Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report: U.S. Chemical Production Increased In July
Aug 24, 2015 | Manufacturing Business Technology
By Andy Szal
Chemical production in the U.S. increased last month and remained ahead of last year's pace, according to the latest economic trends report from the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) First-Half Chemical Earnings Grow In Tough Climate
Aug 24, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
Overcoming the strong dollar, U.S. chemical companies managed to grow earnings by an average of 2.0% in the first half of 2015. Of 20 firms tracked by C&EN, 15 saw sales decline, due in large part to the negative effects of currency exchange. -
(ACC Blog) ACC Senior Director of Science and Research Addresses Questions Raised by the Halifax Project
Aug 24, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
For centuries, the scientific method has made possible tremendous advances in science. It’s played an instrumental role in giving us just about everything we know today about how chemicals interact with the human body and the environment. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/08/acc-senior-director-of-science-and-research-addresses-questions-raised-by-the-halifax-project/ -
Wastewater Utilities Seek To Bolster EPA Nano Rule To Address Data Gaps
Aug 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynold
Wastewater utilities are urging EPA to strengthen a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) data collection rule for nanomaterials, citing the substances' potential risks to wastewater treatment processes and the environment, and calling for eliminating exemptions for certain substances and requiring reporting throughout the materials' life-cycle. -
California Extends Consultation on Furfuryl Alcohol Listing
Aug 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's has extended the comment period on a proposal to add furfuryl alcohol to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer (CW 23 July 2015). -
EPA Knew of Danger at Abandoned Mine, Documents Show
Aug 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knew of the potential for a poisonous water “blow-out” at an abandoned mine in Colorado at least a year before the major spill earlier this month. -
EPA Knew About Blowout Risk at Colo. Mine -- Documents
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
U.S. EPA knew about the risks of a polluted water blowout from its work at Colorado's shuttered Gold King mine, according to documents released by the agency Friday. -
Environmental Protection Agency Proposes Regulations To Cut U.S. Methane Emissions
Aug 24, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
To crank down U.S. emissions of methane, the Obama Administration is proposing to reduce releases of the potent greenhouse gas from landfills, crude oil and natural gas pipelines, and one type of oil well. -
In Last Regulatory Step, Stakeholders Petition for Rule Changes
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
While the Clean Power Plan is final, states and energy companies have one last shot to urge U.S. EPA to make big or small changes to the rule. -
White House, Allies 'Scheme Behind Closed Doors' -- Report
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
A conservative advocacy group released a report today that it says shows collusion between the White House, friendly state governors and climate donors bent on advancing the president's Climate Action Plan -- particularly curbs on coal use the group says would be disastrous for the economy. -
Campaign Targets Impact of Tighter Ozone Standard in Ohio
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Business and industry groups opposed to the Obama administration's proposal to tighten the national ozone standard this week are taking their campaign to Ohio. -
Swing State Voters Back Clean Power Plan -- Poll
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Voters in a trio of key presidential swing states overwhelmingly support regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants even as they remain hesitant about the cost of those efforts, according to a new Quinnipiac University Poll released today. -
EPA Uses Novel 'Social Cost Of Methane' In Landfill, Oil & Gas Proposals
Aug 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
EPA is using its novel “social cost of methane” (SCM) estimate to calculate the climate benefits of its newly proposed methane rules for landfills and the oil and gas sector, using values that are significantly larger than its similar -- and controversial -- carbon dioxide (CO2)-focused metric to calculate the bulk of the proposals' quantified benefits. -
George Mitchell Philanthropy OKs EPA Methane Plan
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
In a move that breaks with industry messaging, the philanthropic organization founded by the "father of fracking" has endorsed U.S. EPA's proposed methane rule. -
Kemper 'Clean Coal' Project Shows the Costly Perils of Being 'First of its Kind'
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz and Saqib Rahim
It was the afternoon of April 30, 2014, and Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning once again was explaining to investors why the company had to write off millions of dollars for its next-generation coal-gasification project in Mississippi. -
Oil and Environmental Group Lobbyists Clash over Bill to 'Decarbonize' Calif.
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
A bill to decarbonize California's electricity, transportation and building sectors could pass the Legislature before state officials head to Paris for international climate negotiations. -
All Eyes on Courts with WOTUS Rule Set to Kick in Friday
Aug 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Jenny Hopkinson
With EPA’s controversial Clean Water Rule set to go into effect on Friday, all attention is now on the courts.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report: U.S. Chemical Production Increased In July
Aug 24, 2015 | Manufacturing Business Technology
By Andy Szal
Chemical production in the U.S. increased last month and remained ahead of last year's pace, according to the latest economic trends report from the American Chemistry Council.
The chemical industry group's U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index showed a 3 percent increase in July, which exceeded 2 percent growth in June and flat growth in May.
In addition, chemical production was up 3.7 percent compared to the same month in 2014, although that year-to-year rate continued to decline modestly since April's 4.5 percent gap.
READ MORE: Lowering costs and gaining efficiency in chemical manufacturing
The group said that production of organic and inorganic chemicals, synthetic rubber, plastic resins, agricultural chemicals and pharmaceuticals increased in July, but that industrial gases, consumer products, coatings and manufactured fibers saw declines.
The Gulf Coast and Southeast regions saw the largest gains compared to June out of the seven regions tracked by the ACC.
Specialty chemicals, meanwhile, rose by 0.8 percent in July -- the first increase following six months of declines. Twenty-five of the 28 specialty segments tracked by the group increased, although weakness in oilfield chemicals and other segments affected overall volumes.
In addition, the ACC report indicated that manufacturing activity increased by 0.2 percent in a three-month moving average.
Manufacturing can be a strong indicator of chemical demand, and the group noted that several chemical-intensive industries grew during that span, including motor vehicles, construction supplies, computers, plastic products and furniture. -
(ACC Mentioned) First-Half Chemical Earnings Grow In Tough Climate
Aug 24, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
Overcoming the strong dollar, U.S. chemical companies managed to grow earnings by an average of 2.0% in the first half of 2015. Of 20 firms tracked by C&EN, 15 saw sales decline, due in large part to the negative effects of currency exchange. Yet even among those 15, eight reported higher earnings, continuing a trend of expanding profit margins in the chemical industry.
But the full picture was less than rosy as chemical executives remain . . .
...In the first half of this year, U.S. chemical exports to China were off by 3.6% compared with last year, while imports increased by 7.2%, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade group....
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i33/First-Half-Chemical-Earnings-Grow.html
-
Aug 24, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
For centuries, the scientific method has made possible tremendous advances in science. It’s played an instrumental role in giving us just about everything we know today about how chemicals interact with the human body and the environment.
One toxicological principle to emerge from the scientific method centuries ago, and which continues to stand the test of time, is Paracelsus’ observation that “the dose makes the poison.” You may have heard these words a thousand times. They’ve been proven true a thousand times over. At high enough doses, chemical compounds – even the ones as essential to life as water and oxygen – can become harmful.
The number one priority of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and our members is continuing to advance the science to ensure human health and the environment are protected from potentially harmful doses and exposures to chemicals. Thanks to programs like ACC’s Long Range Research Initiative (LRI), we know more today about chemical exposure and the potential links between chemical exposures, including mixtures, and adverse health effects like cancer.
That’s why we’re following with interest the work of the Halifax Project, which is focused on reviewing studies regarding combinations of low levels of chemical exposure and cancer risks. So far, the collaborators have raised questions that can help generate hypotheses, but to date, no proof of cause and effect has been presented.
Looking at the Halifax Project through the lens of the scientific method, ACC senior director of science and research Rick Becker says the Project is “contributing to the initial stage of scientific inquiry.”
As Dr. Becker recently wrote in a Science 2.0 blog post:
Research in the molecular pathways of cancer is quite active and we are optimistic that continued strong research programs will provide greater scientific knowledge showing how the well accepted toxicological principle that the dose makes the poison operates in the integrated biological pathways that characterize the hallmarks of cancer.
To read the full Science 2.0 post, click here.
To learn more about the Long Range Research Institute’s work to advance the research in chemical safety assessment, click here.
-
Wastewater Utilities Seek To Bolster EPA Nano Rule To Address Data Gaps
Aug 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynold
Wastewater utilities are urging EPA to strengthen a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) data collection rule for nanomaterials, citing the substances' potential risks to wastewater treatment processes and the environment, and calling for eliminating exemptions for certain substances and requiring reporting throughout the materials' life-cycle.
In Aug. 5 comments, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) says EPA's proposed reporting rule is needed to address knowledge gaps on whether increased use of nanomaterials is harming bacteria used in wastewater treatment, and allowing nanomaterials to pass through unaffected increasing environmental releases.
"The current lack of information about nanoscale materials makes it difficult for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to determine the potential risks of discharges by the manufacturers and processors of these materials," NACWA says. "Better information about nanoscale materials will give EPA the ability to analyze the risks from these materials and take appropriate actions to protect POTWs."
NACWA also says the presence of nanomaterials in biosolids produced through wastewater treatment could limit beneficial reuse of that material as compost or fertilizer.
The group urges EPA to strengthen its April 6 proposal by eliminating language that could leave reporting for certain substances to companies' discretion, and by clarifying EPA's "intent to require reporting of exposures and releases throughout the entire life cycle of the nanomaterial, from manufacture, through product use, and including end-of-life management."
EPA took comment through Aug. 5 on its proposed TSCA section 8(a) nano reporting and record-keeping rule, which the agency has said will guide its future policies on the substances, including potential regulation of some nanomaterials found to pose risks to human health or the environment.
The proposal would require a one-time data submission to EPA six months after issuance of the final rule, and the agency is also proposing that companies that intend to manufacture reportable substances after the rule takes effect would have to report to EPA at least 135 days before commencing manufacturing.
The controversial proposal follows years of wrangling with the nano industry and White House officials and has received conflicting comments from industry, which says the rule lacks scientific backing and should be withdrawn and re-proposed, and from environmentalists who are pushing for regulation rather than simply reporting.
Potential Risks
NACWA's comments back calls from drinking water utilities and some western states that have argued additional data on hazard and exposure, through water sampling and research, is necessary to better assess nanomaterials' presence in the environment and potential risks.
For example, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) in June 30 comments to EPA noted that data on removal through conventional drinking water treatment processes commonly used in the United States are "almost non-existent."
Citing nanosilver as an example, NACWA says certain nanomaterials pose risks to bacteria used in biological treatment of wastewater. The group also specifically targets zinc oxide contained in sunscreens and cosmetics, arguing the proposal should not exempt the substance from reporting because nanoscale versions may wash down the drain, contributing to zinc loads and potentially bringing new hazards due to their unique form.
Zinc, a priority pollutant, is a common cause for waterbody impairment. Zinc discharges into and out of POTWs are heavily regulated under the Clean Water Act.
NACWA also opposes industry's request to reduce or eliminate EPA's proposed 135-day notification requirement for future reporting. NACWA says utilities' pretreatment programs generally require industries to submit discharge applications 180 days prior to discharging, so POTWs need at least 135 days to determine pretreatment measures for nanoscale materials planned for manufacture or processing in their service area.
NACWA also asks EPA to notify POTWs of manufacturing or processing of nanoscale materials in their service areas to help POTWs meet their pretreatment regulatory requirements.
And NACWA says EPA should include, in its analysis of costs and benefits of the proposed reporting rule, accounting for the benefits of reporting for POTWs, saying that better EPA oversight of nanoscale materials will likely reduce costly incidents of wastewater treatment interference or restrictions on disposal of biosolids.
-
California Extends Consultation on Furfuryl Alcohol Listing
Aug 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's has extended the comment period on a proposal to add furfuryl alcohol to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer (CW 23 July 2015).
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will accept comments until 30 September. The original deadline was 31 August.
-
EPA Knew of Danger at Abandoned Mine, Documents Show
Aug 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knew of the potential for a poisonous water “blow-out” at an abandoned mine in Colorado at least a year before the major spill earlier this month.
The revelation came in dozens of pages of documents that the EPA released late Friday night, related to the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colo.
In a work order written by the EPA in June 2014 instructing contractor Environmental Restoration about the mine’s conditions, the agency said there is likely to be at least one “impoundment” of wastewater in the mine, due largely to a 1995 collapse of a portal leading to it.
“Conditions may exist that could result in a blow-out of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine,” the EPA’s Denver-based Region 8 wrote in the report.
A communication in May 2015 by Environmental Restoration also warned of the blowout risk. It called for the construction of a pond to catch the wastewater, but the pond did not get built.
The reports are likely to play a major role in the various investigations that have been launched into the incident. Lawmakers are conducting examinations, in addition to EPA’s Office of Inspector General, the Interior Department and other bodies.
The EPA is under fire locally and nationally over the Aug. 5 spill, in which about 3 million gallons of fluid containing heavy metals, like mercury and lead, spilled into a tributary of the Animas River, turning it bright orange and closing it and other rivers for more than a week.
The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology announced last week that in September it would conduct the first hearing regarding the spill, after Congress returns from its summer recess.
The EPA has also weathered criticism for a perceived lack of transparency and urgency in its response.
The documents released Friday night came only after prodding from multiple media outlets. The department took the unusual step of posting them publicly on its website instead of routing them through public records requests.
-
EPA Knew About Blowout Risk at Colo. Mine -- Documents
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
U.S. EPA knew about the risks of a polluted water blowout from its work at Colorado's shuttered Gold King mine, according to documents released by the agency Friday.
Three million gallons of wastewater spilled from a mine tunnel this month during excavations that were part of an agency investigation into cleaning up the San Juan County decades-old site.
In a June 2014 document, EPA contractor Environmental Restoration LLC said the mine's workings had been inaccessible since the mid-1990s, when its portal collapsed. The company said water likely built up.
"Conditions may exist that could result in a blow-out of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine, which contain concentrated heavy metals," said the seven-page document, titled "Task Order Statement of Work."
Another document by Environmental Restoration outlines general measures in case of a spill, including alerting communities that rely on potentially affected drinking water.
The agency's many critics seized on the documents to call for more information. "The plan indicates there was an understanding of what might happen and what the potential consequences were. We don't know whether they followed the plan," said Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R).
"I want to give the EPA the benefit of the doubt here. I really want to do that. It's getting harder," Coffman told the Associated Press, which said it had long been asking for documents related to the spill.
Members of Congress from both chambers and both parties have sent EPA letters asking numerous questions about the work being done at Gold King, employees at the site and potential wrongdoing.
"We remain completely unsatisfied with the delay in notifying the impacted communities and elected officials responsible for preparing and responding to a disaster such as this one," said one letter from House Republicans to Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Science, Space, and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) on Friday pressed McCarthy to testify during a hearing on the spill after the ongoing congressional recess.
A bipartisan Senate letter asked Inspector General Arthur Elkins, who is looking into the incident, to answer questions about whether EPA failed to scrutinize the work at Gold King. The senators also asked for recommendations on preventing new spills.
The lawmakers, including Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R) and New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich (D), among others, noted the spill's effects reaching New Mexico, Utah, the Southern Ute Indian Reservation and the Navajo Nation.
EPA, for its part, has been trying to get ahead of the issue by promising a robust response and posting water testing information on its website. It has called initial results encouraging.
"EPA is sharing information as quickly as possible with the community as experts work to analyze any effects the spill may have on drinking water and public health," said the agency.
Environmental Restoration, which calls itself the largest provider of emergency response services to EPA, said it could not discuss the incident because of confidentiality obligations.
The company said it "takes great pride in our staff and long history of working with the [EPA] and commercial clients in protecting and cleaning up the environment on thousands of projects nationwide. We stand behind our project management team and labor force at the Silverton site."
Interest groups that are often at odds with EPA, including coal, have questioned why Democratic lawmakers and environmental activists have not been more critical of the agency-caused pollution.
"EPA's mismanagement of the spill should cause outrage from their special interest allies," Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said in a statement.
But greens are pointing the finger at Congress' failure to reform the country's mining laws, including creating a system for cleaning up abandoned non-coal mines.
Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks, cheered Heinrich's intention to push legislation in the Senate. "When he introduces his bill this fall, we will take a step toward finally creating a dedicated fund to clean up the half-million old mines that plague the West," she said.
-
Environmental Protection Agency Proposes Regulations To Cut U.S. Methane Emissions
Aug 24, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
To crank down U.S. emissions of methane, the Obama Administration is proposing to reduce releases of the potent greenhouse gas from landfills, crude oil and natural gas pipelines, and one type of oil well.
The action comes as governments around the world are racing to finish a new climate change agreement by December that includes pledges by nearly every country on Earth to control greenhouse gas releases. The proposed regulations would help President Barack Obama make good on his international commitment to slash U.S. emissions 26–28% below 2005 levels before 2025, despite opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress.
The proposals, which the Environmental Protection Agency rolled out in mid-August, take aim at methane that leaks from landfills loaded with municipal trash as well as some oil and gas operations. Under the proposals, landfill operators would have to dial back their methane emissions by one-third. Meanwhile, new or upgraded oil and gas pipelines and new oil wells drilled via hydraulic fracturing would have to meet new emission standards for methane, the main component of natural gas.
Taken together, these actions would trim U.S. methane emissions by 750,000 to 800,000 metric tons per year by 2025, EPA says. Because methane has a greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide, this is equivalent to cutting 20 million to 21 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2025, according to EPA estimates.
In addition, proposals for the oil and gas industry would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds—which are precursors to ground-level ozone, or smog—as well as hazardous air pollutants including benzene and xylene.
The proposals for the oil and gas sector “will encourage companies to reduce waste so they can save money and deliver more product to market,” says Sam Adams of the think tank the World Resources Institute.
Energy companies, manufacturers, and Republican leaders in Congress attacked EPA’s proposals on oil and gas extraction. “EPA’s own data show that methane emissions in the U.S. decreased by almost 15% between 1990 and 2013, yet EPA is forging ahead with this extraneous and unnecessary regulation,” says Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
-
In Last Regulatory Step, Stakeholders Petition for Rule Changes
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
While the Clean Power Plan is final, states and energy companies have one last shot to urge U.S. EPA to make big or small changes to the rule.
The regulatory process allows them to submit a "petition to reconsider." Many CPP stakeholders will be working on those submissions for the next several weeks or months, as they are expected to send them within 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register. (EPA hasn't said when that will happen, other than "as soon as practicable.")
For critics of the rule, this is the first step in launching a legal challenge against EPA. If EPA denies the petition to reconsider, the petitioner can ask a court to review the complaint.
But for some, the petition process is an opportunity to ask EPA to correct minor errors and make some points more specific. In any case, opponents and supporters of the Clean Power Plan are working on these filings.
That shouldn't keep states from moving forward in discussing action plans though. As Debra Kahn reports for ClimateWire, California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said California has been leading talks among Western states about multi-state carbon trading.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more of this weekly column and to see the latest news, state summaries and developments.
-
White House, Allies 'Scheme Behind Closed Doors' -- Report
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
A conservative advocacy group released a report today that it says shows collusion between the White House, friendly state governors and climate donors bent on advancing the president's Climate Action Plan -- particularly curbs on coal use the group says would be disastrous for the economy.
The 55-page report by Chris Horner of the anti-regulatory Energy & Environment Legal Institute seems destined to fuel Republican talking points this fall when Congress returns from its August recess and GOP majorities in the House and Senate turn their attention to rolling back U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. Horner cites correspondence obtained through federal and state open record laws in his report that show the White House working with billionaire climate donor Tom Steyer and other foundations and donors who have long supported a shift to low-carbon energy to lay the groundwork for implementation of the president's flagship climate rule.
The paper makes the case that those efforts represent "rent seeking" on behalf of clean energy advocates involved and seeks to tie the White House's overall strategy to former Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber (D), who stepped down in February following allegations that he used his office to funnel lucrative green energy contracts to his fiancée.
The report shows White House personnel and clean energy strategists engaging with like-minded Democratic governors to enlist utilities and other "unusual allies" to help persuade other governors to implement the Clean Power Plan, rather than pursuing the "just say no" strategy of noncompliance advocated by the coal industry and congressional Republicans.
The EPA rule that became final early this month assigns states a leading role in implementation but allows the agency to step in with a federal plan if states opt not to comply. Utilities have generally favored state implementation over federal implementation, arguing that a state plan would more likely be responsive to their needs.
The report, while it is likely to be frequently referenced in the months ahead, contains few surprises. It shows low-carbon-energy consultants and advocates strategizing with the White House and like-minded state administrations on policy and occasionally taking employment in state or federal agencies. It also plays up statements that President Obama and others have made expressing hope that renewable energy will become more profitable -- statements that Horner says shows Democrats providing advantages to those industries over fossil fuels to the enrichment of cronies.
"This report documents a convergence of big money and big government to underwrite pressure groups and echo chambers, to scheme behind closed doors and 'creatively engage utilities' to craft and impose a transformative and unpopular agenda, far more insidious than 'devising a legal strategy' in opposition to the same agenda which recently sent the New York Times to the fainting couch," writes Horner, who is also a fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The latter is a reference to an article the Times ran Aug. 3, the day the Clean Power Plan was finalized, detailing that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers huddled with corporations and attorneys to strategize against EPA's rules long before they were proposed. The two trade groups rolled out their Partnership for a Better Energy Future with much fanfare in January 2014, five months before the Clean Power Plan was unveiled (Greenwire, Jan. 30).
Today's report was not the first time conservative opponents of EPA rules cited emails and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and other laws to argue that the administration has coordinated too closely with environmentalists and other allies outside of the public sphere. Horner released another report a few weeks ago that he said showed EPA teaming up with environmentalists to draft the existing-power-plant rule. The coordination made the Clean Power Plan a "sham rulemaking" that would cost U.S. ratepayers dearly before ultimately being overturned by the courts, he argued.
And Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) released a report in the aftermath of the EPA rule that his staff said showed the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups effectively dictating the terms of EPA carbon regulation by holding the agency's feet to the fire on a regulatory timeline contained in a settlement agreement five years ago (E&ENews PM, Aug. 4).
-
Campaign Targets Impact of Tighter Ozone Standard in Ohio
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Business and industry groups opposed to the Obama administration's proposal to tighten the national ozone standard this week are taking their campaign to Ohio.
The Center for Regulatory Solutions today released a report claiming that 34 counties in Ohio would be out of compliance with a lower limit, putting in jeopardy economic growth. Industry groups are also airing ads against the new standard in the Buckeye State.
Later today, the Ohio State Black Chamber of Commerce will host a panel focused on the impacts of a tighter standard.
U.S. EPA in November proposed to lower the ozone limit from the level set during the George W. Bush administration -- 75 parts per billion -- to between 65 and 70 ppb. A lower standard would put much of the country in "nonattainment," but EPA says that the new limit is necessary to protect public health as the Clean Air Act requires.
In Ohio this morning, Rep. Bob Latta (R) said the proposal would have a "major impact" on companies seeking to invest and expand in areas that are out of attainment with the new standard. Latta is the co-sponsor of House legislation that would delay EPA's update to the standard until 85 percent of counties meet the 75 ppb limit.
"It's going to have a major impact on my district as well as companies across not only Ohio but across the nation," Latta said today. "The real problem with this is, we've seen the EPA keeps coming out with new rules before they even get everything else implemented."
Ground-level ozone is a key component of smog that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds -- both of which are released by industrial processes and mobile sources -- react in the presence of sunlight. Ozone has been linked to adverse health effects, such as reduced lung function and asthma.
EPA is set to finalize a new standard by an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline.
Business and industry groups are calling on the Obama administration to retain the existing 75 ppb standard, arguing that air quality would continue to improve. During the congressional recess, groups opposed to EPA's proposal have been taking their campaign on the road; they previously were in Colorado (E&ENews PM, Aug. 12).
According to the CRS report, the Ohio counties that would be in violation with EPA's proposed range make up more than three-quarters of the state's economy.
"What that means is we can't expand any of our factories without shutting down other factories," said Eric Burkland, president of the Ohio Manufacturers' Association.
Environmental and public health groups have called on EPA to set a new standard no higher than 60 ppb. They say that industry is vastly overstating the expected costs of a more stringent limit and that the National Association of Manufacturers' report relies on unrealistic estimates.
John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, criticized the industry road campaign, calling it a sign of "desperation and alarm" as EPA gets closer to setting a tighter standard.
"They appear to be, by my eye, targeting states as a function of presidential politics," he said. "They're picking swing states, and I think it's just a calculated political ploy rooted in desperation, but it doesn't appear to be having any positive effects. I think they are increasingly alarmed that their fearmongering is not taking hold."
-
Swing State Voters Back Clean Power Plan -- Poll
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Voters in a trio of key presidential swing states overwhelmingly support regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants even as they remain hesitant about the cost of those efforts, according to a new Quinnipiac University Poll released today.
The university polled nearly 1,100 voters each in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania on a series of questions, including support for the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan -- although the policy was not mentioned by name.
"Despite President Barack Obama's poor job approval rating in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, voters back his Environmental Protection Agency's plan to limit emissions from coal-fired power plants," said Quinnipiac University Poll Assistant Director Peter Brown. "It is noteworthy that Pennsylvania and Ohio are industrial states which would disproportionately be affected by the new regulations."
The poll found a majority in each state would support "efforts by the federal government to require owners of coal-burning power plants, which generate electricity, to reduce pollution."
Among those polled, 69 percent of Florida voters backed greenhouse gas reductions, while 67 percent of voters in both Ohio and Pennsylvania did so.
Voters also widely agreed the regulations are "needed to clean the air," with 70 percent endorsing that statement in Ohio, 73 percent in Florida and 72 percent in Pennsylvania.
But the same voters split over whether the new regulations would be "too expensive."
According to the poll, in Florida, 45 percent voters said the regulations would cost too much, while 41 percent said they would not, and 13 percent did not know or answer.
Similarly, in Ohio, 43 percent of voters said the regulations would cost too much while 41 percent said they would not, and 16 percent did not know or answer. In Pennsylvania, voters split evenly at 44 percent, while 12 percent said they did not know the answer.
"The coal industry has put food on the table for many generations in Pennsylvania, but nostalgia only goes so far. Voters want cleaner air, and they want the feds to police the pollution," said Quinnipiac University Poll Assistant Director Tim Malloy.
The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points in each of the three states.
-
EPA Uses Novel 'Social Cost Of Methane' In Landfill, Oil & Gas Proposals
Aug 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
EPA is using its novel “social cost of methane” (SCM) estimate to calculate the climate benefits of its newly proposed methane rules for landfills and the oil and gas sector, using values that are significantly larger than its similar -- and controversial -- carbon dioxide (CO2)-focused metric to calculate the bulk of the proposals' quantified benefits.
The agency has used the new values at least once before, to suggest potential co-benefits from reducing upstream and downstream methane emissions as a result of its proposed phase 2 fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
But use of the metric in the landfill and oil & gas proposals is significant because it marks the first time the agency has used the metric to quantify direct climate benefits of a regulation limiting methane, resulting in a cost-benefit calculation that accounts for nearly all of the rules' monetized benefits.
The values are pleasing environmentalists, who have long called for the measures to help justify strict new climate rules that regulate methane, the greenhouse gas (GHG) that is significantly more potent than CO2. “It's good to see EPA undertaking a serious effort to value these pollution reductions,” one environmentalist says.
But they have already begun to attract criticism from at least one industry attorney who argues that the agency's new methane values suffer from many of the same flaws that afflict the administration's social cost of carbon (SCC) metric, including an insufficient discount rate, use of global, rather than only domestic, benefits, and a failure to subject the calculations to adequate peer review.
Wayne D'Angelo of the law firm Kelley Drye & Warren says in an Aug. 19 blog post that the agency's cost-benefit review of in its oil and gas new source performance standards (NSPS), which is based on its new SCM metric, is too uncertain to provide sufficient confidence in the rule's overall benefits.
“EPA offers both cost and benefit estimates 'give or take' about $100 million each. Importantly, EPA has good reason to doubt its benefits calculations in particular,” he writes. “EPA calculated future benefits using an estimate of the social cost of methane that has never before been used in rulemaking,” he says.
Like the administration's SCC, the agency's SCM monetizes the climate damages that are expected to result from each incremental ton of the gas that is released. As a result, the value can be used to quantify the benefits of rules that curb the gas and eventually limit climate-related damages from sea level rise and other adverse effects.
The CO2 values in the SCC have already been used in a host of EPA, Department of Energy and other agencies' rules that reduce GHG emissions, including the agency's final GHG rule for existing power plants, which uses the SCC to show $20 billion in climate benefits in 2030.
But the administration's development of the SCC has drawn strong criticism from industry officials and GOP lawmakers, who charge the figures overestimate the potential benefits of domestic policies in part by calculating global benefits, and because they are based on arbitrarily selected adverse climate impacts, use multiple highly uncertain variables and were not developed transparently.
More Potent
While the administration's current SCC value for CO2 emitted in 2025 is $48 per ton using a 3 percent discount rate, EPA estimates that an incremental ton of methane emissions released that same year would inflict a $1,500 cost to society, using a 3 percent discount rate.
The per-ton damage estimates for the SCM are higher than the SCC because methane is a much more potent GHG over the short term than CO2. The most recent estimates from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say methane is 28 to 36 times as potent as CO2 over 100 years, compared to an earlier estimate of 25 times as potent.
Using these SCM values, EPA says its recently proposed methane rules for new and existing landfills, as well as its NSPS for new and modified oil and gas drilling sources, yield up to $1.2 billion in combined climate benefits in 2025.
For landfills, EPA says the Aug. 14 proposed guidelines for existing facilities would yield about 440,000 metric tons of methane cuts in 2025, resulting in $660 million in benefits. That compares with a range of $35 million to $47 million in costs.
The Aug. 18 NSPS for the oil and gas sector, EPA says, would drive between 310,000 and 360,000 metric tons of emissions cuts, yielding between $460 million and $550 million in climate benefits. EPA estimates a range of $320 million to $420 million in costs.
In each case, the climate benefits tied to the SCM represent the vast majority of the proposal's quantified benefits.
EPA outlines its justification for the new SCM calculations in regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) for the landfill and oil and gas proposals.
The agency notes that it earlier used an “interim” methane valuation approach in two prior rules that converted methane emission cuts to CO2 equivalents using a global warming potential (GWP) calculation.
That approach was used in both a prior oil & gas NSPS targeting volatile organic compounds, promulgated in 2012, and the phase 2 light-duty vehicle GHG rule, which was also finalized in 2012.
But instead of including the GWP-based estimates in the main cost-benefit analysis for those rules, EPA included the figures only in “sensitivity” analyses.
Such figures are “not ideally suited for” cost-benefit reviews, EPA says, because methane exists over different time scales and is linked to different environmental and social impacts. For example, increased fertilization benefits from CO2 would be incorrectly attributed to methane in a GWP-based approach.
As such, EPA says the GWP-based approach likely underestimated methane-related damages.
Environmental groups have earlier urged EPA to craft a cost estimate for methane releases, with the Environmental Defense Fund arguing in 2014 comments, for example, that the SCC is not suited for quantifying the costs of methane emissions.
'First Set' Of Values
The agency notes that since those 2012 rules were issued, Alex Marten, a researcher in EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, and four co-authors published the first set of SCM “estimates in the peer-reviewed literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions underlying” the SCC.
The figures in the Marten study reflect radiative forcing estimates from the fourth IPCC report, released in 2007. In that report, methane was estimated at 25 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year time period.
EPA notes that IPCC's latest report, released in 2014 after the Marten study was developed, says methane is between 28 and 36 times as potent, reflecting changes to the lifetime and radiative estimates for CO2, changes to the lifetime estimate for methane and the effect of methane on “other climatically important substances such as tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor.”
It is not clear whether the methane valuations used in the RIAs were updated with the IPCC's latest GWP estimates.
EPA in the RIAs says it “recently conducted a peer review of the application of the [Marten] non-CO2 social cost estimates in regulatory analysis and received responses that supported this application.”
The agency says two of three reviewers found it “appropriate” to use the figures in RIAs, and that all three reviewers encouraged improvements to both the SCC and the SCM.
Because the reviewers says the SCM is “generally consistent” with the SCC, which is supported by White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) guidance, that “leads EPA to conclude that use of the [SCM] estimates is an analytical improvement over excluding methane emissions from the monetized portion of benefit cost analysis.”
EPA adds that it is seeking comment on the use of the estimates in the RIAs.
Dueling Views
The environmentalist notes that the SCM builds upon the approach used to develop the SCC, and that its approach of directly modeling the impacts of methane is “perhaps a more rigorous and up-to-date look at the impacts” than earlier efforts on the issue.
“It's very important to have a very rigorous assessment of the range of benefits that are associated with reducing that particular pollutant,” the source says.
But D'Angelo charges that the SCM estimates suffer from many of the same flaws as the SCC values.
They were “seemingly never peer reviewed,” he says in his blog post. “In the last few months, EPA apparently conducted its own peer review of the Agency's use of the study to model benefits from the Oil and Gas NSPS, but never identified the peer reviewers,” he says.
D'Angelo adds that EPA also did not provide “any meaningful opportunity to comment” on the SCM, and that discussion of a potential future methane metric in the light-duty vehicle rule was a poor venue for such comment.
He also faults EPA's failure to use both 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates as suggested by OMB guidance, and that both the methane and CO2 estimates rely on global benefits instead of only domestic benefits.
Under the cost-benefit reviews, he says, “The benefits appear larger than the costs, but the costs are borne by the U.S. economy alone, while the benefits are shared with every other country in the world.”
In a July 6 formal response to comments document, the administration defends its decision not to include a 7 percent discount rate in the SCC, as well as to look at global benefits. After considering the comments, the administration says, it continues to recommend use of the SCC in cost-benefit reviews because it represents “the best scientific information on the impacts of climate change available in a form appropriate” for RIAs.
-
George Mitchell Philanthropy OKs EPA Methane Plan
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
In a move that breaks with industry messaging, the philanthropic organization founded by the "father of fracking" has endorsed U.S. EPA's proposed methane rule.
While other leaders in the oil and gas sector have said the effort to cut methane from wells and processing sites would raise costs and strangle domestic supply, the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation called the regulation a "prudent regulatory strategy."
The rule is "a critical step in protecting health and the environment," the Texas-based group said in a statement last week.
Shale sustainability is one of the foundation's four main grant-making programs, but the organization has never made an official pronouncement on public policy. Leaders of the philanthropy felt this issue was important enough to warrant a public statement, said Marilu Hastings, vice president of the sustainability program.
"Operators have to push technology beyond where we are now," Hastings said.
Oil and gas firms have emphasized their ongoing work to capture methane but stopped short of backing EPA's proposal.
"All of these efforts were made to help us produce efficiently and effectively while capturing every methane molecule possible," said Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. spokesman George Stark. "We don't see the new rules altering our aggressive actions that have already produced a sizable reduction" (Jennifer Dlouhy, Fuel Fix, Aug. 20). -- PK
-
Kemper 'Clean Coal' Project Shows the Costly Perils of Being 'First of its Kind'
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz and Saqib Rahim
It was the afternoon of April 30, 2014, and Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning once again was explaining to investors why the company had to write off millions of dollars for its next-generation coal-gasification project in Mississippi.
Besides the cost increases, the company disclosed that the Kemper County energy facility's schedule had slipped again, this time into 2015, which meant the project was now roughly a year behind.
Analysts on Southern's earnings call peppered Fanning with questions, as had become the norm in recent quarters. Like a man who had plenty of practice, Fanning met each blistering question with calm, confident, straightforward answers.
"You know from following us that we're a conservative company; we always try and take a long view," he told analysts at the time. "And I think it is absolutely the right thing to do in our judgment to adjust this schedule."
For those who believe in the possibility of "clean coal," Kemper is a flagship U.S. project. The technology is called integrated gasification combined-cycle, or IGCC. If it works, it would run on the dirtiest, most abundant fossil fuel in the world but capture up to 65 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. It could present a path forward for coal at a time when natural gas, climate concerns and changing demand patterns all hint at the end of the road.
But those who know about carbon capture and storage, whether they are detractors or supporters, have always recognized that its main issue is cost. That's why the case of Kemper, with a price tag of $6.2 billion and climbing and a two-year time lag, raises questions about who is on the hook when costs spin out of control -- and whether there was sufficient oversight to avoid that problem in the first place.
"Anytime you build something on a first-of-a-kind basis, you're going to have a lot of uncertainty. The cost estimates will be, at best, cost estimates," said Charles McConnell, who helped oversee Kemper as an assistant secretary at the Department of Energy and is now at Rice University. "The ability to deliver a guaranteed performance on a project which is the first of a kind is really unheard of in the marketplace."Scaling up -- in size and cost
Kemper's marquee technology started development in the late 1990s. At a research lab in Alabama, Southern, DOE and industrial firm KBR Inc. began to build a prototype that could "gasify" coal: superheat it into its chemical building blocks.
One of those was natural gas, which would be sent off for power generation. But also key were the "impurities" generated in the process, like sulfur, ash and CO2. If these could be captured efficiently and sold -- for chemicals, oil production, even paving roads -- the economics of the plant would be completely different. CO2 capture and storage would have something it had never had before: a claim to a viable business model.
But the technical challenge was daunting. Southern would have to take its successful prototype and show it could work at scale.
"Scaling it up the size at which the Kemper plant is, is an incredible ramp-up in terms of what's ever been built before," McConnell said. "Individual pieces of technology? Absolutely. But stringing them together, integrating it and then constructing it at the scale the Kemper plant is? Never been done before."
Kemper's challenges, even before its first dirt was turned, have been well-documented. Files available on the Mississippi Public Service Commission website show an ongoing tug-of-war between the utility and regulators over who should shoulder the most risk for the plant and its new technology.
Mississippi Power and the PSC fought over an acceptable cost cap, and at least one commissioner said Kemper was a bad risk to take. The tug-of-war ended in April 2012 with a $2.4 billion cap, with a 20 percent "contingency" approved because the plant featured new technology. This amount did not include the mine and CO2 pipeline.
Within weeks, Mississippi Power reported a cost increase, mostly because of higher prices for engineering, equipment and materials, and construction. Regulators maintained that the utility needed to stick to the plant's certified cost of $2.4 billion plus contingencies because they had agreed to that amount.
Both sides eventually struck a settlement in January 2013 that essentially capped the costs of what is recoverable through rates to customers at $2.88 billion, plus interest and other items. Anything beyond that was Mississippi Power's burden to bear.
With the cost cap in place and customers essentially protected from the point of view of the PSC and company, the project continued to move forward. Mississippi Power and Southern executives frequently talked up Kemper's progress and insisted the project would meet a May 2014 startup date.
That target was key to receiving $133 million in federal tax credits. But the scramble to meet that date turned out to have costs of its own.
Regulators trusted the previous diligence, saying customers would be protected.
"At that point, the groundwork had already been laid," said Commissioner Steve Renfroe, who was appointed after the project had started. "I thought that that agreement and that order, the capped costs, that whole juncture was smart, and it was something that would serve ratepayers well going forward."
There were also bodies in charge of oversight. The commission, PSC staff and Mississippi Power each had their own consultants to oversee the project, and the utility filed monthly reports. Consultants and members of the PSC and its staff also have met monthly at Kemper since construction began.Triage on the inside, trouble on the outside
But by 2012, it became clear the project was deviating from its original plan.
The extra cash contingency had eroded, and Mississippi Power met with consultants and began re-evaluating project costs and estimates. The company remained confident that the expected costs would be above $2.4 billion but below the $2.88 billion cap, Mississippi Power spokesman Jeff Shepard said.
By late 2012, Mississippi regulators were being told they had a triage situation on their hands. The PSC staff heard about it from Greg Zoll, a New Jersey-based engineering consultant with Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc. In a November 2012 report, he said Kemper's schedule had slipped roughly three months, and that the delays would nudge the total project cost over $3 billion.
Southern Co. Services Inc., Mississippi Power's engineering contractor, "is not utilizing some basic project management and project controls tools and techniques that are available and customarily used in the industry for a project of this magnitude," Zoll wrote.
Mississippi Power strongly disputed Zoll's assessment, and records show that their disagreements played out for years. The utility said costs were rising, in part, because it wanted to meet its promised launch date of May 2014. Zoll said the firm should consider whether slowing down would be financially prudent.
Zoll said that after so many cost overruns, Mississippi Power should revise the total project cost to account for uncertainties. The utility responded: How is it possible to quantify uncertain costs? And what is supposed to be the reference point for a first-of-a-kind power plant?
Kemper was also being buffeted by factors outside its control. In 2008 especially, a global construction boom caused the costs of labor and materials to spike. In 2014, it was the polar vortex that hampered construction.
Starting in April 2013, the costs of the project began to show up significantly on Southern's balance sheet. At that point, Kemper's price tag had increased 42 percent -- to $3.42 billion (ClimateWire, April 25, 2013).Costly decisions
Two decisions -- made long before construction -- were compounding the cost overruns, experts said. First, Southern had chosen to build the plant inland, thanks to the recent experience of Hurricane Katrina.
"They wanted to avoid hurricanes that wipe out and push their gas plants offline in the event of a hurricane," said John Thompson, who directs the Fossil Transition Project at the Clean Air Task Force. "That doesn't sound like a big deal, but it actually is, because it means that you can't assemble your gasification plant somewhere else and barge it into the coast" -- a much cheaper option than moving everything by truck over rural roads. (On the upside, being inland meant being closer to coal mines.)
Mississippi Power said having Kemper right next to the lignite mine should help keep fuel costs lower over the long term, however.
The second choice was about technical design. Kemper's architects had decided to run its gasifier, its most crucial piece of equipment, on air instead of oxygen. "That's a trade-off," Thompson said. "What you're basically trading is higher capital costs for lower operating costs."
The catch? It's bigger. It takes "more metal, more pipe, more everything," he said.
And so the cost escalations continued. By July 2013, the bill had risen to just under $3.9 billion. During a July 31, 2013, conference call with analysts, Fanning said a chief issue stemmed from Mississippi Power agreeing to a cost cap and schedule when only 10 to 15 percent of Kemper had been engineered.
"What's happened is as we've completed the engineering, we ran into a problem that, oh, my goodness, we're going to run over on cost and schedule, and we've reduced the schedule," Fanning said.
"We didn't know we had a problem then. But in fact, that's when we had a problem. We only knew we had a problem once the engineering became complete and we saw the implications of the rapid construction."
Asked why 10 to 15 percent engineering was sufficient, Shepard of Mississippi Power said a complete blueprint would have been prohibitive. Fully engineering and designing all 16 of Kemper's pieces would have taken $500 million, he said, as well as arranging vendors, contractors and other major cost components, all before it had even asked the state for permission to build the plant.
"All involved recognized the limitations in terms of the thoroughness and quality of the estimate that could be developed for a project of this size with limited resources," he told EnergyWire.
In terms of cost estimates, Shepard said Mississippi Power hit the mark with major pieces, including the gasifier, steam generation and combustion turbine. The company missed it on integrating the components and systems, particularly with how much piping and wiring was needed and the labor associated with that, he said.
Shepard said that is typical of first-of-a-kind operations such as Kemper.
But these hang-ups forced Mississippi Power to dial back its promised startup date of May 2014. First, Southern and Mississippi Power conceded a few months, kicking the date back to the last quarter of 2014. Just a few months later, in April, they announced another delay, this time into 2015.
McConnell, the former DOE assistant secretary, said because Southern is taking the brunt of all cost overruns -- which has reached more than $2 billion in write-offs -- the company should be praised for taking a risk.
"First-of-a-kind situation, cost overruns, delays, you can point at it, you can make fun of it, you can criticize them all day long. And it's the challenge that one takes on when you're a pioneer," he said.The vision remains
The saga isn't over. Kemper now has an expected startup date of the first half of 2016. Meanwhile, a combination of financial setbacks has put Mississippi Power on the brink of bankruptcy. In a split vote, the PSC agreed to let the utility start collecting money in emergency rate relief.
Construction on Kemper is largely finished, and the project is going through key startup tests this month and into the fall. Mississippi Power continues to tout long-term benefits to customers and to the state's economy.
Broadly, Southern wants to take the technology and sell it worldwide. Coal may be declining in the United States, but it represents 30 percent of primary energy use globally, according to the International Energy Agency.
Kemper's supporters say that the project's true value will be established in the long run. In the history of industrial technology, they say, the first go is always the priciest.
Jeff Phillips, a senior program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute Inc., expects the next plant of Kemper's type to cost 10 to 15 percent less. Subsequent plants should cost even less, as engineers figure out where cement, steel and other components aren't needed.
"That has always been the vision for how -- whether it's IGCC or some other technology -- it's going to become competitive, though today the numbers may look a little scary," he said. "To be fair to them, they're not the only first-of-a-kind major project that's been over budget. Generically, there's lots of things that tend to come up and surprise you."
-
Oil and Environmental Group Lobbyists Clash over Bill to 'Decarbonize' Calif.
Aug 24, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
A bill to decarbonize California's electricity, transportation and building sectors could pass the Legislature before state officials head to Paris for international climate negotiations.
S.B. 350, by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D), is the subject of intense lobbying by the oil industry as well as clean energy advocates, both of which are targeting voters in swing districts.
A recent mailer by the Western States Petroleum Association calls the bill "The California Gas Restriction Act of 2015."
"It won't be that bad if you can afford a new Tesla ... but it will be horrible for most California families," it says, warning that the state may impose gasoline rationing and fines for drivers who use too much gas.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is stepping in to defend the bill, which he first proposed in January upon taking office for a fourth term (E&ENews PM, Jan. 5). His executive secretary, Nancy McFadden, called the mailers "full of untruths" at an event last week in Sacramento.
The bill would extend the state's current renewable portfolio standard to 50 percent by 2030, beyond the current target of 33 percent by 2020. It would also mandate a halving of vehicles' petroleum use by 2030 and a doubling of existing buildings' energy efficiency.
It's currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, as is a bill by Sen. Fran Pavley (D), S.B. 32, to extend the state's 1990 emissions target to 40 percent below that by 2030. Pavley last week said she would amend that bill to give lawmakers more authority by requiring the state Air Resources Board to report on where emissions reductions occurred and what the effect has been on the state's economy.
She noted that Brown's April executive order setting the 40 percent target, as well as other existing targets, means that the state can act without legislative authority. "If we do not act now, the Legislature will cede its role in setting long term California policy," she wrote in a letter to Assembly Appropriations Chairman Jimmy Gomez (D).A Calif. showcase for Paris talks?
S.B 350 is a two-year bill, meaning negotiations could stretch into the next year of the legislative session. But observers expect it to pass this session, before December's U.N. negotiations in Paris, where California officials hope to play a significant role. The Appropriations Committee is expected to release it by the end of next week, after which it must be voted out of the Assembly by Sept. 11.
Lawmakers are closelipped, though, on what might change before the bill reaches the Assembly floor. An analysis of the bill issued ahead of last week's Appropriations Committee hearing listed a wide range of open topics, including adjusting the 50 percent petroleum reduction requirement. Brown's January speech setting out the three goals provided for an "up to" 50 percent cut in petroleum use.
"I think it's going to be a big lift, but I think there's a lot of people working to make it happen," said Assemblymember Anthony Rendon (D), chairman of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee, which approved the bill earlier this month. "I definitely think the petroleum piece is the big lift for us."
Rendon was speaking Thursday at an event put on by Advanced Energy Economy, the trade group founded by California activist billionaire Tom Steyer. The group held a lobbying day at the Capitol on Aug. 19, when business executives met with lawmakers including Assemblymember Henry Perea (D), seen as a key moderate Democrat to win over.
"We're not taking anything for granted," said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California. Her group is blanketing the districts of several moderate Democrat members, including Assemblymember Cheryl Brown (D), who represents the Southern California county of San Bernardino and has not yet weighed in on the bill.
"She hasn't made up her mind yet," a spokesman, Cody Boyles, said. "We're not going to see it until it gets to the floor."
Other issues still under discussion include whether the renewable portfolio standard provisions will remain faithful to the existing structure. Utilities are pressing for the target to include rooftop solar alongside traditional large-scale installations, which it currently does not (ClimateWire, Aug. 5).
Rendon said that was another "sticking point," but that differences between lawmakers should be surmountable.
"We're still talking about it, and we have three weeks left," he said. "We've done more in less time."
-
All Eyes on Courts with WOTUS Rule Set to Kick in Friday
Aug 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Jenny Hopkinson
With EPA’s controversial Clean Water Rule set to go into effect on Friday, all attention is now on the courts.
Federal judges in Georgia, North Dakota and West Virginia are mulling injunction requests from some of the 31 states and dozens of industry groups that have sued to block the rule with at least one judge on the record about her intention to issue a decision by Friday.
The rule seeks to clarify which waterways are overseen by the federal government. The current standard has long been a source of confusion and the Supreme Court has had to weigh in twice. The Obama administration set out to clarify the issue in early 2014, releasing a proposed rule that it said would make clear the reach of federal oversight and preserve long held exemptions for agriculture.
Farm groups, energy companies and many other sectors were quick to pan the rule, however, calling it a federal land grab since they argue its provisions would cover every puddle and ditch. Their lawsuits allege the measure violates the Clean Water Act and several other federal statutes.
A decision on an injunction request will likely first come from Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood in the Southern District of Georgia, who heard arguments in the case there earlier this month. Wood, during the session, took issue with the federal government’s statements that states would not be harmed by the rule and that the court should delay any action until the 13 lawsuits against it are consolidated in one court to avoid conflicting opinions.
“I am going to do something by Aug. 28th,” Wood said during the hearing, according to a transcript.
The court in North Dakota heard arguments on the injunction Friday, but is unlikely to make a decision before the end of this week due to the case’s briefing schedule. Murray Energy, the St. Clairsville, Ohio-based coal mining giant, meanwhile, was set to make its case for an injunction to a federal judge in West Virginia this morning.
If none of the requests for injunction are granted before Friday, EPA will start applying the rule to all new and pending applications for certain Clean Water Act permits.
Farmers, energy companies and others shouldn’t expect any changes immediately if an injunction is not granted, said Gary Baise, an attorney with Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz and a former EPA general counsel. There will be no roving enforcement teams or thunking regulatory hammers on Friday, just the quiet bureaucratic review of how energy, mining and construction projects, among others, fall into the new requirements.
“What is the implication here on the 28th? Not a hell of a lot,” said Baise. “We are not going to see tons of EPA officials out running around the countryside.”
But Baise and other agriculture groups remain worried that, come spring, when farmers start planting and spreading fertilizer, that could change as environmentalists seek to use the new rules to force farmers to change their practices.
The threat really comes from provisions that allow citizens to sue potential polluters, said Don Parrish, senior director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
“In sensitive areas where environmentalists want to stop something, they are going to go to the courts,” Parrish said.
Ken Kopocis, deputy assistant administrator for EPA’s Water Office, said the agency was careful to take concerns into account when crafting its final rule. The measure should actually make it “simpler and easier and require fewer resources” to determine if a project needs a federal permit than it was under the old rule, he added.
Under the new rule, “we left agriculture effectively where they were under the old rule,” Kopocis said, including creating protections for farms from environmentalist’s lawsuits.
“We are very optimistic about the rule,” he said. “It works smoother, more efficiently and will do a better job of protecting those waters that need protecting.”
“When people have more experience with how the rule is implemented… we think they will find it to be a better situation” than the current standard.
Critics remain unconvinced, however, and are hoping that an injunction will also win them time to get Congress to make a permanent fix.
The Waters Advocacy Coalition, which includes the Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups, as well as energy, mining and construction industries, is making a last-minute push with Senate Democrats to win support for a bill that would require EPA to scrap the measure and start over following certain guidelines.
“There are a number of Democrats that are getting an earful” on the issue while at home in their districts for the August recess, the Farm Bureau’s Parrish said.
The bill, S. 1140, was introduced in April by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and would require EPA to withdraw the rule and consult with state and local governments before issuing a new one. The bill also includes definitions the agency must use for what constitute streams, isolated waters and certain other features.
The House in May passed a similar measure in a largely party-line vote. That bill, H.R. 1732, was introduced in April by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.).
The Senate legislation has gained the support of 43 lawmakers, though just three cosponsors are Democrats — Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.).
That number needs to go up for the bill to gain passage. As a result, groups are putting pressure on many of the remaining 41 Democrats, including Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Mark Warner of Virginia. Maine independent Angus King is on the list of sought after votes, too.
What happens to the bill will “depend on how they come back,” Parrish said, referring to the Democrats. While the measure is unlikely to move as a stand-alone measure, Parrish said supporters are eyeing other legislation, including a highway bill set to come up in October and spending bills set for debate this fall.
The efforts, the injunctions and lobbying of lawmakers, are all aimed at getting “the rule withdrawn by any means necessary,” said Jennifer Myers, a spokeswoman with the National Corn Growers Association. “We need it to go away.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested