Preview Newsletter
acc am june24
-
(ACC Mentioned) Leading Economic Indicator Heats Up
Jun 23, 2015 | PR Newswire (on Blackbird)
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), increased by 0.7 percent in June, followed by a similar gain in May, and an upwardly revised 0.5 percent gain in April. The pattern represents an acceleration of productivity not seen since the first quarter of 2011. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bill to Update Toxic Substances Control Act Sails Through House by 398-1 Vote
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The House of Representatives approved legislation to update the Toxic Substances Control Act June 23 by a 398–1 vote, paving the way for the Senate to take up its very different approach to amending TSCA, the nation's primary law covering chemicals. “We think this system sets a new standard for quality regulation"... -
(ACC Mentioned) House Approves Bill To Overhaul Chemical Regulation
Jun 23, 2015 | AP (in Salon)
By Matthew Daly
The House on Tuesday approved a bipartisan bill that would update regulation of harmful chemicals for the first time in nearly 40 years. The House vote, 398-1, moves the bill to the Senate, where a similar measure awaits a floor vote after winning approval from a Senate committee. -
(ACC Mentioned) Americans Trash $640 Worth Of Food A Year
Jun 24, 2015 | USA Today
By Hadley Malcolm
Americans throw away about $640 worth of food every year, and they don't really care about the environmental impact of trashed leftovers piling up in landfills, according to a survey out Wednesday from the American Chemistry Council. At at time when Americans may be more attuned than ever to the chemical makeup of food, buying organic ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Americans Throw Away $640 Worth Of Food Every Year
Jun 23, 2015 | WXYZ Detroit
Americans tend to waste hundreds of dollars by throwing out uneaten food every year, according to a new study. The American Chemistry Council found Americans throw away about $640 of food on average each year. Out of the 1,000 adults asked, 76 percent said they throw away leftovers at least once a month. -
House Passes Chemical Safety Reform Bill
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action
By Cristina Marcos
The House passed legislation on Tuesday to overhaul toxic chemical safety laws for the first time in decades. Passed on a 398-1 vote, the bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review chemicals in products and issue risk management regulations in an expedited manner. -
House Passes TSCA Bill
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The House approved a bipartisan overhaul of chemical safety law today on a 398-1 vote, bringing Congress closer to a bicameral deal that would reshape decades-old rules for EPA to evaluate new chemicals. The bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would cost $143 million between 2016 and 2025, drew one Republican vote... -
House Approves TSCA Bill On Nearly Unanimous Vote
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
House lawmakers late yesterday easily approved a bipartisan bill to overhaul how the federal government manages toxic chemicals, in the most significant vote on the issue in nearly 40 years. Lawmakers signed off on H.R. 2576, the "TSCA Modernization Act," by a vote of 398-1 late yesterday under suspension of the rules. The lone dissenter... -
U.S. Backs Appeal in RCRA Citizen Suit Over Chemically Treated PG&E Utility Poles Sewage BNA Snapshot Development: DOJ's amicus brief says dismissal of case was erroneous. By Steven M. Sellers June 23 — Seepage from chemically treated utility poles consti
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Seepage from chemically treated utility poles constitutes a “solid waste” properly regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act even when it's also subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, the federal government told the Ninth Circuit in a June 22 amicus brief (Ecological Rights Found. v. Pacific Gas... -
(ACC Blog) Four Ways To Help New Rules That Govern Drones Soar
Jun 23, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Thanks to advancing capabilities and greater accessibility, the use of drones is continuing to increase. In fact, global drone sales reached $4.3 million in 2015, a 167 percent jump from two years ago. This surge should come as no surprise as people find more and more useful ways to put drones to work. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) Pressure Relief Valve Provisions Focus Of Industry Lawsuit on Off-Site Waste Rule
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Provisions of an Environmental Protection Agency air toxics rule related to the operation of pressure relief devices in facilities that handle waste, used oil and used solvents will be the focus of the American Chemistry Council litigation over the regulation, according to court documents (Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir... -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks Stay Of EPA Waste Recovery Air Rule Suit
Jun 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
Chemical manufacturers are asking an appellate court to temporarily stay litigation they filed over an EPA air emissions rule that sets new requirements governing industrial waste and recovery operations, saying the agency should be given time to decide whether to grant their petition asking EPA to reconsider parts of the rule. -
Judge Blocks Federal Fracking Rule
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal judge in Wyoming has temporarily blocked implementation of the Obama administration’s regulations for hydraulic fracturing on federal land, hours before they were set to take effect. The late Tuesday decision in the District Court of Wyoming means the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) cannot implement... -
New Federal Fracking Rules Delayed by U.S. Judge in Wyoming
Jun 24, 2015 | Bloomberg Business
New U.S. fracking safety rules set to take effect Wednesday were put on hold by a Wyoming federal judge who said he needed more evidence to decide whether to block them as requested by drillers and four western states. Before a courtroom audience in Casper that included the state attorneys general of Wyoming and North Dakota, U.S. District... -
Court Puts Interior’s Fracking Rule In Limbo Until August
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Obama administration’s fracking regulations that were set to take effect on Wednesday are now on hold until August thanks to a Wyoming federal judge who today granted a stay as he hears a challenge from industry groups and four states. Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled that the challenge to the Bureau ... -
Greens Claim To Have Found Fatal Flaw In Shell's Drilling Plan
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
The Obama administration violated its own marine mammal regulations last month when it approved Royal Dutch Shell PLC's proposal to drill two exploration wells this summer in Alaska's remote Chukchi Sea, according to a coalition of environmental groups opposing the company's plans. -
Skeptical Senate Dems Weigh GOP Arguments For Allowing Exports
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
As Senate Republicans doubled down on national security arguments for lifting a 40-year-old ban on crude exports, a centrist Democrat signaled a willingness to consider selling U.S. oil abroad. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire said she would consider lifting the ban if it's part of a comprehensive energy policy with assurances it wouldn't... -
FERC Dismisses Sierra Club Objection To La. Export Terminal
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today denied requests to reconsider its approval of an export terminal in Louisiana over climate concerns. FERC dismissed the Sierra Club's request for a rehearing of the 2012 approval of an expansion at the Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas export terminal in Cameron Parish, La. -
Rules Committee Moves Interior-EPA Spending And Carbon Rule Bills
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The House Rules Committee tonight set the guidelines for the chamber’s debate on the fiscal 2016 Interior-EPA spending bill and Rep. Ed Whitfield’s Ratepayer Protection Act. A modified-open rule was approved for the $30 billion House Interior-EPA appropriations measure, which allows lawmakers to offer any amendment... -
House Postpones Interior-EPA Spending Votes
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Afternoon Energy
By Jennifer Shutt
The House will take up amendments and final passage of its fiscal 2016 spending bill for the EPA and Interior Department next month instead of this week, as previously scheduled, the majority leader’s office announced today. The delay will give lawmakers time to travel to Charleston, S.C., for memorial services for the victims... -
White House Issues Veto Threat for House Power Plant Bill; Capito Pushes Own Effort
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Andrew Childers
President Barack Obama's advisers would recommend that he veto legislation allowing states to defer compliance with the Clean Power Plan until all legal challenges are exhausted or opt out altogether if implementing the rule would increase electricity rates or jeopardize reliability in their states, according to a June 23 statement of administration... -
Final Power Rule Will Retain Proposal's 'Ambition' -- White House Official
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The Clean Power Plan that U.S. EPA finalizes this summer will have the same stringency as the proposed version, whatever other changes the agency makes, a top White House official said today. White House climate adviser Brian Deese said today at a White House climate and health summit that the final existing power plant carbon rule now... -
5 Standing Up Against EPA Overreach Benefits Americans Everywhere
Jun 24, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)
As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plunges headlong into remaking the very fabric of American electricity generation, it is reassuring to know voices of reason continue to challenge the Agency’s reckless plans. Later this summer, EPA is expected to issue its Final Rule for regulating carbon emissions from power plants. -
White House Issues Veto Threats For Two GOP Environment Bills
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The White House has threatened to veto two GOP measures taking aim at Obama administration climate efforts. Lawmakers will consider Wednesday a bill from Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) allowing states to opt out of the the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) climate rule for power plants and block its implementation until legal... -
White House Reviewing EPA's Methane Standards for New, Existing Landfills
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The White House is reviewing a pair of Environmental Protection Agency rules that could set new methane emissions limits for municipal landfills. The EPA has moved to better regulate methane from landfills as part of an administration strategy to curb emissions of the pollutant. The strategy directs the EPA to regulate methane... -
EPA Advances Revised Landfill Methane NSPS Proposal For OMB Review
Jun 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has sent for White House review what appears to be a revised version of its earlier proposed rule outlining potential first-time limits on the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from new landfills that is due for release by July, as well as a related proposal on whether to regulate methane from existing landfills that is due in August. -
Senators Urge Interior to Appeal Ruling On Colorado Mine Environmental Review
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Four Republican senators urged Interior Secretary Sally Jewell June 23 to appeal a federal court decision that could result in a shutdown of a Colorado surface coal mine and to begin discussions with the affected communities. Many in the state's Moffat and Rio Blanco counties are concerned that Interior's Office of Surface Mining... -
Climate Change Growing Threat To Public's Health, Not Just Planet's: Officials
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
The White House wants to start a national dialogue on why climate change isn't just bad for the planet's health but for the public's health, too. Climate change brings with it a host of public health problems, from more intense heat waves to longer allergy seasons to higher risks of Lyme disease. -
Climate Change Calls for Science, Not Hope
Jun 24, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eduardo Porter
Is the American approach to combating climate change going off the rails? Last year, President Obama set a goal of reducing carbon emissions by as much as 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, only 10 years from now. Now, environmental experts are suggesting that some parts of the strategy are, at best, a waste of money and time. -
New Data Casts Doubt On Some Energy Efficiency Efforts
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
The EPA is counting on energy efficiency to help offset higher electric bills from its carbon dioxide rule for power plants, but a University of Chicago study released Tuesday may blow a hole in the agency’s reasoning. The researchers studied the federal Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps low-income households improve... -
5 Standing Up Against EPA Overreach Benefits Americans Everywhere
|
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Approves Bill To Reform Freight Rail Policies
Jun 23, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glen Hess
Chemical manufacturers are welcoming recent Senate approval of legislation that would overhaul U.S. freight rail policy. The bill (S. 808) would reform operations at the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a small federal agency that resolves rate and service disputes between freight railroads -
Hazmat Safety Programs Not Yet Included In Six-Year Senate Surface Transportation Bill
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A six-year surface transportation reauthorization bill introduced June 23 doesn't include hazardous materials safety programs, but a Senate aide told Bloomberg BNA that the provision still could be added. The Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act (bill number unavailable), or DRIVE Act... -
PHMSA Would Receive $246M for FY 2016 Under Senate Subcommittee-Approved Bill
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A Senate Appropriations subcommittee approved a bill June 23 that includes $246 million in fiscal year 2016 funding for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The funding bill approved by the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies still includes $43 million less for PHMSA...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Leading Economic Indicator Heats Up
Jun 23, 2015 | PR Newswire (on Blackbird)
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), increased by 0.7 percent in June, followed by a similar gain in May, and an upwardly revised 0.5 percent gain in April. The pattern represents an acceleration of productivity not seen since the first quarter of 2011. Data is measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). Accounting for adjustments, the CAB remains up 3.7 percent over this time last year, also an acceleration of annual growth as compared to the first half of 2015.
The Chemical Activity Barometer has four primary components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators. During June chemical equity process, product prices, and inventory all improved.
The Chemical Activity Barometer is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy's business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
Applying the CAB back to 1919, it has been shown to provide a lead of two to 14 months, with an average lead of eight months at cycle peaks as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The median lead was also eight months. At business cycle troughs, the CAB leads by one to seven months, with an average lead of four months. The median lead was three months. The CAB is rebased to the average lead (in months) of an average 100 in the base year (the year 2007 was used) of a reference time series. The latter is the Federal Reserve's Industrial Production Index.
The CAB comprises indicators relating to the production of chlorine and other alkalies, pigments, plastic resins and other selected basic industrial chemicals; chemical company stock data; hours worked in chemicals; publicly sourced, chemical price information; end-use (or customer) industry sales-to-inventories; and several broader leading economic measures (building permits and new orders). Each month, ACC provides a barometer number, which reflects activity data for the current month, as well as a three-month moving average. The CAB was developed by the economics department at the American Chemistry Council.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bill to Update Toxic Substances Control Act Sails Through House by 398-1 Vote
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The House of Representatives approved legislation to update the Toxic Substances Control Act June 23 by a 398–1 vote, paving the way for the Senate to take up its very different approach to amending TSCA, the nation's primary law covering chemicals.
“We think this system sets a new standard for quality regulation,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) prior to the House vote. Shimkus introduced the TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576) May 26 after holding hearings during the current and the past Congress on draft versions of the legislation.
“We want to be protected from harm, but we do not want needless, expensive regulation. Consumers want safe choices, not no choice at all,” Shimkus said.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said, “Industry gains a fair, predicable federal program for chemical regulation—a program that will inspire public confidence in the safety of their products.”
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) was the sole no vote.
The Senate will take up its bill to revamp TSCA soon, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg BNA June 23.
“It's a very important bill that is supported broadly in the Senate and we will find time for it on the floor shortly,” McConnell said. Forty senators, equally divided between Republicans and Democrats, support the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act Senate (S. 697).
Using different means to accomplish some of their goals, H.R. 2576 and S. 697 for the first time would require the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the risks of chemicals in commerce, make it easier for the EPA to obtain toxicity and other data from chemical manufacturers and impose fees on chemical manufacturers for certain services the agency provides them as it reviews new or existing chemicals.
By contrast, TSCA does not require the EPA to evaluate the risks of chemicals in commerce; the agency can obtain toxicity, exposure and other data on chemicals from manufacturers from rulemaking or consent agreements it must negotiate with manufacturers; and the agency imposes fees only to review new chemicals before they are made, but not for any work it does addressing the many more thousands of chemicals in commerce.
“Congress had to step in and explicitly legislate to gain public health and environmental protections from PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls] and asbestos,” Tonko said. “Because of the regulatory vacuum at the federal level, some states have legislated to secure protections for their citizens. In some cases, large retailers have initiated their own chemical policies to respond to consumers' concerns. Forty years of ineffective federal policy is enough.”
Move to Eliminate ‘Impossible Burden.’
Both bills would eliminate what Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called the “impossible burden” that TSCA imposes, because it requires the EPA to choose the “least burdensome” means of addressing the risks posed by a chemical the agency has found causes an unreasonable health or environmental risk.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a statement supporting the House measure.
“I want to thank the environmental organizations and concerned citizens from the public health community who worked so hard to change a dangerous TSCA reform bill that first surfaced two years ago,” Boxer said in a statement shortly after the House vote. “The bill that passed the House today is a completely different approach which is intended to preserve the rights of the states to protect their citizens from harmful chemicals and sets out a pathway for the EPA to act on dangerous chemicals. That is why the California Attorney General supports the House TSCA bill and not the Senate TSCA bill.”
“While the House bill could still be improved, I feel it is the appropriate bill to take up in the United States Senate where we can work on just a few amendments to make it better,” said Boxer. “The Senate bill is far more complex. Its preemption provision is complicated and will lead to the court house.”
A conference report the committee has written to accompany H.R. 2576 will provide Congress's thinking on many issues that have been raised by some parties tracking the legislation, Pallone said. For example, the report will make it clear that manufacturer-requested chemical assessments should not overwhelm the agency's staff and other resources, he said.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, BASF Corp., 3M, Dow Chemical Co., DuPont and the Koch Companies Public Sector LLC are among the companies and trade associations that have lobbied in support of both the House and Senate bills.
The Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the costs of H.R. 2576 June 23.
Implementing the requirements in the House bill from 2016 to 2020 would cost the EPA $64 million during the next five years and $143 million during the 2016–2025 period, assuming appropriation actions consistent with the bill, the budget office said.
Chemical manufacturers would pay $108 million during the period 2016 to 2020 through fees the bill would authorize the EPA to collect, the budget office said.
Path to Bipartisan Backing
The strong bipartisan support the TSCA Modernization Act has received is due to several factors, Shimkus told Bloomberg BNA.
The House Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy held eight hearings on TSCA during the last Congress, Shimkus said.
Early in this Congress he came to the table with TSCA-reform provisions he supported and asked Democrats to bring their suggestions to the table, Shimkus said, adding “that gave them ownership.”
Working with other committee members, he said members combined what they learned from the eight hearings with parameters of a TSCA reform bill that they observed by watching debate on various bills the Senate has considered.
Watching the Senate's work gave the House a sense of its best road forward on its bill, Shimkus said.
The Senate now is watching the House move its bill and that, he said, has helped spur its bipartisan work.
Asked how the two chambers would reconcile the many differences in their bills, Shimkus said the leadership is thinking through various options.
Deadline Changes, Flexibility Added Before Floor Vote
Prior to the June 23 vote, the TSCA Modernization Act was revised in a few places since the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the bill June 3 without opposition (107 DEN A-16, 6/4/15).
These changes included clarifying that the EPA would have to develop procedures that chemical manufacturers would follow when they ask and pay for the agency to evaluate risks of chemicals, Mark Duvall, an attorney specializing in TSCA at Beveridge & Diamond P.C., told Bloomberg BNA June 22.
The bill's deadline provisions for completing risk evaluations also were revised after the committee approved H.R. 2576, Duvall said.
The bill approved by the House would require the EPA to complete risk evaluations requested and paid for by chemical manufacturers within two years, whereas risk evaluations the agency undertakes itself would have to be completed within three years.
The EPA also would have more flexibility to adjust the timing of when it would begin risk evaluations under the bill approved by the House than it would have under the bill the committee approved, Duvall said.
If the EPA were to receive more chemical evaluation requests from manufacturers than it would have resources available to meet the bill's deadlines, the agency could delay some manufacturer-requested evaluations until it has adequate resources, he said.
The agency, however, could not collect fees for those manufacturer-requested risk evaluations until it begins the requested analysis, according to Duvall.
Republicans in the House agreed to ease the agency's ability to control its own risk evaluation schedule, but despite opposition from some critics they have consistently retained the bill's provision that would allow chemical manufacturers to request and pay for risk evaluations, Duvall said. Clearly empowering chemical manufacturers to have the EPA make decisions about certain chemicals is a high priority, he added.
Once the EPA makes a final determination about a chemical's risks, the agency's decision to regulate the chemical or not would be considered final actions under H.R. 2576 and therefore preempt state regulation of the same chemical.
Two-Year Deadline Means ‘EPA in Chronic Overdrive.’
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell P.C., told Bloomberg BNA in a June 23 e-mail that the changes in the bill prior to the House vote seemed to reflect the need for consensus more than anything
“EPA will be challenged to complete risk evaluations in two years. Complex chemicals with multiple uses will be exceedingly hard to complete in 24 months and EPA will be in a state of chronic overdrive to meet this metric,” Bergeson said.
Another section of H.R. 2576 that was revised prior to the House vote addressed money the EPA would collect from chemical manufacturers through fees the bill would authorize, Bergeson said.
Under the revised text, Congress would have to approve in advance through its appropriation bills the amount of revenue that the EPA could collect through fees, she said.
The effect of this provision would be to impose a fiscal limitation on the agency, Bergeson said. “Prior versions of the bill might have allowed EPA to use the fee amounts without any consideration of whether Congress had actually appropriated such usage of fees,” she said.
Other individuals with whom Bloomberg BNA spoke said they retained their objections to H.R. 2576. They declined to be identified, because the environmental groups for which they work had not fully vetted their positions.
The advocates' chief concern was that the House bill would put chemical manufacturers in charge of the agency's chemical evaluation agenda, they said.
Udall, Shimkus to Discuss Both Bills
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who introduced S. 697 in March, will discuss that bill and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) will discuss the House legislation during a June 25 briefing on Capitol Hill organized by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Approves Bill To Overhaul Chemical Regulation
Jun 23, 2015 | AP (in Salon)
By Matthew Daly
The House on Tuesday approved a bipartisan bill that would update regulation of harmful chemicals for the first time in nearly 40 years.
The House vote, 398-1, moves the bill to the Senate, where a similar measure awaits a floor vote after winning approval from a Senate committee.
Both bills would set safety standards for tens of thousands of chemicals that now are unregulated. The bills also would offer protections for people, such as pregnant women, children and workers, who are vulnerable to the effects of chemicals and set deadlines for the Environmental Protection Agency to act.
If enacted into law, the bill would be the first significant update to Toxic Substances Control Act since the law was adopted in 1976.
Regulation of chemicals took on new urgency after a crippling spill in West Virginia last year contaminated drinking water for 300,000 people. The chemical, crude MCHM, is one of thousands unregulated under current law.
The House bill differs from the Senate version in a number of areas, including a provision that allows states to continue regulating toxic chemicals as long as the state law does not conflict with the federal statute.
Lawmakers in both chambers have struggled to find language acceptable to those seeking strong state regulation of dangerous chemicals while not creating a situation where industry faces 50 sets of rules for chemicals.
Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., lead sponsor of the House bill, said the measure was a long time in the making, noting that similar efforts have stalled in each of the last few years.
Shimkus, chairman of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on environment and the economy, said the bill "takes a common-sense approach" to protecting people from unsafe chemicals while setting reasonable standards for regulation.
"We want our constituents to be safe and we want markets to work. This bill delivers both," he said.
Rep. Paul Tonko of New York, senior Democrat on the environment and economy subcommittee, called the bill a significant improvement over current law.
"The public has too little information about the safety of chemicals they are exposed to every day in virtually every product they use," Tonko said. "Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm to people's health, EPA is unable to regulate exposure to toxic chemicals" such as BPA, formaldehyde, styrene and other hazardous substances. Current law is so weak that it even prevented EPA from completely banning deadly asbestos, Tonko and other supporters said.
Under the House bill, "industry gains a fair, predicable federal program for chemical regulation" that will inspire public confidence in the safety of their products, Tonko said, while "the public health and environmental communities gain a federal program in which EPA evaluates chemicals and acts to regulate" those it determines pose a risk to health or the environment.
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., warned that the bill did not adequately address legal ambiguities concerning how states may enforce their own chemical laws. Eshoo and other lawmakers said they worried that the bill could pre-empt aggressive regulation by states such as California, Vermont and Massachusetts that monitor chemicals closely.
The American Chemistry Council, an industry lobbying group, said in a statement that the House bill "will build confidence in the U.S. chemical regulatory system, protect human health and the environment from significant risks, and meet the commercial and competitive interests of the U.S. chemical industry and the national economy."
But Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy group, said the bill has an untested and ambiguous safety standard and fails to require tough deadlines for final agency action. Promised reviews of dangerous chemicals could languish if Congress does not approve adequate funds for the program, he said.
"Congress has neglected the problem of dangerous chemicals in consumer products for decades, to the great benefit of chemical industry profits," Cook said. "American families should not have to wait more decades for a regulatory system that aggressively protects their health from toxic chemicals."
___
-
(ACC Mentioned) Americans Trash $640 Worth Of Food A Year
Jun 24, 2015 | USA Today
By Hadley Malcolm
Americans throw away about $640 worth of food every year, and they don't really care about the environmental impact of trashed leftovers piling up in landfills, according to a survey out Wednesday from the American Chemistry Council.
At at time when Americans may be more attuned than ever to the chemical makeup of food, buying organic and sourcing locally, they're still struggling to avoid throwing a lot of food away, data show.
While many Americans live on leftovers — more than half use them to make new meals and nearly two-thirds repurpose leftovers for other meals, like lunch — 76% also say they throw away leftovers at least monthly, according to ACC's survey of 1,000 adults.
The wasted money bugs 79%, and 45% are bothered because other people don't have enough to eat, but just 15% say they're bothered by the impact on the environment.
"For years we've been told to finish your plate, there are hungry people," says Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at ACC, a trade organization for chemical companies that also advocates for the use and recycling of plastics, such as food storage containers and packaging. "I just don't think we've done a good enough job yet talking about the environmental impacts of food waste."
Food waste makes up more than 20% of what's in landfills, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It releases methane gas as it rots, a potent greenhouse gas. Plus there's the environmental impact created by growing and shipping food across the country.
But most consumers aren't thinking about that when they throw away food, says Brian Wansink, author of Slim by Design: Mindless Eating Solutions for Everyday Life. That may be because the environmental effects of food waste aren't as visceral as feelings of guilt.
"What bothers most people is that it makes them feel foolish ... having to admit you were wrong to prepare so much food or serve so much food if we're not eating it," Wansink says.
The survey's findings fall in line with other research. In a publication in the journal PLOS earlier this month, consumers were asked to rank their motivations for reducing food waste, and saving money came out on top, while factors like greenhouse gas emissions and using up resources such as energy and water ranked last: 22% said those issues were "not at all important" to getting them to reduce food waste.
Asked why they throw away food, consumers said it was mostly due to food safety and wanting to eat the freshest food possible, according to the research, "Wasted Food: U.S. Consumers' Reported Awareness, Attitudes and Behaviors."
Wansink, who studies consumers' food habits at Cornell University's Food and Brand Lab, says the most common sources of food waste are when consumers buy too much food or prepare too much for a given meal.
Cutting waste may be as simple as changing the way food is stored after it's opened, Russell says, making sure food is portioned into the right-sized containers and that air is squeezed out of plastic bags. Plus, consumers need to understand where items should be stored, such as putting bread and pastas in cool, dry areas while relegating fruits and vegetables to the refrigerator or at least out of sunlight.
"Air is the enemy," Russell says. "It causes food to rot faster."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Americans Throw Away $640 Worth Of Food Every Year
Jun 23, 2015 | WXYZ Detroit
Americans tend to waste hundreds of dollars by throwing out uneaten food every year, according to a new study.
The American Chemistry Council found Americans throw away about $640 of food on average each year.
Out of the 1,000 adults asked, 76 percent said they throw away leftovers at least once a month.
The study also found Americans care more about the money they waste than the environmental impact of trashed food.
About 79 percent of people asked said they were concerned about the money spent on wasted food, but only 15 percent said they were worried about food products piling up in landfills. -
House Passes Chemical Safety Reform Bill
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action
By Cristina Marcos
The House passed legislation on Tuesday to overhaul toxic chemical safety laws for the first time in decades.
Passed on a 398-1 vote, the bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review chemicals in products and issue risk management regulations in an expedited manner.
It would allow states to issue their own regulations even though the EPA’s risk management rules would apply nationwide. Manufacturers could further petition the EPA to rule on the safety of chemicals present in their products.ADVERTISEMENTLawmakers said that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) law, originally enacted in 1976, was overdue for a rewrite.
“The time is now to update this outdated law,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the bill’s author.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) warned that toxic chemicals needed to be reined in to protect public health.
“Toxic chemicals can be found in the products we use every day and are steadily building up in our bodies and the environment. Consumers are worried about chemicals like BPA and triclosan but they don’t know how to avoid them," Pallone said. "Something needs to change."
The legislation has broad support from a range of stakeholders, including the chemical distribution industry.
“The House has an opportunity to act in a bipartisan manner by passing legislation that will protect consumers while improving efficiency for the chemical industry and the economy overall,” National Association of Chemical Distributors President Eric R. Byer said in a statement.
Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have authored similar legislation, which was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in April.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has indicated that he will move the legislation before the August recess.
-
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The House approved a bipartisan overhaul of chemical safety law today on a 398-1 vote, bringing Congress closer to a bicameral deal that would reshape decades-old rules for EPA to evaluate new chemicals.
The bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would cost $143 million between 2016 and 2025, drew one Republican vote in opposition, California’s Tom McClintock.
On the other side of the Capitol, a wider-ranging Senate counterpart measure has amassed significant bipartisan support in recent weeks but remains without a firm commitment to floor time from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The Senate TSCA bill also faces resistance from the Environment and Public Works Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Barbara Boxer, whose spokeswoman said last week that she was encouraged by the House legislation’s momentum. -
House Approves TSCA Bill On Nearly Unanimous Vote
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
House lawmakers late yesterday easily approved a bipartisan bill to overhaul how the federal government manages toxic chemicals, in the most significant vote on the issue in nearly 40 years.
Lawmakers signed off on H.R. 2576, the "TSCA Modernization Act," by a vote of 398-1 late yesterday under suspension of the rules. The lone dissenter was Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.).
House passage of the legislation to update the Toxic Substances Control Act will shift action to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has pledged to take up a competing proposal that differs in several significant ways from the House plan.
House lawmakers led by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, and subcommittee ranking member Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), as well as Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), credited their work together for paving a way to passage of the bill.
The lawmakers, who have been at odds on other environmental problems, forged key agreements over new EPA regulatory authority to address the problem of toxic chemicals. It wasn't clear why McClintock declined to support the bill.
"I know that tomorrow, we'll get back on disagreeing on the importance of environmental protection and the essential role EPA plays in keeping us safe," Pallone said during yesterday's floor debate, "but for today, we can all agree on the need for strong, protective federal regulatory programs for chemicals."
The bill was key to combat a decadeslong "regulatory vacuum" at EPA, Tonko said.
"While no one group gets all they might have hoped for in this legislation," Tonko said, "every stakeholder group gets something that they need."
Industry groups praised the bill's passage yesterday, while other advocacy groups reiterated their push for a tougher bill.
The House bill "will not do the job," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "It tips much too far in favor of an industry in serious need of regulation."
American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley said in a statement that the vote was "a pivotal moment in the years-long effort to reform TSCA."
Dooley said McConnell should bring the Senate's leading TSCA reform proposal, S. 697, from Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), to the floor "right away."
"Through the passage of S. 697 by the Senate, and working with their colleagues in the House," Dooley said, "Congress can deliver a much-needed update to TSCA as well as a major environmental and commercial policy accomplishment to the president's desk for his signature this year." More work ahead
The House bill differs in several significant ways from S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act."
Both bills would allow states to maintain chemical restrictions passed to date. However, the bills take different approaches to handle how state laws would be affected.
The House bill makes it clear that states may continue to restrict a chemical if EPA has not taken a final action -- such as determining it is safe, or identifying problems and proposing a way to address them. The Senate bill instead provides for a waiver process by which states may obtain permission from EPA to restrict a chemical that EPA has not finished reviewing.
For this reason, among others, some chemical safety advocates have touted the House bill as providing a stronger foundation. While they have not endorsed the House measure, advocates are hopeful that a conference committee could turn it into a compromise they could support.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement that the House bill is a better path to overhauling TSCA than the Udall-Vitter proposal.
"While the House bill could still be improved, I feel it is the appropriate bill to take up in the United States Senate where we can work on just a few amendments to make it better," Boxer said. "The Senate bill is far more complex. Its pre-emption provision is complicated and will lead to the courthouse."
Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, echoed Boxer's view.
"Neither bill is there," Igrejas said, "but you would more easily build on the House bill to get there."
Igrejas said his group would like to see the House bill modified to incorporate a provision in the Senate bill that assesses fees on industry to provide additional funding for EPA's program, among other changes. The bill also needs to set clearer, enforceable language to force EPA to complete a minimum number of chemical assessments per year, Igrejas said.
That could make it "a modest reform, but one that would at least make some progress," Igrejas said.
Udall and four other Democratic co-sponsors of the Senate bill -- Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) -- in a joint statement yesterday defended their proposal as the more prudent step forward.
"The nation needs a workable chemical safety law, and while we don't agree with the details of the House bill, tonight's vote is yet another bipartisan demonstration that Congress must act," the senators said. "We expect the Senate's comprehensive TSCA reform bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to receive a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate in the coming weeks."
-
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Seepage from chemically treated utility poles constitutes a “solid waste” properly regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act even when it's also subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, the federal government told the Ninth Circuit in a June 22 amicus brief (Ecological Rights Found. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 9th Cir., No. 15-15424, amicus curiae brief filed, 6/22/15).
Peter Hsiao, an environmental lawyer with Morrison & Foerster in Los Angeles, told Bloomberg BNA June 23 the filing of the amicus brief is “very important” and that the case “has potentially far-reaching effects.”
The Ecological Rights Foundation filed its brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit June 15 in which it said that pentachlorophenol and dioxins that leached from chemically treated utility poles stored at Pacific Gas & Electric facilities constitute “solid waste” regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (118 DEN A-24, 6/19/15).
“EPA seeks to preserve the most expansive interpretation possible regarding the jurisdictional reach of the environmental laws,” said Hsiao, who isn't involved in the litigation. “This is true even when different laws overlap and create layers of potentially conflicting obligations on the regulated parties.”
The Justice Department brief, filed in support of the Ecological Rights Foundation in its citizen suit against Pacific Gas & Electric Co., points to a long-standing interpretation of the two statutory schemes by DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel.
The 1984 legal opinion concluded that Congress intended that any overlap between the environmental provisions be construed harmoniously—a conclusion that should be accorded deference by the Ninth Circuit, the government contends.
The fact that stormwater discharges from four PG&E facilities are subject to regulation by the Clean Water Act doesn't categorically preclude RCRA regulation of the chemicals those discharges contain, the federal government said.
The government disputes a contrary decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which dismissed the RCRA claim as inapplicable to the case (118 DEN A-24, 6/19/15).
PCP, Dioxin Contamination Alleged
The appeal by the Ecological Rights Foundation claims that pentachlorophenol and dioxins from the utility poles migrates into California waters, and it challenges a summary judgment ruling that such discharges from the PG&E facilities are regulated by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1365(a)), and not RCRA (42 U.S.C. §6972(a)(1)(B)).
The suit contends that RCRA concurrently regulates alleged discharges of PCPs and dioxins from treated wood stored at four PG&E facilities in California, and it relies in part on a 2014 guidance memorandum issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That memorandum—which challenges a Ninth Circuit ruling in a previous RCRA case brought by ERF—concludes that a wood preservative, once it no longer serves its intended purpose, may become a discarded “solid waste” within RCRA's reach.
The utility poles at four PG&E facilities were treated with PCP, a wood preservative containing carcinogenic dioxins.
The chemicals drip from the wood, leach into the soil and migrate into San Francisco Bay and Humboldt Bay through stormwater runoff and vehicle traffic, according to ERF.
DOJ Disputes Trial Court's Ruling
The DOJ brief said that a so-called anti-duplication provision in RCRA—which the district court relied on in dismissing the case—should have been applied on a case-by-case basis, not a “categorical” basis.
That provision states, in part, that RCRA shall not be construed to apply to any activity subject to CWA regulation, except to the extent the application “is not inconsistent with” that act (42 U.S.C. §6905(a)).
Here, where no conflict between RCRA and CWA is evident—and PG&E claimed none—the case should be remanded to allow the district court to decide whether ERF's “imminent and substantial endangerment” claim has merit, the government said.
The brief takes no position on the ultimate merit of ERF's suit, but it does agree with the organization's position that RCRA and CWA were intended to complement one another.
Goes Beyond 2014 EPA Memorandum
And it delves deeper than the 2014 EPA memorandum relied upon by ERF.
The government cites the 1984 OLC opinion that the existence of overlapping regulatory schemes alone is insufficient to create an inconsistency that would trigger RCRA's anti-duplication provision.
Such OLC opinions, the government said, have been given “in-depth consideration” by the U.S. Supreme Court, and so the 1984 opinion “may be accorded some weight” by the Ninth Circuit.
Most courts have taken a similar view of the complementary intersection between the CWA and RCRA, according to the amicus brief.
Here, where PG&E has identified no inconsistencies between the statutory schemes, the government said the district court's conclusion that RCRA “governs waste, not water” was a “gross oversimplification” of the fact-based analysis it should have employed.
Further, the district court previously held that PG&E was under no obligation to obtain a CWA permit for its stormwater discharges (even though the CWA nominally applied to the stormwater discharges) and so any remand should only be to decide the merits of ERF's environmental claims, the government said.
National Implications?
Hsiao said that ERF's citizen suit refocuses previous litigation it brought over alleged contamination from installed wood utility poles treated with pentachlorophenol.
“Millions of utility poles throughout the country are treated with chemical preservatives,” Hsiao said of the prior litigation. “According to public reports, [ERF] originally sent notices of alleged violations to 15 companies, including major telecom companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint/Nextel, along with cable giant Comcast Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company, over the treatment of those companies’ utility poles treated with the wood preservative, pentachlorophenol, involving more than 300,000 utility poles in Northern California.”
After ERF's first suit was unsuccessful, it refocused its allegations on the treatment yards where the utility poles are handled and stored, Hsiao said.
“While EPA has approved the use of [PCP] as a wood preservative for utility poles, its amicus brief shows that it remains concerned with the proper handling and disposal of these chemicals at treatment and storage facilities,” he said.
PG&E's reply brief in the appeal is due on July 15.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed the amicus brief in support of the Ecological Rights Foundation.
The Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group represents the Ecological Rights Foundation in the appeal.
Schiff Hardin represents Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
-
(ACC Blog) Four Ways To Help New Rules That Govern Drones Soar
Jun 23, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Thanks to advancing capabilities and greater accessibility, the use of drones is continuing to increase. In fact, global drone sales reached $4.3 million in 2015, a 167 percent jump from two years ago. This surge should come as no surprise as people find more and more useful ways to put drones to work.
Of course, this increased use can present some new challenges when it comes to ensuring the safe and responsible use of drones. That is where the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) comes in. The skyrocketing use of drones has gained the attention of regulators, and the FAA recently proposed a new set of rules to try to tackle some of the issues surrounding the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), or “drones.”
In a nutshell, the FAA’s proposed regulatory framework would allow for the routine use of certain small UAS (under 55 pounds) in conducting non-recreational/commercial operations. The rule would limit these types of uses to daylight and visual-line-of-sight operations. It also addresses height restrictions, operator certification, optional use of a visual observer, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits.
Room for Improvement
While the FAA is off to a good start, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) recently filed comments offering suggestions on how to improve the proposal, especially where it concerns the safety of chemical facilities.
We have recommended the FAA make four critical modifications to the rule to enhance industry’s ability to safeguard its people and operations:
1. Broaden the definition of UAS to further protect chemical facilities from other model aircraft that pose a safety and security risk
As it’s currently written, the FAA’s proposal would not apply to model aircraft or casual use of UAS in and around critical infrastructure, including chemical facilities and operations.
While model aircraft operators are allowed to fly for hobby or recreational purposes only, ACC and our members believe the use of such aircraft around chemical facilities can pose a significant safety and security concern that the FAA must address.
Due to their small size, maneuverability, affordability, and load-capacities, small UAS may be used intentionally by criminals and terrorists to commit criminal or terrorist acts, including unauthorized surveillance and the introduction of explosive devices at critical infrastructure facilities.
2. Ensure chemical facility staff can continue to make routine use of UAS to protect operations
Facility employees and contractors could employ drones to replace risky manual inspections of equipment that would otherwise be difficult to reach. UAS also make it possible for facility staff to survey equipment in hazardous operating or environmental conditions from a safe distance, which significantly reduces potential health and safety risks.
Other uses and benefits of legally allowed drones around chemical facilities for official purposes include the following: Plant and/or process equipment monitoring and inspectionsEnvironmental and safety inspections to include flare stack monitoringEmergency response operations to include incident, disaster, and spill responseSecurity surveillance to include perimeter security and access controlOperations research and developmentEducational and training uses for company personnel, contractors, and local response personnel
ACC strongly believes these and the many other beneficial applications of small UAS operations for the chemical industry should be included in the FAA rule. Chemical industry professionals should be allowed to continue to use advanced technologies at hand today to protect and inspect operations.
3. Recognize other equivalent government credentialing programs for operating UAS
One key part of the FAA proposal is to properly vet individuals before they are allowed to fly UAS. It’s an important rule for people that do not already have clearance to operate such specialized equipment.
However, it’s a duplicative, costly, and unnecessary rule for employees and contractors in the chemical industry, many of whom have already undergone extensive background checks in order to perform their jobs.
ACC believes that the recognition of other equivalent U.S. Government credentialing programs would result in substantial savings in costs, both to the federal government as well as the owners/operators, and would streamline the amount of time required to issue an operator certificate.
4. Limit requirements for FAA accident reports if they are already mandated by OSHA
To ensure proper oversight of small UAS operations, the FAA’s proposed rule would require a small UAS operator report to the FAA any small UAS operation that results in an injury to a person or damage to property other than the small unmanned aircraft.
Given existing regulations and requirements, ACC recommends that the FAA defer to the existing reporting and investigating mechanism that involve a small UAS in an industrial setting.
Specifically, ACC recommends that no FAA accident report be required for workplace injuries resulting from the use of small UAS in an industrial setting that is covered by OSHA 29 CFR 1904, “Reporting and Recording Occupational injury and illness.”
ACC believes this is a suitable compromise, one that considers the minimal risk associated with the use of small UAS while ensuring the safety and security of the public and the National Airspace System. Considering existing safety regulations in place under OSHA would also help the FAA prioritize its resources appropriately and focus on higher risk activities.
Supporting Safety at All Levels
In addition to federal efforts, many states are also working on rules to govern the use of the drones. ACC is actively engaged with those states and has offered policymakers recommendations to help them develop a workable, uniform approach to managing the safe use of drones. Important chemical producing states such as Louisiana and Texas have already passed legislation, and they have been joined by other states including Arizona and Nevada.
As the use drones continues to climb, we will work closely with policymakers at all levels of government, including the FAA, to make sure we can all enjoy the benefits of this new technology without jeopardizing the safety and security of the people that work at chemical facilities as well as their surrounding communities. - See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/06/four-ways-to-help-new-rules-that-govern-drones-soar/#sthash.7hyr0pw9.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pressure Relief Valve Provisions Focus Of Industry Lawsuit on Off-Site Waste Rule
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Provisions of an Environmental Protection Agency air toxics rule related to the operation of pressure relief devices in facilities that handle waste, used oil and used solvents will be the focus of the American Chemistry Council litigation over the regulation, according to court documents (Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1146, statement of issues filed, 6/22/15).
The trade association, in a statement of issues filed June 22, said it intends to ask a federal appeals court to review whether the EPA illegally set emissions limits that effectively prohibit emissions of pollutants from pressure relief devices. The pressure valves are security devices that are “essential components of good engineering design” for facilities that are subject to the EPA rule, the ACC said.
The pressure relief valve provisions are part of the EPA's revised national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for off-site waste and recovery operations. The March final rule (RIN 2060-AR47) is estimated to reduce air toxics emissions by 211 tons per year once fully implemented (80 Fed. Reg. 14,248; 53 DEN A-9, 3/19/15).
The ACC's statement of issues does not specify all of the legal arguments the association expects to make, but the association did state it intends to question whether the EPA acted illegally by setting an emissions limit of “effectively zero” for pressure relief devices without following the requirements of Section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act. That language requires the EPA to identify the best-performing facilities in a source category and to base emissions standards on those sources.
The ACC's lawsuit has been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with a lawsuit brought by Tennessee-based Eastman Chemical Co.
Eastman intends to challenge whether the EPA's issuance of the entire final off-site waste and recovery rule is illegal, according to the company's statement of issues. That document, filed with the court June 18, also highlights the EPA's adoption of mandatory, instrument-based, leak-detection requirements for connectors and the agency's decision to require monitoring of certain pressure relief devices as issues the company intends to raise in litigation.
Further Action Dependent on Petitions
The ACC and Eastman both asked the D.C. Circuit to hold litigation in abeyance for up to six months to give the EPA time to consider an administrative remedy.
The trade association and chemical company filed a joint petition for reconsideration of the off-site waste and recovery rule in May, according to court documents. The EPA's decision on that petition could affect the scope of litigation and could potentially narrow the issues before the court, the petitioners said.
The petitioners asked the court to hold the case in abeyance pending an EPA decision or until Dec. 18, whichever comes first. The court has not yet responded to the request, which was not opposed by the EPA.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks Stay Of EPA Waste Recovery Air Rule Suit
Jun 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
Chemical manufacturers are asking an appellate court to temporarily stay litigation they filed over an EPA air emissions rule that sets new requirements governing industrial waste and recovery operations, saying the agency should be given time to decide whether to grant their petition asking EPA to reconsider parts of the rule.
At the same time, the recycling and disposal industry as well as environmental groups, backing opposing sides, recently filed petitions with the court asking it to allow them to intervene in the litigation.
The litigation, American Chemistry Council (ACC) v. EPA, was filed May 18 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In it, ACC and Eastman Chemical Company are asking the court to review EPA's national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) rule for Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations.
EPA in March published the final rule, which covers a range of facilities, including hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, some hazardous and non-hazardous wastewater treatment works, used solvent recovery plants, hazardous waste recycling plants and used oil re-refineries.
According to environmentalists' June 17 motion to intervene, the final rule removes an exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction; requires electronic reporting of performance test results; bars emissions releases from pressure relief devices (PRDs); and strengthens requirements for certain valves and lines.
The chemical industry in comments on the proposed rule has said PRDs are critical to safety, allowing releases that "prevent catastrophic breaches of process equipment, which would result in far higher emissions than those resulting from a release from a [PRD]."
ACC and Eastman are objecting to the tighter standards, questioning their legality. In ACC's statement of issues, filed June 22, the industry association questions whether EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously or violated the law by: barring air emissions from PRDs; developing standards that apply the PRD prohibition and monitoring requirements to containers; creating "a new, effectively zero emissions NESHAP limit for PRDs releasing to the atmosphere without following the requirements of Section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, which requires EPA to identify the best performing sources in a particular source category and then set standards based on the performance of a certain number of those sources"; and mandating Method 21 monitoring for connectors. Method 21 is an EPA instrument monitoring standard for detecting leaks of volatile organic compounds from individual emissions sources.
In the earlier comments on the proposed rule, ACC objected to a bar on emissions from PRDs, citing the safety issues, and argued the agency underestimated the costs of instrument monitoring under Method 21.
Eastman's statement of issues, filed June 18, also questions whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise illegal, and cites some of the same issues.
In its June 18 unopposed motion to hold the case in abeyance, ACC says the group, along with Eastman, submitted a petition to EPA May 18 asking for reconsideration of the final rule, and says the court should give EPA time to decide whether to grant the petition. ACC says the stay should not exceed six months, citing Dec. 18 as an end-date.
In a June 16 motion to intervene, Environmental Technology Council (ETC) says it represents companies that recycle, treat and dispose of industrial and hazardous wastes, and that the new rule will increase costs for its members. "ETC members would suffer concrete injuries, including lost investment and increased costs of compliance, if the final rule is not vacated," it says in the motion.
Taking EPA's side, the Sierra Club and Community In-Power and Development Association say in their motion to intervene that the agency predicts the rule will result in public health benefits by reducing 211 tons of toxic air emissions annually. They say they "have interests in preventing the weakening and removal of the health and welfare protections that the Final Rule provides to their members and constituents who live, work and engage in activities near regulated facilities.”
-
Judge Blocks Federal Fracking Rule
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal judge in Wyoming has temporarily blocked implementation of the Obama administration’s regulations for hydraulic fracturing on federal land, hours before they were set to take effect.
The late Tuesday decision in the District Court of Wyoming means the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) cannot implement the rule Wednesday as it had planned.While the stay is only preliminary and could be lifted at any time, it represents a setback for the administration’s first major attempt to account for the explosion of the controversial fracking process in its rules for energy companies that lease federal land.
Four oil- and natural gas-heavy states sued to stop the rule, as did two industry associations.
Judge Scott Skavdahl issued the stay after a full day of arguments, agreeing with the states and energy groups that he needs additional time to consider their request for a preliminary injunction to block the rules for the entire time the case lasts, according to Oil City.
“BLM was ill-prepared to implement an extremely complex rule in a short period of time,” Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government affairs at the Western Energy Alliance, said in a statement.
“We highlighted how the BLM Washington office has not given sufficient guidance to the state and field offices that are implementing the rule, and as a result they were issuing confused instructions to companies on how to comply,” she continued. “The judge agreed that it makes no sense to implement an ill-conceived rule which could ultimately be overruled in court.”
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) applauded Skavdahl’s decision on Twitter, saying, “We appreciate the court is taking its time to carefully consider this important decision.”
Wyoming and the other states involved argue their own regulations on fracking ought to supersede the federal ones.
The energy groups say that the rules are unnecessarily strict.
The BLM published the rules in March, and the lawsuits started within an hour.
The standards focus on three areas: well construction standards, storage of wastewater and disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracking process.
Interior said it will comply with the judge’s order and is consulting attorneys on the next steps.
"The BLM is consulting with the Office of the Solicitor and the Department of Justice about the decision of the U.S. District Court in Wyoming to temporarily stay implementation of the hydraulic fracturing rule,” Interior spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw said. “While the matter is being resolved, the BLM will follow the court's order and will continue to process applications for permit to drill and inspect well sites under its pre-existing regulations.”
Skavdahl gave the federal government until July 22 to provide certain documents necessary for him to rule more fully on the injunction.
The House and Senate are considering legislation that would overturn the rules or prevent their enforcement in states with existing fracking rules.
-
New Federal Fracking Rules Delayed by U.S. Judge in Wyoming
Jun 24, 2015 | Bloomberg Business
New U.S. fracking safety rules set to take effect Wednesday were put on hold by a Wyoming federal judge who said he needed more evidence to decide whether to block them as requested by drillers and four western states.
Before a courtroom audience in Casper that included the state attorneys general of Wyoming and North Dakota, U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl said he couldn’t grant or reject a bid for a longer-lasting order because he needed more information about the federal government’s process for making such rules.
“I am not going to write anybody a blank check,” Skavdahl, a 2011 appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said Tuesday after listening to almost eight hours of argument and testimony. His decision means the rules can’t take effect for at least a month.
The states opposing the rules, which also include Colorado and Utah, accuse the U.S. of trampling their sovereignty by duplicating regulations already in place and imposing permitting delays that could cost them revenue. The Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance complained that the new federal requirements to disclose the chemicals they use would put their trade secrets at risk.
The new rules would affect 700 million acres of public land overseen by the federal government. Much of that land sits atop oil-rich shale formations in the West, where fracking has catapulted the U.S. to world leadership in oil production. The process has also raised concerns about air and ground-water pollution and earthquakes. Step Aside
Federal lawyers told Skavdahl the new rules were needed to update those already in place. The U.S. was willing to step aside where equal or more-effective state measures were in force, they said.
The judge emphasized his decision shouldn’t be mistaken for a decision on the relief sought by the states and industry. He said he saw a credible threat the states might be irreparably harmed if the rules take effect, an indication he might accept a key portion of their argument. He also said more than 99 percent of existing wells were already subject to state regulation.
Government lawyers at the hearing declined to comment on the delay. Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, also declined to comment on it.
Wyoming Attorney General Peter Michael said he was heartened by the judge’s decision. His North Dakota counterpart, Wayne Stenehjem, called the decision “a very fair status quo” and declined to predict how Skavdahl might ultimately rule.
“I don’t know how much clearer he could have been,” Kathleen Sgamma, a Western Energy Alliance vice president, said of the judge after the hearing.
The case is State of Wyoming v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 15-cv-00043, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming (Casper).
-
Court Puts Interior’s Fracking Rule In Limbo Until August
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Obama administration’s fracking regulations that were set to take effect on Wednesday are now on hold until August thanks to a Wyoming federal judge who today granted a stay as he hears a challenge from industry groups and four states.
Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled that the challenge to the Bureau of Land Management regulations that govern well construction, chemical disclosure, and other aspects of fracking on federal lands, “have merit and that BLM should not implement the rule in a hurried manner when plaintiffs have a strong chance of prevailing,” a spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association for America, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement.
Also fighting the BLM rules in court were the industry group Western Energy Alliance and the states of Utah, North Dakota, Colorado and Wyoming. Skavdahl is now set to make a more complete ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction shortly after the Interior Department hands in the administrative record on the regulations, expected July 22. WEA aligned with IPAA in predicting that a final decision would come by early August.
“BLM was ill-prepared to implement an extremely complex rule in a short period of time,” WEA vice president of government affairs Kathleen Sgamma said in a statement. -
Greens Claim To Have Found Fatal Flaw In Shell's Drilling Plan
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
The Obama administration violated its own marine mammal regulations last month when it approved Royal Dutch Shell PLC's proposal to drill two exploration wells this summer in Alaska's remote Chukchi Sea, according to a coalition of environmental groups opposing the company's plans.
The groups, represented by Earthjustice, sent a letter today to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell asking that she cancel the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's approval of Shell's exploration plan and postpone the issuance of any drilling or wildlife permits.
Shell's proposal to simultaneously drill two wells about 9 miles apart would violate a marine mammal rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2013 that requires a minimum well spacing of 15 miles, the groups said.
"We ask you to take immediate action to address this basic deficiency in Shell's drilling plan and permit applications, protect the Pacific walrus and ensure agency decisions resulting from the review of Shell's drilling proposal are defensible and lawful," the groups wrote.
The coalition includes the Alaska Wilderness League, Audubon Alaska, the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, the Ocean Conservancy, Oceana and the Sierra Club.
Their protest comes at a crucial time in Shell's drilling campaign.
The company has invested roughly $7 billion in exploring its leases in the Arctic Ocean, which is believed to contain more than 20 billion barrels of oil. But the Interior Department is giving the company a relatively short window -- July to September -- to complete its two wells in order to avoid the onset of sea ice.
The company still needs two drilling permits from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and a letter of authorization (LOA) to disturb walruses and polar bears from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
But Fish and Wildlife's 2013 regulations governing the issuance of LOAs prohibit the simultaneous drilling proposed in Shell's exploration plan. The plan calls for six wells total, none of which is more than 15 miles apart from another, the environmental groups said.
The 2013 regulations, requested by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, are effective for five years.
"To avoid significant synergistic or cumulative effects from multiple oil and gas exploration activities on foraging or migrating walruses, operators must maintain a minimum spacing of 24 km [15 miles] between all active seismic source vessels and/or drill rigs during exploration activities," the regulations state.
Shell cannot simply drill one well at a time because such a scenario was not considered by BOEM in its National Environmental Policy Act review of the company's exploration plan, the environmental groups said.
"Although Shell's exploration plan includes a back-up provision under which it might use a single drill rig in the Chukchi and position another as far away as Dutch Harbor for spill response purposes, BOEM refused even to analyze a one drilling rig alternative in its environmental assessment, in part because the resulting prolongation of exploration drilling out over more years would lead to 'greater overall adverse environmental effects,'" they wrote. "Thus, the premise of BOEM's decision -- that two wells per season would be drilled in the normal course -- directly contradicts a key requirement of the previously promulgated FWS incidental take regulation to protect walrus."
A spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service said the agency is currently reviewing the Earthjustice letter. The agency declined to release a copy of Shell's request for a marine mammal permit.
Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said, "We continue to consult with regulators on the terms of a letter of authorization."
Today's letter is the latest in environmentalists' multi-pronged legal battle to block Arctic drilling.
Groups successfully delayed Shell's drilling plans last summer after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found flaws in the government's 2008 sale of lease tracts in the Chukchi.
Environmentalists earlier this month asked the 9th Circuit to overturn BOEM's approval of Shell's exploration plan and filed a separate notice in an Alaska federal district court challenging the Obama administration's decision to uphold the 2008 lease sale that made Shell's exploration plans possible.
Shell's attempt three years ago to drill in the Chukchi resulted in a half-finished well and eight felony charges for the contractor related to pollution, propulsion and record-keeping issues.
Shell this month received critical certificates of compliance from the Coast Guard for its two drillships verifying that they meet safety standards (Greenwire, June 23).
One drillship, the Polar Pioneer, is en route to Alaska, and the other, the Noble Discoverer, is still docked in Washington state waters, according to the Houston Chronicle.
-
Skeptical Senate Dems Weigh GOP Arguments For Allowing Exports
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
As Senate Republicans doubled down on national security arguments for lifting a 40-year-old ban on crude exports, a centrist Democrat signaled a willingness to consider selling U.S. oil abroad.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire said she would consider lifting the ban if it's part of a comprehensive energy policy with assurances it wouldn't spark energy price spikes at home.
"I think we have to look at what our options are and what our goals are, so I'm willing to do that," Shaheen said in an interview after a Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing. "I'm also going to look at what the impacts would be on the domestic market. Obviously, I'm going to have trouble supporting something that's going to increase prices for oil and natural gas in New England since we already pay some of the highest prices in the nation."
She added: "Again, it has to be in the context of a comprehensive, national security and energy policy, and I haven't seen one yet, but I do think we ought to be working on that."
At the hearing, she said she had returned from a conference last week in Poland, where Russia's aggression was a hot topic and representatives from Eastern European countries were looking for ways to decrease their dependence on Russian gas.
A number of House Democrats are joining the push to lift the crude export ban, but there's little support from Senate liberals.
Republicans, meanwhile, tried to ramp up pressure for exports, arguing that they would boost national security.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) released a report that asserted the United States should not lift sanctions on Iranian oil without also lifting the ban on domestic crude oil exports.
And Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who leads the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development; Multilateral Institutions; and International Economic, Energy and Environmental Policy, said in an interview he's having discussions with Democrats about how to lift the ban.
"I think [Democrats] recognize the advantages to it in terms of the international markets and our national security," he said.
But the hearing showed Democrats are still skeptical of Republican arguments.
Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, said that while he fully backed fast-tracking the export of domestic gas to U.S. allies, the question about lifting the crude export ban "is more uncertain" and that both climate change and the safety of U.S. troops need to be considered.
Udall, according to Barrasso, arranged for the appearance of Kirk Lippold, a retired Navy officer who argued the United States should simply focus on ramping up domestic production to offset massive imports and not tinker with export policies.
While other witnesses argued for lifting the ban to boost domestic production and leverage the U.S. position abroad, Lippold said China -- not U.S. allies like Ukraine -- would be the first to benefit from exports.
He also said keeping the ban would help U.S. troops overseas by reducing U.S. daily imports of 7 million barrels of crude a day.
"Until we develop that overarching energy policy ... the ban really does need to stay in place," he said.
-
FERC Dismisses Sierra Club Objection To La. Export Terminal
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today denied requests to reconsider its approval of an export terminal in Louisiana over climate concerns.
FERC dismissed the Sierra Club's request for a rehearing of the 2012 approval of an expansion at the Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas export terminal in Cameron Parish, La.
The Sierra Club argued that FERC's approval of the expansion violated the National Environmental Policy Act because the agency had failed to analyze environmental effects exports could have on induced upstream gas production and the downstream use of LNG in importing nations, as well as the cumulative effect of pending LNG projects.
FERC also failed to incorporate the cost of carbon and to prepare an environmental impact statement, but did prepare an environmental assessment, the Sierra Club said.
But FERC took issue with the group's assertions, arguing that gas production is "not an indirect effect of the project as contemplated by NEPA and the [Council on Environmental Quality] regulations."
The commission also reiterated that it does not regulate gas production, a task that falls to individual states.
"There is not the requisite reasonably close causal relationship between the impacts of future natural gas production and the Liquefaction Expansion Project," the agency said. "We note that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the production and development of domestic natural gas."
FERC has rejected similar requests from the group in the past, riling climate activists angered over the proliferation of gas infrastructure and the use of hydraulic fracturing. In May, FERC said it would not reconsider its approval of an export terminal in Maryland that has become a rallying cry for climate activists opposed to gas production (Greenwire, May 5).
-
Rules Committee Moves Interior-EPA Spending And Carbon Rule Bills
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The House Rules Committee tonight set the guidelines for the chamber’s debate on the fiscal 2016 Interior-EPA spending bill and Rep. Ed Whitfield’s Ratepayer Protection Act.
A modified-open rule was approved for the $30 billion House Interior-EPA appropriations measure, which allows lawmakers to offer any amendment to the bill that complies with House rules, and permits 10 minutes of debate per amendment.
Whitfield’s bill to slow the completion and implementation of the EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions rules for existing power plants was given a rule that permitted five of the eight amendments submitted to be debated. Three of the approved amendments come from Democrats, one is Republican and one is bipartisan.
Whitfield’s Ratepayer Protection Act is expected to be on the House floor on Wednesday. House leaders earlier today delayed consideration of the Interior-EPA spending measure until after next week’s Independence Day recess. -
House Postpones Interior-EPA Spending Votes
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Afternoon Energy
By Jennifer Shutt
The House will take up amendments and final passage of its fiscal 2016 spending bill for the EPA and Interior Department next month instead of this week, as previously scheduled, the majority leader’s office announced today. The delay will give lawmakers time to travel to Charleston, S.C., for memorial services for the victims of last week’s mass shooting at the Emanuel AME church. Debate on the bill will begin after the week’s final votes on Thursday, with amendment votes and a final passage vote postponed until after the end of members’ weeklong Independence Day recess.
-
White House Issues Veto Threat for House Power Plant Bill; Capito Pushes Own Effort
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Andrew Childers
President Barack Obama's advisers would recommend that he veto legislation allowing states to defer compliance with the Clean Power Plan until all legal challenges are exhausted or opt out altogether if implementing the rule would increase electricity rates or jeopardize reliability in their states, according to a June 23 statement of administration policy.
The Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 2042), sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) and slated for House floor consideration June 24, would undermine the carbon pollution rules for the nation's fleet of power plants that are at the center of Obama's plan to address climate change.
“The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2042, which would undermine the public health protections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and threaten to slow or stop U.S. progress in cutting dangerous carbon pollution from power plants,” the administration said in the statement. “The bill also is unprecedented. The Administration is not aware of any instance when Congress has enacted legislation to stay implementation of a CAA standard during judicial review.”
Additionally, the administration said the bill was premature and unnecessary, because the Environmental Protection Agency had yet to finalize its regulation and because the agency indicated it would address concerns raised in the public comment period in the final rule.
“More than forty years of clean air regulation has shown that a strong economy and strong environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand,” the statement said.
The House Rules Committee met late June 23 to determine which amendments to Whitfield's bill would be debated on the House floor. A Senate subcommittee also met June 23 to spotlight the proposed EPA rule's economic impact on poor and minority communities as a result of rising electricity prices as it prepares its own legislation to block the carbon dioxide standards.
Proposed under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. States would be required to meet interim targets between 2020 and 2029, with a final emissions rate to be achieved in 2030, but they would determine how best to achieve that target.
Groups including Americans for Tax Reform, American Farm Bureau Federation, Consumer Energy Alliance, CropLife America and National Mining Association are among the Whitfield bill's supporters. Opponents include the League of Conservation Voters, Union of Concerned Scientists and Sierra Club.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced Whitfield's bill to the full chamber in late April on a 28–22 vote (83 DEN A-5, 4/30/15).
Senate Cites Poor, Minority Impacts
During the separate Senate hearing, critics of the Clean Power Plan argued the rule will drive up electricity prices for the poor and minorities as Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) builds a case for her Affordable Reliable Electricity Now Act (S.1324), which also would block the EPA's proposed rule.
“All electricity has to come from somewhere,” Capito said. “In many states, the odds are it's being imported from a state that relies on coal but that isn't talked about.”
Eugene Trisko, an attorney and energy economist representing the United Mine Workers of America who has tracked household energy costs since 2000, said his studies have shown that significant portions of low income households have reported doing without food at least one day or skipping medical care or medical prescriptions due to rising electricity prices. The EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan could exacerbate that by driving up electricity prices further, he told the Environment and Public Work Committee's Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety during a June 23 hearing on the rule.
“Lower income families are more vulnerable to energy costs than higher income families because energy represents a larger portion of their household budgets,” Trisko said.
The proposed rule also was criticized by minority business owners who said businesses and customer base would be unduly burdened by electricity rate increases as a result of the Clean Power Plan. Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, said a recent study by his group found that the Clean Power Plan would increase poverty for blacks by 23 percent, eliminating 7 million jobs, and by 26 percent for Hispanics, costing them 12 million jobs. Alford called the proposed rule “a slap in the face to poor and minority communities.”
Capito unveiled her bill May 13 with the backing of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The ARENA Act would immediately stop all in-progress regulations on carbon emissions from power plants and set strict requirements for the EPA to meet before beginning new regulations.
Under the Senate bill, states could opt out of any future regulations for existing power plants until all legal challenges are exhausted or if the governor certifies implementing the rule would have a negative impact on the state's economy, grid reliability or low-income residents. Capito's bill also would bar new regulations for future power plants unless the emissions standards had been met by six units at different electric generating stations for at least a year.
Capito and Inhofe hope to move the bill in the Senate before the EPA finalizes its Clean Power Plan in August (114 DEN A-1, 6/15/15).
-
Final Power Rule Will Retain Proposal's 'Ambition' -- White House Official
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The Clean Power Plan that U.S. EPA finalizes this summer will have the same stringency as the proposed version, whatever other changes the agency makes, a top White House official said today.
White House climate adviser Brian Deese said today at a White House climate and health summit that the final existing power plant carbon rule now being vetted by the Office of Management and Budget will retain the proposal's emissions cut of 30 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2030.
"We will finalize a rule this summer that maintains that level of ambition," he told a gathering of medical professionals and climate advocates.
Deese's comments were the strongest hint yet that EPA will not weaken its flagship climate rule. It leaves open many questions about how the agency might offset expected changes to its interim compliance period, the way the rule treats existing nuclear energy and other adjustments sought by stakeholders.
EPA sifted through more than 2 million public comments on its draft proposal before completing the final version. Many of those -- even from stakeholders that generally support EPA's objectives -- contained requests for myriad changes that would ease its restrictions on certain states or subsectors of the utility industry. Nearly every state cited some concern about how it would be treated under the rule, especially relating to the four "building block" assumptions that underlie state emissions reduction targets.
EPA responded to early feedback last fall by releasing a notice of data availability before the public comment period on the draft ended to request comment on alternatives including to the rule's assumption that states can quickly ramp up existing combined-cycle natural gas plants to replace existing coal-fired generation. That building block has saddled states like Arizona with very tough interim standards, and officials in those states say conversations with the federal agency have led them to expect substantial changes.
Deese also told today's gathering that climate change would continue to be a top priority throughout the final two years of his presidency. The impact on public health in particular "is what is motivating President Obama to put this issue at the top of his agenda both domestically and internationally for the remainder of this term," he said.
Earlier in the day, Deese attended the seventh session of the U.S.-China strategic and economic dialogue at the State Department, where climate change is now a central issue (see related story). Obama has pledged to "put this at the top of his agenda with every country he is engaging with bilaterally," Deese said.
Domestic climate action is a necessary component of persuading other countries to act, and Republicans are moving legislation in both chambers aimed at scuttling the Clean Power Plan and other policies. But Deese told reporters yesterday during a White House briefing that the president is committed to vetoing any measure that arrives at his desk with those prohibitions, even if they come as part of a spending package.
"The president has made it pretty clear that he's not going to accept efforts to undermine this critically important work by Congress," Deese said.
-
5 Standing Up Against EPA Overreach Benefits Americans Everywhere
Jun 24, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)
As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plunges headlong into remaking the very fabric of American electricity generation, it is reassuring to know voices of reason continue to challenge the Agency’s reckless plans.
Later this summer, EPA is expected to issue its Final Rule for regulating carbon emissions from power plants. EPA’s proposal for those regulations is a classic case of government overreach – extending far beyond the fence-lines of the power plants EPA has authority to oversee and usurping power from the people and agencies that guide our nation’s energy policy. EPA’s carbon regulations would be just another expensive Washington boondoggle if not for one thing: This time the physical safety of Americans is at stake as the regulations threaten to destabilize our electricity grid and harm the reliability of power we take for granted. By choosing winners and losers among energy resources, EPA seeks to prematurely retire coal-fueled power plants which have been the backbone of our power grid for generations. That’s right: Federal environmental regulators are telling states to change how electricity is generated regardless of whether new energy production and storage technologies are ready for prime time.
One bright spot in this contentious debate is the growing chorus of voices standing up to EPA’s encroachment – including voices of North Dakotans who are in a position to bring a dose of prairie practicality to the debate. For instance, my former North Dakota Public Service Commission colleague Tony Clark – now serving on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – has emerged as a stalwart defender of states’ rights to determine energy policy and the need to preserve reliability on our national electricity grid.
“What EPA is asking states to do, depending on how states choose to write their [state implementation plans], is to give EPA authority over things that it on its own in the Clean Air Act does not have authority to claim jurisdiction over,” Clark told a meeting of state utility regulators. “To the degree that you put that in a plan and it gets a seal of approval from the EPA, that then becomes a federally enforceable plan. So what happens then is the administrator of EPA is really in charge of state energy policy… It simply gives Washington so much authority over the decisions that have traditionally been made by state public utility commissions, legislators and governors.”
As a FERC commissioner, Clark is at ground zero for dealing with the fallout of EPA’s rash proposals. “It’s not our rule,” he recently told another regional energy conference. “And yet just about every potential negative impact that folks have brought up are things that are squarely within FERC’s wheelhouse. Whether it’s related to the need for infrastructure siting because of the push towards natural gas; whether it’s potential market issues that come up at the seams in markets …; whether it’s reliability issues, which in certain regions of the country we’re very concerned about — all of those are squarely within FERC’s wheelhouse.”
It’s reassuring to have people like Tony Clark working to inject some sanity and practicality into the debate. Environmental protection is a goal Americans of all political persuasions share. Hikers, conservationists, outdoors people, farmers, ranchers, and city folk alike are all in favor of preserving and improving our environment. But when Washington bureaucrats with a stroke of a pen threaten to upset systems that are far afield from their authority and expertise, it’s time to bring the discussion back to the real world.
This is why the Energy and Commerce Committee favorably reported and I expect the full House of Representatives to pass the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015. The legislation would halt the rule for judicial review and significant adverse effect on ratepayers or reliability as determined by a state’s governor. State officials should refuse to go along with EPA’s proposals to seize new authority through the back door. And more people, like Tony Clark, need to speak up against dangerous and unprecedented EPA overreach. All Americans will benefit when voices of reason prevail.
-
White House Issues Veto Threats For Two GOP Environment Bills
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The White House has threatened to veto two GOP measures taking aim at Obama administration climate efforts.
Lawmakers will consider Wednesday a bill from Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) allowing states to opt out of the the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) climate rule for power plants and block its implementation until legal challenges against it are exhausted. Republicans say the bill is necessary to block a broad new EPA rule they warn will raise energy prices and threaten some energy sector jobs. But in a statement of administration policy issued Tuesday night, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said the bill would give states too much power to avoid federal regulations under the Clean Air Act. The statement said the bill’s legal provisions are “premature and unnecessary” because the EPA has yet to finalize the rule and Congress hasn’t before blocked implementing an air regulation during judicial review.
Obama would veto the bill, the statement said, because it “threatens the health and economic welfare of current and future generations by blocking important standards to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector.”
The White House also took aim at House Republicans’ funding bill for the Interior Department and environmental programs. The OMB said the administration “disagrees strongly” with the bill’s proposed cut to the EPA, which would be funded at a level $474 million lower than what Obama proposed in his 2016 budget.
The White House objected to policy provisions in the bill as well, including those blocking environmental rules from the EPA and the Department of Interior. Other aspects of the bill — including funding levels for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and restrictions to Endangered Species Act rule-making — also earned rebukes from the White House.
The administration has opposed other proposed congressional funding bills this session because of their adherence to sequestration budget caps, which Obama and most Democrats say are too low and restrictive.
-
White House Reviewing EPA's Methane Standards for New, Existing Landfills
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The White House is reviewing a pair of Environmental Protection Agency rules that could set new methane emissions limits for municipal landfills.
The EPA has moved to better regulate methane from landfills as part of an administration strategy to curb emissions of the pollutant. The strategy directs the EPA to regulate methane from landfills as well as other industrial sources such as oil and gas wells.
The EPA sent the proposed rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget for interagency review June 22.
The EPA proposed revisions to the performance standards for landfills in 2014 (RIN 2060–AM08) as well as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to update the emissions guidelines for existing landfills (RIN 2060–AS23). The proposed limits for new landfills would require operators to capture two-thirds of their methane and air toxics emissions by 2023. The EPA has not updated emissions standards for existing landfills since 1996. Nearly 1,000 municipal solid waste landfills in the U.S. are subject to the separate rules for existing or new landfills, according to the agency (127 DEN A-1, 7/2/14).
As part of its advance notice of proposed rulemaking to consider revisions to the emissions guidelines for existing landfills, the EPA solicited input on whether it should directly regulate methane from those facilities or whether it should continue to regulate “landfill gas,” which can contain methane, carbon dioxide and nonmethane organic compounds.
Methane is 28 to 36 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period, according to the EPA.
The final performance standards for new landfills were expected to be issued in May, according to the regulatory agenda. The proposed revisions to the emissions guidelines for existing facilities is expected in August. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
-
EPA Advances Revised Landfill Methane NSPS Proposal For OMB Review
Jun 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has sent for White House review what appears to be a revised version of its earlier proposed rule outlining potential first-time limits on the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from new landfills that is due for release by July, as well as a related proposal on whether to regulate methane from existing landfills that is due in August.
According to the White House Office of Management & Budget's (OMB) website, the agency on June 22 sent both proposals for mandatory pre-publication review. The proposed rule on existing landfills was expected as the agency floated an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for those facilities in July last year.
But OMB's website says the new source performance standards (NSPS) rulemaking that would apply to future landfills is a proposal -- even though EPA proposed the NSPS alongside the existing source rule last July. That could suggest that the agency has revised the rule and wants additional comment on it, after waste industry groups in comments on the earlier proposal raised major objections to imposing methane controls.
The NSPS update is also on a delayed timeline, as environmentalists and EPA had previously agreed to a March 30 consent decree deadline for issuing the final rule. Advocates filed a suit to force an update to the 1996 NSPS for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, and the agency agreed to the consent decree to resolve the litigation.
According to the docket for the case, both parties on March 27 agreed to extend the final rule deadline to April 30, and then in an April 30 filing further extended the final rule deadline to July 16.
Because the NSPS under review is a proposal, that puts EPA on an extremely tight timeline to complete White House review; seek public comment on the revised proposal; process those comments; craft a final rule; have that rule go through OMB review; and issue the final in time to meet next month's consent decree deadline.
The existing source rule -- in which EPA will address comments it took on the ANPR on how, and whether, to regulate methane from existing landfills -- is on a much later timeline, according to OMB's website. EPA plans to issue the formal proposal this August, with a final version of the rule due in October 2016. There is no deadline under a consent decree or court order for the agency to finalize the existing source rule.
Landfills are the third largest source of human-related methane emissions with 18 percent of total U.S. methane, according to the White House's methane strategy that includes the EPA rules. The largest source is the agriculture sector with 36 percent, followed by natural gas systems at 23 percent. MSW landfills' emissions of methane in 2012 were equivalent to approximately100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution, the strategy says.
The White House's Interagency Methane Strategy document, a part of the administration's Climate Action Plan, is a joint effort including EPA, the Energy Department and the Interior Department. It includes EPA's update to the years-old NSPS to add requirements to cut methane, as well as other changes to the regulation.
Proposed NSPS
The earlier NSPS proposal would lower the regulatory threshold for annual gas emissions from landfills -- used to determine when gas collection and control systems are required for the facilities -- from 50 megagrams per year (Mg/yr, or metric tons) of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) down to 40 Mg/yr.
EPA also sought to clarify that treated landfill gas “is not limited to use as a fuel for a stationary combustion device but also allows other beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel.”
An industry source says the practical effect of the original proposal would likely be minor in the first instance because very few new landfills are being built, and of those none are likely to be small. Landfill operators are not opposed to capturing gas, but rather operators of large landfills are primarily concerned with winning greater flexibility for compliance with the rule, because as written it is too restrictive for the sector.
“We are hoping for a more nuanced reaction from EPA,” as “the existing [proposed] rule is extremely prescriptive,” the source says. For example, the proposal contains multiple, excessively strict deadlines by which industry must file paperwork to receive regulatory exemptions of flexibility in extenuating circumstances, the source says.
For the NSPS, industry groups last year said EPA rushed the proposal, depriving groups of a chance to fully analyze and comment on a major rule that companies say is ill-conceived, likely to inhibit installation of emissions controls and will apply to many more sites than EPA has concluded.
Meanwhile, the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in Sept. 11 comments said that EPA has underestimated the likely impacts of its rule on smaller landfills.
The SBA disagreed with EPA's certification that the rule will not cause significant economic hardship to a substantial number of small landfills, and called on EPA to exempt smaller sites from the rule.
Existing Landfills
The ANPR on emissions guidelines discusses potential adjustments to the design capacity threshold, the NMOC emissions threshold, and the timing of installing, expanding and removing the gas collection and control system, according to the July 17 Federal Register notice announcing the document.
The design capacity threshold, measured in megagrams (mg), is set at 2.5 million mg under the existing rules governing the sector, and EPA did not propose to change this. About half of the landfills in the United States larger than this, according to the agency's notice.
The ANPR also discusses “potential changes to emission threshold determinations, consideration of best management practices, and new technologies that could improve collection and control” of landfill gas.
But the industry source says, “we don't know that there is much more that can be done for landfills with controls in place.” Industry giant Waste Management in its comments on the proposed rule last year questioned EPA's legal authority under Clean Air Act section 111(d) to impose controls on existing landfills, because that air law provision lacks review procedures to tighten rules for sources already complying with an existing standard.
The rules may have implications for older landfills that are reducing their gas production and hence losing their revenue stream that could be used to pay for additional gas recovery technology, the source says. Industry groups in comments on the proposal have also noted that it will likely have most effect on modifications of existing landfills, which for economic reasons are much more numerous than newly-built landfills on greenfield sites.
Environmentalists in their comments on EPA's July NSPS proposal and ANPR say the agency should go further than the proposals by imposing stricter emissions controls.
For example, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth in September 15 comments said they want EPA to use larger global warming potential (GWP) values for methane than what EPA proposed, which would show greater benefits from the rules. Other changes they sought were for EPA to: make rejection of waste material exceeding a set limit mandatory for new landfills; finalize its proposal to apply the standard to startup, shutdown and malfunction operations; strengthen and then finalize its additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements and use a lower the NMOC emissions threshold, among other recommendations.
-
Senators Urge Interior to Appeal Ruling On Colorado Mine Environmental Review
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Four Republican senators urged Interior Secretary Sally Jewell June 23 to appeal a federal court decision that could result in a shutdown of a Colorado surface coal mine and to begin discussions with the affected communities.
Many in the state's Moffat and Rio Blanco counties are concerned that Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement won't be able to reconsider environmental impacts of the Colowyo Mine expansion by the deadline set by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the senators said. If that happens, the court will vacate the mine plan and shut down the mine, which is “vital” to the local economy, they said.
“These employees, the surrounding communities, and businesses should be made aware of the agency's plans and whether or not OSM will appeal the decision,” Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) said in a letter.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has separately said the mine located outside of Meeker, Colo., employs hundreds and that its closure would harm families and local businesses, as well as cut off a primary coal provider for a local power plant (101 DEN A-9, 5/27/15).
The court gave the Office of Surface Mining 120 days to properly consider environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act. The court ruled May 8 that the agency violated NEPA by not notifying or adequately involving the public in the preparation of and conclusion of its environmental assessment of the proposed mine.
Colowyo Coal Co. LLP, the owner of the mine, appealed the decision June 1 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The case was filed initially by an environmental group, WildEarth Guardians (WildEarth Guardians v. OSM, 10th Cir., No. 15-1186, 6/1/15; 106 DEN A-16, 6/3/15).
Interior Working to Address Court's Concerns
In response to the letter, Jessica Kershaw, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, told Bloomberg BNA June 23 the department is working diligently to address the court's concerns by its deadline, calling it “the most important task at hand.” The department is also reviewing the court's ruling and weighing its options with the Justice Department, Kershaw said.
“The Department of the Interior, including the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement, take our NEPA responsibilities seriously, including robust public participation in any environmental reviews,” Kershaw said.
-
Climate Change Growing Threat To Public's Health, Not Just Planet's: Officials
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
The White House wants to start a national dialogue on why climate change isn't just bad for the planet's health but for the public's health, too.
Climate change brings with it a host of public health problems, from more intense heat waves to longer allergy seasons to higher risks of Lyme disease. Children, the elderly, the sick, the poor and some communities of color will feel the brunt of these impacts, according to federal research.
So to help spread the word, the White House hosted a summit June 23 on climate change and health, bringing together administration officials, doctors, deans of medical schools and others to talk about how Americans will be affected and what they can do to prepare.
President Barack Obama, who addressed the summit via a pre-taped video message, said “evidence of climate change is no longer relegated to decades of carefully collected scientific data.”
“It's something that we can increasingly see and feel as we step out our front doors,” he said, on a day when temperatures in Washington reached near-record levels.
The summit was part of a communications push from the Obama administration marking the second anniversary of the president's plan to tackle climate change.
A day earlier, the Environmental Protection Agency released a report outlining the impacts of a changing climate on the U.S. economy and the benefits of taking action (120 DEN A-2, 6/23/15).
Making Climate Change Resonate With Public
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that report was part of an effort to make Obama's executive actions on climate change resonate better with what she called “normal human beings.”
“When I put a report out on acting on climate like we did yesterday—that shows how dramatically our world will change if we don't act and the benefits we can deliver if we do—I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers,” McCarthy said. “In any democracy, it's not them that carries the day.”
“It is normal human beings that haven't put their stake into politics above science,” she said. “It's normal human beings who want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”
The president has made climate change a centerpiece of his second term, issuing a suite of new policies, including the first-ever curbs on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Health was a focal point of the administration's messaging when those rules were proposed (115 DEN A-7, 6/16/14).
Health Seen as Less-Polarizing Issue
Part of the reason for the emphasis on health is that it's a much less polarizing issue than climate change, said Edward Maibach, director of George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication.
“All Americans feel strongly about their health,” he said at the summit, but the problem is they don't know how climate change will affect them.
Most Americans either have no idea people will die, get sick or injured by climate change or they underestimate how many people will be affected each year, according to surveys conducted by George Mason and Yale universities.
Yet, in the British medical journal Lancet, a panel of 46 health professionals and climate scientists just identified the world's changing climate as one of the biggest threats to humans in the coming decades.
Administration officials at the summit also pitched climate change's impact on health as a moral issue, building on the argument that Pope Francis made a week earlier in a groundbreaking encyclical.
Could Worsen Disparities in Health
“My concern is that, among other things, climate change has the potential to worsen not only health overall but also worsen disparities in health,” Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said, referring to its outsized impact on children, the elderly, the poor and minorities. “For that reason, I believe that climate change is a moral issue,” Murthy said.
Brian Deese, one of the president's top climate advisers, likewise made an appeal as a parent, saying “for many of us, this issue starts at a very personal level.”
“We need to make sure that people know why we are pushing so hard in this fight against climate change,” Deese said. “And at the end of the day, that comes back to the health of our children and the health of our families and our communities.”
-
Climate Change Calls for Science, Not Hope
Jun 24, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eduardo Porter
Is the American approach to combating climate change going off the rails?
Last year, President Obama set a goal of reducing carbon emissions by as much as 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, only 10 years from now.
Now, environmental experts are suggesting that some parts of the strategy are, at best, a waste of money and time. At worst, they are setting the United States in the wrong direction entirely.
That is the view of some of the world’s top environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club. On Tuesday, they argued in a letter to the White House that allowing the burning of biomass to help reduce consumption of fossil fuels in the nation’s power plants, as proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, would violate the Clean Air Act.
It’s also the view of economists from the University of Chicago and the University of California, Berkeley, who on Tuesday released the disappointing results of a field test of the federal Weatherization Assistance Program, the government’s largest effort to improve residential energy efficiency.
It turns out that burning biomass — wood, mainly — for power produces 50 percent more CO2 than burning coal. And even if new forest growth were to eventually suck all of it out of the atmosphere, it would take decades — perhaps more than a century — to make up the difference and break even with coal.One study commissioned by the state of Massachusetts concluded that the climate impacts of burning wood were worse than those for coal for 45 years, and worse than for natural gas for about 90 years. Humans do not have that kind of time.
The energy efficiency push has a different problem: It is much too expensive. The weatherization improvements cost more than twice as much as households’ energy savings. Even after including the broad social benefits from less pollution, it was still a bad deal. Indeed, the program spent $329 per ton of CO2 it kept out of the air, some eight times as much as the administration’s estimate of the social cost of damages caused by carbon.
These are not small setbacks. Most of the scenarios that keep the rise in global temperatures under a 2 degree Celsius ceiling, the point at which scientists fear the risk of climate upheaval rises significantly, rely heavily on bioenergy, including biomass for power generation and other biofuels, which face similar problems . Coupled with carbon capture and storage systems, they are wishfully expected to deliver “negative emissions” in the second half of this century.
Efficiency gains are also critical. The Obama administration’s plan for the electricity generating industry has not been completed yet. But the E.P.A.’s original proposal estimated that energy efficiency would account for almost one-fifth of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.
There is plenty of opportunity on the efficiency front, according to Amory B. Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, one of the nation’s most prominent energy experts. He says improvements in energy efficiency have the capacity to take the United States economy almost two-thirds of the way toward phasing out oil, coal and nuclear power by 2050.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
The International Energy Agency also relies on energy efficiency gains to deliver almost half of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 in its projected policy scenarios.
Mr. Lovins, a longtime advocate of investment in energy efficiency, argues that such targets are easily achievable. “There is a lot of cheap efficiency to be bought out there,” he told me.
But forecasts like his must contend with the fact that worldwide improvements in energy efficiency are slowing. While there may be great investment opportunities, residential retrofits do not seem to fit the bill.
What this evidence suggests is that climate change strategies too often lack strong analytical foundations, and are driven more by hope than science. Policy makers would be making a mistake to proceed as if their favored methods are working, when the data shows they aren’t.
The task of replacing the world’s entire energy system within the next few decades requires experimenting intensely along many technological avenues, learning quickly from failures and moving on. Yet too often the goal of bringing the world’s carbon emissions under control is put at the service of other agendas, ideological or economic, limiting the world’s options.
Driven by the imperative to find ways to decarbonize the human footprint — yet unwilling to consider potentially fruitful strategies, such as nuclear energy or genetically modified agriculture — many policy makers and environmental advocates have hung their hopes on implausible forecasts for their favored tools, like energy efficiency, or implicitly assumed that much of the world will get by without energy.
This was eloquently illustrated in Pope Francis’s environmental encyclical “Laudato Si’” released last week, in which he made a forceful call to combat climate change and at the same time condemned technology and market mechanisms like carbon trading.
The pope sees in climate change an opportunity to reform humanity’s ways. So he called on the world to address the challenge by tempering overconsumption. In so doing, however, his encyclical deprived people of the tools humanity will need to prevent climatic upheaval.
“We need to look at it as a program of carbon management, not of reforming society,” said Armond Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air Task Force, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.
Michael Greenstone, who runs the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and was one of the authors of the energy efficiency study, puts that in practical terms. “There is a limited appetite to devote resources to mitigating carbon emissions, so we should aim to pursue the least expensive ones,” he said. “There is a risk that we do a bunch of policies that make us feel better about ourselves but do not hit the climate target directly.”
We are losing time in many ways. Investment in carbon capture and storage technologies is virtually nonexistent. Nuclear energy, the only proven technology to have produced zero-carbon energy at a large scale, has been pushed off the menu in many countries.
“People are taking things off the table that historically have worked, and only putting things on the table that are untried,” Mr. Cohen said.He welcomes investment in newfangled renewable energy, but argues for much more experimentation with nuclear power, too. Powering an entire grid with the wind and sun, he notes, requires building generation capacity to satisfy peak demand many times over, to keep the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun is down. Or it requires a fossil-fuel-based backup grid with the capacity to satisfy 100 percent of peak demand.
The biomass industry, meanwhile, is in full throttle. Angus King, the independent senator from biomass-rich Maine, has even proposed a bill in Congress that would direct the E.P.A. to assume that forest biomass emissions do not increase CO2 accumulation as long as forest stocks are not decreasing. The same concept has showed up in a rid e r to the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill moving through the House and Senate.
Mary Booth, an expert on bioenergy who heads the Partnership for Policy Integrity, said that was like legislating that the sea level cannot rise more than eight inches.
The King Canute strategy cannot protect us and our children from climate change. We need experimentation that will deliver genuine breakthroughs. And that requires putting wishful thinking and phobias aside and letting science guide the way.
-
New Data Casts Doubt On Some Energy Efficiency Efforts
Jun 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
The EPA is counting on energy efficiency to help offset higher electric bills from its carbon dioxide rule for power plants, but a University of Chicago study released Tuesday may blow a hole in the agency’s reasoning.
The researchers studied the federal Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps low-income households improve the energy economy of their homes, and found that one dollar spent on the program produced only 50 cents in benefits, a far worse performance than efficiency models predicted.
Energy efficiency advocates argued that the weatherization program is unusual since it typically doesn’t have high economic benefits, and they contend that other programs have far better benefit-cost ratios.
The EPA has calculated that the higher cost of power from low-carbon renewable and natural gas-fired plants would be held in check by energy efficiency measures, but the study questioned whether the models EPA has relied on will conform to the real world experiences of homeowners.
“A lot of these engineering models assume the efficiency appears,” said Catherine Wolfram, one of the authors of the study. “They don’t account for the cost of doing that. It’s putting aside a Saturday to go to Home Depot to buy the insulation or whatever’s involved. Those costs could be quite prohibitive.”
Efficiency programs are among the least controversial policies in the energy debate, and lawmakers tend to be wary of fighting measures that seek to better use of resources or programs that can provide benefits at relatively low cost. As the aphorism goes, the cheapest kilowatt-hour is the one that’s never used.
EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan aims to cut power sector CO2 emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, setting targets for each state by combining the potential impacts of increased renewable energy generation, running coal plants less often in favor of natural gas plants and increased energy efficiency.
Those energy efficiency measures make up an average of 20 percent of each state’s target, ranging from 7 percent for Washington to 63 percent Rhode Island.
The agency conceded in its regulatory impact analysis that policies stemming from the proposed rule would likely increase power rates by 3 percent by 2030. However, as customers become more efficient and use less power, the average electric bill should drop by 9 percent by that same year.
For their energy efficiency study, researchers from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago sampled 30,000 Michigan households eligible for the $192 million federal Weatherization Assistance Program. The program granted an average of $5,150 of home improvements to low-income families to improve the heating efficiency of their homes at no cost to the homeowners.
The study found that the improvements generated a 10 percent to 20 percent reduction in monthly energy consumption, putting the costs of the program at about double direct financial benefits — far below efficiency model forecasts that predicted the benefits would amount to 2.5 times the cost of the program.
“Across a variety of metrics, the WAP energy efficiency investments appear to be poor performers on average,” the study said.
However, the study found no significant “rebound effect,” in which homeowners, upon discovering that their heating bills have fallen, raise the temperature in their homes.
To Wolfram, the study indicates that far more fieldwork is needed to test whether engineering models often used to gauge the effectiveness of energy efficiency subsidies need to be reassessed.
“We need to be careful before we rely too heavily on energy efficiency,” she said.
Energy efficiency advocates argued that the Weatherization Assistance Program is known to be among the least cost-effective programs. It targets low-income households, and efficiency auditors rarely get more than one opportunity to access a given home.
As a result, auditors try to do as much as possible during a single visit, even if the measures aren’t always the best use of money. The program was left out of the energy efficiency law ushered through Congress by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) earlier this year.
“Low-income weatherization is kind of unique. I don’t think you can generalize,” said Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. “If you wanted to pick a program to pick on for cost-effectiveness, this would be the one because people do not attempt to make it cost effective.”
The EPA did not challenge the studies findings, highlighting instead that there are industry standard methods for assessing energy efficiency.
“We recognize that there are different approaches to quantifying the benefits,” EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said in a statement. “EPA’s confidence is based on industry standard evaluation, measurement and verification methods which are used by utilities and state [public utility commissions], and backed up by rigorous protocols and third party review.”
Nadel said the weatherization program made up only a small part of the world of energy efficiency. Lighting programs, which have a more direct bearing on electric power usage, tend to have three or four times more benefits than costs.
Opower, a company that contracts with utilities, operates a program that shows customers how much power they’re using in comparison with their neighbors. An independent evaluation of the program for customers of Central Hudson Gas & Electric in New York found approximately $2 million in energy savings versus approximately $1 million in costs.
Efficiency proponent Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said the new data didn’t undermine the favorable results reported in other analyses.
“At first glance, this appears to be a narrow study of just one program,” Welch said in a statement. “Its conclusion contradicts numerous more comprehensive studies conducted by state regulators, utilities and others which have concluded the benefits of energy efficiency programs significantly outweigh their cost. While improvements can always be made, it is irrefutable that energy efficiency is key component of our energy future. Simply stated, using less is more.”
-
5 Standing Up Against EPA Overreach Benefits Americans Everywhere
|
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Approves Bill To Reform Freight Rail Policies
Jun 23, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glen Hess
Chemical manufacturers are welcoming recent Senate approval of legislation that would overhaul U.S. freight rail policy.
The bill (S. 808) would reform operations at the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a small federal agency that resolves rate and service disputes between freight railroads and their customers—companies that ship chemicals, grain, coal, and other bulk commodities.
The legislation seeks to make STB more responsive to the needs of shippers, who have long complained that the current process for challenging the fairness of a rate can cost up to $3 million and take three years to complete.
“This bill would enact a series of meaningful reforms, including streamlining STB’s overly burdensome rate review process, providing reasonable arbitration procedures to resolve rate disputes, and allowing STB to be more proactive in resolving freight rail issues,” says Calvin M. Dooley, chief of executive officer of the American Chemistry Council, a chemical trade association.
Congress created STB in 1995 as the successor to the old Interstate Commerce Commission, and its policies and procedures have never been updated.
The measure would give the board new power to initiate investigations into rail service problems, not just respond to complaints. It would also speed up STB’s current dispute resolution process by setting timelines for rate reviews and expands voluntary arbitration procedures to address both rate and service disputes.
No similar rail reform bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives. But Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, says his panel will consider S. 808.
In addition to multiple shipper organizations, the legislation is also supported by the Association of American Railroads, which represents the freight rail industry.
-
Hazmat Safety Programs Not Yet Included In Six-Year Senate Surface Transportation Bill
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A six-year surface transportation reauthorization bill introduced June 23 doesn't include hazardous materials safety programs, but a Senate aide told Bloomberg BNA that the provision still could be added.
The Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act (bill number unavailable), or DRIVE Act, was introduced by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee leadership. It would establish a new freight program and eliminate certain delays for projects under the National Environmental Policy Act.
While recent hazardous materials program reauthorizations have been included in surface transportation reauthorizations, those programs are under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and would have to be added by that committee, a Senate environment committee aide told Bloomberg BNA. The aide said those provisions could eventually be a part of the bill, however.
Lauren Hammond, a commerce committee spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that the committee intends to consider its areas of jurisdiction “shortly after” the environment committee.
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed a desire and an urgency to work together on a long-term surface transportation extension, especially given the roughly dozen temporary “patches” that have been keeping these programs afloat during the past six years. The latest patch was signed by President Barack Obama May 29 to authorize these programs, including those for hazmat safety, through the end of July (106 DEN A-20, 6/3/15).
The DRIVE Act was introduced by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.). It will be discussed at a committee business meeting June 24.
The DRIVE Act is available at http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=ed58c727-1911-407e-af74-936f80ccc563.
-
PHMSA Would Receive $246M for FY 2016 Under Senate Subcommittee-Approved Bill
Jun 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A Senate Appropriations subcommittee approved a bill June 23 that includes $246 million in fiscal year 2016 funding for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The funding bill approved by the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies still includes $43 million less for PHMSA than the White House requested, according to a bill summary. The bill would leave PHMSA funding essentially the same as FY 2015 enacted levels, which was $245 million.
The Senate's Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill also includes language to bolster development of a local emergency responder web-based curriculum, the summary said.
“From rental assistance for low-income families to safety-related provisions for our transportation infrastructure, the many critical programs funded by this bill were balanced to fund the wide range of operations that play a crucial role in reinvigorating our economy,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the subcommittee, said in a statement.
The $55.65 billion discretionary spending bill would provide $17.8 billion for the full Transportation Department, roughly $17 million below FY 2015 enacted levels and $3.9 billion below the White House budget request, the summary said.
The bill now awaits consideration by the full Senate Appropriations Committee, a step that will occur June 25. The full text of the bill won't be made available until the full committee meeting.
The House passed its own version of a transportation appropriations bill June 9 (112 DEN A-5, 6/11/15).
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested