Preview Newsletter

ACC AM July 7

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Industries Favor EPA’s First Endocrine Disruptor Data Review
Jul 6, 2015 | Crop Protection News
By Kim Sunderland

Though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s newly released data reviews showed mixed results for Tier 1 screening of the first 52 pesticide chemicals in its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, the crop protection and chemical industries generally are pleased with the process thus far.
(ACC Mentioned) Act Quickly To Protect The Children
Jul 7, 2015 | Times Union
By Kathy Curtis and Cecil Corbin-Mark

It's increasingly apparent that Albany is afflicted with the same disease as Washington, D.C. Not corruption; that's a separate and equally malignant problem. We're referring to partisan gridlock — unwillingness to compromise from a firmly entrenched ideological position. For democracy to function properly, people with differing ideas need to work...

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

Ohio Judge Dismisses Class Action Seeking to Stop Hydraulic Fracturing
Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe

A class action asserting the right of citizens to ban hydraulic fracturing in their community has been dismissed by an Ohio judge (Mothers Against Drilling in Our Neighborhood v. Ohio, Cuyahoga Co., No. CV-14-836899, 7/1/15). Broadview Heights activists who brought the lawsuit will appeal its dismissal, Community Environmental Legal ...
Refracking Is the New Fracking
Jul 7, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Dan Murtaugh, Lynn Doan, and Bradley Olson

The technique itself is nothing new. Oil crews across the world have been schooled on its simple principles for generations: Identify aging, low-output wells and hit them with a blast of sand and water to bolster the flow of crude. The idea originated somewhere in the plains of the American Midwest, back in the 1950s.
Panels To Weigh Growing Momentum For Crude Exports Ban
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss

Two House panels this week will hold hearings on the long-standing federal ban on exporting U.S. produced crude oil, as Republicans ready a broad energy package for floor debate before the August recess. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on Thursday will consider legislation (H.R. 702) to
Differences Between House, Senate EPA Spending Bills Few, Though Significant
Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz

With both chambers of Congress now controlled by Republicans, it is no surprise that there is much similarity between the two spending bills moving through the House and Senate that would fund the Environmental Protection Agency for the 2016 fiscal year. The House bill (H.R. 2822) would provide the EPA with $7.43 billion, while the Senate...
House To Complete Debate On Interior-EPA Funding Bill
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka and Manuel Quiñones

The House today is scheduled to resume debate of a GOP fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA with the goal of finishing the bill by the end of the week. The legislation overall would provide the Interior Department, EPA and related agencies with $30.17 billion, or $246...
Senate Democrats Preparing Own Legislation
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss

Senate Democrats are planning to lay down a legislative marker on energy in the coming weeks -- a development that adds a wrinkle to ongoing efforts to advance a bipartisan package. The Democrats' bill will build off last month's letter to all 50 governors, in which 45 senators sought feedback on policies to spur clean energy investment...
EPA Sends to White House Plan to Guide States on Clean Power Plan Compliance
Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

The White House has begun its review of a proposed federal plan meant to guide states on how to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's soon-to-be-finalized Clean Power Plan, according to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory tracker. The federal implementation plan, sent to the OMB on July 2...
Supreme Court Mercury Ruling Fuels EPA 'Regulatory Overreach' Claims, Including For Carbon Rules
Jul 6, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

U.S. EPA chief Gina McCarthy heads to Capitol Hill on Thursday to get grilled by Republicans on the House Science Committee about the agency's "regulatory overreach," following a Supreme Court decision last week that EPA's mercury rules for power plants should have considered industry costs.
Oklahoma Asked to Explain Why Latest Clean Power Plan Challenge Should Proceed
Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

A federal district court judge has asked the state of Oklahoma to explain by July 16 why its latest challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan should be allowed to proceed given recent federal appeals court rulings in similar cases (Oklahoma v. McCarthy, N.D. Okla., No. 4:15-cv-00369, order issued 7/2/15).
Judge Asks Oklahoma To Better Explain Jurisdiction For Novel ESPS Suit
Jul 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan

A federal judge has asked the state of Oklahoma to more fully explain why the court has jurisdiction to review the state's novel suit challenging EPA's proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants before considering its request for an injunction, setting a briefing schedule for the issue that extends until late August.
Estimating the Benefits from Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions
Jul 2, 2015 | Office of Management and Budget Blog
By Howard Shelanski and Maurice Obstfeld

By now, just about everyone accepts that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are warming our planet and changing our climate in harmful ways. With growing frequency we see headlines about extreme weather events such as heat waves, polar melting, severe drought, and violent storms—a dangerous mix whose costs for our ...
OMB Tweaks Social Cost Of Carbon
Jul 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon

The White House Office of Management and Budget has tweaked its social cost of carbon estimates and released a lengthy response today to the “substantive” feedback it received about its figures and methodology. And after taking comments on a technical support document and making revisions to the SCC figure...
EPA Critics See Carbon Lesson in High Court's Ruling Rolling Back Emissions Regulation
Jul 6, 2015 | Roll Call

Opponents of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan are pointing to the recent Supreme Court decision rejecting the EPA’s mercury regulation as a prime example of why Congress or the judicial branch should preclude implementation of the agency’s climate rules’ while they’re challenged in court.
EPA Sends Final Effluent Guidelines Rule For Power Plants to White House for Review
Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

The White House Office of Management and Budget began its review July 2 of a final rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that would address discharges of toxic pollutants from an estimated 1,200 power plants nationwide and any future facilities. The EPA's long-awaited final steam electric effluent limitations guidelines ...
Inhofe Seeking EPA’s Rationale For Waters Rule
Jul 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Jenny Hopkinson

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe is calling on EPA to turn over documentation showing how it determined the scientific basis and scope of the just finalized clean water rule, arguing that the information is needed to better understand the agency’s process in crafting the measure.
GOP Senator Pushes EPA To Justify Water Rule
Jul 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is asking Obama administration officials for further scientific justification for their rule establishing regulatory power over waterways. In an eight-page letter, Inhofe highlighted a litany of aspects within the "waters of the United States" rule that he says are not covered by the scientific studies referenced within it.
Industry Coalition Claims Final CWA Jurisdiction Rule Violates Due Process
Jul 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo

A major industry coalition including the agriculture, mining, petroleum, and other sectors is suing EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers over their joint Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, claiming it violates Due Process rights under the Constitution because the rule is unlawfully vague and will lead to “arbitrary enforcement.”
Strategist: GOP Candidates Can Make Climate Pitch, But Face Risks
Jul 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode

Tell a Republican voter that 97 percent of scientists agree that humans are heating up the planet and you may as well claim that North Korea has a democratically elected government, according to a GOP strategist. But that does not mean that GOP candidates should ignore climate change or avoid policies aimed at reducing greenhouse...

Transportation News

(ACC Mentioned) ARA To Offer Two New Webinars
Jul 6, 2015 | AG Professional

The Agricultural Retailers Association will be offering two new webinars to agricultural retailers. The first webinar, "Moving Freight Rail Forward" will be held Tuesday, July 7 at 2 to 3 p.m. (ET). Michael Meenan, Senior Director, Federal Affairs, American Chemistry Council will lead the webinar. Spring 2014 rail ...
STB Should Make Decision on Rail Efforts To Handle Toxic Materials, Eighth Circuit Says
Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski

The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled July 2 that the Surface Transportation Board should determine whether requirements implemented by the Soo Line Railroad to better handle toxic materials are reasonable (Chlorine Inst. Inc. v. Soo Line R.R. , 8th Cir., No. 14-2346, 7/2/15). The ruling, which affirmed a federal district court's ruling, means...
Technological Innovations -- And Challenges -- Will Be On Display At Hearing
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly

rom the debut of self-driving cars to the spread of aerial drones, it's not exactly news that technology is transforming transportation. A Senate hearing this afternoon, however, will survey the topic with a theme in the form of a question: Is government keeping up? For federal regulators, the implications are potentially far-reaching.
Greens Plan Week Of Protests Against Oil Trains
Jul 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Environmental and safety groups are planning a week of protests against transporting crude oil by train, marking the second anniversary of a major oil train disaster in Canada. The activists are asking regulators to crack down further on crude by rail and pushing local governments to ban such trains within their jurisdiction.“There is no safe way to...

Full Text of Stories Below

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Industries Favor EPA’s First Endocrine Disruptor Data Review

Jul 6, 2015 | Crop Protection News

By Kim Sunderland

Though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s newly released data reviews showed mixed results for Tier 1 screening of the first 52 pesticide chemicals in its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, the crop protection and chemical industries generally are pleased with the process thus far.
CropLife America, whose member companies produce, sell and distribute virtually all the crop protection and biotechnology products used by American farmers, specifically support the EPA’s “two-tiered approach to protect public health from chemicals with unintended, harmful effects,” said Jay Vroom, president and chief executive.

The program’s “thoroughly developed approach,” Vroom said, allows the EPA to separate “effective chemicals that benefit society from ones that should not be near people.” He added that CropLife America members have committed “significant resources” to help develop the federal program and will “continue to work with EPA to help get effective products to growers so that everyone has access to safe, nutritious and affordable food.”
The EPA’s Tier 1 screening data will help the agency determine whether endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, have the potential to interact with a person’s estrogen, androgen or thyroid hormonal systems. The chemicals identified from Tier 1 to have potential interaction with the endocrine system subsequently will move on to Tier 2 of the screening process. The results of the Tier 2 tests then will act as a guide for the EPA’s final determination of whether a substance may have an adverse impact on the endocrine system under normal conditions of use, and any subsequent product regulation change.

Specifically, the EPA’s screening program uses a weight-of-evidence approach as the process for characterizing the extent to which the available data support a hypothesis that an agent causes a particular effect, according to the Endocrine Policy Forum.
This approach allows the EPA “to confidently determine whether a substance needs further testing to find out if it affects public health negatively,” said Janet E. Collins, CropLife America’s senior vice president of science and regulatory affairs.
Collins said the organization will be reviewing the Tier 1 results more closely.
Likewise, David Fischer, senior director of the American Chemistry Council’s Chemical Products and Technology Division, called the EPA’s data review a “significant milestone” because the agency’s approach also acknowledges that current exposure levels and exposure frequencies are essential elements of risk assessment.
“This methodology provides welcome clarity to the process and will provide EPA with the information needed to make decisions on whether further testing may be needed for the List 1 substances,” Fischer said.
The Endocrine Policy Forum also points out that inclusion on List 1 doesn’t mean the chemical is automatically an endocrine disruptor. A chemical on this list was chosen “based on the presence of the chemical in at least three of the four designated exposure pathways” -- food, water, residential and occupational -- not because of the chemical’s potential to cause endocrine effects.
“From the start,” said Ellen Mihaich, the forum’s scientific coordinator, “EPA has made it clear that the selection of the chemicals for Tier 1 screening was by no means a determination that the substances were harmful.” - See more at: http://cropprotectionnews.com/stories/510625538-industries-favor-epa-s-first-endocrine-disruptor-data-review#sthash.nEa6L1rn.dpuf

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Act Quickly To Protect The Children

Jul 7, 2015 | Times Union

By Kathy Curtis and Cecil Corbin-Mark

It's increasingly apparent that Albany is afflicted with the same disease as Washington, D.C. Not corruption; that's a separate and equally malignant problem. We're referring to partisan gridlock — unwillingness to compromise from a firmly entrenched ideological position.
For democracy to function properly, people with differing ideas need to work together for the common good — and that isn't happening. It's gotten so bad that Albany can't even come together and embrace common sense solutions to overwhelmingly nonpartisan problems.
This session, New York had a chance to pass the Child Safe Products Act, to prohibit toxic chemicals in everyday products. Testing by our organizations shows these chemicals are much more commonly used than you might think. And there's no way for a consumer to readily tell if a product contains them. Research shows that they contribute to increasing rates of childhood cancer and developmental disabilities.
The Child Safe Products Act would have been the strongest law of its kind in the nation. But industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council thought it went too far; others thought it didn't go far enough. That's usually a telltale sign of a good deal. The bill had more momentum behind it than ever before. It sailed through the Assembly and enjoyed bipartisan support from 42 Senate co-sponsors.
In a cruel and ironic twist of fate, Washington reached a deal on legislation to reform how we regulate toxic chemicals before Albany could. It's likely to become law this fall. Legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act passed the House last Tuesday by a vote of 398-1. The bill would update the nation's woefully inadequate chemicals regulations for the first time in 40 years. Though everyone agrees that the original TSCA is broken, the replacement was negotiated by the same industry group that wants to kill the Child Safe Products Act in New York.
Here's the worst part: The version of TSCA reform passed by the House will drastically affect how states can regulate chemicals to protect their own residents. But state laws passed before August of this year would be grandfathered in, including laws in California, Maine and Washington state. If Albany passed the Children's Safe Products Act this session, New York's children would enjoy strong protection from toxic chemicals. But because Albany let politics get in the way, we may have missed our last, best chance to act to protect our children.
Not all hope is lost. Counties around the state are showing the kind of leadership that Albany appears incapable of. Albany, Suffolk and Westchester counties did the right thing, and 3 million New Yorkers will be protected as a result. New York City might be next. But we need a comprehensive, enforceable law that doesn't leave large swaths of the state unprotected. The answer is the Child Safe Products Act.
There is still a small window of time before federal pre-emption kicks in, but New York must act immediately. Politics is described as "the art of negotiation and compromise." The only way Albany can pass a Child Safe Products Act before the door closes forever is if leaders on all sides make good on that ideal and renew their commitment to putting our children first.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

Ohio Judge Dismisses Class Action Seeking to Stop Hydraulic Fracturing

Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Bebe Raupe

A class action asserting the right of citizens to ban hydraulic fracturing in their community has been dismissed by an Ohio judge (Mothers Against Drilling in Our Neighborhood v. Ohio, Cuyahoga Co., No. CV-14-836899, 7/1/15).
Broadview Heights activists who brought the lawsuit will appeal its dismissal, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund organizer Tish O'Dell told Bloomberg BNA July 6, noting the judge refused to hear oral arguments and “never even took into account any of our arguments about the peoples' rights.”
Last December, Broadview Heights residents filed a first-in-Ohio class action against the state, the governor and two fracking concerns arguing that Ohio Rev. Code § 1509—which gives the Ohio Department of Natural Resources sole and exclusive authority to permit, locate, space and regulate oil and gas wells—violates citizens' constitutional right to local self-governance (235 DEN A-9, 12/8/14).
Voters passed a Community Bill of Rights ordinance in 2012 that, among other things, bans fracking within the boundaries of the 20,000-resident northeast Ohio city.
Municipalities' home rule does not trump state law regulating oil and gas drilling, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Timothy McCormick ruled July 1, citing a recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling in a similar case (32 DEN A-15, 2/18/15).
McCormick granted the state's motion to dismiss the case and concurred with a drilling defendant's argument that, in light of the Ohio Supreme Court decision, Broadview Heights's charter amendment “is an invalid exercise” of the city's home rule authority and is preempted by Ohio R.C. 1509 “as a matter of law.”
The dismissal demonstrates that “the will of the people, as expressed through their democratically adopted bill of rights, was nullified by the judiciary,” said O'Dell.
Moreover, she said, it denies communities the authority to protect their water and the natural environment.
O'Dell said the community movement against fracking is not abating in Ohio, despite rulings upholding the authority of the state and industry, with residents in four counties and the city of Columbus working to place “bill of rights” initiatives on the November ballot.

Return to headline | Return to top
Refracking Is the New Fracking

Jul 7, 2015 | Bloomberg

By Dan Murtaugh, Lynn Doan, and Bradley Olson

The technique itself is nothing new. Oil crews across the world have been schooled on its simple principles for generations: Identify aging, low-output wells and hit them with a blast of sand and water to bolster the flow of crude. The idea originated somewhere in the plains of the American Midwest, back in the 1950s.
But as today’s engineers start applying the procedure to the horizontal wells that went up during the fracking boom that swept across U.S. shale fields over the past decade, something more powerful, more financially rewarding is happening.
The short life span of these wells, long thought to be perhaps the single biggest weakness of the shale industry, is being stretched out. Early evidence of the effects of restimulation suggests that the fields could actually contain enough reserves to last about 50 years, according to a calculation based on Wood Mackenzie Ltd and ITG Investment Research data.
Peak Shale Oil
America's tight-oil production is set to peak in 2020, based on U.S. forecasts, but a technique known as refracking could keep output booming for longer by increasing the yield from old wells.
If the word fracking has carved out a spot in the lexicon of Americans as the nation advances toward energy independence, then refracking, as roughnecks have begun calling it, could be next. And for an industry that has been hammered by the 50 percent drop in crude prices over the past year, the finding on the technique’s potential -- at a fraction of the cost of the initial well -- provides a much-needed sense of hope.
The risks abound -- from inadvertently siphoning oil from an adjacent well to ruining a whole reservoir -- and the sample size so far isn’t big enough to be conclusive, but oil giants like Marathon Oil Corp. and ConocoPhillips aren’t waiting to incorporate refracking into their shale operations.
The Octofrac
Mike Vincent, a well-completion engineer who teaches the technique to industry workers, said he’s been overwhelmed by the sudden interest in the class. He even had to abandon plans he had been making to spend a week fly-fishing in the Rocky Mountains over the summer. “I’m booked every week teaching refrack classes out to November,” said Vincent, who runs a Denver-based firm called Insight Consulting. “It’s amazing how much passion there is.”
Years of working on traditional wells have shown that they can be restimulated multiple times, Vincent said. In the industry’s lingo, a well that has been blasted five times is a “Cinco de Fraco.” Eight times gets you an “Octofrac.” When done right, the procedure not only boosts the flow of crude, but can also increase the estimate of reserves held in the well. Vincent said it’s common to see oil recovery climb 60 percent or more.
“I’ve seen a well get 10 fracs through the same perfs, and it appears that we’re adding reserves every time,” he said.
100,000 Wells
A study by Bloomberg Intelligence of about 80 wells that were originally tapped in North Dakota’s Bakken formation in 2008 or 2009 and then refracked again years later shows a clear pickup in output. The wells on average produced more than 30 percent more oil in the month after the refrack than they did after the original completion, according to analysts William Foiles and Peter Pulikkan.
Second Time's a Charm
A Bloomberg Intelligence analysis of wells blasted with hydraulic fracturing fluids for a second time, known as refracking, revealed initial production rates more than 30 percent higher than the original.
While these kinds of increases are important to traditional drillers, they’re crucial in the shale industry, where output can start falling within days of a well being tapped. Companies such as EOG Resources Inc., the largest shale oil producer, have long acknowledged that they generally are recovering just a small fraction of the oil and gas in place in the biggest and most prolific reservoirs.
“We’ve seen big changes in completion technology, and it looks like that’s only going to continue,” said R.T. Dukes, an upstream analyst at Wood Mackenzie in Houston. He estimates that there are about 100,000 horizontal wells that could be restimulated. “At that point, it becomes significant.”
Many Risks
So far, a few hundred refracks of shale wells have been done in the U.S., a figure that Vincent predicts will grow to at least 3,000 over the next two years. And IHS Inc. forecasts they will come to make up as much as 11 percent of all hydraulic fracturing activity in the country by 2020.
The process to refrack a well isn’t that different than the original frac. Water, sand and other chemicals are pushed down the well, beyond the previously tapped areas, to create new fissures or to re-open clefts in the rocks that have closed.
It’s easy for things to go wrong. If poorly executed, the maneuver could take oil from the producing zones of other wells, or worse yet, ruin a reservoir. Then there’s the concern that some industry analysts have that a refrack only accelerates the flow without increasing the actual total output over the life of the well. EOG is among the drillers that remain reluctant to start using the procedure.
Refracking is still in its “early days,” said Robin Mann, global leader of the resource evaluation and advisory group in Deloitte LLP’s Houston office. “There’s always a risk you’re going to damage the reservoir or create interference between wells.”
‘Compelling Prize’
But in an industry that is desperately trying to cut expenses after oil fell below $60 a barrel from over $100 a year ago, the technique’s low cost has great appeal. Because the first step in the fracking process is already done -- the drilling of the wellbore -- the outlay is just a fraction of the $8 million or so it costs to tap a new well.
West Texas Intermediate for August delivery added 69 cents to $53.22 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 9:16 a.m. London time.
Sanchez Energy Corp., a Houston-based oil producer, expects to spend between $1 million to $1.5 million per well when it starts carrying out its first horizontal-well refracks later this year. The extra oil and gas it will pull out from each one as a result, meanwhile, could have a value, when measured in today’s dollars, of as much as $2.5 million, according to Chris Heinson, the company’s senior vice president and chief operating officer.
“It’s a compelling prize,” Heinson said in an interview last month. “There were a large number of wells out there that we know were originally completed with something that we could do better today. That’s really exciting.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Panels To Weigh Growing Momentum For Crude Exports Ban

Jul 7, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Geof Koss

Two House panels this week will hold hearings on the long-standing federal ban on exporting U.S. produced crude oil, as Republicans ready a broad energy package for floor debate before the August recess.
The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on Thursday will consider legislation (H.R. 702) to repeal the 1970s-era ban, which was enacted in the wake of the Mideast oil embargo that left Americans waiting in line for hours to purchase gasoline. A witness list is still being finalized, a committee spokesman said yesterday.
Tomorrow, the House Agriculture Committee will hold a hearing titled "Energy and the Rural Economy: the Economic Impact of Exporting Crude Oil." A committee spokeswoman said yesterday that the witness list will be available later today but noted in an email that the hearing "will focus on the positive impacts that lifting the oil export ban would have on rural America since the majority of oil development takes place in rural areas. When development slows, or prices are wildly volatile, the health of the rural economy suffers. Lifting the ban would be great for the rural, and national, economy."
The hearings come as House leaders are preparing a broad energy bill that will address production, infrastructure and efficiency to be considered before the August recess (Greenwire, July 2).
Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) last month sounded a positive tone on addressing the export ban in the committee's bill, emphasizing recent studies that found "beneficial" economic impacts of a repeal (E&E Daily, June 26).
However, committee leaders haven't tipped their hands over a legislative approach to doing so. In announcing his decision that it was time to legislate on the ban, Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) last month said only that he would work with Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) on the matter.
Some have suggested an exports bill could be structured to include a "safety valve" if domestic prices should spike, but Barton -- a former Energy and Commerce chairman and the lead sponsor of the measure to be discussed Thursday -- said last month that he felt the time was right for a full repeal (Greenwire, June 18).
His bill currently has 70 co-sponsors, including a handful of Democrats. Both House Agriculture Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas) and ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) are co-sponsors.
In the Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is weighing her options for repealing the ban, a move she favors. However, doing so would likely cause problems in committee for the energy package she wants to mark up before the August recess, given her preference for moving the bill with bipartisan support.
In recent months, Murkowski has cited the possibility of Iran increasing crude exports as a reason to lift U.S. restrictions. The Wall Street Journal reported this weekend that Iran will aim to double crude exports, should sanctions be eased on Tehran as a result of nonproliferation talks.
Schedule: The Agriculture Committee hearing is Wednesday, July 8, at 10 a.m. in 1300 Longworth.
Witnesses: TBA.
Schedule: The Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing is Thursday, July 9, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witnesses: TBA.

Return to headline | Return to top
Differences Between House, Senate EPA Spending Bills Few, Though Significant

Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Schultz

With both chambers of Congress now controlled by Republicans, it is no surprise that there is much similarity between the two spending bills moving through the House and Senate that would fund the Environmental Protection Agency for the 2016 fiscal year.
The House bill (H.R. 2822) would provide the EPA with $7.43 billion, while the Senate bill (S. 1645) would provide almost $7.6 billion for the agency. Only $167 million in total separates the two bills, both of which have been reported out of their respective committees.
To look at it another way, both bills can be broken down into more than 100 line items, each of which funds a specific program within the EPA. For roughly a third of these line items, funding levels in the House and Senate bills are identical. For a dozen more, the two bills differ by less than 1 percent.
However, there are also places where House and Senate spending priorities diverge significantly.
There are seven line items for which funding levels in the two bills differ by $10 million or more. Also, the Senate bill also provides funds for four programs that, in the House bill, receive no funding at all.
With the House set to cast a final vote on its spending bill on the floor later this week, the stakes are high for supporters of these programs.
State Revolving Funds
The State Revolving Funds program, which provides states with low-interest loans for water infrastructure upgrade projects, is one of the areas where House and Senate funding levels are furthest apart. It is also the largest single program within the EPA budget.
The House bill includes almost $1.78 billion for the program's two funds—one for drinking water projects, the other for wastewater projects. The Senate bill, however, would allocate almost $47.9 million more.
Even with this gap, the funding levels in both of these bills represent a major cut to the State Revolving Funds program, not only from what the Obama administration had requested for the upcoming fiscal year but also from what Congress had appropriated for the current fiscal year.
Dan Hartnett, director of legislative affairs with the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, said funding for this program needs to be increased, not cut.
“There are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of documented water and wastewater infrastructure investment needs across the country, and the SRF can play a critical role in financing these projects,” he told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “We're continuing to communicate that message to Congress.”
The spending bills hit water infrastructure interests especially hard this year because, in addition to the funding cuts, the Senate bill also includes a policy rider that would prohibit all sewage dumping into the Great Lakes, which could be costly for wastewater utilities (127 DEN A-12, 7/2/15).
Patricia Sinicropi, senior legislative director with the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, said the rider was a surprise setback given that Republicans are in charge of the appropriations process this year.
“For fiscal conservatives, we expect the funding levels to be low,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “We understand their concerns. But we don't expect this kind of regulatory overreach from this Congress.”
Southern New England Estuaries
The EPA's geographic programs, which provide funding for projects targeted toward specific regions, are typically politically popular items that lawmakers can tout to their constituents. But while the Senate bill would keep funding for these programs relatively flat, the House bill contains a $27.21 million cut.
In fact, within the geographic programs line item, the House is proposing to eliminate all funding for southern New England estuaries; the Senate bill would keep its funding flat at $5 million.
Congress first provided funding to the EPA in the 2014 fiscal year for the Southern New England Estuary Program, which covers both Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts and Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island.
Joe Costa, the executive director of the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, said the EPA allocates some of this funding to his organization to allow it to issue water quality improvement grants. He said eliminating this funding stream would be disappointing, considering it had just been established two years ago.
“Irrespective of who manages the money, us or someone else, that money is being put to very good use,” Costa told Bloomberg BNA. “These are very concrete projects and very specific actions. [The funding is] not being used for planning studies. It's being used to get things done.”
E-Manifest
The House also is proposing to zero out funding for the Hazardous Waste E-Manifest System Fund, which received more than $3.67 million in FY 2015.
The EPA has been using money from this fund to establish an electronic system for keeping track of hazardous waste. However, House appropriators said they think the EPA already has enough funding on hand to move forward and questioned its management of the project.
“The plan that Congress approved and the plan that EPA is implementing are on two different tracks,” Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that handles the EPA budget, said at the June 16 markup of the bill.
David Case, executive director of the Environmental Technology Council, is a strong supporter of the e-manifest program and was intimately involved in the passage of the 2012 bill that launched it.
However, even he acknowledged that House Republicans have a point in their complaints.
The agency “needs to do a better job of justifying the cost to the House appropriators,” Case told Bloomberg BNA. “If you're going to pay for a new part of your house, you're going to want the contractor to come and justify how much it's going to cost. EPA needs to do that kind of itemized justification.”
Next Steps
In the House, members proposed dozens of amendments to the spending bill on the floor before departing for the Independence Day recess. The House is set to resume consideration of the bill this week by voting on these amendments and, subsequently, on the bill itself (123 DEN A-6, 6/26/15).
In the Senate, the situation is much less clear.
The Senate Majority Leader's office told Bloomberg BNA prior to the recess that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has no timetable for bringing the EPA spending bill to the floor.
Senate Democratic leaders, meanwhile, have said they will vote against motions to proceed on this and any other federal spending bills that stay below sequester-level budget caps, which means Republicans will need 60 votes to invoke cloture and move forward with these bills. Democrats say the budget caps are far too low and want to modify them by convening another series of bipartisan budget negotiations similar to the Murray-Ryan talks of 2013.
If Senate Democrats end up relenting and allow the spending bill to move forward, it still may be shot down by the White House. The Obama administration has issued veto threats for all of the bills the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have reported out so far this year.
Congress has until the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30 to navigate through this potential impasse before funding for the government runs out, barring a continuing resolution that would temporarily provide funding for a few more months.

Return to headline | Return to top
House To Complete Debate On Interior-EPA Funding Bill

Jul 7, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Amanda Peterka and Manuel Quiñones

The House today is scheduled to resume debate of a GOP fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA with the goal of finishing the bill by the end of the week.
The legislation overall would provide the Interior Department, EPA and related agencies with $30.17 billion, or $246 million below current spending levels and $3 billion below President Obama's fiscal 2016 request for the agencies. EPA would take a hit of about 9 percent, or $718 million, under the spending plan.
The bill includes slight funding boosts for Interior agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service, while funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service -- which is housed within the Agriculture Department -- would remain roughly level.
Democrats have criticized the legislation for the inclusion of more than 20 policy riders targeting Obama administration environmental regulations. The bill also faces a veto threat from Obama.
Among the riders are provisions that would shutter EPA's plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing and new power plants and halt EPA's final rule to change the scope of water bodies in the United States that receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act. It would also delay EPA's effort to tighten the national ozone standard.
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said that the bill would stop EPA from putting in place "a litany of its egregious, expensive regulations."
The House spending bill would also forbid the Fish and Wildlife Service from writing a listing rule for the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act until October 2016.
Before leaving for the Fourth of July recess, members of the House approved several amendments to the bill under voice vote but punted recorded votes on more controversial provisions until this week. Those amendments include Democratic provisions that would boost funding for EPA's inland oil spill programs and brownfield site reclamation (E&E Daily, June 26).
Members are expected to offer several more amendments this week to the legislation sponsored by House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.). Coal royalties
One controversial amendment likely to come up would roll back the Obama administration's planned federal coal valuation reforms, which could affect what mining companies pay in royalties.
Its author, Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, is responding to concerns from mining companies over an Interior Department Office of Natural Resources Revenue proposed rule.
Cloud Peak Energy Inc., which focuses on mining Powder River Basin federal coal and has a significant presence in Montana, has been among the companies most critical of the measure. Executives say it would penalize mining firms for logistics services like coal transport.
In April, Zinke wrote the Government Accountability Office, which has studied coal leasing issues, to question whether ONRR's proposed valuation rule is justified.
"Does GAO recommend a wholesale change in royalty calculation of federal coal using non-arm's length sales," he asked, "including the exclusive use of a 'net back' system?"
Dan Bucks, former Montana head of revenue, has joined coal industry critics in accusing mining companies of not paying their fair share in royalties.
"All the Zinke amendment will do is to allow coal companies to unfairly pad their profits by underpaying federal and tribal coal royalties," he said in a statement.
The Western Values Project, a group focused on energy development and public lands, pointed to the coal industry's contributions to Zinke's campaigns.
"Now, by filing this amendment, it looks like Rep. Zinke is once again going to bat for a high-profiting industry who's paying his bills -- leaving the average Montanan in the dust," said Sally Hardin, the group's deputy director.
The House Interior-EPA spending bill already includes measures to block the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement's forthcoming stream protection rule, block EPA from changing the definition of fill material, and block the agency from issuing new financial assurance requirements for hardrock mines. RFS defunding
Another controversial amendment that could see floor debate is a proposed plan by Georgia freshman Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R) to prohibit EPA from using any funds to put in place the renewable fuel standard. Congress enacted the RFS in 2007 to increase the amount of biofuel use in the country; through it, EPA sets yearly targets for refiners to blend ethanol and advanced biofuel into petroleum gasoline and diesel.
The RFS has come under fire lately, largely due to EPA delays in setting the annual targets and the agency's proposal to lower biofuel mandates compared with the levels that Congress anticipated.
Critics of the renewable fuel standard program, though, have expressed skepticism about the Loudermilk amendment. They've warned that it could force the country to instead follow Congress's biofuel mandates, which greatly overestimated the amount of non-food cellulosic biofuel that would be produced domestically, and bring the entire Interior-EPA appropriations bill to a grinding halt.
The American Energy Alliance, one of the RFS's biggest critics on Capitol Hill, yesterday argued that the Loudermilk amendment could hurt consumers.
"At first blush it would seem if this amendment were successful it would be a huge win for American drivers, conservatives, and free market advocates," the alliance said. "Unfortunately, these things are often more complicated than they seem. While this amendment would prohibit EPA from implementing, administering, or enforcing the RFS it does not change the law -- and that is the key."
Biofuel supporters yesterday also circulated a letter sent Thursday to members of the House, urging them to reject any amendments aimed at the RFS, including the Loudermilk provision. Any attempt to change the RFS would "destabilize the regulatory and policy environment," chill investment in next-generation biofuels and halt efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil, the letter warned.
Twenty-five biofuel promoters, including trade associations and companies, signed the letter.
Conservative group FreedomWorks is backing the amendment and last month sent a "key vote" alert asking people to contact their representatives and urge them to vote "yes" on the provision.
"The market for renewable energy should be driven by consumer demand, not government mandates that keep prices high and pick winners and losers in the market," FreedomWorks wrote. "The RFS tries to artificially support an industry that is not yet commercially viable."

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Democrats Preparing Own Legislation

Jul 7, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Geof Koss

Senate Democrats are planning to lay down a legislative marker on energy in the coming weeks -- a development that adds a wrinkle to ongoing efforts to advance a bipartisan package.
The Democrats' bill will build off last month's letter to all 50 governors, in which 45 senators sought feedback on policies to spur clean energy investment, modernize infrastructure, reduce pollution and boost research funding, according to a spokeswoman for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (E&ENews PM, June 29).
"The objective of the letter was to garner input to better inform energy policy legislation, including a Democratic bill that could very well span multiple committees in terms of priority issues," Cantwell spokeswoman Rosemarie Tully Calabro wrote in an email yesterday.
"The Democrats recognize that states play an important role in producing energy. Having a better understanding of what the states would like to see in federal policy will be essential to negotiating bipartisan legislation."
The measure will likely include "a meaningful extension of energy tax credits for low-carbon technologies, as well as other policy and infrastructure matters of interest," Calabro said, adding that Democrats are aiming to produce a bill before the August recess.
That's the same time frame Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is eyeing for moving her own energy package through committee. Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon said yesterday the goal remains marking up the broad energy package before the August recess and having it ready for a fall floor debate.
He declined to comment on Democrats' plans for introducing their own energy bill, but said staff from both parties continue to work on the committee's bill, which Murkowski wants to move with bipartisan support.
"We're actively involved in discussions with their staff on putting together bipartisan legislation," Dillon said. "That process hasn't broken down. That process is still in progress."
Murkowski and Cantwell will soon meet to discuss the panel's bill, he added.
Despite having some starkly divergent policy views, especially on offshore drilling, the pair continues to follow the long-standing Energy Committee tradition of bipartisan collaboration.
But it remains to be seen how a broad energy package written by Democrats will factor into the debate. A Democratic bill addressing energy tax credits could provide an opening for Murkowski, who has expressed a desire to include a tax title in her legislation. She said last month that she was leaving tax issues to Cantwell, who sits on the Finance Committee (E&E Daily, June 26).
It also may give Democrats a boost in advancing top priorities: securing extensions of the renewable production tax credit and other clean energy and efficiency incentives that enjoy some degree of GOP support.
However, the prospect of competing partisan bills in the contentious arena of energy policy holds risks, as well.
In 2010, the Senate Energy Committee reported a bipartisan offshore drilling safety package cobbled together after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. That bill, written by Murkowski and then-Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), languished after squabbling between the two parties over offshore oil spill liability prompted competing versions of the legislation.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Sends to White House Plan to Guide States on Clean Power Plan Compliance

Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

The White House has begun its review of a proposed federal plan meant to guide states on how to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's soon-to-be-finalized Clean Power Plan, according to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory tracker.
The federal implementation plan, sent to the OMB on July 2, would also serve as a model for the EPA to implement in states that elect not to implement the Clean Power Plan.
“The EPA sees this federal plan as an interim measure to ensure that congressionally mandated emission standards under authority of section 111 of the [Clean Air Act] are implemented until states assume their role as the preferred implementers of the emissions guidelines,” the agency said in the Spring 2015 regulatory agenda.
Just one state, Oklahoma, has said definitively that it will not comply with the final rule. But several others—including Texas, Wisconsin and Indiana—have strongly suggested they might simply ignore it as well (122 DEN A-17, 6/25/15).
Shrugging off the final rule has been a strategy advocated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), though that approach would significantly reduce flexibility afforded to states in complying with the regulation. Observers expect the EPA would only have the authority to mandate heat rate improvements at power plants themselves, meaning the federal plan would be more restrictive and expensive for states to implement.
Senior EPA officials have repeatedly said they plan to issue the final Clean Power Plan sometime “mid-summer.” According to the regulatory dashboard, the final version of the federal implementation plan associated with the Clean Power Plan would be released in August 2016.
The proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. The EPA rule would be implemented by states, which would determine how best to achieve the emissions targets using four “building blocks” to achieve reductions: heat rate improvements at power plants, shifting dispatch from coal to natural gas, investment in renewable or nuclear generation and energy efficiency programs.

Return to headline | Return to top
Supreme Court Mercury Ruling Fuels EPA 'Regulatory Overreach' Claims, Including For Carbon Rules

Jul 6, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

U.S. EPA chief Gina McCarthy heads to Capitol Hill on Thursday to get grilled by Republicans on the House Science Committee about the agency's "regulatory overreach," following a Supreme Court decision last week that EPA's mercury rules for power plants should have considered industry costs.
As E&E Publishing has reported, the court decision will have little effect on coal companies or electric utilities, most of which have already complied with the regulation. EPA air chief Janet McCabe insisted the ruling also won't change plans for the agency's carbon regulations. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the decision vindicates his advice for states to "just say no" to the Clean Power Plan until legal disputes are settled (E&ENews PM, June 29).
The House Science hearing also comes on the heels of a new lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan, filed by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) in federal court in Tulsa.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see the latest national and state news and Clean Power Plan resources.

Return to headline | Return to top
Oklahoma Asked to Explain Why Latest Clean Power Plan Challenge Should Proceed

Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

A federal district court judge has asked the state of Oklahoma to explain by July 16 why its latest challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan should be allowed to proceed given recent federal appeals court rulings in similar cases (Oklahoma v. McCarthy, N.D. Okla., No. 4:15-cv-00369, order issued 7/2/15).
Judge Claire Eagan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma seemed skeptical of allowing the case to proceed in her July 2 order for additional briefing, citing June decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that rejected similar lawsuits because the rule is a proposal and not a final agency action (In re: Murray Energy Corp., 2015 BL 180996, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, 6/9/15; West Virginia v. EPA, 2015 BL 180996, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1146, 6/9/15).
In addition, Eagan asked Oklahoma to explain why the district court would have jurisdiction in the case, given that the D.C. Circuit has the exclusive authority to hear challenges to national primary or secondary ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act.
“Until this Court determines that it has jurisdiction over this case, it would be premature to entertain plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction and related motions,” Eagan wrote in her order.
Oklahoma filed its most recent challenge on July 1, seeking a declaration that the Clean Power Plan violates the Clean Air Act and a permanent injunction barring the agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants (128 DEN A-5, 7/6/15).
Following the July 16 brief, the EPA would have until Aug. 6 to respond and Oklahoma would have until Aug. 20 to file its final brief.
EPA officials have repeatedly said they plan to issue the final Clean Power Plan in “mid-summer,” but most likely in August (123 DEN A-2, 6/26/15).
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state. State regulators would develop their own plans on how best to achieve those emissions goals. The rule is currently at the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.

Return to headline | Return to top
Judge Asks Oklahoma To Better Explain Jurisdiction For Novel ESPS Suit

Jul 6, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Lee Logan

A federal judge has asked the state of Oklahoma to more fully explain why the court has jurisdiction to review the state's novel suit challenging EPA's proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants before considering its request for an injunction, setting a briefing schedule for the issue that extends until late August.
But the schedule could ultimately stymie the early legal challenge because EPA's rule could be final by the time the court resolves the jurisdiction issue.
Judge Claire Eagan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in a July 2 order says the court will resolve the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the suit “at the outset of the case. Until this Court determines that it has jurisdiction over this case, it would be premature to entertain plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction” of EPA's rule, adding that she finds that motion moot.
Eagan asks Oklahoma to submit a brief on the jurisdiction issue by July 16, with a response from EPA due Aug. 6, and a reply brief from Oklahoma due Aug. 20.
The briefing schedule on the jurisdiction question means that the judge likely would not issue a ruling on the issue before late August or September. Only if Eagan finds in Oklahoma's favor on jurisdiction would the court begin considering the merits of the state's request for an injunction blocking the proposed rule.
But by that time, EPA likely will have finalized the existing source performance standards (ESPS), a move that would render the Oklahoma challenge moot and start the 60-day clock for parties to file challenges under the judicial review provisions outlined in section 307 of the Clean Air Act, which generally requires such suits to be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Sooner State, which had joined a coalition of states in an earlier unsuccessful suit seeking to block the ESPS, acknowledges that its latest suit is “not the usual challenge to an agency rulemaking.”
It says the “ordinary” air act section 307 power to challenge final EPA air rules is not adequate because the state would be forced to take significant actions to change its electricity system while pursuing such a lawsuit.
Oklahoma's Complaint
The complaint estimates that a ruling from the appellate court could take at least nine months, and it “may take much longer.” While opponents of the rule could seek a judicial stay of implementation, “that is still likely to take months.”
The complaint adds: “By that time, Oklahoma will have either implemented or taken irreversible steps towards implementing most, if not all, of the changes [needed to comply], meaning that they will be implemented even though the [ESPS] is certain to be invalidated.”
As such, the state says the federal court in Oklahoma has the power to review the proposed ESPS under federal courts' “residual” authority granted under title 28, section 1331 of the U.S. code, which grants federal courts what is commonly known as “federal question jurisdiction.”
But Eagan in her order says the state failed “to clearly set forth how this Court has the authority to exercise jurisdiction over this case given these jurisdictional limitations” raised in earlier ESPS challenges from states and industry.
She cites those cases -- State of West Virginia, et al. v. EPA and Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al. -- which the D.C. Circuit dismissed June 9. “The decision was based on the clearly-established jurisdictional principle that a proposed rule by a governmental agency is not a final agency action subject to judicial review,” Eagan writes. She adds that the air act “contains a judicial review provision that vests exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to a national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard in the D.C. Circuit.” Similarly, the air law says challenges to national rules developed under section 111 of the statute also would be considered by the D.C. Circuit.

Return to headline | Return to top
Estimating the Benefits from Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions

Jul 2, 2015 | Office of Management and Budget Blog

By Howard Shelanski and Maurice Obstfeld

By now, just about everyone accepts that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are warming our planet and changing our climate in harmful ways. With growing frequency we see headlines about extreme weather events such as heat waves, polar melting, severe drought, and violent storms—a dangerous mix whose costs for our economy and environment will only grow over time. Transitioning to a lower carbon economy is an essential step toward reducing these costs. The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a tool that helps Federal agencies decide which carbon-reducing regulatory approaches make the most sense—to know which come at too great a cost and which are a good deal for society. The SCC is a range of estimates, in dollars, of the long-term damage done by one ton of carbon emissions.
The effort to incorporate the SCC into regulatory impact analysis started during the Bush Administration. At that time, each Federal agency developed its own estimate of the SCC using a variety of methodologies. In 2009, the Obama Administration established a working group of technical experts from across the government to develop a single set of estimates, based on the best available science and economics, to be used by all agencies in their emissions reducing regulations. In February 2010, after considering public comments on interim values that agencies had been using, the working group released harmonized and improved SCC estimates, along with a Technical Support Document (TSD) that explained how the SCC estimates were derived. Recognizing that the underlying models would evolve and improve over time as scientific and economic understanding increased, the Administration committed to periodic updates of the 2010 estimates.
In November 2013, OMB published a request for comment on a set of updated SCC estimates and the methodology used to develop them, to supplement the comments already routinely received when agencies use the SCC in particular rulemakings. In response, we received about 150 substantive comments, some quite lengthy and technical, as well as about 39,000 form letters that expressed support for our efforts to establish a harmonized SCC.
Today, we are following up on that public comment process and announcing next steps for further refining the social cost of carbon:First, we are publishing a detailed summary and formal response to the many thoughtful comments we received.
Second, we are issuing some minor technical revisions to the SCC, and publishing a revised TSD that explains those changes. The resulting central SCC estimate for a ton of CO2 emitted in 2015 is $36.
Third, to ensure that the next SCC update keeps up with the latest available science and economics, we will seek independent expert advice on opportunities to improve the estimates, including many of the approaches suggested by commenters and summarized in the Response to Comments document. Specifically, we are asking the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide advice on the pros and cons of potential approaches to future updates. Input from the Academies, informed by on-going public comment and the peer-reviewed literature, will help to ensure that the SCC estimates used by the federal government continue to reflect the best available science and economics. Federal agencies will continue to use the current SCC estimates in regulatory impact analysis until further updates can be made to reflect the forthcoming guidance from the Academies.
The SCC will become increasingly important if we are to protect our economy, environment, and quality of life for current and future generations from the mounting costs of climate change. The Administration is committed to ensuring consistency across Federal agencies in how they value the carbon emission reductions that will result from their rules. We will continue to keep these estimates informed by the most up-to-date science and economics so that agencies can appropriately account for the social cost of carbon emissions in evaluating the costs and benefits of their regulations.

Return to headline | Return to top
OMB Tweaks Social Cost Of Carbon

Jul 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Darius Dixon

The White House Office of Management and Budget has tweaked its social cost of carbon estimates and released a lengthy response today to the “substantive” feedback it received about its figures and methodology.

And after taking comments on a technical support document and making revisions to the SCC figure, OMB estimates that the central social cost of carbon for a ton of CO2 emitted in 2015 is $36, the agency said in a blog post this afternoon. The central value ranged from $31 to $69 per metric ton of CO2 between 2010 and 2050. The previous 2013 central values ranged from $32 to $71 per metric ton of CO2 for the same time period.

Today, OMB released a 44-page response to some of the comments it received, and it published a revised technical support document explaining its adjustments to the SCC calculations.

OMB also plans to ask the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to “provide advice on the pros and cons of potential approaches to future updates.” Federal agencies are expected to continue to use the current SCC estimates in their regulatory impact analyses until updates incorporate the input from the Academies.

Last summer, GAO said the Obama administration interagency working group followed the relevant and required processes while crafting its social cost of carbon. GAO, however, didn’t make any judgment on whether the estimates were correct.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Critics See Carbon Lesson in High Court's Ruling Rolling Back Emissions Regulation

Jul 6, 2015 | Roll Call

Opponents of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan are pointing to the recent Supreme Court decision rejecting the EPA’s mercury regulation as a prime example of why Congress or the judicial branch should preclude implementation of the agency’s climate rules’ while they’re challenged in court.
Industry and coal-heavy states got a win on paper at the high court, with justices ruling 5-4 on June 29 that the agency improperly ignored cost considerations when deciding to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. But the rule’s impact has already been felt; since it went into effect in April, nearly two-thirds of the affected plants have complied without seeking extensions, according to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.
Lawmakers are already citing the outcome as a cautionary tale heading into a multi-year challenge to the EPA’s carbon pollution limits on new and existing power plants. The rules are expected to be finalized this summer. The limited practical effect of the Supreme Court decision on mercury, which will require the EPA to, at minimum, revise part of its rule, gives opponents ammunition to press for states to not have to comply with the climate regulations until judges decide their fate.
The EPA’s carbon rules would set state- specific carbon-reduction goals. Utilities would strive to meet them by switching from coal to cleaner-burning fuels.
“While much of the damage of this regulation has already been done, the ruling serves as a critical reminder to every governor contemplating the administration’s demands to impose more regressive — and likely illegal — regulations that promise even more middle-class pain,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. “Clearly, there is no reason to subject their states to such unnecessary pain before the courts have even had a chance to weigh in, especially if the Supreme Court simply ends up tossing the regulation out as we saw today.”
Industry groups and states that are likely to sue the EPA over the Clean Power Plan will likely point to the mercury regulation’s impact on coal-fired plants when pushing for a stay of the climate rules while the court process plays out.
The mercury rule “is a pretty egregious example of a case where a lot of things have happened that really are, you know, irreversible because the rule stayed in effect during the litigation,” said Jeff Holmstead, an EPA air official during the George W. Bush administration who now lobbies for utilities.
“I think that it really does help folks who are not only going to be challenging the Clean Power Plan, but asking the courts to stay it during the litigation,” he added.
Congressional Republicans and coal-state Democrats are pushing for a stay legislatively. The House passed a bill (HR 2042) last week to allow states to delay implementing the carbon limits on existing plants until the courts decide on their legality. The legislation also permits states to avoid compliance entirely if they find the rule would negatively affect electric reliability and rates.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Sends Final Effluent Guidelines Rule For Power Plants to White House for Review

Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

The White House Office of Management and Budget began its review July 2 of a final rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that would address discharges of toxic pollutants from an estimated 1,200 power plants nationwide and any future facilities.
The EPA's long-awaited final steam electric effluent limitations guidelines and standards (RIN 2040-AF14) must be completed by Sept. 30 under the terms of a court-approved settlement. The agency has been coordinating the first update to the standards since 1982 with the first federal management and disposal requirements for coal ash, which were completed in April.
The June 2013 proposed rule (78 Fed. Reg. 34,431) from the EPA outlined four preferred options to address discharges from existing power plants and a single option for controlling discharges from new power plants. Compliance costs for the proposal were between $185 billion and $954 billion (110 DEN A-2, 6/7/13).
According to the agency, the proposed rule would cut annual pollutant discharges by up to 2.6 billion pounds and cut water use by 50 billion to 103 billion gallons.
The various options in the proposed rule require differing levels of treatment for seven waste streams from the power plants. Each option also took different approaches to the size of units controlled, the stringency of the treatment controls prescribed and the number of waste streams covered.
Fewer than half of the coal-fired power plants in the U.S. would incur costs under the four preferred options, because many already have the tools in place to meet the proposed standards, the EPA said in April 2013. Any plants under 50 megawatts would not be affected by the new standards under the proposed rule, the agency said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Inhofe Seeking EPA’s Rationale For Waters Rule

Jul 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Jenny Hopkinson

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe is calling on EPA to turn over documentation showing how it determined the scientific basis and scope of the just finalized clean water rule, arguing that the information is needed to better understand the agency’s process in crafting the measure.

In a letter today to Ken Kopocis, deputy assistant administrator of EPA’s water office, Inhofe asked for studies used to determine connections between water bodies, the economic analysis of the rule and mapping efforts for the revised measure.

The Oklahoma Republican asked the agency to turn over the information within 30 days.

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Senator Pushes EPA To Justify Water Rule

Jul 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is asking Obama administration officials for further scientific justification for their rule establishing regulatory power over waterways.
In an eight-page letter, Inhofe highlighted a litany of aspects within the "waters of the United States" rule that he says are not covered by the scientific studies referenced within it.Inhofe asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers for extensive documentation that establish which waterways are subject to the rule. He said the rule is too broad, arguing that it would give regulators power over waterways based on birds’ consumption and excretion of seeds.
“EPA has said that the geographic scope of the final rule can reach the 'vast majority of the nation’s water features' and by relying on groundwater or bird droppings, EPA and the Corps could control all of them,” Inhofe, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, said in a statement.
“To understand both the rationale behind the final rule, and its scope, I asked EPA and the Corps to provide the documents they relied on to develop this rule.”
The rule defines the bodies of water the federal government can regulate if they are in danger of being polluted. Opponents of the rule have warned it is too broad, even before regulators finalized it, and it’s spawned lawsuits from dozens of states.
EPA officials have said justification for the rule would be built into it when it was finalized. The EPA released the final version in May and published it in the Federal Register last week.
An EPA spokeswoman said Monday that the agency had received Inhofe's letter and was reviewing it.
Republicans have long questioned the legal and scientific foundation for the water rule and other EPA regulations, with some even threatening to hold up department nominees until officials respond to their questions.
“After reviewing the docket for the rule, my staff cannot find evidence of impacts to navigable waters from the ephemeral and isolated waters that EPA and the Corps now claim to control,” Inhofe said Monday.
"Instead, we found documents that make it clear that the final rule is even broader than the agencies admit.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Industry Coalition Claims Final CWA Jurisdiction Rule Violates Due Process

Jul 6, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Bridget DiCosmo

A major industry coalition including the agriculture, mining, petroleum, and other sectors is suing EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers over their joint Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, claiming it violates Due Process rights under the Constitution because the rule is unlawfully vague and will lead to “arbitrary enforcement.”
In a lawsuit filed July 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas' Galveston Division, the organizations seek vacatur of the rule and an order barring the agencies from “implementing, applying, or enforcing” the rule. The suit is just one of several already filed over the rule, with a host of cases now pending in various district and appellate courts -- creating uncertainty about which court will take the lead on hearing a case.
Existing filings by more than half the 50 U.S. states have raised other claims that the rule violates other parts of the Constitution, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The new industry coalition suit claims the final rule released in late May is “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity” because it exceeds the agency's Commerce Clause by regulating waters “that are not channels of interstate commerce and otherwise bear no connection to interstate commerce.”
The groups also say that the rule violates the Due Process Clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which says no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The coalition says that the regulation violates this clause “insofar as it fails to give fair notice of what conduct is forbidden under the criminal provisions of the Clean Water Act and grants impermissible ad hoc discretion to the Defendants, guaranteeing arbitrary enforcement.”
“The Rule bears no connection to the statutory text, far exceeds the authority granted by the Commerce Clause, and violates the individual rights protected by the Due Process Clause,” says the legal filing. The groups say that the rule is too vague and fails to put regulated parties “on notice” of when conduct may violate the law.
“Plaintiffs and their members cannot reasonably determine based on the face of the relevant statutes and regulations what is required of them,” the suit says. “The Rule’s definitions of tributaries, excluded ditches and water management features, adjacency, and significant nexus, among others, are unconstitutionally vague, violate due process, are not authorized by the CWA, and are arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by law.”
For example, the complaint says, regulated entities have no way to determine “ex ante” whether a waterbody meets the “significant nexus” test outlined in the rule, saying the test is “hopelessly vague” and relies heavily on subjective terms like “integrity,” significant effect,” “not insubstantial,” and others.
The coalition includes the American Farm Bureau Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Leading Builders of America, the Matagorda County Farm Bureau, the National Alliance of Forest Owners, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Mining Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the Public Lands Council and the Texas Farm Bureau.
Pending Lawsuits
The suit follows multiple challenges to the rule, which was released in May and published in the June 29 Federal Register but is not considered issued for judicial review in appellate courts until July 13.
The industry coalition makes similar claims to other existing legal challenges to the rule. For example, it echoes concerns that the rule violated the APA by not allowing for adequate public input on the policy, and that the regulation is at odds with the Constitution generally by expanding the reach of the water law.
At least 27 states have filed suits over the rule, including a June 29 coalition of states suing in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota's Southeastern Division, that also argued that the rule violated NEPA.
Additionally, Ohio and Michigan filed their suit, Ohio, et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al., June 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi also sued the federal agencies June 29, filing their suit, State of Texas, et al. v. EPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Those three states also filed a similar suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, noting the legal uncertainty over whether district or appellate courts have original jurisdiction to hear the case.
A group of nine states, led by Georgia, filed suit June 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs in State of Georgia, et al. v. Regina McCarthy, et al. are the state attorneys general for West Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.
Murray Energy Corporation is also pursuing cases over the rule filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia, Clarksburg Division, and in the 6th Circuit. The company argues that the final rule is a “blatantly unconstitutional effort to radically rewrite the Clean Water Act by unlawfully and unreasonably expanding the definition of 'Waters of the United States,'” according to a July 1 press release.
Inhofe's Concerns
Meanwhile, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) is seeking more information from EPA and the Corps on their development of the CWA rule.
Inhofe has argued that the rule greatly expands the reach of the water law far beyond what Congress intended, and warned it will have adverse impacts on businesses. He sent a July 6 letter to EPA's de facto top water official Ken Kopocis and a separate letter the same day to Jo Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army's Civil Works division, in which he asks for a host of data that underpins the final rule.
For example, he asks for scientific studies that underpin various provisions in the rule, such as the conclusion that all waters within 100 feet of an ordinary high water mark of a jurisdictional water shares a significant nexus; any analysis of the extent of waters that are various distances from navigable waters or tributaries; and other data.
In a statement on the letters to the two agencies, Inhofe said, “To support the extreme expansion of federal jurisdiction claimed by the final rule, EPA and the Corps of Engineers refer to 'scientific studies' and 'experience and expertise.' However, after reviewing the docket for the rule, my staff cannot find evidence of impacts to navigable waters from the ephemeral and isolated waters that EPA and the Corps now claim to control. Instead, we found documents that make it clear that the final rule is even broader than the agencies admit.”
He adds, “It appears that not only are the agencies claiming jurisdiction based on seepage into groundwater, but they are even claiming that seeds or insects ingested by birds in one location and excreted in another is evidence of 'biological connectivity' that justifies federal control. EPA has said that the geographic scope of the final rule can reach the 'vast majority of the nation’s water features' and by relying on groundwater or bird droppings, EPA and the Corps could control all of them. To understand both the rationale behind the final rule, and its scope, I asked EPA and the Corps to provide the documents they relied on to develop this rule.” Inhofe says that because the rule is now final and the information he is looking for was used as the basis for that rule, the agencies should fulfill his request within 30 days.

Return to headline | Return to top
Strategist: GOP Candidates Can Make Climate Pitch, But Face Risks

Jul 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Darren Goode

Tell a Republican voter that 97 percent of scientists agree that humans are heating up the planet and you may as well claim that North Korea has a democratically elected government, according to a GOP strategist.
But that does not mean that GOP candidates should ignore climate change or avoid policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions — it just means they need to be careful how they discuss the issue.
Former Republican National Committee strategist Adrian Gray says candidates vying for the 2016 GOP nomination face few risks and could reap substantial rewards by touting a green platform early in the primary. The key is to not get dragged into debates about climate science and to focus their message locally, according to the 27-page memo he prepared for the Environmental Defense Fund’s advocacy arm.
Gray, who also was a campaign aide for President George W. Bush, says most voters don’t expect to hear much from Republicans on the environment, so candidates can act early to address the issue and, as a result, get an early start also in appealing to the independents and young voters they will need to win a general election.
“Only a handful of GOP primary voters will base their vote on environmental positions. But even more will reward candidates that reach out [on] the issue,” Gray wrote in the memo for EDF Action. “Republicans see environmental issues as low priorities … but almost universally agree that they are important.”
But Republicans should generally avoid getting into the debate over the science behind climate change. And in fact, they should avoid the term in general, Gray says.
The term “climate change can be polarizing, even to GOP climate believers,” according to his memo, which suggests an alternative such as “global environmental issues.” At the same time, it is important for candidates not to “attack science,” the memo adds, pointing out that even climate skeptics are more receptive to arguments that the science is incomplete than that it is “junk” or a “hoax.”
Candidates should also avoid saying that “97 [percent] of scientists agree” that climate change is happening, Gray argued. “To Republicans, it sounds like North Korean election statistics. Avoid using,” his memo says.
The North Korea reference came from a moderate middle-aged Iowa Republican who participated in a focus group, Gray conducted. “It kind of caught my memory and stuck there ever since,” Gray told POLITICO.
Gray points to an “evidence paradox” in polling on climate change: Republicans believe the climate is changing, but are skeptical about the cause. Candidates should recommend voters listen to people they know and trust in an effort to localize the discussion, he recommends.
“Republicans are more likely to listen to their friends, family and neighbors,” the memo says. “The more local the voice, the better.”
Gray says his goal is to inoculate Republicans against charges that they are ignorant of science and to remove a potent political and fundraising weapon from Democrats’ playbook.
“They want to call everybody a [climate] denier because they’re donors expect them to … and preserve the political tool,” Gray said. “If we actually start working on solutions, they lose their political tool and fundraising tool in many ways.”
To be sure, Republicans should not be afraid to criticize the Obama administration’s sweeping climate proposals, Gray advises. But they should stress the importance of protecting the environment and consider outlining their own approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions as part of a broader energy plan that balances economic growth and environmental protection.
“Challenge solutions, but never challenge importance of our environment,” his memo states.
GOP should keep in mind that their party “generally supports stricter limitations on carbon emissions from power plants,” he says in the memo. “While they do not favor President Obama’s EPA rules, they are significantly more supportive of replacing them with Republican-passed limits.”
EDF Action is virtually alone among mainstream environmental groups in seeking to reward GOP candidates and policymakers who support green policies, and teaming up with Gray is part of its efforts to build relationships within the party.
The memo is based on focus groups with likely Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, along with publicly available data. Its release comes amid other efforts to green the GOP. That includes Sen. Lindsey Graham’s embrace of climate change in his long-shot presidential bid and Republican Jay Faison’s pledge to spend $175 million — including $40 million through 2016 — to get more Republicans committed to addressing climate change.
Gray suggested his evolving research will also include how GOP congressional candidates and officeholders can go greener. “We’re going to try to help Republicans across the board talk about these and help them feel like it’s safe to and politically advantageous to” have a green strategy, he said.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

(ACC Mentioned) ARA To Offer Two New Webinars

Jul 6, 2015 | AG Professional

The Agricultural Retailers Association will be offering two new webinars to agricultural retailers. The first webinar, "Moving Freight Rail Forward" will be held Tuesday, July 7 at 2 to 3 p.m. (ET).
Michael Meenan, Senior Director, Federal Affairs, American Chemistry Council will lead the webinar. Spring 2014 rail service disruptions of fertilizer shipments and other challenges facing agricultural producers, shippers, and manufacturers over the past several years have shown a clear need for an independent regulatory agency with the proper resources and regulatory structure to adequately address important rail transportation related issues.
Learn about industry efforts to hold the railroad industry accountable to shippers through reform of the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a bipartisan, independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within the U.S. Department of Transportation. Find out how you can help promote greater rail competition and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the STB. More information...
The next webinar, "What to Expect During a ResponsibleAg Assessment" will be held Thursday, August 13 at 2 to 3 p.m. (ET).
Brian Miller, Compliance Assurance Specialist, Agrium will lead the webinar.

Return to headline | Return to top
STB Should Make Decision on Rail Efforts To Handle Toxic Materials, Eighth Circuit Says

Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Mark Wolski

The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled July 2 that the Surface Transportation Board should determine whether requirements implemented by the Soo Line Railroad to better handle toxic materials are reasonable (Chlorine Inst. Inc. v. Soo Line R.R. , 8th Cir., No. 14-2346, 7/2/15).
The ruling, which affirmed a federal district court's ruling, means that it will be up to the STB to determine whether the railroad may require those shipping toxic inhalation hazard materials (TIH) via its lines to use normalized steel tank cars.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, in 2009 finalized extensive amendments to its regulations for transporting toxic inhalation hazard materials. The amendments explained the need to enhance the crashworthiness of railroad tank cars so as to withstand the force of high-speed derailments and collisions. The amendments detailed several high-profile train derailments involving TIH materials, including the Canadian Pacific derailment in Minot, N.D., in 2002. That derailment released anhydrous ammonia, killing one and seriously injuring 12 people (14 DEN A-9, 1/22/02).
While PHMSA initially called for tank cars to be replaced on an eight-year schedule, so that all would be puncture-resistant at speeds of up to 30 miles per hour, it eventually decided to ask rail companies to prioritize the phasing out of pre-1989 non-normalized steel cars.
Canadian Pacific, which owns the Soo Line, decided in April of 2014 to require TIH materials shipped on its lines to be shipped in normalized steel tank cars. It said the decision was made to improve rail safety and reduce the likelihood of a TIH spill in the event of a derailment. The Minot derailment was a factor in the company's decision.
The Chlorine Institute Inc. and several chemical companies sued the Soo Line under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. When a federal district court in Minnesota held that the issue of tank car requirements should be addressed by the Surface Transportation Board, the companies appealed, arguing that the Soo Line's expansion of regulations promulgated by the DOT was a legal question.
Authority to Review
The Eighth Circuit, in a decision written by Senior Judge Kermit E. Bye, wrote that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies to claims properly cognizable in the court that contain some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency (Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 268 (U.S. 1993) ). While the chemical companies claimed that the DOT was the exclusive jurisdiction for the materials and construction of tank cars carrying hazardous materials in commerce, the court noted that two of its sister courts have held that the Interstate Commerce Commission, the predecessor to the STB, has the authority to review requirements carriers impose that are beyond those promulgated by the DOT.
Citing Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 611 F.2d 1162, 1169 (6th Cir. 1979) , the court wrote that carriers may not refuse to carry materials that meet the DOT standards, but they may seek approval for their practices which are shown to be just and reasonable. Further, it wrote, the STB has supported carriers that impose additional requirements for transportation.
The court wrote that it recognized the appellants' argument that an STB decision could affect carrier uniformity, but it believed that argument was better addressed by the board. It wrote that the board was in a better position to address the issue of Canadian Pacific's requirement and whether it is reasonable.
The court added that a determination by the board would promote uniformity better than separate district courts examining the same issue and possibly reaching inconsistent resolutions.
The court also rejected the chemical companies' claim that the lower court was wrong to dismiss its lawsuit. Dismissal was appropriate, the court wrote, as the STB's resolution of the tank car requirement will likely dispose of the issue.
The Chlorine Institute said in a statement that it was disappointed in the ruling. The statement said PHMSA has the authority and responsibility to specify rail packaging. The ruling, it said, has the potential to undermine that authority.
The statement added that the institute is now examining its options to determine what its next step regarding the case will be.
Canadian Pacific officials were unavailable for comment.

Return to headline | Return to top
Technological Innovations -- And Challenges -- Will Be On Display At Hearing

Jul 7, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Sean Reilly

From the debut of self-driving cars to the spread of aerial drones, it's not exactly news that technology is transforming transportation. A Senate hearing this afternoon, however, will survey the topic with a theme in the form of a question: Is government keeping up?
For federal regulators, the implications are potentially far-reaching. "How technology integrates with our railroads, trucks, pipelines and ports will have a major impact on safety, efficiency and reliability," Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), chairwoman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security, said in a news release outlining the hearing's purpose. Witnesses will include representatives of the shipping, auto and rail industries, joined by an executive from one of the United States' busiest ports. The hearing, Fischer added, will be "an important opportunity ... to review how the federal government can better keep up with new technological developments."
The online release includes links to company videos that give some idea of specific points that could arise. BNSF Railway Co., for example, features its use of radar and automated sensors to monitor track conditions and prevent failures, while auto maker Volvo highlights its work on an early warning system that can prevent truck accidents. Next year, the Port of Long Beach, Calif., plans to open a container ship terminal that will make use of computer-guided driverless trucks and provide plug-in shore power to eliminate emissions from ships at berth.
Skeptics, however, might assert that there's still some distance to go before technological promise becomes everyday reality.
Volvo, for example, acknowledges that its anti-crash system won't be commercially available for five to 10 years, while sophisticated track inspection systems haven't yet eliminated potentially catastrophic derailments, including one last week by a CSX Corp. freight train in Tennessee (Greenwire, July 2).
And although majority Republicans want to use the hearing to examine how the government can spur innovation through the removal of unneeded legal and regulatory impediments, according to the release, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, the subpanel's top Democrat, has a different idea in mind. It is, Booker said, "to discuss ways innovative technologies can help the federal government strengthen the safety and efficiency of our transportation network."
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, July 7, at 1:30 p.m. in 253 Russell.
Witnesses: Susan Alt, senior vice president, public affairs, Volvo Group North America; Paul Misener, vice president of global public policy, Amazon.com Inc.; Gregory Fox, executive vice president, operations, BNSF Railway Co.; and Michael Christensen, senior executive lead, supply chain optimization, Port of Long Beach.

Return to headline | Return to top
Greens Plan Week Of Protests Against Oil Trains

Jul 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Environmental and safety groups are planning a week of protests against transporting crude oil by train, marking the second anniversary of a major oil train disaster in Canada.
The activists are asking regulators to crack down further on crude by rail and pushing local governments to ban such trains within their jurisdiction.“There is no safe way to transport extreme tar sands and Bakken crude,” environmental group ForestEthics said on a website promoting the protests across the United States and Canada.
“Two years after Lac-Mégantic, oil trains keep exploding and carbon pollution keeps rising,” the group said, referring to the Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, derailment and explosion that killed 47 people. “Oil trains are a disaster for our health, our safety, and our climate.”
ForestEthics and its allies said they are planning more than 100 events between July 6 and July 12 to call attention to oil train problems, following up on last year’s 63 events.
This year, the groups are paying special attention to environmental justice concerns, arguing that, since train tracks carrying crude oil are overwhelmingly in minority neighborhoods, those communities are most at risk.
“Exploding crude oil trains do not belong on the nation's rails, and 25 million Americans — most of them people of color — do not deserve to be living in a blast zone,” Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Dirty Fuels campaign, said in a statement.
“The Department of Transportation needs to take responsibility, and rather than put forward wholly inadequate rules that jeopardize the health and safety of communities along rail lines, the administration should ban bomb trains outright,” she said.
The Lac-Mégantic disaster is still front and center for environmental groups and regulators in both countries.
In May, regulators on both sides of the border announced plans to phase out the oldest oil train tankers within years, while tightening operational, braking and speed rules.
While the oil and freight rail industries have sued to stop some of the standards, environmentalists complain they do not go far enough.

Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below

Add recipients

Suggested