rule that follows “sound science and settled law,” five Democratic governors said in a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy.
The governors — Jerry Brown (Calif.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Jay Inslee (Wash.), Dannel Malloy (Conn.) and Peter Shumlin (Vt.) — praised the 45-year-old Clean Air Act for improving public health, but they said EPA's current ozone rule isn’t strong enough to do that in the future.
“The 2008 primary ozone standard is inadequate to protect public health,” the governors wrote in a Friday letter. “We urge you to finalize the proposed ozone standards in a timely manner that reflects sound science and settled law.”
The EPA is finalizing a rule to tighten its ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to 65 or 70 parts per billion.
The agency has said the new standards will protect public health, especially among children, the elderly and those with respiratory issues. But opponents of the rule, especially Republicans and manufacturers, say the standards will be expensive to implement and could lead to job losses.
In their letter, the governors tried to rebut that argument, saying Clean Air Act regulations have “saved hundreds of thousands of lives and generated trillions of dollars in economic benefits to our nation.”
“Compliance with national ambient air quality standards has consistently proven less costly and more beneficial than either its critics or supporters predicted,” they wrote. “The health and environmental benefits associated with cleaner air continue to outweigh the costs of achieving those standards.”
Republicans have launched a legislative assault on the rule, introducing bills to block the EPA by taking the regulatory power out of its hands, forcing it to consider cost when writing pollution rules and delaying new regulations until counties can comply with the current ones.
Read the letter
-
Democratic Governors Back Tighter Ozone Standard
Jun 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Five Democratic governors Friday called on U.S. EPA to follow the advice of its scientific advisory panel and lower the limit for ground-level ozone.
In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the governors warned of potential adverse health effects linked to ozone levels above the current limit of 75 parts per billion. They also disputed arguments made by industry and GOP critics that a tighter ozone standard would lead to burdensome compliance costs.
"The 2008 primary ozone standard is inadequate to protect public health," the governors wrote. "We urge you to finalize the proposed ozone standards in a timely manner that reflects sound science and settled law."
California Gov. Jerry Brown, New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hasson, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the letter.
In November, EPA proposed to tighten the 75-ppb limit to between 65 and 70 ppb, finding after a review of scientific data that a more stringent standard was needed to protect against negative health effects linked to ozone pollution. Ground level ozone is a key component of smog formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight.
EPA is under an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline to choose a final standard.
The agency's Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee recommended, however, that the agency go lower with the standard and set it between 60 and 70 ppb, cautioning that the upper range may not be adequate enough to protect public health as the Clean Air Act requires.
"Air quality has improved markedly under the existing framework of the Clean Air Act," the governors wrote. "Nevertheless, the science clearly demonstrates that adverse health impacts continue to occur at current ozone levels."
Industry groups and many Republican lawmakers have put up a fierce battle against a tighter ozone standard, raising concerns both about the science backing EPA's proposal and the potential costs of putting in place new pollution controls to comply with a tighter standard.
In March, 11 Republican governors wrote a letter to EPA urging the agency to retain the existing standard.
"It goes without saying that most cities and counties have no chance of attaining" EPA's proposed range, the governors of Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin wrote in their letter (E&E Daily, March 17).
The coalition of five Democratic governors pushed back against cost concerns, arguing that the Clean Air Act has generated "trillions of dollars in economic benefits" to the United States throughout its 45-year history.
"Compliance with national ambient air quality standards has consistently proven less costly and more beneficial than either its critics or supporters predicted," the Democratic governors wrote. "The health and environmental benefits associated with cleaner air continue to outweigh the costs of achieving those standards."
-
Ariz. State Sen. Lesko Warns of Rooftop Installation Issues, Talks Power Plan Compliance Outlook
Jun 22, 2015 | E&E TV
As the state ranked second in the United States for solar rooftop installations, how do Arizona's policies on solar affect the rest of the country? During today's OnPoint, Arizona state Sen. Debbie Lesko (R) discusses the need to protect consumers in rooftop solar lease and purchase agreements and weighs in on attempts in Arizona to increase grid access fees and reduce rates for excess energy for rooftop solar customers. She also explains what steps her state is taking to prepare a compliance mechanism for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Arizona state Sen. Debbie Lesko. Senator Lesko, thank you for joining me.
Debbie Lesko: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Senator, a range of solar issues are being debated in your state, a state that is ranked second in the U.S. in solar. This year the Arizona Legislature unanimously passed and the governor also signed into law a piece of legislation that you sponsored that seeks to protect consumers who are considering rooftop solar lease finance and purchase agreements. What does this law do for consumers? Why was it needed?
Debbie Lesko: It protects consumers of rooftop solar system leases and finance agreements. It's needed because in Arizona we have -- we're -- as you said, we're the second-highest rooftop solar installation state, and as that has grown and developed, consumers started having problems. You know, some solar installations worked out very well for customers, but others did not, and it became a growing concern. So our attorney general's office was receiving escalating complaints. Our auditor general did a warning to school districts that were installing these saying, "You know what? Some of these systems are not getting the amount of power that they were promised to give."
So then I -- in the middle of this I got a call from constituents of mine in their mid-80s, and they signed up for a 20-year solar lease. And they said, "Debbie, please help us." They had to move into an independent living center because of their health and they couldn't sell their house. They tried to sell it. They showed it to 149 different people over a year's time, and nobody wanted to take on the liability. There were 17 years left on this lease and they were having a really hard time. So eventually they've sold the house, but they had to pay down the lease payments in order to get a buyer to buy it. And that's what really got me involved, and the more and more I got involved in this, the more and more concerns that I saw popping up. And that's why it's so important. It's a growing industry. It's a viable industry. But there are some good players and there are some bad players, and people need to know what they're getting into.
Monica Trauzzi: So you don't just have concerns in Arizona; you also recently wrote a letter to the Illinois General Assembly where you point to some challenges you see associated with rooftop solar. And in Illinois during the General Assembly's spring session they considered measures that would encourage the use of solar and wind power. Why did you take that step of sending a letter of warning to Illinois?
Debbie Lesko: Because we're on the forefront of this industry. We know what's good and we know what concerns there are. And as I've said, our state has seen an increasing number of complaints, and as this industry starts growing I am increasingly concerned about the fallout from some of these unscrupulous solar companies that are promising consumers they're going to save tons of money. For instance, on some of these marketing materials that I have seen they say the utility companies are going to increase their rates by 4.8 percent per year for 20 years. That's not true. History has told us in Arizona that the average utility rate increase over the last 25 years is 1.2 percent per year. So if you're telling customers and making assumptions that utility rates are going to increase by 4.8 percent per year, or in some cases they're saying 6 percent per year, but it's really 1.2 percent per year, you're deceiving customers. And they are not getting the savings they said they were going to get.
Monica Trauzzi: Do you discourage your constituents from moving forward with solar rooftop installations?
Debbie Lesko: I don't discourage my constituents. I tell them to do their homework. And it's really difficult because what's happening is I'm talking to more and more people in my district, who most of them are senior citizens, quite frankly, that are reaching out to me, and they're getting into these 20-, 25-year leases, and they're not fully reading the contracts. So the marketer is not telling them, "You know what? Each and every year your lease payment is going to increase by 2.9 to 4 percent per year." Now when I had looked at the lease -- lease contracts, a lot of them say they are, but it's the marketer that's going about telling people. They believe the marketer. They're not doing fully their homework. It's very complicated. Some people are not getting the right number of solar panels on their roof. The inverter isn't working properly. They're not getting the output they were promised.
I had another gentleman -- very educated person, used to work for U.S. Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, and so smart guy, but he got into this. And a solar company sold him on an idea that he was going to save a whole bunch of money over 20 years. Well, it turned out he wasn't. In fact, when you add the solar lease payment along with the utility bill, he was actually paying more, quite a bit more, than he would if he hadn't had solar. And so we helped him renegotiate his agreement.
Monica Trauzzi: I want to dig into some of the other solar issues that are happening in your state.
Debbie Lesko: Sure.
Monica Trauzzi: Tucson Electric Power is now looking to pay rooftop solar users a wholesale rate instead of a retail rate for their excess energy. This follows Arizona Public Service moving to increase the grid access fee from $5 to $21 per month. Do you think that these steps will serve as a deterrent to consumers to move forward and install rooftop solar?
Debbie Lesko: I don't know the answer to that. I mean, rooftop solar is popular. It's popular in our state. There's a lot of companies that are marketing it quite aggressively. I do think that it's important that the consumers that can't afford solar or choose not to have rooftop solar on their roofs aren't subsidizing the consumers that do have solar on their roof. And they are subsidizing if the solar folks aren't paying their portion for the grid infrastructure charge. And so that's an important point, and I think the more and more that I go out and educate people or others go and educate people and say, "Listen, you're really subsidizing the people that can either afford to pay these things upfront or the people that are -- decided to go into these leases," and -- you know, it's sometimes a cost shift issue. And so we need to look at it carefully.
Monica Trauzzi: And this taps into a debate that's happening across the country.
Debbie Lesko: You bet.
Monica Trauzzi: I want to move on to EPA's draft Clean Power Plan. The agency says that Arizona must cut its emissions rate by 52 percent. That's the second-highest requirement in the country among states. In November of last year a group of your Republican colleagues in the state Senate wrote a letter to EPA expressing their concerns with the Clean Power Plan. Do you agree that your state is being penalized, as the senators said, for its development of low-carbon resources? What changes are you looking for when EPA finalizes the plan?
Debbie Lesko: I'm totally in disagreement with the EPA's proposed rules, and if I didn't sign onto that letter I should have signed onto that letter. They're going to damage the economy of our state drastically. In fact, one of our major power utility companies, SRP, Salt River Project, said it's impossible to do what they have proposed to do in the timeline they have proposed to do it, which is basically eliminate all coal-fired power plants by 2020. They can't do it. It's impossible. And when they start to move over to gas-powered, which will, you know, cost money, it's going to increase the rates to the consumers. Not only will it increase electricity rates, but one of the coal-fired power plants, the Navajo Generating Station, gives most of the electricity to our Central Arizona Project which delivers the water into Phoenix area and Tucson area. Their rates are going to increase as well. This is bad for the Arizona economy. It's too fast. It's too aggressive. We need a more measured approach.
Monica Trauzzi: What types of conversations are happening within the Senate about what your state's implementation plan will look like?
Debbie Lesko: That was a little bit controversial. We have given our agency the permission to start developing a state implementation plan, but we want the Legislature to review it. So that's what we agreed on this year.
Monica Trauzzi: Wow. All right, we'll end it there -- a lot to watch. Thank you for coming on the show.
Debbie Lesko: Thank you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Outlook: House GOP to Attack EPA, Senate Takes Another Shot at Trade
Jun 22, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz and Fawn Johnson
Pope Francis's eminently quotable encyclical on the environment couldn't have been better timed for floor debate this week in the House, as the chamber takes two swats at the Environmental Protection Agency's controversial rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants.
The rule forms the tentpole of President Obama's climate agenda, which Republicans dislike. Expect Democrats who support the climate change initiatives to bring up Francis's descriptions of the Earth turning to "filth" and his disdain for unchecked growth.
The House is first slated to vote on a bill from Rep. Ed Whitfield and others that would allow states to opt out of the EPA rule and delay its effective date until all legal challenges are settled. That rule is also blocked under a rider in the $30.17 billion-Interior Department and EPA appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016, which slashes $718 million from last year's EPA's budget and includes riders scaling back regulations on Clean Water Act authority, ground level smog and fracking.
The House also will debate on the floor a bill that would reform the nation's chemical management system, potentially amending the chemical law that has not seen a significant Congressional upgrade since its passage in 1976.
The Senate, meanwhile, is expected to pass early in the week one of the president's highest priorities, a trade promotion authority bill paving the way for free-trade deals such as the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership pact. Obama will have to rely upon about a dozen Senate Democrats who want to make sure that other trade-related bills, including one helping workers displaced by such deals, will be taken up and passed afterwards. They'll have to trust Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to ensure that the separate trade adjustment assistance bill, or TAA, won't fall by the wayside. McConnell said Thursday that even though his fellow Republicans have major reservations about TAA, "the votes will be there to pass it" in order to get TPA done. The goal is for President Obama to sign both bills by the July 4 recess.
After that, McConnell has to decide how hard to push back on Democrats who have insisted that they will block all federal spending bills until there is a new summit on the budget. Last week, Democrats followed through on their threat to block a Defense Department appropriations bill, which met with the expected "how dare you?" reactions from GOP supporters. McConnell could schedule another vote on the DOD bill or other spending bills to drive home the point.
There are also some bipartisan measures waiting in the Senate wings. There is a cybersecurity bill prepped and ready for the full Senate that would encourage companies to share data about breaches with federal investigators. The legislation needs at least a week of floor debate for amendments but has an excellent chance of passing afterwards. There is also an education bill, carefully crafted by two highly respected negotiators, Sens. Patty Murray and Lamar Alexander, that would update the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. Like cybersecurity, the education bill needs some vetting by the full Senate before final passage, but once that is over, it could set the benchmark for a long-overdue education reauthorization.
ENERGY
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will weigh its own bill attacking the climate rules at a Clean Air and Nuclear Safety subcommittee hearing on how the rule will affect electricity costs. Similarly, a House Science Committee subcommittee is holding a hearing examining a federal report that said coal plant retirements could more than double under the plan.
TECHNOLOGY
Office of Personnel Management Director Katherine Archuleta will run the gauntlet this week as she attempts to defend her agency's cybersecurity practices in the face of consternation on Capitol Hill over the ever-widening hack of federal employee data. Archuleta will appear before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Tuesday to discuss IT spending and data security before enduring a second encounter Wednesday with the House Oversight Committee, where multiple lawmakers, including Chairman Jason Chaffetz, already have called for her resignation. On Thursday she will face the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and Chairman Ron Johnson already has set the tenor: "Americans should be outraged by this."
-
Wrong Direction on Climate, Trade and Development
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lisa Sachs and Lise Johnson
In pushing for Trade Promotion Authority, the Obama administration argues that the agreements it is negotiating (including TPP and TTIP) are true 21st century agreements that correct the failings of past agreements and will promote trade and investment that can both re-launch America as the key economic player and promote broad-based sustainable development at home and abroad.
While that may be the ambition, an amendment House Republications surreptitiously tacked on to Trade Promotion Authority via language in the separate Customs Bill will do just the opposite. In order to rally supporters from within the party, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Republican colleagues used this strategy to amend Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to include a provision broadly directing negotiators to “ensure that trade agreements do not … obligate the United States with respect to global warming or climate change.”
This provision, if passed, threatens the U.S.’s ability to commit to meaningful obligations in the crucial December 2015 negotiations on a future climate agreement and will undermine the U.S.’s ability to take the lead in a low-carbon global economy.
The climate negotiations this coming December aim in large part to ensure that economic activities (such as cross-border flows of capital, goods, services, and technologies) advance, rather than hinder, the transition to a low-carbon economy and ensure necessary investment in adaptation strategies. Given the role that global economic activity plays as both a driver of and potential solution to the effects of climate change, the draft negotiating text on the climate agreement includes a range of provisions and commitments relating to such areas as trade, investment, intellectual property, and subsidies.
These, of course, are also all issues at the core of agreements such as the twelve-country TPP and the TTIP agreement with the EU.
So where is the line between a “trade agreement” subject to the TPA, and a climate change agreement whose implementation requires action on all of these trade-related issues? The answer is that it is not clear; and indeed, given the need for policy coherence to tackle these issues, there should be no strict separation.
This means that the House Trade Promotion Authority Bill as amended by the Customs Bill risks not only tying the government’s hands in addressing climate-related issues in its “trade agreements,” but also doing so in connection with negotiation of a climate treaty whose commitments and implementation are undeniably trade-related.
Even considering its more narrow implications on trade agreements, without considering the issues related to the broader climate negotiations, it is a woeful policy directive. Not only does it prevent policy coherence, but it also pushes right off the table the opportunity that truly modern trade agreements can provide in order to leverage the power of the private sector to address the huge challenges of climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Other recent trade agreements, including those of the EU, Singapore, and Japan, have included climate-change-related provisions such as those aimed at phasing out harmful and wasteful fossil fuel subsidies, and directed at promoting opportunities for cross-border trade and investment in renewable energies and clean technologies. In contrast, the US, bound by a short-sighted amendment to the TPA, would miss the chance to leverage its new treaties to achieve similar aims. While our incumbent fossil fuel players would gain, new innovative firms would continue to suffer to the long term detriment of our economy, our society, and the environment.
The climate change amendment has absolutely no place in a 21st century trade agreement.
Sachs is the director of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment. Johnson is a legal researcher and the head of Investment Law and Policy at the center.
-
Week Ahead: Energy Bills Hit the House Floor
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House is taking up a slew of environmental measures including a bill that would slash EPA funding and block many of President Obama's climate rules.
Lawmakers are expected to consider the Interior and environment appropriations bill, setting up a floor fight. The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday approved the bill, which would cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 9 percent and halt a handful of upcoming agency rules.
The House will also vote on the Ratepayer Protection Act. The bill, from Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), would allow states to opt out of the EPA’s proposed rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It would also block implementation of the rule until all legal challenges against it are decided.
Finally, a bill overhauling federal chemical safety laws will also be on the House floor. The legislation, which passed a House committee nearly unanimously earlier this month, would direct the EPA to assess dangerous chemicals and let states regulate them as well.
Two committees will also make upcoming EPA regulations the subject of hearings.
On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee on clean air will hold a hearing on the impact of the EPA’s proposed carbon rules on electricity rates.
The House Science, Space and Technology subcommittees on environment and energy will hold a joint hearing on the Energy Information Administration’s report on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan on Wednesday.
The House Natural Resources Committee’s oversight subcommittee will hold a hearing on the Bureau of Land Management's handling of wind and solar reclamation bonds on Wednesday. The next day, the panel’s energy and mineral resources subcommittee will hold a hearing on a bill to support mineral mining in the U.S.
A Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee will hold a hearing on energy exports on Tuesday.
Off Capitol Hill, Hawaii Gov. David Ige (D), Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton (D), former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) and former EPA Administrator Carol Browner are scheduled to participate in a Washington Post forum on energy Tuesday.
Also Tuesday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, will speak at a Heritage Foundation event on the “social cost of carbon” regulations.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) will speak at an Alliance to Save Energy discussion on comprehensive energy legislation on Wednesday.
-
EPA Report Touts Big Benefits to US from Global Climate Policies
Jun 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration unveiled a new weapon Monday in its fight against climate change, with a report showing billions of dollars in domestic benefits from aggressive international climate policies.
The report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cuts across many areas of concern and sectors of the economy, including public health, electricity, water resources and agriculture.
It’s meant to show Americans and world leaders alike what could happen by the end of the century if climate change goes unabated and what it would look like to cut greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
It comes at an important time for President Obama’s climate agenda, as House Republicans vote this week on a pair of bills to significantly weaken or outright repeal the administration’s limits on power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions, the main and most controversial pillar of Obama’s second-term climate push.
“Based on rigorous peer-reviewed science, the report examines two possible futures,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters Monday. “One is that we don’t really do anything to reduce carbon pollution, and the second is one where we take global action now.”
McCarthy called the report an “opportunity to understand how we can benefit and will benefit from global action, and how that compares to business as usual, if we don’t see that global action happen.”
Brian Deese, Obama’s top adviser for energy and environmental policy, said the report is an important piece of the administration’s drive to build support for Obama’s climate decisions.
“From our perspective at the White House, this is a very important report and another strong, clear indication that reinforces the scientific consensus that climate change is real, it’s being spurred by the human activity and it’s happening right now,” he said.
“The report also undergirds the president’s argument that we have not only a moral obligation to act, but we also have an economic opportunity, that if we take smart but aggressive actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
The analysis specifically looks at the benefits in the United States by the year 2100 if world leaders successfully limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
It finds billions of dollars in avoided problems and costs in each of six areas: health, infrastructure, electricity, water resources, agriculture and forestry and ecosystems.
It does not account for the costs of the carbon controls, since it does not analyze specific policies. But officials said the costs would pale in comparison to the benefits.
While other countries’ actions are largely outside of U.S. control, the Obama administration and the Group of 7 major economies have endorsed the 2-degree limit and are seeking that benchmark in a United Nations climate pact due to be finalized in December.
But while scientists, climatologists and others have agreed that 2 degrees is a good goal, they are extremely doubtful that it is possible given the greenhouse gas commitments that countries have pledged.
That doesn’t faze administration officials.
“You are continuing to see a clear commitment to taking the type of long-term actions that will be necessary to get to the place where science tells us that we need to get,” Deese said.
McCarthy said the United States is doing its part to get countries together on a 2-degree limit.
“While we cannot know yet whether the president’s strategy is going to be successful in showing U.S. leadership, there are significant signs that that leadership is being provided and recognized,” she said.
But on Capitol Hill, Republicans are trying to stop some of Obama’s key efforts against climate change.
This week, the House will vote on a bill that would let states opt out of plans to comply with power plant carbon limits if their governors determine it would harm the state.
Lawmakers will also vote on an appropriations bill that would slash the EPA’s budget and prevent it from enforcing the power plant bill.
“This administration has been hell-bent on implementing all sorts of regulations that are harmful to both our economy and our energy security,” Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said last week when the panel approved the bill.
Again, Deese was optimistic.
“The president has made it very clear that he is not going to accept attempts to undermine this very important work by Congress,” he said, adding that one main purpose of the report is to make sure lawmakers know the stakes of the fight.
The analysis was based on peer-reviewed studies and peer-reviewed itself.
-
(ACC Mentioned) AAR, Rail Shipper Groups Applaud Senate's Passage of STB Bill
Jun 22, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015 (S. 808), which was passed late last week by the U.S. Senate, would bring "commonsense improvements" to the board's review of rate cases, Association of American Railroads (AAR) officials said in a press release.
Introduced by Commerce, Science and Transportaton Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), S. 808 would "strike the right balance of preserving a market-based structure for shippers and railroads through this bill," said AAR President and Chief Executive Officer Ed Hamberger.
“This bill … will allow the STB to work more efficiently and, at the same time, recognizes the need for freight railroads to earn revenues that allow for billions of dollars in private spending each year to build, maintain and grow the nationwide rail network, so taxpayers don’t have to,” he said.
The bill would streamline the STB review process, as well as authorize the board to initiate investigations into some rail-service delays instead of just responding to service complaints. It also would require the STB to establish a complaint database and issue quarterly reports on complaints.
"The passage of my bipartisan legislation will make the STB more accountable and effective in addressing rail rate and service disputes. The severe rail backlogs and service delays that began at the end of 2013 and extended through 2014 are a reminder of just how vital our nation’s rail system is for agricultural producers in South Dakota as well as many other sectors of the U.S. economy," said Thune in a statement. "This legislation was the result of working with a host of stakeholders across the country to find agreement on reforms that will benefit shippers and railroads alike."
Unlike STB legislation introduced over the past several years, S. 808 is supported by the AAR and rail shipper groups, including the Rail Customer Coalition, which represents about 50 trade associations covering the largest freight-rail users. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is among the shipper groups that welcomed the Senate's passage of the bill, which council leaders characterized as "sensible" legislation.
"Over the past few years, a growing number of policymakers have learned what so many manufacturers, farmers and energy producers know all too well: the [STB] and the nation's freight-rail polices are in desperate need of modernization," said ACC President and Chief Executive Officer Cal Dooley in a prepared statement. "In light of the recent service breakdowns impacting rail customers nationwide, this legislation emphasizes the existing responsibility of the railroad industry to dedicate revenue appropriately to meet current and future service needs." -
Enviro Challenges to Crude Transport Rule Heading to D.C.
Jun 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups that sued the Obama administration over new rules for crude-by-rail safety are moving their challenges from regional courts to Washington, D.C.
ForestEthics, the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity and several other groups gave notice last week that they plan to withdraw their challenge from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and refile it in the D.C. Circuit. The New York-based environmental group Riverkeeper did the same Friday, announcing plans to pull its case from the 2nd Circuit and refile in the District. The groups have not yet determined whether they'll combine their two challenges.
The switch comes after the Department of Transportation, defending the rule against four challenges in four separate circuits, notified the environmental plaintiffs that the D.C. Circuit was the proper venue. Attorneys for the groups said they disagreed with the agency's determination but agreed to change venues to address the issues more quickly.
"While Riverkeeper does not concur with USDOT's conclusions regarding selection of the appropriate venue, Riverkeeper has decided not to contest USDOT's position," attorneys for the group wrote in a filing last week. "Accordingly, Riverkeeper seeks to voluntarily discontinue its Petition herein without prejudice, and with all parties bearing their own costs, and intends to file a new petition for review of the Final Rule in the D.C. Circuit on or before June 29, 2015."
Moving the cases to the D.C. Circuit is expected to simplify litigation for DOT, preventing an outcome of potentially conflicting circuit court opinions.
Both environmental suits were filed in May, just after the unveiling of DOT's new rule for rail transport of crude oil. The rule aims to improve safety by requiring retirement by 2018 of the most problematic type of tank cars, and setting new standards for the fleet that will replace them (Greenwire, May 1).
Environmentalists have argued that the rules are too lenient and allow dangerous tank cars to remain on the tracks for too long, while industry argues that the timeline is too aggressive and that industry will be unable to meet the deadlines.
The American Petroleum Institute already has a challenge to the rule pending in the D.C. Circuit. Plaintiffs in the fourth lawsuit -- from the village of Barrington, Ill., in the 7th Circuit -- did not respond when asked whether they would also move their claims to the D.C. Circuit, and a spokesman for DOT said the agency could not predict any plaintiff's actions.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested