Preview Newsletter
ACC AM July 27
-
A Hearing on the Federal Radionavigation Plan, H.R. 1684, the Foreign Spill Protection Act, and H.R. ----, the National Icebreaker Fund Act of 2015
Jul 28, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatitves Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2253 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Business Meeting on 20 Agenda Items
Jul 28, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Roundtable on Innovations in Pipeline Technology
Jul 28, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatitves Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:30 AM -
Roundtable Discussion: "EPA's Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing and Jobs"
Jul 28, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 2:00 PM -
Subcommittee Hearing: Promoting and Incentivizing Cybersecurity Best Practices
Jul 28, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security
Location: 311 Cannon House Office Building/ 2:00 PM -
(ACC Mentioned) EPS Ban Could Impact Senior Care
Jul 24, 2015 | McKnight's
By Michael Greenfield
A ban on certain expanded polystyrene (EPS) in New York City is going to make an impact on senior living facilities, and may set a precedent. Some history: In 2012, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced his first initiative to reduce the use of plastic-foam in New York. The "Tray-less Tuesdays" program launched in city public schools... -
Advocating for a Strong Update to the Toxic Substances Control Act | Commentary
Jul 24, 2015 | Roll Call
Recently, a CSX train car carrying hazardous chemicals derailed in East Tennessee, forcing thousands of people to evacuate. I watched on the news as brave first responders arrived and worked ceaselessly, putting the health and safety of the population first and foremost. For me, it put in high relief our country’s need to get serious about... -
US EPA Receives Test Data For Polymerising Substance
Jul 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data on the substance 1-propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt (1:1). The substance is used, among other things: as a polymerisable surfactant for vinylic systems... -
International Cancer Research Team Warns Mixtures Risk Analyses Lacking
Jul 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
An international team of nearly 200 cancer researchers and environmental health scientists has concluded that current regulatory risk assessment practices “may . . . be underestimating cancer-related risks” from chemicals that are not considered carcinogens individually but that may cause cancer when combined in the environment. -
Guidance Released On Non-Intentionally Added Substances
Jul 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The International Life Sciences Institute (Ilsi) has commissioned, and published, best practice guidance on the risk assessment of non-intentionally added substances (NIAS). These potentially harmful substances may unexpectedly migrate from packaging materials into food products. -
European Commission Publishes Endocrine Disruptors Analysis
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union should establish regulatory criteria for the identification of endocrine-disrupting substances but also could introduce criteria to assess the risk posed by substances on a case-by-case basis before restricting or banning them, according to a report on the results of a public consultation the European Commission... -
GAO Report Finds Gaps in Chemical Security Program
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Department of Homeland Security needs to verify submitted information to ensure the nation's highest-risk chemical facilities are identified and should develop standardized procedures to address noncompliance with a site's plan to prevent terrorist threats, according to a Government Accountability Office report. -
Ruling Shuts Down Pipeline Spill Injury Claims
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The remaining plaintiffs in 40 consolidated suits over contamination from an oil pipeline spill saw their cases dismissed July 21 when a federal court in Louisiana ruled(Ayers v. ANR Pipeline Co., W.D. La., No. 10-cv-00925, 7/21/15). Many of the plaintiffs admitted in depositions their symptoms preceded the 2009 emergency shutdown... -
Oil Drilling Rigs Increase Unexpectedly
Jul 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The number of oil rigs operating in the United States rose this week by the highest amount since April, a major oilfield services company said. There were 659 rigs drilling for crude oil this week, 21 more than last week, Baker Hughes Inc. reported Friday, based on its weekly data from across the industry.Natural gas rigs fell by two to 216 and the count... -
Murkowski To Pitch Lifting Export Ban To Senate Colleagues
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Daniel Bush
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) will testify before her colleagues on a Senate banking panel tomorrow as she seeks consensus on lifting the 1970s-era ban on crude oil exports. Murkowski, the chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a lead author of a sweeping energy package her panel is marking up this week... -
States Seek Rehearing of Clean Power Plan Lawsuits
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Fourteen states are asking a federal appellate court to rehear legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, which is expected to be finalized in August (In re: Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, petition for rehearing, 7/24/15). The states said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District... -
14 States Ask For Rehearing Of Clean Power Plan Case
Jul 24, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
More than a dozen states today asked a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision allowing U.S. EPA to move ahead with its landmark greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants. The 14 states requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rehear its June decision in... -
States Appeal Case Against EPA Climate Rule
Jul 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Fourteen states are asking a federal appeals court to revive their challenge to the Obama administration’s signature regulatory proposal on climate change. The states, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, want all 17 judges on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hear the case that a three-judge... -
Mississippi Threatens to Ignore Clean Power Plan
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) became the latest state executive to threaten not to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, absent significant changes. “EPA's proposal amounts to an unfunded mandate, requiring Mississippi to invest substantial amounts to obtain and implement new technology without allowing... -
Gov: Mississippi Might Not Comply With Climate Rule
Jul 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) has told the Environmental Protection Agency his state might not comply with a forthcoming Obama administration rule on carbon emissions from power plants. “We do not see how it will be possible to reasonably develop a State Implementation Plan... -
Energy Efficiency Legislation Scheduled for Markup
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Long-stalled energy efficiency legislation is among the 20 bills scheduled for a July 28 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee markup, according to a committee notice. The bill (S. 720) by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) would authorize funding for measures to increase energy conservation in the federal... -
Senate Panel Looks To Make Headway On Multiple Fronts
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee tomorrow will dive into a crowded agenda in anticipation of floor debate this fall on comprehensive energy legislation. Topping the list is the bipartisan energy package unveiled last week by Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski ... -
Companies to Pledge $140 Billion in Efforts to Cut Carbon Emissions
Jul 26, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
More than a dozen U.S. companies on Monday will pledge to invest more than $140 billion in efforts to cut carbon emissions as part of a new Obama administration initiative leading up to the United Nations climate-change summit later this year. Bank of America Corp. , General Motors Co. , Cargill Inc. and Alcoa Inc. are among... -
Corporations Join In White House Warming Push Ahead Of Paris
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick and Lisa Friedma
Companies as diverse as Coca-Cola and Bank of America will visit the White House today to announce voluntary emissions-reduction pledges to support President Obama's quest for a global agreement on climate change at the end of this year. The White House announcement will involve more... -
Veto Threat, Legal Challenges Create New Uncertainties For Coal Ash Rule
Jul 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA’s rule governing coal ash disposal is facing new uncertainty from several angles, with the White House threatening to veto pending legislation to overhaul the policy and industry, municipalities and environmentalists suing over the rule, although they have yet to declare which provisions they will challenge. -
Roundtable To Focus On Ozone Rule's Impact On Manufacturing
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee plan to hold a roundtable tomorrow on the potential impacts on manufacturing stemming from U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the national ozone standard.Among the participants in the roundtable are the mayors of Deer Park, Texas, and Sevier County, Tenn... -
Environmental Justice Groups Meet With McCabe On Ozone
Jul 24, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
Correction appended. The NAACP and other environmental justice leaders urged U.S. EPA to tighten the national standard for ground-level ozone during a one-hour meeting with acting air chief Janet McCabe at the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C. The advocates stressed that the ozone standard... -
When’s The Climate Rule Release? It’s Anyone’s Guess
Jul 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Ferguson, Mo. Meanwhile, others are speculating that Obama will use an Aug. 31 visit to Alaska to speak at a State Department conference on Arctic issues, including climate change. That trip was announced back in February. But a rollout in Alaska — a state whose congressional delegation strongly opposes EPA’s Clean Power Plan... -
Clinton Rolls Out Her Green Agenda
Jul 26, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode and Hadas Gold
Hillary Clinton unveiled her most detailed proposals on climate change since becoming a presidential candidate, but it’s not the aggressive plan most progressives were probably looking for. Among her top line promises: moving the economy along “a path toward deep decarbonization by 2050” and “enough clean renewable energy to power every... -
Clinton Sets Climate, Renewable Power Goals
Jul 26, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton late Sunday unveiled a set of goals to expand the use of renewable energy and solar power specifically as part of an effort to fight climate change. As president, Clinton would try to reach a level of 500 million solar panels installed throughout the country... -
Brakes in Crude-by-Rail Rule Outperform Others: NTSB
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Brakes required for certain flammable liquid rail shipments under a Transportation Department crude-by-rail rule outperform other systems, according to a National Transportation Safety Board study released July 23. The board's “Train Braking Simulation Study” was conducted as part of its investigation into a December 2013 crude oil train... -
Senate Debate Limps On After Weekend Detour
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss and Sean Reilly
The Senate continues to slog through procedural votes on its multi-year transportation bill, after internal Republican dissent and presidential politics boiled over during a rare Sunday session. The chamber is slated to vote at 10 p.m. tonight on a Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) amendment to the highway bill that would... -
Senate Highway Bill Includes Permit-Reform Provision
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amy Phillips
The long-term highway funding bill pending in the Senate has incorporated federal infrastructure permitting reform legislation introduced in January by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) The Senate voted July 22 to begin debating a bill (H.R. 22) that would authorize surface transportation ... -
Boxer Rides Away From Dems On Highway Bill
Jul 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Burgess Everett and Heather Caygle
Barbara Boxer has always been a reliable foot soldier for the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama and her leadership. But with just 17 months left in her long, progressive Senate career, she’s become a controversial lightning rod within her party. The California Democrat has aligned herself with Senate Republicans...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Jul 28, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatitves Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2253 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Business Meeting on 20 Agenda Items
Jul 28, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Roundtable on Innovations in Pipeline Technology
Jul 28, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatitves Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:30 AM -
Roundtable Discussion: "EPA's Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing and Jobs"
Jul 28, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 2:00 PM
-
Subcommittee Hearing: Promoting and Incentivizing Cybersecurity Best Practices
Jul 28, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security
Location: 311 Cannon House Office Building/ 2:00 PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPS Ban Could Impact Senior Care
Jul 24, 2015 | McKnight's
By Michael Greenfield
A ban on certain expanded polystyrene (EPS) in New York City is going to make an impact on senior living facilities, and may set a precedent.
Some history: In 2012, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced his first initiative to reduce the use of plastic-foam in New York. The "Tray-less Tuesdays" program launched in city public schools and replaced 830,000 disposable food service trays on those days with paper containers. Bloomberg, who has previously targeted transfats, supersize sodas, and smoking in public areas, is determined to expand the plastic-foam ban throughout the city. He recently proposed a citywide ban on plastic-foam food packaging, including takeout boxes, cups and trays, in public schools, restaurants and other businesses.
Plastic foam takes years to break down in the trash and is expensive to recycle - up to $20 per ton when the city processes it. The city handles about 1.2 million tons of food waste each year; the mayor's office estimated that the city's annual waste stream included about 20,000 tons of plastic foam.
All Styrofoam (EPS) items are banned from distribution and use in NYC as of July 1, 2015.The law allows businesses a six-month grace period from the effective date of the law, meaning fines will not be imposed until Jan.1, 2016. Banned items include all polystyrene foam single-service items: cups, bowls, plates, takeout containers, and trays.
This poses a challenge for long-term care dining managers. Polystyrene foam cups have advantages over paper cups in settings that cater to seniors. For example, foam insulates better than paper, making it the safest choice for healthcare providers. To protect their hands from a hot beverage, paper cup users frequently use two cups together, a cardboard sleeve, or wrap layers of napkins around the cup
A plastic-foam ban could have a profound impact on the healthcare industry, from nursing homes and assisted living facilities to hospitals. Containers made of paper can often be significantly more expensive than their foam counterparts. An 8-ounce foam cup costs a long-term care facility's food director around $13.25* per case. A comparable case of 8-ounce paper hot cups costs $34.53*. Other disposable food service containers, such as hinged food containers and serving plates with dividers, have an even bigger discrepancy in price. Multiply that by thousands of facilities and millions of products annually and the impact is enormous.
New York is not the first city in the nation to explore anti-foam legislation. Los Angeles; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco and Seattle have all enacted bans. Economic concerns have affected legislation in other parts of the country. A bill in California to ban polystyrene foam used for serving food was rejected by the State Assembly concerned with the likely loss of jobs, expense to the state and unfair recycling rate requirements.
When legislators have learned more about polystyrene foam food service packaging, and particularly the bill's impact on jobs and the state budget, support for the ban faded, according to Keith Christman, managing director of plastics markets for the American Chemistry Council. One analysis for similar legislation in 2009 concluded that California would lose nearly $1.4 billion in output, $335 million in earnings and close to 8,000 jobs, he said. Every industry in New York that uses polystyrene foam products for serving food and drinks would see expenses go up.
Restaurants, schools, government agencies and healthcare providers will be forced to pay wholesale costs of alternative solutions that cost twice as much, or even more. That's tough to swallow when so many healthcare businesses are already being squeezed by tougher regulations and lower reimbursements.
-
Advocating for a Strong Update to the Toxic Substances Control Act | Commentary
Jul 24, 2015 | Roll Call
Recently, a CSX train car carrying hazardous chemicals derailed in East Tennessee, forcing thousands of people to evacuate. I watched on the news as brave first responders arrived and worked ceaselessly, putting the health and safety of the population first and foremost. For me, it put in high relief our country’s need to get serious about regulating and removing toxic chemicals from our everyday lives.
Not only do we know how critical this is, we know it’s possible. Through 25 years of creating healthy products that use plant-derived, bio-based ingredients that are not carcinogens, mutagens, neurotoxins or otherwise chronically toxic, Seventh Generation has learned we don’t need toxic products to clean our homes well. And we know how kind bio-based, VOC-free products are to our kids and pets. Besides making bio-based consumer products, Seventh Generation has been working for years to eliminate exposure to toxic chemicals that harm human health by supporting sound state and federal toxics control legislation, and working with our industry to create safer, more sustainable products.
Our more than 1 million consumers demand nothing less. Parents and families should not have to worry about toxic chemicals in their personal care and other household cleaning products.
That is why we have spent years advocating for a strong update to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Passed in 1976, the TSCA sounds like a law that would help us achieve our mission to nurture the health of the next seven generations. But the TSCA was ineffective the day it was signed into law, allowing tens of thousands of potentially harmful chemicals into the marketplace without proper testing and without disclosure by the companies that produce them. Under this law, companies are not required to demonstrate that the chemicals in their products are safe before they are sold. For example, recent studies have detected nearly 300 chemicals in infants — a vulnerable population we should be putting every effort into protecting.
Americans are justifiably frightened that chemical manufacturers have provided little or no information to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding their potential health or environmental risks of tens of thousands of chemicals in the marketplace, and they are shocked when they learn the EPA does not evaluate them for their safety.
Seventh Generation has brought hundreds of thousands of signatures to Capitol Hill calling for meaningful TSCA reform. We have organized our business partners and even our competitors to establish the Companies for Safer Chemicals coalition. Our customers have called, written and emailed their congressional delegations demanding action.
We are pleased Congress is now finally slated to address the TSCA’s shortcomings. As the Senate prepares to act, we call on Congress to protect Americans by adding three critical, commonsense provisions.
First, the TSCA reform must protect the rights of states to regulate toxic chemicals. States must retain the authority to regulate chemicals if the federal government doesn’t act or is slow to do so — and states should have the right to co-enforce federal law.
Would anyone argue Tennessee’s first responders should have waited for the Federal Emergency Management Agency before responding to that spill? Or sat out the response entirely until the feds arrived on the scene? Of course not. Similarly, we need all hands on deck for other aspects of chemical safety.
-
US EPA Receives Test Data For Polymerising Substance
Jul 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data on the substance 1-propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt (1:1).
The substance is used, among other things:
as a polymerisable surfactant for vinylic systems;
to promote adhesion of pigments; and
for emulsion polymerisation in paper, textile and fibre.
The test data relates to mammalian toxicity and genotoxicity.
-
International Cancer Research Team Warns Mixtures Risk Analyses Lacking
Jul 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
An international team of nearly 200 cancer researchers and environmental health scientists has concluded that current regulatory risk assessment practices “may . . . be underestimating cancer-related risks” from chemicals that are not considered carcinogens individually but that may cause cancer when combined in the environment.
The group calls for further research into environmental chemicals and the biological mechanisms leading to cancer that they may trigger, as well as for an examination of existing regulatory risk assessment processes that look at chemicals one at a time.
In particular, the researchers argue that the mode of action (MOA) approach, an important component of EPA’s existing cancer risk assessment guidelines, leads to risk assessments that understate the potential risks of chemicals that are not complete carcinogens on their own. MOA describes biological steps from exposure to a specific chemical to a health effect. EPA determines how it will conduct its cancer risk assessments based on the type of MOA that chemicals are determined to have.
“[R]egulations in many countries (that consider only the cumulative effects of exposures to individual carcinogens that act via a common sequence of key events and processes on a common target/tissue to produce cancer) should be revisited,” the task force writes in a special supplement to the June issue of the journal Carcinogenesis. “Our current understanding of the biology of cancer suggests that the cumulative effects of (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways that are relevant to cancer, and on a variety of cancer-relevant systems, organs, tissues and cells could conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies that will be overlooked using current risk assessment methods.”
The project started in 2012, when Leroy Lowe and Michael Gilbertson, co-founders of the Canadian non-profit Getting to Know Cancer, contacted cancer researchers worldwide and asked for their assistance in exploring 10 hallmark cellular changes that together lead to cancer. Some 174 scientists were divvied into teams to study each hallmark and cross-validate findings of what became known as the Halifax Project, named for the site of its first meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 2013.
Each research team was asked to identify and review as many as 10 chemicals that could impact their assigned hallmark cellular change, but with the proviso that each must be a chemical commonly found in the environment and not deemed carcinogenic to humans. In total, the researchers identified 85 chemicals and concluded that 50 of them could activate these mechanisms at environmental levels. They were unable to find dose levels necessary for 22 of the chemicals and 13 only caused the hallmark changes at doses higher than those generally found in the environment.
The authors raise concerns that the common practices of EPA and other regulatory agencies to assess the risks of chemicals one at a time leads to overlooking the risks of such chemicals. The authors also question certain cumulative risk assessment methodology.
Cumulative Assessments
“Cumulative risk assessment methods that are based on ‘common mechanisms of toxicity’ or common ‘modes of action’ may therefore be underestimating cancer-related risks,” the group writes. “In-utero and early life exposures, transgenerational effects and the interplay between the low-dose mechanistic effects of chemical mixtures in the environment and the vulnerabilities of subpopulations who are predisposed to cancer (i.e. via genetics or other influences) must also be considered. Current policies and practices do not adequately address these issues and should therefore be revisited if regulatory agencies hope to better understand and assess these risks.”
At a press briefing describing the project’s conclusions July 16, Lowe said that MOA and the related concept of Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) have limitations when it comes to understanding the role of chemicals in carcinogenesis. An AOP is a framework showing the link between a molecular initiating event, tracing the effects from the cellular level, through tissues and organs. The approach is similar to that of an MOA, though AOPs are not chemical specific in the way that MOAs are.
“This definition takes us to a place where we only consider [together in risk assessments] chemicals with the same key events . . . processes and the same endpoints,” he said. “The chemical industry likes these. It’s a safe way of looking at things . . . [But] we could be concerned about chemicals with different key events and processes but together [they can lead to cancer] -- the AOP doesn’t consider that.”
Asked about the Halifax Project publications, an EPA spokeswoman responded that the agency “strives to use the best available science to characterize the health effects of chemicals and inform decisions to protect public health. The science that informs chemical risk assessment has been advancing, and our approaches will need to evolve.”
Lowe expanded his concern to risk assessment practice in general, in a July 16 interview with Risk Policy Report where he discussed the common risk assessment practice of calculating a margin of safety between a dose where a chemical causes harm in a toxicity study and a regulatory standard. “Our margins of safety are all about what causes cancer as opposed to key changes that lead to unfolding of the disease,” Lowe said. “The sentiment of the task force when we were done was, ‘We’ve overlooked something very important’ . . . This is something the scientific community really needs to take on.”
Lowe and William Goodson, one of the scientists leading the project, stressed that their findings are too nascent to base policy or regulatory changes upon. “This is not just a quick fix at EPA,” Goodson said during the press briefing. “To solve this we need something like a space program.”
“We’re one step short of [policy]. The point of the project was to identify the problem,” Lowe said. “Now that people can see it, we’re hoping that it inspires a lot of new thinking.”
Multiple Pathways
The agency spokeswoman suggested that EPA’s computational toxicology research program may provide new means of exploring questions like those raised by the Halifax Project. Data from EPA’s CompTox program “allows us to explore how chemicals interact with different biological pathways -- not only for individual chemicals, but for multiple chemicals as well, and at exposure levels that are similar to those that human populations might experience,” the spokeswoman says.
EPA’s sister agency, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), has already announced it will host a one-day symposium on the project’s conclusions on Aug. 25 in Research Triangle Park, NC. “We now know that cancer is a ‘multi-hit disease’ where multiple pathways are affected. So is it possible that chemicals that aren’t complete carcinogens are contributing to cancer by disrupting or triggering hallmark pathways?” NIEHS’ announcement asks. “We would like to invite you to spend a day exploring this new way of looking at chemical carcinogens with presentations from the co-founders of Getting to Know Cancer . . . followed by roundtable discussions to expand on the topic and explore the theory, the research potential, and the future of environmental carcinogenesis.”
The Environmental Working Group has taken up the research with interest, concluding that of the 85 chemicals that the Halifax Project studied, 23 were found in blood or urine samples in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s nationally-representative and annual biomonitoring survey, known as National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), EWG scientist Curt DellaValle said during the briefing. He added that EWG only searched for the chemicals directly, not including metabolites which might also be found in NHANES. “We’re chronically exposed to these chemicals . . . so they could be mixing in our bodies,” DellaValle said. He added that while the concepts are daunting, approaches from pharmaceutical sciences can be instructive in determining risk assessment approaches.
-
Guidance Released On Non-Intentionally Added Substances
Jul 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The International Life Sciences Institute (Ilsi) has commissioned, and published, best practice guidance on the risk assessment of non-intentionally added substances (NIAS).
These potentially harmful substances may unexpectedly migrate from packaging materials into food products.
Fifty key stakeholders reviewed the guidance at a workshop in Brussels in April 2014. Participants came from industry, control laboratories and regulators, including from the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa).
The guidance describes what NIAS are, and how to apply risk assessment principles based on best practices, using the latest scientific developments.
It is aimed at: analytical scientists, such as toxicologists and risk assessors from control labs;the food industry; andconsumer organisations.
-
European Commission Publishes Endocrine Disruptors Analysis
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union should establish regulatory criteria for the identification of endocrine-disrupting substances but also could introduce criteria to assess the risk posed by substances on a case-by-case basis before restricting or banning them, according to a report on the results of a public consultation the European Commission published July 24.
The consultation, which ran from September 2014 to January 2015, set out four options for the identification of endocrine disruptors, ranging from no change to current EU legislation to different adaptations of a World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS) definition of an endocrine disruptor (190 DEN A-4, 10/1/14).
The consultation was triggered by two EU laws, the 2009 Plant Protection Products Regulation ((EC) No. 1107/2009) and the 2012 Biocidal Product Regulation ((EU) No. 528/2012), which introduce general bans on endocrine-disrupting substances in pesticides and biocidal products.
The commission, the EU's executive arm, was supposed to draw up the criteria by mid-December 2013, but citing the complexity of the issue, opted instead to carry out a public consultation followed by an impact assessment to determine the effects of tighter controls on endocrine disruptors.
No Support for ‘No Change.'
The more than 27,000 responses to the consultation were published in unanalyzed form in February (23 DEN A-5, 2/4/15).
In its analysis of the responses published July 24, the commission said there was no support for the “no change” option and “responses suggested that there is a need for the EU to establish definitive criteria.”
Public authorities that responded to the consultation, including government ministries and regulatory agencies from a number of EU countries and from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Kenya, New Zealand and the U.S., favored the the EU adoption of the WHO/IPCS definition and were wary of the “potentially significant trade implications of setting criteria to identify endocrine disruptors,” the report said.
Companies that could be affected by the criteria advocated a risk-based approach to the regulation of endocrine-disrupting substances in pesticides and biocides with the WHO/IPCS definition “as a starting point,” the report said.
The report said 27,000 responses to the consultation was a particularly large response, but more than 90 percent were generated by campaigns run by nonprofit groups that favored strict controls on substances identified as endocrine disruptors and no introduction of additional risk-based criteria to be used when deciding whether to permit continued use of endocrine-disrupting criteria.
‘Pioneering Work.'
The commission said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA that following the analysis of the public consultation responses, the impact assessment on the introduction of criteria to identify endocrine disruptors “will be concluded in 2016.”
Once the impact assessment is published, “the decision-making concerning the definitive criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors will follow immediately thereafter,” the commission said.
The commission added, “This will be a pioneer work at global level; it's important to stress that nobody has done this before.”
Until new criteria are adopted, interim measures will continue to be applied under the pesticides and biocides laws, according to which substances classified in the EU as carcinogen Category 2 and toxic for reproduction Category 2 are considered to be endocrine disruptors and cannot be authorized unless their environmental and health risks can be shown to be negligible.
-
GAO Report Finds Gaps in Chemical Security Program
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Department of Homeland Security needs to verify submitted information to ensure the nation's highest-risk chemical facilities are identified and should develop standardized procedures to address noncompliance with a site's plan to prevent terrorist threats, according to a Government Accountability Office report.
The report, released July 24, noted the department's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program has made significant progress in identifying the highest-risk sites nationally and could complete approving all plans to reduce the risks of terrorist attacks within nine to 12 months for the remaining 929 sites awaiting approval.
“Individuals intent on using or gaining access to hazardous chemicals to carry out a terrorist attack continue to pose a threat to the security of chemical facilities and surrounding populations,” the report found. “DHS has not taken steps to mitigate errors in some facility-reported data and does not have reasonable assurance that it has identified all of the nation's highest-risk chemical facilities. Additionally, DHS cannot ensure consistency in how it addresses noncompliance in the CFATS program because it does not have documented processes and procedures.”
Department of Homeland Security officials agreed to implement a new screening process to verify data submitted, to scan existing categorizations of facilities to make sure their risks were properly assessed and to develop procedures to track noncompliant facilities while ensuring they ultimately implement planned security measures.
Congress passed a four-year reauthorization of the program to reduce the risks of terrorist attacks at high-risk sites with chemicals in December 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-254). Facilities covered under the program are as varied as chemical manufacturers, hospitals, dry cleaners, warehouses and universities.
Compliance Issues
One of the key issues identified by the report is that the Department of Homeland Security lacks consistent procedures for handling facilities that are not in compliance with portions of their approved site security plans. Such problems are currently dealt with on a “case-by-case basis,” according to the GAO.
Nearly half—at 34 of 69 facilities—of all inspections conducted through February 2015 showed the sites had not implemented one or more planned measures in their security plans. The department dealt with noncompliance inconsistently by granting facilities different amounts of time to come into compliance and taking different approaches to scheduling follow-up inspections.
“Having documented processes and procedures would ensure that [the department] has guidelines by which to manage noncompliant facilities and ensure they close security gaps in a timely manner,” the report said. “Given that [the department] will need to inspect about 2,900 facilities in the future, having documented processes and procedures could provide [it] more reasonable assurance that facilities implement planned measures and address security gaps.”
The Department of Homeland Security responded to the findings by saying it is “in the process of developing and documenting such procedures for the final stage of the CFATS process.”
Data Verification Issues
Another area of concern for the GAO is that facilities self-report information on the distance from which exposure to a toxic chemical cloud could cause serious injury or fatalities, but the department does not verify the accuracy of that data.
After examining reported data from a sample of facilities, the GAO estimated 2,700 sites—about 44 percent of the total to complete the initial regulatory screening—failed to correctly identify this distance of concern. Approximately 43 percent of those facilities with incorrect estimates underestimated the distance of concern.
Failing to properly identify this figure means the department could underestimate the threats some facilities could pose to national security, according to the report. The GAO concluded improper data could mean between 85 and 543 high-risk facilities are miscategorized.
The Department of Homeland Security said it is developing a new screening process to eliminate the distance of concern metric, but said it would verify newly submitted data until that tool has been fully implemented.
‘Substantial Improvement' Noted
The report praised the department for “substantial improvement” in the pace it processed site security plans, noting it previously estimated seven to nine years would be needed to completely approve plans for all sites.
Almost 60 percent of all facilities regulated under the CFATS program had received their site security approval, according to a recent fact sheet. That means the department will now ramp up its compliance inspection efforts, a senior official said July 23 (142 DEN A-5, 7/24/15).
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who pushed through the program's reauthorization with then-Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), praised the “real progress” that the CFATS program has made in recent years while noting “numerous challenges remain.”
“The Department should take GAO's recommendations to heart,” Carper said in a statement. “My staff and I plan to engage the department early and often in order continue to make the program better. If Congress, the administration, and industry work together, as we've done before, we can continue to make progress and shape a program that keeps these vital facilities and the jobs they provide secure.”
-
Ruling Shuts Down Pipeline Spill Injury Claims
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The remaining plaintiffs in 40 consolidated suits over contamination from an oil pipeline spill saw their cases dismissed July 21 when a federal court in Louisiana ruled(Ayers v. ANR Pipeline Co., W.D. La., No. 10-cv-00925, 7/21/15). Many of the plaintiffs admitted in depositions their symptoms preceded the 2009 emergency shutdown of a station run by ANR Pipeline Co. that released 350 gallons of natural gas and oil, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said. The plaintiffs—part of an original spate of suits brought by three law firms—also didn't establish any lasting damage to plant life on their properties, the court said in dismissing the cases with prejudice. The memorandum ruling is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Ayers_v_A_N_R_Pipeline_Co_Docket_No_110cv00925_WD_La_Jun_11_2010_/1.
-
Oil Drilling Rigs Increase Unexpectedly
Jul 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The number of oil rigs operating in the United States rose this week by the highest amount since April, a major oilfield services company said.
There were 659 rigs drilling for crude oil this week, 21 more than last week, Baker Hughes Inc. reported Friday, based on its weekly data from across the industry.Natural gas rigs fell by two to 216 and the count for rigs drilling for miscellaneous hydrocarbons was unchanged at one.
The total rig count has now increased three out of the past four weeks, signalling a return to drilling and a slight change from the past year of massive decreases in drilling.
Oil and gas companies have cut back significantly amid a worldwide glut in supply and anemic demand, leading to historically low prices.
But the total count is still down by more than 1,000 from a year ago and down precipitously from October’s high of 1,609, according to Baker Hughes data.
Crude oil on the domestic West Texas Intermediate benchmark was down by about 1 percent to around $48 in early Friday trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
-
Murkowski To Pitch Lifting Export Ban To Senate Colleagues
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Daniel Bush
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) will testify before her colleagues on a Senate banking panel tomorrow as she seeks consensus on lifting the 1970s-era ban on crude oil exports.
Murkowski, the chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a lead author of a sweeping energy package her panel is marking up this week, will appear before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee to make her case for lifting the decades-old ban, which was put in place in reaction to the 1973 oil crisis.
The Alaska Republican and other critics of the export ban have long argued that it's a relic from an earlier era and is stymieing the current U.S. oil and gas boom.
The argument has gained political momentum in recent weeks thanks to the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would lift economic sanctions that have blocked the country from exporting its own oil.
Murkowski cited the nuclear deal at an ENR hearing in April, voicing concern that Iran would gain a competitive advantage over U.S. oil producers who remain handcuffed by their inability to sell crude oil on the world market.
"It would be helpful, here in this country, if we were willing to lead from the front on this and lift our own outdated sanctions," Murkowski said at the time.
Support for lifting the export ban has only grown since then and could feature prominently in several energy bills Murkowski is shepherding through the Senate this summer.
Murkowski did not include a provision on the ban in the bipartisan energy package her panel is marking up this week. But she said last week that she plans to mark up a separate energy bill before the August recess that will include language to lift the ban (E&E Daily, July 24).
Calls to repeal the ban have also grown on the other side of Capitol Hill, where a House version of the energy package will likely include an amendment to lift the export ban (E&E Daily, July 24).
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, July 28, at 10 a.m. in 538 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; Michèle Flournoy, CEO of the Center for a New American Security; Richard Muncrief, president and CEO of WPX Energy; Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute; and Leo Gerard, president of United Steelworkers.
-
States Seek Rehearing of Clean Power Plan Lawsuits
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Fourteen states are asking a federal appellate court to rehear legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, which is expected to be finalized in August (In re: Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, petition for rehearing, 7/24/15).
The states said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision June 9 to dismiss challenges to the proposed carbon dioxide standards for power plants presents too narrow a reading of its authority under the All Writs Act.
“The majority's bright-line rule may well have sweeping consequences for agency conduct,” the states said in a petition for rehearing filed July 24. “Agencies proposing questionable and even clearly unlawful rules now have a new, easy-to-execute blueprint to get parties—including sovereign states—to begin compliance efforts before the courts have any say.”
As part of the initial lawsuit, the states sought a writ to bar the EPA from issuing the final Clean Power Plan, arguing the agency has clearly exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act.
They argued the proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state and violates the Clean Air Act, which they say prevents the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under Section 111(d) because those plants are already subject to hazardous air pollutant standards under Section 112.
The D.C. Circuit dismissed the challenges on the grounds that the rule is not yet final (In re: Murray Energy Corp., 2015 BL 180996, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, 6/9/15; West Virginia v. EPA, 2015 BL 180996, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1146, 6/9/15; (111 DEN A-1, 6/10/15).
Judge Defended Court's Authority
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson in a separate concurring opinion had defended the court's authority under the All Writs Act to block agency proposals as necessary, although she agreed it wasn't necessary in this instance because the Clean Power Plan would be finalized shortly.
“Without an explicit command that jurisdiction under the All Writs Act had been withdrawn, we found it implausible that the court's equitable powers had been restricted,” she wrote.
Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, told Bloomberg BNA that the states' petition for rehearing presented similar arguments to those made my Henderson.
“The court clearly does have authority under the All Writs Act,” he said. “It's not exercised often, but it's there.”
However, Lorenzen said having the D.C. Circuit grant a rehearing request is always a long shot.
Rehearing was sought by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The states are asking that the case be reheard either by the same panel that heard the initial lawsuits or by the full D.C. Circuit.
Oklahoma Pursues Separate Lawsuit
Separately, Oklahoma has filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit after another lawsuit to block the EPA's rule was dismissed by a lower court (Pruitt v. McCarthy, 10th Cir., No. 15-5066, 7/21/15; (141 DEN A-3, 7/23/15).
The governors of Indiana, Wisconsin and Louisiana have expressed reservations about their states' ability to comply with the EPA's proposed emissions limits, as has Texas, which hasn't joined the litigation against the proposed rule. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has said her state won't comply with the rule.
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant also has expressed concerns about states' ability to meet the proposed standards (see related story).
-
14 States Ask For Rehearing Of Clean Power Plan Case
Jul 24, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
More than a dozen states today asked a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision allowing U.S. EPA to move ahead with its landmark greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants.
The 14 states requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rehear its June decision in favor of the agency en banc, meaning before all of the circuit's judges.
They claim that the proposed Clean Power Plan, which would cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, has forced states to take action -- and spend money -- to prepare for the final rule, which is due to be released sometime this summer.
"Under the panel majority's decision," they wrote, "an agency can repeatedly threaten regulated parties to make immediate expenditures to comply with an unlawful but not-yet-final rule, and evade legal accountability for this misconduct."
A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel rejected their bid to block EPA from finalizing the rule largely on procedural grounds. They held that the challenges were premature because EPA had yet to finalize the rule and, consequently, could still change it.
The Clean Power Plan is a key pillar of President Obama's efforts to address climate change. It would largely shift the country from coal-based power to energy from renewable sources and natural gas.
Critics of the rule, which include several states and industry groups, are anxiously waiting for it to be finalized, which will likely lead to a flood of new litigation.
States asking for rehearing in the D.C. Circuit case are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Separately, the National Federation of Independent Business also filed a petition for rehearing of the same three-judge panel or en banc.
It takes a majority of the D.C. Circuit's 11 active judges to grant rehearing en banc. The court rarely does so.
-
States Appeal Case Against EPA Climate Rule
Jul 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Fourteen states are asking a federal appeals court to revive their challenge to the Obama administration’s signature regulatory proposal on climate change.
The states, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, want all 17 judges on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hear the case that a three-judge panel rejected last month against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).That panel of judges decided the challenge was premature because the rule has not yet been made final, and a court has never reviewed a proposed rule before.
The states said the judges made a huge mistake.
“Rehearing is warranted because the panel majority’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for the conduct of agencies in rulemaking, in violation of precedent from this court and the Supreme Court,” they wrote in their Friday petition to the court.
“Under the panel majority’s decision, an agency can repeatedly threaten regulated parties to make immediate expenditures to comply with an unlawful but not-yet-final rule, and evade legal accountability for this misconduct.”
If the court does not rehear the case, “this powerful tool will only further enable agencies to make their policy goals a practical reality before the courts can review their legality — a tactic EPA brazenly touted after losing in Michigan v. EPA,” the states said, referring to a June decision from the Supreme Court on another EPA regulation concerning power-plant emissions.
The states made a similar argument to the court in April, saying the proposed regulation is already having negative effects on them. The court rejected those arguments and did not comment on the merits of the case itself.
The latest appeal may soon become moot, since the Obama administration is planning to make the rule final within weeks.
The EPA has repeatedly argued the climate rule is well within confines of the Clean Air Act and will stand up to court scrutiny.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed his own lawsuit against the rule in early July in a lower federal court. That court took less than three weeks to dismiss the case, citing the D.C. Circuit opinion that the challenge was premature.
Separately from the 13-state appeal, Pruitt appealed the Oklahoma decision to the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, asking that court to reconsider the dismissal.
-
Mississippi Threatens to Ignore Clean Power Plan
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) became the latest state executive to threaten not to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, absent significant changes.
“EPA's proposal amounts to an unfunded mandate, requiring Mississippi to invest substantial amounts to obtain and implement new technology without allowing the state adequate time to prepare,” Bryant wrote in a July 23 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “We do not see how it will be possible to reasonably develop a State Implementation Plan, given the burdensome requirements of EPA's proposal in its current form.”
McCarthy and other senior EPA officials have repeatedly said significant changes will be made to the final version of the regulation in response to public comments. Failure to submit a state implementation plan means the EPA would then issue a federal implementation plan to achieve the emissions reductions.
The EPA declined to respond directly to Mississippi's letter July 24, but it reiterated its commitment to working with states.
Republican governors in Texas, Indiana, Wisconsin and Louisiana have also threatened not to comply with the final regulation without a major revamp. Just one state—Oklahoma—has pledged not to comply with the rule regardless of its final form (132 DEN A-18, 7/10/15).
The EPA is expected to release the final Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act in August. As proposed, the regulation would set a unique emissions rate for the power sector in each state, but it would give states flexibility in how best to meet the targets. States would have to meet interim targets between 2020 and 2029, with a final emissions rate to be achieved in 2030.
Report Projects Savings
Bryant's fears came to light as a new report from Synapse Energy Economics Inc. found clean energy and energy efficiency usage stemming from the Clean Power Plan could generate billions of dollars in savings across the nation's electricity system.
The report found that total savings across the electricity system could hit $40 billion by 2030, and households participating in energy efficiency programs could see savings of $35 per month on their electricity bills.
-
Gov: Mississippi Might Not Comply With Climate Rule
Jul 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) has told the Environmental Protection Agency his state might not comply with a forthcoming Obama administration rule on carbon emissions from power plants.
“We do not see how it will be possible to reasonably develop a State Implementation Plan [SIP] given the burdensome requirements of EPA’s proposal in its current form,” Bryant wrote in a Thursday letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. Bryant said the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is an “unfunded mandate” that would require the state to build new energy infrastructure in order to bring down its carbon emissions. He complained that the proposed plan set more stringent emissions goals for Mississippi than other states and that it does not credit the state for reducing its emissions in previous years.
The letter also reflected concerns shared by many opponents of the Clean Power Plan, primarily that it could hurt electricity reliability or raise energy prices by forcing coal-fired power plants to shut down.
Bloomberg BNA first posted a copy of Bryant’s letter.
“The flaws inherent in EPA's proposal make the development of responsible SIPs unworkable for states, including Mississippi,” Bryant wrote.
“One of my most important duties as Governor is to secure reliable access to affordable electricity for Mississippians. I am deeply concerned that the current form of EPA’s proposal could prevent me from fulfilling this duty.”
The Clean Power Plan, which the Obama administration is scheduled to finalize this summer, looks to cut emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent before 2030 by setting emissions reduction goals for states.
If Mississippi declines to write a plan to reduce its emissions, the federal government will write one for the state instead.
“Governor Bryant is deeply concerned about the Obama administration’s overreach and believes [the rule] is bad for Mississippi and bad for consumers in this state," Bryant spokeswoman Nicole Webb said in a statement.
"He is weighing all available options before determining whether Mississippi will prepare a State Implementation Plan and hopes that the EPA will responsibly consider the concerns raised by Mississippi and other states.”
Mississippi legislators adopted a resolution this year opposing the Clean Power Plan, calling for the EPA and the Obama administration to either withdraw the proposal or water it down.
Several Republican governors have threatened to ignore the Clean Power Plan. Oklahoma has formally said it will not write its own implementation plan, and governors from West Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Texas and Louisiana have said they might do so as well.
In a tweet, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, “I applaud [Bryant] for standing against EPA overreach.”
-
Energy Efficiency Legislation Scheduled for Markup
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Long-stalled energy efficiency legislation is among the 20 bills scheduled for a July 28 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee markup, according to a committee notice.
The bill (S. 720) by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) would authorize funding for measures to increase energy conservation in the federal data centers, establish voluntary national model building codes and boost energy efficiency in the manufacturing and commercial sectors, among other things.
While most of the provisions in the legislation were included in a broad energy bill that also will be marked up by the committee July 28, the committee is moving forward with the stand-alone efficiency bill, at the behest of Portman, who wants a backup plan if the broader energy legislation stalls, said Kateri Callahan, president of the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy.
“We are concerned that it often takes a long time for comprehensive legislation to wend its way through the legislative process and is particularly difficult,” Callahan said in an interview. “This is an opportunity to have this bill out of committee and ready to go.”
The bill, which was backed by companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and the investor-owned utility National Grid, includes measures that would require the development of new Tenant Star and Supply Star energy efficiency recognition programs and facilitate a third-party certification process within the existing Energy Star program.
The legislation also would repeal a provision in a 2007 energy law that requires the government to phase out use of fossil fuels in new and significantly renovated federal buildings by 2030.
The bill, and previous iterations of it, has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, but in the past, fights over amendments and general Senate dysfunction have derailed the legislation.
A previous version of the bill in the 113th Congress was approved by the committee on a 19-3 vote, and backers of the new version say a strong committee vote in favor of the bill could give it momentum in the Senate.
Slimmed Down Version Approved in Senate
A slimmed down version of the legislation (S. 535) was approved in the Senate on a voice vote in the early morning hours of March 27 (60 DEN A-3, 3/30/15).
“I think Portman and Shaheen have been masterful in getting things through in the 29th hour,” Callahan said. “They have been willing to stay on the floor until 4 in the morning to get things through.”
-
Senate Panel Looks To Make Headway On Multiple Fronts
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee tomorrow will dive into a crowded agenda in anticipation of floor debate this fall on comprehensive energy legislation.
Topping the list is the bipartisan energy package unveiled last week by Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), which aims to modernize energy infrastructure, increase efficiency, boost research into an assortment of renewables, while also strengthening the security of the grid from cyberattacks (E&E Daily, July 23).
After months of discussions, Cantwell on Friday said she was pleased with the package, although she acknowledged the spirit of compromise left some wanting more.
"We think there's a very good focus on energy efficiency and cybersecurity, distribution issues," she said, also listing the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund as a highlight. "I think both sides are going to look at it and say, 'Gosh, I want more of this or more of that.' But obviously a committee markup is a process."
Murkowski last week said she and Cantwell will map out a strategy for managing amendments but signaled that she will ask members to leave more controversial issues until the bill hits the floor later this year (E&E Daily, July 24).
Energy Committee member John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told E&E Daily on Friday that he already has "a whole list of amendments" for the bill that he will discuss with Murkowski before the markup, but he said he'll hold some for the floor in the interest of getting the bill through the panel.
"I'm a big fan of regular order, having the debate and having the votes, and there's a lot of energy legislation, so we'll just have to see what we can do," Hoeven said. "Once those amendments start coming, we'll just have to see what happens, if we can build enough consensus to pass a bill."
He ticked off Keystone XL, coal ash, fracking and the Waters of the U.S. rule as a few potential amendments. "There's just a big range of things," he said.
Hoeven also told reporters he is looking for opportunities to press a legislative repeal of the crude oil export ban.
He'll get the chance to vote on that issue in committee this week. Also on tomorrow's agenda is Murkowski's legislation to end the ban, which, along with a trio of bills to expand states' share of federal offshore oil and gas revenues, was folded into a second package that she wants to move before the recess.
A section-by-section summary outlines the measure, which also expands offshore leasing beyond what the Obama administration has proposed for 2017-22.
Also on tomorrow's agenda is the comprehensive energy efficiency bill (S. 720) sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), much of which has already been incorporated into the committee's broader package.
There are a number of public lands measures and the nomination of Jonathan Elkind to be the Energy Department's assistant secretary of energy for international affairs on the agenda, as well.
As of Friday, there was only one markup on the committee's schedule, but Murkowski last week signaled that additional markups are possible for Wednesday and Thursday. Aides have also noted that the Senate is scheduled to be in session the week of Aug. 3, which could provide additional time for meeting Murkowski's goal of moving the bill through committee before the break.
Schedule: The markup is Tuesday, July 28, at 10 a.m. Dirksen 366.
-
Companies to Pledge $140 Billion in Efforts to Cut Carbon Emissions
Jul 26, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
More than a dozen U.S. companies on Monday will pledge to invest more than $140 billion in efforts to cut carbon emissions as part of a new Obama administration initiative leading up to the United Nations climate-change summit later this year.
Bank of America Corp. , General Motors Co. , Cargill Inc. and Alcoa Inc. are among the companies set to sign onto a pledge to address climate change at a White House event Monday with Secretary of State John Kerry and White House adviser Brian Deese.
Monday’s announcement, which also includes tech giants Google Inc., Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp. , is one part of an expansive effort by the Obama administration to address climate change and make it a legacy of President Barack Obama’s time in the White House.
As soon as next week, the Environmental Protection Agency is set to issue final rules cutting carbon emissions from U.S. power plants. These regulations are the biggest driver behind the administration’s efforts to forge a global agreement at the U.N. conference in Paris to cut carbon emissions.
Monday’s event is important because the administration sees corporate support for climate action as key to building momentum for the Paris talks in December.
“It’s significant because they are carbon-intensive, energy-consuming companies making a bottom-up commitment to address climate change,” said Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based analysis firm.
None of the companies taking part in Monday’s event produce oil, natural gas or coal—the sector responsible for emitting most of the carbon scientists say is causing global warming. Most U.S. fossil-fuel companies have either resisted or are silent on efforts to cut carbon emissions. But in June, six European oil and natural gas companies sent a letter to the U.N. calling for a price on carbon emissions.
Monday’s announcement is the first of at least two such corporate pledges on climate change organized by the Obama administration, with a second round planned for this fall.
Whether or not U.S. fossil-fuel companies eventually join any sort of pledge on climate change will depend in part on whether “the momentum has gotten so great that they look bad by not contributing,” Mr. Book said.
The pledges to be announced Monday vary in their significance and type. Alcoa, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of aluminum, is committing to cutting its U.S. carbon emissions by 50% by 2025, based on emissions levels in 2005. Bank of America is committing $75 billion through lending and other types of financing by 2025, which is on top of a previously announced $50 billion commitment. General Motors is pledging to cut the carbon intensity of its facilities by 20% by 2020, based on emission levels in 2010.
The companies making pledges Monday also include Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Coca-Cola Co. , PepsiCo Inc., United Parcel Service Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Berkshire Hathaway Energy.
-
Corporations Join In White House Warming Push Ahead Of Paris
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick and Lisa Friedma
Companies as diverse as Coca-Cola and Bank of America will visit the White House today to announce voluntary emissions-reduction pledges to support President Obama's quest for a global agreement on climate change at the end of this year.
The White House announcement will involve more than a dozen companies from a variety of sectors, including many that have previously taken steps to reduce their impact on warming either on their own or as part of other collaborations with the Obama administration.
Secretary of State John Kerry will give remarks at the White House roundtable event in the absence of President Obama, who is traveling in Kenya. White House climate adviser Brian Deese and Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern also will attend.
The 13 participating companies will pledge to spend a collective $140 billion to combat warming and will endorse "a strong outcome in the Paris climate negotiations," according to the White House.
The other participants in the American Businesses Act on Climate Pledge are Alcoa Inc., Apple Inc., Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill Inc., General Motors Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., PepsiCo Inc., United Parcel Service Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Many of the same companies have been involved in the numerous previous announcements the White House has rolled out over the last few years on climate change adaptation or mitigation. Coca-Cola and UPS already belong to a public-private initiative called the National Clean Fleets Partnership, for example, which seeks to improve the fuel efficiency of companies that operate large vehicle fleets. Google provided cloud storage space to house data for the administration's Climate Data Initiative, which was launched last year to help the public and local governments gain access to federally collected information about the effects of warming. The company played a similar role in last month's Climate Services for Resilient Development partnership, which aims to help local communities adapt.
In a statement this morning, the White House said the pledges show the private sector "is committed to stepping up and doing its part" to combat warming.
"While the United States is leading on the international stage and the federal government is doing its part to combat climate change, hundreds of private companies, local governments, and foundations have stepped up to increase energy efficiency, boost low-carbon investing, and make solar energy more accessible to low-income Americans," the statement said.
Climate advocates said that today's effort has been several months in the making and is part of a global climate change agreement in which cities, states, businesses and others are being mobilized to announce emissions cuts as well as national governments.
"Combating climate change cannot be tackled by governments alone," said Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. She praised the White House's effort to bring in businesses, arguing that private industry is where investment and innovation starts.
Meanwhile, she said, businesses need to challenge the notion that only a handful of them are reducing their carbon footprint or building sustainability into their supply chains.
"I think people think it's just a small group of companies that have a green outlook. That is not the case," Jacobson said. "This is a mainstream corporate activity."
The announcement comes a week before U.S. EPA is widely expected to release its final Clean Power Plan together with rules for new and modified power plant carbon dioxide. Former EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, who is now president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said in a statement that the pledges are an affirmative step toward an agreement in Paris.
"And the business community will be essential to mobilizing the technology, investment and innovation needed to transition to a low-carbon economy," Perciasepe said. While governments in the developed and developing world have made strides recently toward a meaningful agreement, "the strong support of business leaders for climate action, like that exhibited today, can only help to strengthen that will," he said.
Commitments vary by company. Alcoa, for example, has already pledged to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of its operations by 30 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. It adds a promise to cut absolute greenhouse gas output by half in 2025.
Bank of America has previously pledged $50 billion for low-carbon financing and will now increase that to $125 billion by 2025 through lending, investing, capital raising and other services. GM committed to reduce carbon intensity from facilities 20 percent by 2020 over a 2010 baseline and promote renewable energy use and reduce waste.
The White House plans to play host to a second set of climate commitments this fall, and Kerry, who has made combating warming a priority of his State Department tenure, will convene a forum on climate finance ahead of the Paris negotiations.
The accord, expected to be signed in Paris in December, will include a component for local governments and the private sector, dubbed "non-state actors." That work is critical, activists said, because the emissions cuts that countries alone have pledged for Paris are so far not enough to avoid catastrophic climate change.
-
Veto Threat, Legal Challenges Create New Uncertainties For Coal Ash Rule
Jul 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA’s rule governing coal ash disposal is facing new uncertainty from several angles, with the White House threatening to veto pending legislation to overhaul the policy and industry, municipalities and environmentalists suing over the rule, although they have yet to declare which provisions they will challenge.
The House passed on July 22 H.R. 1734, the GOP-backed bill to revise and codify EPA’s Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) rule on disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), including ash, by a vote of 258-166. But the White House is vowing to veto the legislation, through a July 21 statement of administration policy (SAP) that sides with critics who say it would substantially undermine the EPA rule.
“Specifically, H.R. 1734 authorizes States to implement permit programs that would not meet a national minimum standard of protection and fails to provide EPA with an opportunity to review and approve State permit programs prior to implementation, departing from the long-standing precedent of previously enacted Federal environmental statutes. . . . If the President were presented with H.R. 1734 as drafted, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill,” the SAP says.
The veto threat raises the possibility that H.R. 1734 could fail despite support from some conservative Democrats, but GOP leaders could also agree to address the White House’s concerns in order to advance what they have called the bill’s core goals -- creating a state-led permit regime for ash disposal and making permanent EPA’s decision to treat CCRs as “solid waste” under RCRA subtitle D.
Meanwhile, the fate of the EPA coal ash rule is also unclear since stakeholders are in the early stages of challenging the regulation. More than a dozen parties in total filed seven petitions for judicial review of the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 15, 16 and 17, including a coalition of eight environmentalist groups acting together.
Other groups suing over the rule include the power sector groups American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and AES Puerto Rico; two firms with an interest in ash reuse, Beneficial Reuse Management and the cement company Lafarge North America; and the city of Springfield, MO.
'Legacy' Repositories
“You don’t really know until you see as the pleadings play out, what people are actually praying for. It could be minor things, but they could want major fundamental changes,” says one source in the power sector.
For instance, an environmentalist attorney not involved with the suit says advocates could be seeking expanded regulation of closed “legacy” ash repositories, since the final rule only deals with legacy sites at active power plants. “It was never clear why that line was drawn, because the same risks apply” at closed and active power plants, the attorney says.
The industry source says the response to that challenge would be “very different” than if the environmentalists try to force EPA to overturn its “solid waste” designation, which industry and states universally supported, in favor of designating the material as “hazardous waste” under RCRA subtitle C, which the advocates have long argued would be more protective.
“If the environmentalists sue for a hazardous-waste designation, you’ll see a lot of industry folks step in to defend EPA. . . . In fact, it is possible that some of these petitions are just to preserve a seat at the table -- and whether they are committed to pursuing the litigation remains to be seen,” the industry source says.
Meanwhile, the priorities of the industry plaintiffs, which include both power-sector groups and firms involved in ash reuse, also remain unclear.
One source in the reuse industry says those groups may be hoping to correct an “error” in the rule’s restrictions on large-scale “structural fills” where a site is filled in with coal ash. The rules apply to any such project involving at least 12,400 tons of ash, but the ash recycling firm Headwaters, Inc., argued in an April 1 letter to EPA that the threshold appears to be based on a misreading of ash impoundment sizes, and that the limit should therefore be raised.
“I would suspect that if the 12,400-ton issue got resolved, though a technical correction or some such, I doubt they’d have much interest in staying involved,” the reuse sector source says.
Enforcement Regime
States and other industry groups beyond the reuse sector have largely criticized the rule’s enforcement measures, since it gives states no implementation authority and instead relies on citizen suits to enforce a single set of federal standards nationwide. Critics say that situation will lead to potentially duplicative state and federal rules, as well as varying interpretations of the federal standard by district courts -- which in turn has been a major argument to support H.R. 1734.
But the reuse industry and environmentalist sources say that since critics have argued that the rule’s enforcement regime is impractical rather than illegal, they are unlikely to bring it up in court.
“In general, if you look at the legislation they’re proposing, they’re trying to water down the technical requirements of the rule. But I haven’t seen their lawsuit, so I can’t predict what they’re trying to knock out,” the environmentalist attorney says.
The legislation has garnered some Democratic support -- including from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who is a co-sponsor of the Senate counterpart, S. 1803. But with the White House now directly opposing the bill it is unclear whether the GOP will be able to win enough minority support to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to pass the Senate. The 67 votes required to overturn a veto will be an even more difficult goal.
Democrats opposing the bill could raise concerns echoed in the SAP over bill language that would allow states to craft their own permit programs for CCRs without reference to a “minimum standard of protection,” as well as claiming that it would remove groundwater protection requirements and weaken reporting mandates -- all complaints environmentalists and House Democrats have also raised. H.R. 1734 “also would undermine EPA’s requirement that unlined impoundments must close or be retrofitted with protective liners if they are leaking and contaminating drinking water. Further, the bill would delay requirements in EPA’s final CCR rule,” the SAP says.
-
Roundtable To Focus On Ozone Rule's Impact On Manufacturing
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee plan to hold a roundtable tomorrow on the potential impacts on manufacturing stemming from U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the national ozone standard.
Among the participants in the roundtable are the mayors of Deer Park, Texas, and Sevier County, Tenn., as well as executives from companies in the manufacturing space. Subcommittee members will also hear from Joseph Stanko, a partner at Hunton & Williams LLP who served as counsel to the Energy and Commerce Committee between 1997 and 2003.
EPA in November proposed to lower the national ambient air quality standard for ozone from 75 parts per billion, which was set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration, to between 65 and 70 ppb. The agency says a more stringent limit is needed to combat negative health effects tied to ozone pollution.
Industry and GOP critics, however, have called on EPA to retain the current standard, raising doubts about the science behind the proposal and its potential costs.
The roundtable tomorrow comes shortly after the Energy and Commerce Committee held two hearings in which GOP critics of EPA's ozone proposal lambasted the compliance costs.
"The EPA is pushing too far and too fast with their proposed rule and consumers, manufacturers and small businesses across the country bear the brunt of the compliance burdens," Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said in a statement Friday.
Schedule: The roundtable is Tuesday, July 28, at 2 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Participants: Jerry Mouton Jr., mayor of Deer Park, Texas; Larry Waters, mayor of Sevier County, Tenn.; Chris Norch, president of Denison Industries; George Williams, CEO of PMI Energy Solutions LLC; Gregory Johnson, director of legislative affairs at Sherwin-Williams Co.; and Joseph Stanko, partner at Hunton & Williams LLP.
-
Environmental Justice Groups Meet With McCabe On Ozone
Jul 24, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
Correction appended.
The NAACP and other environmental justice leaders urged U.S. EPA to tighten the national standard for ground-level ozone during a one-hour meeting with acting air chief Janet McCabe at the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The advocates stressed that the ozone standard was a "legacy" issue for the Obama administration, according to a source who was present.
The groups asked McCabe to set a new standard no higher than 60 parts per billion, tightening the current limit of 75 ppb. NAACP sent EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy a letter yesterday with the same request, arguing that air pollution disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities.
A 60-ppb standard "would help ensure the right to fresh air and a shot at good health, regardless of your race or ethnicity," NAACP Washington Bureau Director Hilary Shelton wrote in the letter.
Ozone is a key component of smog that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight.
In November, EPA proposed to tighten the national ambient air quality standard of 75 ppb -- which was last set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb, though the agency said it would take comment on a new standard as low as 60 ppb. EPA is working toward a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to choose a final standard.
Public health and environmental groups have also called on EPA to choose the 60-ppb limit, arguing that studies have documented adverse health effects at higher concentrations of ozone. The pollutant has been linked to reduced lung function, asthma exacerbation and other negative effects.
Industry, on the other hand, has called for EPA to retain the current standard, arguing a lower limit would impose high compliance costs.
In the letter, NAACP said about 71 percent of African-Americans live in areas that are violating air pollution standards. The organization noted that African-American children have double the risk for asthma of white children and are more likely to die from it, as well.
NAACP leadership in 2011 formally adopted a policy of calling for a 60-ppb standard.
"Our policy has certainly not changed since then," Shelton wrote. "If anything, more of our members are becoming aware of the problems associated with high levels of ozone in the air, and the potential fix."
Environmental justice groups have previously met with White House officials on the ozone standard and have launched campaigns in support of a lower limit.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated which U.S. EPA official met with the NAACP and other environmental advocates.
-
When’s The Climate Rule Release? It’s Anyone’s Guess
Jul 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Could it be on President Barack Obama’s birthday? Or maybe he’ll put aside the putter and issue it during his Martha’s Vineyard vacation? Or perhaps amid the wild vistas of Alaska at the end of August?
The guessing game around the date that the Obama administration will release its landmark carbon rules for power plants is in full swing, and the dearth of hard facts isn’t slowing down the speculation.
EPA’s self-imposed timeframe is drawing near for the release of those final rules, which will require states to come up with strategies to cut the electricity sector’s emissions of the greenhouse gases that scientists blame for climate change, but the exact timing remains up in the air.
The latest theory from energy industry sources puts the date at Aug. 4 — Obama’s 54th birthday — earlier than most observers had expected. But even people who have cited that date out admit they don’t have solid information.
A coal industry source described that Aug. 4 date as a “consensus of hearsay.” Roger Martella, a former George W. Bush-era general counsel at EPA, said at an event this week that he too expects the rule to be finalized in the first week of August.
EPA and the White House, as usual, have remained mum on the matter.
Environmentalists and other allies of the administration say there is no indication of precise date, which some have guessed would be later in August.
One source at a trade group told POLITICO there has been no official word on timing, but that he long assumed it would be the first week of August. “I think they will be ready to go around then,” the source said. “At issue with timing may be the extent to which the president elects to be involved in the roll-out.”
The rising speculation on an early August release of the rule may simply be an effort to pressure the administration into revealing its plans, and it comes after EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy set off a round of tea-leaf reading in the opposite direction last month, when she said the agency’s work on climate change will continue “in September.”
Some interpreted her remarks at the League of Conservation Voters dinner to signal that the rule’s release was being pushed back a month, while others assumed she was referring to follow-up activities after the rule’s release. An EPA spokesman later suggested observers had read too much into the comment.
Intrigue over the timing is nothing new; energy executives, green activists, energy reporters and analysts, and even administration officials have long cast a wary eye toward August while making their vacation getaway plans.
But now, in the absence of any solid intelligence on the policy details of the final rule, speculation in this town has run amok.
The administration had originally planned for an early June rollout, but that target was pushed back to “mid-summer” earlier this year. Then in a May update to its regulatory schedule in the Unified Agenda, the White House specified an August release date, a target that would fall during Congress’s summer recess and offers an optically favorable backdrop of sweltering heat in a year that some scientists are saying is shaping to up to be the warmest on record.
Inside EPA, citing unnamed sources, kicked speculation into gear with a story last week saying the White House was moving toward an early August release so as not to conflict with the president’s annual vacation to Martha’s Vineyard. The Obamas are slated to be there from Aug. 8-23.
However, the beginning of the Obama family vacation does not necessarily mean the president is unavailable. Last year, for example, he left Martha’s Vineyard for two days to attend meetings at the White House on Iraq and the strife in Ferguson, Mo.
Meanwhile, others are speculating that Obama will use an Aug. 31 visit to Alaska to speak at a State Department conference on Arctic issues, including climate change. That trip was announced back in February.
But a rollout in Alaska — a state whose congressional delegation strongly opposes EPA’s Clean Power Plan — doesn’t offer the same optics that the White House has previously used to drive media coverage.
Obama announced his broader climate agenda, including this carbon rule, in June 2013 during an appearance at Georgetown University. The event, on a sunny day when the temperature climbed to 94 degrees, offered Obama a chance to literally mop his brow.
“My first announcement today is that you should all take off your jackets. I’m going to do the same,” Obama said to cheers as he rolled up his shirtsleeves and delivered the speech, stopping occasionally to wipe sweat from his face.
At the very least, EPA, an agency that’s not averse to releasing news shortly before most people head home to start their weekend, has vowed not to release the rule on a Friday evening.
“[B]iggest piece of POTUS climate plan = no Friday news dump,” EPA Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Tom Reynolds wrote on Twitter last month.
-
Clinton Rolls Out Her Green Agenda
Jul 26, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode and Hadas Gold
Hillary Clinton unveiled her most detailed proposals on climate change since becoming a presidential candidate, but it’s not the aggressive plan most progressives were probably looking for.
Among her top line promises: moving the economy along “a path toward deep decarbonization by 2050” and “enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America” by 2027.
While the plan is the most specific she’s made yet as a candidate on how she would combat climate change, she’s being outflanked on the left by her Democratic challengers, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, and her targets don’t go as far as what billionaire climate-change activist Tom Steyer wants the 2016 candidates to do.
Progressives have been badgering Clinton to take a strong stance on climate change. Earlier this month in New Hampshire a group of activists disrupted her first town hall in the state, demanding she pledge to end extraction of fossil fuels on public lands.
Clinton’s plan calls for having 500 million solar panels installed by the end her term if she’s elected president. That would be part of the effort to hike solar capacity to 140 gigawatts by the end of 2020, the equivalent of about 140 nuclear reactors and an increase of 700 percent from current levels.
She also wants to add more power generation from other renewable sources, like wind and geothermal.
Clinton called for extending federal clean energy tax incentives, and she pledged to defend the Obama Clean Power Plan, which would cut greenhouse gases from power plants. She also would launch a “Clean Energy Challenge” that would award competitive grants and other incentives for states.
Her campaign will roll out out a more detailed energy and climate strategy in the coming months that will call for reducing oil consumption, modernize the nation’s energy infrastructure, improve building efficiency and “protect the health and retirement security” of coal miners.
In a speech on Sunday in a ballroom at the Iowa State University alumni center, Clinton was bullish on her climate change goals.
“I am setting some really high goals that we are going to meet when I am president,” Clinton said, noting that just as many people work in the solar power sector as do in the coal industry.
“Those people on the other side, they will answer any question about climate change by saying, ‘I’m not a scientist,’” she continued. “I’m not a scientist either. I’m just a grandmother with two eyes and a brain.”
Clinton also unveiled a new video on Sunday hitting Republicans for denying climate change.
“Future generations will look back and say, ‘What were we thinking? How could we be so irresponsible?’” Clinton says in the video.
In one clip, quotes from Republican candidates such as Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump denying climate change appear on the screen as Clinton says “It’s hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change.”
On Monday, Clinton will speak about her climate change plan at a Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority station.
Two of Clinton’s primary challengers, O’Malley and Sanders, have sought to outflank her on the left on climate change.
Sanders has noted his views on climate and staunch opposition to building of the Keystone XL oil pipeline as two areas his record is distinguishable from Clinton’s.
O’Malley’s campaign released a preemptive strike via email Sunday afternoon, touting his signing into law as governor a statewide target of reducing total greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
O’Malley, who is running a distant third in the Democratic race, is also pushing for electricity to be solely derived from renewable sources by 2050. That’s the exact same pledge billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer is seeking from 2016 presidential candidates, but Steyer has also already held a fundraiser for Clinton at his San Francisco home.
-
Clinton Sets Climate, Renewable Power Goals
Jul 26, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton late Sunday unveiled a set of goals to expand the use of renewable energy and solar power specifically as part of an effort to fight climate change.
As president, Clinton would try to reach a level of 500 million solar panels installed throughout the country, an eightfold increase over the current capacity, by the end of her first term in January, 2021.She would also aim to expand renewable power sources to the level that they could provide enough electricity for every United States home by 2027, 10 years after she would take office.
Clinton pledged to outline more about her energy and climate platform in the coming months.
Those goals, along with a video posted late Sunday, should start to answer frustrated environmentalists, who have been calling for Clinton to take a stand on various green issues since long before she declared her candidacy for president in April.
In the video, Clinton called the goals “ambitious,” and took an opportunity to criticize her Republican opponents.
“Future generations will look back and wonder ‘what were we thinking? How could we possibly be so irresponsible,’ ” Clinton says in the video.
“It’s hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who would rather remind us they’re not scientists than listen to those who are,” she says, referring indirectly to presidential hopefuls like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) who have declared themselves not to be scientists.
“You don’t have to be a scientist to take on this urgent challenge that threatens us all,” Clinton says. “You just have to be willing to act.”
Clinton also promised Sunday to defend President Obama’s landmark carbon dioxide limits for power plants, along with other smaller actions.
Greens have started to rally around Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as the Democratic nominee, citing his leadership role on many of their priorities, like opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, a project on which Clinton has still not taken a position.
In addition to Keystone, Sunday’s announcement doesn’t confront Clinton’s past positions on oil drilling or hydraulic fracturing, which have been among greens’ top gripes with her.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has also been in front of Clinton on climate, saying in June that he would push for all of the country’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2050.
It’s unclear if Clinton’s goals would align with the demands of billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who has pledged to donate only to candidates whose climate platforms would lead to half of the country’s electricity coming from renewables by 2030.
-
Brakes in Crude-by-Rail Rule Outperform Others: NTSB
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Brakes required for certain flammable liquid rail shipments under a Transportation Department crude-by-rail rule outperform other systems, according to a National Transportation Safety Board study released July 23. The board's “Train Braking Simulation Study” was conducted as part of its investigation into a December 2013 crude oil train derailment in Casselton, N.D. The findings—which showed that electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake systems were more effective than other brake systems, such as distributed power systems—are important because several industry groups have challenged the department over its ECP brake system provisions in its final rule. The rule that was promulgated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration would make more stringent tank car requirements and operation control stipulations, such as speed limits, for trains carrying large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids, including crude oil. The board's study was peer-reviewed by several entities, including BNSF Railway Co. and Sharma & Associates Inc.—a group that studied brake systems on behalf of the Transportation Department in its final rule. The study is available at http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/55500-55999/55926/577439.pdf.
-
Senate Debate Limps On After Weekend Detour
Jul 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss and Sean Reilly
The Senate continues to slog through procedural votes on its multi-year transportation bill, after internal Republican dissent and presidential politics boiled over during a rare Sunday session.
The chamber is slated to vote at 10 p.m. tonight on a Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) amendment to the highway bill that would extend the Export-Import Bank of the United States, following yesterday's 67-26 vote to end debate on the proposal.
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the lead Democratic negotiator on transportation, told E&E Daily yesterday that including the Ex-Im Bank extension bodes well for the underlying bill.
"I think it's a good thing because it will bring people from both sides," she said.
Yet it also further complicates Senate efforts to trump the five-month highway extension favored by the House, given entrenched opposition among House GOP leaders to reviving the Ex-Im Bank and the fact that the lower chamber is scheduled to leave town for the long August recess this week.
Tonight's Senate vote could take place earlier if all 100 senators agree to waive post-cloture debate time, but that appears unlikely given yesterday's acrimony.
During an extraordinary session, Senate President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) decried Friday's floor comments by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that many saw as a breach of decorum and the chamber's rules, in which the GOP presidential candidate accused Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of a "flat-out lie" by setting up a vote on the Ex-Im Bank amendment.
While not mentioning Cruz by name, Hatch reminded senators they're not allowed to impugn the integrity of their colleagues' motives on the floor. "We serve the people, not our own egos," Hatch said.
An unrepentant Cruz later tried to call up an amendment that would have blocked the Obama administration from lifting sanctions against Iran unless Tehran first acknowledged Israel's right to exist and freed U.S. captives. Because McConnell has already blocked senators from offering amendments using the parliamentary move known as "filling the tree," the Iran amendment was ruled out of order, and Cruz's efforts to overturn the chair's ruling failed by a voice vote.
A second amendment by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would have barred the federal government from funding Planned Parenthood met the same fate as Cruz's gambit.
By denying the senators' the right to roll call votes to overturn the chair's ruling, the chamber essentially rebuked the pair for attempting to circumvent long-held debate rules through the so-called "nuclear option," which can be used to circumvent the filibuster.
Speaking to reporters off the floor, Cruz railed against Senate leaders from both parties, whom he accused of "aggressively" whipping his colleagues against them.
"What we just saw a moment ago is unprecedented in the annals of Senate history," Cruz said. "It consisted of the majority leader and minority leader denying members the right to have votes on their amendments and indeed the ability to even have a roll call vote."
Speaking before the fracas, Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) was unfazed by the intraparty squabble and predicted the Senate would pass the transportation bill this week.
"They're making points and running for president," he told E&E Daily. "These things happen."
While the House has shown little appetite for the Senate legislation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted that passing a multi-year bill would whet the lower chamber's appetite.
"If we pass this long-term highway extension, there's going to be a lot of members over there who are going to want to do that because they don't want to have to keep dealing with it every six months," he told reporters. "The strategy is to sort of count on it to say, 'Look, this is what a whole lot of people want, there's projects in it for everybody's state, et cetera.' So I think you're going to see that sort of pressure."
However, the Senate first has to sort the tangles in its own bill, with senators from both parties filing dozens of amendments. It remains to be seen whether any will receive votes, although McConnell signaled that more amendments may be allowed.
Some senators suggested they're unlikely to support the underlying bill without changes. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said yesterday that she would vote against the measure as currently drafted because of its reliance on the sale of Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil as a pay-for.
Although the bill would run for six years, it would only assure funding for the first three, from fiscal 2016 through 2018, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed in a score released late Friday. Under the legislation, authorized yearly road and bridge spending from the Highway Trust Fund would rise from about $40.3 billion this year to $45.1 billion in 2018, according to an analysis by the Eno Center for Transportation, a nonpartisan think tank. Authorized transit spending would increase from $8.6 billion to $9.9 billion during the same time, the group reported Friday.
The bill's overall price tag for the three-year period would be about $173 billion, financed in part with $46 billion in transfers from the general Treasury and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, according to the CBO score, or slightly less than the $47 billion figure previously cited by lawmakers.
While the Highway Trust Fund is supposed to be supported solely by federal fuel tax receipts, a combination of factors -- including improved vehicle fuel efficiency and congressionally set spending demands -- mean that the fund has needed repeated bailouts since 2008. If signed into law, the Senate bill would push the total since 2008 to more than $110 billion.
The measure also contains a heavy load of policy changes potentially affecting everything from electric vehicle charging stations to bee populations. Overall, Inhofe said in the Republicans' weekly radio address Saturday, the legislation would "streamline regulations, enforce new transparency measures so taxpayers would know how their money is being spent, and advance research and innovation in transportation" to create a globally competitive infrastructure system.
The Government Accountability Office, for example, would have to review administrative spending at the Federal Highway Administration, while Amtrak's lawsuit payout cap would be raised from $200 million to $295 million in response to the Philadelphia train derailment two months ago that left eight people dead and many more injured. The bill would delay the deadline for railroads to complete implementation of the safety system known as "positive train control" from the end of this year to December 2018. Federal regulators agree that most commuter and large freight railroads won't make the existing timetable, but the Obama administration wants to decide extension requests on a case-by-case basis.
The White House, which has already endorsed a House-passed funding extension that would last only through mid-December, is reviewing the Senate bill with particular attention to safety and financing provisions, spokesman Josh Earnest said at a briefing late last week.
Among other provisions, the bill would require the Department of Transportation to designate national corridors to identify "the needs and most vital locations" for fuel and charging stations for national gas and electric vehicles, according to an accompanying explanatory report. DOT officials would also have to "encourage" states to sow vegetation beneficial to bees and other pollinators along highway rights of way.
The proposal could affect plantings along millions of roadside acres, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said at an Environment and Public Works Committee markup last month (Greenwire, June 24). The possible impact is "huge," said Laurie Davies Adams, executive director of the Pollinator Partnership, a San Francisco-based group that has been working on the provision for several years.
It recognizes the potential, she said Friday, to take a "disturbance" like a road and "also make it a benefit."
-
Senate Highway Bill Includes Permit-Reform Provision
Jul 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amy Phillips
The long-term highway funding bill pending in the Senate has incorporated federal infrastructure permitting reform legislation introduced in January by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
The Senate voted July 22 to begin debating a bill (H.R. 22) that would authorize surface transportation programs for six years while guaranteeing funding for three years.
In addition to a range of provisions to expedite project delivery for transportation projects, the measure incorporates broader language from the Federal Permitting Improvement Act (S. 280). That measure would streamline permitting for environmental reviews and permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act for major infrastructure, energy and manufacturing projects (89 DEN A-16, 5/8/15).
The legislation would establish a range of new measures to streamline projects costing $200 million or more. It also would give a new presidential appointee authority to speed up permit approvals as chairman of a multi-agency Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. That presidentially appointed executive director would prioritize projects and coordinate ongoing environmental reviews from the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies.
The legislation also would designate chief environmental review and permitting officers at federal agencies. In addition, it would shorten the default deadline for environmental and other groups to challenge permit decisions in court—currently six years under NEPA—to two years.
The provision would impact projects related to conventional energy production, electricity transmission, surface transportation, aviation, ports and waterways, water resource projects, broadband, pipelines, manufacturing or any other project as determined by a majority vote of the steering council.
Not All Projects Covered
A transportation attorney familiar with the legislation told Bloomberg BNA July 24 that the measure represents “a significant set of changes to the NEPA process for infrastructure projects.”
According to the attorney, a key issue is how the language applies to transportation projects.
The measure excludes projects that are subject to existing project delivery streamlining provisions already codified at 23 USC 139, but not all transportation projects are subject to those provisions, he said. The process established under existing law is mandatory for projects that require environmental impact statements under NEPA, but it's optional for those with environmental assessments or categorical exclusions, he said.
There will be some transportation projects that will be “covered projects” under the Senate permit reform language, but some won't be covered
“The transportation projects that are ‘covered projects' will be those that don't require an [environmental impact statement] but that do cost more than $200 million” or are otherwise designated as covered projects by the new council, the attorney said.
On a broader level, the bill's creation of new roles and new terminology would represent significant changes in the way NEPA is implemented for covered projects, he added.
-
Boxer Rides Away From Dems On Highway Bill
Jul 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Burgess Everett and Heather Caygle
Barbara Boxer has always been a reliable foot soldier for the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama and her leadership. But with just 17 months left in her long, progressive Senate career, she’s become a controversial lightning rod within her party.
The California Democrat has aligned herself with Senate Republicans, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to fight for passing a long-term highway bill before the end of the month. But that pits her against Democratic leader Sen. Harry Reid, not to mention the White House and House Republicans, all of whom want a short-term extension that sets up the need for a big end-of-year package to wrap up highway funding, as well as fund the government and raise the debt ceiling for the year.
Democrats and their aides don’t question Boxer’s motives, but they’re irked that she’s signed on to what they privately say is a bad deal with McConnell, one that does more for his endangered incumbents than it does for Democrats trying to take back the Senate. Boxer doesn’t deny the rift; instead, she proudly emphasizes her independence from party leadership.
“They never liked this idea. So we had a disagreement,” Boxer said in an interview. “You see, we’re not joined at the hip.”
The Republican majority leader is trying to avoid a series of short-term stopgaps, which would require repeated tough votes to raise billions of dollars to keep road construction running as he seeks to protect 24 Senate seats in 2016. McConnell also wants to avoid a huge December fiscal cliff over government spending, debt and roads.
Several Democratic senators worked quietly over the past week to undermine Boxer’s position. And a top liberal voice charged that Boxer, who is retiring at the end of next year, has her own motivations: legacy.
“It’s her last major effort, I assume, before she retires. I get why she’s doing this,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
Boxer fired back that the plan Brown supports — passing a short-term extension, followed by a more sweeping bill this winter — would mean “a dozen more states will shut down their programs and there will be layoffs and we can spin back into recession.”
Since she announced her retirement in January, Boxer has shown a fierce independence from her party orthodoxy: She’s the lone Democratic co-sponsor of a plan with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to return foreign profits to the U.S. to pay for infrastructure spending. And she’s been a central player in combating the work of several liberal colleagues who struck a deal on chemical safety with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
But her maverick move on the highway and transit bill stands out within a Democratic Party that’s marched in lockstep urging long-term transportation solutions for years. In 2012, the Senate Democratic majority unanimously supported a two-year transportation bill based on the same principle of using a grab bag of funding to provide some long-term certainty. But this week, three of the Democrats’ four leaders voted against Boxer’s deal and the vast majority of the caucus opposed it, upset both about the bill’s details and its ramifications for Senate Democrats’ political positioning.
The majority of Democrats think Boxer’s approach not only helps McConnell, but it also shortchanges key transportation spending and safety provisions. As Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) put it: “She neutralized a good deal of the problems but couldn’t achieve some of the positive, forward steps that we need to do.
“I’m disappointed with the lack of a stable, secure funding source for the whole six years. I am deeply disturbed by the lack of a dedicated trust fund for commuter rail,” Blumenthal said. “And I’m very unhappy about the absence of safety protections.”
Boxer’s negotiations with McConnell are highly unusual. As the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, she has broad jurisdiction over highway and environmental policy when it comes to transportation. But the measure she hammered out with Republicans goes much further, and includes the most difficult part of all: finding $48 billion to fund federal transportation through 2018, although that package of pay-fors includes such gimmicky provisions as using money from a Transportation Security Administration fee collected a decade in the future.
Finding the money to pay for programs is a job usually reserved for the Finance Committee, whose ranking member, Ron Wyden of Oregon, voted against Boxer’s agreement.
Her party’s leadership has been holding out for a broader spending deal this fall that would chip away at the sequester’s indiscriminate cuts. Democrats are also hoping to get traction for a long-shot idea hatched by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the party’s future leader, and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to use international tax reform to pay for a longer, more expensive transportation bill.
So when Boxer’s bill came to the floor this week, Reid, Schumer and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) all voted against it.
The White House had already issued a rare statement of support for the House’s five-month extension, and House Republican leaders warned Boxer and McConnell they’d never take up their bill anyway. Yet Boxer’s breakthrough bill is now on a glide path to final passage in the Senate by next week.
“It’s not every day that you beat the White House, both sides in the House, the past and possibly the future Senate majority leader. It just doesn’t happen,” said a lobbyist privy to the negotiations. Indeed, Boxer may have won in the near-term, but there are no guarantees that House leaders will take up her proposal or even enter into negotiations with her to iron out the differences.
Boxer, McConnell, Reid and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) all met before the deal was announced. But according to Reid, it was not meant as a a meeting held to get his sign-off.
“I had no part in it. They did it on their own. I have no responsibility for that,” Reid said in an interview.
But Boxer did have backing from the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, whose future as the party whip is uncertain.
“I know it was the right thing for Illinois. And I think it’s the right thing for the nation,” Durbin said of breaking with his leadership team. McConnell “put a product on the table. As far as I was concerned I felt duty bound to look at it honestly and thoroughly.”
Since the bipartisan deal started to coalesce last weekend, Boxer worked to stamp out fires from several quarters, including hurdles caused by fellow Democrats. Several Democratic senators in favor of an international tax revamp married to a highway bill spent the week encouraging their colleagues to hold out for the House plan, which they said McConnell would have to bring to the floor before July 31 if the Senate proposal failed, sources following the negotiations said.
“It’s not as robust as we’d like or as long-term as we’d like,” Schumer said about Boxer’s plan. “Some of the pay-fors in there are not very good and they weren’t negotiated in a bipartisan way.”
And a hang-up over public transportation almost derailed the bill earlier in the week after Brown’s Democratic staff on the Senate Banking Committee highlighted several concerns with the transit language and floated a possible funding shortfall down the road, which Boxer disputed. But the Banking memo was enough to spook several senators from transit-dependent states and forced Senate GOP leaders to postpone a crucial Wednesday procedural vote for several hours as negotiators worked behind the scenes to shore up Democratic support.
The Wednesday vote was a necessary redo of a procedural motion to advance the bill — a vote that went up in flames Tuesday — and deal-makers knew a second failed vote would likely sink the bill for good.
Boxer enlisted transportation lobbyists to keep up the pressure on lawmakers, telling them to help her “smash down all of these stupid rumors,” particularly related to transit funding, on a Wednesday morning conference call.
This is the “biggest fight of our lives,” she said on the call.
Significant changes were made to the bill to secure support — including dropping a controversial offset related to Social Security payments and adding an additional $600 million for transit programs.
Even with the changes, McConnell and Boxer had to furiously whip members on the floor to ensure they had enough votes to put the bill on a path toward passage.
“It is a miracle,” Boxer told lobbyists after the vote. “This was very, very hard.”
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested