Preview Newsletter
ACC AM July 6
-
Technologies Transforming Transportation: Is the Government Keeping Up?
Jul 7, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM -
Road to Paris: Examining the President’s International Climate Agenda and Implications for Domestic Environmental Policy
Jul 8, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, EPW Hearing Room 406/ 10:00 AM -
Subcommittee Hearing: Examining DHS’s Misplaced Focus on Climate Change
Jul 8, 2015 | Committee on Homeland Security
Location: 311 Cannon House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Full Committee Markup
Jul 8, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 324 Longworth House Office Building/ 4:00 PM -
Hearing to receive testimony on mitigation requirements, interagency coordination, and pilot projects related to economic development on federal lands
Jul 9, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 09:30 AM -
H.R. 702, Legislation to Prohibit Restrictions on the Export of Crude Oil
Jul 9, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Full Committee Markup
Jul 9, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Group Praises EPA Report On Chemical Tests With Hormones
Jul 3, 2015 | EP Newswire
By Caitlin Nordahl
The American Chemical Council (ACC) released a statement on Tuesday applauding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) report on tests conducted on 67 List 1 chemicals that were reviewed using a weight-of-evidence approach under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). -
Global Investors Join Project On Reporting Chemical Use
Jul 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Global investors managing around $1.1trillion in assets have signed up to the Chemical Footprint Project (CFP), a tool which aims to measure overall corporate performance towards safer chemicals in products and supply chains (GBB March 2015). In their role as signatories, investors such as Aviva, BNP Paribas and Trillium Asset ... -
US EPA Extends Nano Consultation Deadline
Jul 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is extending its commenting period on proposed reporting and record keeping requirements for certain chemical substances when manufactured or processed at the nanoscale. The consultation, which was launched in April, has been extended by 30 days to 5 August, following a request for additional time from one commenter. -
Chemists Hope To Make Paving Green
Jul 5, 2015 | The Boston Globe
By Hiawatha Bray
There’s nothing green about asphalt, unless you can make less of the stuff by more efficiently reusing the pavement we’ve already got. The Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry in Wilmington says it’s found a way. The institute’s new plant-based compound, Delta-S, rejuvenates worn-out asphalt so it mixes better with new paving... -
Chevron Fire Sent U.S. Chemical Safety Board Into A Tailspin
Jul 4, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
By Jaxon Van Derbeken
The tiny federal agency that has urged big reforms in how California regulates oil refineries is in disarray. To some, the strife at the U.S. Chemical Safety Board — the 40-person authority charged with investigating industrial accidents and recommending ways to improve safety — bears strong resemblance to the headlines from developing nations... -
Greens Go All In To Fight Arctic Drilling
Jul 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmentalists are racing against the clock to stop Royal Dutch Shell from drilling in the Arctic Ocean, using a wide assortment of tactics to accomplish what has become one of the movement’s top priorities — and biggest cash cows. Shell plans to start working on its exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea, about 75 miles northwest of Alaska, as early... -
The EPA’s Mercury Standards: A Debate Poorly Framed
Jul 5, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Anhvinh Doanvo
Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (Utility MACT) has lately been framed as by conservatives as a blow to “crippling regulations” chauvinistically made with zero consideration for the facts on the costs and benefits of regulation, and by liberals as an attempt to boost polluting industry at the cost of the public’s... -
Goodbye Mercury Rule, Hello Clean Power Plan?
Jul 3, 2015 | Forbes
By Abigail Barnes and Brian Potts
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suffered a major setback on Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court doled out its ruling in Michigan v. EPA. In a 5-4 decision—penned by the always jocular Justice Antonin Scalia—the Court found that the EPA’s decision to ignore the $10 billion dollar annual price tag of its Mercury and Air Toxics Standard... -
Don’t Let Politics Jeopardize Our Energy Renaissance
Jul 5, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Margo Thorning
When it comes to developing strong and effective policies, it’s imperative for our lawmakers to not overlook the facts. All too often though, in the heat of debate, it seems political rhetoric trumps those important — and sometimes inconvenient — facts. Last week, 13 Democratic senators made the case to keep the outdated and restrictive... -
Adopting Carbon Emission Policies That Accelerate The Economy ... Instead Of Climate Change
Jul 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Hugh Welsh
It’s time for a game changer in carbon emissions, and The American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act now proposed in Congress could be it. For the very first time, a carbon bill addresses America’s global competitiveness and funnels reinvestment back to the economy. The radically different approach puts a fair price on companies... -
Obama’s Renewable-Energy Fantasy
Jul 5, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Rupert Darwall
On June 30, one day after the Supreme Court struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of mercury emissions from power plants, President Obama committed the United States to the goal of generating 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. This would nearly triple the amount of wind- and solar-generated... -
Lessons From Abroad: ‘Green’ Solution Threatens To Put America In The Red
Jul 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lance Brown
As more charges of unlawful taxpayer funded lobbying by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are levied by lawmakers, it can be difficult to discern where the political campaigning and media spin ends, and the facts begin. However, if the EPA is indeed working hand-in-hand with special interest groups like the Sierra Club, then their policy...
Congressional Hearings
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
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Technologies Transforming Transportation: Is the Government Keeping Up?
Jul 7, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM
-
Jul 8, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, EPW Hearing Room 406/ 10:00 AM
-
Subcommittee Hearing: Examining DHS’s Misplaced Focus on Climate Change
Jul 8, 2015 | Committee on Homeland Security
Location: 311 Cannon House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Jul 8, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 324 Longworth House Office Building/ 4:00 PM
-
Jul 9, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 09:30 AM
-
H.R. 702, Legislation to Prohibit Restrictions on the Export of Crude Oil
Jul 9, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Jul 9, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Group Praises EPA Report On Chemical Tests With Hormones
Jul 3, 2015 | EP Newswire
By Caitlin Nordahl
The American Chemical Council (ACC) released a statement on Tuesday applauding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) report on tests conducted on 67 List 1 chemicals that were reviewed using a weight-of-evidence approach under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).
The program was developed in 1996 to determine whether certain substances were impacting humans hormonally in a manner similar to estrogen. The agency developed a two-tiered system, whereby Tier 1 determines chemicals with the potential to impact the endocrine system, and based on the results, those that require further study move onto the more stringent tests of Tier 2.
“EPA has made it clear that the selection of chemicals for Tier 1 screening is by no means a determination that the substances are harmful,” the statement said.
Isophorone and acetone, solvents that are represented by the ACC, were subject to Tier 1 screening and were found, based on weight-of-evidence considerations, to have no potential interactions with estrogen, androgen or thyroid pathways.
“The weight-of-evidence approach taken by EPA incorporates a holistic approach to evaluate risk. This approach in interpreting the Tier 1 data relies upon the professional judgment of scientists to examine available data, compare Tier 1 screening results and determine how this evidence fits together to reach a conclusion as to whether a substance has the potential to interact with the endocrine system.” - See more at: http://epnewswire.com/stories/510625206-industry-group-praises-epa-report-on-chemical-tests-with-hormones#sthash.G6Hn67lO.dpuf -
Global Investors Join Project On Reporting Chemical Use
Jul 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Global investors managing around $1.1trillion in assets have signed up to the Chemical Footprint Project (CFP), a tool which aims to measure overall corporate performance towards safer chemicals in products and supply chains (GBB March 2015).
In their role as signatories, investors such as Aviva, BNP Paribas and Trillium Asset Management will encourage companies to participate in the project, which is managed by the NGO Clean Production Action.
Launched last December (CW 4 December 2014), it commits signatories to answering a set of questions about their chemical management strategies and scores them on their answers, much like the Carbon Disclosure Project Index. Company scores, with their consent, are then ranked and made public.
Head of sustainability at BNP Paribas Investment Partners, Helena Viñes Fiestas, says the bank is interested in companies' chemical management plans as part of its environmental, social and governance (ESG) risk assessment and that it has been encouraging them to improve their disclosure. “The Chemical Footprint Project is a natural next step in the work we, and others, have been doing in promoting healthier and more environmentally-friendly chemical products,” she says.
Substance exposure data, the use of classifications and company initiatives to substitute substances with safer alternatives is the type of information investors are interested in, she says.
Once fully operational, the footprinting project could help move chemical management up companies' list of environmental priorities, she says. “Chemical management has certainly not enjoyed the same high public profile as carbon footprinting or energy efficiency and this is partly because of the complexity of the issue and sector, and partly because, in the grand scheme of things, climate change and water are, without question, two of the largest challenges we face as a society."
The reality is that most stakeholders – from regulators to investors, including companies – lacked knowledge about the medium and long-term impact of many chemical substances on health and the environment, Ms Viñes Fiestas says. “This has been something of a learning curve for all of us, much fostered by the European REACH Regulation and civil society, which opened the door to the world of hazardous substances and subsequently forced everyone to broaden their knowledge about them.”
In a recent Clean Production Action webinar, Trillium Asset Management vice president, Susan Baker, said the tool will allow investors to identify companies which are “building the capacity to innovate and use safer chemicals” and it will act as an effective platform for stakeholder engagement. “Much like we use the Carbon Disclosure Project survey, we will use the CFP survey for our advocacy purposes and prompt companies to continuously improve year on year disclosure of data.”
Aviva Investors declined to comment on its decision to become a signatory.
The first stage of the project involved populating the tool with data from piloting companies. Over the next year, the project will work on connecting with the organisations that will use the information made available.
-
US EPA Extends Nano Consultation Deadline
Jul 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is extending its commenting period on proposed reporting and record keeping requirements for certain chemical substances when manufactured or processed at the nanoscale.
The consultation, which was launched in April, has been extended by 30 days to 5 August, following a request for additional time from one commenter.
-
Chemists Hope To Make Paving Green
Jul 5, 2015 | The Boston Globe
By Hiawatha Bray
There’s nothing green about asphalt, unless you can make less of the stuff by more efficiently reusing the pavement we’ve already got.
The Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry in Wilmington says it’s found a way. The institute’s new plant-based compound, Delta-S, rejuvenates worn-out asphalt so it mixes better with new paving material. With Delta-S, road builders can add a higher percentage of old asphalt to their new roads, which means lower cost and reduced consumption of the heavy, toxic petroleum found in fresh asphalt.
“The road to sustainability has to be paved with superior quality, superior cost, and oh, by the way, it has to be better for the environment,” said Warner Babcock cofounder John Warner.
As a chemistry professor at the University of Massachusetts, Warner was a leader of the “green chemistry” movement, which trains chemists to consider environmental safety when developing compounds.
Warner earned his doctorate from Princeton University in 1988. At the time, he said, “not one university on the planet ever required any one to take a test on toxicity or environmental impact. That’s why I started the field of green chemistry — to change the way people do chemistry.”
In 1998, Warner coauthored a college textbook on the principles of green chemistry. In 2007, he and corporate attorney James Babcock launched the institute, a chemical think tank with about 30 doctoral researchers on staff. They develop effective, environmentally safe compounds for a multitude of uses. For instance, in April the company unveiled Hairprint, a new product for restoring natural color to gray hair. Hairprint contains no dye and is designed to supplant popular gray-hair treatments that contain potentially harmful lead compounds.
Warner Babcock plans to license Hairprint to cosmetics companies. But the institute has spun off a for-profit company, Collaborative Aggregates LLC of Wilmington, to bring the asphalt rejuvenator to market.
‘That’s why I started the field of green chemistry — to change the way people do chemistry.’ John Warner, Warner Babcock cofounder
According to the National Asphalt Pavement Association, asphalt is already America’s most recycled substance. More than 76 million tons of it was scraped and chopped from the nation’s roads in 2013, with 1.3 million tons of it coming from Massachusetts. But only a 10th of the total ended up in landfills. Most was reused or stockpiled for future use.
Peter Montenegro, a marketing consultant for Collaborative, said that it isn’t rain, snow, or cold that’s mainly responsible for worn-out asphalt; it’s oxidization. The petroleum compounds in the pavement combine with oxygen from the air, making the road surface dry, brittle and subject to cracking and crumbling.
Delta-S, which is made for Collaborative by an outside contractor, reverses the process. “It softens it, and reverses the oxidization that has occurred,” Montenegro said. In addition, Delta-S allows pavers to mix the asphalt at a much lower temperature than usual — around 180 degrees compared to about 380 degrees. This means less of the oil evaporates, so there’s less air pollution and less wasted petroleum.
Lots of paving companies already recycle old asphalt by simply adding it to new material during the mixing process. But the finished product can contain no more than 25 percent recycled material. If more is added, the oxidized asphalt will weaken the pavement. But when Delta-S is added, “we can have recycled asphalt content up to 50 percent of the weight of the mix,” said Montenegro. Since old asphalt costs next to nothing, adding more of it to the mix lowers the price of paving.
Other companies make asphalt recycling products, but these often contain highly toxic substances such as hydrolene, a petroleum extract that has been linked to cancer, birth defects, and organ damage. By contrast, Delta-S is nontoxic.
Asphalt mixed with Delta-S has been used only in a few places, so its durability is still an open question. Dave Hickey, town engineer in Wellesley, has used it to pave the city’s recycling facility. “The jury is still out a little bit for it,” said Hickey, who noted some cracking along seams in the pavement. But he said that the problem might be due to incorrect application by the contractor, who had never worked with Delta-S before.
Hickey said that it’ll be good news for taxpayers if Delta-S lives up to Warner Babcock’s promises. “If this becomes more mainstream technology,” Hickey said, “I would expect costs would go down, and that would be a great thing for municipalities.”
-
Chevron Fire Sent U.S. Chemical Safety Board Into A Tailspin
Jul 4, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
By Jaxon Van Derbeken
The tiny federal agency that has urged big reforms in how California regulates oil refineries is in disarray.
To some, the strife at the U.S. Chemical Safety Board — the 40-person authority charged with investigating industrial accidents and recommending ways to improve safety — bears strong resemblance to the headlines from developing nations:
Its leader, seen by critics as an autocrat, is forced out before his term is up. His successor takes charge in what detractors call a backroom maneuver and moves quickly to consolidate power, ordering loyalists of the ousted regime removed from their posts with the help of armed guards.
“What is going on at the Chemical Safety Board is a little slice of the eastern Ukraine here in Washington, D.C.,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group that advocates for government workers.
Meanwhile, he said, the board’s mission of pushing regulatory reform is languishing. “The industrial infrastructure is getting older, and we’re not doing anything about it.” Related California gas prices jump 31 cents in 1 week on refinery woes Report: Chevron Richmond refinery fire response flawed Flaring at Richmond refinery lights up East Bay skies Chevron refinery project approved by Richmond City Council Oil refineries, environmentalists clash over plans
Chevron fire
Much of the strife can be traced back to the August 2012 fire at Chevron’s Richmond refinery that sent thousands of people to East Bay hospitals seeking treatment. It soon became clear that California officials had done little to make sure Chevron was dealing with safety issues, prompting the Chemical Safety Board to launch a crusade to change how oil refineries are regulated and maintained.
Leading the charge was Rafael Moure-Eraso, a longtime scholar with the University of Massachusetts, chemical engineer and worker-safety advocate whom President Obama named the safety board’s chairman in 2010.
Moure-Eraso had been seeking to fast-track stalled investigations into industrial accidents, but had trouble gaining traction for change until the Chevron fire. In a series of reports, Moure-Eraso and his staff pushed California to lead the nation in refinery reform by adopting a far more aggressive regulatory approach.
Under attack
The strategy he wanted California to adopt, used in Europe and elsewhere, requires more than just compliance with regulations — it compels that industry seek out the best safety technology available. The idea was denounced by the industry, which argued it was overly burdensome and unnecessary, and it soon drew fire from both sides of the aisle in Congress as well as from the union representing oil workers.
An investigation initiated by House Republicans concluded that Moure-Eraso was dismissive of critics and had undermined the agency’s previous collegial atmosphere. The report also concluded that Moure-Eraso and his staff were targeting agency dissidents and whistle-blowers. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General criticized him and his staff for using private e-mail instead of government accounts to do business.
Obama ousted the embattled Moure-Eraso in March, three months before his term was to expire. Board member Mark Griffon became acting chairman, but his term was set to end in June.
That left a pair of Obama appointees — chemical industry veteran Manny Ehrlich and worker-safety activist Rick Engler — vying for control.
When Ehrlich went out on medical leave due to spinal problems, Engler and Griffon met in private June 11 and voted to make Engler acting chairman. They could not vote publicly, Engler said, because without Ehrlich they did not have a quorum, so they acted under an emergency provision.
Thirteen days later, on Griffon’s last day, they voted again in private to adopt what Engler called “common-sense” regulatory changes allowing any board member to put reform items on the agenda and limiting maneuvers to block them.
“We were not willing to allow the work of the board to be hijacked,” Engler said, adding that Ehrlich’s absence was crippling. “Mr. Griffon and I felt we had no choice. There were congressional calls for reform, calls from stakeholders and the inspector general — we were going to move ahead.”
Moving ahead also meant the two agreed to drop the 180-day term limit on temporary leadership. With Obama’s nominee to head the agency, Vanessa Sutherland, stuck in the congressional confirmation process, Engler’s tenure could be indefinite.
Marched out
Not long after he took over, Engler ordered two top managers at the agency removed from their duties, pending an administrative probe into “possible misconduct.” The agency’s managing director, 15-year veteran Daniel Horowitz, and Moure-Eraso’s handpicked general counsel, Richard Loeb, were escorted from the building in the presence of armed guards. Both declined to comment for this story.
Both men were ordered to stay by their phones during business hours while investigators look into whether they bullied staffers, intimidated whistle-blowers and used their private e-mail improperly.
One member of Congress isn’t waiting for that probe to be completed. During a confirmation hearing in April, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., pressed safety board nominee Sutherland on whether she would commit to firing the officials.
“I would be willing to take action,” she said, if that turned out “to be the right decision to make.”
Engler says he can’t talk about the investigation, but that in general, he can’t afford to wait to make changes at the safety board.
“In the highly polarized world of Congress, it is rather unusual that Democrats and Republicans are calling for reform,” Engler said. “I think we are starting to get the CSB stabilized and back to its core mission work.”
‘Unseemly’ moves
Ehrlich, 73, is back on the panel after returning from medical leave. He’s dismayed by Engler’s probe and condemns the takeover that happened “while I was flat on my back.”
“Unseemly is a good term for it,” Ehrlich said. “This is a phenomenal agency that does phenomenal work, and if we stop worrying about governance and worry about getting the job done, we would be in great shape.”
In the midst of all the infighting, nothing has changed in the way refineries such as the Chevron plant are regulated. Engler says only that he has questions about Moure-Eraso’s proposed requirement that companies seek the safest technology available. For his part, Ehrlich opposes any new regulatory regime.
Ruch, the government-employee advocate, pointed out that the agency hasn’t issued a single investigative report since Moure-Eraso’s departure.
“All that is going on at the Chemical Safety Board is people fighting over deck chairs on the Titanic,” Ruch said.
Congressional Republicans are even pushing to strip the board of the ability to make safety recommendations. “That underlines what is really going on here,” Ruch said.
California fight
California made several changes after the Chevron fire, including beefing up its worker safety enforcement staff and drafting regulations that originally called for safer technology.
But in a letter to the state last month, the Chemical Safety Board did not appear impressed. The letter, signed by Engler, said the recent version of the rules did not require the safest technology and did not “go far enough to require real risk reduction and the prevention of major accidents.”
“It is unclear how the draft proposed rule is an improvement” on existing regulations, Engler’s letter said.
Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, whose district includes the Chevron refinery, said the dissension racking the safety board was “more than discouraging.”
“It needs to be fixed,” he said. “It’s too important an agency.”
-
Greens Go All In To Fight Arctic Drilling
Jul 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmentalists are racing against the clock to stop Royal Dutch Shell from drilling in the Arctic Ocean, using a wide assortment of tactics to accomplish what has become one of the movement’s top priorities — and biggest cash cows.
Shell plans to start working on its exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea, about 75 miles northwest of Alaska, as early as July 19.
Arguing that the project could lead to catastrophic oil spills, degradation of landscapes and wildlife and billions of tons of Earth-warming carbon dioxide, the green movement has shifted into high gear. Environmentalists are looking to both administrative and legal arenas for solutions, planning protests and calling directly on President Obama to halt the drilling.
The fight has brought unprecedented support to green organizations, helped in part by the imagery of the pristine Arctic, endangered polar bears, native subsistence and a delicate climate — all of which, greens say, are threatened by Shell and the oil industry.
Over the next few weeks, greens think that their legal and administrative appeals — led by environmental law firm Earthjustice — have the most hope to stop the drill bit from hitting the ocean floor.
“The fact is that it’s very hard for the government to permit Arctic Ocean drilling and leases in compliance with the law, because there are laws that are meant to protect the environment, and they can’t be met in many instances,” said Erik Grafe, one of the four or so Earthjustice attorneys representing a coalition of environmental and conservation groups working in earnest against Shell’s drilling plan.
They notched this week what could end up being a major victory.
While the Fish and Wildlife Service gave Shell approval to drill near Pacific walrus habitat in a way that could harm or harass the mammals — an authorization that it needed to drill in the area — it did not waive regulations stating that no two rigs can drill less than 15 miles apart.
Shell wants to drill six wells, all of which would be less than 15 miles apart, and had asked for a waiver. While the company is still hoping to drill with just one well at a time, Grafe argues that the exploratory plan approved in May by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management only permitted the two-rig plan, not one.
Earthjustice is also pursuing a number of legal cases against aspects of Shell’s drilling plan and the permits it has received, in the hopes that it won’t get the final approval it needs: drilling permits from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
Grafe maintained his firm isn’t just trying to pursue every possible case and see what sticks.
“We’re here to hold the government to the law,” he said. “The fact that there are a lot of cases shows that it’s such an extreme environment and in many instances, the permitting processes are rushed due to industry pressure and other things.”
Meanwhile, Greenpeace is helping to organize protests across Alaska. The group is looking to build on momentum from large-scale protests in Seattle, during which hundreds of kayakers surround Shell’s contracted drilling rig — generating publicity that spread internationally.
“The momentum in Seattle was so epic and inspiring, and we’re really hoping that that could continue into Alaska,” said Cassady Sharp, a spokeswoman for the group.
“We’ve seen protests popping up in Juneau, in the North Slope villages and Homer, and because one of the rigs is now in Dutch Harbor, there are some protests popping up there as well.”
Greenpeace is also helping supporters contact the White House and the Interior Department in an effort to shut down the drilling activity.
The group plans to confront Obama in August when he visits Alaska, to push him to put a stop to the drilling if it is happening by then.
Groups like the Sierra Club, Oceana, the Alaska Wilderness League, the Natural Resources Defense Council and more are lending their particular strengths to the effort as well.
The Sierra Club is directing its resources at the White House and Interior Department, while helping Earthjustice with its legal and administrative efforts.
“We’re still optimistic that once the administration really takes that to heart and follows those particular permits, that they’ll find that they are not able to give that final permit to drill,” said Dan Chu, director of the Sierra Club’s Our Wild America campaign.
The groups are also hoping that getting lawmakers on their side will help convince Obama to pull the approval. At their urging, five Democratic senators, led by Ed Markey (Mass.), wrote to Obama June 26 arguing that the wildlife rules do not allow Shell to go forward.
The company, however, is undeterred.
“We respect all views when it comes to Arctic development and we frequently engage with stakeholders who would prefer we shelf our Arctic ambitions,” Curtis Smith, a Shell spokesman, said of the green protests. “It remains our view the world will need arctic oil and gas resources.”
The issue is quickly making its mark as one of the top battles for the environmental movement, on par with the Keystone XL pipeline and oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
“The Arctic and Alaska have always been a high priority for environmental organizations in the United States,” said Tyler Priest, a University of Iowa professor of environmental history who worked for the federal commission that investigated the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster and oil spill at a BP-owned well.
“It’s a symbolic issue, like the Keystone pipeline. It resonates with people.”
The greens, meanwhile, are glad that the issue is bringing so much attention to their cause.
For many organizations, Arctic drilling is bringing record traffic to their websites, along with influxes in donations, membership and other engagement.
“We’ve definitely seen a boost in awareness and engagement,” said Sharp. “On a digital level, so many more website visits, signups, people who want to more about this issue or how they can help. A major reason for that is that a lot of the images they were seeing out of Seattle were just these really bold acts of courage, one person getting a small kayak or canoe and confront a 40,000-ton rig in the middle of the Puget Sound.”
Sharp said many different factions on the political left are also taking notice and starting to think of Arctic drilling as a defining legacy for Obama.
“It’s so rich in details that make it a real defining moment for President Obama and how he wants to be remembered in history,” she said.
Sharp said Shell’s history in the Arctic makes Obama’s approval of its plan especially egregious. The company aborted its 2012 attempt at drilling and a rig ran aground on an Alaskan island, topping off a string of problems for that season’s activities.
Meanwhile, Shell is pushing ahead, and confident that it will drill once enough ice clears to make it safe. One rig is already in Alaska, and another one is close by.The oil industry projects demand for oil and gas to double by 2050, making prospects like the Arctic essential to the nation’s future.
“We take a long term view of price and supply. If we do find a commercial discovery in Alaska, it will take ten years or longer before first oil could be produced,” said Smith, the Shell spokesman. -
The EPA’s Mercury Standards: A Debate Poorly Framed
Jul 5, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Anhvinh Doanvo
Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (Utility MACT) has lately been framed as by conservatives as a blow to “crippling regulations” chauvinistically made with zero consideration for the facts on the costs and benefits of regulation, and by liberals as an attempt to boost polluting industry at the cost of the public’s health.
Starkly grim statements have left both sides at each other’s throats, but the debate has been poorly framed: contrary to the right, the EPA has already considered the costs of MACT regulations, and opposing statements have oftentimes been deceptive; contrary to the left, the ruling is more concerned with procedures than the very existence of the MACT regulations.
Conservatives have oftentimes cited the National Economic Research Associate’s (NERA) study, predicting an 11.5 percent rise in costs in electricity by 2016 and $17.6 billion in annually. It has been noted, however, that the study was commissioned by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a group focused on political lobbying in favor of coal producing entities. NERA itself has long been ideologically predisposed to favoring deregulation.
The EPA, which has its own ideological stance on the issue, has produced studies indicating that costs of implementation will be approximately $9.6 billion annually — a fraction of NERA’s estimate — resulting in the creation of as many as 1.5 million jobs in five years, the equivalent of 267 Keystone pipelines, because of the growth of environmental technologies.
But even with the wide range of estimates on the regulations’ costs, the conservatives’ arguments against the EPA’s estimate on $37 billion to $96 billion in health benefits from the reduction of asthma and heart attacks, premature deaths and bronchitis have largely been invalid. Their estimate of the $6 million in benefits from the regulations consistently refers to the assumption, as even they note that only the impact of mercury regulations should be considered. In a last-ditch attempt to deceive the public on regulatory impacts of MACT, they stated that MACT regulations are redundant with present Clean Air Act regulations, but even they note that 39 percent of electricity generated from coal, or 739 terawatt hours annually, comes from insufficiently scrubbed plants — plants that would be covered by the new MACT rules.
It is difficult to see how this reasoning is rational in the slightest sense when one knows how air filters work, as they inherently filter the fine particles and toxic metals the EPA is targeting in addition to mercury, resulting in the other 99 percent of benefits that conservatives have decided to ignore. Ignoring side benefits of technology targeting specific goals in this case is comparable to ignoring all of the technology, from satellites to polymer glasses, that has arisen from space-age investments when debating the legacy of NASA.
Their reasoning behind ignoring the billions of dollars in health benefits from filtering particles in addition to mercury is just simply unfathomable, being even more comical than their accusations of the EPA’s alleged refusal to consider cost-benefit analysis when they had done just that. And even with the wide estimate range of benefits of $37 billion to $96 billion and high cost estimate of $17.6 billion, according to NERA, we are left with a minimum return on investment ratio of 2:1 and a maximum of 10:1.
How then, has this debate taken the national stage at all? The Supreme Court was not debating whether MACT had gone too far, but rather at which stage cost-benefit analysis should have been taken into account. The majority of the 5-4 ruling found that the EPA should have considered cost-benefit analysis before beginning to write the MACT regulations. Instead, the EPA decided to write such regulations only after significant health risks were found.
It is possible here that this procedural matter may be an actual nonissue. Many power plants have already set out to act upon the EPA’s regulations without incident, and future regulations may be adapted according to cost-benefit and health analysis on the issues. However, it is also possible that regulatory action may be more difficult to pursue as in-depth policy discussion will need to be initiated by not only significant health risks, but also cost-benefit analysis even before policies are developed.
Only time will be able to tell how this ruling plays out. However, the conservatives’ attempts to overplay the drama of the issue have left one thing certain on this ruling: their analysis on it has been a complete farce designed to entertain half-truths, fuel fear, and deceive their followers.
-
Goodbye Mercury Rule, Hello Clean Power Plan?
Jul 3, 2015 | Forbes
By Abigail Barnes and Brian Potts
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suffered a major setback on Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court doled out its ruling in Michigan v. EPA. In a 5-4 decision—penned by the always jocular Justice Antonin Scalia—the Court found that the EPA’s decision to ignore the $10 billion dollar annual price tag of its Mercury and Air Toxics Standard for power plants was unreasonable.
As Scalia wrote, “The Agency must consider cost—including, most importantly, cost of compliance—before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary.”
Funny enough, this decision could pave the way for another landmark (and nearly just as expensive) EPA regulation, the Clean Power Plan—but only if the agency lets its beloved mercury rule die on the vine.
See although the Supreme Court’s decision clearly established that the EPA’s mercury rule was illegally implemented, the high court did not vacate the rule. They left that up to the lower court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
What should we expect from the EPA in this situation?
The EPA’s predicted ask, given the liberal-leanings of the lower court judges (which will be sent to the same panel that originally decided the case), would be to leave the mercury rule in place as the agency attempts to fix it. But is that the best way forward?
Later this summer the EPA will be finalizing the Clean Power Plan, a rule aiming to revamp the country’s electric sector in order to slash greenhouse gas emissions. One of the challengers’ primary legal arguments against the Plan is that the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to adopt greenhouse gas rules for power plants if those plants are already subject to hazardous air pollutant regulations—like the EPA’s mercury rule. In other words, no double-regulation. So with its ruling in Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court might have just removed one of the most powerful legal arguments against the Clean Power Plan—but only if the D.C. Circuit vacates the rule.
This might seem like a tough decision for the EPA, but because the mercury rule has been (illegally) in effect since 2011, close to 90% of pollution controls needed to comply with it have already been installed. Maybe that’s why EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, wasn’t too fazed with the Court’s decision. “Most [power plants] are already in compliance [with the mercury rule],” she said in a recent interview, “investments have been made…and [the EPA is] still going to get at the toxic pollution from these facilities.” Plus, while the agency must now go back and consider the costs of regulating mercury and other air pollutants, once it does that, the EPA can just re-issue the rule.
EPA’s pride could end up being the Clean Power Plan’s downfall
When the EPA loses like this, it usually tries to get the lower court to keep its rule in place while it goes back to the drawing board. A similar situation happened a few years ago with the EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule: The D.C. Circuit determined that the rule was illegal, but left it in place while the EPA drafted a new version.
The question remains: Will the EPA ask the D.C. Circuit to keep its mercury rule in effect for the next few years? Or will the agency risk losing a little face and support vacating it in order to increase the Clean Power Plan’s odds of making it through the court?
Based on the EPA’s track record, we suspect it will do the former.
-
Don’t Let Politics Jeopardize Our Energy Renaissance
Jul 5, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Margo Thorning
When it comes to developing strong and effective policies, it’s imperative for our lawmakers to not overlook the facts. All too often though, in the heat of debate, it seems political rhetoric trumps those important — and sometimes inconvenient — facts.
Last week, 13 Democratic senators made the case to keep the outdated and restrictive ban on U.S. crude oil exports in an open letter to President Obama. In their letter, they conclude that lifting the ban stands to harm U.S. businesses, raise fuel prices and weaken U.S. energy security. As we find ourselves amid a booming energy renaissance, crude oil exports are a policy change that will further fuel this industry well into the future. Therefore, it is critical all the facts are on the table and do not get lost in misleading political rhetoric.
One of the more perplexing arguments advanced in the letter was that repealing or weakening the export ban could harm U.S. businesses and our ability to create good-paying American jobs. However, over the last year and a half numerous macroeconomic forecasts cite have predicted otherwise, finding that crude oil exports would increase U.S. gross domestic product, foster new investment in the U.S. energy sector and generate opportunities for small and mid-sized businesses along the supply chain.
While the refining sector is an important component in the downstream market, the cornerstone of U.S. success and growth in energy has been through production. Without sustained production rates, the refining sector along with the rest of the energy sector would feel the pain. New markets mean new demand, continued investment in upstream production and development and thousands of jobs across the country. The most recent study by IHS notes this multiplier effect stating, “For every job created in oil production, three jobs are created in the supply chain and six more in the broader economy.”
Additionally, the removal of the ban doesn’t mean the end of refinery investment and expansion as the letter implies. The same report mentioned by the U.S Energy Information Administration found overall that expansion projects would still occur if crude were allowed to be exported and $2.3 billion would still be invested into this industry. Ultimately, the overall health of this industry is what is at stake and the best way to maintain steady production is through oil exports.
The second argument the group of senators put forth for keeping the crude export ban is the routinely heard misconception that allowing crude oil exports would raise the prices of oil and gas. The letter spotlights that U.S. consumers saved $11.4 billion at the pump last year because of lower oil prices; however, this has nothing to do with U.S. policies. In fact, U.S. gasoline is a globally trade commodity that is directly tied to international markets. And while this is not a simple black and white scenario due to constantly changing demand forces, several econometric models, including ones conducted by our own government, conclude crude oil exports will not raise prices at the pump. The reality is that repealing the ban on crude oil exports would allow domestically produced crude oil to enter the global marketplace where economic principles dictate an increase in the global supply of oil would put downward pressure on the international price of crude oil.
The final misleading point made by the senators is the notion that removing the ban will harm our national security. Their letter argues that the U.S. crude oil import record is still too high and from an energy security perspective it is “premature to contemplate lifting the ban.” While the U.S. does import foreign oil, that is not valid reason not to export it. In fact, it runs counter to our economic principles of free trade and the way we treat nearly every other commodity in this country. For example, in 2014 the U.S. exported a record 3.8 million barrels of refined petroleum products, while importing 230 million barrels. There are other countless commodities the U.S. imports and exports including cars, computers and agriculture. And with the U.S. producing more crude oil than ever before, crude imports are estimated to fall to 4.9 million barrels per day in 2025 even with crude oil exports.
The benefits of finally removing the 1970s-era ban on crude oil exports are undeniable. Despite counterproductive efforts, the energy sector is booming as a result of the era of domestic energy abundance that we live in. In order to keep this renaissance alive, we must throw our hat in the ring that is the global energy market, capitalizing on the extraordinary opportunity before us. As Independence Day approaches, it’s a great time to reflect on what we can do to make our great nation even stronger and more prosperous. Allowing crude oil exports will promote that goal.
-
Adopting Carbon Emission Policies That Accelerate The Economy ... Instead Of Climate Change
Jul 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Hugh Welsh
It’s time for a game changer in carbon emissions, and The American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act now proposed in Congress could be it. For the very first time, a carbon bill addresses America’s global competitiveness and funnels reinvestment back to the economy. The radically different approach puts a fair price on companies that produce damaging carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and puts that revenue back into the economy.
Under the bill sponsored by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, carbon would be taxed at $45 per ton and the funds raised would be used to reduce corporate taxes, offset payroll taxes, provide Social Security and veteran’s payouts and allow for state-directed funding to other citizens.
This year Royal DSM recently joined 42 other multinational corporations across 20 industries and took out a full-page ad in the Financial Times to notify world leaders that we can’t wait any longer to act on carbon emissions. Our partners, including Unilever, Volvo, L’Oreal and Toshiba, are all voluntarily taking steps to reduce carbon impacts, and agree the time is now for a carbon price system that is global and meaningful, and supported by policies that complement business efforts.
Unilever, for example, has pledged to cut in half its environmental impact in the making and use of its products by 2020. In that same time frame, it also plans to eliminate deforestation from its supply chain, make sustainable agriculture a mainstream practice and work toward global access to safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene.
L’Oreal announced last month that it has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent since 2005, and reiterated its plan to get to 60 percent by 2020. It is also cutting water consumption and waste per finished product by the same amount.
At Royal DSM, we are consistently transforming our business and product portfolio away from fossil fuels and into bio-based feedstocks. This is done through mergers and acquisitions as well as innovation. We are weaving sustainability as a growth driver throughout the operating levels of the company. Finally, we have tied the bonuses of our 400 executives to metrics such as reducing greenhouse gas emission targets and eco-product developments.
It’s clear that the rest of the world is rapidly coming to the same conclusion as these global 1,000 corporations that are banding together to effectuate the changes that governments around the world are too timid to tackle.
Not surprisingly, leading scientists support carbon pricing, and many top economists have agreed for years that a price on carbon is the most efficient and least costly way to reduce carbon emissions.
More recently, six of the world’s largest oil companies sent a letter to U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres indicating their willingness for carbon pricing within an international framework. Shell, BP, Total, Statoil, Eni and the BG Group wrote that “carbon pricing policy frameworks will contribute to provide our businesses and their many stakeholders with a clear roadmap for future investment, a level playing field for all energy sources across geographies and a clear role in securing a more sustainable future.”
Even the pope agrees something must be done. This month, Pope Francis issued an historic encyclical focused on the environment, making a scientific and moral case for action on climate change.
There is irony that DSM, a coal mining company for decades named “Dutch State Mines,” is standing up for a carbon emissions fee bill, but we know firsthand why it’s necessary.
Reducing carbon emissions is not only a corporate responsibility to the planet but also a financial obligation to customers, vendors, employees and shareholders. When carbon taxing comes — and, like it or not, it is coming — companies that have embraced sustainability will have a competitive and financial advantage over those companies that procrastinated or refused to accept fossil fuel’s cost to society.
-
Obama’s Renewable-Energy Fantasy
Jul 5, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Rupert Darwall
On June 30, one day after the Supreme Court struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of mercury emissions from power plants, President Obama committed the United States to the goal of generating 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. This would nearly triple the amount of wind- and solar-generated electricity on the national grid.
The EPA ran afoul of the law by failing to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before it acted to reduce mercury emissions from coal-power plants. There is no objective cost-benefit analysis that could justify the president’s target for renewable energy.
Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded.
Google engineers came to a similar conclusion last year. After seven years of investigation, they found no way to get the cost of renewables competitive with coal. “Unfortunately,” the engineers reported, “most of today’s clean generation sources can’t provide power that is both distributed and dispatchable”—that is, electricity that can be ramped up and down quickly. “Solar panels, for example, can be put on every rooftop, but can’t provide power if the sun isn’t shining.”
If Mr. Obama gets his way, the U.S. will go down the rocky road traveled by the European Union. In 2007 the EU adopted the target of deriving 20% of its energy consumption from renewables by 2020. Europe is therefore around a decade ahead of the U.S. in meeting a more challenging target—the EU’s 20% is of total energy, not just electricity. To see what the U.S. might look like, Europe is a good place to start.
Germany passed its first renewable law in 1991 and already has spent $351 billion (€400 billion) on its so-called Energy Transition. The German environment minister has estimated a cost of up to $877 billion (€1 trillion) by the end of the 2030s. With an economy nearly five times as large as Germany’s and generating nearly seven times the amount of electricity (but a less demanding renewables target), this suggests the cost of meeting Mr. Obama’s pledge is of the order of $2 trillion.
There are other, indirect costs to consider. Germany is the world’s second largest exporter of merchandise, behind China and ahead of the U.S. But high and rising energy costs are driving German companies to locate new capacity overseas.
BASF, which operates the world’s largest integrated chemical facility, is shifting more production to America. “With such a huge difference in energy prices, the decision is clear that the money is now going there,” a BASF executive told a meeting of EU industry ministers last year. BASF has opened plants in Malaysia as well as Louisiana.
Advocates of renewable energy such as Deutsche Bank anticipate that electricity from solar panels will cost the same as electricity from the grid (so-called grid parity) in the not-too-distant future. But none suggest that solar can do so now without subsidies. And as Germany, Britain and other European countries are finding out, overt subsidies are only one part of the cost of renewables.
Most damaging is the effect of renewable mandates on the power stations necessary to ensure the stability of the electric grid and balance supply and demand. Even a modest proportion of wind- and solar-generated electricity prevents gas- and coal-powered stations from recovering their fixed costs. This has led to the proposed shuttering of Irsching in Bavaria, one of Germany’s newest and most efficient gas-fired plants. So unless conventional capacity also is subsidized, at some point the lights will start going out. European politicians have no answer to a problem they created, and it’s a safe bet the EPA doesn’t either.
One unintended consequence of the fracking boom is the displacement of coal by natural gas—a cheaper and more effective way to cut carbon-dioxide emissions. A 2014 Brookings Institution study estimated that replacing coal with modern combined-cycle gas turbines cuts 2.6 times more carbon-dioxide emissions than using wind does, and cuts four times as many emissions as solar.
That’s because generating electricity with low-energy density, weather-dependent technology is very inefficient. It requires far more plant and equipment and land to harvest an equivalent amount of power than fossil fuels. And that’s not counting the investment in fossil-fuel capacity to provide on-demand power when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun doesn’t shine.
There is no rational justification for policies favoring renewables. In 1972 environmentalist guru E.F. Schumacher wrote “Small Is Beautiful,” taking as his guide what he called Buddhist economics, which he’d discovered in Burma. A civilization built on renewable resources, he claimed, was superior to one built on nonrenewable resources. “The former bears the sign of life,” Schumacher wrote, “while the latter bears the sign of death.”
Mr. Obama’s renewable target is a triumph for Shumacher’s Buddhist economics—which amounts to being poor and staying poor. It does not produce jobs, growth or prosperity.
-
Lessons From Abroad: ‘Green’ Solution Threatens To Put America In The Red
Jul 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lance Brown
As more charges of unlawful taxpayer funded lobbying by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are levied by lawmakers, it can be difficult to discern where the political campaigning and media spin ends, and the facts begin. However, if the EPA is indeed working hand-in-hand with special interest groups like the Sierra Club, then their policy agenda and proposed remedies to some of the most drastic environmental threats deserve a closer look.
With federal agencies facing big budget cuts and compensation for federal workers and retirees being slashed, one would hope that government resources would be used for essential services and not on controversial new programs. During these lean times, for example, one wouldn’t expect any group to suggest a new government tax program that requires massive federal resources. However, that’s exactly what the Sierra Club is doing by pushing for a federal carbon tax. Such a proposal does little to paint the group as a credible messenger for responsible federal policy.
Among its proposed measures, the Sierra Club suggests a tax on using coal for energy production, which it classifies as “dirty and destructive.” Their website even touts European successes implementing such a tax and implicitly criticizes U.S. lawmakers for not already levying new taxes on coal-fired energy. The Sierra Club’s analysis, though, is short on details about the performance of foreign carbon tax programs. The omission of those details is probably not accidental, as carbon tax programs elsewhere have more often backfired than succeeded.
In July of 2012, for example, the Australian government, under then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard, implemented a federal carbon tax. Following its introduction, Australian energy prices spiked to more than three times higher than those in the U.S. To make matters worse, according to Australia’s Department of Environment’s greenhouse gas inventory figures, emissions in Australia fell only 0.3 percent from the tax rollout until September 2013. As Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt explained, the meager emissions reduction was caused by a fall in electricity demand and a decline in manufacturing, both resulting from massive energy cost increases. “The carbon tax is still inflicting plenty of pain, with no environmental gain,” Hunt stated.
The United Kingdom offers another example of where a nation’s carbon pricing scheme is disrupting energy supply. In a recent Telegraph article, Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies suggested Britain’s leaders grossly misjudged the impact of their national carbon tax. Lodge cites the closure of the Ferrybridge Power Station in West Yorkshire - one of the nation’s largest power plants - due to cost increases. This closure occurred just two months after Scotland’s largest generation facility was shuttered for the same reason. Despite coal prices being at an eight-year low, the carbon tax artificially rendered both plants economically unviable due to increases in operational costs.
As a result of a wrong-headed carbon tax policy, energy reserves in Britain have never been tighter and fuel poverty continues to plague consumers. Leaders hoped that natural gas-fired plants and nuclear units would come online to replace coal-fired capacity, but that simply hasn’t happened. The “quick fix” of a carbon tax, which lawmakers hoped would bolster tax revenue while cutting emissions, has decimated the U.K.’s energy generation capacity. Consider that coal provides as much as 40 percent of British power at that nation’s winter peak.
If all of this sounds eerily similar, it should.
In 2011, the Sierra Club told its members that Americans should tax carbon as a way to balance the national budget. Despite the fact that coal-fired power supplies a substantial percentage of power supply during extreme weather - even more than the UK’s portfolio - voices like the Sierra Club hope to make coal-fired power too expensive to use. They know that by making an inexpensive source of power more costly, other fuel sources look better by comparison. That is a scheme that will only spell disaster in the form of higher electricity prices for Americans and diminished access to reliable power when families and businesses need it the most.
One must assume that the carbon tax bargain being peddled by the Sierra Club and the EPA would soon result in a similar impact here at home: little or no climate benefits with a very high price tag.
Leaders in Washington should take note that a carbon tax isn’t just a tax on big, bad utilities; it comes from everyone’s wallets. A better approach is to invest in technology and innovation, rather than simply passing more taxes, to drive us toward a lower carbon future.
Congressional Hearings
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
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested