Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 9/22

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Green Chemistry: A Way Out of The Economic Crisis?
Sep 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch

The current global financial crisis that started in 2008 is feeding the debate in Europe on the burden legislations, in particular the REACH Regulation, place on companies manufacturing and using chemicals. Nevertheless, there is not much attention given to the burden caused by the manufacture and use of chemicals – some known to be toxic, but most poorly studied – not only for the environment and society but also for the economy.

Chemical Management News

Industry Concerns Raised by Vermont Chemical Reporting Proposal
Sep 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch

A coalition of twenty-five industry trade groups has expressed concern with Vermont's proposed final rule, implementing the state's chemical disclosure programme for children's products (Act 188).
Hitachi, Polynt Take Candidate List Case to Higher Court
Sep 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch

Two chemical companies have appealed to the European Court of Justice against an EU General Court judgment, which backed Echa’s decision to add the respiratory sensitisers HHPA and MHHPA to the REACH candidate list (CW 6 May 2015).
No Mercury Data Collection Rule, EPA Says
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Companies that make or import mercury, mercury compounds or mercury-added products will not be subject to a data collection rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a decision posted online Sept. 22.
EU Seeks Comments on Cosmetic Ingredients
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

The European Commission Sept. 22 called for input on a proposed ban in cosmetics of the preservative chloroacetamide, and on a proposal to prohibit zinc oxide in cosmetic products from which it could be inhaled.

Chemical Security News

Alberta Regulator Lifts Suspensions on Pipelines
Sep 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

The Alberta Energy Regulator has approved full resumption of pipeline operations at Nexen Energy's Long Lake oil sands facilities.
Lawmakers Offer Bills In Response To Colo. Mine Spill
Sep 22, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Manuel Quiñones

Democrats from Colorado and New Mexico introduced legislation today in response to last month's spill at an abandoned Colorado mine.
Xi: 'China Is Ready' for Cyber Crime Dialogue
Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Cory Bennett

Chinese President Xi Jinping is prepared to start a “high-level” cybersecurity dialogue with the United States.

Energy and Environment News

11M Cars Affected Globally as VW Scandal Widens
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Reiter, Rose Kim, Alexandra Ho and Tian Ying

Volkswagen AG said 11 million vehicles were equipped with diesel engines at the center of a widening scandal over faked pollution controls that will cost the company at least 6.5 billion euros ($7.3 billion).
EPA is ‘Upping its Game’ After Volkswagen Allegations
Sep 22, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Jeffrey Sparshot

The top official at the Environmental Protection Agency said the agency is “upping its game” in the search for possible violations of U.S. pollution rules following allegations that Volkswagen AG circumvented emissions standards.
McCarthy: VW Appears to Be ‘Outlier' in Industry
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna, Patrick Ambrosio and Rebecca Kern

Volkswagen AG, which admitted that millions of its vehicles were programmed to cheat on federal air pollution tests, appears to be a “real outlier” in the auto industry, but federal regulators will investigate whether other manufacturers are utilizing similar technology
Figueres: Climate Pledges Won't Surpass 80% of Emissions
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott

India, Brazil and other developing nations still have not made offers ahead of talks toward a global climate agreement, but their pledges won't fundamentally alter the need for far greater future action, the United Nations' top climate official told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 22.
Senate Dems Make Coal Part of Reform Plan
Sep 22, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Manuel Quiñones

Senate Democrats included provisions in their broad energy reform package to ensure coal deliveries to power plants and boost research into making the fuel cleaner.
Senate Democrats Release Wide-Ranging Energy Bill
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

Tax subsidies for the fossil fuel industry would be repealed and new clean energy tax incentives would be created under a wide-ranging energy bill released Sept. 22 by Senate Minority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and a coalition of other Senate Democrats.
Hitting GOP, Senate Dems Unveil Plan for A 'Clean Energy Future
Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama

Leading Senate Democrats unveiled their vision Tuesday for a comprehensive energy policy overhaul that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through new technology.
GOP Cool Toward Democrats' Energy Tax Overtures
Sep 22, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss

Senate Democrats' proposal to simplify the energy tax code is meeting skepticism from Republicans, who say the plan still tilts the scales in favor of clean energy at the expense of fossil fuels.
White House to Unveil Initiatives to Speed Infrastructure Reviews
Sep 22, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder

The Obama administration Tuesday is unveiling a package of new initiatives aimed at speeding up the federal government’s reviews of infrastructure such as bridges and energy projects, a process that businesses often complain is protracted and redundant.
Bush Targets EPA Rules in Regulatory Platform
Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama

Most of the regulations former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) wants to repeal as president are environmental rules from President Obama.
Fossil-Fuel Divestment Movement Exceeds $2.6 Trillion
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Martin

Portfolio managers have pledged to steer $2.6 trillion in investments away from fossil fuels in an effort to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Manufacturing Group Calls for More FERC Gas Rate Reviews
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern

An organization representing large manufacturers called for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to initiate more frequent reviews of interstate natural gas pipelines' rates, contending that many pipelines are overcharging customers.
FERC Member Concerned About Rate Hikes From Power Plan
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern

Tony Clark, a commissioner with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said he has fewer concerns about the impact of the Clean Power Plan on the reliability of the electricity grid than he does about the plan leading to higher rates.
Clinton Comes Out Against Keystone XL Pipeline
Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton came out Tuesday against the Keystone XL oil pipeline, arguing the debate over its construction was a distraction from efforts to tackle climate change
Hillary Clinton Says No Need for Keystone XL Pipeline
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Epstein

Ending years of declining to take a side on the issue because of her role in the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton on Sept. 22 announced her opposition to the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
Pope Expected to Make Forceful Case for Climate Action
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

Pope Francis is expected to forcefully make the moral case for action on climate change when he addresses Congress this week in what some advocates see as a golden opportunity to galvanize support for an international climate agreement.
Sierra Club Sues EPA Over State Ozone Plans
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio

The Sierra Club asked a federal district court to set a deadline for the Environmental Protection Agency to take required action on state plans for implementation of the 2008 ozone standards (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:15-cv-4328, 9/22/15).
Seventy Mayors Support Strong Ozone Standards
Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

A coalition of 70 mayors urged the Obama administration to “stay true to the science” in deciding where to set national standards on ground-level ozone.

Transportation News

(ACC Mentioned) Groups Seek More Time for Installing Safety System
Sep 22, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

A half-dozen heavyweight business and farm groups are entreating Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to "actively support" a deadline extension for implementation of the automated safety system known as positive train control.
Feds Move to Accelerate Permitting for Transportation Projects
Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Keith Laing

The Obama administration is moving to accelerate the pace of permitting for federal transportation projects as Congress faces a deadline for extending the nation's infrastructure spending.

Full Text of Stories Below

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Green Chemistry: A Way Out of The Economic Crisis?

Sep 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch

The current global financial crisis that started in 2008 is feeding the debate in Europe on the burden legislations, in particular the REACH Regulation, place on companies manufacturing and using chemicals. Nevertheless, there is not much attention given to the burden caused by the manufacture and use of chemicals – some known to be toxic, but most poorly studied – not only for the environment and society but also for the economy.
Toxics can have a remarkable impact on firms’ competitiveness and their capacity to innovate. Sooner or later, since the substances of most concern will be regulated and/or phased out, companies using obsolete and hazardous chemistry risk being shut down. Meanwhile, those that have invested in sustainable innovation will be rewarded. The billions of euros that chemical exposure is estimated to cost the EU, in terms of damage to health and the environment, should also be carefully considered. Here are a few examples:8.3% of all deaths and 5.7% of the total burden of disease worldwide are due to chemical exposure;exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals probably costs the European Union €157bn ($209bn) a year in actual health care expenses and lost earning potential. These costs may actually be as high as €270bn ($359bn), or 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) (CW 9 March 2015);20m tons of plastic marine litter enter the ocean each year. Plastic debris causes substantial economic impacts to coastal economies because of the high costs of removal and disposal to prevent flooding, navigational hazards, detriment to the tourism industry, and ecological destruction. In 2008, marine debris was estimated to have directly cost the 21 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) member economies approximately $1.265bn; andthe use of toxic chemicals is also highly burdensome to companies that spend huge amounts of economic resources in risk management measures, waste management, payment of sanctions, and overall legislative compliance; the more toxic a chemical is, the stricter the legal requirements. For instance, the costs related to the applications for authorisation to continue using substances of very high concern in the EU range between €5,000 and 55,000. In addition, the industry costs of lobbying competent authorities not to regulate their chemicals is estimated at millions of euros per year. Cefic alone is reported to have spent €6m on lobbying in 2012 and the American Chemistry Council lobbying expenditure, last year, was over $11m.
If chemicals were designed not to be toxic, or so they did not persist or bioaccumulate in the environment, all these costs would be avoided. But why is applying green chemistry principles, when designing chemicals, not the rule, but the exemption?
There are several barriers to the implementation of green chemistry rules as common practice. A few examples are:lack of education and experience on green chemistry among chemists and researchers. Chemicals are designed to meet a specific function, not to be safe and sustainable;natural human resistance to change together with reluctance to experiment with the unknown and fear of regrettable alternatives;technical and administrative restraints;lack of regulatory/supply chain pressure and enforcement;complex communication along the supply chain relating to the chemicals used and their properties;only direct costs are usually considered and these are not seen as an investment;research and development costs involved; andcompany policy/mindset and financial restraints (normally related to the size of the company).
Green chemistry is closely linked to the green economy as it helps to safeguard the production sites of the chemical industry and its user industries in the long term, and promotes the creation of jobs and high standards of occupational health and safety, as well as environmental and consumer protection. Furthermore, it stimulates innovative solutions and new market opportunities.
The chemical industry could make an important contribution to sustainable development and make a tidy profit at the same time. Leading chemical companies agree that producing safer chemicals is good for business. A new report by a US-based business advocacy group, evaluating the business and economic value of safer chemistry, demonstrates that safer chemicals are the future for health, safety and business.
Green chemistry can, therefore, lead to improved health and environmental outcomes, but might also point towards an economically and financially viable way out of the economic crisis. However, there are some important aspects needed, such as:a supporting legal framework that identifies the unwanted properties of chemical substances;information on substances used in processes and products;technical assistance to identify, assess and utilise new chemicals, based on green chemistry principles;awareness, information, training and education; andeconomic/financial support and incentives.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Industry Concerns Raised by Vermont Chemical Reporting Proposal

Sep 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch

A coalition of twenty-five industry trade groups has expressed concern with Vermont's proposed final rule, implementing the state's chemical disclosure programme for children's products (Act 188).
It says that the rule, as drafted, is arbitrary and fails to meet criteria for legislative intent and economic impact, and has requested the state revise it.
A chief concern to industry groups is that Vermont's proposed rule – unlike those implemented in Washington, Maine, and other states – would require manufacturers to provide specific product-level data, rather than “brick code” reporting of broader product types.
“As drafted, [the rule] represents the most significant data development requirement for children's products anywhere in the world,” said written testimony, provided by the Toy Industry Association. This “specifically runs contrary to very clear legislative intent for not creating such a burdensome approach, when other states have not acted in a similar fashion addressing the same issue,” it added.
The trade group has said that millions of individual product reports could be submitted under the scheme, as “companies are likely to end up over-reporting vast swaths... of products... to avoid being out of compliance with the reporting mandate.”
Act 188, passed last year, requires that manufacturers of qualifying children's products report the presence of 66 state-designated chemicals of high concern by 1 July 2016 (CW 12 June 2014). A proposed rule to implement the Act was put forward by the Vermont Department of Health (VDH) earlier this year, and is now being considered for final approval by the state's Legislative Council of Administrative Rules (LCAR).
At the 10 September LCAR meeting, several council members defended the product-level reporting, saying that the intent of the state's Act was to provide information to allow consumers to avoid specific chemicals, which is only possible through this.
Coalition members, with objections to the proposed rule, ranged from consumer product organisations to raw materials industry groups to the chemicals industry.
Further concerns raised by industry groups include:the proposed rule fails to harmonise with other state rules, which Act 188 expressly calls for;a lack of phased-in reporting is unduly burdensome, particularly to small manufacturers; andthe establishment of a working group of stakeholders, to steer the implementation of the Act, was detailed in the legislation, and has not been convened.
The LCAR has postponed action on the rule to 24 September. Under Vermont law, the body must reach a determination by 9 October, unless they pursue an extension of the 45-day review.
Should the LCAR object to the rule, it can be sent back to the VDH to “cure” the objection, or to move forward with the rulemaking despite the objection.
Michael O'Grady, legal deputy director for the state's legislative council office, says that the LCAR may only object to the rule on the grounds that:it conflicts with statutory or legislative authority;it is arbitrary or capricious; orit does not meet public participation requirements.
Substantive changes to rules, according to Mr O'Grady, happen “rarely”, due to the time and cost associated with re-initiating the rulemaking process.

Return to headline | Return to top
Hitachi, Polynt Take Candidate List Case to Higher Court

Sep 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch

Two chemical companies have appealed to the European Court of Justice against an EU General Court judgment, which backed Echa’s decision to add the respiratory sensitisers HHPA and MHHPA to the REACH candidate list (CW 6 May 2015).
Brought on 30 June, but only published in the EU Official Journal on 21 September, the appeals say that in dismissing their application for annulment of Echa’s decision, the General Court breached EU law – and, in particular, made a number of errors in its reasoning and the law's interpretation.
This, they say, meant the General Court made the following mistakes:it made contradictory and erroneous statements, concerning the need - as stated in REACH Article 57(f) – to have regard to risk assessment, when deciding if a substance qualified for the candidate list on the grounds that it gave rise to an “equivalent level of concern” to that for CMRs and PBTs;it made contradictory statements, and departed from established case law, on the status and weight of guidance documents in interpreting what is meant by “equivalent level of concern”; its “flawed reliance” on REACH Article 60(2) – which says an authorisation must be granted for a substance on Annex XIV if the risks are adequately controlled – led to “insufficient reasoning”; andthe General Court applied the wrong legal text in dismissing the arguments, relating to worker and consumer exposure, thereby, misapplying Article 57(f).
The appeal has no suspensory effect, which means MHHPA and HHPA remain defined as SVHCs and, thus, on the candidate list for now.
"This case will clarify the critical issue of whether, and on what basis, respiratory sensitisers may be listed as SVHCs under Article 57(f) of REACH," said Claudio Mereu of law firm Fieldfisher, which is representing the companies.
"The judgment under appeal gave too much latitude to regulatory authorities and hopefully the European Court of Justice will set some boundaries," he said.

Return to headline | Return to top
No Mercury Data Collection Rule, EPA Says

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Companies that make or import mercury, mercury compounds or mercury-added products will not be subject to a data collection rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a decision posted online Sept. 22.The EPA denied a rulemaking petition submitted June 24 by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA).Companies that import, produce or use 10 pounds or more of mercury a year should be required under Section 8(a) of TSCA to submit mercury-use reports to the EPA, the petition said (123 DEN A-4, 6/26/15).The EPA said it agreed with many of the statements and goals in the petition. The agency, however, will continue to pursue a strategy announced in 2014 to address mercury-containing products, it said in a prepublication copy of a soon-to-be-published Federal Register notice.Five Companies SubpoenaedUnder that strategy, the EPA subpoenaed in March and received information from five companies—AERC Recycling Solutions, Bethlehem Apparatus Company Inc., D.F. Goldsmith Chemical & Metal Corp., Veolia Environmental Services and Waste Management Mercury Waste Inc.The 12 types of information the subpoenas requested included each company's list of customers as of Jan. 1, 2015, including each customer's contact information, and the amount of mercury, mercury compounds or mixtures containing mercury each company imported for manufacturing or processing during 2010 and 2013, as well as the country from which that mercury was shipped.This information already has provided the agency a better understanding of the flow of mercury in the U.S. marketplace, the EPA said.The agency will broaden its efforts using the customer and other information it has received along with other sources of data it has, EPA's notice said. These other sources include submissions made to the Toxics Release Inventory and in response to the Chemical Data Reporting rule.Regulations will be considered if such means are found insufficient, the agency said.NRDC: Promises ‘Ringing a Little Hollow.’Terri Goldberg, NEWMOA's executive director, told Bloomberg BNA the state organization is disappointed in the EPA's decision.NEWMOA had hoped the agency would respond to the petition's ideas about improving the Interstate Mercury Education Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) through enhanced state-EPA collaboration, Goldberg said.David Lennett, an attorney with the NRDC, told Bloomberg BNA the agency's rejection of the petition did not address its proposals to improve the interstate clearinghouse.As to the EPA's assertion that its strategy will be quicker and more effective than rulemaking, Lennett said: “I find these promises ringing a little hollow.”If the agency has as many sources of data on mercury as its decision says, why hasn't the agency already gathered the requested information, he said.The agency's strategy won't save time unless it pursues a much smaller universe of information than the rulemaking would have collected, he said.NRDC will consider whether it will challenge the agency's decision in district court.Treaty ObligationsThe U.S. cannot fulfill all its obligations under the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which it has signed, without additional information.“I hope the U.S. intends to follow through fully on its obligations under that convention, Lennett said.On Nov. 6, 2013, the U.S. became the first country to sign the Minamata Convention on Mercury, paving the way for it to become a party to the international agreement to reduce airborne emissions from power plants and other sources of mercury (216 DEN A-9, 11/7/13).That treaty has not yet entered into force, although the United Nations is hosting a diplomatic eventSept. 24 to encourage countries to ratify it.

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Seeks Comments on Cosmetic Ingredients

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

The European Commission Sept. 22 called for input on a proposed ban in cosmetics of the preservative chloroacetamide, and on a proposal to prohibit zinc oxide in cosmetic products from which it could be inhaled. The European Union Cosmetics Regulation ((EC) No 1223/2009) currently permits chloroacetamide in cosmetics up to a limit of 0.3 percent by weight, but the commission said its Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety had found that the substance causes allergies below that limit and a total ban was therefore justified. The scientific committee also established that fine particles of zinc oxide, which is used as a colorant in cosmetics, could cause lung inflammation if inhaled and therefore recommended a restriction on the substance in some cosmetics, the commission said. Both consultations are open through Dec. 24. The measures to limit the use of the substances would be finalized through amendments to the annexes of the Cosmetics Regulation. The consultation on chloroacetamide is available athttp://bit.ly/1PoAuwm. The consultation on zinc oxide is available at http://bit.ly/1L3wljE.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Alberta Regulator Lifts Suspensions on Pipelines

Sep 23, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

The Alberta Energy Regulator has approved full resumption of pipeline operations at Nexen Energy's Long Lake oil sands facilities. The regulator issued a suspension order Aug. 28 for pipeline maintenance and monitoring noncompliance. It directed Nexen to immediately suspend 15 pipeline licenses, requiring shutdown of 95 pipelines carrying natural gas, crude oil, saltwater, freshwater and emulsion. “The AER is satisfied that the current operating conditions of the production lines pose a low risk to public safety and environmental protection,” the regulator said in a Sept. 16 news release. A remaining 45 suspended pipelines contain several products, including crude oil, natural gas, saltwater, freshwater and emulsion, the AER said. Nexen spokeswoman Diane Kossman told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 18 that the 45 lines remaining shut are not required for operations. “The majority of the 21 remaining lines are required for brackish water management,” she said. “While they are not immediately required for operations, they will be needed in the near term to ensure we meet our environmental obligations for use of freshwater.” An ongoing investigation will determine if any enforcement action will be take, the AER said. The news release is available at http://bit.ly/1V0EPYd .

Return to headline | Return to top
Lawmakers Offer Bills In Response To Colo. Mine Spill

Sep 22, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Manuel Quiñones

Democrats from Colorado and New Mexico introduced legislation today in response to last month's spill at an abandoned Colorado mine.
EPA and a contractor released 3 million gallons of wastewater from the Gold King mine in Colorado while looking for ways to remediate pollution there. The spill affected several states and tribes.
The bill by Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado and Rep. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico would set up a claims office within EPA to address a list of so-called allowable damages.
The legislation would require EPA to work with states and tribes on long-term water monitoring. Local regulators had called for money and support from the Obama administration for their own monitoring efforts, rather than relying on legislation that would also require research into other potential abandoned mine spills, and task EPA with warning communities about the risks of cleanup efforts.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy last week said the federal government would compensate states and tribes for damage. She also said there would be reimbursements for local emergency-response spending.
However, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concerns about administration attorneys moving to limit the government's financial exposure. States and tribes have also threatened litigation.
Last week, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) introduced legislation, H.R. 3531, to scrap EPA liability exemptions in cases where the agency causes damage during environmental remediation efforts. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also promised a similar bill.
"The EPA's response to the Animas River disaster reads like an exaggerated Hollywood portrayal of a political cover-up," Cotton said. "They underplayed the severity of the spill from the beginning and failed to warn affected states or groups to allow them to better mitigate damages."
Cotton's comments echo those of Republican lawmakers and tribal and state leaders during a recent round of hearings on the spill. He called on EPA to set aside money from its own budget for compensation.
Many Republicans have asked McCarthy why nobody has been fired following the spill, including the agency's contractor at the site.
EPA has taken responsibility and pointed to ongoing investigations, including by the Interior Department, and has said the river is back to pre-spill conditions.
Three conservative House Republicans have called for McCarthy's resignation: Reps. Jody Hice of Georgia, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin.
Separately, Udall and Heinrich said they would introduce mining-reform legislation to create a system for cleaning up abandoned non-coal mines. GOP lawmakers have talked about bills to help good Samaritan groups take on the burden.

Return to headline | Return to top
Xi: 'China Is Ready' for Cyber Crime Dialogue

Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill

By Cory Bennett

Chinese President Xi Jinping is prepared to start a “high-level” cybersecurity dialogue with the United States.
“China is ready to set up a high-level joint dialogue mechanism with the United States on fighting cyber crimes,” the Chinese leader said during a speech Tuesday night at a dinner in Seattle co-hosted by the US-China Business Council and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations.
If the dialogue comes to fruition, it would be the first official, ongoing cyber talks between the two countries since China quit a joint working group in May 2014, following the Justice Department indictment of five members of the Chinese military for hacking the U.S.
“China is a staunch defender of cybersecurity. It is also a victim of hacking,” said Xi during the first stop on his U.S. trip this week that will culminate with an official state visit in Washington.
There have been indications in recent months that China and the U.S. were potentially coming back to the table on cybersecurity.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in April said it was working with its Chinese counterpart to establish a joint cyber dialogue. The announcement came at the end of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson’s multi-day visit to China.
More recently, Beijing officials came to the table to discuss potential cyber norms with White House officials after the Obama administration indicated it was preparing to levy hacking sanctions against Chinese companies and individuals for pilfering U.S. corporate secrets.
The two sides have reportedly created the tentative framework of a deal that would define the rules of cyber warfare. Under the agreement, neither country would be the first to launch a cyberattack on the other’s critical infrastructure during peacetime.
But Xi’s comments hinted at another potential line of talks, perhaps similar to cyber pacts the U.S. government has recently signed with other allies that focus on sharing cyber threat data between law enforcement agencies.
“The international community should, on the basis of mutual respect and mutual trust, work together to build a peaceful secure open and cooperative cyberspace,” Xi said.
White House officials have said they expect to work with China during the state visit on developing consensus international cyber norms.
“We believe very strongly that the U.S. and China both have an interest in investing in clear international norms as it relates to cyber activity,” said Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security adviser, during a Tuesday conference call with reporters.
But considerable cyber tensions remain between the two sides, especially after massive hacks at the Office of Personnel Management, which exposed over 20 million people’s sensitive data, were widely blamed on Chinese hackers.
“We and our companies continue to have serious concerns about an overall lack of legal and regulatory transparency, inconsistent protection of intellectual property, discriminatory cyber and technology policies and, more generally, the lack of a level playing field across a range of sectors,” said Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, speaking at the same dinner.
The White House is also under significant pressure to take a tougher approach with Beijing officials.
American businesses say China’s commercial digital espionage is slowly eroding their global competitive edge and are pressuring the government to punish the Asian power. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are trying to force Obama’s hand on the issue.
Xi defended his country’s record, categorically denying it was involved in, or tacitly allowed, commercial espionage.
“The Chinese government will not, in whatever form, engage in commercial thefts or encourage or support such attempts by anyone,” he said. “Both commercial cyber theft and hacking against government networks are crimes that must be punished in accordance with law and relevant international treaties.”
The Chinese leader will continue his West Coast swing Wednesday, attending a much-touted tech forum tomorrow with many of Silicon Valley’s top executives.

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

11M Cars Affected Globally as VW Scandal Widens

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Chris Reiter, Rose Kim, Alexandra Ho and Tian Ying

Volkswagen AG said 11 million vehicles were equipped with diesel engines at the center of a widening scandal over faked pollution controls that will cost the company at least 6.5 billion euros ($7.3 billion).Volkswagen shares fell by as much as 30.85 euros ($34.34), bringing its drop in two days to as much as 38 percent, or about 25 billion euros in market value. The German Transport Ministry opened an investigation into the case. To address the growing crisis, the executive committee of the carmaker's supervisory board will meet Sept. 23, people familiar with the matter said.“It's not just a U.S. matter for VW—you have regulators all over the globe looking into it with potentially numerous fines to come,” said Vincenzo Longo, a strategist for IG Group in Milan. “We don't see any stop to this bloodbath unless there is a change at the head of VW and full cooperation with authorities. Some heads need to roll to get investors buying back VW.”Chief Executive Officer Martin Winterkorn has been at the center of the scrutiny since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed on Sept. 18 that VW cheated on air-pollution tests (182 DEN A-5, 9/21/15).While the CEO said on Sept. 20 that he was “deeply sorry” and promised a thorough investigation, he didn't specifically comment on his role. He will need to explain to the supervisory board, which was set to vote the week of Sept. 21 on his contract extension, how deep the malfeasance spread throughout the automaker.Regulators from Germany, France, South Korea and Italy have vowed to scrutinize Volkswagen's vehicles. The 11 million cars affected are more than VW sells in a year.“I hope the facts can be on the table as quickly as possible,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sept. 22.Investigative TeamGermany said it will send an investigative team led by Deputy Transport Minister Michael Odenwald to Volkswagen's headquarters in Wolfsburg the week of Sept. 21 to speak with officials and examine documents. The team will seek to determine whether the cars affected in the case were built according to German and European standards, the ministry said.Volkswagen shares tumbled as much as 23 percent to 101.35 euros on Sept. 22 and were down 18 percent as of 4:02 p.m. in Frankfurt. That followed a 19 percent dive on Sept. 21.“Volkswagen is working at full speed to clarify irregularities concerning a particular software used in diesel engines,” the company said in a statement. The manufacturer said the money that's being set aside could increase as investigations continue, adding that earnings forecasts for 2015 will be adjusted to take into account the costs of the scandal.The so-called defeat device was installed in a certain type of diesel engine, which powers models including the VW Passat sedan and the Audi A3 compact. For the majority of the 11 million vehicles involved, the software has no effect, VW said. Regulators will be looking to verify that after VW dragged its feet on the U.S. investigation for nearly a year. The EPA probe alone exposes the company to fines of as much as $18 billion. The U.S. Justice Department has begun its own probe into the matter, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the inquiry.“Our company was dishonest with the EPA, and the California Air Resources Board and with all of you,” Michael Horn, the head of the VW brand in the U.S., said Sept. 21 in Brooklyn, N.Y., where he was revealing a redesigned version of the Passat. “We have totally screwed up. We must fix the cars to prevent this from ever happening again and we have to make this right. This kind of behavior is totally inconsistent with our qualities.”Porsche SE, the holding company that owns 51 percent of Volkswagen's voting shares, said VW's provision also will have an effect on its profit this year.Scandal Spreads to AsiaThe fallout from Volkswagen AG's admission that it had cheated on emissions tests in the U.S. is also spreading to Asia, as South Korea said it will check whether the German automaker complied with its pollution standards.South Korea will test emissions on diesel versions of the VW Jetta, Golf and Audi AG's A3 sedan in October, Park Pan Kyu, deputy director of the country's environment ministry, said by telephone. The investigation will involve about 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles that were imported to Korea since 2014, Park said.“We found it necessary to review the emissions of the models under probe in the U.S., although the U.S. has a more rigid emissions standard than Korea does,” Park said. “We have no plans at the moment to expand the investigation to other makers or models but will continue to closely monitor the situation.”Europe's biggest carmaker derived about 40 percent of its volume sales last year from Asia, home to its largest market China.“The bigger concern is how it impacts their European reputation, which is a much more important market for them, particularly in diesel,” said Janet Lewis, Hong Kong-based analyst at Macquarie Group Ltd. “To the extent that they can't grow their U.S. business in their quest to be the No. 1 automaker by 2018, they therefore become more reliant on the China market.”Deliveries of Volkswagen in China fell 5.8 percent in the eight months through August. Industrywide passenger-vehicle sales in the country climbed 6.3 percent in the same period, according to the China Passenger Car Association.More than 90 percent of about 25,000 vehicles VW sold in South Korea this year through August were diesel models, according to Korea Automobile Importers & Distributors Association data. They included the models under probe in the U.S.With assistance from Tommaso Ebhardt in Milan and Patrick Donahue in Berlin.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA is ‘Upping its Game’ After Volkswagen Allegations

Sep 22, 2015 | Wall Street Journal

By Jeffrey Sparshot

The top official at the Environmental Protection Agency said the agency is “upping its game” in the search for possible violations of U.S. pollution rules following allegations that Volkswagen AG circumvented emissions standards.
“We are not going to sit around and worry about whether others have it, we are going to find it,” Gina McCarthy said at a Wall Street Journal breakfast Tuesday. “Right now, we are upping our game in terms of going out and doing work to take a look at what we need to do with other vehicles.”
The EPA last week accused Volkswagen of dodging air-pollution rules on nearly half a million cars sold in the U.S. The German company has since halted American sales of the diesel-powered cars at issue and apologized for violating customers’ trust.
Volkswagen allegedly used software, dubbed a “defeat device,” in the cars to make diesel-powered engines appear to have lower levels of emissions than they actually did. About 482,000 Volkswagen diesel-powered cars sold in the U.S. since 2008 were affected.
Ms. McCarthy said the alleged violation was difficult to detect, but she is “pleased Volkswagen is taking such an aggressive stance on admitting the problem and attacking it.”
“I think we have to be concerned whether there are other defeat devices out there that we have not been able to detect,” she said. But the auto industry is well aware of the pollution rules and has been working to comply.
“I think it will be very difficult for Volkswagen at this point to be looked at as nothing other than an outlier,” Ms. McCarthy said.

Return to headline | Return to top
McCarthy: VW Appears to Be ‘Outlier' in Industry

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna, Patrick Ambrosio and Rebecca Kern

Volkswagen AG, which admitted that millions of its vehicles were programmed to cheat on federal air pollution tests, appears to be a “real outlier” in the auto industry, but federal regulators will investigate whether other manufacturers are utilizing similar technology, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said.McCarthy, speaking during a Sept. 22 event held by the Wall Street Journal, said regulators “have to be concerned” about whether other motor vehicles have been outfitted with defeat devices, software that senses when a car is undergoing emissions testing and turns on the full suite of pollution controls.The EPA announced Sept. 18 that an investigation revealed that Volkswagen sold about 482,000 cars in the U.S. that were equipped with diesel engines programmed with defeat devices, but Volkswagen announced Sept. 22 that about 11 million vehicles worldwide were equipped with those engines (see related story)..‘Not Going to Sit Around.'“We are not going to sit around and worry about whether others have it; we're going to find it,” McCarthy said. “So right now, we're upping our game in terms of going out and doing work to take a look at what we need to do with other vehicles.”McCarthy acknowledged that it was “particularly difficult” for the EPA to detect Volkswagen's use of defeat devices in its diesel engine cars, which include the VW Jetta and Passat. The International Council on Clean Transportation helped alert the EPA and the California Air Resources Board to the issue after conducting real-world tests of Volkswagen cars in an effort to prove that it is possible for diesel cars to operate with low emissions (183 DEN A-5, 9/22/15).That testing showed that during normal use, the cars actually emitted pollution between 10 times and 40 times greater than allowable limits.Congress Monitoring InvestigationAlthough the joint EPA-Justice Department investigation into Volkswagen is ongoing, one congressional committee already is working to schedule an oversight hearing on the emissions cheating and other committees are keeping a close eye on the issue.The House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee announced Sept. 21 that it will hold a hearing “in the coming weeks” on the Volkswagen investigation.“The American people deserve answers and assurances that this will not happen again,” Reps Fred Upton (R-Mich.), committee chairman, and Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), subcommittee chairman, said in a statement. “We intend to get those answers.”Both the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA on whether they would hold hearings. However, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, told reporters Sept. 22 the committee is following the Volkswagen investigation “very carefully.”“Obviously, where we would get pulled in is if there were consumer protection issues, FTC [Federal Trade Commission],” Thune said. “The good news I guess in this, if there is any, is that they're saying it's not a safety issue, but it's obviously something that there is going to have to be accountability for and people are going to have to be held accountable.”Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 22 the committee would have jurisdiction on oversight hearings on the emissions scandal. However, Inhofe said it would be “premature” to make a decision at this point.Call for Expanded InvestigationThe Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into the Volkswagen scandal, but one senator would like to see an expanded probe into the automaker's marketing of its diesel cars.Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, sent a Sept. 22 letter to the FTC urging the commission to investigate potential violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”Nelson cited Volkswagen marketing materials that advertised the affected vehicles as having “clean diesel” engines.“I am outraged that VW would cheat its customers by deceiving them into buying a car that wasn't what was advertised,” Nelson said. “As such, I ask that the commission explore possible remedies under the FTC Act to remedy consumers who relied upon Volkswagen's deceptive claims.”While the FTC does not have the authority to assess civil penalties under the FTC Act, the commission could force the automaker to take actions to address consumer harm, including requiring Volkswagen to launch a corrective marketing campaign, Nelson said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Figueres: Climate Pledges Won't Surpass 80% of Emissions

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Dean Scott

India, Brazil and other developing nations still have not made offers ahead of talks toward a global climate agreement, but their pledges won't fundamentally alter the need for far greater future action, the United Nations' top climate official told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 22.Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN climate secretariat that oversees the talks, said offers now on the table from nearly all major emitters—including the U.S. and China—cover about 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. But the yet-to-be submitted offers from India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa are unlikely to raise the global total beyond 80 percent, Figueres said in an interview.“We're already at 70, [but] I don't think we're going to see significantly more” emissions covered by additional pledges between now and when negotiations to reach agreement on an international accord open in Paris Nov. 30, she said.“It certainly won't surpass 80 percent,” she said.A Sept. 2 tally of all pledges by Climate Action Tracker suggested a slightly more modest impact, finding 65 percent of emissions covered by offers the UN had in hand Sept. 1. The climate tracker is backed by Climate Analytics and other nonprofit climate policy researchers.There have been eight national pledges submitted since its Sept. 1 analysis, but they are unlikely to significantly alter the climate tracker's findings. All eight were from relatively small developing nations and modest emitters such as Algeria, Colombia, Jordan, Grenada and Tunisia.Yet to Hit ‘Safety Zone.'The percentage is important because the nation-by-nation emissions cuts Figueres expects to have in hand when the two weeks of talks begin aren't nearly ambitious enough to halt rising temperatures. The pledges are known in UN parlance as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, and are to be backed up by domestic policies or laws that countries are pursuing to implement them.Figueres said it is clear that any international agreement to come out of the Paris talks will fall well short of what is needed to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in the decades ahead when compared to pre-industrial levels.“They are a definitely a very important step forward, because they take us off the 4- to 5-degree C trajectory that we had before, and that is a critically important,” she said. That trajectory of warming is what climate scientists project in the coming decades if significant action isn't take to curb global emissions.“But it doesn't yet put us into the safety zone of 2 degrees, and we're going to be somewhere in the middle—probably a 3 degree C rise,” in just a few decades, the UN official said.Deadline FirmKeeping global temperatures from increasing no more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels has been a goal for the climate negotiations dating to the 2009 Copenhagen summit.But the pledges thus far submitted to the UN are an important step in the right direction, Figueres said. In general, countries in their pledges are vowing to curb emissions or take action to slow their rate of increase, either by 2030 or 2025.Figueres also stressed that she is remaining firm on the Oct. 1 deadline for countries to formally submit their pledges to the UN, which is needed to ensure ample time to tally up all the offers ahead of the Paris talks.“It's Oct. 1—for sure,” she said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Dems Make Coal Part of Reform Plan

Sep 22, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Manuel Quiñones

Senate Democrats included provisions in their broad energy reform package to ensure coal deliveries to power plants and boost research into making the fuel cleaner.
Party leaders released the "American Energy Innovation Act" this morning as an alternative to energy reform legislation being championed by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (Greenwire, Sept. 22).
While the legislation focuses heavily on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and boosting renewable sources of energy, it doesn't ignore coal booster demands.
For one, the legislation would establish, according to a summary, "consultation and coordination protocols" for different federal agencies to address problems shipping coal to power plants.
Mining companies have for months been expressing concern about trouble getting coal to some power plants because of rail traffic congestion. Carriers like BNSF Railway have said they are working to address bottlenecks.
In July, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) pushed for an amendment to Murkowski's energy bill, which would have given the Department of Energy power to address coal delivery issues. He cited DOE's Quadrennial Energy Review concerns about power plant stocks.
Murkowski opposed the amendment, saying the federal mechanisms already existed to address such transportation issues. Lawmakers noted the irony of Democrats' championing a pro-coal measure (E&E Daily, July 31).
Beyond transport concerns, the Senate Democrats' new energy bill includes a section to expand DOE's Office of Fossil Energy research into making coal burn cleaner and, therefore, keeping it viable amid the prospect of future emissions constraints.
It would make "the conversion, use and storage of carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels" an explicit objective of the Office of Fossil Energy.
The pro-coal sections don't seem to be enough for supporters of the fuel like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to support the Democrats' energy bill.
A Senate aide said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, another Democratic pro-coal lawmaker, would not be co-sponsoring her party's package but is supportive of many provisions.
In July, Energy and Natural Resources Committee lawmakers passed Murkowski's energy package with bipartisan support. It also includes provisions that would boost coal-related research.
The aide said the GOP-led bill "gained strong backing from Democrats and Republicans on the committee, and it also includes Sen. Heitkamp's energy priorities to lift the ban on exporting oil and find a path forward for coal."
Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, was more direct about the Democrats' new energy bill. "Instead of putting their basic pocketbook issues first, these senators are focused on pursuing unworkable energy plans that will only result in higher energy costs, fewer jobs and a stagnant economy," she said. "That's a no-win."
The House energy reform bill, in contrast, stays away from the issue, even though some pro-coal lawmakers want provisions included. House Republican leaders have opted to focus on pushing back on administration proposals seen as being against coal.

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Democrats Release Wide-Ranging Energy Bill

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

Tax subsidies for the fossil fuel industry would be repealed and new clean energy tax incentives would be created under a wide-ranging energy bill released Sept. 22 by Senate Minority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and a coalition of other Senate Democrats.While the bill, which would authorize billions of dollars in new funding for clean energy programs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent by 2025, is unlikely to be enacted into law anytime soon, portions of it could re-emerge later.“It's more important that when we have this debate on an energy bill that these ideas be on the table,” Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said during a press conference. “If we don't get them implemented now, we'll look to the future.”Energy Tax ReformIn addition to repealing billions of dollars in tax breaks received by the oil and gas industry, the bill, dubbed the American Energy Innovation Act of 2015, would reinstate and extend the 2.2 cent per-kilowatt-hour production tax credit for wind energy and other renewables until 2018.The bill also would extend or reinstate a host of other expired energy tax credits, including the solar investment tax credit until 2016, and would allocate $5 billion for the reauthorization of the Section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit.That program, which allows manufacturers of “advanced energy property,” such as wind turbines, solar panels and fuel cells, to receive a 30 percent tax credit, reached its cap of $2.3 billion in 2010.After 2018, the legislation calls for eliminating all energy tax credits, save for two new clean electricity tax credits, as part of a “clean energy tax reform section.”The two credits, a 2.3 cent per-kilowatt-hour production tax credit and a 30 percent investment tax credit, would be scaled based on carbon emissions—measured as grams of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted per kilowatt hour generated, according to a bill summary.Carbon-Based Electricity Credit“Power plants that emit at least 25 percent less carbon than the current nationwide average begin qualifying for a small incentive, which increases for power plants that are progressively cleaner,” the summary said.Power plants in service before Jan. 1, 2018, that add energy storage or carbon capture technology could claim the investment tax credit, the summary said.“Our proposal today throws an outdated, stagnant set of tax rules in the garbage can,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said during the press conference. “Our tax code under this proposal encourages innovation among all energy sources.”The bill would also create a new “technology-neutral” incentive tax credit for renewable transportation fuels dependent on the lifecycle carbon emissions of a given fuel, according to the bill summary.Specifically, the bill would provide a maximum credit of $1 “per energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline” for fuels that have zero or net-negative emissions, and scale downward based on emissions to allow fuels that have emissions that are at least 25 percent less than the U.S. nationwide average in 2015 to qualify, according to a summary.Utility Energy Reduction RequirementThe energy tax reform proposal is similar to ideas put forth in the past, including one in 2013 by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), then the Finance Committee chairman (244 DEN A-15, 12/19/13).Other ideas in the Democrats' energy bill that have been proposed in the past include an energy efficiency resource standard that would require retail electric and gas utilities to achieve energy savings of 20 percent by 2030.Distributed GenerationOther highlights of the bill include a requirement for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and report whether interconnection practices are impeding the use of distributed generation, such as rooftop solar.The bill comes after the Republican-controlled Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted in July to approve a messaging bill (S. 2011) of their own that would end the crude oil export ban and open new areas of the U.S. coast to offshore drilling (147 DEN A-5, 7/31/15).“Republicans continue to keep their heads in the sand when it comes to climate change,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate No. 3 Democrat, said of the bill. “They offer nothing except the same old lines we've heard for years: Drill anywhere any time; build the Keystone Pipeline.”Deal on Export Ban?Cantwell also said that Democrats would be willing to “entertain” a deal with Republicans to end the crude oil export ban, but only if it doesn't negatively impact consumers or businesses.“I think our side is very interested in getting the tax credits and the [energy efficiency resource standard], and I'm sure we will entertain what the ideas are on the other side of the aisle, but I've always been clear on the export issue, you've got to show you're not going to negatively impact consumers or business,” Cantwell said. “I don't know if they are going to be able to show that or not.”“Clearly that will be part of the discussion,” she said during the press conference when asked about a link between the legislation and efforts to end the crude oil export ban.

Return to headline | Return to top
Hitting GOP, Senate Dems Unveil Plan for A 'Clean Energy Future

Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill

By Timothy Cama

Leading Senate Democrats unveiled their vision Tuesday for a comprehensive energy policy overhaul that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through new technology.
The legislative proposal, put together by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, combines tax policy changes, emission reduction goals and research with smaller provisions, seeking to rapidly grow low- and zero-carbon energy in the United States.
But the effort is just as much a response to Republicans, who Democrats say are still pushing a “drill, baby, drill” policy aimed at increasing the production and use of fossil fuels without concern for the environment.
Cantwell said the effort included input from 25 senators on three committees, and that the plan now has 28 co-sponsors.
“It is a technology-driven pathway to a clean energy future, and by tackling energy efficiency ranging from everywhere from trucks, buildings, to our electricity grid, to energy innovation, it basically takes the most important opportunities for reducing carbon, creating jobs, and moving us forward to help consumers have better choices,” Cantwell said Tuesday at a news conference in the Capitol.
“It is an actionable path that we think can get implemented. We are making important investments in science and clean energy technology so that the U.S. can lead in clean energy,” she said.
Cantwell estimated that the legislation, dubbed the American Energy Innovation Act of 2015, would create 3.5 million jobs, a figure that elicited an audible “ooh” from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The Democrats focused heavily in their presentation on incentives and funding to develop clean energy, along with an overhaul to energy provisions in the tax code that they say favors fossil fuels at the expense of renewables.
“Our proposal today throws an outdated, stagnant set of tax rules in the garbage can,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking Democrat in the Finance Committee.
“The tax code now plays an enormous role in our energy policy. The system on the tax books is a crazy quilt of laws tethered to yesteryear, and it is suffocating innovation. In our view, it is long past time to replace this broken mess with a market-oriented system that supports American innovators with fresh, creative ideas.”
The tax provisions barrow from a proposal then-Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) released in 2013 to cut back on tax breaks that benefit oil and natural gas companies. The proposal expands on Baucus’s ideas to streamline credits for low-emission and transportation technologies, and adds energy efficiency incentives.
The bill would also set a nonbinding target of reducing the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions 2 percent per year over the next decade.
Democrats said it’s a major departure from Republican energy policies.
“They’ve invested heavily in coal, in tar sands and in oil, and they don’t want anything changed. They protect these permanent oil subsidies and reject temporary tax incentives for renewable energy,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
“Our energy bill presents a different vision for the future.”
The legislation includes a top pet project of Reid’s, to crack down on electric utilities charging too much to residential customers who want to use solar panels and sell electricity back to the grid.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) contrasted the Democrats’ bill with Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) legislation on offshore drilling and oil exports, which passed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee along party lines in August.
“It opens up drilling all the way from the coast of Massachusetts down through Florida. Opens up California for drilling for oil,” Markey said.
“It does not extend the tax breaks for wind and solar. It is not all of the above, it is oil above all. It’s the same old agenda, which they have had for their entire lives. That is what this debate is about.”
He continued, “And they want to lift the ban on the export of oil from America.”
The Democrats said they hope to get some provisions from the bill into the Energy Committee’s wide-ranging energy reform bill. So far, Cantwell and Murkowski have only put provisions into it with bipartisan support.
Environmental groups praised the Democrats’ proposals.
“If Congress is interested in a responsible energy plan for American families that cuts carbon pollution, invests in the booming clean energy economy, and finally tackles the challenge posed by global climate disruption, they should start with this bill,” Melinda Pierce, the Sierra Club’s legislative director, said in a statement.
“This legislation offers a bold, ambitious vision for growing our clean energy economy and tackling the climate crisis.”
Elizabeth Thompson, president of the Environmental Defense Fund’s EDF Action, also welcomed it.
“This bill would tap America’s abundant clean energy potential to significantly reduce climate pollution while saving people money,” she said.
But Ben Schreiber, climate and energy program director for Friends of the Earth, said the bill does not go far enough toward a transition to clean energy and fighting climate change.
“Unfortunately, the time has passed for half-measures,” he said. “Extending subsidies for renewables and ending Big Oil giveaways are important steps, but we cannot afford to throw our tax dollars after false solutions.”

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Cool Toward Democrats' Energy Tax Overtures

Sep 22, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Geof Koss

Senate Democrats' proposal to simplify the energy tax code is meeting skepticism from Republicans, who say the plan still tilts the scales in favor of clean energy at the expense of fossil fuels.
The Democrats' broad energy bill unveiled earlier today aims to overhaul the energy tax code by creating new credits for power producers and transportation fuels that are technology-neutral.
"Our proposal today throws an outdated, stagnant set of tax rules in the garbage can," said Finance ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has urged such an approach for years (Greenwire, Sept. 22).
Under the plan, electricity producers could choose between a production tax credit and an investment tax credit whose value is linked to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt-hour. A similar credit would provide up to $1 per gallon for transportation fuels made from renewables or fossil fuels, while a separate "performance-based" incentive would reward homes and buildings that install efficiency equipment, again based on the amount of energy saved.
Wyden told E&ENews PM the approach should appeal to Republicans because it would halve the estimated $125 billion 10-year cost of current energy tax breaks.
"Having had private discussions and public discussions, the Republican argument begins with 'There should be fewer subsidies,'" he said. "And there's a debate about which subsidies, but fewer subsidies, fewer subsidies, fewer subsidies. I've got an actual legislative proposal, not a piece of paper floating around in the air, that does that. We take the 44 breaks, we cut the costs in half, so there's a substantial cost reduction, and then we say it's technology-neutral. So this isn't the same old -- the oil companies get cut, the renewables get it. Everybody, whether you're wind, or oil, or whether you're gas, or hydro, anybody who hits the emissions target is in."
The Democrats' bill would start the new credits in 2018, a three-year time frame Wyden says allows sufficient "transition" time while negotiations continue over the broader tax overhaul Republicans want.
"So that gives us a chance to deal with the transition, and by happenstance, the extenders come up right now, we could have a bipartisan agreement on extenders, and then get to a bipartisan effort in terms of reforming the tax code as it relates to energy," he said. "It kind of fits."
However, the linkage to carbon emissions will likely give Republicans pause, said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a member of the Finance Committee.
"I think that will be a hard sell with a lot of our guys," he said in an interview. "I know that there's going to be a big focus in their energy bill on the climate change issue. On our side, we're interested in all forms of energy that are American energy, that lessen the dependence that we have on foreign sources of energy, and drive the costs down, that make it more affordable for consumers in this country, and more affordable for businesses that are creating jobs, so if there's a way to kind of put those two together, it remains to be seen."
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who like Thune has previously expressed support for wind energy, offered a similar assessment.
"You say technology-neutral, but you're still back at the government regulating CO2," he said. "So I think that's going to be a challenge, that's going to be a problem for a lot of folks in our caucus. The idea that you incentivize investment and that investment produces more energy and better environmental stewardship, that makes sense. But when you start linking it to the CO2, that's a problem."
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said he was concerned about any tax incentive that would raise energy prices.
"Democrats owe it to the American people to not try to imply that you can power this country and this economy with wind and solar alone. We need all sources of energy," he told reporters. "Under the most aggressive plans for more renewable energy, it's still going to be a very small percentage of the energy mix in the country, even 15, 20 years from now."
The Democrats' plan to cancel tax breaks enjoyed by the largest oil and gas companies also drew criticism from the American Petroleum Institute.
"America's oil and natural gas industry pays one of the highest tax rates among U.S. businesses, generating billions of dollars every year in revenue for the federal government," API Executive Vice President Louis Finkel said in a statement. "Instead of higher taxes and royalty rates that discourage domestic production, policymakers should follow pro-development energy policies that create jobs and help our nation provide affordable and reliable energy for consumers."

Return to headline | Return to top
White House to Unveil Initiatives to Speed Infrastructure Reviews

Sep 22, 2015 | Wall Street Journal

By Amy Harder

The Obama administration Tuesday is unveiling a package of new initiatives aimed at speeding up the federal government’s reviews of infrastructure such as bridges and energy projects, a process that businesses often complain is protracted and redundant.
The changes, which don't require additional funding or approval from Congress, are aimed at ensuring that the various government agencies often involved in a single infrastructure review are coordinating better and faster.
“Our nation’s economy thrives when the foundation of America’s communities—from roads and bridges to ports and waterways—are built to meet the needs and requirements of the 21st Century,” said White House Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan. “Today’s actions reflect this administration’s continued commitment to meet those needs by further improving the efficiency of the federal permitting process in an environmentally sound way and accelerating U.S. economic growth and competitiveness.”
One change will require the more than 10 agencies regularly involved in federal permitting to review projects simultaneously instead of sequentially. The current process is usually conducted like a relay race, with one agency handing it off to the next.
Business executives, including those in the energy and manufacturing sectors, often complain of long government permitting reviews that they argue make the U.S. less competitive compared with its global counterparts and hold back investment in infrastructure.
The changes are unlikely to satisfy Republican and business executives who say the Obama administration stymies approval of certain projects, most notably the Keystone XL pipeline, and issues regulations they deem unnecessary.
The agencies affected with Tuesday’s announcement are the following: Agriculture, Energy, Transportation and Interior departments, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Homeland Security, which includes the Coast Guard; and the Department of the Army that includes the Army Corps of Engineers.
As such, Tuesday’s announcement isn't expected to affect Keystone XL or any proposed cross-border projects subject to approval by the State Department. Keystone’s developer,TransCanada Corp., has been seeking a permit from State to cross the Canadian-U.S. border for the past seven years.
The new initiative also includes changes to a federal online permitting portal that seeks to track—and, ideally, expedite—permitting processes of infrastructure projects, including transit lines, roadway expansions and renewable energy projects. Beginning in October, projects that require environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, such as energy projects on public lands, will require the federal agency taking the lead in reviewing the project to add it to the online portal, with the goal of speeding up the review process by years, according to senior administration officials.
The initiatives, led by the White House and Transportation Department, are part of a broader effort President Barack Obama first launched in 2011 with an executive order that seeks to streamline infrastructure projects reviews.

Return to headline | Return to top
Bush Targets EPA Rules in Regulatory Platform

Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill

By Timothy Cama

Most of the regulations former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) wants to repeal as president are environmental rules from President Obama.
Putting them in a list of “the most onerous Obama rules and regulations,” Bush said Tuesday that he would repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon rules for power plants, waters of the United States rule and coal ash disposal rule.
The regulations from the Dodd-Frank banking law and the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rule are also on the list.
“Regulations are choking America’s economy, imposing an invisible tax of $1.9 trillion every year — that’s $15,000 per family,” the 2016 White House hopeful said in a post on this website.
“Think what America could be and the prosperity we could experience if we took off the shackles from government rules and rule makers,” he said. “My goal as president would be to set new, reasonable standards for the government agencies that issue rules that choke economic activity and opportunity.”
Bush also wants to require federal agencies to offset the regulatory costs of new rules with other rules that would save money, strengthen presidential power over regulations and set a two-year limit on federal permitting.
The carbon dioxide and water regulations are two of the Obama administration’s most controversial rules, and the Republican-controlled Congress has taken various steps aimed at stopping them.
The carbon limits seek to slash the power sector’s greenhouse gas output 32 percent, largely through improving or shutting down coal-fired power plants.
The waters of the United States regulation asserts federal government control under the Clean Water Act for small waterways like streams and wetlands.
The coal ash rule is far less controversial but Republicans have nonetheless moved to significantly weaken it. The regulation sets the first federal standards for how utilities store and dispose of coal ash, the harmful waste from burning coal for power.

Return to headline | Return to top
Fossil-Fuel Divestment Movement Exceeds $2.6 Trillion

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Christopher Martin

Portfolio managers have pledged to steer $2.6 trillion in investments away from fossil fuels in an effort to prevent catastrophic climate change.That's a 50-fold increase from the cumulative total a year ago, $50 billion, as environmental groups increased pressure on universities, insurance companies and individual investors to abandon stocks tied to coal, oil and natural gas, according to a report released Tuesday by Arabella Advisors.The surge in support for the divestment movement shows growing awareness of the role fossil fuels play in climate change, and growing concern among the general public. The report is being issued as world leaders and industry executives begin to gather in New York for Climate Week NYC and the United Nations general assembly. The results may spur commitments to reduce greenhouse gas production ahead of a December summit in Paris when more than 190 nations are expected to agree on a binding global carbon emissions pact.“You don't go from $50 billion to $2.6 trillion in commitments without attracting a little attention,” Tom Van Dyck, managing director for socially responsible investment at Royal Bank of Canada, said by phone. “More and more investors are looking at the risks of not getting getting away from fossil fuels.”Unused AssetsTo prevent warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), researchers have concluded that more than $100 trillion in oil, gas and coal reserves should remain underground, unused. Some investors are seeing that as a threat of fossil-fuel companies, and are opting to dump their shares. To date, 430 institutions and 2,040 individuals have joined the effort.The divestment movement is not just about preventing the use of fossil fuels. It's also about limiting the political clout of the industry. The groups pushing for divestment are looking for a way to limit Big Oil's influence on politicians and regulators.Of the groups that agreed to divest from oil and coal companies, investors with $785 billion in assets have also agreed to shift money into climate solutions like solar and wind energy.

Return to headline | Return to top
Manufacturing Group Calls for More FERC Gas Rate Reviews

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rebecca Kern

An organization representing large manufacturers called for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to initiate more frequent reviews of interstate natural gas pipelines' rates, contending that many pipelines are overcharging customers.The Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA), which represents manufacturers that consume large amounts of energy, including Dow Corning Corp. and Kimberly-Clark Corp., sent a letter to FERC Sept. 22 urging the agency to resume a process of reviewing natural gas pipelines' rates every three years.Paul Cicio, president of IEAC, told Bloomberg BNA that if FERC conducted a rate-review case every three years “these pipelines will know immediately that they cannot continue to overcharge and they're going to behave themselves.”Cicio referred to a 2015 Natural Gas Supply Association study of 32 of the major pipelines which found that from 2009-2013 the pipelines collected approximately $3 billion more than they would have collected on an average 12 percent return on equity allowed by FERC.FERC Order 636Up to 1992, FERC mandated reviews of interstate gas pipeline rates every three years. But this three-year review process ended with the issuance of Order 636, which required pipelines to separate their sales services from their transportation services.Currently, FERC pursues a case under Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act if it finds that a natural gas pipeline's rates are out of line. This process has taken place about 10 times since 2009, Mary O'Driscoll, FERC spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 22.Natural gas companies are supposed to go to FERC if they need to increase a rate to cover increased costs. Also, consumers can appeal to FERC through Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act for FERC to hold a hearing to determine whether rates are not just and reasonable.“The fact you don't see a lot of those Section 5 filings really does reveal the fact that there are not a lot of pipelines over-recovering their rates,” William Scherman, a partner at Gibson Dunn and former general counsel at FERC, told Bloomberg BNA.“So the notion that you need three-year rate reviews has not been empirically shown by any real evidence,” Scherman said.Pipelines, Suppliers Support Current ProcessGas pipeline and gas supply groups don't believe that FERC needs to initiate a three-year review cycle of rates.Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, which represents 25 interstate pipelines, called the three-year review cycle “a vestige of the distant past before FERC restructured the pipeline industry to place a greater emphasis on competition.”“There is no need for triennial rate reviews. FERC retains the authority to investigate rates it believes are no longer just and reasonable,” Landry told Bloomberg BNA.Similarly, Dena Wiggins, president and chief executive officer of the Natural Gas Supply Association, which represents natural gas suppliers and producers, said FERC already has all of the authority it needs to ensure pipelines are not over-collecting.“We think that FERC, when they do their analysis of [pipelines' rates], if they find any evidence of over-recovery they should start Section 5 rate cases. That's part of what their responsibility is in carrying out their mandate under the Natural Gas Act,” she said in an interview.

Return to headline | Return to top
FERC Member Concerned About Rate Hikes From Power Plan

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rebecca Kern

Tony Clark, a commissioner with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said he has fewer concerns about the impact of the Clean Power Plan on the reliability of the electricity grid than he does about the plan leading to higher rates.Clark said engineers, utility managers and regulators throughout the country have a good track record on reliability. “They will go to extraordinary lengths to ensure there is reliability of the system,” he said at a Sept. 22 Wall Street Journal event in Washington.“I think affordability, especially in certain parts of the country, is going to be a huge issue,” he said. He particularly said the Upper Midwest, which is still heavily dependent on coal, will be hit the hardest. He noted that in the draft version of the Clean Power Plan his home state of North Dakota was required to reduce its power plant carbon dioxide emissions by 11 percent, but in the final plan this target was increased to 45 percent.He said this region is mainly run by vertically integrated utility companies that have a captive customer base that will be responsible for footing the bill for the retirement of coal-fired plants and retrofitting to gas-fired plants or building new plants.However, ultimately he noted that “reliability and affordability are two sides of the same coin, and you cannot separate the two out.”Plan Targets Carbon DioxideThe Clean Power Plan, released Aug. 3 by the Environmental Protection Agency, aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. States have until 2018 to submit implementation plans for meeting state-specific targets (149 DEN B-1, 8/4/15).FERC has said it will work with the EPA and the Energy Department to ensure continued reliability of the grid throughout implementation of the plan (150 DEN A-5, 8/5/15).Clark is serving his first term on FERC, having been sworn in June 15, 2012, to serve out a five-year term that expires in June 2016. He formerly served as a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission.More Natural Gas Called KeyClark also said, “The key to making the Clean Power Plan regulation work is going to probably be a lot more natural gas.”Since 2005, the U.S. has seen dramatic reductions in nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide, and a lot of these reductions are related to the increased supply of affordable natural gas, Clark said.However, Clark noted there is increased opposition to construction of natural gas pipelines. He said it used to be that the siting of electric transmission lines were more controversial than pipeline siting, but this has changed.FERC is responsible for approving the siting of gas pipelines, and the argument against pipeline construction used to be centered on the “not in my back yard” argument (NIMBY).“What we're seeing now is what I would call closer to the ‘NOPE' intervention, ‘not on planet Earth,' ” he said. “This is intervention that takes a much broader look at infrastructure that says, ‘We don't want any of it anywhere.' ”He said this latest approach is “using the infrastructure as a collateral attack on the exploration and production of oil and natural gas itself.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Clinton Comes Out Against Keystone XL Pipeline

Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill

By Timothy Cama

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton came out Tuesday against the Keystone XL oil pipeline, arguing the debate over its construction was a distraction from efforts to tackle climate change.The announcement follows years of pressure from environmentalists, and as Clinton seeks to reassure supporters surprised that she faces a tough challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination in Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), an opponent of Keystone. Clinton announced her shift at a campaign event in Iowa, one of two early-voting states where some polls have shown Sanders in the lead. “I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I think it is, as a distraction to the important work we have to do on climate change,” she said. "And unfortunately, from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues."

“Therefore I oppose it,” she said. “I don’t think it's in the best interest to combat climate change.” As President Obama’s secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, Clinton oversaw the Obama administration’s consideration of TransCanada Corp.’s application to build the pipeline from Alberta, Canada’s oil sands to Texas’s Gulf Coast. Saturday marked seven years since the firm first submitted its application to build Keystone, and Obama has refused to decide on the permit, even when Congress gave him a deadline. Since declaring her candidacy for president earlier this year, Clinton had refused to state a position on the project, saying that her previous involvement with the issue while at Foggy Bottom means she should not wade into it. After her announcement, Clinton told the Des Moines Register's editorial board that she had taken her time with the announcement because she wanted to give President Obama and her successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, time to make their own decisions. She also noted that she had told the White House just weeks ago that she could not remain silent much longer. So when she was asked about Keystone on Tuesday, Clinton said "I had put people on adequate notice that I would respond when asked, and I said that I did oppose it." Clinton's announcement could help her on the left with environmental groups, and some immediately cheered her announcement. “We are thrilled that Secretary Clinton has continued to build on her longtime environmental leadership by publicly opposing the dirty and dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of government affairs a the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund. “This is exactly the kind of leadership we need in order to leave a healthy planet for our children and grandchildren.” Oil interests, Republicans and even some Democrats see the pipeline as an essential step toward increasing the share of energy that the United States gets from friendly allies, while creating thousands of construction jobs. But environmentalists say it would spur more development of Canada’s oil sands, which are far more polluting than traditional varieties of crude oil. After extensive analysis, the State Department said last year that Keystone would not significantly impact the environment or climate. Environmentalists have balked at that conclusion and said that the low oil prices of the last year mean the pipeline will make oil sands development easier. Congress earlier this year approved legislation to build the pipeline, but it was vetoed by Obama. “If Hillary Clinton can go from being ‘inclined to approve’ Keystone XL to ‘I oppose’ in five years, then surely Barack Obama can go from more than six years of indecision to outright rejection,” said CREDO's director of climate campaigns, Elijah Zarlin. “As someone who says he is committed to action on climate, it is long past time for President Obama to reject Keystone XL," Zarlin added. The White House had no immediate comment on the announcement. Sanders lauded Clinton's announcement, though he noted the time it took her to reach the decision. “As a senator who has vigorously opposed the Keystone pipeline from the beginning, I am glad that Secretary Clinton finally has made a decision and I welcome her opposition to the pipeline," he said. "Clearly it would be absurd to encourage the extraction and transportation of some of the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet.” Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who remains far behind both Clinton and Sanders in the polls, was more critical, and suggested Clinton was failing to lead on the issue. "On issue after issue — marriage equality, drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, children fleeing violence in Central America, the Syrian refugee crisis, and now the Keystone Pipeline, Secretary Clinton has followed — not forged — public opinion. Leadership is about stating where you stand on critical issues, regardless of how they poll or focus group," he said. GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush blasted the announcement, suggesting that killing the pipeline would hurt the economy. "@HillaryClinton finally says what we already knew," the former Florida governor tweeted. "She favors environmental extremists over U.S. jobs." The oil and gas industry, a strong backer of Keystone XL, also criticized Clinton. The American Petroleum Institute (API) said Clinton’s position is “wrong” and in opposition to American voters, 68 percent of whom support the project, according to a poll the group commissioned. “Hillary Clinton’s decision to oppose Keystone is a missed opportunity to seize the true potential of our energy renaissance,” API President Jack Gerard said in a statement. “It is most unfortunate for American workers and consumers that she has joined the forces of delay and denial.” Green group 350 Action credited the actions of its activists and others for pressuring Clinton to come out in opposition. Volunteers associated with the group have repeatedly asked Clinton at public events about Keystone, and one took a photo with her last week with a sign that said “I’m ready for Hillary to say no KXL.” “Thanks to thousands of dedicated activists around the country who spent years putting their bodies on the line to protect our climate, we’ve taken a top-tier presidential candidate’s ‘inclination to approve’ Keystone XL, and turned it into yet another call for rejection,” May Boeve, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “Her position on Keystone should set an important precedent for her policies going forward: we cannot afford to approve projects that make climate change worse.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Hillary Clinton Says No Need for Keystone XL Pipeline

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jennifer Epstein

Ending years of declining to take a side on the issue because of her role in the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton on Sept. 22 announced her opposition to the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.“I don't think we need to have a pipeline bringing very dirty oil, exploiting the tar sands in western Canada, across our border,” she told the Des Moines Register's editorial board.At a town hall in Des Moines beforehand, she expressed an eagerness to end the seven-year debate over Keystone, which had become a “distraction” from the broader fight against climate change. “I don't think it's in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change,” she said in response to a question from a Drake University student.Since leaving the State Department in early 2013, Clinton had insisted that she would not take a position on the pipeline permitting process, since it began while she led the agency. But with the administration's process dragging on, and facing constant questions about the issue on the campaign trail as well as pressure from her Democratic rivals, Clinton decided that she needed to speak out.“I thought this would be decided by now, and therefore I could tell you whether I agree or disagree,” she said Sept. 22. “But it hasn't been decided and I feel now I've got a responsibility to you and to voters who ask me about this.”HistoryDuring President Barack Obama's first term, as Clinton said in July, she “put together a very thorough, deliberative, evidence-based process to evaluate the environmental impact” of the proposed pipeline, which would run from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska. As she rolled out the first round of her climate change proposals over the summer, she said that she would “refrain from commenting [on Keystone] because I had a leading role in getting that process started and we have to let it run its course.”Less than a week ago, responding to another town hall question about the pipeline, Clinton put the White House “on notice” that she was going to speak out “soon” if the administration didn't reach a decision. The White House was briefed on Clinton's position ahead of her comments Sept. 22, a campaign aide said. Asked about Clinton's warning hours before her announcement, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said “we noticed.”Stephen Lecce, a spokesman for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, also noticed Clinton's statement Sept. 22, and disagreed with it.“Keystone XL will create jobs for Canadian and American workers and strengthen energy security in North America,” he said. “This is not a debate between Canada and the U.S. We know the American people support the project. We will not engage in presidential primary debates.”TransCanada Corp., the company proposing the $8 billion pipeline, responded by referencing the findings of the review process that was initiated during Clinton's time at State, though it was not completed until early 2014, a year after she left the department. “The U.S. Department of State's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Keystone XL concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions would be 28 to 42 per cent lower with the pipeline and that Keystone XL would support the creation of over 40,000 jobs and $2 billion in earnings-good paying jobs for American families,” TransCanada spokesperson Davis Sheremata said.The State Department has disputed TransCanada's figures on how many jobs the pipeline would create in America, saying that between 5,000 and 6,000 temporary construction jobs will result if the project, which could take as long as two years to complete, moves forward.Environmental GroupsEnvironmental advocates characterized Clinton's stance as a policy evolution. Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, founder of NextGen Climate, said Clinton's newfound opposition to the pipeline is “a clear example of people power overcoming the special interests,” he said in a statement. “Now, every Democrat running to lead our country must oppose Keystone XL because of this new political reality.”“This is an important about-face for Clinton,” said Friends of the Earth Action President Erich Pica. “This reversal is a testament to efforts of farmers, ranchers, indigenous people and environmentalists who came together to stop this pipeline.”On the other side of the aisle, the American Petroleum Institute characterized Clinton's position as running against the grain of public opinion. “American voters said failure to act on KXL has hurt our economy and energy security,” President Jack Gerard said in a statement. “It's ironic that the U.S. would strike a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market while refusing to give our closest trading partner, Canada, the most efficient access to U.S. refineries,” he said, invoking an argument used by Republican lawmakers pushing for U.S. crude exports.Several anti-Keystone groups, including Energy Action Coalition and Oil Change International, seized on Clinton's announcement to call for President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.“Timing this to coincide with the Pope's arrival is meant to frame the discussion in a moral and climate context,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former aide on President Clinton's Climate Change Task Force. “It also provides a stark contrast with Republicans, who have pushed Keystone non-stop.”Political ReactionDuring the town hall, Clinton said that she will unveil proposals for “a North American approach to fighting climate change and clean energy” in the coming days. Pressed on those proposals by the Register, Clinton declined to elaborate, saying she didn't want to overshadow the policy proposals on prescription drug prices that she released earlier Sept. 22.In addition to the White House, Clinton had also given a heads up to labor leaders about her position on the pipeline during recent meetings to court several unions' endorsements.Other candidates for the Democratic nomination welcomed Clinton's announcement.“As a senator who has vigorously opposed the Keystone pipeline from the beginning, I am glad that Secretary Clinton finally has made a decision and I welcome her opposition to the pipeline,” said Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is usually restrained in direct critiques of the former secretary of state. “Clearly it would be absurd to encourage the extraction and transportation of some of the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet.”In a statement responding to Clinton's comments, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley jabbed her for having “followed – not forged – public opinion” on Keystone and other issues including same-sex marriage and the Syrian refugee crisis.As for Clinton's prospective Republican challengers, all of whom support construction of the pipeline, the verdict was one of universal condemnation.“Hillary Clinton says what we already knew,” Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) tweeted Sept. 22. “She favors environmental extremism over U.S. jobs.”Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) also voiced skepticism over the former secretary of state's timing.“Hoping that Americans would be distracted by the Pope's visit, Hillary finally admitted that she opposes Keystone XL,” Jindal wrote on Twitter.

Return to headline | Return to top
Pope Expected to Make Forceful Case for Climate Action

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

Pope Francis is expected to forcefully make the moral case for action on climate change when he addresses Congress this week in what some advocates see as a golden opportunity to galvanize support for an international climate agreement.Observers expect the Holy Father, the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, to frame the case for climate action more broadly in economic and social justice terms on Sept. 24 in the first-ever address by a pope to Congress.Some said Francis would stick to broad environmental themes in his address to Congress, while others said the pope would delve into specific policy issues like the end-of-year Paris climate negotiations or the role of the Green Climate Fund. But administration officials, advocacy groups, lawmakers and conservative groups all agreed the pope's words would spur serious conversation.“The pope has spoken about the need for all of us to meet our responsibility to care for God's creation,” Ben Rhodes, U.S. deputy national security adviser, told reporters in a call previewing the visit. “And that I think provides an important moral backdrop to the type of policy decisions that individual leaders will make on climate change.”On Heels of EncyclicalFrancis' visit comes several months after the publication of “Laudato si (Praised Be),” a papal encyclical on the environment. The 183-page document called on humans to protect “our common house” and said forcefully tackling climate change was a key part of lifting the world's citizens out of poverty (118 DEN A-6, 6/19/15).The encyclical called climate change one of the “principal challenges facing humanity” and said its implications were environmental, social, political and economic. Francis also said a “very solid scientific consensus” indicated human activity significantly contributed to climate change and urged the world to transition away from fossil fuels.In addition to his visit to Congress, the pope will meet with President Barack Obama Sept. 23 at the White House and will travel to New York for an address at the United Nations General Assembly. The U.S. visit comes just months before countries around the world attempt to reach a final international agreement in Paris to address climate change.Criticism ExpectedOf all the stops on his itinerary, it is the U.S. Congress where the pope may face the most unfriendly crowds to his climate change message. Large numbers of Republican members still deny the problem altogether or say humans can do nothing to address it.At least one member—Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)—said he will not attend the pope's address over its message on climate change and has indicated in other media interviews that other lawmakers plan to follow suit.“When the pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one,” Gosar wrote on a conservative website. “If the pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change then he can do so in his personal time. But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous.”Other Republicans were also critical of the expected focus on climate change, but did not threaten to boycott the speech.Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), arguably the most prominent climate change denier in Congress, told CNN Sept. 21 it was “totally inappropriate that the pope is weighing in on all the real sensitive, far-left issues” after previously telling Bloomberg BNA Francis “has the right to say anything he wants” (116 DEN A-1, 6/17/15).Other senior Republicans, including Speaker of the House John Boehner (Ohio), said they welcomed the pope's speech even if they disagreed with him on particular issues.“No matter what the pope has to say, I'm looking forward to hearing it,” Boehner told an Ohio newspaper Sept. 21. “I'll digest just like anyone else will.”Boehner's position echoes that of other Republicans in Congress. Many lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA after the release of the encyclical that they welcomed the pontiff's view on the subject but did not expect it would change the tone of discourse on Capitol Hill (118 DEN A-7, 6/19/15).Holistic Argument ExpectedSeveral Catholic-affiliated groups said they expected Francis to talk about the environment in the broader context of poverty, income inequality and social justice. U.S. politicians typically discuss those issues separately, but the pope sees them as interconnected to proper care of “our common home,” the observers said.“There's both an urgent political challenge [on climate change] but, at the same time, there's a deeper cultural problem,” John Gehring, Catholic program director for Faith in Public Life, said Sept. 21 at a panel hosted by the Center for American Progress. “I think he understands the need to connect these issues again. All of these things that we sort of divide up in our politics in the U.S., he says we need to look at together.”Sally Bingham, president of Interfaith Power & Light, a religious organization seeking a response to climate change, told Bloomberg BNA she was optimistic the pontiff's message would resonate with skeptical lawmakers—even if not immediately—because of the moral authority he brings to the climate change debate.“From my perspective, this is the moral authority we've been waiting for,” Bingham said. “I don't expect to see specific policy recommendations because he opens himself to legislators who don't like his message to say he's stepping into politics.“I think it'll be more general, but when I say general I don't think it'll be gentle,” she added.More ‘Widespread' AttentionEnvironmental advocates and several Democrats in Congress said they are optimistic that the pope will bring their message of the need for strong action on climate change to a broader audience than ever before.“I think what the pope has done is elevated this discussion that needs to be elevated,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said Sept. 22 on a call organized by NextGen Climate. “Raising the issue, as the pope has done, to the point where it's a moral imperative adds to the discussion and brings attention that is more widespread.”Other Democrats concurred Sept. 21 with that thought. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a Senate floor speech that “I hope we will listen to the voice of God,” while Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said he believed the pope's words would “really catalyze discussion across the board.”Tom Steyer, the NextGen Climate founder, said he hopes the pontiff will inspire “Congress to join the growing, expanding coalition of Americans” to take meaningful action to address climate change.New polling from The Associated Press and researchers from Yale University appears to support Steyer's claim of an expanding coalition. According to the poll, 69 percent of U.S. residents believe climate change is occurring and 55 percent of citizens said it was appropriate for the pope to address the subject.“Despite relatively low awareness of the papal encyclical, a majority of Americans say it is appropriate for the pope to take a public position on the issue of global warming,” the poll found. “This is true even though very few Americans currently consider global warming a religious, social justice, or poverty issue.”Green Climate Fund Could EmergeOne specific policy mechanism mentioned by multiple observers was the Green Climate Fund, which aims to provide assistance to vulnerable developing countries toward adapting to climate change and rising sea levels.“I hope he'll mention the Green Climate Fund by name, but we'll see what he says,” Shantha Alonso, executive director at Creation Justice Ministries, another faith group urging climate action, said. “This is a pope who is good at timing and is a good political strategist.”Bingham said that while Francis might not mention the fund by name, he will argue developed nations should help developing nations address the impacts of climate change fueled by the wealthier nations' pollution emissions.“He may not name it, but I think he is going to promote financial responsibility for poor and vulnerable countries around the world,” Bingham said.Despite the predictions, most observers said the bottom line is the pope's message is impossible to predict.“I have no way of guessing what the pope is going to say,” Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a senior member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which advises Francis, told Bloomberg BNA.

Return to headline | Return to top
Sierra Club Sues EPA Over State Ozone Plans

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Patrick Ambrosio

The Sierra Club asked a federal district court to set a deadline for the Environmental Protection Agency to take required action on state plans for implementation of the 2008 ozone standards (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:15-cv-4328, 9/22/15).The environmental group, in a lawsuit filed Sept. 22, alleged the EPA is in violation of a nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to approve or disapprove five submitted state plans for meeting “good neighbor” obligations to control ozone precursor emissions that could affect air quality in downwind areas. The group alleged that the EPA missed deadlines to act on state plans submitted by Louisiana, Montana, New York, South Dakota and Wisconsin.Those plans should have been either approved or disapproved within 12 months after the EPA decided that the plans were administratively complete. Those plans were all deemed to be complete in 2013, so the EPA should have issued a decision on whether the plans were sufficient to meet Clean Air Act requirements in 2014, the Sierra Club alleged.The environmental group also alleged that the EPA failed to meet a deadline for issuing a federal implementation plan covering California and Kentucky after determining that those states hadn't submitted sufficient plans for implementing the 2008 ozone standards. EPA failed to meet statutory deadlines to issue a federal plan for California by Feb. 14 and for Kentucky by April 8, the Sierra Club alleged.The lawsuit requested that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California declare that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is in violation of the Clean Air Act and issue a mandatory injunction setting a deadline for EPA action.The Sierra Club first alerted the EPA of its intent to sue over the missed deadlines in a June 1 notice (108 DEN A-4, 6/5/15).

Return to headline | Return to top
Seventy Mayors Support Strong Ozone Standards

Sep 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

A coalition of 70 mayors urged the Obama administration to “stay true to the science” in deciding where to set national standards on ground-level ozone. The mayors, in a Sept. 21 letter to President Barack Obama, pledged to work with the administration to implement the “strongest possible protections” against ozone. The EPA is under a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to issue a final decision (RIN 2060-AP38) on whether to revise or retain the current 75 parts per billion standards, set in 2008 under President George W. Bush. The mayors said the 2008 ozone standards are “widely acknowledged” as insufficient by the medical community and urged the administration to follow the advice of the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other national public health organizations that support more stringent ozone standards. Signatories of the letter include Mayors Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, Bill de Blasio of New York City, Michael Nutter of Philadelphia and William Peduto of Pittsburgh.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

(ACC Mentioned) Groups Seek More Time for Installing Safety System

Sep 22, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

A half-dozen heavyweight business and farm groups are entreating Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to "actively support" a deadline extension for implementation of the automated safety system known as positive train control.
Most freight and commuter railroads won't meet the existing Dec. 31 deadline. Without an extension, some large "Class I" freight carriers are warning that they won't allow passenger traffic or some toxic chemical shipments for fear of the potential liability.
"The safety, public health and economic consequences of such a large-scale service disruption would be dire," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation and four other organizations said in a letter to Foxx released this afternoon. "We urge the Department of Transportation to support a reasonable extension well ahead of the upcoming deadline and encourage you to bring every resource at your disposal to help resolve this pending crisis as soon as possible."
The Obama administration has so far opposed a blanket extension, instead seeking flexibility to work with individual railroads to phase in positive train control.
At a hearing last week, Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator for the Federal Railroad Administration, acknowledged concern over the possible repercussions if the impasse continues but planted the issue squarely in Congress' corner.
"I don't have the authority to extend the deadline," Feinberg told members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. "We will work with this committee in any way we can, but are not able to do it ourselves" (E&E Daily, Sept. 18). Under H.R. 22, approved by the Senate in July, railroads could get at least another three years to comply with positive train control requirements. The House has yet to take up the bill or propose an alternative.
Other groups signing on to today's letter were the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, National Association of Manufacturers and National Retail Federation. The letter was also sent to White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and Jeff Zients, director of the National Economic Council.

Return to headline | Return to top
Feds Move to Accelerate Permitting for Transportation Projects

Sep 22, 2015 | The Hill

By Keith Laing

The Obama administration is moving to accelerate the pace of permitting for federal transportation projects as Congress faces a deadline for extending the nation's infrastructure spending.
The law that authorizes federal transportation funding is currently set to expire on Oct. 29.
The White House Office of Management and Budget, Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Transportation and Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that they are moving to boost the speed of permitting and environmental reviews for projects that are already on the books as they work to convince Congress to approve a new round of infrastructure spending.
“To deliver infrastructure projects that achieve real impacts for the American people, we need to act with urgency and recognize that every day counts,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement. “Today's actions help us get there. We are pushing ourselves to improve efficiency, coordination, and collaboration, so that federal permitting becomes a sprint rather than a relay race."
“Our nation’s economy thrives when the foundation of America’s communities — from roads and bridges to ports and waterways — are built to meet the needs and requirements of the 21st Century,” White House Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan added. “Today’s actions reflect this Administration’s continued commitment to meet those needs by further improving the efficiency of the Federal permitting process in an environmentally sound way and accelerating U.S. economic growth and competitiveness.”
Lawmakers are facing an Oct. 29 deadline for renewing the law that allows infrastructure spending, but the Transportation Department said recently that it has enough money to cover payments to states for transportation projects until June 2016.
Congress been struggling to come up with a way to pay for a long-term extension of the measure after passing a patch in July that lasts only three months.
The national gas tax has been the traditional source of transportation funding since its inception in the 1930s. The tax has not been increased since 1993, however, and improvements in auto fuel efficiency have sapped its purchasing power.
The federal government typically spends about $50 billion per year on transportation projects, but the gas tax only brings in approximately $34 billion annually at its current rate. Lawmakers have turned to other areas of the federal budget in recent years to close the $16 billion per year gap, but transportation advocates have said the resulting temporary funding measures are preventing states from completing large construction projects.
Critics of federal transportation spending have complained for years about the amount of time it takes to review environmental concerns on major infrastructure projects before construction can begin.
Republicans note that the last multiyear transportation funding bill that was approved in 2012 included provisions that called for concurrent permit and environmental reviews to similarly accelerate transportation projects.
White House Council on Environmental Quality managing director Christy Goldfuss said the Obama administration is doing all it can to speed up the process while maintaining its commitment to protecting the environment.
“This administration has worked hard to improve the efficiency of the environmental review processes to ensure Federal permitting decisions and environmental reviews are timely and responsive,” Goldfuss said. “Today’s announcements reflect the Administration’s commitment to conducting the hard work necessary to harmonize economic growth, infrastructure development, and environmental protections.”

Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below

Add recipients

Suggested