Preview Newsletter

acc am 8/5

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) America's Absurd Delivery Food Habits Are Adding Up Fast
Aug 5, 2015 | Shape Magazine
By Rachael Schultz

Anyone looking to clean up their diet knows that cooking is key. But the weekly Hunger Games at the grocery store, late night at works, and knowing about that ridiculously delicious risotto the Italian restaurant down the street all leave you with a heck of a lot easier option: ordering delivery.
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Let’s Take A Little Risk’
Aug 4, 2015 | WardsAuto
By Bill Visnic

Although there’s a burgeoning emphasis on lightweighting, there remain impediments to implementing weight-saving innovations, automakers and suppliers say.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Free Kids Act a Starting Line for Public Health
Aug 4, 2015 | The Lund Report
By Jennifer Coleman

Governor Kate Brown has signed into law a bill requiring manufacturers to first disclose, and then remove, hazardous chemicals in children’s products, which holds promise for “assessing the health impacts of chemical exposure sources that are often overlooked,” says Renee Hackenmiller-Paradis, environmental public health section manager at The Oregon Health Authority’s Center for Health Protection.
California Counties Move to Regulate Drug Disposal
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler

The Board of Supervisors in Marin County, Calif., will vote Aug. 11 on whether to follow the lead of Alameda County and require pharmaceutical companies to fund disposal of unused drugs, including over-the-counter products.
Even your Couch is Toxic, Senator…
Aug 5, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt

How do you make Congress pay attention to an urgent problem? Make it hit home. To that effect, I recently grabbed some aluminum foil and a pair of scissors and set off for the Capitol to illustrate that nobody is safe from toxic chemicals – not even members of Congress.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Study of Some Dischargers to Continue, EPA Says
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

Discharges from various industrial sectors, including centralized waste treatment facilities and those involved in nanomaterials manufacturing, petroleum refining and metal finishing, will continue to be studied for potential regulation, but no new ones will be added, the Environmental Protection Agency said in its 2014 effluent guidelines plan published Aug. 4.
Crude Export Ban Will Be Lifted -- Rep. Barton
Aug 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Nathanial Gronewold

Congress could approve a stand-alone bill to remove restrictions on crude oil exports as early as September, a leading Texas Republican told an industry gathering here today.
UN Chief Welcomes ‘Hugely Important’ Climate Rule
Aug 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The head of the United Nations congratulated President Obama Tuesday for what he characterized as “hugely important and visionary leadership” on Obama’s landmark climate rule.
Obama Spurns Natural Gas in Climate Rule
Aug 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

President Obama’s love affair with natural gas is over. The president once touted gas as an essential clean bridge fuel to wean the United States off dirtier fossil fuels and onto renewable energy, and it was seen as a key to his landmark climate change rule for power plants.
Senate Dems Call on GOP to Back New Rules or Develop its Own
Aug 5, 2015 | E&E - Daily
By Jean Chemnick

As Senate Republicans prepare their autumn offensive against the climate rules U.S. EPA unveiled Monday, their Democratic colleagues took to the chamber floor yesterday to call for support for the Obama administration's agenda.
Senators Face Long Odds in Overturning EPA Rule
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and Anthony Adragna

Senate opponents of President Barack Obama's plan to reduce carbon dioxide from power plants told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 4 they will hold an up-or-down vote on the rule this fall but appear well shy of the two-thirds margin they will need to override an Obama veto.
EPA, Greens Collaborated Over Years on Rule -- Senate Report
Aug 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans released a report today that they said provides evidence of U.S. EPA's "collusion" with environmental litigants over several years on the development of what eventually became the Clean Power Plan.
Republicans Say Green Groups Had Too Much Sway With EPA
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem

Republican lawmakers said the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups had an inappropriate influence on developing the Obama administration's regulation to curb carbon emissions from power plants.
GOP: Climate Rule Came From Improper Green Input
Aug 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The Obama administration improperly colluded with environmental advocates to write its landmark climate rule for power plants, Senate Republicans say.
States Assessing New Targets in Clean Power Plan
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers

The Environmental Protection Agency's final Clean Power Plan boosted the baseline carbon dioxide emissions from states that it used to determine emissions rate targets, potentially giving state regulators a larger pool of options to consider as they plot their compliance strategies.
States Not Ready to Just Say No—Yet
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

Many of the nation's governors have angrily denounced the Clean Power Plan as federal overreach and illegal but remain undecided about whether their states will ignore the regulation by not submitting implementation plans.
Hidden in Obama’s New Climate Plan, a Whack at Red States
Aug 5, 2015 | Politico
By Michael Grunwald

I took flak Monday for writing that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan for fighting climate change wouldn’t really change the trajectory of the electricity sector, but now that the plan is public, you can see that Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency basically agreed with me.
Reliability Safety Valve Added to Clean Power Plan
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern

A reliability safety valve was added to the Clean Power Plan to allow power plants to keep operating outside of set state emission standards under certain emergency circumstances.
Group Hardest Hit by Power Plan Sees Benefits
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak and Mark Drajem

Opponents of President Barack Obama's plan to cut emissions blamed for climate change say utilities will be among the casualties of the new regulations. You wouldn't know it to hear from the power producers themselves.
Despite Coal Industry's Loss in EPA's New Plan, Utilities Gain Several Concessions
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak and Mark Drajem

Opponents of President Barack Obama's plan to cut emissions blamed for climate change say utilities will be among the casualties of the new regulations.
Supreme Court Rulings May Boost 'Deference' Challenges In EPA Rule Suits
Aug 5, 2015 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss

EPA is already facing litigation invoking recent Supreme Court decisions that denied judicial deference to the administration's positions on power plant air emissions standards and on health care to bolster claims that lower courts should not defer to the agency's other rules, beginning with its Clean Water Act (CWA) policy on water transfers.
How the EPA Tried to Protect Obama’s Climate Plan From the Courts
Aug 4, 2015 | National Journal
By Sam Baker

President Obama wants his 'Clean Power Plan' to stand the test of time —and the many legal challenges coming its way.
Steven Fulop Praises E.P.A., Opposes Chris Christie on Regional Initiative
Aug 4, 2015 | Politico
By David Giambusso

Mayor and potential gubernatorial candidate Steven Fulop stood beside one of the state's most outspoken environmental advocates Tuesday to praise President Obama's Clean Power Plan, and to tout his own environmental record at the helm of one of the state's biggest cities.
The Clean Power Plan: A ticket to the Top
Aug 4, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp

With the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan now final, the era of unlimited carbon pollution from America’s power plants is finally coming to an end.
Revised EPA Ozone Data Spurs Questions Over Future Air Transport Rule
Aug 5, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

EPA has issued revised data on interstate transport of ozone that sources say raises significant questions about how the agency will use the information to craft a “backstop” rule to ensure states meet a Clean Air Act duty to curb ozone transport, including potential data flaws that could lead to an unnecessarily stringent rule.
Don't Like Obama's Carbon Plan? Fine, Here's Cap and Trade
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem and Lynn Doan

Republican governors who boycott the Obama administration's new power-plant regulations may instead get an offer they can't refuse: a cap-and-trade system many of them also oppose.
Cornyn: Dems Channeling 'Chicken Little' on Climate Change
Aug 4, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action
By Jordain Carney

Sen. John Cornyn suggested on Tuesday that his Democratic colleagues were overplaying the seriousness of climate change.
How Much Further Can EPA Stretch the Clean Air Act?
Aug 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen

EPA has stretched the Clean Air Act as far as it’s ever been stretched to implement an ambitious plan to reduce electric utilities’ carbon footprint.
Obama Climate Plan Squeezes Coal as China Fights Pollution
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment
By Aibing Guo and James Paton

The Obama administration's plan to curb U.S. coal use will ripple across the globe to Asia, where the world's biggest consumer of coal and is balancing demands for cleaner air against cheaper energy.
Preventing the Health Impacts of Climate Change
Aug 4, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Georges Benjamin, MD

Today is a historic day for the health and well-being of our nation. The White House announcement of the Clean Power Plan boldly tackles the harsh effects of climate change, providing stronger health protections than ever before.
TransCanada May Recoup Part of Costs for Keystone XL
Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Snyder

A two-decade old trade accord could let TransCanada Corp. recoup some of the $2.4 billion spent on its Keystone XL project, even if President Barack Obama rejects the pipeline.
Ozone NAAQS Lobbying Intensifies As Deadline Looms For EPA Decision
Aug 4, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

Industry groups, environmentalists and others are ramping up lobbying on whether EPA should follow through with its proposed stricter existing ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), as the agency prepares to send the final rule for mandatory White House review in order to meet an Oct. 1 legal deadline for issuing the rule.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Full Text of Stories Below

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) America's Absurd Delivery Food Habits Are Adding Up Fast

Aug 5, 2015 | Shape Magazine

By Rachael Schultz

Anyone looking to clean up their diet knows that cooking is key. But the weekly Hunger Games at the grocery store, late night at works, and knowing about that ridiculously delicious risotto the Italian restaurant down the street all leave you with a heck of a lot easier option: ordering delivery.
We're becoming pretty reliant on this convenience—and we're paying a pretty penny for it. A new survey conducted, weirdly enough, by the turkey company Butterball, revealed that Americans each spend an average of $1,100 on takeout each year. That’s roughly $21 a week—or the entire plane fare to that exotic destination you really want to take but can’t seem to afford.
Butterball surveyed 1,000 people and found that one in four people order delivery at least once a week. Their excuses? Laziness, of course, was one of the top reasons. But tiredness and irresistible cravings—which we can all relate to—were the top reasons for indulging in order-in.
But you’re not just wasting money on the delivery itself: More than eight in 10 people surveyed said they get takeout even when they have a fully stocked fridge, which means you’re continually pushing the lifespan of your fresh produce and very likely having to toss unused rotten vegetables at the end of the week. This guilty habit may be part of the reason why Americans admit to throwing out roughly $640 of food each year, according to a recent survey by the American Chemistry Council. (Find out 6 Ways to Save Money On (and Stop Wasting!) Groceries.)
Even more than the money we’re wasting having food delivered, though, is the cost of convenience to our health. A study published in Public Health Nutrition last year found that the more meals people cooked at home, the less calories they consumed and the healthier their diet was overall.
Look, we totally get it—sometimes you come home too exhausted to put in any more effort than pressing three buttons on your smartphone. Or you simply get a hankering for Indian food that you just can’t shake. And with the advent of services like Seamless and GrubHub, it’s easier than ever to satisfy that whim with tikka masala and naan dropped of at your door within the hour.
But if you want to save some cash and stick to your healthy eating plan, try these three tips to break the takeout cycle.
1. Get groceries delivered. If you skip shopping on the weekend, that empty fridge is going to encourage you to look at takeout menus come Monday night. But you can order more than just takeout online. In major cities, you can take advantage of grocery delivery services likeFreshDirect and Peapod, but even major chains like Safeway and Whole Foods will deliver your entire supermarket list to your door for a small fee (that’s probably still cheaper than your Seamless bill).
2. Pick simpler recipes. Cooking doesn’t have to be a total time suck. If you grocery shop for quick recipes, you won’t feel overwhelmed by the effort it takes to make dinner. Try one of these 10 Healthy Recipes You Can Make In the Time It Takes to Pre-Heat the Oven or 9 Microwave Recipes That'll Save You Time.
3. If you’re going to order in, choose wisely for your waistline. Most delivery platforms like Seamless or GrubHub have the option of “healthy” under types of cuisines. It’ll remove all the pizza and burger options and leave you with only guilt-free fare for when you just can’t bring yourself to cook. Plus, stick to these other 7 Tips for Ordering Healthy Takeout Online.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Let’s Take A Little Risk’

Aug 4, 2015 | WardsAuto

By Bill Visnic

Although there’s a burgeoning emphasis on lightweighting, there remain impediments to implementing weight-saving innovations, automakers and suppliers say.
More importantly, they say, those impediments won’t simply go away, no matter how quickly all the stakeholders – including regulators and consumers – would like to see all vehicles go on a diet.
One primary hurdle: the investment-scrutinizing auto industry doesn’t do risk.
“Let’s take a little risk,” prods Matthew Marks, chair of the American Chemistry Council Plastics Div. Auto team and part of a panel on lightweighting at the Management Briefing Seminars here. “Let’s do an aluminum-bodied truck. Let’s do a composite passenger cell.”
Marks, who also is plastics supplier SABIC’s automotive and mass transportation regulatory marketing manager, says despite high-profile advances such as Ford’s aluminum-bodied ʼ15 F-150, to speed the auto sector’s adoption of advanced materials, “No one company can do it alone.”
He says automakers and suppliers need to continue working through consortiums and other types of pre-competitive collaborations in order to further development.
The panel, which included interests from the steel, aluminum and plastics sectors, makes it appear, at least, there’s not quite as much competition between materials suppliers as widely believed. The primary reason: Nearly everyone now seems to understand no single material will displace the others – and automakers and suppliers largely agree each major material group will have specific applications ideal for that material.
“I’m excited at where the market is going in terms of multimaterial use,” says Gregory Fata, automotive technical manager for aluminum producer Alcoa and member of the Aluminum Assn.’s transportation group.
Where the past typically saw openly competitive posturing from the aluminum, steel and plastics players, the new catchphrase is “multimaterial.” Everybody is focused on what their material does best.
The more-enlightened multimaterial mindset is nowhere more apparent than in a common point among the panel members: The industry’s lightweighting effort has to take action, training engineers for a multimaterial understanding. Marks, for example, stresses the need for expanded education programs for engineers “to design and evaluate a multimaterial vehicle.”
Later in the session, Florian Schek, head of lightweight design and vehicle weight atBMW, bolsters the point. “The future (of vehicle design) will be shaped by a multimaterial approach,” he insists.
But wider adoption of advanced materials won’t only be a matter of more broadly educating engineers. Marks says his industry has identified no less than 100 distinct actions to help advance the adoption of lightweight materials.
The primary actions include constructing demonstration facilities to efficiently prove out cutting-edge materials and applications and developing more-sophisticated computer models for lightweight materials.
The panel’s members also broadly agree on several barriers to quicker and more-widespread adoption of lightweighting solutions:Global platforms that “force” monolithic specifications of known-quantity components and materials.The need for an improved and more-efficient materials-qualification process. The current system can mean four years before a new-material application is vetted and approved.A manufacturing and assembly infrastructure geared to alternative-material applications.High development costs.
Alcoa’s Fata says his company has addressed some of these barriers with its new “Micro-mill” facility, designed to produce aluminum that is 30% stronger and exhibits 40% better formability. The Micro-mill also can go from molten aluminum to aluminum sheet in 20 hours rather than the more-common 20 days.
The panelists agree the use of lightweight materials is expanding, even if not at the pace or cost of development they might prefer. Fata presents data showing, for example, the industry’s use of aluminum sheet is progressing from 100,000 metric tons in 2012 to a projected 450,000-plus this year – and a forecast 1 million by 2020.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Free Kids Act a Starting Line for Public Health

Aug 4, 2015 | The Lund Report

By Jennifer Coleman

Governor Kate Brown has signed into law a bill requiring manufacturers to first disclose, and then remove, hazardous chemicals in children’s products, which holds promise for “assessing the health impacts of chemical exposure sources that are often overlooked,” says Renee Hackenmiller-Paradis, environmental public health section manager at The Oregon Health Authority’s Center for Health Protection. Yet the promise must hold up to what could be significant industry pressure as the Oregon Health Authority undergoes the rule-making process.
OHA will create a system to prioritize, collect, track, and make public the presence of hazardous chemicals--including carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and neurodevelopmental toxicants—of high concern to children’s health. Major manufacturers of children’s products will be required to meet a disclosure deadline of January 1, 2018 and begin phase-out for hazards in some products by 2022.
Tracking and reducing exposure will begin to address the strong correlation between hazardous chemical exposure in early childhood and chronic diseases like diabetes and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Ignoring the link comes at a high cost, says Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer, a chief sponsor of the bill. “We in the healthcare community spend an enormous amount of time figuring out how to integrate and coordinate health care delivery systems and human services. While we are making great headway, it is enormously important to reduce prevalence of conditions that require expensive coordinated care and take a very big toll on our families.”
Industry trade associations will likely take interest in OHA’s public process to set rules for phase-out of hazardous chemicals. A rules advisory committee will help determine how safer alternatives are assessed and details of the waiver process. The law is clear that OHA “shall” grant a waiver if companies can show that phase-out of a chemical is not technically or financially feasible. But what is considered “feasible,” says Senator Chris Edwards, is open to interpretation.
During session, legislators were subject to aggressive lobbying from industry groups. The American Chemistry Council and the Toy Industry Association—representing what Edwards calls “many of the who’s who of American corporations”— publicly opposed the bill. This allowed member groups to “fly under the radar” to kill the bill. The ACC also ramped up donations to Oregon political campaigns when lawmakers began seriously considering chemical policy.
Keny-Guyer is committed to ensuring a firm seat at the rule-making table for small Oregon business, saying, “I’ve always seen this first as a public health bill, and second as economic development.
Rep. David Gomberg, whose kite company would be subject to the bill if his revenue exceeds $5 million a year, co-sponsored the bill and circulated a letter of support from Oregon businesses. In his floor speech he noted that while compliance would not be easy, “this is the kind of regulation a business like mine can live with.” In the end, he said, it would create greater confidence in Oregon products.
Continued funding for the program within OHA will also be critical. Keny-Guyer clarified the estimated costs for the first three biennium on the record; it will be up to the 79th legislative assembly to carry out the will of 78th.
The new law gives OHA a directive to consider chemicals a significant public health issue in children’s products, identify chemicals of concern, and grow its expertise in the arena of children’s health and low-level chronic exposures. Edwards and Keny-Guyer hope that this directive will open a larger conversation on environmental exposures.
“There are a lot of people who have a financial incentive to assume that things are safe,” says Edwards. “That is why, I think, appropriate safeguards have been blocked for decades.”
The directive can also deliver data enabling health research and spurring action by other public health officials to address early childhood environmental exposures. A number of major health groups, including Oregon Public Health Association (OPHA), supported the proposal.
“We are pleased that SB 478 passed and will begin to provide knowledge of chemicals known for potential health impacts in children’s products,” says OPHA president Lila Wickham.
The Toxic-Free Kids Act is a catalyst for us to raise awareness in our community,” says Multnomah County Environmental Health Director Jae Douglas. “Multnomah County Environmental Health Services is committed to moving this work forward at the local level.”
Oregon was among 28 states considering chemical policy this year according to Safer States, a network of environmental health groups. Because the bill was signed prior to August 1, Oregon’s program has a better chance to avoid pre-emption provisions in the current proposals for reform of federal chemical policy. A reform bill passed the U.S. House and another could come before the U.S. Senate as early as this week.

Return to headline | Return to top
California Counties Move to Regulate Drug Disposal

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Joyce E. Cutler

The Board of Supervisors in Marin County, Calif., will vote Aug. 11 on whether to follow the lead of Alameda County and require pharmaceutical companies to fund disposal of unused drugs, including over-the-counter products.The board gave preliminary approval July 28 of the drug-take-back ordinance to require installation of 25 industry-funded repositories at pharmacies and other locations in Marin County for expired and unused drugs, including veterinary products, that otherwise would end up in waterways or landfills.A third of U.S. medications go unused annually, according to a Marin County staff report.Alameda County in July 2012 adopted a law ordering the drug industry to pay for a safe drug disposal program to operate in retail stores. Other jurisdictions, including a county in Washington state, have followed suit.Momentum in CaliforniaThe “real momentum right now is in California,” Andria Ventura, manager of the Clean Water Action toxics program, said July 30.Extended producer responsibility programs require drug manufacturers to pay for the end-of-life management for the millions of prescriptions written annually in the country.“We're really just seeing it in California,” John Murphy, assistant general counsel to the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), told Bloomberg BNA July 31.Several Counties ActSan Francisco in March adopted its ordinance that takes effect in October 2016.San Mateo County adopted its ordinance in May, followed by Santa Clara County in June.Los Angeles is drafting an ordinance for consideration this fall, and Long Beach, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties are considering similar ordinances, Ventura said.The new activity follows the 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding Alameda County's first-in-the-nation law (191 DEN A-16, 10/2/14).The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Alameda dispute in May (102 DEN A-7, 5/28/15).PhRMA OppositionPhRMA, whose members include Bayer AG, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., unsuccessfully fought the Alameda County ordinance. A challenge to the King County, Wash., ordinance was dismissed by stipulation in June in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Alameda dispute.“Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision not to hear our appeal, we remain opposed to these producer-funded take back programs for a number of reasons,” Murphy said.“Most importantly is because as an industry, and we believe the science supports us, we don't believe this is the most effective way for consumers to handle expired” or unused medicine, he said.Better medication adherence would reduce much of the unused drugs, Murphy said.Murphy pointed to a study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology by University of Michigan researchers that found take-back programs not to be worth the extra time, money or greenhouse gas emissions.PhRMA estimated the Alameda County ordinance would cost $1 million annually to implement. San Mateo County estimated the annual collection cost at $250,000 and Alameda County estimated $300,000 to $330,000.The programs cost “one penny for every $100 in sales,” Ventura, of Clean Water Action, told Bloomberg BNA.Diversions AchievedVentura said San Francisco diverted hundreds of pounds of drugs using a pilot program at pharmacies, a community center and police stations. The program collects an average of 1,429 pounds of controlled and non-controlled substances a month, and as of Dec. 31, 2014, collected 46,749 pounds, the San Francisco legislation said.“By far, people prefer to go to pharmacies. They don't like to go to law enforcement, so those 13 pharmacies were the bulk of it, and they collected an amazing amount of pharmaceuticals,” Ventura said. “It's not a panacea. It's not going to resolve all of our environmental and drug abuse problems, but it will keep tons and tons out of our water and out of the hands of people who might use them.”A statewide rather than local law is preferred, Ventura said. A recent bill introduced in the state Legislature that would have required drug companies to fund and operate a statewide program passed the Senate but failed to make it out of the Assembly.Over-the-Counter DrugsThe Marin ordinance as proposed would apply to incorporated and unincorporated areas of the north San Francisco Bay Area county.Marin, like San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, would cover over-the-counter drugs including ibuprofen and antihistamines. The Alameda County ordinance didn't cover over-the-counter items mainly because of political reasons and trying to get the law passed, Ventura said.Marin's ordinance doesn't include vitamins or supplements, herbal-based remedies and homeopathic drugs, products, or remedies, cosmetics and personal care products regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or medical devices or their component parts or accessories.The Marin ordinance if approved would be effective Sept. 11. Pharmaceutical companies would have a year to form a stewardship program for the safe disposal of drugs, along with public outreach and education.

Return to headline | Return to top
Even your Couch is Toxic, Senator…

Aug 5, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Jack Pratt

How do you make Congress pay attention to an urgent problem? Make it hit home.
To that effect, I recently grabbed some aluminum foil and a pair of scissors and set off for the Capitol to illustrate that nobody is safe from toxic chemicals – not even members of Congress.
Once inside, I unzipped the cushions of six congressional couches, snipped off thumbnail-sized samples of foam from the inside, wrapped the pieces of foam in tin foil and sent them to scientists at Duke University for analysis.
A few weeks later, the scientists delivered the bad news: Three of the samples tested positive for the toxic chemical flame retardant Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP) – a chemical widely used in household and office furnituredespite evidence that it’s a carcinogen that can also impair brain development.
Think lobbyists are bad? Try toxic chemicals.
That result came as no surprise to scientists at Environmental Defense Fund or lawmakers like Sen. Tom Udall and Rep. Frank Pallone. Both are working to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, our nation’s primary chemical safety law.
Sen. Udall’s couch, along with couches in the Cannon and Rayburn House office buildings were those found to include TDCPP.
The New Mexico senator noted the irony of it all. “It’s crazy to think that there are toxic chemicals in the very furniture we’re sitting on while working [on this] law,” he said.
Today, finding toxic chemicals in furniture is nearly as easy as spotting a lobbyist in the Capitol. Thanks to our badly broken chemical safety law, toxic chemicals are ubiquitous in America, even the marble halls of Congress.
Indeed, chemicals surround us every day – they’re in our clothes, our cleaning products and, yes, even in our couches.
Under today’s toxic chemical law, no one can ensure that even widely-used chemicals are safe. Chemicals used as flame retardants, for example, do not need to be shown to be safe in order to be used in products.
Nor does the law allow the Environmental Protection Agency to effectively restrict the use of chemicals known to be dangerous.
This failed system has a real impact on our health.
Scientists link exposures to certain chemicals like flame retardants to cancer, developmental disabilities and other serious health concerns. Studies show that flame retardant chemicals do not remain encased in furniture, but become part of the dust that accumulates in the homes and offices, where they can then be ingested or inhaled.
Small children are especially at risk, because they spend more time on the floor and are more likely to put their hands in their mouths.
Not a problem we can afford to sit on
Thankfully, efforts to reform America’s broken chemical law are advancing in Congress.
Legislation awaiting floor action in the Senate would give the EPA new authority to require testing, restrict harmful chemicals and require a safety finding before a new chemical is allowed on the market. The House has already passed legislation and, with 52 cosponsors for the Senate bill, it is clear it has the support needed to pass, if the bill can get time on the floor.
The challenge now is making sure that senators make fixing this law a priority and bring the reform bill up for a vote. We hope our couch investigation will make it harder for them to just sit on this problem.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Study of Some Dischargers to Continue, EPA Says

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

Discharges from various industrial sectors, including centralized waste treatment facilities and those involved in nanomaterials manufacturing, petroleum refining and metal finishing, will continue to be studied for potential regulation, but no new ones will be added, the Environmental Protection Agency said in its 2014 effluent guidelines plan published Aug. 4.Additional industries don't warrant new or revised wastewater effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards at this time, the agency said in the Aug. 4 notice (80 Fed. Reg. 46,280).“Therefore, EPA is not identifying any existing effluent guidelines for revision, nor is EPA identifying any new industries for an effluent guidelines rulemaking, aside from those currently undergoing a rulemaking,” the EPA wrote in the plan.The agency also said it will continue developing pretreatment standards to govern the discharge of wastewater from dental clinics and from unconventional oil and gas drilling techniques, such as shale gas extraction.Section 304 of the Clean Water Act requires the EPA to publish a plan every two years establishing a schedule to review and possibly revise the effluent guidelines for existing categories of dischargers and to consider regulation of new industrial sectors.The EPA is in the process of revising final effluent guidelines for the steam electric power generating category, which are due out Sept. 30, as well as the canned and preserved seafood category covering the Alaskan seafood processing industry. The White House Office of Management and Budget began reviewing the power plant effluent guidelines (RIN 2040-AF14) July 2 (129 DEN A-2, 7/7/15)Dental Amalgam, NanomaterialsThe EPA announced at the National Pretreatment Workshop in May that it was moving the date back for promulgating final pretreatment standards for discharges of mercury in dental amalgam to June 2016 in order to address comments received on the proposed rulemaking (94 DEN A-6, 5/15/15).In the EPA's proposed pretreatment standards for mercury (RIN No. 2040-AF26), the EPA's goal was to collect and remove mercury from dental clinics where it was present in concentrated form and most easy to retrieve.Regarding the studies of various industries, the EPA said the American Chemistry Council supported further study of nanomaterials manufacturing but encouraged the agency to recognize the diversity of nanomaterials, their myriad applications and potential in wastewater treatment technology.The EPA said it was looking at nanomaterials as potential emerging contaminants of concern. In the annual review, the EPA said it focused on three types of nanomaterials—silver, titanium oxide, and carbon-based—because they are produced in large volumes. In its study, the agency has found that manufacturing and processing of engineered nanomaterials, particularly silver nanoparticles, is likely to generate waste streams, but very little publicly available information exists to characterize the waste streams or describe how the aqueous wastes are managed and disposed.Groups Support StudySeveral environmental groups, including Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project, supported the agency's study of oil and gas extraction wastewater treatment at centralized wastewater treatment plants, saying those regulations were long overdue.Effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards are technology-based limits for industrial discharges. The EPA issues them for new and existing categories of point sources that discharge directly to surface waters and pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers whose effluent goes to wastewater treatment plants. To date, the EPA has established effluent limitation guidelines for 58 point source categories.

Return to headline | Return to top
Crude Export Ban Will Be Lifted -- Rep. Barton

Aug 4, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Nathanial Gronewold

Congress could approve a stand-alone bill to remove restrictions on crude oil exports as early as September, a leading Texas Republican told an industry gathering here today.
Rep. Joe Barton, chairman emeritus of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said signs were good that the Senate and House could pass legislation repealing limits on the volume of domestic crude oil that can be sold overseas. The curbs on oil exports were originally put in place in the 1970s in response to the Arab oil embargo.
Speaking at the Petroleum Club of Houston at an event hosted by the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, Barton said he was increasingly confident that the crude oil export ban can be lifted this year, and that representatives in Washington would possibly approve a bill to do so this September, when Congress returns from summer recess.
Saying he doubted President Obama had the executive authority to lift export restrictions himself, Barton said the "more responsible thing to do is to outright pass a bill that becomes a law that would repeal it, and I have that bill, H.R. 702, and it's a bipartisan bill."
"We have 13 Democrats, we have 100-plus Republicans from 37 different states," he added. "We're going to do this. We're not exactly sure when, but we think we're going to move it as a stand-alone bill in September when we get back."
He clarified later that the bill could possibly move in either late September or early October. Barton stressed that an oil export bill would move separately from the broader bipartisan energy legislation now making its way through Congress.
Barton also predicted that the bill would pass and that Obama would sign it into law. He said House and Senate Republican leaders detected little to no opposition from either congressional Democrats or the Obama administration, including U.S. EPA and the Department of Energy.
"All the signals that we get are that if this bill gets to the president's desk as a stand-alone bill, he will sign it," he said. "I feel pretty confident that I can tell you folks this is going to happen. I can't tell you exactly how it's going to happen, but it is going to happen, and when it does happen, the ability for U.S. oil companies to export oil from the United States is not just going to be an economic boom, it's going to be a strategic weapon that we can use."
He acknowledged opposition from some environmental circles but argued that it is relatively quiet compared with the furor over the Keystone XL pipeline. He also said that so far, Obama and House and Senate Democrats have largely maintained their silence. He told an oil and gas industry gathering that this is a good sign they may soon get their wish: the right to export crude from the U.S., as they can now freely export natural gas, refined products and liquid condensates.
But some Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats have taken a skeptical view of the push to open the crude spigot. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the panel's ranking member, recently expressed numerous doubts about moving toward a full repeal, while suggesting the industry should give up tax breaks or pay new fees if it wants to export crude produced from federal lands owned by all Americans (Greenwire, July 9).
Barton said his cause is aided by the fact that there is interest from overseas allies in importing U.S. crude oil.
"I have had probably half a dozen or more ambassadors -- Poland, Czech Republic, France ... Israel -- come through my office, and to a person, they support this," he said.
Proponents of lifting the oil export ban point out that the restrictions were put in place at a vastly different time in the U.S. energy sector. Domestic drillers have about doubled crude oil production in eight years through the rapid deployment and improvement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques and technologies. The U.S. is now believed to be the world's largest liquid petroleum producer and leading natural gas producer. It's estimated that last year the U.S. imported less than 30 percent of its crude oil needs, mostly from Canada.
Barton said several studies showed that allowing oil and gas companies to sell their crude abroad not only would benefit the U.S. balance of trade but would also likely have no measurable impact on oil prices. Several studies, including work done by the research firm IHS Energy, have argued this.

Return to headline | Return to top
UN Chief Welcomes ‘Hugely Important’ Climate Rule

Aug 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The head of the United Nations congratulated President Obama Tuesday for what he characterized as “hugely important and visionary leadership” on Obama’s landmark climate rule.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with Obama Tuesday at the White House to discuss theclimate rule and its impact on the UN’s upcoming global climate change agreement, among other issues.
“This is hugely important and visionary leadership. The U.S. can and will be able to change the world in addressing a climate phenomenon,” Ban told reporters after the meeting.
“We are the first generation, as President Obama rightly said yesterday, to put an end to global poverty,” he said. “And we are the last generation who can address climate change phenomenon.”
Ban told Obama “I count on your continuing leadership” in addressing climate change and his help going into the UN’s December meeting in Paris, where it hopes to finalize the terms of a global pact to reduce greenhouse gases and help developing countries adjust to a changing climate.
Ban also thanked Obama for working with China, Brazil and other countries to get climate commitments from them.
Obama said that the climate change pact was one of the main topics of their conversation, along with the Islamic State, conflict in South Sudan and sustainable development.
“I shared with him the work that we are doing with the United Nations so that we can be a leader in addressing this critical ... issue that faces humankind going forward, and explained how through our power plant rule, through the work we’re doing on renewable energies and so forth, that we’re in a position now to meet the very aggressive targets that we’re putting forward in preparation for the Paris conference,” he said.
Vice President Joe Biden, UN Ambassador Samantha Power, energy adviser Brian Deese and National Security Adviser Susan Rice were also in the meeting.

Return to headline | Return to top
Obama Spurns Natural Gas in Climate Rule

Aug 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

President Obama’s love affair with natural gas is over.
The president once touted gas as an essential clean bridge fuel to wean the United States off dirtier fossil fuels and onto renewable energy, and it was seen as a key to his landmark climate change rule for power plants.
The president once touted gas as an essential clean bridge fuel to wean the United States off dirtier fossil fuels and onto renewable energy, and it
was seen as a key to his landmark climate change rule for power plants.
But when Obama unveiled the finalized rule this week, he barely spoke about natural gas. Instead, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) boasted that the new regulation will accommodate a large transition from coal power directly to renewables like wind and solar, skipping over natural gas altogether.
The White House said the proposed rule encourages a boom in natural gas use because of a set of carbon reduction deadlines for states in 2020, which would be too soon for many states to deploy renewables.
“The proposed rule relied on a large, early shift of coal generation to natural gas,” officials said in a fact sheet. “For example, the share of natural gas in the generation mix was projected to be significantly higher in 2020 than in the baseline.”
But that deadline was pushed back two years.
“Instead, the rule drives early reductions from renewable energy and energy efficiency, which will drive a more aggressive transformation in the domestic energy industry,” it said.
The rule does not actually instruct states to choose some generation sources over others, and promises that no coal-fired power plant will have to be retired before its useful life is over.
But the changed date, along with an incentive program for states to earn credits for renewable installation, has officials convinced they can avoid some gas increases. It also allowed the White House to seek a nationwide 32 percent cut in power plants’ carbon in the final rule, more than the 30 percent proposed last year.
The gas industry is furious. Obama had previously held up gas as a top driver of the United States’ recent emissions reductions, because gas emits as little as half of the carbon dioxide as coal when burned.
And while gas companies are still working to figure out that actual impact of the rule, they aren’t happy with the way the administration presented it.
“We’re disappointed in the shift in messaging,” said Frank Macchiarola, top lobbyist for America’s Natural Gas Alliance.
“The rhetoric out of the White House has been trying to send a clear message that they’re creating a shift from natural gas to more renewables being emphasized in the rule,” he said.
Macchiarola said the president presented a “false choice” between natural gas and renewables. In reality, they can be used together, especially because wind and solar power only provide electricity intermittently.
“The fact is that for a diverse fuel supply, you’re going to need both out into the future,” he said.
The American Petroleum Institute had a similar take.
“The announcement yesterday will dramatically increase consumer cost, it will destroy jobs, and at the end of the day it doesn’t recognize clean-burning natural gas, which has brought us to a 20-year low [for greenhouse gas emissions] today,” said Jack Gerard, the group’s president.
To the conservative Institute for Energy Research, the move shows that Obama opposes all fossil fuels.
“What it really says is that the Obama administration is not enamored with anything that emits carbon dioxide emissions, whether that’s coal or even natural gas,” said Dan Simmons, vice president for policy at the organization.
“We’ve long believed that the administration would go after natural gas like they’re going after coal,” he said. “This is just one of the opening salvos in what the administration’s long-term plans are.”
Obama’s relations with natural gas had started to strain in recent years, due largely to his regulatory agenda. Federal agencies have written or are working on rules for hydraulic fracturing on federal land, methane leaks from natural gas drilling and other policies that could impact the industry.
To environmentalists, avoiding natural gas is great news.
“We’re thrilled about any opportunity to replace coal directly with renewable energy, because the whole idea of natural gas as a bridge fuel has become debunked as we get more and more understanding of how bad natural gas is, and how ready-to-go renewable energy is,” said Julian Boggs, the global warming outreach director for Environment America. “Deploying as much renewable energy as possible is essential to solving global warming. Natural gas can’t solve global warming.”
EPA head Gina McCarthy maintained that the administration is not trying to favor any power source over others.
“I don’t want you to get the impression that we are putting our finger on any particular type of energy generation,” she told reporters when asked about the role of gas. “If you take a look at the energy mix you’ll see that natural gas still remains a very strong part of the energy mix.”
And Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, argued that because gas generation will increase under the rule, the industry should be thankful.
“The natural gas industry is expected to overlook modest deprivations, since no one likes a sore winner,” Grumet said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Dems Call on GOP to Back New Rules or Develop its Own

Aug 5, 2015 | E&E - Daily

By Jean Chemnick

As Senate Republicans prepare their autumn offensive against the climate rules U.S. EPA unveiled Monday, their Democratic colleagues took to the chamber floor yesterday to call for support for the Obama administration's agenda.
Five Democrats participated in the short colloquy yesterday evening, calling on Republicans to either back the Clean Power Plan and other rules or come up with alternatives of their own.
"You're going to hear endless complaining from our friends on the other side about the president's plan," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). But he predicted that when it comes to climate solutions, the Republican proposal would be "nada, zip."
Whitehouse blamed fossil fuel donors -- particularly Charles and David Koch -- for scaring Republicans with threats of well-funded primary challenges.
"When you're swinging a $900 million club and you're telling folks, 'Disagree with us and you'll be at a severe disadvantage,' this is what you get: no plan on climate change," he said.
The exchange also included Sens. Charles Schumer of New York, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Barbara Boxer of California, all of whom have participated in previous Senate floor demonstrations, including last year's "all-nighter."
Last night's event came just ahead of today's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee vote on a bill by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) that would disarm not only the Clean Power Plan but rules for new and modified power plant carbon (E&E Daily, Aug. 4).
Boxer, who serves as the panel's senior Democrat, said the committee had produced so many bills to dismantle environmental safeguards in the months since Republicans took control of the Senate that she wondered, "Why don't they just rename it the anti-environment committee when they're in charge?"
Boxer also took aim at a Republican talking point on climate that has fallen out of fashion in recent months.
"To say you're not a scientist is no answer," she said. "We know you're not a scientist."
The chamber's Republicans, meanwhile, have said they are weighing all tools available to them to stop the EPA rules from going into effect. And Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has advised states to take the initiative to not comply with the rule for existing power plants, predicting that EPA will struggle to enforce a federal plan that is as extensive as its rule.

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Face Long Odds in Overturning EPA Rule

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Dean Scott and Anthony Adragna

Senate opponents of President Barack Obama's plan to reduce carbon dioxide from power plants told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 4 they will hold an up-or-down vote on the rule this fall but appear well shy of the two-thirds margin they will need to override an Obama veto.Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Republican leadership, said he will push to have the chamber overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's final rule, released Aug. 3, before negotiators from nearly 200 nations arrive in Paris on Nov. 30 for global climate talks.“I think the president wants to go to Paris and have this grand victory—but what we need to demonstrate is there is a lot of opposition in Congress to the direction that he's headed,” Thune said.Nearly all of 54 Republicans in the Senate would likely vote for a resolution to disapprove the carbon dioxide rules using expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act. But there will likely be defections, including Susan Collins (R). “In general, I support the ability of EPA to issue regulations in this area,” Collins told Bloomberg BNA.Few Democratic Defections LikelyDemocratic defections to the Republican-led effort are likely to be few, based on Bloomberg BNA interviews with 15 senators in the wake of Obama's unveiling of the final rule Aug. 3.Four Democrats considered moderates on regulatory issues, including Virginia Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, said they back the president's climate plan and won't seek to overturn the rules.But Thune and several other Republican senators said they would proceed on a twin track in the months ahead, scheduling a floor vote to disapprove the rule while also moving a standalone bill (S. 1324) introduced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).Capito's bill would scuttle carbon dioxide emissions limits for the nation's fleet of coal-fired power plants (117 DEN A-7, 6/18/15).The final EPA rule (RIN 2060-AR33), issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, would reduce carbon dioxide from the power sector by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 at a cost of $8.4 billion per year in 2030.Capito Bill on the MoveThe Affordable Reliable Electricity Now (ARENA) Act introduced by Capito's has 35 co-sponsors, but only one is a Democrat—Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.). The bill is scheduled to be marked up Aug. 5 by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (149 DEN B-7, 8/4/15).That bill is expected to clear the committee along party lines, which sets up the possibility of separate floor votes this fall both on the stand-alone bill and the resolution to disapprove the EPA carbon rules.Two senior Republican aides told Bloomberg BNA there was no reason the chamber could not vote on both, even though the Senate's fall calendar includes a must-pass bill to keep the government funded; debate over the Iran nuclear agreement; and a long-term highway bill.Capito agreed. “I think we're going to have a lot on our plate in September and October, but this is a top priority,” she said of the dual attack on the EPA rules.Tough 2016 Races a FactorSeveral Senate Republicans facing tough re-election campaigns in 2016 were hesitant to join those calling for disapproval of the EPA rules, although in some cases they worried the carbon limits could hurt their states' economies and drive up electricity costs. That group includes Sens. Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), who said they needed more time to review the impact of the final regulations.Pressed for a more detailed response, Ayotte's office released a statement saying she has long “worked across the aisle to protect New Hampshire's clean air and water,” adding that her state “has a long, bipartisan tradition of working to advance common sense, balanced environmental regulations.”“I will continue that approach as I carefully review EPA's final rule to understand its impacts on our state's environment and our economy,” Ayotte said.Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), also facing a tough reelection campaign, worried the rules will hurt his state's economy and told reporters Aug. 4 he was looking for “more balance and more flexibility.”But would he vote down the power plant rules? “We'll see,” Portman said.Maine Independent Angus King joined Collins, the Maine Republican, in backing the EPA's action to address climate change. King told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 3 he thought the agency deserved high marks for listening to concerns from his and other states and providing more flexibility in the final regulations to meet the power sector limits.Moderate Democrats Leaning to ObamaVirginia's two Senate seats might at first glance appear to hold swing votes—both Warner and since-retired Sen. Jim Webb (D) voted yes on a 2012 motion to overturn EPA limits for mercury and air toxics emitted by power plants (119 DEN A-1, 6/20/12).But a Warner spokeswoman said the Democrat would not support the Capito bill or a resolution seeking to nullify the carbon pollution limits. Kaine gave the EPA high marks for responding to his state's concerns with the 2014 proposal, which he said failed to credit Virginia for actions it has already taken to cut emissions.“I definitely looked at it carefully for Virginia, and I support the overall concept,” Kaine told Bloomberg BNA. “They made some [changes] that really made it better for us so we actually felt like they were really responsive to our concerns,” he said.Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown along with Democratic Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) told Bloomberg BNA they remain supportive of the president and his efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.“Look, what was first advertised [by EPA] we were fine with—and we might be fine with this,” Tester told Bloomberg BNA.“Climate change is a big issue and it's real and we have got to figure out how to address it,” the Montana Democrat said. But he added that he needs time to see how the carbon reductions “will work for Montana.”“I remain supportive of the effort, but the rule has to work,” he said.The offices of two other moderate Democats, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.), did not respond to requests for comment.2012 Senate Battle Instructive?The 2012 Senate vote to disapprove the EPA air toxics and mercury limits also may be instructive for how the handful of Senate Democrats and Republicans considered possible swing votes on environmental issues might vote going forward.Collins, Ayotte, and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) are the only Republicans still in office who voted with most Democrats that year to uphold the air pollution rule. They helped defeat a motion to proceed on the resolution by a vote of 46-53, in effect offsetting the votes of several Democrats who essentially voted to kill the EPA rules.Among the Democrats who voted to overturn the EPA regulations in 2012 and is likely to do so again if the carbon limits come to the floor: West Virginia's Joe Manchin, who has long viewed the power plant climate rules as a threat to the coal industry.But another coal-state Democrat, Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, said he largely backs Obama's approach of regulating greenhouse gases given Congress has not debated significant climate legislation since a cap-and-trade bill died in the Senate in 2010.“Look, at some point Republicans have to face the fact that this is an issue we have to confront,” Casey told Bloomberg BNA. “You can't just separate yourself from climate deniers and pretend that you are acting reasonably if you're not going to come up with a strategy,” the Pennsylvania Democrat said.“If they have an alternative to what the administration proposed and we'll be debating, well, let's hear it,” Casey said.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA, Greens Collaborated Over Years on Rule -- Senate Report

Aug 4, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Jean Chemnick

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans released a report today that they said provides evidence of U.S. EPA's "collusion" with environmental litigants over several years on the development of what eventually became the Clean Power Plan.
The report offers a peek at behind-the-scenes negotiations between EPA and environmentalists during the final two years of President Obama's first term, when progress toward global warming rules for power plants had apparently stalled.
The focus is on emails to private accounts of EPA officials, meetings that occurred outside the agency's Washington headquarters, and extensive trading of ideas between the agency and the Natural Resources Defense Council during 2011 and 2012, when EPA appeared to be blowing deadlines laid out in a 2010 settlement agreement with NRDC and other groups (Greenwire, Dec. 23, 2010).
In the 2010 settlement agreement, EPA pledged to propose the three power plant rules in July 2011 and finalize the entire package no later than May 2012 -- more than three years before the delivery yesterday of the Clean Power Plan and rules for new and modified power plants.
Committee staff said the 73-page report shows green groups gained leverage over EPA and the types of greenhouse gas rules it would eventually produce by persuading the agency to agree to unrealistic deadlines that required EPA to seek extensions, sometimes appearing to offer increased stringency in exchange for more time.
Drawing on emails the committee obtained from EPA and NRDC through request letters, the report gives insight into the time after the collapse of cap-and-trade legislation on Capitol Hill and before Obama's re-election when climate action appeared to have all but fallen off the administration's agenda.
The report notes that a few months after the 2010 settlement, EPA negotiated with the plaintiffs for a slightly longer deadline -- September 2011 for the proposals rather than July. NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, and state and local governments that were party to the suit agreed but started to balk when the deadlines slipped further, worrying that the rules would disappear from the agency's first-term agenda altogether.
An email from NRDC's Dan Lashof, who headed the group's climate and clean air program, to the personal email address of Michael Goo, then associate administrator of EPA's Office of Policy, shows Lashof making the case that the rules should be completed before the end of the first term.
"Right now the narrative about Obama and climate is that he failed to deliver comprehensive legislation and he failed to deliver a strong agreement in Copenhagen," Lashof tells Goo in the June 28, 2011, email. He references a Rolling Stone magazine article in which former Vice President Al Gore criticized Obama for not making climate change a priority.
"Neither of those ... were entirely within his control. These rules are," Lashof writes. "The climate legacy of his first term can still be very positive if he delivers on these two rules and defends them."Assurance of 'very strong' rule
When EPA missed the revised deadline for a September proposal for new power plants -- which followed on the heels of the White House scrapping an EPA revision of a tougher air pollution standard for ozone -- environmentalists protested in a letter to EPA.
The committee report quotes then-air chief Gina McCarthy and Air and Radiation Office senior counsel Joe Goffman in an email asking Administrator Lisa Jackson to call NRDC, EDF and the Sierra Club to urge them to back an offer McCarthy appears to have made at a meeting in late September. In that meeting, it says, she proposed a "firm" schedule to complete a new power plant rule in November 2012 and an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for existing power plants in January of that year.
Jackson should make it clear to the environmental plaintiffs, the email advises, that the new power plant rule would be "very strong" and "ensure that no new uncontrolled coal plant is built going forward."
The rule EPA finalized yesterday would most likely be met through partial carbon capture and storage at future coal plants.
The existing power plant rule, as McCarthy is quoted in the report advising Jackson, would be "very challenging substantively as well as politically, and we need more time and latitude to work through the substantive problem solving in order to make the standard truly meaningful, and more time to get state-level and public buy-in."
"This combination approach -- marshalling our forces behind the New Source standard and nurturing the Existing Source more slowly -- is our best shot at making significant [greenhouse gas] policy through NSPS," she states.
The report includes a Goffman email paraphrasing a conversation with NRDC's David Doniger after the meeting with the three environmental groups. Doniger is reported to have said that he "couldn't imagine accepting" that timeline, and that it would be rejected by other green groups still angry that the ozone standard revision would be deferred.
Doniger, who was involved in the litigation and now heads the group's climate and air quality programs, did not respond today to calls for comment on the report.
EPA unveiled its first new power plant rule in March 2012, though it would issue a second proposal in September 2013 following the release of Obama's second-term Climate Action Plan.
But rather than immediately begin talking about an existing power plant rule, Jackson and her staff insisted for more than a year that they had "no plans" to regulate existing power plants in the future (E&E Daily, March 28, 2012).
A firm plan to regulate the current power plant fleet only resurfaced with Obama's Georgetown University speech on the Climate Action Plan in June 2013.
At that time, environmentalists expressed little concern that EPA was walking back its commitment to them to regulate a sector responsible for nearly a third of the nation's man-made greenhouse gases. Doniger quipped then he didn't "have any plans" to go back to court, either.

Return to headline | Return to top
Republicans Say Green Groups Had Too Much Sway With EPA

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Mark Drajem

Republican lawmakers said the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups had an inappropriate influence on developing the Obama administration's regulation to curb carbon emissions from power plants.The Environmental Protection Agency released the final rule (RIN 2060-AR33) Aug. 3, and it was hailed by NRDC and others as a major step toward addressing the risks of global warming.The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Aug. 4 released a compilation of e-mails between the groups and administration officials to show “collusion” in drafting the rule.The e-mails “demonstrate how EPA and NRDC sought to push the outer limits of EPA's Clean Air Act authority and to develop the analysis on which these highly controversial and legally suspect rules are based,” according to the report released by the committee's Republican majority.The NRDC released a proposal for how the EPA could tackle carbon emissions from power plants in late 2012, after President Barack Obama was re-elected. It was used as the basis for the EPA carbon rule, according to the report.“This is another attempt to stop us from standing up for clean air, safe water and healthy communities—and strong action to combat climate change,” Ed Chen, a spokesman for NRDC, said in an e-mail. “We are doing nothing more than petitioning our government—a constitutionally protected right. That's our job. The real wrong here is for anyone to suggest we don't have the right to do so.”

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP: Climate Rule Came From Improper Green Input

Aug 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The Obama administration improperly colluded with environmental advocates to write its landmark climate rule for power plants, Senate Republicans say.
In a 73-page report released Tuesday, the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said environmental regulators have been colluding for five years with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other green groups, which resulted in the regulation President Obama announced Monday.
While the allegations are from Republicans are not new, the committee said its report contains new details, based largely on communications the agency made with greens.
It shows that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) improperly colluded with greens, ignored other interested parties and, as a result, cut corners and wrote a rule with poor legal backing that will not stand in court, the GOP said.
“The report exposes how the Obama administration's collusion with outside environmental groups through the use of sue-and-settle tactics has cornered out public input in the rulemaking process,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the panel’s chairman and a frequent and outspoken critic of the EPA under Obama, said in a statement.
“This oversight report discloses for the first time unredacted communications between EPA and NRDC, putting the final nail in the coffin of President Obama’s broken campaign promise for a new era of government transparency,” he said.
The report alleges that top EPA officials went out of their way to meet with greens and give them unfettered access, even on weekends and in person.
The EPA also skewed the timing of its regulations to avoid bad consequences for the 2012 and 2014 elections, Republicans alleged.
The Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee started investigating the EPA’s dealings with greens last year, after a New York Times report said the NRDC largely wrote the climate rule for power plants.
The agency and the NRDC both fought back against the findings of Tuesday’s report.
“There is simply zero merit to the idea that one group had any undue influence on the proposal's development,” said EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison.
“This is a flawed narrative driven by cherry picked and isolated communications that in no way reflect the full breadth and depth of the unprecedented outreach EPA engaged in to formulate and develop the Clean Power Plan,” she said.
Harrison said the rule underwent the most extensive engagement process in the EPA’s history, and the agency considered input over two years from more than 4 million comments and stakeholders all over the country.
Ed Chen, spokesman for NRDC, said the Republicans are trying to silence environmentalists.
“This is another attempt to stop us from standing up for clean air, safe water and healthy communities — and strong action to combat climate change,” Chen said.
“Sen. Inhofe and his allies are trying to protect the big polluters that bankroll their campaigns and are trying to intimidate those who would fight for the environment,” he said. “We are doing nothing more than petitioning our government — a constitutionally protected right.”
Last year, EPA head Gina McCarthy mocked the Times report in an agency-wide memo, calling the report “preposterous.”
The NRDC said the allegations only show that it is effectively advocating for strong environmental policies. It accused Republicans of trying to silence its legitimate government advocacy.
The Senate committee said its investigation into greens’ influence in EPA rules is ongoing, and it may have further reports in the future.

Return to headline | Return to top
States Assessing New Targets in Clean Power Plan

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers

The Environmental Protection Agency's final Clean Power Plan boosted the baseline carbon dioxide emissions from states that it used to determine emissions rate targets, potentially giving state regulators a larger pool of options to consider as they plot their compliance strategies.Some states—particularly those heavily invested in coal-fired power generation—will face even more stringent emissions rates targets in 2030, but the EPA acquiesced to requests to reassess how it determined each state's baseline emissions, based on 2012 data.As a result, state baseline emissions figures increased across the board. Revisions include determining states' targets based on uniform national emissions rates for coal- and natural gas-fired power plants and in some states removing planned new nuclear power generation from the states' emissions baseline.How those revisions will affect state compliance strategies is still to be seen as regulators assess their revised targets.‘One Basic Rule to Examine.’“The bigger picture is now there is one basic rule to examine,” Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 4. “There is a limited number of scenarios. There is more certainty in what their targets are, though they have some options there. While states were dealing with speculation before, now they're able to focus all of their resources on a final target and a final rule. When they sit down with stakeholders, they can really talk turkey.”The EPA final Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued Aug. 3, sets unique carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternatively mass-based targets for the power sector in each state. State regulators will be tasked with developing plans to meet the targets, which will be phased in through 2030 (149 DEN B-1, 8/4/15).States Face More Aggressive GoalsThe largest emissions reductions on a percentage basis will be required from South Dakota (47.6 percent), Montana (47.4 percent), North Dakota (44.9 percent), Wyoming (44.3 percent) and Kansas (44.2 percent).Despite the large emissions reductions required, South Dakota, in particular, saw its 2030 emissions rate target eased from 741 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour under the EPA proposal to 1,167 pounds per megawatt hour in the final Clean Power Plan.Several other rates saw significantly more stringent emissions targets from the EPA.“It's going to be different for everyone, but there are at least a dozen states that are substantially more stringent,” Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 4.Kentucky's 2030 emissions rate target went from 1,763 pounds per megawatt-hour from the proposal to 1,286 pounds per megawatt-hour, a 122 percent increase in stringency. The stringency of North Dakota's target increased more than 324 percent from a 1,783 pounds per megawatt-hour target for 2030 under the proposal to a rate of 1,305 pounds per megawatt-hour in the final Clean Power Plan.The EPA's revised calculations for setting those state baselines and emissions rates will require additional analysis before regulators truly understand how the final rule compares to the proposal, Eric Massey, director of the Air Quality Division of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 4.“What we know is the changes EPA has made to that program has made making that apples to apples comparison difficult,” he said.Arizona had faced one of the most aggressive standards as part of the EPA's proposal, requiring the state to nearly halve its carbon dioxide emissions rate by 2030. The final rule would set a 35 percent less stringent target for the state.The final rule met with mixed initial reviews from states, with those that already have taken steps to curb carbon dioxide emissions such as California and the nine Northeastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative praising the rule, while the attorneys general of 15 states more reliant on coal announcing plans to bring new legal challenges to the rule (149 DEN B-8, 8/4/15).Easier ‘Glide Path' to ComplianceMartha Rudolph, director of environmental programs for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said the revisions in the final rule show that the EPA took state concerns seriously.“They made adjustments that will help the states come up with good solid plans,” she told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 4. “EPA did make adjustments to our final numbers that recognize much of what we have been able to accomplish in the past.”Allowing states to develop their own glide path to compliance “is very helpful for us,” she said. “It's appreciably relaxed.”The EPA slightly eased Colorado's emissions rates targets in the final rule, setting a 2030 target of 1,174 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour rather than the 1,108 pounds per megawatt-hour it had proposed.Larry Wolk, executive director and chief medical officer for the department, said in a statement the rule provides “important flexibility” to draft “specific strategies to reduce CO2 emissions and the time needed to accomplish the goals.”Colorado was the first state to adopt a renewable energy standard by ballot initiative in 2004, requiring investor-owned utilities to achieve 30 percent renewable energy by 2020. Colorado gets about 2,500 megawatts from renewable sources, ranking tenth in the nation, the department said. Additionally, in 2010 the state General Assembly approved the Clean Air Clean Jobs Act, retiring some coal-fired generating plants and converting others to natural gas. By 2018, the act will have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 3.6 million metric tons annually, according to the department.States said they are still assessing the interaction between the revised baseline figures and the new emissions targets. Governors who have opposed the rule have stopped short of saying they will boycott compliance with the Clean Power Plan—something Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has urged—as they grapple with the revisions to the rule (see related story).“A lot of math is being done in environmental quality agencies across the country,” Woods said.

Return to headline | Return to top
States Not Ready to Just Say No—Yet

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

Many of the nation's governors have angrily denounced the Clean Power Plan as federal overreach and illegal but remain undecided about whether their states will ignore the regulation by not submitting implementation plans.Spokesmen for the governors of West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas, Louisiana and Indiana all told Bloomberg BNA their states had not made any final decisions about whether to develop their own state compliance plans, though all of them expressed grave reservations about the regulatory approach and legality of the Clean Power Plan.“The president's Clean Power Plan undermines the role of states in the federal Clean Air Act in an effort to realize a radical, liberal agenda that will lead to increased energy costs,” Mike Reed, a spokesman for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), said. “While we believe the rule should be immediately withdrawn, we are considering all options to mitigate the damage of this federal overreach.”Reed noted the ultimate decision about whether to comply with the Clean Power Plan would be one for the next governor, because Jindal's term ends later this year. States opting not to comply with the regulation would have a federal implementation plan from the EPA imposed on them.The EPA's final Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued Aug. 3, sets unique carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternately mass-based targets for the power sector in each state. State regulators will be tasked with developing plants to meet the targets, which will be phased in through 2030 (149 DEN B-1, 8/4/15).To date, Oklahoma is the only state to have formally committed not to comply with the Clean Power Plan's approach. Several others including Indiana, Texas, Wisconsin and Louisiana have previously said they would consider following the call of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) not to comply with the regulation.Many state regulators said they are still grappling with the revisions to the EPA's final rule (see related story).Oklahoma Presses LawsuitOklahoma, which has joined prior lawsuits seeking to block the EPA's rule, is also pursuing its own legal challenge to the standards. The state in an Aug. 3 response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit argued that the EPA issuing the final rule does not negate the necessity of an injunction to bar implementation of the Clean Power Plan until legal challenges can be resolved (Pruitt v. McCarthy, 10th Cir., No. 15-5066, response filed 8/3/15).“The problem is that the EPA Power Plan is structured to force Oklahoma to engage in compliance activities now, due to the years required to accommodate changes to the production and transmission of electricity,” the state said. “Oklahoma's energy regulators are currently making substantial, unrecoupable expenditures in terms of time, effort, personnel, and money to accommodate a regulatory action that is entirely beyond defendants’ authority.”Opposed States Reassessing RuleSpokesman for the other states who already pledged to challenge the regulation in court Aug. 3 did not respond to request for comment, though none have publicly said they would ”just say no” to the rule (149 DEN B-8, 8/4/15).Still, it is clear that option remains on the table. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) said in an Aug. 3 statement that the final rule “requires us to review not only the rule itself but reconsider the state's overall approach to the Clean Power Plan.”Shayna Varner, a spokesperson for West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D), told Bloomberg BNA that “while the governor has been urged by various groups to refuse to submit a state compliance plan, at this point West Virginia still has not determined whether it will submit any plan to the EPA.”Some states—particularly those heavily reliant on coal-fired generation—saw significant increases in the stringency of their emissions targets as part of the EPA's final rule. Wyoming saw its emissions reduction rate target increase in stringency by 133 percent between the proposal and the final rule, prompting new outrage from Gov. Matt Mead (R).“The Clean Power Plan is scientifically flawed and if implemented will not achieve minimum reductions,” Mead said in an Aug. 3 statement. “It is in fact damaging—not just to Wyoming but the nation.“I will continue to fight regulations that are fundamentally bad for Wyoming and exceed the regulatory authority of the federal government,” Mead said.Some Reluctantly Plot ComplianceSome states opposing the regulation nevertheless planned to move forward with developing compliance plans. Gov. Steve Beshear (D-Ky.), chief executive of one of the states most critical of the EPA regulation, vowed to fight the “onerous” regulation in court, but said the state would begin exploring compliance options.“This is an extensive rule, and we will be meeting with stakeholders to assess its potential impacts,” Beshear said in an Aug. 3 statement. “We will, however, continue to explore ways for Kentucky to comply with the rule should it become law, because we believe that a Kentucky-specific plan would be better than a federal plan imposed on us.”Pressure may be ramping up on governors to ignore the final rule from within Congress as well. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) on Aug. 4 echoed McConnell's earlier calls to “just say no” to the Clean Power Plan.“I'm advising governors not to follow through with it,” Barrasso said, though he said he would not support shutting down the federal government to block the Clean Power Plan.

Return to headline | Return to top
Hidden in Obama’s New Climate Plan, a Whack at Red States

Aug 5, 2015 | Politico

By Michael Grunwald

I took flak Monday for writing that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan for fighting climate change wouldn’t really change the trajectory of the electricity sector, but now that the plan is public, you can see that Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency basically agreed with me. On page 637, the agency pointed out that coal power—the dirtiest and most carbon-intense form of electricity—will decline at a slower rate over the next 15 years under the plan than it has been declining over the last 10 years without the plan. “In addition, under this rule,” the EPA wrote on page 763, “the trends for all other types of generation…will remain generally consistent with what their trends would be in the absence of this rule.”
Uh, then what’s the point of the rule?
Environmentalists, journalists, administration officials and industry flacks have all hyped the Clean Power Plan as the strongest climate action in history, but the 1560-page text provides plenty of evidence for my case that it’s merely the fourth-strongest climate action of the Obama era. I found a few nuggets that were even weaker than I expected, including a remarkable footnote suggesting that states can do nothing to reduce emissions for nine years and still comply with the rule.
Still, I have to admit the overall plan is actually stronger than I expected yesterday, and much stronger than the toothless draft plan I ridiculed in May. So before I resume harping about the plan’s unambitious goals for the grid, and the various ways its defenders and critics are exaggerating its impact, let me discuss how the EPA fixed the draft’s most glaring absurdities, because these changes have been largely overlooked. The media have focused on modest tweaks to non-binding national goals—emissions are now expected to drop 32 percent by 2030, versus 30 percent in the draft, and coal is expected to provide 27 percent of our power instead of 31 percent—but those aren’t the changes that matter.
What matters are the changes to binding state targets, and those changes are not modest. They also have serious political implications. The original draft took it easiest on states with the heaviest reliance on dirty fossil fuels—states that nevertheless complained the most about Obama’s supposedly draconian plan. The final rule cracks down much harder on those states, while taking it much easier on states that are already moving toward cleaner sources of electricity.
Check out this excellent chart compiled by my colleague Alex Guillen. North Dakota would have been required to cut emissions just 10.6 percent to comply with the draft rule, the least of any state; it will have to cut emissions 44.9 percent to comply with the final rule, the most of any state except for similarly fossil-fueled Montana and South Dakota. Coal-rich Wyoming, Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana were also among the biggest losers in the revised plan. Meanwhile, the states that are already greening their grid—led by Washington, Oregon and New York—were the biggest winners in the final rule.
That is a radical change. The EPA acknowledged in the plan that it “rectifies what would have been an inefficient, unintended outcome of putting the greater reduction burden on lower-emitting sources and states.” As EPA air quality chief Janet McCabe explained to me in an interview: “We got a lot of comments making the same point you did.” But it hasn’t gotten attention, perhaps because coal-state politicians cried wolf so loudly about the draft. It’s the result of a decision to calculate emissions according to a uniform measurement for every power plant rather than a weirdly calibrated analysis of what’s reasonable for individual states.
But whether or not the new approach is more technically or legally defensible, getting tougher on dirtier states could have a dramatic effect on results, because states like Kentucky and West Virginia were always unlikely to do any more than the legal minimum, while states like California and Massachusetts are unlikely to stop their transitions to cleaner energy once they achieve compliance.
There are two other areas where the final plan looks tougher than the draft plan. Iwrote in January that the draft seemed to assume, as many scientists do not, that most “bioenergy” projects would be carbon-neutral, a conclusion that posed a serious threat to American forests. The final plan walks that back, essentially postponing any decisions until states make actual bioenergy proposals. The draft also relied excessively on gloomy forecasts from the federal Energy Information Administration, which consistently and dramatically underestimates the growth of renewables. The final rule specifically states the EIA’s forecasts “do not reflect the decline in cost and increase in performance that have been demonstrated by current projects,” and as a result, the 2030 goal for renewable generation increases from 22% to 28% of U.S. capacity.
But the big question about the plan is whether it will accelerate America’s ongoing shifts away from coal and towards wind and solar. The answer, according to the plan itself, is no. Its targets are “fully consistent with the recent changes and current trends in electricity generation, and as a result, would by no means entail fundamental redirection of the energy sector.” Even the enhanced renewable goals are “consistent with historical deployment patterns.” And the coal emissions cuts “can be met without the retirement of the affected [plants] before the end of their book life,” it says on p. 1095, an amazing statement considering that coal plants producing about 175 million annual tons of emissions—more than one fifth of the reductions the entire Clean Power Plan will require by 2030—are already scheduled to retire by 2020.
My point yesterday, which I still believe today, was that you shouldn’t hail or denounce a plan as the strongest ever if it just continues current trends—and that the Clean Power Plan, as EPA acknowledged above, expects to do less than continue current trends. It projects fewer coal retirements and fewer emissions reductions. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones and other writers argued that I was being too harsh, because the reductions over the last decade were expanded by a recession and a fracking boom, and because coal retirements will be harder now that the oldest and most obvious targets have been retired. In this view, if the Clean Power Plan merely prevents too much backsliding—and helps Obama push for a global climate deal in Paris—it will provide a huge service. And a tougher plan could certainly face a tougher time in Congress and in the courts.
Those are legitimate points, but there are also numerous reasons why coal retirements could be easier now than they were a decade ago. Wind and solar costs have plunged, making renewables much more than an airy-fairy alternative, while coal costs have increased. Natural gas prices are still low, too. Upcoming ozone rules could further ratchet up the pressure on coal, while the rapid downsizing of the coal industry has ratcheted down its political power. Coal is also getting a tobacco-like reputation that is scaring away investment. And there is now an agile and effective coal-fighting machine that has already helped force 200 plants into retirement.
Whether the plan’s goal should be to accelerate emissions reductions, or just to maintain some semblance of the current trend, everyone who supports action to prevent a climate catastrophe agrees that time is of the essence. But that’s where the Clean Power Plan is especially weak. The draft did not require any action to control carbon emissions until 2020. The final rule postpones that initial deadline until 2022. And in a footnote I found on page 642, the EPA pointed out that “in fact, most states could allow their sources to remain uncontrolled in 2022 and 2023, and require controls beginning in 2024, and still be able to meet their interim goal.”
That’s right: States can do nothing for nine years, and still comply with a rule that’s supposed to be the strongest action ever taken to combat climate change.
The damning EPA clause I quoted earlier is probably wrong. The Clean Power Plan should make the power sector at least somewhat cleaner than it would be “in the absence of this rule.” But that’s too low a bar. And 2024 could be too late.

Return to headline | Return to top
Reliability Safety Valve Added to Clean Power Plan

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rebecca Kern

A reliability safety valve was added to the Clean Power Plan to allow power plants to keep operating outside of set state emission standards under certain emergency circumstances.The Environmental Protection Agency said it took comments into consideration, including input from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, when it included the safety valve in its final Clean Power Plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions (149 DEN B-1, 8/4/15).The revised plan incentivizes states that incorporate renewables in their energy mix, such as solar and wind power, as well as energy efficiency programs (149 DEN B-2, 8/4/15).The EPA noted several examples of where a reliability safety valve would be necessary to allow power plants to continue to operate due to unanticipated events. The agency said the reliability emergency would need to be “brought about by an extraordinary, unanticipated, potentially catastrophic event.”Such examples listed included a “catastrophic event” that damages critical equipment necessary for reliable grid operation; a major storm that floods and damages a large natural gas combined cycle plant, causing it to shut down; or a nuclear unit that has to stop operating unexpectedly and therefore fossil fuel-fired electric generating units have to operate and thus exceed their requirements under the approved state plan.The revised Clean Power Plan, released Aug. 3, aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.90-Day Leeway PeriodIn the safety valve plan, in an emergency situation, the state must notify an EPA regional office within 48 hours. After reviewing the notification, the office may approve a short-term modification to the state compliance plan for a 90-day period under which an affected power plant won't be required to meet the emission standard established under the state plan but rather meet an alternative emission standard.The safety valve plan also provides a period after the initial 90 days wherein the affected power plant can continue to operate under the alternative emission standard if necessary. However, the EPA requires that any emissions in excess of the state's goals after the initial 90 days will have to be accounted for and offset.The EPA stressed that it would be “highly unlikely” for there to be a conflict between a state's compliance plan and the maintenance of electric reliability, except in cases where a state's plan puts “relatively inflexible requirements” on specific power plants.Even in cases of severe weather events, the EPA said most of these last for a short time and wouldn't require a state to adjust its emission standards.Support For Safety ValveFERC Chairman Norman Bay said he was pleased with the revisions made in the final rule, including adding the safety valve, which all five commissioners said they would back if included in the rule. FERC also heard support from electricity operators for the safety valve during four technical conferences it held on the proposed EPA rule(96 DEN A-5, 5/19/15).“I appreciate the EPA's participation in our technical conferences, its willingness to consider potential reliability concerns, and its efforts to address those concerns by adding time and flexibility for compliance, adopting a reliability safety valve, and requiring state plans to be reviewed for reliability,” Bay told Bloomberg BNA in an Aug. 3 statement.Meanwhile, the Energy Department said that while it supported the safety valve, the agency stressed that there are few instances where it will have to be applied.“The Clean Power Plan is so flexible that it fits well within normal reliability planning and response. Thus, the reliability safety valve in the Clean Power Plan is unlikely to be used, but it's there just in case,” an Energy Department spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 3.Electricity Providers PleasedElectricity providers are generally pleased to see the addition of the safety valve.“We're pleased to see that there is a reliability safety valve. That's something we had asked for,” Duane Highley, president, chief executive officer and chief affordability officer for the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp., said in an Aug. 3 media call held by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.“We know that when you take off that much [coal-fired] capacity that fast, that it cannot not have an impact on reliability,” he said.Additionally, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC), a regulatory authority that assures reliability of the bulk power system, had recommended a safety valve to the EPA, along with other reliability assurance mechanisms. The group said in an Aug. 3 statement that it was pleased that some of its reliability recommendations were included in the final rule.EPA, FERC, DOE CoordinationThe EPA, FERC and the Energy Department issued a five-page coordination plan Aug. 3 that outlined how they plan to work together to monitor the final rule's implementation, share information and address any situations related to reliability as they arise.The three agencies said they plan to work together as they did to ensure reliability of the electric grid as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards were being implemented.The three agencies will maintain frequent communication and will meet at least four times a year—on a quarterly basis—to discuss potential reliability concerns.The three agencies also will meet with affected parties to identify areas of concern, including utility trade organizations and generation owners; organizations of state agencies, including the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; regional transmission organizations and independent system operators; and NERC.Once state or multi-state plans are approved or a federal plan is imposed, the three agencies will continue to monitor the implementation of the power plan. The three agencies said they plan to revise this coordination document with a more detailed plan for implementation monitoring.

Return to headline | Return to top
Group Hardest Hit by Power Plan Sees Benefits

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Mark Chediak and Mark Drajem

Opponents of President Barack Obama's plan to cut emissions blamed for climate change say utilities will be among the casualties of the new regulations. You wouldn't know it to hear from the power producers themselves.For a group that must dramatically alter the way it does business to comply with the proposal, utilities don't sound very annoyed. In fact, the industry's main trade group said the Obama administration “seems to have responded to some of our key concerns.” The new rules will even boost profits for some.“The final guidelines appear to contain a range of tools to maintain reliability and better reflect how the interconnected power system operates,” said Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents U.S. investor-owned electric companies.And while the coal industry is the undisputed loser in the Environmental Protection Agency's plan, utilities walked away with some nice concessions.The EPA, for example, delayed the first compliance date by two years to 2022, included a “safety valve” provision that allows the rules to be lifted if reliability issues emerge, and instituted a carbon trading system that provides an option to comply with the mandates.The agency also adjusted the way it calculates reductions each state must achieve, backing off an earlier formula that would have required massive changes for states such as Arizona and Florida.The final rule “appears less onerous for the U.S. power sector,” Fitch Ratings said Aug. 4.‘Flawed and Illegal.’West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is among those with a different view. The regulations are “fundamentally flawed and illegal,” and will lead to fewer jobs, higher electricity rates and a less reliable power grid, Morrisey said in a statement Aug. 3. He is part of a group of state attorneys general preparing a legal challenge to Obama's proposal on behalf of a coalition Morrisey said includes utilities.The rules unveiled Aug. 3 aim for a 32 percent reduction in carbon emissions from the nation's power plants by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. To meet the target, it gives states credit for solar or wind projects that break ground in the next few years. It will also force utilities to run natural-gas plants more or encourage customers to use less electricity.Utility owners including Dominion Resources Inc. and NextEra Energy Inc. may profit from building gas pipelines, solar plants and other infrastructure upgrades needed to comply with the rules in states that allow them to recoup the costs, UBS AG said Aug. 3 in a research note.EPA ‘Responsive to Concerns.'“It appears the EPA was quite responsive to concerns raised by NRG, among others,” NRG Energy Inc., the largest U.S. independent power producer, said Aug. 4. “We appreciate that.”Still, not everyone is happy. Southern Co., one of the nation's biggest coal-burning utilities, said the proposal amounted to an overreach that “impede[s] states' authority to act in the best interest of customers.” Companies that own coal plants in competitive markets where costs can't be recovered may also suffer.And the final version of the rule doesn't give credit for existing nuclear plants that are threatened with extinction from cheaper natural gas and renewables, a negative for big reactor owners such as Exelon Corp.“Even in the face of damning analyses and scathing opposition from across the country, EPA's final carbon rule reveals what we've said for months—this agency is pursuing an illegal plan that will drive up electricity costs and put people out of work,” Mike Duncan, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an industry lobbying group, said in a statement.

Return to headline | Return to top
Despite Coal Industry's Loss in EPA's New Plan, Utilities Gain Several Concessions

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Mark Chediak and Mark Drajem

Opponents of President Barack Obama's plan to cut emissions blamed for climate change say utilities will be among the casualties of the new regulations.You wouldn't know it to hear from the power producers themselves.For a group that must dramatically alter the way it does business to comply with the proposal, utilities don't sound very annoyed. In fact, the industry's main trade group said the Obama administration “seems to have responded to some of our key concerns.” The new rules (RIN 2060-AR33) will even boost profits for some.“The final guidelines appear to contain a range of tools to maintain reliability and better reflect how the interconnected power system operates,” said Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents U.S. investor-owned electric companies.And while the coal industry is the undisputed loser in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's plan, utilities walked away with some nice concessions.The EPA, for example, delayed the first compliance date by two years to 2022, included a “safety valve” provision that allows the rules to be lifted if reliability issues emerge, and instituted a carbon trading system that provides an option to comply with the mandates (149 DEN B-1, 8/4/15).The agency also adjusted the way it calculates reductions each state must achieve, backing off an earlier formula that would have required massive changes for states such as Arizona and Florida.The final rule “appears less onerous for the U.S. power sector,” Fitch Ratings said Aug. 4.‘Flawed and Illegal.’West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is among those with a different view. The regulations are “fundamentally flawed and illegal,” and will lead to fewer jobs, higher electricity rates and a less reliable power grid, Morrisey said in a statement Aug. 3. He is part of a group of state attorneys general preparing a legal challenge to Obama's proposal on behalf of a coalition Morrisey said includes utilities.The rules unveiled Aug. 3 aim for a 32 percent reduction in carbon emissions from the nation's power plants by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. To meet the target, it gives states credit for solar or wind projects that break ground in the next few years. It will also force utilities to run natural-gas plants more or encourage customers to use less electricity.Utility owners including Dominion Resources Inc. and NextEra Energy Inc. may profit from building gas pipelines, solar plants and other infrastructure upgrades needed to comply with the rules in states that allow them to recoup the costs, UBS AG said in a research note on Aug. 3.Coal Suffers“It appears the EPA was quite responsive to concerns raised by NRG, among others,” NRG Energy Inc., the largest U.S. independent power producer, said on Aug. 4. “We appreciate that.”Still, not everyone is happy. Southern Co., one of the nation's biggest coal-burning utilities, said the proposal amounted to an overreach that “impede states’ authority to act in the best interest of customers.” Companies that own coal plants in competitive markets where costs can't be recovered may also suffer.And the final version of the rule doesn't give credit for existing nuclear plants that are threatened with extinction from cheaper natural gas and renewables, a negative for big reactor owners such as Exelon Corp.“Even in the face of damning analyses and scathing opposition from across the country, EPA's final carbon rule reveals what we've said for months—this agency is pursuing an illegal plan that will drive up electricity costs and put people out of work,” Mike Duncan, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a industry lobbying group, said in a statement.

Return to headline | Return to top
Supreme Court Rulings May Boost 'Deference' Challenges In EPA Rule Suits

Aug 5, 2015 | Inside EPA

By David LaRoss

EPA is already facing litigation invoking recent Supreme Court decisions that denied judicial deference to the administration's positions on power plant air emissions standards and on health care to bolster claims that lower courts should not defer to the agency's other rules, beginning with its Clean Water Act (CWA) policy on water transfers.
In two July 23 letters to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, New York state argues that the high court rulings in Michigan, et al. v. EPA and King v. Burwell both cut against the agency's position on the water transfer rule. It says that at minimum appellate judges should give no deference to EPA's reading of the CWA when deciding whether the CWA rule exempting some water transfers from discharge permit requirements is lawful.
"The Clean Water Act's prohibition against point-source discharges absent a permit is so fundamental to the statute's environmental-protection goals that it is 'especially unlikely' that Congress would have left the threshold decision of whether to regulate -- 'a question of deep "economic and political significance"' -- to EPA," says the letter invoking King, the health care decision.
Even though King did not directly affect EPA, court watchers have suggested that it signals justices trying to limit the deference they give to all agencies, pointing to the high court's 6-3 holding that even though language on the Affordable Care Act's tax credits was ambiguous, the application of that provision was so fundamental to the act that Congress could not have intended the Internal Revenue Service to choose an interpretation on its own.
"In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation [to interpret an ambiguous law] . . . . It is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
In its letter, New York says "The same analysis applies here. . . . If Congress had wanted to exclude polluting water transfers from permitting, as appellants claim, "it likely would have done so" in a 'prominent manner' rather than through the 'vague terms [and] ancillary provisions' to which appellants point.”
In the 2nd Circuit suit, Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. et al. v. EPA, et al., the agency and its allies -- which include a coalition of western states -- are appealing a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that partially vacated the 2008 transfer rule. That policy generally says a transfer of water between distinct waterbodies does not require a CWA discharge permit unless it is subject to intervening industrial, agricultural, or other use.
Backing Trout Unlimited and its allies, including New York, the district court held that the agency "accord[ed] almost no weight" to the water law's environmental goals in developing the rule, without properly justifying that choice. Critics of the rule say the risk of environmental damage from linking a polluted water to a healthy one, or from transfers between saltwater and freshwater bodies, requires a permit mandate.
EPA Deference
But the Department of Justice, arguing on EPA's behalf, has claimed that the agency reasonably interpreted the CWA to embrace a "unitary waters" theory, which treats all jurisdictional waters as a whole for purposes of CWA permitting, and that the 2nd Circuit should defer to that reading under the landmark 1984 ruling Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Under Chevron, courts will defer to an agency's "reasonable" interpretation of ambiguous statutory text even when other interpretations are valid.
But New York is now raising the recent Supreme Court rulings to counter that claim. That move places it among the first parties in environmental suits to raise King and Michigan -- which together make up the high court's newest writings on how to apply Chevron deference.
While the King majority discarded Chevron entirely, the 5-4 ruling in Michigan v. EPA by Justice Antonin Scalia did weigh EPA's reading of the air law. However, it found that the agency was unreasonable when it declined to address costs in its threshold finding that it is "appropriate and necessary" to craft mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for the power sector.
New York's Michigan letter argues that in developing the transfer rule, "EPA engaged in the type of unreasonable decisionmaking that Michigan found not 'even rational, never mind "appropriate."' In justifying the Water Transfers Rule, EPA claimed to have found permits unnecessary, but in doing so refused to consider the costs of allowing dirty water to be transferred into a clean water body."
Sources say the Supreme Court's rulings seem to signal that some justices are taking a narrower view ofChevron, which could hurt EPA in defending its CWA jurisdiction rule and power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rules.
While "nothing in these two decisions will have a decisive effect on challenges to other EPA rules . . . the fact that EPA lost in the only major environmental case this term is definitely not a positive for the agency looking toward the future," says one attorney who has litigated environmental suits before the Supreme Court.
While the Chevron test is generally seen as favoring the government, some court watchers see Michigan andKing as warnings that the justices will take a harsh view of EPA's other statutory interpretations, when it considers them at all.
In particular, sources say the decision in King that parts of the health care law are too important to be left to agency interpretation could be a harbinger of the high court's ruling on the power plant GHG rules when expected litigation over the just-released standards eventually reaches the justices.
Climate Litigation
The GHG case could turn on another statutory ambiguity -- whether EPA lacks underlying authority to regulate power plants' GHG emissions under Clean Air Act section 111(d) because it earlier regulated plants' mercury emissions under section 112. The air law bars EPA from issuing duplicative regulations under both sections, but the issue is complicated because House and Senate amendments to section 111(d) were never reconciled in a conference committee before the 1990 air act amendments were signed into law. The Senate amendment would explicitly allow EPA's proposed rule by limiting section 111(d)'s "112 exclusion" to pollutants already regulated under that section, while the House language creates a more expansive exclusion.
Based on Roberts' ruling, legal experts say, challengers to the GHG rules will likely claim that the ambiguity in section 111(d) is not a matter of environmental policy, where EPA is expert, but of the fine points of statutory reconciliation. "[T]he question is not about how to interpret Section 111, but what Section 111 actually says. And just as the IRS has no particular health policy expertise, EPA's opponents will argue that the EPA has no particular expertise in legislative procedure," Jonathan Adler, a constitutional and environmental law expert with Case Western Reserve University, wrote in a July 3 article for the Washington Post shortly after the Kingdecision.
The high court's June 29 decision on the MATS rule could also have repercussions for future EPA litigation, both over the power plan and on a variety of other pending rules.
Rules affected by the fallout could include the CWA jurisdiction regulation, which is all but certain to reach the high court after industry and states have filed a host of challenges in federal district and appellate courts.
The 5-4 ruling in Michigan v. EPA by Justice Antonin Scalia found the agency unreasonably declined to address costs when making a threshold finding that it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate mercury emissions from the power sector -- applying the Chevron test but faulting the agency's interpretation of the air law.
"EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants," Scalia wrote.
Critics of the MATS policy and other EPA rules have characterized that decision as a warning that the justices will take a harsh view of other expansive statutory interpretations. That could pose a hurdle for the agency defending its reading of the CWA mandate to protect all "waters of the United States" in the water law jurisdiction rule, or its interpretation of authority under the air law to impose broad GHG emissions limits in the clean power plan.
"The majority opinion written by Justice Scalia can be read to open a renewed discussion on what deference is appropriate for an administrative agency to assert it deserves," attorney Kathy G. Beckett wrote in a July 2National Law Review article.
Agency Expertise
But environmentalists have generally rejected the idea that Scalia's holding represents a tightening of the court's Chevron standards. "The decision in Michigan v. EPA doesn't really represent a significant new direction for the court. It was still decided in the context of the Chevron framework, and it's only about how they applied that framework. I don't see it as a departure from the norm, especially since they did not vacate the rule," the environmentalist says.
The first attorney says rather than revolving around a statutory interpretation, the CWA challenge could instead be decided based on the courts' willingness to defer to an agency's scientific expertise, which does not depend on Chevron.
"EPA is defending itself more on non-Chevron principles, bringing up their science advisors' report on how waterbodies interact and arguing that they designed the rule to follow that. I can see why they would say that, because the significant-nexus test seems to require that sort of approach," the source continues.
The rule is designed to resolve uncertainty about the reach of the law following the 2006 Supreme Court rulingRapanos v. United States that created competing tests for assessing CWA jurisdiction, most prominently the requirement that a minor water must be connected to a navigable one by a "significant nexus" in order to be jurisdictional. Since that is a highly technical test, the court might defer to EPA's judgment on how to resolve it.
But the first attorney adds that the court might also decide that it knows better than EPA what a "significant nexus" entails, since the phrase comes from a high court ruling.
"You have the agencies trying to divine what was said in a prior judicial opinion. It would be strange for the court to say that a non-court entity would understand the court's decisions better than the court itself," the attorney says.

Return to headline | Return to top
How the EPA Tried to Protect Obama’s Climate Plan From the Courts

Aug 4, 2015 | National Journal

By Sam Baker

President Obama wants his 'Clean Power Plan' to stand the test of time —and the many legal challenges coming its way.
To give it a better shot of surviving the judicial system, the Environmental Protection Agency has made several important changes to the rule regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants.
Among other changes from earlier proposals, the EPA gave states and power plants more time to comply, and offered a more detailed explanation of the rationale for certain provisions.
"Generally the EPA in the Obama administration … has been aware of potential vulnerabilities and has tried to bulletproof its rules. And that's not something we always expect from the EPA," said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who specializes in EPA cases.
But the rule's biggest vulnerability is still pretty big, legal experts say. Critics will not only take aim at the way the EPA is regulating power plants, but will argue in court that the agency doesn't have the legal authority to issue these rules at all.
"This final rule adopts a radical, unprecedented regime, transforming EPA from an environmental regulator into a central planning authority for electricity generation," said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led one failed lawsuit against an earlier draft of the regulations and has promised to file a new challenge soon.
A competing group of nine state attorneys general, on the other hand, offered their support to the EPA on Monday, saying the new rules were "firmly grounded in the law" and the result of "a multi-year stakeholder process that draws heavily on strategies that states have used to cut power plant emissions."
The EPA has at least tried to give the impression that it listened to its critics when finalizing its new rules on carbon emissions from power plants, Adler said.
It scrapped an earlier proposal to measure progress, in part, based on whether consumers use energy more efficiently. Critics saw that metric as a major overreach by the EPA, arguing that the agency doesn't have the authority to regulate how consumers use electricity. It's gone from the final rules.
Fourteen states sued the EPA last year over its proposed rules, arguing in part that the plan would unconstitutionally "commandeer" them into doing the federal government's work for it. The states' suit was dismissed because the regulations hadn't been finalized yet. It'll be back—West Virginia's Morrisey has already announced his plans to revive the challenge.
But the EPA sought to head off that argument this time, clarifying in its final rules that if states don't set up their own plans to reduce carbon emissions, the agency will step in to do the job itself. That structure is well-established, Adler said.
"Saying to a state, 'Do our stuff or we'll do it, and you won't like it when we do it'—that's been around for a long time," he said.
But none of those changes directly addresses the heart of the legal challenge to the Clean Power Plan: the argument that the EPA simply doesn't have the authority to regulate emissions from coal-fired power plants, no matter how much time it gives them to comply, or how it tries to lean on the states for help.
That was the centerpiece of the 14 states' lawsuit last time, and none of the changes EPA made to its final rules will prompt them to change that strategy, Adler said. And the argument remains the biggest threat to the new plan, because it has the potential to stop the new standards altogether, rather than simply forcing a change around the margins.
The EPA's new rules rely on an authority it hasn't used very often, and which exists in two places within the Clean Air Act. One section would allow the EPA to regulate coal plants. The other cannot be used to regulate facilities that are also regulated by a different part of the act—which coal-burning power plants are.
Some of the policy changes the EPA has made to the Clean Power Plan might help persuade the courts that it's relying on the right part of the law, Adler said—and some of the criticisms about federalism and burdensome regulations might help persuade the courts that the EPA is acting outside its authority.
Several legal experts have also noted that part of the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding Obamacare's insurance subsidies could haunt the EPA's defense of the Clean Power Plan. Although the Court upheld the health care law's subsidies, it decided not to rely on the doctrine known as "Chevron" deference—which says that when a statute is ambiguous, the courts will often defer to the relevant agency's interpretation.
Obamacare's subsidies were a question of "economic and political significance" too important for agency interpretation, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Court's majority opinion. And critics will argue that the EPA's new regulations are also too important for Chevron deference.
Adler helped devise the challenge to Obamacare's subsidies, and he says the EPA also isn't entitled to deference from the courts. Chevron gives executive agencies some room to interpret statutes that aren't clear, he said, but that's different from deciding which part of a conflicting statute is actually the law.
"It's not a question of, 'What does this statutory provision mean?' It's a question of, 'What is the relevant statutory provision?' " Adler said. "Here, the underlying question is, what did Congress actually do?"

Return to headline | Return to top
Steven Fulop Praises E.P.A., Opposes Chris Christie on Regional Initiative

Aug 4, 2015 | Politico

By David Giambusso

Mayor and potential gubernatorial candidate Steven Fulop stood beside one of the state's most outspoken environmental advocates Tuesday to praise President Obama's Clean Power Plan, and to tout his own environmental record at the helm of one of the state's biggest cities.
"Over my right shoulder is one of the relics of the past—one of the last coal-burning power plants in the state of New Jersey," Fulop said, indicating the Hudson Generating Station owned by PSEG.
He said that while the utility has invested in retrofitting the station to burn natural gas and cut emissions, "Today is about moving forward and never burning coal again. ... We couldn't be stronger believers in the actions today of President Obama."
E.P.A.'s Clean Power Plan, finalized Monday after months of public comment, calls for New Jersey to make an approximate 20 percent reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide discharged per megawatt hour of energy used by 2030.
The plan calls for a 32 percent reduction of carbon emissions nationwide from 2005 levels.
"New Jersey’s 2030 goal is 812 pounds per megawatt-hour," the E.P.A. stated in documents accompanying the release of Monday's plan. "That’s on the low end of this range, meaning New Jersey has one of the more stringent state goals, compared to other state goals in the final Clean Power Plan."
Sierra Club New Jersey director Jeff Tittel, not known for praising elected officials, stood with Fulop to applaud the federal government for its plan and Fulop for his work as mayor.
"For the first time the federal government is moving forward as a country to clean up dirty power plants," Tittel said. "It's the first time that we've come together to put in regulations that actually start to tackle climate change and global warming."
Tittel also said Fulop has been one of the state's "champions of fighting greenhouse gas emissions."
Fulop touted the city's recently announced bike-share program, a 10 percent expansion of open space, and a commitment to conduct a citywide energy audit every two years.
New Jersey historically has made strides in promoting clean energy, though in 2011 Gov. Chris Christie withdrew the state from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The program has been cited as a potential template for the type of cap-and-trade program states can use under the new E.P.A. emissions goals.
Fulop is widely believed to be weighing a gubernatorial run in 2017, but has not officially declared his candidacy. When asked by a reporter if he would bring the state back into the regional initiative as governor, Fulop said he would.
"The short answer is 'yes,'" he said, "but I don't want to get into a back and forth on hypotheticals. ... My number one responsibility today is Jersey City."

Return to headline | Return to top
The Clean Power Plan: A ticket to the Top

Aug 4, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Fred Krupp

With the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan now final, the era of unlimited carbon pollution from America’s power plants is finally coming to an end.
That’s excellent news, because climate change has put us in the race of our lives – and the countries that move the fastest toward clean energy will be the most competitive, create the most jobs and have the healthiest air. It’s a race to the top, and the Clean Power Plan gives the United States a better chance of winning.
Below are excerpts from an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal where I lay out the opportunities this groundbreaking initiative will bring to our nation.It will put power in consumers’ hands
“States should use this watershed moment to remove existingbarriers to energy freedom and consumer choice. Outmoded rules in many states make it harder for homeowners to install solar panels – and Americans across the political spectrum have made it clear that they want more control over the electricity they use.It ramps up the clean energy market
“Driving down carbon emissions will ramp up the energy transformation that is already happening across America. What once seemed exotic electric cars, highly efficient appliances, competitively priced clean energy is becoming commonplace.
“In 2014, the clean-energy market in the U.S. expanded by 14 percent, to almost $200 billion. That is bigger than the domestic airline industry.
“Clean energy now delivers three times as many jobs per dollar invested as fossil-fuel investments.It builds a more prosperous future
“The EPA’s plan gives companies the incentive to make investment decisions that focus on cleaner energy. For the customer in states that lower emissions by creating opportunities for more efficient use of energy, the plan will mean that home electric bills will be lower and individual control of electricity use will be higher.
“Bill Gates recently said, ‘If we create the right environment for innovation, we can accelerate the pace of progress, develop and deploy new solutions, and eventually provide everyone with reliable, affordable energy that is carbon free.’
I believe that the Clean Power Plan will help establish thatenvironment for innovation and lead us to a cleaner, healthier and more prosperous future.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Revised EPA Ozone Data Spurs Questions Over Future Air Transport Rule

Aug 5, 2015 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

EPA has issued revised data on interstate transport of ozone that sources say raises significant questions about how the agency will use the information to craft a “backstop” rule to ensure states meet a Clean Air Act duty to curb ozone transport, including potential data flaws that could lead to an unnecessarily stringent rule.
In an Aug. 4 Federal Register notice of data availability (NODA), EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Director Stephen Page says the agency has updated its transport modeling data for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion. The data projects ozone levels in states through 2017, and estimated maximum contribution of states' ozone-forming emissions that are hindering downwind states from attaining the national standard.
A key difference between the NODA data and earlier modeling of future ozone emissions is that EPA now projects the NAAQS attainment situation in 2017, a year earlier than the 2018 projections in earlier data. This is because of an appellate court ruling rejecting EPA's choice of 2018 as the compliance year for the 2008 ozone limit, in effect making 2017 the last year for which states can submit air quality data to show attainment.
But the NODA is prompting queries from state air officials, with one Eastern state source doubting the assumptions underpinning the modeling and fearing they have interstate ozone transport estimates below actual pollution levels. In contrast, one Midwestern industry source argues that the revised data appears to be flawed because it clearly overestimates air pollution levels in certain locations.
EPA will have to grapple with the competing concerns over the NODA as part of its effort to craft a rulemaking to curb interstate pollution of ozone and help states attain the 2008 NAAQS.
The agency has also proposed to tighten the ozone limit to within the range of 65-70 ppb, with a final decision due Oct. 1. If EPA opts, as expected, to impose a stricter standard then it will likely have to craft another rule designed to help states meet that limit. Until then, the agency continues to work on its next air transport rule to cut ozone-forming pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx).
The agency plans to propose a new transport rule in the fall, and is describing the effort as a “backstop” to states' efforts to meet their air law “good neighbor” obligations. Under the Clean Air Act, states must craft state implementation plans (SIPs) to address their interstate emissions, but many states have failed to do so and the agency has released interstate emissions trading rules to ensure the transport obligations are met.
However, these rules have met with serious legal hurdles, with the appeals courts either vacating or remanding previous federal efforts. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 28ruled on remand in EME Homer City Generation v. EPA that the state emissions allowances, or “budgets,” in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) are flawed and must be recalculated by EPA.
Pollution Transport
The Supreme Court last year upheld key principles of CSAPR, EPA's current trading program for ozone and particulate matter-forming pollution from power plants in 28 states.
The decision reversed the D.C. Circuit, which had earlier vacated CSAPR seeking to prescribe an alternative method of limiting upwind states' emissions. However, the high court left the question of emissions budgets and other outstanding questions for the D.C. Circuit to resolve on remand. Now, EPA must rework its emissions budgets for CSAPR, which addresses the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which is expressed as 85 ppb.
Sources agree that the D.C. Circuit remand of CSAPR will have significant implications for how EPA crafts the backstop rule to meet the 2008 NAAQS, and any future stricter standard.
EPA is also working on a Supreme Court remand to the D.C. Circuit of its power plant mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), which the high court faulted because EPA failed to integrate costs into a preliminary finding that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate air toxics from the sector under a specific air law provision.
While MATS targets air toxics, it also has a significant impact on sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx, the pollutants regulated by CSAPR. EPA has indicated that future interstate pollution rules will target ozone only, in the light of a sharp drop in particulate-forming SO2 that was expected as a result of MATS.
One Northeastern air quality expert says that if EPA makes changes to MATS or CSAPR in response to the court rulings, it will have to redo its modeling in support of the forthcoming ozone transport rule. “How much time and effort is EPA going to spend on revising budgets for the CSAPR remand when it's already mooted by the [75ppb] NAAQS, which in turn could be mooted by a more stringent ozone NAAQS this fall?” the source asks.
EPA is taking public comment on the NODA through Sept. 23, and the public will have a chance to weigh in again on the methodology and modeling underlying any new rule once that is proposed as well, EPA says.
Modeling Difference
The NODA projects eight states will have nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. These are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin. Several other states such as Pennsylvania are projected to be “maintenance” states, meaning they have previously violated an ozone NAAQS but are now in attainment. For many of these other states the projected average ozone levels are very close to the 2008 NAAQS, with some marginally exceeding the standard but nonetheless labeled probable “maintenance” by EPA.
The NODA appears to show at least 26 states contributing to downwind ozone problems at levels that would have likely qualified them for inclusion in CSAPR using that rule's yardstick of contributing 1 percent of the NAAQS, the threshold of “significant” contribution.
However, EPA's Page in the NODA notes that the modeling data do not address policy issues such as the significance threshold EPA may choose for any new rule. EPA in determining states' obligations in CSAPR also took implementation costs into account, another issue the agency will have to address with in the new rule.
The Midwestern industry source says that the NODA presents several problems. For example, EPA projects ozone levels at the Harford, MD, monitoring station will exceed 80 ppb, when the station is currently showing compliance with the 75 ppb NAAQS. “There is something wrong with the model, we just don't know what it is yet,” the source says.
The source adds that EPA is using 2011 as the base case for its modeling, when in reality air pollution has fallen significantly since then, leading to unrealistically high projected ozone levels.
Also, the source says, EPA in the NODA says it will deem ozone “nonattainment” areas to also be “maintenance” areas for the purposes of calculating pollution reduction obligations under a new rule.
However, this appears to contradict the Supreme Court's view on this issue, which holds that maintenance areas are those that have attained the NAAQS and should be subject to a distinct test to assess “significant contribution” of upwind areas to their pollution problems, the source says. The Clean Air Act requires states to mitigate their emissions that “interfere with maintenance” of NAAQS in downwind states.
The Eastern air quality expert also has concerns with the data, but for different reasons. “One concern is that the percent contribution is from a forecasted year that assumes reductions are already in place. These assumptions are problematic.” Eastern air regulators have a “preference that EPA assess the contributions from a historical base year, and then ensure that reductions in a forecasted year become real, quantifiable and enforceable,” the source says.
“Another issue with the assessment methodology is that it pigeonholes dominant meteorology,” projecting too little influence from emissions from sources in the South, the source says.
Pending Litigation
Meanwhile, Nevada in a lawsuit filed July 31 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada asks the court to compel EPA to take action to approve or disapprove its SIP provisions addressing interstate pollution requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Under Clean Air Act-mandated deadlines, EPA should have made a decision on the SIP by Oct. 10, 2014, the state says, but elected not to act on the transport provisions of the state's plan, instead approving or disapproving other elements of the Nevada SIP.
EPA in its NODA projects that Nevada's largest contribution to a 2017 nonattainment site in downwind states is 0.84 ppb -- which would exceed the CSAPR significance threshold of one percent of the 2008 NAAQS, or 0.75 ppb, perhaps requiring Nevada's involvement in the forthcoming backstop rule.

Return to headline | Return to top
Don't Like Obama's Carbon Plan? Fine, Here's Cap and Trade

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Mark Drajem and Lynn Doan

Republican governors who boycott the Obama administration's new power-plant regulations may instead get an offer they can't refuse: a cap-and-trade system many of them also oppose.Five years after Republicans in Congress shot down President Barack Obama's plan for carbon trading, his administration unveiled rules to combat climate change. They include a provision for carbon trading, which Republicans had criticized as a government intrusion in the workings of the free market.“It's clear that what they're trying to do—without establishing a federal cap-and-trade program—is set up a plan that has a very strong likelihood of becoming a de facto federal cap-and-trade program,” said Andre Templeman, managing director of the carbon-markets consultancy Alpha Inception LLC.While the idea of using pollution trading was initially embraced by Republicans as a way to use markets to lower the cost of environmental compliance, business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce demonized the push for an economy-wide cap-and-trade program that was pushed by Obama and passed the Democratic-led House of Representatives in 2009. It died in the Senate the next year.‘Most Efficient.’Now, while the Chamber said it opposes the new Environmental Protection Agency's carbon regulations, many company representatives say they are pleased that trading can be used to help them keep down the cost of cutting their use of coal under the EPA regulations.“Trading is one of the most efficient ways to get the market to act,” said Arvin Ganesan, vice president at Advanced Energy Economy in Washington, which represents companies such as Johnson Controls Inc. and First Solar Inc. “It yields results and minimizes the cost on customers.”Obama unveiled the landmark regulations (RIN 2060-AR33) to reduce emissions from power plants Aug. 3, a plan designed to bring about cuts in carbon dioxide from power plants of 32 percent by 2030 (149 DEN B-1, 8/4/15). It is the centerpiece of Obama's climate plan, which aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and convince other nations to ink an accord to address global warming.The Obama plan requires states and utilities to use less coal and more wind power, solar or natural gas. Each state must submit plans to the agency by 2018 on how it will achieve the EPA-mandated goal.State OpponentsSome states, especially those economically reliant on coal, fought the draft rules in court and promise to do so again.“This rule represents the most far-reaching energy regulation in this nation's history, drawn up by radical bureaucrats,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said in a statement. “We intend to challenge it in court vigorously.”Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has urged governors to reject the power-plant regulations and not submit the required plans to the EPA.“If the final rule is not significantly improved, then Hoosiers can be assured that on behalf of families, businesses and other ratepayers, Indiana will not comply,” Republican Governor Mike Pence said in a statement.Caps ImposedBut if state leaders refuse to work with EPA, as many are threatening, the agency announced Aug. 3 that it would impose restrictions directly on their utilities. A cap would be imposed on carbon emissions from the power plants and credits could be bought and sold to keep costs down.“The states that don't want to do anything will default to a broader trading market,” said Tom Lawler, the Washington representative for the International Emissions Trading Association. The EPA system would allow those credits to be traded with other states, and so the states that “just say no” could all end up in a wider carbon trading system.To be sure, the EPA has used a trading program as a way to curb the pollutants responsible for acid rain under an update to the Clean Air Act that was signed into law by Republican President George H.W. Bush.“Cap and trade is a technique that's been made available under the Clean Air Act for decades,” David Doniger, the head of the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, said Aug. 4. “There's nothing nefarious here, and there's a lot of state interest in this approach.”Feature, GlitchIn addition, representatives for some utilities, clean-energy producers and manufacturers say carbon trading should be viewed as a feature, not a glitch.“It's a really big leap forward,” said Bob Wyman, a lawyer representing companies such as Alstom SA, Calpine Corp. and Boeing Co. which support the EPA's efforts and say they want them to work. The way EPA set it up, states can enter a trading system by default and so that may be the easiest option.“It makes it easier for the rank-and-file officials to say that this is doable,” said Vicki Arroyo, the head of the Georgetown Climate Center. “It will be relatively painless.”California and nine northeastern states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative already have a carbon trading program “and you're going to see at least another 20 states come up with their own versions,” Templeman said.“But because the states can interchange through this bank, it really is one federal program broken down into 40 little state programs.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Cornyn: Dems Channeling 'Chicken Little' on Climate Change

Aug 4, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action

By Jordain Carney

Sen. John Cornyn suggested on Tuesday that his Democratic colleagues were overplaying the seriousness of climate change. "It sounds to me like so many of our colleagues [are] like Chicken Little. 'The sky is falling.' I don't think the facts justify it," the Texas Republican said. "There are more important things we could do today and this week." "Chicken Little" is a story, and more recently animated movie, involving a chicken who thinks the world is ending. Cornyn's comments come after Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse spoke on the Senate floor about climate change, something the Rhode Island Democrat does on a weekly basis. Whitehouse criticized his Republican colleagues suggesting that they are refusing to combat climate change because of pressure from influential outside groups. "I find it a little frustrating these days because climate change used to be a bipartisan issue," he added. "Then came Citizens United and all that dark money began to flow, all that fossil fuel money began to flow, all that Koch brother money began to flow." Whitehouse also spoke on the floor earlier Tuesday with other Senate Democrats, including Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). During his floor speech he used a sign that sums up the Republican plan to combat climate change with the shruggie emoticon, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. "I think it would probably be wise to take out the smile and put a little band you know over the mouth, so that it's clear that nobody's allowed to say a word," he added, temporarily sticking a piece of tape over the mouth of the emoticon on the sign.

Return to headline | Return to top
How Much Further Can EPA Stretch the Clean Air Act?

Aug 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Alex Guillen

EPA has stretched the Clean Air Act as far as it’s ever been stretched to implement an ambitious plan to reduce electric utilities’ carbon footprint.
Before long, it may be time to stretch it even further.
The Obama administration took the single biggest step the U.S. has ever taken to address climate change with the final carbon rules for power plants unveiled Monday. But legal experts and supporters of the rule say the Clean Power Plan is just the first step on a long road toward squeezing heat-trapping gases out of the atmosphere. However, opinions are split over how far EPA would eventually be able to stretch its novel application of the Clean Air Act.
Administration officials estimate that the power sector’s greenhouse gas emissions will fall nearly one-third from where they were 10 years ago by 2030, but they acknowledge the rule on its own will not be enough for the U.S. to live up to the commitment President Barack Obama has made ahead of global climate negotiations in Paris at the end of this year. To hit that target of a 26-to-28 percent reduction from 2005 levels across the whole economy by 2025, the administration is looking to other existing policies such as its tougher fuel economy standards to reduce vehicles’ carbon footprint, and voluntary programs in the agriculture sector.
Still, analysts say nothing that has been proposed to date would secure the deep, long-term emission cuts scientists say are needed to avoid catastrophic global warming — meaning EPA may eventually try to do more with its current authority.
The agency is already in largely uncharted water with the rule it finalized this week, and future action would be heavily influenced by the next president, his or her successors, Congress and the courts.
An EPA spokeswoman said the agency is focused on implementing the new carbon rules, not discussing “hypothetical scenarios.”
It is difficult to judge the shape of a Clean Power Plan 2.0, but EPA’s approach so far offers some clues.
EPA is using section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to justify the carbon rule, which will first have to survive furious legal challenges that are expected to wind their way to the Supreme Court no earlier than 2017. Should the rule survive those challenges, a litany of specific complaints about individual state targets and other issues could last into the mid-2020s. It’s a rarely used section of the law — designed for air pollutants that are not addressed elsewhere in the statute — and EPA says it justifies requirements beyond the law’s traditional mandate for power plants and factories to install pollution controls on site.
The statute does not direct EPA to periodically revisit and strengthen 111(d) rules, as is the case with other programs such as the national ambient air quality standards, which EPA recently proposed tightening for ozone. But it also does not explicitly bar EPA from doing so.
“On its face it looks like once states submit plans… that’s a one-time deal,” said Jeff Holmstead, a George W. Bush-era air chief at EPA who is now a lobbyist at the Washington firm Bracewell & Giuliani.
EPA would be emboldened if courts uphold the Clean Power Plan, especially where it goes outside the boundaries of regulated plants themselves, predicted Holmstead, whose clients include Arch Coal and Duke Energy.
“But EPA could certainly try to [eventually impose tighter carbon dioxide limits], and if they win on the ‘beyond the fence line’ thing, I think they’re likely to come back and try that,” he said.
This is not the first time EPA has used 111(d). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, EPA used it to limit acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants and emissions of fluorides from phosphate fertilizer plants and primary aluminum plants, among other applications. But the agency never revisited those rules for a second round, so there’s no precedent to draw on. Not to mention that those early pollutants were nowhere near as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide.
In the meantime, several experts suggested that before revisiting the carbon rule for power plants, EPA may decide to go after lower-hanging fruit in other parts of the economy, such as the oil industry.
The part of the Clean Air Act EPA used to write the rule isn’t just limited to power plants, meaning the agency could also go after other big sources, such as cement plants, chemical facilities, iron and steel mills and more.
“The law didn’t just say [to] do cars, trucks and power plants,” said Carol Browner, the Clinton-era EPA administrator and first-term adviser to President Barack Obama. “It said look at all sources. So refineries would be the next big one.”
If the power plant rule survives legal challenges intact, it could become a template to require further reductions from those sources.
“I think that 111(d) is a good, reasonably fit instrument for dealing with this, and it may be that we think, ‘Oh, this is working OK,’ and then that’s what we’ll use,” said Sean Donahue, an attorney who works with the Environmental Defense Fund on the carbon rule. “But it’s pretty early to tell right now.”
In addition to uncertainty over who will be the next president or control the next Congress, the government’s future approach to climate change will be heavily influenced by technological advances in the power sector. And those advances could take any number of unpredictable forms, judging by recent history.
Witness the “nuclear renaissance” predicted more than a decade ago that so far has failed to materialize, or the dethroning of coal as king of U.S. power supply, or the largely unanticipated fracking boom that has turned the country into a global oil and gas powerhouse, or the dramatic revolution in wind and solar, whose still-small market share is steadily rising as their costs fall. The Clean Power Plan itself is expected to incentivize nuclear, renewable energy and efficiency, and who knows what ripple effects follow.
“2030 is a long way off,” Donahue said. “If it’s like other major pollution control efforts under the Clean Air Act, it is likely that we’re going to find we can do things more cheaply that we thought and faster when we set out minds to it.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Obama Climate Plan Squeezes Coal as China Fights Pollution

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment

By Aibing Guo and James Paton

The Obama administration's plan to curb U.S. coal use will ripple across the globe to Asia, where the world's biggest consumer of coal and is balancing demands for cleaner air against cheaper energy.The hard line in the plan released Aug. 3 compounds pressure from a similar stance by China, the world's biggest coal burner and carbon emitter, to significantly reduce reliance on the fuel. It is also giving ammunition to opponents of the hydrocarbon in top exporting nations, including Australia, as the international climate talks loom in December in Paris.“The news out of the U.S. will toughen the rhetoric against global coal use,” said Helen Lau, an analyst at Argonaut Securities (Asia) Ltd. in Hong Kong. “For coal as an industry, it's definitely bad news.”The rules (RIN 2060-AR33), partly designed to put the U.S. on track to meet the goal Obama laid out in negotiations for a global climate accord, come as prices struggle to recover from the lowest in almost eight years amid slowing growth in China, the top consumer of energy, metals and grains.As countries from China to Brazil make commitments to curb carbon emissions, Australia's coal miners say technology exists to limit pollution from their fuel, which releases twice as much carbon when burned as gas. And, as Glencore Plc's head of coal assets Peter Freyberg said in June, it's “the cheapest way of powering people out of poverty.” Meanwhile, the country's gas industry is promoting itself as a cleaner-burning alternative.Coal-Gas ‘Civil War.’“The civil war going on between the gas and coal industry is not helpful,” Dean Dalla Valle, chief commercial officer at BHP Billiton Ltd., the world's biggest miner, said last month in Sydney. “It plays into the hands of others.”Miners in Australia are focused on how China and other buyers in Asia respond to Obama's plan. Coal was Australia's second-biggest export earner with shipments valued at about A$40 billion ($29 billion) last year, according to the Minerals Council of Australia.“More important is what's happening in China, that's what is key to the market” in Australia, said Mathew Hodge, a Sydney-based analyst at Morningstar Inc. “China, Japan, and Korea—they are the customers. What they decide is really important.”China will limit coal consumption to about 4.2 billion metric tons by 2020, reducing the fuel's share of its energy generation to less than 62 percent. Coal accounted for 64 percent of China's energy consumption last year, according to the country's National Energy Administration.‘On Its Knees.’Shipments by China Shenhua Energy Company Co., the country's largest coal producer, dropped 24 percent in the first half of 2015 from the same period a year ago. The company blamed falling consumption and “heightened pressure for environmental protection.”“Coal is on its knees,” said Tom O'Sullivan, founder of Mathyos, a Tokyo-based energy consultant. “Declining usage in China, and environmental issues in the developed, particularly U.S., and developing worlds may be putting unprecedented pressure on the sector.”In a plan formally adopted earlier this month, Japan said it expects coal to generate about a quarter of the nation's electricity by 2030. To do that, the country will need to depend on new coal technology that's more than twice the cost of traditional plants. It will also need to restart a significant number of its 43 nuclear reactors, shuttered since the 2011 Fukushima disaster.U.S. PressureDeclining demand among U.S. power plants may force the country's coal to be exported, at a time when benchmark prices in Asia have fallen about 50 percent in the last four years.“U.S. coal may find its way back to market which could affect supply and demand, adding pressure to low prices,” said Hendra Sinadia, deputy executive director at the Indonesian Coal Mining Association.While Indonesia is the world's largest exporter of the fuel for power generation, Sinadia sees the U.S. as driving the agenda for the richest countries.“The U.S. is a member of G-7,” he said, referring to the world's seven biggest economies. “And the G-7 has given signs it may follow U.S. policy.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Preventing the Health Impacts of Climate Change

Aug 4, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Georges Benjamin, MD

Today is a historic day for the health and well-being of our nation. The White House announcement of the Clean Power Plan boldly tackles the harsh effects of climate change, providing stronger health protections than ever before.
I know first-hand the impact of climate change on public health. From treating a child’s asthma to a victim of heat stroke, as a former emergency physician, I’ve had to react quickly in the face of life-threatening medical problems. Much of my experience practicing emergency medicine was learning to respond effectively to the dangerous conditions that affected the health of my patients. Like many physicians, my clinical work consisted of addressing the significant needs of patients who had health conditions that were all-too-often preventable.
Unfortunately, physicians are seeing more patients come to their emergency departments and offices because of an emerging, preventable health threat: climate change. A new report published in the internationally renowned medical journal The Lancet reaffirms the Lancet Commission’s 2009 findings that climate change is the “the biggest global health threat of the 21stcentury,” but encouragingly makes the case that tackling climate change now is the greatest global health prevention opportunity of the 21st century.
Physicians dedicate their careers to saving lives and improving human health. As executive director of the American Public Health Association (APHA), I have an opportunity to work with others to help people live healthier lives; but we are not as healthy as we could be and as a nation, we have a way to go to be among the world’s healthiest places to live. APHA’s vision is to create thehealthiest nation in one generation. To realize this vision, we have focused efforts on prevention and preparing communities for the broad health risks they face — which more than ever, includes climate change.
Through the Clean Power Plan, carbon pollution from power plants will be reduced by 32 percent by 2030, ensuring cleaner air and a healthier environment. I applaud the White House for taking the strong steps forward that we need to make to become a healthier nation.
Our 50,000 individual and organizational members are concerned about the increasing number of people whose health is being compromised by air pollution, heat waves, catastrophic storms, emerging infectious diseases, and chronic health conditions that are exacerbated by our changing climate. Because of the scale and frequency of these issues, physicians and public health professionals like myself are stepping forward to seek new solutions.
APHA has been a leader on educating the public health community about the clear connection between climate change and health. The Lancet report validates our concerns, but if we take concrete steps to address climate change now — like the Clean Power Plan’s historic actions — we can prevent further climate change, save more lives and stop preventable health emergencies from occurring.
The report also encourages developing countries to strengthen their health infrastructure against the challenges to come, but that message rings true even in the United States. Though we often assume that we have a very resilient health system, disasters like Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy prove that our system is inadequately prepared, leaving Americans vulnerable to extreme weather events. However, when we invest in prevention and preparedness, we see tremendous benefits in return. This includes keeping our friends, families and patients out of harm’s way.
That’s why we stepped forward to serve as a founding partner of Climate for Health, a new national network of health leaders from many concerned organizations who have the research and tools to do something about climate change. In addition to promoting habits like daily exercise and eating local and fresh food, health leaders are learning and communicating about the corresponding health benefits to communities from making their neighborhoods more walkable, bikeable and climate-friendly. Building in basic improvements — like bike shares and green spaces — in the places where we live, work, learn, pray and play can make our communities more livable. It would also ensure that we have the clean air and natural resources needed for more of us to live longer and healthier lives.
When health professionals personally reach out to patients and communities to talk about the connection between climate and health, we will secure a brighter and healthier future for all. And that’s the kind of prevention everyone can get behind.
Benjamin is the executive director of the American Public Health Association, which champions the health of all people and all communities.

Return to headline | Return to top
TransCanada May Recoup Part of Costs for Keystone XL

Aug 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jim Snyder

A two-decade old trade accord could let TransCanada Corp. recoup some of the $2.4 billion spent on its Keystone XL project, even if President Barack Obama rejects the pipeline.A provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement would let the Canadian company file a claim against the U.S., accusing the government of discrimination. While trade specialists say a successful challenge would be a long shot, a NAFTA tribunal could award damages for costs as well as lost profit.It's a twist that could ensure Keystone remains an aggravation for the administration even if Obama pulls the plug.“From what we've seen in past cases, TransCanada would have a potential NAFTA claim,” said Melinda St. Louis, director of international campaigns for Public Citizen, a nonprofit group that has opposed trade deals like NAFTA and the dispute settlement process specifically.TransCanada has waited more than six years for permission to build the link from Alberta's oil fields to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast. While Obama hasn't said how he'll decide, his criticism of the project's purported benefits have encouraged environmentalists.The project has been delayed several times. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), one of Keystone's biggest Senate supporters, said July 28 that Obama would reject the pipeline after lawmakers leave for an August recess. Hoeven cited sources he didn't name. The Senate is set to leave this week (145 DEN A-1, 7/29/15).NAFTA TribunalNAFTA, a deal signed by the U.S., Canada and Mexico that took effect in 1994, includes a process to resolve investor-state disputes. The two sides each get to appoint one judge, and those two, in turn, pick a third person to fill out the panel. A panel couldn't force approval of Keystone.NAFTA has been a magnet for criticism from congressional Democrats and labor union leaders, who said it made it easier for manufacturers to take advantage of low-cost labor by opening factories in Mexico instead of in the U.S.TransCanada Chief Executive Officer Russ Girling July 31 declined to comment specifically on the potential of a NAFTA challenge when asked on a conference call to discuss its second quarter earnings with analysts and reporters.“TransCanada will employ whatever means necessary to protect its shareholders and its shareholder value, but that's not our focus at the current time,” Girling said.TransCanada applied for a presidential permit to build Keystone XL in September 2008. The State Department is reviewing the application because the pipeline would cross an international border. In its financial report, Calgary-based TransCanada said it has so far invested $2.4 billion on the project.Better Chance With New AdministrationIf Obama rejects Keystone, TransCanada has a better chance of success by reapplying when a new administration takes over in 2017 than filing a NAFTA challenge, said Gary Hufbauer, a trade specialist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington-based nonprofit group that studies economic policy.Generally, the dispute council gives countries broad discretion to apply their own rules on issues such as the environment, putting TransCanada at a disadvantage, he said.“Legally, the deck is stacked against them,” Hufbauer, a deputy assistant secretary for trade at the Treasury Department during the Carter administration, said in an interview.The State Department's review of the project, as required by law, concluded last year with a largely positive environmental assessment. The department said Keystone XL was unlikely to increase overall greenhouse-gas emissions in part because the oil sands would be developed even without it (38 DEN A-7, 2/26/15).But the report also said low oil prices could increase the importance of Keystone, which would be a cheaper transportation option than alternatives such as trains. Oil prices have dropped by about half since the assessment was issued.Environmental advocates were encouraged by a letter the Environmental Protection Agency sent in February to the State Department disputing the assessment and saying development of the oil sands would significantly increase global carbon-dioxide levels unless greater emissions controls were enacted.Decision-Making Process Not Discriminatory“The Keystone regulatory decision-making process, while time consuming and probably frustrating from the point of view of TransCanada and others, is not obviously discriminatory,” said Scott Miller, a senior adviser for the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), a Washington research group. “The burden required to prevail in these cases is fairly high.”In challenging the U.S. under NAFTA, TransCanada would be going against a nation with a perfect 13-0 record in such cases.Robert Stumberg, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington, said challengers to the U.S. may face an especially high hurdle. Arbitrators may be wary of ruling against the world's biggest commercial partner for fear of turning its citizens against free trade.But he pointed to a recent case that could give TransCanada hope, if it pursues a NAFTA judgment.In March, a settlement council ruled in favor of Bilcon of Delaware Inc., which had been denied permission to build a quarry in Nova Scotia, one of Canada's maritime provinces.The council ruled for the company, saying Canada had subjected it to an unusual environmental review that it hadn't applied to similar projects proposed by Canadian companies.A separate process will determine the compensation due to Bilcon.By demonstrating that previous cross-border pipelines have been approved, TransCanada could show that the Keystone XL project faced an arbitrary and unfair process, Stumberg said.TransCanada Operates Other PipelineTransCanada already operates a pipeline, known as Keystone, that enters the U.S. at the North Dakota border. The proposed Keystone XL would cross at the Montana border then head for South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would connect to a pipeline network that extends to the Gulf Coast.Enbridge Inc., another Calgary-based pipeline company, got the State Department's blessing in 2009 to build the Alberta Clipper pipeline from Alberta to Wisconsin.The U.S. may argue that since then, climate change concerns have become more serious.“The U.S. could say, ‘Yes, we're treating you differently. Times are changing, and governments get to change their policies,’ ” Stumberg said.For a report published by CSIS, Miller reviewed about 300 cases brought under the trade-dispute process. He found that about a third settled before the tribunal ruled. Of the remaining cases, governments won about 62 percent of the time.A further discouragement to TransCanada: Companies that won generally got far less than they sought, Miller said.“It's a long road, it's an expensive process and it's mostly pennies on the dollar,” Miller said in an interview.Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested a more likely path would be to try again once Obama leaves office.“I believe that whether this project goes ahead or not under this administration, it will ultimately go ahead under a subsequent administration,” Harper said in an interview with Bloomberg.

Return to headline | Return to top
Ozone NAAQS Lobbying Intensifies As Deadline Looms For EPA Decision

Aug 4, 2015 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

Industry groups, environmentalists and others are ramping up lobbying on whether EPA should follow through with its proposed stricter existing ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), as the agency prepares to send the final rule for mandatory White House review in order to meet an Oct. 1 legal deadline for issuing the rule.
One official with the American Petroleum Institute has said the agency's plan to tighten the existing 2008 ozone limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to a standard within the range of 65-70 ppb is "flying under the radar" given attention on other major EPA rules, including its landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants. Organizations representing a wide range of industries warn that a stricter ozone standard could impose even larger costs than the utility climate rules.
Environmentalists and other EPA supporters are trying to counter the push-back on a stricter NAAQS by arguing that a more stringent limit is vital to protect public health as required by the Clean Air Act.
EPA will soon have to send the final ozone NAAQS rule to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) for mandatory pre-publication review if it plans to meet a court-mandated Oct. 1 deadline for issuing the rule. OMB review typically takes 90 days but can take more or less time for some regulations.
Advocacy groups, industry organizations and others will have the chance to request meetings with EPA and White House officials to lobby over the rule once the pre-publication review begins. But even before that happens, EPA is facing an increasing amount of pressure from all sides over its NAAQS decision.
Sources differ on where exactly agency Administrator Gina McCarthy will set the standard, but most agree that it will be below 70 ppb but higher than 65 ppb. At 65 ppb, major industry groups predict severe harm to the economy, despite EPA's projections that almost all of the country would attain such a standard by 2025 with existing or planned air regulations in place. In the interim, many new areas would fall into "nonattainment" with the new standard, and this will impose billions of dollars in compliance costs and freeze industrial expansion, critics say.
Environmentalists and public health groups counter that only a standard set at 65 ppb or even lower -- which EPA took comment on -- can be sufficiently protective of public health under the Clean Air Act, which requires NAAQS to be set at a level sufficient to protect public health with an adequate "margin of safety."
Lawmakers' Concerns
In a July 28 letter to McCarthy, 137 House lawmakers, mostly from the GOP but including 16 Democrats, urged EPA to retain the existing ozone standard. "If a proposed standard cannot be met, nonattainment areas would be required to implement costly ozone-reduction measures and permitting requirements that could prove technologically difficult," the lawmakers write, citing "alternative views on health effects evidence and risk information."
The lawmakers say EPA should fully implement the existing ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb which the agency is only now implementing after years of litigation over that standard. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2013 ruling upheld the 2008 NAAQS, deferring to EPA's expertise on the science of how to set the standards. That ruling cleared the path to fully implement the standard.
Meanwhile, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), a staunch opponent of tougher ozone standards, is running television commercials calling attention to the likely nonattainment status of several national parks under a tougher ozone NAAQS. Because national parks have no pollution sources to control, their nonattainment status cannot be addressed by local actions, highlighting the absurdity of tougher NAAQS, NAM argues.
The free-market Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) in a July 31 statement backed this argument, saying that with an ozone NAAQS set between 65 ppb and 70 ppb, "even many of our iconic and pristine national parks would fail the test even though there is no manufacturing taking place in these locations. Air pollution in national parks is often caused by naturally occurring phenomena such as stratospheric intrusions and wildfires, as well as pollutants migrating from countries with limited environmental regulation, such as China."
This issue of "background" ozone is of particularly acute concern in the Mountain West, where many of the country's largest and most famous national parks are located. NAM and CRS do not, however, reference ozone pollution of domestic origin that drifts for long distances and also worsens air quality in the parks.
Stricter Standard
Environmentalists, some lawmakers, and public health groups are pushing back on the lobbying campaign against a stricter ozone standard by countering that a tighter limit is vital to prevent harms to the public.
In a July 30 letter to McCarthy, 64 House Democrats of the Congressional Progressive Caucus express "strong support for a science-based standard of 60" ppb. Such a standard "would drive investments in clean energy and public transit infrastructure, save taxpayers billions of dollars annually in health care costs, and save lives," they write.
They argue that the 75 ppb NAAQS established in 2008 by the Bush administration, "fails to protect public health, not only for low-income families and communities of color, but also for other vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, people with breathing ailments like asthma, and outdoor workers."
The progressive lawmakers note the support of prominent public health groups for a 60 ppb standard, including the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Thoracic Society, the American Public Health Association, American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), a strong supporter of tougher ozone standards, meanwhile is attempting to undermine the claims made by NAM in its television commercials. NPCA takes exception to NAM's characterization of national parks as "pristine," saying the television ad campaign is misleading.
In a July 29 letter to NAM President Jay Timmons, NPCA says, "Recent advertisements from your organization assert that America's national parks are untouched by the dangers of air pollution. But contrary to your assertions and those of the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, national park air is not pristine.
"Even today, there are national parks that violate clean air laws. Not a single national park is isolated from the impacts of air pollution because pollution knows no boundaries. While we would like to think of national park air as clean, dirty air makes its way into all corners of our country, regardless of how remote they are. The most prized national parks including Grand Canyon, Zion and Yosemite struggle with significant air pollution, and to suggest otherwise is fallacious," NPCA says.
'Greater' Protection
"National parks should be as clean as your ads erroneously suggest, and with greater levels of protection against air pollution we can make them so," the group adds, citing stronger ozone standards as one measure required to clean up national parks.
Jenifer Collins, a legislative assistant with environmental law firm Earthjustice, in a July 29 blog post supports the NPCA position, calling for stronger ozone NAAQS to protect national parks.
NPCA in a recent report, "Polluted Parks," found that many of the country's iconic national parks suffer from air pollution, with ozone a major cause of the poor air quality.
Earthjustice officials met with EPA acting air policy chief Janet McCabe July 24 to discuss ozone issues, an EPA spokeswoman confirms, but neither EPA nor Earthjustice would provide further details about the meeting.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Full Text of Stories Below

Add recipients

Suggested