Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) US House Overwhelmingly Approves TSCA Reform Legislation
Jun 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The US Congress took a major step towards updating the country's federal chemical safety law, when the House of Representatives passed a bill to reform the decades-old Toxic Substances Control Act by a 398-1 vote, late on Tuesday. -
As House Approves TSCA Reform, CBO Highlights Differences With Senate
Jun 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The House's almost-unanimous vote to approve Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation shifts focus to the Senate's pending broader TSCA bill, and a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report highlights the differences between both bills' fee and spending provisions that will eventually have to be reconciled. -
Lawmaker Explains Lone Vote Against House TSCA Bill
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
California Republican Tom McClintock, the lone congressman to vote against a bill to overhaul federal regulation of toxic chemicals, opposed the measure because it wouldn't allow U.S. EPA to consider cost, his office said today. -
EDF Statement on House Passage of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576)
Jun 24, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) appreciates the continued progress toward badly needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) represented by Tuesday’s passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015. -
EPA Science Advisor Reviewing Ways To Increase Risk Forum's Efficiency
Jun 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's new science advisor Thomas Burke is reviewing the agency's Risk Assessment Forum (RAF), which has been struggling in recent years to finalize consensus risk policy documents, weighing whether there are ways to increase the output of the volunteer group of agency experts. -
Chaos and Coup at Chemical Safety Board
Jun 24, 2015 | All Gov
By Noel Brinkerhoff
There’s been a coup in Washington, but it’s not quite the kind—or level of authority—that would be featured in a Hollywood movie. -
Ozone Omission in Obama Veto Threat Raises Red Flags for Enviros
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The omission of any reference to an ozone rider from the White House's veto threat of the House's fiscal 2016 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill is raising concerns among environmentalists over the Obama administration's commitment to updating federal air quality standards for smog later this year. -
Obama Threatens Veto Of House FY16 Funding Bill Over Cuts, Policy Bars
Jun 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
President Obama is threatening to veto the House's fiscal year 2016 funding bill because it includes more than $700 million in spending cuts for the agency and would block a host of major rules including EPA's utility climate regulations, increasing prospects for a budget standoff if the Senate approves a similar measure with cuts and riders. -
EPA: No News in McCarthy's Comments on Climate Rules
Jun 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
EPA says reporters are over-analyzing the grammatical nuances of Administrator Gina McCarthy's comments last night about the timing of the agency's climate rules for power plants. -
EIA in Hot Seat Ahead of House Vote on Clean Power Plan
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The nonpartisan U.S. Energy Information Administration found itself in the crossfire of a congressional war over the Obama administration's flagship climate rule today, with partisans on both sides of the issue using its findings to support their point of view. -
Texas Pushes Back Against Clean Power Plan
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has announced plans to sue over U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, which would cut emissions from existing power plants across the country. -
Indiana Says it Won't Follow EPA Climate Rule Without Changes
Jun 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Indiana is prepared to ignore the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants unless the regulation is changed considerably from last year’s proposal, according to the state's governor. -
Green Groups Ask OMB to Ban Biomass Energy Under Clean Power Plan
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
A coalition of environmental groups yesterday sent a letter to Shaun Donovan, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, requesting that states be prevented from using wood-burning power plants to comply with the proposed Clean Power Plan. -
Federal Judge Postpones BLM Fracking Rule
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule will not take effect until August at the earliest, thanks to a federal judge's decision to stay the new regulation until he has more information. -
Court Delays Federal Fracking Rule
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration's long-awaited hydraulic fracturing rule will not take effect as scheduled today, thanks to a federal judge's eleventh-hour decision to stay the rule until August. -
EPA Sends Methane Leak Rule for Final Review
Jun 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration has started the final review stage for proposed regulations to minimize methane leaks from the oil and natural gas sector. -
Keeping Energy Affordable
Jun 24, 2015 | The Hill - Opinion
By Rep. Ed Whitfield
For generations, the United States has benefitted from low cost and reliable energy. In many parts of the country, coal is the most abundant source that provides baseload electricity to heat and cool our homes and businesses. -
Energy-Efficiency Programs ‘Nudge’ Consumers in the Wrong Direction
Jun 24, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Greg Ip
Energy efficiency has long appealed to political leaders trying to combat climate change without hurting their economies. It holds out the promise of policies that both reduce fossil-fuel consumption and save consumers money. -
Why Are the Government’s Energy Forecasts So Bad?
Jun 24, 2015 | Politico
By Michael Grunwald
In 2009, the federal government’s Energy Information Administration made a forecast for the next two decades: U.S. wind power would grow modestly, reaching 44 gigawatts of generating capacity in 2030, while solar power would remain scarce, inching up to 12 GW.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) US House Overwhelmingly Approves TSCA Reform Legislation
Jun 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The US Congress took a major step towards updating the country's federal chemical safety law, when the House of Representatives passed a bill to reform the decades-old Toxic Substances Control Act by a 398-1 vote, late on Tuesday.
The TSCA Modernization Act (HR 2576) was taken up under the suspension of rules procedure, which is usually used to fast track non-controversial measures. This meant that no amendments could be made to the bill.
It had already been approved unopposed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee (CW 4 June 2015) and the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy (CW 15 May 2015).
The next step is for the Senate to pass its own TSCA measure, the Udall-Vitter bill (CW 29 April 2015) . If this happens, a conference committee of the two chambers will work to reconcile differences between the two bills. The unified version would then go back to both chambers for passage, before heading to the president's desk for his signature. The Senate bill is expected to receive floor consideration next month (CW 22 July 2015).
A more targeted measure than the comprehensive Senate bill, HR 2576, would:
repeal the current TSCA's requirement that the EPA use “the least burdensome requirements” to impose restrictions on toxic chemicals;
require the EPA to start ten or more risk evaluations in each fiscal year, subject to the availability of funding;
allow industry to designate chemicals for EPA risk evaluations if they are willing to pay the administrative costs;
require the EPA to complete risk evaluations “as soon as possible, subject to the availability of resources, but not later than three years”. The agency would have to complete evaluations initiated by a manufacturer in two years;
let stand any state or local action on chemical management taken before 1 August, this year, unless it conflicts with federal law. But once the EPA makes a final decision on a chemical subject to risk evaluation, it applies to all states; and
require confidential business information claims, made after enactment, to be “designated, substantiated and reasserted every ten years”.
In a floor speech before the vote, the bill's author John Shimkus (R-Illinois), chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, said HR 2576 reflects things learned over the last three years, in which the committee had worked on TSCA reform. The bill, he said, “does not try to be all things to all people”. He added that major sections of TSCA are not changed at all. For example, the bill leaves the process for new chemical review in TSCA section 5 unchanged because “it's working pretty well right now, and changes could make it worse.”
Calling it “landmark reform legislation”, subcommittee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) said HR 2576 would remove “major obstacles to EPA action and give the agency new authority and new resources”.
The House measure will “build confidence in the US chemical regulatory system, protect human health and the environment, and address the commercial and competitive needs of the US chemical industry and the national economy,” said Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council.
The bipartisan bill addresses key shortcomings of the status quo, while maintaining areas of the statute that work well or could work better, said Bill Allmond, vice president of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. With the passage of HR 2576, “we believe Congress is just steps away from making TSCA reform a reality.”
The lawmakers, who worked together, have “crafted a targeted bill that addresses many of the core issues with the existing law, and they have done what many thought was impossible – bringing Democrats and Republicans together for the first time since 1990 to pass legislation updating a major environmental law,” said Chris Cathcart, president of the Consumer Specialty Products Association.
Andy Igrejas, director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition said it “addresses the biggest problems in the current law and avoids some of the pitfalls of the Senate approach”.
-
As House Approves TSCA Reform, CBO Highlights Differences With Senate
Jun 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The House's almost-unanimous vote to approve Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation shifts focus to the Senate's pending broader TSCA bill, and a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report highlights the differences between both bills' fee and spending provisions that will eventually have to be reconciled.
If the upper chamber approves the bipartisan TSCA reform measure introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) without major changes, lawmakers will have to hold a conference committee to resolve the differences between the two bills -- differences that could be worth millions of dollars in spending and revenue. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said he hopes to hold a vote on the bill by August.
But Senate Environment & Public Works Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is now suggesting that senators take up the House version of TSCA reform, H.R. 2576, instead of the Vitter-Udall bill. Depending on how the GOP and Democrats react to that idea, it could complicate Senate approval of the measure.
Both bills would overhaul the 1976 TSCA in order to give EPA new authority to address risks from existing chemicals in the marketplace, and they would both create industry fee programs to pay for the bills.
The House approved the bill, H.R. 2576, in a June 23 floor vote of 398-1 under a suspension of rules that bars amendments from being offered and provides limited debate -- but requires a two-thirds majority of the House for approval, suggesting lawmakers anticipated broad backing for the bill. One Republican, Rep. Tom McClintock (CA), voted in opposition of the bill and 34 lawmakers were not present for the vote.
Rep. John Shimkus, (R-IL), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's environment panel, said during the floor debate on the bill that he sought suspension of the rules because he “wanted as strong a showing of support from the House as possible” ahead of a possible conference with the Senate bill, S. 697.
McClintock in a statement to Inside EPA on his “no” vote said, “This is a well-intentioned bill that accomplishes the opposite of what it is designed to do. Its purpose is to expedite and standardize the evaluation of toxic chemicals. Instead, it grants sweeping new powers to the EPA, removes the consideration of cost when conducting a risk evaluation, removes the 'least burdensome regulation required' standard from current law, dedicates an unaccountable revolving fund in the Treasury for EPA evaluations, and still allows states to adopt more stringent standards. Thus, it greatly increases the burdens on low-regulatory states without easing the burdens on high-regulatory states.”
The House bill takes a narrower approach to preemption of state toxics programs than S. 697. It would “grandfather,” or preserve existing state chemical safety laws that have taken effect before Aug. 1 and preserve state toxic tort claims, after EPA takes final action on a chemical, unless they "actually conflict" with new federal mandates. New state chemical laws, however, would be preempted once EPA finishes a restriction under TSCA.
The Senate bill, S. 697, also contains grandfathering provisions to preserve existing laws, but preemption for new chemical rules and laws would occur when EPA launches a review of a chemical.
Industry Fees
The CBO report on the TSCA legislation, issued June 23, says that while both bills would increase EPA’s administrative workload by roughly equivalent amounts to meet the new TSCA requirements and would allow the agency to charge fees to industry for certain activities, the types of fees and amounts collected would vary.
“Furthermore, because the classification of fees under the two bills differs, collections under the bills would have different budgetary implications,” according to the report by the non-partisan CBO.
If the Senate bill becomes law, the fees collected would be classified as offsetting collections and would more than offset the additional discretionary spending estimated under S. 697, of $72 million, resulting in an estimated reduction of $8 million over four years, according to a June 5 report on the Senate measure.
In contrast, the fees collected under the House bill would result in increased offsetting receipts, which are tantamount to a reduction in direct spending of an estimated $115 million over the 2016-2025 period and an increase in revenues by $121 million over the same period, net of income and payroll tax offsets, the report says.
The House bill would cost an estimated $64 million to implement over the 2016-2020 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts, the CBO report found, and could increase EPA's administrative workload by about 25 percent each year.
On the preemption provisions, the report says, “The bill would impose an intergovernmental mandate by preempting state regulations that conflict with the federal regulation of chemicals, but that preemption would impose no
duty on states that would result in additional spending or a loss of revenues.”
The report follows an earlier CBO analysis focused on the Senate bill, which said the legislation could cut net government spending $8 million over four years while increasing civil and criminal penalties under the law.
'Appropriate Measure'
Boxer in a June 23 statement said she is backing the House bill over the Senate measure, saying she believes it is the “appropriate measure” for the upper chamber to take up and work toward “just a few amendments to make it better,” compared to the Vitter-Udall bill that the senator opposes. The senate bill currently has 21 Republican sponsors and 20 Democratic sponsors.
S. 697 cleared the upper chamber's environment committee April 28 in a 15-5 vote but Boxer has faulted the preemption language and other provisions in the bill. She has vowed to introduce dozens of amendments when the bill is debated on the Senate floor, which could occur later this month.
Boxer said the California Attorney General's office also supports the House bill over the Senate bill, and that “The Senate bill is far more complex” with a “complicated” preemption provision that “will lead to the court house.”
But other Senate Democrats that support S. 697, Sens. Tom Udall (NM), Tom Carper (DE), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Cory Booker (NJ) said in a June 23 statement that while they do not agree with the details of the House bill, they applaud the “bipartisan demonstration” of support for reforming the decades old law.
The senators said they expect the Senate bill will “receive a strong bipartisan vote” in the coming weeks. “We look forward to working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to ensure that the bill that goes to the president's desk is as strong and comprehensive as possible.”
-
Lawmaker Explains Lone Vote Against House TSCA Bill
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
California Republican Tom McClintock, the lone congressman to vote against a bill to overhaul federal regulation of toxic chemicals, opposed the measure because it wouldn't allow U.S. EPA to consider cost, his office said today.
H.R. 2576, or the "TSCA Modernization Act," in fact "accomplishes the opposite of what it is designed to do," McClintock spokeswoman Jennifer Cressy said in an email.
While the bill was meant to provide for faster and standardized evaluations of toxic chemicals, it improperly expands EPA authority, Cressy said.
Although many other lawmakers have touted the bill -- and a Senate measure, S. 697, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" -- for removing the controversial requirement that EPA manage a chemical found to be harmful using the "least burdensome" method, this was, in fact, appropriate, McClintock's office said.
As a result, the bill "greatly increases the burdens on low-regulatory states without easing the burdens on high-regulatory states," Cressy said.
McClintock, a member of the Republican Study Committee and the tea party caucus, has bucked GOP leadership in the past and has been a vocal critic of government spending and taxes.
McClintock, who serves on the Natural Resources and Budget committees, was elected to Congress in 2008. He previously served as a California state senator and assemblyman and also ran unsuccessfully for governor during the 2003 recall election and for lieutenant governor in 2006.
Reporter Corbin Hiar contributed.
-
EDF Statement on House Passage of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576)
Jun 24, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) appreciates the continued progress toward badly needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) represented by Tuesday’s passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015. The House has continued to work in a bipartisan manner on this legislation, essential to developing reform legislation that can be enacted into law. We appreciate the attention Representatives John Shimkus, Paul Tonko, Frank Pallone and Chairman Fred Upton have given to TSCA reform.
While EDF welcomes the progress the House’s action represents toward updating the nearly 40-year-old TSCA, we believe a final bill will need to make considerably stronger and more comprehensive reforms in order to live up to the promise of fixing the key flaws in current law.
EDF looks forward to working with all Members of Congress to ensure that the final legislation the President signs into law establishes a strong overall system of protection from dangerous chemicals, one that: ensures primary attention is given to the chemicals that EPA determines are of concern to health and the environment; provides for timely safety reviews for all new and existing chemicals against a purely health-based standard; gives EPA strong testing authority; broadens transparency and information access; provides adequate resources; and gives EPA robust authority to regulate chemicals presenting risks to the public.
-
EPA Science Advisor Reviewing Ways To Increase Risk Forum's Efficiency
Jun 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's new science advisor Thomas Burke is reviewing the agency's Risk Assessment Forum (RAF), which has been struggling in recent years to finalize consensus risk policy documents, weighing whether there are ways to increase the output of the volunteer group of agency experts.
EPA created the RAF in the mid-1980s "to promote Agency-wide consensus on difficult and controversial risk assessment issues and to ensure that this consensus is incorporated into appropriate Agency risk assessment guidance," according to its website. It comprises a standing body of senior agency scientists, nominated by their individual labs, offices and regions. They serve on RAF as volunteers in four-year terms in addition to their regular duties.
Despite its august history, RAF has struggled in recent years, particularly under the direction of the last agency science advisor, Glenn Paulson, who sources blamed for RAF not publishing any new documents in 2013 -- the first time RAF did not publish since 1990.
RAF has been without a permanent executive director since late 2012, when Diane Henshel returned to her academic post at Indiana University after a year's service. Agency staff have served in acting roles since then, most recently Rita Schoeny, a senior agency scientist. Her term has also expired, and RAF staff is once again without a leader.
EPA advertised the position last fall, offering an annual salary of $125,000-$157,000. The ad on the federal hiring website USAjobs.gov described the director's duties as "[s]erv[ing] as the coordinator for the [RAF] and oversee[ing] the activities of senior scientists engaged in Forum activities to study and report on risk assessment issues from an Agency-wide perspective," and "[s]erv[ing] as a focal point within the Agency for responding to priority risk assessment and science policy issues identified by the Agency Science Advisor."
Meanwhile, RAF has yet to produce any final or draft documents in 2015, raising the possibility of a reprisal of 2013.
RAF most recently published "Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data to Develop Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation" last fall. It was one of three documents released since Paulson left EPA for George Washington University's public health school in the spring of 2014, after Gina McCarthy became administrator.
Now Burke is pondering priority projects for RAF and the Science Technology and Policy Council (STPC) and how to make the two groups more efficient, sources say. The science advisor chairs the STPC, a high-level agency-wide committee comprising deputy assistant administrator and deputy regional administrator-level managers. Among other science policy and planning projects, STPC oversees approval and release of RAF documents.
An EPA spokeswoman says that it "is not uncommon for EPA to evaluate its programs to ensure they are operating effectively and meeting the Agency's needs. EPA has been informally evaluating its [RAF] to identify whether there are any areas where changes could lead to improvements. The evaluation was initiated to inform internal operational decision-making prior to Dr. Burke's arrival at EPA."
RAF Priorities
Perhaps because of the as yet unfilled RAF management position, Burke has tapped Peter Preuss, EPA's chief innovation officer and formerly the director of the agency's influential National Center for Environmental Assessment, to serve as director of the Office of the Science Advisor, agency sources say. Preuss, who is also serving as an advisor to Burke, has been leading efforts to review STPC and RAF priorities, and RAF generally, sources say.
"EPA has created a new position, director of the Office of the Science Advisor, to more effectively support the Agency's Science Advisor," the EPA spokeswoman tells Inside EPA in response to questions. Preuss "is the interim director and we anticipate announcing the name of the new permanent director soon."
"The STPC has been looking at some rearrangements," a former EPA source says. This source and others say that staffers to STPC members are "trying to do priority setting," but it has been difficult to make decisions because Burke has been busy with competing priorities, including his confirmation hearing June 11 to be the assistant administrator for EPA's research office and the draft assessment of risks posed to drinking water sources by fracking, which the agency released June 4. The hearing led to cancellation of the STPC's scheduled June 10 meeting sources say, and it is unclear when STPC will next meet.
STPC's charter, created by former EPA science advisor and research chief Paul Anastas in 2010, calls for STPC to "review the charter on odd years . . . for currency and relevancy to agency priorities."
"One thing that is on their radar is the [RAF] and whether it is performing sufficiently, and/or should they consider other options for it," the former EPA source says. "It clearly does not have the same luster it had maybe 20 years ago."
"Anything is possible," an agency source says, adding that the forum is being reviewed, including how it operates and whether it is producing. "On the table are a whole range of options . . . The forum is being seriously looked at -- one option is killing it."
Should Burke decide to end the RAF, the question is "where do those functions go?" asks the source, who blames RAF's structure for its limited production. The volunteers elected to be RAF members are usually highly regarded senior scientists from offices across the agency, and they are "overtapped -- they have other real jobs," the source says. "The best people in the agency are just pulled lots of ways."
A second agency source, however, has not heard of any options that would lead to the RAF's end. RAF has recently created a subcommittee to discuss "priorities and process improvements" that RAF can consider recommending to Burke, this source says. The subcommittee process will take place over the summer.
-
Chaos and Coup at Chemical Safety Board
Jun 24, 2015 | All Gov
By Noel Brinkerhoff
There’s been a coup in Washington, but it’s not quite the kind—or level of authority—that would be featured in a Hollywood movie.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), which investigates industrial chemical accidents at refineries, factories, and other facilities, has experienced an unusual amount of chaos and power grabbing this month, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Documents obtained by PEER revealed that one CSB member, Rick Engler, claimed to have taken over the agency, which has been without a leader since its embattled chairman, Rafael Moure-Eraso, resigned in March. With only three seats filled on the five-member board, Engler reportedly used the support of outgoing board member Mark Griffon to designate himself “Board Member Delegated Interim Executive and Administrative Authority.” The board’s third member, Manuel “Manny” Ehrlich, objected to Engler’s power grab, according to PEER, suggesting that he and Engler jointly administer the board.
Engler then ordered the suspension of CSB’s entire executive staff, including Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and General Counsel Richard Loeb, putting them on administrative leave. The staffers were marched out of the building under armed guard and barred from returning or talking to other CSB staff.
Engler’s explanation for the action was that he’d ordered an internal investigation into “possible misconduct” that had been found earlier by the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general and a House committee. Those reports cited Moure-Eraso’s “autocratic” approach, use of private email, and staff complaints of a “toxic work environment,” according to PEER.
But in carrying out his actions, Engler “presided over the escalation from a toxic work environment to thermonuclear war,” PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch wrote. “These stale and frankly trivial matters do not merit Egyptian-style martial-law retribution meted out here.”
-
Ozone Omission in Obama Veto Threat Raises Red Flags for Enviros
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The omission of any reference to an ozone rider from the White House's veto threat of the House's fiscal 2016 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill is raising concerns among environmentalists over the Obama administration's commitment to updating federal air quality standards for smog later this year.
The Statement of Administration Policy released yesterday included a lengthy list of White House concerns with the $30.17 billion bill (H.R. 2822) to fund Interior and U.S. EPA, including cuts to key EPA programs and "numerous highly problematic ideological provisions that have no place in funding legislation."
But missing from the eight-page veto threat was any reference to a rider added in committee that would bar EPA from finalizing its proposed update to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone until 85 percent of counties in nonattainment comply with the existing 2008 standard (E&ENews PM, June 16).
The ozone provision was not among the riders flagged earlier this month by Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan to House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), although that letter came before the full committee markup. The Senate's Interior and environment spending bill contains language similar to the House's.
In an email, Clean Air Watch President Frank O'Donnell called the lack of warning on ozone a "glaring omission" from the veto threat that is "both disappointing and disturbing."
Referring to President Obama's 2011 decision to scrap EPA's earlier plans to tighten the ozone standard, he questioned whether "the White House is prepared to throw the smog standards under the proverbial bus. Again."
Obama's earlier ozone punt followed a storm of pressure from Republicans and industry, who argued a tighter smog standard would impose excessive costs and was legally questionable. After winning a reprieve in 2011, the same critics are furiously lobbying against EPA's 2014 proposal to tighten the standard to between 65 and 70 parts per billion, although the agency also took comment on the 60 ppb standard advocated by environmentalists and agency science advisers as most protective of human health.
Industry groups want the agency to leave intact the current 75 ppb standard -- set by the George W. Bush administration in 2008 -- again citing economic impacts for nonattainment counties. EPA is required by a legal settlement to make a final decision by Oct. 1.
A spokeswoman for EPA referred a question on the Statement of Administration Policy to OMB, which did not respond to a request for comment.
During Obama's presidency, the White House has repeatedly threatened to veto multiple bills that would hamstring EPA's powers under the Clean Air Act, including House-passed legislation, H.R. 1030, that targets decades-old health data used to justify air rules.
-
Obama Threatens Veto Of House FY16 Funding Bill Over Cuts, Policy Bars
Jun 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
President Obama is threatening to veto the House's fiscal year 2016 funding bill because it includes more than $700 million in spending cuts for the agency and would block a host of major rules including EPA's utility climate regulations, increasing prospects for a budget standoff if the Senate approves a similar measure with cuts and riders.
The veto threat comes as the GOP already faced an uphill battle to pass spending bills in the upper chamber, since Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has threatened to filibuster spending bills unless the GOP agrees to abandon the same discretionary spending caps Obama is now targeting, known as the sequester. But Republicans have not suggested a willingness to reverse the cuts or drop the policy bars.
As a result, the White House late June 23 issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) saying that Obama's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the House funding bill, H.R. 2822.
“The bill drastically underfunds core Department of the Interior programs as well as the Environmental Protection Agency's operating budget . . . The President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto H.R. 2822 and any other legislation that implements the current Republican budget framework,” the SAP says.
The legislation -- slated for a floor vote June 26 -- would cut EPA's existing $8.13 billion budget by $718 million, compared to the Senate EPA FY16 appropriations bill that seeks to reduce the agency's funding by $538 million.
Both measures include prohibitions on major EPA policies, including House language to block implementation of EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for existing and newly constructed power plants, and a Senate provision that would allow states to opt out of the pending GHG rule for existing utilities. Both bills would block implementation of the agency's recent final rule to determine Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction.
The SAP continues that the House's proposed funding cut for EPA “would significantly undermine implementation of the Clean Power Plan and the recently finalized Clean Water Rule” even if policy provisions blocking those policies were removed.
Funding Reductions
The SAP also targets three specific cuts to EPA budget accounts as unacceptable: a proposed $579 million reduction to the state revolving funds (SRFs) that support state water infrastructure projects from their current combined $2.356 billion; an $118 million cut to state categorical grants used to implement environmental policies from the existing $1.1 billion level; and a $35 million cut to Brownfields grants from the existing $54.3 million funding.
The SRF cuts divided between reductions to the clean water and drinking water infrastructure funds would “result . . . in approximately 200 fewer projects being funded nationally,” while the Brownfields reduction “severely limits opportunities for local communities to revitalize their contaminated lands to improve environmental quality and spark economic redevelopment,” the statement says.
If Congress sends its FY16 spending bills to president Obama as written and he follows through on the veto threat, it could prompt a stalemate if lawmakers supportive of the measures lack the votes to overturn the vetoes.
That in turn would cause a shutdown of most day-to-day federal activities if funding is not in place by Oct. 1, as happened in 2013.
A continuing budget battle could lead to Congress having to approve a continuing resolution (CR) that would simply extend existing funding levels, something that lawmakers have had to do in recent years given an impasse over budget bills.
However, it is unclear if the White House would back a CR for FY16 since current funding levels, like the GOP proposals, incorporate the sequestration caps that Obama is seeking to reverse.
Policy Restrictions
The SAP also outlines nine specific policy riders that the administration opposes, signaling that even if the White House and Congress agree on a FY16 budget framework the EPA bill could still face hurdles unless Republicans agree to strip some or all of those provisions from revised legislation.
First, it notes that “The Administration strongly objects” to a rider that would block EPA's proposed power plant GHG rules -- known as the Clean Power Plan, which the agency is expected to finalize this summer and which Republicans have strongly opposed.
“Failure to reduce the utility sector's carbon footprint places the Nation at risk from extreme weather events, wildland fire, poor air quality, global instability, accelerated environmental degradation, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease carriers such as mosquitos and ticks,” the SAP says.
The SAP does not address a similar rider in the Senate's proposed bill, which would stop short of blocking the proposed power plant GHG rules, instead allowing individual states to opt out of the federal standards and barring EPA from imposing federal plans on such states that would otherwise force them into compliance with the regulations.
On the CWA jurisdiction rider, the SAP says blocking the recently finalized rule would “disrupt the Administration's current efforts to clarify the scope of CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts, and create significant ambiguity regarding existing regulations and guidance.”
Along with the Clean Power Plan language, the SAP targets three other climate riders for opposition, including a provision barring EPA from applying controversial 2013 revisions to the social cost of carbon (SCC) -- the measure of benefits from carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions that forms the basis for many climate rules; and another that requires EPA to consider the practice of burning biomass, including wood, as carbon-neutral.
The White House argues that the House SCC rider would “disrupt dozens of upcoming rules that would use the SCC to monetize carbon reduction benefits,” while the biomass provision, which also appears in the Senate's EPA funding bill, “conflicts with existing EPA policies on biogenic CO2” and would interfere with state regulatory structures.
The third third climate rider would forbid EPA from barring hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from being used for refrigeration or foam blowing under its significant new alternatives policy (SNAP) program. HFCs were once touted as ozone friendly but have been found to act as powerful GHGs, and EPA has sought to use SNAP to phase them out in favor of substitutes with lower global warming potential.
Financial Assurance
The administration is also objecting to a rider that appears in both the House and Senate bills to block any change in the federal rules for financial assurance mechanisms under the Superfund law, which include surety bonds and self-insurance instruments used to limit taxpayers' liabilities for cleanups at contaminated sites.
“This provision would severely limit EPA's ability to develop these rules in a timely manner and abrogates EPA's responsibilities laid out in” the Superfund law, the White House says.
It also objects to a provision appearing only in the House bill that would stop new funding for development of an electronic manifest system for hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act. House appropriators have said they still support an e-manifest system but are asking EPA to request new authorization for its development since the project is now overdue and has exceeded its original budget.
Finally, the SAP objects to riders that block implementation of some sections of EPA's 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule until the agency approves an “improved” commercially available lead paint test kit, which the White House says would hamstring efforts to prevent lead exposures, and that would bar implementation of the marine planning components of the administration's National Ocean Policy.
-
EPA: No News in McCarthy's Comments on Climate Rules
Jun 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
EPA says reporters are over-analyzing the grammatical nuances of Administrator Gina McCarthy's comments last night about the timing of the agency's climate rules for power plants.
"We've always said we would be finalizing the rule this summer. She was speaking in the context of the action that will need to take place this fall. There really is no news here and nothing more to read into," EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said in an email.
McCarthy's comments during last night's League of Conservation Voters Education Fund dinner had caused something of a stir among reporters, who wondered whether she was suggesting that the timeline for finalization of EPA's power plant rules had slipped from August to September.
“No matter what we do in September, the work will continue,” McCarthy said.
But the quote could be interpreted differently if you move the comma. For example: “No matter what we do, in September the work will continue."
EPA appeared to settle the debate, suggesting that the second interpretation is the most accurate. -
EIA in Hot Seat Ahead of House Vote on Clean Power Plan
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The nonpartisan U.S. Energy Information Administration found itself in the crossfire of a congressional war over the Obama administration's flagship climate rule today, with partisans on both sides of the issue using its findings to support their point of view.
Howard Gruenspecht, deputy administrator of the Energy Department analytical office, testified before subcommittees of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on the same day the House is set to vote to scuttle U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and as the rule's friends and foes rushed to play up its costs and benefits.
Gruenspecht told the committee that EIA's May analysis of the proposal, completed at the request of the science panel's Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), was not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the rule's value (EnergyWire, May 22). In his testimony, he stressed that EIA was restricted by mission and expertise to looking at the proposal's effect on the electricity sector and the economy.
"It is not a cost-benefit analysis," he said.
But the May analysis has provided substantial ammunition, especially for opponents of the draft rule. One of its most widely circulated findings is that the rule would increase the rate of coal-fired power plant closures from the 40 gigawatts that are projected in a business-as-usual scenario to 90 GW -- with most of the retirements happening in the early years of the rule. The bulk of that power would be offset with gas, though renewables would ramp up in later years.
The analysis also shows that ratepayers would pay more for power as the rule phases in during the 2020s, though not as much as groups opposed to the rule have projected. But some regions of the country would see very significant rate hikes -- in the neighborhood of 10 percent -- even when the rule is fully implemented in 2030, including the Southwest.
"On average, we show higher electricity bills, but not as much as the electricity prices," Gruenspecht told the committee. Proponents of the EPA rule regularly argue that it will spur dramatic gains in demand-side efficiency, and EIA showed that would happen to an extent and would have a moderating effect on energy bills. But the rule's flexibility might work against those efficiency gains, with utilities reaching for gas and renewable energy as lower-cost alternatives to efficiency.
The analysis showed that the rule would contribute to a small decline in U.S. gross domestic product over the next 25 years of not more than a quarter of 1 percent.
Republicans on the committee seized EIA's findings as evidence that the rule would strangle the U.S. economy, kill coal-fired generation and hurt low-income ratepayers.
"This is a continuation of the administration's 'war on the poor.' I will once again remind my colleagues that while we might be able to absorb electricity rate increases, many of our constituents do not have that ability," said Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) who chairs the panel's Environment Subcommittee.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the full committee and a staunch opponent of EPA, noted that without cooperation from other countries, the rule's economic pain will come with little environmental gain as carbon dioxide emissions soar overseas.
"The EPA should not saddle the American people with extensive and burdensome regulations, especially if the regulations have little environmental impact," he said.
Smith, Bridenstine and others said the House's likely passage later today of the measure, H.R. 2042, would be a first step toward disarming EPA.
But panel Democrats and Susan Tierney, senior adviser at the Analysis Group, noted that EIA acknowledged it had not looked at any of the benefits of the Clean Power Plan -- including those that come from avoiding up to 625 million metric tons of CO2. In fact, the EIA assessment hints that EPA's rule might overperform its target, cutting power-sector emissions by as much as 36 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2030 instead of 30 percent.
This will help safeguard public health, avoid wildfires and other climate-driven extreme weather events and protect infrastructure -- all of which will deliver economic savings to society, they argued.
Tierney, a former state regulator who has become a perennial Democratic invitee at hearings on the Clean Power Plan, said the EIA analysis was pessimistic in a number of key ways. It does not take into account the potential of the rule to spur innovation in the form of "disruptive" technologies, she said. Long-term assessments of the impact of regulations frequently overstate their cost, she said, because it is impossible for analysts to predict how the private sector may respond to limit the cost of compliance.
And Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said the rule would prevent industry from unloading its negative externality -- carbon -- onto society for free.
"It's basically like dumping your trash in your neighbor's backyard," he said at the top of the hearing, panning efforts to pre-empt the EPA rule as "incredibly shortsighted." The rule is likely to spur the growth of new U.S. industries, he said, contributing more to the economy than EIA could foresee.
While EIA did not seek to calculate the economywide impacts of the rule, Republicans invited two other witnesses who attempted to do so.
Stephen Eule of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, touted the chamber's analysis that the Clean Power Plan would lead to compliance costs in excess of the administration's own social cost of carbon. Kevin Dayaratna of the conservative Heritage Foundation extrapolated from EIA's data to argue that the existing power plant rule could cost the U.S. economy nearly 8,000 jobs by 2030.
-
Texas Pushes Back Against Clean Power Plan
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has announced plans to sue over U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, which would cut emissions from existing power plants across the country.
Still, with EPA expected to finalize the rule in August, it remains unclear whether Texas will openly disregard the new regulations.
"There's no decision that's been made," said Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "It's difficult to know what to plan for without knowing the rule."
Under the current version of the Clean Power Plan, Texas would be expected to slash 200 billion pounds of carbon dioxide over the next 20 years. The state could meet the goal through EPA-recommended actions, including switching to natural gas, making existing power plants more efficient, improving energy efficiency and developing more renewable energy.
Texas has spent more than $400,000 on lawsuits against climate regulations, according to the attorney general's office.
Shaw, whose commission would be charged with implementing the rule, has criticized the plan. Though the state has one year to comply with the Clean Power Plan, it will be difficult to develop a plan within that time frame, he said. If Texas is unable to develop its plan within the year, EPA will develop the state's plan.
Critics say ignoring the EPA rules would be risky.
"We are an energy leader, both in fossil fuels and renewables, and our plan will look nothing like a one-size-fits-all plan that would likely be imposed on the state," said state Rep. Rafael Anchia (D). "It's bad for Texas business, and we are abdicating our responsibility" (Jim Malewitz, Texas Tribune, June 22). -- MV
-
Indiana Says it Won't Follow EPA Climate Rule Without Changes
Jun 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Indiana is prepared to ignore the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants unless the regulation is changed considerably from last year’s proposal, according to the state's governor.
In a letter sent Wednesday to President Obama, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) used some of the strongest words yet from a governor on the regulation, though he stopped short of ruling out compliance.
“If your administration proceeds to finalize the Clean Power Plan, and the final rule has not demonstrably and significantly improved from the proposed rule, Indiana will not comply,” Pence wrote.
“I believe the Clean Power Plan as proposed is a vast overreach of federal power that exceeds the EPA’s proper legal authority and fails to strike the proper balance between the health of the environment and the health of the economy,” he continued.
The regulation, as proposed in June, would rely on states to submit plans to the EPA on reducing their power sectors’ emissions by a rate determined by the agency. The rule has a total national goal of a 30 percent reduction by 2030.
Indiana’s goal is a 20 percent drop.
If a state does not submit a plan, the EPA would write its own rules for the state and enforce them, assuming the regulation is not blocked by Congress or the federal courts.
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) is the only state leader so far to instruct her staff to ignore the regulation.
Leaders in Texas and Wisconsin have voiced strong objections to the rule and expressed doubts that their states would comply, but have also stopped short of completely rejecting it.
“Our nation needs an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy that relies on a variety of different energy sources,” Pence wrote to Obama. “Energy policy should promote the safe, environmentally responsible stewardship of our natural resources with the goal of reliable, affordable energy. Your approach to energy policy places environmental concerns above all others.”
The rule is expected to significantly harm the coal industry, causing the shutdown of more than 20 percent of coal-fired power plants and greatly reducing the demand for coal.
Indiana gets 85 percent of its electricity from coal and ranks No. 8 in the nation in terms of coal production.
-
Green Groups Ask OMB to Ban Biomass Energy Under Clean Power Plan
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
A coalition of environmental groups yesterday sent a letter to Shaun Donovan, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, requesting that states be prevented from using wood-burning power plants to comply with the proposed Clean Power Plan.
How to account for greenhouse gas emissions produced by burning wood pellets and other forms of biomass for energy has become a point of contentious debate. Forest owners and forest industry groups argue that because trees take in carbon dioxide as they grow, burning wood for energy should be considered carbon-neutral.
But a number of environmental groups argue that this is not the case, highlighting one of their most commonly used arguments in yesterday's letter.
"Even if emissions are reduced by regrowth later in time, or if emissions that would have occurred later in time are avoided, the offsetting reductions are significantly delayed -- on the order of years, decades, or more than a century, depending on the material used as fuel," the letter states. "The emission reductions typically attributed to power plants that burn biomass are therefore uncertain, speculative, and dislocated, and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of CPP compliance."
In both the proposed rule and in a memo sent in November, U.S. EPA has indicated support for biomass energy as a possible method to comply with the proposed Clean Power Plan. However, the agency has also suggested that it won't decide for sure until individual states begin submitting compliance plans (ClimateWire, Feb. 20).
"Given the lack of guidance provided by EPA, there is a significant risk that some states will develop implementation plans that incorporate a diversity of biomass combustion measures that are arbitrary or otherwise legally baseless," the letter states.Industry says carbon benefits of biomass are 'well established'
Organizations signing on to the letter include the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the Partnership for Policy Integrity, 350.org and the Clean Air Task Force.
In a press release accompanying the letter, the environmental groups also raised concerns about appropriators' draft fiscal 2016 spending bill for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA, which includes a policy rider that would require EPA to consider biomass energy carbon-neutral as U.S. forest stocks are currently increasing (E&ENews PM, June 9).
"There's really no better way to sabotage the Clean Power Plan than by burning up the forest carbon sink in power plants and then forcing EPA to treat the electricity generated as if it has zero emissions," Mary Booth, director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity and outspoken biomass opponent, said in a statement.
Industry and forest owners' groups were quick to dismiss the arguments made in the environmental groups' letter.
"The science behind the carbon benefits of biomass energy is well established. Simply saying that it is not doesn't change that fact," Dave Tenny, president and CEO of the National Alliance of Forest Owners, said in a statement. "The best thing we can do to continue the carbon benefits of private forests is to promote strong markets, including biomass, that help sustain forest ownership over the long term."
In a statement, Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association, said that the energy source has received bipartisan support in Congress, noting that, last week, nearly two dozen members wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy urging her to consider biomass power renewable energy (E&E Daily, June 19). Other lawmakers, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have written letters protesting the use of biomass under the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, May 8).
"EPA has already stated they have more than enough information and data to justify inclusion of energy from biomass as a renewable energy source in their Clean Power Plan," American Forest & Paper Association spokeswoman Heather Stegner said in a statement. "Failure to recognize the positive contribution of biomass energy ignores the natural carbon cycle of release and sequestration that occurs when trees are planted, grown, used and then new trees are replanted."
-
Federal Judge Postpones BLM Fracking Rule
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule will not take effect until August at the earliest, thanks to a federal judge's decision to stay the new regulation until he has more information.
Judge Scott Skavdahl of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming issued the order from the bench last night after nearly eight hours of oral arguments and witness testimony at the courthouse in Casper. The fracking rule -- which regulates well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracking on public and tribal lands -- was set to take effect today.
Attorneys for Western states and the oil and gas industry pressed the court to order a preliminary injunction of the rule, which would block its implementation for the duration of the trial. The judge instead issued a temporary stay until the Bureau of Land Management files its administrative record in July and both sides explain how the record supports their arguments. Skavdahl will then consider the motions for preliminary injunction and is expected to make a decision in August (EnergyWire, June 24).
The litigation has grown steadily since the first lawsuit was filed within minutes of the fracking rule's unveiling in March. The Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance filed first, quickly followed by Wyoming and North Dakota. Colorado, Utah and the Ute Indian Tribe have since joined the litigation, and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe has filed a separate lawsuit in Colorado. A coalition of environmental groups, meanwhile, has intervened on the government's side.
Industry and state representatives have pushed to block the rule entirely because they say it encroaches on states' regulatory turf and does not adequately consider the cost to industry to comply with the new standards. They celebrated yesterday's decision as an initial victory.
"The judge agreed that it makes no sense to implement an ill-conceived rule which could ultimately be overruled in court," WEA's Kathleen Sgamma said in a statement.
BLM and environmental groups have countered that the years-in-the-making rule is necessary to ensure close oversight of new development that has spread across the country with varying levels of regulatory updates at the state level. A spokeswoman for BLM said the agency will issue permits and conduct site inspections according to existing criteria while the rule is delayed.
Yesterday's hearing featured witness testimony from North Dakota oil and gas regulator Lynn Helms, the IPAA's Dan Naatz and WEA's Sgamma, and included technical exhibits addressing horizontal drilling, development of BLM minerals on private lands and the permit application process.
-
Court Delays Federal Fracking Rule
Jun 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration's long-awaited hydraulic fracturing rule will not take effect as scheduled today, thanks to a federal judge's eleventh-hour decision to stay the rule until August.
Judge Scott Skavdahl, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, issued the decision after more than six hours of courtroom arguments yesterday in Casper, where attorneys representing the oil and gas industry and affected states pushed for a preliminary injunction of the rule.
Skavdahl declined to issue an injunction but ordered that the rule's rollout be delayed until the Bureau of Land Management files its administrative record in the case and both sides explain how the record supports their arguments.
The administrative record -- essentially a paper trail showing the agency's decisionmaking process in crafting the rule -- is due in July. Attorneys for industry, states, environmental groups and the government will then comb through the documents and cite support for their arguments for or against injunction.
The court is expected to issue a decision in August. Unlike the judge's temporary stay of the regulation, a preliminary injunction would block the rule for the duration of the trial.
Industry groups took a victory lap last night, arguing that Skavdahl's decision supports their position that the rule would do more harm than good.
Advertisement
"BLM was ill-prepared to implement an extremely complex rule in a short period of time," said Western Energy Alliance's Kathleen Sgamma 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."
Environmental groups that have taken BLM's side in the case noted that the bigger decision on preliminary injunction is still pending.
In the meantime, the agency will process permit applications using existing criteria.
"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," the agency said in a statement.Ballooning litigation
Litigation over the stricter fracking standards has ballooned since the rule's unveiling in March. The Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance fired the first shot, filing suit immediately after the rule's release. Wyoming was quick on industry's heels, and North Dakota joined the Cowboy State's suit soon after.
Since then, Colorado and Utah have joined the consolidated litigation in Wyoming, and a coalition of environmental groups has intervened on the government's side. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe has also filed suit in federal court in Colorado.
The lawsuits allege that the rule, which regulates well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells on public and tribal lands, steps on states' regulatory turf and prevents drillers from doing business.
In arguments supporting their injunction request, attorneys for Wyoming and Colorado argued that Interior's Bureau of Land Management exceeded its authority in drafting the fracking rule. They say Congress used the Safe Drinking Water Act and Energy Policy Act of 2005 to give states authority over fracking.
Industry, meanwhile, argued that the rule is contrary to BLM's mission to manage public lands for multiple uses and that the agency failed to adequately consider costs industry would incur to comply with the new standards.
"Requiring oil and gas operators to comply with the unsustainable regulations would impose costs that cannot be recovered and discourage development that would benefit the public, without any demonstrable environmental or administrative benefits," IPAA and WEA said in court filings.
Government attorneys have countered that BLM has full authority through the Mineral Leasing Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act to regulate industry activities on public lands.
"This authority is premised on the unexceptional notion that BLM, the federal agency charged with management and stewardship of those lands, would be able to set terms and conditions for their use," the attorneys told the court in a written response to the injunction request (EnergyWire, June 16).
Environmental attorneys added that any delay of the rule would lead to inadequate oversight of fracked wells.Another tribe heads to court
Also on the busy docket this week is news that a second American Indian tribe is joining the fray in the fracking litigation.
The district court in Wyoming yesterday granted a request from northeastern Utah's Ute Indian Tribe to join industry and Western states in their lawsuit challenging BLM's new rule. The tribe filed the request Monday, just after southwestern Colorado's Southern Ute Tribe filed its own challenge to the rule in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
The Utes echoed many concerns voiced by the Southern Utes, arguing that the BLM rule encroaches on tribal sovereignty and threatens to derail economic development spurred by oil and gas production on tribal lands.
"The Tribe's economy will be irreparably harmed if the Rule takes effect," attorneys for the Utes said in a filing Monday. "Increased costs and administrative delays will eliminate the incentive for oil and gas operators -- typically, a favorable rate of return -- to assist tribes in developing their tribal minerals. As a consequence of operators shifting resources away from the Reservation, the Tribe will struggle to replace high paying jobs and economic development opportunities associated with oil and gas development."
The Utes also asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block enforcement of the fracking rule. The court has not yet issued a decision on the motion, and the tribe was not included in yesterday's hearing.
A similar TRO request by the Southern Utes was rejected in Colorado on Monday (EnergyWire, June 23). The court will hear arguments in October on requests for preliminary injunction and declaratory judgment in that case.
-
EPA Sends Methane Leak Rule for Final Review
Jun 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration has started the final review stage for proposed regulations to minimize methane leaks from the oil and natural gas sector.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent its proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Tuesday, the OMB said.
“This routine step is part of EPA’s January 2015 commitment under President Obama’s Climate Action Plan to address methane and smog-forming emissions from the oil and gas industry,” EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said in a statement.
The rules are part of a large effort by the Obama administration to reduce emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has more than 20-times the global warming power of carbon dioxide. It is the main component of natural gas.
Taken together, the administration’s regulations and voluntary efforts on methane are meant to cut the gas’s emissions by between 40 and 45 percent.
The administration has not revealed the details of its proposal yet, but it plans to do so after the OMB review is complete and to invite public comments on the proposal.
The EPA announced in January that it would formally consider regulating methane leaks from newly drilled or modified oil and natural gas wells.
The agency received immediate criticism from drillers, who said that they are already working to reduce leaks, which is in their economic interest.
But officials were also criticized by environmentalists, who accused them of ignoring the 1.1 million existing oil and gas wells.
-
Jun 24, 2015 | The Hill - Opinion
By Rep. Ed Whitfield
For generations, the United States has benefitted from low cost and reliable energy. In many parts of the country, coal is the most abundant source that provides baseload electricity to heat and cool our homes and businesses. But it’s also a way of life. In Kentucky, 92 percent of our electricity is generated by coal contributing more than $3.5 billion to our economy and employing 17,900 miners across the state. Across the U.S., 48 states rely on coal to generate electricity for homes and businesses, making the industry responsible for 700,000 jobs.
Due to low energy costs, businesses and manufacturers are relocating in the U.S. to reap the benefits. As we experience an energy renaissance in our country, we are also witnessing the Obama administration wage an all-out assault on our energy abundance – deploying the EPA to do whatever it takes to shut down fossil fuel-fired power plants across the country.
Last June, the EPA proposed a rule through a rarely used section of the Clean Air Act, section 111(d), to vastly expand federal control over state electricity systems and require states to meet mandatory carbon dioxide (CO2) “goals” set by the Agency for their respective electricity sectors. This proposed rule focuses on power plants, but it is only the first step in the administration’s plan to regulate other areas of our economy including sources such as refineries, industrial boilers, cement plants, pulp and paper mills, and steel mills.
Under this unprecedented proposal, which the administration refers to as its Clean Power Plan, states would be required to submit highly complex plans to EPA in 2016 and begin meeting interim goals for CO2 reductions by 2020, with a final goal of 2030. Under the rule’s accelerated deadlines, state plans would be due before judicial review of the rule is even completed. The EPA is expected to finalize the rule this summer, despite thousands of comments and concerns in opposition.
EPA’s power grab is a bad deal for the American economy, businesses, and ratepayers. The president’s own EPA estimates that its proposed rule would cost tens of billions of dollars and would be unworkable for many states.
A recent analysis of the proposed rule’s impacts on electricity prices in 31 states estimated that between 2017 and 2031, “Electricity prices will be 15 percent higher, on average, each year under the Clean Power Plan than they would be without the Clean Power Plan.” Unfortunately, the costs of the administration’s plan will fall disproportionally on those most vulnerable, especially lower income families where energy costs represent a larger portion of their family budgets.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have declined and are expected to remain flat through 2040 without the proposed Clean Power Plan or other actions beyond current policies to limit or reduce CO2 emissions.
The administration fully understands and admits unilateral climate action and implementation of this rule will have little impact on climate indicators in the U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has testified that “it is part of an overall strategy…positioning the U.S. for leadership in an international discussion.”
The decision to alter the way we generate, consume, and transmit electricity should not be done in a manner that circumvents Congress. American consumers should know the facts and potential devastating effects of this proposed rule. The American people should have a voice. That is why Congress is working on a bipartisan, thoughtful solution to protect ratepayers and keep energy affordable. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I’ve conducted rigorous oversight of this rule through numerous hearings examining its costs, implementation challenges, and legal flaws. I’ve introduced H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act, along with my colleagues, Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), to address EPA’s proposed rule on existing fossil fuel fired power plants.
The Ratepayer Protection Act is a practical solution that ensures states have ultimate control over their electricity systems. Given the considerable legal challenges to EPA’s proposal, the legislation would allow for completion of all judicial review of any final rule before requiring states to comply with the implementation deadlines of the proposed rule. The measure also ensures that a state would not be forced to implement a state or federal plan if its governor finds it would have significant adverse impact on ratepayers or reliability. States have been, and will always be, better suited to identifying their needs, especially when it comes to electricity rates and reliability.
Increasing the price of electricity will only further set back families who are still struggling to get by. This week, the House of Representatives will vote on the bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act to allow states to continue to control their electricity systems while protecting ratepayers from skyrocketing electricity costs and threats to electric reliability. It’s a win for the hardworking American people across the country that reflects our commitment to keeping jobs, the economy, and affordable energy among our top priorities.
Whitfield has represented Kentucky’s 1st Congressional District since 1995. He sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee where he is chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
-
Energy-Efficiency Programs ‘Nudge’ Consumers in the Wrong Direction
Jun 24, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Greg Ip
Energy efficiency has long appealed to political leaders trying to combat climate change without hurting their economies. It holds out the promise of policies that both reduce fossil-fuel consumption and save consumers money.
The rationale is that consumers are shortsighted in failing to insulate their homes or buy a more efficient appliance, and should be “nudged” in that direction.
But a new study challenges that premise. The study of households who received federal subsidies to “weatherize” their homes found the efficiency investments cost far more than they save. So consumers may not be irrational when they pass up such investments: the programs simply aren’t as beneficial as their promoters think.
The paper has important implications for current efforts to reduce planet-warming emissions of carbon dioxide. Energy efficiency programs are politically popular but may be far more expensive than mechanisms that rely on price signals. These include carbon taxes (admittedly, a political non-starter) or tradable emissions allowances, one of the options available to states for meeting proposed new federal limits on greenhouse-gas emissions.
The notion that consumers hurt themselves by passing up investments that reduce their fuel and electric bills has become known as the “energy efficiency gap.” Behavioral economists, who use psychology to explain seemingly irrational behavior, think impatience, lack of information or inertia might explain the gap.
Many government programs seek to close that gap, for example by prodding utilities to equip customers with more-efficient light bulbs. The U.S. Weatherization Assistance Program, which dates to 1976, offers subsidies to low-income families to make their homes more energy-efficient with new furnaces, attic and wall insulation, and weather stripping. It got a big boost as part of the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package in 2009.
Michael Greenstone of the University of Chicago, and a former chief economist in the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers, and Meredith Fowlie and Catherine Wolfram of the University of California at Berkeley used a randomized control trial to determine whether the savings for WAP predicted by engineering models were borne out in reality.
The authors focused on a sample of more than 30,000 WAP-eligible households in Michigan. Of these, a quarter were encouraged to apply for the program via home visits by field workers hired for the study, and via phone calls. Households were reluctant to sign up, though it cost them nothing.
The authors then compared the energy consumption and thermostat settings of households who signed up for the program with those who didn’t. The energy consumption of program participants dropped by 10% to 20%, barely 40% of what engineering models predicted. The savings equated to $2,400, less than half the $5,000 spent on the energy efficiency investments. The authors put the annual return on the investment at minus 2.2% over 16 years, much worse than the historical returns on bonds or stocks.
Of course, energy efficiency subsidies can be justified by the fact that all of society benefits from reduced carbon-dioxide emissions. But the study’s authors reckon that WAP spent a whopping $329 to eliminate one metric ton of carbon emissions. That’s 10 times the $38 that the White House reckons is the all-in cost to society of a ton of carbon, meaning WAP flunks the cost-benefit test by a wide margin.
In fact, in some ways the program left others worse off. Natural-gas and electricity distribution entail high fixed costs, which are shared among all customers. When some customers consume less, others must shoulder more of those fixed costs. Incorporating all social costs and benefits dropped the program’s return to minus 9.5%.ENLARGECustomers shop for light bulbs in Chicago. Some government programs prod utilities to equip customers with more-efficient bulbs. PHOTO: SCOTT OLSON/GETTY IMAGES
A spokesman for the Department of Energy, which runs the program, disputed the study’s findings. He said preliminary results from an upcoming study by the department and Oak Ridge National Laboratory show that the program’s savings exceed its costs. Annual energy savings, he said, come to $300 million a year.
There are numerous energy efficiency programs and not all can be compared to WAP because they have different goals. Utilities, for example, may be trying to shave “peak” demand which would otherwise require expensive, additional generating capacity.
Still, Mr. Greenstone says the paper’s implications could go well beyond WAP, because much of what economists know about similar programs is based on engineering models rather than field evidence.
That such programs are expensive “in no way removes the threat that climate change poses to our well being,” says Mr. Greenstone. But, he says, climate-change policies shouldn’t be exempt from “standard analytical tools. We need to develop a playbook of different approaches, and rank them based on cost per ton.”
For example, the cost of an allowance to emit a ton of carbon dioxide on New England’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative was recently a little over $5. On California’s cap-and-trade auction, it’s a little over $12. Both easily pass the cost-benefit test. Markets aren’t perfect, as behavioral economics has shown, but they can still be powerful tools for saving the planet.
-
Why Are the Government’s Energy Forecasts So Bad?
Jun 24, 2015 | Politico
By Michael Grunwald
In 2009, the federal government’s Energy Information Administration made a forecast for the next two decades: U.S. wind power would grow modestly, reaching 44 gigawatts of generating capacity in 2030, while solar power would remain scarce, inching up to 12 GW.
Just six years later, U.S. wind capacity is already up to 66 GW, and solar has shot up to 21 GW. There's now enough installed wind and solar to power 25 million American homes— more than three times what the EIA expected before President Obama took office.
Oops.
On Monday the Advanced Energy Economy Institute, a nonprofit promoting alternatives to fossil fuels, released a new report on America’s fast-moving clean energy revolution, documenting how renewable power and energy efficiency have become cost-competitive in the Obama era. But the report can also be read as a damning indictment of America’s official energy information service, the EIA, which has been a consistent source of misinformation for the policymakers, planners and other energy stakeholders who rely on its forecasts.
As Yogi Berra recognized, predictions are hard, especially about the future. But the EIA isn’t just some random pundit. Its Annual Energy Outlook, the nation’s most comprehensive analysis of energy data, has tremendous influence in Washington and state capitals, providing the numbers that shape policies like Obama’s Clean Power Plan to regulate carbon emissions at power plants. So it really matters that, as the new clean-energy report pointed out, the agency’s “projections bear little resemblance to market realities.” The EIA’s annual visions of the future haven’t just been wrong; they’ve been reliably and obviously wrong, to the extent that I was snarking about them on Twitter during last year’s EIA conference:
An EIA spokesman told me Monday the agency is reviewing the Advanced Energy Economy report, but otherwise did not comment on the report or the EIA’s forecasting record. In recent years, as its Annual Energy Outlook has diverged farther from reality, the EIA has emphasized that its “reference cases” are not really supposed to be forecasts, just scenarios, a set of best-guess baselines for a future in which government policies and other conditions do not change. The introduction to the 2015 Outlook seems to have expunged former references to EIA “projections,” although I did notice that the word “forecasts” still appears in the URL.
The thing is, most of the energy world still thinks of EIA baselines as official forecasts. Just last Thursday, in a Washington Post column boasting about declines in U.S. oil consumption, senior White House officials Brian Deese and Jason Furman wrote: “The EIA, which produces some of the most influential and well-regarded forecasts in the field, until recently consistently projected increases in oil consumption. In fact, U.S. consumption in 2014 was 6.4 million barrels per day below the projection it made in 2003—an amount greater than the oil produced by Iraq and Kuwait combined.”
Oops again.
The EIA is at its least Nostradamusesque when it comes to green energy. As the Advanced Energy Economy report details, EIA “forecasts are consistently off by a wide margin, always underestimating—and never overestimating—future deployment of renewables.” The main point of the report was that the transition from dirty to clean power can be much quicker and easier than most Americans think, but first the authors had to spend pages debunking better-known EIA analyses that suggest otherwise.
Part of the problem can be attributed to technical constraints in the way the EIA calculates its baselines, which always assume that the legislative status quo will persist. For example, the agency always calculates its baseline for wind power under the assumption that Congress will fail to renew tax credits for wind power when they expire, even though Congress has always renewed those credits.
But part of the problem is also that the EIA is a prisoner of its own models, which are in turn prisoners of the past. Wind power was much more expensive than fossil energy in 2009, so the EIA expected it to continue growing slowly. Instead, costs dropped sharply and installations tripled. Solar power was cost-prohibitive and virtually nonexistent in America at the time, so the EIA had no reason to expect installations to increase much. Instead, they’ve increased more than 20-fold in just six years, as prices have plunged more than 80 percent.
The polite way to put it is that EIA models don’t seem to capture the notion that past performance is no guarantee of future results. I put it less politely one Friday in May:
These failures of foresight may be defensible. Change is hard to anticipate. But when it comes to renewables, the EIA seems to have failures of plain sight. The agency’s latest reference case suggests solar capacity will double from 2014 levels by 2026. But as the new report points out, an industry analysis based on actual projects in the pipeline has projected that solar capacity will double by next year—and so far it’s on track to do just that. Similarly, the U.S. has been adding an average 6.5 GW of wind every year since 2007, but the EIA’s reference case only envisions an additional 6.5 GW over the next 15 years. If any EIA renewables analysts want to put their money where their reports are, they should contact me to place a bet. I’ll take the over.
“They have constraints that tie their hands a bit, but that doesn’t explain why they’re so consistently wrong in the same direction,” said Advanced Energy Economy vice president Robert Keough. “They’re not just conservative about change. They’re ignoring the evidence of what’s actually happening in the market.”
The EIA has also consistently overestimated electricity demand, which has a huge impact on power plant construction and utility planning. The EIA’s latest reference case also suggests coal-fired power generation, which has been in freefall, will somehow remain stable through 2040, which is not going to happen under any real-world scenario. Again, if anyone at EIA wants to wager, I'll take the under.
That said, Jesse Jenkins, an excellent energy analyst who has defended the EIA from my mockery on Twitter, told me in an interview that the agency does a great job collecting data and sharing it with the public. He also said the Annual Energy Outlook can be valuable when used to compare different scenarios, rather than predict the future.
“You can fault the EIA for failing to make it clear that these are scenarios, not projections, but the scenarios can be really useful,” Jenkins said.
But Jenkins said he does not rely on the EIA’s scenarios for renewables, either, because the cost estimates tend to be out of date. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency leaned heavily on those scenarios when devising its Clean Power Plan, which helps explain why the plan’s targets for coal retirements and renewable deployment are so unambitious.
I certainly don't think the EIA's bias against renewable power is an intentional bias. Renewables were a blip on the electricity radar screen until quite recently; it’s no surprise that veteran EIA analysts focus on traditional power sources. EIA director Adam Sieminski is the former director of Deutsche Bank’s global oil and gas team, and a former member of the U.S. National Petroleum Council, but I’ve been told that he’s pushed internally for better analysis of emerging technologies. The agency is also known for its political independence, even though it’s housed inside Obama’s Department of Energy.
How independent? The keynote speaker for this year’s EIA conference was the staunch Republican Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma oil and gas billionaire who was a top donor and energy adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. He probably didn’t talk about renewables, but he surely gave the audience something to think about over their falafel.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested