Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Industry Lobby Group in the Hot Seat Again
Jul 20, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has come under fire once again, just months after it was publicly accused of lying about having no involvement with a phony fire safety coalition. -
(ACC Mentioned) A New Economic Model: Chemical-Free Businesses
Jul 20, 2015 | EcoRI News
By Tim Faulkner
The General Assembly, during the recently completed 2015 session, ignored efforts to reduce the load of toxic chemicals the public — and children, in particular — are exposed to by everyday products. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACS Engages Industry And Industrial Members
Jul 20, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Diane Grob Schmidt
...Guided by its public policy position statement “ Chemical Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decision Making ,” ACS has collaborated with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to chart a bipartisan path to updating the rules for use of chemicals. -
Senators Push for Floor Vote on Chemical Reform Bill
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Sens.Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) are pushing Senate leadership to schedule a vote on a bipartisan bill to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws before lawmakers leave for summer recess in three weeks. -
S.697’s New Chemical Provisions: Will They Meaningfully Enhance the Current Program?
Jul 20, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Bob Sussman
With the House and Senate moving on separate tracks to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), there has been growing debate about the merits of their differing approaches to new chemical review under section 5 of the law. -
FERC Moves to Combat Emerging Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators have begun a push for new cybersecurity defenses to prevent sophisticated attackers from penetrating utility control rooms and other industrial control system centers by infiltrating malware on third-party vendors' products. -
Gina McCarthy Had Busy Days Selling Clean Power Plan
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Only a few days before U.S. EPA announced its sweeping regulation to reduce power plants' carbon pollution known as the Clean Power Plan, Administrator Gina McCarthy was scheduled to be in her office on a Saturday. -
Southern States Rally for 'Line in the Sand' on EPA's Clean Power Plan
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Momentum is building across the Southeast toward a "just say no" campaign for U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan rule, expected to be released within weeks. -
As Final Rule Nears, Meeting Records Offer Insight Into EPA Rollout Process
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Hundreds of pages of records obtained by Greenwire under the Freedom of Information Act detail who U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was talking to in the runup to the Clean Power Plan announcement last year. -
Pa. DEP Secretary Quigley Discusses State's Shift on Power Plan
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - TV
With U.S. EPA scheduled to release its final Clean Power Plan this summer, stakeholders are making last-ditch efforts to speak to the Obama administration about the plan and its potential impacts. -
Top Republican Slams Federal Land Energy Report as ‘Dismal’
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By By Devin Henry
Weak energy production on federal land will serve as “a pillar in President Obama's energy legacy of failure,” the top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee said.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Industry Lobby Group in the Hot Seat Again
Jul 20, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has come under fire once again, just months after it was publicly accused of lying about having no involvement with a phony fire safety coalition. Now, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) – a non-profit science advocacy organisation – is accusing the ACC of working to promote chemical industry interests over public health, and is calling for greater transparency.
A new UCS report examines the ACC’s influence on chemical policy and reform of the outdated US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that governs US chemicals. In recent years, when a TSCA overhaul has been under discussion in Congress, the UCS says ACC has spent more than $11 million (£7 million) annually on lobbying, and has also made generous political contributions to key members of Congress in charge of chemical reform. In all, the organisation has spent $1.8 million on more than 6000 ads in the 2014 election cycle. Further, the UCS says that lobbying by the chemical industry as a whole has more than doubled since 2005 to $64.9 million in 2014.
Beyond TSCA, the UCS also concludes that the ACC has sought to influence the ongoing trade negotiations between the US and the EU. Its report suggests that the trade group has worked to minimise inclusion of public health and safety protections in the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is aimed at increasing trade between the US and the EU by minimising trade barriers.Lobbying successes
‘The ACC has played a role in pushing for industry-friendly chemical policies that fail to protect public health, and it has often succeeded,’ the report states. It claims the ACC’s efforts ‘aimed at maintaining the status quo’ and keeping the TSCA largely toothless have worked, and as evidence of this the UCS points to the fact that thousands of chemicals currently on the marketplace are untested and unregulated in the US.
‘It’s our job to advocate for our members’According to the UCS, the ACC has also advocated for minimal or no regulation of chemicals, even when strong scientific evidence suggests adverse health or environmental impacts. When the scientific literature points to dangers associated with a chemical, the organisation says the ACC has reliably denied the science and brought in its own experts to counter the findings. The UCS accuses the ACC of taking a leaf out of the tobacco industry’s book.
For example, the ACC – which is the main industry group representing the five companies that produce bisphenol A (BPA) – has fought against both federal and state laws aimed at regulating the controversial chemical for more than a decade. Although many countries have banned or limited the use of BPA, the chemical is largely unregulated in the US. The FDA did ban the endocrine disruptor from use in baby bottles and children’s sippy cups in 2012, but that was in response to a petition filed by the ACC asking to ban BPA in those certain products in order to quell confusion among consumers, legislators and state regulators.Industry’s voice
For its part, the ACC says it is simply doing what it’s supposed to as the voice of the US chemical industry. ‘It’s our job to advocate for our members, to advocate for smart policies that will drive creation of groundbreaking products that improve lives and our environment, enhance the economic vitality of communities and protect public health, and allow our industry to grow and innovate,’ the ACC tellsChemistry World.
The trade group says its top priority is to reform the TSCA in a way that reflects advances in science, today’s global marketplace and improve consumer confidence in the chemicals in their everyday goods. Regarding its involvement with the TTIP, the ACC says its goal is to advance an agreement that promotes collaboration on both sides of the Atlantic to manage chemicals more effectively. The group suggests that improving regulatory cooperation, making processes more efficient and sharing costs and information will strengthen protections for human health and the environment.
‘We are proud of the fact that we have been able to make solid progress on both fronts and we will continue to be at the forefront of the effort to enhance chemical policies in the US and abroad,’ the ACC concludes.
Nevertheless, the UCS is pushing for the political activities of the ACC and its member companies to be more transparent, and it is urging the US Securities and Exchange Commission to issue a rule that requires publicly traded companies to disclose both their direct and indirect political activities.
The UCS is also calling on investors and their representatives to pressure companies to disclose all direct and indirect political spending, including trade group membership and support for outside organisations. It also wants firms that belong to trade organisations to disclose whether they agree with the scientific and policy positions of the associations they belong to.
-
(ACC Mentioned) A New Economic Model: Chemical-Free Businesses
Jul 20, 2015 | EcoRI News
By Tim Faulkner
The General Assembly, during the recently completed 2015 session, ignored efforts to reduce the load of toxic chemicals the public — and children, in particular — are exposed to by everyday products.
Bans on products containing formaldehyde, toxic microbeads, harmful cleaning products, bisphenol A and carcinogenic flame retardants quietly died in committee.
Six industry lobbyists testified against the bills. Only one advocacy group, Clean Water Action, spoke in support, of two of the bills.
Across the country, however, there is a growing acceptance — and new laws — that products with these chemical are likely connected to the rise in autism, cancer, birth defects and developmental disorders and therefore should be regulated.
Bisphenal A, also known as BPA, is a synthetic resin used to line canned food and plastic cups. It’s also found in laundry detergent and fabric dryer sheets, among other products. It’s an endocrine disruptor linked to disorders in infants and breast and prostate cancer in adults.
A 2014 study found that BPA absorption is especially acute when hand sanitizer is used after handling thermal-coated cash-register receipts, the most common type of retail receipts. On July 1, Connecticut became the first state to outlaw cash-register receipts containing BPA. Meanwhile, California is close to enacting a BPA-labeling law.
In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration prohibited BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. The Rhode Island bill proposed a ban on BPA in children’s food containers. Like the other consumer safety bills, however, the legislation didn’t advance.
Formaldehyde, which has been shown to cause cancer in animals and is considered a possible human carcinogen, is an additive in children’s clothing, party supplies, nail polish, board games, dolls and wood products. A recent study by Harvard University scientists found a link between formaldehyde exposure and ALS.
Rhode Island bill H5691 sought to ban formaldehyde from children’s food, beverages, medications and toys.
David Gerraughty, program coordinator for Clean Water Action in Rhode Island, said the General Assembly rarely acts quickly. A coalition of advocates from health and environmental organizations is necessary to advance legislation, he said.
“Convincing people that the time is right takes years at a time,” Gerraughty said.
Next year, Gerraughty intends to enlist the support of firefighters to push for a ban on the sale of furniture and children’s products that contain hazardous flame-retardant chemicals. Research has shown that chemicals do little to stall fires, but when burned cause harmful gases and soot.
The documentary “The Human Experiment” screened in Providence in mid-April explored the strategies and millions of dollars spent by industry lobbyists to defeat legislation that regulates harmful chemicals such as flame retardants.
According to the film, the chemical industry fights regulations and redirects public discourse by mimicking the stall tactics used by the tobacco industry. Lobbyists employ what the documentary calls the “Four Dog Defense.” They first defend their products through denial and discrediting research. If the evidence becomes too powerful to deny, the industry insists that the average person won’t be harmed if the product is used correctly. Stage 3 claims that only excessive doses cause harm. Stage 4 shifts blame to the user — i.e., smokers choose to smoke and thereby assume the risk.
These techniques were in action at a March 18 House hearing for four consumer safety bills. “Science Does Not Support State Bans on Formaldehyde in Consumer Products” was one of the documents submitted by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents chemical giants such as Dow and DuPont.
“Such a ban would not achieve any public-health benefits,” he ACC’s Jackson Morrill said.
The documentary portrays the ACC as the villain in state and national efforts to curb chemical exposure. The ACC has been called to testify before Congress to explain its opposition to new national restrictions on hazardous chemicals. The ACC didn’t respond to an ecoRI News request for an interview.
During the March 18 hearing before the House Committee on Health Education and Welfare, two ACC lobbyists testified against stricter measures on toxins. The ACC’s Steve Rosario cited research that countered the health risks associated with BPA, saying common exposure was too low to cause harm. Rep. Art Handy, D-Cranston, the sponsor of the four bills, noted that an overwhelming amount of research points to the opposite conclusion.
"The Human Experiment" hints that progress is happening beyond the fight with big corporations and the long wait for national legislation. Despite an overwhelming sense that it’s impossible for consumers to avoid exposure to harmful chemicals, some states are, in fact, passing restrictions.
Minnesota is the only state to ban formaldehyde in children’s products and food. Twelve states have restrictions on BPA, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, which both ban BPA in children’s products.
Microbeads are a more-recent threat. The tiny plastic particles are found in toothpaste, cosmetics and soap. They turn up in drinking water, and in lakes, streams, rivers and the ocean.
“These are getting flushed down our toilets and washed down our sinks and they are causing problems for both people and animals,” Handy said during the March hearing.
This month, Wisconsin joined Illinois by banning the sand-sized plastic particles.
“The Human Experiment” also noted that the pushback by the chemical, retail and cleaning products industry — all three opposed the Rhode Island bills — creates an opportunity for new products, businesses and fields of research. Fourteen U.S. universities, including Bridgewater State University and the University of Massachusetts, have green chemistry labs that research environmentally safe chemicals. New businesses have formed that provide safer products and services, such as green cleaning services and dry cleaners.
The documentary was shown to nearly 700 sales consultants for Ava Anderson Non-Toxic, an East Providence-based maker and seller of environmentally friendly cleaning and personal-care products.
“It would be cool to have green businesses with a Rhode Island component to help people see the benefits of the economic opportunities, as well,” Handy said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACS Engages Industry And Industrial Members
Jul 20, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Diane Grob Schmidt
...Guided by its public policy position statement “ Chemical Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decision Making ,” ACS has collaborated with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to chart a bipartisan path to updating the rules for use of chemicals. We can address issues that would help advance the health of the U.S. chemistry enterprise....
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i29/ACS-Engages-Industry-Industrial-Members.html
-
Senators Push for Floor Vote on Chemical Reform Bill
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Sens.Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) are pushing Senate leadership to schedule a vote on a bipartisan bill to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws before lawmakers leave for summer recess in three weeks.
The Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, introduced in March, has garnered 50 co-sponsors – 22 Democrats and 28 Republicans – in addition to Udall and Vitter, making for a total of 52 supporters. The bill only needs 51 votes to pass the Senate.
Named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who long sought to reform the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, the Udall-Vitter bill would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to base chemical safety regulations solely on health and safety risks, leaving out industry costs altogether.
Republicans conceded on changes to the original legislation to allow states greater flexibility to regulate chemicals that EPA has not acted on and allow states to enforce rules along with the federal government.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said he’s committed to shepherding the legislation, which passed through the Environment and Public Works Committee in May, through to the finish line.
“Momentum continues to build for the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act with now more than a majority of the Senate cosponsoring this important and timely piece of environmental reform legislation,” he said in a statement. “The 52 cosponsors of the bill represent a total of 33 states, and I expect this representation to continue to grow as the bill moves towards floor consideration.”
Since the legislation she introduced with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has failed to garner any support, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is now pushing the Senate to take up the House bill to reform TSCA instead.
The house bill would require EPA to review chemicals in products and expedite risk management regulations. It also would allow to issue their own protections until EPA exonerates a chemical or has taken action to restrict it.
Boxer said earlier this month that with a few changes, the House bill is the best option for chemical reform.
-
S.697’s New Chemical Provisions: Will They Meaningfully Enhance the Current Program?
Jul 20, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Bob Sussman
With the House and Senate moving on separate tracks to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), there has been growing debate about the merits of their differing approaches to new chemical review under section 5 of the law.
H.R. 2576, which passed the House on June 23, retains section 5 in its current form. S. 697, reported out of committee on April 28, would rewrite section 5. Once the Senate acts on TSCA reform, the process of reconciling the two bills will begin. How critical are the Senate’s new chemical provisions in enhancing TSCA’s public health protections? And how much weight they should receive in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the two bills?
Some observers have touted the Senate revisions as a major enhancement of the new chemicals program. This greatly overstates their value. While the revisions are generally not harmful (with the exception of changes to EPA’s SNUR authority not discussed here), their beneficial impact will be modest at best.
Many experts (and EPA itself) believe that the new chemicals program is one of the few functioning aspects of TSCA. Although not ideal in all respects, the program has made progress in screening all new chemicals, identifying those that raise health or environmental concerns, and addressing those concerns through a combination of restrictions on exposure and release and testing.
The new chemicals program stands in marked contrast to the existing chemicals program, which nearly all would agree is hopelessly broken and has a dismal record in reducing the risks of established chemical products. Fixing the existing chemicals program is far and away the highest priority for TSCA reform and the single most important challenge that Congress must meet.
Although a lower priority, improving the section 5 program might be worthwhile if it significantly strengthened the new chemical review process. But the changes in S. 697 would not measurably alter how the program operates today.
S.697 would leave intact the basic structure and principal features of section 5. As under current law, manufacturers and importers of new substances (i.e. those not listed on the TSCA Inventory) would be obligated to file premanufacture notices (PMNs) before beginning production or importation. EPA would have 90 days to review these notices, with the ability to extend the review period to 180 days. The information to be included in PMNs would be the same as now required in EPA regulations. Manufacturers would not be required to provide any more test data or information on exposure than they now submit.
As under current law, if EPA has no concerns about the chemical, it would allow the review period to expire, clearing the way for submission of a notice of intent to manufacture (NOCM) and listing on the TSCA Inventory. However, if EPA has concerns about the chemical, both current law and S. 697 authorize EPA to issue an order placing limitations on manufacture and processing and/or requiring testing. The range of requirements EPA can include in such orders under S. 697 is no broader (and in fact more limited in some areas) than those authorized in the current version of TSCA section 5.
The major changes in S.697 are in section 5(d)(3) which, as revised, directs EPA to make one of three findings after reviewing the PMN: (1) the chemical is likely to meet the safety standard; (2) the chemical is not likely to meet the safety standard; or (3) additional information is needed to determine whether the chemical meets the safety standard. In the latter two situations but not the first, EPA can regulate the chemical and/or require testing.
Although current section 5(e) is worded differently from section 5(d)(3) in S. 697, the two are very similar in concept. Under section 5(e), EPA must assess whether the chemical is innocuous based on available information or whether there is either a potential concern about its health and environmental effects (“may present an unreasonable risk”) or it has exposure potential (“will be produced in substantial quantities” and may result in “significant or substantial human exposure”). Where EPA makes these findings, it can restrict manufacture and use and, if available information is insufficient, require testing.
EPA has had fairly broad latitude under this framework to identify and restrict new chemicals of concern. To determine if a new chemical may be hazardous, EPA uses a combination of available data and structure-activity relationships (SAR) to determine if the chemical has molecular characteristics similar to those of chemical classes with known or suspected health or environmental effects. Its SAR methodology has advanced considerably since the inception of the program; the Agency has developed a long list of suspect chemical categories with which to screen and prioritize PMN chemicals based on their level of concern.
Even where SAR does not identify suspected adverse effects, EPA looks at whether the chemical’s proposed uses are indicative of potential high exposure and should be restricted under the exposure-based component of section 5(e). Chemicals with consumer product applications, wide distribution across a range of industrial facilities or expected releases to air, water or waste would be candidates for exposure-based restrictions and/or testing requirements.
Under the current law, a large portion of the PMNs submitted have been subject to close scrutiny by EPA. As of EPA’s most recent tabulation on September 30, 2010, 36,623 PMNs had been received by EPA since 1979. Of these, 4,441 resulted in some type of action by the Agency. This included section 5(e) consent orders (approximately 1500) and Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) (around 1550). The SNURs were equally divided between those codifying the restrictions in 5(e) and those applicable to non-5(e) chemicals (i.e. where the Agency did not regulate the activities of the PMN submitter but issued a SNUR to maintain control of additional uses after the chemical is added to the TSCA Inventory). In addition, 1848 PMNs were withdrawn in the face of likely 5(e) orders and over 300 voluntary testing actions were taken by industry in response to the threat of 5(e) requirements.
Since the first 5(e) order in 1979, there have been no industry challenges to any of EPA’s actions.
The Senate bill may seem to give EPA more leverage to impose restrictions because it requires such restrictions unless the Agency concludes that the new chemical is likely to meet the safety standard. In practice, however, this will not be a big hurdle. EPA can be expected to conclude — much as it does now — that chemicals lacking any toxicological concern or with very low exposure potential are likely to meet the safety standard and should be allowed to enter the marketplace without restriction. And again like current practice, chemicals that raise toxicological issues based on SAR or adverse test data, or are likely to have substantial exposure potential, will be restricted on the ground that they are unlikely to meet the safety standard or lack sufficient information to apply the standard. In short, the analysis EPA conducts will be very similar to what it does now.
The one arguable benefit of the Senate revisions is that they lower the burden of proof on EPA where it seeks to restrict a new chemical. This is because EPA could impose such restrictions merely because it lacks sufficient information to apply the safety standard, without necessarily demonstrating potential toxicity or substantial exposure. This may be an advantage in theory but not in practice given EPA’s success over 35 years in using its authority under the existing law without any challenge by industry.
Of course, if a new EPA management were to abandon EPA’s current approach to new chemical review and greatly pare back use of section 5(e), the Senate bill would give stakeholders more leverage to hold EPA accountable. This may be a good reason to include the Senate provisions in the conference bill sent to the President but it’s a far cry from meaningfully changing the program as it exists today.
What the Senate bill does not do is authorize EPA to require all PMN submitters to supply a minimum data set, without which the PMN will not be reviewed. Such testing requirements have been called for by many stakeholders and have been incorporated in the chemical control laws of several other countries. They would address the biggest weakness of the current program – EPA’s heavy reliance on SAR – by greatly increasing the amount of data generated on new chemicals. In contrast to the Senate bill, mandatory testing requirements for new chemicals would meaningfully improve the new chemical program.
In sum, the Senate new chemical provisions may have modest benefits but they won’t produce the sea-change in the new chemical program some have claimed. In light of these provisions’ limited impact, comparisons between the House and Senate bills should be based not on how the bills approach section 5, but on whether they remedy the failures of the existing chemicals program, preserve the ability of states to address unsafe chemicals, clearly delineate the scope of EPA’s authority and minimize litigation, and avoid burdensome mandates on EPA that will divert resources away from health and environmental protection.
-
FERC Moves to Combat Emerging Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators have begun a push for new cybersecurity defenses to prevent sophisticated attackers from penetrating utility control rooms and other industrial control system centers by infiltrating malware on third-party vendors' products.
A proposed rulemaking announced Thursday by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would require utility industry representatives to develop a new security strategy and standard for supply chain management processes.
FERC is also seeking comment on a second proposed order to the industry's standards group, the North American Electric Reliability Corp., which would require additional security controls to safeguard communications between grid control centers when vital controls data is traveling on unprotected third-party communications channels.
Several industry officials and experts, asked to respond to FERC's actions, said new standards on these issues would be hard to write for different reasons but were vital nonetheless.
"I'm happy to see that these initiatives are moving forward," said cyberdefense developer Billy Rios, whose "WhiteScope" listing identifies trusted vendor products for industrial control systems (ICS) and supervisory control and data (SCADA) systems, both used by operators to manage the power grid. "I don't believe we have scalable solutions in place for any of these parts of the supply chain defense."
"It's certainly a serious issue," said Nadya Bartol, senior cybersecurity strategist at the Utilities Telecom Council, who authored a recent UTC roadmap on supply chain security. "Opinions vary about how serious it is, but it is certainly of concern throughout the industry.
Advertisement
"There are known cases of hackers going after ICS systems and utilities. The danger is that the malicious code gets implanted through the vendor and becomes a part of the utility system," she said in an interview (EnergyWire, June 9).
The BlackEnergy and Havex malware campaigns last year triggered alerts from the Department of Homeland Security's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT), warning that some leading vendor systems had been infected with malware modules designed to conduct secret surveillance on target ICS systems, possibly to spot weak points for a possible future attack (EnergyWire, April 20).
A recent Dell Inc. security report recorded a 100 percent year-over-year increase in cyberattacks directed against SCADA systems (EnergyWire, April 15).
Patrick Sweeney, executive director of Dell Security, said in an interview: "Definitely the state sponsored hackers are very, very active. The state-sponsored actors are looking for not just the penetration, but reconnaissance of the entire environment. We're tracking many, many SCADA signatures."
The primary challenge is that FERC does not regulate utilities' vendors, so the reliability standard it wants would apply only to the utilities, who would then be responsible for defending against malware attempting to hitchhike in on vendor products, said Ken McIntyre, a cybersecurity executive and former Texas electricity regulator.
How do you hold vendors accountable? McIntyre asked. "It is hard to do," he said. It is the utility that is on the hook to show compliance. "How do you put that back out and make sure vendors are doing this?" he asked.
Rios discussed the issue in a podcast in April. "And I'm telling you right now, if anyone tells you that they solved the security supply chain problem, they're definitely selling you snake oil," Rios said.
"We just want people to be able to verify the integrity of software that they're right about to load onto a device or onto a system," he said. "So we call that the 'last mile' supply chain.
"We want people to be able to validate that the software that they're going to put on their device came from the vendor."
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association, which represents a range of industries including medical device and electric utility suppliers, published a white paper on supply chain security last month.
Steve Griffith, industry director at NEMA and the organization's principal liaison for cybersecurity activities, said in an interview that the document reflects manufacturers' awareness "that the area of supply chain compromise is an issue -- and here's what we're doing to address it."
In the white paper, NEMA recommended its members document their purchasing process and give preference to sourcing components from original manufacturers.
McIntyre recalls opening a box of grid equipment from a vendor -- he won't say who -- and then discovering it was ticking with suspicious software code that had infiltrated the vendors' product.
"It's a real issue, and utilities need to be aware of it," said McIntyre, executive vice president of the Anfield Group.
Recognizing the difficulty, FERC's notice last week said the vendor standard should not attempt to impose rules directly on suppliers nor attempt to rewrite existing contracts between suppliers and utilities, just future ones. The rule should set a goal and give utilities and suppliers flexibility in achieving it, FERC said. But the plan must spell out specific controls that utilities will have in place to manage what they buy, the commission added.
"It's acknowledged that NERC and FERC don't have authority over the vendors. Utilities have a limited ability to impose conditions on vendors," Bartol said. "It needs to be done through a productive dialogue."
"Utilities can and should put security requirements in procurements. It's best when these are discussed and there is agreement on how you do it and monitor it." But FERC regulations should not require controls that go beyond what utilities can achieve, she said.Protecting grid data flows
FERC's action on data communications between utility control rooms also deals with vulnerabilities outside of utilities' direct control -- in this case, the flow of vital data on grid conditions that travels between control rooms over telecom company wires or wireless paths.
FERC, in its Order 791, adopted after the 2013 armed attack on a power substation near San Jose, Calif., told NERC to define certain communications networks serving the grid, as a foundation for further defensive rules. However, NERC said a definition wasn't needed, since adequate protection was covered elsewhere in FERC security rules.
Not good enough, FERC replied last week, contending that more action was needed to close gaps in grid defenses arising from data flows over "non-programmable" traditional third party telecom networks. FERC acknowledged that utilities don't have the means to oversee these third party links themselves, but the risk can be addressed just the same through encryption or other means, it said.
"It's doable. It's just the cost and impact" of a new rule, McIntyre said, which has to be weighed against the risk of a successful infiltration.
Kevin Perry, director of critical infrastructure protection for the Southwest Power Pool, noted communications vulnerabilities at a FERC technical conference in April 2014.
"While not necessarily easy to do it, [it] is possible to intercept and manipulate data via a man-in-the-middle attack," he said. "Data can be changed or replayed to make the operator assume incorrect operating conditions and to respond improperly.
"The ability to intercept and manipulate data has been demonstrated in a variety of classified and unclassified settings and the data can be intercepted to obtain information about current operating conditions that could be valuable in crafting and carrying out a successful attack" against the high voltage grid (EnergyWire, March 25, 2014).
"These attacks are simplified by the fact that the data is often transmitted in clear text and without end-point authentication or integrity verification, making the data manipulation easy to accomplish," he said.
Perry added that he has seen utilities choose to keep older, "non-routable" third party systems in use because these were not subject to FERC security rules. (Routable communications refer to packets of data that contain network addresses, permitting them to be forwarded from one network to another, while non-routable packets can only be sent from one device to another.)
FERC gave industry representatives 60 days to comment following publication of the draft notice of the rulemaking in the Federal Register.
-
Gina McCarthy Had Busy Days Selling Clean Power Plan
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Only a few days before U.S. EPA announced its sweeping regulation to reduce power plants' carbon pollution known as the Clean Power Plan, Administrator Gina McCarthy was scheduled to be in her office on a Saturday.
McCarthy's calendar, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, has her attending a meeting at noon that day titled "111D Prep." Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act is what the agency argues grants EPA the legal standing to limit carbon emissions from new and existing power plants.
After meeting with senior officials during that prep session, McCarthy would start a last round of calls to environmentalists, union leaders and governors before announcing Monday -- June 2, 2014 -- the government's most ambitious plan yet to tackle climate change.
Hundreds of pages of records reviewed by Greenwire detail McCarthy's itinerary day by day, minute by minute. The documents provide a window on EPA's internal process on drafting the rule last year and could provide clues on who the agency is consulting now before it finalizes the proposal later this summer.
The EPA chief was scheduled for a "Green Group Call" at 1 p.m. May 31 last year, according to records. The leaders of the biggest environmental groups were expected to attend, such as Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund; Frances Beinecke, then the head of the Natural Resources Defense Council; Margie Alt with Environment America; Gene Karpinski of the League of Conservation Voters; and Michael Brune with the Sierra Club.
"There is really nothing untoward or unusual about an agency letting allies and affected parties know that an announcement is coming," said David Goldston, NRDC's director of government affairs. "It's a quite last-minute heads-up. Congress and the administration do this all the time."
Advertisement
Others agreed with Goldston's assessment.
"This was just a courtesy call to Fred Krupp and other environmental CEOs to give them a heads-up that the announcement was coming soon," said Sharyn Stein, a spokeswoman for EDF.
"It's standard operating procedure for the EPA to give a heads-up to stakeholders before a major rulemaking," Sierra Club spokesman Trey Pollard said. "I'm sure that others across the spectrum -- from industry to public health advocates -- also heard from the agency before the carbon pollution safeguards were proposed."
Environmental groups had been pushing the agency for some time to act on carbon emissions. Brune, Karpinski and Beinecke would all attend the high-profile announcement at EPA's Washington headquarters the Monday after the call (Greenwire, June 2, 2014).
The groups allied with EPA on combating climate change, especially NRDC, have often had to contend with Republican lawmakers charging that they have outdue influence on the agency (E&ENews PM, Sept. 2, 2014).
EPA itself has pushed back against that allegation, saying the rule was developed after consulting with several groups (Greenwire, July 8, 2014).
In addition, EPA touted its own transparency when it released its own list of stakeholder meetings regarding the Clean Power Plan last year (Greenwire, Oct. 13, 2014).
"The Clean Power Plan was developed through an extensive public outreach process -- one that engaged tens of thousands of people across the country. EPA consulted with states, power companies, local communities, environmental groups, associations, labor groups, tribes and many more," EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said. "This process was a critical component in developing the proposed rule because it helped focus our attention on what was going on, on the ground, in states and communities across the country."
Goldston said NRDC saw the rule as a chance to make inroads against climate change.
"We view the climate as a top priority and the Clean Power Plan as the best opportunity to do something significant about it," Goldston said. "That's what you would expect from a group that was pushing for carbon limits on power plants."'Lines of communications'
Environmental advocates were not the only people whom McCarthy spoke to the weekend before announcing the rule. Several union leaders received calls from the EPA administrator that Sunday, including Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America.
"It was just a call to inform President Roberts that the CPP was going to be announced and that she wanted lines of communications to remain open," UMWA spokesman Phil Smith said of the call, which was scheduled for 15 minutes.
UMWA has been one of the proposal's most vocal opponents. The union has organized massive protests against the rule, and Roberts himself has called the agency rulemaking process "stinkin' rotten" (Greenwire, July 31, 2014).
McCarthy also touched base with others in the labor movement that Sunday afternoon, making calls to International Brotherhood of Boilermakers President Newton Jones, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, according to her schedule.
"EPA Administrator McCarthy called many union presidents and offered anyone interested and or affected by the proposed Clean Power Plan to meet with her," said Gary Hubbard, a USW spokesman.
According to her calendar, McCarthy's outreach would continue that afternoon, doing a "Group Call with Governors" and then a "Call with the Senate and the House" alongside John Podesta, the former senior adviser to President Obama who now leads Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.
Podesta would be in close contact with the EPA chief throughout 2014, according to the administrator's schedule. The top White House aide would meet often with McCarthy, including on a Memorial Day conference call last year.
Going into the evening before announcing the Clean Power Plan the next day, McCarthy was also scheduled to individually call several Democratic governors from conservative-leaning states. On that call list were Govs. Steve Bullock of Montana, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Steve Beshear of Kentucky and Mike Beebe of Arkansas.
"It is not uncommon for federal agencies to reach out to states regarding updates on policies and procedures," said Terry Sebastian, a spokesman for Beshear.
The importance of the Clean Power Plan to the Obama administration is evident from the EPA chief's schedule. On the day of announcing the rule, McCarthy was slated for a "POTUS Stakeholder Phone Call, RE: 111D" from the White House's Oval Office.
The EPA administrator would call other governors the week of the rule announcement, with McCarthy scheduled to touch base with Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia as well as Republicans like Brian Sandoval of Nevada and Bill Haslam of Tennessee.
In addition, McCarthy would go on a jam-packed media tour. She was scheduled for appearances on NBC and NPR, interviews with The New York Times and The Washington Post, even to participate in an "Ask Me Anything" session on Reddit, the social networking site.'Off the record'
McCarthy was also talking to the CEOs of the country's top energy companies throughout the year.
On May 23 last year, she spoke by phone with Christopher Crane, president and CEO of Exelon Corp. The chat centered on the forthcoming power plant rule.
"The subject of the May 23, 2014, call was the Clean Power Plan," said Paul Elsberg, an Exelon spokesman. "As one of the nation's leading energy providers, Exelon communicates with government agencies, such as the EPA, to share its views on energy policies that have the potential to affect its customers and other stakeholders."
The company has said EPA has the authority to issue the rule in the past. Exelon officials have downplayed industry concerns about the Clean Power Plan while calling for the final rule to provide more credit for existing and future nuclear reactors (E&ENews PM, Dec. 11, 2014).
Crane makes other appearances in McCarthy's schedule as do other senior executives from power companies who pop up every now and then for meetings and phone calls with the agency administrator.
In January 2014, the EPA chief was scheduled for a "private breakfast" with the Edison Electric Institute's leadership, the utility industry's trade group, before she was slated to speak to their board at the Arizona Biltmore hotel in Phoenix. Several officials from companies such as American Electric Power Company Inc., Dominion Resources Inc., Southern Co. and Pacific Gas and Electric Corp. were expected to be there.
"This will be an informal off the record breakfast where YOU will have the opportunity to have a discussion with 10-15 EEI Senior Leadership members," McCarthy's schedule says.
-
Southern States Rally for 'Line in the Sand' on EPA's Clean Power Plan
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Momentum is building across the Southeast toward a "just say no" campaign for U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan rule, expected to be released within weeks.
A panel of lawmakers at the Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) yesterday passed a resolution urging state attorneys general to sue EPA over the rule that targets existing power plants. Broadly, the rule calls for a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, but targets for states vary.
States will have to write their own plans on how they are going to reduce their power sector CO2 emissions. If they do not, EPA will write the plan for them.
Del. Rupert "Rupie" Phillips, a Democrat from West Virginia, wrote the resolution, which passed SLC's energy and environment committee. His original measure urged states to not submit plans with EPA, but a compromise was struck to direct attorneys general to take legal action first.
"It's time to draw a line in the sand," Phillips said. "The EPA is pushing us around like they are a bunch of punks. I just want the states to stand together and say 'no.'"
A chief concern about refusing to file a plan is having EPA write one instead, said Arkansas State Rep. John Baine, a Democrat.
"As a state, I'd much rather have a plan that I got to pick," Baine said.
The SLC is the largest of four regional legislative groups that operate under the Council of State Governments. Its 15 member states stretch from West Virginia to Texas and includes Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma. Its policy and positions committee is expected to vote on the Clean Power Plan resolution today.
Yesterday's discussion, part of SLC's four-day annual meeting, was the second debate over how states should respond to the Clean Power Plan. Presenters to the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) on Saturday encouraged members to call the White House and share the group's concern over the pending rule.
Presenters said they were encouraged by the number of states planning to sue once the rule is released.
"We ask that you look to your states as an action of this group, to your attorneys general, to your governors to see if we can get as many states as possible to file litigation, joint litigation to the EPA on this," said Randy Eminger, vice president of the South region for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). "The more we have, the better."
Eminger said ACCCE tallied 18 states ready to sue as soon as possible. In the Southeast, that includes Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia, according to a map posted at SSEB's legislator briefing.
The governors or attorneys general of roughly double that amount have at least "expressed concern" over whether the proposed Clean Power Plan, which focuses on Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, is legal, he said.
"There are a large group of states that are really vocal," he said.
The nonprofit SSEB covers 16 Southeastern states as well as the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Board members include governors and lawmakers from the largely conservative region.Some states opt for legislative review plans
For a region that contains states that are dominated by the coal industry, the proposed rule has been a tough pill to swallow. That was evident all throughout Saturday's meeting where speakers constantly referred to the Clean Power Plan as "overreaching regulation" and accused EPA of overstepping its boundaries and interfering with state authority.
Some states, including Arkansas and West Virginia, already have decided a way around that by passing laws that require a number of state agencies to review the plan. Then lawmakers have to sign off on compliance plans before sending them to EPA.
"Any attempt has to be approved by the elected officials who are closest to the people of West Virginia," said state Del. John McCuskey, referring to West Virginia's House and Senate. "The [Department of Environmental Protection] will create a plan, if we don't like it, it ain't going to Washington."
Mack McGuffey, a partner with the Troutman Sanders law firm, urged any states that are thinking about not writing a plan to reconsider. "Just say no" should not mean "don't file anything," it means writing a plan that follows the Clean Air Act, he said.
"Submit a plan, but submit a plan that follows the law, not necessarily the plan that the EPA is asking you to submit," he said.
He's expecting lawsuits with as many as 300 to 500 petitioners.
McGuffey dismissed whether EPA is writing the Clean Power Plan in a way that would encourage citizen lawsuits that just end up giving the rule more teeth. But he said the agency likely is going to lean on environmental groups to make sure states comply with their individual plans.
This is because McGuffey doesn't think EPA has the resources to make sure every individual state stays on target. But the army of environmental groups do, he argued.
"What EPA is going to be looking for in every state's plan is how enforcement is going to happen, and certainly citizen enforcement is going to have to be a part of that, I think in EPA's eyes, because they want to keep the pressure on," he said.One supporter
One state and SSEB member that sent EPA a letter in support of the Clean Power Plan was Maryland. That was when Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, was governor.
Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, has not sent anything one way or the other, said Ben Grumbles, Maryland's environmental secretary.
"We're waiting to see what the final rule is," he told EnergyWire.
Maryland is a member of the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which some have pointed to as a way for other states to approach the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, July 14). For Maryland, being a member of RGGI has led to more than $300 million in revenue for the state.
"We recognize there have been benefits to being in [RGGI], and there may be greater benefits once the Clean Power Plan is issued," he said.
-
As Final Rule Nears, Meeting Records Offer Insight Into EPA Rollout Process
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Hundreds of pages of records obtained by Greenwire under the Freedom of Information Act detail who U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was talking to in the runup to the Clean Power Plan announcement last year. The documents provide a window into EPA's internal process for drafting the rule last year and could provide clues on who the agency is consulting now before it finalizes the proposal in the coming weeks.
Stay tuned for that story from Kevin Bogardus in today's Greenwire.
Meanwhile, the White House Office of Management and Budget is wading through meetings with stakeholders as it reviews the final rule (Cutting Edge, July 10).
On Tuesday, OMB heard from state environment agency representatives, including from California, Pennsylvania and Washington.
David Clegern, a spokesman from the California Air Resources Board, said California attended to ensure the rule "provides adequate motivation to move forward some of the states which could do more on reducing" greenhouse gas emissions.
"We also want to make sure that the final rule gets emission reductions as soon as possible, rather than later, and that it dovetails smoothly with existing successful state programs," Clegern said.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more of this weekly column and to see the latest news, state summaries and developments.
-
Pa. DEP Secretary Quigley Discusses State's Shift on Power Plan
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E - TV
With U.S. EPA scheduled to release its final Clean Power Plan this summer, stakeholders are making last-ditch efforts to speak to the Obama administration about the plan and its potential impacts. During today's OnPoint, John Quigley, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, discusses his recent White House meeting on the power plan. He also explains the steps Pennsylvania is taking to prepare a compliance mechanism and talks about the opportunities that exist with a multistate plan.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is John Quigley, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Secretary Quigley, thank you for joining me.
John Quigley: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: So, to get everyone up to speed, last December Pennsylvania submitted public comments on EPA's Clean Power Plan under the Republican Corbett administration. Since then, Democrat Tom Wolf has become governor, and the administration's views on the power plan have shifted. How different are they from what was presented in December?
John Quigley: Well, I think they're fundamentally different. Governor Wolf supports this rule. He supports a Pennsylvania response that maintains our position as an energy exporter, that maintains the role of coal in our energy portfolio. He believes, as I do, that we can meet this mandate, this clean-power mandate, in a way that benefits Pennsylvania's economy and environment.
Monica Trauzzi: So what conversations have you and the governor's office had with EPA to sort of get them up to speed on this new viewpoint?
John Quigley: Well, it's safe to say that we are in regular conversation with EPA on this and a lot of other things. There's a number of issues that we have to deal with and essentially start over relative to EPA's involvement in Pennsylvania, things like the Chesapeake Bay, for example. So we're in regular contact with EPA.
Monica Trauzzi: So, you were in a meeting earlier this week at the White House on the Clean Power Plan. OMB is known to be very hush-hush in these types of meetings. The White House is known to be very hush-hush. What did you glean from that meeting from the folks that were in the room?
John Quigley: Well, I think the most important thing is that the OMB officials, the White House climate officials, were very attentive to the states who were represented in the room. I was very pleased with the level of engagement, the note-taking, the dialogue. Certainly there weren't any promises made, anything along those lines, but the officials representing the Obama administration were very attentive to what we had to say.
Monica Trauzzi: OK, and sometimes there's very minimal dialogue in these meetings. What types of conversations, questions happened in that room?
John Quigley: Well, again, there was a number of states that were represented in the meeting. Some of them chose to reiterate the high points of their comments to EPA. For my part, I reiterated Governor Wolf's support of the rule and his commitment to being an example to the country on how we can meet the mandates of this plan. And we all asked for as much information as we could get in kind of the digest form as soon as the rule comes out so that we can respond meaningfully to questions.
Monica Trauzzi: And EPA was not in the room?
John Quigley: EPA was not in that room, no.
Monica Trauzzi: Anything you can tell us about the timing of the release of the final rule? We're all kind of trying to look at the tea leaves here.
John Quigley: Well, I don't have anything definitive and certainly nothing official. The sense that we have always had is that early to mid-August was the time frame that we could expect to see something, and I'll -- we'll see. I would say the first two weeks of August.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. In EPA's draft proposal, Pennsylvania has a 31 percent emissions reduction target. How is the compliance mechanism shaping up for your state?
John Quigley: Well, we are looking at all kinds of options. We are one of four states that was selected by the National Governors Association for their policy academy, so we have been doing some preliminary modeling runs, different scenarios on how we might achieve a path to compliance. We've also been talking with all the stakeholders. Even though we intend after the rule is final to have a very robust stakeholder dialogue, we've actually met individually with power companies, with environmental organizations to hear what they had on their minds. Being a new administration, we wanted to make sure that those dialogues were taking early and in advance of the more formal post-rule process. So we're listening to the folks, doing some preliminary modeling, identifying alternative pathways. It's safe to say that everything is on the table. We're going to consider all options?
Monica Trauzzi: Including multistate? What opportunities exist there? Would you consider joining RGGI?
John Quigley: Well, that is one of the options on the table. We've also been involved in a conversation among some states that're in the PJM power grid about the possibility of working together, and so, again, we're trying to look at all of the options and leaving nothing off the table at this point.
Monica Trauzzi: What's the dynamic between your office and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, which has expressed concerns about EPA's draft proposal, and how do you see that relationship working and evolving as you try to put your final compliance mechanism together?
John Quigley: Well, we are going to have to have a close working relationship, and I'm sure we will, knowing the members of the Public Utility Commission as I do, and certainly there are relationships within the governor's office as well. We have to have an open dialogue and really sit down together as partners to work out our plan.
Monica Trauzzi: Pennsylvania has several nuclear facilities. What role would you like to see nuclear play in the final role, and when did you hear from EPA? What have you heard from EPA about what changes we could expect on that nuclear element?
John Quigley: Have not heard anything definitive from EPA on the treatment of nuclear power. It's obviously an issue in Pennsylvania with the generation that we have in state. We want to make sure that those interests have been acknowledged, but, again, I think it's premature to comment any more than that until we see the final --
Monica Trauzzi: So we heard some legal analysts talking about the possibility of a stay on the rule and that that might be sort of the fair approach or the most reasoned approach on how to make things easier for states as this goes to the courts. What do you think about that option?
John Quigley: Well, I'm not personally all that interested in a stay. I know that the governor's anxious to get on with this work. He acknowledges that we have a very serious climate challenge that we have to solve, and Pennsylvania needs to be a part of that. He aspires for our state to have a leadership role in demonstrating how states can comply, and given our prominence as an energy exporter, as a coal state, I think there's an opportunity to demonstrate leadership, and we're anxious to get to work.
Monica Trauzzi: An oil and gas question for you here. EnergyWire recently reported that beginning next year, your office will no longer be using FracFocus but rather taking data directly from oil and gas companies and then also using in-house data. Explain the reasoning behind that move.
John Quigley: Well, we actually aspire to go beyond FracFocus. Now, whether our data will continue to be shared with FracFocus, that's not a decision that we've made. They're doing great work. The advances and improvements that FracFocus have made are very significant, and we acknowledge that a lot of the folks in the stakeholder community use FracFocus, so we want to understand how we can continue to add some value there. But our aspiration is to go beyond that, provide more information in more user-friendly ways that -- more searchable so the data can be downloaded and manipulated and also geo-located. We want to couple our disclosure information with information that we have available on individual wells, inspection records, compliance histories and have a comprehensive database that citizens and stakeholders can make themselves available to.
Monica Trauzzi: So your thinking is that FracFocus is perhaps not as comprehensive as it could be?
John Quigley: Well, we want to have the most comprehensive access to data of any state. That's the aspiration. Whether we can meet that, it will be to some degree in the hands of the programmers, but we want to take a look at what we can do to put information out in a very transparent way to the public and then see how we will continue to relate, if at all, to FracFocus.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We're going to end it there. Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate your time.
John Quigley: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Top Republican Slams Federal Land Energy Report as ‘Dismal’
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By By Devin Henry
Weak energy production on federal land will serve as “a pillar in President Obama's energy legacy of failure,” the top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee said.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) slammed the Obama administration over a Friday report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that shows energy production on federal and Indian lands increasing just 0.2 percent in 2014.
Bishop said the government should encourage more energy production on those lands, especially given the prospect of Iranian oil entering the market after sanctions on the country are lifted.
“The government's report on energy production on federal lands is astonishingly dismal,” he said in a statement. “The EIA found minuscule growth in oil and natural gas production on federal land — less than a percentage point — the same week that the President welcomes Iranian oil to the market with open arms.”
The EIA reported an overall decrease in energy production on federal land in 2014, primarily in natural gas offshore and in Wyoming. That decrease was offset by a 5.7 percent increase in fossil fuel production on Indian land and a 7 percent rise in oil production, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, North Dakota and New Mexico.
The small increase in federal land production comes as energy extraction on private land is booming. According to an April Congressional Research Service report, production of oil (an 89 percent increase since 2010) and natural gas (37 percent increase) on private land has surged even as federal land production has fallen.
“Producers operating on private and state lands are powering our energy economy, but we deserve better from the federal government,” Bishop said.
“The Obama administration should be expanding access to federal lands and offshore waters and opening up American oil markets — not only for the sake of our economy but for the sake of national security.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested