Preview Newsletter
ACC AM July 29
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cheap Natural Gas Spurs More Chemical Investment
Jul 28, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Rhiannon Meyers
Buoyed by a continued flood of cheap natural gas, the U.S. chemical industry continues chugging forward with billions worth of new plants and expansions along the Texas Gulf Coast even as the rest of the energy sector struggles under a global crude collapse. This week, chemical giant LyondellBasell announced the completion... -
(ACC Mentioned) North American Plastics Alliance Celebrates Fourth Anniversary
Jul 29, 2015 | Recycling Today
The North American Plastics Alliance (NAPA), a Washington-based group comprised of North America’s four leading plastics industry associations, has announced its four-year anniversary as a virtual structure alliance. The three associations—the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Canadian Plastics ... -
(ACC Mentioned) An Chemical Activity Signaling “Potentially Accelerating Business Activity”
Jul 28, 2015 | ValueWalk
The American Chemistry Council’s updated Chemical Activity Barometer continues its uptrend. From the report is and extract below: “The Chemical Activity Barometer is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead... -
(ACC Mentioned) New EPA Advisory Panel To Review TSCA Work Plan Risk Assessments
Jul 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA appears to be moving toward creating a more formalized and rigorous process for assessing the human health risks of chemicals and their applications through its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) work plan risk assessments, as the agency has added another step to their development and created a new advisory committee ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Abortion Debate May Scuttle TSCA Vote Until Fall
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Days of turmoil on the Senate floor leave up in the air the status of a bipartisan bill to change how U.S. EPA regulates toxic chemicals, as lawmakers race to complete their work before the August recess and GOP leaders shift their attention to a recent abortion rights controversy. The chemical reform bill was recently touted as likely... -
Environmental Groups Challenge Nanosilver Registration
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Three environmental groups are suing the Environmental Protection Agency in an attempt to overturn the agency's recent registration of an antimicrobial pesticide that contains nanosilver (Ctr. for Food Safety v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 15-72312, 7/27/15; Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 15-72308, 7/27/15). -
Campbell’s Soup Will Soon Be Free of Artificial Flavors and Colors
Jul 28, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Dawn Undurraga and Jose Aguayo
The news last week that Campbell Soup Company will remove artificial colors and flavors from its product lineup is just the latest indication that big food companies are increasingly paying attention to what consumers want – more healthful foods. “From boomers to millennials, consumers are seeking fresher, less-processed foods... -
ZDHC Publishes Chemicals Management Guide
Jul 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The global textiles group, Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC), has published guidance for managing hazardous chemicals at different stages of the supply chain. Available in English and Chinese, it provides guidelines on the approach, structure and documentation necessary to create and support a chemical management system... -
Denham: Goal is Timely Pipeline Reauthorization
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Congress is ramping up its pipeline safety activities to meet a Sept. 30 deadline when authorization for those programs will expire. “Our goal is to get it done on time,” Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads... -
Pennsylvania Gas Battle May Hang Over 2016 Senate Race
Jul 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Jennifer Shutt
Tom Wolf stormed into Pennsylvania's governorship last year promising to make the natural gas industry pay its own way in the state that’s been at the forefront of the fracking boom. But his early effort to institute the state’s first ever production tax on gas output has hit a wall, and could return to spotlight in next year’s contest for a U.S. Senate seat. -
Warren: Lifting Oil Export Ban 'Dangerous' For Environment
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lauren Aguirre
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is warning against lifting the U.S. ban on exporting crude oil. Warren said doing so without first considering the environmental consequences would be a "dangerous" move at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on the issue Tuesday. -
Warren Cites Climate Concerns In Debate On Crude Export Ban
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
A Senate hearing on the crude export ban veered into a debate over climate change yesterday as Sen. Elizabeth Warren urged Congress to consider the climate and environmental impacts of lifting the decades-old ban. Critics of the 1970s-era export ban should focus on the "environmental consequences" of allowing U.S. -
More And Bigger Drilling-Linked Earthquakes Rattle Oklahoma
Jul 28, 2015 | Reuters
By Heide Brandes
Several earthquakes shook Oklahoma on Monday as the state experiences a sharp increase in the frequency of tremors linked to wastewater disposal from gas and oil drilling, including from fracking, state and federal officials said. Three of Monday's quakes measured above a magnitude 4.0, with a 4.5 earthquake centered just north of... -
State Science Panel Assesses Fracking Risks
Jul 28, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By Catherine Reheis-Boyd
The recent multivolume report by the California Council on Science & Technology offers a classic glass-half-empty or glass-half-full choice for people interested in energy production. For those in the oil industry – or who value energy independence and domestic production – the council’s report... -
LNG Debate Looms For Day 2 Of Senate Markup
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
After largely skirting controversy during yesterday's markup of its comprehensive energy bill, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today may revisit a past point of contention: exporting natural gas. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said yesterday that he and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) will offer ... -
Hoeven: Obama to Reject Keystone in August
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
President Barack Obama will announce the rejection of TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline while Congress is out of town for its August recess, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said July 28. In remarks made on the Senate floor, Hoeven, an ardent supporter of the $8 billion heavy oil pipeline, said he was informed of the White House's decision... -
Obama Will Reject Pipeline During Recess -- Hoeven
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
President Obama will reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada during the upcoming congressional recess, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said yesterday. "Sources tell me that after almost seven years, President Obama is going to turn down the Keystone pipeline project," Hoeven said on the Senate floor. He did not detail his sources. -
Hillary Clinton Dodges Keystone Pipeline Question
Jul 28, 2015 | Politico
By Gabriel Debenedetti
Days after unveiling the first plank of her energy and climate platform, Hillary Clinton again refused to commit to approving or rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline were she to win the White House — and her hedge on the topic is not sitting well with progressives or Republicans, both of whom are criticizing her hesitancy to take a position. -
Steyer Unfazed By Clinton’s Silence On Keystone
Jul 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Tom Steyer’s hard green line is turning soft when it comes to Hillary Clinton. The billionaire climate activist has spent more than $100 million of his personal fortune to support green-minded candidates and ballot initiatives in the past five years, ruffling the Washington establishment while threatening to ... -
Fossil Fuels Execs Backing Clinton Even With Her Climate Push
Jul 28, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Hillary Clinton drew scorn from the fossil fuel industry in the wake of her energy platform rollout this week, but campaign finance records suggest the Democratic presidential primary front-runner can still claim friends in the oil and gas business, even as she supports programs focused heavily on renewable energy. -
First Day of Senate Energy Markup Ends With No Drama
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The first of what is expected to be a multi-day markup by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee of broad energy legislation ended with no controversial amendments that could derail the bill. Although several amendments related to thorny issues of pipeline permitting and cross border energy... -
11 Environmental Groups Oppose Senate Energy Bill
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A coalition of 11 environmental groups said in a letter they are unable to support bipartisan Senate energy legislation because of “flawed provisions” that are harmful to the environment. The letter, obtained by Bloomberg BNA July 28, cited measures in the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 that ... -
Senators Start Debating Energy Bill
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action
By Timothy Cama
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday started to debate its broad energy bill, giving a preview of some of the contentious fights likely to come. In its first day of working through the 94 amendments that senators have filed for the bill, the panel only agreed to ... -
Upton to Fight ‘Poison Pills' in Energy Bill
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The full House Energy and Commerce Committee intends to mark up energy legislation by “mid-September” and hopes to keep the measure free of “poison pills” that could jeopardize its chances for passage, committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said July 28. That desire may mean some provisions with strong support... -
Fossil Concerns Fuel GOP Opposition To Obama Nominee
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey and Manuel Quiñones
A top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee yesterday said he opposes Jonathan Elkind, President Obama's pick to fill a top energy slot, over comments he made about coal. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the nation's top coal-producing state, voted against the nomination yesterday with four other Republicans on the... -
Senate Panel Backs DOE Nominee Elkind
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 17–5 to approve Jonathan Elkind to be the assistant secretary for international affairs at the Energy Department during a markup. Elkind's nomination now goes to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) hasn't set a schedule for the vote, his office told ... -
Inhofe: EPA Clean Power Plan Responses ‘Cursory'
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to provide documents detailing its interaction with environmental groups while developing its proposed greenhouse gas standards for power plants, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said. Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a July 28 letter to EPA... -
What's Actually Driving Opponents Of The Clean Power Plan?
Jul 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
The Washington Post reports that Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has already organized a boycott of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, even before it’s released. Never mind the fact that Kentucky state officials expect to meet the plan’s requirements to cut pollution from power plants “with relatively little effort.” -
Court Says EPA Emissions Limits for 13 States Illegal
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency impermissibly overcontrolled power plant emissions in 13 states under the agency's cross-state air pollution rule, a federal appeals court ruled July 28 (EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1302, 7/28/15). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit... -
D.C. Circuit Leaves CSAPR In Place But Remands State Emission 'Budgets'
Jul 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a unanimous July 28 ruling has left largely intact EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the agency's emissions trading program to curb interstate air pollution from power plants, remanding some state emissions “budgets” to the agency even as EPA reworks the rule... -
Company Chiefs Warn Against Tighter Ozone Limit
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Manufacturing executives yesterday told lawmakers that U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the ozone standard would impose costly burdens. Leaders from the aluminum, electrical equipment and paint sectors warned that they would be unable to expand to expand to areas of the country... -
Federal Court Rejects EPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rules
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rewrite rules meant to govern pollution emissions that drift across state lines. The court ruled Tuesday that the EPA’s 2011 regulations on cross-state sulfur dioxide and ozone emissions are too ... -
Biz Group Launches Multimillion-Dollar Ads Against Ozone Rule
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A major business group launched a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign Tuesday against the Obama administration’s proposal to restrict ground-level ozone pollution limits. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) says it’s taking a more direct and negative approach with its new ... -
Pollution Tech Company Equips Google Cars To Deliver Hyper-Local Air Quality Data
Jul 28, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Angela Fritz
For the very real and detrimental impact that pollution has on our health, air quality is a surprisingly hard thing to measure. In the city, it can vary from block to block, neighborhood to neighborhood, and many times the current network of sensors just doesn’t pick up on fine-scale pollution events that could also lead to a spike in your asthma. -
6th Circuit Chosen To Hear Appellate Suits Over EPA CWA Jurisdiction Rule
Jul 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has been chosen to hear suits over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, consolidating challenges filed in several circuits and a win for industry groups that asked the 6th Circuit to hear the case -- though any briefing is likely to wait until federal district court cases over the rule are... -
Advocates, Industry Agree To Stay CWA Suits Seeking Coal Ash Cleanups
Jul 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists and Duke Energy have agreed to stay two pending Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suits aiming to force cleanups of coal ash leaks from the firm's impoundments in North Carolina until a state court rules in separate litigation related to the leaks, and the two cases could be moot if a state judge orders the facilities' closure. -
Wildlife Federation Intends to Sue Over Oil Pipelines
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
The National Wildlife Federation said it filed a notice of intent to sue the Transportation Department over “decades-long oversight failures” involving oil pipelines in violation of the Clean Water Act and a 1991 executive order. The notice, filed July 28, said the department has failed to issue regulations requiring owners of offshore pipeline... -
Wildlife Group Threatens Lawsuit Over Pipeline Safety
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) says it will sue the federal government over what it considers lax enforcement of pipeline safety laws. The NWF is filing an intent to sue notice against the Department of Transportation (DOT), the group announced Tuesday, arguing the department has not properly authorized pipeline projects in the United States...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cheap Natural Gas Spurs More Chemical Investment
Jul 28, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Rhiannon Meyers
Buoyed by a continued flood of cheap natural gas, the U.S. chemical industry continues chugging forward with billions worth of new plants and expansions along the Texas Gulf Coast even as the rest of the energy sector struggles under a global crude collapse.
This week, chemical giant LyondellBasell announced the completion of a $200 million expansion at its Channelview plant, while 75 miles away in Freeport, another plant operated by BASF, a leading global chemical company, kicked off construction of a $600 million ammonia plant expansion on its existing site.
The projects are the latest in a string of investments returning to the United States thanks to a wave of low-cost natural gas and natural gas liquids that chemical companies use to make their products.
"There's no doubt the chemical sector continues to be bullish in terms of profitability and the fact that investments will continue," said Mark Eramo, vice president of global business development at IHS Chemical.
More than one-third of the 242 chemical industry projects announced have been completed or are under construction, according to the American Chemistry Council. In total, the sector is investing $149 billion in the U.S., according to the trade group.
LyondellBasell
LyondellBasell's recently completed Channelview expansion is slated to boost the company's ethylene production by 250 million pounds per year, but the company has its sights set on even bigger numbers.
Bob Patel, CEO of the international chemical giant operated out of Houston, said LyondellBasell intends to continue building other projects that will strengthen its U.S. portfolio, including additional ethylene expansions at its plants in Channelview and Corpus Christi. Ethylene is a key building block used to make plastics.
The commitment came as LyondellBasell reported a 13 percent surge in its second-quarter profit, an uptick the company attributed to ongoing access to abundant supplies of low-cost gas and natural gas liquids and its ability to continue operating while competitors shut down for unscheduled maintenance.
Its plants ran at near capacity as a bevy of unplanned outages struck competing plants in Europe. The shutdowns caused shortages of olefins and polyolefins, the raw materials used to make food packaging, automotive parts, bottles, paints and coating, among other items, and helped boost income for LyondellBasell.
The company on Tuesday reported earnings of $1.33 billion, or $2.82 per share, during the three-month period ending June 30. During the same period last year, the company posted earnings of $1.18 billion, or $2.23 per share. Its stock rose $2.61 to close at $92.46 Tuesday on the New York Stock Exchange.
While low-cost energy has obvious direct benefits for LyondellBasell, cheap natural gas has also lured investments from chemical companies with loose ties to the fuel.
BASF
The Yara Freeport plant won't use natural gas as a feedstock to manufacture ammonia, but BASF and its partner Yara, a Norwegian fertilizer company, would not have made the $600 million investment absent the U.S. shale boom, said Wayne Smith, chairman and CEO of BASF.
That's because the ammonia plant will operate using two industrial gases with prices linked to natural gas - nitrogen and hydrogen - underscoring the fuel's effects.
"This project reflects our global view that the marketplace is robust and will remain for many years an opportunity for growth for the chemical industry," Smith said Monday at a groundbreaking.
The project gives Yara its first manufacturing footprint in the U.S. and marks the latest investment by BASF in domestic chemical projects.
Aside from the Freeport plant, BASF is building a $42.6 million polyurethanes blending facility in Geismar, La., and two years ago, revamped a naphtha steam cracker project in Port Arthur, a joint venture with a subsidiary of French company Total, to process ethane.
BASF is also eyeing building another major project in Freeport that would use natural gas as feedstock to make propylene, also used to make plastics. The company, which has not yet disclosed a price tag for the project, expects to make a decision next year, Smith said.
"If we go ahead with that investment, it will be the largest investment BASF's made in a single plant anywhere in the world," he said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) North American Plastics Alliance Celebrates Fourth Anniversary
Jul 29, 2015 | Recycling Today
The North American Plastics Alliance (NAPA), a Washington-based group comprised of North America’s four leading plastics industry associations, has announced its four-year anniversary as a virtual structure alliance.
The three associations—the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) and SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association—formed NAPA in 2011 to more effectively coordinate the organizations’ shared priorities of promoting the plastics industry, advocating on its behalf and moving the entire industry forward through product stewardship programs and other efforts designed to facilitate plastics recycling and energy recovery.
In March 2015, the alliance welcomed its newest member, the Asociación Nacional de Industrias del Plástico, AC (ANIPAC), bringing NAPA’s membership to four and increasing its ability to advocate on behalf of plastics throughout the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) region, according to the associations. The ANIPAC serves as the voice of the plastics industry in Mexico.
“During the past four years, NAPA has established a strong track record of collaborating to tackle some of the plastics industry’s most pressing issues through the combined efforts of our organizations. We have become more efficient and effective in delivering value to our members, and in raising the profile and reputation of the entire plastics industry,” says William R. Carteaux, SPI president and CEO.
Carteaux continues, “NAPA’s continued success is proof that the issues our industry faces will not be solved alone, and that the plastics industry has the greatest impact when it speaks with one resounding voice.”
Steve Russell, vice president of the Plastics Division of ACC, says, “NAPA’s greatest successes have been in working together on shared advocacy challenges, developing solutions to improve recycling and recovery of used plastics, and in keeping plastic out of our oceans. “Together our organizations have been able to leverage our respective skills and resources to achieve more than would have been possible working alone.”
“Not only do plastics manufacturers located throughout North America face many of the same challenges, but the organizations that represent these companies, like CPIA, SPI, ANIPAC and ACC, face their own issues every day in providing value to their members,” says Carol Hochu, president and CEO of CPIA, adding, “Through NAPA we’ve been able to strengthen each of our organizations, resulting in better service, better products and better value to every plastics company that is taking advantage of the outstanding offerings put forth by membership in a NAPA-aligned trade association.”
NAPA’s newest member, Martha G. Alva, CEO of ANIPAC, says, “As of March 2015, ANIPAC is formally part of NAPA. This venture will be of great value as the Mexican association will be able to exchange experience and knowledge with its equivalents in Canada and USA. The new channel of communication will allow the development of joint solutions to common issues and the design of better strategies to strengthen the plastic industry in North America.”
NAPA says concentrates its efforts are focused in four specific areas: outreach—to promote better understanding of plastics’ economic, social and environmental contributions;advocacy—to encourage public policy that supports the growth of the plastics industry and to defend against specific product attacks by proving factual information while fostering innovation;energy recovery and recycling—to facilitate increased recycling and recovery of plastics’ stored energy content; andpellet containment—to extend wide-scale adoption of Operations Clean Sweep throughout North America and beyond.
-
(ACC Mentioned) An Chemical Activity Signaling “Potentially Accelerating Business Activity”
Jul 28, 2015 | ValueWalk
The American Chemistry Council’s updated Chemical Activity Barometer continues its uptrend. From the report is and extract below:
“The Chemical Activity Barometer is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy’s business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
Applying the CAB back to 1919, it has been shown to provide a lead of two to 14 months, with an average lead of eight months at cycle peaks as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The median lead was also eight months. At business cycle troughs, the CAB leads by one to seven months, with an average lead of four months. The median lead was three months. The CAB is rebased to the average lead (in months) of an average 100 in the base year (the year 2012 was used) of a reference time series. The latter is the Federal Reserve’s Industrial Production Index.
“A number of trends remain evident as we head into the second-half of the year,” said ACC Chief Economist Kevin Swift. “There was upward momentum in plastic resins used in light vehicles, which are on track for a very good sales year, but we also continue to see declines in oilfield chemicals and U.S. exports overall, largely as a result of softer oil prices and a strong U.S. dollar,” Swift said. “Despite these modest headwinds, the Chemical Activity Barometer is still signaling slow, albeit potentially accelerating, gains in business activity into the early part of 2016,” he added.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) New EPA Advisory Panel To Review TSCA Work Plan Risk Assessments
Jul 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA appears to be moving toward creating a more formalized and rigorous process for assessing the human health risks of chemicals and their applications through its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) work plan risk assessments, as the agency has added another step to their development and created a new advisory committee to peer review them.
EPA announced last month that it is accepting nominations for members to sit on its new Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) panel, the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC). The group's charter explains that it will "provide expert scientific advice, information and recommendations to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) on the scientific basis for risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches."
The charter notes that the new advisory committee will be supported by EPA's Office of Science Coordination Policy within the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The charter goes on to describe CSAC's primary objectives, including "[r]eview of: risk assessments; models; tools; documents; chemical category documents; and other chemical assessment and pollution prevention products as deemed appropriate, that are prepared by OPPT; and [a]ddressing other issues that OPPT identifies as critical to it programs."
OPPT's primary risk assessment program is its TSCA work plan of some 83 chemicals prioritized for risk assessment based on their toxicity, persistence and potential for consumer exposure. The Obama EPA started the program in 2012, with an eye to more strictly exercising its TSCA authorities than previous administrations had done while awaiting congressional reform of TSCA, the 39-year-old law long bashed by critics for its weaknesses.
OPPT initiated four risk assessments in the work plan program's first year, which were peer-reviewed by experts managed by a contractor, The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. Such contractor-managed peer reviews are generally considered the lowest level of peer review, while more important documents undergo review by one of EPA's FACA-compliant advisory committees, or the National Academy of Sciences.
In recent comments, the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC) presses EPA to heighten peer review scrutiny of these documents, as EPA as indicated that three of these have led the agency to consider proposing TSCA section 6 bans: trichloroethylene, methylene chloride and n-methlpyrrolidone.
"Rigorous assessments that will be used to inform regulatory activities under TSCA Section 6 should be treated as Highly Influential Scientific Assessments and should undergo robust peer reviews consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance," ACC's Nancy Beck writes in the group's June 29 comments on EPA's initial scoping and problem formulation plan for an ongoing work plan assessment of 1,4-dioxane, a chemical frequently found at Superfund sites and a contaminant in soaps and other personal care products.
Risk Assessments
OMB guidance requires that highly influential assessments, those that are expected to cost more than $500 million in a year, undergo "a more rigorous form of peer review for highly influential scientific assessments." Generally, such EPA assessments are conducted by the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, housed in its research office, and are peer-reviewed by its Science Advisory Board or the National Academy of Science, rather than a contractor.
It appears that OPPT is seeking to formalize the review process for work plan assessments, says one former agency source, pointing to the creation of the new standing advisory committee and EPA's April release of the draft scoping and screening document for 1,4-dioxane. OPPT has said it intends to develop similar documents for other chemicals that the work plan program will assess moving forward, similar to what the agency already does in its IRIS program.
"They're trying to expedite review of that program," the source says of OPPT. "They were doing it in an ad hoc fashion. [Now they are creating] a standing committee to look at these things. The pesticides [office] has their own and the IRIS folks have theirs . . . it makes sense."
ACC indicates its support of these new approaches in recent comments. "ACC, therefore, is very supportive of EPA's recent establishment of a [CSAC]," writes ACC's Sarah Brozena in July 13 comments on the new committee. "While the CSAC will no doubt prove useful to EPA's assessment of chemicals today under its TSCA Work Plan program, creation of it also anticipates the need for such an advisory committee once legislation to modernize TSCA is enacted. The policies, procedures and guidance that EPA will need to develop to implement TSCA reform will be vital to ensuring a science basis for chemical safety assessments. The CSAC can and should provide EPA the scientific and technical advice it will need once a new statute is enacted."
Brozena goes on to comment upon the candidates nominated to serve on the new committee. "The industry candidates nominated to date reflect a diverse and well qualified list from which the Agency can choose. Given the potential breadth of the CSAC's charge, ACC suggests that the Agency seek candidates for the CSAC with broad experience as well as particular expertise in topics likely to be of great importance in a modernized TSCA, e.g. exposure assessment. The Agency should also take care to select a committee chair with a broad understanding of risk assessment and its implications."
CSAC Charter
The CSAC charter indicates the new committee will meet three or four times per year, and that it will have about 10 members, "who have demonstrated high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise in scientific/technical fields relevant to chemical risk assessment and pollution prevention." EPA's docket indicates a wide variety of individuals have been nominated to serve on the new committee, or nominated themselves, including industry scientists, academics, a staff scientist for the environmental group Environmental Defense Fund, former EPA scientists, scientists with Washington state and Massachusetts environmental and public health agencies and a toxicologist nominated by the National Tribal Toxics Council. The group praised the toxicologist, Barbara Harper, for her "identification of unique tribal exposure pathways and associated risk assessments."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Abortion Debate May Scuttle TSCA Vote Until Fall
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Days of turmoil on the Senate floor leave up in the air the status of a bipartisan bill to change how U.S. EPA regulates toxic chemicals, as lawmakers race to complete their work before the August recess and GOP leaders shift their attention to a recent abortion rights controversy.
The chemical reform bill was recently touted as likely to hit the floor thanks to a wave of bipartisan co-sponsors, who now total more than half of the Senate. But GOP leaders said yesterday they plan to push what's become a rallying cry among social conservatives over controversial videos regarding Planned Parenthood's use of fetal tissue.
This means that the Senate will devote some of its few remaining working days to a roll call vote to slash funds from Planned Parenthood, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said yesterday. Other lawmakers said it made prospects dim for other priorities.
The House is set to adjourn tonight for a five-week break, while the Senate, as of now, is expected to remain in session through next week.
The videos, shot by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, alleged that Planned Parenthood sold fetal tissue for profit, but the women's health group says they were misleadingly edited and that it acts only within the law.
McConnell told reporters a working group chaired by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) was meeting yesterday afternoon to discuss a policy response to the videos. He later began a process to bring a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood funding directly to the Senate floor.
"It's our plan to have a vote on proceeding to a measure that they support sometime before we break for the August recess," McConnell said.
Lawmakers -- including Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), the co-sponsors of S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" -- had eyed this time for a possible floor debate on the bill. But the bill faces competition from ongoing work to pass a transportation bill, a possible floor debate on controversial cybersecurity legislation and the last-minute push by Republicans to address the Planned Parenthood controversy.
Some senators had previously hoped for floor time for both the "Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act" and Toxic Substances Control Act legislation before the recess after completing work on transportation, but now it seems possible lawmakers will get to neither bill, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said yesterday.
McConnell's office had previously said that no decision had been made beyond the transportation bill -- which must pass by week's end or else federal funding for state and local projects could start drying up.
Under normal circumstances, it would not be difficult to advance the Udall-Vitter bill next week, Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told E&E Daily.
"Anytime you have a majority of people in the Senate strongly supporting something, it can happen," Inhofe said. "There's no reason it couldn't be done in a week."
Cornyn told E&E Daily the Udall-Vitter TSCA bill still stood a chance of reaching the floor before recess, but he said that it was a small chance. Cornyn also said he was "sad" that the cybersecurity bill probably would not see Senate action before lawmakers leave town.
"I wish we could do that," Cornyn said. "I'm hopeful there's still a chance, but time is running out."
Supporters of the Udall-Vitter bill are holding out hope that lawmakers may still act on the bill next week.
"It's difficult to predict exactly what's going to happen," American Chemistry Council spokeswoman Anne Kolton said.
However, "the momentum is there, and TSCA reform could still be a significant win for the Senate before they adjourn for August," Kolton said.
Still, a delay could be a setback for boosters of the bill if it threatens to stall the legislation. It's not clear if Congress will have the stomach for major policy fights as the calendar lurches closer to the 2016 presidential primary fight and other diversions.
Lawmakers continue to have conversations with Senate leadership and "are very hopeful" that they take up the chemicals bill before the recess, Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said in an email.
"There's still a lot of interest in getting to the Lautenberg bill soon because it has really strong bipartisan support, we expect it would pass the Senate easily, and we're really encouraged by how much energy there is for reforming our broken chemical safety laws," Talhelm said.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), a sponsor of similar House legislation, which passed the chamber on a nearly unanimous vote last month, said he didn't want to meddle in Senate deliberations, but encouraged stakeholders to take the long view.
"My guess is, it'll happen when they can fit it in," Shimkus told E&E Daily. "We're still early in the Congress, remember. We still have a year and a half to go before this Congress ends."
-
Environmental Groups Challenge Nanosilver Registration
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Three environmental groups are suing the Environmental Protection Agency in an attempt to overturn the agency's recent registration of an antimicrobial pesticide that contains nanosilver (Ctr. for Food Safety v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 15-72312, 7/27/15; Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 15-72308, 7/27/15).
The litigation could further impede the commercialization of this emerging nanoscale substance, which has been shown to have a number of consumer product applications but is suspected of having possible environmental and human health risks.
Two lawsuits were filed July 27 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Food Safety and the International Center for Technology Assessment.
Both lawsuits ask the court to revoke a conditional pesticide registration the EPA granted to the Georgia-based company Nanosilva LLC in May (99 DEN A-9, 5/22/15).
Public Interest?
Mae Wu, an attorney in the health program at NRDC, said she couldn't discuss her group's legal strategy because she and her colleagues are still working on crafting their initial briefs. However, she said the NRDC laid out the reasons behind its opposition to the Nanosilva registration in written comments it submitted to the agency in 2013.
Though silver has strong antimicrobial properties when broken down to the nanoscale, making it useful as a coating on a wide variety of clothing and other textiles, Wu said it can also be highly toxic.
Additionally, she said, the EPA inappropriately granted Nanosilva a conditional registration, which should be reserved only for pesticides that offer strong public health benefits.
“We don't think this is in the public interest,” Wu told Bloomberg BNA. Nanosilver is “not actually safe, and it doesn't need to be in all these products.”
The EPA said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA that it would review the lawsuits and take an appropriate response. Wayne Krause, who is listed as the head of Nanosilva LLC on its pesticide registration, couldn't be reached for comment.
Second Nano Suit
Nanosilva's registration represented only the second time the agency had given the official go-ahead to a nanosilver product. The EPA's first nanosilver registration was granted to the Swiss company HeiQ in 2011.
The HeiQ registration also was challenged in appeals court by the NRDC. In that case, the court ruled against the EPA, but the ruling was narrow enough to allow the agency to revise and reissue the registration to HeiQ (218 DEN A-10, 11/12/13).
-
Campbell’s Soup Will Soon Be Free of Artificial Flavors and Colors
Jul 28, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Dawn Undurraga and Jose Aguayo
The news last week that Campbell Soup Company will remove artificial colors and flavors from its product lineup is just the latest indication that big food companies are increasingly paying attention to what consumers want – more healthful foods.
“From boomers to millennials, consumers are seeking fresher, less-processed foods,” said Campbell CEO Denise Morrison, echoing the theme sounded recently by numerous other food companies such as General Mills, Kraft and Nestle,.
Last year EWG launched Food Scores – an easy-to-navigate database that rates more than 85,000 products based on nutrition, ingredients and processing – to help guide both consumers and food companies toward healthier eating and to increase transparency about what’s in our food and how it’s produced. Food Scores is a powerful tool for finding the more wholesome foods that consumers want, and now companies are listening.
EWG applauds Campbell’s for taking this significant step, but the company needs to make improvements on other fronts, such as eliminating BPA in cans of its signature soups and trans fat in its cookies. We were delighted to hear that Ms. Morrison shares our view.
“We can’t stop there,” she told the Wall Street Journal. “We have to keep going.”
EWG looks forward to following Campbell’s progress over the next few years. Our researchers have done extensive research on food additives that Campbell’s and other companies can use to identify specific substances that they would do well to eliminate in order to safeguard the health of their customers.
Meanwhile, consumers can check out EWG’s Food Scores and its companion app to find the kind of healthful products they’re looking for.
-
ZDHC Publishes Chemicals Management Guide
Jul 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The global textiles group, Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC), has published guidance for managing hazardous chemicals at different stages of the supply chain.
Available in English and Chinese, it provides guidelines on the approach, structure and documentation necessary to create and support a chemical management system (CMS).
It has five sections: commitment to CMS – “the first step in implementing any chemical management system is for an organisation to clearly and publicly commit to the system”;assessment, planning and prioritisation – “have a robust process for creating and updating chemical inventories”;chemicals management – “senior leadership must commit and ensure the availability of resources essential to establish, implement, maintain and improve CMS and customer satisfaction”;monitoring – “establish, document and implement a process to monitor progress towards goals”; andmanagement review – put in place processes for disclosing substances in use and engaging with stakeholders and management.
“A sound chemical management system is not only important for worker safety and to reduce environmental impacts on the community and the broader environment, but it is a cornerstone for ensuring continuous improvement and harmonisation towards the ZDHC Group’s zero discharge goal,” says Cheryl Kreindler, ZDHC programme manager.
ZDHC consists of several apparel companies, including Nike, Adidas and Burberry. In its latest annual report it set out key achievements and plans for improving the textile industry’s environmental performance (CW 6 May 2015).
-
Denham: Goal is Timely Pipeline Reauthorization
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Congress is ramping up its pipeline safety activities to meet a Sept. 30 deadline when authorization for those programs will expire.
“Our goal is to get it done on time,” Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, told reporters July 28 following a roundtable on pipeline technology.
The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90), signed into law early in 2012, included 42 requirements for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to complete. Sixteen of those requirements are still pending with the agency, a fact that has led many in the regulated community and outside of it to encourage a “clean” reauthorization without new mandates.
These pipeline safety programs are intended to protect the public and the environment. They involve overseeing the prevention and mitigation of damages from hazardous liquid and gas pipelines. PHMSA has come under fire for allegedly too-soft enforcement of pipeline violations and too-slow rulemaking paces.
To reauthorize the programs by the deadline, members of Congress are holding roundtables and hearings and going to the field, including the Bakken region, Denham said. Members are also working with PHMSA to determine what changes are needed and whether those changes need to be required in the bill.
Denham said there already is a framework in place for the reauthorization and that there are “some ideas on changes that need to be made.” He declined to further discuss those changes but said that they would focus on new technologies and policies.
The subcommittee chairman said he also would review the National Transportation Safety Board's list of its 38 recommendations to PHMSA that still haven't been addressed.
Effort Planned to Address Energy Concerns
“We are going to make sure that we address energy concerns across the country,” Denham said. “We are in an age of energy renaissance. We're seeing more pipelines put into the ground. We want to see even more exploration and expansion in the future.”
Denham continued, “But we need to guarantee the American public that this is not only the safest way to transport, but that we continue to upgrade inspections, as well as to make sure we're upgrading pipe.”
Denham told reporters that a two-year reauthorization, which would be shorter than a typical four-year or five-year reauthorization, isn't being considered.
“While we have seen a number of new technologies in place, and we continue to see the industry being proactive on a number of issues, the simple fact is we've still had some accidents, and one accident is too many,” Denham said.
The roundtable itself offered insights into what issues are on the minds of lawmakers as the pipeline safety reauthorization is being addressed.
Pipeline Inspections Cause for Concern
Members of Congress expressed concerns that companies might not be required to inspect enough of their pipes and interest in the cost of inspections. They also discussed challenges with inspection equipment and with automatic shutoff valve technology.
Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) reiterated concerns that there is no requirement to have a third party determine whether a pipeline is active or abandoned when it is purchased by another company.
Members of the pipeline industry, researchers and regulators also discussed what should be addressed in the upcoming pipeline reauthorization.
Craig Pierson, president of Marathon Pipe Line LLC, said a clean reauthorization is needed, while Geoff Foreman, a senior in-line inspection technology adviser for General Electric, said PHMSA should encourage pipeline operators to use new technology.
-
Pennsylvania Gas Battle May Hang Over 2016 Senate Race
Jul 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Jennifer Shutt
Tom Wolf stormed into Pennsylvania's governorship last year promising to make the natural gas industry pay its own way in the state that’s been at the forefront of the fracking boom.
But his early effort to institute the state’s first ever production tax on gas output has hit a wall, and could return to spotlight in next year’s contest for a U.S. Senate seat.
Wolf won’t be on the ballot, but Kathleen McGinty, his high-profile former chief of staff, appears to be angling for the opportunity to take on Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, who Democrats see as vulnerable in a state that’s likely to be a prime focus in the national election.
A McGinty campaign would likely pick up the baton on energy issues from Wolf, who has in his first several months as governor reversed his predecessor’s relatively lax regulation of the industry, hitting gas producers with multimillion dollars fines, proposing tough rules on operations and seeking a tax on output.
McGinty, who left the Wolf administration this month, started in politics as an aide to then-Sen. Al Gore, chaired President Bill Clinton’s Council on Environmental Quality and ran Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection for former Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell. She is well-known among environmentalists and was often mentioned as a potential EPA administrator after President Barack Obama was elected.
But that green pedigree may make her vulnerable to Republican criticism that she represents a threat to the industry that’s turned Pennsylvania into the second largest natural gas producer in the country.
“My sense is that she and Sen. Toomey will try to tie her to those names,” said Charlie Gerow, a Harrisburg-based Republican consultant, referring to her previous political bosses.
”She will see it as a benefit and others will see it as a negative,” he added. “In my opinion that doesn’t help her in the general. It would obviously help her in the primary.”
McGinty and Toomey’s campaign offices did not return requests for an interview.
If she runs, McGinty would likely face a primary race against former Rep. Joe Sestak, a supporter of renewable energy and climate change regulations who has a 96 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters.
McGinty’s high profile is also attracting attention from Washington. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reportedly hosted her at a weekend on Martha’s Vineyard earlier this month in what was seen as an effort to entice her to run. Sestak declined an invitation to attend.
The committee has endorsed candidates in primaries, but does not always do so, and it’s not officially backing McGinty over Sestak at this stage of the campaign.
“Pat Toomey is one of the most vulnerable incumbent senators up for reelection in 2016. He is incredibly out of touch with Pennsylvania students and the middle class,” said Sadie Weiner, DSCC national press secretary. “As for the primary, there are a number of Democrats in [Pennsylvania] who could be great challengers against Pat Toomey and could absolutely beat him.”
Both McGinty and Sestak would likely follow the campaign strategy of Wolf, the only Democrat to topple an incumbent Republican governor last year when he beat Tom Corbett. Wolf promised to hike taxes on the energy companies and beef up regulations on fracking, which environmentalists blamed for worsening air and water pollution.
For McGinty, who ran unsuccessfully in the state’s last Democratic gubernatorial primary, tying her campaign to Wolf’s shouldn’t be difficult.
“She’s been the most visible chief of staff in the history of our state,” says G. Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin & Marshall College Poll. “And as chief of staff to a governor, you are really linked to that governor’s positions.”
Still, Wolf’s plan has hit some formidable roadblocks. His effort to institute the state’s first-ever production tax hit was blocked when industry and its allies in the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature revolted. Energy companies are threatening to abandon the state, and legislators are now locked in a budget standoff with the governor that led the state to miss its first June 30 fiscal deadline since 2009.
“It’s been rough, but they swung for the fences with their first budget,” said Matthew Stepp, director of policy for PennFuture, an environmental group that supports the governor. “They are taking on a lot of big issues at once, but I don’t think anyone expected it to be easy.”
Wolf has proposed more stringent regulations governing the hydraulic fracturing technology that has turned the Marcellus Shale from a virtually unknown resource a decade ago into the nation’s top producing gas field.
But that growth has triggered a backlash from greens opposed to fracking, as well as complaints from residents about the improper disposal of waste water, worsening pollution and the strain on some rural infrastructure.
Wolf has reversed lenient environmental settlements his predecessor reached with gas companies and revised official employment statistics to reduce the gas industry’s statistical footprint by 110,000 jobs. Those moves were precursors to his proposal for a first-time severance tax on the industry, which has become one of the most contentious issues in the current budget standoff.
Environmentalists cheered the moves, especially after a Corbett administration that greens complained was too accommodating to to the industry and its lobbyists, despite the Republican’s administration imposition of an “impact fee” on drilling to benefit local communities.
Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania Chair Sam Williamson said it is too early for the organization to endorse any candidates, but said state voters are increasingly interested in candidates’ environmental policies.
“I would hope and the League of Conservation Voters would hope that the candidates on the Democratic side — and if he is paying attention Sen. Toomey — would realize that the kinds of issues Katie McGinty has championed throughout her entire career are winning policy issues,” Williamson said.
The fracking crackdown has been driven by Wolf and other members of his inner circle, which includes John Quigley, a former PennFuture lobbyist now running the Pennsylvania DEP; Cindy Dunn, who was PennFuture’s CEO before Wolf tapped her to run his Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; and McGinty.
All are considered foes by the gas industry, which is sure to exert its influence in the upcoming election. Oil and gas interests have donated more than $500,000 to Toomey’s campaign and political action committee since his first run in 2010, putting them in the top 10 industries supporting the Republican incumbent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Toomey has generally supported the gas industry in Pennsylvania, which garnered him a low 9 percent score from LCV.
“As we have seen elsewhere in Pennsylvania, natural gas development has the potential to deliver true economic stimulus by providing land-owners with much needed capital, creating jobs and offering an inexpensive source of energy to power households and businesses,” he wrote in a 2013 letter asking a regulatory commission to authorize fracking in the Delaware River Basin along the state’s eastern border.
Wolf has pushed for a 5 percent severance tax on the gas produced in the state as a revenue source that could contribute $1 billion to Pennsylvania’s schools. But the industry says the plan would drive it out of the state.
“I’m going to be real blunt about it,” says David Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, which is funded by the gas industry. “We would walk south.”
The Wolf administration is taking that as an empty threat. After all, if drillers were to leave Pennsylvania they would pay the exact same severance tax rate in West Virginia, which has much smaller portion of the Marcellus shale below its ground. West Virginia has a 5 percent severance tax in place, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, sought a 6.5 percent severance tax this year, although that move was blocked by the state legislature.
Pennsylvania’s natural gas production is second only to Texas, with output surpassing 4 trillion cubic feet in 2014, according to the Energy Information Administration.
“It’s not shocking that the industry does not want a severance tax, but Pennsylvania is the only natural gas producing state without a severance tax,” said Jeffrey Sheridan, a spokesman for Wolf. “It’s a very reasonable thing to do, and saying the gas companies will just pick up and leave is absurd.”
Among the other Wolf administration decisions that have most rankled the gas industry was his decision to impose $8.9 million fine for Texas-based Range Resources for allowing drinking water contamination, after a review of environmental enforcement decisions made under Corbett. The new governor also slashed an official count of employment in the gas industry by more than half when his labor department updated the software it used to model indirect jobs created; the result was an estimate of just 89,000 people employed because of the industry compared to the 200,000 counted by his predecessor’s administration. And DEP began proposed changes to the state’s oil and gas drilling rules, including one that will set limits on how much noise rigs can make.
-
Warren: Lifting Oil Export Ban 'Dangerous' For Environment
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lauren Aguirre
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is warning against lifting the U.S. ban on exporting crude oil.
Warren said doing so without first considering the environmental consequences would be a "dangerous" move at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on the issue Tuesday.
She said lifting the ban would increase worldwide carbon emissions by almost 22 million metric tons per year.And the senator expressed skepticism of studies she said were funded by big oil companies to push the proposal.
"Big oil may not like that, but the Massachusetts voters didn’t send me here to work for them," she said.
Warren's comments come as lawmakers consider bipartisan legislation introduced in May by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) to lift the 40-year old export ban in place since 1975.
The bill is co-sponsored by nine other senators, and Murkowski, the chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has said her panel will vote on exports before the August recess.
The Energy committee is also weighing a broader energy reform bill that does not include measures on oil exports, but the bills could be combined.
There is also movement on lifting the ban in the House.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is backing similar legislation, and earlier in July, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas) said he finds no "downside" to lifting the ban.
While lifting the ban has supporters on both sides of the aisle, many Democrats are balking at the proposal.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) also expressed concerns at the hearing on lifting the ban. He said U.S. gas prices would increase by 18 cents per gallon as a result.
Benjamin Zycher, a scholar at the non-partisan American Enterprise Institute, countered worries about rising gas prices.
"Exports of U.S. crude will increase the supply of crude, therefore reducing the price internationally," he said. "Low prices internationally will lower U.S. prices."
Rick Muncrief, president and CEO of oil and gas producer WPX Energy, also said more oil would decrease market volatility.
"This is the first time that the oil industry is lobbying for something that would lower their prices," Menendez said.
"Sensibility does not seem to extend to our crude oil export policy."
-
Warren Cites Climate Concerns In Debate On Crude Export Ban
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
A Senate hearing on the crude export ban veered into a debate over climate change yesterday as Sen. Elizabeth Warren urged Congress to consider the climate and environmental impacts of lifting the decades-old ban.
Critics of the 1970s-era export ban should focus on the "environmental consequences" of allowing U.S. producers to sell crude oil abroad, Warren said at a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing.
The Massachusetts Democrat, who has stayed relatively quiet on energy issues since joining the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this year, pointed to research in a recent Government Accountability Office study that projected that lifting the ban would cause global carbon emissions to increase by 22 million metric tons per year.
"For anyone worried about climate change, that one feels like a big deal," Warren said, adding, "Lifting the export ban without addressing any of these environmental consequences seems pretty dangerous."
Warren's comments sparked a tense back-and-forth with Benjamin Zycher, an energy expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute who testified in favor of lifting the export ban.
Zycher countered that the uptick in pollution caused by crude exports would represent a fraction of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
"The impact of ending the export ban on crude oil in terms of climate change [is] literally zero, so I wouldn't emphasize that," said Zycher, who has questioned the link between climate change and human activity.
"I get that you wouldn't emphasize that," Warren responded.
The exchange followed testimony from industry leaders and Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a vocal critic of the crude export ban.
Lifting the ban would "send a signal to the world that we are ready to lead on issues of energy and the environment," Murkowski said.
Murkowski also focused on the Iran nuclear agreement, saying that it would allow Iran to ramp up its own crude oil exports while U.S. producers are forced to watch from the sidelines.
"We are effectively sanctioning U.S. oil producers if we lift the sanctions on Iranian oil and do not address our ability to compete in that global market," said Murkowski, who held a markup yesterday that continues today of the Senate's sweeping energy package (Greenwire, July 28).
The Senate bill does not include language to lift the ban, but Murkowski said last week that she plans to introduce a stand-alone bill to address the crude oil ban and other energy issues.
A House version of the broad energy package also ducked the export ban issue, but House Republicans insist they'll introduce an amendment to lift the ban when the bill comes before the full House Energy and Commerce Committee this fall.
-
More And Bigger Drilling-Linked Earthquakes Rattle Oklahoma
Jul 28, 2015 | Reuters
By Heide Brandes
Several earthquakes shook Oklahoma on Monday as the state experiences a sharp increase in the frequency of tremors linked to wastewater disposal from gas and oil drilling, including from fracking, state and federal officials said.
Three of Monday's quakes measured above a magnitude 4.0, with a 4.5 earthquake centered just north of Crescent, roughly 45 miles (72 km) north of Oklahoma City, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said.
The largest tremor, logged a "significant earthquake" by the USGS, could be felt as far away as Wichita, Kansas, about 160 miles north, broadcaster KOTV reported.
There were no reports of damage.
The rate of earthquakes in Oklahoma has increased by about 50 percent since 2013, greatly increasing the chance for a damaging quake, according to the USGS.
Noticeable quakes - above magnitude 3.0 - now hit the state at a rate of two per day or more, compared with two or so per year prior to 2009. During the past seven days, Oklahoma has experienced about 40 earthquakes, according to the USGS.
Scientists say the seismic activity is triggered by the injection of wastewater from booming oil and gas drilling operations into deep geological formations.
The state's oil and gas regulator released a directive this month expanding "Areas of Interest", parts of the state that have been worst-hit by the quakes, and adding restrictions for 211 disposal wells.
In March, the regulator - the Oklahoma Corporation Commission - also directed 347 wells to reduce their injection depths to above the Arbuckle formation. High-volume injections into the Arbuckle, the state’s deepest formation, have the highest potential for seismic activity, according to the USGS.
Twenty-one of Oklahoma’s 77 counties are under the order, and oil and gas drilling operators have until Aug. 14 to comply with reducing injection depth.
-
State Science Panel Assesses Fracking Risks
Jul 28, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By Catherine Reheis-Boyd
The recent multivolume report by the California Council on Science & Technology offers a classic glass-half-empty or glass-half-full choice for people interested in energy production.
For those in the oil industry – or who value energy independence and domestic production – the council’s report provides validation that we are doing things right in California. After decades of using hydraulic fracturing and other oil production technologies under some of the most stringent regulations in the world, the council was unable to find any evidence these technologies have harmed the environment.
For those opposing hydraulic fracturing, the report provided a wealth of information about potential risks, data gaps and recommendations for more regulation. A Los Angeles Times headline said it all: “California science panel warns that fracking poses unknown risk.”
What human activity does not pose unknown risk? And what exactly is an unknown risk?
A more productive exercise involves assessing known risks associated with industrial activities and making sure we are managing those risks properly. Here are the science-based findings of the council’s study:
▪ No evidence fracking has harmed the environment.
▪ No evidence fracking has contaminated groundwater.
▪ Fracking is not likely to cause earthquakes of concern.
▪ The amount of freshwater used in hydraulic fracturing is small compared to other human uses.
These findings are not a surprise. California has embarked on an impressive expansion of regulatory oversight and supervision of oil production activities, adopting the most sweeping and stringent regulations on fracking and oil production activities in the country – if not in the world.
In 2013, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 4 by Sen. Fran Pavley, requiring:
▪ Oil companies to obtain separate permits for fracking in addition to other permits required to drill a well and produce oil.
▪ Prior notification to surrounding landowners.
▪ Mandatory disclosure of all chemicals used in fracturing fluid.
▪ Well-integrity testing before and after fracturing.
▪ Extensive testing and monitoring of nearby groundwater.
▪ Monitoring and reporting of seismic activity.
▪ Development of a statewide environmental impact report with extensive mitigation measures.
▪ Independent, science-based study of hydraulic fracturing.
This last requirement was fulfilled by the council’s report. Also required by SB 4 were extensive new groundwater monitoring rules, which were recently adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Progress is clearly being made. Senate Bill 1281was adopted last year and requires oil producers to provide the state extensive new information on water supplies, use and disposition.
SB 4 and SB 1281 require an unprecedented, but welcome, amount of information to be reported to the state. There is so much data flooding in now that regulatory agencies are being overwhelmed. The oil industry supported budget language that provides for:
▪ 23 new positions and $3.5 million for the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources.
▪ 19 new positions at the water board and $2.9 million to enforce water standards.
▪ 21 new positions and $10 million for the Department of Conservation to manage the massive volume of data.
▪ $625,000 for the Department of Water Resources to improve public access to oil production information.
The recent report on hydraulic fracturing identified several areas where the council felt more data were needed. Much of that information is now flooding into state offices.
We understand there are those who will say this is not enough, that more regulations are needed or that fracking should be banned – no matter how many studies fail to find harm.
But Californians who care about their water, environment and access to reliable and affordable energy can be confident we have met and are exceeding our reputations as environmental leaders.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article29170207.html#storylink=cpy -
LNG Debate Looms For Day 2 Of Senate Markup
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
After largely skirting controversy during yesterday's markup of its comprehensive energy bill, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today may revisit a past point of contention: exporting natural gas.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said yesterday that he and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) will offer an amendment that aims to limit the quantity of liquefied natural gas exports.
"We're particularly concerned about the effect on domestic prices," King told E&E Daily yesterday, referring to a provision in the underlying bill that would require the Energy Department to make final decisions on LNG exports within 45 days of the completion of required environmental reviews.
The pair's amendment "would basically say the Energy Department cannot approve LNG exports above the level that they have studied, that they have modeled," King said. If DOE wants to export above the modeled levels, "they have to study it and produce the data."
Past studies have found modest domestic price increases associated with exports, commensurate with the quantities of shipments. Lawmakers from the Northeast -- which depends heavily on natural gas for power -- as well as those representing regions with large manufacturers that rely on gas as both a power source and a feedstock have long raised concerns that exports will push up U.S. natural gas prices.
However, the controversy has subsided over the past year, as legislative proposals to speed up exports have taken a more narrow focus, as demonstrated by the energy package's LNG provision, which enjoys bipartisan support.
Environmentalists this week singled out the LNG language as one they would ultimately oppose the underlying package over.
"This provision does not give DOE sufficient time to consider all factors including full economic and environmental reviews in approving LNG export terminals," the Sierra Club and other groups wrote to Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) this week. "Speeding up the process of approving LNG export terminals ties our economy more closely to fossil fuels at a time when we should be transitioning away from their use."
As the markup heads into a second day, with a third possible tomorrow if needed, senators from both sides indicated yesterday they were increasingly optimistic about getting the bipartisan package negotiated by Murkowski and Cantwell through committee without getting weighed down by "poison pills."
Murkowski told reporters she was pleased that senators put aside more controversial fights for the Senate floor, as she had hoped.
"We processed 25 separate amendments, and not a kerfuffle really," she said after the markup. "I think what you saw today will hopefully be how we advance through tomorrow [Wednesday] and Thursday if necessary."
During yesterday's markup, Murkowski provided senators the opportunity to discuss any amendments they planned to withdraw and hold until the floor before setting up votes on three amendments and calling it a day (Greenwire, July 28).
She said it's possible senators may bring up additional amendments today to put the issue on the table, before withdrawing them.
"I think this is important for folks to look at and kind of judge, 'All right, if I have an amendment that I care enough about to work on, do I think it's something that I can actually prevail in a vote or maybe I'm just going to defer to the floor,'" she said. "I think that's what people are considering right now."
King, who caucuses with Democrats, said the demonstrated willingness on both sides to hold off on bigger fights bodes well for the package in committee. "There was a lot of give and take, and I'm hopeful we can come out with a strong bill," he said.
But committee members expect plenty of controversial debate once the bill makes it to the floor later this year.
"The real test will be on the floor," Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told E&E Daily yesterday, adding that most members appear willing to hold off in the interest of securing floor time. "They want a vehicle to get to the floor because then we can have a lot of these substantive amendments hopefully brought up."
Murkowski acknowledged the floor debate will likely be a rough ride, but said it comes with the territory.
"As the chairman of the Energy Committee, I can help clear a path for a bill through my committee. Working through the floor, there are other things you deal with," she said. "And rogue amendments is something that we deal with. ... It's a reality that we have an open process in the United States Senate when it comes to the floor, and you try to manage it as best as you can."
-
Hoeven: Obama to Reject Keystone in August
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
President Barack Obama will announce the rejection of TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline while Congress is out of town for its August recess, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said July 28.
In remarks made on the Senate floor, Hoeven, an ardent supporter of the $8 billion heavy oil pipeline, said he was informed of the White House's decision by unidentified “sources.”
“He'll turn the project down while Congress is not in session to have less push back, less criticism of the decision, make it under the radar,” Hoeven said during his floor speech. “And that timing is understandable because he's making a political decision rather than a decision based on the merits.”
The 1,700-mile pipeline, which would carry crude from Alberta oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries in Texas, has come to represent a symbol of the administration's commitment to addressing climate change.
The project, which TransCanada Corp. first applied for in 2008, requires a presidential permit because it crosses an international boundary and a review remains ongoing at the State Department.
In an interview, Hoeven said he received his information from multiple sources but declined to elaborate.
The White House declined to comment.
“If indeed these rumors are true with what Senator Hoeven has said today, it's a victory for our opponents,” James Millar, director of external relations at TransCanda, said July 28 by phone. “We would simply be making a choice of saying ‘Yes' to oil from Iran and Venezuela and ‘No' to oil from Canada and the U.S. Bakken.”
Hoeven was the author of a Senate bill (S. 1) that would have circumvented the Obama administration's review of the project that was vetoed by the White House in February(37 DEN A-1, 2/25/15).
May Offer Amendment to Another Bill
Hoeven said he is considering offering the legislation as an amendment to energy legislation or another bill on the Senate floor.
“I think it's ironic that he is going to turn down Keystone while at the same time alleviating oil sanctions on Iran,” Hoeven told Bloomberg BNA.
Jim Snyder jsnyder24@bloomberg.net and Rebecca Penty rpenty@bloomberg.net contributed to this report.
-
Obama Will Reject Pipeline During Recess -- Hoeven
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
President Obama will reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada during the upcoming congressional recess, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said yesterday.
"Sources tell me that after almost seven years, President Obama is going to turn down the Keystone pipeline project," Hoeven said on the Senate floor. He did not detail his sources.
"He'll turn the project down while Congress is not in session to have less, less criticism pushback of his decision," Hoeven said. "And that timing is understandable because he's making a political decision rather than a decision on the merits."
Hoeven accused the administration of wanting to defeat the cross-border pipeline "through delay." He also said rejecting KXL's oil could encourage imports from countries like Venezuela.
Hoeven also blasted the president for wanting to lift sanctions on Iran, which would give that country more leeway to sell its oil, while opposing Canadian crude.
"President Obama is not strengthening our energy future, he's weakening it. I urge him to reconsider," said Hoeven, who has left open the possibility of pushing for more legislation in Congress to approve KXL.
TransCanada Corp., the company developing KXL, said it had no official word from the administration, which is not commenting on its decisionmaking about the pipeline.
Environmental advocates and other KXL opponents have for months been saying the president will turn down KXL. Their main concerns focus on the carbon emissions associated with mining and burning Canadian oil sands crude.
-
Hillary Clinton Dodges Keystone Pipeline Question
Jul 28, 2015 | Politico
By Gabriel Debenedetti
Days after unveiling the first plank of her energy and climate platform, Hillary Clinton again refused to commit to approving or rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline were she to win the White House — and her hedge on the topic is not sitting well with progressives or Republicans, both of whom are criticizing her hesitancy to take a position.
“This is President Obama’s decision, and I am not going to second-guess him,” she told an audience member here who implored her to “please” commit to either approving or vetoing the pipeline. Clinton explained that while she helped start the process of reviewing the pipeline during her tenure as secretary of state, she doesn’t want to interfere with the White House or current Secretary of State John Kerry.
“If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question,” she said.
When asked by reporters to clarify her position after the town hall, Clinton doubled down.
“I was involved in this process and my assessment is that it is not appropriate, nor fair, for me to prejudge in a public arena what Secretary Kerry and President Obama eventually have to decide, and therefore I will not do it,” she said.
“And I’m sorry if people want me to. I have been very clear: I will not express an opinion until they have made a decision, and then I will do so.”Clinton has steadfastly refused to come down on either side of the pipeline, even as environmental groups have made it a key component of their agenda. While climate activists largely cheered Clinton’s climate proposal that landed on Sunday night, many have long seen Keystone as a litmus test.
Liberal Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s main Democratic challenger and a longstanding opponent of the pipeline, did not mince words after hearing of the front-runner’s answers in New Hampshire.
“It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline,” he said in a statement that also highlighted his own environmental work.
Influential climate activist Bill McKibben — who has appeared with Sanders — was scathing in his criticism.
“More Americans have commented on this than any other infrastructure project in history, it’s not alright to be coy with her opinion,” he said. “In the largest sense, it’s her hedging-of-bets that makes the rest of us so wary. Dealing with climate change in a serious way will take enormous commitment in the face of many strong opponents: we need strong signals that our president would be resolute in this crucial task.”
Earlier in the day, the Republican National Committee’s Michael Short was similarly skeptical of Clinton’s commitment to the environment: “With her second dodge on Keystone in as many days, Hillary Clinton is making it abundantly clear she’ll say or do anything to get elected.”
The blow-up comes at an uncomfortable time for the former secretary of state: her campaign unveiled the new details of her energy policies on Sunday night after a weekend of answering questions about her use of a private email address during her time at the State Department. She wants the country to produce enough clean renewable energy to power every American home by 2027, her team says, and to install over 500 million solar panels by 2021.
Her political team had been focused on calling out Republican skepticism of climate change — but her refusal to take a position Tuesday has turned the spotlight squarely back to Clinton herself.
Some climate activists viewed Clinton with a wary eye prior to her policy roll-out, primarily due to her longstanding silence on Keystone: Her town hall in front of over 450 Granite Staters at the Amherst Street Elementary School was her first such event since climate-focused protesters interrupted her last one in mid-July. And her refusal to take a stand on the pipeline has cast a shadow over her candidacy since before she was even a declared candidate, as the debate reached Obama and the White House earlier this year.
Clinton’s campaign apparatus includes noted Keystone skeptics — including campaign chairman John Podesta, who was more outspoken about his opposition to it prior to joining the White House in 2014 — and she attended a fundraiser at the northern California home of billionaire donor Tom Steyer, a pipeline opponent.
But the pipeline joins the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement as an issue where Clinton has consistently refused to be pinned down due, she says, to ongoing conversations within the administration.Still, both of Clinton’s primary Democratic challengers, Sanders — whose poll numbers are approaching Clinton’s in New Hampshire, according to recent surveys — and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have been outspoken about their opposition to approval of the pipeline, which they assert would be harmful to the environment.
Clinton said on Tuesday that her perspective and restraints are distinct from theirs because of her experience in the Obama administration.
“I’m in a different position from any other candidate. I was there. I put this process together. I oversaw it for four years,” she said. “I know what the president’s standard is to make sure it does not increase greenhouse gas emissions.”
Nonetheless, Clinton’s skeptics refused to buy this argument.
“Saying ‘I’ll tell you my position if I’m elected president’ can’t be the real answer,” said McKibben. “I mean, in that case why bother with campaigns and so forth? And it’s not like this is a small issue: it generated more public comments than any infrastructure project in U.S. history, sent more people to jail than any issue in many years, and so forth. It really does seem wrong to duck it.”
-
Steyer Unfazed By Clinton’s Silence On Keystone
Jul 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Tom Steyer’s hard green line is turning soft when it comes to Hillary Clinton.
The billionaire climate activist has spent more than $100 million of his personal fortune to support green-minded candidates and ballot initiatives in the past five years, ruffling the Washington establishment while threatening to torpedo even fellow Democrats who don’t hew the line on controversies like the Keystone XL oil pipeline. But he declined repeatedly Tuesday to criticize Clinton, who still refuses to take a stand on Keystone, and whose just-released initial climate proposal is notably short on specifics about issues like fracking and Arctic drilling.
Steyer told POLITICO that he won’t demand that Clinton stake out a position on the proposed Alberta-to-Texas pipeline, which greens have seized on as a litmus test for politicians’ willingness to take on climate change. That suggests he’s satisfied for now with her silence.
“She isn’t for Keystone,” Steyer said. “She has no position.”
He explained: “We haven’t insisted that people make a decision on that because it hasn’t been necessary. Maybe we’ll change our minds. We drew a line in the sand on supporting it, but we haven’t drawn a line in the sand and said that absolutely everybody has to take a position on this.”
Steyer’s comments might come as a surprise to some of his fellow environmental activists, who have dogged Clinton with demands that she oppose the project — especially because Steyer has also made killing Keystone a priority in his crusade to tackle climate change.
After a 2014 Senate vote on the pipeline, he declared that a lawmaker’s position on Keystone “signifies whether they are standing up for or against the next generation on the issue of climate,” arguing that approving the pipeline would mean “millions of tons of new carbon pollution entering the air.”
The billionaire had earlier wielded Keystone as a wedge issue against Democrat Stephen Lynch — who had once shown reserved support for the pipeline — during Massachusetts’ 2013 Senate primary. Lynch lost that race to now-Sen. Ed Markey, one of Congress’ most outspoken environmentalists.
Steyer also ran anti-Keystone ads last year during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, and his aides even flirted with targeting then-Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu last year in Louisiana for supporting the project.
On the other hand, Steyer supported then-Sen. Mark Udall in last year’s midterm elections, even though the Colorado Democrat refused to say whether Obama should approve or reject the pipeline.
Clinton stuck to her no-position stance Tuesday, telling reporters that the pipeline’s fate is Obama’s decision to make. “If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question,” she said.
As secretary of state, Clinton presided over a department that repeatedly found few environmental risks from building Keystone, and she said in a 2010 appearance in San Francisco that the administration was “inclined” to support the project. But she has since then resisted pressure to stake a position, saying Tuesday that she doesn’t want to interfere with current Secretary John Kerry or the White House.
For now, it appears that Steyer is making a strategic decision to hold his fire when it comes to Clinton, no doubt aware that bomb-throwing would be ill received by her advisers, many of whom have close ties to the billionaire and his staff. Steyer is widely believed to have political ambitions for himself someday, perhaps as a future candidate for governor of California.
“It’s not as if I haven’t thought about what’s going to happen after November 2016,” he said when asked about whether he’ll run for governor. “But what is true is that I haven’t committed to anything happening after November 2016.”
Steyer said he doesn’t know whether his super PAC, NextGen Climate, will endorse a candidate for president this cycle. And he declined to be pinned down on whether he might endorse one of Clinton’s rivals, such as Martin O’Malley or Bernie Sanders, if she fails to offer a strong enough climate platform.
“I don’t know because I don’t actually expect that to happen,” he said in an interview in Iowa. “I’m actually expecting that she’s going to come out with a really thoughtful, detailed plan.”
Sanders hasn’t been shy about criticizing Clinton for not declaring her opposition to Keystone. “It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline,” the Vermont senator said in a statement Tuesday.
Clinton aides did not respond to a request for comment.
Steyer insisted he hasn’t effectively endorsed Clinton already, despite hosting a fundraiser for her in May at his San Francisco home.
“We have very high expectations for her,” he said. “We think that she’s going to be a really important and positive candidate.”
The interview came just days after Clinton released the first part of her climate change agenda, which among other things called for an expansive investment in solar energy. While Steyer stressed that Clinton plans to flesh out her proposal, he signaled his early support.
“If there’s one thing you can say about Hillary Clinton and her campaign, it’s that they’re super thorough,” he said. “It think they’re trying to set a framework that is going to be meaningful on this. I think it is going to be a centerpiece of what they do. I think they’re going to want to be aggressive about it.”
Steyer’s reluctance to criticize Clinton has turned heads among some of the former secretary of state’s opponents.
“If he wants to be the authority on climate change and if he wants to dictate a litmus test, then he has to be prepared to be 100 percent solid on the issue and he can’t play favorites,” one national Democrat not supporting Clinton said. ”He has to be prepared to have a frank conversation with his friends, otherwise it’s inauthentic.”
Steyer said Clinton’s plan appears to be in line with the standard he recently called on all presidential candidates to embrace: generating 50 percent of the nation’s power from carbon-free sources by 2030 with an eye toward “a completely clean energy economy” by 2050.
Clinton’s aides took pains this week to stress that her plan exceeds Steyer’s 2030 goal when nuclear energy is included — an indication that the campaign is paying attention to the billionaire. But the plan appears to fall slightly short of the longer-term goal. Clinton’s plan calls for moving the economy to “a path towards deep decarbonization by 2050.”
O’Malley had earlier pledged to wean the U.S. electricity system entirely off fossil fuels by 2050, while Sanders has endorsed a tax on carbon emissions — a holy grail for many climate activists.
Despite the fact that Clinton’s climate plan was released just days after Steyer outlined his green standard for presidential candidates, Steyer said he is not coordinating with the campaign.
“Because we may do independent expenditures, we don’t talk,” he said. “We want to make sure that nobody says we’re coordinating, which is illegal.”
Steyer was in Iowa this week to meet with his state-based staff as it prepares for a busy election cycle. NextGen has offices in Iowa, Florida and New Hampshire — and it may expand to other states. The group is building on the infrastructure it set up during the 2014 mid-term elections, when Steyer spent $74 million of his own money in an attempt to elect pro-climate-action Democrats in seven Senate and gubernatorial races. (Three of his favored candidates won.)
This time, in an effort to persuade young, environmentally conscious voters to turn out at the polls, NextGen has expanded its campaign operation on key college campuses. The billionaire said he “absolutely” plans to get involved in House and Senate races, though he said NextGen is still finalizing its plans.
Steyer also said the climate change debate has shifted since the last election cycle, where NextGen and other groups were more focused on bashing Republicans for not acknowledging the scientific consensus about climate change.
“The debate has moved,” he said. “We’re definitely on to solutions. The denying thing is pretty much gone. I think the Republicans are probably trying to figure out what the hell to do.”
Steyer again declined to say how much money he is willing to spend this cycle, arguing that he can’t put a price tag on his efforts because the presidential campaign is still evolving. For the 2014 midterms, Steyer’s aides said the billionaire hoped to spend $100 million — half from his personal fortune and half from outside sources. But his aides eventually walked back that figure as they struggled to woo donors.
This time around, Steyer has mostly self-funded his efforts. Since the beginning of this year, Steyer has contributed $5 million to NextGen out of the $5.2 million the group had raised as of the end of June, according to financial records.
“We definitely will continue to try to get people to join us,” he said. But he conceded: “If last time is any judge, unfortunately, we’ll probably be writing the majority of the checks. But I hope I’m wrong.”
-
Fossil Fuels Execs Backing Clinton Even With Her Climate Push
Jul 28, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Hillary Clinton drew scorn from the fossil fuel industry in the wake of her energy platform rollout this week, but campaign finance records suggest the Democratic presidential primary front-runner can still claim friends in the oil and gas business, even as she supports programs focused heavily on renewable energy.
Clinton announced a package of energy policies Sunday evening, including promises to expand the nation's solar capacity 700 percent by 2020 and shifting at least a third of the nation's energy generation to renewable energy sources (E&E Daily, July 27).
The plan brought scorn yesterday from groups including the American Energy Alliance and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which asserted it would raise energy expenses for consumers.
"Hillary Clinton's pledge to power our homes and businesses with wind and solar will raise energy prices on all Americans, especially poor families, the elderly, and those who are still struggling to find work in the Obama economy," AEA President Thomas Pyle said.
But according to a pair of campaign finance reports filed earlier this month, Clinton claims more than a few allies in the oil and gas industry.
Clinton raised nearly $48 million in her first report of the presidential primary cycle, and ended June with nearly $29 million in the bank.
Among her supporters, Clinton reported that Texas-based Cheniere Energy Inc. Vice President of Government Relations Ankit Desai bundled $82,000 in contributions. Twelve Cheniere Energy executives donated the maximum per-election limit of $2,700 to Clinton, including CEO Charif Souki. The company's focus is on building liquid natural gas terminals.
Clinton also counts support from Exxon Mobil Corp.'s top lobbyist, Washington Office Vice President Theresa Fariello, who rounded up $21,200 in contributions.
A pair of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP lobbyists who represent Chevron Corp. also helped round up donors to Clinton's campaign: Scott Parven bundled $24,700 in contributions and Brian Pomper collected $29,700 in funds.
Among individual donors, Clinton also counted $2,000 from a Marathon Oil Corp. earth scientist and $2,700 each from two Texas-based Chevron employees and a National Oilwell Varco Inc. attorney.
Edison Electric Institute Executive Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs Brian Wolff -- a former top aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) -- reported bundling $26,600 in contributions.
Clinton also reported supporters at America's Natural Gas Alliance, including: CEO Martin Durbin, who gave $1,000; Federal Affairs Senior Director Sarah Venuto Perez, who gave $2,910; and Strategic Communications Vice President Celia Fischer, who gave $2,700.
Both American Gas Association counsel Arushi Sharma and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. attorney Julie Kane also gave $2,700 each to Clinton's campaign.
But Clinton also claimed maximum donations from a host of environmental activists, including Global Green USA founder Diane Meyer Simon, Sierra Club Treasurer Loren Blackford, Environment America President Douglas Phelps, Goldman Environmental Foundation President John Goldman and Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney Frank Holleman.
A number of state and federal officials also contributed to Clinton's coffers, including New York's state energy czar Richard Kauffman. Kauffman, who oversees the state's energy portfolio as the New York state government's chairman of energy and finance, contributed to Clinton's primary and general election funds, for a total of $5,400.
Other contributors who gave $2,700 each include Federal Energy Regulatory Commission engineer Dharmendra Sharma, California Energy Commissioner David Hochschild and former White House climate adviser Heather Zichal, now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center.
Clinton picked up smaller donations from U.S. EPA Associate Administrator of the Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education Brian Bond, who gave $500; California Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Secretary for Environmental Policy Grant Cope, who gave $300; and Bill Wicker, the Energy Department's spokesman for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, who gave $1,000.
-
First Day of Senate Energy Markup Ends With No Drama
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The first of what is expected to be a multi-day markup by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee of broad energy legislation ended with no controversial amendments that could derail the bill.
Although several amendments related to thorny issues of pipeline permitting and cross border energy issues were brought up, the sponsors of those measures opted to withdraw them with the caveat they may be offered to the bill on the Senate floor.
“We processed 25 separate amendments and not a kerfuffle really,” committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters after the markup. “I think what you saw today will hopefully be how we advance through tomorrow and Thursday if necessary.”
Vehicle Research Amendment Approved
In all, the committee voted to adopt two amendments, a manager's package making technical corrections and other minor tweaks, and an amendment from Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) that would authorize $1.7 billion for Energy Department clean vehicle research.
The amendment, approved by a vote of 20-2, would direct the Energy Department to conduct research on both car and truck fuel efficiency research, as well as research related to electric vehicle batteries, natural gas vehicles and other technologies.
The measure is similar to S. 1408, which is supported by organizations representing automakers such as Ford Motor Co. and engine manufacturer Cummins Inc.
In all, nearly 100 amendments dealing with issues ranging from the Keystone XL pipeline to coal ash have been filed, reflecting pent-up demand for energy legislation in the Senate, which last passed a broad energy bill in 2007 (144 DEN A-5, 7/28/15)
Markup to Continue
Murkowski said the committee would continue the markup July 29, with the potential for additional sessions July 30 and the week of Aug. 3 if needed.
Among the amendments offered and withdrawn was a measure from Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) that would incorporate the text of legislation (S. 1228) to expedite the federal permitting process on future cross-border energy projects such as oil and gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines.
“Whether we are producing traditional energy from fossil fuels or we're producing renewable sources of energy, we still have to transport that energy from where it's produced to where it is consumed,” Hoeven said during the markup.
Transmission company ITC Holdings and Berkshire Hathaway Energy have been lobbying on the bill, which would give the State Department 120 days to either issue a certificate of crossing or deny approval for a project once a National Environmental Policy Act review has been completed.
It also would limit the NEPA process to the border crossing and would leave the siting of the route to the states.
The underlying legislation includes policy measures ranging from expediting the Energy Department's approval process for liquefied natural gas exports to boosting the cybersecurity protections for the electricity grid, and it represents months of bipartisan negotiations within the committee (141 DEN A-8, 7/23/15).
-
11 Environmental Groups Oppose Senate Energy Bill
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A coalition of 11 environmental groups said in a letter they are unable to support bipartisan Senate energy legislation because of “flawed provisions” that are harmful to the environment.
The letter, obtained by Bloomberg BNA July 28, cited measures in the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 that would repeal a law requiring new federal buildings to phase out fossil fuel use and a measure to expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports.
“Unless these concerns are addressed, we are unable to support this bill,” said the letter, which was sent to leaders of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee before the bill's markup. The letter to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the committee chair, and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member, was signed by the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council and eight other groups.
Other provisions flagged by the groups include language that would delay Energy Department energy efficiency standards for residential furnaces (RIN 1904-AD20), estimated to cost $11.6 billion and opposed by groups representing natural gas utilities, such as Ameren Corp., Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co., and Duke Energy Corp., which are concerned that its cost will lead consumers to switch to electric furnaces.
The environmental groups also take issue with provisions in the bill that would expedite the licensing process for hydropower projects, which they say would allow “hydropower dam owners to harm fish, wildlife, public lands, and Indian reservations with impunity.”
“The loss of these authorities—which have been in place for nearly a century while our nation constructed thousands of megawatts of hydropower capacity—will have profound consequences for fisheries from coast to coast and rivers on tribal and public land,” the letter said.
-
Senators Start Debating Energy Bill
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action
By Timothy Cama
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday started to debate its broad energy bill, giving a preview of some of the contentious fights likely to come.
In its first day of working through the 94 amendments that senators have filed for the bill, the panel only agreed to attach a non-controversial amendment to renew the authorization.Senators used the meeting to discuss more than a dozen related amendments that they quickly withdrew from consideration, though promised to bring up when the bill is considered on the floor.
And while two controversial amendments were considered and failed, the first committee meeting on the bill largely reflected the tone that Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) envisioned for the debate, in which only bipartisan measures with wide support would be attached.
“What you have is the result of many, many, many months of efforts,” Murkowski, the committee’s chairman, said before the markup meeting, pointing to committee staff listening sessions as far away as Alaska, hearings on 114 bills and more.
“There are folks who said they didn’t expect the committee to get this far,” she said. “At one point or another we would have just parted ways and given up.”
“This legislation represents the first attempt to craft broad bipartisan legislation since 2009,” said Cantwell. “The chairman and I agreed in the opening days of Congress that it was important for us to address the emerging energy policies that are important for our country.”
Murkowski said she was pleased with how the process is going thus far.
“We processed 25 amendments, and not a kurfluffle, really,” she said afterward.
The senators rejected, nearly along party lines, an amendment from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to create a federal energy efficiency program for buildings.
They also rejected a proposal from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to increase the share of money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund that would go to states.
All of the Democrats and five Republicans voted against it, saying that the bill’s current restrictions and balance on conservation funding was sufficient.
Senators introduced and quickly withdrew a variety of amendments related to energy efficiency grants, rural school funding, thermal energy, solar power and other policy areas.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) introduced and withdrew an amendment to make it easier for companies to obtain permits to build pipelines and electric transmission lines across international borders.
Hoeven cited Keystone XL, and the ongoing, nearly seven-year wait for it to obtain a permit from President Obama. But he also said that Keystone would not be covered under the legislation, since its developer, TransCanada Corp., has already submitted an application to federal officials.
Hoeven and other senators said they would introduce their measures on the Senate floor when the entire chamber considers the bill.
The committee also approved the nomination of Jonathan Elkind to be the assistant secretary for international affairs at the Department of Energy.
Senators will meet again Wednesday morning to continue debating the bill, and possibly into Thursday morning as well.
-
Upton to Fight ‘Poison Pills' in Energy Bill
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The full House Energy and Commerce Committee intends to mark up energy legislation by “mid-September” and hopes to keep the measure free of “poison pills” that could jeopardize its chances for passage, committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said July 28.
That desire may mean some provisions with strong support from Republicans—like the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline—won't be included in the bill, Upton said at a forum sponsored by National Journal. Both the Michigan Republican and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the panel, are on the same page about keeping the measure free of “third rail” issues for either party, Upton said.
Upton hopes the energy legislation will be on the House floor by the end of September. The Senate, which began its own markup of an energy bill July 28, is on a “somewhat close” timetable, and Upton said it's still possible both chambers could complete their work this year (see related story).
The House Energy and Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee passed a slimmed-down version of the bill—not yet formally introduced—July 22, though members from both parties said they would add more substantive provisions to it in the fall (141 DEN A-13, 7/23/15).
“It's going to get more substance,” Upton said, calling the subcommittee-passed version “bare bones.”
Pipeline Safety Coming
Among the areas likely to be addressed in the beefed up legislation are pipeline safety and security of the nation's electric grid, Upton said.
The Michigan Republican said he would like to include safety standards for new and existing pipelines in the House bill.
Several areas unlikely to be addressed in the House bill include renewing the Land and Water Conservation Fund, expediting the Energy Department's approval process for liquefied natural gas exports and nuclear waste management, according to Upton.
Renewing the Land and Water Conservation Fund and speeding LNG export licenses are currently included in the Senate bill, though Upton said they aren't a major concern.
“If they attach that in their bill, that's fine, we'll go to conference,” Upton said.
Murkowski, Upton on Same Page
Upton and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have spoken several times about the general direction of their chambers' respective bills, he said.
House Republican and Democratic staff intend to work through the August recess to resolve differences in the legislation, and Upton said he would continue to work with the Obama administration.
If enacted into law, the legislation would be the first major energy policy update since 2007.
-
Fossil Concerns Fuel GOP Opposition To Obama Nominee
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey and Manuel Quiñones
A top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee yesterday said he opposes Jonathan Elkind, President Obama's pick to fill a top energy slot, over comments he made about coal.
Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the nation's top coal-producing state, voted against the nomination yesterday with four other Republicans on the committee but did not outline his reasoning. Elkind, nominated to be assistant secretary of Energy for international affairs, ultimately passed the committee in a 17-5 bipartisan vote (Greenwire, July 28).
"Senator Barrasso opposed Mr. Elkind's nomination today due to the nominee's previous public statements that discouraged the use of coal and called for higher energy prices," a spokeswoman for the senator said in an email.
"Coal is America's most affordable, abundant and reliable source of energy and Senator Barrasso does not believe we should confirm a DOE official that does not support this important source of energy," she said.
In response to questions from Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Barrasso last year, Elkind said he supported the Obama administration's efforts to limit financing for overseas coal projects unless they include carbon capture technology. The industry strongly opposes such restrictions.
"Recognizing the very real and increasing threat of climate change, the administration does not intend to use taxpayer funds to finance conventional coal plants that lack carbon capture, although exceptions may be made in some cases for the poorest countries," Elkind said.
About coal exports, he said, "While we must be cognizant of the implications of substantial increases in our coal exports, in terms of global environmental consequences to climate change as well as to domestic coal prices and local environmental concerns, any changes would need to be taken as a result of careful consideration of all the costs and benefits, including to jobs, economic welfare, energy security and the environment."
Elkind also made statements supporting the administration's stated "all of the above" energy strategy, including research on making coal cleaner.
About natural gas exports, Elkind said, "The department can work with our allies to develop strategies to diversify energy supply by exploring their domestic resources, renewable energy potential and new import opportunities including liquefied natural gas."
Elkind has been awaiting confirmation since 2013. Now that the Senate is in Republican hands, only a trickle of nominees are making it through the chamber.
-
Senate Panel Backs DOE Nominee Elkind
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 17–5 to approve Jonathan Elkind to be the assistant secretary for international affairs at the Energy Department during a markup. Elkind's nomination now goes to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) hasn't set a schedule for the vote, his office told Bloomberg BNA July 28. “I have been very impressed with the team that Secretary [Ernest] Moniz has assembled,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the committee, said during the July 28 committee markup. “I don't agree with every outcome of their decisions, but I think that there has been a demonstrated willingness to work with both sides on issues that are in front of us.” she said. Elkind has been serving as the principal deputy assistant secretary for international affairs at the Energy Department since 2013, according to the department.
-
Inhofe: EPA Clean Power Plan Responses ‘Cursory'
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to provide documents detailing its interaction with environmental groups while developing its proposed greenhouse gas standards for power plants, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.
Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a July 28 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that the agency hasn't yet provided requested documents relating to its consultation with the Natural Resources Defense Council prior to proposing its Clean Power Plan.
“I am writing to object to the ongoing delays and lack of transparency regarding two of the EPW Committee's oversight requests,” Inhofe said.
Inhofe also said the EPA provided only a “cursory response” to a letter sent jointly with the House Natural Resources Committee that questioned whether the agency had adequately consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review any potential Endangered Species Act implications of the proposed Clean Power Plan.
An EPA spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA July 28 that it's reviewing Inhofe's letter.
Inhofe, in an April 17 letter, asked the EPA about its “close coordination” with the NRDC while developing its proposed carbon dioxide standards for both new (RIN 2060–AQ91) and existing (RIN 2060-AR33) power plants.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and then-House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) conducted a similar probe into the EPA's relationship with the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2014, releasing cordial e-mails exchanged between McCarthy and NRDC staff (199 DEN A-1, 10/15/14).
Endangered Species Consultation Probed
Inhofe and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, in a June 15 letter asked why the EPA hadn't conducted an Endangered Species Act consultation for its proposed Clean Power Plan and for proposed carbon dioxide performance standards for new power plants.
In his latest letter, Inhofe said the EPA's July 13 response was unsatisfactory, and agency staff members have yet to provide requested documents and couldn't say when the request would be fulfilled.
“EPA's lack of timely and complete responses and the ongoing uncertainty over its document searches frustrate Congress' ability to fulfill its constitutional duty to perform oversight of the executive branch to ensure its actions are executed in accordance with the laws as written by Congress,” Inhofe said.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if any actions may affect an endangered or threatened species. The discussions can be informal if the action is deemed not likely to impact listed species or it can be a formal consultation with a biological assessment if actions are likely to have an adverse effect.
Bishop also has asked the White House Council on Environmental Quality for all documents relating to its decision not to conduct an Endangered Species Act review of the proposed Clean Power Plan (135 DEN A-1, 7/15/15).
The House Natural Resources Committee will discuss what it calls federal agencies' “selective enforcement” of the Endangered Species Act consultation requirements at a July 29 hearing. McCarthy has been invited to testify. McCarthy won't attend, but a spokeswoman said the agency will provide written comments to the committee.
Doctors Support Carbon Standards
Doctors and nurses, led by the American Lung Association, tout the public health benefits of the EPA's Clean Power Plan, which is expected to be finalized in August.
“Until a strong Clean Power Plan is in place, power plants will continue to pump out unlimited amounts of CO2,” Harold Wimmer, national president and chief executive officer of the American Lung Association, told reporters during a conference call July 28.
Nick Watts, head of project for the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, said warming temperatures can increase the public health impact of diseases, drought and heat waves. The EPA's proposal would represent a significant impetus to other countries meeting in Paris in December to negotiate a new climate pact.
“Everyone is watching the U.S. really as an indicator to the rest of the world to how best to respond,” Watts said.
Rule's Legality Questioned
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan, which would set unique carbon emissions rates for the power sector in each state, say the rule exceeds the EPA's Clean Air Act authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
In a July 28 analysis, William Yeatman, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argued the EPA's reading of its authority under Section 111(d) is not due Chevron deference because the rule would “erase the ‘bright line' between state and federal jurisdiction in the electricity market as established by the Federal Power Act, and subject both parties to EPA authority.”
Under 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, a court must first decide whether the plain text of the law is clear. If the law is ambiguous, then the court must decide whether the agency's interpretation of the law is permissible (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 843, 21 ERC 1049 (U.S. 1984)).
The EPA has argued that its rule is due deference because Section 111(d) is ambiguous and open to interpretation by the agency.
“This is true, and, when all is said and done, it is the only reasoning on which the agency can viably defend its interpretation in the course of a reviewing court's plain or fair construction of the statute,” Yeatman said. “Nonetheless, a generalized purpose makes for a wobbly foundation on which to support a near-unlimited expansion of EPA authority absent a direct statutory directive.”
Revisions to Rule Likely
Nathan Richardson, a visiting fellow at Resources for the Future, said in a recent analysis that the EPA could shore up the legal underpinnings of its proposed Clean Power Plan by jettisoning “outside the fenceline” emissions reduction strategies such as energy efficiency programs and investments in renewable energy in favor of heat-rate improvements at power plants themselves or greater use of existing natural gas capacity.
Some states have already mounted legal challenges to the proposed rule.
Fourteen states have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rehear challenges to the Clean Power Plan (In re: Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, petition for rehearing , 7/24/15; 143 DEN A-2, 7/27/15).
The D.C. Circuit in June dismissed the lawsuits as premature because the rule is not yet final.
Separately, Oklahoma asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to stay the upcoming rule until its appeal has been resolved (Pruitt v. McCarthy, 10th Cir., No. 15-5066, motion for stay, 7/24/15; 144 DEN A-3, 7/28/15).
-
What's Actually Driving Opponents Of The Clean Power Plan?
Jul 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
The Washington Post reports that Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has already organized a boycott of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, even before it’s released. Never mind the fact that Kentucky state officials expect to meet the plan’s requirements to cut pollution from power plants “with relatively little effort.”
In fact, the newspaper’s analysis reveals that most states won’t have trouble meeting the plan’s targets. So, if Sen. McConnell and others are not really standing up for his home states, what’s actually behind the opposition to the Clean Power Plan?
The motives vary, but most opponents of the Clean Power Plan seem united in their belief that solving climate change is either unnecessary or should be very low on the list of national priorities. That’s the only real explanation for their immediate rejection of the only currently available mechanism for limiting climate pollution from its largest source – under a plan that’s flexible, achievable and affordable.
Drivers of the opposition can be broken down into three familiar categories: money, partisanship and ideology.
The financial interests of the highest-polluting electric utilities are a key element of the opposition. While some forward-thinking companies are switching to cleaner energy, big players in the industry are refusing to adapt.
They’d apparently rather spend money on lobbyists than on planning to thrive in a clean energy future. So they are pressuring Congress to block the rules, and sowing fear among their economically vulnerable constituents. (Of course, analysis shows the Clean Power Plan will, in fact, lower electric bills in the long term.)
As with most things in Washington, partisanship is playing a very big role in the opposition to the Clean Power Plan. Because President Obama proposed it, it must be wrong.
And with a loud minority of voters who oppose anything the president does – and anything that acknowledges the need to address climate change – some in Congress see no downside to opposing the EPA, regardless of the details or merits of the plan.
Drivers of the opposition can be broken down into three familiar categories: money, partisanship and ideology.
Finally, there are those who have ideological objections to almost any new federal rules, disturbing the market, or taking action on climate change at all. Ideological positions are often principled, and they can also be wrong. Federal action – and, ultimately, international action – is absolutely essential to fix a problem that is global in both cause and effect. Local or voluntary effort simply can’t do the job.The market is a powerful engine of prosperity, but when it fails – by letting companies pollute for free while taxpayers pay for the damage – it requires sensible adjustment.For those who sincerely believe climate change is neither real nor a threat, I refer you to NASA, all major American scientific organizations, and an avalanche of data to the contrary.
Some opponents fall outside those categories, but they are few in number.
For instance, some believe the federal Clean Air Act is the wrong mechanism for solving this problem. But given that the Supreme Court has ruled EPA is required by the Act to limit climate pollution, and that Congress has failed for decades to tackle the problem, those opponents have an obligation to explain how they would make the same progress in other ways.
The fact is, the Clean Power Plan is a major turning point in the effort to solve climate change and a significant move toward clean energy – so some people will fight furiously to stop it, just like they’ve fought most other major environmental policies in recent decades.
Their interests and ideology remain fixed in a world of polluting energy. Fortunately, for our children and grandchildren, the rest of us are moving forward.
-
Court Says EPA Emissions Limits for 13 States Illegal
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency impermissibly overcontrolled power plant emissions in 13 states under the agency's cross-state air pollution rule, a federal appeals court ruled July 28 (EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1302, 7/28/15).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, found the EPA required states to implement emissions controls beyond what was needed to reduce pollution by the amount necessary for all downwind areas to achieve national air quality standards.
While the court remanded the 15 affected emissions budgets covering 13 states back to the EPA for further consideration, the court didn't vacate those emissions budgets.
The court also rejected broader challenges to the cross-state rule (RIN 2060–AP50), which established limits on power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in 28 states that contribute to ozone and fine particulate attainment issues in downwind states.
Environmental groups that intervened in the litigation on behalf of the EPA classified the decision as a win for the environment because it leaves important public health protections in place while the EPA addresses the court's decision.
The ruling affects the 2014 sulfur dioxide emissions budgets for Texas, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, as well as the 2014 ozone-season nitrogen oxide budgets for Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
Violation of Supreme Court Mandate
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the structure of the cross-state rule in an April 2014 decision but provided an avenue for states to make particularized, as-applied challenges to the emissions budgets established by the EPA.
The high court found the EPA lacks the authority under the Clean Air Act to require states to achieve reductions beyond what would bring all affected downwind states into compliance with national ambient air quality standards (EPA v. EME Homer City Generation LP,, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 78 ERC 1225, 2014 BL 118432 (U.S. 2014); 83 DEN A-1, 4/30/14).
The D.C. Circuit found that the EPA's emissions budgets for the 13 affected states required the installation of unnecessary emissions controls in violation of the Supreme Court's directive.
“EPA's uniform cost thresholds have required states to reduce pollutants beyond the point necessary to achieve downwind attainment,” Kavanaugh wrote. “That violates the Supreme Court's clear mandate in EME Homer.”
Attorney Not Surprised by Ruling
Richard Alonso, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, told Bloomberg BNA July 28 that he wasn't surprised by the decision, given the Supreme Court's holding on the EPA's authority to require reductions beyond what is necessary for downwind states to attain national air standards.
”EPA just got too greedy in how it applied CSAPR to particular states,” Alonso said.
The ruling is a “big win” for Texas and other states because the emissions reductions that will eventually be required by the EPA are going to be “far less costly” to implement than under the original emissions budgets, Alonso said.
Despite the finding that the EPA erred in establishing the emissions budgets, the court decided that a remand without vacatur was the appropriate remedy. The court noted that industry petitioners said vacatur of the emissions budgets could cause “substantial disruption” to trading markets developed under the cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR).
Industry and labor groups, including the Utility Air Regulatory Group and Luminant Generation Co., asked the court to remand the emissions budgets to the EPA for reconsideration without vacating the limits.
Called ‘Great News for Public Health.'
The fact that the D.C. Circuit left the cross-state rule in place is “great news for public health” because millions of people will continue to benefit from the regulation, said Graham McCahan, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund. McCahan represented public health and environmental groups intervening in the litigation during oral arguments.
McCahan told Bloomberg BNA July 28 that given a request by state petitioners that the court vacate the rule, it's a “big deal” that the court left the existing emissions budgets in place while the EPA recalculates state reduction targets.
The EPA told Bloomberg BNA in a July 28 e-mail that the agency was reviewing the decision but was pleased that the court left the rule in place.
“The cross-state rule was promulgated to address a serious problem, and continued implementation of the rule will lead to significant benefits for human health and the environment,” the agency said.
Provides More Clarity for Future
Attorneys agreed that the D.C. Circuit decision, coupled with the 2014 Supreme Court decision upholding the structure of the cross-state rule, provides the EPA with a clearer idea of how to address interstate transport of pollution in the future.
McCahan said the EPA now has both a Supreme Court decision that upholds the fundamental methodology behind the rule and a refined decision from the D.C. Circuit on how to apply that methodology to particular states to avoid overcontrol issues.
“I think they have a lot more certainty than when they designed CSAPR to begin with,” he said.
Alonso said the appeals court ruling provides clarity on the limits of the EPA under the Clean Air Act's “good neighbor” provision, which requires upwind states to control emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with attainment in downwind states.
Ruling Provides ‘Marching Orders.'
Ann Weeks, senior counsel and legal director at the Clean Air Task Force, told Bloomberg BNA that while she was “not thrilled” with the court's finding that the emissions budgets were impermissible, the D.C. Circuit's decision provides a “complete list of marching orders” on how to handle interstate transport of air pollution.
The combination of directives from the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit is something that the EPA can work with to implement control measures to help downwind areas attain more recent national ambient air quality standards, Weeks said.
The emissions budgets included in the cross-state rule were based on the 1997 ozone standards, the 1997 annual fine particulate standards and the 2006 24-hour fine particulate standards.
“It's not to say that this rulemaking wasn't important,” Weeks said. “It really is and was because of the template it provides for the EPA to implement this part of the act.”
Immediate Path Forward Unclear
The D.C. Circuit's decision may have provided more clarity on how the EPA can address interstate transport, but attorneys said the immediate path forward to address the invalid emissions budgets under the cross-state rule is unclear.
“There are lots of different ways EPA could reasonably address the court's decision today,” McCahan said.
McCahan said the court's decision left open the possibility that the EPA could bring in new data to recalculate the emissions budgets but was unsure whether the EPA will do so.
The court said in a footnote that the EPA “may of course update its analysis” regarding cost thresholds but must justify its final calculations in a manner that is consistent with the court's holding on overcontrol.
Alonso said it's “going to take some time” for the EPA to recalculate the emissions limits. However, Alonso predicted the EPA could end up back in court if it doesn't issue a proposal by the end of 2015 and final revised emissions budgets in summer 2016.
“I think any schedule that is less ambitious than that will draw court action,” Alonso said.
EPA Could ‘Drag Its Feet.'
The D.C. Circuit noted that a remand without vacatur includes a risk that the EPA could “drag its feet” and leave the rule in place for a significant amount of time. The court urged the EPA to “move promptly,” noting that the petitioners could bring a lawsuit against the EPA for failure to perform required duties in a timely manner.
Alonso said it's in the EPA's best interest to act quickly but noted the agency is “really under the gun” from a resource perspective because of high-profile work on rules addressing carbon emissions from power plants and methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
“I just don't know how EPA is going to get it all done,” Alonso said.
The court rejected several broader challenges to the cross-state rule that remained following the Supreme Court's 2014 decision to uphold the regulation.
The state petitioners argued that the cross-state rule should be vacated because the EPA exceeded its statutory authority by retroactively disapproving state implementation plans based on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the predecessor of the cross-state rule. The states had argued the EPA didn't have the statutory authority to impose federal implementation plans for 22 of the states covered by the cross-state rule.
Rule Used in Error
The D.C. Circuit ruled that the EPA initially approved the state plans under the Clean Air Interstate Rule “in error” and had the authority to correct those approvals. A 2008 decision by the D.C. Circuit that CAIR was invalid meant the initial approval of the state plans was “in error” at the time of approval, the court ruled (North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 67 ERC 1151, 2008 BL 146717 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The court also rejected challenges to the modeling used by the EPA to establish the transport rule and to the EPA's methodology for identifying upwind states that interfere with the maintenance of national air standards at downwind locations.
The three-judge panel that decided EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA consisted of Judges Kavanaugh, Judith Rogers and Thomas Griffith.
Oral arguments in the litigation were held Feb. 25 (38 DEN A-1, 2/26/15).
-
D.C. Circuit Leaves CSAPR In Place But Remands State Emission 'Budgets'
Jul 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a unanimous July 28 ruling has left largely intact EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the agency's emissions trading program to curb interstate air pollution from power plants, remanding some state emissions “budgets” to the agency even as EPA reworks the rule to account for tougher ozone standards.
In his opinion for the court in EME Homer City Generation, L.P., v. EPA, Judge Brett Kavanaugh upholds significant principles underpinning CSAPR -- such as EPA's right to invalidate formerly approved state implementation plans (SIPs) in order to impose federal plans to implement the rule. Industry and some states were pursuing several objections to CSAPR in the case, on remand to the appellate court after the Supreme Court in 2014 largely upheld the rule.
The court remands without vacatur the maximum emissions allowances, known as “budgets,” of several states, for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). SO2 and NOx are precursors of fine particulate (PM2.5) and ozone, respectively. The court says it stopped short of vacating the budgets in part to avoid disruption on emissions trading markets.
However, EPA is already reworking CSAPR to apply the trading program to a tougher ozone standard anyway, making this a seemingly moot point.
“We hold invalid the 2014 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, as well as the 2014 ozone-season NOx budgets for Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. We remand without vacatur to EPA for it to reconsider those emissions budgets. We reject all of petitioners’ other challenges,” Kavanaugh writes.
EPA crafted CSAPR to enable states to meet its 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), set at 84 parts per billion (ppb) over eight hours, and also the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) annually. However, the agency is now implementing a tougher ozone standard, set at 75 ppb by the Bush EPA in 2008, which was tied up in litigation for years. Also, the agency in 2012 issued a tougher PM2.5 NAAQS, at 12 ug/m3.
After the Supreme Court in 2014 reversed an earlier 2-1 D.C. Circuit ruling that vacated CSAPR -- in which Kavanaugh authored the opinion for the majority -- EPA began crafting a revised CSAPR or similar rule that will implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS -- but likely not the PM2.5 standards. That work remains ongoing, and may be influenced by a possible new ozone NAAQS that EPA must under court order issue by Oct. 1.
EPA has proposed to tighten the NAAQS again, to a limit within a range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb. Should it do so, it would have to rework CSAPR once more. Under the air law, states must craft “good neighbor” SIPs to mitigate their contribution to NAAQS attainment problems downwind, and CSAPR seeks to help them do this.
Kavanaugh says that EPA overstepped its authority by imposing “overcontrol,” as defined by the Supreme Court, on several states. Overcontrol occurs when the agency requires an upwind state to reduce its emissions by more than is required for any downwind area to which it is linked to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
Reworking CSAPR for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS might result in several states not having to participate in the program that were covered by the original rule, which applied to 28 states in the eastern part of the country including Texas. Because NOx emissions and ozone levels have fallen and continue to fall across the current CSAPR region, many areas are on course to attain the 75ppb ozone standard, alleviating the need for an interstate ozone transport rule. A tougher ozone NAAQS would, however, make the issue more relevant once again.
EPA Authority
Importantly for EPA, the D.C. Circuit found in favor of the agency on a number of points, including EPA's authority to invoke a Clean Air Act error-correction mechanism to invalidate SIPs that are not adequate to meet the “good neighbor” requirements.
The court had in its earlier ruling vacating CSAPR found EPA's “[federal implementation plan]-first” approach invalid, because EPA did not define states' “good neighbor” obligations for them first, then allow states three years to craft their own plans to meet those obligations. The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit on this point, however.
Industry petitioners in the litigation had argued that EPA could not invalidate existing SIPs that were based on a predecessor trading program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), because the court had only remanded -- and not vacated -- CAIR. The court now finds that EPA was correct to find the CAIR-based SIPs invalid.
Also, the court vindicates EPA's right to rely on computer modeling that certain petitioners objected to, deferring to the agency's technical expertise in this area. The court further finds that a number of other issues were not raised by the rule's critics with sufficient specificity during the public comment period, and consequently the court declines to hear them. For example, petitioners argued in briefing that EPA exceeded its authority by finding linkages based on upwind contributions to downwind locations that were designated in “attainment” of NAAQS or “unclassifiable,” but failed to raise this argument in public comments.
-
Company Chiefs Warn Against Tighter Ozone Limit
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Manufacturing executives yesterday told lawmakers that U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the ozone standard would impose costly burdens.
Leaders from the aluminum, electrical equipment and paint sectors warned that they would be unable to expand to areas of the country named in "nonattainment" with the standard. They urged Congress to try to push EPA to retain the existing standard.
The executives spoke at a roundtable organized by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where their comments fell on the sympathetic ears of the mostly Republican members who attended. Only one Democrat, Rep. Gene Green of Texas, participated.
"This EPA's been more aggressive than any in recent memory," said Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.
EPA in November proposed to tighten the national ambient air quality standard for ozone from 75 parts per billion -- set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb based on a scientific review. The proposal comes after President Obama scuttled a review of the standard in 2011 for economic reasons.
The roundtable followed a pair of recent hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee on the ozone proposal, one of which focused on its potential impacts to the manufacturing sector. Green, who is opposed to EPA's proposal, yesterday said a draft letter calling on the agency to retain the existing standard currently had 150 signatures from House members.
Industry has widely complained about the proposal, arguing that it would impose significant compliance costs and would be difficult to achieve. Executives at the roundtable, which Whitfield said was meant to provide a more informal setting than a hearing, yesterday reiterated those concerns.
Gregory Johnson, director of legislative affairs at the Sherwin-Williams Co., said the paint giant would have to create new technologies and reformulate its existing products if EPA tightens the standard.
"Every hour and dollar that you spend reformulating products or trying to create a product for new regulations is every hour you don't spend trying to create a new innovative product that the market needs," he said.
Chris Norch, president of aluminum casting company Denison Industries, told lawmakers that his firm currently spends about 16 percent of its overhead on maintaining certifications for existing environmental and other regulatory compliance.
He called on EPA to focus on going after companies that hadn't installed controls to meet the 75-ppb limit rather than setting a new standard.
George Williams
Two mayors and an industry attorney joined the executives at the table yesterday. No panelists or Energy and Commerce members spoke in favor of EPA's proposal.
By law, EPA is required to set a national ambient air quality standard based on a level that adequately protects the public from negative health effects.
Public health and environmental groups have urged EPA to set a standard no higher than 60 ppb, pointing to studies showing effects such as reduced lung function occurring at higher levels. EPA's science advisers have also recommended a new standard between 60 and 70 ppb.
The panelists and lawmakers raised questions about the science behind the proposal and brainstormed how to combat the public health messaging.
Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), who was among several GOP health professionals signing a letter earlier this year opposing a tighter standard, charged that public health organizations have used health data "very effectively to promote regulations that may or may not have a benefit on the health of our citizens."
Lawmakers said their messages about economic concerns, though, have been falling on deaf ears.
"We've had a lot of meetings with EPA, and they don't care much what we say," Whitfield said.
Norch of Denison Industries suggested that, in meetings with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, industry make a point to argue that "your grandkids won't have a job if you keep this up."
-
Federal Court Rejects EPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rules
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rewrite rules meant to govern pollution emissions that drift across state lines.
The court ruled Tuesday that the EPA’s 2011 regulations on cross-state sulfur dioxide and ozone emissions are too broad and need to be rewritten. The court did not vacate the emissions budgets the agency had set for states, but asked the EPA to reconsider them instead.
In 2011, the EPA released its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, a regulation blocking up-wind states from emitting enough air pollutants to drift into neighboring states and put them out of compliance with EPA pollution standards.
Several states challenged the rule, arguing that the EPA had exceeded its authority by issuing uniform pollution standards for up-wind states rather than those based on how many pollutants each state actually releases.
The Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s basic formulation of the rule last year, but remanded specific state challenges to the D.C. Circuit Court. Judges there considered challenges to emissions budgets as applied in 15 states and decided that the EPA had overstepped it bounds in issuing the rule.
“EPA’s uniform cost thresholds have required states to reduce pollutants beyond the point necessary” to keep down-wind states in compliance with pollution rules, Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote. “That violates the Supreme Court’s clear mandate.”
The judges decided to keep the EPA’s rules in place but ordered the agency to rewrite the regulations for states that took issue with them. They also rejected broader challenges to the legality of the rule as a whole.
In a statement, an EPA spokeswoman said the agency is "pleased" that the court upheld the bulk of the rule.
"The agency remains committed to working with states and the power sector as we move forward to implement the rule," spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said. "We are reviewing the decision and will determine any appropriate further course of action once our review is complete."
-
Biz Group Launches Multimillion-Dollar Ads Against Ozone Rule
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A major business group launched a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign Tuesday against the Obama administration’s proposal to restrict ground-level ozone pollution limits.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) says it’s taking a more direct and negative approach with its new ads than in previous campaigns against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule, pointing to various national parks that naturally have more pollution than the proposed limits.The group is hoping that the campaign will spur lawmakers to discuss the ozone rule with their constituents during Congress's August recess and cause the Obama administration to rethink its proposal.
“With members of Congress about to head out for recess and D.C. about to slow down, we think it’s time to turn up the volume on that to make sure it’s at the front of everybody’s minds,” said Ross Eisenberg, NAM’s vice president for energy policy.
By highlighting national parks with little human-caused pollution, NAM is trying to show “the absurdity of what the EPA’s proposed,” and that the "EPA’s setting standards that are just out of touch with reality,” Eisenberg said.
The campaign will include television and digital ads, in addition to a newspaper campaign.
The television commercial shows parks including Yosemite and the Grand Canyon that NAM says would violate the EPA’s proposed ozone limit of 70 parts per billion.
“Under new ozone rules out of Washington, these national treasures would actually violate clean air laws,” the narrator says. “If national parks can’t comply, how can your community?”
Ozone is the main component of smog and is a byproduct of various pollutants caused by burning fossil fuels.
The substance has been linked to respiratory ailments including asthma, leading the EPA to predict that restricting it would produce benefits valued at $38 billion and costs of up to $16.6 billion.An environmental group released an analysis Tuesday that similarly found high levels of ozone and other air pollutants in national parks. But the National Parks Conservation Association used its report to blame the pollution on coal-fired power plants, not to criticize the EPA’s proposal. “As Americans flock to our national parks this summer to enjoy the great outdoors, they expect and deserve to find clean, healthy air. Sadly that is not always the case,” Ulla Reeves, manager of the group’s clean air campaign. “Our parks remain under threat from air pollution, harming visitors’ health, reducing visibility, and driving the impacts of climate change.”
NAM disagrees. A study it commissioned predicted that the ozone rule would be the most expensive regulation ever, at $1.1 trillion.
It is a high-stakes fight for the industry and sectors that rely on fossil fuels, because to comply with the rule, states might restrict activities that use fossil fuels.
The EPA has proposed to lower the current limit of 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 parts per billion.
The lower limit of the range would put areas such as Yellowstone, Mesa Verde and Acadia national parks out of compliance, NAM says.
The new campaign will focus initially on the Washington, D.C., area, but the group plans to expand it in the future, Eisenberg said.
The EPA is under a court order to set its final ozone regulation by Oct. 1.
-
Pollution Tech Company Equips Google Cars To Deliver Hyper-Local Air Quality Data
Jul 28, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Angela Fritz
For the very real and detrimental impact that pollution has on our health, air quality is a surprisingly hard thing to measure. In the city, it can vary from block to block, neighborhood to neighborhood, and many times the current network of sensors just doesn’t pick up on fine-scale pollution events that could also lead to a spike in your asthma.
Aclima, a San Francisco-based air quality technology company, aims to address the problem by going mobile. They’ve partnered with Google to equip Street View cars with fully-loaded air quality monitoring stations. Starting this fall, three air quality cars will be buzzing around San Francisco, with the hopes of using the data to inform community decisions and new science and health studies.
While the project is just focused on San Francisco now, the vision is much larger. Imagine that while these Google cars zip around the city taking photos of your neighborhood, they will also be monitoring pollution levels — ozone, carbon monoxide, methane, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds, to name a few — across space and time.
“Many things affect air quality – everything from our transportation and energy choices, to green space and the weather,” said Davida Herzl, Aclima co-founder and CEO. “Understanding these complex relationships is critical to managing and improving air quality.”
There are quite a few metro areas in the U.S. where the weather is dominated by what meteorologists call micro-climates — small areas where weather can be quite different than the surrounding large-scale environment. In the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, the combination of ocean, bay and mountains can lead to daytime temperatures to range from 60 degrees in the city of San Francisco to 90 degrees on the other side of the bay during the summer months.
In addition to making it an interesting place to forecast, the micro-climate phenomenon can also add variability to the air quality from one neighborhood to the next. If air quality sensors that are managed by the Environmental Protection Agency are spaced too far apart, they might miss fine-scale changes in pollution levels, whether because of a localized thunderstorm that’s washing away pollution in one part of the city, or because there’s a big traffic jam on the highway.
“The monitoring network is designed for air quality regulation, but does not give a detailed picture of a community or urban area such that people can get a real sense of what air pollution is around their immediate surroundings,” Aclima said in a press release.
Putting the sensors on cars and releasing them into the wild eliminates the inherently static nature of the monitoring network. “Mobile air quality sensing gives us a picture of the variability. It fills in those missing pixels,” said Melissa Lunden, Director of Research for Aclima. “You can see how traffic patterns impact pollution at a really granular level over the span of a day to a week.”
Aclima and Google have already tested the technology in Denver in 2014 — the cars were in the field for a total of 750 hours, delivering 150 million data points that were verified next to the existing EPA monitoring sites. The field test resulted in a fully-mapped dataset that you can explore through time. It can tell you when the air quality is best and worst in your neighborhood, even on your street.
You can play around with the Denver data in an interactive tool on Aclima’s website.
If you happen to be out in San Francisco and see a Google car, you can tell if it’s crunching air quality data by checking to see if there’s an anemometer on top.
-
6th Circuit Chosen To Hear Appellate Suits Over EPA CWA Jurisdiction Rule
Jul 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has been chosen to hear suits over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, consolidating challenges filed in several circuits and a win for industry groups that asked the 6th Circuit to hear the case -- though any briefing is likely to wait until federal district court cases over the rule are resolved.
While one coal mining company sought review in the 6th Circuit, the court might nevertheless be more inclined to read the CWA expansively than other appellate courts based on the circuit's 2011 ruling in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA. There, a unanimous panel held that the water law mandates discharge permits for pesticides that leave residue in jurisdictional waters, which represented a major loss for agriculture industry groups.
In a July 28 consolidation order, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation held that the 12 pending petitions for appellate review of the CWA jurisdiction rule filed in various circuit courts will be heard in the 6th Circuit, which the coal firm Murray Energy had requested in its July 13 petition for review. The judicial panel holds lotteries to decide which court hears a case when challenges over the same policy are filed in several circuits.
The 6th Circuit will be asked to consider a host of arguments against the rule, which EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released jointly in June. Critics have argued that the rule generally exceeds the agencies' authority under the CWA and is at odds with the Constitution by expanding the reach of the water law. Several suits also claim the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not giving enough time for public input on the policy, and one suit argues the rule should have included a more comprehensive National Environmental Policy Act review.
But it is still uncertain whether the 6th Circuit will ultimately have authority to rule on the merits of those claims, since the CWA says only certain kinds of rules can be challenged through a petition to the circuit courts while others must be litigated beginning in district courts -- and it is unclear which category the jurisdiction rule falls into. That situation has created mounting confusion over how the litigation will ultimately proceed, leading rule opponents to file a host of suits at both the appellate and district levels.
The challengers filed their appellate petitions in multiple circuits because the CWA allows facial challenges against new EPA regulations and some permit decisions to be filed in any federal court of appeals, rather than restricting petitions to just the D.C. Circuit, which hears most suits over other agency actions.
As a result, environmentalists and industry tend to file cases in multiple venues to increase the odds of receiving a venue they believe will be favorable to their arguments. The multidistrict panel then assigns the case at random to one of the courts requested by the parties.
The 6th Circuit was one of five appeals courts preferred by industry and states seeking to narrow the rule; they also filed in the 5th, 8th, 10th and 11th circuits. Environmentalist groups, who have argued that the rule fails to protect some important categories of waters, filed in the 2nd, 9th and D.C. circuits.
Pending Litigation
Sources tracking the suits generally expect EPA and the Corps to push for circuit courts to resolve the case -- in particular because an appeals court ruling that is favorable for the agencies could preclude future as-applied challenges to CWA enforcement actions based on the rule's provisions.
For instance, in the final rule's preamble, EPA and the Corps say, "The Supreme Court and lower courts have reached different conclusions on the types of actions that fall within" the CWA's appellate review mandate, although they do not weigh in on whether it actually does so.
But observers say opponents to the rule seem to be adopting the consensus that the district courts remain the proper venue. For example, the states in State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., in their July 16 petition for review in the 5th Circuit say they are filing for appellate review "only as an abundance of caution," and believe it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Those states also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
In their district court filing, the state plaintiffs say that EPA and the Corps' preamble language suggesting that appellate review might be appropriate is "clearly incorrect as a matter of law.”
They cite a 2012 11th Circuit ruling, Friends of the Everglades v. EPA, in which the court held that EPA's rule barring discharge permits for some water transfers between distinct waterbodies did not pose a "limitation,” which is the broadest category of rules the CWA assigns to circuit courts.
Lawmakers also continue to scrutinize the rule, with Senate Republicans warning that an alleged lack of adequate consultation between EPA and the Corps on the then-pending final rule makes the regulation unlawful.
For example, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) argues that a number of memos that the Corps recently provided him in response to a recent request show that EPA failed to fully consult with the Corps on the rule. “[T]he facts in these documents support my conclusion, and the conclusion of the 30 states that have already filed lawsuits challenging the final [CWA] rule, that the rule is lacking factual, technical and legal support,” Inhofe says in a July 27 letter to the Corps.
-
Advocates, Industry Agree To Stay CWA Suits Seeking Coal Ash Cleanups
Jul 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists and Duke Energy have agreed to stay two pending Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suits aiming to force cleanups of coal ash leaks from the firm's impoundments in North Carolina until a state court rules in separate litigation related to the leaks, and the two cases could be moot if a state judge orders the facilities' closure.
Duke and the advocates filed joint requests to stay the cases July 27, and the requests were approved in separate orders July 28. The push to put the lawsuits on hold comes after the filing of motions in state court litigation where the two sides generally agreed on a proposal to close and clean up the impoundments that are the subject of environmentalists' federal suit, ahead of a hearing set for Sept. 15.
“The Defendant has conferred with the Plaintiffs and all Parties are in agreement that, if the state court issues a Decree with the deadlines and timetable requested by the Plaintiffs, then the issues in the case will be resolved and there is no reason for further proceedings,” Duke said in its unopposed July 27 motion to stay Neuse Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Duke, which is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
If the state court does not back the parties' proposal, including the timeline the advocates have set out, Neuse and its companion suit, Cape Fear River Watch, et al., v. Duke pending before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina will re-start, forcing the judges there to rule on Duke's pending motions to dismiss the cases.
Environmentalist plaintiffs in the suits are asking federal courts to mandate cleanups at ash storage facilities in North Carolina that the environmentalists say were found to be leaking into groundwater after the high-profile spill of 39,000 tons of coal ash from a fourth site into the state’s Dan River earlier this year. They hope to win stricter remediation than North Carolina is seeking in its ongoing state court case.
Duke has countered that the environmentalists' federal court claims are redundant with North Carolina's own enforcement actions, which it is conducting in state court, and asked the federal courts to stay the citizen suits until the state court rules.
The advocates have tried to avoid that outcome, arguing in briefs that they are pursuing separate legal violations from the state action, but now appear to be satisfied with the closure plan pending before that court.
“Since the Defendant itself is committed to providing the relief sought by the Conservation Case Groups and by the Complaints in these cases . . . there would remain no reason in law or in fact to continue the litigation,” Duke's motion quotes the groups as saying, although it notes that they are seeking “deadlines and timetables” for closure that Duke itself has not requested.
The two Duke suits represent some of the most prominent CWA citizen suits environmentalists have yet filed against coal ash facility operators. The groups have said they will continue to prosecute such cases even though EPA has published a final coal ash disposal rule, which advocates have challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Environmentalists say the rule is too weak because it does not strictly regulate ash as hazardous waste and exempts some closed impoundments, saying it underscores the need for citizen suits over leaks and spills.
Meanwhile, Duke announced July 16 that it is working with the Electric Power Research Institute to develop a study on coal ash reuse technologies and market opportunities for the material.
Industry has touted the disposal rule's designation of coal ash as “solid waste” as supporting ash reuse, which groups have argued reduces the amount of waste sent to impoundments like Duke's. “This study will investigate reprocessing technologies to make ash more suitable for reuse as well as other recycling applications,” Duke said in a release announcing the study.
-
Wildlife Federation Intends to Sue Over Oil Pipelines
Jul 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
The National Wildlife Federation said it filed a notice of intent to sue the Transportation Department over “decades-long oversight failures” involving oil pipelines in violation of the Clean Water Act and a 1991 executive order.
The notice, filed July 28, said the department has failed to issue regulations requiring owners of offshore pipelines to submit plans for responding to “worst-case” discharge scenarios. That means “every U.S. oil pipeline that intersects a navigable water is operating illegally,” the NWF said in a statement announcing the filing.
The group asked the DOT to issue regulations for oil pipelines in water and to require every owner and operator of an oil pipeline in navigable water to submit a safety response plan for approval.
“We hope today's action will be a catalyst for long-overdue protections that benefit people, communities and wildlife,” Mike Shriberg, regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes Regional Center, said on a July 28 conference call with reporters. If the department doesn't take “corrective action” within 60 days, the NWF will file suit in a U.S. district court, Neil Kagan, senior counsel for the group, said on the call.
The department violated its responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act—part of the Clean Water Act —and Executive Order 12,777, which was put in place after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Kagan said.
The department, he said, agreed to accept responsibility for promulgating regulations for oil-spill response plans in navigable waters landward of a coastline but never did so.
“This has created a problem nationwide,” Kagan said. “Every owner and operator of a pipeline in navigable waters was required to have a plan no later than August 1995.” DOT gave the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration authority over onshore pipelines but never dealt with the underwater portions of those lines, he said.
Problem Discovered While Doing Research
NWF discovered the problem while doing research on a 62-year-old pipeline operated by Enbridge Inc. that spans the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan, Kagan said.
In looking at the plan Enbridge filed with PHMSA, “it became apparent that plan was developed solely to comply with the regulations that exist for onshore pipelines, and PHMSA limited its approval only to those sections of the pipeline that were on the land,” Kagan said.
NWF and others said the aging Enbridge pipeline is a threat to the Great Lakes and surrounding areas (102 DEN A-8, 5/28/15).
A state of Michigan task force, after a yearlong review of the line, came out with a report recommending further study but stopped short of calling for an immediate shutdown (135 DEN A-12, 7/15/15).
“We're filing the notice of intent, which is not required, in order to give the Department of Transportation time to respond to this, and we hope they'll take swift action,” Shriberg said.
The group said the notice is “the first legal action” in its effort to protect the Great Lakes from a potential spill from Line 5, the Enbridge pipeline running through the straits.
DOT officials couldn't be reached for comment July 28. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
-
Wildlife Group Threatens Lawsuit Over Pipeline Safety
Jul 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) says it will sue the federal government over what it considers lax enforcement of pipeline safety laws.
The NWF is filing an intent to sue notice against the Department of Transportation (DOT), the group announced Tuesday, arguing the department has not properly authorized pipeline projects in the United States for almost 25 years.A 1990 law enacted after the Exxon Valdez oil spill requires the DOT to approve pipeline operator response plans for worst-case oil spills.
The group contends that the department never established protocols to meet those requirements, and has thus never formally authorized pipelines that traverse rivers, lakes or other navigable waters.
"The Department of Transportation’s failure to even require such plans therefore is a huge oversight,” said National Wildlife Federation senior counsel Neil Kagan said.
“The U.S. Department of Transportation needs to act with urgency and purpose to provide the long-overdue protection of our country’s rivers and lakes mandated by the Oil Pollution Act.”
Citing federal data, NWF said oil pipelines cross inland bodies of water at 5,110 locations in the United States. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has found 20 accidents involving those crossings since 1991.
NWF said their push is meant to pressure the federal government to protect the Great Lakes from potential accidents at two pipelines under the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan.
“We hope today’s action will be a catalyst for long-overdue protections that benefit people, communities, and wildlife,” said Mike Shriberg, regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Regional Center.
“The federal government needs to enforce the law to prevent oil pipeline disasters from fouling our water and threatening our communities and iconic places."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested