Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Blog) New #ACCaugust Initiative Kicks Grassroots Advocacy into High Gear
Jul 29, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Marcus Branstad
When you think of summer, the beach, state fairs, and family vacations usually come to mind. Here at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), however, our summer means something a little different—opportunity. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/07/new-accaugust-initiative-kicks-grassroots-advocacy-into-high-gear/ -
US NTP Releases Guide to Preparing Carcinogen Monographs
Jul 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has released its Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens (RoC) Monographs. -
Watchdog Panel OKs Cybersecurity Bill, Punts on Reg Reform
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E- Greenwire
By Katherine Ling
The Senate's government watchdog panel today voted to advance bills to improve security against cyber and grid infrastructure and access to federally funded research but delayed several measures addressing regulatory reform -
EPA to Relax Deadlines in Climate Rule
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is poised to change some deadlines for states to comply with its climate rule for power plants when the regulation is made final. -
Obama Climate Plan to Give States More Time for Cuts
Jul 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
The Obama administration is preparing to release its landmark climate change regulation with at least one significant concession to its critics — delaying the initial deadline for states to begin cutting the greenhouse gas pollution from their power plants. -
The EPA's Risky Clean Power Plant Rule
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Mark R. Maddox
It's a rare day that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not in the news as its tentacles reach far and wide, its issues span the policy grid and its rule-making can be relentless. -
EPA Poised to Push Carbon Rule Compliance to 2022, According to Agency Document
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA appears to be leaning toward giving states an extra two years -- until 2022 -- to start cutting carbon emissions from power plants under a final Clean Power Plan rule expected to be rolled out as early as Monday. -
McDonough: 'We Won't Back Down' on 'Stronger' EPA Climate Rule
Jul 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The White House will fight any Republican effort to undermine the EPA’s forthcoming final climate rule, President Barack Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough said today. -
'We Will Not Back Down' on Power Plan -- White House
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
President Obama is prepared to defend U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan with his veto pen, even if riders come attached to must-pass legislation, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said this morning. -
269 Business Goups Ask Obama to Scuttle Ozone Rule
|
-
Opponents of Obama Climate Rule Dismiss Extended Deadlines
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Opponents of the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants are panning revisions to the regulations, arguing the proposal will still inflict serious pain on the economy. -
Health Advocates Push for 'Strong' Standards in Clean Power Plan
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
In the countdown to the release of the Clean Power Plan, advocates are crossing their fingers for strong provisions to protect health. -
Disagreements Over How to Count New Reactors Continue Ahead of Final Rule
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
It's no secret that the utilities building nuclear reactors in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee hope U.S. EPA handles those projects differently when the final Clean Power Plan rule is released. -
Dems Sum Up GOP's Climate Change Plan with a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action Blog
By Jordain Carney
Senate Democrats slammed Republicans on climate change Wednesday, summing up the party's plan to combat the environmental challenge with a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. -
Clinton ‘Skeptical’ About Arctic Drilling
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Hillary Clinton said she has “doubts” about whether oil and natural gas drilling should be allowed in the Arctic Ocean.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Blog) New #ACCaugust Initiative Kicks Grassroots Advocacy into High Gear
Jul 29, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Marcus Branstad
When you think of summer, the beach, state fairs, and family vacations usually come to mind. Here at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), however, our summer means something a little different—opportunity. During the month of August when Washington, DC slows down and Congress heads home for recess, the state affairs and political mobilization teams will fan out across the country to create opportunities to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative we’re calling #ACCaugust.
Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX-36) at Dow in 2015
Across America, the $801 billion business of chemistry is driving innovation and job creation. Our industry alone provides over 800,000 skilled, good-paying American jobs, plus nearly six million related jobs. With #ACCaugust, ACC and our members will show our elected officials exactly how critical chemistry is to our global, national, state, and local economies.
Through plant tours, in-district meetings, and industry roundtable discussions, we will meet with Members of Congress and showcase the vital importance of our industry where it matters the most—in their districts. Whether we are giving a tour of a local chemical facility to a Senator in Wyoming or sitting down at a roundtable discussion with a Congresswoman from Alabama, #ACCaugust will illustrate our ability to raise elected officials’ awareness of our member companies and the vital products they manufacture.
Rep. Pete Vicklosky (D-IL-1) at Dover Chemical Company
In DC, schedules are tight, and meetings are short and generally held with congressional staff. The August recess gives us the opportunity to interact with the elected officials in their districts and showcase the great work being done by their constituents in the business of chemistry. Already in 2015, ACC has engaged 112 member companies, organized 48 in-state/district meetings, facilitated 141 ACC member company CEO letters on TSCA reform, and enabled over 2,500 grassroots letters to be sent. We are not done yet!
This August, be sure to check ACC’s Twitter @AmChemistry, blog American Chemistry Matters, and Facebook page to follow our #ACCaugust adventures as we travel across America highlighting the business of chemistry—one congressional district at a time.
- See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/07/new-accaugust-initiative-kicks-grassroots-advocacy-into-high-gear/#sthash.GRmAxQJJ.dpuf
-
US NTP Releases Guide to Preparing Carcinogen Monographs
Jul 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has released its Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens (RoC) Monographs.
It includes methods for:planning for an evaluation;conducting literature searches;assessing study quality and sensitivity of individual studies;synthesising evidence across cancer studies to reach preliminary level of evidence conclusions;evaluating mechanistic and other relevant data; andevidence integration to reach a preliminary listing recommendation.
The NTP says it is a living document that can be refined to:incorporate new systematic review tools;harmonise with systematic review methods used by other scientists, and from lessons learned from conducting cancer hazard evaluations on candidate substances with more diverse databases.
The RoC is a science-based public heath document, that the NTP prepares for the secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
The Office of the RoC, based in the NTP, produces monographs – literature-based review documents that capture any cancer hazard evaluation – for each substance evaluated for listing in the report.
-
Watchdog Panel OKs Cybersecurity Bill, Punts on Reg Reform
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E- Greenwire
By Katherine Ling
The Senate's government watchdog panel today voted to advance bills to improve security against cyber and grid infrastructure and access to federally funded research but delayed several measures addressing regulatory reform.
The Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee approved a package of bills en bloc by voice vote that includes: S. 1846, to protect the electric grid from electromagnetic disturbances created by solar storms or nuclear weapons; S. 779, to direct federal agencies to ease access to federally funded research; and H.R. 1531, to make people serving time-limited appointments for land management agencies eligible for permanent jobs in their agency or any other agency (E&E Daily, July 27).
The committee also approved S. 1869 to authorize an intrusion detection and prevention system known as EINSTEIN to screen federal agencies' traffic on the Internet for cybersecurity threats.
Members adopted several amendments to the bill primarily aimed at protecting users' privacy so any nonsecurity-related information was not retained and to provide the Department of Homeland Security greater authority to act against imminent attacks and to enforce steps to prevent attacks.
The authors of several bills aiming to boost efficiency and transparency in the federal regulatory process, however, were not able to find the broad bipartisan support for their measures and decided to withdraw them for further discussions.
S. 708, offered by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), had broad bipartisan committee support for a temporary panel appointed by congressional leadership and the president to review regulations and recommend steps to streamline, consolidate or eliminate regulations, Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said. But the threshold for Senate adoption -- a simple majority vote or 60-vote supermajority -- was a serious point of contention, he said.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said deciding in the bill how the Senate would adopt the commission recommendations would likely torpedo passage of the legislation, even though the general idea had broad bipartisan support, and it would be better to remain silent on that point and allow the Senate procedural rules to dictate passage. She said negotiations on all sides of the bill are ongoing and would likely come to an agreement before a possible committee markup currently slated for September.
Similarly, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) withdrew S. 1607, a bill to require independent regulatory agencies to submit rules for standard cost-and-benefit analysis in order to work on further negotiations with Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) and other members who are interested in supporting a modified bill, he said.
Heitkamp and Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) also withdrew S. 1817 and S. 1820 with an eye toward working out "only a few words and phrases" that are controversial with the Office of Budget Management and other committee members before a September markup, Lankford said.
S. 1817 would require agencies crafting new rules to include a plan for retrospective review, and S. 1820 would mandate that agencies alert the public 90 days before publishing most draft rules.
-
EPA to Relax Deadlines in Climate Rule
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is poised to change some deadlines for states to comply with its climate rule for power plants when the regulation is made final.
According to a document posted Tuesday to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) website, administration officials are planning to unveil the final carbon reduction plan Monday, with the first deadline for states’ interim carbon goals pushed back.
EnergyWire first reported on the document, which the EPA removed after the news service asked about it. The New York Times separately reported the same schedule for the regulation, citing people familiar with the changes.
Both that change, and pushing back the date for states to submit compliance plans, will come in an effort to allay the fears of some states and utilities who told the administration that the original deadlines are too disruptive.
The climate rule is the main pillar of Obama’s second-term push to fight climate change, and it is highly controversial among conservative states, congressional Republicans, the fossil fuel industry and others.
Each state will be required to cuts the carbon emissions from its power sector by a specific amount that would add up to 30 percent by 2030 for the entire country.
But states are also assigned an interim carbon target. In the rule proposed last June, the EPA had envisioned the interim target’s compliance in 2020, but that will now be 2022.
States will also have until 2017 to submit compliance plans, a year later than first proposed.
The upcoming announcement will also set carbon emissions limits for newly-built coal-fired power plants, as proposed in 2013.
Additionally, the EPA will propose a template for how it will impose compliance plans upon states that do not want to implement the rules, or whose compliance plans are not sufficient.
EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said the agency would not comment on the rule until the final version is finished.
— This story was updated at 10:10 a.m.
-
Obama Climate Plan to Give States More Time for Cuts
Jul 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
The Obama administration is preparing to release its landmark climate change regulation with at least one significant concession to its critics — delaying the initial deadline for states to begin cutting the greenhouse gas pollution from their power plants.
The EPA would push the deadline back to 2022, instead of 2020 as the administration initially proposed last summer, a source familiar with the rule told POLITICO late Tuesday. But the ultimate 2030 deadline for states to achieve their final pollution cuts will remain in effect, the source said.
The plan, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda and his hopes to achieve a global climate deal, would for the first time seek cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s fossil power plants while spurring the growth of renewable electricity sources such as wind and solar. The rule could come out as soon as Monday.
The 2020 deadline was one of the plan’s most-criticized aspects, drawing warnings from states that moving so fast could threaten the reliability of the nation’s electricity supply, and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy had said months ago that she was willing to revisit the date. The agency hasn’t said whether it will offer concessions on other parts of the plan, such as a 2013 proposal that all new coal-fired power plants be required to install expensive, novel technology to capture and store their carbon emissions.
In conjunction with postponing the 2020 deadline, the administration will also roll out incentives to encourage states to deploy green energy and energy efficiency programs before 2022, the source said.
None of the changes has any chance of stemming the barrage of criticism that the plan has drawn from Republicans and coal-state Democrats in Congress, who have denounced the entire set of regulations as a “war on coal” that would send electricity prices skyrocketing, continue an ongoing wave of shutdowns of coal-burning power plants and fail to do much to stem global warming. Some Republican governors and state Legislatures have also vowed to resist the plan, with the encouragement of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The New York Times and The Washington Post had initially reported the delaying of the 2020 deadline late Tuesday night. The states will also get another year, until 2018, to submit those final plans to EPA.
Many states and utilities have complained that the 2020 deadline was too early and could threaten the stability of the power grid if coal-fired power plants were taken off line too quickly or if wind and solar sources grew too quickly. Opponents have also filed legal challenges against the proposed carbon-capturing requirement, accusing the EPA of violating federal law by proposing to mandate an untested technology.
With the initial compliance deadline delayed by two years to 2022, the Obama administration was looking for a way to keep states from sitting on their hands. So early-adopted states that make clean energy efforts in 2020 will get extra credit toward complying with the final rule, the source said.
“It was an idea born to help accelerate the deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency in states so that … there’s a reason for them to get an early start toward meeting their early compliance goals,” the source said.
The source expects a “snowball effect” from the incentives and other components of the final rule to help states meet and surpass their targets.
Another person briefed by the White House on Tuesday said administration officials stressed the importance of increased renewable energy use to comply with emissions goals. The timing of the release is “imminent,” but depends on the president’s schedule, the source said.
EPA for months has said that it was taking a hard look at the first compliance deadline, and a two-year delay means the administration may sacrifice little in overall emissions reductions while acknowledging the states’ logistical and planning issues. It is unclear how the states individual pollution-cutting goals may change in the final rule, or if the administration will change its overall goal by 2030 that the nation’s power plants produce 30 percent less carbon that they had in 2005.
More broadly, Republicans and industry critics have complained that the rule exceeds the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act because goes well beyond requiring pollution controls at the power plants themselves. Instead, it allows states to comply using steps such as offering incentives for energy conservation or quicker deployment of wind and solar power, and opens the door to states joining in regional cap-and-trade compacts.
The White House has declined to comment about details of the rule or its planned rollout.
-
The EPA's Risky Clean Power Plant Rule
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Mark R. Maddox
It's a rare day that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not in the news as its tentacles reach far and wide, its issues span the policy grid and its rule-making can be relentless. One of its most recent scuffles involves the EPA's Clean Power Plant rule. It has struck a nerve in part because it fails to take into account the many risk factors involved. It's worth spending a minute on what the rule does, what's at stake and why it matters.
First, it’s important to understand what happens at a carbon sequestration facility: Coal is heated and turned into gas at which point the carbon is stripped out and the gas burned. The gasification process, called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), and the carbon capture process are considered advanced technology. When these commercially unproven technologies are used together, the risk is multiplied. As well, there is the challenge of how to dispose of the captured carbon, which can be done either through underground sequestration or by selling the carbon for enhanced oil recovery.
It's also extremely expensive, which leads to my second point. Building an advanced technology plant, commonly referred to as a "big metal" project, is both extremely difficult and costly. I was reminded of these facts when briefing then-Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman about the FutureGen Carbon Capture and Sequestration Project. With a background in both finance and engineering, Bodman was not only smart but realistic about timelines and budgets. He interrupted my budget presentation and predicted that any number I had should be doubled and teased that he would gladly entertain a bet of my choosing. He was right, of course. When the Department of Energy (DOE) canceled FutureGen, cost estimates had escalated 50 percent and not one speck of dirt had been moved.
The following examples underscore the secretary's assessment.
Regarding the challenge of building an advanced plant on time and on budget is Southern Company's Kemper Plant in Mississippi. This high profile effort, which in full disclosure received a grant from DOE's Fossil Energy Program when I headed the program, has ballooned from $2.2 billion to $6.1 billion and its startup date has been pushed back repeatedly. This spring, the Mississippi Power subsidiary of Southern Company filed for a 41 percent rate increase to offset ballooning construction costs.
A second example is the Duke Edwardsport plant in Indiana. The costs of this stand-alone IGCC project have risen from $1.9 billion to $3.5 billion. While technically up and running, it has been operating well below capacity. Like Mississippi, the Indiana regulators are trying to figure out an equitable solution as to who pays for the cost overruns — consumers or Duke.
Expanding beyond coal, the experience of Georgia Power building an expansion at its nuclear site is another example of the risks of big metal construction projects. Currently, construction is 39 months behind schedule and cost overruns are approaching $2 billion.
With this kind of track record, it's not hard to see why a utility management team would be resistant to taking on the risk and the financing challenges. If entities like Duke and Southern Company, which pride themselves — for good reason — on their engineering excellence, cannot deliver a project on time and on budget, one can only imagine the skepticism of investors in reviewing upcoming projects.
The industry joke is that companies want to build "a fifth of a kind, not the first of a kind" — a sentiment, not surprisingly, that is shared by state public service commissions that are responsible for protecting ratepayers and want to keep rates low. There have been multiple states that have rejected IGCC plants — Ohio and Wisconsin to name just two — because the costs were simply unpredictable.
Which brings us back to the EPA and its push for advanced technology. To be deployable, a new power plant has to have a reasonable technology risk, be financially viable and have the regulatory support of the appropriate state regulatory commission. The EPA's rule, which is dependent on the deployment of carbon sequestration plants, fails these critical criteria.
And that is the fatal flaw in the EPA's plan. There is simply no path forward to deploying the technology it envisions in its rule. The agency would be better advised to revise its rule to phase in forward-leaning technology that is proven in the marketplace and which has a measurable amount of risk.
Maddox has held several senior positions at the Department of Energy and is a consultant to the Livingston Group.
-
EPA Poised to Push Carbon Rule Compliance to 2022, According to Agency Document
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA appears to be leaning toward giving states an extra two years -- until 2022 -- to start cutting carbon emissions from power plants under a final Clean Power Plan rule expected to be rolled out as early as Monday.
The rule will also provide more time for states to submit final plans, according to atimeline E&E obtained that was posted to EPA's website.
Moving out the compliance dates could strengthen support from states friendly to the Obama administration's climate plan and assuage the concerns of some critics. Across the political spectrum, state officials and energy companies have said more time is a concession EPA could grant in a final rule that would make it easier to cut greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 (ClimateWire, July 27).
The significant changes are reflected in a PowerPoint slide prepared by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, housed at the Research Triangle Park near Durham, N.C.
The slide was last modified Friday, July 24, according to digital records, by an employee who has been at the heart of the Clean Power Plan's development. It was taken down from the EPA website yesterday afternoon after E&E made an inquiry about its contents.
EPA officials declined to speak on the record about the slide because the rule is not yet final. The slide notes a release date of Aug. 3 for the final rule.
Advertisement
It still calls for states to meet emissions goals under the rule by Jan. 1, 2030. But it extends the time states have to craft plans, requiring an "initial" state plan by Sept. 6, 2016, and a "final" state plan by Sept. 6, 2018.
The compliance dates are important in part because of global climate negotiations starting at the end of November. At the U.N.-sponsored Paris talks, the Obama administration is expected to point to the carbon regulations as evidence the United States is moving aggressively to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental groups could be miffed by a final rule that pushes out compliance dates if it means a slower pace of cutting emissions through 2030.
States that unsuccessfully sued in a federal court to stop the release of a final rule could view the time extension as still not enough time to replace coal-fired power plants and ensure electric grid reliability. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a coal advocate, earlier this year urged governors to refuse to submit a state plan for cutting emissions. Still, there have been ongoing discussions among state officials, EPA and the White House about how to ease compliance while ensuring states are on paths to meet emissions targets.
In the draft rule, EPA originally required states to submit plans or requests for one-year extensions by 2016. Meanwhile, states working on multi-state plans to cut emissions could submit their proposals in 2018. Some states are considering coordinating informally and had asked EPA to allow them the same extra time as states working on multi-state plans. The change to the final rule would give those groups of states equal time to put together final plans.
The most significant change shown in the timeline pushes out the first emissions reduction requirements to Jan. 1, 2022, two years from the 2020 date originally proposed by the administration.
The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing the rule and did not respond to requests for comment. If OMB approves the new timeline, that would address some concerns about the Clean Power Plan's interim goals stretching from 2020 and 2029. States like Arizona have said the interim goals would amount to a regulatory "cliff," because they would require the shutdown of most or all coal-fired power plants by 2020.
Many sources have said the release date would be Aug. 4. But the Aug. 3 date was also affirmed in a memo to stakeholders from Eric Massey, director of the Air Quality Division of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
Massey, in a memo, canceled a scheduled Aug. 4 meeting of its Clean Power Plan stakeholder group.
"Thanks to your ongoing participation and attention to the ADEQ stakeholder process, Arizona is well-positioned to respond to the upcoming EPA CPP rule," he wrote.
"The final rule now appears to be slated for an August 3rd announcement," Massey wrote.
In a subsequent interview, Massey said he was unsure now of the Aug. 3 date and that it could be later.
-
McDonough: 'We Won't Back Down' on 'Stronger' EPA Climate Rule
Jul 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The White House will fight any Republican effort to undermine the EPA’s forthcoming final climate rule, President Barack Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough said today.
“When it comes to the Clean Power Plan, let me say this: We will not back down. We will finalize a stronger rule,” he said, speaking at an event hosted by The New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “We’ll veto ideological riders to stop this plan or undercut our bedrock environmental laws. And we’ll move forward on behalf of the American people with the vision set forward by the president.”
McDonough also lamented the “stale chorus” of opposition saying that some GOP and industry leaders “have already made up their mind” on this rule. “We know what to expect from them. It’s a well-worn playbook of scary tactics that are used again and again.”
McDonough offered no details about the release of the final rule other than to say it would be “soon.”
The new rule is expected to be released as early as Monday.
“It’ll be stronger in many ways than the proposed rule put forward by EPA by encouraging rapid deployment of the cleanest forms of energy while giving states and utilities the flexibility they need to craft plans that meet their unique needs,” he said. “It will set long-term market signals, drive innovation and investment and support of where the world is headed, not locked in where it’s been.”
“There’s not a more important and pressing issue on the president’s agenda than climate,” McDonough said. -
'We Will Not Back Down' on Power Plan -- White House
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
President Obama is prepared to defend U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan with his veto pen, even if riders come attached to must-pass legislation, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said this morning.
Speaking at an event in Washington, D.C., hosted by New Republic, McDonough said the president anticipated Republicans would launch a host of attacks against the carbon rule for existing power plants.
"When it comes to the Clean Power Plan, let me say this: We will not back down. We will finalize a stronger rule, we'll veto ideological riders to stop this plan and undercut our bedrock environmental laws, and we'll move forward for the American people with the vision set by the president," he said.
The rule is widely expected to be final as early as Monday, with Obama personally involved in its rollout. A summary from EPA obtained yesterday by ClimateWire shows that the interim compliance plan may have been extended compared with last year's draft to begin two years later, in 2022 (ClimateWire, July 29).
But McDonough said this morning that the final rule overall would be "stronger in many ways than the proposed rule put forward by EPA by encouraging rapid deployment of the cleanest forms of energy while giving states and utilities the flexibility they need to craft plans that meet their unique needs."
In addition to phasing in the near-term compliance period in 2022 rather than 2020, states would be granted additional time to submit state implementation plans to EPA. Where the draft required states to begin submitting plans next year, the summary showed EPA requiring an "initial" state plan by Sept. 6, 2016, and a "final" state plan by Sept. 6, 2018. Recent news coverage hints that EPA will pair these extensions with incentives for states that opt to hit their interim targets earlier.
EPA declined to comment for this story.
McDonough predicted that Capitol Hill Republicans would operate from a "well-worn playbook" of assaults they have used on previous rules, ranging from dire predictions about economic costs to efforts to load policy riders on any legislation likely to move.
"We know what to expect from them," he said.
Republicans provided a preview of their fall strategy for stalling the Clean Power Plan and rules for new and existing power plants earlier this week, when they proposed several amendments to a highway transportation funding bill moving through the Senate. The amendments filed by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) contained elements of a larger bill by Capito that would allow states to put off submitting SIPs to EPA until judicial review on the rule has concluded, or opt out of the rule altogether.
Speaking at the event, focused mostly on this year's round of high-stakes U.N. negotiations in Paris, McDonough pledged that the United States would be a leader in securing an international climate deal.
He especially touted last year's joint post-2020 pledges with China that constituted that nation's first solid promise to stop growing its greenhouse gas emissions.
"And since that historic commitment, the president has made sure that climate change and the need for climate action has been included in every bilateral and multilateral engagement that he has inducted," he said.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said this morning that EPA's apparent bid to push back the date when states would be forced to submit compliance plans to EPA appeared to be politically motivated.
"I think it's interesting that once again you push something beyond election time so that you don't get people too troubled and opposed to you," she said at a meeting of her committee. "So I kind of view it as political. I know that's shocking."
She said the apparent adjustments would not gain the support of lawmakers who previously opposed the power plant rule. "So I don't think that that goes away; maybe the imperative, the urgency kind of settles a little bit," she said. "But I think you're still going to have folks that are still very concerned about its application in their state. I know in Alaska we are."
Some supporters of the rule, meanwhile, did not appear to be sweating the slight extension. The American Lung Association, which has been a staunch supporter of EPA's efforts to limit carbon, responded to the morning's news by applauding EPA.
Harold Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement that the "final plan, as described in press accounts, appears to be a robust approach to reduce carbon pollution from power plants."
"We are encouraged to learn that there are incentives for states to act quickly," he said. "The American Lung Association will work with states to maximize the immediate health benefits from power plant cleanup."
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
-
269 Business Goups Ask Obama to Scuttle Ozone Rule
|
-
Opponents of Obama Climate Rule Dismiss Extended Deadlines
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Opponents of the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants are panning revisions to the regulations, arguing the proposal will still inflict serious pain on the economy.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to give states an extra two years to comply with the first power plant carbon reductions required under the rule, and give them an extra year to submit their compliance plans.
But Republicans, the coal industry and others fighting the administration’s action say the problems with the regulations go far beyond deadlines.
“No,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said when asked whether the alterations to the rule changes his opinion about it.
“If it’s bad this month, it’s going to be just as bad next month,” he said.
Inhofe’s colleagues agreed.
“They ought to get rid of the entire rule,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a member of the panel. “They’ve gone way beyond their authority under current law. It’s going to hurt jobs, hurt the economy and make energy more expensive for American families.”
Both of the senators representing coal-heavy West Virginia said that the damage from the rule is already being felt.
“A lot of coal-fired plants that could have been retrofitted have not been,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
“We’re still under serious duress,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a member of the environment panel. “We’ve lost a lot, but we’ve still got a lot more that’s going to hit us.”
Capito is the main sponsor of a Senate bill to overturn the climate rule and make it difficult for the EPA to rewrite it.
The country’s main coal industry lobby had a similar take.
“In issuing the regulations, the administration will have ignored the concerns of members of Congress, leaders in a super-majority of states, citizens from coast to coast, businesses of every size, policy experts, regulators and legal experts,” Laura Sheehan, a spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said in a statement. “Should the EPA move forward to issue these regulations as final, we will do everything in our power to get them thrown out.”
A person familiar with the rule confirmed Wednesday morning that the deadline for the first round of emissions cuts would move to 2022 when the rule comes out next week. That’s two years later than the original proposal.
But the EPA will also implement a program starting in 2020 to incentivize states to comply early, letting them earn credit toward the rule’s requirements for deploying clean energy technologies, especially in low-income areas, the person said.
Supporters of the EPA’s rule were not bothered by the Wednesday reports, saying they’re confident the Obama administration will come out with a strong rule to limit carbon emissions from power plants.
“The final plan, as described in press accounts, appears to be a robust approach to reduce carbon pollution from power plants,” Harold Wimmer, president of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “We are encouraged to learn that there are incentives for states to act quickly.”
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) declined to say whether he agrees with the changes, but said revisions to such a sweeping regulatory plan are to be expected.
“I’m not in a position to judge whether it’s reasonable, but it’s not something that is unexpected,” he said. “So I have a lot of confidence in EPA and the process they’re using.”
-
Health Advocates Push for 'Strong' Standards in Clean Power Plan
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
In the countdown to the release of the Clean Power Plan, advocates are crossing their fingers for strong provisions to protect health.
"Breathing is essential to life, and for that reason we are fighting climate change," explained Harold Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung Association, during a conference call yesterday.
He noted that most sources of pollution that impairs breathing -- like soot, ozone and nitrogen oxides -- also produce carbon dioxide, so driving down greenhouse gas emissions has immediate health benefits. "Until a strong, final Clean Power Plan is in place, power plants will continue to pump out unlimited carbon pollution," Wimmer said.
It's a recurring argument that forms the crux of the Obama administration's campaign for cutting carbon emissions from existing power plants (ClimateWire, June 3).
U.S. EPA projected that the Clean Power Plan will avert 2,100 heart attacks and 100,000 asthma attacks in the first year it goes into effect. By 2030, the rules will avert 6,600 premature deaths.
"With benefits like this, we are eager to see a strong final Clean Power Plan," Wimmer added.
What constitutes "strong"?
"Quantifiable, nonduplicative standards," said Lyndsay Moseley Alexander, assistant vice president and director of the Healthy Air Campaign at the American Lung Association. At the top of the wish list are unique hard targets for state emissions reductions verified through measurements and better health outcomes in a process spelled out by EPA in the final rule.Reports call for less coal use
The Clean Power Plan's pending release comes in the wake of recent high-profile research cementing the links between climate change and human health. A report last month in the journal The Lancet warned that rising temperatures could undercut 50 years of public health improvements (ClimateWire, June 23).
A subsequent report found that humanity's impact on the planet and ensuing harm to health will be so large that a new field of medicine is necessary to address it (ClimateWire, July 17).
"The response has been overwhelmingly positive," said Nick Watts, who led the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change. He noted that the reports both advocated that policymakers shift away from coal-fired power generation as fast as possible.
During the transition, governments can restructure their health systems and infrastructure to better adapt to climate change and shrink their environmental footprints, all while helping people live longer, healthier lives.
In particular, Watts said the world is watching the United States to see how the country assembles a strategy to cope with climate change. This scrutiny is also a chance for the United States to lead by example as other countries put together their proposals in the run-up to the international climate negotiations in Paris later this year.
"Responding to climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity in the 21st century," Watts said.
-
Disagreements Over How to Count New Reactors Continue Ahead of Final Rule
Jul 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
It's no secret that the utilities building nuclear reactors in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee hope U.S. EPA handles those projects differently when the final Clean Power Plan rule is released.
EPA considered those reactors already up and running when the agency calculated goals for those states in the proposed plan, which asks states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by various amounts by 2030. Completing those emission-free projects is key to compliance, the utilities argue, and those reactors should be able to count toward state goals.
Electric companies, utility regulators, attorneys general and other officials in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee will be watching closely to see whether EPA listened to their pleas when the final rule is released, which could be as early as next week. But attorneys with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) disagree with such an assessment, arguing that building the nation's first new nuclear reactors in nearly three decades happened for other reasons.
"The decision to undertake those projects did not have anything to do with the Clean Power Plan," said Frank Rambo, the head of SELC's air and energy team.
"If those companies were really looking for zero-carbon resources, we think the less-costly and less-risky resources are being ignored," he said in an interview with EnergyWire.
Southern Co.'s Georgia Power subsidiary and SCANA Corp.'s South Carolina Electric & Gas company are building twin reactors at existing nuclear sites. The projects were to kick-start a new wave of nuclear projects in the United States, but that hasn't happened, largely due to rock-bottom natural gas prices and other economic factors.
Advertisement
Separately, Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar 2 reactor is set to start operating at the end of the year after a protracted construction process.
All three utilities tout the nuclear reactors as providing long-term, low-cost baseload electricity to its customers. These reactors became all the more important last year when EPA released its proposed greenhouse gas rule that targets existing power plants, placing the focus on emission-free electricity such as nuclear and renewable energy.
Southern, SCANA, TVA and the states where they operate want EPA to give them credit for being early movers on nuclear. Each also has taken steps to reduce carbon emissions, transitioning away from generating electricity from coal and using more natural gas.
When it comes to renewables, Georgia Power has captured headlines for having nearly 1 gigawatt of solar on the grid by the end of 2016 and having a long-term agreement for wind power. Its sister utilities in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi plan to add solar and wind in various amounts.
SCE&G will have more solar on the grid because of a state law designed to boost renewables. TVA is targeting solar and wind as well as other renewables as part of its long-term energy plan that was recently released (EnergyWire, July 14).
In a preview of possible changes to look for in the final rule, Rambo pointed out that the momentum behind adding emission-free electricity and shutting down coal plants is already there. EPA's Clean Power Plan simply pushes those things along.
"We're not talking about the CPP triggering some seismic event in the electricity sector," he said. "These things that are reducing CO2 in the electricity sector are happening."No price spikes for Southeast -- study
Additional momentum is building, especially in the Southeast, for states to say "no" to the rule. A chief reason is cost. Elected officials, utilities and some consumer groups argue that the forced closure of coal plants and addition of renewables could wreck the economies of some states and definitely will drive up customer bills across the board.
Southeast utilities in large part say they will continue to turn to natural gas, including building more plants and adding pipelines, to add baseload electricity when necessary.
A study released this week from the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Public Policy said states will be able to transition away from coal and add cleaner sources of electricity without the consequence of higher electricity bills. The report argues that a larger focus on energy efficiency will push off the need to build natural gas plants, which would eventually lead to higher bills.
Georgia Tech's study used a version of the National Energy Modeling System. This is the main tool used to look at low-carbon options and other energy models.
"Energy efficiency is the magic wand on controlling costs," said Marilyn Brown, a Georgia Tech professor and TVA board member. "You're able to divert or defer new construction every time you reach 200 megawatts of energy efficiency. You can defer a major, major investment."
The study also says, broadly, that Southeastern states could use a combination of a carbon price of $10 a ton, energy efficiency policies and solar to meet targets set under the Clean Power Plan. Using this method, coal would dramatically decrease while nuclear and renewable energy would grow significantly compared with other regions. Energy efficiency also would expand as compared with the rest of the nation.
Delaying or stopping rate hikes that stem from a new power plant would be welcome news for consumers. But it's not good news for shareholders who buy into investor-owned utilities, knowing that these companies reap large returns from major capital investments such as power plants.
"The investor-owned utilities have to consider the value of their stock," Brown said. "This field, the reward structure doesn't provide shareholders the same kind of reward for investment in energy efficiency as it does for putting steel into the ground."
One answer may be a redesign of how customer rates are structured. The most common model would call for higher fixed costs and less variable ones. This way, utilities could move away from the argument that customers who use less electricity -- such as the ones who have solar panels -- still cover their costs of the grid when those panels aren't working.
Brown thinks rate redesign also will help with the argument about cost shifting or cross subsidization. The argument is a popular one with utilities and some conservative and consumer groups, which say that non-solar users wind up paying more in their electricity bills than ones that can afford to put panels on their roofs.
The argument comes up frequently in states that are considering policies to expand -- or get rid of -- net metering and third-party financing arrangements for solar.
-
Dems Sum Up GOP's Climate Change Plan with a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action Blog
By Jordain Carney
Senate Democrats slammed Republicans on climate change Wednesday, summing up the party's plan to combat the environmental challenge with a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) spoke from the Senate floor with a sign that read "#WhatsTheGOPsClimatePlan ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”
Sen. Ed Markey also spoke from the Senate floor with a sign that included a sad-faced shruggie. The Massachusetts Democrat suggested that Republicans didn't have a plan to combat climate change, adding that "shruggie says 'I'm not happy. I'm sad.' "
It's not the first time Democrats have used the internet emoticon to help them sum up their critiques of Republican policies. Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) used the symbol during a speech suggesting that Republicans didn't have a plan if the Supreme Court struck down subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
Murphy's speech might have been the first time the symbol, which gained popularity online after Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift’s MTV awards show acceptance speech, was used on the Senate floor.
Whitehouse and Markey spoke on the Senate floor Wednesday, along with Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), to pressure their Republican colleagues to turn over a plan to combat climate change.
Whitehouse, a vocal critic of Republicans on the issue, tied their opposition to the Koch brothers.
"There is a thread that links all of this and it is money. The Koch brothers are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into this election," he said, referring to GOP donors Charles and David Koch. "One of their organizations, one, said it was going to spend $889 million in this election and that anybody who crossed them on climate change would be at, and I quote, 'a severe disadvantage.' Nice little campaign you got here."
Reid added that Republicans have a "Koch challenge."
“The closest they came was trying to be funny on the floor when it snowed and brought a snowball into the Senate chamber, said couldn't be climate change, we got some snow today," the Democratic leader said, referring to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who threw a snowball on the Senate floor earlier this year.
-
Clinton ‘Skeptical’ About Arctic Drilling
Jul 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Hillary Clinton said she has “doubts” about whether oil and natural gas drilling should be allowed in the Arctic Ocean.
“I have doubts about whether we should permit drilling in the Arctic, and I don’t think it is a necessary part of our clean energy, climate change agenda,” Clinton told NH1.
“I will be talking about drilling in general, but I am skeptical about whether or not we should give the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic.”
Clinton's comments conflict with President Obama, who has given Royal Dutch Shell the go-ahead to drill — with limitations.
Her position is likely to win favor from environmentalists, who have criticized her on other issues, including the Keystone XL Pipeline and hydraulic fracturing.
Shell is likely to start drilling soon from a spot about 75 miles off Alaska’s northeastern tip, the first drilling in the United States’ Arctic waters in years.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, Clinton’s top opponents for the Democratic nomination, have both come out against Arctic drilling in particular and offshore drilling in general.
The issue of drilling in one of the last frontiers has fired up environmentalists. They maintain that a spill or other incident would be disastrous in the Arctic because it would be so hard to clean up. They also say the production will have catastrophic effects on climate change.
The oil and gas industry, meanwhile, is hoping to increase drilling and production in the coming decades. It sees the Arctic as the best prospective area of the globe for fossil fuel production.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested