Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) US PDH Loses Lure as Oil Prices Fall
Sep 16, 2015 | ICIS News
By Al Greenwood
The drop in oil prices has led to a chain of events that has made propane dehydrogenation (PDH) plants less attractive in the US. -
Prominent National Groups Urge the Senate to Pass the Lautenberg Act
Sep 16, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Senior officials from a diverse group of eight prominent national public health, environmental, labor, wildlife, and animal welfare organizations sent a letter today to Senate leaders urging them to act on the Senate’s bipartisan chemical safety reform legislation. -
Draft ATSDR Perfluoroalkyl Chemicals Profile Similar To EPA Risk Estimates
Sep 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) has become the second agency in recent months to propose risk estimates for perfluoroalkyl chemcials (PFCs), but its draft toxicological profile for 13 PFCs is raising concern among some environmentalists because the estimates are not based on the most sensitive health effects. -
Determining The Estrogenic Activity Of BPA Replacements
Sep 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Puneet Kollipara
Long used in polycarbonate plastics, epoxy resin food-can liners, and thermal receipt paper, bisphenol A (BPA) has become a poster child for endocrine disruptors—compounds that mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones, such as estrogens and androgens. -
New York Counties Move to Ban Microbeads
Sep 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Several New York counties are considering microbead bans, following in the footsteps of Erie County, which passed a law proscribing them in personal care products. -
Report Faults Homeland Security's Coordination on Cyber Issues
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The agency charged with protecting U.S. critical infrastructure from cyberattacks should brush up on its own online practices, according to an internal report published yesterday. -
Senators Point Fingers After EPA Mine Spill
Sep 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Republicans and Democrats played the blame game Wednesday at a hearing over last month’s massive mine spill in Colorado that turned a river orange. -
McCarthy Takes Responsibility for Spill, Defends Response
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said her agency takes full responsibility for last month's abandoned mine spill and defended response efforts amid tough questioning from senators this morning. -
(ACC Mentioned) Which Companies are Blocking Climate Change Progress? InfluenceMap Wants You to Know
Sep 16, 2015 | Tree Hugger
By Margaret Badore
The UK-based non-profit InfluenceMap gave Koch Industries and Duke Energy failing marks, as did Philips 66 and the Asian energy company Reliance Industries. -
After Four Decades, the U.S. Might Lift its Ban on Oil Exports. Here’s What You Need to Know
Sep 16, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Steven Mufson
Is the four-decade-old ban on U.S. exports of crude oil a useless relic or a valuable safeguard for American consumers? -
McConnell Backs Oil Exports, Sources Say
Sep 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed congressional action to roll back the crude export ban later today, sources told POLITICO. -
Animus Over Animas
Sep 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
The Environmental Protection Agency was founded 45 years ago because a polluted river was on fire. -
Environmental Justice Advocates Back Clean Power Plan But Worry About Cap and Trade
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Environmental justice advocates from around the United States gathered on Capitol Hill yesterday to lay out their hopes and concerns for the Obama administration's recently finalized rule regulating carbon emissions from power plants. -
EPA Has Sent Rule to Federal Register -- McCarthy
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA sent its Clean Power Plan to the Federal Register on Sept. 4 for an expected publication next month, Administrator Gina McCarthy told a Senate panel today. -
Incentives to Use More Clean Energy Work Best -- Study
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
On paper, applying the stick to carbon emitters -- charging greenhouse gas-generating parties, through either a direct tax or cap-and-trade scheme -- is widely considered the most efficient technique to solve climate change. -
McCarthy Vows To 'Push The Envelope' On RFS To Bolster Climate Agenda
Sep 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says the agency intends to “push the envelope” in its forthcoming final rule setting biofuel volumes requirements for three years under the renewable fuel standard (RFS), telling a gathering of industry officials that the program is an important part of President Obama's push to combat climate change. -
FRA, NY Inspectors Complete Latest Round of Crude-by-Rail Safety Checks
Sep 16, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office announced yesterday that targeted inspections of 445 crude oil tank cars, 128 miles of track and 66 switches in the state have been completed.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US PDH Loses Lure as Oil Prices Fall
Sep 16, 2015 | ICIS News
By Al Greenwood
The drop in oil prices has led to a chain of events that has made propane dehydrogenation (PDH) plants less attractive in the US.
Initially, companies proposed nine PDH plants in North America. Now, three will be built, while decisions are still pending for four other plants. The other two have been abandoned.
Companies were initially eager to build PDH plants because the US was facing a shortage of propylene.
US production of the monomer had fallen because companies began favouringethane over heavier feedstocks in their crackers. Lighter feedstocks produce less propylene.
Companies that consume propylene needed to offset the shortfall. Starting in 2011, they began proposing PDH plants.
These plants use propane to produce propylene. Consequently, a large spread between propane and propylene would be ideal for PDH plants.
That spread, however, has narrowed because of a steep drop in propylene prices. The following chart illustrates how the gap narrowed between polymer grade propylene (PGP) and propane.
From about April 2013 to July 2014, the difference between PGP and propane prices was roughly at 40-45 cents/lb ($882-992/tonne), according to ICIS assessments. It has since fallen sharply, reaching 24.18 cents/lb in August.
The spread has not been this low since December 2011, when it reached 23.03 cents/lb.
Prices for propylene – as well as propane – fell, in part, because of oil. Prices for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) closed on Tuesday at $44.59/bbl, down 58% from $107.26/bbl on 20 June 2014.
However, lower crude also led to a chain of events that put further pressure on propylene prices.
The decline in propane prices encouraged crackers to favour it over ethane as a feedstock. Cracking propane produces more propylene than cracking ethane. As a result, US cracker production of propylene increased.
In addition, the drop in oil prices encouraged refiners to operate at exceptionally high rates. This increased production of refinery-grade propylene (RGP), which is produced as a by-product from a fluid catalytic cracker (FCC).
This supply glut of propylene was aggravated by the shutdown of USpolypropylene (PP) capacity. Sunoco shut down its 200,000 tonne/year plant in Bayport, Texas, in 2009. Phillips Sumika announced in 2011 that it would shut down its 365,000 tonne/year plant in Pasadena, Texas,
US production of the resin peaked at 8.82m tonnes in 2007, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC). By 2014, it fell to 7.46m tonnes.
The decline in oil prices had another effect on the economics of running a PDH unit. It made overseas naphtha cracking more competitive against US producers, said Peter Fasullo, principal at En*Vantage.
The drop in oil prices points to a bigger challenge – not just for propylene but for petrochemicals in general, he said. The drop in oil prices is a symptom of lower consumption and weaker demand from the global economy. Slower economic growth would give companies one more reason to shelve projects.
Construction costs, meanwhile, have also risen – the result of a surge in new cracker and polyethylene (PE) plant construction.
Work on some PDH plants has already progressed to the point where companies will complete their projects.
The first of these, Dow Chemical's 750,000 tonne/year PDH plant, will start up later this year in Freeport, Texas. In 2016, Enterprise Products will start up its first PDH unit in Mont Belvieu, Texas, which will add another 750,000 tonnes/year of PGP capacity.
"We’ll be long [on] propylene by 4m-6m lb/day before the end of 2016 and the only solution is weak prices and exports," said Daniel Lippe, president ofPetral Consulting. And that is before other companies start up their PDH plants.
In 2017, Formosa Plastics should start up its PDH plant in Point Comfort, Texas. It will have a capacity of 725,000 tons/year (658,000 tonnes/year).
Formosa also plans to build a PP plant, also in Point Comfort, Texas. A sister company, Formosa Petrochemical, is also considering a PP plant in Louisiana.
In fact, Formosa could well become balanced in propylene if it builds the PP plants.
Other possible PDH plants are also tied to potential downstream projects.
Williams was considering PP options for its proposed PDH plant that it may build in Canada. That plant could have a capacity of 500,000 tonnes/year. Start-up could be in the second half of 2018.
Sunoco Logistics is considering building a PDH plant at its complex in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania.
Sunoco has provided few details on the possible plant, including start-up dates, capacity and potential customers for the PGP.
However, Braskem is evaluating a new PP plant in the US and debottlenecking its five existing sites in the US. One plant is in Marcus Hook, another is in West Virginia, while the rest are in Texas.
Braskem had bought three of these existing PP plants from Sunoco in 2010.
One more source of new US propylene demand would come from LyondellBasell. In 2019, the company plans to start up a propylene oxide (PO) and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) plant in the Gulf Coast.
Among the other PDH plants, Ascend Performance Materials said it is searching for partners to build its PDH plant in Chocolate Bayou, Texas. It should make a final investment decision by the first quarter of 2016. Operations should start in mid-2019.
The two trains would have a capacity of 1m tonnes/year.
Dow Chemical would not comment about a possible second PDH plant.
Enterprise abandoned plans for a second PDH plant, while REXtac cancelled its plans for a plant in west Texas.
BASF is considering an on-purpose propylene plant that produces the monomer through a methane route.
The company is still evaluating the project.
The following lists the announced PDH plants.
-
Prominent National Groups Urge the Senate to Pass the Lautenberg Act
Sep 16, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Senior officials from a diverse group of eight prominent national public health, environmental, labor, wildlife, and animal welfare organizations sent a letter today to Senate leaders urging them to act on the Senate’s bipartisan chemical safety reform legislation.
The organizations, which collectively represent more than 25 million Americans, are:
Environmental Defense FundThe Humane Society of the United StatesInternational Association of Machinists and Aerospace WorkersMarch of DimesMoms Clean Air ForceNational Wildlife FederationNorth America's Building Trades UnionsPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
The letter, addressed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Harry Reid, requests that they bring the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to the floor of the Senate for a vote as soon as possible. The Lautenberg Act, S. 697, is the bipartisan legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation’s primary chemical safety law, which is nearly 40 years old and widely acknowledged to be badly broken.
The Lautenberg Act was introduced in the Senate in March and passed in revised form out of the Environment and Public Works Committee in April on a strong bipartisan vote. With 52 cosponsors hailing from 33 states, the bill is poised to receive strong support on the Senate floor. The groups noted that the bill represents an historic opportunity to update and strengthen our chemical safety and better protect American families, workers, wildlife and the environment.
The diverse nature of the organizations signing the letter urging passage of theLautenberg Act is testament to the broad consensus as to both the need for TSCA reform and the strength of the legislation.
The joint letter is available here. For more background on the Lautenberg Act and how it would address the key flaws of TSCA, click here.
-
Draft ATSDR Perfluoroalkyl Chemicals Profile Similar To EPA Risk Estimates
Sep 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) has become the second agency in recent months to propose risk estimates for perfluoroalkyl chemcials (PFCs), but its draft toxicological profile for 13 PFCs is raising concern among some environmentalists because the estimates are not based on the most sensitive health effects.
The ATSDR profiles include non-cancer risk estimates for two well-known PFCs, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), that are similar to EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk estimates. But the new draft document does not contain risk calculations for the other 11 PFCs.
For PFOA, ATSDR calculates a minimum risk level (MRL) for intermediate exposure duration of 2x10^-5 milligrams per kilogram bodyweight per day (mg/kg/day), based on a 2002 study showing liver weight changes in lab monkeys. For PFOS, ATSDR proposes an MRL of 3x10^-5 mg/kg/day, based on liver weight changes in a separate 2002 toxicology study of lab monkeys.
ATSDR calculates MRLs for acute, intermediate and chronic exposure durations by ingestion or inhalation, while EPA's IRIS program focuses on chronic risk estimates by either route of exposure. EPA also recently proposed its first dermal risk estimate for the chemical benzo(a)pyrene.
In the case of PFOA and PFOS, ATSDR provides only intermediate-duration oral MRLs, defined in the document as exposure durations of 15-364 days.
Because of the difference in the duration of the risk estimates, the numbers cannot be compared directly to the chronic IRIS reference doses that EPA proposed for PFOA and PFOS in its latest draft assessment, which underwent critical peer review in August of 2014. Still, the numbers are the same.
EPA last year proposed a PFOA reference dose (RfD), the maximum amount of a substance EPA estimates can be ingested daily over a lifetime without adverse non-cancer health effects, of 2x10^-5 mg/kg/day due to changes in the liver linked to developmental effects and changes in the kidney. In the PFOS assessment, EPA is proposing an RfD of 3x10^-5 mg/kg/day due to developmental toxicity and liver effects.
EPA's Office of Water in 2009 issued drinking water health advisory levels of 0.4 micrograms per liter of water (ug/L) for PFOA and 0.2 ug/L for PFOS, but these numbers are not mandatory. Based on standard default assumptions EPA uses for its drinking water standards and health advisories, the PFOA RfD, for example, would appear to translate into a chronic drinking water health advisory level of 0.1 ug/L, a stricter level than the 2009 health advisory level.
Environmentalists' Concerns
But a source with the Environmental Working Group criticizes ATSDR's proposal for using dated studies based on liver weight change, often a crude assessment of an agent's toxicity. Newer studies assess PFCs' reproductive developmental toxicity, as well as its immunotoxicity, the source says, pointing to a recent review article by Philippe Grandjean and Richard Clapp, public health professors at Harvard University and University of Massachusetts Lowell, respectively.
"[W]e think that to establish a health protective exposure level . . . the studies on immunotoxicity and mammary gland development should be used," the source writes Inside EPA in a Sept. 2 email. "It is disappointing that the proposed MRL values in the ATSDR [profile] are based on increases in liver-weight and not the studies that we referenced."
Grandjean and Clapp's publication argues that newer studies suggest that effects can occur at levels below EPA's 2009 health advisory levels, suggesting the chemicals are more toxic than previously thought. "Recent data on mammary gland development in mice suggest that clear effects may result from much lower developmental exposures," they write.
They go on to calculate a drinking water level for PFOA based on this mammary gland data, published by researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), of 0.001 ug/L. "As the experimental studies that the regulatory agencies have relied upon so far correspond to serum concentrations 1,000-fold higher, current limits for water concentrations of PFOS and PFOA appear to be too high by at least two orders of magnitude," Grandjean and Clapp conclude.
The environmentalist points to comments on EPA's 2014 draft PFOA and PFOS assessments from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, which he says "questioned why EPA did not base the RfD on non-liver health effects that occurred at much lower doses."
The source hopes that New Jersey's Drinking Water Institute, which proposes health-based drinking water standards for contaminants and is working on a PFOA standard, will use the newer data and more sensitive endpoints in its work. Should it do so, it may encourage EPA to do so as well, the source says.
EPA could, however, choose to look to ATSDR's approach instead, in its final assessment.
-
Determining The Estrogenic Activity Of BPA Replacements
Sep 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Puneet Kollipara
Long used in polycarbonate plastics, epoxy resin food-can liners, and thermal receipt paper, bisphenol A (BPA) has become a poster child for endocrine disruptors—compounds that mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones, such as estrogens and androgens. Many manufacturers have replaced BPA with alternatives in recent years, but dozens of BPA substitutes lack data on their potential estrogenic activity. Now, a new computer model provides a way to determine whether a BPA substitute shows high potential to bind the estrogen receptor and requires further testing for its endocrine disrupting effects (Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2015, DOI:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.5b00243).
Huixiao Hong of the Food & Drug Administration’s National Center for Toxicological Research and his colleagues developed a model that assesses how well a compound orients itself with the estrogen receptor, and then estimates binding affinity by calculating how energetically favorable the binding is. The researchers trained the model by running it on 18 BPA substitutes that already have estrogenic activity data and two reference compounds: BPA itself and 17β-estradiol, a key female sex hormone.
When the researchers ran the model on 27 BPA substitutes that lacked experimental data on estrogenic activity, the model identified 11 that met the criteria for binding to the receptor. Many compounds were predicted as better potential binders than BPA, including tetrabromobisphenol A, used in plastics and as a flame retardant, and bis-(3-allyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)sulfone, used in thermal receipt paper.
Binding the receptor alone isn’t sufficient to make the compound an endocrine disruptor, the researchers note. But they add that the findings do suggest the need for additional studies of these compounds’ safety.
-
New York Counties Move to Ban Microbeads
Sep 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Several New York counties are considering microbead bans, following in the footsteps of Erie County, which passed a law proscribing them in personal care products.
Last month, Erie County's legislature unanimously passed a measure that will ban all intentionally added plastic microbeads, under 5mm in size, from personal care products, amid concerns that they pollute waterways. The ban will take effect in the Great Lakes-bordering county, 180 days after its 12 August enactment.
New York's Assembly passed a microbead bill in April, but the measure remains stalled in the Senate.
Since then, several counties have joined Erie in proposing microbead bills of their own, including Albany, Monroe, Chautauqua and Cattaraugus.
According to Saima Anjam, environmental health director at Environmental Advocates of New York, the state "needs a statewide ban, but since state Senate leadership failed to allow a bill to the floor for a vote, it is critical local leaders do what’s necessary.”
However, unlike microbead bans that have been adopted in some states, Erie's extends to all plastic microbeads, including biodegradable substances. The “Illinois model”, employed in other states and supported by trade groups like the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), exempts those materials (CW 31 July 2014).
The more far-reaching Erie ban more closely resembles the one passed by the California legislature, last week.
Opponents of the California bill (AB 888) have said the broader plastic microbead definition could “stifle innovation” for developing biodegradable alternatives. AB 888 was opposed by such companies as Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson and Henkel (CW 10 September 2015).
Mandy Hagan, vice president of state affairs and grassroots at the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), said: “The Erie County law, like California AB 888, does not allow industry to consider or work toward alternatives to address the underlying concerns about plastic microbeads and still meet the needs of consumers.”
She added that the county's bill “creates confusion, by essentially telling companies that have worked to address concerns about microbeads that even the alternatives they are developing may not ultimately satisfy the requirements of laws that vary from locality to locality and state to state.”
Ms Hagan said the trade group is “optimistic” that state legislation can be proposed in January, which "will ensure uniformity within New York and would be a preferable route to litigation”.
However, Patrick Burke, the county legislator who introduced the Erie bill, said despite passing a resolution “imploring the state to take action”, the county determined that they “had to pass a ban because the state wouldn't”.
Failure to pass state-level legislation has been similarly cited, regarding local measures in New York to regulate certain substances in toys (CW 13 July 2015).
A spokesperson for Mr Burke said that there has been “no pushback” from industry, and that they expect the compliance deadline to take effect as scheduled.
-
Report Faults Homeland Security's Coordination on Cyber Issues
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The agency charged with protecting U.S. critical infrastructure from cyberattacks should brush up on its own online practices, according to an internal report published yesterday.
The inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security found several offices in the sprawling agency could improve coordination on cyber issues.
Overlapping or redundant employee responsibilities, gaps in information sharing and a lack of strategic vision might leave DHS tripping over itself in the event of a large-scale cyberattack, the IG concluded in its report.
"DHS plays a pivotal role in coordinating the national response to cyber incidents that result from the vulnerabilities created by our increased reliance on IT systems," said Inspector General John Roth, who recommended the agency continue efforts to reform its approach to information security.
DHS agreed with the watchdog's findings and said it has taken action to fix the problems. For instance, DHS pledged to roll out automated cyberthreat information-sharing technology among its offices and other parts of the government. The civilian agency has come under fire in Congress and the private sector recently for its failure to prevent a major data breach at the Office of Personnel Management (E&E Daily, July 10).
In its latest report, the IG also tasked DHS with drafting a "comprehensive, cross-departmental strategic" plan that lays out long-term goals and missions in cyberspace. Critics have accused DHS of failing to get its own house in order before posting best practices for guarding networks in electric utilities, oil companies and other private infrastructure operators (EnergyWire, June 8).
The IG report credited DHS with strengthening some aspects of cyber cooperation, citing the response to an attack on a major retailer that brought together the National Protection and Programs Directorate, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Secret Service.
"As a result of the investigation, [DHS] shared incident details and mitigation strategies with other retailers to prevent similar attacks," the report said.
Still, the IG went on to warn that personnel at those three offices don't always understand one another's roles.
"Ultimately, this confusion may have restricted DHS from using all of its cybersecurity capabilities or caused delays in its response and recovery efforts," the IG said.
-
Senators Point Fingers After EPA Mine Spill
Sep 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Republicans and Democrats played the blame game Wednesday at a hearing over last month’s massive mine spill in Colorado that turned a river orange.
While the GOP took Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy to task for not properly preparing for a potential spill, Democrats argued mining companies and outdated laws caused the wastewater buildup that led to the disaster.
The Wednesday hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee was the first time that McCarthy has faced lawmakers for her agency’s role in the Aug. 5 Gold King Mine spill, in which heavy metals were dumped into a tributary of the Animas River, closing it for days.
“It is clear EPA knew that there was likely to be a significant amount of water behind the collapsed Gold King mine entrance and that there was a risk of a blowout,” Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.
“Given these facts, it is unclear why EPA and the contractor did not exercise more care when working at the Gold King site.”
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who was invited to testify along with the rest of the Colorado and New Mexico Senate delegations, criticized EPA’s immediate response to local concerns.
“Although the EPA has acknowledged the magnitude of this crisis, its initial lack of communication and coordination in events leading up to the spill are suitable for congressional oversight,” he said.
“It was not until Aug. 10 that the EPA established a unified command center in Durango. Along with confusion over EPA’s lack of notification, frustration began over the need for timely release of a simple, straightforward interpretation of the water quality monitoring data from the EPA.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said there was a double standard, in which the EPA is holding private companies civilly or criminally liable for pollution, but going softer on itself.
“If you’re going to hold your agency to a higher standard than the private sector, you need to be aware of what you’ve done as an agency in the past,” he said.
Democrats used the hearing to call for a reform in the landmark mining law of 1872, which allows companies to mine for hardrock minerals like gold and uranium on public land without paying royalties.
That missed revenue would help clean up mines, the Democrats said.
“What’s the revenue stream we need to put in place in order to ensure that we don’t see more accidents like this happen? We don’t have a revenue stream,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who noted that President Ulysses S. Grant signed that mining law.
“You can’t have this bargain basement giveaway sale anymore,” he said. “We need a revenue stream so that we can put programs in place to ensure that we can begin to work on the worst of these sites in a much more aggressive fashion.”
McCarthy, who has taken full responsibility for the spill, defended her agency’s actions.
“This was a tragic and unfortunate incident, and EPA has taken responsibility to ensure that we clean it up appropriately,” she said.
In the aftermath of the spill, “EPA and Colorado officials informed downstream jurisdictions in Colorado within hours of the release before the plume reached drinking water intakes and irrigation diversions, and notifications to other downstream jurisdictions continued the following day, allowing for those intakes to be closed prior to the plume’s arrival,” McCarthy said.
President Obama has called on Congress to charge royalties for hardrock mining on federal land, and there are multiple pieces of legislation in Congress aimed at doing so.
-
McCarthy Takes Responsibility for Spill, Defends Response
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said her agency takes full responsibility for last month's abandoned mine spill and defended response efforts amid tough questioning from senators this morning.
EPA and its contractor caused a polluted water blowout at Colorado's Gold King mine while studying ways of addressing problems at the site.
"EPA has taken responsibility to make sure we clean it up appropriately," McCarthy told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in her first Capitol Hill appearance on the spill. She said the Animas and San Juan rivers "have returned to pre-event conditions."
Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) referred to documents showing EPA was aware of the potential for a blowout. "Given these facts, it's unclear why EPA and the contractor did not exercise more care," he said.
A preliminary internal EPA report on the spill said the agency and its contractor, Environmental Restoration LLC, underestimated the risk of a blowout from accumulated wastewater and did not plan enough contingencies.
Advertisement
Inhofe asked McCarthy whether the agency would have been better off spending more time and money for planning. She said, "We were actually there, sir, because of the danger of a blowout." Inhofe responded, "OK, so your answer is no." McCarthy said later in the hearing, "We had a lot of engineering expertise and eyes on this work plan."
Lawmakers also questioned the agency's availability and response following the spill, which was triggered Aug. 5. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said the agency was late in contacting him. "It was not until Aug. 10 that the EPA set up a unified command center in Durango," he said.
McCarthy said, "The original response was hectic and ongoing." She added, "Clearly, better notification would have been beneficial for all of us."No conflict of interest, McCarthy says
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) wondered whether EPA is treating itself as the agency would treat a private company -- a powerful narrative among Republicans skeptical of the agency's work.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accused EPA of having a "double standard." Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) said the agency is seen as "aggressive, sometimes heavy-handed" and originally "really did seem to downplay the extent of the damage."
McCarthy said EPA should be held to a higher standard than public companies. Sullivan asked, "Do you think anyone from EPA should be held criminally liable or go to jail?"
McCarthy said, "There would be no penalty unless there was a settlement or an order." She said the agency would expect companies to work on protecting workers, investigating the problem and ensuring cleanup. "That is exactly what EPA is doing," she said.
Addressing questions about the role of EPA's contractor, Environmental Restoration, McCarthy said, "That's one of the things that we would expect an independent review to look at."
Several GOP lawmakers wondered whether the Interior Department, which is investigating the incident, was the right choice for the job. Inhofe asked why EPA didn't ask a more independent entity to conduct a probe. "Why didn't you address one of them?"
McCarthy responded, "We went to DOI because they had the expertise. They're bringing the Army Corps [of Engineers] in." She said, "I do not believe they have a conflict of interest."
Asked whether EPA has seen Interior documents related to the investigation, McCarthy said, "We are hands off on this to address the very issue you are concerned about."
McCarthy said she expects Interior to complete its probe later this fall. EPA's Office of Inspector General is also looking into the incident following congressional requests.
Inhofe asked McCarthy whether problems at EPA's emergency response office contributed to the blowout. "I am not aware of recent problems with our Office of Environmental Management," McCarthy said.'Ticking time bomb'
Several lawmakers at the hearing, particularly Democrats, pressed for legislation to address the broader issue of abandoned mines around the country. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) called it a "ticking time bomb."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), top EPW Democrat, said abandoned mines have been discharging more than 300 million gallons of dirty water into the Animas. Boxer said, "Each year, each year. That's 100 times more than the spill."
Boxer called for broad reform "instead of scoring political points by blaming EPA." She said, "Let's not just point fingers. Let's get something done."
The National Mining Association, Inhofe, Gardner and Democrats like Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado spoke about legislation to allow good Samaritan third parties to help clean up abandoned mine sites by shielding them from certain liabilities. The group Trout Unlimited is pushing lawmakers for action this week.
But Boxer said, "Unless they are very carefully crafted, [good Samaritan protections] are not the solution." She added, "There can be unintended consequences, such as we've seen, and cost taxpayers even more."
Similarly, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said some advocates wanted to "waive the rules, waive them." He said, "That's kind of the last wall of environmental protection we've got."
Boxer wondered about the effect of EPA's rulemaking to require hardrock mining companies to pay new financial assurance requirements under the Superfund law.
McCarthy said, "The challenge for us is that these legacy sites we are talking about, we don't have a responsible party we can lean to." So the rulemaking would not address sites like Gold King, she said.
Democratic lawmakers lean toward legislation to reform the 1872 mining law, including creating a fee on current mining to help clean up the extensive abandoned mine inventory.
"It's high time that we overhaul our abandoned mine cleanup policies," said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). Udall said legislation would emerge "very soon."
Mining companies and many lawmakers have resisted mining reform proposals, saying they would hurt mining efforts. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has no immediate plans to look into the issue.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Which Companies are Blocking Climate Change Progress? InfluenceMap Wants You to Know
Sep 16, 2015 | Tree Hugger
By Margaret Badore
The UK-based non-profit InfluenceMap gave Koch Industries and Duke Energy failing marks, as did Philips 66 and the Asian energy company Reliance Industries. Using data aggregation, analysis and original research, InfluenceMap grades major global corporations on their influence on climate change policies, in an effort to understand how corporate influence is holding back climate progress.
Google, Unilever and Cisco Systems came out ahead in InfluenceMap’s ratings, however no company earned a grade above a "B." Chevron and BP both earned “E-" grades. Comcast and 21st Century Fox earned “E-" grades as well, making them the lowest ranking media companies. You can see the full list here.
Not everyone agrees with the non-profit’s methodology, which was developed in part by the Union of Concerned Scientists. A representative from Duke Energy told Bloombergthat they "question the credibility of a report that appears to compile an Internet search to mischaracterize the company’s position and our real work to lower our carbon footprint.” For example, the company has been working to lower its emissions by replacing coal burning energy plants with natural gas. Duke Energy received an “F” grade from InfluenceMap.
According to InfluenceMap, their scores do not measure actual climate change performance, such as carbon footprint, but rather "the extent to which a corporation is supporting or obstructing the climate policy process."
InfluenceMap also graded trade associations, like the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council. These trade groups can be particularly powerful when it comes to pushing policy forward or blocking regulation.
“More and more, we’re seeing companies rely on their trade groups to do their dirty work of lobbying against comprehensive climate policies,” said InfluenceMap adviser Gretchen Goldman in a statement. Five trade associations received an “F” grade: the International Air Transport Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
InfluenceMap hopes to continue to expand their platform, which they say could one day be applied to other areas of policy and legislation.
-
After Four Decades, the U.S. Might Lift its Ban on Oil Exports. Here’s What You Need to Know
Sep 16, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Steven Mufson
Is the four-decade-old ban on U.S. exports of crude oil a useless relic or a valuable safeguard for American consumers? Or is the ban so full of holes that it doesn’t matter anymore?
A House bill that would end the ban is set to pass the Energy and Commerce Committee Wednesday, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said this week that the legislation could soon come to the floor.
“If there was ever a time to lift the oil export ban, it’s now,” he said in remarks prepared for delivery to a civic group in Houston. “Lifting the oil export ban will not only help our economy, it will also bolster our geopolitical standing.” He added that “as President Obama prepares to lift sanctions on Iran, including Iranian oil, it is unfathomable to think American crude wouldn’t have the same opportunity on the global market.”
Even if the House passes a bill, opposition awaits in the Senate, and President Obama would likely veto the measure.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Tuesday brushed aside McCarthy’s comments saying “the priorities of his party in Congress [are] to cozy up to oil interests” and that the group in Houston was “largely funded by four or five of the biggest oil companies in the United States.” Earnest said that the Commerce Department made export policy by issuing export licenses on a case by case basis, and added that “we wouldn’t support legislation like the one that’s been put forward by Republicans.”
That hasn’t stopped oil producers from beating the oil export drum louder and louder in recent years. Their sense of urgency has grown as U.S. shale oil production has soared and put downward pressure on the price of West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark price.
Leading economists, including former Treasury secretary and former Obama economic policy director Lawrence Summers, say that lifting the export ban makes sense and that free trade in oil will promote efficiency as it does in other areas of trade. At a Brookings Institution event a year ago Summers also cited concerns that Russia might curtail supplies of oil to parts of Europe and said “we have a long history of believing that export restrictions are not an appropriate policy tool.”
But lifting the oil export ban could hurt certain oil refiners by raising their raw material costs, and could hurt consumers by raising prices at the gasoline pump — albeit perhaps slightly and perhaps temporarily if new supplies come online. (While domestic crude prices would initially rise , international crude prices — including those for U.S. imports — would fall.)
Many lawmakers are worried about doing anything that might raise gas prices at the pump, fearful of a consumer backlash.
“No one knows what they pay for milk anymore,” Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said Tuesday morning at a National Journal panel sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute. “The only price they know is the price of gasoline because they’re staring at it for two minutes as they fill their tanks up.”
“Don’t think for a second that there aren’t going to be some Republicans that are going to have to really seriously consider whether or not they want to to dramatically increase consumer costs for oil in our country in order to benefit the oil industry from a small number of fossil fuel producing states,” Markey added. “That’s a very difficult vote.”
The crude oil export ban carries political symbolism beyond its economic importance. The ban was adopted in the wake of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, imposed to punish the United States for its support of Israel in the Yom Kippur war. In order to conserve domestic supplies, Congress adopted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and the Export Administration Act of 1979 making it illegal to export U.S. crude without a special license.
There have been over the years only a few exceptions, though they are growing in significance. The exceptions include oil produced from Alaska’s Cook Inlet near Anchorage, oil exported to Canada, and small amounts of heavy, difficult to refine crude produced in California. The Obama administration has also allowed some crude oil swaps with Mexico.
As a result, through the first five months of 2015, crude oil exports averaged 491,000 barrels a day, according a newly published report by the Energy Information Administration.
Columbia Business School professor Geoff Heal said the economic impact of lifting the crude oil export ban would be “small. It’s not a terribly big deal. It isn’t as if we have a big surplus of oil to export.” He noted that the United States still imports almost half of its crude oil and that the main reason to export would be to solve mismatches between domestic crude oil quality and the capacity of refineries to handle those grades of crude.
Scott Sheffield, chief executive of shale oil producer Pioneer Resources, expects that lifting the export ban could end up allowing some U.S. light crude to go to Europe to displace Russian oil, which would go to China, while the United States would increase its imports of Canadian oil sands and Saudi heavier crude oil.
There have been no restrictions on the export of refined petroleum products, and large amounts of gasoline and diesel are imported and exported every year. Since 2011, the United States, with some of the world’s most advanced refineries, has been a substantial net exporter.
The Obama administration has been fending off calls to lift the export ban, but the Commerce Department has allowed certain very light types of crude oil known as condensate to be exported after minimal processing. At the time, oil producers were saying that up to 70 percent of the oil in the huge Eagle Ford region of Texas could be condensates. The EIA said that exports of processed condensate through the first five months of 2015 reached an average of 84,000 barrels a day.
Robert McNally, an energy consultant and president of The Rapidan Group, said increasing production of very light shale oil and condensates could create more need for exports. “This is about a problem they see on the horizon,” he said. “As long as people see the looming problem it’s going to discourage investment today. You want to remove this cloud.”
Last year, when John Podesta was serving as White House senior counselor, he told some oil company executives and officials of the American Petroleum Institute in phone calls and meetings that loosening the exception for condensates was as far as the administration would go on lifting the crude export ban, according to industry sources.
Some political analysts have speculated that the administration might use the ban as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations, and that there is no better time to lift the export ban than when gasoline prices are low. The national average price for regular gasoline is currently $2.37 a gallon.
But other analysts say that bargaining over the ban is unlikely because lifting it would undercut Obama’s argument for allowing drilling to go ahead off Alaska’s Arctic coast. Obama said he allowed Shell to drill there because more domestic oil production would make U.S. supplies more secure.
Markey said that lifting the ban would undercut the administration’s influence at the Paris climate talks in December, where Obama hopes to seal an international deal to lower greenhouse gases. And Markey said that the oil industry was pushing for lifting the ban while also pushing to cut tax incentives for renewable energy.
“More and more it looks not like an all of the above strategy but an oil above all strategy and there doesn’t appear to be any strategy other than an oil strategy,” he said.
The Eurasia Group, a consulting firm, said that Democrats and the administration would probably oppose lifting the ban unless Republicans were willing to agree to something significant, like long-lasting extensions of tax incentives for renewables. And White House spokesman Earnest twice mentioned the need to extend renewable incentives when asked about the export ban.
The top U.S. executive of one oil giant, who declined to be named for this article, said he thought the ban would eventually be lifted, but not during this administration.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has not announced any intentions to take up an end to the export ban. But legislation has been teed up for consideration: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee sent a bill to the floor in July, and the Banking Committee is also considering a measure. Some Republicans have also floated attaching the export provision as an amendment to a chemical regulation bill that is expected to come to the Senate floor in the fall.
Senate efforts to end the ban have some bipartisan support, from Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). But more Democrats would need to join them in other to overcome a potential filibuster.
“Democrats aren’t going to agree to lift the ban unless Republicans are in a deal making mood, and there is little evidence this is the case,” Eurasia Group senior analyst Corey Boles and director of global energy Greg Priddy said Tuesday in a note to clients.
Heitkamp said Tuesday she believed Democrats can be convinced to back ending the ban.
“At the end of day there’s two camps,” she said. “The first camp is, ‘What do we get for it?’ And the second camp is, ‘I’m concerned that if oil prices go up, I’ll get blamed.’ I think we’ve moved away from that a little bit, and I think now it’s about how do we fashion a package that responds to some of my [colleagues’] energy concerns.”
One of those who might be convinced is Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who opposed ending the ban in the July Energy Committee vote but says he could support it in a package that included, for instance, extensions of tax credits for renewable energy investments or caps on natural gas exports.
“I’m willing to consider this, but I need to see something coming on the other side,” he said.
-
McConnell Backs Oil Exports, Sources Say
Sep 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed congressional action to roll back the crude export ban later today, sources told POLITICO.
McConnell's call for unrestricted overseas sales of U.S. oil is not surprising given the growing momentum within the GOP for a legislative end to the export ban. But the Kentuckians' remarks symbolize how quickly the tide has turned among Republicans in favor of easing the ban, about one year after congressional GOP leaders held off on unifying with the party's presidential field on the exports issue.
McConnell outlined his position in favor of crude exports as part of a broader speech to the Business Roundtable, according to industry sources closely tracking the issue. A McConnell spokesman confirmed the remarks.
McConnell's office said that he used the speech to call for the elimination of “a relic of the 70s - the oil export ban.” The GOP leader added that given Iran's imminent entry into the global oil market following the White House nuclear pact, “why not us?”
It remains to be seen whether McConnell will commit to floor action on oil exports, as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy did during a Tuesday speech in Houston. Oil industry lobbyists are abuzz about the prospects of a deal that might corral enough Democratic votes to beat a filibuster on oil-exports legislation, but any such compromise risks alienating conservatives who see crude sales as enough of an economic winner to resist offering anything to the president's party on climate change or clean energy.
-
Sep 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
ANIMUS OVER ANIMAS: The Environmental Protection Agency was founded 45 years ago because a polluted river was on fire. Now EPA is taking fire for polluting a river. Members of Congress from both parties are demanding accountability from the agency for the accident last month that spilled waste from a old gold mine into Colorado's Animas River, and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will have to explain her agency's behavior in multiple hearings starting today. Alex Guillén explains to Pros: "Lawmakers from both parties have serious questions for McCarthy, including whether her agency notified local officials quickly enough, whether workers missed signs of a potential blowout and whether the contractor had an adequate emergency response plan."
4 committees, 3 hearings, 2 days: First up is the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where McCarthy can expect to face a grilling not only from Republicans but also from the region’s Democrats, Michael Bennet, Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich. McCarthy will then ascend two floors to appear before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, alongside Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye and others. Then on Wednesday she faces a joint House Oversight and Natural Resources hearing, where McCarthy will appear along with Begaye and officials from the New Mexico and Colorado environment agencies.http://politico.pro/1W29o21
THESE BOOTS WERE MADE FOR WALKING: Begaye told ME he is seeking a formal disaster declaration, which would free up federal dollars and resources for the response. He has sent messages to the White House and had lawmakers intercede as well, but has gotten “absolutely no response so far” from President Barack Obama. Begaye says the Navajo are considering taking their anger at the lack of communication from Obama to the ballot box. “Not a word is coming out of the White House, which is very disturbing, because our people helped elect the current president. I’m saying to people of this party, if you guys don’t come and help us, we’re going to be voting for the other party,” Begaye said, adding: “We will support anyone, any group that’s willing to come and walk with us in this tragedy.”
MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A REGULATION: Congressional Republicans make no secret of their concern about new executive branch rules, particularly those coming out of the EPA. While direct assaults on the Clean Air Act and similar legislation seem to get bogged down in the Senate, some legislators hope that bills focused on regulatory reform, like a package unveiled in July by Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and Republican Sen. James Lankford, will get more bipartisan traction. The different bills would add additional public participation to rulemaking or add a retrospective review of existing rules. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will host a hearing today to discuss a some of those bills. Sen. Tom Carper, ranking member on the committee, will say in his prepared opening remarks: "I think the legislative proposals that will be discussed today are well-intentioned ... that having been said ... I worry that many of these proposals focus too much on the costs of regulations, while ignoring the benefits."
WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY! I'm your host Eric Wolff, and we're in that time of year when I contemplate how I can be better. So, this is your change: How can ME be better, funnier, more useful? We have the technology, we can build it. Send your suggestions and energy tips, quips, and comments to ewolff@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @ericwolff, @Morning_Energy, and @POLITICOPro.
** A message from The CRUDE Coalition: American consumers are benefiting from the lowest gasoline prices anywhere in the world today. That's boosting household budgets and the wider economy by billions of dollars. Don't raise gasoline prices by shipping US crude to China. See what American voters think here. http://bit.ly/1Kdqt0D **
MONIZ TO OUTLINE PLAN DOUBLE 'ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY': Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will take to the Arena Stage today to unveil a new report outlining how the U.S. can use energy move efficiently. The Department of Energy tells ME the report, titled "Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030," outlines multiple strategies for better efficiency, including updating vehicle and product standards, providing more energy efficiency and usage information to consumers, and designing rates and policies that encourage energy efficiency.
It's nobody's business but the Turks: ME isn't quite sure why "energy efficiency" became "energy productivity," but for those of you sharing this state of benighted ignorance with your host, know that energy productivity is the gross domestic product produced per unit of energy consumed, measured in dollars per million British thermal units. A brand new measurement, and it's not even in the metric system!
If you go: Moniz will speak at 12:45 p.m., Arena Stage, 1101 6th St, SW.
TAX EXTENDERS GO WHERE THE WIND DON'T BLOW AND THE SUN DON'T SHINE: The House Ways and Means Committee plans to take up legislation Thursday that would permanently extend five expired tax breaks as part of the annual "tax extenders" exercise. Missing from the group of five: The production tax credit for wind power and the investment tax credit for solar.http://politico.pro/1KeCTXa
FEDS DISTRIBUTE $120 MILLION TO EXPAND AND IMPROVE SOLAR: Vice President Joe Biden will announce today a series of grants to states and communities at the Solar Power International Conference in Anaheim, Calif. The money is spread around 24 states. The largest chunk of money, $32 million, is aimed at improving concentrated solar power, but other grants are intended to speed the installation of solar panels, help hire more veterans, and bring solar to rural areas.
If you are at Disneyland, but your need to see the Veep exceeds your need to see Mickey: 10:45 a.m. at the Anaheim Convention Center, Anaheim, Calif.
ENERGY ISSUES COULD MAKE AN APPEARANCE AT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: Energy and environment issues took up hardly any time at the last GOP debate, possibly because there's so little daylight between the candidates on the issues. But Obama served up some tasty red meat for GOP candidates to chew on at tonight's debate when his administration announced it would oppose lifting the crude oil export ban yesterday. The candidates may seize the chance to hammer Obama over the issue.
NEI TO NRC: SAVE MONEY BY HALTING REGS: As the NRC wrapped up the comment period in an early step of the agency’s “re-sizing” effort, industry offered up a broad wish list of the seven rulemakings it’s hoping regulators will kill off. The Project AIM 2020 initiative envisions a smaller budget and fewer NRC employees and, to help get the ball rolling, agency leaders signed off on a one-time “re-baselining” study that would give them a comprehensive list of activities that can be “shed, de-prioritized, or performed with a less intense resource commitment.” Unsurprisingly, the Nuclear Energy Institute had some thoughts on the matter. Among the Institute’s 27-point set of recommendations, it argues that regulators could save precious time and resources if it axed a pair of rulemakings attempting to better align NRC radiation protection standards with international recommendations. NEI is also seeking to have the NRC back off of certain new security regulations on independent spent nuclear fuel storage installations the agency’s been working on since 2009. The NRC only took comments for a month but NEI said it’s suggestions would be “an excellent starting point.” NEI’s comments: http://politico.pro/1ifgdyo
ENVIROS OFFER JEWELL A SHARP RETORT: Sec. Sally Jewell said yesterday morning that environmentalists should not expect the federal government to stop all new oil, natural gas, and coal leases on public lands immediately. There's no way to "cut it off overnight," she said. "We are a nation that continues to be dependent on fossil fuels." The head of environmental group 350.org, May Boeve, begged to differ in a statement: “This is a straw man, and Secretary Jewell knows it. Absolutely no one is suggesting that we can end society’s reliance on fossil fuel use tomorrow, but that’s no excuse for failing to do our part today. If we’re serious about transitioning to an economy powered by 100% renewables, we need to stop digging for more, and green-lighting projects like Keystone XL that prolong our dependence on fossil fuels."
-
Environmental Justice Advocates Back Clean Power Plan But Worry About Cap and Trade
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Environmental justice advocates from around the United States gathered on Capitol Hill yesterday to lay out their hopes and concerns for the Obama administration's recently finalized rule regulating carbon emissions from power plants.
Republican opponents of U.S. EPA's new plan to address climate change often argue that it will result in higher electricity prices that will disproportionately affect low-income communities (E&E Daily, June 24). But participants in yesterday's dialogue, hosted by Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), largely shared their support for the final Clean Power Plan, saying it includes improved measures to address environmental justice compared to the proposed rule.
However, the advocates remain worried that their voices may not be heard as states craft implementation plans. Additionally, they aired concerns about EPA's encouragement of cap-and-trade mechanisms, arguing that it is only through direct emissions reductions that health benefits will be realized in low-income and minority communities near where many power plants are sited.
The Clean Power Plan "should represent an opportunity for us to be at the table -- to have meaningful input into the document -- but if what we put in is not what comes out, then it is not meaningful," said Beverly Wright of the New Orleans-based Deep South Center for Environmental Justice.
However, clamoring to have a voice in the Clean Power Plan dialogue is a welcome fight, said Kim Wasserman of the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization. Her group fought for and eventually celebrated the shutdown of two coal-fired power plants in Chicago in 2012.
"To be able to be on the front end and now fighting for things like our voice in the process, to be fighting for things like ensuring equity as part of the process, is very, very exciting," Wasserman said.A split with green groups over carbon trading
EPA's increased focus on environmental justice in the final rule has caught the attention of at least one state so far -- in early September, Pennsylvania announced 14 upcoming listening sessions on the Clean Power Plan, eight of which are purposely taking place in areas with high poverty rates or large minority populations.
But yesterday, environmental justice advocates expressed fears that some policies EPA is encouraging states to consider under the Clean Power Plan -- especially cap and trade -- could result in unexpected and unwelcome outcomes for low-income or minority communities.
Wasserman raised concerns about where potential cap-and-trade money might end up.
"The reality is that many of our states, Illinois being one of the most in debt, we are very concerned that the revenues that the Clean Power Plan ... might be swept up as part of the pension problem," Wasserman said. "As front-line communities, we really want to ensure ... that these programs and all of the things that are being rolled out as part of the Clean Power Plan really meet the needs of our communities."
Brent Newell, legal director for the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, said the environmental justice community's worries about cap and trade put it in an awkward position with big environmental groups backing the Clean Power Plan.
"A lot of times we are aligned with large national environmental organizations, but on the Clean Power Plan, we are not necessarily aligned, because several green groups are advocating for cap and trade," Newell said. "I find it very difficult to be in a position like that, because in many instances we are allies."
Instead of cap-and-trade mechanisms, some advocates pushed for measures to encourage direct emissions reductions.
"We need the Clean Power Plan to fight climate change, but we also need the Clean Power Plan to protect the health of environmental justice communities while it is fighting climate change," said Nicky Sheats of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance. "The main way [to do that] is not to allow emissions increases in and near environmental justice communities."
"We not only want the Clean Power Plan to protect our [environmental justice] communities -- what we really want it to do is to improve the health of [environmental justice] communities," Sheats added.
But the advocates said they don't believe that such concerns add up to justify a "just say no" approach to the Clean Power Plan, as some Republican leaders, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have urged.
Sara Pennington of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth acknowledged that the decline of coal mining has harmed local economies in Appalachia, but she blamed this on the rise of natural gas, not government regulations.
"Folks where I live have been proud to mine coal for 100 years, but we have also suffered for it," Pennington said. "I can't even drink my own tap water."
Pennington also acknowledged that many of her state's leaders are against EPA's rule, but she argued that "this is not the whole story of Kentucky," adding, "In this vacuum, we the people -- our grass-roots organization and others -- are going to write our own damn plan."
-
EPA Has Sent Rule to Federal Register -- McCarthy
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA sent its Clean Power Plan to the Federal Register on Sept. 4 for an expected publication next month, Administrator Gina McCarthy told a Senate panel today.
McCarthy revealed the movement of the climate rule at a hearing where Republicans questioned whether EPA was delaying the rule's publication to duck legislative and legal challenges ahead of the high-stakes round of U.N. climate talks in Paris this December. The rule for curbing carbon from existing power plants was unveiled on Aug. 3, along with rules for new and modified generation.
"Are you aware that delaying publication until the end of October interferers with the ability of Congress and the public to challenge the rules before the big show in Paris?" Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) asked during a hearing on a spill triggered accidentally last month by EPA contractors at Colorado's Gold King mine (see related story).
McCarthy said at first she was not certain the rule was at the Register, but her staff confirmed its submission. It is still expected to be published next month.
The likely publication schedule means Republicans will have the opportunity to use the Congressional Review Act to challenge the rule as early as October. CRA resolutions against published rules can pass the Senate with a simple majority vote.
Publication of the rule will also allow a group of 16 states to reprise their legal challenge, which a federal appeals court denied last week on the grounds that it had not been published. The states are seeking a legal stay on implementation, which if granted could send Obama administration negotiators to Paris without the centerpiece of their climate pledge being in effect.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) used the mine spill hearing to register a protest against the power plant rule.
"The economies in many states including my home state of Wyoming are going to be devastated by this," he said, adding that the rule's costs are "real," "immediate" and "destructive," while its benefits are "theoretical and unproven."
McCarthy countered that the rule was written with so much flexibility that states can comply with minimal cost.
Reporter Manuel Quiñones contributed.
-
Incentives to Use More Clean Energy Work Best -- Study
Sep 16, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
On paper, applying the stick to carbon emitters -- charging greenhouse gas-generating parties, through either a direct tax or cap-and-trade scheme -- is widely considered the most efficient technique to solve climate change.
Of course, both methods, despite support from economists of diverse political perspectives, often meet political or industrial resistance. Yet according to a new paper released last week, there seems to be a new theme among the cities, regions and nations that have successfully implemented vigorous carbon-pricing mechanisms: offering carrots.
"Policymakers need to build political support for emission cuts by pushing clean-energy industries rather than first penalizing polluters," said Jonas Meckling, the lead author of a study published Friday in Science. Penalizing heavy emitters can trigger a backlash, he said.
Meckling and his colleagues found that out of the 54 nations and subnational jurisdictions that implemented some type of carbon-pricing mechanism by 2013, the majority -- about two-thirds -- had deployed either a feed-in tariff (FIT), a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) or both policies beforehand.
Policies like these, either FIT or RPS methods, can build coalitions and provide incentives for renewable energy firms, the authors argue. "The more green industries form and grow as a result of government support, the stronger the coalitions for decarbonizing energy systems become," Meckling, an energy and environmental policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an email. The paper's conclusion, he said, "runs counter to the prevalent notion that pricing carbon is the first-best choice in climate policymaking."
AdvertisementDevelop strategic allies first
Asked what is new within this report, he said the work serves as a signpost for officials interested in passing climate change legislation. Meckling and his colleagues also suggest that "sector-specific policies," like rebates and subsidies for solar or wind energy, can lay the groundwork for carbon taxes or markets.
"The vast majority of climate leaders have taken that path," he said of the method of implementing FIT or RPS measures, and "we identify strategies for effective coalition-building."
Direct carbon prices are stronger than renewable energy standards, the authors write, but have less support. And green industrial policies have swelled from the 1980s and the recent financial crisis, the report reads.
"Such policies provide concentrated benefits to the few and well-organized, like renewable energy firms, low-carbon industries, and investors," it reads. "Green industries are political allies in the development of more stringent climate policy that subsequently penalizes incumbent polluters. Carrots buy sticks."
And a lack of strong local environmental policies may have underpinned the failure of robust emissions-cutting programs, Meckling said.
"We saw the plans for cap-and-trade in Australia and at the U.S. federal level fail," Nina Kelsey, the paper's second author, said in an email. "In both cases, strong renewable energy policies such as they exist in California, Denmark or Germany were not previously in place."
Ultimately, Meckling said, sequence matters. As green industries develop and gain support, he said, "political discretion to regulate polluters through carbon prices increases."
-
McCarthy Vows To 'Push The Envelope' On RFS To Bolster Climate Agenda
Sep 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says the agency intends to “push the envelope” in its forthcoming final rule setting biofuel volumes requirements for three years under the renewable fuel standard (RFS), telling a gathering of industry officials that the program is an important part of President Obama's push to combat climate change.
“The RFS is a tool to address climate change. It is a tool we need to bring to the table” in the country's efforts to fight climate change, McCarthy told the annual advocacy conference of Growth Energy, a major trade association representing corn-based biofuel makers Sept. 15.
While the administrator promised to seek more ambitious targets for the fuels under the final version of the rule, she also urged groups that have been pressing the agency to join the effort.
“I understand different folks have different perspectives on our proposed numbers, but our goal is to grow the market for renewable fuels. Rather than focus on where we disagree, we need to find common ground and focus on how to get to the levels set by Congress,” she said in her prepared remarks.
But winning such an agreement may be difficult. Top executives from several advanced and cellulosic biofuel companies released a letter to President Obama Sept. 16 discussing how EPA's proposed RFS “will undercut investment in the next generation of biofuels, increase carbon emissions and send jobs overseas, in direct conflict with pledges the President has made on clean energy,” according to a press announcement.
And in a Sept. 15 exchange with reporters, Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis would not say whether the group will sue EPA if the agency sticks with its currently stated reason -- lack of supply -- for setting renewable fuel volumes below statutory levels.
The RFS requires refiners to blend increasing volumes of renewable fuels into the fuel supply, according to step increases mandated by Congress in order to promote the uptake of fuels with lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than conventional gasoline.
Specific volume requirements are established for advanced and cellulosic renewable fuels -- which have lower GHG emissions than corn-based ethanol -- but the bulk of the overarching renewable fuel requirement is met through corn ethanol. EPA also sets targets for biomass-based diesel.
EPA sets annual volumes requirements that can be lower than the statutory levels if the agency invokes its RFS waiver authority. The agency has historically set volumes lower than the Congressional requirements for certain categories of biofuels where production has fallen short of expectations.
Prompted by oil industry litigation, EPA now faces a court-ordered Nov. 30 deadline to finalize its proposed rule setting fuel volumes for 2014, 2015 and 2016, after the agency fell years behind schedule in setting annual volumes requirements and is now attempting to catch up. “My priority is to get them out on time,” McCarthy said of the volumes requirements.
Blend Wall
In its original proposal for 2014 fuel volumes -- since withdrawn in favor of the current proposal -- EPA for the first time acknowledged the “blend wall” -- the point at which no more ethanol can be safely blended into the fuel supply given current infrastructure and vehicle limitations due to the fuel's corrosivity -- that oil sector opponents of the RFS say exists, and the agency reduced required fuel volumes accordingly.
The agency's new proposal would set the total renewable fuels volumes at 15.93 billion gallons (bn gal) in 2014 of ethanol-equivalent. This compares to 15.21 bn gal in EPA's never-finalized original proposal for 2014, and a final 2013 number originally set at 16.55 bn gal -- although volume requirements are sometimes adjusted through subsequent rulemakings.
The new proposal would set a 16.3 bn gal mandate for 2015, and a 17.4 bn gal mandate for 2016. EPA also proposes substantially higher volumes for advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuels and biomass-based diesel than it did in 2014.
While oil sector groups such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) offered a cautious welcome to the new approach, they say that EPA in its revised proposal covering the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 has not gone far enough to curb ethanol demand.
While the the 2014 numbers reflect actual production in that year, API says that going forward EPA has still been too generous to corn-based ethanol, given the blend wall and low public demand for higher ethanol blends, and should reduce the volume proposed for 2016.
Ethanol advocates, however, say that the blend wall is artificial, the result of the oil sector's deliberate effort to restrict availability of higher ethanol blends by limiting fueling infrastructure that distributes ethanol. They also say EPA's cited justification for setting the overall renewable fuel mandate lower than Congressionally mandated levels -- a lack of available fuel -- is false and unlawful. EPA said that a lack of distribution infrastructure for ethanol limits the fuel's supply -- but ethanol groups say that production, and hence supply, of corn-based ethanol is plentiful.
Challenged during a question and answer session on the issue of whether there is a lack of ethanol supply, McCarthy said she understood the argument and that EPA continues to review the issue.
She also, however, stressed that any volumes rule, especially one setting volumes for several years as part of a long-term strategy, would have to be legally defensible -- an apparent warning against EPA setting the volumes too high. EPA is aiming for “ambitious yet achievable growth,” she said.
McCarthy said the country has reached a “tipping point” for the development of renewable fuels, with a need for further investment to make investments already made pay off. The RFS envisages a growing proportion of the total renewable fuel supply coming from cellulosic and advanced biofuels, and McCarthy said EPA will “focus on growing that next level of biofuels."
'Absurd' Report
Earlier at the same event, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was bullish in his support for the renewable fuels sector, like McCarthy noting environmental and economic benefits of the RFS program. Vilsack ridiculed a reportby economic consulting firm NERA, issued by API Sept. 9, which warned that attempting to meet the statutory renewable fuel mandates would force refiners to reduce the national supply of gasoline and diesel by up to 30 percent, with attendant wild fuel price rises up to $90 per gallon. API in a Sept. 9 statement said this would have “crippling” effects on the economy.
Vilsack noted current fuel prices of a little over $2 per gallon. “I mean seriously, that was just an absurd report,” he said.
Vilsack added that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is sponsoring efforts to expand the nation's network of “blender pumps” to distribute ethanol blends higher than the 10 percent ethanol fuel (E10) now commonly in use. Some 5,000 new blender pump systems are being introduced using funds leveraged with USDA money, he said.
Buis in a Sept. 9 response to API's report said, “Regardless of what API claims, the bottom line is that ethanol blends help clean the environment, are higher performing, less expensive and directly benefit the consumer by providing a choice and savings.”
-
FRA, NY Inspectors Complete Latest Round of Crude-by-Rail Safety Checks
Sep 16, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office announced yesterday that targeted inspections of 445 crude oil tank cars, 128 miles of track and 66 switches in the state have been completed.
Federal and state inspectors completed the examinations last week, during which they uncovered and addressed four critical defects and 91 non-critical defects, according to a press release issued by Cuomo's office. The inspections were ordered to ensure safety of crude-by-rail transportation in New York.
"These inspections are critical to helping ensure these rail networks remain safe and that New Yorkers can work, travel and live near them without anxiety," Cuomo said. "This partnership with the federal government and railroad companies is an essential piece in improving rail tracks and tank cars in virtually every corner of the state."
Inspection teams from the state's Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration carried out the crude tank-car inspections at Canadian Pacific's Kenwood Yard in Albany and CSX Corp.'s Selkirk Yard in Selkirk and Frontier Yard in Buffalo. Inspectors focused on track, track hardware and tank car mechanical safety equipment, including wheels and brakes.
Additionally, the teams performed hazardous materials inspections to ensure equipment complies with regulations. Tank car inspection and pressure test dates also were examined.
For a summary of the inspection results, click on this link.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested