Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Questions Proposed Phthalate Ban
Aug 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Phthalates producer, ExxonMobil, has expressed legal concerns with the Consumer Products Safety Commission's proposal to ban five additional phthalates from toys (CW 12 January 2015). -
Efficacy of Canadian Microbead Ban Questioned
Aug 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A Canadian NGO has questioned the effectiveness of a proposal to ban microbeads by adding them to the country's List of Toxic Substances (CW 4 August 2015). -
HBCDD Consortium Renews Call for Short-Term Authorisation
Aug 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
As the sunset date of 21 August for HBCDD in Europe looms large, the consortium seeking authorisation for its use on expanded polystyrene has renewed their call for a two-year authorisation. -
5 Questions You Should Ask Your Child’s School
Aug 13, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
When choosing the right school for their children, many parents ask about topics like class size, community, learning objectives and schedule. -
(ACC Mentioned) National Black Chamber of Commerce, Solar Energy Critic, Rakes in Cash from Polluters
Aug 13, 2015 | Florida Center for Investigative Reporting
By Francisco Alvarado
The National Black Chamber of Commerce, a leading critic of efforts to expand solar energy production in Florida and nationwide, is funded primarily by fossil fuel energy companies, including Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, according to an analysis by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. -
(ACC Mentioned) Extended Low Oil Prices Could Slow U.S. Petrochemical Renaissance
Aug 13, 2015 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
A drawn-out recovery for oil prices could stall the so-called “second wave” of the petrochemical boom in the Houston area and along the Gulf Coast, according to a new report released late Wednesday by the IHS consulting group. -
Which Chemicals Used in Fracking Fluid?
| Environmental Leader
The fluids used for hydraulic fracturing in California oil wells contain dozens of hazardous chemicals that have the potential to contaminate drinking water, air and soil and to harm human health, according to a new report by EWG. -
EPA’s Plan: Little Gain for High Legal, Economic Cost
Aug 13, 2015 | The Washington Journal
Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp’s “A Clean-Energy Breakthrough” op-ed, Aug. 4) is utter nonsense, starting with the inarticulate term “carbon pollution” (soot?) that ultimately morphs into “climate pollution” (whatever that is). If one means carbon dioxide, then say it and be clear about it. -
States File Legal Challenge To EPA's SSM 'SIP Call'
Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
A coalition of 17 states has filed a lawsuit challenging EPA's rule forcing 36 states to scrap language in their air quality plans that exempts some industrial emissions during facility startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) from having to meet Clean Air Act limits, with the states arguing the rule exceeds EPA's authority. -
EPA Agrees To Deadlines For Decisions On Missing SIPs
Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is floating two consent decrees that would settle lawsuits filed by advocates over the agency's alleged failure to take steps towards directly regulating ozone and lead emissions in several states, after EPA fell behind schedule with making decisions on the adequacy of the states' plans for complying with Clean Air Act requirements. -
Contrarians Launch Campaign Citing Benefits of More CO2
Aug 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
A roster of prominent climate contrarians has formed a new coalition at the conservative George C. Marshall Institute to highlight a position they have held for years -- that carbon dioxide is plant food and shouldn't be controlled. -
Former Md. Regulator Speakes-Backman Discusses Role of Efficiency in Power Plan Compliance
Aug 13, 2015 | E&E - TV
How does the removal of Building Block 4 from U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan affect the prospects for energy efficiency as part of compliance mechanisms? -
Don’t Let Obama’s Power Plan Overshadow Arctic Drilling
Aug 13, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Annie Leonard
With the release of President Obama’s plan to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, it is clear he sees climate change as a critical part of his presidential legacy. -
Economists, Advocates Square off Over Efficiency
Aug 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Katherine Ling
For energy efficiency, it's time to put up or shut up. -
Industry Makes Late Push To Ease EPA's Methane Plan For 'New' Landfills
Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Abby Smith
Industry groups are making a last-minute lobbying push to soften EPA's pending plan regulating releases of methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), from new landfills, fearing the rule will force installation of costly emissions controls at existing facilities that make modifications since few new landfills are being built. -
House, Senate Bills Aim To Limit Window For CWA 404 Permit Rejections
Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
Newly introduced House and Senate bills seek to limit the window of time in which EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers can reject or delay approving a disposal site underlying a Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 dredge-and-fill permit, a push stemming from a dispute in Virginia but that could affect permitting in other states. -
Obama to Highlight Climate Change Impacts in Alaska Visit
Aug 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama plans to travel to Alaska at the end of the month to highlight the impacts of climate change on America’s last frontier.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Questions Proposed Phthalate Ban
Aug 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Phthalates producer, ExxonMobil, has expressed legal concerns with the Consumer Products Safety Commission's proposal to ban five additional phthalates from toys (CW 12 January 2015).
Four July meetings, between the chemical giant and the CPSC, focused on the commission's proposal to make permanent the interim ban on diisononyl phthalate (DINP). The latter was based on the recommendations of the CPSC's Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) (CW 22 July 2014).
Legal issues raised by the proposed ban, says ExxonMobil, include:the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) does not require the CPSC to follow CHAP recommendations – in fact, the CHAP must be regarded as having a limited, advisory role;rigid adherence to the recommendations does not provide sufficient opportunity for public comment, as required by law;the CHAP's failure to consider relevant data could make a resulting CPSC regulation “arbitrary and capricious;” andthe Federal Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA) only permits the banning of a mixture of substances, not the banning of a single substance, based on its cumulative risk assessment.
As detailed in ExxonMobil's public comments, submitted earlier this year, the cumulative risk assessment, conducted by the CHAP, examined the effects of DINP together with four other phthalates, three of which – DEHP, DBP and BBP – are already banned in toys.
“It is arbitrary and capricious to ban a chemical that contributes a fraction of a fraction of an overall risk, indicated by a questionable methodology that uses a likely irrelevant endpoint and outdated data,” said ExxonMobil in its written comments.
“Without DEHP, DBP and BBP, the [hazard index] clearly is less than 1, so that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from use of DINP in children’s products.”
“DINP has previously been proven safe for its intended use by the CPSC itself, as well as other US government bodies and those in Europe and Australia,” said a company spokesperson. “The science is clear.”
However, since 2005, DINP has been one of a group of phthalates, banned in the EU from toys and childcare articles that children can place in their mouth. Following a review, the European Commission decided to maintain the ban last year (5 February 2014).
If Denmark's proposal to set a mandatory EU classification for DINP, as a category 1B reprotoxicant, is approved by Echa's committees and the European Commission - a process that could take two or three years - DINP would be eligible for the REACH candidate list, and other uses might be restricted under the REACH authorisation process (24 February 2015).
The Exxonmobil spokesperson did not indicate whether it will be taking legal action against the CPSC.
The company's comments are part of wider criticism, by the US chemicals industry, of measures to restrict DINP and other phthalates.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), for example, is fighting California's Proposition 65 listing of DINP as a substance known to the state to cause cancer (5 June 2015).
On 23 June, the CPSC released, for public comment, a report on phthalate exposure of women of reproductive age. It included more recent data than the 2005/06 biomonitoring data that served as the basis for CHAP's recommendations (CW 25 June 2015).
The report says women's exposure to DINP is increasing.
The CPSC declined to comment on legal issues, raised during an ongoing rulemaking. It reported that it is working to have a final rule published by the end of September.
-
Efficacy of Canadian Microbead Ban Questioned
Aug 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A Canadian NGO has questioned the effectiveness of a proposal to ban microbeads by adding them to the country's List of Toxic Substances (CW 4 August 2015).
The group, Environmental Defence, says that Canada's Chemical Management Plan (CMP) has failed "repeatedly in protecting human health from dangerous ingredients."
A microbead ban coming under it may develop slowly, or contain loopholes, it says.
The NGO's executive director, Tim Gray, cites triclosan and the brominated flame retardant HBCD as examples of where a toxic listing under the CMP has not resulted in products being removed from the marketplace.
“We are concerned that this may occur for microbeads, as well, as industry strives to delay implementation,” he says.
Darren Praznik, president of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CCTFA), calls these concerns “unfounded.”
Unlike with triclosan, he says, there is general agreement in the science behind microbeads.
“I've never seen a regulation move so quickly through the federal system as with microbeads, and I think [it is] in part because industry is supporting it,” says Mr Praznik.
Microbeads are smooth plastic beads, introduced as an alternative to rougher natural exfoliants in a variety of personal care products. They have, however, been shown to accumulate in waterways.
But, according to the CCTFA, major manufacturers have “moved quickly” to voluntarily replace them. Mr Praznik reports that the trade group has called for a federal rule aimed at the remaining manufacturers yet to take voluntary measures to phase out their use.
The CCTFA says that the Canadian ban will be based on a regulation passed last year in Illinois (CW 31 July 2014), a model some NGOs have criticised.
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (Nacwa), a US NGO, says the Illinois rule includes “a major loophole that benefits the plastics and cosmetics industries at the expense of the environment and human health".
The Illinois law only applies to “non-biodegradable, solid plastic” without a clear definition of “biodegradable.” Nacwa says some biodegradable plastics need high heat to biodegrade, and it questions whether this will actually occur under real-world conditions.
Mr Gray echoes these concerns in relation to Canada's proposal. He says that for any ban to be effective, it shouldn't have loopholes or exemptions: "Before being allowed to use alternatives, industry should have to prove that any products designed to end up in Canadian waters can break down quickly to inert or non-toxic, and non-plastic products.”
The CCTFA says that the Canadian government will determine what constitutes “biodegradable” in the rulemaking process. It cautions that deviating from the Illinois model would be deleterious.
“When a group wants to prevent a loophole by banning biodegradable materials, they are closing the ability to find an environmentally-sound alternative microbead, which is not in anyone's interest, and is very counter-productive,” says Mr Praznik.
Earlier this year, Ontario's legislature introduced a bill to ban non-biodegradable plastic microbeads from cosmetics, as part of its efforts to clean up Great Lake waters.
Mr Praznik says that the province has been doing “excellent, insightful work” on water pollution. However, the CCTFA prefers a federal rule to ensure consistency across the nation and to allow use of inspectors and regulatory mechanisms that are already in place.
-
HBCDD Consortium Renews Call for Short-Term Authorisation
Aug 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
As the sunset date of 21 August for HBCDD in Europe looms large, the consortium seeking authorisation for its use on expanded polystyrene has renewed their call for a two-year authorisation.
The commercial supply of the alternative, a polymeric flame retardant, is still not sufficient for the market demand, the 13 member companies said in a recent statement.
“Only 12,400 tonnes of commercially proven capacity is available to meet a global demand, where the European replacement needs of HBCDD alone exceed this quantity,” they said.
They expect to start assessing the first small quantities of polymer flame retardant, from an ICL plant in Israel, in September. But there will be at least three months before the companies could switch to the alternative, in the best-case scenario, the consortium said (CW 2 July 2015).
“The bottom line is that we still believe that the bridging authorisation of two years to 21 August 2017, as recommended by Echa, is required in order to allow us to provide the market with the desired smooth transition from HBCDD to an alternative flame retardant,” they said.
“This is the fundamental question – how much capacity is available on the market and how much time is needed to phase in the alternative,” said a participant at the REACH Committee meeting, which took place in Brussels in early July.
The committee brings together representatives of the European Commission and of EU member states, and must vote on whether to grant the HBCDD authorisation.
The Commission and the consortium have exchanged letters over the summer about these fundamental issues, Chemical Watch understands. A decision is expected in September.
The consortium is allowed to supply HBCDD until the decision comes into force.
-
5 Questions You Should Ask Your Child’s School
Aug 13, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Originally published on Healthy Child Healthy World by Megan Boyle.
When choosing the right school for their children, many parents ask about topics like class size, community, learning objectives and schedule.
But what about everyday exposure to chemicals?
Next to the home, children spend more time in school than anywhere else.
While parents make important choices to protect their children from toxic chemicals in their houses, at school, many of these factors are off a family’s radar.
So how can parents keep their kids safe? Start by learning more about their school environment.
Here are five questions to ask your child’s school:What year was the school built?
Old buildings may contain toxic construction materials such as lead or asbestos.
Prior to the lead paint ban in 1978, builders covered both building interiors and exteriors with it. This old paint remains in many places today, and crumbling or peeling surfaces continue to be a main source of toxic lead exposure for children.
Another building danger is asbestos. A recent story by the Washington Post revealed that exposure to this hazardous substance persists at schools across the United States. Although builders used asbestos mostly between the 1940s and the late 1970s, it is still legal today and in more places than you think.
Schools are required by law to track asbestos hazards and disclose their management plans to parents. So ask your school about its plan to manage asbestos and any upcoming renovations.What’s in your drinking water?
Children visit school water fountains throughout the day. But does this tap water contain harmful contaminants like lead, perchlorate or atrazine?
Possibly. Public drinking water utilities test water regularly for harmful contaminants, so ask your school about which utility serves the school and check its tests results. Many utilities post this information online. (If you live nearby, the results may be the same for your own household.)
Many schools are rightfully encouraging kids to bring water bottles instead of juice boxes or wasteful bottled water. Ask whether students have access to filtered water, and check your school’s classroom bottle policy if you want to send your child to school with filtered water from home.What products do the school cleaners use?
The janitorial service may bring countless chemicals into school every time it cleans, leaving chemical residues on the desktops, chairs and doorknobs your children touch regularly.
Even well-intentioned practices, like using or distributing disinfecting wipes, can lead to unnecessary chemical exposure. Ask your school about the products being used, by whom and how often, and check the ingredients using EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning.
Inquire about equipment as well: do the vacuums have a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter installed? (They should.)
If the answers may put your child at risk, talk to school administrators about safer options and what it takes to swap. There are good options on the market that limit chemical use and meet the needs of tight budgets.Where is the nearest cornfield?
The popularity of GMO corn and soybean crops has led to a sharp increase in the use of herbicides such as toxic glyphosate. A recent report by EWG shows that more than 3,000 elementary schools nationwide are located within 1,000 feet of a corn or soybean field. (And it’s not just schools. Nearly 12,000 churches are within this distance from glyphosate-sprayed fields, as well as more than 90 percent of playing fields and parks in a six-state sample.)
If your school is within a worrisome proximity of a corn field, other agricultural field or industrial facility, ask what school personnel are doing to help reduce student exposure to agricultural pesticides. Are janitors conducting more surface cleaning? Has the school set up hand-washing stations?
And join the movement to support GMO labeling. Urge your senator—and fellow parents—to oppose what we call the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act when it comes on the U.S. Senate floor.How sunny is your playground?
The best ways to protect your kids from harmful sun damage are to cover up, stay in the shade, and use a safe and effective sunscreen. But your child’s school may have policies such as prohibiting hats and sunglasses or treating sunscreen as a medicine.
Ask about these policies, if shade is available on the playground, and what times of day outdoor play is scheduled. When your school administrators know what’s important to your family and why, they are more likely to work with you on anything that goes against policy—or change it.
Read the full story here.
-
Aug 13, 2015 | Florida Center for Investigative Reporting
By Francisco Alvarado
The National Black Chamber of Commerce, a leading critic of efforts to expand solar energy production in Florida and nationwide, is funded primarily by fossil fuel energy companies, including Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, according to an analysis by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.
Founded in 1993 by Harry C. Alford and his wife Kay DeBow, the National Black Chamber of Commerce has been a staunch ally of utility and fossil fuel companies for nearly a quarter century.
Harry C. Alford has testified before the U.S. Congress more than 16 times. (Photo: C-SPAN.)
Alford has testified before the U.S. Congress at least 16 times. He alleges that clean energy initiatives are disproportionately harmful to black communities in the United States. For instance, in 1998, Alford testified that the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, a commitment by 38 industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, would be harmful to minority-owned small businesses.
The National Black Chamber of Commerce, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, has been particularly active in Florida in recent months.
Last weekend, the organization held its annual convention at the Diplomat Resort and Spa in Hollywood, Fla., where sponsors included Gulf Power, the Florida division of Atlanta-based energy giant Southern Company; Koch Industries and its subsidiary Georgia-Pacific; as well as Chevron and the American Chemistry Council.
On June 23, Alford, the National Black Chamber of Commerce’s president and chief executive officer, submitted a letter to Florida’s Public Service Commission — which regulates utility companies in the Sunshine State — asking commissioners to revise solar net metering policies “to ensure that market forces drive policies that compensate solar users for excess electricity.”
The same month, the chamber also submitted a brief to the Florida Supreme Court opposing a proposed constitutional amendment on Florida’s 2016 ballot that would give residents the right to choose solar energy and bypass the utility companies that have locked down the electricity business in the state. The brief alleges that the amendment’s ballot language is misleading and violates the state constitution.
“It’s a front group paid for by industries looking to protect their interests, be it fossil fuel or big utility companies that have government-sponsored monopolies,” Susan Glickman, the Florida director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
In an interview with FCIR, Alford insisted that he and his organization are proponents of solar energy production, but he criticized the proposed constitutional amendment for solar energy.
“We want solar power to blanket the earth,” Alford said. “But we want it to come in the right way, so consumers and small businesses are protected.”
Alford’s organization has contributed $50,000 to Consumers for Smart Solar, the political committee opposing the solar power amendment in Florida.
“These negative impacts — potential increases in electric service rates and higher state and local taxes — are why we oppose the shady solar amendment,” Alford said.
For more than two decades, Alford has made a living promoting the alleged dangers of clean energy policies on disadvantaged minority communities in the United States.
His opposition to clean energy initiatives has help create a substantial revenue stream for the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Alford’s organization brings in about $1 million per year, according to IRS filings, with most of the money coming from large companies that oppose clean energy initiatives.
It’s a lot of money given the organization’s small staff. The National Black Chamber of Commerce lists just two key employees on annual IRS filings — Alford and his wife.
Ron Busby Sr., president and chief executive of the rival U.S. Black Chambers, said the National Black Chamber of Commerce is helping fossil fuel energy companies mislead African-Americans and other minorities about clean energy policies.
“What’s further shameful is that these very same corporations are giving money to the same communities they pollute while disseminating misinformation,” Busby said. “The U.S. Black Chambers urges organizations to no longer accept funds from these corporate polluters and take a stand against the false information they spew.”Hidden donors
Just before the National Black Chamber of Commerce held its annual convention in Florida last weekend, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fort Lauderdale, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, issued a statement condemning the organization’s ties to Koch Industries and other energy companies.
U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings alleges that the National Black Chamber of Commerce helps spread “misinformation.” (Photo courtesy of Alcee Hastings.)
“The National Black Chamber of Commerce should take a firm stand against the misinformation being spread by these industries,” Hastings said. “I believe that we should all be on the side of families, not industry polluters.”
Alford scoffed at Hastings’ criticism.
“We don’t have people telling us what to do,” he said. “We are a pro-business organization that supports good, responsible businesses. We’re not poverty pimps who hate business.”
While Alford makes assurances that the National Black Chamber of Commerce isn’t serving as a front group for the energy industry, his organization’s funding isn’t transparent. The chamber doesn’t disclose its dues-paying members or donors. According to its most recently available IRS filing, $896,000 of the nonprofit’s $1.2 million in revenue in 2013 came from corporate contributions.
Yet specific financial information is only available for one of those corporate donors — ExxonMobil. From 2002 to 2014, the oil company gave $1 million to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, according to ExxonMobil’s annual reports on charitable contributions.
Representatives for the National Black Chamber of Commerce’s other corporate donors, including Georgia-Pacific and Gulf Power, did not return calls for comment from FCIR.
The motivations and funding sources for the National Black Chamber of Commerce are now becoming clear, said Kert Davies, the director of the Climate Investigations Center, an organization in Alexandria, Va., that investigates front groups working to delay clean energy policies.
“We knew the National Black Chamber of Commerce had taken $1 million from ExxonMobil,” Davies said. “But now we have some new clues on who might be providing the rest of their budget, from Koch to Chevron to Gulf Power’s parent, Southern Company.”Symbiotic relationship
Alford’s defense of the energy industry has become increasingly vociferous as the Obama administration and individual states have moved toward clean energy initiatives.
Two years ago, Alford wrote a column for The Hill in which he argued that a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency directive to improve ambient air quality standards would be harmful to African-Americans and black small-business owners in need of “dependable energy and predictable utility bills” because coal-fired power plants would be shut down due to the new regulations.
Harry C. Alford of the National Black Chamber of Commerce is a frequent commentator on Fox News.
More recently, in March, Alford joined a procession of utility company representatives and fossil fuel promoters before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology to advocate against the EPA’s proposed tightening of regulations on ground-level ozone.
Alford’s outspoken opposition to clean energy has even drawn a public rebuke from President Barack Obama.
“Even more cynical, we’ve got critics of this plan who are actually claiming that this will harm minority and low-income communities — even though climate change hurts those Americans the most, who are the most vulnerable,” Obama said during public remarks on Aug. 3 to unveil the Clean Power Plan. “Today, an African-American child is more than twice as likely to be hospitalized from asthma; a Latino child is 40 percent more likely to die from asthma. So if you care about low-income, minority communities, start protecting the air that they breathe.”
The symbiotic relationship between the National Black Chamber of Commerce and its industrial benefactors was on display clearly during its annual conference in Florida.
One of the panels addressed the need to help felons released from prison get their lives back on track. The moderator was Erin Kreeger, the public policy manager for Koch Industries, and the speakers included Vikrant Reddy, a senior fellow at the Charles Koch Institute.
Alford said Koch Industries has been sponsoring the National Black Chamber of Commerce for three or four years by supporting a program that assists African-American and Hispanic incarcerated males re-enter society.
“Koch is putting up money to revitalize criminal offenders,” Alford said. “It’s a noble cause.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Extended Low Oil Prices Could Slow U.S. Petrochemical Renaissance
Aug 13, 2015 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
A drawn-out recovery for oil prices could stall the so-called “second wave” of the petrochemical boom in the Houston area and along the Gulf Coast, according to a new report released late Wednesday by the IHS consulting group.
The bountiful ethane that comes from natural gas liquids and U.S. shale production would become more scarce, according to the IHS Chemical report. Ethane is used to make ethylene, which which is the main building block for plastics.
Likewise, European and Asian plants that rely more on naphtha, which is essentially a more expensive alternative to ethane, would become more cost competitive and see a resurgence in value starting in about 2019. The result of which would mean a reduction in U.S. chemicals and plastics exports. As such, companies may “take a pause” regarding expansions and new projects in the U.S., said Don Bari, IHS Chemical’s vice president of technology and analytics, who authored the report.
A host of companies — Chevron Phillips Chemical, Exxon Mobil Chemical, LyondellBasell, Dow Chemical, BASF and more — are planning about $30 billion in petrochemical construction projects in the greater Houston area, seeking to take advantage of cheap prices for U.S. natural gas feedstocks.
Between 2010 and 2023, chemical companies have committed more than $100 billion in new expansion projects in the U.S., according to the American Chemistry Council.
Many international naphtha-based plants struggled for years, but should see a resurgence if oil prices do not rebound, Bari said, in part because the oil market drives price-setting mechanisms for many chemicals, plastics and fibers. Long-term oversupply of crude oil could keep prices from recovering for a decade or so.
“Oil price volatility is creating a nightmare for companies planning investments,” Bari said.
The U.S. petrochemical market should still remain strong in the coming years, he said, but other countries may fare better and offer increased global competition.
“It’s not that the U.S. won’t be advantaged, but not as advantaged,” he said.
Overall, the “winners” would be European and Asian naphtha-based chemical producers, and more South American polyethylene projects would likely move forward as well, according to the report.
“North America would be the losers in this equation,” the IHS Chemical report noted, “since the North American export position would be negatively impacted as its economic advantage shrinks.”
-
Which Chemicals Used in Fracking Fluid?
| Environmental Leader
The fluids used for hydraulic fracturing in California oil wells contain dozens of hazardous chemicals that have the potential to contaminate drinking water, air and soil and to harm human health, according to a new report by EWG.
In the analysis, California’s Toxic Fracking Fluids: The Chemical Recipe, EWG deconstructs drilling companies’ use of 200 unique chemicals in nearly 700 wells across the state, with each company deploying around two dozen chemicals.
Tasha Stoiber, EWG senior scientist and a co-author of the report, says California has one of the most comprehensive and transparent disclosure programs in the US, which makes it the “best window” on what chemicals are being injected into the ground.
Of the chemicals added to fracking fluid in California, 15 are listed under the state’s Proposition 65 as known causes of cancer or reproductive harm, 12 are listed under the Clean Air Act as hazardous air pollutants known to cause cancer or other harm and 93 are associated with harm to aquatic life.
In March, EWG released its report Toxic Stew that detailed California’s contaminated fracking wastewater.
The EWG report recommends that state officials:Determine where less harmful alternatives can replace toxic chemicals currently used;Immediately halt operations that are injecting drilling wastewater into potential sources of drinking or agricultural water;Monitor groundwater in oil and gas areas and properly enforce model criteria developed under the California disclosure law.
An EPA study published in June found that fracking activities in the US have not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources, according to an EPA study released yesterday. However, it said there are potential vulnerabilities in the fracking water lifecycle that could impact drinking water.
A process to make fracking water-neutral, by making treating and recycling contaminated oilfield water more economical, is under development by MIT spinout Gradiant Corporation.
-
EPA’s Plan: Little Gain for High Legal, Economic Cost
Aug 13, 2015 | The Washington Journal
Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp’s “A Clean-Energy Breakthrough” op-ed, Aug. 4) is utter nonsense, starting with the inarticulate term “carbon pollution” (soot?) that ultimately morphs into “climate pollution” (whatever that is). If one means carbon dioxide, then say it and be clear about it.
The Clean Air Act is a health-focused law, not a climate-focused law. Carbon dioxide at 400 or 500 parts per million isn’t going to kill me, my children or my grandchildren, let alone have any adverse health effects. Only if and when we come to understand the relative importance to climate change of natural variability and human-influenced effects, then perhaps we can consider legislation. We aren’t even close to that understanding, and as time moves forward the “settled science” is becoming more unsettled.
The EPA’s endangerment finding is on increasingly shaky ground (especially if we could actually see the science behind it). There has been no warming over the last 18 years despite one-fifth of all human CO2 emissions in history going into the atmosphere. The climate models are increasingly diverging from the observed temperature record; they fail the engineering test of usability through a lack of validation and verification. We are wrenching the energy economy around on such a basis?
What about the “competitively priced clean energy” that is supposed to becoming commonplace? That seems to be uncommon here in California where we enjoy well above average electricity rates for our renewable portfolio standard. Did I mention the carbon tax on transportation fuels?
Expect more nonsense from the green full-court press ahead of the Paris climate talks in December. Every ill on the news will be linked to climate change between now and then.
Mark Strauch
Livermore, Calif.
Mr. Krupp makes clear that the government should be run by a few bureaucrats and not Congress and the people. The only accurate statement he makes about the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is that “the countries that move the fastest toward clean energy . . . will have the healthiest air.” The reason isn’t what he thinks, though. It will be because the cost of manufacturing will be so expensive due to high energy costs that the remaining U.S. manufacturing companies will continue to move to countries that aren’t hallucinating over the man-made global-warming madness (i.e., Mexico, all of Asia, etc.).
That Mr. Krupp can extol this plan while the EPA violates the Constitution and the rights of states shows clearly that the Obama administration is really no different than the late Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. And then Mr. Krupp extols the U.S. agreement with China where they both agreed to setting climate goals. He fails to mention that China isn’t going to start to reduce CO2 levels until 2030.
Mr. Krupp states “millions of Americans joined the fight for these standards.” Who are these millions of Americans? They sure aren’t people who care about manufacturing jobs, electrical bills, governance by fiat or upholding the Constitution.
Don Venderbush
Terrace Park, Ohio
This plan trades U.S. economic loss in the next several years for vague economic gains in future decades. The truth is that this federal government takeover of our energy economy will have no significant effect on global climate change.
Patrick Lanpher
St. Augustine, Fla.
Mr. Krupp mentions that clean-energy investments create three times as many jobs per dollar invested as fossil-fuel investments. This is a bad thing. If energy can be created with fewer laborers, those laborers can pursue more productive endeavors elsewhere in the economy, while paying less for energy. Investments in sweatshops where laborers sew by hand “deliver” more jobs per dollar than investments in sewing machines.
Gavin Roberts,
Denver
I have one question for Mr. Krupp. Did you get to keep your doctor?
Guy Randolph
Savannah, Ga.
-
States File Legal Challenge To EPA's SSM 'SIP Call'
Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
A coalition of 17 states has filed a lawsuit challenging EPA's rule forcing 36 states to scrap language in their air quality plans that exempts some industrial emissions during facility startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) from having to meet Clean Air Act limits, with the states arguing the rule exceeds EPA's authority.
The states' suit filed Aug. 11 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is just one of many legal challenges to the rule, including other D.C. Circuit suits filed by utility Luminant, the SSM Litigation Group of trade and business organizations, and various other power sector groups. Suits have also been filed in the 5th Circuit, creating confusion about which of the two appellate courts might hear the case.
EPA's rule says that 36 states' implementation plans (SIPs) include provisions allowing air law exceedances during SSM periods that are no longer lawful as a result of D.C. Circuit rulings that invalidated both the SSM exemption and a subsequent “affirmative defense” provision that the agency offered after the SSM ruling.
Industry says there are SSM periods when there are unavoidable and uncontrollable pollution spikes, and that EPA's rule -- known as a “SIP Call” -- fails to recognize the impossibility of controlling these emissions.
The coalition of states that have filed suit over the SIP Call in the D.C. Circuit includes Kentucky, North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia.
In an Aug. 11 statement, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said that the challenging states consider their agency-approved SIPs to still be legally valid despite EPA's SIP Call. “The EPA is completely ignoring the scope of its authority under the Clean Air Act in order to force another overreaching rule on Arkansans,” she said.
The statement adds that, “For decades, States have ensured compliance with the standards set for startup, shutdown or malfunction through their individual SIPs.”
-
EPA Agrees To Deadlines For Decisions On Missing SIPs
Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is floating two consent decrees that would settle lawsuits filed by advocates over the agency's alleged failure to take steps towards directly regulating ozone and lead emissions in several states, after EPA fell behind schedule with making decisions on the adequacy of the states' plans for complying with Clean Air Act requirements.
In one proposed partial consent decree lodged July 27 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, EPA aims to end some claims in Sierra Club v. EPA, in which Sierra Club sued EPA over the agency's failure to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address interstate emissions of ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
The consent decree would require EPA to propose by Sept. 25 either that: an existing FIP satisfies Clean Air Act “good neighbor” requirements for reducing transported air pollution with respect to the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for Texas; propose a FIP for Texas to meet those requirements; or to unconditionally approve a SIP or promulgate a partial FIP and conditionally approve a partial SIP “that collectively satisfy” the good neighbor provisions. EPA would have until February 22 to finalize its chosen action.
EPA's 1997 ozone NAAQS is expressed as 85 parts per billion (ppb), but has since been superseded by a tougher ozone NAAQS set at 75 ppb -- although states' obligation to file “good neighbor” SIPs for older NAAQS remains, in which they must outline the pollution control measures they will impose to cut emissions and attain the standards. If EPA disapproves a SIP, it can write a FIP directly imposing controls on a state.
The proposed consent decree is partial because it does not resolve claims brought by Sierra Club over EPA's failure to ensure that Texas has “good neighbor” provisions in place to meet the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) over 24 hours and 15 ug/m3 annually.
These claims are still being litigated. EPA has twice tightened the PM2.5 NAAQS since 1997, most recently in 2012, to 35 ug/m3 over 24 hours and 12 ug/m3 annually. EPA is taking public comment on the proposed decree until Sept. 9, prior to asking the D.C. district court to finalize the agreement.
Meanwhile, EPA July 23 lodged a separate proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, a case in which environmentalists alleged EPA had missed statutory deadlines for approving or disapproving SIPs for attainment of the agency's NAAQS for lead, set in 2008 at 0.15 ug/m3.
EPA under the decree commits to finally approving or disapproving SIP submissions for the lead NAAQS by: Nov. 27 for the Eagan, MN, area and Muncie, IN, area; and by Sept. 25 for the Cleveland and Delta, OH, areas.
Also, EPA commits to issue by May 31, 2016, a final rule approving or disapproving an “infrastructure” SIP for North Carolina, to include measures for meeting the 2008 lead NAAQS. Infrastructure SIPs include the general architecture of state's clean air programs, and ordinarily should include interstate transport components, including in this case North Carolina's good neighbor provisions for lead.
EPA is taking comment on the lead NAAQS decree through Sept. 8.
-
Contrarians Launch Campaign Citing Benefits of More CO2
Aug 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
A roster of prominent climate contrarians has formed a new coalition at the conservative George C. Marshall Institute to highlight a position they have held for years -- that carbon dioxide is plant food and shouldn't be controlled.
The CO2 Coalition will include many long-established disputers of man-made climate change, including the Heartland Institute's Craig Idso and the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels.
Michaels, a climate scientist and director of the Center for the Study of Science at Cato, recently testified before the House Natural Resources Committee that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 "is known to have a positive impact on vegetation, with literally thousands of studies in the scientific literature demonstrating that plants (including crops) grow stronger, healthier, and more productive under conditions of increased carbon dioxide concentration."
To corroborate this, he cited research including studies by Idso, who holds a doctorate in geography from Arizona State University.
The scientific consensus is that warming from man-made greenhouse gas emissions will have a net negative effect on crop yields, but members of the newly formed group will claim that CO2 is maligned.
"The additional greenhouse warming of more CO2 will be moderate and beneficial," the George C. Marshall Institute said in a statement.
Advertisement
Environmentalists note that many of the researchers who still dispute the harmful net effects of warming -- like Idso and Michaels -- have received financial backing from fossil fuels interests.
The Marshall Institute statement referenced "initiatives" but did not provide other information about the group's future activities.
Besides Idso and Michaels, the group will feature former Department of Energy Director of Energy Research Will Happer, astronaut Harrison Schmitt, and anti-regulatory advocates including Kathleen Hartnett White, a former chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and proponent of noncompliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, among others.
-
Former Md. Regulator Speakes-Backman Discusses Role of Efficiency in Power Plan Compliance
Aug 13, 2015 | E&E - TV
How does the removal of Building Block 4 from U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan affect the prospects for energy efficiency as part of compliance mechanisms? During today's OnPoint, Kelly Speakes-Backman, senior vice president of policy and research at the Alliance to Save Energy and a former commissioner with the Maryland Public Service Commission, discusses where and how states should be looking to use efficiency as they craft their implementation plans.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Kelly Speakes-Backman, senior vice president of policy and research at the Alliance to Save Energy. Kelly previously served as the commissioner with the Maryland Public Service Commission. It's great to have you here.
Kelly Speakes-Backman: Thank you for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Kelly, you are uniquely positioned to comment on the Clean Power Plan, having worked with the Maryland PSC when the draft was released and also when comments were given on that draft rule. How did EPA do overall?
Kelly Speakes-Backman: I think they did fantastic overall. I mean, I think especially when you consider the proposed rule to the final rule that just came out just earlier this month, I think they've done an unprecedented amount of listening. I think the 4.3 million comments that they received and reacted to these sound comments and had critical engagement with stakeholders has proven this Clean Power Plan in its final form to be really much stronger in terms of being able to ensure transparency, equity, enforceability and fairness among states.
Monica Trauzzi: So Building Block 4 was removed from the final rule. That was the efficiency block.
Kelly Speakes-Backman: Yes.
Monica Trauzzi: How big of a loss do you consider that?
Kelly Speakes-Backman: I don't consider it a loss at all actually. I think it's very interesting in that EPA got it right in the structure. And I've said this all along, that by separating the goal setting from the compliance strategies, that structure is right. And so energy efficiency has been and continues to be a viable compliance strategy. It's the fastest, it's the cheapest, it's the easiest way to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. And so that still remains, and I think in fact -- the way I look at it -- by taking it out of the goal setting, this cheapest resource that we have is not going into the economic analysis for the goal setting itself. So by deploying energy efficiency in the aftermath and not having it accounted for in the goals, I think you get a little bit of an added bonus by saving more money than even the economic analysis has shown through EPA.
Monica Trauzzi: So as states begin crafting their compliance mechanisms, where and how should they be looking to best use efficiency as part of their compliance strategy? What are your recommendations?
Kelly Speakes-Backman: Well, I think just by looking at what states have already done, 48 states now have programs, energy efficiency programs in place. Twenty-five states have either mandatory or voluntary goals even to be set, and those goals are in and around where the EPA set. It's clear to me from this final plan that EPA is basing many of the -- much of the structure of the Clean Power Plan on actions that are already taking place on the ground, on energy efficiency programs that are already in place among states.
Monica Trauzzi: You worked in Maryland to significantly increase the state's renewable energy portfolio, something that the Clean Power Plan is also asking states to take a look at. There's a Clean Energy Incentive Program built into the power plan. How can efficiency pair with increased renewable energy capacity to build a strong portfolio for states?
Kelly Speakes-Backman: That's a great question. I think they both go towards questions of not only reducing carbon pollution from power plants, but they also both play into the ability to have more distributed resources and alleviating congestion on the grid. That's one of the things that we found in Maryland in establishing both the RPS and our energy efficiency goals, that it has multiple purposes and multiple benefits. Not only is it going to help alleviate the cost of people's energy efficiency bills and they can control their monthly bills, but it can help alleviate congestion, which will help decrease the rates or offset the increase of rates that are happening because so much reliability investments have to be made in the systems these days.
Monica Trauzzi: So what conversations is the Alliance to Save Energy having on crafting compliance mechanisms with states? And are there states that are of particular interest to you in jump-starting a conversation?
Kelly Speakes-Backman: That's a great question. I think right now we are all reading the 1,500 pages that were released a week ago. [Laughter] And we're digesting, and we're having a lot of conversations with our energy efficiency industry partners, with businesses and stakeholders that are looking to help improve their energy productivity. You know, the Alliance to Save Energy is looking at doubling energy productivity by 2030; that falls right in line with what they're doing with the Clean Power Plan.
Monica Trauzzi: What do you make of the "Just Say No" option? We're hearing many conversations about it, certainly in Congress. But do you think that there are states that are giving real, serious consideration to it? And then they'll fall into that FIP category, and is that a good option for those states?
Kelly Speakes-Backman: Well, considering my work with RGGI and using a regional compliance mechanism, I have no problem with the FIP itself. But I'll tell you, I think it depends on who you're talking to in the state. If you're talking to legislators, they may be having one reaction. If you're talking to the environmental regulators, they may be having another reaction. And when you're talking to the utility regulators, they're having a different reaction. But I can tell you just from my experience talking to other regulators from states, even some states whose legislators may not be as friendly towards the Clean Power Plan, everyone's thinking about what they're going to do for a plan. You can't be left holding the bag when the time comes that -- in 2018 when you need to put your plan forth and not have anything on the table.
Monica Trauzzi: Once Congress returns in September there will be a range of efforts against the power plan. They will all unlikely, most unlikely have the votes to pass; however, they could have an impact on public perception and certainly on the international negotiations in Paris in December. How significant could strong pushback in Congress be towards the overall strength and future of the rule?
Kelly Speakes-Backman: I think the strength and the future of the rule will play out in the court system. And I think however that turns out to be, I think public sentiment is something altogether different. And I think when we look at the global stage, we're looking at a community of folks, not only in the U.S. but around the world, that are looking at climate change as a real issue, and looking towards the United States to be a leader and an example of how to craft solutions.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show. Nice to see you.
Kelly Speakes-Backman: Thank you for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Don’t Let Obama’s Power Plan Overshadow Arctic Drilling
Aug 13, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Annie Leonard
With the release of President Obama’s plan to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, it is clear he sees climate change as a critical part of his presidential legacy. Yet, in the shadow of this historic announcement, we cannot ignore that Royal Dutch Shell may only be days away from beginning drilling in the Arctic Ocean – a fossil fuel reserve which scientists have said must remain off-limits to avoid catastrophic climate change.
After sinking billions of dollars into the project, Shell has nearly all of the pieces in place to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean. The only thing missing is the ship that holds the emergency equipment required to be on-site in case of an oil well blowout. After gashing its hull on an unmarked shoal outside of Dutch Harbor, Alaska, the MSV Fennica, underwent repairs in Portland, where Greenpeace activists spent 40 hours suspended from a bridge to block the vessel’s departure. Despite the best efforts of activists to delay the ship, the Fennica is now on its way to the Arctic, and drilling could begin any day, unless Obama steps in.
The Fennica’s mishap is just one of many blunders in Shell’s history of attempted Arctic drilling. The company’s 2012 Arctic venture failed spectacularly, resulting in citations for numerous safety violations, a drilling vessel running aground in a winter storm and eight guilty felony pleas by a Shell subcontractor. With Shell’s dangerous track record, we worry for the seals, walruses, whales and other creatures that call this area home, but it is our whole planet that is at risk if Shell gets its way.
From Seattle to Alaska to Portland, protesters over the last two months have used innovative and heroic tactics to slow Shell’s plans. In June, protesters in Seattle did their best to delay the departure of Shell’s first drilling rig, the Polar Pioneer, by blockading the ship with kayaks. Later that week, volunteers with Greenpeace Canada risked their lives by swimming in the path of the Polar Pioneer as it bore down on them. At the same time, indigenous artist and activist, Audrey Siegl, stood at the front of an inflatable boat with her drum and feather out in front of her, signaling the Polar Pioneer to stop.
People have been working by land, air and sea to ask Obama to uphold his climate legacy by stopping Shell.
Sadly, the Arctic is increasingly vulnerable to drilling because carbon pollution from companies like Shell is destroying our climate. Rapidly melting ice means previously inaccessible oil and gas is now squarely in Shell’s sights. However, a recent study in the journal Nature found that if we develop the approximately 90 billion gallons of oil and 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas underlying the Arctic, there will be a severe risk of out-of-control climate change. If Obama allows Shell to exploit the Arctic, he will tie his legacy to the development of one of the world’s largest remaining sources of carbon pollution.
Obama has little time to act; Shell could be drilling in the Arctic in just a few days. Every minute activists are able to delay Shell is another minute the president has to make the right decision to stop Shell. His plan to reduce carbon pollution from power plants is a commendable start to a pressing problem, but it was the president himself who said future generations will judge our response to the climate crisis by asking, “did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem?”
The activists who paddled kayaks, swam in harm’s way, climbed bridges and shouted through megaphones have done all that they could. Now, as Shell’s last ship heads to the Arctic, it is Obama’s turn to do what he can. He must put a stop to Shell’s Arctic drilling plans to protect the Arctic, our world and his climate legacy.
Leonard is the executive director of Greenpeace USA.
-
Economists, Advocates Square off Over Efficiency
Aug 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Katherine Ling
For energy efficiency, it's time to put up or shut up.
With energy efficiency playing a big role in U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for curbing the power sector's greenhouse gas emissions and the Department of Energy continuing its rollout of power-sipping standards for appliances, hard questions are being asked about whether taxpayers are getting a good bang for their buck.
It's economists versus advocates.
"In a way, we are speaking different languages," explained Arik Levinson, a professor at Georgetown University and a former senior economist for President Obama's White House Council of Economic Advisers.
"I define savings from energy efficiency as the difference between consumption with energy-efficient appliances and an otherwise identical alternative world without energy efficiency," he explained.
On the other side of the ring, Levinson said, are engineers: "Lawrence Livermore Lab wants to just run two air conditioners side by side -- one energy efficient and one not." Even with very sophisticated house mockups and models, he said, "that lab is not the place in the world where it is going to be used."
Arik Levinson is a professor of economics at Georgetown University who has recently raised questions about the impact of energy efficiency programs. Photo courtesy of Georgetown University.
Levinson's views and research are unpopular with efficiency advocates. They say he and other economists miss the mark with error-riddled studies and ignorant comparisons that just might cause policymakers to shy away from low-cost solutions for meeting power demands and cutting emissions.
"Good research is immensely valuable, but poor or mischaracterized research can be far more harmful in the short term, given the media's penchant for counterintuitive stories," said Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). "The result is to hinder the ability to make rational policy decisions."
Merrian Borgeson of the Natural Resources Defense Council added in a recent blog post, "Energy efficiency programs are continually tested and measured by state regulators -- and the benefits generally far exceed the costs of the programs, or they wouldn't go forward."
The two sides clashed this summer over a contentious study that found Michigan households that had made efficiency improvements through the federal weatherization program in 2009 realized less than half of the projected energy savings and saved only half of the $5,000 they spent on upgrades.
On the plus side, improvements did cut energy use up to 20 percent, says the report by E2e, a group of economists, engineers and behavioral scientists from the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Chicago; and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
"If taken out of context and generalized way beyond any justification, this new E2e working paper could be misused to attack critically important energy efficiency policies and programs," Martin Kushler, an ACEEE senior fellow, wrote in a critique of the report.
Kushler sees an alternative motive for economists to push for a "market-based approach" -- namely a carbon tax -- as the best solution for slashing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. This is misleading, he said, because it is not an either-or scenario.
A carbon tax "should be seen as a complement to, not a replacement for, traditional energy efficiency programs," Kushler wrote.Real world versus projections
Started 2½ years ago, E2e researchers "seek to understand the difference between what is technically possible and what is practically achievable for energy efficiency in a wide variety of settings," using "cutting-edge analytics and big data."
But new technology hasn't made explaining the analyses easier.
Although there are many efficiency studies, the E2e white paper -- by Meredith Fowlie of UC Berkeley, Michael Greenstone of the University of Chicago and Catherine Wolfram of UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business -- drew attention because the authors used "randomized controlled trials" to assess the program.
They randomly assigned about 30,000 people eligible for weatherization to either receive efficiency upgrades or to join a control group to compare the results -- a technique often used in clinical trials for medicine and social sciences. They also eliminated another factor that can skew results: customer self-selection -- people who already are efficiency go-getters getting the upgrades.
In addition to finding that the Michigan households saved just $2,400 after installing $5,000 worth of upgrades, the researchers said "broader social benefits" of the program, namely cutting carbon dioxide emissions, also were not cost-effective.
The study found CO2 reductions through slashed energy use of the weatherization upgrades cost $329 per ton, compared with the federal government's social cost of carbon, $38 per ton.
"The urgency of the climate challenge means that it is critical to identify cost-effective strategies that will deliver real greenhouse gas emissions reductions," the E2e authors wrote in a blog responding to critics of their study.
"Energy efficiency is a crucial component of most climate change mitigation plans, underscoring the importance of developing a body of credible evidence on the real-world versus projected-returns on energy efficiency investments in the residential sector and beyond."
Efficiency advocates panned E2e for drawing broad conclusions about the effectiveness of energy efficiency programs from just one study.
"No one would suggest [weatherization programs] should be considered as entirely, or even primarily, a mechanism to fight climate change," Kushler said.
They also said the study compared the wrong savings estimates with the end results; failed to use "incremental" costs of appliances, which account for the fact that everyone usually pays some base price for heating and cooling; and misrepresented the goal of the weatherization program. The efficiency program, they argued, tries to improve the safety and quality of life for the residents, not necessarily just saving money and energy.
ACEEE's Nadel also said the study's approach cannot be generalized to other households and programs that have different geography and characteristics -- highlighting one of the biggest issues in analyzing and implementing efficiency programs, comparing apples with apples.
The E2e authors counterpunched.
"Given similarities between the setting we evaluate and other efficiency applications, these findings likely generalize to a broader set of residential efficiency investments," they wrote, although they did caution about over-generalization, as well. "There is logic behind this implication, while also acknowledging the need for further experiments on the returns to energy efficiency investments in other contexts."
Similar differences on how to analyze efficiency's impact erupted earlier this year after Georgetown's Levinson published a white paper that found California's famed building codes yielded homes that consume no less electricity than older buildings.
Specifically, he found new homes do not use 80 percent less energy -- the number used by the California Energy Commission to justify the codes, he said.
Levinson's study gained wider attention when the podcast "Freakonomics" did a show on his paper, offering him a platform to criticize the Obama administration's focus on energy efficiency as a de facto environmental policy based on estimates of how efficiency cuts energy use and emissions rather than in-the-field experience.
Advocates from ACEEE and NRDC blasted Levinson's premise that California regulators had set up the 80 percent cut in energy use as a target and took shots at other results from his paper. For instance, they said, excluding data associated with natural gas, whose heating and cooling elements are a significant component of energy efficiency's success, makes his conclusions about California's program meaningless.
In an interview, Levinson said he is working on a second draft of the paper that would include data from natural gas. And he defended his work, saying it begs the crucial question about the importance of analyzing energy efficiency programs in the real world -- especially when figuring out the baseline or "business as usual" predictions that form the foundation of assessing the effectiveness of efficiency measures.
"Maybe people would have purchased fancy air conditioners anyway without building codes" or appliance standards, Levinson said.
"That is probably a stretch, but it is not like they would have done nothing. There is something between what people were doing in the 1970s and what people are required to do based on codes now, which they would have adopted anyway."
Levinson is quick to clarify he did not look at any other benefits besides energy reduction, such as a more comfortable environment or money savings, and he thinks energy efficiency is helpful for many reasons, but its limitations need to be better understood.
"Suppose we ... do impose a carbon tax. Then I think energy efficiency would be one of the market responses to that," he said. "Efficiency regulations we pass now will have been sort of 'no regrets' -- we won't regret having invested in those."
He added: "I think that is the best case to be made for energy efficiency. But if energy efficiency is our only policy, then I think we are in trouble."'Multiplying effects'
The clash is further fueled by the fact that there are also many and varied approaches to measuring the success of energy efficiency programs across states, municipalities and utilities.
That's a problem.
Says DOE: "The inconsistent results have limited the acceptance of reported energy savings."
So DOE, state regulators, utilities and other experts created the Uniform Standards Program. That program's measurement and verification protocols are seen as significant to the success of the Clean Power Plan and securing efficiency's role in the U.S. energy system.
The first set of voluntary protocols were issued in 2013 for commercial lighting and residential furnaces, and the group has continued to add to them through this January, when guidelines were offered for data centers and behavior-based programs.
"The goal is to strengthen the credibility of energy efficiency programs by improving the consistency and transparency of how energy savings are determined," DOE said.
Still, energy efficiency in many ways resists measurements in hard numbers.
Keith Dennis is a senior principal at the National Rural Electric Cooperative focusing on energy efficiency and other end-use solutions. Photo courtesy of LinkedIn.
"We are getting more sophisticated. I don't know if we are getting better" at measuring efficiency's impact, said Keith Dennis of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. "We are probably getting at the more complicated stuff, but we are also requiring the more complicated stuff more often."
He added: "It tends to be thought of as a one-size-fits-all, but it doesn't necessarily shake out that way."
For example, reducing energy use means one thing when the primary power source is coal, he said, but it's another when power is drawn from a hydroelectric dam or wind.
"All of these things need to be considered: Where are the opportunities?" he said. "Where do we want to spend the money? And is it worth the investment?
"It doesn't take anything away from the fact that energy efficiency is a great thing. It is a very complicated issue."
Many cooperatives invest in efficiency improvements on the grid side of the system -- such as improving loss of electricity during delivery -- but it is not measured, and it would be very tough to measure, said Tracy Warren, a senior communications officer at NRECA.
Holmes Hummel, president of Pay As You Save, a company that licenses a utility loan program to help its customers pay upfront costs of efficiency upgrades, said the elimination of wasted energy also means more than just the dollars and emissions saved. It means a greater amount of productive energy.
"Every time we save energy, we present an opportunity to use it for a better purpose," she said. "A child's meal, elder's health care or a new piece of technology. It means we are more competitive, multiplying the benefits of energy efficiency."
-
Industry Makes Late Push To Ease EPA's Methane Plan For 'New' Landfills
Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Abby Smith
Industry groups are making a last-minute lobbying push to soften EPA's pending plan regulating releases of methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), from new landfills, fearing the rule will force installation of costly emissions controls at existing facilities that make modifications since few new landfills are being built.
The industry groups are also renewing a series of concerns they have previously expressed over the plan, including over its regulatory thresholds, economic analysis and technical assessments.
Officials from industry giant Waste Management, as well as the National Waste and Recycling Association, Republic Services and the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, raised the concern during a July 24 meeting with officials from the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and EPA, according to OMB's website.
The meeting revolved around two upcoming EPA proposals that are currently under OMB review, including the agency's proposed emissions guidelines (EG) for existing landfills, as well as a supplement to the agency's previously proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) for landfills, the agency's first attempt to directly regulate methane from the facilities.
OMB began formal review of the two documents June 22. OMB review typically takes 90 days, which would mean the proposals could be released for public comment as early as the end of this month, though review can often take longer.
Both measures are part of a broader White House strategy to reduce emissions of methane, a GHG that is as much as 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide. According to the White House, landfills account for 18 percent of total U.S. methane emissions, making them the third largest domestic source of human-related GHG emissions.
EPA published its original proposed NSPS, as well as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for existing landfills, July 1 of last year, with a comment deadline of Sept. 15, 2014. The simultaneous submission of an NSPS supplemental proposal and proposed EG for existing landfills for OMB review earlier this summer signals that the agency is on track to finalize rules for both new and modified and existing landfills at the same time.
However, EPA is not on track to finalize an NSPS by Aug. 20, the extended deadline set by a settlement in the lawsuit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) v. Gina McCarthy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In the 2011 case, EDF petitioned for EPA to update the standards for new and modified landfills, which had not been revised since 1996. The subsequent 2012 settlement established a May 1, 2013, deadline for EPA to publish a proposed NSPS and a May 1, 2014, deadline for the agency to finalize a rule -- the latter of which has been extended three times, most recently to Aug. 20 in a July 16 filing.
But little is known about what is included in the brief supplement to the NSPS. An industry source said in June that EPA "didn't re-propose the whole rule so it must just be a single thing or a very small number of changes."
In addition, the source expects the proposed EG for existing landfills to "look very similar to the NSPS," an approach the source said was acceptable so long as it includes the additional flexibilities industry recommended for the NSPS.
Industry's Concern
According to a presentation at the meeting, the industry is primarily concerned that EPA's proposed NSPS does not provide sufficient flexibility for older landfills that could become subject to the NSPS due to modifications.
In comments on the original proposed NSPS, Waste Management argued that few new landfills are being built, so it is much more likely that expansions of existing sites would trigger the NSPS.
In the OMB handout, the groups criticize EPA's proposed lowering of the regulatory threshold for annual emissions, used to determine when landfills are required to install gas collection and control systems, from 50 megagrams per year (Mg/year) of non methane organic compound (NMOC) to 40 Mg/year.
This lower threshold would "significantly affect existing, particularly older and closed landfills that struggle to operate" gas collection and control systems at the current threshold, a factor that EPA did not consider in its cost-benefit analysis, the groups write in the handout.
"Lowering the threshold would force them to operate longer and use more fossil fuel to keep flares operational (highly counterproductive from a GHG standpoint)," the groups continue, adding that if the agency decides to maintain the lower threshold a subcategory should be established for closed sites and portions of sites to allow them more flexible options.
Industry groups do, however, back EPA's decision to maintain the current design capacity threshold -- a measure of the size of landfills -- from the current NSPS. Lowering the threshold below the current design capacity of 2.5 million Mg would "only capture old, predominantly closed landfills with no source of revenue to support compliance," they say.
Another concern of the industry groups is EPA's proposed elimination of a provision allowing exemption for start up, shutdown and malfunction events. Eliminating the current provision would be "asking the impossible -- that a gas collection system will never go offline or need repair," the groups write.
They add: "Unlike a typical manufacturing operation, a landfill cannot be turned off." Therefore, removing the exemption for start up, shutdown and malfunction events would be "inconsistent with [EPA's] obligation to establish standards that are achievable during all periods of operation."
In addition, the groups oppose proposed numerical standards for filtration and dewatering of landfill gas, arguing that the standards would be costly without providing any emissions reductions benefits.
The groups in the handout also offer their support for a number of technologies, including open flares, which they maintain should remain part of EPA's determined best system of emission reduction (BSER), and surface emissions monitoring.
And the groups call for the quick proposal of a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the new EG rule, in order to help guide states' development of plans and ease their compliance with the new rules once finalized.
Regulating Landfills
Industry's focus appears to signal a slight departure from much stronger comments submitted on the original proposed NSPS that questioned EPA's approach to the standards and its ability to regulate existing landfills. Many industry groups argued the agency did not allow enough time for review and comment of the proposed NSPS, accusing EPA of rushing the process to attempt to meet its court-established deadline.
In addition, Waste Management in its comments to the proposal claimed there was significant overlap between the proposed NSPS and the ANPR for existing landfills, making it "very difficult to determine where the scope of one proposal ends and the other begins." Such confusion could allow the company grounds to sue, as it claims the plan fails the test of "reasoned decisionmaking."
And Waste Management charged that EPA may not have the legal authority to regulate existing landfills because section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not include review procedures to tighten rules for sources already complying with an existing standard.
Still, environmentalists in comments to the original proposed NSPS argued for even stricter standards. For example, in its Sept. 15 comments, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth encouraged EPA to use larger global warming potential (GWP) values for methane than in the proposal, which would result in greater benefits from the rules.
They also urged EPA to cover start up, shutdown and malfunction operations under the standard and to use a lower NMOC emissions threshold, among other recommendations.
-
House, Senate Bills Aim To Limit Window For CWA 404 Permit Rejections
Aug 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
Newly introduced House and Senate bills seek to limit the window of time in which EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers can reject or delay approving a disposal site underlying a Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 dredge-and-fill permit, a push stemming from a dispute in Virginia but that could affect permitting in other states.
Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Mark Warner (R -VA) on July 30 introduced the permitting legislation, S. 1914, and Rep. Robert Hurt (R -VA) along with Virginia Republican Reps. Randy Forbes, Morgan Griffith, and Barbara Comstock and Reps. Richard Hanna (NY) and Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) on July 31 introduced the House companion H.R. 3434.
Both bills would amend section 404(b) of the CWA to add language that would bar EPA and the Corps from prohibiting specification of a site under section 404 "due to the lack of a final site plan resulting from the lack of an identified end user or industry or industrial classification for the site when determining whether there is a practicable alternative to a proposed discharge that would result in less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem."
While the Corps is the permitting agency under section 404, EPA under sections 404(b) and 404(c) has authority to examine and potentially block, or "veto" certain sites from discharges of dredge-and-fill material in accordance with a Corps-issued 404 permit. The scope of that authority in recent years has been especially controversial given two high profile legal challenges to EPA's use of section 404(c) of the water law.
In Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) v. EPA, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska recently ruled to allow a mining firm to proceed with its suit alleging EPA unlawfully "coordinated" with advocates in crafting its novel preemptive veto of the planned Pebble Mine in Alaska even before the company submitted a 404 permit application.
If the firm, PLP, can show evidence for its unlawful coordination claims, it could win a ruling on the merits that EPA's scientific study of potential environmental harms from Pebble Mine is irrevocably tainted and will have to be redone from scratch, delaying a final decision on the agency's proposed veto of the project for years.
Separately, Mingo Logan Coal Company is arguing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that EPA failed to meet an Administrative Procedure Act bar for justifying its retroactive veto of disposal sites underlying a final CWA mining permit.
The bills introduced last week aim to constrict the administration's ability to hold off on issuing a permit due to lack of a company or end user for the permit application, according to a press release from Hurt's office issued last Congress when the bills were first introduced. Virginia lawmakers say that the legislation was prompted by a longstanding CWA permit dispute in Henry County, VA, over a proposed business center.
At issue is a proposed 726-acre business center, for which the lawmakers say that Henry County and the Martinsville-Henry Co. Economic Development Corp. have long worked to secure a permit from the Corps for site preparation, in hopes of attracting one or multiple job-creating manufacturing firms to the county.
"However, the Corps has been reluctant to issue the permit due to the lack of a company that has publicly committed to the site and prepared detailed blueprints," the press release says.
-
Obama to Highlight Climate Change Impacts in Alaska Visit
Aug 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama plans to travel to Alaska at the end of the month to highlight the impacts of climate change on America’s last frontier.
In a video Thursday, Obama said Alaska is in a unique position when it comes to climate change and he will meet with local and international leaders to discuss what is happening and how to stop it.
“In Alaska, glaciers are melting,” he said.
“The hunting and fishing upon which generations have depended for their way of life and for their jobs are being threatened. Storm surges once held at bay now endanger entire villages. As Alaskan permafrost melts, some homes are even sinking into the ground. The state’s God-given natural treasures are all at risk.”
While the focus later this month will be on Alaska, Obama wants all Americans to be watching.
“What’s happening in Alaska isn’t just a preview of what will happen to the rest of us if we don’t take action,” he said. “It’s our wake-up call. The alarm bells are ringing. And as long as I’m president, America will lead the world to meet this threat before it’s too late.”
In addition to meeting with locals, Obama will attend a conference on Arctic issues with government leaders, scientists, religious leaders and others in Anchorage to discuss climate change’s effects in the Arctic.
The White House has released few details about the trip, but Obama is likely to travel outside of Anchorage, possibly to a remote village.
The visit is part of a high-profile push by the administration this fall on climate change. It will occur less than a month after the release of the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon dioxide rules for power plants and a few months before the United Nations meets in Paris to hammer out an international pact on climate change.
Obama hopes that he can overcome Republican opposition to his climate policies, including from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who has pledged to use every power he has to block the power plant rules.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is suspicious of Obama’s intentions.
“The president of the United States doesn’t go to anybody’s state and stay three days and not do something,” Murkowski said last week at an event hosted by Bloomberg Business.
She said Alaskans are speculating that Obama will announce steps to further restrict oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, establish a marine sanctuary or other actions.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested