Preview Newsletter
ACC AM July 31
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stephanie Grace: Super PACS Are Shaping Louisiana’s Governor Race
Jul 31, 2015 | The Advocate
By Stephanie Grace
Up in Mount Vernon, Ohio, there’s a guy who’s concerned about Louisiana. Very, very concerned. So concerned that he recently cut a $150,000 check to the Fund for Louisiana’s Future. What Thomas Rastin was really supporting when he made the big donation, of course, wasn’t the state itself but U.S... -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC CAB Rises Modestly In July, Signals Slow Gains In Activity Into Early 2016
Jul 30, 2015 | IHS Chemical WeeK
By Rebecca Coons
ACC’s chemical activity barometer (CAB), a leading indicator of economic activity measured on a three-month moving average, increased 0.1% in July, following consecutive monthly gains during the second quarter and despite downward revisions in May and June. “A number of trends remain evident as we head... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chart Industries Earnings Beat Expectations in a Tough Environment
Jul 30, 2015 | The Motley Fool
By Jason Hall
Cryogenic gas processing equipment maker Chart Industries (NASDAQ:GTLS) reported second-quarter financial results earlier today, and while the numbers beat Wall Street analyst expectations, they are down across the board, with revenue, profit margins, and earnings all well off last year's levels. -
(ACC Mentioned) North American Plastics Alliance Celebrates Fourth Anniversary
Jul 30, 2015 | Quality Magazine
The North American Plastics Alliance, a group comprised of North America’s four leading plastics industry associations, celebrated its four-year anniversary Thursday. The Alliance was formed in 2011 when the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) and SPI... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Releases Guidance Document: Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index
Jul 30, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor
By Lisa Burch and Lisa Campbell
On July 24, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Federal Register notice extending the public comment period regarding its proposed Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index (USI) from July 31, 2015 to August 31, 2015. The initial Federal Register notice announcing the availability of EPA’s guidance on the USI... -
(ACC Mentioned) You've Got Recycling Questions, We've Got Answers! (Part Three)
Jul 30, 2015 | Waste360
By Allan Gerlat
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... -
Health Care Providers Address TSCA Reform Bills
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Physicians and nursing organizations typically aren't among the groups lobbying on chemical policy, but many such organizations have voiced diverse views on Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act. The most well-known of these health groups is the American Medical Association... -
Comparing the Senate and House Bills: Less is More
Jul 30, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Bob Sussman
A striking difference between the Senate and House bills – S. 697 and H.R. 2576 – is their length. The Senate bill weighs in at 179 pages, the House bill at 46 pages. The brevity of the House bill reflects a strategy of trying to address TSCA’s biggest problems and otherwise leaving existing law intact. -
Trichloroethylene Use in Fixative Spray to End
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Trichloroethylene will no longer be used to make aerosol arts and crafts spray fixatives under an agreement announced July 30 by the Environmental Protection Agency. PLZ Aerospace Corp., the only company that makes a trichloroethylene-containing spray fixative for arts and crafts, will stop making that formulation... -
Give the Oceans a Break with Greener Back-to-School Supplies
Jul 30, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Captain Charles Moore
We live in the age of plastic. Every year we make plastic stuff in amounts that equal the weight of the entire human population, and enough of it is thrown away to circle the Earth four times. More than five trillion plastic pieces, altogether weighing more than 250,000 tons, are floating at sea. We have polluted our oceans with plastic... -
Chemical Board Extends Officials' Suspension
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
Two top Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board officials will remain on administrative leave until at least mid-September, according to documents obtained by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The Chemical Safety Board sent memos dated July 27 to Managing Director Daniel Horowitz ... -
Senate Bill to Lift Crude Oil Export Ban Approved
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Legislation that would repeal the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports was approved July 30 by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The bill, passed by a vote of 12-10, also would lift restrictions on offshore oil and gas drilling in federal waters, expand federal oil and gas revenue... -
Murkowski-Warner Report Seeks End to Crude Oil Export Ban
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A report from a task force run by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) called for the repeal of the domestic crude oil export ban and liquefied natural gas restrictions, two provisions contained in Senate energy legislation. The July 30 report, from a task force convened by the Atlantic Council... -
Senate Panel Votes To Lift Oil Export Ban
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Senate took a major step toward ending the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil Thursday when a committee voted to lift the prohibition. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 12-10 along party lines to approve a bill sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski ... -
Crude Export Ban Emerges As Bargaining Chip For Wind, Solar
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey, Geof Koss and Corbin Hiar
Senators skeptical of lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude exports signaled a willingness yesterday to negotiate if they're offered language to extend tax incentives for wind and solar generators.New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich and Maine Independent Angus King bucked their Democratic colleagues ... -
Group Says Fracking Impact Analysis Violated Law
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
State oil and gas regulators violated the California Environmental Quality Act and other laws in approving a document assessing the impacts of hydraulic fracturing prior to the release of a scientific report on well stimulation activities, the Center for Biological Diversity said in a lawsuit (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Calif. Dept. of Conservation... -
Hydraulic Fracturing and the EPA Water Study: Where Do We Go from Here?
Jul 30, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Nichole Saunders
It’s been two months since EPA released its much anticipated draft report on hydraulic fracturing, and organizations like ours are busy preparing their official comments, which are due at the end of August. But based on what we have learned so far and what has been written in the media, it’s important to spend some time ... -
Sen. Nelson Pledges To Block GOP Leasing, Revenue-Sharing Bill
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) yesterday said he plans to block a bill that would allow drilling closer to Florida's Gulf Coast shore. Nelson wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) threatening to filibuster the bill, the "Offshore Production and Energizing... -
Bridge-Dangling Activists Block Shell Drilling Vessel
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
Greenpeace activists hanging by ropes from an Oregon bridge claim to have blocked Royal Dutch Shell PLC's ice-breaking vessel from returning to the Arctic, possibly delaying the company's search for oil. The 13 activists dangled on ropes this morning from the St. Johns Bridge over the Willamette River to impede... -
Why Energy Production Is Better In US Than Abroad
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andrew Browning
Good news for the United States: The Obama administration has finally given its permission to allow drilling activity to re-commence this season in the U.S. Arctic’s Chukchi Sea, which may be one of the world’s largest untapped sources of oil and gas. There’s not much time, since under current rules all drilling ... -
Gas Market Awakens as LNG Shipments Near
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Christine Buurma
After years of languishing in a shale-induced coma, the U.S. natural gas market is waking up. Seasonal price swings will intensify as the country begins shipping liquefied natural gas cargoes to Asia and Europe later this year, said Bank of America Corp., RBC Capital Markets LLC and Wood Mackenzie Ltd. While that's good news ... -
Wide-Ranging Energy Bill Approved by Senate Committee
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Broad energy legislation that would expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, among other things, was approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee July 30, but the path forward remains unknown. The committee approved the Energy Policy Modernization... -
Senate Energy Panel Approves Reform Bill
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
After three days of debate, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted Thursday to approve its attempt at the first broad energy policy reform bill in eight years. The Energy Policy Modernization Act passed by a vote of 18-4 after the panel approved various bipartisan amendments but rejected others that did not have wide... -
Bipartisan Truce Propels Energy Bill Out Of Committee
Jul 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
The Senate has a shot at the most sweeping update to the nation’s energy law in a decade — if a bipartisan truce can survive in the freewheeling chamber. A five-part bill sailed out of committee Thursday after three days of markup during which Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski... -
Clean Power Plan Stay Seen as Difficult for Opponents
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan will face an uphill battle in seeking a judicial stay of the Environmental Protection Agency's upcoming carbon pollution standards for power plants during the inevitable litigation, attorneys said. States and industry groups opposed to the rule, which could be finalized as early as Aug. 3... -
Anti-Regulatory Group Prepares For EPA Plan With New Website
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
With U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan expected out early next week, the industry-backed American Energy Alliance released a new website today to track state efforts to defeat it. The website offers a clickable map of the United States complete with any actions states' governors... -
EPA Emissions Rule Sticks to Tough Targets
Jul 30, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
Final Environmental Protection Agency regulations to cut emissions from U.S. power plants are expected to maintain ambitious emission-reduction targets included in a draft proposal released last year but give companies more time to meet them, according to people familiar with the rule. -
House Dems Urge Obama To Tighten Ozone Standard
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Sixty-two House Democrats urged the Obama administration yesterday to tighten the national air quality standard for ozone. In a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the Democrats endorsed a standard of 60 parts per billion, the lower end of the range recommended last year by the agency's science advisers. -
Munitions Plant Air Toxic Emissions Targeted
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
Reducing toxic emissions at an Army munitions factory in southwestern Virginia is a top priority at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, an agency spokeswoman said. Numerous state environmental permits are up for renewal, offering a prime opportunity to reduce... -
GOP Probes Alleged Internal Problems With Obama Water Rule
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Oversight Committee is looking into allegations that two Obama administration agencies had sharp disagreements over the development of a major water pollution rule. The panel released internal Army Corps of Engineers memos Thursday from earlier this year in which officials said the Environmental Protection Agency’s... -
EPA Push To Ease CWA Rule Implementation Fails To Quell Calls For Delay
Jul 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is pledging to quickly release a suite of tools to ease implementation of its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule including a question-and-answer (Q&A) document and database of jurisdictional findings to resolve uncertainty, but the move is failing to quell calls from the rule's critics to postpone by many months its Aug. 28 effective date. -
Dem Objections Block Clean Water Bill
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) blocked a push Thursday by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to get a vote on a clean water bill, leading to a testy exchange on the Senate floor. Portman tried to get unanimous consent for a voice vote on his legislation, which would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to hand over plans on how it will... -
Striding Toward A Climate Deal
Jul 30, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
A recently unveiled draft of a new global climate change treaty is bringing the long-sought pact a step closer to completion. United Nations negotiations on the accord are scheduled to conclude this December at a meeting in Paris. The centerpiece of the draft, which was released in late July, is promises by virtually every country in the... -
Setting Big Goals, Hillary Clinton Joins the Climate Battle
Jul 31, 2015 | The New York Times - Opinion Pages
Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised a series of initiatives to address the challenge of climate change. The first installment, unveiled this week in Iowa, calls for an aggressive expansion of wind, solar and other carbon-free energy sources so that they provide one-third of America’s electricity by 2027...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stephanie Grace: Super PACS Are Shaping Louisiana’s Governor Race
Jul 31, 2015 | The Advocate
By Stephanie Grace
Up in Mount Vernon, Ohio, there’s a guy who’s concerned about Louisiana. Very, very concerned. So concerned that he recently cut a $150,000 check to the Fund for Louisiana’s Future.
What Thomas Rastin was really supporting when he made the big donation, of course, wasn’t the state itself but U.S. Sen. David Vitter’s quest to become its next governor. The Fund for Louisiana’s Future is the super PAC backing Vitter’s effort. In this first election season in which such political groups can collect unlimited donations, Rastin — who holds a Ph.D. in engineering from LSU, is vice president of a company that manufactures a type of compressor used in natural gas production and is a member of the billionaire Koch Brothers’ political network — is part of a new breed of megadonors who could well shape the state’s future leadership, whether they come from Louisiana or not.
Vitter, not surprisingly, is well ahead of his rivals in tapping into these giant donations. The Fund for Louisiana’s Future took more than $1 million in the most recent reporting period and is sitting on $4.4 million in cash. That’s on top of the $5 million cash on hand in his old-fashioned campaign account, amassed from donations that are limited to $5,000 a pop. None of Vitter’s rivals has much more than $2 million to spend in his combined traditional and super PAC accounts.
Rastin’s $150,000 donation was the single largest figure listed in the Vitter super PAC’s current report, but he’s got plenty of company. Others who’ve written big checks since the group was established include the American Chemistry Council out of Washington, D.C. ($150,000), Cheniere Energy, of Houston ($135,000), and GMAA LLC, of New Orleans ($110,000).
The PAC’s most generous benefactor is David Vitter himself — or, more specifically, the people who’ve been contributing to his congressional campaign account. The senator transferred a cool $950,000 from his senate fund to the super PAC, which legally cannot coordinate with the gubernatorial campaign but which is run by close associates.
The Vitter super PAC’s total take even includes $69,336 from the citizens of Louisiana or, rather, from the state’s risk management self-insurance program. The payout covers the group’s legal costs for successfully suing to overturn Louisiana’s law prohibiting contributions over $100,000.
You’re welcome, senator.
Vitter’s rivals are getting into the big-donor game as well, of course. Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle has a super PAC called Louisiana Rising, and it has its own extraordinarily generous out-of-state supporter, Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas CEO James Flores, of Houston, who donated $250,000. Things drop off steeply from there to Energy Transfer Partners, of San Antonio, which gave $50,000. Also on Angelle’s big donor list is Saints and Pelicans owner Tom Benson, who donated $15,000. That sounds like a lot, until you consider the fact that Benson and his wife Gayle have donated a combined $37,500 to the Vitter group.
Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne’s super PAC, Now or Never-Louisiana, has collected $170,000 from just four donors. The donations include a $100,000 check from a Baton Rouge neonatology practice called InfaMedics; $50,000 from Matt McKay, of All Star Automotive; and $10,000 from Sheriff Newell Normand, who hails from Vitter’s home base of Jefferson Parish.
State Rep. John Bel Edwards, the lone major Democrat in the field, is also the only contender who doesn’t have his own super PAC — although some of his supporters are getting into the game, too. Gumbo PAC, the group headed by former state Democratic Party executive director Trey Ourso that’s been sponsoring those “Anybody But Vitter” billboards and online videos, is largely financed by four big plaintiff firms. Herman, Herman & Katz gave $50,000 and donated the cost of the billboards; Gordon McKernan, of Baton Rouge, and Cossish, Sumich, Parsiola & Taylor, of Belle Chasse, each gave $50,000; and Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett, of Opelousas, gave $25,000. Each also has donated to Edwards’ regular campaign account.
So in this case, I guess, the new super PAC rules allow donors to hedge their bets.
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC CAB Rises Modestly In July, Signals Slow Gains In Activity Into Early 2016
Jul 30, 2015 | IHS Chemical WeeK
By Rebecca Coons
ACC’s chemical activity barometer (CAB), a leading indicator of economic activity measured on a three-month moving average, increased 0.1% in July, following consecutive monthly gains during the second quarter and despite downward revisions in May and June. “A number of trends remain evident as we head into the second-half of the year,” says ACC Chief Economist Kevin Swift. “There was upward momentum in plastic resins used in light vehicles, which are on track for a very good sales year, but we also continue to see declines in oilfield...
Subscription needed: http://www.chemweek.com/regions/north_america/ACC-CAB-rises-modestly-in-July-signals-slow-gains-in-activity-into-early-2016_72566.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chart Industries Earnings Beat Expectations in a Tough Environment
Jul 30, 2015 | The Motley Fool
By Jason Hall
Cryogenic gas processing equipment maker Chart Industries (NASDAQ:GTLS) reported second-quarter financial results earlier today, and while the numbers beat Wall Street analyst expectations, they are down across the board, with revenue, profit margins, and earnings all well off last year's levels. The highlights: Revenue of $270.3 million, down 12%.Earnings per share of $0.56, down 14%.Gross margins declined in two of Chart's three business segments. Backlog declined 14% to $525 million.
The news isn't all bad -- after all, the company did meet forecasts -- but the release included a downward revision in full-year guidance as well, indicating that the market may not have bottomed out just yet. Let's take a closer look at the key details.
China not looking good
If you've been paying any attention to global financial news over the past few months, you'll know that things aren't pretty in China right now. That's severely impacting a lot of companies, and clearly hurting Chart, which has made big investments in Chinese manufacturing capacity in recent years. Natural gas engine technology company Westport Innovations reported earnings recently, and announced that engine sales at its joint venture with WeiChai fell more than 60% last quarter. Considering that Chart's major focus in China is natural gas cryogenic processing and storage equipment, this is further indication that business could be tough there for some time.The company specifically mentioned declining industrial activity in China as one of the reasons that sales declined 18% in the Distribution and Storage segment, its largest business unit. Chart also said backlog reductions in China was one of the reasons management was reducing full-year guidance.
Europe, weak dollar dragging on biomedical business
The biomedical business -- which is largely built around sales of respiratory (oxygen therapy) equipment, reported a 11.8% sales decline, and a 100-basis-point drop in gross margin percent, to 32.8%. The company attributed the revenue decline to a combination of weak demand in Europe, foreign exchange impact, and product mix.Relatively strong demand at home
Despite weakness in its European biomedical business, and the big slowdown in China, things are looking relatively good in the U.S. In the earnings release, Chart said that strong order growth in the U.S. was offset by the removal of $47.6 million in Chinese orders from the backlog. Absent this reduction, net orders would have been up sequentially from last quarter, largely because of the strength of orders in the U.S.Cheap energy prices are actually helping provide momentum for the U.S. business, especially for equipment related to LNG production and storage. The company announced a major partnership with Australian company LNG Limited, which is building a major LNG export facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana, that Chart is expecting will lead to $80 million in equipment orders by the end of 2015.
Cheap domestic natural gas remains a bright spot for Chart. According to the American Chemistry Council, the chemical manufacturing industry has already committed to more than $145 billion in investments in the U.S. over the next decade that are directly tied to natural gas. As a major player in the equipment that can process, store, and liquefy natural gas, as well as cryogenic processing equipment for other substances, Chart is well positioned to be a major beneficiary.
Unfortunately, the current strength isn't enough to make up for the weakness in China and Europe right now.
Looking ahead
As tough as things are right now, Chart is solidly profitable, with a relatively strong balance sheet. Cash and equivalents has fallen about 20% since the start of the year, but that's largely a product of both acquisitions and the expense of closing an underutilized manufacturing plant. The company had $2.5 million in severance and shutdown expenses in the first half of the year, which was part of that decline. Working capital is up $42 million since January, so the cash decline is less of a concern.Chart does face uncertainty in the short term, because it's unclear how deep China's economic woes really are, or how long it will take before things turn around there. It's also not clear how long the U.S. dollar's strength will hurt Chart's (and a million other companies') business results in Europe, but the good news is that even with the small drop in gross margins in biomedical from a year ago, the business has largely stabilized.
All things considered, Chart's financial strength will see it through the current environment, and the company is in a good position to take advantage of the downturn to strengthen the business for the long term. A good example is the Thermax acquisition it closed on in the quarter. The stock is a long way from those 2013 highs -- largely a product of market exuberance -- but Chart is well run, profitable, and built to withstand downturns like this. Once the market turns, the company should be well positioned to benefit.
This $19 trillion industry could destroy the Internet
One bleeding-edge technology is about to put the World Wide Web to bed. And if you act quickly, you could be among the savvy investors who enjoy the profits from this stunning change. Experts are calling it the single largest business opportunity in the history of capitalism... The Economist is calling it "transformative"... But you'll probably just call it "how I made my millions." Don't be too late to the party -- click here for one stock to own when the Web goes dark. -
(ACC Mentioned) North American Plastics Alliance Celebrates Fourth Anniversary
Jul 30, 2015 | Quality Magazine
The North American Plastics Alliance, a group comprised of North America’s four leading plastics industry associations, celebrated its four-year anniversary Thursday.
The Alliance was formed in 2011 when the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) and SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association joined forces to more effectively coordinate the organizations’ shared priorities of promoting the plastics industry, advocating on its behalf and moving the entire industry forward through product stewardship programs and other efforts designed to facilitate plastics recycling and energy recovery.
In March 2015, the Alliance welcomed its newest member, the Asociación Nacional de Industrias del Plástico, AC (ANIPAC), bringing the Alliance’s membership to four and increasing its ability to advocate on behalf of plastics throughout the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) region.
“During the past four years, NAPA has established a strong track record of collaborating to tackle some of the plastics industry’s most pressing issues through the combined efforts of our organizations. We have become more efficient and effective in delivering value to our members, and in raising the profile and reputation of the entire plastics industry,” said William R. Carteaux, SPI president and CEO. “NAPA’s continued success is proof that the issues our industry faces will not be solved alone, and that the plastics industry has the greatest impact when it speaks with one resounding voice.”
“NAPA’s greatest successes have been in working together on shared advocacy challenges, developing solutions to improve recycling and recovery of used plastics, and in keeping plastic out of our oceans,” said Steve Russell, vice president of the Plastics Division of ACC. “Together our organizations have been able to leverage our respective skills and resources to achieve more than would have been possible working alone.”
“Not only do plastics manufacturers located throughout North America face many of the same challenges, but the organizations that represent these companies, like CPIA, SPI, ANIPAC and ACC, face their own issues every day in providing value to their members,” said Carol Hochu, president and CEO of CPIA. “Through NAPA we’ve been able to strengthen each of our organizations, resulting in better service, better products and better value to every plastics company that is taking advantage of the outstanding offerings put forth by membership in a NAPA-aligned trade association.”
NAPA’s newest member, Martha G. Alva, CEO of ANIPAC, said “As of March 2015, ANIPAC is formally part of NAPA. This venture will be of great value as the Mexican association will be able to exchange experience and knowledge with its equivalents in Canada and USA. The new channel of communication will allow the development of joint solutions to common issues and the design of better strategies to strengthen the plastic industry in North America.”
NAPA concentrates its efforts in four specific areas:• Outreach — to promote better understanding of plastics’ economic, social and environmental contributions;
• Advocacy — to encourage public policy that supports the growth of the plastics industry and to defend against specific product attacks by proving factual information while fostering innovation;
• Energy recovery and recycling — to facilitate increased recycling and recovery of plastics’ stored energy content; and
• Pellet containment — to extend wide-scale adoption of Operations Clean Sweep throughout North America and beyond.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Releases Guidance Document: Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index
Jul 30, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor
By Lisa Burch and Lisa Campbell
On July 24, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Federal Register notice extending the public comment period regarding its proposed Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index (USI) from July 31, 2015 to August 31, 2015. The initial Federal Register notice announcing the availability of EPA’s guidance on the USI was issued on July 1, 2015.
By way of background, in 2014, EPA issued a final rule on Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides amending the regulations setting forth the data requirements that support an application to register a pesticide product. The final rule contains the data requirements specifically applicable to antimicrobial pesticides that were codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 158, subpart W. The final rule lists 12 antimicrobial use patterns in 40 C.F.R. § 158.2201. The data requirements applicable to a pesticide product depend in part on the product’s use pattern. The general use patterns are broad designations, and are used as columns in the antimicrobial data requirements tables to identify which data requirements might be pertinent to the particular pesticide use site.
EPA has developed the USI to assist antimicrobial pesticide applicants and registrants and to assist EPA staff to identify the use pattern that applies to a pesticide product, and thus the data requirements that must be met to register the product. EPA states that the USI serves as a compilation of the specific use sites that are commonly listed on antimicrobial labels and links these commonly listed use sites with the twelve general use patterns.
The posting of this proposed guidance document for public comment is intended to satisfy a condition of the March 2, 2015, settlement agreement between EPA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) that followed ACC’s July 2013 initiation of a legal challenge to the data requirements regulation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In addition to extending the comments, EPA also published in the docket a Question and Answer document on the USI Webinar for questions submitted to EPA prior to the July 14, 2015, webinar. Additional information regarding the USI is available in EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0302.
-
(ACC Mentioned) You've Got Recycling Questions, We've Got Answers! (Part Three)
Jul 30, 2015 | Waste360
By Allan Gerlat
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.
-
Health Care Providers Address TSCA Reform Bills
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Physicians and nursing organizations typically aren't among the groups lobbying on chemical policy, but many such organizations have voiced diverse views on Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The most well-known of these health groups is the American Medical Association, which included lobbying for the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) in its $12.4 million portfolio of issues, according to its second quarter Lobbying Disclosure Act submission for 2015.
The rest of its portfolio largely addressed more traditional health issues, including funding research on various diseases, Affordable Care Act implementation and implementation of the Drug Quality and Security Act.
S. 697 “is an important bipartisan effort to further our shared goal of modernizing TSCA to effectively assess, evaluate and regulate toxic substances and better protect the public,” especially vulnerable populations, AMA Executive Director James Madara wrote April 27.
The AMA sent its letter to Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), who have worked on the bipartisan bill for more than two years.
Women's Health Physicians
More recently, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
“The current law governing chemicals is neither effective nor adequately protective of the patients we serve,” wrote Mark DeFrancesco, president of the organization representing women's health care physicians.
“The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, S. 697, the only bipartisan toxic chemical reform legislation in the Senate, will better serve vulnerable populations than current law,” he wrote.
Provisions in the bill that ACOG supports would:
• establish a safety standard directing the Environmental Protection Agency to focus only on health concerns—not cost—when determining whether a chemical is safe;
• establish a Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals to provide advice on issues such as including chemical exposures to women, children and other potentially exposed or susceptible populations; and
• allow physicians treating patients access to confidential chemical information they could need to treat patients.
Many other aspects of the bill, ACOG said, were outside its expertise.
Non-Animal Testing Supported
A third physicians group supporting S. 697 is the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Unlike the AMA or ACOG, the group routinely advocates on chemical policies. It supports non-animal toxicity tests as a means to improve the accuracy and predictive potential of such tests.
The Physicians Committee spent $29,936 during the second quarter of 2015 lobbying on issues, including supporting S. 697, supporting salad bars in schools and urging the Senate to include in the Personal Care Products Safety Act (S. 1014) language requiring companies to use non-animal toxicity testing approaches.
S. 697 includes several provisions encouraging the EPA to use non-animal toxicity information, including computer-based models and robotic high-throughput screening methods.
Other physicians and health-care providers also support TSCA reform but have raised concerns about S. 697.
The Catholic Health Association of the U.S. spent $140,000 during the second quarter of 2015 lobbying on issues, including opposing S. 697.
Minority Health Care Providers
A coalition of physicians and nursing organizations serving minority populations wrote to McConnell and Reid on July 22 urging the Senate to take up House-passed legislation, rather than S. 697, when they bring a bill to the floor.
The letter referred to the TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576), which the House approved June 23 by a 398–1 vote (121 DEN A-1, 6/24/15).
Both S. 697 and H.R. 2576 have strengths and weaknesses, but TSCA reform is urgent, wrote Lawrence Sanders, president of the National Medical Association, which was founded in 1895 and represents more than 30,000 African American physicians and their patients.
Also signing the letter were the presidents and executive directors of the Association of American Indian Physicians, the National Association of Hispanic Nurses, the National Black Nurses Association, the National Council of Asian Pacific Islander Physicians and the National Hispanic Medical Association.
TSCA's Failures ‘Deeply Felt.’
“People of Color have borne the brunt of industrial chemical pollution in the United States according to numerous studies going back several decades. The failures of the Toxic Substances Control Act are therefore more deeply felt in our communities,” the groups wrote.
“We encourage you to bring H.R. 2576 forward for consideration with a few critical amendments,” the health care providers wrote.
The letter detailed the changes they encouraged senators to make in the House bill. By contrast, S. 697 would create numerous loopholes and concerns, they wrote.
In addition to the minority health care providers, seven nursing and physicians organizations, along with Health Care Without Harm, which includes hospitals, health care systems and medical professionals, signed a July 7 letter that urged the Senate to begin its floor debate with H.R. 2576.
Those seven organizations signed a letter from many more organizations that belong to the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition, which represents more than 450 environmental, health, labor and consumer organizations.
The House bill is clearer and more concise and would be more appropriate to use as the legislative vehicle for changes during the floor debate, Safer Chemicals wrote.
$30.7 Million Boost in Lobbying
Dozens of traditional lobbying groups also have weighed in on S. 697.
Organizations including the Boeing Co., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, the Environmental Working Group, IBM, the League of Conservation Voters Parkinson's Action Network, Procter and Gamble Co., the Toy Industry Association and Toyota Motor North America Inc. spent $128 million from April 1 through June 30 lobbying on issues, including S. 697.
That's a $30.7 million increase from the lobbying amount spent from Jan. 1 to March 31 on issues, including S. 697.
-
Comparing the Senate and House Bills: Less is More
Jul 30, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Bob Sussman
A striking difference between the Senate and House bills – S. 697 and H.R. 2576 – is their length. The Senate bill weighs in at 179 pages, the House bill at 46 pages.
The brevity of the House bill reflects a strategy of trying to address TSCA’s biggest problems and otherwise leaving existing law intact. The Senate bill, by contrast, paints with a much broader brush; almost no provision of the existing law is left untouched.
Its proponents have portrayed the Senate approach as “comprehensive”, suggesting that it achieves broad, across-the-board improvements in TSCA that the more targeted House bill fails to make. But does a “comprehensive” bill necessarily mean a better chemical safety program?
Or is the opposite the case: is the Senate bill bloated with provisions that won’t help EPA protect public health and the environment but instead fix imaginary problems or, worse, place large new administrative burdens on EPA which will only make its job tougher?
An answer to this question is suggested by the numerous rules, guidance, procedures, and strategies that the Senate bill requires EPA to issue in the early years of implementation. These requirements – totaling 15 in all – include: Policies, procedures and guidance on the use of science in making decisions (sec. 3A(c))Policies and procedures for the testing of chemical substances and mixtures (sec. 3A(g))Rulemaking to establish policies and procedures for safety assessments and safety determinations (sec. 3A(h)(2))Guidance to assist interested parties in developing their own safety assessments (sec. 3A(h)(2)(D))A strategic plan to reduce testing on vertebrate animals (sec. 4(c)(2))Guidance on tiered testing (sec. 4(d)(4))Rulemaking to establish a risk-based prioritization screening process (sec. 4A(a)(1))Rulemaking to establish procedures and criteria by which manufacturers can propose chemicals for safety assessments and determinations (sec. 4A(c)(1)(A))Rulemaking requiring reporting of information necessary to carry out sections 4 and 6 (sec.8(a)(4))Guidance for reporting under section 8(a) (sec. 8(a)(5))Rulemaking to require reporting for the Active Substance Inventory (sec. 8(b)(4)(A))A plan to review CBI claims for active substances (sec. 8(b)(4)(C))Rulemaking to carry out export notification requirements (sec. 12(b)(2))Guidance on development of generic names for CBI substances (sec. 14(d)(3))Rules for payment of fees by industry (sec. 26(b)(1))
Most of these actions must be completed within 2 years and many in 1 year. Thus, EPA will be overburdened with administrative requirements at the very time it is struggling to increase the pace of safety assessments and risk management on chemicals that fail to meet the safety standard.
There may be a few areas where implementing guidance will be necessary under the new law. For example, the Senate bill requires a retrospective review of CBI claims for the molecular identity of chemicals listed on the existing TSCA inventory. This positive effort to increase transparency (lacking in the House bill) may well require EPA guidance or even rulemaking to be successful.
However, the sheer volume of rules, guidance and procedures required by the Senate bill far exceeds the minimum necessary for effective TSCA reform and threatens to compromise timely implementation of the new law. Rulemaking and guidance development are resource-intensive, involving public comment, OMB review and, inevitably, litigation and the accompanying uncertainty when one or more stakeholders are unhappy with the outcome. With so many administrative tasks required of EPA in a limited period, delays will be unavoidable, potentially leading to more litigation and placing demands on EPA resources and management time well after initial deadlines have come and gone.With so many administrative tasks required of EPA in a limited period, delays will be unavoidable, potentially leading to more litigation and placing demands on EPA resources and management time well after initial deadlines have come and gone. The House bill makes it much easier for EPA to focus on protecting public health
None of the implementing actions called for by the Senate bill is required by H.R. 2576. This will greatly simplify the task of putting a new TSCA program in place, and make it much easier for EPA to focus on the central task of completing risk evaluations and rulemakings to increase protection of public health. The Senate bill overburdens EPA with many unnecessary requirements
If the administrative requirements in the Senate bill resulted in a more effective and protective chemical management program, the resource tradeoffs might be worth considering. But in reality most of these requirements simply add process and paperwork and create litigation opportunities without enhancing the quality of EPA decision-making.
A few examples demonstrate this point. The Senate bill’s requirement that EPA develop detailed policies and guidance on the use of science for decision-making has no parallel in current TSCA or any other environmental law. The apparent purpose of this requirement is to assure the quality of the science that EPA uses to make judgments about assessment priorities, testing and chemical risks. But the Agency already has extensive guidelines for conducting risk assessments for different end-points, policy statements addressing such issues as cumulative and aggregate risk, standard protocols for testing, detailed peer review policies and handbooks, and an independent Science Advisory Board which reviews important scientific work products. The agency is continually receiving input on its science policy framework and reexamining its thinking on critical science issues. Adding another set of policies and procedures on top of this existing framework is overkill and will simply provide yet another forum for stakeholders seeking to advance their science policy agendas.
The Senate bill requires EPA to provide opportunities for comment on risk evaluations and rules for individual chemicals and, if stakeholders raise scientific concerns, the agency will be obligated to respond. The ability to provide feedback on the science supporting individual evaluations and rules, coupled with peer review of EPA’s assessments and the agency’s overall science policy framework, will be more than sufficient to ensure that EPA uses the best available science and that diverse scientific perspectives are considered.
The House bill takes a different tack from the Senate, providing limited, general direction to EPA on the use of science in section 26(h) but not requiring new guidance or policies. There are some problems with the House language, but it does a better job of respecting the extensive science framework now in place and protecting EPA’s scarce resources.Section 4A of S. 697 creates an elaborate process to set priorities for safety assessments, requiring rulemaking to establish a prioritization process, prescribing criteria for identifying high- and low-priority chemicals and establishing procedures for maintaining and updating the priority list. These provisions grossly overcomplicate a simple task. Priority-setting is merely a means of selecting the chemicals that will receive in-depth review by the Agency; in itself, it implies no definitive judgment about chemical risks or the need for regulation, subjects that will be addressed later in the safety assessment and risk management process.
The current law contains no mechanism for prioritizing chemicals under section 6 but leaves this task to EPA’s discretion. Without Congressional direction, EPA has developed a prioritization framework – the Work Plan process – that it has used to screen hundreds of chemicals and select dozens for risk assessment. During the many hearings on TSCA reform, there’s been no suggestion that this process is flawed or EPA’s initial risk assessment priorities are misplaced. Yet the Senate bill would replace the Work Plan process with a cumbersome priority-setting mechanism that will create unnecessary work, duplicate previous Work Plan evaluations and slow down the critical task of beginning to assess chemicals of concern.
H.R. 2476 takes a more straightforward and direct approach. It does not require a formal prioritization process or a rulemaking to establish screening criteria. And it does not mandate a priority list as such. Instead, in section 6(b)(3)(A), it simply directs EPA to conduct a risk evaluation for a chemical if it determines that the chemical ”may present an unreasonable risk of injury because of potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the intended conditions of use.” This is an appropriately low threshold that preserves EPA’s discretion. Moreover, in section 6(b)(3)(B), the House bill gives EPA the ability to conduct risk evaluations on Work Plan chemicals without any threshold determination at all, respecting the agency’s previous efforts to set priorities and avoiding wasteful duplication of effort.
Again, the House approach should get the nod for creating a simple and efficient framework for selecting chemicals for risk evaluation. Another unnecessary exercise mandated by the Senate bill is the separation of the TSCA Inventory into “active” and “inactive” chemicals (i.e. those not manufactured or imported in the last 10 years). To accomplish this, the bill provides detailed criteria for defining “active” chemical substances, calls for rulemaking requiring reporting by manufacturers and processors of these substances, directs EPA to create and maintain an active substance list, and establishes a mechanism for updating the list.
As old timers will recall, creation of the TSCA Inventory in the late 1970s was an arduous multi-year process that involved complicated questions of chemical nomenclature, difficult issues about who was obligated to report and submission of voluminous amounts of information that stretched to the limit EPA’s data-systems. While technology has advanced greatly since then and EPA can build on the established Inventory reporting rules, an Inventory “reset” will still be a challenging task, requiring considerable staff and contractor time to oversee reporting and then manage the huge amount of data submitted to EPA.
The apparent rationale for creating an active substance list is to correct the public perception that all 84,000 Inventory-listed substances are in commercial use when, according to industry, the actual number is much smaller. But is this claimed problem one that EPA should solve or is it an industry public relations concern that doesn’t warrant a complex paperwork exercise of no value in reducing risks to health and the environment?
For the foreseeable future, EPA’s plate will be full assessing and managing the risks of a finite group of chemicals of concern identified through the Work Plan process and other sources. If it wants to select priorities from a larger universe, EPA can use data reported under its Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) program, which in 2012 identified 7500 chemicals annually produced or imported in amounts of 25,000 pounds at one or more sites. (Expanded reporting requirements effective in 2016 are likely to pick up even more chemicals). Further expanding this universe by identifying all active substances listed on the Inventory may give industry a useful talking point – “good news: there are only 40,000 unassessed chemicals in commerce, not 80,000!” – but will have no practical benefit to the TSCA program for years to come.
The House rightly decided against including wasteful and unnecessary Inventory “reset” requirements in H.R. 2576. The House bill is not perfect but has strength in simplicity
The House bill is far from perfect. The unconstrained ability of industry under the bill to set EPA’s risk evaluation agenda is hard to defend and must be fixed. The bill imposes a “cost-effectiveness” requirement on the selection of remedies under section 6 which will increase analytical burdens on EPA and could force it to compromise public protection on the basis of cost. And the bill conditions EPA’s obligation to initiate risk evaluations on ten chemicals per year “on the availability of appropriations,” a caveat that could mean that this requirement is unenforceable.
That said, the simplicity of the House bill is an important strength because it keeps the focus on essential changes to TSCA and, unlike the Senate bill, avoids overburdening EPA with unnecessary requirements. This compact and targeted approach should be the lodestar for reconciling the two bills once the Senate acts.
To rephrase the old adage, the House bill shows that less is more when it comes to TSCA reform, whereas the Senate bill shows the opposite – more is in fact less.
-
Trichloroethylene Use in Fixative Spray to End
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Trichloroethylene will no longer be used to make aerosol arts and crafts spray fixatives under an agreement announced July 30 by the Environmental Protection Agency.
PLZ Aerospace Corp., the only company that makes a trichloroethylene-containing spray fixative for arts and crafts, will stop making that formulation by Sept. 1, the agency said. The fixative is used by artists, picture framers, printers and other professionals to provide a clear, permanent, water-repellent finish, the EPA said.
PLZ can sell existing stocks of the fixative until they are depleted, the agency said.
Previous analyses by EPA have concluded that trichloroethylene (TCE) is carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure.
Sufficient exposure to TCE also can harm the liver, kidneys, nervous system, immune system, the reproductive system and developing organisms, the agency says.
The safety data sheet for PLZ's clear plastic spray fixative, made by the company's Sprayway Inc. division, said 20 percent to 40 percent of the formulation consisted of trichloroethylene (CAS No. 79-01-6 20).
Finding a suitable replacement for TCE took extensive research and testing, Jim McLarity, senior regulatory specialist for PLZ Aerospace Corp., wrote in a March 5 letter to the EPA confirming its phaseout plans.
“The formula approved has a higher cost, but comparable performance,” he wrote.
Voluntary Action and Proposed Rule
To prevent PLZ's voluntary phaseout from opening the market to other companies, the EPA also proposed a significant new use rule (SNUR).
The rule would provide the EPA's oversight over future potential uses of TCE in spray fixatives and some other consumer products.
The rule would affect a small percentage of TCE's use, the agency acknowledged. The vast majority of the 250 million pounds made in and imported into the U.S. annually is sold for industrial applications and through industrial supply chains, the agency said.
Under the SNUR, which will be subject to a 60-day comment period, manufacturers and importers would be required to notify the agency 90 days before they made or imported TCE-containing spray fixatives or some other consumer products.
Products that the EPA proposed to exempt from the SNUR are lubricants, film cleaners, hoof polishes, pepper spray, mirror edge sealants and cleaners and solvent degreasers.
Sprayway's C-60 Solvent Degreaser contains between 90 percent and 100 percent TCE, according to its safety data sheet, while the company's Mirror Edge Sealant contains between 20 percent and 40 percent.
-
Give the Oceans a Break with Greener Back-to-School Supplies
Jul 30, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Captain Charles Moore
We live in the age of plastic. Every year we make plastic stuff in amounts that equal the weight of the entire human population, and enough of it is thrown away to circle the Earth four times. More than five trillion plastic pieces, altogether weighing more than 250,000 tons, are floating at sea. We have polluted our oceans with plastic to the point where we have created five enormous accumulation zones, sometimes referred to as garbage patches. The largest is a floating mass of plastic twice the size of Texas, known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
In 1999, the plastic pieces in this area outnumbered sea life six-to-one. The ratio is now much higher. Although reducing your plastic use may not be the first thing that comes to mind when you think about back-to-school, it’s an important issue, both for the health of our environment and for the health of our children.
Algalita Marine Research and Education’s mission is to draw back the “plastic curtain” of ignorance about the material that defines our age and to expose some of the negative effects of plastic pollution. EWG has helped in this effort by exposing some of the ways that plastics affect our own and our children’s health.
As back-to-school approaches, here are some tips to keep plastics out of lunches and school supplies. It might seem like another burdensome chore, but reducing your plastic consumption can actually be done easily, and it must be a priority.
You find plastics in lunch boxes, food containers and beverage bottles.
Instead of using plastic bags or your average plasticized lunch box, choose great alternatives such as cotton, hemp or wool lunch bags, unpainted stainless steel boxes or recyclable paper bags. If you go the route of a disposable, recyclable bag, make sure your child knows to throw it in the recycling bin and not in the trash. And be sure to replace those plastic forks, spoons and straws with reusable stainless steel or bamboo-ware.
Pack food in reusable containers. Try to avoid plastic wherever possible. Use glass or stainless steel instead of plastic Tupperware. Instead of plastic wrap, use parchment paper or other reusable food wraps made with beeswax and tree resin.
Instead of a plastic water bottle, whether reusable or disposable, choose a bottle made of glass, BPA-free aluminum or stainless steel.
There are ways to avoid plastics beyond the lunchroom, because most school supplies are made of plastic, too.
Choose a wooden pencil, without paint or a glossy coating, instead of a plastic one. Buy notebooks and binders made from recycled cardboard or natural fibers, instead of ones covered with plastic, which is typically made from toxic PVCs. Following these suggestions will both help to reduce plastic waste and pollution as well as protect your child from toxins.
Changing just a few of your habits can make a big difference in the health of your family and the environment. Keep plastic out of your child’s lunchbox, backpack and desk to keep your kids healthy and the land and ocean around you safe from pollution by vagrant plastics.
Be sure to check out EWG's Back-to-School Guide here.
-
Chemical Board Extends Officials' Suspension
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
Two top Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board officials will remain on administrative leave until at least mid-September, according to documents obtained by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The Chemical Safety Board sent memos dated July 27 to Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and General Counsel Richard Loeb extending their period of leave from 45 days to 90 days. PEER released the memos July 30.
Horowitz and Loeb have been on leave since June 16. Richard Engler, who is acting as CSB chairman in the absence of a Senate-confirmed agency head, suspended the pair with pay pending an investigation of possible misconduct.
The two CSB officials have been under fire for their actions during the tenure of former CSB Chair Rafael Moure-Eraso. Like Moure-Eraso, Horowitz and Loeb broke federal law by using nongovernmental e-mail accounts for agency business, according to an Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General report.
All three were implicated in fostering a toxic and abusive work environment in a June 2014 report on agency mismanagement prepared by the Republican staff on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (119 DEN A-17, 6/20/14).
In a March 18 letter, Republicans and Democrats on the House Oversight Committee asked President Barack Obama to remove Moure-Eraso and his two top aides from the agency. Moure-Eraso resigned soon after under White House pressure, while Horowitz and Loeb remained at the CSB until they were put on leave.
PEER Weighs In
PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch defended Horowitz and Loeb during a July 30 interview with Bloomberg BNA. Ruch alleged that other CSB personnel, including other board members, used nongovernmental e-mail for agency business.
The report claiming Horowitz and Loeb had a hand in CSB mismanagement was nothing but a political attack, Ruch said. The bipartisan letter seeking Horowitz and Loeb's ouster along with Moure-Eraso's “was more of a political call to remove anyone associated with the chairman,” Ruch said.
PEER has trained its rhetorical guns on Engler since he took over as interim chairman and put Horowitz and Lobe on leave. A July 30 press release called Engler a “witting pawn” in a Republican plot to cripple the CSB and leave it paralyzed, as well as an avowed Marxist who's behaved like a Stalinist while serving as the acting chairman.
“The fact that [Engler] extended the administrative leave suggests his tactic is to leave [Horowitz and Loeb] on the beach to starve, even though they're still being paid,” Ruch said.
When asked about PEER's sharp rhetoric, Ruch said that his organization is “merely trying to be clear.” Ruch e-mailed Bloomberg BNA an apparently unpublished press release titled “Trotsky Joins the Tea Party” to support accusations of Engler's Marxism. That document cites snippets of Engler's writing from the mid-1970s advocating worker and public control of oil refineries as a means to improve occupational safety and health.
‘Personal Assassination Attacks.'
Engler declined to comment on PEER's criticism.
“I'm focused on the important mission of the CSB to help ensure chemical safety, and I'm not going to respond to personal assassination attacks,” Engler told Bloomberg BNA July 30.
The United Steelworkers supported Engler temporarily taking over the CSB in June. Jim Frederick, the USW's assistant director for safety, health and environment, said that support continues.
“The union remains confident in the leadership of Rick Engler at the CSB,” Frederick told Bloomberg BNA July 30.
-
Senate Bill to Lift Crude Oil Export Ban Approved
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Legislation that would repeal the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports was approved July 30 by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The bill, passed by a vote of 12-10, also would lift restrictions on offshore oil and gas drilling in federal waters, expand federal oil and gas revenue sharing received by coastal states and increase the number of oil and gas leases required under the Obama administration's proposed five-year drilling plan.
The Offshore Production and Energizing National Security Act (no bill number available), introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), combines four previously introduced pieces of legislation that didn't make it into the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's broad bipartisan energy bill (142 DEN A-5, 7/24/15).
Price Trigger Added
The bill was adopted after the incorporation of an amendment by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that would allow the president to impose restrictions on the export of crude oil if exports are found to have caused “sustained oil supply shortages or sustained oil prices significantly above world market levels.”
The ban on crude oil exports is opposed by major oil producers such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP and Shell while supported by a coalition of independent refiners comprising Alon USA, PBF Energy Inc., Philadelphia Energy Solutions and Delta Air Lines’ Monroe Energy LLC.
The legislation was approved along party lines. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who voted against it, said he would consider supporting the legislation if it included more incentives for renewable energy.
As is, the bill should be called the “No Fossil Fuel Left Behind Act,” King said before the vote.
-
Murkowski-Warner Report Seeks End to Crude Oil Export Ban
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A report from a task force run by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) called for the repeal of the domestic crude oil export ban and liquefied natural gas restrictions, two provisions contained in Senate energy legislation.
The July 30 report, from a task force convened by the Atlantic Council, provides nine recommendations on “how energy abundance can strengthen U.S. global leadership.”
The recommendations in the report are similar to those in a broad energy bill, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the bill on July 30 (see related story).
“Timing is important here in Washington, D.C., and the fact that we are here before you announcing this very impressive report at the same time that we are moving out of the Senate Energy Committee significant legislation is quite telling,” Murkowski, chairman of the committee, said at a July 30 event at the Atlantic Council in Washington.
She emphasized the bipartisan support for both the report and the legislation in Congress.
“This report represents what should be bipartisan consensus, and that consensus is that America should serve as a global leader on energy and the environment, and there should not be any contradiction between the two,” Murkowski said.
Lifting Crude Oil, LNG Export Restrictions
The top recommendation from the report is to lift the 40-year-old restrictions on exporting domestic crude oil, while retaining the presidential authority to add restrictions when they are in the national interest.
A bill that would repeal the crude oil export ban was also approved by the Senate energy committee July 30 and will go to the Senate for consideration (see related story).
Additionally, the report recommended further lifting the export restrictions on LNG while retaining the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's environmental and safety review process.
The report cited several advantages of exporting LNG, including enhanced diversification, competition and improved energy security with an increased volume of LNG in the global supply. Similar provisions are in the broad Senate energy bill approved by the committee.
The report also called for concluding negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership without any restrictions on U.S. crude oil and LNG exports.
Veto-Proof Energy Bill?
Murkowski also discussed the prospects for the Senate energy bill. While there are provisions in it that the president might not like, it's largely a bipartisan measure, she said.
“The path to this proposal actually becoming law is working together and producing a product that is not a Republican product or a Democrat product … but truly is in the national interest,” Murkowski said.
She said the committee has been working with the administration, noting that the LNG provision was based on coordination the Energy Department.
She stressed that she and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member on the Senate energy committee, will continue to work to garner bipartisan support for the bill in the Senate.
-
Senate Panel Votes To Lift Oil Export Ban
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Senate took a major step toward ending the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil Thursday when a committee voted to lift the prohibition.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 12-10 along party lines to approve a bill sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the panel’s chairwoman, to lift the ban, while opening more areas to offshore drilling and giving nearby states a share of the royalties.“It’s the result of collaborative efforts by members of this committee to boost offshore development, allow revenue sharing for coastal producing states and lift the outdated ban on crude exports,” Murkowski said before the vote on the bill.
“It’s three efforts that I believe will improve our energy and our national security,” she added, referring to separate offshore drilling bills for the southern Atlantic coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico coast and the waters around Alaska, sponsored by Murkowski and other senators.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) sponsored the Gulf bill and supported the entire package.
“Obviously, we as a nation would do better if we had greater access to energy development to strengthen our energy independence,” he said.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also supported the measure.
“The current restrictions that we have in place put enormous inefficiency in the market,” he said. “And those inefficiencies create price fluctuations and price increases, not only on gasoline but on all other kinds of products that include petroleum in their development.”
The vote puts Congress the closest it has been in a while to ending the export ban, which has become a priority of the oil industry and its supporters over the last year.
Proponents maintain that the 1970s export ban is outdated and does not acknowledge the abundance of oil that the United States now has, with production nearing record highs.
But the committee’s Democrats criticized the bill on a number of fronts, including its exclusive focus on fossil fuels. Some of them said they might support it if other measures are included to help renewable energy.
“I think the proponents are making some very persuasive arguments on this front,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). “But I think before we make such a monumental shift in U.S. policy, I hope we can agree to expand our existing policy incentives for carbon-free energy sources,” he said, pointing to tax credits for wind and solar power as priorities.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) dubbed the bill the “No Fossil Fuel Left Behind Act” for its focus on oil.
“I might be prepared to support it, but only if there’s a more balanced package of changes in the bill, for example, extension of the renewable credits for wind and solar, other kinds of environmental and renewable energy supports,” he said.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) objected to many provisions, including the revenue sharing, which she said the country cannot afford.
But mostly, she wants more time to debate it, she said.
“The committee had a discussion and vote on an offshore drilling piece of legislation, and the whole debate happened within 20 minutes,” said Cantwell, the panel’s ranking member. “That is because this is one of the most contentious issues that has ever been before the committee, and sometimes the negotiations have lasted for months.”
The vote came at the same meeting in which the committee passed its broad energy reform package with strong bipartisan support, though the two bills are separate.
The Senate Banking Committee is also considering oil export legislation, sponsored there by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).
The vote came a day after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) came out in support of oil exports, becoming the highest-ranking Republican to hold that opinion.
The House is likely to vote on its own oil export bill this fall.
-
Crude Export Ban Emerges As Bargaining Chip For Wind, Solar
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey, Geof Koss and Corbin Hiar
Senators skeptical of lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude exports signaled a willingness yesterday to negotiate if they're offered language to extend tax incentives for wind and solar generators.
New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich and Maine Independent Angus King bucked their Democratic colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in outright opposing the "Offshore Production and Energizing National Security Act of 2015," or the "OPENS Act," which would effectively lift the export ban. The bill -- which cleared the committee 12-10 -- would also increase coastal states' share of federal revenue raised by drilling off their coasts.
Heinrich said Republicans offered persuasive arguments for the language and King said he wasn't hostile to the bill, but their warmth for the measure stopped there. They called the language unbalanced and said Republicans should step up their offerings if they're hoping to secure a bipartisan vote on the Senate floor.
"Before we make such a monumental shift in U.S. policy, I hope we can agree to extend our existing policy incentives for carbon-free energy sources, vis-à-vis the solar [investment tax credit] and the wind [production tax credit]," Heinrich said before the vote.
Heinrich also noted the "OPENS Act" would be funded with the same pot of cash supporting the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is authorized to receive $900 million a year from offshore oil and gas revenues but typically receives a third of that after the appropriations process. He said the fund has waited decades to be replenished and must be part of any conversation to lift the export ban.
King said the bill's title should be the "No Fossil Fuel Left Behind Act" and lined up with Heinrich.
"I might be willing to support it, but only if there's a more balanced package of changes in the bill, for example, extension of the renewable credits for wind and solar, other kinds of potential environmental and renewable supports," King said. "I think this bill, while it can be justified and can be argued, is totally unbalanced, and I can support it if it's modified to be more balanced in terms of our long-term energy needs."
King said during an interview that he intends to pursue renewables in negotiations but he's not sure what specific provisions he'll request.
"I think if proponents want to get votes from me and others, they need to balance the bill," he said.
It's not the first time Democrats have suggested a quid pro quo for lifting the export ban.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, suggested earlier this month that the price for ending the export ban should include some of the oil and gas industry's tax breaks, export fees or revisions to the federal royalty structure (Greenwire, July 9).
None of those ideas will fly in a Republican-led Congress, but Pallone's comments signal that Democrats see exports as a bargaining chip they can use to advance their own priorities.
Heinrich told E&E Daily that there are other Democrats interested in leveraging the export ban to secure long-term certainty for renewables, whose tax credits have varied and at times vanished over the years.
"I think there are a number of people on the committee on my side of the aisle who are open to a balanced approach who couldn't support the kind of one-sided approach we saw today in committee," he said.
Heinrich indicated discussions remain in a preliminary phase on how such a deal could be made.
"I don't think that people have quite figured that out yet," he said. "There's a lot of interest and a lot of conversations going on on both sides on a number of levels because it's obviously a Finance [Committee] issue, as well as an Energy and Natural Resources issue."
The New Mexico Democrat added, "let's keep talking about this because we think that there may be a path there." Wyden's role
The broader legislation Heinrich hinted at would likely require the support of Sen. Ron Wyden, the ranking member of the Finance Committee and a strong advocate for wind and solar power. Last week, the Oregon Democrat helped push through committee an extension of the wind production tax credit, but solar subsidies were not included in that deal (E&ENews PM, July 21).
In an brief interview yesterday, Wyden confirmed he was involved in discussions about extending incentives for all renewables in exchange for lifting the oil export ban. But he had little else to say on the topic.
"This is such a serious subject that I just can't do this on the fly," he said.
Meanwhile, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said yesterday that Democrats will push to extend the renewable tax breaks on the floor. "I think it's safe to say you'll hear a lot about it," she told reporters.
But she downplayed the growing support for lifting the export ban, which she likened to "a discussion point."
Republicans pushing the "OPENS Act" appeared wary of negotiating on tax incentives for wind and solar.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said during an interview that his first priority is lifting the ban, and the bill already includes amendments from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that would allow the president to take swift action to stabilize gas prices.
"Beyond that, we'll have to see, I think we have to go to the floor with an open mind, and anything that would get added would have to get 60 votes," Hoeven said. "At the end of the day, you'd have to be careful not to have amendments that would in fact prevent the bill from passing."
Manchin later explained he opposed the "OPENS Act" over the provisions expanding offshore drilling, saying Republicans "threw them together because they thought they couldn't get the votes if they kept them separate." He called it unfair that states that oppose offshore drilling had "very little input" into the bill.
"I'm OK if Louisiana wants to do it -- let them drill -- but don't force it upon Florida and all the other Gulf [states]," he said in an interview. "It just doesn't make any sense."
ClearView Energy Partners LLC yesterday said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) may be wary of having the "OPENS Act" surface on the floor, given the committee's party-line vote.
"He may also be leery of taking on the horse trading required to secure OPENS' inclusion, especially if it comes with a hefty price tag for green energy subsidies," the firm said in a research note after the markup.
-
Group Says Fracking Impact Analysis Violated Law
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
State oil and gas regulators violated the California Environmental Quality Act and other laws in approving a document assessing the impacts of hydraulic fracturing prior to the release of a scientific report on well stimulation activities, the Center for Biological Diversity said in a lawsuit (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Calif. Dept. of Conservation, Cal. Sup. Ct., No. 34-2015-80002149, 7/30/15).
Filed July 30 in California Superior Court in Sacramento County, the group's complaint and related petition for writ of mandate seek to block the issuance of new permits for well stimulation projects until the state develops a supplemental environmental impact report.
At issue is how the state Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is implementing S.B. 4, the law enacted in 2013 to make hydraulic fracturing and other oil well stimulation activities more protective of water quality and the environment and more transparent.
DOGGR's permanent regulations for well stimulation activities took effect July 1, the same day the State Oil and Gas Supervisor certified a final environmental impact required by S.B. 4 and just days ahead of the California Natural Resources Agency's release of the independent scientific study, also required by the law (128 DEN A-10, 7/6/15).
S.B. 4 required the state to complete the scientific study by Jan. 1, 2015, so it would be considered in the environmental analysis due July 1, but the study was delayed, the Center for Biological Diversity said. DOGGR opted to not wait for the study and “green-lighted fracking about a week before scientists released their study,” the group said in a written statement.
“We were promised that decisions on fracking in California would be guided by science, but that hasn't happened,” Kassie Siegel, an attorney at the center, said in a written statement.
Alleged Violations of S.B. 4, CEQA
By not considering the risks the study identified in its final environmental analysis, DOGGR violated S.B. 4 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the group said. Those risks demonstrate the need for a supplemental analysis, the group said.
The peer-reviewed study concluded much more information is needed about the chemicals being used in fracking to adequately determine the public health and environmental threats of well stimulation activities (133 DEN A-4, 7/13/15).
Generally, the report found that the indirect and direct impacts of oil well stimulation activities can be mitigated with adequate oversight. Key recommendations called for limiting the use of poorly understood hazardous chemicals, assessing the direct impacts of all oil and gas activities on nearby neighborhoods, improved recordkeeping and better controls on the use of produced water.
Much of the complaint includes alleged procedural violations of CEQA and CEQA guidelines. DOGGR failed to circulate the final environmental impact report before certifying it; provided flawed descriptions of oil well stimulation projects; failed to disclose and analyze the full range of impacts; failed to consider and adopt adequate mitigation measures; and rejected feasible alternatives, the complaint alleged.
Department Hasn't Been Served
“The Department of Conservation has not been served with the lawsuit, and we do not comment on pending litigation,” Nancy Vogel, a spokeswoman for the California Natural Resources Agency, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. The agency oversees the Department of Conservation.
Deborah Sivas, of Stanford University's Law School, along with Siegel and another attorney at the center, Clare Lakewood, are representing the group.
-
Hydraulic Fracturing and the EPA Water Study: Where Do We Go from Here?
Jul 30, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Nichole Saunders
It’s been two months since EPA released its much anticipated draft report on hydraulic fracturing, and organizations like ours are busy preparing their official comments, which are due at the end of August.
But based on what we have learned so far and what has been written in the media, it’s important to spend some time on what the report said – and didn’t say – and what it all means.
“Is Fracking Safe?”
Scouring the EPA report for statements proving or disproving that hydraulic fracturing is safe will surely reveal both. It is true that water supplies have been contaminated by activities related to hydraulic fracturing. It is also true that the number of documented contamination events make up a small percentage of all wells. But “Is it safe?” is a red herring.
There are real, significant, and indisputable risks to land, water, and communities across the entire hydraulic fracturing “water cycle” – from water acquisition to waste disposal. EPA listed a number of them. Those risks can be considerably reduced with smart policies, technologies, procedures, and monitoring. Does the current evidence show that these risks have been reduced such that we can call the practice “safe” from start to finish? The report leads us to one conclusion: there isn’t enough evidence yet to make that call.
Perhaps the most quoted line from the nearly 1,000-page report states that EPA “did not find evidence that [fracking] mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.”
To clarify, the lack of “widespread, systemic impacts” simply means that hydraulic fracturing activities aren’t currently impacting water supplies everywhere, not that they can’t impact the water supply anywhere. Where impacts do occur – and EPA confirmed a number of them – they can be devastating to local communities and the environment.
EPA’s report validated a number of EDF’s existing concerns. Sloppy oil-and-gas-field procedures, accidents, and often the lack of basic regulations that keep pace with practices, technologies, and science mean contamination can and does happen. Poor monitoring and insufficient data mean we can’t always know if and where contamination occurs. Even where we can pinpoint a problem, we often don’t have the data or analytical capability to know how bad it is or what we need to do about it.
What Remains Unknown
EPA’s draft report is, for the most part, a review of existing studies; little new research or fieldwork was conducted. And the universe of existing research is sparse in many areas. In the executive summary, EPA states “data limitations preclude a determination of the frequency of impacts with any certainty.” In other words, EPA can’t say for sure how bad things are because it doesn’t know. No one does.
This glaring disclaimer is perhaps the most important takeaway from the report, and it’s echoed numerous times throughout. EPA highlighted caveat upon caveat and uncertainty upon uncertainty, recognizing its limited ability to fully assess potential impacts to drinking water, such as:Future cumulative water use and local impactsTypes and volumes of chemicals spilled, spill causes, containment and mitigation measures, and sources of spillsWhether fluids and gas move in unintended ways below groundEvaluation of the design and performance of individual wells or wells in a region, particularly in the context of local geology or presence of other wellsThe ability to tie possible impacts to specific well construction, operation, or maintenance practicesTotal number of spills, released volumes and associated concentrationsNational picture of wastewater generation and management practicesAnalysis of influent and effluent from facilities that treat wastewaterToxicity and potential impacts for single chemicals as well as mixtures of chemicals
Furthermore, a number of potential areas of impact were simply beyond the scope of EPA’s review:Aspects of the environment other than the water cycle (seismicity, air quality, ecosystems)Site selection, well pad, and infrastructure development (like roads and pipelines)Well closure and site reclamationImpacts on other water users (like farmers)Worker health and safetyTransportation-related spills, drilling mud spills, spills that occur off-site (such as during transportation or storage of chemicals in staging areas), and spills associated with wastewater disposal in underground injection control wells.
With this many unknowns, it’s simply impossible to make any definitive conclusions about the hydraulic fracturing activities reviewed by EPA other than “we need to know more.”
Above all else, EPA’s report is a clarion call for more research, while also using what we know now about vulnerabilities to spur improvements in regulations and industry practices. Instead of trying to reach consensus or draw conclusions from an incomplete assessment, we need to start talking about how we can fill some of these gaps, minimize risks, and address vulnerabilities.
Addressing Major Vulnerabilities
EPA highlighted key vulnerabilities to water sources so industry, regulators, and the public can better understand and address them. EDF is also independently engaged to advance this work – our strategy overlaps with a number of EPA’s indicated areas of vulnerability, including: well integrity, spills, and wastewater.
Well Failure
As we have long known, EPA concluded that poorly designed or constructed wells can allow fluids and gasses to move out of wellbores and impact water resources. With smart polices that require careful planning, constructing, testing, and monitoring of wells, these failures can be minimized, if not eliminated. For example, Texas updated requirements for drilling, casing, cementing, and fracture stimulation in 2013 – incorporating new technology and leading practices. In the year after the rule became effective, blowout incidents were cut 40 percent, proving that smart policies can directly reduce risks to water sources as well as to worker safety. It’s why EDF is working to get more states to adopt similar progressive policies.Spills
In addition to well integrity failures, a large majority of ground and surface water impacts are due to surface releases of chemicals, fracking fluids, and wastewater – like a recent pipeline rupture in North Dakota that resulted in more than 3 million gallons of salty produced water spilling into a nearby stream. We know very little about the broader impact of such spills due to a lack of data on spill numbers and volumes (EPA could only estimate spill frequencies for two states), as well as unknown characteristics of the fluids spilled. More than 1,000 chemicals are used in hydraulic fracturing or returned in wastewater. But in EPA’s limited hazard assessment, key chronic toxicity information was lacking for 87 percent of chemicals identified as associated with hydraulic fracturing. EDF believes the frequency and impact of these spills can be dramatically reduced, but it will require improvements in the way chemicals, frac fluids, and wastewater are reported, stored, transported, and otherwise handled on and off-site.Wastewater Disposal
The oil and gas industry produces more than 800 billion gallons of wastewater every year, and our knowledge of its content, toxicity, and treatability is severely limited. This is especially important given a potential trend toward permitted treatment and disposal of this waste into streams or onto land. EPA concluded that there was limited information regarding the influents and effluents from facilities that treat wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations and that improved analysis methods are needed so we can better determine concentrations of chemicals like organics and radionuclides.EDF is working to fill those data gaps by launching studies to improve our ability to analyze and effectively treat oil and gas wastewater. Because new treatment and recycling efforts often are being pursued in the name of water conservation, EDF is working to ensure that these practices do not create more environmental risks than they solve.
Looking Ahead
EPA has provided a comprehensive, authoritative snapshot of what we know and what we don’t about the interplay between hydraulic fracturing activities and water. It is an important but incomplete assessment that, unfortunately, poses more questions than it answers.
More broadly, the report has affirmed the need for a widespread, data-based approach such as the one EDF has taken on this and other issues:Get the science right – the data shortcomings highlighted by EPA have sharpened our focus on various scientific areas where our staff can contribute, as we have done with methane emission science.Get the rules right – the report underscores the need for a process of continuous improvement, building on growing knowledge and changing technologies to better design and implement existing and emerging industry practices and regulations that can minimize risks to our water resources.
So, where do we go from here? Until we can fill the data gaps revealed by EPA’s water study, we can’t be certain that existing rules and industry practices adequately ensure that hydraulic fracturing and its associated activities are done “safely.” But that doesn’t mean significant progress can’t be made today to reduce risk and address known vulnerabilities with smart policies, like the 2013 work in Texas that cut the incidence of well blowouts nearly in half. EPA’s water study is an important part of the ongoing debate but clearly continued focus on the steps we can take now to protect oil and gas communities from localized impacts, even while we gather more data to further minimize risks, is essential.
-
Sen. Nelson Pledges To Block GOP Leasing, Revenue-Sharing Bill
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) yesterday said he plans to block a bill that would allow drilling closer to Florida's Gulf Coast shore.
Nelson wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) threatening to filibuster the bill, the "Offshore Production and Energizing National Security Act," because it would allow rigs within 50 miles of the Sunshine State's beaches.
A 2006 law currently keeps rigs at least 125 miles from shore until 2022.
"If any measure to repeal the current moratorium on offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico comes before the full Senate for a vote, I will use all available procedural options to block it," Nelson wrote.
Proponents of the bill would have to find at least 60 votes to overcome Nelson's move.
The bill, by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), yesterday passed the committee on a 12-10 party-line vote, drawing cheers from the National Ocean Industries Association.
It would open new federal waters to oil and gas exploration, lift a ban on exports of crude oil, and share more offshore energy revenues with coastal states.
NOIA said it would "strengthen America's energy and national security, improve our national economy and benefit consumers across the country."
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), whose legislation was bundled into Murkowski's bill, said, "Opening the eastern Gulf alone would add $18 billion per year to the U.S. economy and generate billions in revenue that could go to improving our roads and schools."
In a media release, Cassidy said the bill would allow Florida to receive $1.6 billion over a decade from revenue-sharing distributions.
-
Bridge-Dangling Activists Block Shell Drilling Vessel
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
Greenpeace activists hanging by ropes from an Oregon bridge claim to have blocked Royal Dutch Shell PLC's ice-breaking vessel from returning to the Arctic, possibly delaying the company's search for oil.
The 13 activists dangled on ropes this morning from the St. Johns Bridge over the Willamette River to impede Shell's Fennica from returning to the Pacific Ocean and heading north to assist its drilling fleet in the Chukchi Sea.
The icebreaker was in dry dock in Portland, Ore., to repair a gash in its hull that it suffered July 3 near Dutch Harbor, Alaska. The vessel is carrying Shell's capping stack, a key piece of equipment the company is required to have on hand in the Arctic to stop the flow of an out-of-control well.
Today, U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason in Anchorage found Greenpeace in contempt of court for violating her May 8 order mandating that activists respect a "safety zone" around Shell’s vessels, including the Fennica, during the drilling season. She said in a brief order that Greenpeace would be fined $2,500 per hour until tomorrow morning, with fines to be paid to Shell rising daily to $10,000 per hour beginning Aug. 2 as long as activists hang from the bridge.
The Obama administration last week approved Shell to begin preliminary drilling in the Arctic, but the company is not allowed to penetrate oil-bearing rock until the Fennica returns.
"The fennica is headed back to its dock where it belongs -- not the arctic!" wrote one of the dangling protesters on his Twitter feed, @DanEnviroCannon, a little after 10:30 a.m. EDT.
Greenpeace is posting photos of the protest here.
Timing is of the essence for Shell. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said Shell must stop drilling by late September to allow enough time to drill a relief well before the onset of ice. In addition, a wildlife permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service requires the company to drill its two wells sequentially, rather than simultaneously, to protect walruses.
Greenpeace said its activists rappelled from the 200-foot-high bridge yesterday morning. It said the Fennica left its dry dock at about 9:15 a.m. EDT today but turned around within a couple of hours. As of 2:12 p.m. EDT, it was back in dry dock, the group said.
Shell spokesman Curtis Smith this evening said the company respects the right of Greenpeace to protest its drilling campaign, "so long as they do so safely and within the boundaries of the law."
"The staging of protesters in Portland was not safe nor was it lawful," he said. "Greenpeace demonstrated a complete lack of regard for the authority of a U.S. federal court. We are pleased with today's court ruling that holds Greenpeace in contempt and prescribes fines for further non-compliance."
A spokesman from the Portland Police Bureau also did not respond.
Sgt. Pete Simpson, a bureau spokesman, said officers were monitoring the protest and no arrests had been made, the Associated Press reported at about 1 p.m. EDT. A bureau press release yesterday said numerous people in kayaks were floating on the Willamette River below to support the aerial protest.
Greenpeace said there are 13 additional activists on the bridge providing support and that the roped activists "are prepared to hold the line as long as possible."
The Sierra Club this week said it stands by the Greenpeace demonstration.
"These brave activists have done what hundreds of thousands of Americans have called on President Obama to do: Stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic," Dan Ritzman, director of the Sierra Club's Arctic campaign, said this morning.
Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) today said he spoke with Portland Mayor Charlie Hales and the chief of staff for Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D), asking them to put an end to the protest. Brown was travelling to Washington, D.C., today and was unavailable, Walker said.
"While I respect an individual's right to peacefully protest, I urge Mayor Hales and Governor Brown to stop the illegal activities that are blocking Shell's vessel from departing for Alaskan waters," Walker said in a statement this afternoon.
Shell in the past has found an unwelcome reception from Pacific Northwest elected leaders who represent a more liberal constituency than in Alaska.
In May, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said the Port of Seattle must apply for a new land-use permit in order to host Shell's offshore Arctic oil-drilling fleet, The Seattle Times reported. "This is an opportunity, I believe, for the Port and all of us to make a bold statement about how oil companies contribute to climate change, oil spills and other environmental disasters," the mayor said, according to the paper. Company disclosures
In other news, top Democrats on the House committees on Natural Resources and Financial Services today released a letter they wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission asking it to review the disclosures of oil and gas companies, particularly those that drill in the Arctic.
They argued Shell's disclosures provide investors only "limited generalities" about the risks it faces from an Arctic spill.
"Offshore oil and gas activities come with significant financial risks, and operating in the Arctic multiplies those risks," Reps. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona and Alan Lowenthal and Maxine Waters of California wrote in the July 24 letter. "A catastrophic spill in the Arctic Ocean would devastate coastal communities and sensitive ocean ecosystems, and would likely result in costs to the responsible party on the order of tens of billions of dollars."
Also today, Shell reported that it will cut about 6,500 jobs and capital investment this year to prepare for a "prolonged downturn" in oil prices, USA Today reported.
-
Why Energy Production Is Better In US Than Abroad
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andrew Browning
Good news for the United States: The Obama administration has finally given its permission to allow drilling activity to re-commence this season in the U.S. Arctic’s Chukchi Sea, which may be one of the world’s largest untapped sources of oil and gas.
There’s not much time, since under current rules all drilling must conclude by October 31. In addition, while a good interim step, it is vital that upon application that the federal government follow through by promptly granting the remaining approval necessary for drilling to reach hydrocarbon depths.
There are many reasons to support Arctic drilling. It’ll create jobs, strengthen the economy, and lower carbon emissions by developing more clean-burning natural gas. It’ll also rejuvenate the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, an energy artery that has seen its throughput drop alarmingly, and mitigate Russian advancement. It will also help us meet the projected surge in energy demand in the years ahead.
Besides, it’s a whole lot safer and environmentally responsible to drill in the U.S. than it is to drill elsewhere.
Just ask the president.
“I would rather us – with all the safeguards and standards that we have – be producing our oil and gas, rather than importing it, which is bad for our people, but is also potentially purchased from places that have much lower environmental standards than we do,” the president recently said. “When it can be done safely and appropriately, U.S. production of oil and natural gas is important.”
Said another way, those who continue to argue that we cannot protect our environment and develop our natural resources are misguided, incorrect, and, more often, have politically motivated reasons behind their positions, which do not consider jobs or our children’s future.
And thanks to the sector’s long-standing commitment to safe, responsible energy development, and its host of new technologies and techniques, exploration and production of resources in regions like the Arctic have never been safer.
The industry has invested more than $239 billion since 1990 in developing and expanding the environmental reliance of its machinery, facilities, and operations. The sector also invested $81 billion between 2000 and 2012 in technologies that reduce carbon emissions and $13 billion in 2009 in environmental expenditures.
Furthermore, geologists can study underground deposits far more effectively thanks to improved seismic exploration and extended-reach drilling technologies, which have improved exploration success rates and reduced environmental impact. More than 99.9 percent of petroleum delivered by tankers in the last decade reached its destination without incident because of advanced electronic navigation technology and physical oceanographic systems.
“These technologies are evolving with advances in primary barriers technology and well control technologies,” Christine Resler, a general manager at Schlumberger, an oilfield services company, testified at a recent hearing at the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. “The greatest potential for reducing environmental risk lies in the pursuit of superior well control and well integrity.”
The industry is also taking more pre-emptive measures – not just through mandated regulations but also through voluntary investments. A recent report from the Center for Offshore Safety (COS) stated that 96.3 percent of planned critical offshore maintenance, inspections, and testing were performed on schedule in 2013. Maintenance and inspection are the best ways to avoid accidents and safeguard the environment.
These advancements in technology and safety-focused strategies illustrate how erroneous the opposition’s claim is that energy development cannot be done without harming the environment. This is not an either-or ultimatum. We can – and do – have both.
Today, oil and natural gas leave a smaller environmental footprint than ever before. Operations are also less costly now and far more efficient.
Obama is right – the U.S. is better off developing its own energy rather than importing it from our geopolitical adversaries, which usually do not have the type of stringent regulations we have. If the goal is to help protect the environment while meeting our growing energy needs, then drilling and producing in North America, including in the U.S. Arctic, remains the way to go.
-
Gas Market Awakens as LNG Shipments Near
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Christine Buurma
After years of languishing in a shale-induced coma, the U.S. natural gas market is waking up.
Seasonal price swings will intensify as the country begins shipping liquefied natural gas cargoes to Asia and Europe later this year, said Bank of America Corp., RBC Capital Markets LLC and Wood Mackenzie Ltd. While that's good news for traders yearning for volatility, it could be bad news for consumers.
Exports will help prices rebound from the slump caused by the U.S. pumping record amounts from shale formations. Growing domestic winter demand is already causing spikes and trading volumes in futures markets have rebounded to the highest level in three years. Average retail gas prices also will rise with LNG exports, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
“Connecting U.S. natural gas prices into the global market could result in wider spreads at home,” said Francisco Blanch, the head of commodities research at Bank of America Corp. in New York. “Global LNG spot prices are notoriously seasonal.”
Cheniere Energy Inc. will start operating a liquefied natural gas terminal this year in Louisiana, the first new export site in 46 years. The U.S. will be the third-largest supplier by 2020, the International Energy Agency says.
In a sign of what may be coming, futures for January 2017 are already trading at a 35.7-cent premium to October 2016 contracts, the biggest premium for this time of the year since 2012. That seasonal spread may widen to as much as a dollar as LNG exports expand, Blanch said.
Price Volatility
Natural gas for September delivery fell 7.5 cents to $2.789 per million British thermal units at 11:37 p.m. July 30 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Demand growth, including LNG exports, will lead to greater seasonal price volatility, said Breanne Dougherty, a natural gas analyst at Societe General SA in New York.
Prices have fallen 79 percent in the past seven years as new wells opened in the Marcellus shale deposit across Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
Cheniere won approval to export as much as 3.5 billion cubic feet of gas a day from its Sabine terminal, with the first of six liquefaction plants starting by the end of this year and the rest staggered through 2018.
Sempra Energy, Freeport LNG Development LP, Energy Transfer and Dominion Resources Inc. will bring 5.67 billion cubic feet of capacity online from late 2017 through 2019.
LNG shipments might remove enough supply from the market that volatility will rise during particularly cold winters, according to Michael Mitton, the director of the commodity investor team at BNP Paribas SA in New York.
Capture Profits
A rebound in volatility, which makes it easier for traders to capture profits from price swings, has already boosted trading. Futures volume in June rose to 7.71 million contracts, the most for the month since 2012.
New York residents experienced how volatility and price spikes in the cold months can directly affect their costs. More than half of U.S. homes rely on gas for heating.
Consolidated Edison Inc., which owns New York City's utility, said home gas bills jumped 17 percent in February 2014 from a year earlier because of higher wholesale gas prices during a storm that dumped snow across the East Coast. Spot prices rose to a record on Jan. 21, 2014, as pipeline bottlenecks limited deliveries and demand reached a record.
LNG export terminals in the U.S. will be taking as much as 8.5 billion cubic feet a day out of the domestic gas market by the end of 2019, said Charles Blanchard, a Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst in New York. Producers will have to drill wells in costlier areas, raising prices by about 35 cents and increasing retail prices by 5 to 10 percent, he said.
“Always and ever, more demand leads to higher prices,” Blanchard said. “The question of whether LNG exports will lead to higher U.S. gas prices is a fairly easy one to answer.”
-
Wide-Ranging Energy Bill Approved by Senate Committee
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Broad energy legislation that would expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, among other things, was approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee July 30, but the path forward remains unknown.
The committee approved the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 by a vote of 18-4, concluding a three-day markup.
The bill, which was drafted by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the committee's chairman and ranking member, includes provisions that range from boosting cyber security protections for the electricity grid to measures designed to increase energy efficiency.
If enacted, the legislation would be the first broad energy law since 2007. Committee passage of the bill clears the way for it to be brought to the Senate floor.
No Commitment on Floor Action
There is no commitment on a date to bring the bill to the full Senate. Murkowski told reporters the bill will need two things for successful floor action: a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for a sufficient amount of floor time and a fair amendment process.
The bill was shepherded through the committee without overly controversial elements and will be guided on the Senate floor with the same hope, to keep “poison pills” out of the legislation, Murkowski said.
During committee action, Murkowski and Cantwell talked fellow senators into refraining from filing many difficult amendments, and in other cases they convinced senators to withdraw troublesome amendments. In all, 94 amendments were filed in the committee (145 DEN A-5, 7/29/15).
Murkowski and Cantwell both acknowledged, however, that important and difficult issues could be raised on the floor.
Many Democrats view tax credits for such things as renewable energy as important, Cantwell said. “I think it's safe to say that you'll hear a lot about that” from Democrats, she said.
Natural Gas Approvals
During the July 30 markup, the committee adopted an amendment by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) that would expedite the federal process for approving natural gas pipelines.
The measure would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve or deny an application within one year of receiving a complete application that is ready to be processed. The agency then responsible must make a decision to approve or deny a project within 90 days of FERC's review.
The amendment, which was part of a larger package of amendments adopted by voice vote, encompasses legislation (S. 1210) previously introduced by Capito and supported by natural gas producers such as Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Apache Corp.
Energy Efficiency Bill Passed
In addition, the committee voted to approve energy efficiency legislation (S. 720) by a 20-2 vote.
The bill from Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) would authorize funding for measures to increase energy conservation in federal data centers, establish voluntary national model building codes and boost energy efficiency in the manufacturing and commercial sectors, among other things.
While most of the provisions in the Portman-Shaheen legislation were included in the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015, the committee moved forward with the stand-alone efficiency bill at the behest of Portman, who wants a backup plan if the broader energy legislation stalls, Kateri Callahan, president of the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy, told Bloomberg BNA.
Previous versions of the bill, which is backed by companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and National Grid, an international electricity and gas company based in the U.K. and northeastern U.S., have been brought to the Senate floor in the past but have stalled amid fights over amendments.
-
Senate Energy Panel Approves Reform Bill
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
After three days of debate, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted Thursday to approve its attempt at the first broad energy policy reform bill in eight years.
The Energy Policy Modernization Act passed by a vote of 18-4 after the panel approved various bipartisan amendments but rejected others that did not have wide support.The bill includes a number of policy priorities from both Republicans and Democrats and came as a result of months of negotiations, meetings outreach and other activities aimed at a truly bipartisan bill.
“No one’s getting everything they want, for sure,” Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said after the voting was complete. “But I do think that this in an impressive journey that we have gone down for the past several months.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the committee’s ranking member, struck a similar tone.
“Today represents the first step in the long but important journey,” she said. “This committee has gone too long without moving energy policy legislation.”
The package includes provisions to expedite projects to export liquefied natural gas, indefinitely authorize the federal government’s main conservation fund, reform or remove outdated programs and better prepare the electric grid for modern needs, among other policies.
The three days of debate were mostly cordial, with senators agreeing to withdraw nearly all controversial amendments and bring them back up when the full Senate considers the measure.
In rare breaks from the cordiality, debate erupted over efforts by liberal senators to force lawmakers to recognize climate change, add environment reviews before natural gas export projects are built and exempt certain oil or gas wells from federal review.
But Murkowski and Cantwell emphasized bipartisanship over nearly everything else.
Before the Thursday markup, Murkowski agreed to remove provisions to ease permitting for hydroelectric projects, since some Democrats had brought up objections.
“We have made good progress on hydro reform in recent years in this committee. I think our bill makes even more progress,” she said. “But questions arose regarding changes that the ranking member and I and our staffs had agreed to.”
In the Thursday meeting, the only amendment the panel agreed to attach, from Sen. John Barrasso (R-N.D.), would allow the Interior Department to exempt from federal permitting certain proposed oil and gas wells for which the government only owns a minority stake in the mineral rights.
Only Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a Democratic presidential candidate, voted against the bill.
The senators also used the meeting to approve a bill to lift the ban on crude oil exports and increase offshore drilling, a measure from Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to improve energy efficiency in buildings and a non-controversial package of federal land bills.
-
Bipartisan Truce Propels Energy Bill Out Of Committee
Jul 30, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
The Senate has a shot at the most sweeping update to the nation’s energy law in a decade — if a bipartisan truce can survive in the freewheeling chamber.
A five-part bill sailed out of committee Thursday after three days of markup during which Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) convinced their colleagues to hold their fire on controversial issues such as EPA rules or the Keystone XL pipeline.
Now they will see if they can maintain that truce on the floor, where any senator — including the five running for president — could try offering amendments to score political points or advance pet causes. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not yet said when or whether the bill may see floor time.
“I think it’ll be challenging,” Sen. John Hoeven said. The North Dakota Republican held off on offering several amendments during this week’s markup, including measures blocking coal ash regulations and approving Keystone XL.
Murkowski and Cantwell — standing next to one another at a joint press conference Thursday afternoon — said they think they can keep up the bipartisan harmony.
“We have seen some frustrated and stalled efforts that have met with sometimes an abrupt demise on the senate floor because amendments have been brought forward that truly have been these poison pills and nothing moves forward,” Murkowski said. “But I do think that we can point to some successes this Congress that I would like to think could be that model for us.”
One source of inspiration is this month’s approval of a bipartisan update to the “No Child Left Behind” education law, she said. Murkowski and Cantwell also praised their ability to work together — and with their respective party leaders — when the Senate passed a bill early this year to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline, even though Cantwell opposed the bill and it was later vetoed.
“I don’t think we can predict what the range of issues may be coming forward with an energy bill. I’m certainly not naïve to suggest there won’t be difficult ones,” Murkowski said. “But there were some difficult ones with education too. And we were able to work it through.”
She and Cantwell are drawing lessons from a massive 2005 update to energy law, which followed a failed effort in 2003. Several current Murkowski and Cantwell committee aides also worked on the panel then and two years later when Congress passed a more modest energy law.
The next step is to obtain a commitment from McConnell to bring the bill to the floor under a a “fair and reasonable” agreement that provides sufficient time to consider amendments and “allows us as the bill’s managers to manage the bill,” Murkowski said.
That’s what happened during the Keystone debate. It is not what happened in the last Congress, when bipartisan energy-efficiency legislation from Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) died on the floor due to a spat over what amendments could be allowed.
The Senate panel separately voted 20-2 to approve this year’s version of the Portman-Shaheen efficiency bill again Thursday, even though much of it is included in the broader bill. Doing so gives it another chance to come to the floor on its own in case the bigger bill gets bogged down.
Murkowski and Cantwell have already bridged numerous differences on their five-part energy bill to gain 18-4 approval on their panel, despite opposition from the most conservative Republicans as well as major environmental groups.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, voted against the bill Thursday after failing to attach a nonbinding amendment declaring humanity responsible for climate change and calling for a swift transition away from fossil fuels. Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) also voted "no."
“I’m going to try to get everybody to just draw back from one little specific piece that you don’t like or maybe two and look at it as a whole,” Murkowski said.
Cantwell, traditionally an ally of green groups, highlighted language promoting energy efficiency, conservation and cybersecurity.
“There is very important policy in here,” she said.
Separately, the panel advanced Murkowski’s OPENS Act, which would lift the U.S. crude oil export ban and expand offshore oil leasing and revenue sharing in the Gulf of Mexico and southern Atlantic coastline.
However, the 12-10 party-line vote suggests that bill probably couldn’t get past a filibuster in the full Senate in its current form, given energy committee Democrats cover the ideological spectrum from Sanders to West Virginia’s Joe Manchin.
But there were some suggestions from Democrats on possible ways to improve it.
Manchin, who has cosponsored legislation to lift the oil export ban, voted against Murkowski’s bill because of “the way they lumped it together, I was opposed to the offshore drilling part,” he told POLITICO afterward. “They folded it together because they thought they could sell it better that way. … I hope they will be separated.”
House Speaker John Boehner Wednesday for the first time said he supported lifting the crude oil export ban and Republicans there are expected to move language doing that sometime this year. It’s unclear what legislative vehicle it would ride on.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is pursuing a similar approach as the Senate panel in trying to keep particularly controversial language off its respective four-part energy bill, which it will mark up in the fall. That includes for now leaving off the lifting of the oil export ban. Boehner said the House panel’s broader energy strategy is “a top priority.”
-
Clean Power Plan Stay Seen as Difficult for Opponents
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan will face an uphill battle in seeking a judicial stay of the Environmental Protection Agency's upcoming carbon pollution standards for power plants during the inevitable litigation, attorneys said.
States and industry groups opposed to the rule, which could be finalized as early as Aug. 3, will certainly ask federal appellate judges to block implementation of the carbon dioxide standards during the litigation, but they must overcome significant legal hurdles to prove their harms are sufficiently imminent and irreversible to warrant halting the rule, attorneys said.
Additionally, the expectation that the EPA will extend the deadlines for states to submit plans to comply with the standards and begin implementation of the program could blunt those challenges, they said.
David Doniger, director of the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said getting a stay of an agency rule from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is “an extraordinary event, far from the norm.”
“In most cases, the litigants don't even ask,” he told reporters July 30.
Petitioners need to show the court they have a high likelihood of winning the lawsuit on the merits and that they would be imminently and irreparably harmed if the rule were left in place during litigation, Doniger said.
The Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state, which would be implemented by state air pollution regulators.
Extra Time Could Blunt Challenges
The EPA could stave off the likelihood of the court granting a stay of its rule by allowing states and utilities additional time to comply, attorneys said.
“EPA is certainly helping itself on the fight on the stay if reports are accurate and they are giving an extra year on [state implementation plans] and moving that initial date to 2022,” Brian Potts, a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, told Bloomberg BNA July 30.
The EPA recently briefly posted a slide to its website showing it would extend the initial Clean Power Plan compliance deadline from 2020 to 2022 as part of the final rule.
Additionally, the EPA would provide states with an additional year to develop their compliance plans. The EPA has said the slide was only meant to be a “web design mock-up” but didn't comment on the slide's contents, which said the final rule would be issued Aug. 3 (146 DEN A-3, 7/30/15).
“This is classic lawyers impacting regulation to try to make the rule as defensible as possible,” Richard Alonso, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, said of the deadline extensions.
Attorney Sees Court Issuing Stay
Unlike other attorneys, Alonso predicted the D.C. Circuit would almost certainly stay the rule.
“They're not going to sit on the sidelines and allow the EPA to move forward with such an enormous program without them opining on what they think of the program,” he told Bloomberg BNA July 30.
Although the EPA may give states more time to comply, Alonso said states could be best positioned to seek the stay by arguing they lack the resources necessary to submit initial compliance strategies to the EPA in 2016 with final plans by 2018.
During litigation, the D.C. Circuit had stayed implementation of the EPA's cross-state air pollution rule (RIN 2060–AP50), which established limits on power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in 28 states that contribute to ozone and fine particulate attainment issues in downwind states.
However, attorneys said that rule was issued only six months before it took effect, making it easier for opponents to argue they would be harmed by its immediate implementation.
States Could Have Three Years to Submit Plans
The Clean Power Plan could allow states up to three years before they must submit implementation plans and seven years before the first carbon dioxide emissions reductions must be achieved. Additionally, states have the option of not developing their own plan and allowing the EPA to issue a federal plan on their behalf.
Doniger said that would undercut any arguments states and utilities might make that the harms posed by the Clean Power Plan are so burdensome and imminent as to warrant staying the rule.
“That's a severe test they cannot meet,” he said.
Alonso said the likelihood of a stay is also dependent upon the panel of D.C. Circuit judges that hears the inevitable lawsuits.
States and industry groups opposed to the proposed Clean Power Plan already have had lawsuits to block the proposed rule rebuffed by the D.C. Circuit as premature. However, 14 states have filed petitions seeking to have those challenges reheard either by the same panel or by the full appellate court (In re: Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, petition for rehearing, 7/24/15; 143 DEN A-2, 7/27/15).
Three-Judge Panel Considered Rule
The case was originally heard by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Griffith, widely viewed as an extremely favorable panel for opponents of the rule.
Attorneys said the court could choose to assign future litigation to that same panel, given their prior experience with the original lawsuits. Alternately, opponents of the rule could seek to have future challenges to the final rule consolidated with the existing rehearing request, which also would mean the case would be heard by the same three judges.
“I do think the panel could be the same, and this is definitely a very favorable industry panel,” Potts said.
-
Anti-Regulatory Group Prepares For EPA Plan With New Website
Jul 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
With U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan expected out early next week, the industry-backed American Energy Alliance released a new website today to track state efforts to defeat it.
The website offers a clickable map of the United States complete with any actions states' governors, attorneys general and state environmental agencies have taken to pave the way for opposition to the rule. Governors and their environmental Cabinets will be tasked with crafting state implementation plans for the rule, though a handful or governors have said they will not. Attorneys general would file any court challenges to the rule after it is final.
The hub also tracks whether the state legislature has moved legislation to make implementation more difficult or to bar state administrations from acting.
Finally, the hub uses an analysis conducted last year by NERA Economic Consulting to assign values for how much EPA's proposed existing-power-plant carbon curbs might increase electricity rates in the state. For example, it assumes Wyoming faces increases of 18 percent.
The NERA analysis assigns exponentially higher costs to EPA's proposal of last year than does the agency. EPA's assessment of the draft it released last year estimated compliance costs at between $5.4 billion and $7.4 billion a year through 2020, and $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion a year by 2030, including monitoring and bookkeeping expenses. But NERA's analysis, which was commissioned by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and industry partners, showed that the annual costs of the rule would be $41 billion.
The AEA website ranks states on a spectrum from "strongly protected," meaning virtually every level of state government has opposed the rule, to "not protected," meaning the state largely approves of the rule.
It also provides links to testimony and analysis from legal and policy experts and state officials opposed to the rule.
While AEA urges states to "just say no" to the Clean Power Plan by refusing to implement the rule, environmentalists say that strategy will not "protect" them from it. The rule, which environmentalists and EPA say will yield benefits far in excess of its costs, will still be implemented in those states that choose not to submit a plan, they say. EPA is on track to release a model federal implementation plan this summer that will show how it proposes to treat utilities in states that are not covered by a state plan.
AEA, which is the political arm of the Institute for Energy Research, is reported to have ties to fossil fuels billionaires Charles and David Koch.
-
EPA Emissions Rule Sticks to Tough Targets
Jul 30, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
Final Environmental Protection Agency regulations to cut emissions from U.S. power plants are expected to maintain ambitious emission-reduction targets included in a draft proposal released last year but give companies more time to meet them, according to people familiar with the rule.
In another change likely to be welcomed by the electricity industry, the plan is expected to encourage nuclear power generation.
The EPA rule, the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, will put the first-ever federal limits on carbon emissions from power plants, including those now in operation and those not yet built, forcing operators to move toward cleaner-burning fuels. It is expected to be released as soon as Monday.
Republicans and some Democrats on Capitol Hill, along with the coal industry and governors whose states rely on coal for much of their electricity, strongly oppose the rules and are likely to challenge them on Capitol Hill and in the courts.
Coal, which accounts for just under 40% of total U.S. electricity, emits the most carbon compared with other fuels, including natural gas, which emits about half the carbon.
“It will be stronger in many ways than the proposed rule put forward by EPA, by encouraging rapid deployment of the cleanest forms of energy, while giving states and utilities the flexibility they need to craft plans that meet their unique needs,” said White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough at an event Wednesday hosted by The New Republic in Washington.
The final rule is expected to keep or slightly exceed EPA’s overall proposed target of cutting 2005 power-plant carbon emissions 30% by 2030.
The draft rule, proposed in June 2014, also required a 25% cut in emissions by 2020. The rule pushes back that requirement from 2020 to 2022, according to people familiar with the matter who wouldn’t speak publicly about it before its release.
This change, which environmental groups are likely to oppose, probably will be welcomed by utilities, who argued that the initial compliance date was too ambitious.
“We have heard reports that the first compliance year will be extended to 2022, and we would see that as a positive change,” said Melissa McHenry, spokeswoman for American Electric Power, an Ohio-based utility that has switched much of its generation from coal to natural gas in recent years.
“The additional time will be important to evaluate how individual state plans interact from an electric system reliability aspect,” she added.
The agency also is expected to adjust various reduction goals it set for each state from its 2014 proposal, based on what the agency thinks is achievable. It will take into account emissions cuts that individual states and utilities already have made since 2005 and what kind of power resources are available but not yet deployed in each state.
An EPA spokesman declined to comment Thursday on any of the regulatory details, noting that the regulations are still under final review at the White House.
The plan also is expected to include options that would allow states to get more credit for nuclear power generation, which doesn’t emit any carbon and accounts for about 20% of the U.S.’s electricity.
Nuclear power plants under construction, and several others in operation that need approval from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to keep operating, were widely believed to be at a disadvantage in EPA’s earlier proposal.
Tom Fanning, CEO of utility the large Southern Company, said new nuclear plants, such as the one his company is building near Waynesboro, Ga., advance the national goal of reducing carbon emissions “and we should get credit for that.”
The EPA also is expected to tweak one part of the formula it used to achieve the overall reductions in its 2014 proposal.
In coming up with its 30% target in the proposal, the EPA assumed states and utilities could meet the goal in four ways by making fossil-fuel power plants more efficient, swapping natural-gas power sources for coal when possible, deploying more renewable and nuclear power, and by using electricity more efficiently in homes and businesses.
The EPA is removing that last component—energy efficiency—as one part of the formula.
Utilities had expressed concern about that part of the rule, telling the EPA that they can’t control how efficient their customers are with their electricity, so the EPA can’t use it to set its standard.
Increased energy efficiency in homes and businesses would still be one way to comply with the rule, though, and utilities can use incentives to get customers to lower their usage.
Moreover, the EPA is expected to create a new, optional program to provide incentives to states that make early inroads on energy efficiency and renewable energy, according to those familiar with the rule, especially in low-income communities.
Another change is expected to involve power plants not yet built.
In September 2013 the agency proposed a standard that effectively meant that any new coal plant would need to install technology that captures and stores carbon dioxide underground instead of emitting it, which industry executives and independent experts say isn’t widely available enough to be used as a requirement in a federal standard.
The final rule for new power plants is expected to set a standard slightly higher than the proposal so it doesn’t rely as much, if at all, on the carbon and capture system, nicknamed “clean coal” technology, according to those familiar with the rule.
-
House Dems Urge Obama To Tighten Ozone Standard
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Sixty-two House Democrats urged the Obama administration yesterday to tighten the national air quality standard for ozone.
In a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the Democrats endorsed a standard of 60 parts per billion, the lower end of the range recommended last year by the agency's science advisers.
Ground-level ozone -- a component of smog -- forms when volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides react in sunlight. It's linked to reduced lung function, among other health effects.
The lawmakers said low-income families and communities of color bear a disproportionate share of those negative effects. Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led the effort.
"Clean air is a fundamental right currently denied to too many people," the Democrats wrote. "We urge the EPA to stay true to the science and seize this opportunity to finalize a strong smog standard that will protect Americans for generations to come."
EPA in November proposed tightening the current standard, 75 ppb, which was set by the George W. Bush administration, to between 65 and 70 ppb, but said it would take comment on a standard as low as 60 ppb.
Public health and environmental groups have also called on EPA to set the standard at 60 ppb. EPA is poised to decide by an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline.
Earlier this week, more than 130 House members, of whom 15 were Democrats, signed onto a letter calling on EPA to retain the existing 75 ppb standard, arguing that a tighter limit would be difficult to achieve and costly (Greenwire, July 29).
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) mistakenly signed onto that letter, according to her office; she is among the Democrats who signed yesterday's plea for a tougher limit.
-
Munitions Plant Air Toxic Emissions Targeted
Jul 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
Reducing toxic emissions at an Army munitions factory in southwestern Virginia is a top priority at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, an agency spokeswoman said.
Numerous state environmental permits are up for renewal, offering a prime opportunity to reduce air toxics pollution, DEQ spokeswoman Ann Regn told Bloomberg BNA July 28. The DEQ spokeswoman said the agency just learned that the Radford Arsenal's recently appointed commander proposed a new kind of incinerator capable of safely processing explosive waste, as well as non-explosive waste.
The Radford Army Munitions Plant is the only active military propellant manufacturer in the country, but it's also the largest single source of toxic pollution in the state, according to the DEQ. The complex, located in Radford, Va., has been operating since 1942.
The facility today produces nitrocellulose—modern gunpowder. Waste propellant that falls on the floor of Radford Arsenal is moved outside, placed on metal plates and burned in the open air, Regn said. She said the resulting ash is stored in 55-gallon drums that are periodically transferred to a hazardous waste dump.
The arsenal has two incinerators that could reduce the toxic emissions from open burning, but the incinerators would be destroyed by the explosive waste, Regn said.
Bloomberg BNA's attempts to obtain more information from the commander's office, and BAE Systems, the contractor operating the complex, were unsuccessful.
Technology Unavailable
Devawn Palmer Oberlender, chair of the Environmental Patriots of the New River Valley, told Bloomberg BNA July 29 that she doubts the new incinerator will become a reality because the technology doesn't exist today. Palmer Oberlender said it would be only the latest unrealized promise to reduce pollution at the site.
The Radford Army Munitions Plant complex has produced toxic waste over many decades, manufacturing many types of explosives, ammunition and rocket fuel, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's website about the facility.
The resulting contaminants include numerous heavy metals and solvents, the EPA said.
Cleanup efforts have been under way since at least the 1980s. Hazardous waste has been detected at more than 70 locations in the complex, according to the EPA, but the complex hasn't been declared a Superfund site.
The agency's most recent Environmental Indicator Determination on groundwater migration beyond the complex “indicates that the migration of ‘contaminated' groundwater has stabilized.” Monitoring will continue, according the EPA document.
EPA Cleanup Work Under RCRA Completed
The EPA's cleanup work under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is complete, EPA Region 3 spokesman Roy Seneca said July 29. The Virginia DEQ maintains the lead on the remaining RCRA obligations, including oversight of the open burning, Seneca added.
The Army is also working to reduce the pollutants under an Installation Restoration Program.
Palmer Oberlender said numerous air, land and water pollution problems at the complex have yet to be addressed. Major environmental justice issues exist as well, with the complex situated in a poor, Appalachian corner of Virginia, she said.
However, Seneca says the area hasn't been designated as an environmental justice neighborhood of concern.
The Army, the EPA, the Virginia DEQ and successive government contractors running the operation have said for decades that they will clean up the operations, with little or no progress to date, Palmer Oberlender said.
Asked why Environmental Patriots of the New River Valley have not filed lawsuits to force additional action, Palmer Oberlender said the environmental group lacks the necessary financial resources.
-
GOP Probes Alleged Internal Problems With Obama Water Rule
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Oversight Committee is looking into allegations that two Obama administration agencies had sharp disagreements over the development of a major water pollution rule.
The panel released internal Army Corps of Engineers memos Thursday from earlier this year in which officials said the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts on the rule lacked sound scientific basis and the agency did not consult with the Army Corps.The GOP is using the memos to open a new chapter in its fight against the “waters of the United States” rule, released in June to assert federal power over wetlands, streams and other minor waterways that did not have clearly defined pollution protections.
The memos, committee leaders wrote in a Thursday letter to the EPA, “raise serious concerns about various legal and scientific deficiencies of the rule.”
The regulation was jointly released by the EPA and the Army Corps, who both oversee implementation of the Clean Water Act.
John Peabody, the Army Corps deputy commanding general for civil and emergency operations, wrote the memos to Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works. They were sent in April and May, while the rule was still under review and before the final version was publicly released.
In the April memo, Peabody said the Corps has “serious concerns about certain aspects of the draft final rule,” which he did not see before it was sent to the White House for final review.
He said the Corps’ review of the rule showed that it “contradicts long-standing and well-established legal principles regarding the Clean Water Act,” and contained legal contradictions that “would be fatal to the rule” in court.
Peabody said some minor fixes could significantly improve the rule, but that without them, the Corps’ name should not be attached to it.
In the May memo, Peabody said data the Corps provided was used “selectively and out of context” by the EPA, and the rule made “inappropriate assumptions with no connection to the data provided.”
The Corps is largely responsible for enforcing water regulations and determining which waters and actions are covered by the rules.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and three of the committee’s members asked EPA head Gina McCarthy to explain whether and how the Corps’ complaints were taken into account.
In a Wednesday hearing with the committee, McCarthy assured members that everything was above board.
“I can tell you that, working with Jo-Ellen Darcy on this rule, she indicated that all of the concerns the Army Corps had been satisfied,” McCarthy said.
Nonetheless, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) accused McCarthy of ignoring the law.
“There’s huge deficiencies with this rule. But yet you didn’t take the time to do it properly,” said Gosar, who signed the Thursday letter. “What you did is you forced it down, just like everybody else does in this agency.”
-
EPA Push To Ease CWA Rule Implementation Fails To Quell Calls For Delay
Jul 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is pledging to quickly release a suite of tools to ease implementation of its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule including a question-and-answer (Q&A) document and database of jurisdictional findings to resolve uncertainty, but the move is failing to quell calls from the rule's critics to postpone by many months its Aug. 28 effective date.
In a July 30 joint memo, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy say their agencies “must focus immediately” on developing tools for the jurisdiction rule that they jointly developed, signed in May, and published in the June 29 Federal Register.
The memo lists as top priorities a “comprehensive Question and Answers document,” an automated tracking system and database for jurisdictional determinations (JDs) made under the rule, and an EPA-Corps workgroup that will by the end of 2015 recommend ways to streamline the CWA permitting process.
Although the memo does not set a hard deadline for releasing the JD database, it sets a goal of publishing the Q&A resource before the rule takes effect. In general, it urges agency staff to act “as soon as possible” and says “The next 60 days are particularly important as we work to be fully prepared to apply the Rule when it becomes effective."
McCarthy previously vowed to craft a database aimed at making public any implementing decisions over the rule, as well as to issue a joint memo with the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure consistency in the two agencies' implementation of the rule.
However, the July 30 letter says EPA and the Corps have no plans to issue a formal implementation guide on the waters rule, in part because the final regulation “provide[s] clear and comprehensive direction regarding the process for conducting jurisdictional determinations."
The letter also says that the pending Q&A document will serve the same purpose that formal guidance would. McCarthy and Darcy say their agencies will jointly prepare the document “based on discussions with field staff, negating the need for any new manual or guidance documents.”
Jurisdictional Waters
The agencies say that the database, which McCarthy previously discussed only generally, will list information on both JDs that find jurisdictional waters and those that certify waterbodies as not protected by the CWA, as well as “the nature and number of pending determinations.”
The data will be compiled “on a District-wide and Regional basis. . . . The Corps and EPA headquarters will develop national summaries of this information on a quarterly basis and make it publicly available,” the memo says.
McCarthy and Darcy also say in the memo that their offices will develop a memorandum of understanding outlining the agencies' procedures and responsibilities for maintaining and publicizing the database.
Their memo also outlines the aspects of the CWA permit program that the joint workgroup will investigate before making recommendations to agency headquarters.
The workgroup will “evaluate existing permitting tools and procedures and identify the changes needed to further reduce costs, delays and frustration in federal permitting, while improving CWA protections."
The letter adds that, “The workgroup will focus on the appropriate use of tools such as general permits (Nationwide Permits), increasing the availability of information on issued permits on which new applicants could rely in designing projects, and improved coordination with federal and state permitting partners to reduce overlap and redundancy in permit reviews.”
Effective Date
All three implementation tools listed in the memo are being developed based on the rule taking effect on Aug. 28 -- two months after its publication in the Register.
But a coalition of 32 states is asking EPA and the Corps to delay that date by nine months in order to allow the litany of suits by states, industry and environmentalists challenging the rule to proceed.
“Although the states promptly filed their actions challenging the [CWA] rule, it will necessarily take some time for the courts to resolve the merits of these various cases with their different claims. . . . A federal regulation demands a thorough judicial review before imposing costly and disruptive burdens on the states and their citizens,” reads a July 30 letter to McCarthy and Darcy signed by the attorneys general of 32 states.
The letter outlines some of the states' rationales for suing over the CWA rule, including that it infringes on the cooperative federalist structure of the water law by removing states' authority to manage their waters; that it requires states to commit new resources to protecting waterbodies that should not be subject to federal protections; and that it will impact a variety of industry sectors subject to CWA mandates. “Given the gravity of the Constitutional issues implicated by the states' claims and to avoid these hardships, the courts should be granted an opportunity to resolve the pending challenges,” the letter says.
-
Dem Objections Block Clean Water Bill
Jul 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) blocked a push Thursday by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to get a vote on a clean water bill, leading to a testy exchange on the Senate floor.
Portman tried to get unanimous consent for a voice vote on his legislation, which would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to hand over plans on how it will manage risks tied to algal toxins in drinking water.But Udall objected and instead asked for a vote on Portman's bill, as well as a separate bill that would reauthorize the National Estuary Program, which gives grants to programs that help protect coastal ecosystems.
"It's with great respect with my colleague from Oregon that I object," the New Mexico Democrat said.
Portman fired back, "I don't know what you're talking about, to be honest. You are my friend, and by the way I'm from Ohio and not Oregon."
The Ohio Republican also criticized Udall for trying to attach a Senate bill that hasn't been cleared by the House, which left Wednesday for its August recess, to his proposal.
"If you want to block this for other reasons, you ought to say so," Portman said, adding that he has asked his staff to try to get unanimous consent on the other legislation which he said "we were just told about 45 minutes ago."
Portman asked Udall to withdraw his objection, but Udall said the push to tie Portman's bill to the other legislation came from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
"The chairman believes that this is the way to proceed, and that's the state of play as it is right now," he added.
Jennifer Talhelm, the communications director for Udall, said that "it wasn't an objection to the senator on the substance."
"He was voicing EPW's [objections] as a matter of floor procedure, because he was on the floor," she said.
Kristina Baum, a press secretary for the Environment and Public Works Committee, suggested that the move to tie the two bills together was an effort to overcome Democratic objections to Portman's bill.
"It is cleared on the Republican side, it has not been cleared on the Democrat side. To attempt to clear Portman’s bill, we have proposed to pair the bill with legislation (S. 1523) proposed by Sens. David Vitter and Sheldon Whitehouse," she said in an email. "We are hopeful that these bills can simply be approved soon."
But Portman on the floor said it was "very strange" that Inhofe would require that the two proposals be tied together "because he signed off on this."
"This has been totally cleared, cleared to have a voice vote and have it done," Portman said.
-
Striding Toward A Climate Deal
Jul 30, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
A recently unveiled draft of a new global climate change treaty is bringing the long-sought pact a step closer to completion. United Nations negotiations on the accord are scheduled to conclude this December at a meeting in Paris.
The centerpiece of the draft, which was released in late July, is promises by virtually every country in the world to control greenhouse gas emissions. The goal is to restrain average global warming to 2 °C above preindustrial levels by 2100.
Prepared by the cochairs of the UN talks, the draft reduces the number of thorny details that governments must resolve if they are to finish the deal by December. But some still remain. For example, negotiators have yet to determine how to provide financial support to poorer countries for adaptation to climate change effects such as sea-level rise. Cochairs Daniel Reifsnyder of the U.S. and Ahmed Djoghlaf of Algeria based their draft on the results of climate talks that have taken place in recent years.
The cochairs “have created a clear structure for parties to negotiate more efficiently and effectively,” explains Jennifer Morgan, global director for climate with the World Resources Institute, a think tank.
In the draft, individual countries will set emissions control targets and deadlines for themselves. Governments are in the process of sharing their national plans with negotiators in preparation for the Paris meeting.
As part of that effort, President Barack Obama in March pledged that the U.S. will cut its emissions 26–28% by 2025. The White House says this can be done through regulations already in place and a new EPA rule, expected to be finalized soon, to cut carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Conservative Republican senators are attacking Obama’s goal as unattainable—and are asking the President for documentation about how his plan would work.
By casting doubts on Obama’s plan, the senators may raise doubts among their fellow lawmakers—as well as in foreign capitals—about whether the U.S. can live up to Obama’s commitment.
-
Setting Big Goals, Hillary Clinton Joins the Climate Battle
Jul 31, 2015 | The New York Times - Opinion Pages
Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised a series of initiatives to address the challenge of climate change. The first installment, unveiled this week in Iowa, calls for an aggressive expansion of wind, solar and other carbon-free energy sources so that they provide one-third of America’s electricity by 2027 — enough, she says, to power every home in the country.
Mrs. Clinton at least is willing to confront global warming, which her prospective Republican opponents have been doing their best to avoid, belittle and deny. But as solutions go, setting goals isn’t much. Getting there is the tough part. And even then, renewables can be only part of a comprehensive energy strategy.
The plan’s centerpiece is a huge, sevenfold bump in solar-generated power, which, despite the sharp drop in the price of solar panels, now provides only a tiny fraction of the nation’s energy. Renewable energy sources overall furnish just 13 percent of America’s electricity (natural gas, coal and nuclear power account for nearly all the rest), with hydropower at 6 percent, wind power at 4.4 percent and the remainder coming from geothermal, biomass and solar (less than 1 percent).
So there’s obviously room for growth in renewables. As if to make that point, on the day after Mrs. Clinton unveiled her plan, federal and state officials gathered off Rhode Island to celebrate the beginning of construction of the country’s first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, a modest five-turbine project that is expected to begin providing electricity to East Coast customers next year.
This was a hopeful moment for an industry that has gone nowhere because of financing and regulatory obstacles, and, in the case of Cape Cod’s Cape Wind project, well-financed opposition from local property owners. It was also a depressing reminder of how badly America lags behind European nations that have built large offshore wind farms to convert ocean breezes into electricity.
Mrs. Clinton seeks to change all this, albeit with familiar strategies. She would enlarge and make permanent existing tax incentives for wind and solar power that are now perilously dependent on periodic congressional renewal. She would open more federal land to wind and solar installations. She would streamline the permitting process so it doesn’t take years to get another offshore wind farm up and running, and help build a transmission system capable of carrying wind and solar energy from remote locations. She pledges full support for President Obama’s forthcoming plan to shut down old coal-fired power plants, which would almost certainly force states to turn to cleaner sources of energy.
There is no mention, however, of the one mechanism that would guarantee a shift in the way the country produces and consumes energy, namely putting a price on carbon emissions, presumably with a tax. Mrs. Clinton has already been through the carbon pricing wars in Congress (including an ill-fated cap and trade bill she supported in 2008) and apparently sees it as a lost cause in the current political environment.It will be interesting to watch Mrs. Clinton flesh out her ideas. The nation needs investment in a new generation of nuclear power, a carbon-free source that provides one-fifth of the nation’s electricity. Many environmentalists and scientists would like to see her take a much tougher approach to new oil and gas exploration than Mr. Obama, whose generally benevolent attitude toward fossil fuel development (Alaska being an exception) seemed at odds with his commitment to cut carbon pollution.
If the global warming’s worst consequences are to be avoided, a big chunk of the world’s fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground. A big test of Mrs. Clinton’s commitments will be whether and how she addresses this reality.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested