Preview Newsletter
acc pm 7/30
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Recycling Summit Sneak Peek with Harvey Gershman
Jul 30, 2015 | Waste360
Waste360 recently had the opportunity to catch up with Harvey Gershman, President of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., a Fairfax, Va.-based firm that consults public- and private sector organizations on optimal solutions for solid-waste-management challenges. -
(ACC Mentioned) You've Got Recycling Questions, We've Got Answers! (Part Three)
Jul 30, 2015 | Waste360
By Allan Gerlat
This is the third part of a series that provide answers by industry experts to questions you have about recycling. The questions came out of Waste360’s recent webinar on the cost of recycling. For further discussion on these issues, don’t miss the Waste360 Recycling Summit in Chicago later this year. -
Group Finds Flame Retardants In Key Lawmakers' Offices
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Flame retardant chemicals, ubiquitous in consumer products, are now showing up in the offices of key lawmakers working on issues of chemical safety, according to tests commissioned by an environmental group. -
Worker's Family Sues Newfield in 2013 Tank Death
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The family of a man found dead at a Newfield Exploration Co. well site in 2013 is suing for wrongful death, saying the company was negligent about protecting workers at the site from toxic gases. -
Senate Panel OKs Bipartisan Package, Lifts Export Ban
Jul 30, 2015 | E&e - Greenwire
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved its comprehensive energy package today by a wide margin, while separately lifting the crude export ban on a party-line vote. -
Senate Panel Backs Measure To Lift Oil Export Ban, Expands Drilling
Jul 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted for a bill that would allow U.S. crude oil exports and expand offshore oil drilling and revenue sharing. -
U.S. Senate Energy Panel Votes To Lift Oil Export Ban
Jul 30, 2015 | Reuters
By Valerie Volcovici
The U.S. Senate energy committee on Thursday passed a bill that would lift a decades-old ban on the export of crude oil. -
Senate Panel Approves Broad Energy, Efficiency Bills
Jul 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved a five-part bipartisan strategy today that would be the biggest update to energy law in a decade, while separately moving ahead with a long-sought energy efficiency plan. -
Greens Push To Save Crude Export Ban
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Grennwire
By Daniel Bush
Environmental and labor groups are mounting a campaign to save the crude export ban in the face of growing momentum in Congress to change the decades-old energy policy. -
What Consequences Await States That 'Just Say No' to EPA Carbon Rule?
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden
Power generators used to building U.S. EPA regulations into their plans are expected to be the key to meeting carbon emissions targets, particularly in states where governors refuse to comply with the Obama administration's upcoming rule. -
EPA's Clean Power Plan Timeline Delay May Help Repel Legal Challenges
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Pushing forward the Clean Power Plan's starting date to 2022 will appease some critics and could bolster U.S. EPA's defenses against lawsuits. -
Former DOJ Environment Official Lorenzen Dissects D.C. Circuit's CSAPR Ruling
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - TV
Following this week's U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that U.S. EPA should reconsider budgets for sulfur dioxide and ozone pollution in its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, what are the next steps the agency could take, and how could this decision influence future air cases before the court? During today's OnPoint, Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring and a former assistant chief in the Department of Justice's environment and natural resources division, discusses the ruling's implications. -
N.D. Tribal Leaders Scale Back Drilling Rules
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Tribal leaders from the North Dakota's oil-heavy Fort Berthold Indian Reservation are dialing back regulations that could stifle the lethargic crude production, according to warnings from industry leaders. -
Texas Groundwater Districts Cry For Help Tracking Disposal Wells
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Four years ago, a Texas well spurted about 260 barrels of petroleum fluid, killing grasses and shrubs on nearby ranchland. The event in Dimmit County was likely caused by injections into a nearby disposal well, home to millions of gallons of oil and gas waste, experts said. -
Alberta Officials Won’t Lobby Obama on Keystone Pipeline
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By By Devin Henry
Government officials in Alberta, Canada won’t push President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, saying they'll focus on securing permits for other projects instead. -
Pipeline Decision Will Be Made During Obama's Term -- White House
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
A White House spokesman said yesterday the administration will make a decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada before President Obama's term runs out. -
World Bank Pushes Rich Countries To Deliver On Climate Finance Pledges
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
America and other wealthy countries have a responsibility to help vulnerable nations adapt to the ravages of climate change, said Rachel Kyte, World Bank vice president and special envoy for climate change. -
Jeb Bush Takes Positions on Climate Change, EPA Rules, Other Energy Issues
Jul 30, 2015 | BNA
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) acknowledges human activity contributes to climate change but cautioned against actions that would harm the U.S. economy. In written answers to Bloomberg BNA, Bush said the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan is “irresponsible and ineffective” and “oversteps state authority.” He also tells Bloomberg BNA reporter Anthony Adragna that phasing out the renewable fuel standard “over time” is the “proper thing to do.” Bush, who served as Florida governor from 1999 to 2007, also called approving the proposed Keystone XL pipeline a “no brainer.” Bloomberg BNA has reached out to all presidential campaigns and will publish other substantive responses in the days ahead. -
Jeb Bush: Humans Contribute to Climate Change
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush says human activity is contributing to climate change, and the country has an obligation to work to stop it. -
Climate Change Poses Undeniable Threat To National Security
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By USMC Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney (ret.)
Having spent more than 30 years in the US Marine Corps, I know what constitutes a national security threat. Climate change, caused in large part by the carbon pollution we dump into our air, presents risks to the safety of both our nation and our world at large. The threats of climate change include extreme weather, rising sea levels, reduced military capacity, and conditions that can enable worldwide violence and perpetuate terrorism. -
California Details Push To Strengthen EPA's Heavy-Duty Truck GHG Rule
Jul 30, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California air board officials are planning to push EPA to strengthen its proposed Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, including speeding compliance deadlines, tightening engine standards, capturing more trailer types and offering incentives for manufacturers to deploy advanced technologies. -
Poll Finds Broad Support For Climate Regs, Drought Spending
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Nearly two-thirds of Californians believe the state's ongoing drought is linked to climate change, although that belief is split along party lines. -
Southern's Fanning Calls On Congress To Take Control Of National Energy Policy
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
With U.S. EPA just days away from releasing its final Clean Power Plan, Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning again told investors the nation needs a consistent energy policy -- and that job should be left up to Congress. -
Technology Emerges To 'Crowdsource' Levels Of Greenhouse Gases And Smog
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Malavika Vyawahare
The San Francisco Bay Area will soon see Google Street View vehicles that not only take snapshots of its streets but also capture snapshots of the air quality in neighborhoods they pass. Google and Aclima, a San Francisco-based air sensor technology developer, announced Tuesday that they are partnering to introduce air quality sensor-enabled Street View cars in the Bay Area, and in the future in other cities. -
Rail Agency Finishes Rule To Prevent Runaway Oil Trains
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Federal Railroad Administration has finalized a rule aimed at keeping oil trains from rolling out of control. -
Three-year Funding Bill Clears Senate
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Senate today approved a three-year road, rail and transit funding bill, sending the bipartisan measure to the House by a 65-34 margin nine days after it was unveiled.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Recycling Summit Sneak Peek with Harvey Gershman
Jul 30, 2015 | Waste360
Waste360 recently had the opportunity to catch up with Harvey Gershman, President of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., a Fairfax, Va.-based firm that consults public- and private sector organizations on optimal solutions for solid-waste-management challenges.
Harvey will be speaking at the Summit, in Friday’s session on “Conversion Technologies.”
Please enjoy this sneak peek into what promises to be a great discussion!
Waste360: What can participants expect from your Conversions Technologies session at the Waste360 Recycling Summit?
Harvey Gershman: My presentation will give participants insight into the fast-growing technology changes occurring in the industry. I will review the status of conversion technologies; what they do, who provides them—and the status of the new ones being built, under development, and operating. I will also share the importance of mixed waste processing as part of these offerings as well as key factors to consider when implementing them as part of a local integrated solid waste management system.
Waste360: Could you pinpoint a few concrete takeaways attendees will be able to implement right away in the real world?
Harvey Gershman: I’m hopeful that once attendees hear the presentation, they will begin thinking about the economics and efficiencies of their entire system rather than simply comparing conversion technologies to landfill disposal. Incorporating the cost of the collection infrastructure that brings the waste/recyclables for processing conversion can be a game changer.
Waste360: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton has been delivering sustainable solutions to complex waste and recycling issues for more than 30 years. What positive changes have you seen in the industry during this time?
Harvey Gershman: So much has happened to move us away from simply throwing resources away. Across the U.S. some 40% of MSW is recycled/recovered/utilized for its fuel value. The services, financings, contracts, etc. that stand behind those sustainable solutions and systems were very challenging to plan, implement and keep operating. We have seen project financings used, enterprise fund solid waste systems set up by local governments, and full service contracting (many with private ownership structures); taking control of the collection marketplace and services underpin these sustainable programs. We are very proud to see our solutions still working for our clients.
Waste360: With the cost and state of recycling being so top of mind these days, do you think your session can help attendees with education or advice around that?
Harvey Gershman: Yes. Recent newspaper articles highlighted that recycling has become such a part of managing our resources that some people are losing sight of the fact that recycling is a part of the whole system of managing waste – which has a cost. My presentation will talk about how more materials may be recovered from the system and how to extract value; I will highlight the recent work we completed for the American Chemistry Council on mixed waste processing.
Waste360: How did you get into this industry and why?
Harvey Gershman: Earth Day 1970 first inspired my career to focus on helping do better things with waste. I had a design project in my senior year of mechanical engineering undergraduate work, and it won a national award. I thought then that there would always be waste and there had to be better things to do with it than dump it on the ground or burn it in an uncontrolled manner. I’ve been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to help many do better things with their waste over my 40+ years in this industry.
It is so fitting how your interest in this industry began Earth Day, Harvey! We look forward to great insights from your 40+ years of experience.
-
(ACC Mentioned) You've Got Recycling Questions, We've Got Answers! (Part Three)
Jul 30, 2015 | Waste360
By Allan Gerlat
This is the third part of a series that provide answers by industry experts to questions you have about recycling. The questions came out of Waste360’s recent webinar on the cost of recycling. For further discussion on these issues, don’t miss theWaste360 Recycling Summit in Chicago later this year.
Question: What is the average monthly waste and recycling costs for a commercial location?
Michele Nestor, president, Nestor Resources Inc.: This is the most frequently asked question and one that always gets the same response from me: “There is no average." Claiming so would be misleading. Although often criticized, there are legitimate reasons why two customers sitting right next to one another, franchises in different locations or communities with identical bid specifications may pay more or less than one another. Whether it is for commercial or residential service, we have failed as an industry to communicate the many variables that go into "the price." Time, fuel, labor, insurance, fees, equipment, volume, weight, frequency, debt, shareholder expectations, etc. Frankly, some service providers are simply more efficient than others and therefore can have a higher profit margin even when the customer pays less. A big influencing, but often misunderstood, factor is that customers/municipalities could significantly reduce their prices by relinquishing unrealistic time and service constraints in their contracts.
Question: Recycling costs money. If landfill fees would go up and adequately accommodate true cost of landfilling and true cost of raw materials. Why aren't we focusing on developing the market that produces jobs, reduces carbon footprint and increases overall revenue?
Albe Zakes, global vice president, communications, TerraCycle Inc.: This is a key challenge to recycling. Industry and consumers alike feel that recycling is a costly alternative to landfill or incineration because they don't fully understand the cost of those other end-of-life solutions. When you consider the potential value recovered in reselling the recycled materials, the push to recycle more materials–instead of burying or burning it–begins to make ecological and economic sense. In addition, a more robust recycling industry creates more, jobs, more supply chain security and only further reduces how governmental dependence and economic stability is based on oil and other commodity prices.
Question: Could you please elaborate further on the dependence of mixed waste processing on its ability to recuperate recyclables?
Harvey Gershman, president, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc.: A mixed waste processing facility (MWPF) relies upon sophisticated equipment to separate marketable recyclables from a municipal waste stream (MSW). At the front end of the facility, feedstock goes through a series of screens, magnets and sorts (very similar to those used in a traditional recycling facility) to separate recyclable containers and paper from its organic components (food, wood, contaminated paper, etc.) and residuals (batteries, rocks, and other non-recyclables). The quantity of materials that is recovered will depend on the level of a MWPF’s automation, how modern its equipment is, whether the organic fraction is processed for recovery and the availability of markets for the separated recyclables. Metals and plastic containers seem to recover very well in MWPF. Contamination issues are of greater concern for the paper stream. High-end paper markets demand that paper not be overly wet, contain large quantities of glass or putrescible materials. Because the incoming paper has been mixed with wastes of all varieties it is more likely to have come in contact with these contaminants–rendering it less likely to meet the high-end market standards. This does not mean that the paper is not marketable. It does mean, however, that markets will need to be identified that can tolerate some contamination in the bales. A more in-depth explanation on a modern MWPF similarity to MRFs and ability to recover materials is discussed in The Evolution of Mixed Waste Processing Facilities, 1970-Today, a report for the American Chemistry Council.
Eric Herbert, CEO, Zero Waste Energy LLC: Mixed waste processing can offer some significant advantages. A materials recovery facility (MRF) that accepts mixed solid waste receives the entire waste stream, not just the customer source-separated stream. Recent studies have shown that single-stream collection programs have access (participation) to less than 20 percent of available commodities such as paper, plastics and metals. With a mixed waste or “one bin” program, processors have access to 100 percent of available recoverables. It’s then up to the system to maximize recovery. Advanced mixed waste processing systems utilize sophisticated technologies and processes that have demonstrated recovery numbers far greater than previous systems. In addition to lower collection costs and the participation advantage, these advanced systems can also capture organics and create engineered fuel from items that would otherwise go to landfill or go unrecovered in a single-stream system.
Michele Nestor: There seems to be confusion on the purpose of certain contract terms that are viewed as penalties for the community trying to recycle in other ways. The truth is that there is really no sense in investing in a process to mine materials unless there are materials remaining in the mix that can be retrieved. A big part of the Performa in determining the feasibility of a project would be the types, quantities and anticipated values of the materials one would hope to recover and market. If those materials were allowed to be removed by third parties prior to the expected "mix" reaching the facility, the operator's return on investment would be negatively affected by reduced amounts of material to market, and the facility would either have to increase customer rates or go out of business. So those contract terms are there to ensure their rights to recover and recycle the materials in exchange for third investment in the facility.
-
Group Finds Flame Retardants In Key Lawmakers' Offices
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Flame retardant chemicals, ubiquitous in consumer products, are now showing up in the offices of key lawmakers working on issues of chemical safety, according to tests commissioned by an environmental group.
The Environmental Defense Fund -- a key supporter of pending chemical safety legislation, S. 697 -- requested the testing by Duke University's Superfund Research Center of samples taken from couches in six congressional office buildings, including that of Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a sponsor of the bill.
"It's crazy to think that there are toxic chemicals in the very furniture we're sitting on while working to update America's chemical safety law," Udall said in a statement. "It illustrates how prevalent these chemicals are and how Congress needs to act urgently to reform TSCA."
For decades, companies were required to add large quantities of flame retardant chemicals under a California state regulation. California, however, recently modified the regulation to no longer require their use. The state is implementing a requirement that furniture containing the chemicals be labeled, and lawmakers are considering expanding the disclosure to additional products.
Udall and other lawmakers have touted flame retardants as an example of materials found to be linked to health problems and that should be subject to stricter review under a strengthened chemical safety law.
The findings show "exactly why it is so important to ensure that TSCA reform becomes law," Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement.
In a statement, the American Chemistry Council declined to address whether lawmakers should view the chemicals as a safety risk -- though in the past, the group has argued that Udall and other lawmakers should not be concerned.
"It is no surprise that the Environmental Defense Fund would find flame retardants in the couches they tested because these chemicals are used to meet important fire safety standards and they can help save lives," the trade group said.
-
Worker's Family Sues Newfield in 2013 Tank Death
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The family of a man found dead at a Newfield Exploration Co. well site in 2013 is suing for wrongful death, saying the company was negligent about protecting workers at the site from toxic gases.
Blaine Otto, 39, a truck driver from Sidney, Mont., died July 18, 2013. He was found slumped over a catwalk near an open crude oil storage tank hatch in the Little Missouri National Grassland outside Keene, N.D.
The suit was filed earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Billings, Mont., by Otto's brother, Brad Otto. A Newfield spokeswoman said the company wouldn't comment on pending litigation.
Blaine Otto's death is one of nine since 2009 classified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as being the result of inhaling toxic amounts of vapors while measuring crude oil in storage tanks at well sites (EnergyWire, April 13).
But the state forensic examiner said Otto died of natural causes, and a claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied.
Otto drove a truck in the Bakken Shale region for Falco Energy Transportation. Part of the job involves testing samples before filling up a truck. To do that, drivers open "thief hatches" that can spew toxic chemicals called volatile organic compounds.
Otto was found by a co-worker with his face next to a tank hatch. His eyes were open, but he wasn't breathing. Next to him were his tools for measuring and sampling the tank (EnergyWire, Oct. 27, 2014).
The lawsuit, filed by the Bremseth Law Firm of Minneapolis, says that certain Bakken wells are known to produce dangerous concentrations of toxic gases around storage tanks.
The suit says that Newfield had a duty to maintain its equipment, test for hazards and warn people working there about dangerous conditions.
"Newfield negligently breached this duty," the suit said, adding that the company "deliberately proceeded to act in conscious disregard and indifference to the high probability of injury" to Otto.Shale's volatile contents
All crude oil has compounds called volatile hydrocarbons such as benzene, butane and propane. Shale crude sometimes has more of these compounds than conventional oil. It's related to why shale oil is more prone to explode in rail cars. The chemicals bubble up from the crude oil and collect in storage tanks.
The vapors can disorient people to the point that they're unable to escape the lethal effects such as cardiac arrhythmia, which is what state officials said killed Otto.
Worker safety officials earlier this year issued an alert on the danger from the vapors (EnergyWire, April 27).
Public health researchers have indicated that the airborne chemicals that killed the workers also raise questions about whether the vapors pose a threat to people who live nearby. But they say there is little or no published research on the topic.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigated Otto's death and did not fine Falco. But agency officials did send a letter warning that employees should be given devices to detect toxic gases. Such a "hazard awareness letter" can be used in the future to show a company knew what needed to be done to protect employees.
The Bremseth firm also represented the family of Dustin Bergsing in a suit against Marathon Oil Corp. Bergsing, a flowback tester who worked at a Marathon site in North Dakota for a contractor, was found dead near an open storage tank in January 2012. The case was settled for an undisclosed sum that the firm described as "very substantial."
-
Senate Panel OKs Bipartisan Package, Lifts Export Ban
Jul 30, 2015 | E&e - Greenwire
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved its comprehensive energy package today by a wide margin, while separately lifting the crude export ban on a party-line vote.
The bipartisan energy bill advanced on an 18-4 vote, with Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) opposing the measure.
The panel split, 12-10, along party lines to approve a separate package that increases coastal states' share of federal revenues raised by drilling off their coasts. The package also would lift the long-standing ban on crude exports.
While Democrats opposed the measure en masse, New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich and independent Maine Sen. Angus King both signaled they would be willing to consider supporting lifting the export ban if it was accompanied by extensions of key renewable energy tax incentives.
Also advancing was S. 720, the efficiency package sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), which moved by a 20-2 margin. An assortment of public lands bills was cleared en bloc by voice vote.
But most of the markup focused on the broader energy package, which both sides spent months negotiating.
The panel rejected by a 9-13 vote an amendment by Stabenow that she said would address a major concern of manufacturers over liquefied natural gas exports -- the quantity of ethane that is added at terminals.
"My concern is we're taking the most valuable part of LNG and upping it" at the point of export, she said.
Stabenow's amendment would limit the amount of ethane in LNG exports by capping the maximum heating value at 1,110 British thermal units per standard cubic foot of dry gas, "which is consistent with the quality specifications of a majority of interstate pipelines." Alaskan LNG exports would be exempt from the requirement.
But Republicans called the requirement unnecessary, with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) arguing that Stabenow's amendment "would rip to shreds existing contracts" for exports above its cap, threatening the development of export terminals.
The panel rejected, 9-13, an amendment by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) that would establish a competitive DOE grant program to measure energy use in multi-tenant buildings. "Making buildings more efficient will save people a lot of money," he said.
Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she supported the goal of the amendment but suggested that building owners, and not the federal government, should pay for such measurements.
Franken called the program -- which would be authorized at $5 million annually for five years -- a proper federal expenditure in light of the benefits.
"What we're trying to do is encourage something that we know saves a tremendous amount of energy," he said.
The panel also debated a second Franken amendment that would task the Energy Department with coordinating with relevant stakeholders to prevent fuel-supply shortages -- such as the delayed coal deliveries that have threatened Midwestern power supplies in recent winters.
Murkowski opposed the amendment, noting that the president already has powers over coal supplies for emergencies. "That provision is already in law, so I ... don't really see why we need to have it," she said.
Franken responded that DOE should have authority to improve coordination that doesn't require the president to invoke emergency authority, but the amendment fell, 9-13.
The panel also adopted by voice vote an amendment by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) that would give energy producers some relief from the need to obtain Bureau of Land Management oil and gas permits when less than 50 percent of the minerals are owned by the federal government within a drilling or spacing unit. The exemption would also apply for units where the federal government does not own the surface rights.
Hoeven argued the amendment would eliminate the need for companies to obtain "duplicative" state and federal permits. A modification added before the vote gives BLM regional offices the discretion to waive the federal requirements, stopping short of the full exemption Hoeven had initially sought.
The committee adopted by voice vote a Barrasso amendment that directs federal agencies to prioritize environmental reviews associated with proposed helium sales.Manager's amendment
A manager's amendment adopted at the outset addresses permitting for natural gas pipelines and hydroelectric projects, open noncontiguous states and tribal lands to federal loan guarantee programs.
The amendment added West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito's language that would task the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with granting all federal approvals for gas infrastructure projects -- licenses and permits -- within 90 days of the completion of the agency's review of an application.
FERC currently sets the schedule for conducting environmental reviews of proposed natural gas interstate pipelines before granting permits, and applicants can take the rare step of filing a lawsuit against any state or federal agency that doesn't comply with the timelines the commission lays out.
The amendment would lay out a conflict resolution process for agencies that don't comply with FERC's time frame, which Capito said would be a boon for untangling delayed gas projects in her home state and other states that are homes to the Marcellus Shale play. Seen as a compromise, the language falls short of interstate pipeline companies' call for more penalties for federal and state agencies that don't comply with FERC timelines (E&E Daily, May 7).
Also included is a Franken amendment that qualifies tribal entities for DOE grants that states can now apply for, as well as language by Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii that would ensure U.S. territories and the District of Columbia can also partake in DOE's loan guarantee program.
The package also includes language from Heinrich and Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) that would direct the DOE secretary to establish publicly accessible microlabs near existing national labs and authorize $50 million in appropriations for the effort in fiscal 2016.
The committee also advanced language pushed by ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to reform a section of the energy bill addressing hydropower. Murkowski said she reluctantly agreed to sign onto the top Democrat's proposal to maintain the panel's bipartisan progress but signaled pushback.
"But make no mistake, I will continue fighting for meaningful reforms to enable timely, reasonable and certain hydroelectric regulation," Murkowski said. "We're going to live to fight another day on this issue."
-
Senate Panel Backs Measure To Lift Oil Export Ban, Expands Drilling
Jul 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted for a bill that would allow U.S. crude oil exports and expand offshore oil drilling and revenue sharing.
The OPENS Act from Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski would lift the 40-year-old U.S. crude oilexport ban, and it would expand lease sales and revenue sharing for coastal Alaska development, Gulf of Mexico drilling, and offshore exploration for the southern Atlantic.
The bill passed 12-10 along party lines approval following rapid-fire debate at today’s markup. But it is not part of a bipartisan energy bill from Murkowski and panel ranking member Maria Cantwell that the panel also approved today, underscoring that it would be a tough lift to become law.
“This is one of the most contentious issues,” Cantwell said during the roughly 20-minute discussion on the bill at today’s markup.
Sen. Angus King called it the “No Fossil Fuel Left Behind Act,” and said it is “totally unbalanced” because it doesn’t aim to expand renewable energy and environmental safeguards.
The bill was modified to include language from West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin that would allow the president to cut off oil exports if they raise gasoline prices or cause job losses. -
U.S. Senate Energy Panel Votes To Lift Oil Export Ban
Jul 30, 2015 | Reuters
By Valerie Volcovici
The U.S. Senate energy committee on Thursday passed a bill that would lift a decades-old ban on the export of crude oil.
The 22-member panel passed the bill to allow the United States to export oil and boost state revenue-sharing for offshore oil and gas drilling by a vote of 12-10.
Senate Energy Committee chair Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator from Alaska, has been a long-time advocate for lifting the ban, which she said was outdated due to the rise of the United States as an energy power.
The vote comes a day after U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner for the first time voiced his support for lifting the domestic oil export ban, which experts said signaled momentum for an overhaul of 40-year-old energy policy.
-
Senate Panel Approves Broad Energy, Efficiency Bills
Jul 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved a five-part bipartisan strategy today that would be the biggest update to energy law in a decade, while separately moving ahead with a long-sought energy efficiency plan.
The panel now sets up a potentially more divisive debate on the Senate floor on the energy strategy led by Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski and ranking member Maria Cantwell.
The final 18-4 vote in the committee today was the latest evidence that the effort to exclude several controversial energy issues from the bill was winning bipartisan support — for now.
The Senate panel also gave quick approval, 20-2, to long-sought energy efficiency legislation from Sens. Rob Portman and Jeanne Shaheen, much of which was also included in the larger bill. But panel approval gives Portman and Shaheen another chance to try to move it separately if the broader bill gets bogged down.
The panel approved Republican amendments to the energy bill to expedite environmental reviews of helium projects and to give the Bureau of Land Management discretion in waiving federal reviews of mineral projects where the federal government holds only below-ground rights. Three Democratic amendments were rejected, including one from Sen. Debbie Stabenow that would have prevented additional volumes of ethane to be added to liquefied natural gas at export terminals.
Republicans Mike Lee and Jeff Flake, Stabenow and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders voted against the energy bill. -
Greens Push To Save Crude Export Ban
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Grennwire
By Daniel Bush
Environmental and labor groups are mounting a campaign to save the crude export ban in the face of growing momentum in Congress to change the decades-old energy policy.
Lifting the 1970s-era ban would increase fossil fuel production, boost shipments of crude by rail and worsen the impacts of climate change, a coalition of left-leaning groups argued today.
"The ban was not designed to play a role in climate change mitigation [but now] it's actually providing a very important role in limiting" fossil fuel production, Steve Kretzmann, the executive director of Oil Change International, said at a forum in Washington, D.C., today.
Groups on both sides of the debate agree that domestic production would increase if the ban is lifted, Kretzmann said, noting that his advocacy organization and the American Petroleum Institute both released studies last year estimating that oil production would spike by more than 450,000 barrels per day.
"Incentivizing production at a time [when climate change poses growing threats] is sending exactly the wrong signal," Kretzmann said.
Other export ban supporters took aim at industry groups and top Republicans who have argued that lifting the ban would bolster U.S. national security by sending crude oil to countries that currently depend on imported oil and gas from countries like Russia and Iran.
If the ban is lifted, Congress won't be able to ensure that U.S. crude winds up in the hands of America's allies abroad, said Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen's energy program director.
"Oil exports are going to go wherever the private markets determine," Slocum said at the forum. "So it makes no sense to talk about exports as a" diplomatic tool.
Labor and green groups are betting that their message will appeal to lawmakers as the House and Senate weigh energy bills this year that could include provisions to lift the ban.
They also argued that a majority of voters support the ban, a factor that could come into play in the lead-up to the presidential election next year.
A Hart Research Associates study conducted last year found that 69 percent of likely 2016 voters oppose allowing U.S. producers to sell oil abroad. The study of 1,101 likely voters was conducted Dec. 5-9, 2014, and had a 3-point margin of error.
"It's a reason to be optimistic," said Radha Adhar, an energy lobbyist for the Sierra Club. "Overwhelmingly folks at home are saying that they don't want this ban to be lifted."
Still, opponents of the ban are building support on and off Capitol Hill ahead of possible votes later this year on the energy bills moving through both chambers of Congress.
They received a critical endorsement yesterday when House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) came out in support of lifting the ban (E&ENews PM, July 29).
-
What Consequences Await States That 'Just Say No' to EPA Carbon Rule?
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden
Power generators used to building U.S. EPA regulations into their plans are expected to be the key to meeting carbon emissions targets, particularly in states where governors refuse to comply with the Obama administration's upcoming rule.
The rule aimed at fighting climate change, which the White House may release as early as Monday, is expected to face a gauntlet of lawsuits and congressional opposition. Ahead of its release, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough yesterday touted the flexibility it provides states to craft plans that tackle power plant emissions from a variety of directions.
But the prospect that a number of governors will protest the Clean Power Plan rule by refusing to submit a state compliance plan will put greater onus on individual power plants to hit enforceable federal emissions targets, lawyers on both sides of the debate say.
EPA's backup plan for states that do not write a plan under the Clean Air Act to cut carbon emissions through 2030 -- referred to as a federal implementation plan (FIP) -- is widely expected to target electricity generators directly. Lawyers say that's the way the Clean Air Act typically works.
"If the state doesn't do that, EPA regulates, not the state, but the power plant -- the same as it does for acid rain or the mercury rule," said David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
EPA sent its proposed federal implementation plan to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review July 2.
Environmental law experts theorize EPA's federal plan may assign targets to individual generators and allow them to either shut down or purchase credits for renewable energy and demand-side energy efficiency to offset their emissions and reach those goals. That could throw a wrench in the plans of governors and gubernatorial candidates -- including in Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin -- who have either implied or said directly that they will not comply with the rule.Two sides of the same coin
Advanced Energy Economy , a member group of green energy and technology companies, agrees with Doniger that EPA's FIP is likely to set standards on generators, not states.
"EPA has proposed to provide states the option of designing a plan that includes obligations on entities other than fossil fuel-fired EGUs [electric generating units] (a 'portfolio approach')," AEE said in a recent paper. "However, EPA's past regulatory actions suggest that, where EPA must impose a Federal Plan, it will impose emission reduction obligations solely on affected (electric generating units), rather than utilize such a portfolio approach."
Opposing attorneys, including Peter Glaser, who has written for the Federalist Society and represented coal mining interests, also argue EPA could only force power plants to run less, not direct states to implement sweeping energy overhauls to shift to natural gas and renewable power and more efficiently use electricity.
But the two sides diverge on what they think EPA could achieve with that approach.
Glaser and two other lawyers said in a Federalist Society report last fall that to achieve its state goals, EPA would have to order a hard limit on coal plant operations. Because EPA could not order other generators to run or demand that consumers consume less power, "EPA would leave it to the State to figure out how to replace the coal generation," the paper said.
The Federalist Society paper argues EPA would hesitate to order plants to go offline for fear of electric rate increases and grid reliability problems.
"If EPA dismisses these concerns and simply mandates that coal generators operate less, it takes the risk that other resources will not be available in the time frame needed to maintain grid reliability," it says. "If it is wrong and blackouts or brownouts ensue, EPA would be the cause."
That's why critics think EPA might set easier goals for states that are refusing to comply. Proponents of the "just say no" strategy say that because EPA lacks the legal authority to set up renewable energy or efficiency standards in states, it must confine any FIP to heat-rate improvements on site.
"A Building Block 1-only federal plan will not achieve the full CO2 performance goal for a state," said Matthew Larson, a utilities lawyer with Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP in Denver. "If the entire four Building Block formula (i.e., the rate-based goal) is applied to each source individually, virtually no coal plant will be able to meet that emission standard."
Further, Larson said EPA's federal plan will "serve as a sign of how far EPA is willing to push its construction of its statutory authority."
"If EPA comes out with a federal plan that draws upon reductions from all four Building Blocks and goes 'outside the fence' of the source, this is a dramatic claim to the outer frontiers of possible EPA authority and would indicate that EPA, not state regulators, will be the electric planner for the nation," Larson said.
Kyle Danish, a utility sector lawyer at Van Ness Feldman LLP, dismissed the argument that EPA's FIP will be weaker than its final rule. He said he had asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy directly whether FIPs would require fewer reductions than the rule assigns to states and said her response was "the target's the target."
"I take her at her word," Danish said.
Daniel Selmi, a visiting scholar at Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, argued in a primer on the issue that EPA is also legally required to set the same state goals under an FIP.Trading system as a federal plan?
Clean Power Plan opponents have also said EPA might not be able to handle the workload of writing multiple federal plans. But EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to adopt an FIP for a state that fails to submit an adequate plan, or the agency risks being sued by public interest groups, Selmi notes.
EPA could have a simpler option than writing customized state plans, though.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has long supported an FIP that would allow states or generators to meet targets by improving the efficiency of coal plants or acquiring credits for activities outside the power plant "fenceline." That idea has been gaining traction among other environmental advocates who say it's the model that is most legally defensible and makes the most sense for EPA's federal plan.
Jeff Holmstead, an industry lobbyist and partner at law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, and Doniger both say EPA could offer rate- or mass-based trading as two options when proposing a federal plan. Under a rate-based federal plan, generators would have to reach a certain rate by making plants more efficient or obtaining credits from others producing zero-carbon power or taking actions that offset greenhouse gas emissions. Under a mass-based federal plan, EPA could allow each generator a certain number of allowances toward an emissions count. They would need to purchase allowances to emit more.
"I think that it is likely that the federal plan will impose direct obligation on the generators rather than on the states themselves," Danish said. "The question will be if it is rate-based, what mechanism does EPA create to allow generators to acquire renewable energy and energy-efficiency credits they would need to meet those rate-based targets?"
AEE recommends EPA's federal plan set goals for generators and then allow them to purchase emission-reduction credits generated "by a wide array of advanced energy providers -- including zero- and low-emission generation resources and demand-side resources." AEEexplored design principles for a rate-based plan, which it says would be more complicated than a mass-based plan.
A rate-based federal plan would require converting statewide emissions rate targets into electric generating unit targets, explained Matt Stanberry, AEE's vice president of market development.
With a rate- or mass-based plan, which would set a cap on emissions, EPA will need to play a role in deciding which projects and programs qualify under the rule and can be used to offset emissions of fossil-fuel generators.
The agency would also need to set up or condone a tracking system, Stanberry said.
"They have to find some sort of mechanisms by which the generators can acquire those sorts of credits without state policy," Danish explained.
Stanberry said that is doable, but Larson thinks a trading option "creates a number of significant questions at the state level, however, not the least of which is the need for state legislation to establish common trading currencies, measurement and verification processes, and other trading architecture."
"Trading has the apparent virtue of simplicity but will require an extensive institutional apparatus to actually be put in place and be effective," Larson said.
Even if states aren't ultimately in charge of whether their energy companies comply, they may want to consider the consequences of stepping back while EPA implements an FIP, Selmi said.
Selmi cautioned in his paper that an FIP imposed solely on power plants would be "far less flexible than state plans which choose to achieve the reductions by imposing legal constraints through a wider variety of measures not just limited to power plants."
"Furthermore, EPA certainly has less knowledge than states about the particular circumstances in which existing sources operate. Its lack of knowledge would result in an FIP that was less-informed, and probably more expensive, than a state plan would be," he said.
-
EPA's Clean Power Plan Timeline Delay May Help Repel Legal Challenges
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Pushing forward the Clean Power Plan's starting date to 2022 will appease some critics and could bolster U.S. EPA's defenses against lawsuits.
But EPA's final rule will have to ensure overall emissions reductions to keep environmental advocates and international climate negotiators happy.
The regulation expected to be released next week will ask states to start complying in 2022, instead of 2020, and give them more time to submit final proposals for cutting power-sector carbon emissions, according to a timeline posted to EPA's website and reported first by E&E (EnergyWire, July 29).
Other changes to the rule -- including to interim and final goals for states -- could have a major impact on what that timeline shift would mean.
The timeline suggests EPA would give states until Sept. 6, 2016, to submit "initial" plans and until Sept. 6, 2018, to submit "final" plans. The draft rule would require state plans or requests for yearlong extensions by 2016 and would give only states working together until 2018 to send in proposals.
Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at law firm Crowell & Moring and a former defender of EPA rules for the Justice Department, said the change would respond "to a complaint that many had raised that the development of these [state implementation plans] is going take more than a year because, in many cases, it will require passage of legislation and then amendment of regulations after that, within the states."
"A lot of these states have legislatures that meet only every other year or only for abbreviated sessions," he said.
Lorenzen said the changes could be meant to weaken critics' arguments that courts should stay the rule. "This now provides the states additional time to do those things and arguably, from EPA's view, lessens any likelihood of irreparable harm," Lorenzen added.
Many argued that the draft rule's interim goals that would require states to meet an average emissions rate between 2020 and the end of 2029 were too steep.
The changes also could address "arguments many had made that 2020 was too soon and you basically have a cliff where suddenly you have to switch everybody over to natural gas from coal and there isn't the infrastructure, there are no pipelines, there's no access to natural gas, and you would have chaos," Lorenzen said.
"We've got to see the final details of the rule, and it still may be truly problematic for many states and for many utilities, but again these are efforts to sort of temper the early impacts of the rule and may well be, in part, designed to give EPA a legal strategy to fend off stay motions."Mixed reviews from renewable supporters
The Solar Energy Industries Association says that if the deadlines do move forward, they could give states more time to incentivize renewable energy, rather than natural gas, to comply with mandated emissions levels.
But the Union of Concerned Scientists said the revision was unnecessary and EPA will need to provide assurances it won't weaken the regulation.
"If the EPA does decide to delay compliance timelines, I'll be looking for assurance that the overall emission reductions achieved by the rule stay strong, early action by states is incentivized, and any delay won't jeopardize the U.S.'s 2025 international commitment of a 26 to 28 percent reduction in economywide emissions," said UCS President Ken Kimmell.
Other environmental groups said they would need to see the full, final rule before determining what individual changes might mean.
"We are not commenting on isolated elements of the final CPP till we can evaluate the total package," said David Doniger, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Liz Perera, the Sierra Club's climate policy director, said the group is "waiting until we see the final standard to comment on the full impact of this delay."
"In general, we never like to see delays in regulation," Perera said. "But we really want to evaluate it on balance with everything else" in the final rule.
Rick Umoff, manager of state regulatory affairs for SEIA, said states would see the shift as providing more flexibility and "breathing room," and he expects they will take advantage of an incentive EPA could reportedly offer for states that act early to implement renewable energy.
EPA could provide some type of credit for pre-2022 action that could count toward interim state goals, or the administration could propose some financial incentive -- which a Republican-led Congress would likely reject, those familiar with the options say.
"This just gives them a little more planning time [in terms of what policies they want to pursue], and that was one of the No. 1 asks of the states," Umoff said.
Umoff said he thinks EPA is trying to consider ways to encourage early adoption of renewable energy so they won't "overrely on natural gas, from an emissions perspective and also the impact on the ratepayer perspective."
Analysis from the U.S. Energy Information Administration has suggested the Clean Power Plan would shift power generation to natural gas in the beginning years before moving states toward renewable energy later on.
If EPA can ensure that carbon reductions happen at the same level as the proposed rule, the timeline changes could assuage some states.
Frank Maisano, senior principal with law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, said states that are already supportive will remain so, and states that are fighting the rule won't be mollified by timeline changes.
"You have to look at states like Arizona and Arkansas and Florida, and see how they respond," he said.
Maisano said the two extra years could push some solar power growth in states where it is already happening, including Iowa and New Mexico.
"Those things are already happening in those places without the Clean Power Plan because the market is allowing them to do it in those places," because it's cost-effective and has already gone through the regulatory process, he said. But he added that he doubts time changes will mobilize renewables in states that aren't pursuing them.Utility-sector reaction guarded
Emily Fisher, associate general counsel at the Edison Electric Institute, said, "It is difficult to assess the impact of any changes to the compliance timeline in the absence of information about other key changes that may have been made to the final rule, and how any such changes impact the state goals and methods of compliance."
She noted that EEI's members -- investor-owned utilities -- asked EPA to provide "sufficient time for states to craft compliance plans and then subject them to critical reliability reviews, and we are hopeful the final guidelines will address this issue."
"However, providing states with more time to craft plans is not the same as giving companies more time to achieve compliance based on those plans. In fact, it could possibly shorten the compliance period, which is why it is critical that the final guidelines provide a range of flexible tools to help achieve the reduction goals," Fisher said.
Joe Nipper, senior vice president for regulatory affairs at the American Public Power Association, said the timing change "sounds good on the face of it."
"We are cautiously optimistic, but other important elements combined with that delay will actually tell us whether it makes it easier for a state to comply or not," he said. "I suspect for some states it probably will be easier; for other states it may not be."
"While we advocated for additional time to comply with the regulations, we look forward to reviewing the final rule and remain deeply concerned about top officials describing it as 'stronger' than the proposal," said Debbie Wing, spokeswoman for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity said the "two additional years for states to comply with its wholly unworkable regulations is irrelevant" because consumer electricity prices will still rise. "We will do everything in our power to get them thrown out," said ACCCE spokeswoman Laura Sheehan.
-
Former DOJ Environment Official Lorenzen Dissects D.C. Circuit's CSAPR Ruling
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - TV
Following this week's U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that U.S. EPA should reconsider budgets for sulfur dioxide and ozone pollution in its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, what are the next steps the agency could take, and how could this decision influence future air cases before the court? During today's OnPoint, Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring and a former assistant chief in the Department of Justice's environment and natural resources division, discusses the ruling's implications.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell and Moring. Tom previously served as assistant chief in the Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division. Tom, good to have you back on the show.
Thomas Lorenzen: Nice to be here as always. Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Tom, the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the broader Cross-State Air Pollution Rule this week, but what they did ask EPA to reconsider are its emissions budgets for SOx and NOx. Where was the agency wrong and does this essentially mean that EPA overregulated?
Thomas Lorenzen: Well, let's answer the second one first. Yes, it means the agency overregulated certain states because what the Supreme Court said, what it heard ... was that you couldn't require a state to regulate more than necessary to address nonattainment problems in all downwind states. And it allowed parties to assert as applied challenges on that basis, and what the D.C. Circuit held yesterday is that certain states were being overregulated because the emission reductions required were more than necessary to get to attainment in all the linked downwind states.
Monica Trauzzi: So what does this mean -- what does the decision mean for those states that are involved?
Thomas Lorenzen: For those states right now, it means the rule goes forward as usual. Interestingly here, the D.C. Circuit did not vacate CSAPR, the transport rule. It remanded without vacatur, so that the targets would continue to be applicable until EPA reconsiders and comes up with new numbers for those states.
Monica Trauzzi: And how much time do they have to do that?
Thomas Lorenzen: The court didn't put a deadline on, but it did warn EPA to proceed promptly, and it said that the parties who were affected would have remedies if the agency didn't proceed promptly. Now, this is a complicated question. So how quickly the agency can proceed is anybody's guess.
Monica Trauzzi: Are there next legal steps that could potentially make things stretch out a little longer?
Thomas Lorenzen: Well, the agency's going to have to go back now and think about how you calculate goals for each of these affected states, and what that then does to the goals that are set for other states. And the court, in a footnote, even acknowledges that that's a potential problem that the Supreme Court didn't give instruction on. So the agency's going to have to wrestle with that and it's then going to have to determine what is a fair way and what is a reasonable way of allocating the emission-reduction burdens in those sorts of circumstances.
Monica Trauzzi: So at this point, do we have a sense of how much we could see these budgets actually modified?
Thomas Lorenzen: Well, the Supreme Court identified some of them as being quite significant. For instance, I think it identified Texas as being linked to only one area that was likely to attain even if Texas did nothing. So you could see a significant reduction in Texas' budget because you can't say that the emission reductions required were necessary to get to attainment in all linked states. So there could be some significant shifts, but I think overall the rule's going to go forward, EPA's going to try to find a way to deal with this.
Monica Trauzzi: So does this ruling in any way have an impact on future air cases? We're always trying to read the tea leaves.
Thomas Lorenzen: Well, it does have an impact. I mean, right now, this rule and this decision deals with an older set of NAAQS, where we've now got a new NAAQS out, and EPA has just, in the last week or two, put out a notice of data availability on how it is going to model the upwind states' contributions for that ozone NAAQS. This ruling is going to affect how EPA proceeds with that. It's going to make it a more complicated decision for EPA, so yes, it's going to have some impacts.
Monica Trauzzi: Judge Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in this case, and he's been an interesting one to watch on air cases overall. Is there anything in the written decision that stood out to you as potentially significant?
Thomas Lorenzen: The significance of this decision -- I mean, Judge Kavanaugh is no fan of this rule, and he thinks that the lines that are drawn for upwind states' contributions should be strictly tied to their individual contributions. The Supreme Court has tied his hands on that somewhat, but he is also holding EPA to the exact letter of the Supreme Court's opinion, and you'll notice that two or three, or perhaps even four times throughout the opinion, he cites that critical language from the Supreme Court that no state's budget may be more than necessary to achieve attainment in all linked states. And he comes back to that again and again and again and says that he's going to hold EPA to task on that.
The interesting thing about this decision, there's no dissent. Judge Rogers, who thought that EPA had a reasonable approach, goes along with this, as did Judge Griffith. So that, I think, is quite notable. Judge Kavanaugh, I think, is feeling his oats these days. He was basically upheld by the Supreme Court, or I should say his dissent from the, pardon me, the Michigan case at the D.C. Circuit was really the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in its recent Michigan decision. And so he is, I think, asserting his stature on the court, and he is going to hold EPA to task in rules going forward.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, very interesting to continue watching. Thank you for coming on the show.
Thomas Lorenzen: Thank you for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
-
N.D. Tribal Leaders Scale Back Drilling Rules
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Tribal leaders from the North Dakota's oil-heavy Fort Berthold Indian Reservation are dialing back regulations that could stifle the lethargic crude production, according to warnings from industry leaders.
Those leaders recently formed the West Segment Regulatory Commission aimed at regulating the oil drilling activity on portions of the reservation, which displeased industry leaders and current state regulators.
John Mahoney, an attorney for the commission, said it will still require companies working in the area to register and pay a "nominal fee" and will "supplement and enhance" existing state, federal and tribal laws.
"We're being very cautious and easing into this," said Mahoney, who also is a part-time tribal judge on the reservation. "We're not going into this with a big club" (James MacPherson,Associated Press, July 28).
-
Texas Groundwater Districts Cry For Help Tracking Disposal Wells
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Four years ago, a Texas well spurted about 260 barrels of petroleum fluid, killing grasses and shrubs on nearby ranchland. The event in Dimmit County was likely caused by injections into a nearby disposal well, home to millions of gallons of oil and gas waste, experts said.
"This office considers the existence of the breakout to be a direct result of the injection," the Texas Railroad Commission said to the disposal well's operator in May 2011, claiming the episode offered "a threat of groundwater contamination."
The incident has since spurred concerns from groundwater conservation districts that are struggling to track new permits, and looking to industry and state regulators for direction. They want to be notified of applications for new wells.
"It feels like they don't want people to know," said Lisa Campbell, a Texas Tech University professor. "[Water] is a precious resource, and if we don't protect it, we're going to lose it."
Industry and state officials say current regulations set by the Texas Railroad Commission suffice for now. Those rules require disposal well applicants to notify landowners bordering the proposed waste site and the relevant county clerk. Any other interested parties must scour newspaper notices.
This dispute comes as industry advocates are pushing for restrictions aimed at barring groundwater officials from challenging permits for wastewater disposal wells (Jim Malewitz,Texas Tribune, July 29).
-
Alberta Officials Won’t Lobby Obama on Keystone Pipeline
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By By Devin Henry
Government officials in Alberta, Canada won’t push President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, saying they'll focus on securing permits for other projects instead.
The province’s energy minister told CBC News on Thursday that the government’s goal now is to move forward on other pipeline projects, such as those delivering oil east and west through Canada rather than across the U.S. border, like Keystone.
"We're going with the ones that are probably going to have the most success soonest," Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd told CBC. "Energy East has some promise and so does Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain. Those are the two right now to put our energies into."
Keystone would carry oil from Alberta’s tar sands region to the Gulf of Mexico through the United States. American approval of the pipeline is long-delayed, and the State Department is currently considering the project ahead of an up-or-down decision from the Obama administration.
The project has become a touchstone topic for environmentalists, and a decision on the pipeline is a long-simmering political issue. McCuaig-Boyd said the fight is too politicized for her government to bother wading into.
“I think with the election coming and a few others things, it's in their hands more than ours,” she said.
In May, Alberta voters elected a left-wing government whose premier, Rachel Notley, said she would focus on environmental issues more than past officials.
Alberta’s former premier, Jim Prentice, had pushed both the Canadian government and the Obama administration on Keystone, but Notley promised during her campaign to stop lobbying on the issue.
-
Pipeline Decision Will Be Made During Obama's Term -- White House
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
A White House spokesman said yesterday the administration will make a decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada before President Obama's term runs out.
More than six years of delay in deciding whether KXL is in the national interest has prompted some observers to wonder whether Obama will make a decision at all.
Asked whether the issue would be resolved during the current administration, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered yesterday with a simple "yes."
Interest in permitting for KXL has intensified since Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) earlier this week cited sources saying the president would reject the pipeline during the coming congressional recess.
"I appreciate Sen. Hoeven's remarks here," Schultz told reporters yesterday. "I'm not sure I would classify him as a confidant of our State Department."
The State Department is the arm of government tasked with deciding whether KXL is in the national interest. Obama has said he will make the ultimate determination.
Asked whether the president was frustrated by delays at State, Schultz said, "I haven't heard that."
Hoeven accused the administration this week of potentially making a political decision on KXL because, in his view, the review process points toward its approval.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed the issue in an interview with Bloomberg this week. Harper said he had spoken with Obama "recently" about KXL and said delays were "obviously not a hopeful sign."
"I think there is some very peculiar politics in this particular administration," Harper said. "I believe that whether this project goes ahead or not in this administration, it will go ahead in a subsequent administration."
Schultz said the approval process "is being handled on the merits, and when there is an update for you on it, I'm sure they'll share it."
-
World Bank Pushes Rich Countries To Deliver On Climate Finance Pledges
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
America and other wealthy countries have a responsibility to help vulnerable nations adapt to the ravages of climate change, said Rachel Kyte, World Bank vice president and special envoy for climate change.
She said countries are "working furiously" to show how they will deliver on a pledge to mobilize $100 billion annually in public and private dollars by 2020. Proving that money will materialize is considered key to getting poor countries to agree to a global climate change accord expected to be signed in Paris in December.
Meanwhile, though, Republicans in the United States have vowed to scuttle the Obama administration's pledge of $3 billion over four years to the United Nations' Green Climate Fund to help reach the global finance goal. Kyte declined to say what blocking that money would mean for the Paris deal but insisted helping vulnerable nations is every country's responsibility.
"Yes, this is Washington. This is an interesting town, and the different parts of government get to decide how far forward the U.S. government can lean by December," she said, speaking at an event sponsored by The New Republic.
Kyte noted that the poorest and most threatened countries won't be able to take advantage of rapidly dropping solar prices or other private-sector investment and will depend heavily on pubic dollars to protect themselves from the impacts of rising global temperatures.
"If you're a least-developed county and you really need funds for adaptation, you're going to depend on aid flows ... and these are the people who mustn't be forgotten before 2020," Kyte said. "The U.S. and all the other countries have a responsibility to not leave other people behind."
Money isn't the only thing Republicans have pledged to sink. With the White House expected early next week to release the final version of regulations aimed at curbing emissions from coal-fired power plants, GOP opponents are urging states not to comply. That rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, is central to the United States meeting its international goal of cutting carbon emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.White House -- 'we will not back down'
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said the administration will fight efforts to dismantle climate action.
"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.
Meanwhile, he said, the Obama administration is committed to delivering an accord in Paris, saying the president has included the issue "in every bilateral and multilateral engagement that he has inducted."
But with only 10 negotiating days left before diplomats from 195 countries descend on the French capital for final negotiations, U.N. Assistant Secretary-General on Climate Change Janos Pasztor acknowledged that talks are dragging.
"Negotiations could be going faster," he said. Still, Pasztor added, diplomats are trying to ensure that Paris does not become a repeat of the chaotic 2009 summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, where heads of state worked through the night negotiating over text.
"Everybody is pretty clear, including the host, the French government, that's not the scenario that is being planned," he said.
World leaders, Pasztor said, will be asked to provide an "overall political direction" to their negotiating teams, "as opposed to putting them on the spot, rolling up their sleeves and asking them to address technical questions."
Kyte said what's really at stake in Paris is whether governments will be ambitious. She noted that the World Bank has almost entirely eliminated coal from its funding pipeline and called for a worldwide shift away from the fossil fuel.
"There is going to be a dislocation," Kyte said, particularly for people directly economically linked to the industry. But, she said, "What we're talking about is a transition away from fossil fuels over the course of the next decade, and we've managed transitions before.
"In general, globally, we need to wean ourselves off coal," she said.
-
Jeb Bush Takes Positions on Climate Change, EPA Rules, Other Energy Issues
Jul 30, 2015 | BNA
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) acknowledges human activity contributes to climate change but cautioned against actions that would harm the U.S. economy. In written answers to Bloomberg BNA, Bush said the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan is “irresponsible and ineffective” and “oversteps state authority.” He also tells Bloomberg BNA reporter Anthony Adragna that phasing out the renewable fuel standard “over time” is the “proper thing to do.” Bush, who served as Florida governor from 1999 to 2007, also called approving the proposed Keystone XL pipeline a “no brainer.” Bloomberg BNA has reached out to all presidential campaigns and will publish other substantive responses in the days ahead.
Bloomberg BNA:Is climate change occurring? If so, does human activity significantly contribute to it?
Bush: The climate is changing; I don’t think anybody can argue it’s not. Human activity has contributed to it. I think we have a responsibility to adapt to what the possibilities are without destroying our economy, without hollowing out our industrial core.
I think it’s appropriate to recognize this and invest in the proper research to find solutions over the long haul but not be alarmists about it. We should not say the end is near, not deindustrialize the country, not create barriers for higher growth, not just totally obliterate family budgets, which some on the left advocate by saying we should raise the price of energy so high that renewables then become viable.
U.S. emissions of greenhouse gasses are down to the same levels emitted in the mid-1990s, even though we have 50 million more people. A big reason for this success is the energy revolution which was created by American ingenuity—not federal regulations.
Bloomberg BNA:Should the Keystone XL pipeline be approved?
Bush: Yes. Construction of the Keystone pipeline is a no brainer. It moves us toward energy independence and creates jobs. The President’s politically motivated veto of the pipeline is an example of how this administration supports policies that suppress economic growth.
Bloomberg BNA:Do you support the renewable fuel standard?
Bush: The law that was passed in 2007 has worked, look at the increase in production. It has been a benefit to us as we’ve reduced our dependency on foreign sources of oil. We need to level the playing field for all sources of energy. As we move forward over the long haul, there should be certainty for people to invest and we ought to continue to innovate to create the lowest cost energy sources in the world. Ultimately if you can compete in an open market place, then you’ll thrive; we need to make sure there is market access. I do think that phasing out, getting to a place where we don’t pick winners and losers and we don’t create mandates, over time, is the proper thing to do. 2022 is the law and is probably the good break point.
Bloomberg BNA:What role should renewable energies, including solar and wind, play in our domestic energy supply?
Bush: I support an approach that uses diverse sources—such as wind, solar, other renewables, nuclear, natural gas and coal—for this country’s energy needs. Power generation should reflect, as much as possible, the diverse attributes and needs of states and their citizens. The federal government should not be dictating what types of power should be used where. It should not be picking winners and losers.
Bloomberg BNA:Do you support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan? What should the next step be for states?
Bush: Obama’s carbon rule is irresponsible and ineffective. First, it does virtually nothing to address the risk of climate change. Second, it oversteps state authority. Third, EPA has gone far beyond its statutory authority, regulating how people consume energy. Fourth, it threatens the reliability of the electricity grid. Finally, as proposed, it will unnecessarily increase energy costs on hard-working families and will cause job losses in many states.
Bloomberg BNA:How do you view actions taken by President Barack Obama’s EPA? Is that agency acting within its authority as envisioned by Congress?
Bush: The Obama EPA seems intent on pushing its authority beyond legal limits. The culture of Washington is so bad that even when it’s discovered that the EPA initiated a lobbying campaign on behalf of the rules it sought to propagate, nobody batted an eyelash. A government that lobbies for its own expansion is a government that is out of control—and I intend to change that.
Bloomberg BNA:Are there any other energy and environmental issues of particular concern in your campaign?
Bush: Generally, I think as conservatives we should embrace innovation, embrace technology, embrace science. It's the source of a lot more solutions than any government-imposed idea and sometimes I sense that we pull back from the embrace of these things. We shouldn't. We're the party that should be the party of discovery, the party of science, the party of innovation and tear down the barriers so that those things can accelerate in our lives to find solutions for all these things. For example, with North American resources and American ingenuity we can finally achieve energy security for this nation—and with presidential leadership, we can make it happen within five years.
Economic growth leads to environmental protection. As the governor of Florida I achieved 4.4% percent economic growth while forging an historic 50/50 state-federal partnership to save the Everglades: the world’s largest intergovernmental watershed restoration effort. I spearheaded “Florida Forever,” the largest collaborative land protection program in the country. We collaboratively acquired over 1 million acres of land, including critical habitat, ecological greenways, recreational trails and fragile coastline. These actions protected 190 rare and endangered species and 700 historic sites.
Instead of saying how bad that things are, I think we should be celebrating the potential to reindustrialize the country, to lower prices for consumers and create higher wage jobs, to use natural gas and to give the middle class the best deal in terms of lower utility prices and lower gasoline prices.
-
Jeb Bush: Humans Contribute to Climate Change
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush says human activity is contributing to climate change, and the country has an obligation to work to stop it.
“I think it’s appropriate to recognize this and invest in the proper research to find solutions over the long haul but not be alarmists about it,” Bush said in an interview published Thursday with Bloomberg BNA.
“We should not say the end is near, not deindustrialize the country, not create barriers for higher growth, not just totally obliterate family budgets, which some on the left advocate by saying we should raise the price of energy so high that renewables then become viable,” he added.
The remarks differ from comments Bush made as recently as June on the issue, when he recognized that the climate is changing, but questioned whether human activity plays a role — something the vast majority of scientists in the field believe.
“The climate is changing, whether men are doing it or not,” he said in June, adding that he is “a little skeptical” of taking advice on climate policy from Pope Francis, who released an encyclical on climate change days later, according to the Huffington Post.
In his BNA interview, Bush also sharply criticized the main piece of President Obama’s drive to fight climate change, calling the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) climate rule for power plants “irresponsible and ineffective,” and listing off a wide array of reasons to oppose it.
“First, it does virtually nothing to address the risk of climate change. Second, it oversteps state authority. Third, EPA has gone far beyond its statutory authority, regulating how people consume energy. Fourth, it threatens the reliability of the electricity grid. Finally, as proposed, it will unnecessarily increase energy costs on hard-working families and will cause job losses in many states.”
Bush also said the EPA under Obama “seems intent on pushing its authority beyond legal limits,” and he intends to change that if he becomes president.
-
Climate Change Poses Undeniable Threat To National Security
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By USMC Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney (ret.)
Having spent more than 30 years in the US Marine Corps, I know what constitutes a national security threat. Climate change, caused in large part by the carbon pollution we dump into our air, presents risks to the safety of both our nation and our world at large. The threats of climate change include extreme weather, rising sea levels, reduced military capacity, and conditions that can enable worldwide violence and perpetuate terrorism.
To address this challenge, we’ll need to both prepare for the effects of climate change and reduce the pollution that is causing it. As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Clean Power Plan proposal is set to be finalized shortly, our country has an unprecedented opportunity to protect itself from the national security threats imposed on us by climate change.
The EPA’s plan sets the first ever federal limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, encourages investment in clean energy development, and helps boost energy efficiency measures. It’s vital we seize this opportunity, which also provides incentives and flexibility for states to meet their carbon reduction targets while creating jobs and lowering electricity bills at the same time. We are at risk now more than ever before.
Last year was officially ranked as the warmest year on record, and the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. While we cannot suggest direct causations between climate change and extreme weather events, there is substantial evidencethat indicates strong correlations between the two.
As temperatures become warmer, more water evaporates. Warmer air is able to carry greater amounts of precipitation, which increases the potential for extreme storms and other natural disasters.
One of the biggest experiences of my career was in fact related to an extreme storm. I was the commanding general of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island in South Carolina whenHurricane Floyd threatened us in 1999. I had to evacuate the base, a decision made in part because the base was only fifteen feet above sea level. And that touches on another threat posed by climate change: rising sea levels.
Sea levels are rising, and projections estimate that they will continue to do so at increasing rates. By the end of the century, global sea levels could rise up to three feet or more, depending on the rate of ice sheets melting. Almost 50 percent of the population of the U.S. lives within 50 miles of the coastline, and almost 40 percent of the population lives in counties that are directly on the shoreline. It’s estimated that 150 million more people per year will experience flooding in 2075 if sea levels rise an average 21 inches.
Dozens of U.S. military bases are at risk from rising sea levels, which can also lead to mass displacements, loss of life, disruption to food production, famine, and more. And who will be expected to respond to these calamities? The military, of course, in addition to other local and national response units.
When Hurricane Sandy hit several years ago, tens of thousands of military personnel were activated.
The military is often a key response force for events that are caused at least in part by climate change. And thus climate change affects the military’s overall ability to defend the country. While busy responding to natural disasters, the military has less capacity to focus on other national security threats like terrorism and more international issues.
On that note, terrorism and other forms of global violence are also impacted by climate change. A Department of Defense report released last year explains how water scarcity exacerbated by climate change can lead to sharp cost increases for food. Resource competition puts a heavy burden on governments, societies, and economies, which act as “threat multipliers” that aggravate political stability, poverty, and social tensions – all conditions that enable and encourage violence and different forms of terrorist activity.
Both at home and abroad, the effects of climate change create severe threats to our nation’s security. However, it is a threat that can be contained and reduced significantly. That is why we need to prioritize reducing our carbon pollution, persuade other countries to do the same, and support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which presents an unprecedented opportunity for us to take climate change in our own hands and mitigate the dangers it poses.
Cheney is the chief executive officer of the American Security Project (ASP) and a member of the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.
-
California Details Push To Strengthen EPA's Heavy-Duty Truck GHG Rule
Jul 30, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California air board officials are planning to push EPA to strengthen its proposed Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, including speeding compliance deadlines, tightening engine standards, capturing more trailer types and offering incentives for manufacturers to deploy advanced technologies.
But even if EPA were to adopt California's recommendations, the board is still planning to propose its own Phase 2 program that may be stricter than any federal rule, a measure that could create problems for industry groups that favor harmonized state and federal standards.
California “needs to maintain its vigilance and to be prepared to act as necessary to make sure we're getting the reductions we need from this very, very important source,” Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), told a July 23 meeting reviewing the rule.
And CARB staffer Inderdeep Atwal told the meeting the EPA proposal can be “significantly strengthened” in several specific areas.
For example, according to a paper presented at the meeting, CARB staff favor an option on which EPA is seeking comment that would require industry to comply with the rule's requirements by model year (MY) 2024, rather than EPA's preferred alternative of MY2027. They say this would speed GHG reductions and help the state achieve its ambitious long-term goals for reducing GHGs and oil use.
Atwal also said that the board believes EPA should tighten its proposed engine standards so that they bolster the deployment of advanced technologies such as battery-electric, fuel-cell and hybrid engine systems. “The phase 2 proposal is not sufficiently stringent enough to drive market development of these technologies,” he said.
“For example, the proposal assumes only a modest penetration level of hybrid technology and no significant level of electric or fuel-cell technology . . . Overall, the proposal is bearish on battery and fuel-cell technology, which is contradictory to ARB's position on the opportunities and potential for these technologies,” Atwal told the board.
In addition, Atwal and other officials are concerned that the proposed rule may increase emissions of other pollutants. For example, they are planning to petition EPA to address concerns that the rule does not adequately control emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as some GHG controls boost NOx.
They are also strongly criticizing EPA's rule for essentially encouraging the use of auxiliary power units (APUs) as an alternative to leaving main engines idling on refrigerated trucks because they say it will increase diesel particulate matter (PM), a substance harmful to human health, and ozone, which major cities in the state are struggling to control to attain EPA air quality standards.
Nichols is expected to formally outline the board's concerns during an Aug. 18 EPA hearing on the regulations scheduled to be held in Los Angeles, while the board will submit detailed written comments to EPA, staff indicated.
But even if EPA were to address the state's concerns, CARB staff plan to propose a California Phase 2 program approximately 6-12 months after the finalization of EPA's rule, tentatively scheduled for mid-2017. This plan “may include” California-only elements, staff says.
CARB's Input
CARB's input may have a significant influence on EPA's Phase 2 rules because the state enjoys special status under the Clean Air Act allowing it to petition EPA for approval of mobile source standards stricter than EPA's. Under section 177 of the law, other states may adopt California's standards in lieu of EPA's.
The state has previously left the door open to adopting stricter requirements than the federal measures though officials had not yet detailed what changes they may seek.
But many trucking industry groups oppose efforts by California and other states to adopt different standards, fearing a patchwork approach that could complicate compliance. They favor harmonizing the state and federal rules, providing some leverage to the states and others as they push for stricter requirements.
EPA's proposed Phase 2 GHG rule, issued jointly with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), would take effect in MY 2018 for trailers and MY 2021 for engines and vehicles.
EPA's preferred option, known as alternative 3, would increase fuel efficiency 3-8 percent for trailers compared with a 2017 Phase 1 baseline, by requiring manufacturers to install aerodynamic devices on long-haul, long, and short-box type trailers, as well as requiring the use of low rolling-resistant tires and automatic tire inflation, ARB staff say.
They also say they expect an 18-24 percent increase in fuel efficiency for line-haul tractors by 2027, a goal that is achieved by aerodynamic improvements; engine, transmission and driveline improvements; lower tire-rolling resistance; and idle reduction, according to the staff paper.
The EPA rule sets separate engine standards for various vehicles, which are expected to achieve a 4 percent fuel efficiency improvement.
Vocational vehicles are expected to improve fuel efficiency by 12-16 percent under the EPA proposal, including through engine improvements, while pickups and vans are expected to achieve a 16 percent improvement, staff says.
Under alternative 3, the rule would be fully phased in by MY 2027, a schedule sought by many in industry who are seeking greater production certainty.
But California officials say they favor a stricter option, known as alternative 3, that would pull the proposed compliance deadlines to MY 2024.
According to the paper, requiring compliance in MY2024 is “technologically feasible,” and would result in significant benefits. For example, CARB says that requiring compliance in MY2024 means the standards would be “technology forcing,” while they are less so in MY2027.
In addition, CARB estimates that alternative 4 results in an additional 4 million metric tons of cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions compared to alternative 3 in 2030 and about a 22 percent greater decrease in petroleum use.
Those reductions could ease the state's ability to comply with aggressive GHG and petroleum use reduction goals that Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has set and that the state legislature is seeking to codify. Under Brown's executive order, the state is seeking to curb GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, while halving petroleum use by 2030.
Engine Standards
CARB will also be pressing EPA to strengthen the standalone engine standards, arguing that current technologies and those expected to be available justify such action. Atwal said that Cummins, Inc., for example, has publicly stated that engine CO2 emissions can be reduced 9-15 percent during the Phase 2 timeline.
This echoes calls from environmentalists, who are also pushing EPA to strengthen its proposed standards for diesel engines, the vast majority of engines installed in the vehicles.
EPA should also expand the types of heavy-duty trailers that are included in the regulation, CARB says. These would include flatbeds, “and possibly some tankers and container chassis,” Atwal said.
CARB also believes that aerodynamic devices could also be installed on a variety of vocational vehicles.
Atwal also rebutted claims from trucking and engine industry representatives who charge that additional NOx reductions cannot be achieved from heavy-duty diesel engines without an associated increase in GHGs.
California plans later this year to press EPA to begin a new, separate rulemaking to significantly strengthen NOx standards for heavy-duty engines.
The “so-called GHG-NOX tradeoff can be avoided with an integrated systems-based approach,” Atwal said. “Several technologies, such as advanced selective catalytic reduction systems, passive NOx absorbers, stop-start technology and many others have demonstrated significant NOx reductions with no adverse GHG impacts.”
Nichols said that while new NOx standards are critical for California, EPA will not be adding a NOx element to the pending Phase 2 GHG standards.
Nichols and others also cautioned that California's ability to meet long-term ozone standards will be severely jeopardized if EPA maintains provisions in the proposed rule encouraging use of APUs as an alternative to leaving engines idling. While the units may limit GHGs, they will increase diesel PM emissions by 10 percent nationwide as trucks outside of California are not required to install diesel PM filters, CARB estimates.
As a result, CARB will be pressing EPA to require the installation of the filters on a nationwide basis, Atwal said. If this action was taken, it would reduce such emissions by 9 percent. CARB plans to “educate EPA to take immediate action on this issue,” Atwal said.
-
Poll Finds Broad Support For Climate Regs, Drought Spending
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Nearly two-thirds of Californians believe the state's ongoing drought is linked to climate change, although that belief is split along party lines.
The survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found 64 percent of residents believe global warming has affected the drought.
A full 78 percent of Democrats share that position, while 62 percent of Republicans say climate change did not fuel the drought.
Most Democrats and independents in California say they are concerned about more severe droughts, but 33 percent of Republicans share that position.
More than six in 10 Californians said it was very important for the state to pass regulations and spend money to fight climate change, an increase from two years ago. And 65 percent thought California should act on its own to craft strong rules without the aid of the federal government (Sharon Bernstein, Reuters, July 30).
-
Southern's Fanning Calls On Congress To Take Control Of National Energy Policy
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
With U.S. EPA just days away from releasing its final Clean Power Plan, Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning again told investors the nation needs a consistent energy policy -- and that job should be left up to Congress.
"I'd love to see a national energy policy enacted by Congress," Fanning said during Southern's second-quarter earnings call with analysts yesterday afternoon.
EPA's proposed rule targets greenhouse gas emissions at existing power plants. The agency is asking states to reduce their carbon emissions to a certain level by 2030.
Fanning touted Southern's mantra of having clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy, arguing that is the best way to set an energy policy that is good for consumers. EPA's policies focus on only one aspect of that, he said.
"With all of the best of intentions, EPA doesn't have the ability to assess. ... I think they get 'clean,' but they don't have the ability to assess in a balanced way 'safe, reliable and affordable,'" he said, acknowledging that it's also not the agency's job to do so.
The issue lies with EPA layering on various regulations to target water, ozone, mercury and air toxins, to name a few, he said. Fanning argues that putting out regulations piecemeal doesn't line up with balancing an overall energy portfolio for the United States.
"That's why I've always said we need a consistent energy policy," he said.
Atlanta-based Southern owns and operates four regulated electric companies in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi. The once coal-heavy energy giant has ratcheted down the amount of coal it uses and significantly added natural gas.
All of its regulated utilities have added or are adding solar and wind on some level. Southern's Georgia Power unit is building twin nuclear reactors to add baseload power, but the utility also is touting the project as providing emission-free fuel.
In its proposed rule, EPA considered the reactors at Plant Vogtle as already operating. This means the utility is not getting "credit" for building nuclear and currently can't use those reactors to meet Georgia's compliance goal.
This is one of the key things Fanning said Southern hopes EPA will change when the rule is released, which could be as early as Monday, according to a timeline E&E obtained that was posted to EPA's website (EnergyWire, July 29).
He's also hoping for some flexibility in meeting the first emissions reduction date. That date was set for 2020, but the timeline shows EPA appears to be leaning toward giving states until 2022 to start cutting carbon emissions.
"There's a host of other issues that could be considered," Fanning said. "For me to come out on what they are going to say about those issues would be pure conjecture."
He hopes a lesson was learned on the rule for mercury emissions and other air toxins in power plants. The Supreme Court in June ruled that EPA should have considered compliance costs and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit (Greenwire, June 29).
This means the rule remains in effect at least until it is reconsidered at the appellate court.
"The practical matter is, this industry complied in good faith to that kind of far-reaching regulation," he said. "We've already spent billions of dollars, we started closing plants, we've eliminated jobs and tax base. We've done all sorts of things.
"Whenever you evaluate the far-reaching implications of some of these regulations, we need to get this right out of the gate as opposed to after the fact," he said.
Southern reported second-quarter profits of $629 million, or 69 cents a share, up from $611 million, or 68 cents a share, during the same time a year ago. The company took an after-tax charge of $14 million for its coal-gasification project in Kemper County, Miss.
Excluding that charge, the company earned $647 million, or 71 cents a share, compared with $611 million a year ago.
-
Technology Emerges To 'Crowdsource' Levels Of Greenhouse Gases And Smog
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Malavika Vyawahare
The San Francisco Bay Area will soon see Google Street View vehicles that not only take snapshots of its streets but also capture snapshots of the air quality in neighborhoods they pass. Google and Aclima, a San Francisco-based air sensor technology developer, announced Tuesday that they are partnering to introduce air quality sensor-enabled Street View cars in the Bay Area, and in the future in other cities.
"We want to understand how cities live and breathe in an entirely new way," said Davida Herzl, co-founder and CEO of Aclima. This endeavor to bring air quality monitoring closer to the people using a mobile platform has generated interest among both scientists and regulators.
"Environmental air quality is an issue that affects everyone, especially those living in big cities," Karin Tuxen-Bettman, who manages the Google Earth Outreach program, said in a statement. In 2014, a majority of the world's population was living in urban areas. It has long been recognized that cities are major contributors to global emissions, and many of them are under the shadow of heavy air pollution that is detrimental to public health.
In a monthlong pilot project last year in Denver, Street View cars equipped with Aclima sensors measured levels of smog ingredients, including nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, ozone, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. The cars also tracked carbon dioxide, methane, black carbon and soot -- an array of pollutants responsible for global warming.
Historically, air pollution monitoring has relied on stationary measurement, usually in towers away from city centers, which are not designed to track urban atmospheric air pollution. At the turn of the century, there was some interest in air pollution monitoring in urban cities, said Daniel Mendoza, a researcher at the University of Utah who studies the impact of air pollutants on public health.
The conventional modes of air quality monitoring are geared toward better regulation but do not necessarily relate to the lives of residents. Heavy-duty equipment like that is designed to collect comprehensive data from a site over a period of time. But as technology for air monitoring has evolved, it has made it possible for smaller instruments to achieve acceptable standards of accuracy at the street level.EPA sees it as 'obvious next step'
"Putting air monitors in vehicles came out of the Google-Aclima interactions," said Dan Costa, national program director for air, climate and energy research at U.S. EPA. "It is the obvious next step and a perfect way to move this science forward." EPA has been involved with the project providing technical expertise and guidance during the Denver pilot, which allowed the company to test its technology and refine it. Costa called the partnership with Aclima "a transformative step to monitoring air quality and what its potential is in the future."
Advances in technology that have allowed these instruments to become smaller and less expensive also make it possible to integrate them with existing technology, be it a car or a phone. "The integration of these technologies with people's lives is so fascinating," said Kevin Gurney, an atmospheric scientist and ecologist at Arizona State University. "This way, they crowdsource the problem with the aid of good sensors."
Quality control has traditionally been a concern about inexpensive mobile sensors, he said; however, technological shifts are happening rapidly and observers are "beginning to see the power of these technologies." Scientists are always hungry for data, and particularly for a problem like air pollution. They often don't have a lot of information that comes from such close proximity to the polluting sources, he said.
The idea of mobile monitoring itself is not novel -- it has been recognized as a next-generation air quality-sensing technology. A handful of projects across the country already use these technologies, though the modalities differ from the Street View initiative. At the University of Utah, a team of researchers installed monitoring instruments on the Utah Transit Authority's light-rail train that runs through the Salt Lake Valley. Using this sensor, they can track levels of fine particulate matter, ozone and greenhouse gases, and because the trains run on the same route, it is possible to trace the pollution levels at the same location at different times.A 'fine tool' to go after polluters
This is one advantage that has led some like Mendoza to question the synergy between Google's Street View project and air sensor technology. "The problem is that it hits one place only once," he said. "You wouldn't see what happens in the winter and summer," when pollution levels might vary.
While he agreed that mobile measurements improve coverage and are more representative than older technologies, Mendoza contended that "stationary is still the gold standard." Google and Aclima recognized that the new mobile technology will only supplement rather than supplant traditional ways of monitoring air pollution.
"These sensors do not replace the traditional monitoring that has gone on for all these years," Gurney said. "I am excited about what it would add to that."
The technology would improve the resolution of air pollution mapping techniques, experts agreed. "It gives policymakers and regulators a scalpel instead of a mallet," Gurney said. "It gives them a fine tool to go after pollution sources much more efficiently."
He also pointed to a less tangible benefit from such monitoring. "Greenhouse gas emissions have been a very abstract problem for the public for many years; it has been associated with polar bears and images of the planet from space," he said. "All that is perfectly legitimate imagery, but it is such an abstraction from people's lives. Being able to show emissions as an artifact of our everyday lives, from cars, houses, factories -- that is a powerful thing."
-
Rail Agency Finishes Rule To Prevent Runaway Oil Trains
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Federal Railroad Administration has finalized a rule aimed at keeping oil trains from rolling out of control.
The new regulations require railroads to take extra precautions with trains hauling hazardous materials such as crude, including applying hand brakes on enough tank cars to prevent the entire train from moving if its primary air brakes fail.
Two years ago, a 72-car oil train left unattended on a mainline track slid free from its brakes and sped toward the town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The train derailed and exploded in the center of town, killing 47 people and prompting Canadian authorities and FRA to revisit existing rules on train securement.
FRA's rule largely codifies an emergency order passed in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic disaster, which made railroads prepare plans to justify leaving potentially dangerous cargoes unattended. The final rule applies to any train carrying poisonous gases, as well as trains consisting of 20 or more loaded cars of crude, ethanol, or other hazardous liquids and gases.
"Proper securement has become a serious and immediate safety concern," FRA said in its rule, citing the sudden uptick in crude-by-rail movements from oil patches such as North Dakota's Bakken Shale play. Railbound crude shipments have shot up from fewer than 10,000 carloads in 2008 to about 500,000 last year, according to industry data.
The surge in traffic has been accompanied by a series of fiery accidents in the United States, although there have been no fatalities from oil tank car explosions since the Lac-Mégantic derailment. FRA acknowledged in its latest rulemaking that none of the major crude oil or ethanol train accidents in the United States was caused by unsecured equipment.
FRA justified the expense of the rule by claiming it would streamline recordkeeping and reduce vandalism by requiring locomotives to be locked from the outside by March 2017.
In its cost analysis, the agency did not cite the benefit of averting catastrophic accidents, noting that it can be hard to pin down the financial impact of such "high impact, low-probability" events.
The Association of American Railroads, an industry group that represents major oil carriers such as BNSF Railway Co. and CSX Corp., said through a spokesman that it is still reviewing the rule. "To the extent it codifies the emergency order already in effect, the freight rail industry is already complying with it and will continue to do so," AAR's statement added.
The final rule has already come under criticism from the New York environmentalist group Riverkeeper, which argued throughout the rulemaking process that FRA should not let railroads develop their own plans for leaving oil trains alone on mainline tracks.
According to Riverkeeper, such an allowance amounts to a "loophole" that gives too much leeway for the rail industry to police itself without federal oversight.
FRA has pointed out that it can force railroads to change any plans deemed inadequate. In the rule, the agency said it "continues to believe that it is not necessary to provide approval for each plan, which could take considerable resources."
Sean Dixon, staff attorney for Riverkeeper's Hudson River Program, said preparing safety plans for unattended trains is "plainly a good idea," but he was skeptical of FRA's ability to enforce its new regulations. An FRA spokesman said enforcement "will be done through compliance audits, random spot checks and other methods." The agency can levy a fine of up to $25,000 per day for railroads found to be improperly securing equipment.
"A reasonable reading of this rule reflects that FRA has no active oversight or enforcement planned, and that's what we find objectionable," Dixon said, cautioning that he was still reviewing the 134-page document. "That's allowing the status quo to remain in effect -- and the status quo is what led to one of the biggest energy disasters in Canadian and perhaps North American on-land history."
-
Three-year Funding Bill Clears Senate
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Senate today approved a three-year road, rail and transit funding bill, sending the bipartisan measure to the House by a 65-34 margin nine days after it was unveiled.
With the lower chamber now out of session until early September, the approximately 1,000-page bill, H.R. 22, has no immediate chance of further movement. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has voiced hope that the legislation could be part of negotiations this fall to break the cycle of short-term transportation funding extensions that have become routine in recent years. The Senate is expected to give final approval to the latest such stopgap -- a bill to keep federal transportation funding alive through October -- later this afternoon.
The longer-term bill, which on paper would reauthorize transportation programs for six years, actually assures funding through fiscal 2018, with the help of some $46 billion in transfers from general Treasury revenues into the Highway Trust Fund, according to the Congressional Budget Office. During that three-year period, it would provide modest increases for highway, public transportation and passenger rail programs and create a $200 million annual grant initiative for freight projects.
Its unveiling on July 21 followed closed-door negotiations that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, described as difficult. The bill has undergone some significant revisions after that. It has also faced objections to the means, including sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that would be used to offset the cost of the general Treasury transfers.
"Many thought that we'd never get there, but we have indeed," McConnell said before the vote. "This is more than just another accomplishment for the Senate, it's a win for our country."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested