Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stephanie Grace: Super PACs Shaping Louisiana’s Governor Race; See Who's Throwing Thousands at Each Candidate
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. -
New Gulf Coast Chemical Facilities Push Up Demand
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
New plants coming online in the next few years could push industrial natural gas growth forward by more than 3 percent over two years, according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration analysis released earlier this week. -
Toxic Flame Retardant Found in Congressional Furniture
Jul 31, 2015 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
A recent analysis found evidence of a potentially harmful flame retardant in congressional offices. The study from the Environmental Defense Fund coincided with ongoing efforts to overhaul the nation's chemical safety laws. -
'Regrettable Substitutions' Fail to Knock Hazardous Chemicals Out of Products
Jul 31, 2015 | Newsworks
By Karen Shakerdge
If you walk into the supermarket and pick up some microwave popcorn boxes these days, you'll probably see the words "diacetyl free" written near the ingredients. But this wasn't always the case. -
Model Prostate Shows How BPA may Increase Cancer Risk
Jul 31, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Foetal exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) may increase the risk of developing prostate cancer by causing overproduction of stem cells, according to a US study. -
PFCs May Be Immunotoxic to Adults, Study Suggests
Jul 31, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Exposure to perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) may reduce the body's immune response to vaccinations, according to research from Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, and Harvard Chan School of Public Health in Boston, US. -
(ACC Mentioned) 2 Years After Obama Order, Results May Not Match Rhetoric
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Two years after President Obama issued a landmark executive order setting federal priorities for advancing chemical security, a slew of agencies continue to plod toward regulatory changes, to the frustration of some environment and public health organizations that would like to see faster improvements. -
What Changes to Expect from Obama's Final Clean Power Plan
Jul 31, 2015 | Reuters
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will unveil as soon as Monday the final version of a sweeping - and controversial - regulation to cut carbon emissions from the electricity sector. -
Feds to Vacate Energy Efficiency Rule, Industry Group Says
Jul 31, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed major bills Thursday on lifting the crude oil export ban and its broad energy package -
As States Rage Against Climate Plan, Regulators Quietly Prepare
Jul 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
More than a dozen states have pledged to wage a political and legal fight against President Barack Obama’s climate change rule for power plants. But the utility regulators in almost all of those places are nevertheless drafting plans to comply with EPA’s mandates. -
Hundreds of Businesses Promote Climate Rule to Governors
Jul 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A sustainability group, along with 365 companies and businesses, is telling governors around the country to support President Obama’s upcoming rule governing power plant carbon emissions. -
Clean Power Plan Will Only Improve Our Electric Power System
Jul 31, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Graham Richard
Very soon, President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy are expected to announce final regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power sector, otherwise known as the Clean Power Plan. -
ClimateWire's Holden Talks Power Plan Rollout, Timeline Delay
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - TV
With all signals pointing to an imminent release of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, what are the key issues to watch as the plan is rolled out as early as this Monday? -
Will EPA Keep Carbon Capture in its New Power Plant Rule?
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
If U.S. EPA releases its final plans to cut carbon from power plants on Monday, as expected, the biggest shock might not be found in the Clean Power Plan. -
Extended Power Plan Deadline Seen Boosting Renewables
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
An expected change in U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will make a state stampede to natural gas less likely and provide time for ramping up renewable energy and demand-side efficiency, according to some energy policy experts. -
Coal Remains Clean Power Plan's Top Foe
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
U.S. EPA's proposed rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants has a roster of enemies, but none has been as vocal as coal interests. -
Enviros Sue Calif. Over State Fracking Regs
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
California environmentalists are taking Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) administration to court over hydraulic fracturing regulations that they say fail to fully consider environmental risks. -
Arctic Drilling Begins
Jul 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Royal Dutch Shell started to drill into the sea floor in the United States' portion of the Arctic Ocean late Thursday, the first drilling to take place there in years.
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
-
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.
-
New Gulf Coast Chemical Facilities Push Up Demand
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
New plants coming online in the next few years could push industrial natural gas growth forward by more than 3 percent over two years, according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration analysis released earlier this week.
Consumption of natural gas from industrial facilities rose 24 percent in 2014 compared with 2009 numbers. The EIA predicts consumption will jump an additional 3.4 percent by the end of 2015. And 2016 will see another 3.9 percent rise.
Industrial and other users have pushed plans to switch to natural gas thanks to cheaper prices, with most of the demand expected to come from new industrial facilities on the Gulf Coast (Robert Grattan, Fuel Fix, July 29). -- KS
-
Toxic Flame Retardant Found in Congressional Furniture
Jul 31, 2015 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
A recent analysis found evidence of a potentially harmful flame retardant in congressional offices. The study from the Environmental Defense Fund coincided with ongoing efforts to overhaul the nation's chemical safety laws.
"It’s crazy to think that there are toxic chemicals in the very furniture we’re sitting on while working to update America’s chemical safety law,” Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, told Roll Call.
A couch in Udall's office tested positive for chlorinated tris or TDCPP, a common flame retardant classified by California officials as a carcinogen, according to Duke University researchers.
The EDF collected samples from six couches located in each of Washington's congressional office buildings. Three of the six sent to Duke's Superfund Research Center were found to contain TDCPP.
EDF officials said the varying ages of the furniture could account for the different results.
“Even those who know the risks of chemicals in consumer products and work to avoid them often can’t protect themselves," added Rep. Frank Pallone, D-New Jersey.
The two Democrats joined Republicans Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois to author separate overhauls of the Toxic Substances Control Act— the last relic of 1970s-era environmental legislation that hasn't seen a subsequent legislative upgrade.
Under the current law, the EPA has tested only 200 chemicals and regulated five; some 80,000 chemicals are currently used in commerce.
The House overwhelmingly passed their version in June; the Senate has yet to take action. -
'Regrettable Substitutions' Fail to Knock Hazardous Chemicals Out of Products
Jul 31, 2015 | Newsworks
By Karen Shakerdge
If you walk into the supermarket and pick up some microwave popcorn boxes these days, you'll probably see the words "diacetyl free" written near the ingredients. But this wasn't always the case.
Diacetyl is a chemical historically used to make the butter flavor added into movie theater popcorn, microwave popcorn, baked goods and just about anything that promises a buttery taste. But there was a problem with diacetyl—workers handling the chemical started developing serious respiratory problems.
Ricardo Corona was working in a flavor factory for about five months back in 2006, when he started having trouble breathing.
"When I first went to the doctor, I was told I had asthma. They gave me some inhaler. After awhile, I had a hard time breathing. The asthma medication wasn't working," Corona testified at a California Senate Judiciary Committee meeting in April 2013.
He is one of at least dozens of workers who developed a disease called bronchiolitis obliterans after inhaling diacetyl. He lost 80 percent of his lung capacity and ended up needing a transplant.
"The vapors and dust were so intense that they went through the paper mask I was given," he recalled.
Although diacetyl exposure was primarily hazardous for workers who continually inhaled it, in one extreme case a man who consumed microwave popcorn about twice a day for 10 years developed the same disease.
In reaction, some big food companies vowed to stop using it, and they did. But some replaced it with a chemical called 2,3 pentanedione, which could be just as hazardous, according to a report released earlier this month by The National Institute For Occupational Safety and Health. Swapping one hazardous chemical in for another is what experts call a regrettable substitution.
"We've discovered recently that a lot of these substitutions that have been made, while functionally equivalent, also have hazards associated with them," says Julie Zimmerman, assistant professor of chemical and environmental engineering at Yale University.
Scientists at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health exposed rats to 2,3 pentanedione and observed similar breathing problems. Some experts say it's not surprising, since these chemicals—diacetyl and 2,3 pentanedione—are like cousins, both in the alpha-diketone family.
Laura Vandenberg, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts School of Public Health, specializes in hazard assessment and has written about another regrettable substitution—BPA.
"You could shop anywhere now and see plastics that are labelled BPA-free which, of course, should lead people to ask the next question which is: 'What is in there instead, if it's BPA free?'"
Bad news on that front as well, Vandenberg says, BPS is a chemical very similar in structure to BPA.
So why do regrettable substitutions happen in the first place?
"I would really hate to think that companies are purposefully putting a poison in place of another poison," Vandenberg says. "Chemists have families, they have children, they want good things for their communities. They're not purposefully making these decisions but they're making decisions based on chemistry instead of on biology and endocrinology and toxicology."
David Constable, head of the Green Chemistry Institute at the American Chemical Society, says people wrongly assume that there are safe alternatives just waiting around to be used.
"The science is not there yet, and that's where we need to do more work to understand and to better design molecules and products so that we can avoid these problems. There's a long road to go," Constable says.
Green chemists who seek sustainable solutions to these issues have been pushing for more research to be done before making substitutions.
"The number of alternative assessments that have actually been done are very small, because of the difficulty in the science, but also in the difficulty in the politics that attend it," Constable says.
As for 2,3 pentanedione and its use in butter flavor, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health will release exposure limits by the end of the year—limits that will hopefully prevent workers like Ricardo Corona from getting sick in the future.
-
Model Prostate Shows How BPA may Increase Cancer Risk
Jul 31, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Foetal exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) may increase the risk of developing prostate cancer by causing overproduction of stem cells, according to a US study.
Rodent and in vitro tests have suggested that foetal exposure to BPA may predispose to prostate carcinogenesis with ageing (CW 9 January 2014).
To see if the same applies in humans, Esther Calderon-Gierszal and Gail Prins, from the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed a “pioneer” human model to study prostate development in vitro. They used human embryonic stem cells to develop a miniature 3D prostate “organoid”.
Exposure to BPA caused an overabundance of stem cells in “nests” throughout the organoid.
“The higher number of stem cells we saw in developing organoids given very low doses of BPA may be the underlying mechanism by which BPA increases the risk for prostate cancer,” says Dr Prins.
The model could also be used to evaluate the effects of other endocrine disrupting chemicals, suggest the researchers, writing in the journal Plos One.
-
PFCs May Be Immunotoxic to Adults, Study Suggests
Jul 31, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Exposure to perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) may reduce the body's immune response to vaccinations, according to research from Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, and Harvard Chan School of Public Health in Boston, US.
Some animal studies have suggested that PFCs such as PFOS and PFOA may suppress the immune system. Meanwhile, recent studies of children point to a possible inverse association between prenatal PFC exposure and antibody concentrations in response to vaccines.
A team led by Carsten Heilmann from Copenhagen University Hospital investigated whether PFC exposure could affect the immune system at any age, not just during the sensitive prenatal period. They administered a diphtheria-tetanus vaccine to 12 healthy hospital staff volunteers, then collected blood samples for up to 30 days, measuring concentrations of antibodies against tetanus and diphtheria, as well as PFC levels.
Older people had higher blood levels of PFCs. Despite the small number of participants in the study, the researchers suggest that doubling PFOS exposure causes a statistically significant decrease in diphtheria antibody concentration. Writing in the Journal of Immunotoxicology, they suggest that the “immunotoxic” effect is especially significant for longer-chain PFCs.
The small study size means that the results are only “preliminary”, say the researchers. However, they highlight a need to study the chemicals' possible immunotoxicity in more detail, they say. In particular, the researchers suggest that the way that cells first respond to PFC exposure should be explored to identify possible novel modes of action.
They are also studying white blood cells to identify mechanisms and differences between the perfluorinated compounds, says co-author Philippe Grandjean from Harvard. They suspect that peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) receptor activation may play a role in PFC immunotoxicity (CW 23 July 2015).
The team is currently examining data from a PFC study of a fishing community in the Faroe Islands, including a new birth cohort of 500 children, says professor Grandjean. Results so far suggest that Faroese women with a higher blood level of PFOS have children with a reduced antibody response to the diphtheria vaccine.
In a separate paper to be published in Scientific Solutions, professor Grandjean and Richard Clapp from the University of Massachusetts Lowell, US, say that PFCs represent “an example of a failed scientific and regulatory approach". The chemicals "document the need for better linkage between research and risk assessment to inspire prudent chemicals control policies”, they conclude.
In particular, they warn that existing drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS in the EU and US may be 100 times too high, based on recent benchmark dose levels.
-
(ACC Mentioned) 2 Years After Obama Order, Results May Not Match Rhetoric
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Two years after President Obama issued a landmark executive order setting federal priorities for advancing chemical security, a slew of agencies continue to plod toward regulatory changes, to the frustration of some environment and public health organizations that would like to see faster improvements.
These groups -- once excited at the prospect of ambitious changes to how chemical facilities are required to protect plants and nearby communities -- have watched warily as the administration continues the safety initiative with an emphasis on information sharing and coordination, rather than regulatory changes.
U.S. EPA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) continue to tout progress on information sharing and outreach initiatives, but say more substantial rulemakings are still down the road.
Under an executive order President Obama issued about three months after speaking at a memorial service at Baylor University for victims of an explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. in West, Texas, in 2013, federal agencies are tasked with working together to close information gaps and examine what regulatory changes could improve chemical facility security (Greenwire, Aug. 1, 2013).
So far, though, "not very much" has changed, said Ronald White, director of regulatory policy at the Center for Effective Government.
The Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters, which counts White's group, Greenpeace and dozens of others as members, said in a statement today that at least 431 chemical releases or explosions have occurred since the West, Texas, blast, causing more than 82 deaths and 1,600 injuries.
Advertisement
Under its most recent regulatory agenda, EPA expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to update its risk management program by September. That would leave the agency spending most of next year completing a final rule.
The group warned that the pace of the interagency effort is threatening to waste "a historic opportunity to safeguard the communities and workers threatened by dangerous chemical plants," such as by proposing new regulations to place new requirements on facilities to evaluate whether safer chemical processes can be used at reasonable cost -- which the groups contend is the most effective way to prevent another incident like the one that occurred in Texas.
But certain administration officials have "some concerns" over whether this is feasible, Chris Schepis, minority staff director for the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies, said last week (E&ENews PM, July 23).Industry touts coordination
The level of coordination now between federal agencies that traditionally did not work together is "remarkable," said Bill Allmond, vice president of government affairs at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates.
Though some groups' desired requirements that facilities consider safer processes have yet to transpire, that doesn't mean the chemical industry has received everything it wants from the process, Allmond said.
Ideally, it would be more effective to modernize regulations for a different federal law, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, rather than the risk management program, which is administered under the Clean Air Act, Allmond said.
EPCRA provides reporting requirements for chemical facilities and requirements of timely emergency notification. Unlike the risk management program, EPCRA "seems to be the existing regulation that failed" in West, Allmond said.
Other industry groups, like the American Chemistry Council, have touted voluntary industry measures like ACC's Responsible Care program as a foundation for security standards.
The executive order "wisely directs the Working Group to take advantage of private sector initiatives to help improve how the federal government manages safety and security," but more could be done to utilize these programs, the American Chemistry Council said in a statement.
While the pace of agencies' deliberations may be frustrating, Allmond argued it is appropriate to have a lengthy debate over changes -- such as EPA's risk management provisions and the OSHA's process safety management standards -- that could significantly affect chemical producers.
"We don't live in a Stalinist society, where things are done by fiat," Allmond said. "We live in a very deliberative society where it does take time, even on questions of safety, it takes time for our government to improve how we're doing things -- especially with things as complex as the two regulations that they're currently focusing on."
-
What Changes to Expect from Obama's Final Clean Power Plan
Jul 31, 2015 | Reuters
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will unveil as soon as Monday the final version of a sweeping - and controversial - regulation to cut carbon emissions from the electricity sector.
In its initial version, the Clean Power Plan called for cutting the country's power plant emissions 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, setting different targets for each state.
The proposal is the signature piece of President Barack Obama’s climate change policy. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said this week that the final rule will be "stronger in many ways than the proposed rule."
But the Clean Power Plan has been sharply criticized by the energy and manufacturing industries and some energy-producing states, and opponents have already vowed to challenge the regulation in court.
The final rule is expected to accommodate some of that opposition, as well as take into account feedback from over 4.3 million public comments. Among other things: The EPA is expected to push back the rule's start date by two years to 2022, according to a slide posted by the agency briefly on its website on Tuesday.
Here are some things to look for in the final rule:
Why will the EPA push the start date back?
One of the biggest complaints about the draft proposal was the timetable. Some coal-reliant states complained that moving too quickly on building out natural gas pipelines and shutting down coal plants could lead to electricity shortages. And the Edison Electric Institute, a U.S. utility lobby group, said the interim goals would make electricity more costly for consumers. Delaying the start date and giving extra credit to states that took early action offers an "easy concession" for the EPA, according to the Resources for the Future think tank.
Will the EPA change how states can hit their targets?
The EPA set individual goals for each state to reduce the carbon intensity of their power plants based on a mix of four “building blocks”: improving efficiency of coal-fired power plants; replacing more coal with natural gas; deploying more wind, solar and hydro power and preserving nuclear power; and expanding consumer energy efficiency programs.
The agency is expected to revise some of their assumptions about how quickly states can switch out coal for natural gas, while taking into account growing penetration of renewable energy sources.
“They will be updating information on renewables and efficiency to incorporate data that wasn’t included the first time around," said David Doniger, a director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "That really ups what you can get out of those sources."
On the other hand, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee hope to see less stringent targets in the final rule. Those states have nuclear plants under construction - but not yet operating. The EPA had treated those states as if the plants were already generating power, raising unrealistic expectations for the rate of cuts, those states said.
Will the EPA give states clearer ground rules on interstate emissions trading?
Many experts expect the EPA to make it easier for power plants to trade emission permits as a way to meet their carbon-reduction targets. Allowing states to measure emissions by total tonnage makes it easier for plants to “trade those tons,” said Chuck Barlow, head of regulatory affairs at Entergy, a power generator based in New Orleans. Barlow said state air regulators already trade sulfur permits this way. He also expects the EPA to facilitate that emissions trading by dropping requirements for them to strike legal agreements - some of which would require legislative approval - between states.
Will the EPA prepare a federal plan for states that "say no" to the Clean Power Plan?
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has been urging governors to ignore the EPA rule, though so far only Oklahoma has said it would not comply. The EPA is now expected to reveal a "federal implementation plan" that states would be forced to adopt if they miss a 2016 deadline for submitting plans on how they propose to meet their targets.
-
Feds to Vacate Energy Efficiency Rule, Industry Group Says
Jul 31, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed major bills Thursday on lifting the crude oil export ban and its broad energy package.
The oil export bill would also increase offshore drilling and provide revenue sharing for neighboring states. It passed 12-10, along party lines.
"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," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the panel, said of the export and offshore drilling measure.
Democrats said they might be able to support the policies, but they'd rather balance it out with some help for renewable energy.
"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," Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said, pointing to tax credits for wind and solar power as priorities.
The meeting also capped three days of markup for the broad energy reform bill Murkowski has negotiated with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).
Both women were glad to move forward on the bill, which can now go to the Senate floor.
"No one's getting everything they want, for sure," Murkowski said. "But I do think that this in an impressive journey that we have gone down for the past several months."
"Today represents the first step in the long but important journey," said Cantwell. "This committee has gone too long without moving energy policy legislation."
Read more here and here.
ON TAP FRIDAY I: Staffers with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Institute for Industrial Productivity and the Regulatory Assistance Project will participate in a webinar on Clean Power Plan compliance.
ON TAP FRIDAY II: The Farm Animal Rights Movement will hold the second day of its Animal Rights National Conference.
NEWS BITE: House progressives endorsed a strong new federal standard for surface-level ozone levels on Thursday.
In a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, 64 House Democrats said the EPA should limit ozone to 60 parts per billion when the EPA introduces new rules later this year.
The current standard of 75 parts per billion, they said, doesn't do enough to protect public health.
"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," the members wrote.
The Democrats' letter comes a day after nearly 150 members, mostly Republicans, wrote the EPA opposing a stricter ozone standard.
AROUND THE WEB:
Two Belgian nuclear reactors, scheduled to close this year, will stay online until at least 2025, the EU Observer reports.
Flooding from severe weather is threatening to push coal pollution into Ha Long Bay, a Vietnamese World Heritage Site, the New York Times reports.
Rural communities in India are looking to tap solar for their electricity needs, the Wall Street Journal reports.
-
As States Rage Against Climate Plan, Regulators Quietly Prepare
Jul 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
More than a dozen states have pledged to wage a political and legal fight against President Barack Obama’s climate change rule for power plants. But the utility regulators in almost all of those places are nevertheless drafting plans to comply with EPA’s mandates.
The regulators oversee the power companies that will bear the brunt of EPA’s plan to cut carbon dioxide output — and no matter how the battle turns out, they have to make sure the lights stay on and electricity prices are fair for consumers. That’s just as true in states with conservative governors such as Indiana’s Mike Pence and White House hopeful Bobby Jindal of Louisiana — and even in states where the regulators themselves are elected.
“The decision to join a lawsuit rests with our Governor and Attorney General,” Georgia Public Service Commission member Tim Echols said by email. “My job will be to work with other state leaders to keep Georgia’s electric and gas rates as low as possible and prepare for the future.”
EPA’s rule, which could emerge as early as Monday, will reqiuire states to submit plans for reducing the carbon “intensity” of their power sectors by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. In the proposed rule issued last year, the targeted cuts range from North Dakota’s 11 percent to 72 percent for Washington state.
“It’s a big rule, there’s no question about that,” said Charles Gray, the executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. “And it really strikes right at the center of what commissions are doing. Electric generation is what we’re looking at ultimately.”
So far, a half-dozen governors — five Republicans and one Democrat — have indicated they plan to defy the regulation by not filing a pollution plan with the EPA, a move that’s expected to force the agency to impose its own measures on those states. And the 14 states that sued to stop the rule earlier this year are expected to drag the agency back into court once the rule is finalized.
But even under those scenarios, state utility commissioners will still play a crucial role.
Even if EPA imposes a pollution-cutting plan on the states, “it’s hard to envision even a federal plan that doesn’t implicate what state utility commissions do,” Gray said.
Echols, a Republican who is critical of the draft rule and faces reelection next year, said he plans to coordinate with Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division, electric co-ops, cities and the major utility, Southern Co.’s Georgia Power, to consider the state’s choices.
“I personally have met with our EPD director, who will ‘quarterback’ our rule compliance, four times talking about various compliance scenarios,” he added. “Once the rule has become official, then we’ll turn our attention to the most economical way to comply — which may or may not include working with other states.”
The dual-track strategy can create a seemingly contradictory set of policies.
For example, Kansas joined the other states that challenged EPA’s climate rule, which a federal appeals court rejected as premature. Yet earlier this year its conservative governor, Sam Brownback, signed legislation instructing state agencies to coordinate their efforts to comply with the controversial climate regulation.
That represents the reality for states that may oppose a federally mandated rule, said Curt Hébert, a former Entergy Corp. executive, FERC chairman and Louisiana regulator.
“If you are responsible, then you’re likely going to have a Plan B, understanding that there is losing, and then there’s losing badly,” he said.
Like Echols in Georgia, other electricity regulators are reaching out to a constellation of resources, which can include other state agencies and utilities to environmental organizations, outside consultants and regional grid operators.
Several organizations have created a web of resources to help states strategize around the roll out if the climate rule withstands the legal challenges.
Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter’s Center for the New Energy Economy is trying to network with several Western states on the EPA rule, while Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions is working with Southeastern states and some of the members of the grid operator PJM.
Meanwhile, the Minneapolis-based Great Plains Institute is tying together states in the Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic, while the Georgetown Climate Center’s effort works to connect states, including those in PJM, with Washington policymakers.
“There’s no downside to talking to as many people as you can on something like the Clean Power Plan just because it’s such a far-reaching rule,” said Doug Scott, the Great Plains Institute’s vice president for strategic initiatives and a former chair of the Illinois Commerce Commission and director of the Illinois EPA.
At Great Plains Institute’s’ meetings, members check their politics at the door, he said.
“The idea here is, if you have to comply — and not whether you should or whether the rule’s good — but if you actually have to comply, what are the options that you have?” Scott said. He also said that Great Plains is working with more than 20 states on the climate rule, and most of them are opposed to the regulation.
“[A]lmost every Western state environment department and [public utility commission] has done some thinking about it, mostly informally,” Noah Long, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Western Energy Project, said by email.
Regulators at FERC also convened several regional meetings around the country focused on the rule and are still available to assist states.
One lesson appears to be emerging from the initial planning: Working together will help states cut the costs of meeting their EPA targets.
Each state will receive its own carbon reduction target, and they all have a different power generation mix and grid infrastructure. But with years of experience integrating states’ renewable portfolio standards and efficiency programs, regional transmission operators like PJM or MISO aren’t new to the idea of planning around a patchwork of state goals.
RTOs like the Southwest Power Pool and MISO have issued analyses of the draft climate rule that show teamwork seems to help everyone. A study from SPP this week said a state-by-state approach to meeting the EPA climate rule would cost nearly 40 percent more than establishing a regional strategy.
“A state-by-state solution also would be more disruptive than a regional approach to the significant reliability and economic value that SPP provides to its members as a regional transmission organization,” Lanny Nickell, vice president of engineering for SPP, said in a statement.
NARUC has convened several meetings for its member-regulators to discuss the EPA rule, and it’s planning more this fall after the rule comes out. The group has also issued its own guidebook for helping regulators who might consider interstate collaboration.
That multistate strategy is also likely to appeal to utilities that have operations in more than one state.
“The more that states are aligned in their thinking or coordinated or working together in some way, the easier it seems it will be to have one compliance strategy for a company that works in multiple states,” said Kate Zyla, the deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. “I think that’s one of the big drivers for more collaboration between states.”
But Hébert, the former regulator who is now an attorney with the Brunini law firm, said he’s not optimistic that states will mesh well.
“These states that are close together, do they work together? Not as much as you would think, and not as much as one would hope,” he said. “That’s been my experience as a state regulator, as a federal regulator, and as an executive vice president at a Fortune 250 company.
Utilities’ and state regulators’ efforts during the past year, since EPA issued its draft rule, have been based on broad policies that aren’t expected to shift much in the final version.
“A lot of them talk about the ‘no regrets’ work right now: What are the things we can do that we know will be constructive no matter what’s in the final rule?” Georgetown’s Zyla said, citing efficiency efforts and renewables. “I think they’re looking at some modeling, but they’re not spending a ton of time modeling.
-
Hundreds of Businesses Promote Climate Rule to Governors
Jul 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A sustainability group, along with 365 companies and businesses, is telling governors around the country to support President Obama’s upcoming rule governing power plant carbon emissions.
In a letter sent to governors, the companies said the forthcoming Clean Power Plan rules are “critical for moving our country toward a clean energy economy.” They said the governors should comply with the rule and find ways to meet the emission reduction goals the plan will lay out for states.
“The plan’s flexible approach provides an exciting opportunity for states to customize their own energy portfolio, expand clean energy solutions, attract new industries to the state, and create thousands of jobs,” the letter said.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to release its Clean Power Plan as early as next week. The landmark rule, a cornerstone of Obama’s climate change agenda, will look to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030.
The letter, from sustainability group Ceres, went to 29 governors. Companies signing the letter included Fortune 500 firms General Mills, eBay and Staples, as well as local businesses. Ceres said businesses in all 50 states are represented on the list, representing more than 340,000 employees and $350 billion in annual revenue.
“Clear and consistent policies can send market signals that help businesses and investors plan for the future,” the letter said. “We are seeking long-term policies that provide businesses the certainty needed to transition to a clean energy economy.”
Ceres’s letter is the latest example of green groups and environmental officials tapping the private sector to make the case for action on climate change.
Thirteen major companies signed a White House pledge this week to focus on green policies ahead of a climate conference scheduled for later this year in an effort to show private sector support for a greenhouse gas treaty.
Ceres sent Friday’s letter to a handful of governors who have signaled their opposition to the Clean Power Plan, including those in Wisconsin, Kentucky and Texas.
-
Clean Power Plan Will Only Improve Our Electric Power System
Jul 31, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Graham Richard
Very soon, President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy are expected to announce final regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power sector, otherwise known as the Clean Power Plan. The reaction from those opposed to the plan is predictable.
There will be talk of cost, hardship, and threat to reliable electric power service. Legal challenges will be filed. Some states will “just say no,” daring federal authorities to dictate compliance plans for them.
The reality, however, is much less dramatic. Many states are already on track to meet the targets set forth in the EPA proposal. For others, the Clean Power Plan will mostly push them to make their electric power systems better.
Advanced Energy Economy, a national association of businesses that are making the energy we use secure, clean, and affordable, views the Clean Power Plan as an opportunity to modernize the U.S. electric power system for the 21st century. Far from crippling our energy infrastructure, the Clean Power Plan will help drive needed investment in our electric power system. The result will be a more dynamic, resilient, customer-focused energy system.
Developing state-by-state compliance plans will take work, but once the details are sorted out, meeting EPA’s emission reduction targets will not be difficult. Here’s why.
First, the electric power system is already changing in ways that are consistent with EPA’s requirements. Over the past 10 years, generation has been shifting from coal to natural gas, largely based on price. Renewable energy development is accelerating in response to state policies, falling costs, and consumer demand. In states across the country, energy efficiency programs and demand management measures are reducing consumption and blunting costly spikes in demand while saving money for residents and businesses. The Clean Power Plan won’t require anything new, just more of what we’re doing already.
Second, precisely because it isn’t requiring anything new, the Clean Power Plan poses no threat to the reliability of the electric power system. The Advanced Energy Economy Institute, our nonprofit educational affiliate, issued a series of studies over the past six months, several of them involving leading consultants to the utility industry, examining issues identified by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. and found there to be little cause for concern. These reports demonstrated that utilities and grid operators in some areas of the country, such as Texas and Colorado, are already integrating levels of variable renewable energy as high as contemplated by the EPA plan with no impact on reliability; that renewable energy and energy efficiency are cost-competitive resources that can be readily used to reduce emissions, often saving money at the same time; and that the country’s pipeline infrastructure, already being expanded to accommodate additional natural gas use, can support the levels of demand anticipated under the Clean Power Plan.
Third, bipartisan efforts are under way to identify constructive ways to meet EPA’s goals at the state level. One of these is the Western States Clean Power Plan Initiative, which has convened regulators and utilities from 13 states, from North Dakota to Arizona, to examine key technical and policy issues vital to the West, preparing them for the state planning process. The National Governors Association has launched a “policy academy” to help states develop compliance strategies, with Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Utah selected to take part. Many states, including some that are suing EPA over the plan, have quietly started stakeholder processes to gather input about ways they can meet the EPA targets – and improve their power systems.
Finally, the Clean Power Plan is particularly conducive to market-based strategies that have accelerated compliance and reduced costs in past regulations, such as those used by EPA to control acid rain. State regulators, utilities, transmission and distribution cooperatives, and merchant power producers participating in the Midwestern Power Sector Collaborative have called on EPA to “provide or approve the use of credit tracking systems for states that wish to implement trading programs and accept reductions or credits from other states as valid compliance currency. EPA already has such systems in place for other pollutants.”
EPA’s Clean Power Plan will soon be final and states can get to work on their compliance plans – and why not? The technology is here, the industry is here, and the policy mechanisms are here. In terms of cost, practicality, and reliability, there is nothing to fear. It’s time to put the drama behind us – and get on with the job of modernizing the U.S. electric power system.
Richard is CEO of Advanced Energy Economy, a national business association.
-
ClimateWire's Holden Talks Power Plan Rollout, Timeline Delay
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - TV
With all signals pointing to an imminent release of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, what are the key issues to watch as the plan is rolled out as early as this Monday? On today's The Cutting Edge, ClimateWire reporter Emily Holden gives the background on E&E's discovery of a document signaling a delayed compliance timeline. She also previews potential changes to watch for in the final rule.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to The Cutting Edge. Strong signals that EPA will release its final Clean Power Plan on Monday. ClimateWire's Emily Holden is here with the latest details and what we can expect from the rollout. Emily, E&E's been reporting all week that the plan could come out as early as Monday. We have some new details. What's the latest?
Emily Holden: We've heard from a couple of sources there could be a signing ceremony at the White House Monday at 10 a.m., and that's not confirmed by the administration, but it's pretty consistent with our reporting.
Monica Trauzzi: So we know some details on what to expect from the rollout. You and our colleague, Rod Kuckro, discovered a document that sheds some light on some specifics in terms of the timeline. The compliance period, according to this document, would be pushed to 2022. How significant of a shift is that?
Emily Holden: Right. So two years might not seem like a lot, but it could answer some calls from states and from energy companies that have said that the interim compliance period in the draft rule that would have started in 2020 would be too soon and that too much coal power would go offline, it would risk outages, electric price surges, that sort of thing. there's also the theory from lawyers that this could bolster EPA's legal defense because when they go to the courts and say, you know, when opponents say we don't have enough time to get this done, they'll have a couple extra years. There won't be as much justification for a stay, they argue. And that the changes also give a little bit more time to submit their plans, so they might have until 2016 to put in their initial plans and 2018 for their final ones.
Monica Trauzzi: I want to rewind to earlier this week. Take us behind the scenes of how you uncovered this document that gave you these new timeline details, because E&E was the first to have it.
Emily Holden: Right. So Tuesday afternoon, we got a tip from a source by email that there appeared to be a PowerPoint slide posted online by EPA that showed some of these changes, and that was under an EPA URL, but it wasn't easily accessible to the general public. When we contacted EPA, they took it down and they've since said that was a Web design mock-up that wasn't meant to be online.
Monica Trauzzi: So, of course, come Monday, if it does happen on Monday, the devil will be in the details. It's widely expected that there would be incentives built in for states who comply sooner than 2022. What are the key issues that you're going to have eyes on once that final plan comes out?
Emily Holden: We'll be focusing on the timeline changes and the other revisions and basically what they would mean for state goals, whether the goals will be harder or easier. We'll also want to know whether EPA gives any additional guidance to states on how they can work together and potentially trade compliance credits. That's something a lot of them have asked about, and we'll be looking to see whether the rule does any more to incentivize nuclear power or ensure grid reliability.
Monica Trauzzi: E&E's Power Plan Hub has been a critical resource for everyone who's been tracking the power plan. How can we expect that to be updated as the final rule comes out?
Emily Holden: Well, we have more than a dozen reporters who are diving into different portions of the rule next week, but we also have about 20 people who will be contacting states, and on top of that, we're going to have all the data you'll need on state goals. We'll have explainer pages on what the changes to the rule means, and then we'll also have summaries of state and company responses. And we encourage anyone who's working on this to reach out and email us at -- it's PowerPlanHub@eenews.net.
Monica Trauzzi: That's great. Thank you. And E&E TV will also have special coverage starting on Monday of the Clean Power Plan rollout. Thanks, Emily.
Emily Holden: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: More Cutting Edge coming next Friday. We'll see you then.
[End of Audio]
-
Will EPA Keep Carbon Capture in its New Power Plant Rule?
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
If U.S. EPA releases its final plans to cut carbon from power plants on Monday, as expected, the biggest shock might not be found in the Clean Power Plan.
There have been rumblings for more than a month now that the New Source Performance Standard for future power plants under consideration at the White House does not contain what was the centerpiece of the draft version: a mandate that all future coal-fired power plants use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to capture a share of their emissions.
EPA has been tight-lipped about its power plant carbon regime, which is now expected to be unveiled Monday morning at the White House. But sources on Capitol Hill and elsewhere say they have heard from agency staff that the CCS mandate is out -- likely replaced with a less stringent requirement that new coal plants use ultra-supercritical technology.
Some observers say they have heard mixed chatter from certain administration officials about what is in and what is out. But the uncertainty raises questions about what serves the Obama administration's climate change legacy more: ensuring that no future coal-fired power plant can ever be built without CCS, or protecting the Clean Power Plan, which covers all the fossil fuel power plants currently belching carbon into the atmosphere throughout the United States.
That question rests on how legally stable the New Source Performance Standard is, which is a matter of hot debate.
If the new power plant rule is invalidated in courts, there is a strong likelihood the Clean Power Plan will fall with it, undermining the whole of EPA's power plant carbon regime and the cornerstone of what the U.S. had to offer toward a potential global emissions deal this year in Paris. The Clean Air Act requires that a standard for new sources be in place before a standard for existing ones goes into effect, and while the agency argues in its rule that a separate standard for modified sources might serve that purpose, that claim is untested and many experts say it is unlikely to pass muster.
The best chance for the survival of any of EPA's three power plant rules is therefore the survival of all its power plant rules. And that's a legal judgment call, said Thomas Lorenzen, an attorney at Crowell & Moring LLP.
"Right now there are some people at EPA and at the Department of Justice that are engaged in a little bit of gambling, and they're trying to decide which way is the best way to play this," he said.
Lorenzen said that if he still had his old job defending EPA rules at the Justice Department, he'd advise EPA to think twice before finalizing the CCS mandate.
"The conservative legal tack would be to tell them to abandon CCS," he said. Little would be lost by doing so -- no new coal-fired power plants are in the construction pipeline anyway that would be covered by the NSPS -- but a faulty rule for new sources puts at risk the Obama administration's ability to deliver a Clean Power Plan that cuts power-sector emissions 30 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2030.
"There's little reason for them to take the risk," said Jeff Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, who has long advanced the notion that a CCS mandate under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act would not be on firm legal footing.
"I do know that Gina and the other political appointees would like this to be part of their legacy: no new coal plants without CCS," he said, referring to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. "But they also know that even without that, given the current price of natural gas and the relatively low demand growth, no one is looking at building new coal-fired power plants anyway."
The agency could insert wording into its rule, he said, saying officials still think CCS is a promising technology and pledging to revisit the standard if the technology advances to the point where it meets the criteria for best system of emissions reduction (BSER).
Holmstead and other industry lawyers have long argued that CCS does not meet that standard now, while environmentalists strenuously disagree. Both sides have promised the dispute would be settled in litigation (Greenwire, Sept. 20, 2013).
But since the draft rule was unveiled in September 2013, new information has come to light, Holmstead argues, that makes the CCS gambit riskier than it might have seemed when EPA proposed it.
For one thing, EPA uses as part of its justification for tapping partial CCS as BSER for coal the fact that three CCS facilities were under development at power plants in the U.S. at the time of the proposal. But now only one of these still has a clear path to completion -- and Kemper County Energy Facility's CCS project in Mississippi is years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.
A project planned for California has been scrapped, and Summit Power's Texas Clean Energy Project is still in search of funding (Greenwire, July 10).
Boundary Dam Power Station in Saskatchewan has opened, but Holmstead sees special conditions there in its financing, technology and location that he thinks would make it a less-than-ideal basis for a standard.
Perhaps more compelling, Republican members of Congress and industry attorneys say, is the fact that a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 prohibited EPA from basing Clean Air Act air quality rules on technology demonstrated at facilities that received Energy Department funding -- which all three CCS projects mentioned in the draft did.
The agency was apparently unaware of that provision of the Energy Policy Act when it rolled out the draft in September 2013, but it gained political prominence in the months that followed and EPA eventually released a supplementary document, published in theFederal Register in February 2014, that sought to put the issue to rest.
The notice of data availability states that EPA's rationale for its CCS mandate "does not depend solely upon those projects, and the determination remains adequately supported without any information from facilities that have been allocated" partial funding and tax credits under the energy legislation.
"Thus, the EPA's proposed standards, which are based on its determination that partial capture CCS represents the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated, are not beyond the scope of its legal authority," the agency concludes, soliciting comment on its interpretation of the 2005 law.
Holmstead dismissed EPA's justification as "weak" and said it was further undermined by a passage from the administration's own National Climate Assessment last year that appeared to pan CCS technology.
"Although the potential opportunities are large, many uncertainties remain, including cost, demonstration at scale, environmental impacts, and what constitutes a safe, long-term geologic repository for sequestering carbon dioxide," states the NCA, a voluminous account of the nation's climatic risks and potential solutions that President Obama promoted in May of last year by providing interviews to local TV weather forecasters.
If EPA has now based its standard on ultra-supercritical technology like that used at Southwestern Electric Power Co.'s John W. Turk coal plant, that would still require a technology that has not been widely used in the U.S. but that is demonstrated, industry advocates say.'A step backwards'
But proponents of the CCS mandate say the statute intends Section 111(b) to be technology-forcing, a role it played in the past in helping to deploy scrubbers to limit power plant sulfur emissions. The fact that CCS is not currently operating at a U.S. power plant is not an impediment, they argue. All the components of the technology are available, and projects like Boundary Dam show they are working. CCS is not currently deployed in the U.S. because of a lack of a regulatory trigger, the advocates say -- and the New Source Performance Standard would address that.
"I have no reason to believe that these rumors are accurate," said Ann Weeks, senior counsel and legal director at the Clean Air Task Force, who last month shared her views on the rule with the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Furthermore, jettisoning the mandate would have consequences for Obama's climate efforts, both practical and political, she said.
While the U.S. is not currently building new coal-fired power plants, mostly for market reasons, the same is not true internationally. The Obama administration has reached several agreements with China over the last 18 months related to CCS that could help curb carbon at some of that country's many new coal facilities. Just last month, McCarthy and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz announced plans for a U.S.-China collaboration on a large-scale CCS project in which captured carbon would be used to recover and treat groundwater (E&ENews PM, June 23).
It would be difficult for the Obama administration to tell China it needs to invest in CCS if it isn't telling U.S. utilities the same thing, Weeks said.
"That would be an unfortunate signal," she said -- and it would send an inconsistent message to the broader international community ahead of December's negotiations.
"As we get closer and closer to Paris, it seems to us that it would be in the administration's interest to keep moving forward with things that would actually achieve emissions reductions," she said. "Providing a standard for coal plants that is meaningful does that. Taking CCS out is a step backwards."
And Weeks disputed that a new power plant standard based on technology already broadly in use would be a sturdier base on which to build the Clean Power Plan. The new power plant rule would be more legally vulnerable, she said, "because you're not talking about much reduction from the coal sector, and what would be the basis for an emissions reduction future from the coal industry?"
But Weeks said EPA's modified source rule, which is also written under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, could support the Clean Power Plan if the rule for future power plants was struck down.
"It's a 'b' standard. It's enough," she said.
-
Extended Power Plan Deadline Seen Boosting Renewables
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
An expected change in U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will make a state stampede to natural gas less likely and provide time for ramping up renewable energy and demand-side efficiency, according to some energy policy experts.
The agency is expected to release a final rule for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants Monday that would extend compliance and planning deadlines for states by two years from dates in last year's draft (EnergyWire, July 29).
The longer timelines would address concerns expressed by state officials and industry advocates who saw draft deadlines mandating emission reductions starting in 2020 forcing the shutdowns of coal-fired power plants in favor of combined-cycle gas plants.
"The original structure would bias for natural gas because the more rigid timelines supported a more simple, easy default approach," said Todd Foley, senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Renewable Energy.
While the draft would have had the unintended consequence of crowding out investments in wind, solar, demand-side efficiency and other zero-carbon technologies, Foley said, allowing plans to be submitted in 2018 and interim targets to kick in in 2022 will allow renewables to play a broader role in compliance strategies.
While renewables can be brought online very quickly -- within a matter of weeks in the case of rooftop solar -- it will take longer than that for states to construct policy signals to encourage them, Foley said.
"If you don't adjust that thoughtfully and intelligently, you almost get a market default approach," he said.
Utilities are more practiced at switching from coal to gas use than at tapping renewable generation, and would be more likely to fall back on that pattern absent a state policy specifically designed to expand renewables.
The rule's original structure would have encouraged utilities to expand the use of gas plants that would remain in operation for years, ultimately leading to more greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.
The draft rule's effect of significantly boosting gas in the early years and only encouraging renewables later was demonstrated in an analysis the U.S. Energy Information Administration released in May (ClimateWire, May 22).
EIA said natural gas prices would rise because of increased consumption, driving up power costs. But over the long term, the agency found, renewables would develop, so reliance on natural gas would go back down, and so would electricity prices.
In addition to the longer timelines, EPA has also tailored a new incentive program to encourage only zero-carbon electricity and efficiency -- not gas. It would provide states credit for early action in those areas that they can apply toward their compliance targets.
"The early action program is expected to give states credit for deploying new clean energy technologies, allowing for deeper cuts in carbon pollution in the long term. To ensure all Americans benefit from the Clean Power Plan, the program prioritizes early clean energy investment in low-income communities," a source familiar with the incentive program said earlier this week.
"You're going to see a final rule that is in many ways stronger than the proposed rule, but at the same time gives states the flexibility they need," the source said.
-
Coal Remains Clean Power Plan's Top Foe
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
U.S. EPA's proposed rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants has a roster of enemies, but none has been as vocal as coal interests.
Mining companies and their defenders are not only leading the fight against the Clean Power Plan, but are also trying to persuade other groups and states to stonewall the administration.
"The good news is that the Clean Air Act gives governors a choice in this matter," the National Mining Association said in a video yesterday. "They can choose not to submit a state power plan to the EPA," the trade group continued. "They have the power to protect their constituents by refusing to surrender control of their states' energy policy to regulators who ignore the costs to their citizens."
The U.S. Energy Information Administration said in May that the draft rule could boost the planned retirement of coal-fired power plants from roughly 40 gigawatts to about 90 GW. Mining, as a result, would also take a hit. The EIA report also said production from natural gas would continue to increase, but then see some drop because of the spread of renewable sources of energy (EnergyWire, May 22).
Many utilities, which will have to comply with whatever rule EPA finalizes and likely adjust their production from coal, have also expressed concerns about the proposal. Still, they have not been as strident as miners and their allies.
Last month, Nick Akins, CEO of American Electric Power Co. Inc., which relies on coal for more than half its power generation, suggested the company could work with the Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, June 10).
Akins, the new chairman of the powerful Edison Electric Institute, a group of investor-owned companies, said during a New Orleans conference, "To me, I think you'd call it a day and say, 'OK, let's go talk to people about making this thing rational because if it is, then you can avoid all the litigation and all the discourse that will slow the process down.'"
A utility company lobbyist, who spoke on background about the debate, said he was concerned about specifics within the Clean Power Plan but generally agreed with its goals. The lobbyist said the utility was already working on reducing coal from its fleet.
Also, the potential for EPA tweaking compliance deadlines could persuade at least some skeptics of the rule to refrain from challenging it in court (EnergyWire, July 30).
But Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, said, "Utilities have the luxury of passing on to consumers the cost of building new gas generation. And governors have the obligation to decide whether they want their citizens to bear that cost."
Similarly, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the country's other major pro-coal lobby group, released a statement saying that timing changes don't address its concerns.
"In issuing the regulations, the administration will have ignored the concerns of Members of Congress, leaders in a super-majority of states, citizens from coast to coast, businesses of every size, policy experts, regulators and legal experts," said group spokeswoman Laura Sheehan.
She added, "Should the EPA move forward to issue these regulations as final, we will do everything in our power to get them thrown out."
ACCCE, which does not make its current membership public, includes more than 40 interests backing coal, from mining companies to power generators.
According to 2013 tax forms, directors included Akins, Norfolk Southern Railway Co. CEO Charles Moorman, Southern Co. CEO Thomas Fanning, Alpha Natural Resources Inc. CEO Kevin Crutchfield, and Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., which has been helping lead the legal fight against the Clean Power Plan.
Asked about any differences within the group's members, Sheehan said, "Irrespective of what individual companies may say, ACCCE is unified in its position that EPA's carbon regulations must be taken down in their entirety."
The Clean Air Task Force, in a statement for this story, pointed to the coal industry as having a long track record of opposing federal action against power plant pollution.
"The coal industry has been the chief opponent of EPA pollution regulations on power plants because coal is the most polluting fuel and the industry has the most to lose absent wide deployment of technologies to scrub carbon pollution out of coal plant smokestacks," said the group.An 'unworkable' plan
Not all power providers are on the same page when it comes to being willing to live with something like the Clean Power Plan, particularly those with significant reliance on coal and less flexibility to move away.
Lisa Johnson, CEO of Tampa, Fla.-based Seminole Electric Cooperative Inc., which serves almost 2 million Floridians, said the cooperative relies on a 1,300-megawatt coal power plant built in the 1980s when the U.S. was promoting the fuel as an avenue for energy independence.
Johnson calls the Clean Power Plan "unworkable" because the coal units may have to shut down. "It would have a significant impact, leaving stranded assets for our members to pay for," she said.
Johnson said Seminole also counted on an 810 MW natural gas power plant, plus buying some power from biomass, municipal solid waste and landfill gas. She said solar and wind are not as plentiful as many people think.
In 2009, the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign cheered when Seminole decided against building a new coal generating unit. The club said it spent years fighting the project.
"I believe where those resources are available and they are reasonable to pursue, as well as physical and economic value, that's happening," Johnson said.
What she and other advocates don't understand is why EPA's plan would potentially force the shutdown of a coal plant that still has decades of life. Even considering EPA's proposed building blocks for compliance, including increased efficiency, the outcome may not change.
"The loss of that plant or those two units to us has a much greater impact," she said. "Our position is very specific on what our circumstances are. That is our top priority for us."
Similarly, Illinois-based Prairie State Generating Co., which owns a relatively new coal plant, told EPA in a May letter that jeopardizing the facility would hurt owner utilities around the country. The company said it couldn't take advantage of the proposed rule's flexibility because it has only one power plant.
Also, earlier this month the Lignite Energy Council and Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition asked for an exemption or allowances from the Clean Power Plan, saying it "presents a significant threat to lignite electric generation and lignite mining in the United States."
The groups told the administration how the many power plants that use the low-quality coal are relatively new and significant contributors to the economy, including North Dakota and Texas.
They told the White House Office of Management and Budget that the "rule should include a categorical exclusion of lignite-fired plants or, at minimum, a subcategory for lignite, which dramatically reduces the retirement risk to lignite units and ultimately risk to local and regional economies."
Even though the rule's parameters could change ahead of next week's expected release, environmental groups have looked dimly at the coal industry's request for leniency. They see EPA letting states comply with certain benchmarks through various options as flexible.
"While the proposal lays out individualized CO2 goals for each state, it does not prescribe how a state should meet its goal," EPA said in a court filing. "Rather, each state would have the flexibility to design a program that reflects its circumstances and energy and environmental policy objectives."
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a tweet last year said, "Can't be more clear: there is no war on coal. Clean Power Plan is about reducing pollution and fighting for public health."
The Clean Air Task Force said it, along with other environmental groups, has supported technologies like carbon capture and sequestration to help make coal cleaner.
"If the coal industry wants to be a part of the U.S. energy future, it would do well to focus more on supporting these technologies than opposing the Clean Power Plan and other regulations," it said.
Popovich said coal had plenty of allies amid a "breadth of opposition" to the rule, pointing to coalitions like the Partnership for a Better Energy Future "in which scores of organizations representing agriculture, manufacturing and business interests are emphatic that EPA's plan is bad for the economy and does nothing for the environment." He added, "That EPA has allied these diverse interests in opposition says nothing good about its plan."
-
Enviros Sue Calif. Over State Fracking Regs
Jul 31, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
California environmentalists are taking Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) administration to court over hydraulic fracturing regulations that they say fail to fully consider environmental risks.
The Center for Biological Diversity yesterday filed suit in Superior Court in Sacramento County, alleging that California's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources finalized fracking rules based on a flawed environmental impact report.
"Oil regulators defied state lawmakers by failing to consider the damage that fracking does to the air we breathe and the water we drink," CBD attorney Kassie Siegel said in a statement.
Siegel added that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) decision to ban fracking in his state was a more appropriate response to fracking's risks.
"In New York, Gov. Cuomo banned fracking after reviewing the science," she said. "In California, Gov. Brown simply refused to consider the dangers outlined by scientists and is putting millions of Californians at risk."
California lawmakers in 2013 enacted a law requiring the state to complete an independent scientific study of health and environmental risks associated with well stimulation techniques, including fracking and acidizing.
The state finalized its environmental review in June and published its final fracking rules earlier this month, touting them as the strongest in the nation.
But environmentalists say the regulators failed to include critical data from the California Council on Science and Technology that warns about shallow fracking's effects on groundwater.
"The Brown administration finalized the environmental impact report a week before the science review panel issued its report showing devastating risks to Californians from oil extraction," Siegel said.
The Western States Petroleum Association, however, argues that the CCST report supports industry's position that fracking poses no significant threat to the environment.
"The science-based findings of the CCST report stand in sharp contrast to much of the inflammatory and inaccurate commentary offered by anti-oil organizations about hydraulic fracturing and oil production in California," WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a statement earlier this month.
The lawsuit asks the court to order DOGGR to retract the environmental review and halt permitting until additional data on fracking's impacts are considered.
-
Jul 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Royal Dutch Shell started to drill into the sea floor in the United States' portion of the Arctic Ocean late Thursday, the first drilling to take place there in years.
The Polar Pioneer, a Transocean drilling rig leased to Shell, started the drilling operations for an exploratory well at about 5 p.m. Alaska time, Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said.
The prospect is about 75 miles from Alaska’s northeastern tip, in the Burger prospect in the Chukchi Sea.
The drilling came despite a full-on, multipronged fight from environmental groups, who tried to use courts, the Obama administration, protesting and various other methods to stop Shell’s plans to drill for oil and natural gas.
The Obama administration gave the final green light to Shell earlier this month.
But the company can only drill shallow wells and cannot drill into rock that is known to contain oil. It must wait until the MSV Fennica, an icebreaking ship that contains a key piece of drilling safety equipment, arrives in the Chukchi before it can drill further.
The Fennica left repair facilities in Portland, Ore., earlier Thursday.
Activists from Greenpeace had rappelled off a bridge to stop the ship from moving, initially prompting it to turn around, The Oregonian reports. But a federal judge started to fine Greenpeace for every hour protesters stopped the ship, and police eventually removed the activists, allowing the ship to pass.
“In the days to come, the team aboard the Transocean Polar Pioneer will work to complete the top portion of the well in anticipation of drilling to total depth once the Fennica arrives on site,” said Smith. “We remain committed to operating safely and responsibly and adding to Shell’s long history of exploration offshore Alaska.”
Shell is under various restrictions for its drilling operations, including ones on safety equipment, drilling times and protection of wildlife.
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
Add recipients
Suggested