Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Engineering Firm Director: Industry is “Living in the Past”
Sep 2, 2015 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Engineering and construction companies must finally embrace technology in order to meet the demand of petrochemical and manufacturing projects along the Gulf Coast, industry experts said. -
US Consults on Draft Toxicological Profile of Perfluoroalkyls
Sep 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has released a draft toxicological profile of perfluoroalkyls for review and comment. -
US EPA Removes Snur for Substituted Cyclosiloxane
Sep 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has withdrawn a significant new use rule (Snur) for substituted cyclosiloxane that it issued in June, via a direct final rule. -
The Trouble With Disinfecting Wipes
Sep 2, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
They’re cheap, appealing and easy to find. They even smell nice. -
Congress Girds for Fight Over Ban on Oil Exports
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Proponents of lifting a decades-old ban on U.S. crude oil exports are working to shore up support in Congress, ahead of expected votes in both chambers this fall. -
Rebuttal to Sen. Markey on Oil Exports
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)
Recently, the U.S. Commerce Department approved the export of limited volumes of light-sweet crude oil to Mexico in exchange for heavy-sour oil from the country. -
Rubio to Call for Crude Exports, Nixing Federal Energy Regs
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) plans to provide a first look today at the energy policies he would pursue if elected to the White House, including a repeal of the crude oil export ban and a vow to give states greater power to regulate energy production within their boundaries. -
Snyder May Offer Template for Republicans on EPA Rule
Sep 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder became the first Republican statewide official to accept EPA's power plant carbon rules, but he won’t be the last. -
Mich. to Write Compliance Plan Even as AG Seeks Stay of Rule
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Elizabeth Harball
Michigan's Republican governor yesterday announced the state will craft its own plan to comply with U.S. EPA's new requirements to curb power plant emissions, even though the state's attorney general has joined a group petitioning for an emergency stay of the rule. -
Sue and Settle Shenanigans
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Robert L. Bradley Jr.
In a scathing report, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) has blown the whistle on the oft-used, controversial “sue-and-settle” tactic used to design environmental regulations. -
To Comply with the Clean Power Plan, States Should Tax Carbon
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Adele Morris and Evan Weber
Two years ago, with meaningful legislation to reduce climate-disrupting greenhouse gas pollution stalled, President Obama instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating emissions from our nation’s largest source: electric power plants. -
ECOS Shifts Drilling Policy Focus To Produced Water Despite Air Concerns
Sep 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The Environmental Council of the States' (ECOS) Shale Gas Caucus (SGC) is shifting its drilling policy focus to addressing produced water from the sector through a mix of voluntary measures and industry best practices, despite prior suggestions the group might focus on how to secure additional air pollution cuts from drilling. -
Obama Admin, States Fight Over Extent of WOTUS Injunction
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
The Obama administration and 13 states sparred yesterday over whether a federal judge should expand his order halting U.S. EPA and the Army's controversial water rule nationwide. -
EPA Defends Limiting Waters Rule Injunction to 13 States
Sep 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Jenny Hopkinson
The EPA is defending its decision to implement its Clean Water Rule in the 37 states despite an injunction from a federal judge, arguing that the findings from the court that the regulation would cause harm only apply in the 13 states subject to that suit. -
Obama's 4th-Quarter Climate Quarterback
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A few days before John Podesta departed the White House in February, the heads of big national green groups were summoned to the White House to meet with his successor. -
Officials Call for Safer Crude Rail Cars
Sep 2, 2015 | Fuel Fix
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The United States is doling out $10 million to help states upgrade highway-rail crossings and tracks that are seeing a surge in traffic involving flammable oil and ethanol cargoes. -
Feds Seek to Boost Safety of Oil Train Track Crossings
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
The Obama administration is offering states $10 million in grants to boost the safety of railway track crossings that carry potentially dangerous oil trains. -
Agency Offers Grants to Bolster Safety on Oil Train Routes
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced it is seeking applicants for $10 million in grants to improve safety on routes plied by trains carrying oil and other flammable energy products.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Engineering Firm Director: Industry is “Living in the Past”
Sep 2, 2015 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Engineering and construction companies must finally embrace technology in order to meet the demand of petrochemical and manufacturing projects along the Gulf Coast, industry experts said.
There are $147 billion in petrochemical and manufacturing projects underway or planned in the U.S. through 2023, according to the American Chemistry Council, and most of the companies that will construct the projects are still failing to utilize technological advances that could speed things up, said John Fish, director of project support services for Louisiana-based Ford, Bacon & Davis engineering and construction firm.
“Our industry — I hate to say it — we’re living in the past,” Fish said. “There’s some things we can do, and we’re just not doing them. And I think that’s a crime.”
Ford, Bacon & Davis, which is an affiliate of Houston-based S&B Engineers and Constructors, has begun to make progress, Fish said, but most haven’t.
“We’ve got a problem with less-trained people in the field,” he said. “We don’t have the skilled workforce we had.”
One relatively simple solution taking advantage of technology that has existed since 2002, Fish said, is to use two-sided and three-dimensional isometric drawings for skilled workers to use that more simply show how parts are placed or welded together. It’s an easy fix that research shows levels the playing field to speed up less-experienced workers, he said.
“But nobody would do it because that’s not the way we’ve always done things,” Fish said, noting that more companies are being forced to adapt with the greater levels of competition.
“There is a skilled craft war going on in the Houston area,” Fish said.
For instance, S&B recently had to offer skilled workers $2 hourly raises to keep them from jumping ship to a competitor, he said. More companies are offering a per diem to workers for the first time, he added.
More front-end work is being done — “advanced work packaging” — on big projects to improve communication and ensure that deadlines are met, said Dale Adcox, global workforce planning manager for California-based Jacobs Engineering Group, in a capital project productivity webinar.
That includes work on new projects, he said, as well as on turnaround work at refineries and petrochemical plants when there are scheduled outages for repairs or upgrades.
A Petrochemical Update report with the American Petroleum Institute noted more than 70 percent of U.S. capital projects since 2002 have failed to meet all of their performance goals.
Timelines and project costs are promises between the contractors and operators, so meeting them is imperative, said Ed Winston, principal engineer for turnarounds and maintenance at Dallas-based HollyFrontier refining and petrochemical company.
“A turnaround is, by definition, a loss of profitability,” Winston said. “In refining, if you’re not running you’re losing money.”
Project scopes should be known 24 months in advance, Winston said, and timelines should be set within 12 months. All the contracts and details should be finalized by three months out, he said, and one of the worst things that can happen is a “great idea” late in the process.
“We pick and choose our best contractors and repetitively go back to them even if they’re not the low bidder,” Winston said.
Another key to improving efficiency is avoiding overloading employees and contractors with extra information, said Deborah McNeil, project productivity program manager for the Dow Chemical Co.
“We want to make sure we really need all the data we’re generating,” McNeil said. “If we don’t need it, stop generating it.”
Another often overlooked key is ensuring a smooth “handoff” of the assets and data from the contractors to the operator, she said, and ensuring all the knowledge and workforce are in place in advance.
She said companies can save more time by using software and technologies that inform people when phases of the construction process are completed and when one part is added or inserted into another. That saves someone having to track down another person for an update, she said.
“Nirvana for us would be having the tools tell us where we are on execution,” McNeil said.
-
US Consults on Draft Toxicological Profile of Perfluoroalkyls
Sep 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has released a draft toxicological profile of perfluoroalkyls for review and comment.
A Federal Register notice calls for additional information or reports on studies about health effects; in particular, any relevant unpublished data.
Responses must be submitted by 1 December.
-
US EPA Removes Snur for Substituted Cyclosiloxane
Sep 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has withdrawn a significant new use rule (Snur) for substituted cyclosiloxane that it issued in June, via a direct final rule.
The action follows the receipt by the agency of a notice of “intent to submit adverse comments” to the Snur, says a notice in the Federal Register.
The EPA intends to publish a proposed Snur for this substance, under separate notice and comment procedures, it adds.
-
The Trouble With Disinfecting Wipes
Sep 2, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Originally published on Healthy Child, Healthy World by Megan Boyle.
They’re cheap, appealing and easy to find. They even smell nice.
It’s no wonder that disinfecting and antibacterial cleaning wipes are so popular. Last year Clorox executives reported that about half of U.S. homes use their brand of wipes. Some schools provide them for teachers or request them among back-to-school supplies.
In certain places, such as hospitals, disinfectants are essential to protect human health. But what about your kitchen counters and schools?
The truth is, disinfecting wipes are not necessary for routine cleaning. And when they are actually needed – cleaning up after a sick kid or raw chicken on the cutting board – they don’t work unless you use them properly.
While cleaning removes germs from a surface, disinfecting kills them by using antimicrobial pesticides, such as quaternary ammonium compounds or “quats.”
These disinfectant chemicals trigger asthma, allergies and other health concerns. Although the EPA monitors pesticides in these products, that is no guarantee of safety. The regulatory body may approve chemical ingredients that have been insufficiently tested for health risks.
Some exposure to living bacteria is healthy for us. According to the “hygiene hypothesis,” it can strengthen immune systems, particularly in kids. But overuse of disinfectants can lead to “superbugs,” or bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.
Antibacterial hand soaps raise similar red flags. The American Medical Association recommends against using them because studies do not support the claim that they make people healthier.
Here’s what you can do to make smarter cleaning choices for your family:
At home
Determine whether you need to clean or disinfect. Clean surfaces regularly to remove germs and prevent them from growing or spreading. You should still disinfect surfaces that have contact with raw meat, blood or bodily fluids, and when a family member suffers from a contagious illness, such as the flu. And talk to a doctor if a family member has a weakened immune system. You may need to take extra cleaning measures for their health.
When you need to disinfect, use products properly. Not only can overuse of disinfectants breed superbugs, inappropriate use may not kill bacteria, exposing your family to harmful chemicals without the germ-destroying benefit.
All disinfectant products, including bleach, need to stay on the surface for a certain duration of time to work adequately, so always read instructions on the label. You might be surprised how many wet wipes it takes to ensure the surface stays wet for the full 4 to 10 minutes directed on the label.
Other important instructions include keeping out of children’s reach, washing hands after using, rinsing surfaces with water after using and don’t use on skin. After disinfecting a kitchen counter or cutting board, wash it before using again.
Choose simple cleaners. Simple products – made without antimicrobial pesticides – are typically sufficient to keep your family healthy at home. Visit EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning to find the right products for your needs, or make your own cleaners using common household ingredients.
Develop healthy habits. If you use wipes, don’t use the same wipe on multiple surfaces, such as a counter and a toilet. This can spread the germs from one surface to the next. Throw wipes away immediately after use. In the bathroom, tuck away your toilet brush and close the lid while flushing. In the kitchen, microwave a wet sponge to make it less hospitable to growing bacteria.
At school
Ask your children’s school about cleaning policies around disinfecting wipes. Are wipes used, by whom and on what occasions? Can you provide non-disinfecting wipes for normal cleanup and save the disinfectants for serious germs?
If a teacher or administrator will ask your children to use disinfecting wipes during the school day, talk to decision makers about alternatives. Some schools have instituted policies to prohibit children from using disinfecting wipes in the classroom. Others are using greener school cleaning supplies to reduce chemical residue on the desks and surfaces children touch frequently.
Wet paper towels, microfiber cloths and wipes made without disinfectant chemicals (such as diapers wipes) are all good choices for routine cleaning of hands or hard surfaces. When germs are a concern (like cleaning up after a sick kid), seek out disinfectants that use safer active ingredients, such as hydrogen peroxide, lactic acid, caprylic acid and citric acid. When possible, schools should opt for Ecologo– or Greenseal-certified products, which are appropriate for commercial settings.
Always read product labels and follow safety instructions when using disinfecting wipes. Never use them before or while eating, and always wash hands with soap and warm water when done.
On your body
In addition to cleaners, body care products such as toothpaste, acne face wash and deodorant contain antibacterial chemicals. The worst offender is antibacterial soap.
These products are made with the hormone-disrupting chemicals triclosan and triclocarban. Like antibacterial cleaners, there is no evidence to show they are more effective than plain soap and water. The FDA has proposed rules that could remove these products from the market and is expected to finalize the decision in 2016.
In the meantime, to stop the spread of germs, wash hands often with soapy warm water and use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer on the go. Encourage good hand-washing habits in your children to help keep them healthy all year round.
-
Congress Girds for Fight Over Ban on Oil Exports
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Proponents of lifting a decades-old ban on U.S. crude oil exports are working to shore up support in Congress, ahead of expected votes in both chambers this fall.
The powerful oil industry sees momentum in the push for one of its top priorities, following a committee vote in the Senate to end the restrictions and an announcement of support from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) just before Congress departed for its August recess.
“In both sides and both chambers, we’re seeing very positive movement,” said Erik Milito, director of Upstream and Industry Operations at the American Petroleum Institute (API).
“There’s a lot on the calendar in both chambers as well, so we’ve got to exercise a degree of patience as well,” he said. “But this is an issue that should really be a no-brainer, because we’ve got a policy in place that is stifling economic growth, and it’s restricting our ability to help our allies.”
Opponents of crude exports, including environmentalists and some petroleum refiners, meanwhile, are stepping up their efforts to show lawmakers that opening the country’s oil market to the world could increase gasoline prices for American consumers and harm the environment.
Critics of the 1975 ban, meant to protect Americans from international energy price problems, counter that it is outdated, because the United States is producing near-record volumes of oil domestically.
They have claimed a series of victories in recent months, as the Obama administration and federal lawmakers appear increasingly open to relaxing the restrictions.
Among the most significant came last month, when the administration approved a number of oil exchanges with Mexico.
The Iran nuclear deal has also been a potential boon for opponents of the ban; if allowed to proceed, it will eventually allow Iran to export hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil, fueling arguments that the United States is hampering its own oil industry while letting Iran’s thrive.
And oil export supporters celebrated a pair of small victories in August, when two top Democrats indicated they had softened their opposition to shipping crude.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told Politico that he “sees room for a compromise,” while Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), previously a vocal opponent of lifting the ban, signaled in a speech that he might be open to “strategic” exports. Menendez later clarified that he does not want to change the law and would rather work within current legislative limits.
Republican leaders in both the House and Senate have not yet announced plans for votes, spokesmen in their offices said.
But Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who’s sponsored a House bill to lift the ban, said leaders told him it will come up for a vote in the fall.
Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is also hoping for a floor vote soon.
“We are ready to go — the committee has done its work — as soon as floor time opens up,” he said. “There’s lots on the agenda for the floor, but energy is obviously an important issue for the nation.”
Lobbyists and advocates worked over Congress’s summer break to build support for exporting crude, targeting both lawmakers and the general public.
“There was a tremendous effort that several companies and groups participated in to continue to educate and raise the profile of the issue,” one oil company lobbyist said.
Lobbyists said their focus is on Senate Democrats, because there already appears to be sufficient support in the House and among Senate Republicans.
“It’s going to be your centrists and your national security-based Democrats [who] seem to be much more willing and open to discussing this,” the lobbyist said, declining to name specific lawmakers.
“The real push is going to be over the next 30 to 45 days, and it’s going to be about real jobs, GDP growth and lower gasoline prices,” he added.
Milito said there’s also a continuing push aimed directly at constituents.
“We’re making sure that they’re educated, and they’re reaching out to their elected officials,” he said, adding that the API is also working with chairmen of the committees with jurisdiction to push them for votes.
The industry’s push was buoyed on Tuesday by a report from the Energy Information Administration concluding that exports would either cause no change to gasoline prices or in fact reduce prices, because they could push international oil prices down.
Opponents are also focusing largely on public relations, betting that voters will reject the idea when they hear more.
“As this gets closer to a vote, members of Congress will hear more from average Americans,” said Jay Hauck, head of Consumers and Refiners United for Domestic Energy, or CRUDE, a coalition of independent refiners pushing to keep the export restrictions in place.
“And the more that average Americans hear about this, the less they like it.”
CRUDE argues that exports will inevitably increase gasoline prices, because refiners would have to pay more for oil.
Environmentalists may also become more vocal on oil exports as the votes near.
They argue that lifting the ban could cause more demand for oil, along with the climate change and environmental impacts that burning oil brings.
“For Sierra Club and some other groups, it’s gotten to be a big issue, because they are nervous both from a climate angle ... and you could see more pressure to drill in areas that are currently off-limits,” said Athan Manuel, a lobbyist with the Sierra Club.
Working with the United Steelworkers, a union that represents refinery workers, the Sierra Club has been pushing publicly and on Capitol Hill the message that the oil industry does not need exports.
“This is going to be a big fight, an important fight for environmentalists to get engaged in, and I think you’re going to see more actions from many environmental groups when Congress gets back,” Manuel said.
The Center for American Progress released a report in August attempting to quantify some of the environmental impacts of lifting export restrictions. It found that, at the very least, it would cause an increase in domestic oil drilling.
“Congress is heading into a debate without having a good understanding of the implications of a major policy change in the U.S. energy world,” said Matt Lee-Ashley, a senior fellow at the think tank.
-
Rebuttal to Sen. Markey on Oil Exports
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)
Recently, the U.S. Commerce Department approved the export of limited volumes of light-sweet crude oil to Mexico in exchange for heavy-sour oil from the country. Ardent defender of the Nixon-era oil export ban, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), said the move illustrated “sufficient flexibility under the U.S. oil export ban” and cited national security and the defense of American consumers against “Big Oil” as reasons to retain the ban.
If undermining “Big Oil” is Markey’s aim, then he is looking for a villain where one does not exist. The shale renaissance that has unfolded this decade has been led by hundreds of independent exploration companies founded by entrepreneurial leaders willing to risk their own capital. This industry has created hundreds of thousands of high-paying middle class jobs, providing a means to elevate oneself and support one’s family through hard work. Like high tech Silicon Valley companies, these firms have been tremendously innovative, directly contributing to gains in economic productivity through the development of horizontal drilling and well stimulation technologies. As I’ve witnessed first-hand, they have given back generously to the communities in which they operate through economic stimulus, new educational opportunities, and charitable support.
Conversely, the East Coast refining companies pushing so hard to retain the oil export ban Markey supports are owned by Wall Street private equity companies seeking to protect their “golden goose” investments for themselves and their investors. Because our nation’s export laws restrict the export of crude oil but allow refineries to freely export the gasoline, diesel, and heating oil consumers actually use, these outdated laws have created a low-risk, high-margin investment opportunity for refineries to buy U.S. crude oil at depressed prices and sell their refined products to the highest bidders at home and abroad.
I’m inspired by Harvard economics professor Sendhil Mullainathan, who in an April New York Times op-ed ruminated on various roles within our economy. Citing a paper by Chicago and Harvard economists, Professor Mullainathan distinguished between “supervalue-adders,” who create societal wealth through innovation and job creation, and “rent seekers,” who instead of creating wealth merely transfer wealth from others to themselves.
What Markey perhaps misunderstands when he targets “Big Oil” exploration companies on behalf of the American consumer is that he’s actually working to undermine the independent “supervalue-adders” while defending Wall Street’s refinery “rent-seekers.” Surely, if these refinery owners really had the best interests of American consumers and national security at heart, they would pass along the savings from cheap, export-restricted U.S. oil to domestic drivers. Instead, they sell fuel at home and abroad at prices tied to the relatively higher priced global crude oil marker, Brent. With the exports of gasoline, diesel, home heating oil and other products Americans actually use soaring to over 4.2 million barrels per day this year, it is clear the Wall Street mantra of “buy low, sell high” prevails, with only the private equity principals and investors benefiting.
Study after study from federal agencies, independent economic research firms, think tanks, and prominent universities – including Harvard University in Markey’s state of Massachusetts – have concluded that lifting the oil export ban will add jobs, boost GDP, and importantly, lower gasoline prices for U.S. consumers. If Washington weighed this issue by the body of research alone, a full repeal of the ban would win in a landslide. And yet, politicians like Markey cling to outdated laws that pad private equity pockets while failing to expand the number of high-paying, middle class jobs or yielding innovations that make our nation globally competitive.
While this Mexico swap is an incremental step in the right direction, it is hardly the sufficient support for the exploration industry Markey claims it to be. The 100,000 barrels per day to be swapped with Mexico is only one-fortieth of the growth in U.S. crude oil production over the last four years and one forty-second of what refineries export in fuel every day. In other words, it is a miniscule step. Congress must avoid complacency with this small measure taken by Commerce and instead must push full steam ahead for a total repeal of the ban this fall – the “supervalue-adders” depend on it.
Cramer has served as North Dakota’s at-large representative since 2013. He sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
-
Rubio to Call for Crude Exports, Nixing Federal Energy Regs
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) plans to provide a first look today at the energy policies he would pursue if elected to the White House, including a repeal of the crude oil export ban and a vow to give states greater power to regulate energy production within their boundaries.
Rubio, who is one of 17 contenders vying for the Republican presidential nomination, is set to unveil his energy platform this afternoon in an event with the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association in Oklahoma City.
A preview of Rubio's remarks released by his campaign shows the senator will focus on the export ban as well as blocking U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants.
"America's energy future must be entrusted to our businesses and scientists, not our bureaucrats. And finding ways to empower our energy producers to capture our energy potential should be a priority for every presidential candidate," Rubio will say, according to his campaign.
The GOP contender made similar remarks in an op-ed published in the National Reviewtoday.
Rubio also plans to take aim at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, criticizing the former secretary of State for supporting "more of the same ideas from yesterday." Clinton has said she would shift at least a third of the nation's energy generation to renewable energy sources if elected.
Advertisement
"For the most part, she resorts to empty rhetoric that refuses to chart much of a course in either direction," Rubio said in his prepared remarks.
But Rubio, who has repeatedly said he rejects the idea that human activity contributes to climate change, will also promise to reduce regulation on the energy industry overall.
"Our outdated government continues to make energy one of the most politicized and regulated aspects of our economy," Rubio said in his prepared remarks. "Washington continues to lean on the notion that handing out subsidies to favored companies while imposing new mandates and taxes on others is the way to seize our energy potential. But this didn't work yesterday, it isn't working today, and it's not going to work tomorrow."
Rubio pointed to the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule -- which would regulate well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracking on public and tribal lands but was stayed by a federal judge in late June -- as an example of government overreach.
"Washington is currently on a crusade to take control of energy production away from the states," Rubio said. "State and local governments are far better equipped than Washington to oversee energy production and balance environmental concerns."
Rubio is currently running in the middle of the crowded GOP primary pack, behind front-runners Donald Trump, physician Ben Carson and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
A recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling gave Rubio 7 percent of the vote, falling between former Hewlett-Packard Co. CEO Carly Fiorina with 8 percent and Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with 6 percent. The survey of 527 GOP primary voters was conducted Aug. 28 to 30.
-
Snyder May Offer Template for Republicans on EPA Rule
Sep 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder became the first Republican statewide official to accept EPA's power plant carbon rules, but he won’t be the last.
Snyder's announcement on Tuesday that he will mobilize his state's energy and environmental regulators to develop a plan to comply with EPA’s carbon regulation puts him at odds with the state’s Republican Attorney General Mark Schuette, who has joined a lawsuit aimed at killing the EPA rules. But the compliance plan the state will send to EPA in a few years will give Michigan a backstop in case the legal challenge fails, and Snyder is touting his tactic as one that champions states’ rights.
“We need to seize the opportunity to make Michigan’s energy decisions in Lansing, not leave them in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.,” Snyder said Tuesday. He was referring to the provisions of the rule that say if a state does not submit a viable plan to meet the carbon cuts determined by EPA, the agency will impose its own.
That’s a “beautiful, pure, consistent, Republican platform,” said Christi Tezak, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, a nonpartisan research firm based in Washington. “States' rights, ‘I do it my way.’”
It's an approach other Republicans are likely to adopt, especially in other traditionally blue states that currently have Republican chief executives, such as Massachusetts or Iowa, and potentially in redder states wary of ceding control to the federal government.
A spokeswoman for Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker's energy agency said the state is already well-positioned to meet its carbon-reduction goal because of its participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative‘s cap-and-trade program. Massachusetts will submit a compliance plan before the deadline, she said.
An aide to Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad touted the state's position as a leader in wind energy and biofuels, but said he hadn’t yet decided how to approach EPA's Clean Power Plan. Officials in Des Moines plan to meet with industry and power users groups next week.
National Wildlife Federation President and CEO Collin O'Mara expects to see more states get on board with the rule soon.
“As governors take a hard look, they’ll see the economic opportunities for their states,” said O’Mara, a former state regulator in Delaware.
NWF is working “very closely with a lot of governors” across the nation, but particularly in the Midwest, on implementation plans, according to O’Mara. “We’ll be working with governors to make sure they submit plans that make sense for their state, that have the market-based elements and create a lot of jobs in the process,” he said.
For now, states that submit their own plan are essentially keeping their options open.
Initial plans are due in September 2016, but states can easily get another two years to finalize their plans — time that one Michigan regulator said the state will need to write a plan and approve the in-state rules needed to enforce it.
That puts them well into 2017 — when Republicans may control the White House. A GOP president might be able to pull the rule, or at the very least delay it for several years.
It also gives time for the courts to weigh in, though it is unclear whether the Supreme Court will decide the issue by September 2018. If the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down the rule, even as it is appealed to the Supreme Court, states likely would have more time.
At least 16 states have signed on to the lawsuit aimed at blocking the carbon rules. Colorado’s Republican Attorney General Cynthia Coffman brought her state into the lawsuit last week, even though Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper sees the EPA rule as an economic opportunity.
Snyder's decision also may complicate the political calculus for Michigan’s neighbors to the south and west, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Both are seeking the Republican presidential nomination but neither has tipped their hand on whether their states would comply with the EPA rule.
So far, only Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has issued an executive order barring state regulators from complying with the EPA rule. But others such as Indiana, Mississippi and Louisiana are strongly considering non-compliance as well.
Electric utilities also are proving to be a surprise ally for groups that have encouraged states to submit their own plans. Most utilities don’t want to see EPA impose its own plans on states that refuse to cooperate.
“Do you want to be completely naked if you lose in court?” Tezak asked. “I don’t think there’s very many participants in this utility industry that truly feel comfortable betting the company on it.”
Michigan’s DTE Energy, which produces about three quarters of its electricity from burning coal, said in a statement that it hopes the state will “maintain control of its energy future.”
And environmentalists were quick to cheer Snyder's announcement yesterday.
“Gov. Snyder is demonstrating much-needed leadership on clean energy for Michigan, the Midwest and the nation," said Henry Henderson, Midwest program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Creating a plan to reduce dangerous carbon emissions is a common-sense step other governors interested in protecting their states’ economies and health will surely follow."
Not everyone buys into Snyder's argument that states ought to be prepared to comply with the rule. American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle, for example, said Snyder is waving a white flag.
“Obama and EPA want states to think their only choices are to submit a state plan or have a federal plan imposed on them. Gov. Snyder has apparently fallen for this false choice,” Pyle said in a statement. “The real choice is between shielding Michigan from this harmful carbon regulation or helping President [Barack] Obama carry it across the finish line as the sun sets on his presidency.”
On the other hand, a Democrat might be in the Oval Office, and the courts might uphold the rule. In that case, savvy states would still be able to fall back on plans they crafted.
“Why go into a hedge-able situation unhedged?” Tezak said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”
-
Mich. to Write Compliance Plan Even as AG Seeks Stay of Rule
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Elizabeth Harball
Michigan's Republican governor yesterday announced the state will craft its own plan to comply with U.S. EPA's new requirements to curb power plant emissions, even though the state's attorney general has joined a group petitioning for an emergency stay of the rule.
"The best way to protect Michigan is to develop a state plan that reflects Michigan's priorities of adaptability, affordability, reliability and protection of the environment," Gov. Rick Snyder (R) said in a statement. "We need to seize the opportunity to make Michigan's energy decisions in Lansing, not leave them in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C."
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) was among 16 state attorneys general who requested an emergency stay on the Clean Power Plan shortly after the final rule was released (EnergyWire, Aug. 14). It appears Snyder's administration has opted to distance itself from that action.
"The AG is pursuing that case in his individual capacity, and at this time there are no plans for the state to join the current challenges," Michigan Agency for Energy Director Valerie Brader said yesterday during a call with reporters.
In an emailed statement, a spokeswoman for Schuette said that while the attorney general "remains committed to stopping overregulation and excessive mandates from the EPA," he "remains hopeful about the plan the Governor's office is developing."
During yesterday's call, Brader and Department of Environmental Quality Director Dan Wyant joined the governor in stressing that the decision for Michigan to write its own plan was made to maximize the state's control over how it complies with the final rule.
Advertisement
Following a review by the Michigan Agency for Energy, the state Public Service Commission, the state Department of Environmental Quality and the state Economic Development Corp., "the team determined that with robust stakeholder engagement, Michigan can identify a reasonable path to compliance," Brader said. "We believe that a state plan will be far more beneficial to Michigan than any federal plan."State sees contradictions
Under the final Clean Power Plan, EPA is requiring Michigan to reduce its emissions rate by 39.4 percent, compared to 31.3 percent under the proposed rule.
Brader said the state was pleased that the initial compliance deadline was pushed to 2022, but she also expressed disappointment that EPA did not give Michigan credit for its efforts to reduce carbon emissions before 2012.
Additionally, the state argues it is still grappling with contradictory demands from the federal government under EPA's rule to reduce power plant emissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's requirement that the state keep coal-burning plants in Michigan's Upper Peninsula online for reliability purposes (Greenwire, Feb. 19).
"The rule fails to address what would happen if a future, similar federal order was issued and the plant violated a new pollution law as a result of filing that order," Brader said.
While the state intends to meet EPA's deadlines, "it is actually impossible for Michigan to meet all the EPA requirements for a final plan before 2018," Brader added. "EPA requirements for a final plan include enforceability, which will require us to move through our administrative rules process, which is a lengthy process."
In March, Snyder presented the state's Legislature with a plan that would reduce Michigan's heavy reliance on coal (EnergyWire, June 30). Brader said that although Snyder's vision was not crafted with the Clean Power Plan in mind, "we're not seeing anything in this rule that would contradict what he was looking at as a wise future for Michigan."National group pans decision
Wyant of the Michigan DEQ said the state will engage with stakeholders to weigh participation in an interstate carbon trading program to comply with the rule.
The industry-backed American Energy Alliance blasted the state's claim that writing its own plan will help it retain control over how the rule is implemented. AEA President Thomas Pyle said in a statement, "The governor claims this approach 'retains control' for Michigan, yet the opposite is true," adding, "implementing this regulation, when serious legal challenges persist, effectively hands over the keys to Michigan's energy future to unelected bureaucrats in Washington."
A wide variety of other interest groups, including environmentalists, renewable energy advocates, utilities and religious organizations, came out in full-throated support of the governor's decision.
"With carbon controls for utilities on the way, Michigan public power would much rather work with our Michigan regulators to establish the best approach, because Michigan DEQ understands the value of public power and has always worked with us to find reasonable, flexible, best-cost approaches to clean air improvements," the Michigan Municipal Electric Association said in a statement.
The Michigan Chemistry Council urged the state to "consider all available options to ensure that Michigan's ratepayers aren't saddled with a huge energy bill."
"We recognize the ongoing legal challenges to this regulation, and support Gov. Snyder's decision to craft a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that can best protect Michigan's ratepayers if those challenges are unsuccessful," the industry group said in a statement.
"People who normally don't agree on much are expressing support for the plan," said Judy Palnau, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Agency for Energy and the Michigan Public Service Commission. "We are hearing from a lot of folks who decided that it's important that they get their view out on this."Colo. AG also sues
Colorado's Republican attorney general, Cynthia Coffman, on Friday announced her state also will sue EPA to halt implementation of the Clean Power Plan, one day after Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) said his state could easily meet the agency's emission reduction targets and would not benefit from a lawsuit (E&ENews PM, Aug. 27).
"The rule is an unprecedented attempt to expand the federal government's regulatory control over the states' energy economy," Coffman said in a statement. "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."
-
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Robert L. Bradley Jr.
In a scathing report, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) has blown the whistle on the oft-used, controversial “sue-and-settle” tactic used to design environmental regulations. EPW cites the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan as the “quintessential example.”
Sue-and-settle describes the “legal collusion” that has occurred between federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and well-heeled environmental groups. It typically begins with agencies being sued by environmentalists for failing to meet regulatory deadlines and then agreeing to settle the disputes out-of-court. These settlements, which achieve the environmentalists’ goals and timeline, are written behind closed doors with little or no input from affected parties.
Several environmental regulations have resulted from sue-and-settle agreements, including prohibitions on public-land drilling and compliance with costly and questionable federal rules forced on utilities and states. As the Western Energy Alliance (WEA) told a congressional panel on Aug. 4, at least 88 such agreements have been forged during the Obama Administration, 79 of which involved suits from environmental groups.
Many settlements, pushed by groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, are moving the United States away from natural gas, coal, and oil. “The sue-and-settle model takes policy making away from the public and puts it into the hands of one special interest driving an agenda to ultimately prevent the use of fossil fuels,” WEA testified.
Such is the case with the Clean Power Plan, which sets state-specific carbon-emission reduction guidelines to address climate change. According to the EPW Committee’s report, EPA officials and the NRDC shared information through private email accounts, held an informal meeting at a Starbucks in Washington, and even discussed the words that would be used to explain the plan to the public.
With research showing “only 7 percent of people surveyed said climate legislation was important to counter global warming and only 6 percent said it was needed to protect the environment,” the EPA and NRDC agreed that the carbon-emission requirements would have to be sold on public health grounds, however stretched.
To that end, the Clean Power Plan asserts that carbon-dioxide reductions will result in “90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children” and prevent “300,000 missed work and school days.” Skeptical lawmakers have accused EPA of fronting “secret science.” Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control reports no one knows what causes asthma, no one knows how to cure it, and asthma attacks are triggered by a wide variety of stimuli.
Who pays for these phantom health benefits? Everyone who depends on fossil fuels for heat and light.
Unless coal companies and the states are successful in stopping the under-handed carbon-emission rules (at least 15 states are challenging the plan), electricity costs will, as Obama once admitted, “necessarily skyrocket” as coal-burning power plants are phased out. And more coal miners will suffer the fate of the workers at giant Alpha Natural Resources, which became the fourth coal company to file bankruptcy in the past 15 months.
Furthermore, there’s no assurance that the carbon-emission rules will have any environmental impact, especially since China and Japan are building coal-fired power plants as fast as they can. Furthermore, as stated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in a letter to all 50 governors, “the EPA admits that the ‘climate’ benefits of the CPP [Clean Power Plan] cannot be quantified and has refused to estimate the impact it would have on global temperature or sea levels.”
But one thing is certain: The federal bureaucracy has aligned itself with interest groups, rather than working for the benefit of the citizens. It is spending millions of taxpayers’ dollars on marginal issues like climate change rather than improving national security and the economy. And it is promulgating misguided regulations—21,000 under the Obama administration so far—when many people simply want the government to get out of the way.
The U.S. Congress must stop the sue-and-settle ruse and challenge the cozy relationship between federal agencies and politically motivated environmental groups. No one, including the planet, is being well served.
Bradley is CEO of the Institute for Energy Research and the author of several books on energy history and public policy.
-
To Comply with the Clean Power Plan, States Should Tax Carbon
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Adele Morris and Evan Weber
Two years ago, with meaningful legislation to reduce climate-disrupting greenhouse gas pollution stalled, President Obama instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating emissions from our nation’s largest source: electric power plants. Under its Clean Air Act authority, the EPA recently released a final rule that sets state-specific emissions limits for 2030 and outlines ways states can achieve their targets. One of these options, as EPA has now clarified, is “a fee for CO2 emissions from affected [Electricity Generating Units]”—or more simply, a carbon tax. For many states, a carbon tax could be the most easily administrable and cost-effective compliance approach, and they should start taking the idea seriously.
Since the release of the final rule, much attention has been given to how states can trade emissions allowances across borders to reach goals jointly, allowing more abatement where costs are lowest. The requirements for these complicated schemes occupy hundreds of pages of the rule, while EPA devotes only one sentence (in the preamble) to the potentially equally cost-minimizing carbon tax approach. The agency clearly prefers cap-and-trade over other options, as evidenced by the detail in the rule and EPA’s accompanying proposed federal plan for states who do not submit an acceptable (or any) implementation plan.
However, another factor accounts for EPA’s apparent short shrift for a tax approach: the concept is remarkably simple to understand—one-sentence simple—and just as easy to administer. By gradually increasing the cost of emitting greenhouse gases from coal- and natural gas-fired power plants by charging a per-ton fee for the CO2 emissions the plants already monitor, states could both reduce electricity demand from fossil fuel sources and level the playing field for zero-emissions alternatives like wind and solar. States already know how to implement such a tax;every state already taxes fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and natural gas. A state would just need to show, by modeling (the kind EPA already does), that its proposed carbon tax trajectory will hit its Clean Power Plan target and be prepared to adjust it or take other actions if emissions are off course.
This simplicity can provide real economic and environmental benefits. British Columbia, the first government in North America to implement a straight-up carbon tax, reduced its emissions 7.1 times faster than analysts expected, in part because the transparent and predictable price signal allowed business and consumers to invest efficiently and with foresight. A new paper from the Brookings Institution shows that a carbon tax has a slight efficiency edge over tradable performance standards. And, unlike trading schemes, a carbon tax won’t transfer ratepayer dollars from one state to utilities in other states.
The benefits of a carbon tax, state or federal, will depend heavily on how the revenue is used. States could use the revenue any way they wish, including giving dividends to households or swapping out other taxes. Studies show that the most cost-effective policy would lower (or prevent increasing) other taxes that discourage working, investing, and saving. States could also use revenue to protect low-income households from energy cost increases, assist coal workers in the energy transition, fund climate adaptation, repair infrastructure, reduce budget shortfalls, or pursue other goals.
Importantly, states that adopt a carbon tax can demonstrate the policy’s viability and inform both federal and international efforts. The Clean Power Plan, assuming it survives the inevitable litigation, addresses just one sector in one country through 2030. To stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, stronger and more coherent and transformative legislation, carefully leveraged to achieve ambitious action abroad, will be essential, and economists agreethat pricing carbon is a core strategy.
Already there are campaigns underway to put a price tag on climate pollution in Massachusetts,New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont; the approach would be even better-suited to states like Illinois, who need to make significant greenhouse gas reductionsand have unfunded liabilities. State innovations have led to some of the biggest federal policy changes in our nation. By allowing states to pursue fees on carbon, the Clean Power Plan opens the door for states to lead once again.
-
ECOS Shifts Drilling Policy Focus To Produced Water Despite Air Concerns
Sep 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The Environmental Council of the States' (ECOS) Shale Gas Caucus (SGC) is shifting its drilling policy focus to addressing produced water from the sector through a mix of voluntary measures and industry best practices, despite prior suggestions the group might focus on how to secure additional air pollution cuts from drilling.
“The big issue for us is production water, and the larger impacts that are associated with that. I'll take an oil spill nine times out of 10 over a production water spill. You have long-term impacts that are really difficult to remediate,” said SGC Co-Chair and North Dakota Environmental Health Section chief David Glatt during a meeting of the caucus as part of the ECOS fall meeting taking place here Aug. 31 through Sept. 2.
One member of the audience at the SGC discussions who identified himself as a California regulator said that, “What you do with wastewater is going to be a big issue for us as well,” noting that drilling wastewater handling and disposal rules affect states that receive waste produced elsewhere.
Environmentalists have long sought stricter regulation of drilling wastes, and advocates last month filed a notice of intent to sue EPA where they claim the agency is violating the law by not updating its Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements for oil and gas wastes -- a broad definition of wastes that includes, but is not limited to, produced waters, drill cuttings, drill muds and tailings from the energy extraction process.
Regulators at the SGC meeting here suggested that rather than look at potential regulatory options, they will debate voluntary measures and industry best practices to encourage better handling of drilling produced water.
The SGC “promotes coordination on such matters as data sharing, best practices, community outreach, and lessons learned” in the shale gas sector, according to ECOS' website. Previous work by the group has included efforts to coordinate efforts on reducing the industry's methane and other emissions.
The agenda for the ECOS meeting said that the caucus would discuss EPA's recently proposed drilling sector air rules that include first-time limits on emissions of the greenhouse gas methane from new oil and gas drilling operations.
Drilling Operations
The SGC “will tee up possible areas of focus for the second phase of the SGC's work. After having concentrated since last year on best practices to reduce methane and air toxics, the SGC now may turn its attention to topics including advanced monitoring, best practice verification, and market-based and regulatory incentives to promote best practice use in all media,” said the agenda released prior to the meeting.
However, SGC panel speakers did not address any potential investigation of methane emissions. One state regulator said the SGC “is definitely going to take a look at those rules and how we're going to work with them, sooner or later,” but that public pressure is spurring state officials to focus on produced water.
“That's really the issue of the day. You can ask whether it's the big thing they should be talking about, but it's the one the public has focused in on,” the source said.
During the panel discussion, North Dakota's Glatt said he hopes the caucus can move forward with voluntary measures and best practices. Produced water “ is a big issue that I don't think has been resolved nationwide. . . . But I'm not a regulations guy. If there's a way to do this without regulation I'd prefer that,” he said.
Environmentalists however are pushing for regulation through their RCRA suit. They argue that EPA has failed to update the RCRA subtitle D regulations for solid wastes despite significant increases in the volumes of drilling and hydraulic fracturing wastes, even though RCRA requires review of the rules every three years. They cite a federal judge's 2013 ruling that found the agency violated the waste law by not reviewing its coal ash rules on that three-year deadline, and advocates say the ruling extends to the oil and gas waste rules.
Speaking to Inside EPA during the ECOS meeting, EPA's de facto water chief Ken Kopocis said it is unclear which agency office would be best suited to address the states' concerns. He said that the agency's Office of Water would oversee the handling of produced water when it is discharged to protected waters or sent to wastewater treatment plants, but not when it is disposed of through other methods.
Methane Emissions
Discussion at the SGC meeting touched on methane emissions only during a presentation by Bryan Wilson, a program director for the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, on emerging technologies for advanced monitoring of methane leaks from oil and gas extraction.
Wilson described methods such as methane-sensitive carbon nanotubes, and distributed computing systems that would tie an array of sensors to a single receiver, which he said are targeted to be ready for field testing by 2017.
While current monitors can cost $100,000 or more, “we've taken that $100,000 cost to something that's only a couple of hundred dollars,” he said.
-
Obama Admin, States Fight Over Extent of WOTUS Injunction
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
The Obama administration and 13 states sparred yesterday over whether a federal judge should expand his order halting U.S. EPA and the Army's controversial water rule nationwide.
North Dakota and a dozen states are asking U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Erickson for the District of North Dakota to apply to all states his ruling last week blocking the administration's Waters of the U.S. regulations (Greenwire, Aug. 28).
EPA contends that the injunction, which prevents the rule from taking effect while the lawsuits play out, applies only to the 13 states in that case.
After EPA issued its interpretation of his decision, Erickson swiftly asked for both sides to submit briefs on whether his injunction should apply nationally.
The states -- Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico -- sought to turn EPA's words against the agency in pressing for a broad ruling.
EPA, they wrote, has "repeatedly asserted the uniform applicability, consistency, and predictability were the driving forces in the need for and development of the Rule." After the ruling last week, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers were "quick to abandon their uniform applicability concerns in favor of seeking to limit the scope of this Court's ruling," the states wrote.
Advertisement
They added that Erickson should reject the administration's "litigation tactic."
EPA countered that a nationwide injunction is not warranted for several reasons.
First, the agency noted that more than one other district court denied granting injunctions in challenges to the rule, including in one case involving 11 other states.
EPA further noted that seven states -- Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington -- and the District of Columbia have indicated they will intervene in support of the rule in other litigation pending before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
"The Court's preliminary injunction is based on and addresses harms alleged to affect only Plaintiff States," the administration wrote. "[A]n award of preliminary injunctive relief that sweeps in parties not before this Court is neither necessary or appropriate."
There is some precedent for EPA and the Army Corps applying different water regulations to different states. In 1993, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia, threw out regulations stemming from the "migratory bird rule."
The Supreme Court completely invalidated those rules in 2001, but until then, the agencies applied different standards to those states than others.
Separately, a number of industry groups and states have urged the administration to hold off on implementing the new rule to allow better staff training and time for judicial review (Greenwire, July 31).
Erickson, a Republican appointee, could issue his ruling on the issue anytime.
The North Dakota case is only one of several pending challenges to the Waters of the U.S. rule, which defines which wetlands, marshes and bogs qualify for federal protections under the Clean Water Act.
A dozen lawsuits, including the North Dakota case, were filed in federal district courts, and others were filed in eight federal appeals courts across the country. Those eight have been consolidated at the 6th Circuit, and EPA is pressing for the district court cases to be consolidated and moved to the district court in Washington, D.C. A judicial panel on multidistrict litigation will consider that issue at an Oct. 1 hearing in New York City.
Click here for the states' brief.
Click here for the Obama administration's brief.
Reporter Annie Snider contributed.
-
EPA Defends Limiting Waters Rule Injunction to 13 States
Sep 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Jenny Hopkinson
The EPA is defending its decision to implement its Clean Water Rule in the 37 states despite an injunction from a federal judge, arguing that the findings from the court that the regulation would cause harm only apply in the 13 states subject to that suit.
In a briefing to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, the agency writes that its "interpretation is especially appropriate given that (1) many states are not challenging the Clean Water Rule at all, and some seek to support it ... and (2) challenges by other parties, including other states, are pending in other courts.”
Applying the injunction to all states “would lead to the absurd situation” that if one entity can convince any district court that a rule could cause harm, the injunction would block a rule everywhere, even in places that support the measure.
The states, meanwhile, argue in a separate brief that the injunction should apply nationwide to prevent inconsistent rulings between courts and promote the consistent application of federal rules.
-
Obama's 4th-Quarter Climate Quarterback
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A few days before John Podesta departed the White House in February, the heads of big national green groups were summoned to the White House to meet with his successor.
Message: The new guy will look out for you.
Brian Deese -- an economics specialist then just shy of 37 -- had recently been picked as the replacement for Podesta, President Obama's top green adviser, who was taking off to work for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Deese had long been a trusted aide to the president and top White House officials, but he wasn't a known quantity throughout the environmental community.
Greens wanted some reassurance.
"Up until that point, there had been a lot of questions," said someone who attended the Feb. 10 meeting in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House. "I think there was uncertainty."
Brian Deese, President Obama's top environmental adviser, quickly won over the environmental community with his budget chops and his pledge to play offense on climate policy. Photo courtesy of the White House.
At the meeting with about a dozen environmentalists, Deese dove into the wonky details of how their pet issues were prioritized in the administration's annual budget.
On hand were heavy hitters: Sierra Club's Michael Brune, the Natural Resources Defense Council's Rhea Suh, the League of Conservation Voters' Gene Karpinski, NextGen Climate's Dan Lashof, Earthjustice's Trip Van Noppen, Collin O'Mara of the National Wildlife Federation, Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, Jamie Williams of the Wilderness Society, Margie Alt of Environment America, Kenneth Kimmell of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress, political strategist George Rakis and green philanthropy adviser Kathleen Welch, according to White House logs.
Deese, fresh from a top job in the White House budget office, wooed the group with his grasp of energy issues.
"A lot of that crowd didn't know Brian's depth of understanding or knowledge on the policy intricacies on a lot of those issues," said Michael Boots, then-chief of the Council on Environmental Quality. "In a meeting like that, he does a great job of assuring people that he's a quick study who knows his stuff."
Boots added, "I think people were relieved, honestly. I think they felt like things were in good hands, which made John and me feel good." Boots, who was also preparing to leave the White House; his successor, Christy Goldfuss; and White House energy and climate adviser Dan Utech also attended the meeting.
After the gathering, greens were confident that there was "still a commitment to advancing our conservation agenda" for the last year of the Obama administration, said the other attendee who spoke on background.
Karpinski, who declined to comment on the content of the meeting, said Deese has since proved himself to be a "tremendous asset" in the White House.
"He's smart, he's strategic, he's clearly got the president's ear, and he's doing all he can to really push this agenda forward to make sure that the president has the climate change legacy that he seeks," Karpinski said.'Big things can happen in the 4th quarter'
After Deese got the job and won the trust of the environmental community, he was handed a big to-do list. Obama has made climate change one of his top priorities for his remaining time as commander in chief, and he's counting on Deese to quarterback his green policies both at home and abroad.
In February, Deese played off the football analogy that Obama is in the fourth quarter of his presidency. "I am a Patriots fan, and so after this year's Super Bowl, I am quite aware that big things can happen in the fourth quarter," Deese said, referring to the New England Patriots' comeback victory over the Seattle Seahawks earlier this year (Greenwire, Feb. 25).
He added, "We are looking at the next two years of climate action as an opportunity to go on offense, and we intend to stay there between now and the end of the administration." (Deese didn't waste any time going on offense -- he proceeded to bash Republicans who deny climate change in that same speech.)
He's had a busy first six months. Deese helped orchestrate the rollout of the administration's hallmark Clean Power Plan and will now be working with agencies and states to get new climate rules implemented. He's preparing to play pivotal parts in international climate negotiations slated for Paris this winter and in upcoming budget brawls, where the White House's environmental agenda is sure to come under fire.
Here's how Deese summarizes his job: "managing the energy, climate, conservation portfolio, making sure that those issues are being effectively managed across the White House and across the administration, and making sure that the president's vision -- the goals that he's got -- are being executed." It's also being an "all-purpose counselor to the chief of staff to the president to help on overall issues," Deese said in a recent interview.
The new gig also came with prime real estate. Deese is working out of Podesta's old office in the West Wing, just down the hall from Obama's chief of staff, Denis McDonough. It's cozy, with enough room for a desk, a table and a small sofa. It's decorated with photos of Deese's 2-year-old daughter and a stuffed owl she can play with during visits.
There's also a small cabinet where he can stash his running clothes when he arrives in morning. He makes the several-mile trek on foot from Washington, D.C.'s U Street neighborhood -- in part because his wife, Kara, needs to use the family car. Deese tries to arrive in the West Wing by 7 a.m. His days typically involve a host of meetings with White House senior staff, environmental officials or outsiders with ideas or concerns about the administration's climate policies.
He tries to get out of Washington when he can. His travels so far have included a March trip to Kentucky -- home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, one of the administration's biggest critics on energy.
He doesn't mind wading into potentially hostile territory. It's "very useful and very instructive whenever you can to get out and see the impact of what we're doing, hear from diverse voices," Deese said.'Quick study'
This isn't the first time Deese has been handed a big job by the Obama White House.
In 2009, when he was 31 and still working on his degree from Yale Law School, Deese was central to the administration's auto industry bailout efforts. "There was a time between Nov. 4 and mid-February when I was the only full-time member of the auto task force," Deesetold The New York Times that year. "It was a little scary."
He swiftly rose through the ranks. He went on to be deputy director of the White House National Economic Council in 2011 and became deputy chief of the Office of Management and Budget in 2013. Deese even filled in briefly as OMB's acting boss last year, while Shaun Donovan was awaiting Senate confirmation.
It's a hefty resume for someone who hasn't yet hit 40. Deese is nearly three decades younger than his predecessor, Podesta, 66, who was chief of staff to President Clinton and founded the Center for American Progress before assuming the job as Obama's top green official. Deese was featured in Fortune magazine's "40 under 40" in 2012.
"He looks young, too," former White House official Carol Browner said of Deese. They worked together at the start of the administration, when she was Obama's top energy and climate aide.
Deese has slightly ruffled brown hair and a well-groomed beard and wears a tie to work. But with a quick wardrobe change, he'd look perfectly at home at an indie rock concert or perusing hiking gear at an outdoor store.
Despite his youth, Deese has two things that make him the right fit for the job, Browner said. One: "He has the president's ear." And two: "He's a quick study."
From the moment she met him, Browner "thought he was just a very wise, thoughtful person sort of beyond his years." And "he's very solicitous of people who had more experience, which was really nice," she added. And "sometimes, it's good to have fresh eyes on an issue. It doesn't come with all the baggage and history of the baggage."
And although Deese took over for Podesta, getting a new Podesta wasn't necessarily the goal.
"What was really important is not to try to replace John Podesta. I think that was an impossible task," Boots said. "What was most important is somebody who had the absolute trust of the president and who was fiercely loyal, who was smart enough on these issues, but who had the absolute trust of the president. And Brian has that in spades."
Boots described his former White House colleague as "a really good chess player on policy and politics" whose opinion is highly valued by Obama, McDonough and Podesta.
"I don't think anybody gives two thoughts about his age," Boots said of Deese. "They've given him big things to deal with, and he's done them really well. ... So it makes good sense why the president wants to hold him close on some of these things that he's going to define his legacy around."'He just buckles down'
Deese (rhymes with geese) hails from Belmont, Mass. (The suburb, about 8 miles northwest of Boston, was the longtime home of Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.)
He credits his family for his desire to get a government job.
His mother, Patricia Stanton, an engineer, was deputy commissioner at the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and assistant commissioner of waste prevention at the state Department of Environmental Protection. She's now senior vice president of policy and advocacy at the energy efficiency company Conservation Services Group.
And Deese's father, David, is a political science professor at Boston College. He's written books about international trade, economic freedom and globalization. Deese's older sister, Heather, works for a nonprofit that aims to sustain waterfront communities in Maine.
His parents, Deese told senators at his OMB confirmation hearing in 2013, "instilled in me both a real passion for ideas and education and also a commitment that for those of us who are fortunate enough to have opportunities in education and life, we should look for opportunities to give back, commit to public service."
At that 2013 hearing, Deese -- evidently nervous -- slipped up and called the committee chairman, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), "Chairman Coburn," referring to the panel's top Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Carper laughed it off.
As an undergraduate, Deese studied political science at Middlebury College in Vermont.
There, in the spring of 2000, he also co-hosted a talk radio show titled "Bedknobs and Beatniks."
It was a "good-natured, humorous current events talk show," said Josh Howe, who co-hosted the show with Deese at Middlebury. Deese did a stint as the show's main commentator.
Even then, Deese was quick to pick things up, said Howe, who's now a professor at Reed College in Portland, Ore.
Howe would show up early at the studio on the top floor of the school's Proctor dining hall. He'd print out the Associated Press news wire for the day and get organized.
"Brian would roll in right on time or maybe a couple of minutes late, having not seen the news wire but having usually read something else the night before that he wanted to talk about," Howe said. "So he would read the news wire over the break and in the course of about three minutes ... come up with about an hour's worth of material to talk about because he was able to process this stuff so quickly.
"He just had this thing that he could do where he would kind of carry the show for most of an hour."
Back in those days, Deese wasn't sporting what has become his signature beard.
"He was an incredibly baby-faced human being at that point," said Howe, who has kept in touch with Deese since their college days. Deese has gone through phases when it comes to style, he said. "I've seen him pop a collar on a polo shirt every now and then."
Howe described Deese as an "off-the-couch superstar" when it comes to outdoor adventures.
A few years back, Deese flew to Seattle after working at sea level in Washington, D.C., to hike with some of his college friends. "I think he was probably working until he got on the plane, and then showed up and climbed Mount Rainier ... which is over 14,000 feet and not an easy climb," Howe said.
"That's always been his style. He can go do. No complaints. He's never the difficult one. He just buckles down and does it."
-
Officials Call for Safer Crude Rail Cars
Sep 2, 2015 | Fuel Fix
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The United States is doling out $10 million to help states upgrade highway-rail crossings and tracks that are seeing a surge in traffic involving flammable oil and ethanol cargoes.
The Federal Railroad Administration announced the grants Wednesday, amid mounting concern that more needs to be done to boost the safety of moving oil by rail. A series of fiery derailments involving tank cars carrying hazardous oil and ethanol has drawn attention to the rapid climb in oil-by-rail traffic, as trains heave crude to refineries and ports.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said the grants would “support innovative ideas and solutions developed at the local level.”
The Transportation Department has already imposed tough new standards for rail cars transporting crude and ethanol.
But some analysts say more resilient tank cars only solve part of the problem — and more needs to be done to keep trains on the tracks.
Read more: To boost the safety of moving oil by rail, focus on the tracks
Highway-rail grade crossing collisions are the second-leading cause of all railroad related fatalities, according to the FRA. And while the number of these deaths has dropped over decades, it jumped last year — reaching 269 deaths and marking the first increase this decade.
Some of those deaths are attributed to drivers speeding across the tracks, trying to beat the train. But others are tied to a lack of awareness of an oncoming train.
“Most of these deaths are completely preventable, and that is why the Federal Railroad Administration has redoubled its efforts to reverse last year’s upward trend,” said FRA acting administrator Sarah Feinberg in a statement.
The Transportation Department has proposed going even further, with a $250 million program to help local communities improve rail infrastructure, even beyond highway crossings.
-
Feds Seek to Boost Safety of Oil Train Track Crossings
Sep 2, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
The Obama administration is offering states $10 million in grants to boost the safety of railway track crossings that carry potentially dangerous oil trains.
The announcement, from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), comes in response to a series of high-profile accidents that have raised questions about the safety of shipping large amounts of crude oil by train.
The FRA said Tuesday that it is "soliciting applications for $10 million in competitive grant funding available to states to improve highway-rail grade crossings and track along routes that transport energy products like crude oil and ethanol."
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said the funding is a sign of the Obama administration's commitment to boosting the safety of U.S. oil shipments by rail, which have been come increasingly popular in recent years despite the string of deadly accidents.
“The U.S. Department of Transportation has made increasing safety at highway-rail grade crossings, especially along routes transporting energy products, one of its top priorities,” Foxx said in a statement. “This money allows the department to support innovative ideas and solutions developed at the local level, and I encourage states to apply for this funding.”
The transportation of crude oil by freight rail is a contentious issue. Lawmakers have sought widespread reforms since 2013 accidents in Casselton, N.D., and Quebec, Canada, spilled thousands of gallons of oil and caused explosions.
The transportation department previously ordered speed limits on oil trains that run near major cities with large populations. Federal regulators have also ordered freight rail companies to remove faulty parts it says have been involved in many of the recent oil train leaks.
FRA Acting Administrator Sarah Feinberg said she is focused on reducing accidents at all railway crossings, especially ones that involve oil trains.
“Most of these deaths are completely preventable, and that is why the Federal Railroad Administration has redoubled its efforts to reverse last year’s upward trend," Feinberg said in a statement. "These funds will allow states to take innovative ideas and make them a reality to increase safety and decrease fatalities.”
The railroad administration said the money for the highway crossing improvement grants will come from its Safe Transportation of Energy Products (STEP) by Rail program.
-
Agency Offers Grants to Bolster Safety on Oil Train Routes
Sep 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced it is seeking applicants for $10 million in grants to improve safety on routes plied by trains carrying oil and other flammable energy products.
The money is available for states to spend on projects to upgrade highway-rail intersections -- technically known as "grade crossings" -- and track crude-by-rail routes, FRA officials said in a notice today. Because of the limited pot of money, the agency is urging states to hold individual requests to a $3 million maximum. A 20 percent match is required; the deadline for applications is Nov. 4.
While FRA noted that railroad accidents involving hazardous materials have dropped by half in the last decade, oil train derailments have been the source of growing worry following the fiery 2013 crash of a train in the Canadian province of Quebec that killed 47 people. The $10 million in grants is part of a "multi-pronged" effort to promote safety, the agency said. In addition, 269 people died overall in grade-crossing collisions last year, the first increase in such fatalities this decade, according to an accompanying news release.
Many of those deaths are "completely preventable," acting FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg said in the release. "These funds will allow states to take innovative ideas and make them a reality to increase safety and decrease fatalities."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested