Preview Newsletter
ACC AM July 21
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hot Topics at ALEC's 2015 Meeting in San Diego
Jul 20, 2015 | PR Watch
By Brendan Fischer
This week, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or "ALEC," will bring together hundreds of corporate lobbyists with state and local politicians at a posh hotel in San Diego for the group's annual meeting. ALEC alum Scott Walker, who has signed over 20 ALEC bills into law, will address this month's meeting... -
(ACC Mentioned) Looking In: Toxic battle — Congress Should Choose Kids
Jul 20, 2015 | Santa Fe New Mexican
By Katherine McFate
Despite parents’ best efforts to buy organic and use natural products, toxic chemicals are still found in baby toys, the lining of food containers, cosmetics and other products we use daily. The situation is worse for families with limited budgets. A recent report by the Campaign for Healthier Solutions found more than 80 percent of products tested... -
(ACC Mentioned) Crushing Containers Makes Them Harder to Recycle
Jul 21, 2015 | Environmental Leader
Educating consumers not to crush their recyclables can improve the rate at which these items are recovered by today’s single-steam material recovery facilities (MRFs). This is one of the key takeaways from a report prepared by Resource Recycling Systems (RRS) in conjunction with Reclay StewardEdge and Moore Recylcing Associates. -
Strong Congressional Interest in Storage Tank Rule
Jul 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Lawmakers from across the political spectrum showed intense interest in proposed compliance costs associated with the Environmental Protection Agency's then-proposed underground storage tank regulatory revisions, documents show. EPA officials received a letter signed by nearly a dozen senators and another signed by almost five dozen... House -
(ACC Mentioned) Court Grants Stay In Waste Recovery Air Suit
Jul 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
A federal appeals court has granted chemical manufacturers' request for a temporary stay on their suit over EPA's air emissions rule that sets new requirements governing industrial waste and recovery operations, delaying further litigation until the agency acts on industry's pending petition to reconsider parts of the rule. -
Senators Push To Protect Oil Reserve Money
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The top senators on energy are fighting efforts to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to fund unrelated programs. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, visited a site that holds part of the federal oil reserve on July 17 to underscore her opposition to... -
House GOP Holds Off On Crude Exports -- For Now
Jul 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss, Hannah Northey, and Daniel Bush
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans have decided against including a controversial repeal of the crude exports ban in the panel's comprehensive energy package that is set for an initial subcommittee markup tomorrow. The 95-page bill, unveiled last night, sticks to the blueprint laid out by committee leaders... -
Keystone’s Southern Leg Hits Milestone
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The existing, southern segment of the Keystone oil pipeline system has pumped its billionth barrel, owner TransCanada Corp. said Monday. The company is using the milestone to promote the safety of its pipeline and push the Obama administration to approve the highly controversial northern segment, known as Keystone XL. -
White House Distances Itself From Oil Reserve Highway Offset
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Keith Laing
The White House distanced itself from a proposal to sell reserved oil that has been stockpiled to prevent an energy crisis to help pay for transportation projects. Lawmakers are facing a July 31 deadline for the expiration of current infrastructure funding, and senators are looking at a package of roughly $80 billion in offsets... -
N.H. Lawmakers Call For Federal Probe Of FERC Reviews
Jul 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah
Bipartisan senators and House members from New Hampshire in a letter released yesterday called on federal watchdogs to take a closer look at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's pipeline reviews to ensure the public has a say. At the center of the debate is the Northeast Energy Direct project, a controversial Kinder Morgan... -
Utah Officials Approve Contentious Mine
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
Utah officials have approved the digging of an oil sands mine in the eastern part of the state but will require the owners to do environmental monitoring. The decision balances the concerns raised by opponents of the mine while acknowledging that the Canadian company U.S. Oil Sands has complied with regulations... -
House Committee Releases Energy Bill, Announces Wednesday Markup
Jul 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will mark up a comprehensive energy bill on Wednesday, committee leaders announced. The bill includes four titles, according to a committee release, “Modernizing and Protecting Infrastructure”; “21st Century Workforce”; “Energy Security and Diplomacy”; and “Energy Efficiency and Accountability.” -
Meeting Records Offer Insight Into EPA Rollout Process
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
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 ... -
New Mexico Delegation Largely Backs Methane Rules
Jul 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Federal standards for methane emissions are vital to protecting the San Juan Basin, the Democratic members of New Mexico's congressional delegation said in a letter to the White House. They wrote in support of upcoming Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management rules to curb methane emissions from oil and... -
EDF Seeks Strict 'Benchmarks' For EPA's Voluntary Methane Reduction Plan
Jul 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Brid
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is urging EPA to set strict “benchmarks” for its revised plan for cutting methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector, including frequent leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections, regular updates of near-term reduction targets, a broad listing of best management practices (BMPs) ... -
New Mexico Dems Call For Tough New Methane Rule
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Four New Mexico Democrats are encouraging the Obama administration to release a strong rule regulating methane emissions at oil and gas drilling sites. “We recognize that oil and gas producers have an economic incentive to minimize methane losses and the industry is improving its practices,” the Democrats — led by Sens. Tom Udall ... -
Judge Dismisses Novel Oklahoma Suit Seeking To Block Proposed ESPS
Jul 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Rejecting Oklahoma's aggressive calls for action, a federal judge has dismissed the state's novel suit seeking an injunction blocking EPA from finalizing or implementing its greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, ruling that the state has not outlined any “exceptional circumstances” for why the court has jurisdiction to review... -
EPA Science Advisers to Discuss Nitrogen Dioxide Review
Jul 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A panel of independent science advisers will meet Aug. 13 to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing review of the primary, health-based national ambient air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide. The EPA, in a notice scheduled for publication July 21, announced a public teleconference of the Chartered Clean Air Scientific... -
New Jersey Checking Laboratory Air Emissions
Jul 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Laboratories in New Jersey that emit toxic substances such as benzene and methyl chloride are coming under increased scrutiny to make sure they are complying with air pollution controls after several were found to be violating standards, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) announced July 20. -
Advocates Press Climate Change Program To Strengthen Human Impact Report
Jul 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists and public health advocates are pressing EPA and other agencies with the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to strengthen its draft assessment of the risks that climate change presents to human health, arguing the document should quantitatively measure risks and provide policy recommendations rather... -
Questionable Data, Secret Science
Jul 20, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal - Opinion
By Charles G. Battig
Janet McCabe’s defense of EPA implementation of the Clean Air Act reaches back 45 years, at a time when environmental targets were large and easily defined (Letters, July 15). Yet, to date, the chemistry of ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere related to chlorine chemistry remains unsettled science. How does the EPA measure the... -
Nation's Farmers To Feel Impact Of Epa's Proposed Ozone Rule
Jul 21, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bob Stallman
Ground-level ozone is often thought of as a challenge primarily for urban areas. However, reducing ozone can be especially difficult in rural areas and America’s farmers and ranchers are bracing for tough new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards set to go into effect later this year that could severely complicate their ability...
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) Hot Topics at ALEC's 2015 Meeting in San Diego
Jul 20, 2015 | PR Watch
By Brendan Fischer
This week, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or "ALEC," will bring together hundreds of corporate lobbyists with state and local politicians at a posh hotel in San Diego for the group's annual meeting.
ALEC alum Scott Walker, who has signed over 20 ALEC bills into law, will address this month's meeting, as well as Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, who participated in ALEC meetings before he joined the U.S. Senate. Community groups are planning on bringing a little transparency to the proceedings, by welcoming the candidates and ALEC participants on July 22.
ALEC has had a mixed year. Over a dozen companies, including tech giants Google and Facebook, stopped funding the group over its role in promoting climate change denial, yet after the 2014 elections gave Republicans control of 68 out of 98 state legislative bodies, some states have had few impediments to the corporate-friendly legislation that ALEC peddles. For example, in just the first half of 2015, Wisconsin became a "right to work" state and repealed the prevailing wage; Michigan blocked local control over minimum wage and paid sick days; and Texas banned cities from regulating fracking.
A look at the San Diego ALEC agenda tells us more about what ALEC has planned for 2015 and beyond. Attacking Federal Efforts to Rein in Carbon Pollution
Even though California is suffering from a historic drought, the climate change deniers on the Environment and Agriculture Task Force will be working on new ways to stymie action addressing carbon emissions.
In recent years, ALEC has targeted the Environmental Protection Agency's "Clean Power Plan," which is a set of rules limiting carbon dioxide pollution from coal plants. At the behest of its funders like Koch Industries, Peabody Energy, and American Electric Power, ALEC has been organizing a state-level campaign against the rules: the group organized legislators to press their state attorneys general into joining litigation backed by the energy industry that challenges the regulations, adopted a model resolution attacking the plan, and last December adopted a model bill that would create new hurdles for the Plan's implementation.
At this month's meeting, the Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force--which is chaired by American Electric Power-- will consider a "State Power Accountability and Reliability Charter (SPARC)," which seeks to undermine the Clean Power Plan by declaring that state agencies cannot implement it. And, the task force's "Energy Subcommittee" will hold a discussion on "State Responses to EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan."
Another model bill on the ALEC agenda is the "Environmental Impact Litigation Act," which effectively allows corporate interests to hire a state's Department of Justice as their own private attorneys. The bill creates a corporate-backed fund for states to sue over federal environmental laws--such as the EPA's Clean Power Plan--guided by an "environmental impact litigation advisory committee" made up of political appointees and representatives of "individuals representing agriculture and energy trade commissions." Undermining Renewable Energy
ALEC will also double-down on its attacks on rooftop solar and renewable energy.
For the last few years, ALEC and funders like Edison Electric Energy have promoted bills to repeal state Renewable Portfolio Standards, which require utilities to provide some power from renewable sources. Despite support from the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity, ALEC has had limited success in pushing these bills into law, so the group is looking for new ways to undermine renewable standards.
The latest effort is called an "Act Providing Incentives for Carbon Reduction Investments." The industry-friendly bill would free utilities from the requirement that they produce more energy from renewable sources, as long as they claim to make "carbon reduction investments"--which includes controversial programs like carbon sequestration, or campaigns to encourage consumers to reduce energy use. This would undermine the purpose of the renewable standards, which is to promote a shift to renewable energy. Thwarting Rooftop Solar
Solar will also be on the agenda. ALEC has tried in a variety of ways to reduce incentives for individuals and businesses to build rooftop solar panels by raising the costs. Over the last few years, ALEC and its utility industry funders have promoted bills to eliminate "net metering," which gives solar users a credit for excess energy they feed back into the grid, and have been behind efforts to impose a surcharge on rooftop solar users. With few exceptions, these efforts have failed, thanks to strong support for solar from conservatives who like the self-sufficiency that rooftop solar provides, and the fact that in many states the solar industry is creating manufacturing and construction jobs.
In San Diego, ALEC will consider a proposal called a "Resolution Concerning Special Markets for Direct Solar Power Sales" that aims to prop-up the monopolies enjoyed by traditional utilities and oppose direct-to-consumer solar sales. It will be coupled with a presentation called "Consumer Protection Concerns Surround Rooftop Solar Model Policy." In many states, solar developers are allowed to install panels on a customer's home or business for free, then sell the power directly to the consumer, rather than through a monopoly utility provider like Peabody Energy.
Direct-to-consumer energy sales that bypass heavily-regulated monopoly utilities might be viewed as the sort of "market disruption" that free market adherents claim to support. After all, ALEC has celebrated the emergence of ride-sharing companies like Uber because they disrupt taxi monopolies and allow direct-to-consumer ride sales.
The key difference is that ALEC is bankrolled by utility companies. ALEC funders like Peabody Energy, Duke Energy, and Murray Energy are not pleased about the threat to profits posed by direct-to-consumer solar, so therefore it must be crushed, free market principles be damned. Incredibly, the "Resolution Concerning Special Markets for Direct Solar Power Sales" declares that direct-to-consumer solar is "antithetical to free markets."
The proposal appears to come from the climate change deniers at the Heartland Institute. "Beepocalypse Not"
At this meeting, ALEC is denying more than climate change. It also is apparently denying the mass die-off of bees, which threatens food supplies--two-thirds of crops require bee pollination--and which scientists have linked to type of insecticide produced by ALEC member Bayer and other companies. Until recently, Bayer had a representative on ALEC's corporate board and has been listed as the ALEC corporate co-chair in states like Massachusetts, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas.
Bayer has been actively pushing back on the notion that its products contribute to a bee colony collapse. According to a report from Friends of the Earth, Bayer recently launched a "Bee Care Tour” as well as a children’s book "in which a friendly neighborhood beekeeper tells young Toby that the bees are getting sick, but 'not to worry' it's just a problem with mites, and there is special medicine to make bees healthy"--medicine that Bayer produces, of course.
At this month's ALEC meeting, bee die-off denialists took a clumsy stab at being clever: in an apparent reference to "Apocalypse Now" (or perhaps Wayne's World), they titled their presentation, "'Beepocalypse Not." Preemption Hypocrisy
ALEC's new offshoot focused on local government, the American City County Exchange (ACCE), will also meet in San Diego.
Local democracy has led to some significant policy wins in recent years, with cities like Philadelphia guaranteeing workers paid sick days, and places like Denton, Texas banning fracking. ALEC's response to cities and counties acting as laboratories of democracy has traditionally been to crush it, through state "preemption" laws that prohibit local governments from raising the minimum wage, or regulating GMOs, or building municipal broadband.
With ACCE, ALEC and its corporate backers are taking the fight directly to the local level, urging city and county officials on the one hand to give up their authority to protect the health and economic well-being of their constituents, and on the other to push policy measures to advance corporate interests.
The biggest proactive ACCE initiative is a push for local right to work laws. In the months following a local right to work workshop at ACCE’s meeting last December, twelve Kentucky counties have enacted the anti-union measures, and similar proposals have been floated in states like Illinois and Pennsylvania. But enacting right to work on the local level likely violates federal law, so groups like the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and the state Chamber of Commerce are bankrolling the legal defense of counties that get sued.
Local right to work is again on the ACCE agenda for this month's meeting, with the group expected to officially adopt a Local Right to Work model bill.
It will also hold a workshop aimed a propping up another ACCE funder, the payday loan industry: the presentation is titled "Payday Loans; 'Local Free Market Solutions for a Difficult Policy Problem.'”
Besides pushing policy measures that advance the interests of ACCE's funders, ACCE is also urging local electeds to accept state preemption laws.
In a workshop titled “Understanding State Preemption Laws," ALEC and ACCE will pitch local officials on why they should let state legislatures steamroll their authority to protect the health and economic well-being of their constituents. The workshop will be moderated by Libby Szabo, a former Colorado state legislator and ALEC state chair who is now a local official: she resigned from the state legislature just two months after winning reelection to take a county commissioner appointment, leading to charges from the editorial board of the conservative Denver Post that she was "thumbing her nose at voters."
The lesson here is that ALEC supports local control when it advances the interests of its funders, yet actively works to undermine local democracy when it threatens corporate profits.
ALEC's hypocrisy around the idea "government that is closest to the people governs best" isn't just limited to city-state relations. Even though ALEC has fought federal policies like healthcare reform and the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of carbon emissions under the guise of “state’s rights,” at this month's meeting it will push policies that run contrary even to that notion. Here again, corporate profits trump anything resembling principles.
ALEC will hold a workshop telling state legislators that they should embrace federal preemption of state chemical regulation, which happens to benefit ALEC funders like the American Chemistry Council. The "Environmental Health and Regulation Subcommittee" will hold a presentation titled "Supporting Chemical Regulation Preemption Supports Manufacturing," where legislators will apparently be told it is just swell that the federal Toxic Substances Control Act will prohibit states from enacting tougher chemical regulations.
And, the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force will consider a proposed "Resolution Urging Congress to Eliminate Discriminatory State and Local Taxes on Automobile Renters," which calls on Congress to preempt discriminatory state and local taxes on car rentals. It is hard to imagine a more blatant piece of corporate-friendly legislation, yet ALEC continues to insist that only legislators can propose model bills at its meetings. Amending the Constitution
In recent years, one of ALEC's top priorities has been to add a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And it will be a major focus of this month's meeting.
A balanced budget amendment is an idea that has been bouncing around for decades--even though it would cripple the federal government's ability to spend on earned benefit programs like Social Security, and block Congress from responding to economic downturns or natural disasters--but what is unique about ALEC's push is that they are trying to do it via an Article V Constitutional Convention.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides that thirty-four states (two-thirds) can trigger a convention to propose an amendment, which must then be ratified by 38 states (three-fourths). Although this seems like a tall order, in the past year over a dozen states have passed resolutions calling for an Article V convention, adding to at least twelve other states that enacted resolutions years ago. The proposal has been supported by Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).
Key to the Article V push has been the "Jeffersonian Project," the 501(c)(4) group that ALEC formed in 2013 amidst complaints from Common Cause and CMD that ALEC was violating its 501(c)(3) charitable status by engaging in excessive lobbying. In order to deflect allegations of lobbying, the "Jeffersonian Project" is now used to urge legislators to pass ALEC model legislation, an activity that ALEC used to do directly.
This year, the Article V strategy dominates the agenda of ALEC's Task Force on Federalism and International Relations, with five presentations and two pieces of draft legislation. The task force's private sector chair is a representative of Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax group founded by Grover Norquist. And, there will be two separate ALEC-wide policy workshops on the Article V effort, as well as a reception and dinner titled "States Constitutionally Saving “The American Dream” Summit Via Balanced Budget Amendment Convention."
Throughout U.S. history, the Constitution has only been amended through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress on a specific amendment, which is then ratified by two-thirds of state legislatures. In contrast, the Article V strategy triggers a full constitutional convention, and it is unclear whether the delegates could be confined to only passing one amendment. This fear of a "runaway convention" has led critics on both the right and left to oppose the Article V strategy.
ALEC has tried to quell these fears through a companion bill declaring that delegates to a convention may not vote on other issues besides a balanced budget amendment. Yet, at least some amendment supporters want to open up the Article V process and amendment the constitution to address an array of issues, like limiting the Commerce Clause, banning international law in the U.S., and placing term limits on the Supreme Court, among other items from a right-wing wishlist.
The key driver of the broader Article V amendment effort is Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG), a group led by Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler, and whose board includes Wisconsinite Eric O'Keefe. CSG, which receives most of its funding through foundations such as DonorsTrust that cloak their donors' identities, has also backed multiple lawsuits related to the "John Doe" investigation into coordination between Governor Walker's campaign and Wisconsin Club for Growth, where O'Keefe is a director.
CSG's Convention of States effort has been endorsed by Mike Huckabee (who will be addressing the ALEC conference) and also attracted support from the likes of Glenn Beck. CSG's "Compact for America" appears on the ALEC agenda with both a presentation and a model bill, and Meckler will also address the conference on July 24.
Another group pushing an Article V amendment is Compact for America, a Texas-based group advised by Nick Dranias, formerly of the Goldwater Institute, and chaired by former Goldwater chair Thomas C. Patterson. This group also is promoting a model bill at the ALEC meeting, and will hold a full breakout session on July 23.
Wisconsin State Rep. Chris Taylor attended a session on ALEC's Article V plans at the group's 2013 conference. When she expressed hesitation that the public would support the effort, she was told, "You really don’t need people to do this. You just need control over the legislature and you need money, and we have both." Continuing to Fight "Obamacare"
ALEC has long tried to undermine the 2010 federal Affordable Care Act. It produced the "State Legislators' Guide to Repealing Obamacare," and has promoted bills to try blocking the individual mandate in states, and to prohibit insurers from providing subsidies to low-income residents, and to reject the insurance “exchanges” where individuals can buy insurance (which would have had serious repercussions if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled differently in King v. Burwell).
Despite repeated failures to overturn the Affordable Care Act through Congress and the courts, ALEC is continuing to fight the law through the states.
At this month's meeting, the Health and Human Services Task Force will consider a bill to limit expansion of Medicaid benefits within the state, and the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force will have a resolution on the purported negative impact of Medicaid expansion under the healthcare law. The task force will also consider a resolution opposing federal "maintenance of effort" requirements, like those in Obamacare and also with education funding. Fighting to Protect Dark Money
After spending hundreds of millions of undisclosed funds on state and federal elections, ALEC's corporate members will also demand that state legislators preserve their "right" to anonymously spend money on politics and buy influence in state legislatures.
A July 23 workshop titled "Dark Money Debate: What Lawmakers Need to Know about the First Amendment and Anonymous Political Speech" will promote the idea that transparency in elections is a bad thing. David Keating of the Center for Competitive Politics and Jon Riches of the Goldwater Institute are listed as presenters.
It is little surprise that corporate interests would peddle secrecy to the hundreds of Republican state legislators at ALEC.
ALEC's funders, like the billionaire Koch brothers, have spent millions in "dark money"--electoral spending that evades donor disclosure laws--in recent years, secret spending which has increased exponentially since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision.
Disclosure of electoral spending has widespread support among the public, and it still has support among many Republican state lawmakers. ALEC, it seems, is trying to change that.
This isn't ALEC's first foray into this issue. Its 2010 "Resolution in Support of Citizens United" opposes both the disclosure and shareholder participation endorsed by the majority in Citizens United. In 2011, ALEC lobbied legislators in states like New York urging them to reject a proposal requiring corporations get shareholder approval for political spending. And at ALEC's meeting last December, ALEC held a similarly themed workshop called "Playing the Shame Game: A Campaign that Threatens Corporate Free Speech." - See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/comment/34665#sthash.srdcck3x.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) Looking In: Toxic battle — Congress Should Choose Kids
Jul 20, 2015 | Santa Fe New Mexican
By Katherine McFate
Despite parents’ best efforts to buy organic and use natural products, toxic chemicals are still found in baby toys, the lining of food containers, cosmetics and other products we use daily. The situation is worse for families with limited budgets. A recent report by the Campaign for Healthier Solutions found more than 80 percent of products tested from discount retailers contained lead, phthalates or other chemicals linked to cancer, learning disabilities and birth defects. And as Richard Moore and Sofia Martinez noted in The Santa Fe New Mexican earlier this year (“A toxic shell game: State deserves better,” My View, March 29), communities in New Mexico and other places face a legacy of overexposure to toxins.
You might think that the federal government would have tested the 84,000 chemicals registered for commercial use today. You’d be wrong.
Forty years ago, the federal government did pass a law meant to protect the American people from exposure to toxic chemicals. But opposition from the chemical industry made it a five-year fight, and the final law was deeply flawed. Instead of requiring manufacturers to prove new chemicals are safe before they are marketed, the Toxic Substances Control Act allows a chemical to continue to be used until or unless the Environmental Protection Agency can prove that it poses an “unreasonable risk to human health.” The burden is on government to prove a chemical is unsafe.
Thanks to lobbying from chemical manufacturers, the law allowed the 62,000 chemicals already in use in 1976 to remain on the market, with no safety testing required. Of the more than 20,000 new chemicals registered since then, EPA has ordered testing of only 250 of them, and just nine chemicals have been restricted.
The expensive research reviews and multiple cost-benefit analyses the EPA must conduct to find a chemical unsafe, as well as ambiguous language that invites endless litigation by chemical companies, means the law is simply too weak to protect our health and the health of our kids.
In the absence of federal action, parents demanded and states began passing laws to regulate chemicals. California has determined that more than 900 chemicals may cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm; it requires manufacturers to label products that use these chemicals and disclose their health risks. Another 37 states have passed over 250 chemical safety laws or regulations, but stronger federal protections are needed.
Unfortunately, the bill pushed with the literal marks of the American Chemistry Council on it does not provide the improvements parents need and want. Legislation from U.S. Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., would marginally improve the EPA’s ability to test and regulate chemicals and set a timeline for assessments of 25 high-risk chemicals, but it would ban states from setting higher chemical safety standards. It also fails to address the significant health risks faced by people living in communities near chemical plants.
As Jeanne Rizzo, president and CEO of the Breast Cancer Fund, points out, the Vitter-Udall bill is fatally flawed and would not protect Americans from diseases linked to chemical exposures, including breast cancer.
An alternative bill from U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., calls for expedited action on chemicals of high concern, requires EPA to use a stronger safety standard, and preserves the authority of states to test, label, restrict and ban chemicals that put the health of children at risk. This is the way forward.
For parents and grandparents (as most members of Congress are), the right choice should be obvious. But the American Chemistry Council spent more than $50 million in the last five years lobbying Congress, and the three largest chemical companies — Dow, DuPont and Monsanto — together spent almost $100 million to weaken restrictions on chemicals. Sen. Udall has been receiving significant campaign contributions from the chemical industry in the last three years.
To ensure the health of the American people, we need to test, label, restrict and ban a long list of toxic chemicals. To ensure the health of our democracy, we need to restrict corporate money in politics. It appears to be toxic to sound policymaking.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Crushing Containers Makes Them Harder to Recycle
Jul 21, 2015 | Environmental Leader
Educating consumers not to crush their recyclables can improve the rate at which these items are recovered by today’s single-steam material recovery facilities (MRFs). This is one of the key takeaways from a report prepared by Resource Recycling Systems (RRS) in conjunction with Reclay StewardEdge and Moore Recylcing Associates.
The MRF Material Flow Report was commission by the Carton Council, the American Chemistry Council, NAPCOR, the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, and the Foodservice Packaging Institute (FPI) to better understand the recyclability of their packaging. It examined the behavior of numerous individual products in five different MRFs — four single streams and one dual stream — to identify opportunities and obstacles regarding their recovery.
Plastic products studied included cups, clamshells, domes/trays, bottles, tubs, lids and other containers. Paper products studied included cups, ice cream containers, gable top and aseptic cartons and take-out food containers.
Key takeaways for packaging designers: Form, material and rigidity have a significant effect on a product’s “sortability” in the MRF.Lightweighting plastics can decrease their recovery in a single stream MRF due to loss to the paper streams.
Key takeaways for municipalities: Regular communication with local MRFs can help municipalities better understand how accepted materials are behaving in the MRF and identify additional materials that could be added.As the list of acceptable materials grows, residents should be continually educated to keep contamination to a minimum.
While dual stream MRFs offer the advantage of reducing the loss of plastics and other containers to the paper streams, they are declining nationally in favor of single stream systems, the report notes.
RRS conducted a survey last year for FPI’s Paper Recovery Alliance and Plastics Recovery Group, which found that contrary to popular perceptions, foodservice packaging has widespread acceptance by MRFs.
Read more: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2015/07/21/crushing-containers-makes-them-harder-to-recycle/#ixzz3gWYfeAdx -
Strong Congressional Interest in Storage Tank Rule
Jul 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Lawmakers from across the political spectrum showed intense interest in proposed compliance costs associated with the Environmental Protection Agency's then-proposed underground storage tank regulatory revisions, documents show.
EPA officials received a letter signed by nearly a dozen senators and another signed by almost five dozen House members, as well as additional letters from individual lawmakers calling attention to the impacts the proposed rule might have on their constituents.
Mathy Stanislaus, the EPA's assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency response, replied to the congressional inquiries with a nearly identical response saying “some of the changes to the proposal that the EPA is considering would reduce the costs of the final rule” and stating the agency shared concerns over compliance costs.
The EPA formally published (80 Fed. Reg. 41,566) the first updates to the nation's underground storage tank regulations since 1988 on July 15, incorporating significant changes to reduce the compliance costs associated with the regulation. The updated standards, promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, go into effect Oct. 13 (135 DEN A-2, 7/15/15).
Individual Letters Sent
Letters from both the bipartisan groups of Senate and House members expressing concerns about the compliance costs of the regulation were previously obtained by Bloomberg BNA, but the regulatory docket shows multiple other lawmakers raised similar concerns in letters of their own.
For example, then-Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) asked the EPA in an August 2013 letter to explain the difference between the EPA's estimated $900 annual compliance costs per facility and the $6,000 annual compliance cost estimate from industry.
“I consider this difference to be of sufficient magnitude to deserve additional scrutiny and consideration as you continue this rulemaking action,” Harkin wrote.
Then-Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) outlined similar concerns of their own in an Aug. 6, 2013, letter.
“With 98 percent of the impacted firms being small businesses, it is critical that the cost analysis properly reflect the full cost of the rule,” the Democratic senators wrote. “In re-evaluating the costs of the rule, we ask that you reach out to the small businesses impacted by the rule to better understand how the rule would impact them financially.”
The EPA ultimately declined to form the Small Business Advocacy Review panel sought by many of the lawmakers, but reduced the compliance costs in a manner that addressed the most serious concerns raised by industry.
Unique State Concerns
Then-Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii) wrote to the EPA on June 28, 2013, to express concern that the regulation would have a disproportionately burdensome effect on small businesses in her state of Hawaii “due to the expense of logistics, the limited number of trained personnel in the state and the rural location of many small sites.”
“For example, one of the tests required by the proposal generates hazardous waste material and the only way for operators on the neighbor islands such as Maui or Kauai to properly dispose of the material is to physically ship it to Oahu,” Hanabusa wrote. “I request the EPA pull the proposed rule and form a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel to further evaluate compliance costs.”
In late July 2013, 58 House members and nine members of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee asked the agency convene an SBAR panel to examine the impact the rule (RIN 2050-AG46) would have on small businesses (144 DEN A-5, 7/26/13).
Meeting Records Posted
Along with the records of congressional correspondence, the EPA posted records of several dozen meetings held with interest groups on various aspects of the regulation.
The agency reported meeting with the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, Department of Defense, Port of Portland, Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute, Airlines for America, National Association of Convenience Stores, Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials and Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, among other groups.
Among the companies meeting with the agency were Verizon Wireless, AT&T Inc., CenturyLink Inc. and Hess Corp.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Court Grants Stay In Waste Recovery Air Suit
Jul 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
A federal appeals court has granted chemical manufacturers' request for a temporary stay on their suit over EPA's air emissions rule that sets new requirements governing industrial waste and recovery operations, delaying further litigation until the agency acts on industry's pending petition to reconsider parts of the rule.
In its July 20 order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agrees to place American Chemistry Council (ACC) v. EPA in abeyance until as late as Dec. 8 -- although the case will restart sooner if EPA acts more quickly on ACC's petition.
“The parties are directed to file motions to govern future proceedings within 30 days of the completion of the agency proceedings, but no later than December 8, 2015,” the order says.
At issue in the case is EPA's final national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) rule for Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operation, which the agency published in March. It covers a range of facilities, including hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, some hazardous and non-hazardous wastewater treatment works, used solvent recovery plants, hazardous waste recycling plants and used oil re-refineries.
According to environmentalists' June 17 motion to intervene, the final NESHAP rule removes an exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction; requires electronic reporting of performance test results; bars emissions releases from pressure relief devices (PRDs); and strengthens requirements for certain valves and lines.
The petitioners in the case, ACC and Eastman Chemical Company, are objecting to the tighter standards, questioning their legality. ACC's statement of issues in the case lists a host of alleged improprieties in the final rule, including claiming that a bar on air emissions from PRDs is illegal; that EPA failed to base its standards on the “best performing sources” in the sector as required by section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act; and that the agency acted improperly in mandating for connectors the use“Method 21,” an EPA instrument monitoring standard for detecting leaks of volatile organic compounds.
Eastman's statement of issues, filed June 18, also questions whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise illegal, and cites some of the same issues.
But environmentalists, seeking to intervene in the case on EPA's behalf, have touted EPA's prediction that the rule will result in public health benefits by reducing 211 tons of toxic air emissions annually.
-
Senators Push To Protect Oil Reserve Money
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The top senators on energy are fighting efforts to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to fund unrelated programs.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, visited a site that holds part of the federal oil reserve on July 17 to underscore her opposition to raiding the SPR and support for improvements to the program.“The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a vital national security asset. We must ensure that it’s capable of moving oil to where it’s needed in case of supply disruptions,” she said after the Louisiana visit.
“Any potential revenue raised through the ‘rightsizing’ of the SPR should be used to improve our nation’s energy security,” she continued. “Ensuring the operational effectiveness of the reserve should be our first priority.”
Murkowski’s visit and statement came as lawmakers consider selling some of the 691 million-barrel crude oil stockpile to pay for highway infrastructure. The House recently voted to sell oil from the reserve to pay for its 21st Century Cures legislation.
Chris Smith, who oversees the reserve as the Energy Department’s assistant secretary for fossil energy, accompanied Murkowski on his trip.
The visit also came as Obama administration officials call attention to problems they foresee in dispatching oil from the reserve if it is ever needed.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on Murkowski’s panel, agrees with her.
“The SPR is currently our most important federal energy security asset,” said Rosemarie Calabro Tully, Cantwell’s spokeswoman.
“The Quadrennial Energy Review includes an analysis of the energy security value of the SPR in modern global oil markets, examining ways to ensure that we maximize its energy security value for the American taxpayer,” she added, referring to the Energy Department’s recent report on infrastructure challenges. “Rather than raiding the SPR, we must modernize it.”
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has expressed a similar opinion, telling the Senate recently that he has “considerable concern” about selling the oil for purposes other than energy security and resilience.
The stockpile was established in the 1970s to protect the United States from oil supply disruptions.
-
House GOP Holds Off On Crude Exports -- For Now
Jul 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss, Hannah Northey, and Daniel Bush
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans have decided against including a controversial repeal of the crude exports ban in the panel's comprehensive energy package that is set for an initial subcommittee markup tomorrow.
The 95-page bill, unveiled last night, sticks to the blueprint laid out by committee leaders earlier this year, with a heavy focus on modernizing the electric grid and energy workforce, promoting efficiency, as well as taking steps to factor the oil and gas boom into U.S. domestic and foreign policy considerations.
After pledging to work with Democrats on a bill that could advance with bipartisan support, Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) steered clear of one politically charged issue -- ending the 40-year-old crude exports ban. Aides said the bill reflects the bipartisan agreement of the principal negotiators, although as a committee memo notes, amendments can be submitted up to two hours before being offered at markup.
Democrats expressed skepticism over repealing the ban during a hearing earlier this month, with one industry ally -- Texas' Gene Green -- saying he would withhold his support for the bill if a repeal was included (E&E Daily, July 10).
Instead, the bill's energy security and diplomacy title requires the Energy Department to develop "energy valuation" methods "to ensure that energy-related actions that significantly affect the supply, distribution, or use of energy are evaluated with respect to their potential impact on energy security, including their impact on consumers and the economy; energy supply, diversity and resiliency; well-functioning and competitive energy markets; United States trade balance; and national security objectives," according to a committee summary.
The bill also directs DOE to submit a plan to Congress for improving planning with Canada and Mexico "to enhance energy integration, strengthen North American energy security, and promote efficiencies; and improve collaboration with Caribbean and Central American partners on energy security."
DOE is further directed to convene at least four forums -- two with Atlantic trade partners and two with Pacific nations -- to discuss the promotion of energy security.
The House language reflects compromises the committee made to win bipartisan support, both in what it contains and what was left out.
The bill, for example, does not contain language included in an earlier discussion draft that would have imposed a timeline for DOE to issue decisions on exports of natural gas. Nor does it include a proposal that Berkshire Hathaway Energy had floated to ease purchase requirements for utilities under a 1970s law aimed at boosting renewables and efficiency.
One provision included in the House package is for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve or reject natural gas pipelines within 90 days of completing an environmental review. Yet the language contains no penalties for failing to act, instead laying out a process through which agencies can resolve conflicts or delays.
The interstate pipeline industry said the final bill must include consequences for agencies contributing to FERC's environmental reviews that don't act in a timely manner. Without teeth, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) has warned reviews of new projects will lag (E&E Daily, June 2).
Other provisions have and will continue to face stiff opposition among regulators.
The bill, for example, would set up an Office of Compliance within FERC to ensure consumers are protected and to inform Congress about FERC policy directions. But FERC officials have warned that such a set-up would build barriers between the enforcement staff and the commission. Critics have also noted that the House has included no new funding for the office (Greenwire, June 4).
But other portions of the bill have -- and will continue to draw -- support in the electric industry, including language that lays out a path of relief for utilities caught between Energy Department orders to continue operating and violating environmental regulations. The bill would ensure that power plants operating in compliance with an order under the Federal Power Act -- orders to operate to maintain reliability -- won't be found in violation of environmental laws.
The bill would also bolster communication between DOE and industry to protect oil and gas infrastructure during emergencies. Another provision would allow the secretary of Energy to take swift action -- without notice or hearings and facilitating information-sharing -- to protect the grid from rare solar flares, storms, physical or cyberattacks or an electromagnetic pulse.
Under the bill, the secretary would also have the authority to assemble a reserve of transformers to shore up the electric grid, as well as a voluntary program to identify and promote cyber-secure products.
In the efficiency title, the package would also change the definition of "energy savings" in energy savings performance contracts, or ESPCs, to include savings generated from renewable energy rebates and credits.
ESPCs allow federal agencies to enter into contracts with companies or utilities to install energy efficient systems and equipment at no upfront cost. The utilities or energy service companies hired to carry out the work are repaid through the savings generated from the efficiency upgrades.
Under the bill, DOE would be required to evaluate the savings value of existing ESPCs and report on past energy savings contracts that haven't been implemented.
The program and a similar one for utility energy service contracts have delivered billions of dollars of savings but remain mired in a budgetary battle over how the Congressional Budget Office scores long-term energy savings projects (Greenwire, March 18).
The title also includes language that would give stakeholders in the debate over energy savings standards for gas furnaces additional input before DOE puts out its final furnace rule next summer.
The bill would also require DOE to seek ways to improve energy efficiency at federal data centers and expand the agency's assistance to public schools that undertake energy retrofitting projects.
Tomorrow's markup comes as lawmakers are scrambling to wrap up an assortment of legislative business before heading home for the long August recess. A committee statement made no mention of a full committee markup, but should the bill receive the blessing of all panel members later this week, that should provide sufficient time to ready for a floor debate next week as planned.
In the statement, Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) noted the "bipartisan collaboration that has gone into putting together this comprehensive bill."
Upton called the subcommittee vote "an important milestone" in meeting his "Architecture of Abundance" energy blueprint. "Wednesday's markup is the next step in ensuring we not only get this legislation done but get it done right," he said.
-
Keystone’s Southern Leg Hits Milestone
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The existing, southern segment of the Keystone oil pipeline system has pumped its billionth barrel, owner TransCanada Corp. said Monday.
The company is using the milestone to promote the safety of its pipeline and push the Obama administration to approve the highly controversial northern segment, known as Keystone XL.“This is tangible evidence of how the safe delivery of Canadian and U.S. crude oil is helping to fuel the everyday lives of the American people in the safest, most efficient and least greenhouse gas intensive way possible,” TransCanada President Russ Girling said in a statement.
“To put this achievement in perspective, it would take approximately 1.7 million train cars or 3.3 million trucks to transport one billion barrels of crude oil,” he continued.
The Keystone system began operating in 2010. It carries crude from Cushing, Okla. — a major hub for oil transportation — to refineries on Texas’s coast and in Illinois.
Its regulatory approval took only two years, and President Obama spoke at a ceremony celebrating its opening.
That’s in stark contrast to the Keystone XL segment, which would link oil sands producers in Alberta, Canada, to the existing segment and on to Texas.
The XL portion has been seeking a permit from Obama for nearly seven years, as environmentalists, Democrats and others have argued that it would be harmful to the environment.
But TransCanada disagrees, as do the oil industry, Republicans and some Democrats.
“Identical to Keystone, Keystone XL will reduce GHG emissions and improve public safety by transporting crude oil via pipeline versus rail,” Girling said in his statement. “Keystone XL will also create tens of thousands of jobs, and oil imported from Venezuela and the Middle East would be replaced with American and Canadian oil.”
-
White House Distances Itself From Oil Reserve Highway Offset
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Keith Laing
The White House distanced itself from a proposal to sell reserved oil that has been stockpiled to prevent an energy crisis to help pay for transportation projects.
Lawmakers are facing a July 31 deadline for the expiration of current infrastructure funding, and senators are looking at a package of roughly $80 billion in offsets that includes revenue from sales of oil that is currently stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
The White House has endorsed a smaller package of $8 billion that relies on $3 billion worth of savings from Transportation Security Administration fees and $5 billion in tax compliance measures to fund road projects through Dec. 18 that has been passed by the House.White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest distanced the administration from the oil aspect of the emerging Senate proposal, however.
"Well at the risk of unintentionally suggesting to some people who are closely watching the energy markets that this may be telegraphing a decision about a sale, I don't have a specific comment on that," Earnest said.
"I will just say as a general matter that we have indicated in a written statement our support for the five-month extension that the House considered last week and approved, primarily as a mechanism for buying time to reach an agreement on a longer-term highway funding bill," he continued. "We have expressed our frustration at the repeated short-term extensions that we believe are entirely inconsistent with the best interests of our economy and the best interests of maintaining a modern infrastructure. So we believe a serious long-term investment is needed in our infrastructure."
Earnest said the White House supports the Senate's goal of getting to a longer transportation funding measure, but he said the president would prefer his proposal to use revenue from taxing overseas profits to pay for the bill.
"The president has put forward his own specific proposal, the Grow America Act, that wouldn't just ensure that we are funding our infrastructure over the long term…and above the current level, because there is so much built-up maintenance that's required of our infrastructure in this country, and we're hopeful that Congress will make a commitment similar to the one that we have proposed," he said.
The Department of Transportation has warned that its Highway Trust Fund will dip below a mandatory critical level of $4 billion at the end of the month. The agency has said crossing that threshold will necessitate a cutback on payments to state and local governments.
Congress has been grappling since 2005 with a transportation funding shortfall that is estimated to be about $16 billion per year, and lawmakers have not passed a transportation bill that lasts longer than two years during that span.
The 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax has been the main source of transportation funding for decades, but the tax has not been increased since 1993 and more fuel-efficient cars have sapped its buying power. The federal government typically spends about $50 billion per year on transportation projects, but the gas tax only brings in approximately $34 billion annually.
The Obama administration has proposed a measure that calls for spending $478 billion over the next six years on the nation's roads and bridges, but lawmakers have largely ignored the suggestion.
The Obama plan, known as the GROW AMERICA Act, would supplement gas tax revenue with a process known as "repatriation," which would tax corporate profits being held overseas at a 14 percent rate.
Earnest said Monday "the proposal that the administration put forward is one that's entirely paid for. So it's one that is fiscally responsible."
Republicans have said they are open to the president's repatriation idea, but they have said the taxes should be collected at a lower rate and on a voluntary basis in the form of a "tax holiday" for companies that return profits to domestic banks.
Other transportation advocates are pushing for a gas tax increase to pay for a long-term transportation bill, but Republican lawmakers have ruled out a tax hike.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will take about $100 billion, in addition to the gas tax revenue, to pay for a six-year transportation bill.
-
N.H. Lawmakers Call For Federal Probe Of FERC Reviews
Jul 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah
Bipartisan senators and House members from New Hampshire in a letter released yesterday called on federal watchdogs to take a closer look at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's pipeline reviews to ensure the public has a say.
At the center of the debate is the Northeast Energy Direct project, a controversial Kinder Morgan natural gas pipeline that would intersect 17 towns in the Granite State.
Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R) and Jeanne Shaheen (D) joined Reps. Ann McLane Kuster (D) and Frank Guinta (R) in calling on the Energy Department's inspector general in a July 15 letter to ensure FERC's review of the pending interstate gas pipeline includes ample opportunity for affected landowners to weigh in and voice their concerns. FERC did not comment on the matter.
"Our constituents have expressed frustration about the lack of information from FERC and the limited extent that public input is considered in the commission's review and approval process for energy infrastructure projects," the senators and House members told Inspector General Gregory Friedman.
FERC pipeline reviews have for months drawn the ire of environmental and landowner groups as gas demand grows under new environmental regulations and projects proliferate across the country.
The New England delegation said the situation is especially alarming because FERC, the lead agency for conducting environmental reviews of such projects, authorizes construction that allows for private land to be acquired through eminent domain.
Ayotte, Shaheen, Kuster and Guinta called on Friedman to determine what steps FERC is taking to ensure projects are consistent with public interest, and whether FERC has conducted enough outreach and has the right performance measures in place to allow for sufficient participation.
The IG should also ensure stakeholders, including state and local officials and agencies, can express concerns about potential environmental effects of a project during the permitting process, they added.
Yesterday in a second letter, they also formally invited FERC Chairman Norman Bay to visit New Hampshire to hear directly from concerned citizens.
Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for Kinder Morgan, said the company is continuing to move the project through the pre-filing process and cooperating with FERC on ongoing scoping meetings. The company expects to formally request a license in October and place the pipeline into operation by November 2018, pending regulatory approval, he said.
-
Utah Officials Approve Contentious Mine
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
Utah officials have approved the digging of an oil sands mine in the eastern part of the state but will require the owners to do environmental monitoring.
The decision balances the concerns raised by opponents of the mine while acknowledging that the Canadian company U.S. Oil Sands has complied with regulations, said John Baza, director of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining.
Environmentalists hailed the decision as a victory. They had presented evidence at a recent public meeting saying the Book Cliffs area would be affected by the nearby mine.
U.S. Oil Sands officials have said the area near the mine has no measurable amount of water (EnergyWire, March 2). They were not available for comment today (AP/Fuel Fix, July 20). -- BTP
-
House Committee Releases Energy Bill, Announces Wednesday Markup
Jul 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will mark up a comprehensive energy bill on Wednesday, committee leaders announced.
The bill includes four titles, according to a committee release, “Modernizing and Protecting Infrastructure”; “21st Century Workforce”; “Energy Security and Diplomacy”; and “Energy Efficiency and Accountability.”
Wednesday’s markup follows months of hearings over discussion drafts that served as the basis for the bill released tonight.
“As we work to put our policies of energy scarcity behind us, we remain focused on maximizing our energy abundance in this new era,” Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield said in a statement. “I appreciate the bipartisan collaboration that has gone into putting together this comprehensive bill, and look forward to our continued work together.” -
Meeting Records Offer Insight Into EPA Rollout Process
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
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.
Click here 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.
-
New Mexico Delegation Largely Backs Methane Rules
Jul 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Federal standards for methane emissions are vital to protecting the San Juan Basin, the Democratic members of New Mexico's congressional delegation said in a letter to the White House.
They wrote in support of upcoming Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management rules to curb methane emissions from oil and natural gas production.
“We recognize that oil and gas producers have an economic incentive to minimize methane losses and the industry is improving its practices,” the lawmakers said in the letter, which was released July 20. “However, federal action is necessary to ensure that steps to limit methane releases are applied consistently across the industry. Rules to reduce the impact of methane releases on public health, while ensuring that Americans receive fair compensation for the production of federal minerals, are critical to reducing methane waste and water pollution.”
The upcoming rule will allow oil and natural gas producers to capture additional natural gas for sale while providing benefits for the environment, the lawmakers said.
The letter was signed by Sens. Tom Udall (D) and Martin Heinrich (D) and Reps. Ben Ray Luján (D) and Michelle Lujan Grisham (D). Rep. Steve Pearce (R) was the only member of the New Mexico delegation that didn't sign the letter.
The White House Office off Management and Budget is reviewing an EPA proposal to set methane emissions limits for new oil and natural gas wells. The proposal is expected in August (122 DEN A-8, 6/25/15).
The Bureau of Land Management is also expected to propose this year updated standards for venting and flaring of natural gas as part of a White House strategy to curb methane emissions by as much as 45 percent by 2025.
-
EDF Seeks Strict 'Benchmarks' For EPA's Voluntary Methane Reduction Plan
Jul 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Brid
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is urging EPA to set strict “benchmarks” for its revised plan for cutting methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector, including frequent leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections, regular updates of near-term reduction targets, a broad listing of best management practices (BMPs) and an explicit “additionality” requirement that would limit BMP credits for early actions.
But the proposals are likely to draw opposition from some in the industry, who have already forced EPA to redo an earlier plan that the officials said was overly burdensome and would have limited industry participation.
Mark Brownstein, vice president of the climate and energy program at EDF, detailed the group's calls in a July 20 blog post, just as EPA prepares to unveil a package of proposals for curbing emissions of the potent greenhouse gas (GHG).
The package includes a first-time proposed rule directly regulating methane from some “new” sources, as well as the agency's latest proposal for its new Gas Star Gold voluntary program.
EPA June 24 sent to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) its proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) for the sector, expected to include first-time methane limits as well as cuts for volatile organic compounds across a subset of emissions sources not adequately captured in the agency's 2012 standards for the oil and gas industry.
The proposed rule's issuance will mark a win for environmentalists, who have long sought such “direct” regulation of methane.
By contrast, the proposed voluntary program is intended be a partnership between EPA and industry, setting best practices for facilities to cut emissions of methane, a GHG that is as much as 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide.
The voluntary program aims to build on the success of the existing Natural Gas Star program to identify cost-effective technologies and options for voluntary emission reductions from the sector. Under the proposed program, which EPA hopes to launch by the end of 2015, facilities would win “Gold” status if they implement a suite of best practice protocols the agency has developed for curbing emissions from what it says it has identified as 20 high-emitting sources of methane.
Many in industry have urged EPA to allow participation in the voluntary program as an alternative to strict new regulations and have had some success in getting the agency to scale back its initial plan for the voluntary program.
Last year, the industry successfully pressed the agency to withdraw an earlier plan for the voluntary program after charging that few companies would have participated because the proposal was too burdensome.
And industry officials have also been pressing the agency to ensure the new program provides significant flexibility in how and where to reduce emissions, saying it is the key issue to address if the program is to win the robust industry participation the agency is seeking.
'Not A Substitute'
But Brownstein writes that a voluntary, “opt-in” program is not a substitute for effective regulation, pointing out that current Natural Gas Star membership includes less than one half of one percent of the approximately 10,000 oil and gas producers and operators.
“Therefore, any update to the program should be seen as an adjunct to long-overdue rules that set sensible emission limits for the industry,” Brownstein writes. “That’s the only way to set a level playing field for the approximately 10,000 operators that are part of this rapidly expanding oil and gas industry,” he says.
While it is unclear how the revised version of the program will differ from last year's proposal, EPA says that Gas Star Gold will help as part of the administration's overall bid to cut methane emissions, which includes the NSPS slated for release later this summer.
In his blog post, Brownstein outlined four measures that EDF says EPA must include in its new proposal in order for the program to be “valid and constructive,” including monthly leak inspections; setting near-term emissions reduction goals; standard transparent metrics and regular reporting; comprehensive BMPs and an “additionality” requirement so that participating companies do not win early action credit for past use of BMPs.
On LDAR, Brownstein writes that “we need to case a wide net, and fix problems promptly,” pointing out ICF International research indicating that monthly leak inspections reduce methane emissions by 80 percent, while annual inspections reduce emissions by less than half.
Brownstein also recommends that the proposal require companies to set two- to three-year initial goals, with five-year goals being the absolute latest, warning that the “remaining part of EPA’s Natural Gas STAR, or a similar program, should involve continuous improvement, just as any corporate quality control objective would, setting more stringent targets as initial results are achieved.”
And the blog post also says that EPA should include in BMPs, in addition to technology and practices, possible training, incentives, and other management practices that can improve employees’ and vendors’ capabilities, motivation, and performance in reducing methane emissions. And he adds that EPA should include an explicit additionality requirement for companies to sign up for BMPs they are not yet fully implementing. “Giving companies credit for the measures they’ve undertaken only once they’ve joined helps ensure the validity of the program,” he writes.
-
New Mexico Dems Call For Tough New Methane Rule
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Four New Mexico Democrats are encouraging the Obama administration to release a strong rule regulating methane emissions at oil and gas drilling sites.
“We recognize that oil and gas producers have an economic incentive to minimize methane losses and the industry is improving its practices,” the Democrats — led by Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich — wrote in a letter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). “However, federal action is necessary to ensure that steps to limit methane releases are applied consistently across the industry.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in January that it would look to regulate methane emissions from leaks at newly-drilled or modified oil or natural gas wells. Drillers quickly criticized the proposal, saying they were working on reducing leaks on their own.
The new rules are the first step in an Obama administration push to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas operations by up to 45 percent. The OMB is reviewing the rule and is expected to publicly release a proposed version soon.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas, with 20 times more global warning potential than carbon dioxide.
The New Mexico Democrats said the issue is especially important for their state, which has some of the most concentrated levels of methane in the nation. The state is among the leaders nationally in oil and gas production on federal lands.
They said a strong methane standard is important for public health, but that it will have economic benefits as well. Natural gas venting and flaring — which lead to the methane emissions — reduces the amount of gas that can be sold and taxed.
“Rules to reduce the impact of methane releases on public health, while ensuring that Americans receive fair compensation for the production of federal minerals, are critical to reducing methane waste and pollution,” they wrote.
-
Judge Dismisses Novel Oklahoma Suit Seeking To Block Proposed ESPS
Jul 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Rejecting Oklahoma's aggressive calls for action, a federal judge has dismissed the state's novel suit seeking an injunction blocking EPA from finalizing or implementing its greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, ruling that the state has not outlined any “exceptional circumstances” for why the court has jurisdiction to review the proposed GHG rule.
In a July 17 ruling, Judge Claire Eagan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma says that the state has not shown the court has jurisdiction to review the proposed rule and that plaintiffs will be able to make their case once EPA promulgates a final rule in the coming weeks.
“Plaintiffs have not shown that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear their claims concerning the proposed emission standards for coal-fired power plants and, upon issuance of a final rule, plaintiffs will have a forum in which they can seek judicial review of the emission standards,” she wrote.
Eagan writes that the Sooner State's claims -- that immediate judicial review is needed to prevent irreparable harm -- “are exaggerated,” and that there is “no reason to believe that plaintiffs will have to wait long before renewing proceedings in the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit] if they intend to challenge the final rule.”
The ruling in State of Oklahoma, et al. v. Gina McCarthy, et al. marks the fourth time that industry and states have failed in challenging proposed versions of EPA's GHG rules for power plants.
The D.C. Circuit in December 2012 ruled in Las Brisas Energy Center LLC v. EPA to reject an industry suit over the first version of EPA's GHG rule for new plants, and a district court in October 2014 dismissed Nebraska's suit over the latest proposed version of the new source rule.
More recently, the D.C. Circuit in June rejected a series of suits brought by a coalition of states and coal mining firm Murray Energy Corp. over EPA's proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS), finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review a proposed rule under the All Writs Act.
The latest ruling comes just two days after Oklahoma filed a new motion aggressively urging the court to consider a renewed request for a preliminary injunction of the rule, even though Eagan had limited initial briefing solely to questions about the court's jurisdiction to hear the suit.
Oklahoma in the July 15 motion argued that quick action is needed to prevent “imminent” irreparable harm to the state, citing “credible reports” that EPA will sign the final ESPS “in the coming weeks.”
Those include an Inside EPA report that quotes sources saying EPA plans to release the final rule before Aug. 10 so that President Obama can unveil the measure before he leaves Washington for a vacation that is slated to run through Labor Day.
As such, the state says “substantial additional injury is more imminent than [it] had previously understood.” It asked the court to require EPA to submit a combined response on the jurisdiction issue and the injunction request by July 30, with a court ruling by Aug. 7.
Quick Ruling
Eagan supplied the court's ruling much sooner, finding “that further briefing from any party is unnecessary, because plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.”
The ruling means that EPA no longer has to respond to Oklahoma's July 8 brief on the jurisdiction issue, and it also moots the state's recent renewed push for a preliminary injunction of the rule.
The novel and aggressive push by Oklahoma to block the ESPS before it is final could foreshadow creative legal efforts to scrap or undermine the rule in the coming months, given that the state argued that traditional judicial review procedures are inapt to correct the “evils posed by the agency's actions.”
Oklahoma's underlying argument on why the court had jurisdiction centered on federal courts' “residual” authority granted under title 28, section 1331 of the U.S. Code, which grants federal courts what is commonly known as “federal question jurisdiction.”
“There's a presumption of reviewability under federal law when federal statutes don't provide specifically for review in a particular circumstance,” a source familiar with the matter said earlier.
The source added that the authority became available after the D.C. Circuit rejected the earlier ESPS suits and is available until EPA finalizes the ESPS.
The state said federal courts have “residual” jurisdiction to hear challenges to “plainly” illegal actions, even before they are final, if waiting to challenge a final action would injure petitioners. It argues this is the case with the ESPS.
The argument rested heavily on the 1958 Supreme Court ruling in Leedom v. Kyne, which allowed employees to challenge a non-final action by the National Labor Relations Board.
But Eagan writes in her ruling that the 10th Circuit “has emphasized that the Leedom exception is 'very limited' in scope and is to be 'invoked only in exceptional circumstances.'”
Unlike in Leedom, “this is a case where the judicial review sought by plaintiff is simply premature, rather than wholly prohibited by statute, and plaintiffs will have a forum to challenge the emission standards before they take effect,” Eagan writes.
She also faults the state's arguments that a “plain” reading of Clean Air Act section 111(d) -- the section the agency is using for the GHG rule -- shows that EPA lacks authority for the ESPS because the agency already regulates power plants' mercury emissions under section 112 of the law.
The argument -- which is identical to the claims cited in the Murray litigation -- “simply highlights the complex nature of the [air law's] regulatory and administrative scheme, and this is not the type of alleged violation of a 'clear and mandatory' duty for which review is appropriate under Leedom,” the judge writes.
As such, “these issues of administrative authority to enact regulations under the [air law] are precisely the kinds of issues reserved for judicial review proceedings before the D.C. Circuit.”
Underscoring the point, Eagan later writes: “The ultimate issue of whether the EPA has the authority to promulgate the disputed emission standards pursuant to [section 111(d)] must be decided by the court with exclusive jurisdiction over these matters, and that court is the D.C. Circuit.”
'No Prospect' For Relief
In its earlier filings in the suit, Oklahoma had argued that the traditional judicial review procedure under section 307 of the air act is inappropriate for this rulemaking.
Estimating “optimistically” that the D.C. Circuit could undertake expedited stay proceedings in 280 days, and that the rule would be signed in about 50 days, “Oklahoma has no prospect of obtaining any relief for about a year and will continue to accrue per se irreparable injury during that time.”
In its renewed motion for an injunction, the state argued, “In the usual case, [section 307 review] works out well enough: although it may take the D.C. Circuit months to act on a stay request or conduct expedited proceedings, typical regulatory phase-in periods do not force regulated parties to make irreversible decisions prior to such consideration by the court. But when an agency is acting in bad faith, asserting ultra vires power to force regulated parties to take irreversible compliance steps at the earliest possible stage, Section 307 review breaks down.”
The proposed ESPS would not require compliance to begin until 2020. It would also give states a year to craft a compliance plan, with a deadline likely in late 2016. There is also the possibility of a year-long extension if the state requires legislative or regulatory actions to comply. Despite that proposed compliance phase-in, Oklahoma contended that utilities will likely begin to seek rate recovery proceedings for expected compliance actions quickly after the rule is finalized, which would trigger the state utility commission to spend resources to accommodate such proceedings.
-
EPA Science Advisers to Discuss Nitrogen Dioxide Review
Jul 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A panel of independent science advisers will meet Aug. 13 to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing review of the primary, health-based national ambient air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide. The EPA, in a notice scheduled for publication July 21, announced a public teleconference of the Chartered Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which will review the EPA's draft integrated science assessment and draft risk and exposure assessment planning document for nitrogen dioxide. The committee provides technical advice to the EPA, including a recommendation on where the agency should set national ambient air quality standards. The EPA is conducting a review of the current primary 1-hour standard of 100 parts per billion and the annual standard of 53 ppb. The last review of the nitrogen dioxide standards concluded in 2010. The teleconference, which is open to the public, will be held from 1 to 5 p.m. For more information, contact Aaron Yeow, designated federal officer for the committee, at (202) 564-2050 or yeow.aaron@epa.gov.
-
New Jersey Checking Laboratory Air Emissions
Jul 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Laboratories in New Jersey that emit toxic substances such as benzene and methyl chloride are coming under increased scrutiny to make sure they are complying with air pollution controls after several were found to be violating standards, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) announced July 20.
Regulators so far have found five laboratories without permits that were emitting toxic air pollutants at a rate of more than 0.1 pounds per hour, the trigger point for needing a permit, NJDEP spokesman Larry Hajna told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail July 20.
The NJDEP levied a $72,500 fine against the first violator, Accutest Laboratories of Dayton, N.J., in 2013, prompting the facility to install controls and obtain an emissions permit, Hajna said.
“In 2013, New Jersey authorities brought to our attention that Accutest's emissions were potentially in excess of applicable limits. We took immediate action to incorporate additional controls and institute operational changes. We take our environmental obligations extremely seriously, and have taken the necessary steps to reduce our emissions, as we continue to provide clients throughout New Jersey and the United States with trusted environmental testing services,” said Karl Schoene, Accutest president and chief executive officer.
Since then, the department has discovered four more laboratories that have exceeded the threshold without obtaining a permit.
“The labs cited to date have opted to either submit permit applications” for review and approval or remove the offending equipment, Hajna said. He did not name the other companies.
The NJDEP will be looking at any laboratory operating in New Jersey that could emit air contaminants classified as Group 1 or Group 2 toxic substances under the state's administrative code.
Group 1 toxic substances include benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, dioxane, ethylenimine, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichloride, tetrachloroethane, therachloroethylene, trichloroethane and thrichloroethylene. Group 2 air contaminants include methylene chloride and methyl chloroform.
Violators could be fined according to New Jersey's administrative code, the NJDEP said. The NJDEP's advisory included phone numbers and websites where companies could learn more about New Jersey's Air Quality Permitting Program.
-
Advocates Press Climate Change Program To Strengthen Human Impact Report
Jul 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists and public health advocates are pressing EPA and other agencies with the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to strengthen its draft assessment of the risks that climate change presents to human health, arguing the document should quantitatively measure risks and provide policy recommendations rather than have its current format that is like a literature search.
Meanwhile, industry groups are questioning the science behind the report’s approach, and argue the document cannot form the basis for any regulatory action.
USGCRP, an interagency program that includes EPA and several other agencies, released the draft study, “Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment,” in April for public comment and peer review.
The report finds that climate change threatens human health in two ways -- “by changing the severity or frequency of health problems that are already affected by climate and weather factors” and also “by creating unprecedented and unanticipated health problems or health threats in places where they have not previously occurred,” according to an executive summary of the draft study.
It projects “thousands to tens of thousands of additional deaths each year from heat in the summer” due to climate change -- offset partially by fewer deaths in cold months -- as well as changing weather conditions that are “increasingly conducive” to ground-level ozone formation that will stress EPA and states’ air quality efforts.
A National Academy of Sciences panel began a review of the draft report during a closed March 20 meeting, and is soon to release its report. After that, it will undergo revision and further review, followed by a “final federal interagency clearance.” A final version is expected in early 2016.
EPA staff crafted the report’s chapters on temperature change and air emissions, while staff with EPA’s sister agency, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, crafted a chapter on populations more susceptible to climate change effects -- a philosophy similar to the way Obama EPA is applying environmental justice (EJ) efforts to research and in rulemaking.
Inadequate Assessment
A group of public health and environmental advocates, led by Barbara Warren of Citizens’ Environment Coalition, praised the interagency program for its National Climate Assessment and other documents, but found the draft report on effects on human health lacking.
“Unfortunately this recent effort related to Human Health is not adequate,” Warren and colleagues write in June 8 comments acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request Inside EPA made to the White House Office of Science, Technology and Policy.
“We are facing a crisis of unprecedented magnitude and scope, with both well-predicted impacts and unanticipated impacts. The unfolding crisis will seriously strain our existing public health system,” the advocates say. “In order to save lives and prevent disease and disability we need a major effort to develop a Comprehensive Health Assessment, which addresses public health policy and makes recommendations, and is approximately equivalent to the excellent National Climate Assessment.”
The advocates write that the “major concern” with USGCRP’s draft document “is that it does not really include a Health assessment as defined in the US and actively utilized by state and local health agencies across the US . . . In the context of a Risk Assessment for climate change, this document could be identified as a first step in a risk assessment--Hazard identification. It has identified some of the hazards (not all) associated with Climate change.”
The group recommends that the document be re-written as a literature review, useful to researchers and other health professionals. “However, we do need a more formal Health Assessment, and if that is not possible at this time, a more limited health policy document would be useful as a first step,” they add.
The advocates’ view is shared by other advocacy groups that wrote the interagency program, including the American Public Health Association (APHA); the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change (EJLFCC), which also describes the document as a literature review rather than an assessment; and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which presses the program to make the document more quantitative.
APHA describes the document as “not a complete climate and health assessment, but rather the first step toward a complete assessment,” and urges the program to broaden its scope by addressing issues such as “the urgency of climate change mitigation to protect human health”; “quantitative assessments of opportunities for health co-benefits from many mitigation and adaptation strategies”; assessments of local, state and national agencies and organizations’ ability to address climate change health effects, as well as actionable recommendations.
Economic Impacts
EJLFCC presses the program to include more economic estimates of the cost of inaction, as well as arguing that the document fails to address cumulative risks of multiple stressors in the assessment.
“Understanding the multiple stressors (both physical and non-chemical) can help lead to prioritizing actions -- for both mitigation and adaptation -- in our communities,” the forum writes in June 8 comments. The group also adds some comments specifically addressing the report’s chapter on vulnerable populations, urging the program to better include rural communities, the homeless and Native Americans in its discussion of susceptible populations.
In contrast, industry-affiliated groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), urge the program to clarify the document’s lack of regulatory status. In joint comments, the groups argue that “any assessment developed pursuant to the [Global Climate Risk Assessment] cannot supplant or substitute in any way for a scientific or policy assessment required under other federal law. The Draft Health Assessment should be revised to more clearly express this limitation.” The groups go on to argue that the analysis is not clear on its time horizon, excludes potential benefits of climate change and adaptive actions, and does not include uncertainty analyses, all of which the groups say limit its value.
The group Consumers’ Energy, in comments supporting those of API and UARG, also questions what it says is an assumption that emissions of ozone precursors will remain static. “Consumers Energy’s concern with this draft report’s conclusion is that the repeated statement on a likely increase in maximum ozone levels is based on a completely inappropriate assumption that emissions of ozone precursors will remain static . . . an assumption that USGCRP admits is not representative of the future . . . Any predictive models for public health impact analysis should make use of both expected changes in weather/meteorological patterns and the well documented and expected decline of emission rates of ozone precursors.” The libertarian Cato Institute goes further, arguing that the document should be withdrawn because of its “ alarming narratives, many based on science fiction rather than actual science.” The group argues that the report exemplifies USGCRP’s “profound lack of understanding in the manner in which health and well-being is impacted by climate (including climate change). In modern American society, we have largely insulated our health and welfare from the climate.”
-
Questionable Data, Secret Science
Jul 20, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal - Opinion
By Charles G. Battig
Janet McCabe’s defense of EPA implementation of the Clean Air Act reaches back 45 years, at a time when environmental targets were large and easily defined (Letters, July 15). Yet, to date, the chemistry of ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere related to chlorine chemistry remains unsettled science. How does the EPA measure the success of replacing chlorofluorocarbon for refrigerants said to promote ozone depletion with the potent greenhouse gas hydrofluorocarbon?
Ms. McCabe states that, “With every rule the EPA creates, the agency is committed to meeting the law’s letter and spirit, while following strict procedures for public review and input.” She also says “the courts have upheld the EPA’s air rules.” Is the EPA’s apparent collusion with radical environmental activists in the orchestrated “sue and settle” consent decrees part of these “strict procedures” as they skirt the Administrative Procedures Act and avoid congressional and public scrutiny?
EPA Clean Air Act policy continues in a self-perpetuating bureaucratic endeavor far removed from its original congressional mission. Questionable data and secret science are used to justify the EPA’s continuing ratcheting down of environmental “safe levels” without concern for cost-benefit justification.
-
Nation's Farmers To Feel Impact Of Epa's Proposed Ozone Rule
Jul 21, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bob Stallman
Ground-level ozone is often thought of as a challenge primarily for urban areas. However, reducing ozone can be especially difficult in rural areas and America’s farmers and ranchers are bracing for tough new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards set to go into effect later this year that could severely complicate their ability to feed people here and abroad.
Ozone occurs when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with sunlight and atmospheric conditions. A certain amount of ozone occurs naturally with the decomposition of plants and animals, lightning and wildfires while human activity through emissions from industry, cars and power plants is also a contributing factor. Ozone has been linked to respiratory problems in humans which is why government, industry and agricultural businesses have worked for years to reduce ozone levels. It has paid off. Ozone concentrations are one-third of what they were just 30 years ago. We have been able to achieve this as a nation by installing equipment to control ozone-related emissions from industrial facilities and coal-fired power plants. But most of that work is now complete. Getting to the even lower level of ozone prescribed by the administration will be impossible without serious economic disruption in big cities and rural areas alike.
The current standard of 75 parts per billion was established in 2008. Even that was ambitious. In fact, roughly 40 percent of the U.S. population lives in areas that are still falling short of those standards. Now the EPA wants to impose a new standard of 65-70 parts per billion, beginning Oct. 1.
While farming and ranching do not contribute a great deal to ozone levels, the activities that do contribute are hard to curtail. Running tractors on summer days, applying pesticides, keeping the lights on in barns and feeding livestock that produce waste are elemental to food production. Limit those activities and you reduce the incomes of farm and ranch families and the supply of fruits, vegetables and meat for everyone.
Of particular concern is the new rules’ effect on energy prices. Agriculture is more energy-intensive than is commonly understood. Fuel is expensive. Making fertilizer is energy-intensive. Electricity is required to keep modern equipment running in production and processing facilities. Drive up these costs with new restrictions and regulations and the often modest profit margins of farmers and ranchers can disappear.
The new ozone standards will also have an adverse impact on the manufacturers that make the equipment and machinery used in agriculture. The National Association of Manufacturers predicts dire consequences for American industry, with a cost of $140 billion as factories will be forced to produce less and hire fewer people unless they can suddenly find a way to curb emissions. This will make goods more expensive and also erode the economic feasibility of many farming operations.
In addition, if ozone-producing work on roads and bridges is curtailed, it will be that much harder to get products from the farm to domestic and global marketplaces. American farmers and ranchers take pride in being an integral part of U.S. international commerce. Agricultural exports total over $150 billion a year and actually run a surplus with our agricultural trade with other countries. But global competition is increasing. For farmers and ranchers to stay competitive, they need state-of-the-art equipment, access to good roads, water resources and modern ports. The new ozone standards will restrict activities related to these needs, driving up costs of equipment and making our trade-related infrastructure less reliable.
Before being forced to shoulder the burden of new rules, we should at the very least have a way of measuring current ozone levels so we can better evaluate whether progress is being made. As it stands, only 675 of the nation's 3,000 counties have ozone monitors in place. Many rural areas face a particularly daunting challenge in isolating how much ozone is present and whether the source is from local activity or from outside sources such as planes, trains or nearby metropolitan areas.
The American Farm Bureau Federation, while representing farmers and ranchers, recognizes that their well-being is intricately connected to industries and communities around the country. To meet the overly stringent ozone standards, farmers, manufacturers and contractors could have to sharply curtail their activity. This is bound to hurt rural and urban communities alike. Let’s avoid this self-inflicted wound and continue to rebuild our economy as we work to fully achieve the current ozone standards.
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