acc am 9/4

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Blog) On the Road with #ACCaugust

   Sep 3, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

   During the August recess, our state affairs and political mobilization teams will fan out across the country to create opportunities to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative we’re calling #ACCaugust.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Prices Fall for Most Commodity Resins

   Sep 3, 2015 | Plastics News

   By Frank Espositio
   
   
   The Summer of 2015 began to fade in August — and it took North American commodity resin prices down along with it.

Chemical Management News

3. (ACC Mentioned) Challenging the Idea of Consumer Apathy to Recycling

   Sep 3, 2015 | Packaging Digest

   By Adam Gendell
   
   
   A look at packaging recycling rates can be a bit disappointing. Rates have stayed flat for the past few years, and many types of packaging we think of as “100% recyclable” have recycling rates that are a far cry from 100%.
4. TSCA Overhaul May Weaken State Rules, EPA Officials Say

   Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Adrianne Appel
   
   
   The Environmental Protection Agency office responsible for chemical safety is worried that the overhaul of U.S. chemical rules under way in Congress may undercut strong state consumer protection rules, EPA officials said.

Chemical Security News

5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Moves toward New Cybersecurity Regulations

   Sep 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

   By Tim Starks and Darius Dixon
   
   
   The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants to hear from the public in advance of forthcoming regulations that would institute new cybersecurity requirements on facilities that fabricate nuclear fuel.

Energy and Environment News

6. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Stronger Water Quality Standards in Washington

   Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Paul Shukovsky
   
   
   Citing the failure of Washington state leaders to enact up-to-date water quality rules, the Environmental Protection Agency said in an online post Sept. 2 that it would do the job for them by promulgating more stringent federal standards that protect tribal communities and others who eat large quantities of fish.
7. (ACC Mentioned) Thailand Company to Invest $100M For Early Work on Ohio Ethane Cracker

   Sep 3, 2015 | NGI's Shale Daily

   By Jamison Cocklin
   
   
   Thailand's state-owned petrochemical and refining company, PTT Global Chemical (PTTGC) pcl, said Thursday it would spend $100 million on engineering design work for a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker it has proposed to build in the heart of the Utica Shale in Southeast Ohio.
8. With Eye on Profits, Refiners Oppose Lifting Export Ban

   Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Mark Drajem
   
   
   Buried in the latest government analysis on lifting the crude oil export ban is a piece of data that shows why ending the limits will be a heavy lift—it would cut refiners’ profits by $22 billion a year.
9. The EPA’s Water Woes

   Sep 3, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

   It’s been a bad few weeks for the Environmental Protection Agency’s relationship to water. First came the Colorado mine leak and toxic deluge, and now a federal judge has blasted its new Clean Water Rule as unscientific.
10. Environmental Justice Groups Seek Strict Ozone Limits

    Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Andrew Childers
    
    
    Environmental justice and public health advocates pressed the Environmental Protection Agency to set the most-stringent air quality standards possible for ozone to protect the most vulnerable populations.
11. Greens, Civil Rights Groups Team up on Ozone Rule

    Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry
    
    
    A coalition of environmental and health organizations and a major civil rights group have teamed up to call for stringent new limits on surface-level ozone.
12. Clean Power Plan Hostility Arises on Campaign Trail

    Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Anthony Adragna
    
    
    Two Republican presidential candidates this week condemned the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's plan to address climate change, the latest in vocal opposition from their party to the Clean Power Plan.
13. Republicans Plan Attack on Climate Pact

    Sep 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro

    By Andrew Restuccia
    
    
    Republicans in Congress are planning a multi-pronged assault on an international climate change agreement, an effort that could undercut a crucial plank of President Barack Obama's environmental legacy.
14. EPA’s Clean Power Plan is the Biggest Threat to US Energy Renaissance

    Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Ned Mamula
    
    
    The U.S. is in the midst of an “energy renaissance” far beyond the wildest imagination of anyone from merely a decade ago. Unfortunately, the EPA may kill it.
15. The ‘Clean Power Plan’ Still Blocks Expansion of Nuke-Generated Electricity

    Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By William F. Shughart II
    
    
    The Obama administration’s announcement of regulations requiring every state to craft plans targeting major reductions in emissions from coal-fired power plants has been greeted as a major victory for wind, solar, biomass and other zero-carbon energy sources
16. Government Subsidies in Green Energy are Investment in our Future

    Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Elia Pales
    
    
    America is no stranger to government subsidies. Each year, the US government pays out more than $20 billion to keep farm products, such as corn and wheat, selling at a low price. Individual cities also subsidize sports stadiums so that the teams stay in the city.
17. EPA Said To Support 70 ppb Standard In Final Ozone NAAQS Rulemaking

    Sep 3, 2015 | Inside EPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    EPA's final revised ozone air standard currently undergoing White House review leans toward tightening the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, industry sources say, which would be the weakest option of the 60 to 70 ppb range backed by the agency's science advisers -- though the rule could still change in the coming weeks.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Full Text of Stories Below

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Blog) On the Road with #ACCaugust

   Sep 3, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

   During the August recess, our state affairs and political mobilization teams will fan out across the country to create opportunities to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative we’re calling #ACCaugust. Through plant tours, in-district meetings, and industry roundtable discussions, we will meet with Members of Congress to raise awareness of the vital importance of our industry and showcase the economic benefits of the business of chemistry where it matters the most—in their districts.

   Take the #ACCaugust tour with us! Zoom in and out and pan around to see where we’ve been and where we’re going (don’t forget Alaska!):

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Prices Fall for Most Commodity Resins

   Sep 3, 2015 | Plastics News

   By Frank Espositio

   The Summer of 2015 began to fade in August — and it took North American commodity resin prices down along with it.

   Average per-pound selling prices for polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, PVC and PET all fell in August. PE saw the largest August drop with 5 cents, while PET prices fell 4 cents. Next in line were PP and PS, each with a 2-cent drop, while PVC prices ticked down 1 cent.

   “Whenever oil prices move down sharply, most commodity resins prices are bound to soon start moving downward, as well,” said Phil Karig, managing director with the Mathelin Bay Associates consulting firm in St. Louis. “In the case of ethylene-affected resins [like PE and PVC], the recent easing of ethylene supply issues is also contributing to downward pricing pressures.

   “Add in weaker export markets, expectations for continued resin price declines … and a growing unease over financial instability in China … and we have all the ingredients for continued price declines in the months ahead,” he added.

   All of the pricing changes are reflected in the Sept. 7 print edition of Plastics News. The lower polyethylene prices were noted on PlasticsNews.com on Aug. 27, and the rest of the changes on Sept. 3.

   Lower feedstock costs played a role in sending North American PE prices down. The decline effectively wipes out a 5-cent hike that the market had seen in May. Prior to that increase, regional PE prices fell a total of 16 cents between October and April.

   North American PE makers now have taken the almost unprecedented step of advising their customers that prices are expected to decline by 4 cents per pound in September. Market sources said this likely is an attempt to stop prices from falling even farther in light of recent stock market volatility, which has threatened to destabilize global economies.

   Oil prices remain a global price-setter for PE, even though most PE made in North America is derived from natural gas. West Texas Intermediate oil prices were above $45 per barrel on Aug. 1, but were near $39 per barrel by the end of the month, for a drop of about 13 percent. Prices since then have rebounded to above $46 in late trading Sept. 2.

   Abundant supplies of PE also played a role in the 5-cent price drop, according to Mike Burns, a PE market analyst with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas.

   “There are no supply issues for polyethylene or ethylene,” Burns said in a phone interview. “You can almost say that globally.”

   PE demand remains solid

   PE demand growth in the U.S. and Canada remained solid through July, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington. High density PE sales in the region were up almost 6 percent in that seven-month period, with domestic growth of 2 percent boosted by a gain of almost 29 percent in export sales.

   For low density PE, seven-month sales ticked up almost 2 percent, with 3.5 percent domestic growth hampered by a loss of more than 4 percent in export sales. The linear low density PE market fared better, with sales up almost 6 percent in that time frame. Domestic LLDPE growth of almost 7 percent was softened by growth of only 2 percent in the export market.

   The August PP decline averaged 2 cents per pound, although that amount could vary, depending on how much of a decrease buyers saw in July. The two-month July-August dip totaled 3 cents per pound. Some saw that move in 1.5-cent increments, others saw 1 cent in July and 2 in August, or vice versa.

   The August PP drop was the second straight month prices for the material have fallen and the third decline in four months. Regional PP prices now are down a net of 17 cents per pound so far in 2015.

   At the same time, PP makers in the region have been able to increase their profit margins by about 10 cents per pound in 2015. They’ve done so by lowering prices by less than the amounts that propylene monomer feedstock prices have fallen. By comparison, producers only gained 1 cent in margin per year in 2013 and 2014.

   Tight PP supplies

   They’ve been able to take that step because of tight supplies of PP in the region, according to Scott Newell, a PP market analyst with RTI. “Operating rates [for PP] are as high as we’ve seen in many years,” he said by phone. “They’re above 92 percent for the year and in these last couple of months have been close to 95 percent. Supply is tight, and when you add in some production issues and other dynamics, things can get pinched here and there.”

   North American PP growth was solid in the first seven months of 2015, growing 5.3 percent. A 5.9 percent domestic growth rate was dampened by a 10 percent slide in export sales.

   Regional PS prices tumbled an average of 2 cents per pound in August. Some buyers reported 3 cent drops, but 2 seemed to be the market average and is being shown on this week’s Plastics News resin pricing chart.

   That drop came only a month after prices rose 6 cents, prompted by higher prices for benzene feedstock. Benzene prices for August, however, fell about 8 percent to $2.80 per gallon, sending PS resin prices down as well. Regional PS prices now are down a net of 4 cents per pound in 2015.

   PS suppliers announce decreases

   The region’s three major PS makers had pre-announced price decreases for August. The market apparently was able to hold to the 2-cent drops announced by Americas Styrenics and Styrolution instead of the 3-cent decline offered by Total Petrochemicals.

   North American PS sales through July essentially were flat vs. the year-ago period. Sales into the market’s leading food packaging/food service sector grew 2 percent in those seven months.

   For PVC, prices ticked down an average of 1 cent per pound as seasonal construction activity began to slow in the region. Prior to that decline, prices for the material had been flat for four consecutive months. The 1-cent August drop now has regional PVC prices right back where they started on Jan. 1.

   U.S./Canadian PVC sales essentially were flat through July, as a gain of almost 3 percent in export sales was canceled out by a decline of almost 2 percent for sales into the domestic market. Sales into PVC’s flagship rigid pipe and tubing market also were essentially flat for the seven-month period.

   PET bottle resin’s 4-cent August drop wiped out a 3-cent hike that some buyers saw in June and others saw in July. In August, some buyers reported a 5-cent price drop, but 4 seemed to the number seen by most buyers and is being shown on this week’s PN chart.

   For the year, North American PET prices now are up a net of 2 cents per pound. The market continues to struggle with lower consumption of carbonated soft drinks and with increased use of thinner water bottles that use less PET per unit.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

3. (ACC Mentioned) Challenging the Idea of Consumer Apathy to Recycling

   Sep 3, 2015 | Packaging Digest

   By Adam Gendell

   A look at packaging recycling rates can be a bit disappointing. Rates have stayed flat for the past few years, and many types of packaging we think of as “100% recyclable” have recycling rates that are a far cry from 100%.

   Meanwhile, we are coming to rely more and more on a new metric for recyclability: the access-to-recycling rate, or “reach” rate, which tells us the percentage of consumers whose recycling program accepts a given type of packaging. A number of studies on reach rates have been conducted and made publicly for nearly every major type of packaging, and one conclusion always jumps off the page: reach rates tend to be high while recycling rates tend to be significantly lower. Why the disconnect? If the vast majority of consumers have access to recycling, are they simply not using it?

   Take PET bottles, for example. A 2012 study commissioned by the American Chemistry Council showed that 94% of U.S. consumers have access to a recycling program that accepts PET bottles—pretty astronomical. Compare that with the EPA’s estimate that 31% of PET bottles were recycled in 2012, and it’s easy to conclude that Americanscould recycle PET bottles, but they choose not to. This conclusion leads us to design programs to encourage consumer participation in recycling, undergo efforts to make recycling cool and create on-package messaging imploring consumers to choose recycling. After all, consumers have access to a recycling program, right? They just need to be convinced to use it?

   There are likely plenty of instances where consumers are ambivalent and won’t take the seemingly miniscule amount of time and effort to discard their waste in a recycling bin instead of a trash can, but it’s more likely that a larger portion of the blame actually lies with the access to recycling. Put simply, not all access to recycling is created equal. Convenience matters, and if we think it’s a seemingly miniscule amount of time necessary for a consumer to make the responsible choice, then we must believe that their recycling really is readily accessible. Unfortunately, many consumers with access to recycling lackconvenient access to recycling.

   The most simplistic measure of quality access to recycling is its comparative convenience to garbage. If we want people with curbside garbage collection to recycle, then they need curbside recycling collection too. Furthermore, their recycling receptacle needs to be similar to their garbage can. Have you ever strolled your wheeled garbage can out to the curb and then lifted and hauled a bin full of glass containers out next to it? The amount of effort exerted is hardly an incentive to use that access to recycling. If the rolling cart for recycling is identical to the rolling cart for garbage, it’s easy to imagine a greater willingness to use it.

   Cost matters too. If consumers with curbside garbage collection are asked to pay more for recycling pick-up, they can’t be expected to jump at the opportunity. Many will, but a large number won’t. It’s not that those people are apathetic and choose not to use their access to recycling, it’s that they are unwilling to pony up the extra monthly fee. This is not a seemingly miniscule amount of time and effort to recycle, but rather an appreciable amount of money needed to receive that access to recycling. Recycling is often treated as a commoditized service, not a right, and participation in a fee-for-service program will be leveraged accordingly.

   Finally, it’s important to recognize that our studies on access to recycling focus on households and services provided to homes, yet so much packaging waste is generated away from home. Nobody should accuse consumers of ambivalence just because they are unwilling to stockpile their PET bottles and bring them home for recycling. Single-serve beverages are overwhelmingly consumed on the go, but there is a lack of studies on the prevalence of recycling collection away from home. Does your workplace offer access to recycling that is equally convenient to garbage? Your gas station? These might be better measures of the likelihood that a PET bottle will be recycled.

   At the end of the day, it’s true that most consumers have access to recycling programs that accept most major types of packaging. This is a good thing. But before we scratch our heads wondering why consumers aren’t recycling more, let’s question the type of access to recycling and the quality of that access to recycling. It could be that recycling rates closely match the percentage of consumers with convenient access to recycling, and though an unwillingness to recycle still exists, that apathy exists only when the garbage can is simply more accessible.

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. TSCA Overhaul May Weaken State Rules, EPA Officials Say

   Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Adrianne Appel

   The Environmental Protection Agency office responsible for chemical safety is worried that the overhaul of U.S. chemical rules under way in Congress may undercut strong state consumer protection rules, EPA officials said.Congress is considering revisions to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, and EPA officials expressed concern that the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) may weaken states' ability to strongly regulate chemicals, agency officials said Sept. 1 during a meeting of the Environmental Council of the States in Newport, R.I.“Preemption has been a big concern. We don't want to have the hard work of the states preempted,” said Louise Wise, EPA deputy assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention.“We are hopeful that something will happen because TSCA at this point is totally inadequate,” Wise said.The Senate's bill is expected to be considered this fall. However, California Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) opposes the bill because she believes it would curtail states' right to regulate chemicals. Boxer has said she would file many amendments to the bill, possibly foiling efforts at passage, unless the Senate considers the House version (152 DEN A-1, 8/7/15).The House on June 23 approved a bill (H.R. 2576) to revise TSCA, by a 398-1 vote (121 DEN A-1, 6/24/15).EPA Backs Some TSCA ProvisionsThe EPA backs some aspects of Congress's TSCA overhaul efforts, said David Widawsky, director of the chemistry, economics and sustainable strategies division of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.“EPA appreciates the opportunities that are being discussed on the Hill to include more access to the health and safety data of chemicals,” in the bills, Widawsky said. This would allow the EPA to focus more on those chemicals that pose risks and to manage those risks to better protect public health, he said.“Our fingers are crossed that we will have more opportunities to work in that space,’’ he said.California, Oregon, Washington WorriedCalifornia, Oregon and Washington are among a handful of states concerned that a revision to federal TSCA rules may supersede their consumer protection programs, Matt Rodriquez, California's secretary of environmental protection, said.“We don't quarrel with a need for a more rigorous TSCA,” Rodriquez said. “We are concerned about preemption, the role that our own consumer products programs will play,” following a federal TSCA revision, Rodriquez told Bloomberg BNA in an interview Sept. 1.California's Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, allows California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to regulate chemicals deemed to be cancer-causing or to cause reproductive harm (58 DEN A-14, 3/26/15).“We have a history of looking closely at products, and we feel we've done a lot to protect consumers,” Rodriquez said. “California has a strong program to ensure that we are monitoring and regulating chemicals in consumer products.”“We have let the bill authors know of our concern. We look more favorably on the House amendments and we are keeping an eye on the Senate,” Rodriquez said.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Moves toward New Cybersecurity Regulations

   Sep 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

   By Tim Starks and Darius Dixon

   The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants to hear from the public in advance of forthcoming regulations that would institute new cybersecurity requirements on facilities that fabricate nuclear fuel.

   In a notice scheduled for publication Friday in the Federal Register, the NRC requests comments "on a draft regulatory basis to support a rulemaking that would amend its regulations by adopting new cyber security requirements for certain nuclear fuel cycle facility (FCF) licensees in order to address safety and security consequences of concern.”

   Part of the new requirements would force facilities allowed to handle significant quantities of uranium and plutonium to maintain a cybersecurity program that provides “high assurance” that certain digital computer and communication systems are protected. The rulemaking effort also seeks to codify existing cybersecurity requirements imposed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

   Commissioners signed off in March on a plan to initiate the rulemaking, after which there would be an implementation period of 18 months rather than the usual three-year span.

   The public comment period in the Federal Register notice is 30 days.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

6. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Stronger Water Quality Standards in Washington

   Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Paul Shukovsky

   Citing the failure of Washington state leaders to enact up-to-date water quality rules, the Environmental Protection Agency said in an online post Sept. 2 that it would do the job for them by promulgating more stringent federal standards that protect tribal communities and others who eat large quantities of fish.The proposed EPA regulation revises existing state human health criteria that plug into a complex algorithm used to calculate the water quality standards. The EPA proposes to boost in the equation the fish consumption factor from the current 6.5 grams a day to 175 grams a day to reflect data that show “fish consumers in Washington, including tribes with treaty-protected rights, consume much more fish than 6.5 g/day.”And the agency also proposes a more protective cancer risk level of 1 in 1 million, down from the 1-in-100,000 level Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) recommended in the last legislative session. Inslee linked it to a broad proposal to strengthen control on toxics that failed to get traction in the Republican-controlled Senate.The proposed rule also takes into account recently updated EPA recommendations under Clean Water Act Section 304(a) by adding new and revised Washington-specific human health criteria for 99 priority toxic pollutants.EPA Region 10 Water and Watersheds Director Dan Opalski told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 2 in a telephone interview: “We are here today because the state hasn't been able to promulgate a new rule and take that process to completion. It is EPA's preference across the country for states to put standards into place that are protective and meet other Clean Water Act requirements so that we can approve them.”Opalski and EPA Water Quality Standards Coordinator Matt Szelag said EPA intervention in what is typically a state process is uncommon. They cited one other instance of federal rule promulgation for a state: Florida nutrient criteria in 2010, which were ultimately withdrawn once the state adopted its own criteria.Tribes Praise EPAThe EPA move brought immediate praise from Native American leaders such as Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation on Washington's Olympic coast and the area vice president of the National Congress of American Indians.“While some large corporations have lobbied against clean water, we have been adamant about its importance, not only to tribal people but to everyone,” Sharp said in a Sept. 2 statement.Oregon adopted a 175-gram daily fish consumption factor in 2011 that remains the highest among state toxic standards (119 DEN A-5, 6/21/11).Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Chairwoman N. Kathryn Brigham said in a Sept. 2 prepared statement that the “consistency with Oregon allows us to take a regional approach to improving the water quality of the Columbia River and throughout the Pacific Northwest.”‘More Stringent’ LevelsThe proposed rule, with its higher fish consumption rate and its 1-in-1-million cancer risk factor, “would result in more protective standards than are currently in place in the state,” Opalski said. “In general, because a level will be more stringent, an industry might have to think about what in their process results in the output of chemicals in the first place.”He added, “We need to strike the right balance in affording protection to the residents of the state but also provide implementation flexibility so that we are maintaining the economic viability of industries.”Such flexibility could take the form of compliance schedules that allow dischargers time to meet more stringent standards, variances for particular water bodies that essentially do the same thing and intake credits under which an effluent doesn't have to be cleaner than what came into a plant's intake pipe, Opalski said.In response to pressure from the EPA, the state Department of Ecology issued a proposed rule that boosted the fish consumption rate from 6.5 grams a day to 175 grams. But it simultaneously proposed decreasing protection by allowing the projected cancer rates to rise from 1-in-1-million to 1-in-100,000 (12 DEN A-10, 1/20/15).Called Political Tight RopeThe tweaking of the algorithm was an indication of the political tight rope Inslee is walking. He sought to mollify companies such as Boeing Co. that are concerned about the impact of stringent regulation on their business, as well as tribes that worry about their members—subsistence fishers—who eat large amounts of fish and shellfish taken from polluted waters (191 DEN A-22, 10/2/14).The decision to reduce cancer protection outraged tribes, a traditional Democratic constituency in the state.In an unusual move, Inslee tied the proposed state rule to a bill he submitted to the Legislature in June that would have imposed more stringent standards for toxics he said weren't adequately addressed by the point-source oriented Clean Water Act (133 DEN A-10, 7/11/14).That bill passed the Democrat-controlled House but died without coming up for a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.On July 30, Inslee released a statement that pointed to heavy opposition to the bill from the American Chemistry Council and said he was sending the Department of Ecology back to the drawing board on the fish-consumption issue.“The governor is directing Ecology to reassess the rule in light of the Legislature's inaction,” the statement said. “If the state chooses to not finalize a rule, EPA would impose a water quality standard on Washington state. The EPA has already begun drafting its proposed rule.”‘2015 Legislature's Failure.’In a Sept. 2 fact sheet, the EPA noted Inslee's direction to the Ecology Department to reconsider its proposed rule given the “2015 Legislature's failure to pass proposed legislation and funding for stronger controls on toxics. Therefore, EPA is moving forward with its proposal to provide for timely, protective updates to the criteria applicable in the state.”Even as Inslee points to the Republicans, Senate environment committee Chairman Doug Ericksen (R) puts the blame on Inslee and accuses the EPA of playing partisan politics.“Obviously the executive branch proposes rules, not the Legislature,” Ericksen said in a Sept. 3 telephone interview. “So the Legislature was not able to block any fish-consumption, water quality rule. Gov. Inslee was the one that linked the fish-consumption rule with the proposed broader toxics bill. Now EPA comes back and says that they have to have this more stringent rule because Inslee's legislation didn't pass—a purely political and partisan move on EPA's part.”The EPA's Opalski said, however, “Given our preference that states develop standards and bring them to us for approval, we are ready to pause our process if the state were to come in with something new to look at.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. (ACC Mentioned) Thailand Company to Invest $100M For Early Work on Ohio Ethane Cracker

   Sep 3, 2015 | NGI's Shale Daily

   By Jamison Cocklin

   Thailand's state-owned petrochemical and refining company, PTT Global Chemical (PTTGC) pcl, said Thursday it would spend $100 million on engineering design work for a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker it has proposed to build in the heart of the Utica Shale in Southeast Ohio.

   PTTGC CEO Supattanapong Punmeechaow was joined by Gov. John Kasich, local officials from Belmont County, where the company plans to build the facility, and top executives from the state's economic development organization, JobsOhio, for a press conference at the statehouse to make the announcement.

   PTTGC, a subsidiary of Thailand's oil and gas company, PTT pcl, has signed contracts with a consortium of engineering firms that would conduct preliminary design work and cost estimates for the facility. The company has also signed a purchase option agreement for key properties in Mead Township along the Ohio River for the proposed site. A coal-fired plant operated by FirstEnergy Corp. was retired at the location in 2011.

   Punmeechaow said it would take up to a year to determine the economic feasibility of the project and added that a final investment decision would not be made until 2016 or 2017.

   In April, the company announced that it was interested in constructing a cracker at an undisclosed site in Belmont County (see Shale Daily, April 23). It has partnered with Japanese global services company Marubeni Corp. to develop the facility and has said it is searching for a third partner to help finance the project. In its first quarter earnings report, PTTGC said it would plan for a one million tonne facility that could cost nearly $6 billion to construct (see Shale Daily, May 19).

   Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate, called the potential cracker the next step in establishing Ohio as a national energy hub. Punmeechaow said he has been impressed "with the Ohio business climate and with the prioritization of the shale energy industry," adding that the company hopes to make the project a reality by next year. The cracker would convert locally sourced ethane from the Marcellus and Utica shales into ethylene, a key building block for plastics.

   PTTGC's proposal is one of four others that have been announced for the region (see Shale Daily, May 21, 2014; Nov. 14, 2017; Jan. 19, 2012, June 7, 2011). None of those projects have broken ground. In April, the Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht SA and its petrochemical affiliate Braskem SA said plans for a similar ethane cracker in Wood County, WV, would be postponed pending further project analysis amid the commodities downturn. Those companies have already conducted engineering design work and filed for some necessary permits (see Shale Daily, May 19, 2014).

   PTTGC has said it searched for nearly two years to identify a site for the facility in the Appalachian Basin. As a result of the spread between the price of oil and natural gas, the U.S. plastics industry is expected to grow rapidly over the next decade, according to a recent study released by the American Chemistry Council (see Shale Daily, May 19). Asian and European plastics producers typically use an oil-based feedstock rather than natural gas-based feedstocks. PTTGC has said the Ohio cracker could have cost advantages, especially in a region where demand is high for petrochemical products.

   If the company goes forward with the project, it would take more than three years to construct and have a tentative in-service date of 2020.

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. With Eye on Profits, Refiners Oppose Lifting Export Ban

   Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Mark Drajem

   Buried in the latest government analysis on lifting the crude oil export ban is a piece of data that shows why ending the limits will be a heavy lift—it would cut refiners’ profits by $22 billion a year.The report shows that dropping the ban, which dates to the 1970s Arab oil embargo, could lower gasoline prices for drivers and boost domestic oil drillers. But oil refiners, one of the nation's most powerful industries, would be the losers.“The refiners will definitely be hurt, there is no question about that,” said Charles Ebinger, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who supports lifting the ban. “But the studies have shown that lifting the ban is good public policy.”Congress is set to begin considering legislation to end the prohibition as soon as next week, although a split in the industry is complicating the effort to get it passed, particularly the Senate. Financial losses could be especially painful for refineries in the Midwest and Northeast, which now get discounted U.S. oil from surging shale production made possible by hydraulic fracturing, Ebinger said.That makes winning support from pro-trade Republican senators in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and New Hampshire, up for re-election next year, especially difficult. Already Allied Progress, a group that says it aims to hold powerful interests accountable, is running ads against ending the ban in Colorado, Maine and New Hampshire.Fall Campaign Issue“If Republicans vote in favor of lifting the export ban, the ads write themselves,” said Jay Hauck, a lobbyist representing four refineries that joined together to fight the effort. “They are handing Democrats a fall campaign issue.”Oil companies including Continental Resources Inc. and ConocoPhillips have spent much of the past two years pressing Congress to change the policy. They have relied on a series of economic analyses concluding that ending the restrictions won't mean a rise in gasoline prices for drivers.The latest report came from the Energy Information Administration, which Sept. 1 released the last in its series of independent analyses. It said that if U.S. oil production were to keep rising, lifting the ban would cut the gap between domestic and global light crude prices, while gasoline prices at the pump would either be unchanged or slightly lower. U.S. producers could gain additional revenue of $29 billion.The difference between the major benchmarks—West Texas Intermediate in the U.S. and Brent crude in the rest of the world—has averaged $5.70 so far this year and $6.64 last year after being more than $10 for three years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.Lower Profits PredictedWithout restrictions, profits for refiners would be $22.7 billion lower in 2025 than with limits in effect, EIA predicts. “This outcome reflects the expectation that refinery margins would grow with increases in the Brent-WTI spread under current export restrictions in high-production cases,” the report said.Still, even with that change, the expected spread will remain larger than it was last year, and U.S. refiners would continue to benefit from cheap natural gas, which they use both as a fuel and feedstock, according to the report.Refiners have been the surprise winners of the shale era, raking in better returns than all other energy sectors since 2012, including in periods when oil was above $100 a barrel and now when it is below $50.In the past three years, an index of refining companies on the Standard & Poor's 500 Index has returned more than 100 percent to investors, more than twice that of the S&P and a far cry from the losses of the broad energy sector, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.Support for Ending BanTo be sure, not all refiners are aligned on the issue.Integrated oil companies, which both produce and refine oil, support ending the ban. ExxonMobil Corp., BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are all members of the American Petroleum Institute, which is leading the lobbying to lift the ban. Tesoro Corp., the San Antonio-based refiner with the most capacity in the West, supports repeal, too.“It is clear that some domestic refiners are going to be challenged; the question is which ones, by how much and for how long?” said Stephen Brown, a lobbyist for Tesoro.Members of Hauck's group are Alon USA, Delta Air Lines Inc.’s Monroe Energy, PBF Energy and Philadelphia Energy Solutions. In addition, Valero Energy Corp., the nation's largest refinery, also opposes repeal.These companies argue that domestic shipping protections and a U.S. ethanol mandate already distort the free market for oil and wonder why a policy that's been in place since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s is suddenly on the fast-track for congressional action.Outside analysts put a different spin on it.“They are going to lose the bonus they've enjoyed,” said Charles Mason, a professor of petroleum resources at the University of Wyoming. “There is a discount on producers U.S. tight oil. If we would shelve the export ban, that discount would disappear.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. The EPA’s Water Woes

   Sep 3, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

   It’s been a bad few weeks for the Environmental Protection Agency’s relationship to water. First came the Colorado mine leak and toxic deluge, and now a federal judge has blasted its new Clean Water Rule as unscientific.

   Details continue to trickle out about the EPA miscalculations that led to last month’s Colorado mine blowout, which spewed three million gallons of toxic waste into waterways from New Mexico to Utah. The latest news is that the agency realized as early as June 2014 the potential for a massive spill but misjudged the risk.

   The underlying cause is regulatory hubris, which also animates the EPA’s new rule extending federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over tens of millions of acres of private land. The EPA has claimed power over any creek, pond or prairie pothole with a “significant nexus” to a “navigable waterway.”

   Significance is as ever in the eye of the regulator. The EPA deems “significant” anything within a 100-year floodplain and 1,500 feet of the high water mark of its claimed waters—or alternatively, within the 100-year floodplain and 4,000 feet of its fiefdom.

   Thirty-one states have filed four separate suits against the EPA for usurping their sovereignty over intrastate waterways. North Dakota argues that the rule will require additional studies of every proposed natural gas, oil or water pipeline, which is likely a key EPA objective. Last week federal Judge Ralph Erickson granted a preliminary injunction blocking the rule from taking effect on Friday in 13 western states (North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming).

   Internal agency memos reflect the “absence of any information about how the EPA obtained its presented results,” the judge noted. “Consequently, the subsequent results are completely unverifiable,” but “[e]ven so, a review of what has been made available reveals a process that is inexplicable, arbitrary, and devoid of a reasoned process.” The judge determined that the 13 plaintiff states had a “substantial likelihood of success.” He added: “A far broader segment of the public would benefit from the preliminary injunction” than from the rule’s implementation “because it would ensure that federal agencies do not extend their power beyond the express delegation from Congress.”

   While EPA has begrudgingly agreed not to enforce the rule in the 13 states, it claims that the other 37 are fair game. The agency also argues that the various cases moving through district courts should be consolidated and heard by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to prevent “the potential for inconsistent rulings” and promote “regulatory clarity and certainty.” That’s a risible argument.

   The EPA doesn’t want to play whack-a-mole, and the Sixth Circuit has traditionally been a friendly venue. In 2006 the Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s expansive interpretation of the Clean Water Act in the landmark case Rapanos v. United States. But as Judge Erickson notes, federal law gives appellate courts exclusive jurisdiction over only EPA effluent limitations—not regulations that rewrite law.

   The Obama Administration wants to insulate its rule-by-fiat from judicial review. But as Judge Erickson laudably shows, the White House can’t be left to its own regulatory devices.

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Environmental Justice Groups Seek Strict Ozone Limits

    Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Andrew Childers

    Environmental justice and public health advocates pressed the Environmental Protection Agency to set the most-stringent air quality standards possible for ozone to protect the most vulnerable populations.More than 71 percent of African Americans, regardless of household income, live in areas that violate the EPA's current national ambient air quality standards for ozone and lower-income and minority populations are more likely to have asthma, which can be exacerbated by the pollutant, Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau and senior vice president for advocacy and policy, told reporters Sept. 3.“Studies have shown race over income is the number-one predictor for whether a person lives near a polluting facility,” he said.The EPA in November proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the current ozone standards of 75 parts per billion to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, a change the agency estimated could cost up to $16.6 billion annually while providing up to $38 billion in annual public health benefits.The EPA sent the final ozone rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for interagency review Aug. 28. The final rule is due by Oct. 1 (169 DEN A-1, 9/1/15).The advocates downplayed the economic impact of setting more-stringent standards for ozone, something opponents of the rule have argued will hamper businesses' ability to obtain permits to being operations or expand existing facilities in newly designated nonattainment areas.“EPA is not to consider job numbers when they're setting forth the most protective standard for air pollution,” Stephanie Maddin, legislative counsel at Earthjustice, said.Shelton said the NAACP has advocated the EPA set more protective ozone standards since 2011 because they are necessary to protect the health of children, in particular.“We cannot write off the health of our children for the challenges of local politicians to address real economic needs in those neighborhoods,” he said.Environmental Justice Guidance Inconsistently AppliedIn a separate report released Sept. 3, the EPA inspector general found the agency is inconsistently using its voluntary guidance to apply environmental justice considerations to the rulemaking and that draft technical guidance on environmental justice is not being applied at all.“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,” the Office of Inspector General said.The EPA issued its final guidance on incorporating environmental justice into rulemaking, and it does not plan to finalize its technical guidance until 2016, the report said.Environmental justice advocates have called on the EPA to issue the final documents to provide a road map for states. They argue the guidance is not being applied by states as they wait for the final document, which leaves low-income and minority communities at risk of further harm (119 DEN A-16, 6/20/14).The inspector general recommends the EPA provide training for using the guidance and develop procedures for measuring how it is applied throughout the agency.

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Greens, Civil Rights Groups Team up on Ozone Rule

    Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry

    A coalition of environmental and health organizations and a major civil rights group have teamed up to call for stringent new limits on surface-level ozone.

    The Obama administration is currently reviewing a final rule to set strict new standards for ozone pollution, and it’s expected to announce the new limits this fall. 

    The rule’s boosters have said it will help both the environment and public health by limiting a ozone, or smog, which is a major pollutant.  

    The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and groups like the Sierra Club and Earthjustice  say it’s even more than that. 

    They’re sponsoring newspaper and digital ads this week highlighting the rule as especially important for black Americans, who are much more susceptible to adverse health effects caused by ozone because their communities are frequently in areas where smog pollution is worse than even the current standards.

    “We want to make it clear that air pollution isn’t just a health issue and it isn’t just a environmental issue, it’s a justice issue,” said Marry Anne Hitt, the director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. 

    “Low-income communities, communities of color, have been caring an unjust burden for too long.”

    The NAACP has long supported an ozone standard of at least 60 parts per billion, which would be stronger than the 75 parts per billion limits currently on the books. 

    Hilary Shelton, the director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, said the group’s membership voted to endorse tightening the standard in 2010. The organization has fought back against congressional efforts to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from instituting the new rules since then. 

    “Given the disproportionate level of African Americans who live near polluting facilities and are adversely affected by air pollution, the people whose lives would be improved by cleaning up the ozone levels are also disproportionately African American,” Shelton said.

    Many lawmakers, especially Republicans, have hammered the EPA’s efforts to institute strict ozone limits, noting that many areas of the country are unable to comply with the standards currently in place. 

    Industry groups, led by the National Association of Manufacturers, have pushed back hard as well, warning the rules will be expensive to implement and could put jobs at risk.

    Shelton said he “understands the skittishness” of some politicians hesitant to embrace the standards. 

    But, “we cannot write off the health of our children, for the challenges of local politicians to address real economic needs in those neighborhoods,” he said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Clean Power Plan Hostility Arises on Campaign Trail

    Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Anthony Adragna

    Two Republican presidential candidates this week condemned the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's plan to address climate change, the latest in vocal opposition from their party to the Clean Power Plan.Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told a crowd of energy officials Sept. 2 that as president he would stop the Obama administration's regulation to curb carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's fleet of existing power plants because it would “have a devastating impact on affordable energy in exchange for little to no environmental benefit.”The same day Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) formally requested an immediate stay of the final rule from the EPA and asked for a reconsideration of the plan. Christie called it a “fundamentally flawed plan that threatens the progress we've already made in developing clean and renewable energy in New Jersey.”None of the 17 major declared Republican candidates seeking the presidency—including several who acknowledge human activity contributes to climate change—have backed the Clean Power Plan (151 DEN S-7, 8/6/15).The EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) on Aug. 3. The regulation sets unique carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternatively mass-based targets for the power sector in each state, but it tasks state regulators with developing plans to meet the targets.Broader Rubio CriticismRubio's comments about the Clean Power Plan came as he more broadly criticized the administration's approach to regulation and vowed to lean more heavily on private sector innovation as president.“I'll pursue a sweeping overhaul of the regulatory system to make sure costs and benefits of new rules are accurately accounted for and that localities, states and industries can meet the timelines I set forward,” Rubio said. “The days of arbitrary, damaging rules like the Clean Power Plan and the so-called waters of the U.S. mandate will come to an end.”The Florida Republican sought to contrast himself with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton who has previously said defending the Clean Power Plan would be a “top priority” as president. Rubio also criticized Clinton for not speaking out forcefully on energy issues.“For the most part, she resorts to empty rhetoric that refuses to chart much of a course in either direction,” Rubio said of Clinton. “This is no way to treat one of the most important issues of our time.”Christie Will Fight RuleUnlike Rubio, Christie has acknowledged human activity contributes to climate change. Nevertheless, the New Jersey governor said his state would fight the “heavy-handed overreach of Washington” seen in the Clean Power Plan.“The Clean Power Plan is 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,” Christie said in a statement.Some in the state strongly disagreed with Christie's position. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Christie's request for a stay showed the governor was “putting his misguided political aspirations over the wellbeing of New Jersey.”“Governor Christie's attempt is nothing more than a political maneuver to play to people outside of our state and it does not stand on solid ground,” Pallone said. “I am confident that the plan will be successfully implemented in New Jersey.”New Jersey joins 17 other states in seeking an administrative stay of the regulation. Those states, led by West Virginia, argue the EPA has exceeded its statutory authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (151 DEN A-5, 8/6/15).

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Republicans Plan Attack on Climate Pact

    Sep 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro

    By Andrew Restuccia

    Republicans in Congress are planning a multi-pronged assault on an international climate change agreement, an effort that could undercut a crucial plank of President Barack Obama's environmental legacy.

    GOP aides have been holding meetings and strategy sessions behind the scenes for months to solidify the strategy, and its contours are beginning to emerge — with just a few months to go before diplomats meet in Paris in hopes of clinching a global deal to curb emissions.

    Nearly 200 nations are expected to convene in Paris in at the end of the year to try to hammer out an agreement that calls for countries to cut the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for warming the planet and boosting sea levels.

    Republicans are incensed that Obama's State Department is working to ensure that the final agreement will not be an international treaty, and therefore won't be submitted to the Senate for ratification by a two-thirds vote. GOP aides are consulting with legal scholars about whether they can make the case that any deal struck in Paris must come before the Senate — whether the president wants it to or not.

    "If it’s not called a treaty, are there parts of it that are so complex that you could argue they are a treaty?" asked one GOP aide, who declined to speak on the record because Republicans have not finalized their strategy. "While the president is saying it’s a political commitment, there are still some serious implications for domestic policy.”

    Nearly everybody following the issue agrees that any pact from the Paris climate conference would be dead on arrival in the Senate. Asked if there is any possibility that the agreement could clear the two-thirds hurdle in the upper chamber, a Republican energy lobbyist said, "No chance. There are few certainties in life, but that is one of them."

    Republicans are mulling their strategy as officials meet in Bonn, Germany, this week to whittle down an 83-page draft negotiating text to a more manageable size before the December Paris talks. Diplomats have only a handful of negotiating sessions left before the Paris talks, which begin in late November.

    Meanwhile, sources familiar with the issue said Neil Chatterjee, a top policy aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is reaching out to officials at foreign embassies to make it clear that Republicans plan to fight Obama's climate agenda at every turn. That effort was first reported by Environment & Energy Publishing.

    Obama administration officials say they are confident that Republicans won't succeed in undermining the international agreement. So far, foreign diplomats have not been rattled by GOP opposition to the president's climate change agenda.

    While Republicans in Congress have limited options for stopping the United States from signing on to the climate pact, they believe they can sew doubts about the Obama administration's ability to hold up its end of the deal in two ways, according to GOP aides.

    First, Republicans are attacking the EPA's climate regulations for power plants, which underpin the U.S. pledge to cut its emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. If the Obama administration rules get overturned by the courts or Congress, Republicans contend, the United States won't be able to meet its climate target.

    Republicans plan to pursue challenges to the EPA regulations for new and existing power plants under the Congressional Review Act, a seldom-invoked law that allows lawmakers to repeal a regulation with a simple majority vote, shortly after the agency publishes the rules in the Federal Register next month. McConnell has also encouraged governors in all 50 states to refuse to comply with the rules. And opponents are planning to unleash lawsuits that could tie the regulations up in court for years.

    Second, Republicans are planning to block funding for the Green Climate Fund, an initiative created at the Copenhagen climate meeting in 2009 that is aimed at helping poor countries adapt to the effects of a warming planet.

    Obama has promised that the U.S. will contribute $3 billion to the GCF over several years, including $500 million in fiscal year 2016. Poor countries have warned that their support for a climate deal in Paris will hinge on the industrialized nations making ambitious commitments to the GCF, as well as other finance pledges from wealthy nations like the United States.

    In conversations during the last few months, Chatterjee has sought to update staff at foreign embassies about Republicans' plans. Sources familiar with the conversations said Chatterjee hasn't tried to persuade the officials to oppose the pending climate deal. Instead, he is working to inform them about the GOP's options for undercutting it. Chatterjee has had conversations with officials representing both developed and developing countries.

    At the same time, Republicans on the Hill are for pushing back against Obama's plans to not submit the climate agreement to the Senate for approval. Aides said they have yet to agree on a specific strategy, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is planning on holding a hearing on the issue soon.

    The administration knows that the deal would face an impossible hurdle in winning the two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate that treaties require for ratification. So the United States is pushing for a broader political agreement that has the buy-in from every country, but won't have the legal authority of a treaty.

    Republicans are considering making the case that such a high-profile agreement, whether it's technically a treaty or not, should be submitted to Congress for review, a strategy that echoes the one lawmakers are using to review the deal on the Iranian nuclear program. But, unlike with the Iran deal, Republicans aren't likely to get much support from Democrats for reviewing the climate agreement.

    Either way, GOP lawmakers say they'll make the case that the climate deal is largely meaningless because a Republican president is under no obligation to comply with it.

    "The president is only pursuing a political commitment and there’s nothing legally binding about it," another GOP aide said.

    Republicans are also mulling legislation that would respond to the Paris talks, including a possible resolution expressing their opposition to the deal.

    Obama's push for an international climate change deal isn't winning over Republicans on the campaign trail. GOP candidates have railed against the EPA's climate regulations, although a few candidates like Jeb Bush have acknowledged that human activity has contributed to global warming. Democrats, on the other hand, have lined up behind Obama's climate agenda. Hillary Clinton, for example, has called for an ambitious agreement in Paris.

    Experts said lawmakers would have a tough time forcing Obama to submit an agreement from the Paris conference to the Senate.

    Daniel Bodansky, an Arizona State University law professor who served as a State Department climate coordinator at the end of the Clinton administration, said that if diplomats negotiate a political deal, "I think the generally accepted view is that the President would get to decide whether to accept the agreement, based on his constitutional foreign affairs powers."

    "I don’t see anything [Republicans in Congress] can do other than express their view," said Jeremy Rabkin, a professor at George Mason University School of Law who teaches international law.

    But Rabkin, a critic of the administration's climate policies, added that Obama can't bind future presidents to the agreement if it isn't a treaty. "You live by the rhetoric, you die by the rhetoric," he said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. EPA’s Clean Power Plan is the Biggest Threat to US Energy Renaissance

    Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Ned Mamula

    The U.S. is in the midst of an “energy renaissance” far beyond the wildest imagination of anyone from merely a decade ago. Unfortunately, the EPA may kill it.

    Their “Clean Power Plan” (CPP) is yet another attempt to foist expensive, unreliable, unworkable “renewable” solar and wind power upon a highly serviceable national grid. Meanwhile, U.S. oil and natural gas production are at all time highs and prices are dropping. Using gas in place of coal for electricity generation cuts emissions by over 50 per cent and supplies very reliable power.

    The American “energy renaissance” began in the 1980s and accelerated dramatically over the past decade. During that period, the EPA was in favor of natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal as the nation’s primary source of fuel for power generation—probably not an unreasonable assumption for the energy future, despite the vast supply of high-quality U.S. coal resources available. Coal not used here would be available for export. In EPA’s view, coal was out and natural gas was in. 

    Exciting technological innovations developed by U.S. energy producers are now yielding record amounts of natural gas from abundant shale deposits across America. This “shale revolution” as it is called, has surged dramatically within the past five years, helping keep afloat a staggering economy.  

    Now, all of a sudden in 2015, the EPA has decided to impose a new vision of a “clean energy policy”: reduction and eventual elimination of even the cleanest of fossil fuels for power generation in the near future. Administrator Gina McCarthy’s recent comments of the policy are unsettling: the U.S. electrical power generation, she opined, will need to “shift toward renewable energy such as solar and wind power, rather than encourage an early surge toward natural gas as a means of replacing coal power.” 

    At best, her words demonstrate a misunderstanding of those soaring technical advancements by the U.S. energy industry to produce cheap, cleaner shale gas for domestic consumption as well as for export. At worst, her “clean power” policy is incredibly ill-advised and poorly-timed,  especially given the disparity between the perpetually underperforming “renewable” energy sector and surging US natural gas production—which is abundantly available for power generation and far cleaner than coal.

    The expectations that EPA places on renewable energy sources are unrealistic. The lead time and learning curve needed to develop energy sources and associated integration technologies are long and steep—assuming they’re even physically possible. The natural gas industry has excelled on both fronts and is best positioned of all fuels to provide US power generation for the long-term. 

    The most bitter irony of the Clean Power Plan is that our country now has supplies of natural gas exceeding our wildest expectations from only a few years ago. Yet EPA Administrator McCarthy has reversed policy and is telling the American people and the natural gas industry ‘not to go there’ for long-term power generation—that our abundant natural gas supplies are not the best way to replace coal in the world’s largest energy economy. Essentially, the EPA wants to substitute what doesn’t work for what does.

    If natural gas is now being scorned, what energy source will fill the gap between the “end” of fossil fuel energy and the “arrival” of carbon-free fuel sources? Analysts on both sides of this issue really need to bore into this question because renewables are not yet up to this challenge. As much as we might want renewables to succeed, they are currently incapable of producing the seamless energy supply most Americans take for granted.

    The U.S. probably has never been more energy independent than we are now. For this we can credit the shale revolution’s enormous production of natural gas—undoubtedly the best near-term selection to replace coal-fired power generation. Given its abundance and the dramatic drop in carbon emissions resulting from coal to natural gas power conversion—why is this achievement not quite enough for this EPA?

    What about a more ideal energy policy going forward: EPA stays away from both natural gas and renewables, letting the free market continue to make American energy production the cleanest and most efficient on Earth.

    Mamula is an adjunct scholar with the Center for the Study of Science at Cato Institute.

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. The ‘Clean Power Plan’ Still Blocks Expansion of Nuke-Generated Electricity

    Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By William F. Shughart II

    The Obama administration’s announcement of regulations requiring every state to craft plans targeting major reductions in emissions from coal-fired power plants has been greeted as a major victory for wind, solar, biomass and other zero-carbon energy sources. As proof of his leadership on the environment and his desire to bequeath action on global warming to future generations, Obama very much wants to present his Clean Power Plan (CPP) as a fait accompli to the international community at a December meeting in Paris.

    Nuclear power is not even mentioned, although the plan does provide that states where nuclear plants now are under construction can claim credits toward reducing carbon emissions by 32 percent by 2030 (from 2005 levels) before bringing the plants online.

    The major problem, though, is that the CPP does nothing to change current policies regarding storing and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

    For decades, since President Jimmy Carter banned recycling on grounds that its misuse could lead to a proliferation of nuclear weapons, used nuclear fuel has been considered waste. Today, upwards of 75,000 metric tons of used fuel is stored at nuclear plants around the country, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and electricity generation adds another 2,000 tons every year.

    Obama himself stopped construction of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert, heeding the “not-in-my-back-yard!” objections of former senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). That picture may change after Sen. Reid retires, but meanwhile spent nuclear fuel remains an untapped resource. Used fuel nowadays is held in engineered water pools and concrete-and-steel dry casks at every nuclear-powered plant. Although the cost of storage is low, the plants were designed to generate electricity, not keep watch over large amounts of nuclear waste indefinitely.

    Spent fuel from the production of nuclear-generated electricity might not be as sexy as wind and solar power, but it contains valuable materials that can be recycled for further use in nuclear power plants, as is done in France and more than a dozen other countries, including Germany and Japan, which did not adhere to President Carter’s policy. France uses reprocessing to obtain 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, and profits from exporting nuclear-generated electricity to other European countries.

    In recent years, the U.S. ban on nuclear recycling has been loosened to permit surplus weaponized plutonium to be converted into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for commercial electricity production as one way of fulfilling an agreement with Russia to reduce stockpiles of weapons-grade materials. Such a reprocessing facility has been under construction at the Savannah River site in South Carolina for a decade, but it is far over budget and the Department of Energy has placed it on “cold standby”. The MOX facility likely never will be finished.

    Recycling used fuel from nuclear power plants is much more practical and proven technologies for it readily are available in Europe and Japan. Reprocessed nuclear fuel could generate more electricity without producing any carbon dioxide emissions, while significantly reducing the amount and toxicity of high-level radioactive waste that otherwise needs to be consolidated for storage in a national facility, if one ever is built. Recycling also would add to the global supply of uranium, which is under growing demand pressures as the number of nuclear plants in the world rises.

    Nuclear-generated power is at least as reliable as coal-fired power in producing electricity 24/7, far more reliable than the sun or the wind, and has the same zero-carbon footprint as renewable energy sources.

    Renewable energy sources stand to benefit from the Clean Power Plan, but only if massive federal subsidies continue. The true winner for the foreseeable future likely is natural gas, which already is replacing the president’s bête noir, coal, at the nation’s power plants. Coal-producing states are considering options to block implementation of the president’s plan, but even if some states do the EPA will step in to impose its own emission-reduction rules on them – unless Congress acts.

    Any such congressional action should put used nuclear fuel recycling in its rightful place on the U.S. energy landscape. The positive environmental impact would not just be in the next decade but continue far into the future.

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Government Subsidies in Green Energy are Investment in our Future

    Sep 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Elia Pales

    America is no stranger to government subsidies. Each year, the US government pays out more than $20 billion to keep farm products, such as corn and wheat, selling at a low price. Individual cities also subsidize sports stadiums so that the teams stay in the city. Even back during the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt paid farmers to produce less crops in order to fight disastrous deflation. Though there is much argument as to whether the government should even partake in "corporate welfare" in the first place, one of the industries where the government should certainly increase its presence is the green energy sector.

    There is no question that global warming is a huge issue for the world. With the world seeing some of its hottest years on record, and 97 percent of scientists believing in man-caused climate change, this is a huge issue that we, as a people, need to address. Unfortunately, private investment in new industries (such as green energy) can often be risky and deterring for entrepreneurs. Moreover, current costs of green energy can often be seen as too high for the population to embrace. As a result, it falls squarely to the government to promote and fund green energy initiatives in our country. No, not because it may be financially lucrative, because at the beginning green-energy investment may not be. Instead, America needs to make these investments to protect the posterity of our planet.

    Fortunately, some U.S. states have taken steps to subsidize the green energy industry, and even the federal government has passed initiatives to make green energy more affordable. In 2005, the US passed the Solar Investment Tax Credit, which reimburses those that purchase solar panels by up to 30 percent. This has brought down the barrier of entry for green energy substantially. Unfortunately, the Solar Investment Tax Credit is set to expire at the end of 2016. Without a cooperative Congress and a progressive president, investment in solar energy could plummet if the tax credit expires.

    The Vermont senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I) has already lead the charge on making green energy more affordable and accessible to regular Americans. After all, the majority of Americans believe in man-made global warming, but many simply cannot afford to take the steps necessary to combat it. Earlier this year, Sanders introduced legislation, titled the "Low Income Solar Act," to make solar energy more affordable than ever to those that are least likely able to afford it. The Low Income Solar Act would provide more than $200 million for the Department of Energy to parcel out in the form of loans and grants to low-income families to help offset the upfront costs of "going solar." This money could also be used to help solar projects for public housing and other community facilities. In theory, selling off excess energy produced with these solar initiatives could be used to fund more loans and grants.

    Critics of green-energy subsidies cite the fact that President Obama signed into law more than $100 billion in funding for renewable energy with his 2009 stimulus package, which went to several companies that eventually went out of business. Solar company Solyndra, for example, received more than $500 million in loans from the stimulus, but was unable to pay these loans back after going bankrupt in 2011. In total, nearly three dozen companies that received funding from the government for green energy ended up going bankrupt.

    However, these numbers shouldn't scream "the U.S. shouldn't invest in green energy." In fact, it says quite the opposite. There were actually quite a few successes from the stimulus funding. From 2008 to 2010, for example, wind power production increased by 60% in the United States. The stimulus also created 720,000 jobs in the green energy sector. What does this information tell us? Solar investment is risky. So risky, in fact, that most private corporations would not necessarily want to risk investment. Sure, there are wonderful payoffs, but perhaps not enough to pique the interest of the business class. It is paramount to understand that government investment in green energy isn't necessarily a matter of being profitable, because it won't necessarily be profitable in the short term. Instead, this is an investment into the future of green energy and the fight against global warming.

    The U.S. has quite the history of subsidizing industries to help the entirety of America. Why not move that philosophy into the 21st century?

    Pales is a student at Michigan State University and a board member for the National College Students for Bernie Sanders Journalism Committee. 

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. EPA Said To Support 70 ppb Standard In Final Ozone NAAQS Rulemaking

    Sep 3, 2015 | Inside EPA

    By Stuart Parker

    EPA's final revised ozone air standard currently undergoing White House review leans toward tightening the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, industry sources say, which would be the weakest option of the 60 to 70 ppb range backed by the agency's science advisers -- though the rule could still change in the coming weeks.

    Industry groups, environmentalists and others are seeking meetings with EPA and White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) officials after the agency Aug. 28 sent the final update to its ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for mandatory pre-publication review, ahead of an Oct. 1 judicial deadline for a final rule. Outside groups will use the meetings to argue for their preferred level for the air standard.

    A standard of 70 ppb would be the same level that former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was widely believed to have selected in a rule to revise the NAAQS that President Obama forced Jackson to drop in late 2011.

    At least two industry sources say that EPA appears intent on finalizing a “primary” health-based NAAQS of 70 ppb, but faces calls from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to choose a stricter 68 ppb limit.

    One clean air advocate adds that there is suggestion of debate between EPA and the White House over 70 ppb or a stricter standard, and that the agency and CEQ are not necessarily “on the same page” about what level to set the standard. A CEQ spokeswoman declined to comment.

    Asked for comment on the suggestion that EPA has settled on a 70 ppb standard, an agency spokeswoman would only say that EPA sent the final rule for OMB review. The spokeswoman called the review a “routine step [that] is part of the agency’s regular review of the standards, required every five years by the Clean Air Act,” while noting that the agency received more than 430,000 comments on the rule and held three public hearings on it.

    EPA last revised the ozone standard in its 2008 rulemaking that tightened the limit from the 1997 standard expressed as 84 ppb down to 75 ppb, and the missed the air law mandate to review the limit in 2013. Environmentalists then filed litigation to force the review, resulting in the Oct. 1 judicial deadline for a final rule.

    In November the agency proposed to tighten the NAAQS down to a limit within the range of 65 to 70 ppb as endorsed by its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, (CASAC), though the panel also endorsed a standard as strict as 60 ppb. CASAC said a stricter standard is vital to meet an air law mandate that NAAQS be set at a level requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Public health advocates and environmentalists, however, say the NAAQS should be even stricter.

    Potential Standard

    Industry groups, GOP lawmakers and some states oppose any tightening of the ozone limit, saying it would put many more areas out of attainment with the standard. Nonattainment areas must impose potentially costly pollution controls on industrial sources of ozone, and EPA's critics say this designation hurts businesses and the economy.

    But EPA by law cannot consider costs in setting NAAQS and must do solely based on a pollutant's impacts on health and the environment -- though it can weigh costs in rules to implement the standards.

    One industry source says that the business community's understanding, based on discussions with administration officials, is that EPA feels that 70 ppb is the strictest limit that is scientifically defensible. But CEQ is said to favor a tougher 68 ppb limit, which the source calls “political interference to appease environmentalists.”

    A Natural Resources Defense Council source says, “Obviously we believe the standard should be lower than 70 and 68,” and says that the group has requested a meeting with EPA and OMB to discuss the rule.

    If the White House is pushing for 68 ppb and the agency is advocating 70 ppb, that would be a reversal from the situation when Jackson tried to finalize the rulemaking in 2011 to tighten the ozone limit.

    At the time EPA submitted a final rule to revise the NAAQS to OMB for pre-publication review, but in a Sept. 2, 2011, statement Obama said he asked Jackson to withdraw and scrap the rulemaking. He noted that the rulemaking was discretionary and that the mandatory five-year review of the standard was on the horizon.

    “Work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered,” according to the president's statement.

    Administration's Priorities

    Asked to explain the apparent shift in roles of EPA and the White House with the new NAAQS review, the industry source says that in 2011 Obama was facing re-election the next year and did not want a tougher ozone rule as a policy that could generate adverse publicity. Now, circumstances are different, the source says, adding that the looming ozone rule is also seen as less of a priority for the White House than EPA's power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rules.

    The source says, “for industry, it is a big difference” whether the final rule sets the limit at the higher or lower number, as a 70 ppb limit would impose a lot less economic harm than a 68 ppb standard.

    Industry groups will in the coming weeks continue their strong opposition to any tightening of the standard, even if 70 ppb is the ultimate number selected, the source says. But “70 ppb eases it up a little bit” in terms of areas of the country that would newly find themselves in “nonattainment” with the NAAQS, the source adds.

    Another industry consultant says that the standard will likely be set between 68 ppb and 70 ppb, and probably at the higher end of that scale. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is more interested in advocating for the GHG rules and defending them rather than pushing for the strictest possible ozone standard, the source says, and the administrator “will not fall on her sword” over the outcome of the ozone NAAQS.

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Full Text of Stories Below