Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) ADAO Interview with Jon Whelan, Filmmaker of the Documentary “Stink”!
Aug 30, 2015 | Asbestos Disease Awareness
By Linda Reinstein
Jon Whelan is one of the most interesting people I have met on Twitter. I still remember how our friendship began. -
House Dems Demand Research into Feminine Hygiene Products
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
House Democrats are calling on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to research possible health risks linked to feminine hygiene products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Canada Seek Reversal Of Landmark CERCLA Air Emissions Ruling
Aug 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Industry groups and the government of Canada have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in a novel Superfund air emissions case, asking a federal appellate court to reverse a decision finding that toxic emissions released into the air from a Canadian mining facility and deposited in Washington state constitute "disposal" under the waste law's arranger liability provisions. -
Is Europe the New Frontier for US Energy Exports?
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Francesco Stipo
In the past five years, new techniques of oil and natural gas extraction in the United States have untapped large volumes of oil and natural gas and transformed the U.S. from an energy importer to a self-sufficient economy with an oil and gas surplus. -
White House Reviews EPA’s Ozone Pollution Rule
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 WIre
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration has started the final review process for its regulation to reduce the allowable concentration of ozone pollution in the air. -
Colorado Will Join Lawsuit Against EPA Carbon Rule
Aug 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, a Republican, plans to join other states in the eventual legal challenge to EPA's power plant carbon rules. -
EPA Says State Must Justify Power Plant Air Permit
Aug 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is calling on New Hampshire to better justify a Clean Air Act permit for a coal and biomass-fired power plant in response to a petition from environmentalists that claims New Hampshire has failed to adequately control sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions drifting across the state line and hindering a Maine town's ability to attain EPA air standards. -
EPA Sends Ozone Rule to White House for Review
Aug 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA late Friday sent over its final rule setting a new national ambient air quality standard for ozone to the White House for review. -
Manatees and Burning Tires: A Guide to the Details of EPA's Carbon Rule
Aug 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
States regulators and energy experts are poring through the thousands of pages of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, the nation’s first regulations on carbon dioxide emissions for power plants. -
EPA Sends Ozone NAAQS To OMB As October Deadline Looms For Rule
Aug 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has sent its final decision on whether to revise its ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review, which could put the agency on track to meet an Oct. 1 judicial deadline for either issuing a more stringent standard or leaving the existing limit in place. -
General Mills Plans Big Greenhouse Gas Cuts
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Food company General Mills Inc. said it is pledging to cut greenhouse gases 28 percent over the next decade across its entire supply chain. -
Obama’s Alaska Visit Puts Climate, Not Energy, in Forefront
Aug 30, 2015 | The New York Times
By Julie Hirshfeld Davis
President Obama will travel to Alaska on Monday to call for urgent and aggressive action to tackle climate change, capitalizing on a poignant tableau of melting glaciers, crumbling permafrost and rising sea levels to illustrate the immediacy of an issue he hopes to make a central element of his legacy. -
Environmental Fights Loom Over Obama's Alaska Tour
Aug 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Obama kicks off a three-day tour of Alaska today, where he's plunging into some of the most hot-button environmental disputes facing his administration.
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) ADAO Interview with Jon Whelan, Filmmaker of the Documentary “Stink”!
Aug 30, 2015 | Asbestos Disease Awareness
By Linda Reinstein
Jon Whelan is one of the most interesting people I have met on Twitter. I still remember how our friendship began. Feeling defeated and struggling to get the real story out about asbestos exposures in the U.S., Jon’s clever tweet with a satirical graphic of Senator Udall caught my eye. I quickly reached out via Twitter, and viola, we become colleagues.
He is clever, bold, and relentless when it comes to raising awareness and action to draft and pass real Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) legislation. Jon and I share a sad but common fact, we both used to be ignorant about where toxins could be in our home, community, and consumer shelves. Through Jon’s investigations and filmmaking, he learned that companies don’t legally need to disclose the deadly toxins.
Below you can find Jon’s interview with ADAO and his trailer for Stink!, an incredible documentary about the weaknesses and loopholes of the 1976 TSCA. Jon, thanks for all of your help as we join together in the fight of our lives for real TSCA reform.
Follow our Twitter conversations by using @NetReturn and @Linda_ADAO
Linda Reinstein
Linda: Please tell us a bit about you?
Jon: I live in New York City with my two young daughters and I have been working on the documentary “Stink!” for nearly five years. Film is a second career for me. My background is primarily in digital media and technology. I’ve spent the last decade focused on something completely different – investing in and advising start-ups while starting a family. Then something happened in my life (I don’t want to spoil the documentary for you) that got me thinking about the hidden chemicals that Americans are exposed to every day. And from there sprung the idea of “Stink!”.
Linda: Why is it important to you to pass real TSCA reform legislation?
Jon: The 1976 law that was supposed to regulate chemicals in America, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is completely broken but most people don’t know this. In fact most have never even heard of TSCA. This law makes it legal to use chemicals in everyday products that can cause cancer, birth defects and disrupt hormones. It also makes it legal for companies not to disclose any of these chemicals on product labels. We need to fix this badly broken law so that regulators can get the chemicals of greatest concern off the market.
Linda: What do you hope to accomplish with your film?
Jon: I hope people come to understand that just because a product is on the store shelf it doesn’t mean that it’s safe. That’s the way it should be but that’s not the way it is. Unfortunately, our political system is stained by special interest money and that has enormous influence over how the system works, or doesn’t work. People need to understand that too.
Once you know how things really are, you can’t unknow it. I hope that people walk out of Stink! as better, informed consumers who understand how the system works and what needs to happen to make the system better. The more people know, the better chance that real change can be effected.
Linda: During your filming, what one interview most surprised you?
Jon: One interview stood out, not because it surprised me, but because it infuriated me. I spoke with former California Congressman Calvin Dooley after a Senate hearing on TSCA. Cal is now the CEO and head lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council. I asked him the simple “Yes” or “No” question: “Do Americans have a right to know if they are buying a product that contains a carcinogen?” but he wouldn’t answer. I repeated the question four more times but he would not answer my question. Instead he stated that his organization (that represents that trillion dollar chemical industry) does just what Congress and policy makers want them to. Trade Associations like the American Chemistry Council spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing the political process but at the same time they get to hide behind the toothless laws and regulators that they influence. I am hoping Stink! exposes some of this hypocrisy.
Linda: As you well know, asbestos claims the lives an estimated 15,000 Americans each year. How do you feel about Senators Udall and Vitter’s bill S. 697?
Jon: In general, I am concerned over this horrible trend of “reverse regulation” in America: bills that seem to protect business instead of consumers.
The Udall/Vitter TSCA “reform” bill would not prohibit known human carcinogens in everyday products. Does that sound like reform to you? What’s also troubling is the way Senator Udall is trying to garner support for his TSCA bill online.
His misleading graphic and tagline suggests that his bill would get the known human carcinogen formaldehyde out of carpets; another suggests his TSCA bill would get carcinogens out of cleaning products. His TSCA bill doesn’t even address asbestos – a deadly substance with its own signature disease (mesothelioma) that claims 15,000 Americans a year. They can call this a reform bill and they can boast that it’s bipartisan, but if it cannot even regulate asbestos then they need to go back to the drawing board.
Linda: How can our ADAO community help you, promote your video, attend a screening?
Jon: We haven’t announced this yet, but Stink! is going to open in New York City on Black Friday, Los Angeles the following week and then to twenty other markets after that. There will be a few dozen festivals and screenings between now and then. The Black Friday open is no coincidence. It’s of course great to buy gifts for family and friends, but once you learn that it is legal to sell products with dodgy chemicals then you start asking more questions about what’s inside the stuff we buy — and make different, and better choices. Black Friday is all about cost of things but the question is: what price are we paying for being exposed?
I hope the ADAO community will come out and see Stink! if it’s playing near them. It will also be released digitally across all major platforms in 2016. In the meantime, we would love to have your supporters tweet us, share the Stink! trailer online and use our hashtag #SecretsStink.
-
House Dems Demand Research into Feminine Hygiene Products
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
House Democrats are calling on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to research possible health risks linked to feminine hygiene products.
In a letter on Monday, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and six of her House colleagues asked NIH Director Francis Collins to determine whether dioxins, synthetic fibers and chlorine in tampons and other feminine products pose any risk to women.
“Millions of American women use feminine hygiene products every day and yet there is still scant research on the potential health risks posed to women,” said the letter. “Recent independent studies by women health organizations have found chemicals of concern in tampons, pads and douches, including harmful chemicals, carcinogens and reproductive toxins.”
Lawmakers say they are concerned about reports of women, like former model Lauren Wasser, suffering from toxic shock syndrome. Wasser, according to media reports, suffered a massive heart attack, lost a leg and part of a foot due to the rare bacterial infection that’s been associated with the use of superabsorbent tampons.
In addition to new research, Maloney and her colleagues ask NIH to detail past research related to women’s health and feminine hygiene product safety.
“Women deserve to know that these products are safe and be provided with information they need to make informed purchasing decisions,” their letter said. “We encourage you to protect the health of women everywhere through this valuable research.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Canada Seek Reversal Of Landmark CERCLA Air Emissions Ruling
Aug 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Industry groups and the government of Canada have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in a novel Superfund air emissions case, asking a federal appellate court to reverse a decision finding that toxic emissions released into the air from a Canadian mining facility and deposited in Washington state constitute "disposal" under the waste law's arranger liability provisions.
Industry argues that repercussions of the ruling could be wide with "grave financial consequences for regulated entities," exposing their members to liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund law, for otherwise legally permissible airborne emissions that happen to land -- possibly hundreds of miles away -- at already contaminated sites.
In a separate filing, the Canadian government contends that the CERCLA air emission claims should not be decided by a U.S. court, but rather should be resolved through a bilateral process between the two countries, claiming the court's ruling on the matter "impinge[s] on Canada's sovereignty."
"Under the District Court's decision, amici's members could be threatened with liability -- strict, joint and several liability -- under CERCLA at any distant spot or spots where their airborne emissions may touch land or water," the industry parties say. Industry groups filing as amici parties in the case Joseph Pakootas, et al. v. Teck Cominco Metals include the National Mining Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and American Chemistry Council.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit accepted the case on interlocutory appeal March 25, making it the first circuit court to address whether air emissions leading to disposal onto land or water are actionable under CERCLA. The court is being urged to overturn the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington's July 29, 2014, ruling that opened air emissions to coverage under CERCLA.
In the case, the state of Washington and Native American tribes allege that air emissions, in addition to discharges that flowed into the Columbia River, from a lead/zinc smelter operated by Teck for more than 100 years just north of the U.S. border in British Columbia, Canada, resulted in the "disposal" of hazardous substances at the Upper Columbia River (UCR) site in Washington, according to the United States in an amicusbrief filed with the district court.
The district court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims could go forward alleging air emissions as a basis for recovery of response costs and natural resource damages.
Legal Inconsistencies
In its Aug. 4 brief filed in the appeal, Teck Metals says the district court ruling conflicts with a 2014 decision by the 9th Circuit and that it creates inconsistencies between CERCLA and the Clean Air Act.
The appeals court must now decide whether Pakootas contradicts the 9th Circuit's Aug. 20, 2014, decision inCenter for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) v. BNSF Railway Company, a case with similar claims under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA).
At issue, in light of CCAEJ, is whether "the definition of 'disposal' in CERCLA is satisfied by allegations that hazardous substances were emitted into the air and then transported by wind, eventually settling onto land or water," Teck Metals says in an Aug. 4 brief to the appellate court.
In its order refusing to reconsider its ruling last year in light of CCAEJ, the district court distinguished its decision from CCAEJ, noting differences between RCRA and CERCLA. It said that it did not find that air emissions from the smelter constitute a "CERCLA disposal." CERCLA's arranger provisions attach liability for disposal of hazardous substances at a facility where there is a release of hazardous substances. The smelter is not a "facility" under CERCLA, it says, rather the "facility" is the UCR site in the United States.
The district court said that the "CERCLA disposal" in this case "occurred when hazardous substances from Teck's aerial emissions and its river discharges were deposited 'into or on any land or water' of the UCR Site. This disposal occurred in the 'first instance' into or on land or water of the UCR Site and therefore, does not run afoul of RCRA's definition of 'disposal' as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit in CCAEJ."
The amici briefs by industry and Canada add to Teck's arguments to reverse the district court ruling. The industry groups fear the ruling expands potential CERCLA liability, contradicting clear congressional intent. "The District Court's interpretation would literally leave arranger liability without any limit: wherever an air emission lands, a CERCLA facility is formed," they say. If trace air emissions from a facility land at a site already polluted by others, "the trace emitter could be strictly, jointly, and severally liable for the entire cost of cleaning up the site."
"Depending on wind currents, each emission could result in multiple 'disposals,' hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the place of emission," they say.
"[D]eep-pocketed companies whose lawful emissions may represent, at most, a tiny fraction of the hazardous substances present at sites (where other companies have dumped, leaked, or otherwise disposed of toxic waste) may find themselves targets for joint-and-several-liability actions," they say.
The groups also say the plaintiffs fail to allege the first element required for arranger liability -- that the entity "dispos[e]" of a hazardous substance. The plaintiffs fail to allege that "Teck 'dispos[ed] of' hazardous substances through aerial emissions from its smelter before the emitted substances allegedly came to rest at the UCR Site," they say.
Furthermore, "[i]f, as Plaintiffs propose and the District Court held, the mere landing of emitted hazardous substances at a CERCLA facility constitutes 'disposal' of those substances, then every release of heavier-than-air emissions into the air will result in a 'disposal' because those emitted substances have to land somewhere, and anywhere in the United States that emissions ultimately land is by definition a CERCLA 'facility,'" they say.
However, if Congress had wanted emission releases to constitute disposal, emissions could have been included in the "disposal" definition, the emission of hazardous substances, they say. "But it did precisely the opposite: it specified 'land or water,' but conspicuously omitted 'air.'"
The industry groups add that the ruling fails to fit with other aspects of CERCLA and other federal environmental laws. For instance, use of the court's expansive interpretation of "disposal" could interrupt the CERCLA defense for bona fide prospective purchasers. Under this defense, an entity that buys a known contaminated property and exercises due care cannot be held liable for cleanup costs as an owner or operator provided all disposal of hazardous substances occurred prior to the entity's acquisition of the property, the brief points out.
While such purchasers are supposed to stop any further disposals at the property, they would have "no control over the novel type of incoming airborne 'disposal' the District Court saw here," they say.
Additionally, they say the United States' argument opposed to a reversal -- made as an amicus party when the district court was weighing whether to reconsider the ruling -- "lacks any merit." The U.S. government argued that a reversal would undermine existing settlements. The groups say the United States appears to have overstated the extent to which these settlements relied on air emissions as disposals.
Statutory Defense
The groups concede emitters could try to use a statutory defense for "federally permitted release[s]" under the Clean Air Act to counter liability allegations for air emissions at CERCLA sites, but they say "EPA has sought to erode that provision through agency interpretations." CERCLA "precludes recovery of damages and response costs resulting from a 'federally permitted release,'" according to their brief.
But they cite instances where EPA has limited the strength of that defense, pointing for example to EPA guidance that an emission is considered "federally permitted" only if it is "compliant with," not just "subject to" air law regulations and permits. This means that if emissions exceed a permit by a small fraction, the emitter could be liable for response costs at a site at which any portion of the release lands, they say.
In its amicus brief, the government of Canada says the litigation raises issues over existing cooperative agreements between the United States and Canada and over interference with Canada's sovereign authority. A U.S. court interpretation of CERCLA should not be the proper means for resolving the environmental claims at issue, rather "these matters should be referred to the long-standing bilateral mechanism specifically established to address . . . claims [related to the smelter at issue], in accordance with existing agreement between the United States and Canada," it says.
The two countries previously reached a settlement agreement to set up a bilateral process for assessing the Teck facility's pollution, and the Canadian government recently sent two diplomatic notes to the United States "insisting on a bilateral, non-judicial resolution of claims regarding [Teck's] Trail Smelter air emissions," it says.
In the most recent note, it says, Canada stressed that the litigation disrupts the exclusive bilateral regime, set up in 1935, to remedy damages caused by cross-border air emissions from Teck's Trail Smelter facility. The court's orders subjecting the smelter to liability for air emissions under CERCLA "clearly impinge on Canada's sovereignty," and "undermine the long history of cooperation between the United States and Canada in controlling transboundary pollution, and contravene" the existing bilateral regime, Canada says. It notes that this regime "is fully capable of redressing the injuries alleged" by the plaintiffs.
-
Is Europe the New Frontier for US Energy Exports?
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Francesco Stipo
In the past five years, new techniques of oil and natural gas extraction in the United States have untapped large volumes of oil and natural gas and transformed the U.S. from an energy importer to a self-sufficient economy with an oil and gas surplus.
Some of this gas will be consumed domestically, some will be exported to Mexico by pipeline and some will be exported to other countries by sea.
Maritime exports of natural gas require a double infrastructure: liquefaction plants to reduce the volume of natural gas for storage in specific vessels and regasification terminals to transform the liquid natural gas (LNG) back to gas and distribute it through the pipeline system.
This year, exceptionally low gas prices have forced energy companies to reduce their profit expectations and scale down their projects. Only a small number of planned liquefaction plants are expected to be completed.
Project completion will depend on a variety of commercial and political factors:
LNG producers will need considerable financial strength to pay for the regulatory process required to obtain the licenses to export LNG.
The Natural Gas Act of 1938 requires federal authorization for gas exports, which is granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE).
While approvals for gas exports to countries with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement are easy to obtain, licenses for exports to countries that do not have a free-trade agreement with the U.S. (non-FTA) require a public interest determination, which has been a prolonged approval process with high legal costs (up to $200 million per project).
However, if the new free trade agreement with the European Union (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is ratified, most U.S. LNG producers will be able to export to Europe without going through the complex process to obtain licenses required for non-FTA countries. TTIP has so far received bipartisan support.
Most LNG producers that have already received export approval have pre-sold their future production to Asian buyers. Japan was the principal buyer after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster halted nuclear energy production. Demand was so high that spot LNG prices to Japan reached $18/MMBTU (Million Metric British Thermal Units). However, recently Japan restarted nuclear energy generation, reducing its natural gas demand. Today, Japan's LNG market is saturated and China's economy is slowing.
Like East Asia, Europe is a major gas importer. One-third of European gas is supplied by Russia through 12 pipelines, five of which pass through Ukraine. The crisis in Russia-Ukraine relations has caused disruptions in the supply of gas to European countries, inducing them to look elsewhere to find reliable gas suppliers.
The European Union enacted rules to reduce carbon emissions, inducing the economies of its member nations to shift from coal to renewable energy and natural gas. Member countries that do not implement the carbon emission scheme face fines. Therefore, natural gas consumption is destined to increase in Europe.
Many European countries are building new regasification terminals to import LNG. European gas imports from the United States will increase, both for political and commercial reasons.
Eastern European countries such as Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are seeking to diversify their gas supply and will likely import LNG from the United States for political reasons to safeguard their energy security.
Western European countries such as France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, which do not have direct pipeline access to Russian gas, will find American LNG their least expensive choice. American gas producers offer highly competitive prices because they use the most advanced unconventional gas extraction techniques. Currently, the cost of gas extraction in America is as low as $0.5/MMBTU. In comparison, Yamal LNG, a new liquefaction plant under construction in Siberia, Russia, is expected to break even at $8/MMBTU.
Furthermore, there is significant pressure in Congress to lift the oil export ban that was introduced in 1975 after OPEC imposed an embargo on U.S. oil. The export ban was justified in the '70s by the reduction of reserves and the excessive price of oil, but today, such factors no longer exist. This month, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) benchmark plunged to $40 per barrel and reserves reached a record high. If the oil export ban is lifted, Europe will likely become a major importer of American oil. New oil and gas projects will look at Europe as the new frontier for U.S. energy exports.
Stipo is an American author and expert in international affairs. He is a member of the Bretton Woods Committee and was formerly the president of the U.S. Association of the Club of Rome, a global think tank.
-
White House Reviews EPA’s Ozone Pollution Rule
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 WIre
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration has started the final review process for its regulation to reduce the allowable concentration of ozone pollution in the air.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said Monday that it had received the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule Friday, kicking off its review.
The administration agreed in court to release the regulation by Oct. 1, giving the OMB just over a month to complete a process that typically takes much longer.
The ozone rule has become one of the most controversial air pollution rules in President Obama’s tenure, mostly because of its predicted costs and impact on fossil fuels and the industries that use them.
Cutting the ground-level ozone standard to between 65 and 70 parts per billion, from the current 75 parts per billion, could cost up to $1.1 trillion, according to a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers, making it the most expensive regulation ever.
The EPA proposed the 65 to 70 parts per billion range in November. It will not reveal the number it chose until it reveals the final version of the regulation.
Ozone is produced by pollutants that come from burning fossil fuels, and states are likely to take measures to reduce fossil fuel use in order to comply with the regulation.
The EPA estimated that annual costs from the rule could reach only $16.6 billion, but health benefits from reduced respiratory illnesses would be worth up to $38 billion.
While the EPA is obligated under the Clean Air Act to only consider public health in setting the standard, fossil fuel interests have been focusing nearly exclusively on the costs of compliance in their campaigns against the regulation.
The Sierra Club Monday on reiterated its support for the lower end of the range the EPA is considering.
“It's time to take the advice of doctors and medical scientists, and act to protect the health of American families by setting much stronger protections from smog pollution,” Mary Anne Hitt, director of the group’s Beyond Coal campaign, said in a statement.
“For far too long, American families have paid the price for an outdated smog standard that is much too weak to protect our health,” she said.
The American Petroleum Institute, which opposes any changes to the current ozone standard, criticized the Obama administration for planning such a short White House review of such a consequential regulation.
“We are surprised the administration is limiting interagency review of what could be the most expensive regulation ever,” Howard Feldman, the group’s director for regulatory affairs, said in a statement.
“EPA’s proposal to tighten the ozone standards would fall on top of current limits that are already improving air quality,” he said. “The nation’s air is getting cleaner, and air quality will continue to improve as we implement the existing standards.”
-
Colorado Will Join Lawsuit Against EPA Carbon Rule
Aug 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, a Republican, plans to join other states in the eventual legal challenge to EPA's power plant carbon rules.
“The face of Colorado's economy could be forever changed and that will be reflected in lost jobs, higher utility rates, and an altered energy industry,” Coffman said, adding that “before untold sums of public and private monies are spent on compliance with the Clean Power Plan, we need to settle the matter of whether it is even legal.”
Coffman's stance is in contrast with the position of Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who is working on compliance plans and says the rule offers Colorado an "opportunity" to cut back on pollutants while potentially growing the state's booming natural gas sector.
Colorado will join the lawsuit filed once EPA eventually publishes the rule in the Federal Register.
-
EPA Says State Must Justify Power Plant Air Permit
Aug 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is calling on New Hampshire to better justify a Clean Air Act permit for a coal and biomass-fired power plant in response to a petition from environmentalists that claims New Hampshire has failed to adequately control sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions drifting across the state line and hindering a Maine town's ability to attain EPA air standards.
In a July 28 response to the petition from Sierra Club, EPA finds that New Hampshire must determine whether a tightening of SO2 controls is necessary at the Schiller Station power plant owned by Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH). This determination must be reviewed by the agency once complete, and will provide the opportunity for a fresh permit objection should the state's analysis prove inadequate, the response says.
Sierra Club petitioned EPA to object to a Clean Air Act Title V operating permit that New Hampshire air officials issued for the Schiller Station, saying the power plant should face strict SO2 controls. EPA plans to announced the final permit objection in a Federal Register notice slated for publication Sept. 1.
The town of Eliot, ME, also filed a petition with EPA targeting the Schiller Station under section 126 of the Clean Air Act, which allows states to ask the agency to consider regulating emissions in other states that are outside the control of the petitioning state but nevertheless hinder that state from attaining national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The agency is still considering its formal response to the Maine town's section 126 petition.
In its response to the permit objection, EPA grants Sierra Club's petition with respect to the interstate emissions of SO2 drifting into Maine, in a possible sign that the agency will also grant the section 126 petition.
EPA says that New Hampshire has wrongly relied on waiting for completion of EPA's designation of areas in attainment or nonattainment with its 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion before deciding whether further pollution reductions are required from Schiller Station. Although EPA is years behind the air law-mandated schedule for making such designations, the agency says that states are still obligated to address their "good neighbor" responsibilities under the air law within three years of the issuance of a new NAAQS.
EPA finds that New Hampshire must determine whether stricter SO2 controls are necessary at the Schiller Station, and that this determination must be reviewed by EPA. The agency will then provide the opportunity for a fresh permit objection should the state's analysis prove inadequate.
However, EPA rejects other aspects of the permit objection petition, including Sierra Club's request to impose tougher pollution controls on the facilities because of its emissions that the group says cause SO2 levels locally to exceed the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS.
EPA says that the existence of a NAAQS is not grounds in itself for the plant to be forced to reduce emissions -- rather, the plant's permit provisions have to be in accordance with an adequate state implementation plan (SIP), a blueprint for attaining the NAAQS.
The agency in the petition response says, "promulgation of a NAAQS does not, in and of itself, result in an applicable requirement in the form of an emission limit for Title V sources."
The agency also rejects Sierra Club's assertion that the Title V permit must contain limits on fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and specifically "condensable" PM2.5, which is emitted as a gas but forms particles in the atmosphere.
"The Petitioner does not demonstrate that the state's rationale for its treatment of particulate matter emissions was unreasonable or inconsistent with the [air law]. The Petitioner does not discuss any applicable requirement that would require emission limits for PM2.5 or condensable PM," the response says.
The agency furthers rejects several other criticisms of the plant's permit, such as its air monitoring provisions, which Sierra Club says are inadequate. EPA says the group either did not raise these issues with enough specificity on the proposed permit, or did not address changes to them made by New Hampshire state regulators.
-
EPA Sends Ozone Rule to White House for Review
Aug 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA late Friday sent over its final rule setting a new national ambient air quality standard for ozone to the White House for review.
The action will likely set off a flurry of activity at the Office of Management and Budget as interest groups try to get the last word in before EPA releases a final rule. After the interagency review, EPA is expected to release the rule by a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1.
In November, EPA proposed to lower the ambient limit for ozone, a key component of smoggy air, from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb. The proposal came after the Obama administration shelved a plan to lower the limit in 2011 on economic concerns and in advance of elections.
EPA said in its November proposal that it determined the 75 ppb limit -- which was set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- was not adequate to protect the public against negative health effects tied to ground-level ozone as required by the Clean Air Act. Ozone, which is formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight, has been linked to reduced lung function and asthma exacerbation.
"EPA has sent the final National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review," the agency said in an emailed statement. "This routine step is part of the agency's regular review of the standards, required every five years by the Clean Air Act."
Business and industry groups have been running aggressive media and advocacy campaigns against a tighter standard on the grounds that it would cost too much in compliance and that the science backing the proposal is uncertain. They've asked that EPA retain the existing standard.
Advertisement
If EPA tightens the limit, states will be required to put in place pollution control plans for areas found to be out of compliance with a new standard. EPA, however, estimates that a large majority of the country would meet a tighter standard by 2025 thanks to other air pollution programs and rules that are already underway or proposed (Greenwire, Nov. 26, 2014).
The agency also says reducing ozone pollution to a range of 65 to 70 ppb would prevent between 750 and 4,300 premature deaths, between 1,400 and 4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits, and between 320,000 and 960,000 asthma attacks in children yearly by 2025.
EPA received more than 430,000 written public comments on the contentious rulemaking. The American Petroleum Institute today said it worried that the administration was "rushing" the release of a new standard by limiting the interagency review to 30 days.
"We are surprised the administration is limiting interagency review of what could be the most expensive regulation ever," Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs for API, said in a statement. "EPA's proposal to tighten the ozone standards would fall on top of current limits that are already improving air quality."
Later this week, business and industry groups plan to highlight the rule's effects on Pennsylvania as part of an outside-the-Beltway campaign that's focused on swing states and key cities throughout the country.
While EPA submitted the final rule to OMB, environmentalists doubled down on their calls for the agency to set a more stringent standard. Environmental and public health advocates have urged the administration to set a new limit no higher than 60 ppb based on public health science.
The Sierra Club today urged President Obama to "ignore the pressure from polluters who want to weaken these protections."
"It's time to take the advice of doctors and medical scientists, and act to protect the health of American families by setting much stronger protections from smog pollution," Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, said in a statement. "For far too long, American families have paid the price for an outdated smog standard that is much too weak to protect our health."
-
Manatees and Burning Tires: A Guide to the Details of EPA's Carbon Rule
Aug 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
States regulators and energy experts are poring through the thousands of pages of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, the nation’s first regulations on carbon dioxide emissions for power plants. The rules set state-by-state limits that are tailored to the specific circumstances in different parts of the country as part of the effort to cut carbon emissions from the sector by 32 percent of 2005 levels by 2030.
Here’s POLITICO’s quick guide to some of the odds and ends of the CPP, from whether states might implement a carbon tax to what the rule means for the scrap tire industry.
Why don’t some states and territories have to do anything?
Either because their fossil fuel power plants aren’t large enough to be subject to the rule, or because EPA doesn’t have enough data to set a standard right now.
Vermont, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands fall into the first category. Vermont gets most of its electricity from hydropower and nuclear. There aren’t any power plants large enough to qualify in American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands. U.S. Virgin Islands have two power plants that technically qualify, but they haven’t been used since 2011, so EPA decided against setting a standard there.
Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico fall into the second category. EPA originally set goals for all four in its proposal, but walked those back in the final version after concluding that their unusual energy systems mean EPA doesn’t have enough data to set a standard. It’s not an everlasting pass, but for the moment those areas don’t have to comply.
Can states implement a carbon tax?
Yes they can. EPA opened the door for state-level carbon taxes on power plants with a single sentence on page 899 of the 1,560-page rule: “The EPA also notes that the state measures plan type could accommodate imposition by a state of a fee for CO2 emissions from affected [power plants], an approach suggested by a number of commenters.”Many economists argue that a carbon tax is the most straightforward way to cut carbon emissions by easily and quickly identifying the cheapest possibilities of reduction. But a carbon tax, along with some other potential state implementation strategies, is not federally enforceable, so states that go that route would have to include a back-up strategy in case the carbon tax fails to achieve the state’s emissions targets.
Josiah Neeley of the free-market think tank R Street Institute calculated the levels that each state would have to set its tax at to reach its 2030 requirement. They start at zero for Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington, and peak at $26 per ton for Utah. He also argues that states could usethe revenue — as high as $2.5 billion annually for Texas — to offset tax cuts in other areas.
Would state legislatures have to approve a carbon tax?
They sure would. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, taxation powers lie with the legislatures, so utility commissioners or other officials in charge of writing state plans almost certainly can’t slap a carbon tax on power plants without getting the approval from lawmakers. EPA also confirmed that state environmental agencies “may have broad authority to pursue a particular plan approach; in other cases, the agency may need additional authority from the state legislature.”
In practice, this severely limits the option of using a carbon tax for compliance. Thirty state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, according to NCSL (not counting deep-red Nebraska, which has a nonpartisan body). Most Republicans oppose any form of carbon tax, as well as cap and trade systems that could serve as an alternative.
Democrats control just 11 state legislatures — including six of the nine states already in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and California, which has its own cap and trade system. The four Democratic-controlled legislatures without a trading system in place are Hawaii (which recently voted for a 100 percent renewable portfolio standard), Oregon, Illinois and New Jersey. The remaining eight states have split legislatures.
Can states plant trees to earn reforestation offsets toward their emissions reductions?
Nope, that’s prohibited by a key phrase in the Clean Air Act. The statute requires emission reductions to come from affected sources: fossil fuel power plants, or more specifically coal-fired stations. EPA did interpret that to mean it could require more deployment of natural gas and renewable energy, because those actions reduce emissions from coal plants by using less coal-fired electricity.
But offsets, which scientifically speaking can have the same climate impact as reducing emissions at coal plants, are different under the law. “[A]ctions taken by affected sources that do not result in emission reductions from the affected sources — for example, offsets (e.g., the planting of forests to sequester CO2) — do not qualify” for complying with the carbon rule, EPA’s final rule says. Also out of the picture are strategies like cutting agricultural emissions, scrubbing CO2 directly from the air or using more electric cars.
This is bad news for a conservation group that bought several mines from Patriot Coal and plans to sell the coal pre-packaged with reforestation offset credits. An affiliate of the Virginia Conservation Legacy Fund wants to sell 4 million tons of coal each year combined with the credits. The group’s head told Bloomberg this month that he is pushing the coal-offset bundles as a compliance strategy in coal-heavy states, and has gotten one to commit to doing so. But EPA shot down that possibility.
“While offset projects that reduce CO2 emissions from other sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry, and transportation) or in other countries may effectively mitigate atmospheric CO2 levels, they do not affect emissions from the units regulated by the CPP,” the agency said in a statement.
Are power plants that are being modified still subject to the rule for existing plants?
EPA has yet to make a final decision, but is leaning toward exempting modified and reconstructed plants from state plans for existing plants.
The agency had originally planned to address those plants in the final rule, but it put off the decision and is continuing to work on it via the proposed federal implementation plan.
The Clean Air Act isn’t clear on whether modified or reconstructed plants are subject to a state implementation plan, and so EPA argues it has the authority to “fill in the gaps.”
EPA’s stance has shifted since its earlier proposal, and it now thinks those plants should not be subject to state plans. EPA says its concerns will be addressed through the final rules and the federal implementation plan. But the delay in deciding on this issue doesn’t mean states and power plants get more time to submit their plans.
Get details on the standards for modified and reconstructed power plants onPOLITICO’s Energy Regulation Tracker.
Is Canadian hydropower copacetic?
Sort of. Some states along the northern border, like Minnesota and Wisconsin, already use a lot of hydroelectric power imported from Canada. Under the final rule, any foreign hydro capacity that existed prior to 2012 does not count toward compliance efforts, even if that power wasn’t shipped into the U.S. New transmission lines connecting already existing Canadian renewables don’t count either.
However, states can use new capacity from existing Canadian hydropower facilities or new hydro plants to meet their reduction goals. That renewable capacity must have been installed after 2012. The country in question must be connected to the U.S. grid, (most of Canada and a small part of Mexico share a grid with the U.S.). There must be a power purchase agreement in place with a U.S. utility. And the Canadian hydro is subject to the same verification requirements as U.S.-based efforts.
Does my rooftop solar panel count?
If it’s new, yes. And so do your small wind turbines and any other form of distributed renewable energy.
States can use distributed renewable energy generation — the dominant form being residential and commercial solar — for compliance. Systems installed since 2012 can count electricity generated from 2022. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, 4,860 megawatts of distributed solar capacity came online in the U.S. from the beginning of 2013 through the first quarter of this year.
Research by the Energy Department and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded that distributed generation could make up one-third to one-half of the renewable energy portion of state implementation plans, according to EPA.
Will the rule hurt the manatees?
Republican critics of the rule say several Florida coal-fired power plants where manatees live in the warm water discharge will have to shut down. They argue that EPA’s failure to perform an Endangered Species Act consultation for the rule shows agency’s insistence to regulate at all costs.
But EPA says that uncertainties around exactly how the rule will be implemented mean that specific ESA consultations are not needed to promulgate the power plant rule. (EPA also points out that the rule is expected to have “an overall net positive environmental effect,” though that doesn’t diminish ESA considerations.)
EPA notes that it is possible that some state actions could affect species, and it cited the possible shutdown of Florida power plants could have on the manatees. But EPA says “potential future changes” to the energy sector or any specific facility caused by the rule do not require ESA consultation at this stage, though future compliance actions may.
Republican critics were not persuaded by EPA’s argument.Can states burn scrap tires to comply?
Signs point to yes. EPA is still working out exactly which types of biomass sources will qualify for compliance under the rule — the big question being whether a fuel is “demonstrated as a method to control increases of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
EPA said that the natural rubber portion of tires would likely qualify as a waste-derived biogenic feedstock. This is a big win for the tire industry, which wants states to be able to use so-called tire-derived fuels as a qualifying form of biomass. Unlike synthetic rubber, which is made from petroleum byproducts, natural rubber is a “renewable” material that can be harvested without destroying the tree, according to RMA.
Tire-derived fuels come largely from the natural rubber portion of tires — an average of 19 percent in passenger tires and 33 percent in truck tires, according to the Rubber Manufacturers Association. In 2013, 27 percent of tire derived fuels went to electric utility boilers, while cement kilns and paper mills each took 34 percent, RMA says. Five percent went to dedicated scrap-tire-to-energy facilities.
-
EPA Sends Ozone NAAQS To OMB As October Deadline Looms For Rule
Aug 31, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has sent its final decision on whether to revise its ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review, which could put the agency on track to meet an Oct. 1 judicial deadline for either issuing a more stringent standard or leaving the existing limit in place.
Industry groups, Republicans and others have criticized the potential costs associated with EPA's proposal to tighten the existing 75 parts per billion (ppb) “primary” health-based standard set in 2008 down to a limit within the range of 65-70 ppb. Critics say it will put many areas out of attainment with the NAAQS, forcing them to impose expensive pollution controls on industry that will drive businesses away and hurt local economies.
EPA, however, by law cannot consider costs when setting the level of a NAAQS and must do so based on science about a criteria pollutant's impacts on health and the environment. The agency says such data suggest a stricter limit is necessary to meet an air law mandate that the standard be adequate to protect public health within an adequate margin of safety -- a decision backed by several states, and advocates who say the limit should be even tighter.
For the “secondary” NAAQS, designed to protect the environment, EPA floats defining ozone protection in a range of 13 to 17 ppm-hrs expressed in terms of the “W126 index” -- a method for measuring summertime ozone that EPA staff and its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee have suggested to use for the NAAQS.
EPA says it will achieve ozone protection by aligning the secondary limit with the primary ozone NAAQS range -- a decision that has prompting push-back from environmentalists as too weak.
The agency faces an Oct. 1legally binding deadline for issuing a final decision on the primary and secondary NAAQS, as the result of deadline litigation filed by environmentalists once the agency missed a Clean Air Act-mandated five-year review of the 2008 standard. EPA on Aug. 28 sent the final rulemaking package to OMB for mandatory pre-publication review, a process that typically takes 90 days but can take more or less time depending on the rule. That timeline could ensure that OMB might finish review in time for EPA to meet its deadline.
However, the American Petroleum Institute (API) -- one of the groups strongly opposing tougher ozone standards -- in an Aug. 31 statement called the OMB review process “truncated.” API's Howard Feldman said, “We are surprised the administration is limiting interagency review of what could be the most expensive regulation ever.”
During the time that the White House is reviewing the NAAQS, industry groups, environmental organizations and others will be able to meet with the administration to try and sway the outcome of the rule.
Upcoming Regulation
Karen Kerrigan, President of the Center for Regulatory Solutions -- which opposes a stricter NAAQS and campaigns against “excessive” regulation -- in an Aug. 31 statement said that the group would use the coming weeks to urge President Obama against a more stringent standard. “People across the country have warned the Obama Administration about the impact of tightening the standard. Hopefully, President Obama will listen again to these voices and reject a proposal that will hamstring American job creators and the economic recovery, and dramatically increase the role of the federal government in state and local planning decisions,” Kerrigan said.
Even before EPA sent the final rule to OMB those groups were already meeting with agency officials and waging campaigns to try and influence public opinion on whether EPA should revise the rule.
Once EPA finalizes the new standard it will have to designate which areas are either in attainment or nonattainment, and those findings will trigger Clean Air Act deadlines for crafting state implementation plans outlining the air pollution control measures that states will use to either stay in attainment or achieve the NAAQS.
EPA recently issued a proposal saying that 17 out of 36 areas previously designated as being in “marginal” nonattainment with its 2008 ozone standard are now achieving the limit and can be reclassified to attainment, though questions linger about how many nonattainment areas might be created by a tighter limit.
One option that some states have suggested could help in reducing ozone and achieving a standard within the proposed 65-70 ppb range is interstate emissions trading to reduce nitrogen oxides that lead to ozone formation.
But a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling remanding Cross-State Air Pollution Rule “budgets” to EPA for reconsideration casts major doubt over the viability of any future agency interstate emissions trading program because of strict limits the court appears to place on such programs, sources say. However, the agency counters that the ruling does not in fact create such limits on trading.
-
General Mills Plans Big Greenhouse Gas Cuts
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Food company General Mills Inc. said it is pledging to cut greenhouse gases 28 percent over the next decade across its entire supply chain.
The company said it is embarking on its pledge in order to do its part toward preventing the worst effects of climate change.
“We recognize that we must do our part to protect and conserve natural resources,” Ken Powell, the company’s chairman, said in a Monday statement. “Our business depends on it and so does the planet.”
General Mills, based in Golden Valley, Minn., described its commitment as stretching from “farm to fork to landfill,” covering every step its foods take.
Such a broad approach means that the company can have an impact on many other companies and their suppliers and customers,’ ti said.
“We know our greatest impact is outside our four walls — particularly in agriculture, ingredients and packaging,” Powell said.
“To reduce emission levels, we must work across our value chain with growers, suppliers, customers and industry partners. Together, we will identify new solutions and promote sustainable agriculture practices that drive emission reductions.”
The Monday pledge adds to numerous other environmental commitments General Mills has made going back to 2005, including a 2013 pledge to source its 10 most-used ingredients in sustainable ways by 2020.
General Mills will also invest $100 million into energy efficiency and clean energy projects as part of its latest commitment, it said.
-
Obama’s Alaska Visit Puts Climate, Not Energy, in Forefront
Aug 30, 2015 | The New York Times
By Julie Hirshfeld Davis
President Obama will travel to Alaska on Monday to call for urgent and aggressive action to tackle climate change, capitalizing on a poignant tableau of melting glaciers, crumbling permafrost and rising sea levels to illustrate the immediacy of an issue he hopes to make a central element of his legacy.
But during a three-day trip choreographed to lend spectacular visuals and real-world examples to Mr. Obama’s message on global warming, he will pay little heed to the oil and gas drilling offshore that he allowed to go forward just this month, a move that activists say is an unsavory blot on an otherwise ambitious climate record.
While the Arctic is a fitting backdrop for the president’s call to action, it is also a place where the conflicting threads of his environmental policy collide, and where the bracing public debate over how to address the warming of the planet is particularly animated.
“It’s inconsistent on the one hand for President Obama to lead the world toward comprehensive action on climate change, while on the other allowing companies to pursue difficult, expensive oil in dangerous and remote places,” said Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for Oceana, an environmental group.PhotoKotzebue, Alaska, an Inuit village, is being overtaken by the sea because of eroding soil brought on by the melting permafrost and stronger storms that come with higher temperatures. CreditRuth Fremson/The New York Times
While Mr. Obama has taken unprecedented steps to reduce the nation’s demand for the fossil fuels that cause climate change, enacting newrules that cut emissions while pressing for a major global accord, he has done far less to shift investment away from oil and gas development. That has boomed during his presidency, bringing economic benefits in the form of jobs and lower electricity prices.
The challenge is highlighted in Alaska, where many citizens are grappling with the devastating effects of climate change even as they depend on energy development for their livelihoods. In becoming the first sitting American president to visit Arctic Alaska, Mr. Obama is confronting those conflicting pressures.
In his weekly radio address on Saturday, the president acknowledged, as he had in the past, that although he was pushing to transition the nation “away from dirty energy sources that threaten our health and our environment,” the economy was still reliant on oil and gas.
“As long as that’s the case, I believe we should rely more on domestic production than on foreign imports, and we should demand the highest safety standards in the industry — our own,” Mr. Obama said. “I share people’s concerns about offshore drilling. I remember the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico all too well.”
At issue this time is a long-delayed application by Royal Dutch Shell, to which the Obama administration gave final approval two weeks ago, to begin drilling for oil and gas in untouched waters of the Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s northwest coast. The president does not plan to interact with Shell during his trip, White House officials said, but he will travel to the town of Kotzebue above the Arctic Circle, where the company has set up some of its equipment.
Kotzebue and many of its neighbors — Inuit villages that are being overtaken by the sea because of soil erosion, brought on by melting permafrost and stronger storms that come with higher temperatures — are potent real-time examples of what Mr. Obama has called a climate wake-up call.
At a State Department climate conference in Anchorage on Monday, Mr. Obama will call for sweeping collective action on climate change, pushing for commitments designed to propel a global accord in December at a United Nations summit meeting in Paris. Then he plans to hopscotch the state bearing witness to the effects of rising temperatures, hiking Exit Glacier in Seward on Tuesday and meeting Wednesday with salmon fishermen in Dillingham, on pristine Bristol Bay, before journeying to Kotzebue.
“This is an issue that is very here and now,” said Brian Deese, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser on climate policy. “The issue of climate change is not an issue of the future tense in Alaska. It is affecting people in their lives and livelihoods in real ways.”
Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian and the author of “The Quiet World,” which documents conservation efforts in Alaska, said Mr. Obama had spoken privately of how difficult it was to get the climate change story across to the news media, particularly given that Americans “don’t want to feel that they’re doing something wrong driving the S.U.V. to pick up their kids at school.”
“Going up to glacier country is the most visceral way to do that, and it’s really a culmination of President Obama going from being the climate change educator of America to trying to be seen now as a climate activist,” Mr. Brinkley said.
Still, in traveling to the Arctic — a region that has warmed twice as quickly as the rest of the world over the past six decades, with its northernmost reaches losing more than a football field a day of land because of coastal erosion and rising seas — Mr. Obama will also be implicitly making the case against the drilling he has authorized.
“The glaring, inconvenient truth is that when you step onto ground zero and visit communities where they’re falling into the sea because of rapidly melting ice, you are witnessing the dramatic impacts of continuing down this path of fossil fuel development,” said Franz A. Matzner, director of the Beyond Oil Initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Environmental groups and progressive activists have been quick to point out the incongruity in Mr. Obama’s Arctic trip. On Thursday, the social-change group Credo began a campaign attacking the president for what it called his “self-defeating hypocrisy” on the climate, calling for Americans to flood the White House with phone calls and petition signatures demanding an end to Arctic drilling.
Conservationists, native leaders and climate activists are holding a rally against Arctic drilling in Anchorage on Monday to coincide with Mr. Obama’s arrival.
At the same time, some Alaskans are asking for just the opposite. Last week, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, which represents the business interests of the Arctic Slope Inupiat tribe, released a television advertisement calling on Mr. Obama to “stand with Alaskans and continue to support Arctic energy development.”
The timing of the Shell decision was particularly awkward for the White House, coming so soon before Mr. Obama embarks on his Arctic sojourn. Advisers have argued that the president had no legal option but to process the permit based on leases sold to Shell for $2.1 billion by President George W. Bush’s administration. More broadly, the administration argues that drilling off the Alaska coast is simply a matter of bowing to the reality that the country remains dependent on fossil fuels, and working to ensure that the work is done domestically and under stringent safety rules.
“We might wish for an instantaneous transformation that was drastically less reliant on oil and gas and coal, or at least that used technologies for oil and gas and coal that reduced greatly the emissions associated with that, but we don’t live in a magical world,” said John P. Holdren, senior adviser to Mr. Obama on science and technology. “If you’re going to be using oil and gas, it’s better to produce it here than somewhere else. We have by far the strongest environmental and safety oversight of any country.”Correction: August 30, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated the name Mr. Matzner’s environmental advocacy group. It is the Natural Resources Defense Council, not the National Resources Defense Council.
-
Environmental Fights Loom Over Obama's Alaska Tour
Aug 31, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Obama kicks off a three-day tour of Alaska today, where he's plunging into some of the most hot-button environmental disputes facing his administration.
The president's historic tour will include a glacier hike, a stop at a Bristol Bay fishing town and an international climate conference. Along the way, he'll be confronted with questions about his administration's policies on drilling and mining, his climate change agenda, and the politics surrounding his decision to rename North America's tallest mountain.
As he grapples with the wish lists of a host of conflicting interest groups and industry desires, Obama is hoping to walk a fine line by both stressing an urgent need to combat climate change while defending his recent decision to allow exploratory offshore drilling near Alaska.
In advance of the trip, Obama made waves yesterday by announcing that his administration will officially rename Mount McKinley -- the tallest peak on the continent at about 20,000 feet -- as Denali. Alaskans have been pushing for years to rechristen the peak named after President McKinley to the name long used by state denizens, but have faced opposition from lawmakers in McKinley's home state of Ohio. Officials in the Buckeye State were quick to deride the renaming (see related story).
Controversy surrounding Obama's oil and gas drilling policies will also loom large over the trip. He's been under fire from the left after announcing earlier this month plans to allow exploratory drilling by Royal Dutch Shell PLC in Arctic waters near the Alaska coastline (Greenwire, Aug. 27).
In a speech this weekend, Obama defended the controversial decision.
Advertisement
As the nation transitions "away from dirty energy sources that threaten our health and our environment," the U.S. economy "still has to rely on oil and gas," Obama said in his weekly address. "As long as that's the case, I believe we should rely more on domestic production than on foreign imports, and we should demand the highest safety standards in the industry -- our own."
He noted that some critics are concerned about the administration's approval of Shell's drilling plans.
"I share people's concerns about offshore drilling," he said. "I remember the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico all too well."
Obama said his administration will work to uphold environmental and safety standards under the leases. "The bottom line is, safety has been and will continue to be my administration's top priority when it comes to oil and gas exploration off America's precious coasts -- even as we push our economy and the world to ultimately transition off of fossil fuels."
Greens haven't been convinced.
"That's a mistake," Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh wrote in a blog post last week of the decision to approve exploratory drilling. "President Obama needs to turn this misguided approach around. We can't afford to expose Arctic and Atlantic waters to the risk of a blowout reminiscent of BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster five years ago. And we can't further fuel the global climate crisis by tapping the carbon pollution beneath these seas."
League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said in a statement today that the group is "deeply disappointed" about the approval of Shell's drilling plans.
Opponents of the Pebble gold and copper mining project in southwestern Alaska will also be pressing their case when Obama visits Dillingham, a city in the Bristol Bay area and home to the proposed mine and a thriving salmon fishery (Greenwire, Aug. 27).
Obama's Alaska visit begins today in Anchorage, where he's slated to attend a roundtable with Alaska Natives and address a climate change conference including foreign ministers from Arctic nations and non-Arctic states.
Tomorrow, the president is scheduled to travel to Seward to hike to Exit Glacier and take a boat tour of Kenai Fjords National Park. And on Wednesday, he plans to travel to Dillingham to meet with local fishermen and their families, and on to Kotzebue to speak at a school.
"I expect to learn a lot" during meetings with Alaskans, Obama said in his weekly address. He'll be the first sitting president to visit the Alaskan Arctic.
"One thing I've learned so far is that a lot of these conversations begin with climate change. And that's because Alaskans are already living with its effects," like more frequent and extensive wildfires, swift shoreline erosion, and rapidly diminishing glaciers, he said.
"In fact, Alaska's governor recently told me that four villages are in 'imminent danger' and have to be relocated. Already, rising sea levels are beginning to swallow one island community," Obama said. "Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we'd do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now."
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