Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Blog) Spray Polyurethane Foam Showcased in Top Designs of Competition for Energy-Efficient Homes
Jul 14, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) offers a unique set of benefits that can help homeowners lower energy costs* and strengthen the home’s structure while achieving energy efficiency goals and reducing greenhouse gas emissions – and many future homebuilders recognize it! http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/07/spray-polyurethane-foam-showcased-in-top-designs-of-competition-for-energy-efficient-homes/ -
Democrats Push for Speedy Action on Senate TSCA Bill
Jul 14, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Democratic supporters of the Senate Udall-Vitter TSCA reform bill (697) sought to ratchet up pressure on the Senate leadership to take up the measure for a floor vote, even as its staunch opponent Senator Barbara Boxer made another pitch for the chamber to adopt the House-passed measure (HR 2576) instead. -
Walmart Takes Important First Step on Disclosing Product Ingredients
Jul 14, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Imagine you’re standing in the shopping aisle looking for a new brand of lotion that won’t irritate your baby’s skin. You find yourself surveying at least a dozen different lotion labels trying to understand and compare product ingredients. -
4 Reasons Why BPA-Free Plastics Can Still Harm Your Health
Jul 14, 2015 | One Green Planet
A walk through the baby aisle of any pharmacy will reveal a sea of products shouting “BPA-free” on their packaging. -
Calif. to Study Risks of Crumb Rubber in Playgrounds, Fields
Jul 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
California will spend $2.9 million to study the health effects of recycled tires in artificial turf fields, all while giving out millions of dollars in subsidies to schools and cities to install playgrounds and fields with the substance under scrutiny. -
GOP Chairman: Feds Dropped the Ball in Calif. Oil Spill
Jul 14, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee blamed the outcome of the California oil spill two months ago on the Obama administration for missing regulatory deadlines. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Faces Budget Cuts Under House Bill
Jul 13, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
The House of Representatives was expected to pass a spending bill (H.R. 2822) late last week that would trim EPA’s budget by about 9%, or $718 million less than its current funding level. -
Another CAP Alum Joins Obama's Environmental Shop
Jul 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A former Center for American Progress staffer has become the latest veteran of the liberal think tank to join the White House's environmental shop. -
Power Plant Emissions Decline Ahead of New Climate Rules
Jul 14, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Carbon dioxide emissions from America’s power plants are declining even as the economy is improving, a new report out Tuesday said. -
Regulators Study a 'Trade-Ready' CO2 Emissions Trading System That Would Not Require State Legislative Approval
Jul 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
As the final rollout of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan gets closer, a growing number of analysts and state officials are rallying around the idea of "trade-ready" multi-state compliance plans as the best way to meet the rule's ambitious carbon-reduction goals. -
GOP Subpoenas Obama Regulatory Officials on Water Rule
Jul 14, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House Republicans moved Tuesday to force the Obama administration to disclose certain documents related to the development of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) major water jurisdiction rule. -
Iran Deal Adds New Pressure to Lift U.S. Oil Export Ban
Jul 14, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The pact that will curtail Iran’s nuclear program and lift the economic sanctions stands to trigger a new swoon in global oil markets — and provide fresh fodder for U.S. oil companies and their Washington supporters who are pushing to scrap the decades-old ban on U.S. crude exports. -
U.S. Crude Export Backers Seize on Iran Deal
Jul 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Supporters of ending federal restrictions on U.S. crude exports are stepping up pressure to reverse the ban in the wake of today's historic agreement that paves the way for Iran to resume unfettered shipments of its own oil in exchange for curbs on its nuclear ambitions. -
Have Faith in the Shale Gale
Jul 14, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Kathleen Hartnett White
Repeal of the export ban on crude oil grows in national urgency each day that goes by. The recent fall in oil prices again spawns bleak forecasts of bust for the shale boom, but consider a monumental change underway.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
Jul 14, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) offers a unique set of benefits that can help homeowners lower energy costs* and strengthen the home’s structure while achieving energy efficiency goals and reducing greenhouse gas emissions – and many future homebuilders recognize it!
SPF was recently featured in a competition for graduate and undergraduate students, along with faculty advisers, to design a high-performance, energy-efficient home that can offset the majority – if not all – of its annual energy consumption. SPF’s versatility and effectiveness was showcased throughout the competition this year as four of the five grand winner finalists incorporated SPF in their designs to combat air leakage and prevent heat transfer.
The Department of Energy’s Race to Zero Student Design Competition hopes to inspire and develop the next generation of building science professionals through advancing building science curriculum in universities. The American Chemistry Council’s Spray Foam Coalition was a sponsor of this year’s Race to Zero Student Design Competition, which is based on a real-world scenario where competitors must update an existing home design into a high-performance design or develop a new high-performance home design for mainstream builders.
Justin Koscher, director of the Spray Foam Coalition, notes that spray polyurethane foam (SPF) is an excellent fit for net zero energy homes because it can help increase overall energy efficiency, provide cost savings on heating and cooling bills, and help decrease the level of greenhouse gas emissions entering our environment from traditional sources of energy.
Timothy Spencer and Zoe Kaufman, co-leads of the Three Rivers Design team from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Ehsan Kamel, a member of Heritage Homes design team from Penn State University in State College, Pennsylvania, spoke about the benefits of SPF in their designs.
When deciding on the type of insulation material the team should use, Timothy and Zoe said their team decided on SPF as an air sealing material and Ehsan’s team chose two spray polyurethane foams as part of its insulation plan.
Ehsan said that SPF “would create an air-tight seal in any gaps or penetrations in building enclosure.” Ehsan continued, “After analyzing the durability, air tightness and R-Value of spray foam we realized that it is necessary to include both open and closed cell foams alongside other materials. Each provided benefits to optimize the insulation of the home while providing a balance between cost of materials and the energy efficiency of materials.”
When asked his thoughts on spray polyurethane foam Timothy said, “Air sealing is among the most cost effective ways to save energy. In our design, spray foam was key to sealing the home.”
When asked if the competition served as a learning experience in building energy efficient homes and buildings, all three participants answered the competition did provide such a learning experience. They said the competition allowed them to experiment with different forms of energy efficiency.
By the end of the competition, the Three Rivers House Design team and Heritage Homes design team had produced high-performance, energy efficient designs that would be able to be replicated using SPF.
Zoe added, “Tightening a building should be at the top of anyone’s list. It is the most cost-effective energy efficiency strategy and can be applied to both new and renovated buildings. Spray foam is an effective method for achieving this.”
*Savings vary. Find out why in the seller’s fact sheet on R-values. Higher R-values mean greater insulating power.
-
Democrats Push for Speedy Action on Senate TSCA Bill
Jul 14, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Democratic supporters of the Senate Udall-Vitter TSCA reform bill (697) sought to ratchet up pressure on the Senate leadership to take up the measure for a floor vote, even as its staunch opponent Senator Barbara Boxer made another pitch for the chamber to adopt the House-passed measure (HR 2576) instead.
The Senate's taking up HR 2576 with a few additional changes is “the best approach for meaningful TSCA reform,” Ms Boxer (D-California) said last week, as she endorsed the position taken by 57 health and environmental groups represented by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition. “I agree with the coalition that the House bill 'is clearer and more concise the would be more appropriate to use as the vehicle for changes as the process moves forward,” she added. In advocating the House bill, Ms Boxer had said previously that if S 697 is taken up instead, she expects a “long, drawn-out process” and would object “at every opportunity because it is convoluted and will lead straight to the court house door” (CW 30 June 2015).
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the coalition said, however, that if the Senate does pass its own bill, “we recommend that the House bill be the base text for negotiations to reconcile the two.” Ms Boxer did not say if she supported such an approach.
But Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), co-author of S 697 rejected that approach. He told Chemical Watch that the House bill “lacks key provisions in the Senate bill to protect …. families across the country from dangerous chemicals.” Besides, the Obama administration has concerns with implementing the House bill, he added.
In a statement to Chemical Watch, Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana), said he is confident the Senate would “soon pass” the Udall-Vitter bill, which now has 46 sponsors, nearly half of them Democrats. “The momentum to reform our nation's broken chemical safety law is reaching a crucial point, and we are on the cusp of passing bipartisan, bicameral supported environmental legislation for the first time in decades.”
Meanwhile, in a bid to put pressure on the Senate leadership to take up S 697, Mr Udall and 13 of his Democratic colleagues wrote to Mr McConnell and Mr Reid, urging them take up the bill for floor consideration “as soon as possible.”
While both the House and Senate measures are designed to address flaws in TSCA, “we feel that in several respects and overall, S. 697 is a stronger and more comprehensive approach to TSCA reform,” they said. The lawmakers said they also had a number of concerns with the House approach, including:it creates a “virtually unlimited pathway for “chemicals favoured by industry, rather than substances that pose the greatest risk to public health, to dominate the risk evaluation and regulatory process”;the measure does not provide for collecting user fees from industry to cover even a portion of the costs for the EPA to make safety assessments;it does not fix the “flaws” in the EPA's new chemicals programme;it does not change current law, which has no limitations or incentives to reduce animal testing. Under the Senate bill, animal testing is “limited where scientifically reliable alternatives exist”; andHR 2576 does not mandate the EPA to review past or future confidential business information claims made by industry to “determine validity and appropriateness of the claims.”
“We believe it is very possible to resolve all these matters in a bipartisan, bicameral way, given the two bills' similar goals and the sincere interests of representatives and senators to work together for the goof the entire country,” the senators wrote.
The full House passed HR 2576 by an overwhelming 398-1 vote last month (CW 24 June 2015), while the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee approved the S 697) in April (CW 29 April 2015).
-
Walmart Takes Important First Step on Disclosing Product Ingredients
Jul 14, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Imagine you’re standing in the shopping aisle looking for a new brand of lotion that won’t irritate your baby’s skin. You find yourself surveying at least a dozen different lotion labels trying to understand and compare product ingredients. The process is frustrating and slow, not to mention confusing—what are some of these things even used for? You’re ready to pull your hair out!
You are not alone. Inadequate access to ingredient information has long been a systemic problem. Fortunately, the situation is improving. In the past few years, more and more companies have taken action to make product information more transparent to consumers, including, importantly, the sharing of ingredients online. Walmart has recently joined the ranks of these companies.
As outlined in its Sustainable Chemistry Policy (Policy), Walmart has started to list the ingredients contained within each of its private label consumable products— personal care and household products that you use up, such as aftershave, baby lotions, cleaners, or pet shampoo— on walmart.com. Walmart’s Policy also asks national brand suppliers, like Procter and Gamble, Revlon, and Pro-Sense, to disclose product ingredient information on their own websites.
Sharing lists of ingredients on Walmart’s website is an important offering for customers. Greater online access to product composition makes it easier to find out what’s in products and to compare ingredients across products so that customers can ultimately make more informed purchasing decisions. This is an especially big deal for cleaning products. If you’ve ever tried to figure out what’s inside a cleaning product while in the store, you know how difficult it can be to find any information about the formula—that’s because, for the most part,ingredients are not required to be disclosed on the packaging of cleaning products!
Available now on Walmart’s website are a list of ingredients for each of the private label products covered by the Policy. See for example, “Ingredients” listed under “About this item” for a bottle of Equate body wash. According to Walmart’s policy implementation guide, product ingredients are to be listed in descending order of concentration using a standard naming convention called INCI (International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients). This standard naming convention is already in use by many product manufacturers and creates consistency that allows for easier identification and comparison of ingredients across products. In this first round of disclosures, not all of Walmart’s product listings are yet in conformance with the implementation guide; we encourage the retailer to continue to build and improve upon this important first step.
Here are a few noteworthy examples of industry leadership in this space (though this blog is not meant to be a comprehensive review of all ingredient disclosure practices):Full disclosure: Certain companies like 7th Generation and Beauty Counter are committed to full ingredient transparency: every ingredient, including fragrances, is disclosed on the product package and on the product page online.Description of function: SC Johnson, Clorox, Earth Friendly, Seventh Generation, Colgate, and Reckitt Benckiser are among companies that describe online an ingredient’s function, or purpose for being in the product, e.g., preservative, fragrance. For example, clicking on any ingredient listed here for a Clorox® all-purpose cleaner generates a dropdown description of what it does. Disclosure of function can help you identify and compare ingredients that serve the same purpose in different products.Accessible information: A handful of companies like SC Johnson, Clorox, and Reckitt Benckiser also provide ingredient information in multiple languages (see a SC Johnson example here and a Clorox example here).Visual presentation: Providing information online shouldn’t stop with simply listing ingredients somewhere on a product webpage. It is important that information be readily apparent to the consumer. SC Johnson is a top performer in terms of visual presentation and accessibility of ingredient information (see here).
Product ingredient transparency is becoming standard practice in the marketplace, which is good news for the growing population of those of us interested in knowing what’s inside the products we buy and use every day. The decision of what products to buy and what products to avoid is one of the very important ways consumers have power to act on their ingredient preferences. Easy access empowers informed action.
The benefits of disclosure extend far beyond shopping lists however. Businesses that commit to consumers on ingredient disclosure increase the shared marketplace knowledge of safer chemicals available for use in products and the remaining opportunities for ingredient innovation.
To learn more about what EDF believes reflects best business practice for ingredient disclosure, please visit EDF’s rules for online disclosure.
-
4 Reasons Why BPA-Free Plastics Can Still Harm Your Health
Jul 14, 2015 | One Green Planet
A walk through the baby aisle of any pharmacy will reveal a sea of products shouting “BPA-free” on their packaging.
Bisphenol-A — better known as BPA — is an industrial chemical that’s used in many household plastics and food packages. Capable of interfering with the body’s hormones, particularly estrogen, scientists have linked BPA exposure to diseases like cancer and diabetes.
With these hazards, the logical solution seemingly would be to shop BPA-free. Unfortunately, it’s not really a solution.
So, what’s wrong with BPA-free?1. BPA is in More Products Than You Think
BPA is so pervasive it’s practically unavoidable. In 2012 the FDA banned it from baby bottles and sippy cups— but it remains used in many other ways, like canned food, water bottles and receipt paper.2. When BPA is Removed, it’s Often Replaced With a Similarly Dangerous Chemical
This is known as “regrettable substitution,” and there’s no one charged with ensuring replacements are any safer.3. Regrettable Substitution is a Problem Not Just for BPA, but Thousands of Chemicals
So even if you do manage to limit BPA exposure, you still may be exposed to other chemical hazards, including carcinogens and neurotoxins.4. Federal Laws Regulating Everyday Chemicals are Weak and Outdated
The main law that’s meant to protect us from harm, the Toxic Substances Control Act, is nearly 40 years old and ineffective. Unlike prescription drugs, companies can sell and use chemicals without showing they’re safe.What Can You Do?
“We have to press the government to require that this chemical and all chemicals we use around our homes are shown to be safe,” says Sarah Vogel, EDF’s Health Director. “Federal action is the only way we can solve this large-scale problem.”
By making sure lawmakers are hearing loud and clear that we support strong reforms of our chemical safety laws, we can bring about change for the better. Join more than 105,000 EDF members who have voiced their support for safer chemicals in household products. By signing up, you can be part of the solution. Click here to add your name to the list!
-
Calif. to Study Risks of Crumb Rubber in Playgrounds, Fields
Jul 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
California will spend $2.9 million to study the health effects of recycled tires in artificial turf fields, all while giving out millions of dollars in subsidies to schools and cities to install playgrounds and fields with the substance under scrutiny.
"I think it's irresponsible," said state Sen. Jerry Hill (D), who wrote legislation that would have stopped the grant program while the state conducts the study. The bill fell victim to heavy lobbying by the tire recycling industry and labor groups.
Known as crumb rubber, the recycled tire substance is used in playgrounds and sports surfaces nationwide as mats to cushion falls, shredded "mulch" to replace wood bark and surface layers on artificial turf to improve traction. Crumb rubber has been shown to contain toxic substances such as arsenic, cadmium and lead, but a 2009 U.S. EPA study found the substance posed a "low level of concern" to people exposed to it (E&ENews PM, Dec. 10, 2009).
Environmental and health advocates argue the limited scope of the EPA study and others means more research is needed, and a University of Washington assistant soccer coach made waves last year when she released a list of 153 athletes who had played primarily on artificial turf and later developed cancer.
The research will be conducted by CalRecycle, a state agency that promotes recycling (Melody Gutierrez, Los Angeles Times, July 12). -- BTP
-
GOP Chairman: Feds Dropped the Ball in Calif. Oil Spill
Jul 14, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee blamed the outcome of the California oil spill two months ago on the Obama administration for missing regulatory deadlines.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said that had the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) implemented rules from a 2011 law when it should have, the spill on Santa Barbara County’s coast would have been different.
“Some of these provisions, I am convinced, would have made a difference in the recent oil spill in Santa Barbara, had they been implemented by PHMSA in a timely manner,” Upton said at a Tuesday hearing on pipeline safety.
Upton’s blame came as part of a bipartisan tongue-lashing of PHMSA’s acting chief, in which lawmakers accused the agency of delaying many of the high-priority regulatory actions that Congress called for in the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011.
“The Pipeline Safety Act will not achieve its primary objectives until it is fully implemented, and I’m most disappointed that more than a third of the requirements remain incomplete, long after congressional mandated deadlines have passed,” Upton said.
Upton’s Democratic counterpart joined in.
“I am deeply concerned about PHMSA’s inability to carry out its mission, numerous safety recommendations or Congressional mandates,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). “Almost five years after the last reauthorization, it is especially troubling how many mandates that have yet to be implemented by the agency.”
The Santa Barbara County spill happened at a Plains All American pipeline, which broke and caused hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil to leak onto a beach and into the Pacific Ocean, harming wildlife, tourism and the environment.
That incident, along with a Monday spill at an Illinois pipeline owned by the same company, provided an urgent backdrop to Tuesday’s hearing.
“I recognize progress that has been made in recent years, but we still have a long way to go,” said Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who represents the area where the spill happened. “While PHMSA has certainly dragged its feet in implementing key reforms, Congress has also failed to provide the agency with the resources it needs to meet the growing demand.”
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs the subcommittee hosting the hearing, said PHMSA’s implementation of the law “has not been satisfactory. Many of the mandates — at least 17 out of 42 included in the Pipeline Safety Act — have not been completed, including several described as key mandates with potentially large impacts on pipeline operations nationwide.”
Many lawmakers were prepared to blame the White House Office of Management and Budget for the delays, and discussed bringing in current or former officials from that agency, which reviews every major regulations from PHMSA and other agencies.
PHMSA was created just over a decade ago, and is part of the Department of Transportation.
Stacy Cummings, PHMSA’s acting head, recognized the lawmakers’ anger and said her agency is working urgently on the actions called for in the law.
“I speak for the entire agency when I say that I share your concern and your sense of urgency,” she said. “We are committed to satisfying every mandate.”
In the last month, PHMSA has proposed two rules mandated under the law and made a third final.
But she also wouldn’t confirm Upton’s assertion that either the spills in California or Illinois could have been prevented or mitigated by regulations from the law.
“Because those two investigations are going on, I don’t think I can presuppose what the cause was,” she said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Faces Budget Cuts Under House Bill
Jul 13, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
The House of Representatives was expected to pass a spending bill (H.R. 2822) late last week that would trim EPA’s budget by about 9%, or $718 million less than its current funding level. The legislation would stop EPA’s plan to regulate carbon emissions from new and existing power plants, halt its waters of the U.S. rule aimed at protecting wetlands and waterways, and set back an effort to tighten the air quality standard for ground-level ozone. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade association, urged the House to pass the bill. “EPA’s plan makes little sense when ozone concentrations are falling, manufacturers are expanding, and the new production is cleaner and state-of-the-art,” ACC said. The White House has warned that President Barack Obama will not sign any spending bill that adheres to across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a spending bill in June that would cut EPA’s budget by about $538.8 million below the current funding level for fiscal 2016.
-
Another CAP Alum Joins Obama's Environmental Shop
Jul 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A former Center for American Progress staffer has become the latest veteran of the liberal think tank to join the White House's environmental shop.
Noreen Nielsen is the new spokeswoman at the Council on Environmental Quality, the White House office charged with coordinating energy and environmental initiatives across the federal government. Nielsen joined the staff last month to work for CEQ's acting chairwoman and fellow CAP alumna Christy Goldfuss.
Prior to the White House post, Nielsen spent more than five years working in communications jobs at CAP and at the group's independent advocacy arm, the CAP Action Fund. Her positions included vice president of communications and advocacy for the action fund, CAP's "energy war room" director, and energy communications director.
Several other high-profile environmental staffers have joined the Obama administration after working at CAP. Brian Deese, Obama's senior adviser on energy and environmental issues, also worked at the think tank. And CAP's founder, John Podesta, left his post as the president's chief environmental adviser earlier this year to work on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign (Greenwire, April 7).
CEQ's former spokeswoman, Taryn Tuss, left the post after five years at CEQ to do some independent communications consulting and spend more time with her young daughter, she said in an email. Tuss was previously a reporter at E&E Publishing.
The White House environmental office also has a new chief of staff: Chris Adamo started in the position last week. Adamo was a longtime staff director for the Senate Agriculture Committee under ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) before joining the Obama administration (Greenwire, June 15).
-
Power Plant Emissions Decline Ahead of New Climate Rules
Jul 14, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Carbon dioxide emissions from America’s power plants are declining even as the economy is improving, a new report out Tuesday said.
Emissions fell by 12 percent from 2008 to 2013, according to a report from sustainability group Ceres. Carbon emissions are still significantly higher than they have been historically, but they are trending downward around the United States, and those reductions came even as the economy grew after the recession.
The findings are important because of the correlation between carbon emissions and the health of the economy: the two have traditionally grown together. But according to Ceres, power plan carbon emissions have been flat for about two years.
The study comes as the Obama administration finalizes its Clean Power Plan, a new and wide-reaching climate rule for power plants with the goal of reducing carbon emissions from the sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Though the report shows overall emissions are declining, Ceres said progress toward lower-emission energy is uneven geographically and across power producers, something that necessitates the Clean Power Plan.
“To level the playing field for all utilities, and achieve the broader CO2 emissions cuts needed to combat climate change, we need final adoption of the Clean Power Plan,” Ceres president Mindy Lubber said in a statement.
Ceres said power plants reduced emissions in part due to a decline in overall electricity demand, but also because of coal plant retirements, pollution controls at power plants and low natural gas prices.
“The nation’s power plants remain the largest source of carbon pollution and we can’t wait any longer to stem this growing danger to our health and economy,” said David Hawkins, director of Climate Programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“The good news is that America’s utilities are on a path to achieve the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and its major carbon pollution reductions. We need it now to secure cleaner energy, better health and a safer future.”
Other power plant emissions are down as well, according to the report. Emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides have declined by about 75 percent from 1990 levels, and mercury emissions are down by 50 percent since 2000. All three contribute to health problems.
-
Jul 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
As the final rollout of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan gets closer, a growing number of analysts and state officials are rallying around the idea of "trade-ready" multi-state compliance plans as the best way to meet the rule's ambitious carbon-reduction goals.
In this "trade-ready" approach, states adhere to similar greenhouse gas accounting and allowance standards, so that their electricity-generators can buy and sell those carbon allowances on the same market. This, advocates say, creates the pricing and reliability benefits of a regional or national market, without the political challenge of getting an entire region's worth of state legislatures to agree on the same complicated implementation plan.
At the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' summer committee meetings in New York City yesterday, analysts and commissioners argued that these networks wouldn't need formal multi-state agreements or compacts to go into effect.
Michael Schnitzer, director of the NorthBridge Group, said that states would simply need to take three specific steps: Elect to measure their power sector's carbon footprints through a mass-based approach, create an implementation plan stating that all power plants' carbon dioxide would need to be covered by the purchase of "qualifying allowances," and include language in that plan that "authorizes buying and selling of qualifying and tracked allowances with entities in other states that have similarly qualified mass-based plans."
"Those are all unilateral elections of a state," Schnitzer continued. "This doesn't require memorandums of agreements or formal arrangements of any sort" -- arrangements that in Republican-controlled states may be difficult to approve -- "it basically rests on a collection of states who each individually elect this platform."
The idea is that with multiple states "plugging into" the same trading network, some semblance of a national carbon-trading market would be formed. Schnitzer and others argued that this approach would bring down the cost of compliance and lead to a smoother, more reliable energy dispatch system.
Advertisement
Kate Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center, said EPA could play a role in getting these trading initiatives rolling by setting base-line criteria for what states would need to swap allowances with each other.
"Once approved to be in that system, your regulated parties are given to buy and sell allowances from others in any other state that's also approved to be in that system," Zyla said. One advantage to that type of optional multi-state approach, she said, is that "you don't have to worry about who you're working with, who you're partnering with. You don't have to worry about whether someone else joins or leaves" the market.
A group of environmental and energy regulators in the Midwest has been exploring these sorts of options for the past year. "Because the draft rule came out and the final rule has not come out, we had months where the pressure of a final rule was not imposed on us," said Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioner Nancy Lange.
"I've asked a number of people, what do you say is trading-ready? What do you think needs to be in place to have a trading-ready plan? A tracking system. We need to have common measurements. We need to have a plan that isn't going to 'leak,'" said Lange, "and integrity that each emitted ton is covered by an allowance."Some Western states disagree
Not every commissioner at NARUC was so bullish about states banding together to trade carbon credits and allowances.
"If your target's outrageous," said Wyoming Public Service Commission Chairman Al Minier, referring to the individual carbon-reduction goals EPA is assigning states, "Converting it to a mass-base still means you've got an outrageous target. ... If the targets are wrong, this doesn't solve it."
Montana Public Service Commissioner Travis Kavulla rejected the notion that states will flock to a regional solution, arguing that provincial political and economic considerations provide momentum for state-specific approaches.
"It's really not about just building renewables or just reducing carbon dioxide. It's about bringing home the bacon," Kavulla said. While spreading rule compliance over a multi-state footprint may lead to lower energy costs, he argued, it could move the necessary renewable construction projects, weatherization efforts and other job-heavy compliance methods to other states.
Kavulla called this instinct the "111(d)-as-jobs plan" approach, referring to the section of the Clean Air Act under which the regulations would be enacted. "Are they more likely to cede to an efficient market ... or will they take the approach of central planning? One says, 'Let's build the Governor Hickenlooper wind farm, or the Governor Jerry Brown wave energy facility'?"
Schnitzer drew a laugh when he responded to Kavulla's scenario, saying the choices governors face "aren't quite that binary."
"Participation in this kind of voluntary mass-based plan is not mutually exclusive with state programs that might want to promote a particular type of technology or renewables," Schnitzer said. "You need look no further than the RGGI states to find that to be the case. There is a price on carbon today in the RGGI states. Many of them have renewable portfolio energy standards on top of that, in addition to that. Energy efficiency programs and the like."
While Schnitzer, Zyla and other analysts have insisted that multi-state compliance doesn't need to be a formal arrangement like what the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has put together, the nine-state coalition continues to be studied as an example of what the Clean Power Plan could look like.Will RGGI be used as the multi-state model?
In that light, a new report from the Analysis Group highlights RGGI as an example of how states can use carbon pricing to meet emissions goals without harming their economies.
The Analysis Group wanted to "test the idea that controlling emissions of CO2 will somehow lead to negative consequences from the perspectives of state economic growth and jobs," according to the report.
In its last three full years -- 2012, 2013 and 2014 -- the RGGI program generated $1.3 billion in economic value (or $31 per person) for the nine-state region, while decreasing revenues to the owners of certain power plants, the Analysis Group said.
In its lifetime, from 2009 through 2014, RGGI generated a total of $2.9 billion, the study found.
The Analysis Group said electricity prices for consumers decreased over that period, even though costs were going up for generators that had to buy allowances.
"Although CO2 allowances tend to raise electricity prices in the near term, there is also a lowering of prices over time primarily because the states invest so much of the allowance proceeds on energy efficiency programs," the report said.
Electricity consumers saved $341 million, and natural gas and heating oil consumers saved $118 million, according to the study.
States working together to reduce emissions under the Clean Power Plan face a host of obstacles -- particularly coordinating despite differing policy objectives.
The Analysis Group says RGGI states are politically diverse and have wide-ranging energy profiles but nonetheless "successfully navigated the complications that can arise from efforts to coordinate regulatory and policy objectives across state lines."
-
GOP Subpoenas Obama Regulatory Officials on Water Rule
Jul 14, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House Republicans moved Tuesday to force the Obama administration to disclose certain documents related to the development of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) major water jurisdiction rule.
The House Oversight Committee sent a subpoena on the rule to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which is responsible for reviewing all major federal regulations before they are issued.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) alleged in his subpoena that OIRA and its chief, Howard Shelanski, are illegally withholding from Congress documents that lawmakers have requested since a March hearing.
The EPA made the highly controversial rule final in May, asserting federal control for pollution purposes over minor waterways like wetlands and streams. Republicans charge that it gives the EPA power over the vast majority of land in the United States.
“The proposed regulation is highly controversial and Congress has a right to know how it was developed,” Chaffetz wrote in the subpoena, along with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the panel’s government operations subcommittee.
“The documents and communications that the committee requested will advance our understanding of the review process and the factors that OIRA considered during that process,” they said.
At a March hearing, Meadows pressed Shelanski to disclose all communications between the agency and the EPA on the rule. But Shelanski declined to hand over staff-level communications within his agency, saying that they are part of a “deliberative process” and Congress is not entitled to that information.
Meadows and Chaffetz have since repeatedly asked for that information, and Shelanski and his staff have refused, the committee said.
On the Senate side of Capitol Hill Tuesday, lawmakers sought other information from the Obama administration on the water rule.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, asked the EPA to send the committee its legal justification for the regulation.
“I have been waiting for over four months for a legal justification of EPA’s redefinition of ‘waters of the United States,' ” Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who chairs the subpanel with water oversight and signed onto Inhofe’s letter, said in a statement.
“Having reviewed the final rule, the reason for the delay is apparent — the final rule cannot be justified,” he said.
The House has passed a bill to overturn the water rule, and the Senate is working on a bill to for the EPA to go back to the drawing board on it.
Separately, more than two dozen states and numerous business groups have filed lawsuitschallenging the rule.
-
Iran Deal Adds New Pressure to Lift U.S. Oil Export Ban
Jul 14, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The pact that will curtail Iran’s nuclear program and lift the economic sanctions stands to trigger a new swoon in global oil markets — and provide fresh fodder for U.S. oil companies and their Washington supporters who are pushing to scrap the decades-old ban on U.S. crude exports.
Crude oil prices tumbled about $1 per barrel after the deal was announced, briefly sending prices to their lowest level in three months, as the market anticipated an increase in the glut of crude that has already cut the prices for oil by about half in the past year.
Although the sanctions on Iran won’t be lifted until Tehran meets the terms of Tuesday’s deal, the OPEC member could begin to ship hundreds of thousands of new barrels of oil per day onto the global market within months, with more poised to follow as the country revives fields that had suffered under the international financial restrictions.
That’s likely to add to new supplies to an already weak global oil market — and provide a fresh opening for proponents of U.S. exports to make their case on Capitol Hill, just as Congress begins crafting what many expect to be a resolution of disapproval of the deal.
Backers of unconstrained overseas crude sales have compared the 1970s-era ban to self-imposed sanctions on a U.S. oil and gas industry that has turned the country into one of the largest energy producers in the world in recent years.
In the U.S. Senate, that push on the export ban has been led by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has argued for lifting the restrictions for more than a year and has been steadily building support among her colleagues to remove the ban, though they haven’t yet found an easy legislative avenue to end it.
Now, Murkowski and other U.S. crude export supporters have ample opportunity to assert themselves throughout Congress’ 60-day period that gives them to review the Iranian deal, giving the Senate until September to weigh in.
Murkowski “will continue to make the case for ending the outdated ban on domestic crude oil exports and highlight the inconsistency in the current debate about lifting the sanctions on Iran while leaving prohibitions on U.S. producers in place,” her spokesman Robert Dillon said yesterday, though he added that her position on the Iranian nuclear deal would not be conditional on changes in U.S. energy policy.
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday morning the Iran deal had added a sense of urgency to easing the U.S. oil export ban.
“This bad deal with Iran increases the importance of lifting the oil export ban at the federal level,” Scalise told POLITICO, pointing to a “serious disparity” between Iran’s potential to resume unrestricted oil shipments within months and the constraints on U.S. crude producers. “It’s time for Congress to address it,” he added.
Energy market experts said the Iranian deal that would lift the Iranian sanctions would generate momentum for ending the U.S. export ban, since it provided a fresh argument to the industry’s projections that allowing U.S. to sell oil on the global market would set off a new wave of growth in the sector that generated tens of thousands of jobs in the past decade.
“What this means in terms of foreign policy may actually provide additional incentives. Especially if, as we see, the oil price will come down a bit,” said Jamie Webster, senior director at the energy analysis giant IHS, ahead of the deal announced Tuesday.
Among Murkowski’s allies in the export debate are Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who co-wrote an April op-ed with her and Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) that called for “American companies to compete with Russian and Iranian energy” to heighten geopolitical leverage against Tehran and Moscow.
Whether Corker or Republicans in the House opt to address energy politics in any resolution they craft to weigh in on the nuclear deal remains to be seen, but a resolution of disapproval could offer an opening for oil export proponents to make their case — even if the language is non-binding and the vehicle faces a veto from President Barack Obama.
The U.S. oil industry has ramped up its monthslong exports campaign recent and continues to promote the sale of domestic crude to Asia and Europe as a national-security asset, an effort that showed signs of intensifying with the new Iran pact.
“Once these sanctions are removed, the U.S. will be the only major oil producing country in the world that has restrictions on the export of domestically produced crude oil,” said executive director George Baker, executive director for the group Producers for American Crude Oil Exports. “The consequences of this voluntary, self-imposed restriction places American companies at a significant competitive disadvantage and threatens workers, government revenues, and the United States’ relationship with our international trading partners.”
Whether or not lawmakers seek a resolution to go on record about a U.S. policy response to eased sanctions on Iranian oil sales, Wall Street is likely to react to the nuclear deal before fuel markets technically feel its impact. With Saudi Arabia already doubling down on plans to keep OPEC production high, pressuring U.S. oil producers to react first to lower prices, even expectations of the deal have rattled the markets.
“In the short term, you’ll see the price drop dramatically even without Iran doing anything” to bring new oil online, said Robbie Diamond, CEO of the nonprofit Securing America’s Future Energy. “Because the expectation is they’re about to add more supply into an already oversupplied market.”
While a resurgence of new production would likely take months after any easing of sanctions, Iran reportedly has as much as 30 million to 40 million barrels of crude in storage, although it’s not likely to dump all that oil into the market quickly because of concerns about driving prices too low.
And some energy experts predicted that Iran’s ability to add the more than 1 million barrels per day of production that it lost under the sanctions may take longer than many in the market have predicted, since it will take heavy investments to rehabilitate its fields.
”My pessimism probably puts me in the minority camp of analysts, but I remain of the view that Iran’s near-term new production will be more in the area of 300,000 — 500,000 barrels per day absent real, sustained, external investment,” wrote Richard Nephew, a former State Department official who is now the program director for Economic Statecraft, Sanctions and Energy Markets at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
-
U.S. Crude Export Backers Seize on Iran Deal
Jul 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Supporters of ending federal restrictions on U.S. crude exports are stepping up pressure to reverse the ban in the wake of today's historic agreement that paves the way for Iran to resume unfettered shipments of its own oil in exchange for curbs on its nuclear ambitions.
A coalition of oil and gas producers wasted no time in calling for President Obama and Congress to chip away at the long-standing ban, arguing today's deal leaves American companies at a disadvantage.
"Now that the United States government has secured a deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program, which puts in place a process that will allow Iran to freely sell oil on the world market, we urge President Obama and Congress to use their authority and allow U.S. oil producers to access that same global market," Producers for American Crude Oil Exports Executive Director George Baker said in a statement.
"Once these sanctions are removed, the U.S. will be the only major oil producing country in the world that has restrictions on the export of domestically produced crude oil," he added. "The consequences of this voluntary, self-imposed restriction places American companies at a significant competitive disadvantage and threatens workers, government revenues, and the United States' relationship with our international trading partners."
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) for months has used the specter of additional Iranian oil supplies on world markets to argue for ending the ban, which she's likened to sanctions on U.S. producers that hinder domestic energy security.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America made the same point.
Advertisement
"As soon as Iran is permitted to export its surplus oil on the world market, why can't we allow our own companies to do the same with their American-made surplus of crude oil?" asked IPAA President Barry Russell in a statement.
"Any deal that lifts sanctions on Iranian oil will disadvantage American companies unless we lift the antiquated ban on our own oil exports," she said last month. "The impending deal with Iran is at the center of the nexus between national security and energy policy."
Earlier today, Murkowski and other key Republican senators highlighted the geopolitical impacts of the domestic oil boom in a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (E&E Daily, July 14).
Senior administration officials today said the agreement includes stringent restrictions to seal off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon, while stressing that sanctions will go away only when "Iran has in fact earned the confidence of the international community."
According to a fact sheet distributed by the White House, the deal includes numerous benchmarks for Iran to demonstrate compliance.
But export backers point to recent Iranian statements that Tehran anticipates a doubling of oil shipments -- to roughly 2.3 million barrels per day -- once sanctions are lifted.
Under the timeline announced today, Iran could receive sanctions relief in as soon as six months, flooding the already saturated global oil market. U.S. Energy Information Administrator Adam Sieminski in April told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that an expected production increase of 1 million barrels a day by Iran could cause global oil prices to fall by $5 to $15 a barrel in 2016.
Republicans promptly slammed today's deal.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the agreement confirmed all his fears about the monthslong negotiations.
"Remember: Ending Iran's nuclear program was supposed to be the point of these talks in the first place; what's already clear about this agreement is that it will not achieve -- or even come close to achieving -- that original purpose," he said.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) echoed the criticism.
"Nothing in the deal announced today eliminates Iran's ability to eventually become a nuclear threshold power," he said in a statement. "It just delays the day and rewards the Iranians with billions of dollars in sanctions relief until that day comes."
Under a hard-fought legislative compromise enacted earlier this year, the Obama administration must submit the agreement to Congress for review before it can ease sanctions. According to a fact sheet from Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Congress has up to 82 days to review the deal.
According to the terms of the law, Congress can block Obama from making the sanctions relief permanent with passage of a disapproval resolution. However, Obama today reiterated that he will veto such a resolution if it comes to his desk.
"I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interest of the United States and our allies," Obama said at the White House this morning. "So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal."
ClearView Energy Partners predicted that Congress won't be able to muster the two-thirds majorities needed in both chambers to override Obama's veto.
"Even if all 54 Senate Republicans unite in opposition to the deal, this scenario would require fewer than 34 of their 46 Democrat counterparts to actively stand with their President," the firm said in a research note this morning. "This would be an unlikely outcome under any circumstance, and it seems particularly so ahead of the 2016 elections, where Democrats' hopes of retaining the White House and recapturing the Senate may depend upon favorable perceptions of President Obama's foreign policy legacy."
-
Jul 14, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Kathleen Hartnett White
Repeal of the export ban on crude oil grows in national urgency each day that goes by. The recent fall in oil prices again spawns bleak forecasts of bust for the shale boom, but consider a monumental change underway. For the first time in 50 years, world oil markets are beginning to hover around the U.S. rather than OPEC, the latter a 65-year-old cartel consisting of nationally owned oil companies, most of whose governments are unstable and inimical to U.S. interests.
As Saudi Arabia predicted in 2011, the global axis of energy has shifted from the Middle East to North America. Low oil prices may unsettle the global oil market, but a powerful historic advantage now sits in our country's lap. The United States has become the world's largest energy producer in combined oil and natural gas, an astonishing feat achieved in 2013.
A year ago, oil prices began their plunge. As a result, half of the rigs have now left the shale fields and more than 100,000 jobs disappeared. Yet the prodigious growth and increasing influence of U.S. oil survives. Rig count is not a reliable indicator for production levels, particularly in hydraulically fractured wells. The most cost-efficient and higher yielding wells are still producing. On May 15, U.S. production reached a stunning 9.6 million barrels.
In response, Saudi Arabia has shifted from its traditional role as the world's swing producer to a defensive one to reclaim lost market share.
U.S. oil now represents 75 percent of the growth in world oil production, a surge in supply that has eroded the Saudis' unquestioned dominance. In a recent decision to maintain or even increase production in response to the current glut, OPEC apparently aims to undermine the profitability of the higher-cost shale industry by prolonging the glut that collapsed oil prices last year.
Betting on endurance as the lowest-cost producer, Saudi Arabia intends to reclaim market share. The Saudis' new American rival, however, is not the only factor checking Saudi clout in export markets. The kingdom's own population is increasing its energy consumption at a rate likely to shrink the spare capacity for which Saudi Arabia has so long been vaunted.
Saudi Arabia's new stance cedes to the U.S. the role of swing producer. Can the competitive shale industry assume this role? With a massive volume of stored oil and 3,000 to 5,000 wells drilled but awaiting fracking, U.S. producers inadvertently created a swiftly deployable spare capacity — previously Saudi Arabia's exclusive advantage.
The longstanding dynamic of the global oil market around which so much of world geopolitics revolves is changing. If the U.S. is, by default, the swing producer, the global oil market can function more like a genuinely competitive market. In contrast to the OPEC countries, the U.S. does not have a minister of oil who imperially controls production to manipulate price. The shale industry consists of 4,000 small and mid-sized energy companies in which risk-taking, innovative engineers, oil men and investors compete in a relatively free market. Could Adam Smith's "invisible hand" now replace the autocratic bullies?
Neither federal energy policy nor the global majors drove the U.S. shale revolution. The shale gale is a victory for entrepreneurs and free markets. An unrestricted U.S. market may have led to the current glut, but the American ascendancy may be sustained and enlarged in a second stage of the shale gale: a smarter, lower-cost chapter of the boom. Mark P. Mill's new study, "Shale 2.0," persuasively argues this case. Driven by "big-data analytics," already successfully used by some players, the next chapter of the shale boom may be capable of doubling output and reducing costs by half, according to Mills.
Market dynamics triumphed in the first stage of the shale revolution by creating a formidable supply. U.S. producers now need access to the demand side. This global market, however, remains walled off to American producers by the outdated ban on exporting crude oil. Imposed in 1973, when prices were high and oil was scarce, the export ban was enacted under conditions opposite to those that prevail today.
The U.S. shale industry remains poised to take advantage of the economic opportunities at hand. Our national leadership's embrace of this energy opportunity would extend its benefits across the country. Lifting the export ban on our crude oil should be an overarching national priority.
White is distinguished senior fellow for energy and environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and former chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested