Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Best Stock to Invest in Chemicals Right Now: Dow Chemical Company
Jul 7, 2015 | The Motley Fool
By Neha Chamaria
Chemicals are everywhere in our world today, but the idea of investing in chemical companies probably sounds boring to most investors. -
EDF Action Fund Launches $500K Ad Push Ahead of Senate TSCA Action
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Defense Fund's advocacy arm is launching an advertising campaign today to thank six Democratic senators for their support of the group's preferred chemical safety bill. -
Poliquin Introducing Amendment Over Concerns of EPA Rules Hurting Maine Mills
Jul 7, 2015 | Centrail Maine
By Doug Harlow
Republican Congressman Bruce Poliquin of Maine is scheduled to introduce an amendment today in the U.S. House of Representatives that would eliminate what he and others say are negative impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules aimed at reducing air emissions from paper mills, including Sappi Fine Paper in Skowhegan. -
N.Y. Fracking Ban Ends 7-Year Review Process, But Opponents Prepare More Challenges
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) ban on large-scale hydraulic fracturing has finally ended a seven-year review period that drew hundreds of comments and ire from a sharply divided public. -
EPA Head Slams GOP Budget Cuts
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday castigated congressional Republicans for seeking to cut the agency’s budget, saying the cuts threaten core environmental protections. -
McCarthy on EPA Budget Cuts: Who You Gonna Call?
Jul 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
Opponents of EPA’s carbon rules, water jurisdiction and ozone proposal are putting at risk the EPA’s other activities that may be more popular with states and lawmakers, agency chief Gina McCarthy said today. -
Stopping EPA Uber Alles
Jul 7, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
The Supreme Court scolded the Environmental Protection Agency last week for bombing Dresden, albeit long after the bombs fell -
McCarthy 'Still Confident' Despite Mercury Ruling
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Last week's Supreme Court decision on U.S. EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will have no bearing on the future of the agency's flagship carbon rule, and may even be corrected through simple adjustments to the toxic emissions rule, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said this morning. -
Supreme Court Defeat Won't Hinder Climate Push, Says EPA Chief
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency remains confident on the legality of the Obama administration’s environmental agenda despite a Supreme Court ruling against a major EPA regulation. -
Inside the Fight Against Obama's Climate Plan
Jul 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Samuelsohn
President Barack Obama’s signature climate change rule is expected to land this summer, imposing the nation’s first-ever greenhouse gas limits on the electric utility industry— and Republicans and industry are already scrambling to kill it any way they can. -
Pro-Coal Law Set Stage for Clean Power Plan Pain in Rural Ariz.
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Many utility executives have concerns about U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, but few have Patrick Ledger's way with words. -
Bracewell & Giuliani's Holmstead Says SCOTUS Mercury Decision Bolsters Argument for Stay on Power Plan
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E TV
Last week the Supreme Court ruled U.S EPA should have considered compliance costs before issuing its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. -
D.C. Circuit Rejects State's Lawsuit Seeking More EPA PM2.5 'Increments'
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has dismissed North Carolina's lawsuit that sought to win more Clean Air Act pollution “increments” -- allowable fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions increases -- to ease industry's compliance with EPA PM2.5 limits, saying the state brought its challenge years too late. -
Administration Pledges To Seek NAS Input On Future Carbon 'Cost' Updates
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
The Obama administration is planning to seek input from the National Academies of Science (NAS) on future updates to its controversial social cost of carbon (SCC) figures used to calculate the benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, pledging an open process on any revisions that reflects "the best available science and economics." -
The Impact of a Rogue EPA
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Steve Forbes
With only nineteen months left in office, time is running out for President Obama to pursue his sweeping and destructive environmental goals. -
NRDC Hits Illinois Republican Over Climate Vote
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Natural Resources Defense Council on Tuesday became the latest environmental group to hit Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for his recent vote against a climate rule in the Senate. -
For Conservatives, it's the 'Right Time' to Discuss Climate Change
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
A panel of conservative policy analysts discussing the GOP's latent role in environmentalism agreed yesterday that the Republican Party is damaging itself by surrendering the issue of climate change to the Democratic Party. -
Obama Administration Unveils Solar Power Initiative; Sen. Inhofe Writes the EPA a Letter
Jul 7, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Steven Overly
The Obama administration will unveil executive actions and private sector commitments Tuesday aimed at making solar power more readily available in low-income areas, National Journal reports.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Best Stock to Invest in Chemicals Right Now: Dow Chemical Company
Jul 7, 2015 | The Motley Fool
By Neha Chamaria
Chemicals are everywhere in our world today, but the idea of investing in chemical companies probably sounds boring to most investors. However, just because it's boring doesn't mean investors can't make money, especially when the industry in question is also essential to the economy, like the U.S. chemical industry.
According to the American Chemistry Council, the U.S. chemical industry is worth more than $800 billion today and supports nearly 25% of the economy's GDP. Since chemicals are high-value-added products that form the basic raw material for most goods, more than 96% of the total goods manufactured in the U.S. are touched by chemicals in some way. Needless to say, companies that are involved in the chemicals business have high growth potential as the economy continues to grow over time, and hence present a great opportunity for long-term investors.
So, which chemical company is worth your money? While there are several players in the industry that deal in chemical products ranging from basic petrochemicals and plastics to fertilizers and paints, one company that stands out from the crowd is Dow Chemical (NYSE:DOW).
Strong growth catalysts
Dow Chemical is the leading chemical company in the U.S., but that's not why I consider it the best possible investment opportunity in the industry. The key to survival in a cyclical business lies in diversity and innovation. Dow Chemical scores high in both areas.Regarding diversity, here's a graphic that shows Dow's product portfolio and the share of each business in the company's total sales in 2014.
SOURCE: COMPANY PRESENTATION AT GOLDMAN SACHS HOUSTON CHEMICALS INTENSITY DAYS 2015
As you may have guessed by now, Dow's products serve several key sectors and industries, including energy, agriculture, water, electronics, construction, packaging, and automotive. It's this diversity that has largely helped the company deliver solid growth in its bottom line over the years.
DOW REVENUE (ANNUAL) DATA BY YCHARTS
Dow Chemical's latest quarter marked the 10th straight quarter when it reported higher operating earnings. The company now boasts an operating margin of 10% compared to just about 5% during the beginning of 2014. Dow's margins should expand further in the years to come, given its greater focus on high-margin products even as it sheds non-core operations. For perspective, Dow expects to generate divestiture proceeds worth nearly $11 billion by mid-next year versus its targeted $7 billion-$8.5 billion.
Dow Chemical's growth plans are equally impressive. ConsiderSadara -- the joint venture between Dow and Saudi Aramco -- that's setting up the world's largest petrochemical facility at a total cost of $20 billion. Fellow Fool Maxx Chatsko recently gave great insight into what the project means for Dow. It's exciting to know that 94% of Sadara construction is already complete, with production on track to come online this year. This huge project alone could turn out to be Dow's trump card in the years to come.
Shareholders can expect higher returns
SOURCE: COMPANY Q4 2014 EARNINGS PRESENTATION
Dow Chemical's expansion plans and efforts to streamline operations should give a big boost to its already strong balance sheet and shareholder returns. The company is flush with cash, holding nearly $5.6 billion in cash and equivalents as the end of 2014, and generating free cash flow worth nearly $3.4 billion over the past twelve months.
Shareholders are getting a good chunk of that money: Dow announced a fresh share repurchase program worth $5 billion after buying back shares worth $4.5 billion last year. That's not all. The company increased its quarterly dividend twice in 2014, more than doubling its annual dividend since 2009.
Foolish takeaway
For long term investors, Dow Chemical measures up: solid growth catalysts, great operational performance, strong balance sheet, and handsome shareholder returns. With shares trading at under 16 times earnings and the stock yielding 3.2%, I think Dow Chemical offers excellent value for long-term investors right now. As the company grows leaner and stronger, it should be able to weather slow-growth periods better and continue to expand its margins. For investors, that should be enough to put the stock on their radar. -
EDF Action Fund Launches $500K Ad Push Ahead of Senate TSCA Action
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Defense Fund's advocacy arm is launching an advertising campaign today to thank six Democratic senators for their support of the group's preferred chemical safety bill.
The television and print advertisements thank Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Chris Coons of Delaware and Tom Carper of Delaware "for keeping our families healthy."
EDF Action Fund is spending $500,000 on the ads, spokesman Jack Pratt said.
"This is an ordinary living room," the advertisement begins, before ominous music begins to play. "Unfortunately, there are thousands of chemicals hidden in furniture, clothing and cleaning products that have never been tested for health risks. Our nation's broken chemical law means the EPA is basically powerless to ban toxic chemicals."
Then the ad shifts to an upbeat tune, with the narrator noting that each senator "has joined with Democrats and Republicans to pass strong chemical safety reform. Under these reforms, the chemicals in the products you buy will be reviewed for safety, and dangerous toxins will be restricted."
The advertisements are running in markets in New Jersey, Delaware, New Mexico, Oregon and Rhode Island, the group said.
The ad buy comes as EDF is working to drum up support for the Senate's plan to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 ahead of a possible floor vote later this month. EDF has pushed for the Senate bill to be the preferred legislative vehicle for updating the 38-year-old chemicals law, but other advocacy groups have said strengthening a similar House bill -- H.R. 2576, or the "TSCA Modernization Act" -- could be a better path (Greenwire, June 26).
Several of the Democrats played key roles on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as the panel worked to iron out policy differences on S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," earlier this year.
Prior to a committee markup in April, Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker signed on to the bill as co-sponsors after winning a series of changes to the original proposal (E&E Daily, April 28).
Carper's office also worked behind the scenes to build consensus around the proposals (E&E Daily, April 14).
-
Poliquin Introducing Amendment Over Concerns of EPA Rules Hurting Maine Mills
Jul 7, 2015 | Centrail Maine
By Doug Harlow
Republican Congressman Bruce Poliquin of Maine is scheduled to introduce an amendment today in the U.S. House of Representatives that would eliminate what he and others say are negative impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules aimed at reducing air emissions from paper mills, including Sappi Fine Paper in Skowhegan.
The S.D. Warren Somerset mill on U.S. Route 201 would be required to spend millions of dollars to comply with new Environmental Protection Agency regulations without the amendment, according to Poliquin’s office. The amendment, which would kill funding for the EPA’s new Boiler MACT regulations, is scheduled to be introduced at 3 p.m. today.
If adopted, the amendment would be included in H.R. 2822 – Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.
Poliquin and Republican Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina described their concerns about new boiler regulations in a letter to last month to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. They said the rules could cause the Sappi paper mill in Skowhegan and a mill in South Carolina to spend millions of dollars to comply that could “otherwise be invested in efficiency, safety and job creation.”
Poliquin said that increasing costs forced three Maine mills to close last year, causing nearly 1,000 workers to lose their jobs.
“The success of the papermaking industry depends, in part, on fair, consistent and predictable environmental regulations administered by your agency,” the congressmen wrote in the letter to McCarthy.
At 6:30 p.m., the House will go into session and start a voting series which will include this bill.
-
N.Y. Fracking Ban Ends 7-Year Review Process, But Opponents Prepare More Challenges
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) ban on large-scale hydraulic fracturing has finally ended a seven-year review period that drew hundreds of comments and ire from a sharply divided public.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation now embarks on a 120-day review to examine whether the ban has any legal cavities. State law declared that the decision can no longer be challenged if a lawsuit isn't filed by Oct. 27.
"I think when this is challenged -- and it will certainly be challenged -- the courts will see that we were deliberative, that we explored every aspect of hydraulic fracturing inside and out, and certainly there was a progression of thought," said outgoing DEC Commissioner Joe Martens.
Brad Gill, executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York, an industry trade group, said he has had discussions with a possible challenger as recently as last week, and the person is already progressing toward a lawsuit.
"I am confident that there is at least one challenge that will be filed," Gill said. "It is from an entity that is not a member of IOGA of New York, but we are certainly cooperating with this person in his pursuit."
Attorneys for environmental and anti-fracking groups don't see any potential legal holes.
"I would never predict precisely what a court will do," said Deborah Goldberg, managing attorney for nonprofit Earthjustice. "Certainly, my assessment of it is the state has done a good job of defending its decision" (Jon Campbell, Binghamton [N.Y.] Press and Sun-Bulletin, July 5). -- KS
-
EPA Head Slams GOP Budget Cuts
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday castigated congressional Republicans for seeking to cut the agency’s budget, saying the cuts threaten core environmental protections.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said her agency has been trying to become more “lean,” including cutting a sixth of its workforce, but the GOP, which now controls both chambers of Congress, is going too far.
“Taking away our core budget doesn’t just impact the Clean Power Plan and problems of the future,” McCarthy told reporters, referring to the agency’s highly controversial proposed carbon dioxide limits for power plants.
“It definitely impacts our ability — which I think the general public has relied on — to protect their direct public health and the environment,” she said.
The House will vote this week on an appropriations bill for fiscal 2016 that would cut the EPA’s funding by 9 percent and block Obama administration priorities such as carbon rules and the expansion of federal jurisdiction over waterways.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has passed its own EPA spending bill that cuts the agency’s funding by nearly 7 percent and has many of the same policy provisions.
McCarthy said the proposed bills would eat into the agency’s ability to protect air and water from pollution.
“We’re not talking about worrying just about the problems of the future and the new ones today, but we’re talking about threats to clean air, clean water,” she said.
“States calling us all the time, congresspeople calling us all the time when there are challenges in their communities,” McCarthy continued. “Who are they going to call if it’s not EPA? Ghostbusters won’t answer the phone for this one.”
The White House cited similar concerns in a notice threatening to veto the House bill.
Republicans disagree and say that their changes are necessary to stop the Obama administration’s aggressive agenda.
“This administration has been hell-bent on implementing all sorts of regulations that are harmful to both our economy and our energy security,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said.
“Bill-wide, we have included several important policy provisions aimed to stop this sort of overzealous bureaucratic red tape.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the EPA’s budget, said their bill “pulls back on EPA’s regulatory overreach.”
-
McCarthy on EPA Budget Cuts: Who You Gonna Call?
Jul 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
Opponents of EPA’s carbon rules, water jurisdiction and ozone proposal are putting at risk the EPA’s other activities that may be more popular with states and lawmakers, agency chief Gina McCarthy said today.
Republicans’ spending bills that seek to block some the agency’s rules also cut into EPA’s “core function,” McCarthy told reporters after an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Cutting EPA’s budget hurts efforts to clean up Superfund sites and brownfields, and reduces the funding that goes to states for environmental projects, McCarthy said.
“So we’re not talking about worrying about just the problems of the future and new ones today, but we’re talking about threats to clean air [and] clean water,” she said. “States calling us all the time, Congress-people calling us all the time when there are challenges in their communities. Who are they gonna call, if it’s not EPA? Ghostbusters won’t answer the phone for this one.”
McCarthy hinted that the administration would begin talking more publicly soon about the effects of such budget cuts if Republicans’ spending bills move forward. The House is slated to pass its Interior-EPA appropriations bill, which slashes EPA’s budget by 9 percent, this week. The Senate’s version cuts EPA’s budget by nearly 7 percent. -
Jul 7, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
The Supreme Court scolded the Environmental Protection Agency last week for bombing Dresden, albeit long after the bombs fell. In 2011, the year the EPA proposed the anticarbon mercury rule that the Court has now ruled illegal, some 1,500 fossil-fuel-fired electric units were in operation. Only about 100 have not already closed or complied at a cost of billions of dollars.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is hoping to prevent a replay on the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan, which will demand another 30% carbon reduction, on average, from the states. The rule was proposed by the EPA in June 2014 and is expected to be final by the end of this summer. The challenge Mr. Pruitt filed last week is a test of whether the snail’s pace of the judicial process in response to new rules lends de facto immunity to whatever the EPA wants to do, even if the conclusion is another legal defeat that arrives too late to make a practical difference.
The EPA is counting on it. The agency knows that the Clean Power Plan’s precarious legal footing will be litigated for years, but it is trying to rush the rule out to make it a policy fait accompli before President Obama’s term expires. It also knows that the long lead time and investment decisions the plan compels—about power-plant retirements and upgrades, restructuring transmission lines, creating new green energy and efficiency subsidy programs—must begin today. Or better yet for the agency, yesterday.
Under traditional regulatory review, the appellate courts rarely put a stay on new EPA rules, even if states and utilities can show that they are causing irreparable and irreversible harm. The EPA is instructing Oklahoma to cut carbon emissions by 33% to meet an “interim goal” as soon as 2020, which means the state must begin spending despite the legal uncertainty.
So Mr. Pruitt is moving for a preliminary injunction against the Clean Power Plan. Under the 1958 Supreme Court precedent Leedom v. Kyne and a subsequent line of cases, the courts can use their powers to block federal-government actions “when an agency exceeds the scope of its delegated authority or violates a clear statutory mandate.” Plaintiffs must show that they are injured by judicial delay and that they are likely to succeed on the merits.
Leedom actions have been used to stop abuses from the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade Commission, and the EPA is a promising target. The agency’s unprecedented measures to restructure the U.S. energy economy under an obscure provision of the 1970s-era Clean Air Act have zero grounding in the text of the statute, much less Congress’s consent. Mr. Pruitt also argues that under the High Court’s federalism jurisprudence the EPA is unconstitutionally commandeering the sovereign states.
If Mr. Pruitt does succeed and obtain an injunction, the Clean Power Plan would be put on ice for the rest of Mr. Obama’s term, much as the Fifth Circuit blocked his executive immigration actions. More to the point, an injunction would rebuke an agency that thinks it is above the law.
-
McCarthy 'Still Confident' Despite Mercury Ruling
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Last week's Supreme Court decision on U.S. EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will have no bearing on the future of the agency's flagship carbon rule, and may even be corrected through simple adjustments to the toxic emissions rule, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said this morning.
McCarthy acknowledged that she was "disappointed" by the high court's decision eight days ago remanding the 2011 mercury rule back to a lower court on the grounds that EPA should have considered cost sooner in its rulemaking process.
But she said she is "still confident" that the mercury and air toxics rule will be implemented after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decides how the cost issue should be addressed -- an adjustment that she said could be "very simple."
"We have done a great job with the [MATS], and we will actually get the reductions in that rule, even though here is a little more work to be done," McCarthy said at an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Attempts by congressional Republicans and others to apply the ruling to EPA's Clean Power Plan are "comparing apples and oranges," she said.
"Last week's ruling will not affect our efforts," she said. EPA still plans to finalize its rules for power plant carbon this summer, she added.
EPA opponents have said in the week since the high court ruled that the decision should bolster calls for Congress or the courts to stay the upcoming carbon rule for existing power plants pending judicial review. Last week's decision came after the MATS rule was nearly implemented, in many cases through the retirement of coal-fired power plants opponents say caused considerable economic pain. A stay for the Clean Power Plan would prevent the same thing from happening as that rule undergoes its inevitable court challenges, they say.
But McCarthy noted that the Supreme Court's ruling was narrow and applied only to the part of the Clean Air Act that governs toxic emissions, not to the section EPA is using to promulgate carbon regulations.
And while the court found that EPA erred in not considering the MATS rule's $9.6 billion price tag before moving to regulate, McCarthy said the same was not true for the Clean Power Plan.
"As everyone knows, we were looking at cost and affordability for that from the get-go," she said.
McCarthy said she saw no evidence that last week's decision would spur states to "just say no" to implementing the Clean Power Plan on the hope that the courts might eventually vacate that rule. While she said she hasn't spoken to any governors about the ruling since it came down, McCarthy said EPA is fully prepared to defend the carbon rule and is moving ahead with a model federal plan that would be used in cases where a state plan is not in place.
She added that her agency is ready for litigation.
"We certainly know how to defend lawsuits, for crying out loud," she said. Asked whether she feared a future administration might undo or slow-walk the carbon rules, McCarthy said that would be difficult after the rule is final and has been defended in courts.
"And you will have to take regulatory action in order for this to be any different than how we have designed it," she said. "You cannot just simply decide 'I'm not implementing.'"
McCarthy spoke as the GOP-controlled Congress continues to take aim at the administration's Climate Action Plan and at President Obama's efforts to help lay the groundwork for an international agreement on climate change to be finalized in Paris this year. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow to assess whether the White House promise to cut carbon between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 is in fact possible under existing authority. The pledge is the core of the U.S. negotiating position for Paris, but some reports show the promised reductions exceed those that would be achieved with policies already in the pipeline.
McCarthy said the White House does not ask EPA to consider its international climate commitments when promulgating regulations for carbon, methane and other greenhouse gases.
"I am not designing the Clean Power Plan to get a particular level of reduction," she said.
But she said regulations and other actions are intended to be a "starting point." They will create a policy signal that will help spur industry reductions beyond what is currently forecast, she said.
"If you don't actually move off of the starting gate when you're in a marathon, you clearly will not win," she said.
-
Supreme Court Defeat Won't Hinder Climate Push, Says EPA Chief
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency remains confident on the legality of the Obama administration’s environmental agenda despite a Supreme Court ruling against a major EPA regulation.
Gina McCarthy on Tuesday characterized the June 29 ruling in Michigan v. EPA as “very narrow” and said it will have no bearing on the administration’s carbon dioxide rules for power plants or other regulations.
“EPA is still committed to finalizing the Clean Power Plan. So making a connection between the mercury and air toxics standards decision and the Clean Power Plan is comparing apples and oranges,” McCarthy said at an event hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.
“Last week’s ruling will not affect our efforts,” she said. “We are still on track to produce that plan this summer.”
The court, in a 5-4 decision, said that although the EPA considered the costs of its 2011 regulation limiting mercury and air toxics (MATS) emissions from power plants, it should have considered costs before even endeavoring on the regulatory process.
The decision did not overturn the MATS rule, which is still in effect while the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considers how to enforce the Supreme Court’s mandate.
McCarthy sought to dash the hopes of congressional Republicans, industry and others who read the ruling as a wide-ranging rebuke of President Obama’s EPA that would affect the carbon rules due out this summer, ozone pollution limits and other initiatives.
“The court seemed to go out of its way to narrow this decision, in so many ways,” McCarthy said. “They really made it just about this single provision that they said Congress told us really to treat this differently.”
Had the EPA considered costs earlier in the MATS process, it would have come to a similar conclusion as it did in the rule: up to $9.6 billion in industry compliance costs for up to $90 billion in health benefits and other positive results, she said.
McCarthy said she could not guess how the D.C. Circuit Court would proceed, but she is confident that the rule will continue to stand.
“The majority of power plants have already decided and invested in a path to achieving compliance with those mercury and air toxic standards,” she said. “So we are well on our way to delivering the toxic pollution reductions that people expected.”
-
Inside the Fight Against Obama's Climate Plan
Jul 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Samuelsohn
President Barack Obama’s signature climate change rule is expected to land this summer, imposing the nation’s first-ever greenhouse gas limits on the electric utility industry— and Republicans and industry are already scrambling to kill it any way they can.
A handful of governors have already pledged to ignore the rule, heeding the call of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for a state-by-state campaign of defiance. And House Republicans have inserted a controversial rider into the Environmental Protection Agency’s annual spending bill, due for a floor vote as soon as this week, which would cut off federal funding to implement the rule.
But it’s really the courts where EPA’s adversaries expect to notch their big win. Obama’s opponents think the agency is vastly overreaching by using the 1990 Clean Air Act as the legal basis for curbing carbon dioxide emissions, and plan to sue to block it. Ultimately, this is a debate that could go to the Supreme Court.
For a look at the strategy and expectations of Obama’s opponents, POLITICO senior policy reporter Darren Samuelsohn interviewed Jeff Holmstead, an energy industry attorney at Bracewell & Giuliani who ran EPA’s air office during President George W. Bush’s first term.
Holmstead explained some of the reasons that industry expects the so-called Clean Power Plan to be overturned – and why it will be fighting so hard to win a court stay even before then. He also described what a future Republican president might do instead on climate change, and why even business could get behind a new climate law that replaces the administration’s hodgepodge regulatory approach to fight global warming.
Darren Samuelsohn: You’ve been at EPA as it wraps up big rules. What’s happening at the agency right now as it finishes the Clean Power Plan?
Jeff Holmstead: They're probably still doing response to comments. This has been a very rushed process. I think there's just a lot of production work that's going on. The senior people, I would imagine, are still engaged in the interagency process. This is a presidential initiative but that doesn't mean that DOE and OMB don't have questions and comments. So, my guess is there's a lot of production going on at the staff level. There's also a lot of negotiations about language that are going on at more senior levels between EPA and other agencies.
DS: Do you think Obama himself is involved, given this is so central to his environmental legacy?
JH: I doubt he will be involved in the substance very much, but certainly we expect that he'll be involved in the announcement. He's made it such a big part of his agenda.
DS: What do you make of the Obama administration’s overall PR push on climate, from the president interviewing Sir David Attenborough to Gina McCarthy going on HBO to talk with Bill Maher?
JH: In my lifetime, we've never seen anything like this, where an EPA rules has gotten such a significant kind of public relations campaign that involves the president, that involves really everybody in his administration. It's really quite remarkable, and whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, you have to kind of admire them for the campaign that they've put together.
DS: Is this the biggest rule EPA has ever done?
JH: It depends how you count it. It may not be the most expensive. I mean, compared to the ozone rule, it may not be as expensive as that. It may not be as expensive as the MATS [mercury and air toxics] rule. But in terms of the ambition of the agency, to really fundamentally change the way that electricity is produced and used throughout the United States, it's really quite extraordinary.
DS: Opponents are trying to kill the EPA rules in many different ways, from lawsuits to budget riders. Which approach do you think will be most successful?
JH: I find it very hard to believe that the courts will ultimately uphold the rule, unless it changes a lot. We've only seen the proposal, but I think if you …had to choose one way to oppose the rule, you would say you'd do it in court, because it really is hard to see how the courts would uphold this.
DS: What did you take away from the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling last month in King v. Burwell as a signal of where the justices would go if they ultimately get to decide the legality of the Clean Power Plan?
JH: I don't think the court is going to give EPA deference in interpreting the scopes of its own powers. One thing we've learned from Burwell, that's probably something that the court will do on its own.
DS: Industry will certainly be trying to get the federal appeals court to immediately block implementation of the Clean Power Plan while the merits of the case are decided. How important is a winning a stay at that early stage?
JH: My impression is that there are a lot of people in the administration who understand that this is legally a stretch and may be struck down eventually. But the hope is--and I know this to be the case--that they really hope that one state starts down this path, once they start on their plans, that even if the rule is struck down, they'll continue down that path. I don't know how realistic that hope is, but I think that's one of the things that's motivating this whole thing. And that's one of the reasons why I think you have so many states and so many industry groups that are going to put a lot of effort into the stay. That's going to be a huge battle.
DS: What signals do you take away from the Supreme Court’s other recent decision, in Michigan v. EPA, which kicked the agency’s mercury regulation back down to the federal appeals court and told the agency it should have considered costs earlier in the rule writing process?
JH: I don't think it will affect in any way what EPA is doing….I do think it could have an impact on the way the court deals with [the Clean Power Plan], and in particular on the stay issue. I think it just seems really unfair to a lot of people that finally we understand that this rule is not legally--not validly promulgated, and yet you have…100 plants that have shut down, thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and companies have spent billions of dollars. I think that makes it easier for states and industry to go in and say, ‘Look, you have to stay the Clean Power Plan until the litigation is over, until we really see if this is really legally valid or not.’ I also think…you just have to say that it doesn't bode well for the EPA in the Supreme Court. Two years ago people were saying, ‘Well, EPA wins all these cases. The Supreme Court is going to defer to them.’ And now, we have two cases where that's not the case.
DS: Do you see Congress weighing in in the meantime?
JH: I've spent the last 25 years working on Clean Air Act issues and I can say with some confidence that the act doesn't work very well, if the goal is to get a level of environmental protection at the lowest possible cost. We're paying a lot more than we need to for the reductions that we're getting because there's so much underbrush here. People are starting to talk about another round of Clean Air Act reauthorization.
The one thing that I think could finally push Congress to reform the Clean Air Act is the ozone [standards], because depending on where they set it, you're going to have many, many parts of the country that are going to have a standard that they're not able to meet. If you're in a rural area and wherever you are in the West, you don't have sources in your area that you can regulate to meet the standard, and yet because of the way that the Clean Air Act works, you have a legal obligation to do something that you can't do.
DS: Given the state of U.S. climate politics, do you think this is an issue a future Republican administration would even tackle?
JH: I'm going to give you what I think the real answer is. …I think ultimately that's why the Clean Power Plan is so important, because I think we will get legislation eventually. If the Clean Power Plan is upheld, then the environmental community will have much more leverage in those debates, because the courts will have said, ‘Well, here is this aggressive mechanism that EPA can use not only to regulate power plants but regulate anybody else.’ And I think in some ways that may be the most important part of the Clean Power Plan.
On the other hand if, as I would expect, the Clean Power Plan is overturned in court, the environmentalists will no longer see the Clean Air Act as the way that they can get what they want and they will feel like they need to actually go to Congress and work on something.
And the other thing I would say is this: I mean, I don't pretend to know how it will ultimately play out, but today it is so hard for anyone to build anything new. And when you look at the way climate change is now being addressed under NEPA and the Endangered Species Act and maybe the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, I think there would be a lot of folks in the business community who would like to have a rational program that just replaced all of these other things that really were never designed to deal with the issue, but…the transactions costs of doing anything are so high that if there was a way to kind of wipe those away, to have something that was more sensible, that was more understandable--so, I think that there could eventually be some kind of legislation.
DS: There’s an argument that a Republican president could better handle this debate—akin to a ‘Nixon to China’ moment on energy and the environment.
JH: I don't know that you need a Republican to do it, but you do need a White House that is willing to get involved… not only in negotiating with the Democrats, but actually pushing back on their own constituency.
DS: What happens to the Clean Power Plan if a Republican wins the White House in 2016?
JH: Any Republican candidate that I can imagine would very quickly just rescind the Clean Power Plan. Even if you look at the statements from folks who are most sympathetic, every one of them agrees that this is an incredible overreach by an agency.
DS: Do you think a Republican president would revoke EPA’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases that is essentially the backbone of everything it’s doing on climate change?
JH: As a practical matter, I think that would be very hard to do. You can always exercise your discretion under a law to change something, but I don't think a Republican administration would do that. I think part of the problem is there's this scientific record that would be very hard to get around, and I don't think that's really necessary. …EPA could still do things to regulate CO2 emissions that would not be enormously disruptive or expensive and, oh, by the way, would be consistent with the law and what the Clean Air Act says. My guess is the Republican administration would probably pursue that instead of trying to revoke the endangerment finding.
DS: Post-Obama, will the climate debate have moved far enough in the direction of action that a Republican couldn’t ignore it once in office?
JH: Maybe that is true. I'm not sure the big debates are around the science, the big debates are around well, what is it that we should do... It's really a technology issue, and I think the only effective way to deal with climate change is to make sure we're investing in technologies that will give people what we get today from fossil fuels at a cost that's cost competitive.
If I were in charge of climate change policy in the government, I would certainly want to invest more in those kinds of technology breakthroughs. And we're seeing some encouraging things, but I think… if this is only about making people's energy more expensive, making it harder for people to have the things that they have today with fossil fuels, I think it's very hard to overcome human nature. But if there are technologies that can actually give us those same things without those CO2 issues and at a comparable cost, I think that's the only way we actually end up dealing with climate change.
-
Pro-Coal Law Set Stage for Clean Power Plan Pain in Rural Ariz.
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Many utility executives have concerns about U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, but few have Patrick Ledger's way with words.
"The people throughout rural Arizona that we serve will be screwed more than anybody else in the country," he said during an interview at the coal-burning Apache Generating Station that's run by a subsidiary of Ledger's Arizona Generation and Transmission Cooperatives (AZGT).
The power station with its aging gas plant and two 1970s-vintage coal plants towers over a valley of old ranches and new wineries in the state's southeastern corner. Operated by Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Inc., Apache generates 3 to 5 percent of the state's power and serves as the nexus of transmission lines serving the nonprofit utility's cooperatives in Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada.
One of the station's coal plants is set to switch to gas in 2018 so AZGT can comply with EPA's regulation for regional haze. But if the carbon rule forces the utility to shutter the other coal burner, it will trigger events that Ledger says would put his organization on the road to bankruptcy.
That, he said, would hurt rural customers, many of whom live on ranches or in mobile homes and already shell out a disproportionate share of their income for power to pump water for irrigation and cattle and to keep the lights on and air conditioners running at home.
"We do not provide power to wealthy people," Ledger said. "This is not an industrial powerhouse. This is their culture. This is their life. This is the way they live. But they can't handle big swings in cost."
Arizona's cooperatives serve people in areas that for-profit utilities dismissed long ago as too remote to be worth the investment in transmission. About 130,000 people live in Cochise County, for example, spread over more than 6,000 square miles, an area bigger than Connecticut.
The region has been losing population over the last few years due to vanishing jobs. There is a steady movement away from family farms and ranches and toward larger operations that can do more with less labor. Locals fear that more expensive power will further tip the scales in favor of big agribusinesses, forcing small farmers to find alternative sources of income or move.
Cynthia Zwick, executive director at the Arizona Community Action Association, which advocates for low-income ratepayers, said poverty is entrenched in these areas. Industries are few, and most jobs are in the agriculture or service industries that pay very little.
"Arizona was hit pretty hard by the Great Recession, generally," she said. "And the rural communities greater than urban areas, and are kind of coming back even more slowly than the rest of the state."
Meanwhile, energy costs in southern Arizona are high, in part because of poor housing stock -- mobile homes and cheaply built houses that hemorrhage cool air in summer.
It's not uncommon here for a family to spend 30 or 40 percent of its income on energy, she said, which "forces difficult choices."
Difficult choices also face Arizona on electricity. It must shoulder hefty responsibilities under EPA's power plant draft compared with other states.
The draft rule proposed by EPA last year would require Arizona to shed more than half its power-sector carbon emissions between 2012 and 2030. That's responsibility assigned to only two other states: Washington and South Carolina. But Washington can meet much of its obligation by shutting down its last remaining coal plant, and South Carolina would comply in large part by adding new nuclear power.
Arizona has one of the youngest coal fleets in the nation and planned to keep seven units running for the foreseeable future.
By requiring the Grand Canyon State to deliver almost 90 percent of its final Clean Power Plan reductions by the rule's interim compliance period -- slashing its utility-sector carbon output from a base line of 1,453 pounds per megawatt-hour to an average of 735 MWh between 2020 and 2029 -- EPA is mandating that Arizona become coal-free in 4½ years, state regulators and utility officials said.
"We don't think that we currently have the flexibility necessary to protect even a single coal unit moving forward," said Eric Massey, director of the air division at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.'We can't do this'
The Apache plant's operator -- Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, or AEPCO -- still owes about $300 million from plant upgrades and transmission infrastructure. The utility must service that debt even as it sorts out how to supply its customers going forward.
Tucson Electric Power, meanwhile, would have to scrap the two coal units it brought online at the Springerville Generating Station in 2005 and 2009, Massey said, and Salt River Project recently upgraded two units at Coronado Generating Station.
[+] AEPCO’s Apache Generating Station will convert one of its coal-fired power plants to natural gas in 2018. The nonprofit says the Clean Power Plan could push it into bankruptcy. Photos courtesy of AEPCO.
But while some of Arizona's investor-owned utilities might have the reserve funds and the extra load capacity to absorb stranded assets and still keep rates relatively flat, the same is not true for the state's electric cooperatives.
AEPCO is not diversified because it went "all in on coal" in the 1970s. If Apache's last coal-fired unit is converted to gas before it retires its debt, the cooperative will no longer be competitive, Ledger said.
Its rates will increase so sharply that the distribution cooperatives that use its power will likely decide to breach their contracts rather than pay the escalating costs, he said, pushing AEPCO into bankruptcy.
The irony, he said, is AEPCO is in this predicament in no small part because of past federal policies that favored coal over gas.
AEPCO's oldest plant is a gas unit built in the 1960s and used for peaking. When the cooperative was looking to expand its baseload capacity in the 1970s, it had planned to invest in more gas, but the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 severely hampered the ability of rural electric cooperatives to borrow money to finance gas plants.
AZGT CEO Patrick Ledger.
The Carter administration and Congress then favored coal-fired power plants as a hedge against volatile oil and gas markets. Provisions that restricted the use of gas were repealed in 1987 when natural gas demand and prices fell.
"A lot of people assume that co-ops are built on coal because they like coal," Ledger said. "That's really not it. It's really a historical artifact."
In the years that followed, federal policy has shifted from incentivizing coal use to discouraging it -- or at least requiring utilities to spend heavily to control pollution.
Apache's operators invested in two scrubbers to mitigate acid-rain-causing emissions and cut the station's mercury output by more than 90 percent. Earlier this year, EPA approved AEPCO's proposal to comply with its new regional haze rule by converting one of its two coal units to natural gas by 2018 and adding emissions controls to both units -- at cost to the co-op of $32 million.
"We've been able to get through every other environmental limitation," Ledger said. "We're going to struggle with regional haze, but we'll be OK."
What about the Clean Power Plan?
Ledger said: "We can't do this."Market forces
AEPCO has a few options for complying with the EPA rule.
None is good, the cooperative says.
AEPCO's ability to keep Apache running depends on whether it produces power below market prices at least some of the time.
The power station can do that with two coal-fired units, and can even sell electricity to the market at times and pass savings to co-op members. With one coal unit and one gas unit -- which won't operate efficiently because of their age -- some of that margin vanishes.
But by running both its units as gas plants, the utility's ability evaporates outside some times of peak demand. For baseload power, AEPCO would have to buy from combined-cycle natural gas plants and other, more efficient sources. That's a problem for rates, but also for reliability as all of its transmission infrastructure is built around Apache.
Upgrading and extending its transmission infrastructure to provide more flexibility would cost $72 million and take 10 years, AEPCO's Ledger estimates.
While Ledger paints a dire picture of how the carbon rule will play out in Arizona, some say it isn't quite a death march.
Edward Burgess, an analyst at Arizona State University, said state air regulators may be able to shield the strapped utility.
Arizona has made progress from the 2012 emissions base line that EPA used to set its target, Burgess said. The state can count reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from a spate of coal plant retirements announced since the draft was released last June, including Apache's regional haze plan and Arizona Public Service Co.'s plan to shutter a coal unit at its Cholla Power Plant and convert two others to gas.
Mobile home in Benson, Arizona. The areas served by AEPCO are rural, with a high percentage of lower income ratepayers.
EPA's stringent target for Arizona rests on the premise that the state can ramp up the gas plants it uses to provide peak power to displace its entire coal fleet -- an assumption utilities say is unrealistic.
But Burgess and environmentalists say EPA may have underestimated the state's renewable energy potential, factoring into Arizona's target an assumption that it will draw only 4 percent of its power from renewable sources in 2030. The state already has a 15-percent-by-2025 renewable energy standard for regulated utilities -- a target that advocates have urged the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) to increase to account for solar energy potential. And the state's 22-percent-by-2020 efficiency standard will deliver more demand-side efficiency than EPA looked for in 2020, and could be ramped up to help with its final target, advocates say.
Environmentalists also protest ACC's decision to agree to utilities' request for changes to net-metering rates for rooftop solar, a shift they say will dissuade homeowners from investing in photovoltaics and helping to bring down Arizona's power-sector emissions.
By counting reductions that have been made since 2012 and over-performing on efficiency and renewable energy, Arizona might be able to keep some coal capacity online through the rule's initial compliance period, Burgess said.
"It helps a little bit," the analyst said. "Arizona does have a pretty tough goal to meet, but some of those things that are in there may be able to at least delay or prevent certain coal units from having to be retired."
But the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's Massey said that while he expects Arizona could claim credit for the closure of the Cholla plant and the CO2 benefits of the regional haze plan, coal plants won't survive past 2020.
And Massey said the state's renewable energy and efficiency standards can't add flexibility because of the timeline EPA sets for reductions. Arizona must make the lion's share of its reductions during the interim compliance period that begins in 2020.
If Arizona relies on efficiency and renewables to meet its final target of 702 pounds per MWh by 2030, those projects and improvements won't be in place fast enough to satisfy the steep 2020 goal, he said. But if the state abandons its entire coal fleet early to meet the near-term standard and then builds out its renewable capacities, Arizona will end up with an emissions rate that is even lower than EPA envisions for it by 2030.
While an emissions rate in the neighborhood of 600 MWh may delight environmentalists, Massey said it would be a cripplingly expensive transition for a state that now draws roughly a third of its power each from coal, gas and nuclear.
"There's simply not enough available, affordable electricity in order to make that happen between now and 2030," he said.Ariz. won't 'just say no'
Arizona does plan to implement the rule, however, despite urgings from Republicans on Capitol Hill that states should refuse to comply.
"Arizona is not a 'just say no' state," Massey said. "Arizona's not there yet."
As some state legislatures have weighed bills modeled on proposals by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council aimed at making it harder for state regulators to write and enforce a state response to the Clean Power Plan, Arizona has gone the opposite way.
The Arizona Legislature voted in March to lift a prohibition that had barred the state from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, a policy originally intended to prevent Arizona from joining the Western Climate Initiative. Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed the bill -- which had been backed by utilities -- allowing ADEQ to comply with the federal climate policy.
"I don't know what their entire strategy is, but I do know that utilities worked very hard to get that bill through the Legislature this session to make sure that ADEQ actually had the authority to implement that plan," said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. "Otherwise, it would have been an automatic federal plan."
Arizona has extensive experience with federal implementation plans, or FIPs. EPA rejected its state plan for regional haze in 2013, triggering a federal plan that was much more stringent. AEPCO and a few other sources negotiated alternative compliance plans of their own, which led AEPCO to agree to convert one of Apache's coal units.
Arizona officials and utilities started advocating early and vigorously for a Clean Power Plan that the state could implement and that would force as few coal unit shutdowns as possible.
Utilities came up with a proposal backed by ADEQ and submitted to EPA that would grant a reprieve for all seven of the state's coal-fired power plants not currently slated for closure.
The proposal asks that EPA amend its rule to require the closure of plants no sooner than 40 years after they are brought online or by 2020, whichever is later. Units that have undergone a major retrofit to comply with prior rules -- such as Apache -- would be allowed to stay in operation 20 years after that upgrade goes into operation. The proposal would avoid stranded assets and would change targets for only a handful of states that, like Arizona, have a relatively young and efficient coal fleet.
It would also make the rule less ambitious, environmentalists note. Bahr said it was a bid by utilities to keep their coal units online and delivering profits.
But Massey said EPA was aware of the special problems facing Arizona and had communicated that ADEQ had a "compelling" case.
"I do think that EPA has had offline conversations with us where they made it clear they understood," he said.
Ledger said adjustments to the Clean Power Plan's interim compliance period would be a lifeline for AEPCO and would show that EPA was interested in writing an evenhanded rule that did not penalize some states while giving others a free pass.
Kentucky and Wyoming face the requirement to keep their emissions to 1,763 and 1,714 pounds per MWh, respectively, by the time the rule is fully implemented in 2030, a level that will allow them to retain the vast majority of their coal fleet. Kentucky regulators even hope to comply with the rule by claiming credit for reductions resulting from the already-planned conversion of a handful of coal plants to natural gas use (Greenwire, March 4).
Even the Navajo Generating Station -- which is about 450 miles away from Apache on tribal lands -- is exempted from the rule because it is not technically within the state of Arizona. But the plant provides power to the state through Arizona Public Service, Tucson Electric Power and Navajo Salt River Project, which AEPCO's Ledger said illustrates the "fiction this rule is built on."
"Why is it that the pain of this rule is not spread more equitably?" he asked.Getting political
AEPCO has backed the Arizona Utilities Group's proposal to EPA, but has separately joined 100 nonprofit power providers in asking the agency to remove municipal power companies and cooperatives from the state targets and treat them separately under the rule.
Their proposal would let some entities keep coal plants online as late as 2039.
Ledger, Massey and others emphasize that inadequate access to affordable power would provoke a humanitarian crisis in southern Arizona, where summer temperatures regularly soar above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Expensive energy rates might mean the poor or senior citizens don't turn on their air conditioners, they said.
Ledger, who was a registered Democrat until four years ago when he became an independent, said he found it ironic that the Obama administration, which championed universal health insurance, seemed to be pursuing a policy that jeopardizes the health of poor Arizonans.
"I am profoundly disappointed in the EPA and my government for not understanding the nuance of how this rule will affect certain businesses and certain people," he said.
He compared the Obama administration's "monomaniacal" belief in the structural integrity of its climate rule to the George W. Bush administration's conviction that the invasion of Iraq was justified.
"We're not right-wingers," Ledger said. "The reason in the last couple of years we've become so much more politicized is because we've had to be. We've been forced to be to try to stop a cataclysm. For us. For our people. We have to represent our people."
-
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E TV
Last week the Supreme Court ruled U.S EPA should have considered compliance costs before issuing its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Because utilities and coal companies have already implemented the technologies necessary to comply with the rule, how will industry operations be affected by the court's decision? During today's OnPoint, Jeff Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani and a former assistant administrator for air and radiation at U.S. EPA, discusses next steps for the MATS rule and explains why he believes the court's decision helps to strengthen the argument for a stay on the Clean Power Plan.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Jeff Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani and former assistant administrator for air and radiation at U.S. EPA. Jeff, thanks for coming back on the show.
Jeff Holmstead: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Jeff, last week the Supreme Court ruled EPA should have considered compliance costs before issuing its Mercury and Air Toxic Standards. The rule is already active and, in many cases, fully implemented, so what is the impact, then, of the court's ruling on the MATS rule?
Jeff Holmstead: I think it's fair to say that the rule has already done most of what it's going to do. Something like 90 percent or more of the capacity has installed controls or shut down, but there is maybe 100 plants that still have a future compliance date because they were able to get extensions, and I think the ruling could be important at least for those facilities.
Monica Trauzzi: So what does that then mean for the coal industry, for utilities and for those facilities that are still not in compliance?
Jeff Holmstead: Well, it depends a lot on what happens with the D.C. Circuit. As you know, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and then sent it back for further proceedings, and so the next step will be briefing over whether the rule should be vacated or suspended during the reconsideration.
Monica Trauzzi: Up until this point, the courts have said that unless the statute was specific about the consideration of cost, it was up to the discretion of the agency to decide when and where costs would be considered. Why do you think the court took a different approach with this case?
Jeff Holmstead: Well, I do think it's fair to say that this case establishes a new legal principle that unless Congress has told an agency that it shouldn't consider costs when making a specific regulatory decision, it has to somehow take cost into account. And I think that really is the only way to read the decision. Now, they said it doesn't necessarily have to be a formal benefit-cost analysis, but they do have to show somehow that the costs are justified, and I think that that is a principle that the Supreme Court has -- they edged toward that in the Riverkeeper case, but I think it now really does establish that for the first time.
Monica Trauzzi: Right, and EPA -- they did consider cost; it was just later in the process.
Jeff Holmstead: You know something? That's not really true. That defense was kind of invented during the litigation, but EPA conceded in the rulemaking itself that it really didn't consider cost except in deciding whether to go so-called beyond the floor. But in general, once EPA decided it was appropriate and necessary, it said, well, we have to do what Section 112 requires, so they set MAT floor levels for everyone, and that's where the real costs come in.
Monica Trauzzi: So the real question that legal experts have been looking at over the last week is what impact this ruling will have on subsequent Clean Air Act regulation, specifically the Clean Power Plan, which we're all awaiting, could -- the final plan could come out over the next couple of weeks. EPA says the ruling will not change its plans to move forward with the power plan. Costs have been considered by the agency in that plan in its draft proposal. What do you think the impacts should and could be on what the Clean Power Plan looks like?
Jeff Holmstead: Well, I think EPA has decided what it's going to do with the Clean Power Plan, so I don't think they will change their regulation. I think the case is really important because it will be front and center in the debate over whether the Clean Power Plan should be stayed during the litigation. So remember, in MATS, the rule wasn't stayed, and industry has now spent tens of billions of dollars, they've closed dozens and dozens of plants, they've put a lot of people out of work, all to comply with the rule that the court now says was invalid. And I think the states and industry groups who oppose the Clean Power Plan will have a pretty strong case for going in and saying look at this rule, there's a legally questionable, you shouldn't put us in that same position again. And so I do think this will be front and center when we have the first legal battle, which will be over whether the Clean Power Plan should be stayed.
Monica Trauzzi: And if there were to be a stay, then the Obama administration would sort of miss its deadline for having this fully implemented by the time the president leaves office.
Jeff Holmstead: Well, it was never going to be fully implemented by the time the president leaves office. They've had very aggressive deadlines, but even under those deadlines, much of it was going to be left to the next administration. But it would obviously be embarrassing, especially if it happens before they go to Paris. And I think that's a possibility if the court were to act very quickly.
Monica Trauzzi: Having worked at EPA, you have a good sense of what happens behind the scenes. What do you think the conversations at EPA are like right now following the court's ruling and heading towards the final Clean Power Plan?
Jeff Holmstead: Well, anyone who's ever worked at EPA will tell you that when they decided not to consider cost, that was a decision that they didn't take lightly. They took that decision because they thought that was the most legally defensible position. So now they're faced with, I think, a real quandary because how do they justify the $9.7 billion in costs under Section 112, and that's the section that EPA used to promulgate MATS. EPA is only authorized to regulate hazardous air pollutants, and yet, EPA says that 99.5 percent of the benefits of the MATS rule come from fine particle pollution, which is not a hazardous air pollutant. And so that puts EPA in a tricky position legally, and so they're going to have to decide whether they try to use fine particle pollution to justify these costs, knowing that that could be legally problematic as well. And then I think you're also maybe even covered this issue, but this whole question of whether Section 112 regulation precludes EPA from using 111(d), that has to be something that they're now looking at as well because I think that argument turns out to be much stronger than EPA acknowledged in its original proposal.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. There'll be a lot of interesting discussions, and it'll be an interesting summer for us.
Jeff Holmstead: I think it will.
Monica Trauzzi: Thanks for coming on the show.
Jeff Holmstead: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
D.C. Circuit Rejects State's Lawsuit Seeking More EPA PM2.5 'Increments'
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has dismissed North Carolina's lawsuit that sought to win more Clean Air Act pollution “increments” -- allowable fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions increases -- to ease industry's compliance with EPA PM2.5 limits, saying the state brought its challenge years too late.
In a three-page per curiam judgment issued July 7, the court says the state missed an initial Clean Air Act 60-day window to file a petition with the agency asking it to reconsider its rule from October 2010 establishing its approach to increments, as well as missing a 60-day air law window for filing suit over the final regulation. “Since the State failed to meet that deadline, we dismiss the petition as untimely,” says the court's decision.
The judgment, by Judges Thomas Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh and Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, therefore rejects the suit without assessing the merits of the state's attack on EPA's rule.
North Carolina had claimed that EPA erred in its choice of baseline years to determine increments. The issue is crucial for Clean Air Act prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting programs, because permit applicants must obtain sufficient increments to cover their planned projects' air pollution.
Increasing the amount of available increments would therefore make it easier for industry in the state to win permits required for industrial expansion. EPA in its 2010 rule set the baseline year as 2010, but North Carolina argues that EPA must revise the baseline year to 1975 because of the D.C. Circuit's 2013 ruling inNatural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, in which the court found PM2.5 is a subset of larger coarse particulate matter (PM10). The air law set 1975 as the baseline year for PM10, and the state cites the language in its lawsuit.
The state argued that as a result of the NRDC decision, EPA should reset the baseline year from 2010 to 1975, which would benefit the state and industries seeking PSD permits, because North Carolina has significantly reduced its emissions since the 1970s, so the available increments would be larger using the 1975 date.
But the D.C. Circuit's judgment in State of North Carolina v. EPA notes that North Carolina not only missed its filing deadline for challenging the 2010 rule by several years, it did not file its challenge until 10 months after the 2013 ruling in NRDC -- far too late for the court to be able to hear the suit.
'After-Arising Grounds'
North Carolina claimed the ruling in the NRDC litigation constituted the “after-arising grounds” necessary under the air law to file a legal challenge outside the normal filing window. However, the 60-day window for filing also applies to the after-arising event, the court notes, and the state missed that window.
The state argued that it was unable to file its suit immediately after the NRDC decision because an EPA official suggested the agency was reviewing the impact of the ruling and that consequent changes to the increment rule would take time -- yet the three-judge panel rejects this argument in its judgment.
“But the Clean Air Act does not toll filing deadlines for such niceties. The Increment Rule was in full effect and applicable to North Carolina when we handed down our decision in NRDC,” the judgment says.
The court further upholds EPA's denial of North Carolina's administrative petition for reconsideration of the 2010 rule, again because the state filed the petition outside of a 60-day filing window.
Environmental law firm Earthjustice, which represented groups backing EPA in the case, welcomed the ruling, saying in a July 7 statement, “We’re glad the Court rejected North Carolina’s attempt to undermine the public health protections the Clean Air Act guarantees every person living here. Soot kills, and EPA established solid protections against it. North Carolina’s efforts to put profits over people’s lungs rightly failed.”
The decision was not unexpected given the skepticism that judges expressed about the state's case at April 14 oral arguments. For example, Kavanaugh and Griffith both pressed attorney Brenda Menard, representing North Carolina, on the deadlines that the state missed to challenge EPA's 2010 rule.
Pending Litigation
Meanwhile, environmentalists have filed their final opening and reply briefs in another D.C. Circuit caseaddressing the fallout from the 2013 NRDC decision.
In WildEarth Guardians, et al. v. EPA, environmentalists are suing the agency over what they say is its refusal to implement the tougher “subpart 4” PM2.5 air law provisions in California. They ask the court to vacate a 2014 EPA “classifications” rule that sets compliance deadlines they say violate the air act.
California suffers from some of the worst PM2.5 pollution in the country, and environmental groups say that EPA has refused to reset its implementation requirements for the state in the wake of NRDC. The effect of such a reset would be to force tougher pollution controls on a faster schedule in two areas, the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast air district that encompasses metropolitan Los Angeles, environmentalists say.
EPA and the two California air districts affected say changing the requirements for these areas under the state implementation plan (SIP) -- the blueprint for how California will attain the PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) -- would serve no purpose. Air quality has improved dramatically and the districts are taking all practicable steps to attain the 1997 NAAQS and the tougher 2006 NAAQS, set at 35 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) over 24 hours and 15 ug/m3 annually, they claim.
Further, EPA and the air districts say that to change force a change in the SIP requirements now would be “impermissibly retroactive regulation.”
However, environmental groups in their July 6 final briefs again insist that they seek prospective enforcement of statutory provisions that EPA has no regulatory power to alter.
“EPA’s only justification is that to follow Subpart 4 as written would amount to unfair and illegal retroactive administrative action. But EPA’s claims have no legal or factual basis,” they say. “Subpart 4 has always governed the air planning obligations in areas violating the PM2.5 standards, and application of these requirements does not require any retroactive Agency action.”
-
Administration Pledges To Seek NAS Input On Future Carbon 'Cost' Updates
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
The Obama administration is planning to seek input from the National Academies of Science (NAS) on future updates to its controversial social cost of carbon (SCC) figures used to calculate the benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, pledging an open process on any revisions that reflects "the best available science and economics."
Despite its plans to seek scientific review for potential updates, the administration in a July 2 formal response to comments on a 2013 update to the SCC says it will continue requiring agencies to use the existing values in cost-benefit reviews for climate rules.
"We believe the current estimates continue to represent the best scientific information on the impacts of climate change available in a form appropriate for incorporating the damages from incremental CO2 emissions changes into regulatory analyses," the administration says in a document prepared by an interagency working group (IWG) composed of representatives from 11 agencies, including EPA.
An IWG first developed the SCC in 2010 to monetize the damages associated with an incremental increase in CO2 emissions, thereby quantifying the benefits of measures that control or limit CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). The administration in 2013 revised the estimates, raising the values in a given year by roughly 50 percent, to an average of $33 a ton in 2010 assuming a 3 percent discount rate, though the figures can run higher.
The values are important because they can be used to quantify the climate benefits of rules, helping them pass a cost-benefit test. For example, roughly half of the quantified benefits of EPA's climate rule for existing power plants are derived from the SCC, with the rest tied to health "co-benefits" from reducing ancillary conventional pollutants.
In its formal response, the administration addresses a host of critiques about the SCC, including industry arguments that the values are too uncertain to be used in rulemaking, should have focused on domestic instead of global damages and failed to include a 7 percent discount rate as specified by guidance from the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB).
The administration also responds to arguments from climate advocates, who say the current SCC values omit a wide range of damages related to climate change, and that the figures do not reflect damages from other more potent GHGs, such as methane.
On many of those issues, the administration notes that it plans to seek advice from the NAS "on opportunities to improve the estimates, including many of the approaches suggested by commenters."
SCC Estimates
OMB, in a blog post explaining the next steps, says the administration will ask NAS "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."
Additionally, the administration says that it has legal authority to issue the SCC estimates, while disagreeing with critics that the figures fall under the definition of a "rulemaking" that is subject to court review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
"The SCC estimates are not designed to implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy. Rather they are intended to provide guidance to agencies on a science-based methodology for estimating the benefits of CO2 reductions in regulatory impact analysis," the response says.
It adds that OMB has "long-established authority to oversee the regulatory process," and that "OMB determined that it was appropriate to exercise this authority through a consensus-based process involving a broad range of agencies that may issue rules affecting CO2 emissions."
The formal response, first reported by Greenwire, appears to address at least part of a recent call from several Senate Republicans, who had asked OMB to both respond to the comments and outline future plans for updating the SCC.
Republicans in both the House and Senate have also targeted the SCC in spending bills for EPA and other agencies, with a House bill seeking to block agencies from using the 2013 update to the figures unless a new IWG revises them.
In addition to addressing the wide range of critiques of the figures, the administration also offered two "minor technical corrections" to the SCC. One change stems from the fact that the IWG mistakenly left off one year in one of the three climate models used in the figures. Also, a second model offered damage estimates in 2008 dollars instead of 2007 dollars.
As a result, the average revised SCC estimates "are one dollar less than the mean SCC estimates reported in the November 2013" revision. The high-end estimates are "slightly larger," because those are heavily influenced by results from the PAGE climate model, the administration says.
Uncertain Variables
Among the industry criticisms of the SCC addressed in the response document is the argument that there are multiple highly uncertain variables that are used to craft the SCC, which renders the figure unfit for regulatory analysis.
But the administration argues that while there is uncertainty in the SCC, it "disagrees that the uncertainty is so great as to undermine use of the SCC estimates in regulatory impact analysis. . . . While uncertainty must be acknowledged and addressed in regulatory impact analyses, even an uncertain analysis provides useful information to decision makers and the public."
The document notes that if a range of estimates show the benefits of a policy consistently justify the costs, "this may increase confidence in the robustness of this conclusion."
Industry critics have also faulted the administration's decision to only include discount rates up to 5 percent, and not the 7 percent included in widely used guidance from the OMB. That move improperly inflates the values, critics charge.
But the response document says that "the use of 7 percent is not considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting," noting that the OMB guidance in Circular A-4 says "special ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across generations."
As such, a lower discount rate must be used to reflect the fact that "[f]uture citizens who are affected by such choices cannot take part in making them, and today's society must act with some consideration of their interest."
The administration also addresses critiques from environmentalists that the SCC values are too conservative. For example, it acknowledges concern that the models used to craft the figures do not consider a wide variety of climate-related damages.
The IWG accepted the models "as currently constituted," while pledging to update the figures as the models are enhanced with a better understanding of some impacts, such as sea level rise. Additionally, "some of the categories mentioned by commenters are currently speculative or cannot be incorporated into the damage function for lack of appropriate data."
-
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Steve Forbes
With only nineteen months left in office, time is running out for President Obama to pursue his sweeping and destructive environmental goals. But he is determined to make the most of this time. That’s why the White House continues to push an already eager EPA to enact as many restrictive and costly environmental regulations as possible. This agenda will have no positive impact on the earth’s climate, nor will it improve the quality of life for any of us. Unfortunately whatever the president is able to ramrod through during his final months in office will come at the expense of American workers and families.
Let’s take a look at three examples of these egregious regulations.
The White House is now promoting broad new EPA regulations that will bring virtually any body of water including rivers, streams, and even large puddles under federal control. A prairie pothole will be treated as if it were the mighty Mississippi. It’s a massive EPA power grab that will be hotly contested, as it will severely impact agriculture, home building, and energy industries with costly new environmental burdens.
The EPA is also set to issue the first-ever federal regulations on methane emissions this summer despite the fact that our nation’s energy producers are already working to minimize methane leaks/waste. As American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle said, “It would be like issuing regulations forcing ice cream makers to spill less ice cream.” Recent studies have shown that methane emissions are declining dramatically even as energy production has surged across the country. But why let facts deter power-grabbing bureaucrats?
Finally, this EPA will also complete its new ozone regulation even though roughly one third of the country is still working to meet existing ozone standards. Communities that don’t meet new, more stringent standards could face EPA fines, sanctions on federal transportation and infrastructure funds, and bureaucratic red tape that will only delay economic growth and development. The National Association of Manufacturers warns that the new ozone regulation will be the most expensive ever to come from Washington. Studies show that it will shrink gross domestic product by $140 billion and cost the average household $830 annually and place 1.4 million jobs at risk, especially those in the energy and manufacturing sectors.
Equally troubling are the heavy-handed, Obama-like tactics of some states to impose arbitrary environmental fines on businesses as a way to balance state budgets. North Carolina’s treatment of Duke Energy is a prime example. Duke Energy – one of the state’s largest employers – was hit with a $25 million dollar fine that wasn’t even associated with any specific environmental mishap. It is no secret that Duke Energy is working to remediate numerous coal ash storage sites around the state but to have the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources slap Duke with a $25 million dollar fine is both arbitrary and excessive.
North Carolina business leaders are worried about how the state may be driving new business investment away. The NC Chamber of Commerce recently wrote, “We worry that this approach by DENR discourages transparency, as opposed to working openly with businesses to correct problems. And if regulators are perceived as unpredictable will such a climate drive business out of North Carolina?”
Volvo just recently announced that it will build its new $500 million auto manufacturing plant near Ridgeville, South Carolina. North Carolina had fought hard for the Volvo plant but instead will watch as the new facility is built just across its border. North Carolina also failed to attract a new Boeing jet facility, now located in South Carolina as is a $500 million Daimler van manufacturing plant. Mercedes-Benz opted to locate their US headquarters in Atlanta and Toyota chose Plano over Charlotte for theirs.
It’s true that financial incentives offered by states play a large role in attracting new industry. This factor makes it all the more important that no North Carolina state department be seen as anti-business.
As the Obama administration works feverishly to expand the size and scope of the federal government and negatively impact the economy, it’s time on the state level for a commonsense approach to environmental stewardship, one that doesn’t sacrifice jobs or impose massive new costs on working families.
If we continue down a path of bigger government, costly regulations and unfair treatment of business, we could see our nation’s energy boom and a budding resurgence of U.S. manufacturing stall or collapse. Our nation is on the verge of a real energy and manufacturing renaissance if our state and federal elected leaders will only allow it to occur.
Forbes is chairman of Forbes Media Inc. and editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine.
-
NRDC Hits Illinois Republican Over Climate Vote
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Natural Resources Defense Council on Tuesday became the latest environmental group to hit Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for his recent vote against a climate rule in the Senate.
In June, Kirk voted against an amendment that would have allowed the Obama administration to implement the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate rule for power plants. The vote effectively blocked the rule in a Senate appropriations bill.
“This vote in the Senate was the critical point, at this time, whether senators support moving ahead or are going to try to block or undermine action, it was that simple,” NRDC government affairs Director David Goldston said. “Sen. Kirk knew that this was a critical vote, knew that people would be watching, and chose to vote the wrong way.”
The NRDC said it is launching a $1 million ad buy highlighting the vote and its impact on public health.
“Pollution from power plants is not only one of the leading causes of catastrophic climate change," the ad said. "It leads to childhood asthma attacks."
Kirk is one of the most vulnerable Republicans up for reelection in the 2016 cycle. Though he was once viewed favorably by green groups for his positions on climate issues, they’ve since lined upto knock him for his vote against the Clean Power Plan.
Besides the NRDC, the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have launched ads based around his June vote.
“Kirk’s vote is out of line with the issues he has historically championed in the past and are important to the people of Illinois he’s supposed to represent,” said Henry Henderson, the director of the NRDC’s Midwest Program.
Kirk campaign manager Kevin Artl said the senator has worked to "reduce carbon emissions, protect against air pollution and enact aggressive measures to protect our great lakes from polluters and oil spills."
"The recent partisan attack ads by D.C. special interest groups, the same groups that once praised Sen. Kirk’s work to protect the environment, are not only false but sickening, beyond the pale of reasonable discussion and should be taken down," he said.
This post was updated at 1:20 p.m.
-
For Conservatives, it's the 'Right Time' to Discuss Climate Change
Jul 7, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
A panel of conservative policy analysts discussing the GOP's latent role in environmentalism agreed yesterday that the Republican Party is damaging itself by surrendering the issue of climate change to the Democratic Party.
They also appeared united on the idea that man-made global warming is real. But the analysts were scattered about how to address it. Among the suggestions were a carbon tax, "climate engineering" and getting very rich to better adapt to rising temperatures.
Yuval Levin, founding editor of National Affairs, a conservative quarterly magazine, said that Republicans are advancing the political interests of Democrats by dismissing the relevance of climate change. The result is more federal regulations opposed by conservatives, he said.
"Environmentalism is actually very fertile territory" for Republicans, Levin said at event co-hosted by his magazine and the R Street Institute. He said the way that conservatives talk about climate change could be "no more helpful to the left."
The event held in the Rayburn House Office Building symbolized a growing, if small, discussion about how Republicans could reorient their positions to deal with rising temperatures and an increasing collection of scientific findings on the effects of greenhouse gases.
A key theme was how to differentiate conservative climate action from liberal efforts, like President Obama's regulatory regime known as the Clean Power Plan. Some of the speakers described those rules, which they see as expensive expansion of government, as a key motivator for acting more urgently on climate change.
Advertisement
Eli Lehrer, president of R Street and a proponent of revenue-neutral tax policies for carbon dioxide, suggested that he couldn't support a carbon tax if it doesn't eliminate the Clean Power Plan, currently being designed by U.S. EPA. That's true, he indicated, even if the plan eliminated the corporate income tax.
"Without pre-emption ... we shouldn't do it," Lehrer said of a carbon tax. But he noted that pre-emption is "quite realistic" because Democrats appear willing to the make the trade for a broader climate policy.Wrestling with pigs
But Oren Cass, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute who served as Mitt Romney's domestic policy adviser during the 2012 presidential campaign, said it's politically unlikely that the rules on power plants would be traded for politically tenuous tax policies on carbon. He said there is "no grand bargain to be had," and any debate on climate taxes would benefit the Democrats.
"Don't get in a mud wrestling match with a pig," he said, "because you'll get dirty and the pig will love it."
Cass has recently become a strong voice against taxing carbon. He calls it a trendy new policy for conservatives.
But the "fad" will wane, he argued in several publications this year, because its advertised revenue is from "fantasyland"; the tax won't result in domestic emission reduction goals, never mind global ones; and it won't spark new technologies by raising the price on coal, oil and natural gas.
Cass also says that a carbon tax could be viewed by the fossil fuel industry as permission to produce more carbon dioxide, since the cost will be passed down to consumers. On that point, Cass compares the energy tax to the late fees charged by day care facilities: Parents no longer feel guilty about being tardy to pick up their kids because they're compensating caregivers.
"For those serious about climate change, a carbon tax is not the answer," Cass wrote in the summer edition of National Affairs.
Jerry Taylor, who left the Cato Institute last year to open the Niskanen Center, a libertarian group promoting revenue-neutral tax policies for carbon, didn't speak last night. But his group took aim at Cass' conclusions before the event in a pre-emptive move that might reflect Taylor's accomplishments as a designer of World War II board games.Battling over a carbon tax
David Bailey and David Bookbinder, fellows with Niskanen, criticized Cass for overstating the effect that supporters say a carbon tax would have on temperatures. A $20 tax isn't sufficient to lower temperatures, the authors said in a blog post, but it's a necessary step toward an international effort that could.
They also took aim at Cass' argument that a carbon tax wouldn't spur breakthrough innovations. Cass said rising electricity prices hasn't sparked those advances, so it's unlikely a new tax would. But Bailey and Bookbinder argue that it's already happening. Higher-priced transportation fuel in Europe has helped result in carbon emission levels that are 46 percent lower than U.S. levels, they said.
"Oren Cass's essay suggests that, for some conservatives, there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- they hate worse than taxes," Bailey and Bookbinder say.
Yesterday's event produced more than just passionate responses to carbon policies. It was sometimes met with jest.
Before it began, one audience member in a pinstripe suit poked fun at the idea of global warming by suggesting it caused another attendee's broken arm by heating the ocean and giving life to Godzilla.
The speakers, though, suggested that it's those types of dismissive attitudes toward environmental challenges that are hurting Republicans.
"I felt that we were not on the right side of it," Peter Wehner, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said of climate change.
Now is the "right time" for conservatives to begin offering their solutions to the issue, he said, noting that lawmakers who say they don't know enough about the science are exposing themselves to criticism. "They pass education bills and they're not teachers," Wehner said. "They pass agriculture bills and they're not farmers."
-
Obama Administration Unveils Solar Power Initiative; Sen. Inhofe Writes the EPA a Letter
Jul 7, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Steven Overly
The Obama administration will unveil executive actions and private sector commitments Tuesday aimed at making solar power more readily available in low-income areas, National Journal reports. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will provide affordable housing organizations with technical expertise on solar power installation as part of the program. The administration has also pledged to install 300 megawatts of renewable energy in federally subsidized housing. Once considered a luxury of the very wealthy, solar panels have come down in cost in recent years due to cheaper technology and better financing models.
Sign up for The Daily 202, The Washington Post’s new political tipsheet
A LETTER FROM INHOFE. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has written a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corp of Engineers asking for the scientific rationale behind the agency’s recent move to regulate more of the nation’s waterways, The Hill writes. “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 wrote. “Instead, we found documents that make it clear that the final rule is even broader than the agencies admit.” The rule defines which waterways the EPA may regulate if they are at risk of being polluted, and critics have called the rule overly broad and say it usurps power from state and local governments.
DUELING ENERGY PACKAGES. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are in the process of crafting separate energy proposals, a move that would undoubtedly complicate efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement, E&E Publishing reports. Democrats are planning to introduce legislation in the coming weeks that would likely extend renewable energy tax credits, among other initiatives, according to a spokeswoman for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). Meanwhile, Chairwoman Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is looking to move her own package through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.Steven Overly is a national reporter covering federal technology and energy policy with a focus on Capitol Hill. He previously covered the business of technology, biotechnology and venture capital.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested