Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
A Blueprint for Getting Safer Chemicals to Market, Sooner
Sep 3, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Boma Brown-West
Shampoo. Nail polish. Sofas in the halls of Congress. -
Baker Hughes Blamed for Chemicals Detected in Texas Neighborhood
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Residents in a neighborhood south of Midland, Texas, are concerned about the safety of their well water after industrial chemicals were found at levels above federal standards. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Fights Request To Rehear Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Ruling
Sep 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA and industry are fighting environmentalists' bid for a federal appeals court to rehear its recent unpublished ruling that upheld the agency's non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) waste definition rule, arguing that advocates failed to prove that the court's decision was at odds with prior legal precedent and that the court should reject the request. -
Bennet Would Support Lifting Crude Export Ban as Part of Broader Compromise
Sep 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet would support lifting the ban on crude oil exports as part of a broader compromise that includes measures on renewable energy and climate change. -
Ads Tout EPA Ozone Rule as Crucial to Poor, Minority Areas
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Environmental and public interest groups today launched what they called a "major new advertising campaign" in large U.S. cities meant to draw attention to impacts of smog on minority communities. -
Christie Announces N.J. Will Seek Stay on EPA Rule
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Elizabeth Harball
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) formally came out against the Obama administration's new rule to regulate carbon emissions from power plants yesterday, announcing that his state will seek an administrative stay on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Environmental Justice Hamstrung by Delayed Guidance -- IG
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Delays in issuing guidance have limited U.S. EPA's ability to consistently consider environmental justice during the rulemaking process, according to a new watchdog report. -
Obama’s Incomplete Arctic Energy Approach
Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andreas Kuersten
As President Obama tours Alaska this week, cries of hypocrisy fill the air. -
Avoiding the Cliff: Put Energy Policy to Work for America
Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kevin Haley
Around the turn of the century in the early 1900s, America was growing fast and energy was in high demand. Recognizing the need for action, Congress implemented policies to support the newly industrialized energy industry – primarily oil, gas and coal-fired technologies at that time. -
Cities Scramble to Plan for Oil Train Disasters
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
The increase in tanker cars carrying hazardous materials like oil and gas has cities across the country rushing to put together emergency management plans and train firefighters in case of an accident. -
Faulty Tank Cars Given 7-month Recall Extension
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
A recall of 6,000 defective railroad tank cars meant to be completed by May 12 has been extended until the end of the year.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
A Blueprint for Getting Safer Chemicals to Market, Sooner
Sep 3, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Boma Brown-West
Shampoo. Nail polish. Sofas in the halls of Congress.
All have been the subject of recent stories about the hidden dangers to our health in products we buy and use.
Governments around the world are stepping up actions to better protect their citizens. Here in the United States, Congress is finally poised to strengthen the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety authority.
But improved government oversight is only part of the solution. Companies along the retail supply chain must also make it their mission to create products that are safer for consumers.
To put it simply: We need companies to revolutionize how business is done. We need them to get Behind the Label.Partnerships: Key to solutions that last
We began our crusade for safer chemicals in the marketplace by partnering with the largest retailer in the world, Walmart, a few years back. It prompted the company to announce a new policy in September 2013 for chemicals in its household and personal care products that will transform the world’s largest retailer – and its vast supply chain.
But Walmart is, despite its size, only one piece of the global retail industry. We won’t get the revolution consumers deserve unless the majority of retailers and product manufacturers everywhere adopt safer chemicals policies and practices.Scaling up an approach we know works
We knew that calls to action are important, but what companies need to successfully operationalize the philosophy of safer chemicals is guidance.
A new marketplace initiative by Environmental Defense Fund, Behind the Label, gives a basic blueprint for driving safer products to store shelves. It helps companies embed the safer chemicals philosophy into their businesses and gain competitive advantage in the marketplace.
With this initiative we are sharing tools and business strategies, framed around five key principles, that will propel businesses toward industry leadership. We also provide case studies of leading companies that are already finding success on their journey toward safer chemicals.
Over the years, a lot has been written about how to make consumer products better and safer. While we’ve seen some improvement, problematic ingredients remain in use – even though robust new science increasingly shows that old approaches to managing risk are insufficient.
Through Behind the Label, we’re striving to make safer chemicals a goal companies can achieve today, by arming them with real strategies we know work.
Why would they take the challenge? Because companies inspire and push each other in sometimes surprising ways.
-
Baker Hughes Blamed for Chemicals Detected in Texas Neighborhood
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Residents in a neighborhood south of Midland, Texas, are concerned about the safety of their well water after industrial chemicals were found at levels above federal standards.
Some received letters last month stating that routine sampling of groundwater had found chlorinated solvents at levels above federal drinking water standards, including the chemicals trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and dichloroethylene.
Local officials believe the contamination is near an area where similar solvents were traced to a facility operated by oil field services firm Baker Hughes Inc. about 25 years ago.
Baker Hughes is operating a relief station at an area church, where residents receive bottled water and ice. The company has told residents to use bottled water for cooking and bathing until filters and remediation equipment can be installed (Lana Straub, KRTS, Sept. 3). -- SPGREENWIRE HEADL
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Fights Request To Rehear Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Ruling
Sep 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA and industry are fighting environmentalists' bid for a federal appeals court to rehear its recent unpublished ruling that upheld the agency's non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) waste definition rule, arguing that advocates failed to prove that the court's decision was at odds with prior legal precedent and that the court should reject the request.
Earthjustice, representing the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), the Sierra Club and other groups, on July 20 petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for rehearing. They argued that the court's four-page decision issued June 3 upholding the rule was in error, claiming that it conflicts with the court's previous rulings as well as precedent from the 9th and 11th Circuits and the Supreme Court.
But the Department of Justice (DOJ) in an Aug. 27 opposition brief filed on EPA's behalf asks the court to reject the rehearing petition "because it simply rehashes arguments that were thoroughly considered and reasonably rejected by the panel, and there is nothing the panel 'overlooked or misapprehended,'" the brief says. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 184354)
"Furthermore, there is no basis for rehearing en banc [by the full court] because the panel's decision is entirely consistent with existing case law and does not present an issue of exceptional importance," DOJ says.
Industry groups that had also originally challenged the rule on different grounds but lost have now filed an opposition brief with the court, making some of the same arguments as EPA for letting the ruling stand. The industry groups, who are intervenor-respondents in the case, also contend that the environmental petitioners are restating the same legal arguments the court rejected, recasting them as claims that the court's decision conflicts with previous case law by the same court. "The panel, however, carefully considered and properly rejected Petitioners' challenges based on the language of the governing statutes and prior Circuit precedents," they say.
"Moreover, Petitioners' claims are contradicted by the administrative record, which shows that their approach would have the adverse effects of increasing both air emissions and the landfilling of secondary materials that are now being combusted for their energy value in lieu of virgin fuels," they say. The groups include the American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, and American Petroleum Institute, among others.
EPA's 2011 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) rule allows for the exclusion of some secondary material -- such as scrap tires, used oil and dewatered pulp and paper sludge -- from the definition of solid waste, thereby allowing the material to be burned in boilers with less stringent air requirements than commercial incinerators. The rule determines if a combustion unit must meet emissions limits in the Clean Air Act boiler maximum achievable control technology rule or the air law's more stringent commercial/industrial solid waste incinerator rule.
The three-judge panel's decision backed EPA's determination that some secondary materials such as scrap tires are not solid waste and therefore can be burned as fuel in lesser-regulated boilers, rather than more stringently regulated incinerators. The ruling in Eco Services Operations v. EPA effectively allows the NHSM rule to stand, striking down challenges to the rule by both environmentalists and industry groups that filed suit (Inside EPA, June 5).
Advocates had argued for tighter emissions controls under the rule, contending that secondary materials such as used oil and tires should be classified as solid waste and trigger the more stringent incinerator requirements when burned as fuel, while industry parties argued for loosening the rule. Industry for instance called for extending the exemption from solid waste regulations to third-party transfers of secondary materials for fuel burning, and for sewage sludge.
Environmentalists in their rehearing petition said the decision upholding the agency's first-time RCRA definition of nonhazardous solid waste allowed EPA to exclude almost all solid waste from the definition. As a result, "facilities operating in thousands of communities across the country can now burn scrap tires, used oil, and other wastes, including processed household waste, without controlling, measuring, or reporting the toxic pollution that results," they said.
But DOJ, on behalf of EPA, contends in its new filing that "LEAN greatly overstates the effect of the NHSM Rule" in claiming that the rule excludes nearly all solid waste from the regulatory definition. The rule relates only to non-hazardous secondary materials combusted for energy or materials recovery, DOJ says. It does not apply to materials that are landfilled, recycled or disposed of in other ways, nor does it apply to hazardous waste, DOJ notes.
Advocates make arguments based on "the erroneous premise that all post-consumer secondary materials that are burned are irrevocably 'solid waste' from the moment the consumer decides they do not need or want them," DOJ says.
It adds that "LEAN's interpretation is clearly overbroad, as it would turn such items as a crib given to a neighbor or a lamp donated to a charity sale into solid waste, along with any sort of recycling or reuse activity."
Under RCRA, solid waste, in relevant part, is defined as "discarded material," but the law does not define "discard," DOJ notes. It then points to case law established by the D.C. Circuit to reject the petitioners' argument that a secondary material becomes a solid waste automatically once it is no longer used for its original purpose.
DOJ says the D.C. Circuit in its 1987 American Mining Congress v. EPA (AMC I) ruling said "the relevant question was whether the material had become part of the 'waste disposal problem,' and noted that in determining what constitutes 'discard,' EPA should consider the statutory goal of encouraging the use of alternatives to disposal, including recycling."
The government says the NHSM rulemaking is analogous to EPA's determination that certain secondary materials recycled for use in fertilizers were not discarded and therefore not solid waste.
That finding was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in its 2003 decision in Safe Food & Fertilizer v. EPA. In that case, the court held "that it is permissible under RCRA for EPA to determine that a secondary material used for other than its original purpose . . . is not discarded, and thus is not a solid waste, and to establish standards for determining when a particular secondary material should be classified as a product or a waste," DOJ says.
"That is what EPA did in the NHSM Rule," DOJ says. "It determined that non-hazardous secondary materials meeting criteria that made them analogous to valuable product fuels are not discarded, and thus not solid waste, when burned for energy recovery."
The industry parties similarly cite AMC I and Safe Food to counter the petitioners' arguments that the court ruling conflicts with prior cases.
DOJ provides additional examples to refute the petitioners' arguments that the June 3 decision conflicts with decisions by the D.C. Circuit or other circuit courts.
For instance, while LEAN in its arguments "relies on language from AMC I, i.e., that the ordinary meaning of discarded is 'disposed of, thrown away, or abandoned,' it ignores both the actual issue before the Court in AMC Ias well as the holding of that case," DOJ says.
As the court recognized in Eco Services, EPA correctly exercised its discretion to develop criteria to determine when NHSM should be classified as product fuels versus when they should be deemed solid waste, DOJ says. "AMC I specifically rejected the argument LEAN makes here that a material immediately and irrevocably becomes a solid waste when it is no longer serving its initial purpose," DOJ says.
Finally, DOJ disputes the petitioners' claim that the rule conflicts with the Clean Air Act because Congress in the air law found scrap tires, used oil and refuse-derived fuel to be waste.
"In fact, Congress did no such thing," DOJ contends. It points to the air law's section 129, which specifically defers to RCRA on the question of what constitutes a solid waste.
"The fact that Congress specifically excluded certain types of facilities from the definition of 'solid waste incineration unit' in section 129 of the Clean Air Act does not constitute a determination by Congress that specificmaterials are solid waste under RCRA," DOJ says.
In its opposition brief, industry also argues that "[t]he administrative record demonstrates that air emissions would increase, not decrease, if Petitioners' position were adopted; and the amount of landfilling of secondary materials otherwise being successfully recycled for their energy value would increase substantially and unnecessarily."
Specifically, industry argues that owners of the lesser-regulated boilers that currently burn fuels from secondary materials are unlikely to construct different units if the materials are deemed solid waste. This, it says, is due to the difficulty in permitting such units. Instead, the owners of these boilers would substitute fossil fuels to burn, which would result in higher emissions than those from tires or used oil, it says. Furthermore, the secondary materials would then be sent to landfills, undermining recycling programs, it says.
-
Bennet Would Support Lifting Crude Export Ban as Part of Broader Compromise
Sep 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet would support lifting the ban on crude oil exports as part of a broader compromise that includes measures on renewable energy and climate change.
"He believes it would have to be part of a more comprehensive plan that includes steps to address climate change and give the country and the world a more sustainable energy future," Bennet spokesman Adam Bozzi said in an email. Bozzi did not offer any more specifics.
Bennet's stance echoes comments Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid made last month in aninterview with POLITICO.
“We should sit down and work something out with those who are so focused on exporting it and those who are focused on not exporting it and come up with a deal,” Reid said.
The oil industry and Republicans in Congress are aggressively pushing to lift the ban. But Democrats have come around only recently, seeing an opportunity to leverage the issue in exchange for victories on their own policy priorities.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp has long led the charge to lift the ban on the Democratic side, along with Sen. Joe Manchin. And Sen. Bob Menendez recently signaled that he is open to limited crude exports.
-
Ads Tout EPA Ozone Rule as Crucial to Poor, Minority Areas
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Environmental and public interest groups today launched what they called a "major new advertising campaign" in large U.S. cities meant to draw attention to impacts of smog on minority communities.
The print ads tell readers that the majority of African-Americans live in areas with unsafe air. According to the ads, African-American children are also three times more likely to be admitted to the hospital for asthma.
"Smog pollution is disproportionately prevalent in low-income communities and communities of color," Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the NAACP, said on a conference call today with reporters.
The ads will appear in primarily African-American newspapers in Chicago; Washington, D.C.; Detroit; and Dallas. Environmentalists also said there will be a major digital ad buy in D.C. as part of the campaign.
Along with the NAACP, the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Moms Clean Air Force are sponsoring the campaign. The groups did not give a cost figure for it.
The ads come as the Obama administration is in the final stages of weighing a proposal to tighten the national standard for ozone. Ozone is a key component of smog that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight.
U.S. EPA in November proposed to lower the current limit of 75 parts per billion, which was set in 2008, to between 65 and 70 ppb. Industry and business groups have waged an aggressive campaign against the proposal, arguing that it would impose burdensome compliance costs.
Industry and some local officials, including Democrats, have cautioned that a tighter standard would hurt minority communities by imposing economic burdens (Greenwire, Sept. 1).
EPA's final standard is currently at the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. The agency is poised to finalize a new standard by an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline.
The environmentalists' ads frame the upcoming decision on the standard as an environmental justice issue and urge the administration to "finalize the strongest possible protections to curb dangerous smog pollution that threatens our kids' health." The groups behind the campaign argue that a tighter standard would disproportionately benefit low-income and minority communities.
"The decision that's made on these standards couldn't be more important," said Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. "Lives are literally on the line."
-
Christie Announces N.J. Will Seek Stay on EPA Rule
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Elizabeth Harball
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) formally came out against the Obama administration's new rule to regulate carbon emissions from power plants yesterday, announcing that his state will seek an administrative stay on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The governor, who is also pursuing the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, called EPA's rule "yet another example of the Obama administration inappropriately reaching far beyond its legal authority to implement more onerous and more burdensome regulations on businesses and state governments alike."
"This is a fundamentally flawed plan that threatens the progress we've already made in developing clean and renewable energy in New Jersey without the heavy-handed overreach of Washington," Christie said in a statement.
It is not the first time the New Jersey governor has knocked the Clean Air Act Section 111(d) rule, having told Fox News he was "totally opposed" to it on the day of its release.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is also formally requesting reconsideration of the rule. DEP Commissioner Bob Martin yesterday submitted a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stating that although the state "supports clean power," it "cannot, however, support EPA's ill-conceived Clean Power Plan, which is uncommonly cumbersome, difficult and costly to implement, could undermine reliability, and would yield insufficient results given the effort to comply."
"The Final Rule is riddled with vague, ambiguous, and uncertain provisions and the cost-benefit analysis lacks credibility," the letter stated, further arguing that New Jersey will "suffer irreparable harm should the Final Rule not be stayed."
In the final Clean Power Plan, EPA asked the state to slash its emissions rate less than in the draft rule -- 23 percent, compared with 43 percent.
But New Jersey DEP maintains EPA has not given the state sufficient credit for emissions reductions already achieved. In a news release, the agency noted that between 2001 and 2012, the state cut CO2 emissions from its power sector by 33 percent. New Jersey also invested $3.27 billion in renewable energy and energy efficiency during this period.
In the letter, Martin also faults EPA for significant changes made in the final rule compared with the draft rule, stating that the plan unveiled in August "includes changes that could not be raised during the public comment period but are of central relevance to the outcome of the Final Rule."
New Jersey formerly participated in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an interstate cap-and-trade system. But Christie announced his state would pull out of the program in 2011.
Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club and a frequent critic of the Christie administration, yesterday blamed the governor for "using his national political ambitions to hurt our environment."
"This is an outrageous abuse of power that directly threatens the health and environment of New Jersey," Tittel said in a statement. "Christie wants to lead the charge to dismantle clean air safeguards and is going around the legislature and the public to do so."
Tittel noted that New Jersey was among the 12 states that prevailed against EPA in the 2007 Supreme Court case that forced the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as pollutants.
-
Environmental Justice Hamstrung by Delayed Guidance -- IG
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Delays in issuing guidance have limited U.S. EPA's ability to consistently consider environmental justice during the rulemaking process, according to a new watchdog report.
The EPA Office of Inspector General today issued a report finding that the agency was three years behind schedule in issuing its final guide for considering environmental justice in rulemaking. Continued delays potentially affect "susceptible populations at high risk of suffering effects of environmental hazards."
EPA had planned to finalize its "EJ in Rulemaking Guide" by the end of 2011, but it wasn't finished until May 2015, the report said. Also, a draft of technical guidance, aimed at complementing the rulemaking guide, isn't projected to be completed until 2016.
The agency has said the delays were due to efforts to address extensive comments received during an internal review process.
The use of the rulemaking guide is voluntary, and EPA doesn't have an agencywide process for assessing the extent to which the guide is applied, the report found. "Without measures and controls that assess when and how the EJ guidance is used in rulemaking, the EPA limits its ability to encourage broad, consistent use throughout the agency and to evaluate the guides' impact on rulemaking," it said.
The IG recommended that EPA officials begin to measure use of the environmental justice guides and provide training on how to use the guide for rulemaking. The agency agreed with those recommendations and provided a timetable for completing corrective actions, the report said.
-
Obama’s Incomplete Arctic Energy Approach
Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andreas Kuersten
As President Obama tours Alaska this week, cries of hypocrisy fill the air. He is using these three days to highlight the effects of climate change and continue his call for action. Meanwhile, off the state’s northwest coast in the Arctic Chukchi Sea, Shell continues its exploration of offshore oil reserves in the wake of receiving its final federal permit to drill in the region.
At first glance, the dichotomy between the president’s words and actions in America’s “Last Frontier” appears stark. Obama is championing the weaning of the world off of dirty fossil fuels while allowing an operation that could result in the extraction and consumption of billions of barrels of these exact substances. But closer examination reveals that he is actually engaging in a considered and balanced approach to the country’s energy security. While other problems exist with the president’s overall Arctic energy approach, hypocrisy is not one of them.
America is currently awash in oil due to the unanticipated and profound effectiveness of new technology to access shale oil reserves. Moreover, tapping shale reserves is a good deal cheaper than accessing those offshore in the Arctic. Yet prudent energy policy requires more than just a short-term view. As put by Steve LeVine of Quartz, “[C]rude oil remains scarce if you are thinking in terms of decades. At some point—perhaps toward the second half of the century—the cost of Arctic drilling will likely be more economical, and the need for its oil will probably be much greater.”
Even if America were to move away from fossil fuel reliance at Obama’s desired pace—or even faster, for that matter—it would still maintain quite an appetite for them for a good length into the future. In addition, the typical delay between exploration and pumping for an offshore oil well can approach a decade, and will likely approach two decades in the case of the relatively infrastructureless and harsh weathered Arctic. This means that Shell’s current exploits are unlikely to come to fruition until much closer to mid-century, and the oil supply situation is likely to have changed in the meantime.
It is therefore not hypocrisy to guide America and the world away from fossil fuels while ensuring that our still very fossil fuel dependent economy does not run out of domestically sourced—and therefore more secure—energy over the course of this transition. Arctic offshore reserves are some of the last substantial reservoirs of these fuels within the United States, and ensuring that they will be ready when needed—though hopefully needed in far lesser amounts—appears prudent.
It should also be noted that Obama was placed in a difficult position from the start in that Shell and other energy companies had already paid the U.S. government billions to secure their Arctic offshore leases under the Bush administration. Even if the President had wanted to, reneging on these contracts would have meant the return of large sums of money, which had more than likely already been budgeted and allocated.
Finally, alongside his allowance of Arctic offshore drilling, Obama has also closed additional Alaskan territory to developers and increased the safety measures that must be put in place in order to drill for offshore oil. This approach has ultimately led to vocal complaints from both environmentalists and industry. As a result, David Bolton, deputy assistant secretary for oceans and fisheries with the State Department, said, “Maybe that means we’re in the right place, given that people on both sides are unhappy with us.”
But, energy security aside, the administration’s Arctic energy approach is still not in the right place. The widespread discussion of climate change hypocrisy is blinding the country to Obama’s true Arctic failings: Inadequate focus on regional infrastructure and development, which, in turn, leads to local environmental and economic insecurity in the face of offshore oil exploration and drilling.
Arctic projects must be carried out responsibly so that the region’s environment and living spaces are protected while benefits accrue to locals. The government has made much of the fact that it has upped its safety requirements since Shell’s disastrous 2012 oil exploration effort, and it is definitely a positive that the company must take additional steps to secure its equipment and operations and have an extra rig nearby in case of a blowout. But these measures cannot make up for the overall lack of infrastructure in the region. There are simply not enough ships, deepwater ports, communications capabilities, or disaster response resources to reasonably undertake large-scale Arctic energy ventures in the face of their many risks.
In addressing this, the Obama administration has been sorely lacking in action. It remains silent on measures aimed at improving northern infrastructure that languish in congressional committees while green lighting oil activities for a corporation with a very recent and poor history in the Arctic. Such initiatives should be part of any approach to Arctic energy and would benefit both industry and environmentalists by generally improving their ability and lowering their costs to act in the far north and adding responsive capacities in the event of an accident.
Moreover, on a broader scale, northern Alaskan communities—particularly native communities—suffer some of the worst health, education, and economic outcomes in the United States, in large part due to infrastructure that lags substantially behind the rest of the country. But there are few avenues available to turn this situation around by bringing in investment and services. Energy and other resource projects and the money and activities that accompany them are by far the most valuable of these. These projects must, however, comprehensively mitigate the risks of their actions and improve the communities in the vicinity of which they work.
The funding of local infrastructure projects is the route to accomplish all of the above. Whether by the government or energy companies operating in the region, such funding would have important dual regional impacts. First, it would greatly advance the safety of Arctic resource operations and of the communities near them. Second, it would improve the lives and opportunities of residents.
A comprehensive Arctic energy approach entails focusing on infrastructure and local populations. By failing to support and highlight the positives of Arctic infrastructure initiatives—such as improved business operations, enhanced safety and disaster responsiveness, and desperately needed northern development—the President is insufficiently addressing Arctic needs, and also missing out on political points with industry, environmentalists, and locals. It is in both his and the Arctic’s best interests to adopt a more complete energy approach to the region.
As Obama makes the rounds in Alaska this week banging the important drum of climate change, let him not forget the neighboring drum of safety and development in the American Arctic.
Kuersten is a fellow with the Arctic Summer College and law clerk with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and due to not represent those of CAAF or the U.S. government.
-
Avoiding the Cliff: Put Energy Policy to Work for America
Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kevin Haley
Around the turn of the century in the early 1900s, America was growing fast and energy was in high demand. Recognizing the need for action, Congress implemented policies to support the newly industrialized energy industry – primarily oil, gas and coal-fired technologies at that time. These subsidies performed as intended, boosting the energy industries of the day and helping to grow the broader economy. Seeing this success and determined not to “pick winners and losers,” Congress wound down energy subsidies for oil and gas, creating the level playing field for energy that we know today.
Wait – hold up. That last part’s not quite right.
Energy policy in the U.S. has a storied past, filled with many brilliant successes that can be directly linked to the emergence of America as a global superpower. But we cannot afford to sit on our heels. Today’s emerging energy paradigm is decidedly moving toward low carbon resources, yet our policy framework is overwhelming biased in favor of carbon-intensive energy. Until Congress again recognizes the need for political action, America’s energy policy is stuck in the past and it’s holding us back.
Today, the oil and gas sector can expense intangible drilling costs – a subsidy that was first implemented during the second year of World War I, in 1916. Tax breaks for the coal industry began the same year Babe Ruth made his famous “called shot,” while playing for the New York Yankees in 1932. Those subsidies, known as the “percentage depletion allowance,” are still on the books today. And don’t forget nuclear, a technology that’s enjoyed continual government subsidies since 1947, worth up to 1.2 percent of the entire federal budget at times.
And yet, as new and improved energy technologies have emerged – ultra low-cost and renewable wind and solar for example – Congress has failed to enact similar, long-lasting legislation to give these energy resources an opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
Serious federal support for renewable technologies wasn’t even enacted until 1992, and it took two more years for companies to actually start taking advantage of these policies. Even more troubling, Congress never made these policies permanent, opting instead for a cumbersome, periodic renewal process that hangs the private sector out to dry every few years.
This “policy uncertainty,” “market cliff,” or any of the phrases used to describe the blatantly unequal treatment for renewables by Congress was a major theme at ACORE’s annual industry convening in Washington D.C. this year. A report from the conference, titled Setting the Renewable Energy Policy Agenda, catalogued case studies from across the renewable energy industry and gave several recommendations to policymakers to help fix the “wild west” clean energy policy landscape.
Immediate renewal of expired and expiring tax credits should come first and foremost, the report concludes. Private sector businesses should not be forced to endure a de facto tax increase at a time when renewables are competing against long-supported and advantaged oil, gas and coal resources. Beyond renewal, Congress has an opportunity to meet the emergence of clean, inexpensive energy resources halfway by making supportive policies like the PTC and ITC permanent, while also extending traditional energy supports like Master Limited Partnerships to renewable energy as well. Furthermore, now that EPA’s Clean Power Plan is finalized, these tools are of even greater importance to states looking to meet compliance goals, reduce their carbon load and modernize their energy resources.
As the 114th Congress rolls out a number of energy related legislative items, from tax policy updates to Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) comprehensive energy bill, there is no better time to consider the past and – more importantly – the future of energy policy in America.
Only a revisionist’s reading of history could ever suggest that renewables deserve to be treated differently than oil, gas, coal, nuclear and other long-supported energy technologies at this critical time for America’s evolving energy industry. If Congress is serious about comprehensive tax reform, then the time will come for a serious consideration of all these policies. But until then, leaving renewables out in the dark is a foolish approach to both public energy policy and the encouragement of economic growth.
Haley is communications director at the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE). He is also a fellow at the Clean Energy Leadership Institute.
-
Cities Scramble to Plan for Oil Train Disasters
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
The increase in tanker cars carrying hazardous materials like oil and gas has cities across the country rushing to put together emergency management plans and train firefighters in case of an accident.
Crude has become one of the most common hazardous materials to be transported by rail in the country, with railroads carrying 500,000 carloads last year, compared with 9,500 in 2008.
But although the numbers have risen, emergency planning has lagged, according to responses to an Associated Press survey of emergency management agencies in Chicago; Philadelphia; Seattle; Cleveland; Minneapolis; Milwaukee; Pittsburgh; New Orleans; Sacramento, Calif.; Newark, N.J.; and Buffalo, N.Y.
A 2014 analysis by the Department of Transportation found that a serious accident could kill more than 200 people and cause $6 billion in damage.
"There could be a huge loss of life if we have a derailment, spill and fire next to a heavy populated area or event," said Wayne Senter, executive director of the Washington Fire Chiefs, an association in Washington state. "That's what keeps us up at night."
Despite the fears, cities have responded to the threat to varying degrees.
In Milwaukee, the city trained firefighters on how to handle oil train accidents and sent its hazardous materials team to Colorado for advanced training to respond to such incidents. But in Pittsburgh, officials said they are waiting to finish an oil-train emergency plan before conducting exercises involving rail cars and meeting with railroad officials.
The risks have residents worried, too.
In Philadelphia, Jessica Nixon said she would not have bought her row house in the south part of the city if she had known that tankers filled with oil would soon be rolling by.
"I am concerned for my own safety, as well as my neighbors'," she said (Rubinkam/Mulvihill, Associated Press, Sept. 3). -- AW
-
Faulty Tank Cars Given 7-month Recall Extension
Sep 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
A recall of 6,000 defective railroad tank cars meant to be completed by May 12 has been extended until the end of the year.
The decision by the Federal Railroad Administration means cars with faulty valves can legally transport crude oil and other hazardous materials until Dec. 31.
The FRA-ordered recall came after an article in The Bellingham Herald about a 100-car train with 16 cars leaking oil as it crossed Washington state in January. The Railway Supply Institute lobbied for a three-year window to replace the defective valves in about 6,000 tank cars.
While the FRA declined to extend the recall until 2018, it did allow it to continue until the end of this year -- a seven-month extension (Tate/Wohlfeil, McClatchy/Sacramento Bee, Sept. 2). -- AW
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested