Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 09/28

Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) BPA Linked to Low Birth Weights in Baby Girls
Sep 25, 2015 | Scientific American
By Brian Bienkowski

Girls born to mothers with high levels of BPA in their system during the first trimester of pregnancy weigh less at birth than babies with lower exposure, according to a new study.
(ACC Mentioned) CPSC considers ban on toxic flame retardants in household products
Sep 25, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne

For the government's top consumer safety watchdog, protecting Americans from household hazards typically means prodding companies to recall defective products that strangle children, cause life-threatening burns or trigger bone-breaking falls.
Senators Eye TSCA Reform Bill Revisions To Boost Democratic Support
Sep 25, 2015 | Inside Epa
By Bridget di Cosimo

Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), sponsor of legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is weighing requests from other Democratic senators including Ed Markey (D-MA) on possible amendments to the bill that could help boost its backing from the Senate minority and potentially secure a filibuster-proof level of support.
Health Protection to Drive Alternative Toxicity Tests
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

A desire to better protect public health will be the most effective incentive to persuade scientists and regulators to further develop and use toxicity data from nonanimal tests, the director of an interagency center for alternative methods said Sept. 25
California Agency Issues Draft Alternatives Analysis Guidance
Sep 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch

California's Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) has issued draft alternatives analysis guidance for consultation. This aims to help companies adopt safer alternatives to chemicals of concern in products designated under the state's Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.

Chemical Security News

Senators Crafting Safety Bill To Hear From Watchdogs, Industry
Sep 28, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey

Senators mulling legislation to make pipelines in the United States safer will hear from a host of government watchdogs and industry leaders this week.

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) The Shale Gas Revolution Is Not Over, It’s Just On Hold
Sep 24, 2015 | The Fuse
By Nick Cunningham

U.S. oil production has received a lot of attention lately for stalling out and beginning to decline, but the U.S. shale gas revolution also appears to have slowed down, at least for now.
Senate Banking To Move on Crude Exports
Sep 28, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee this week will mark up legislation to repeal the federal ban on exporting crude oil, moving the chamber one step closer to a top energy goal of the Republican Congress.
White House Open to Export Talks as Bill Advances
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey

A key Senate Democrat supportive of lifting the nation's crude export ban said yesterday that the White House remains open to negotiating as long as clean energy incentives, conservation or other provisions are on the table.
California Acts on Low-Carbon Fuel Standard
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

California air quality officials re-adopted the state's landmark low-carbon fuel standard Sept. 25, a move to comply with a court ruling that found the initial rulemaking procedurally flawed.
Vote on Senate Energy Bill Unlikely This Year
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

Broad Senate energy legislation that would expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports is increasingly unlikely to be brought to the Senate floor this year, a Senate Republican leadership aide and others told Bloomberg BNA.
House Committee to Markup Postponed Energy Bill
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

Broad energy legislation will be marked up in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Sept. 30, committee spokesman Dan Schneider told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 25.
Panel to Take Second Shot At Sweeping Bill This Week
Sep 28, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey

The House Energy and Commerce Committee this week will try its hand once again at marking up a voluminous and contentious energy package after punting the job earlier this month.
House Panel to Vote on Divisive Omnibus Bill Next Week
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is slated to cast a vote on a large energy package next week that hit a snag earlier this month over partisan concerns over climate, power prices and the nation's energy markets.
Manchin Cools on Clinton
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin expressed concern yesterday over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's apparent lurch to the left on energy issues.
Fiorina Acknowledges Warming but Blasts Obama's Prescriptions
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin

Unlike a number of her competitors for the Republican presidential nomination, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina isn't looking to pick a fight with climate change scientists: She's said often that she believes the research on global warming and that human activity contributes to it.
Foes of Stricter Ozone Standard Get Ready for EPA Decision
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly

Congressional activity on the national ozone standard is heating up as U.S. EPA nears a deadline next week to choose a final new limit.
Ozone Lawsuits Likely to Focus on Health, Attainability
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio

The seemingly inevitable litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's pending decision on where to set national ozone standards is likely to focus on the health effects of the decision, though industry groups also may challenge the attainability of the standards depending on what the agency's final decision is, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA
U.S.-China Deal Boosts Hope for Paris
Sep 25, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick

News that the world's largest emitting nation will soon cap greenhouse gases across its economy was met with cheers today by environmental groups hopeful that the move helps efforts to secure a global climate deal.
Boehner Move Unlikely to Impact Environment Policy
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) surprise resignation is unlikely to significantly alter the long-term energy and environment landscape in the House, analysts told Bloomberg BNA.
EPA Updates Plan for Possible Government Shutdown
Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

Despite reassurances from senior congressional leaders that they have a plan to prevent a government shutdown, the Environmental Protection Agency will update its contingency plans in case lawmakers are unsuccessful at preventing a lapse in funding.
Week Ahead: EPA Set to Release Ozone Rule
Sep 25, 2015 | The Hill– E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

The Environmental Protection Agency is set to release a contentious new rule limiting surface-level ozone pollution.
DOE: Micro Grids, Modular Nuclear Reactors Coming
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel

The energy system of the near future will include small electric grids and modular nuclear reactors that are connected to a flexible power grid, the undersecretary of energy for science and energy said.
Tom Steyer Calls for Dem Debate on Climate
Sep 25, 2015 | The Hill – E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Billionaire environmentalist donor Tom Steyer is pushing Democrats to devote an entire presidential primary debate to climate change and clean energy.
China to Expand Emissions Trading Nationally
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum and Justin Sink

China will start a national emissions-trading system to cut global warming emissions, and make a 20 billion yuan ($3.1 billion) commitment to help poorer countries move away from fossil fuels.
Energy Empowers the World’s Poor
Sep 25, 2015 | The Hill - Blog
By E. Calvin Beisner, Roy W. Spencer, Rev. Charles A Clough and Timothy D. Terrell

The White House, the United Nations, even the Vatican are in full court press for action to reduce manmade global warming at the climate summit in December.

Transportation News

PTC Deadline to Disrupt Hazmat Shipments: Industry
Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven

The pending deadline for implementation of positive train control (PTC) systems for railroads carrying certain hazardous materials will lead to issues nationwide related to drinking water, safety and the economy, railroads and hazmat shippers told Congress in a slew of letters.

Full Text of Stories Below

Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) BPA Linked to Low Birth Weights in Baby Girls

Sep 25, 2015 | Scientific American

By Brian Bienkowski

Girls born to mothers with high levels of BPA in their system during the first trimester of pregnancy weigh less at birth than babies with lower exposure, according to a new study.
The study adds to evidence that fetal exposure to the ubiquitous chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) may contribute to fetal developmental problems. Low birth weights are linked to a host of health problems later in life, such as obesity, diabetes, infertility and heart disease.
Researchers tested mothers’ blood during their first trimester and at delivery for BPA and also tested umbilical cord blood after delivery. The mothers-to-be were recruited at the University of Michigan Voigtlander Women’s Hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They tested for both BPA and "conjugated BPA," the form BPA takes after the body processes it.
Bottom line: more BPA in woman’s blood meant babies weighed less. For every doubling in free, or unconjugated, BPA in the mothers’ first-term blood, babies weighed, on average, 6.5 ounces less. The research was published today in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
Similarly, for every doubling of free-BPA in the woman’s blood at birth, babies weighed on average 3 ounces less.
“Having small babies at birth is a risk factor for a whole bunch of different things,” said Laura Vandenberg, an assistant professor of environmental health at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who was not involved in the study.
A study released this month out of China found BPA levels in mothers’ urine was linked to low birth weights. That study also found a much stronger association with baby girls.
Unfortunately for pregnant women, BPA—used to make polycarbonate plastic and found in some food cans and paper receipts—is found in most people.
The strong link between the first-term exposure and birth weights makes sense, said Vasantha Padmanabhan, senior author of the study and professor of pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, molecular and integrative physiology and environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan.SEE ALSO:Mind: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Sustainability: How Modern Agriculture Can Save the Gorillas of Virunga | Tech: Are We on the Cusp of War—in Space? | The Sciences: The Mystery of the Cat's Inner Eyelid
“When you think about development, early in the pregnancy is a critical time—when fetuses are most sensitive to insults such as stress, environmental chemicals. That’s why we looked at the first trimester,” she said.
About 8 percent of babies born in the United States suffer from low birth weights, considered less than 5.5 pounds, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Other possible contributors to low birth weights include smoking or drinking alcohol during pregnancy, mothers’ lack of weight gain, mothers’ age and stress.
The University of Michigan study doesn’t prove BPA caused low birth weights. But it could play a role, as the chemical mimics hormones and can disrupt endocrine systems. Even though BPA clears from the body quickly, scientists suspect it could bind to receptors or could be stored in fat for release later.
Proper functioning of these receptors is critical to organ development and function.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, said the study provides “no meaningful information on the safety of BPA.” The council has defended BPA as safe as used in food packaging.
Steve Hentges, a representative of the council, called into question using blood to measure BPA exposure. He also suggested BPA from another source contaminated the blood samples.
Padmanabhan said the study and BPA measurements “represent a true life scenario”, as blood was drawn with a researcher present to ensure no plastic contact.
The researchers did not find a link between BPA levels and baby boys’ weights. It’s not clear why the exposure was only linked to lower birth weights in girls, but the work suggests that females might be more susceptible to BPA exposure before birth.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) CPSC considers ban on toxic flame retardants in household products

Sep 25, 2015 | Chicago Tribune

By Michael Hawthorne

Access to full text unavailable - subscription required. Story can be found here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=cpsc&target=all&spell=on

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Eye TSCA Reform Bill Revisions To Boost Democratic Support

Sep 25, 2015 | Inside Epa

By Bridget di Cosimo

Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), sponsor of legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is weighing requests from other Democratic senators including Ed Markey (D-MA) on possible amendments to the bill that could help boost its backing from the Senate minority and potentially secure a filibuster-proof level of support.
"Sen. Markey has approached Sen. Udall on the issue and Sen. Udall is open to accommodating any changes that can help grow support for the bill, while retaining the bipartisan support it has," a Udall spokeswoman says. At press time the bill, S. 697, had the backing of 31 Republicans and 23 Democrats, including Udall.
One chemical industry source says there have been talks with the bill's leaders, including Republican Sen. David Vitter (LA), on a possible manager's amendment. The hope of those talks is that "some additional discussion could get some additional Democrats -- not only votes, but sponsors," the source says.
The most recent Democrat to sign on as a co-sponsor of the bill was Sen. Tammy Baldwin (WI) on July 16, while the most recent GOP co-sponsors were Sens. Lamar Alexander (TN) and Deb Fischer (NE) on Sept. 22. The legislation would reform the 1976 TSCA, which many stakeholders say needs to be overhauled to give EPA new authority to address risks from existing chemicals in the marketplace, among other changes.
Proponents of the pending reform bill, S. 697, are weighing a floor vote for the measure in October that they believe could secure more than 70 votes, easily enough to overcome a potential filibuster threat from some Democrats, such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who continue to have significant concerns about the legislation. Given that there are 54 Republican senators, securing more support from Democrats will be vital to hit that target.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a sponsor of the S. 697 bill, told a keynote address to the Environmental Council of the States' fall meeting Sept. 2 in Newport, R.I. that the bill should get "north of 70 votes."
Earlier this year, Democratic Sens. Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley (OR) and Cory Booker (NJ) worked with the bill's lead sponsors Vitter and Udall on legislative revisions that included allowing states to be co-enforcers of chemical regulations and modifying the factors for when EPA designates a chemical as a "high priority."
The changes have not been enough to win over Boxer, ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW). The senator has said she opposes the bill because of its sweeping preemption of state chemical programs and other provisions, and has vowed a filibuster to try and block it clearing the Senate.
But the bill's supporters believe they have enough votes to overcome a filibuster should Boxer follow through on her threat. "I suspect [the final support] will be well north of 60 votes," the industry source says.
To help reach that level of backing, Udall appears willing to consider further changes to the bill. A second industry source says that Sens. Markey and Dick Durbin (D-IL) -- who has long advocated TSCA reform but is not a sponsor of S. 697 -- have a "few amendments" crafted in discussions with Udall and environmentalists. "I have not seen the language but have been told that they are 'technical corrections," the source says.
Spokespeople for Markey and Durbin did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Pending Legislation
S. 697 cleared EPW in a 15-5 vote following an April 28 markup, with Sens. Boxer, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Markey, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) voting against the legislation.
None of those senators have subsequently co-sponsored the bill, though Markey's staff have outlined potential changes that, if adopted, could lead the senator to support it. Those revisions include increasing industry funding for EPA chemical assessments and speeding agency reviews of certain substances.
Markey's environmental policy advisor Michael Freedhoff told a July 27 forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., that the senator wants the legislation revised to set an $18 million cap on industry funding of EPA chemical reviews, and to tighten a seven-year window for EPA reviews of persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs) for which risks are already well understood.
Freedhoff also said concerns remain with S. 697 and a competing House measure about the scope of federal preemption of state laws and how compromises on that issue will be implemented. For Markey, a remaining concern on preemption is ensuring states are not preempted by federal chemical restrictions that may not take effect for years.
Vitter and Udall have indicated that while they will allow some amendments when the bill goes to a floor vote in the coming weeks, they oppose major changes that could cost the bill its broad bipartisan support.
Sources have said that October may be the target for a floor vote, and Udall said in a statement to Inside EPA, "I'm in regular communication with Senate leadership, and there absolutely is time in the calendar to take up TSCA reform." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been "very encouraging," and the bill's leaders are "continuing to work with any senators who want to have a constructive contribution on improvements to our bill," Udall says.
McConnell's office did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Conference Committee
Even if the Senate holds a successful floor vote on S. 697 in October, lawmakers will still have to hold a conference committee to resolve differences between the bill and the narrower House bill, H.R. 2576. That measure cleared the House in a 398-1 vote in late June.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), who authored the House legislation, previously said that the two chambers will eventually hold "staff to staff meetings" to discuss the bills and options, including "informal conference, negotiating on the same bill, [or] formal conference."
The eventual conference talks could include discussion of some of the lingering concerns advocates have about TSCA reform, including criticisms of various provisions in S. 697.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) -- which has not endorsed the Senate bill -- is highlighting language in the legislation that it says would weaken EPA's authority to identify uses of chemicals of concern in everyday products. NRDC also warns the language could weaken the agency's power to prevent such substances' importation from overseas, saying President Obama should veto the bill if the language is not removed.
"The current provision creates additional legal hurdles before EPA can require notification about products that contain toxic chemicals the agency believes could harm public health or the environment," under its significant new use rule (SNUR) authority, writes Daniel Rosenberg, NRDC senior attorney, in a Sept. 16 blog post.
Under current TSCA authority, EPA issues SNURs to require notice at least 90 days before a new use of a chemical is adopted, which gives EPA an opportunity to obtain more information if necessary and make a decision whether limitations should be imposed on the production or use of the chemical.
"The new provision goes well beyond these general factors for consideration, and imposes a new limitation on EPA -- that it cannot impose a significant new use reporting requirement on an article being imported or processed in the U.S. unless the Administrator makes 'an affirmative finding' that 'the reasonable potential for exposure to the chemical substance through the article or category of articles subject to the rule warrants notification,'" Rosenberg wrote.

Return to headline | Return to top
Health Protection to Drive Alternative Toxicity Tests

Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

A desire to better protect public health will be the most effective incentive to persuade scientists and regulators to further develop and use toxicity data from nonanimal tests, the director of an interagency center for alternative methods said Sept. 25.“I believe it's public health that will drive the development of alternative methods,” said Warren Casey, director of the National Toxicology Program's Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM).The proliferation of scientific knowledge on how bodies work combined with publicized problems that have occurred with some pharmaceuticals—despite the extensive tests they must have prior to approval—has shown that animal models don't do a good enough job predicting human responses to chemicals, pesticides and drugs, Casey said.“The animal models that used to be good enough are no longer good enough,” Casey said. “We need better models to predict public health.”Casey spoke during Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving from Research to Regulatory Testing. The two-day workshop at the National Institutes of Health was held by NICEATM, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA International Science Consortium Ltd.Routine Tests, UsesThe workshop's goal was to craft a list of specific actions participants would undertake in the next three years. Those actions would be intended to help reduce, replace and refine the use of mammals in tests that provide regulators and safety officials information on potential harms following short-term, high exposure to chemicals.Six traditional tests, commonly referred to as “the six-pack,” provide data about oral toxicity, dermal toxicity, inhalation toxicity, eye irritation, dermal irritation and dermal sensitization.Data from the traditional battery of acute toxicity tests are used for routine business activities such as determining:• how chemicals, pesticides and pharmaceuticals should be labeled for transport;• the scope of emergency response needed should an accident or spill occur;• hazard communication information for workers; and• the extent of personal protective equipment workers would need if they were exposed to the compound.Acute toxicity data also commonly are used for product stewardship decisions such as setting “fence limits,” airborne standards for chemicals a facility emits, and identifying site-specific workplace practices a company will use, participants said.Using traditional animal-based tests requires about 60 rats, mice and rabbits per battery of six tests, Sean Gehen, a research scientist in Dow AgroSciences, said Sept. 24.Alternatives or ‘Institutional Inertia.’Alternative tests discussed during the workshop include computer-based models, or “in silico” tests; cellular, or in vitro, tests; and lower taxa tests, meaning the use of tiny worms, zebrafish or other nontraditional, nonmammalian species.NICEATM's Casey said three factors driving companies and regulators toward alternative tests are:• concerns about the ethics of testing animals;• a desire to have more predictive toxicity tests; and• economics, or a desire to have more efficient and cheaper tests that could detect a wider range of chemicals.Nevertheless, “institutional inertia favors the use of animal-based methods and provides a rationale to resist change,” Casey said.Change could mean job losses, for example, if scientists trained in animal-based methods were replaced by scientists trained in nonanimal methods, he said.“It's not just about the science; there are a lot of social and policy issues we have to address,” Casey said.Specifics NeededParticipants said it is essential to develop fundamental information about the specific acute toxicity tests that different organizations use; a roster of agencies, occupational health specialists and other groups that use them; and the purposes for which such groups use acute toxicity test data.Participants volunteered to participate in these and other activities before the workshop ended Sept. 25.Tasks workshop participants said they would undertake included:• creating a roster of existing acute toxicity databases, who owns them, and how accessible they are;• publishing a white paper on the regulatory and nonregulatory uses of systemic toxicity data;• identifying specific situations in which acute toxicity tests are commonly required, but may not be needed, such as the development of acute toxicity data for the package of information medical device manufacturers are required to generate; and• identifying institutions, research initiatives and other organizations or efforts focused on improved acute toxicity data and collaborating with them.A list of specific actions workshop participants will undertake will be included in a workshop summary that NICEATM expects to publish by early 2016, Casey told Bloomberg BNA.In addition to the three hosts, workshop participants represented public and private sector organizations including the 3M Co., Consumer Product Safety Commission, Department of Defense, Dow Chemical Co., Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, the European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing and the Humane Society of the United States.

Return to headline | Return to top
California Agency Issues Draft Alternatives Analysis Guidance

Sep 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch

California's Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) has issued draft alternatives analysis guidance for consultation. This aims to help companies adopt safer alternatives to chemicals of concern in products designated under the state's Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
Manufacturers of products designated by the agency as "priority products" must develop an alternatives analysis (AA). These will then inform the DTSC's regulatory response to the specified chemicals of concern (CW 15 December 2014).
The agency says that because a “hastily substituted alternative” can lead to unintended consequences it plans to develop an AA process to avoid such “regrettable substitutions”.
Set out in the draft guidance is the need for “a comprehensive alternatives analysis with a broad scope [that] will consider a wide variety of effects and avoid shifting the problem from one phase of the lifecycle to another, from one region to another, or from one environmental impact to another” (GBB November 2014).
Included in the guidance are:steps and approaches for conducting an AA;tools and methods for completing these steps;approaches for collecting relevant data; anddetails on reporting requirements under the SCP programme.
According to the agency, the SCP programme employs a lifecycle perspective, and therefore encompasses a broad range of considerations that manufacturers should factor into their evaluation of alternatives.
These factors go “beyond traditional product performance and price considerations toward a more comprehensive cost and effectiveness evaluation that includes health, safety and environmental considerations throughout a product’s lifecycle,” it says.
Listed in the guidance document are dozens of considerations for AAs. These include:adverse environmental impacts (for example effects on air or water quality, ecological impacts);adverse human health effects (such as carcinogenicity, developmental toxicity);environmental fate (for example bioaccumulation, biodegradability, persistence); andphysical chemical hazards (for example flammability, combustion).
The draft also calls for consideration of exposure pathways, economic effects, and the product's performance and functionality.
Initial priority products proposed by the agency are:paint strippers with methylene chloride;spray polyurethane foam with unreacted MDI; andchildren's foam-padded sleeping products with flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP.
Once the proposed priority products are finalised through a formal rulemaking – expected next year – manufacturers or trade groups will have 180 days to submit a draft AA, and must have a finalised analysis within a year. Final AAs will be subject to public comment.
The draft guidance covers the first stage of an AA's development. A draft document for the second stage is expected in December.
Comments on the proposed guide are due by 23 October. The DTSC asks respondents “to provide the names of tools, methods, approaches, and data sources not already mentioned, as well as examples for steps and approaches to complete an AA.”

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Senators Crafting Safety Bill To Hear From Watchdogs, Industry

Sep 28, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Hannah Northey

Senators mulling legislation to make pipelines in the United States safer will hear from a host of government watchdogs and industry leaders this week.
A Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee is holding its second hearing on pipeline safety tomorrow and will hear from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, as well as the National Transportation Safety Board, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and American Gas Association.
The first field hearing was held in Billings, Mont., earlier this month, where the focus was the summer oil spill in the Yellowstone River.
Marie Therese Dominguez, who leads the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, spoke at that hearing and addressed the pipeline rupture that spilled almost 40,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River. Exxon Mobil Corp., which operated the pipeline, was later slapped with a $1 million penalty (E&E Daily, Sept. 15).
The full Senate committee is considering crafting a pipeline safety bill and will consider testimony from witnesses before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security tomorrow, said Lauren Hammond, a spokeswoman for the panel.
Much of the focus in recent months has been on PHMSA, which has been accused of failing to enact congressionally mandated pipeline safeguards, including spill notifications and the use of automatic and remote-control shut-off valves. The agency has responded by stepping up its pace in implementing the law and beefing up its staffing.
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, Sept. 29, at 2:30 p.m. in 253 Russell.
Witnesses: Susan Fleming, director of physical infrastructure at the Government Accountability Office; Christopher Hart, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board; Michael Bellamy, general manager of PII Pipeline Solutions; Don Santa, president and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; and Terry McCallister, chairman and CEO of WGL Holdings Inc., who will be representing the American Gas Association.

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) The Shale Gas Revolution Is Not Over, It’s Just On Hold

Sep 24, 2015 | The Fuse

By Nick Cunningham

U.S. oil production has received a lot of attention lately for stalling out and beginning to decline, but the U.S. shale gas revolution also appears to have slowed down, at least for now. It’s far from over: New sources of demand and improved drilling efficiency will mitigate damage to the industry in the medium term, but for now, the shale gas industry appears to be experiencing a painful adjustment that is impacting both company balance sheets as well as U.S. production as a whole.
Years before the boom in shale oil production, drillers were extracting massive volumes of natural gas by fracturing shale. As a result, U.S. natural gas production surged by more than 40 percent between 2006 and 2015, making the country the world’s largest producer.
The dramatic rise in shale gas production caused prices to crash. Henry Hub spot prices for natural gas routinely traded above $6 per million Btu (MMBtu) in the years preceding the shale boom, but since early 2010, natural gas prices have remained below $5/MMBtu and are now trading at just $2.5/MMBtu.
The flood of shale gas has been a huge boon for consumers, contributing to a petrochemical and manufacturing revival, but the resulting price drop has been bad for gas drillers. The rig count began falling in 2011, and continues to this day.
Conventional wisdom was that the precipitous fall in the number of gas rigs in operation would lead to a decline in natural gas production. But the opposite occurred in shale regions around the country: Production kept on climbing.
For example, in the Marcellus Shale—which stretches across Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia—natural gas production jumped from less than 4 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) in early 2011 to more than 16 bcf/d in 2015, a fourfold increase at a time of falling prices and a falling rig count.
How did this happen? One important reason is increased drilling efficiency. As producers gained experience, they tweaked their drilling practices, adding more wells per wellpad, extending laterals, using more sand per frack job, and a number of other ways to extract more gas with each given rig. As such, the amount of gas produced from an average rig steadily climbed over the years. Many are viewing this phenomenon as evidence that U.S. tight oil production can thrive even in the face of falling rig counts and low prices.
But another reason that natural gas production continued to rise even as rig counts fell is that natural gas is often produced in conjunction with oil. After natural gas prices crashed, there was an exodus from the “gassier” regions, but instead of leaving the market altogether, drillers focused on extracting liquids. This was a logical development: Natural gas prices had cratered, but oil prices were routinely trading above $100 per barrel between 2011 and 2014. Shale drillers managed to ratchet up oil production at an impressive clip, putting U.S. oil production on par with Saudi Arabia and Russia for the first time in decades. In the meantime, even as drillers were targeting liquids, they often simultaneously pulled up natural gas—one of the reasons U.S. gas production remained so robust.
Oil decline hurts natural gas
But the party could be over. The historic collapse in oil prices could put an end to the shale gas boom in a way that the collapse in natural gas prices could not. As oil drillers back off, oil production is starting to fall, and now so is gas production.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in its September Drilling Productivity Report that it expects natural gas production to decline in the major U.S. shale basins by a combined 208 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) from September to October, led by losses from the Eagle Ford (-117 MMcf/d) and the Marcellus (-82 MMcf/d). In fact, gross withdrawals of U.S. natural gas might have peaked in the spring of 2015 at 91 bcf/d, having fallen in consecutives months since then.
Natural gas producers could be rescued by new pockets of demand, however. Cheap gas has sparked a flood of investment in petrochemicals, a major source of demand for natural gas. According to the American Chemistry Council, there are an estimated 226 petrochemical projects related to shale gas currently underway, accounting for at least $138 billion in capital investment. As new facilities producing plastics, fertilizers, and other industrial products come online, more natural gas will be consumed. The EIA projects that natural gas consumption in the industrial sector will rise by 6.4 percent in 2016 as a backlog of petrochemical and industrial projects are completed.
Natural gas is also increasingly stealing market share away from coal in the electric power sector. Utilities are taking advantage of cheap gas while also seeking to comply with more stringent environmental regulations on power plant emissions. That is forcing a wave of coal plant closures, with new natural gas plants springing up to take their place. The EIA says that natural gas consumption in the electric power sector will rise by 14.4 percent in 2015.
Another source of demand for U.S. natural gas is from overseas markets. Cheniere Energy is slated to bring its Sabine Pass liquefaction facility online by the end of this year, the first LNG export terminal in the Lower 48. The inauguration of Sabine Pass will mark the dawn of a new era in which the U.S. becomes a significant gas exporter.
In the short-term, however, LNG will only leave a small mark on the demand side. In 2016, the U.S. could see an average of 0.79 bcf/d in LNG exports, which will add only about 1 percent to demand. But with a few other export facilities under construction and a huge list of other projects on the drawing board, LNG exports could rise in the years ahead. To be sure, though, the fall of LNG spot prices around the world might keep many of these proposed projects from moving forward. Nevertheless, new export facilities will open up new markets for American gas producers, which could help prop up production in the years ahead.
Natural gas not a bust after all
Natural gas production might have peaked for now, but efficiency gains and improved drilling techniques allows producers to profitably extract gas even when prices are remarkably low. Meanwhile, demand is resilient, likely preventing prices from dropping further.
A new report from Raymond James concludes that production cutbacks could be limited, leveling off in 2015 and 2016. As the bank sees it, oil producers will head back to drilling following an expected rebound in crude prices, and natural gas will see a corresponding increase in production. So while the shale gas revolution may be tempered for now, fundamentals suggest the sector has plenty of room to grow.

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Banking To Move on Crude Exports

Sep 28, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee this week will mark up legislation to repeal the federal ban on exporting crude oil, moving the chamber one step closer to a top energy goal of the Republican Congress.
Supporters of lifting the ban have seen an uptick of momentum in recent weeks, including this month's approval by the House Energy and Commerce Committee of repeal legislation (H.R. 702) sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). That measure is expected to come to the House floor the week of Oct. 5.
And the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in late July passed companion legislation sponsored by Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), as part of a broader package (S. 2011) that also would expand offshore revenues with coastal states (Greenwire, July 30).
The Banking panel on Thursday will take up separate legislation (S. 1372), sponsored by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), that would authorize crude exports, which are largely restricted by a 1970s-era law enacted in the wake of the Mideast oil embargo.
The domestic oil boom has prompted an all-out push by U.S. producers to repeal the ban, with the collapse of global prices resulting from an oil glut adding impetus to the pressure, as drilling begins to lag from lack of demand.
Heitkamp's measure, also sponsored by Murkowski, addresses aspects of the issue under the jurisdiction of the Banking panel, which oversees commodities (Greenwire, May 19).
However, repeal prospects in the Senate remain fluid, in part because of appetite among members of both parties for a legislative deal that would lift the ban in exchange for advancing Democratic priorities, including expanding tax breaks for renewables (Greenwire, Sept. 25).

Return to headline | Return to top
White House Open to Export Talks as Bill Advances

Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Hannah Northey

A key Senate Democrat supportive of lifting the nation's crude export ban said yesterday that the White House remains open to negotiating as long as clean energy incentives, conservation or other provisions are on the table.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp's (N.D.) comments came as the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee scheduled a markup Thursday of her legislation to lift the ban.
Heitkamp said during an interview that she's in discussions with the Obama administration and pivotal agencies about ending the decades-old ban, and comments from White House officials earlier this month did not signal that the president is completely opposed.
"You have to read very carefully to what they said, which wasn't 'No, never, this would be the worst idea in the world,'" Heitkamp said. "It was 'It can't be done in isolation,' and I think you heard that both from the White House and Hillary Clinton. We hope to have this resolved before Hillary Clinton would have any role in decisionmaking."
Heitkamp was referring to comments White House spokesman Josh Earnest made at a briefing last week, in which he said lifting the ban should occur at the Commerce Department, not on Capitol Hill.
Earnest also said the White House would not support Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton's bill,H.R. 702, to lift the ban (E&ENews PM, Sept. 15).
The full House could vote on Barton's bill as early as next week (E&E Daily, Sept. 24).
"What you heard from both [the White House and Clinton] is it's got to have a broader dialogue on this issue," she said, adding that it's unlikely language to lift the export ban could move on its own. "It maybe could ... but it certainly won't get enough votes to sustain a veto."
The Senate Banking Committee yesterday announced it would mark up Heitkamp's bill, S. 1372, the "American Crude Oil Export Equality Act," on Thursday.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the panel's chairman, had told reporters earlier this month that the legislation could move through his committee, and Heitkamp rejected the notion that Shelby waited to hold the vote until she reached a deal with other senators or the White House.
"Folks interested in this aren't necessarily on the committee anyway, and they aren't all on the Energy Committee, so moving these bills out gives us an opportunity to have that dialogue," the senator said.

Return to headline | Return to top
California Acts on Low-Carbon Fuel Standard

Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

California air quality officials re-adopted the state's landmark low-carbon fuel standard Sept. 25, a move to comply with a court ruling that found the initial rulemaking procedurally flawed.The unanimous vote by the California Air Resources Board preserved the basic framework of a program the petroleum and ethanol industry have sought to derail since it was ordered by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in 2007.The low-carbon fuel standard requires transportation fuels by 2020 to be 10 percent less carbon-intensive than they were in 2010. Designed to complement the state's other climate and clean air programs, the standard also aims to encourage the development of cleaner fuels to reduce reliance on petroleum.As in the initial standard, the re-adopted regulations establish methodologies for calculating the life-cycle of carbon emissions of fuels and establish a market-based system for compliance. Producers of low-carbon fuels earn credits they may either use or sell to others for compliance purposes. The program is fuel-neutral, focusing only on the carbon intensity of the fuels, CARB said.The latest version of the regulations offers regulated entities more flexibility, updates carbon intensity calculation tools, adds a cost-containment measure, improves the process for earning credits through electrical vehicle charging, streamlines the administrative process for approving pathways for low-carbon fuels and adjusts the compliance curve between 2016 and 2020, CARB staff said.After the vote, CARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols told Bloomberg BNA she believes the rulemaking will satisfy the court order.CARB must still submit the rulemaking to the Office of Administrative Law for approval and then to the court. The anticipated effective date is Jan. 1, 2016.Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Works“As we heard yesterday, the low-carbon fuel standard is working,” Nichols said before calling for the vote. “We have seen compliance and in fact over-compliance,” and the standard is “spawning cleaner and safer fuels.” In addition, it is spreading beyond the state, she said, referring to similar standards adopted in Oregon and British Columbia.Later in a written statement, Nichols said the “program is a key element of California's plans to enact Governor Brown's Executive Order mandating a 50 percent cut in petroleum use by 2030.”Currently, the standard only runs through 2020, but CARB's planned update to the road map to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is likely to continue the measure beyond that date.While the regulation has survived legal challenges in federal court, a state appeals court in 2013 held that CARB, in adopting the implementing regulations, violated the California Environmental Quality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court ordered the agency to re-adopt the regulations, but it left the existing regulations in place (POET LLC v. CARB, Cal. Ct. App., No. F064045, 7/15/13; 137 DEN A-14, 7/17/13).Challenges May Be AheadBased on written comments and testimony at the Sept. 24 hearing that preceded the vote, CARB may be facing renewed legal challenges.“We believe CARB has not complied with the court's writ,” John Kinsey, a representative for the ethanol industry group Growth Energy, said Sept. 24.The impact analysis for recent revisions to CARB's February 2015 proposal to replace the original regulations violates the CEQA, Kinsey said in urging the agency's governing board to not re-adopt the standard “at this time.”In more than 800 pages of written comments, Growth Energy said the low-carbon fuel standard is “fatally flawed,” that CARB's latest rulemaking effort violated CEQA and the Administrative Procedure Act requirements and that the agency cut a back-room deal on a related rule with the biodiesel industry.CARB staff and attorneys defended the re-adoption process, the environmental analysis for the rulemaking and updates to the program as being compliant with the laws. The agency's legal team and even the state attorney general's office carefully vetted the rulemaking documents, staff said.The science and data behind the rulemaking were based on 700 scholarly studies and peer reviewed, CARB counsel William Brieger said in responding to Growth Energy's allegations. One peer reviewer from Carnegie Mellon University said the low-carbon fuel standard was one of “the most impressive academic efforts” he has seen in his career, Brieger said.Related Rule Encourages Alternative DieselIn a separate vote, CARB adopted rules establishing a three-stage process to advance the commercialization of alternative diesel fuels. The rules also include in-use requirements to control nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel, another effort to satisfy the 2013 court order.“This policy, the first of its kind in the world, compels the market to find and produce the cleanest fuels possible,” State Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D) said in a Sept. 25 written statement. “By requiring an overall reduction in the carbon intensity of our fuels, but not prescribing the use of specific alternatives to petroleum, the [low carbon fuel standard] encourages private sector competition, innovation, and job creation. This competition benefits Californians on numerous levels, including through improved health and fuel cost-savings.”CARB's latest iteration of the low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) and the alternative diesel fuels rules won high praise from environmental groups and clean fuel and transportation groups, some of whom had feared legislative leaders were wavering from their once aggressive stance on climate policies.Earlier this month, California's Democratic leaders stripped a bill (S.B. 350) of a provision that sought to cut vehicle-related petroleum use 50 percent by 2030 after a well-funded campaign by the oil industry eroded support for the measure and raised concerns about the state's effort to advance Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) aggressive climate policies.Brown Vows Administrative ActionIn abandoning the petroleum mandate in S.B. 350, Brown vowed to pursue efforts to curb the use of petroleum fuels administratively, through regulations such as the low-carbon fuel standard.Re-adoption of the low-carbon fuel standard and approval of the alternative diesel fuel rules will “send a signal that California is indeed committed to reducing the use of petroleum in motor vehicles,” Bill Magavern of the Coalition for Clean Air said at the Sept. 24 hearing.Other environmental and public health advocates testifying at the hearing echoed his call for re-adoption.“This program has been critical to California, and it is important to the clean fuels industry,” Simon Mui, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's California clean vehicles and fuels program, said. “We've been at this for four or five years. The program is working. We've seen a 20 percent increase in lower carbon fuel use.”Trade groups representing the clean fuels and vehicle industry said the low-carbon fuel standard is helping drive the introduction of cleaner fuels and improving the state's economy.“We view the LCFS as a job creator in California,” John Boesel, president and chief executive officer of CALSTART Inc., an organization working to advance clean transportation technologies, said.California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition President Tim Carmichael said members of his group “are excited” about the changes to the low-carbon fuel standard.Moving in Right Direction“We've made it better,” Carmichael said. “There's more work to be done in the future, but we're moving in the right direction.”Melinda Hicks, environmental and safety manager at Kern Oil & Refining Co., also supported the re-adopted regulations, especially provisions that allow low energy, less complex refineries like Kern's to use a revised carbon intensity calculation for their crude.“We have embraced the LCFS,” Hicks said. The new provisions will correct the initial regulations' disproportionate impact on low energy refineries such as Kern's, Hicks said.The Renewal Fuels Association approved of provisions in the re-adopted standard that recognize a process for the recertification of fuels approved under the earlier version of the regulations, according to its written comments.But the ethanol industry group took issue with other requirements and continued its “strong” objection to CARB's indirect land-use change values for corn ethanol, saying it doesn't reflect the latest science and data.Score Card Being DevelopedAt the Sept. 24 hearing, the Western States Petroleum Association renewed its long-standing opposition to the low-carbon fuel program. Association members include Chevron and other oil companies.“We continue to be concerned about the LCFS,” Tiffany Roberts, WSPA's director of fuels and climate policy, said.Among other thing, the association objected to revisions that offer additional opportunities to earn credits through electric vehicle charging.All along, WSPA has questioned the long-term feasibility of the low-carbon fuel standard, particularly about the future availability of low-carbon fuels to supply the credits needed to comply.“Optimistic assumptions are embedded in the program,” Roberts told Bloomberg BNA.WSPA is developing a low-carbon fuel standard “score card” to help track the development of new fuels and monitor the program, Roberts said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Vote on Senate Energy Bill Unlikely This Year

Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

Broad Senate energy legislation that would expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports is increasingly unlikely to be brought to the Senate floor this year, a Senate Republican leadership aide and others told Bloomberg BNA.Although the legislation (S. 2012) was easily approved by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 18-4 in July, finding multiple weeks to consider an energy bill is doubtful, with work remaining on major bills to fund the government, finance transportation programs and raise the debt limit, among others, the aide said.Others who are tracking the bill, which is supported by groups representing companies such as Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Noble Energy Inc., agree that its path forward looks uncertain.Weakening Prospects“With each day that goes by, the prospects for that bill get weaker,” Kateri Callahan, president of the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy, told Bloomberg BNA in an interview.The 423-page bill incudes provisions that would strengthen building codes, among other energy efficiency measures, as well as provisions that would increase cybersecurity protections for the electricity grid and expedite licensing process for hydropower projects (147 DEN A-4, 7/31/15).A decision to delay the Energy Policy Modernization Act until 2016, an election year, further complicates its prospects, analysts said.“Even when it cleared the Senate energy committee, we were not optimistic [the bill] would make it across the finish line during the 114th Congress,” Kevin Book, managing director of research for ClearView Energy Partners, said in an interview.Focus on Other MattersAsked about the prospects for the bill, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) focus has been on passing a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded before current appropriations expire at month's end.“The response back [from leadership] is we've got to get on the other side into the new fiscal year and we need to do it without a shutdown,” Murkowski said.A committee spokesman didn't return a request for comment.

Return to headline | Return to top
House Committee to Markup Postponed Energy Bill

Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

Broad energy legislation will be marked up in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Sept. 30, committee spokesman Dan Schneider told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 25.The bill, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act (H.R. 8), would streamline the federal siting process for interstate natural gas pipelines and allow the Energy Department to take certain measures during “grid security emergencies.”The bill had been scheduled for committee consideration Sept. 17 but was postponed amidst a disagreement over amendments between committee Republicans and Democrats.The bill was postponed from consideration in part over power grid reliability language that could require the use of more coal and a provision that would bar the DOE from participating in the development of energy efficiency building codes (181 DEN A-3, 9/18/15).The bill also has been delayed over disagreements on whether to include a provision, opposed by committee Democrats, that would repeal a 2007 law requiring that all new and significantly renovated federal buildings phase out the use of fossil energy by 2030, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, previously told Bloomberg BNA.While Republicans on the committee almost certainly have the votes to pass the legislation, full committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has sought bipartisan support for the legislation and to avoid including provisions that would draw a veto.This likely will be Upton's last chance at a broad energy bill before he is required to give up the gavel at the end of this congressional session because of Republican rules limiting how long a representative can serve as chair of a committee.

Return to headline | Return to top
Panel to Take Second Shot At Sweeping Bill This Week

Sep 28, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Hannah Northey

The House Energy and Commerce Committee this week will try its hand once again at marking up a voluminous and contentious energy package after punting the job earlier this month.
Democrats and Republicans will likely air their differing views about how energy legislation should tackle the issues of climate change, market reform and the nation's energy mix when opening statements are heard beginning tomorrow.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said amendments to the bill will be officially welcome when the measure is marked up on Wednesday. The committee is also slated to consider reconciliation recommendations to defund Planned Parenthood, invest in women's health care, and protect taxpayer dollars from the health care law's Prevention and Public Health Fund. The panel will also vote on a separate bill aimed at protecting children from exposure to liquid nicotine.
Whitfield said during an interview last week that the committee would follow regular order and that the markup could last a large chunk of the day.
The committee scrapped plans to mark up the energy bill earlier this month after a bipartisan rift over a host of issues surfaced.
Whitfield said after the markup was delayed that the two sides could not agree on "simple things," citing Democrats' opposition to language that would repeal a ban on the federal government using energy from fossil fuel until 2030.
Another point of contention, he said, is Republicans' push to ease the government's role in setting building code standards (Greenwire, Sept. 17).
While it's unclear what amendments could be offered, members on both sides of the aisle have outlined their policy wish lists in the past -- language that could show up in committee.
When the bill moved through subcommittee, for example, Reps. Gene Green (D-Texas) and Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) pushed for language addressing liquefied natural gas exports in an earlier version of the bill that was scrapped.
A prior iteration of the measure would have, among other things, required the Energy Department to make a final decision on LNG export applications within 30 days of completion of National Environmental Policy Act review requirements (Greenwire, July 22).
Green also said he hopes to see a return of language that aims to coordinate cross-border energy infrastructure projects with Canada and Mexico, as well as stripped language that would have obviated the need for a presidential permit to construct liquid and natural gas pipelines as well as electric transmission facilities that cross U.S. borders.
Also at that time, a host of Democrats called for language in the final package to bolster energy efficiency and renewables, streamline hydropower licensing, and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Schedule: The markup will begin with opening statements only on Tuesday, Sept. 29, at 4 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, and continue Wednesday, Sept. 30, in the same location at 10 a.m.

Return to headline | Return to top
House Panel to Vote on Divisive Omnibus Bill Next Week

Sep 25, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Hannah Northey

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is slated to cast a vote on a large energy package next week that hit a snag earlier this month over partisan concerns over climate, power prices and the nation's energy markets.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said today that the committee will mark up the bill Wednesday under regular order and amendments will be offered up at that time.
"We were having difficulty reaching agreement on the energy bill anyway, so we're going to do a markup on Wednesday," Whitfield said. "We're basically going to do regular order and have a lot of amendments, and we'll see ... what we come up with."
The committee scrapped plans to mark up the bill last week after a rift among Republicans and Democrats surfaced. Whitfield later said the two sides could not agree on "simple things" like Democrats' opposition to language that would repeal a ban on the federal government using energy from fossil fuel until 2030.
Another point of contention, he said, is Republicans' push to ease the government's role in setting building code standards (Greenwire, Sept. 17).
Whitfield said today that he doesn't expect energy legislation to be affected by Speaker John Boehner's announcement today that the Ohio Republican plans to resign at the end of next month, but Whitfield conceded there are larger problems in the House that need to be addressed.
"Hopefully, we can get back to the day when chairmen, members of Congress and committees have more independence so we can come up with the best product," he said. "We're focusing on energy; we're going to mark up our bill."

Return to headline | Return to top
Manchin Cools on Clinton

Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Manuel Quiñones

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin expressed concern yesterday over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's apparent lurch to the left on energy issues.
Earlier this year, Manchin made positive comments about Clinton's candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination and said she would be better on energy issues than the Obama administration.
But Clinton's backing of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and now her opposition to the Keystone XL oil pipeline put her further away ideologically from moderates like Manchin and closer to party liberals.
"That was very disappointing. It really was," Manchin said about Clinton's comments this week. He cited State Department studies saying KXL would not have a significant net effect on global greenhouse gas emissions.
Manchin, like other KXL defenders, said pipelines are safer for transporting oil than rail. "It's very dangerous. In West Virginia, we had a horrible explosion," he said.
Environmental activists and landowners who oppose KXL don't think the pipeline will replace much oil rail traffic. They instead see it as additional fossil fuel infrastructure.
For Manchin, reasonable candidates and advocates must recognize that fossil fuels remain a part of the country's energy portfolio for the foreseeable future.
"Use them cleaner, which is what I've been saying," said Manchin. Having an energy plan without considering fossil fuels, "that's not being realistic," he added.
In April, Manchin told West Virginia MetroNews he thought Clinton was in the realistic column, and said her energy and environmental policies would be more balanced than President Obama's (E&E Daily, April 21).
"I absolutely do believe that it will be different. I believe it will be more pragmatic," Manchin said at the time about a potential Clinton administration.
Then, when Clinton told senators in July that she understood the plight of coal miners, Manchin was even more reassured about his party's potential presidential nominee (E&E Daily, July 16).
"I think it will be a very understanding policy, an all-in energy policy, and using the technology for the betterment of our ability to help the climate," said Manchin.
Manchin had said he considered Clinton to have positive views about coal. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity had also pointed to Clinton's pro-coal comments while trying to win Appalachian primaries during her first presidential campaign.
If Clinton changed her mind about fossil fuels, Manchin had said, "then I'll re-evaluate my support. I assure you of that. I don't think that'll happen."
Yesterday, Manchin said, "I haven't truly sat down with Clinton, which I want to do," to find out her views on fossil fuels and research. "I'll give her the benefit of the doubt until we sit and talk about it."
ACCCE, for its part, went from pushing Clinton to repeat pro-coal positions to warning her that support for the Clean Power Plan could cost her at the polls. Environmentalists say the opposite.
There is less disagreement, however, that Clinton's leftward turn on energy may be to ward off other Democratic presidential hopefuls like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) (Greenwire, Sept. 23).

Return to headline | Return to top
Fiorina Acknowledges Warming but Blasts Obama's Prescriptions

Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Jennifer Yachnin

Unlike a number of her competitors for the Republican presidential nomination, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina isn't looking to pick a fight with climate change scientists: She's said often that she believes the research on global warming and that human activity contributes to it.
Instead, she wants to do battle with the environmentalists.
Fiorina, who surged into second place in several polls following last weeks' GOP primary debate, has yet to issue a formal energy platform, but in numerous interviews and campaign appearances in recent months, she has criticized the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan while arguing that the United States can have little impact on global warming.
"I think we have to read all the fine print," Fiorina told Yahoo news anchor Katie Couric in May. Her campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this article. "Every one of the scientists that tell us that climate change is real and being caused by man-made activity also tell us that a single nation acting alone can make no difference at all."
Fiorina, who unsuccessfully challenged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) for her California seat in 2010, went on to criticize both California and federal initiatives to address carbon emissions, framing such efforts as "destroying people's lives and livelihoods."
The Republican candidate argued that, instead, government should aim to spur "innovation," although she has not said whether that should include federal tax breaks or other incentives for clean energy technologies.
"We have to focus on how to make coal cleaner," Fiorina said in the May interview. "Coal provides half the energy in this nation, still, not to mention around the world. So to say we're going to basically outlaw coal, which is what this administration has done, is so self-defeating. It destroys jobs. It destroys communities. It's not helping us. It's not helping global warming. Let's get on with the innovation about how to make sure we actually have clean coal technology."
During an interview in June at a forum sponsored by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the website RealClearPolitics.com, Fiorina went on to call for the repeal of the Clean Power Plan.
She argued that regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants are "terrible."
"Every single one of them should be repealed," Fiorina said, according to The Washington Examiner.
She also reiterated her support for so-called clean coal technology at the event, while offering a lukewarm endorsement of wind energy as "fine."
"Meanwhile, it is slicing up birds day after day after day," Fiorina pointed out.
Fiorina has remained a relatively consistent track record on energy development dating back to her work on Arizona Sen. John McCain's failed 2008 presidential run.
"I think we can't simply say we need to reduce greenhouse emissions. We have to also say -- encourage people to go after these new technologies," Fiorina said in a May 2008 interview on ABC's "This Week."
At the time, Fiorina similarly urged incentives to private businesses "to innovate and set the best course of action," while discouraging government mandates for specific forms of energy generation (ClimateWire, Oct. 7, 2008).
During her 2010 Senate bid, Fiorina also attacked Boxer over the Democrat's assertion that climate change is an important national security consideration.
"Terrorism kills, and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather," Fiorina stated in an ad (ClimateWire, June 8, 2010). "We've had enough of her politics. I'll work to keep you safe."
During that bid, Fiorina also endorsed expanded offshore drilling and criticized the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," commonly known as the cap-and-trade bill, asserting it would "kill jobs."
Nonetheless, Fiorina's campaign sought to emphasize her interest in global warming, even after she received support from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a prominent skeptic of climate change science.
"Carly believes climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed with policies that address the problem, encourage innovation and turn the green revolution into a job creation mechanism for California and the country," a Fiorina aide told the San Francisco Chronicle at the time (Greenwire, Nov. 19, 2009).
Fiorina has also addressed California's ongoing drought, repeatedly arguing that the government's failure to build new dams and storage systems in recent decades is a major cause of the state's current troubles (E&ENews PM, April 7).
"With different policies over the last 20 years, all of this could be avoided," Fiorina said earlier this year. "Despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California's population has doubled."
Fiorina made similar statements during her campaign against Boxer, and at the time called for a temporary repeal of the Endangered Species Act to lift pumping limits and provide more water to state agriculture users.
Michael Madrid, the co-director of the University of Southern California Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, said Fiorina's fledging energy stance puts her in the middle of the 14-candidate GOP pack at a time when many contenders have yet to roll out formal policy proposals.
"It sounds like she's striking a more centrist tone. She's acknowledging climate change is happening now, which differentiates her from the Republican field, and she's also saying, 'We have to do things differently,'" said Madrid, who is also a Republican strategist with the GrassrootsLab.
He added: "The average American voter acknowledges there are environmental impacts to our heavy use of petroleum products. ... That's where she's trying to find the right place."
In a recent CNN/ORC International survey, Fiorina jumped into second place in the sprawling GOP field from her previous spot at the back of the pack.
The Sept. 17-19 poll continued to show businessman Donald Trump at the top of the field with 24 percent, followed by Fiorina with 15 percent and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson with 14 percent. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush rounded out the top five with 11 and 9 percent, respectively.
The poll of 444 registered voters had a margin of error of 4.5 points. In a previous CNN/ORC International poll conducted Sept. 4-8, Fiorina received 3 percent of the GOP primary vote.
ConservAmerica Executive Director Rob Sisson said that while Fiorina has "started down the right road," he'd like to see the former corporate executive continue to evolve on environmental issues.
"Innovation and technology are certainly one of the primary ways that we will combat climate change and give us the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it is also something we can export to other countries," said Sisson, who heads the GOP environmental group.
He added: "Where she needs to complete the thought is that actually the United States has led the developed world in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions."
Sisson pointed to natural gas's growing role in energy production rather than coal and said he would like to see Fiorina and other candidates endorse exports to other countries, which could likewise reduce emissions around the globe.
"The area where I differ with her -- and I look forward to her position evolving -- is the United States can't do this alone," Sisson said. "We can unilaterally take carbon out of our energy mix without harming jobs in the United States and without harming our economy. I believe we need to be a leader and not wait or follow other countries."
But while Fiorina has been open in her acceptance of climate change science, she has not persuaded environmentalists at the League of Conservation Voters to embrace her candidacy.
"Because the next president will determine whether we continue to make progress or slide backward in the fight against the climate crisis, we are urging every presidential candidate to be explicit about their plans to combat the greatest challenge of our time," LCV spokesman Seth Stein told E&E Daily. "The next president must create real and lasting solutions that cut carbon pollution while creating a clean energy future that continues to improve the economy and creates jobs. So far Carly Fiorina has not announced any concrete plans for tackling climate change."

Return to headline | Return to top
Foes of Stricter Ozone Standard Get Ready for EPA Decision

Sep 25, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Amanda Reilly

Congressional activity on the national ozone standard is heating up as U.S. EPA nears a deadline next week to choose a final new limit.
In the Senate, a bipartisan duo introduced legislation that would allow regulators to delay compliance with a new standard if they enter into agreements with EPA containing "measurable milestones." The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee next week plans to hold a hearing on the Obama administration's air agenda that will spotlight ozone.
In the lower chamber, House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) yesterday demanded documents from the Obama administration related to review of the standard.
Last November, EPA proposed to tighten the national ambient air quality standard for ozone of 75 parts per billion -- set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb. EPA faces an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline to finalize a new standard; EPA's final limit is currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
EPA says that a new standard would prevent asthma attacks and premature deaths, but industry and business groups have waged an aggressive public relations campaign against a tighter standard because of potential compliance costs.
The bipartisan legislation introduced by Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) addresses concerns raised by stakeholders that it would be difficult for local areas to meet EPA's proposed new range.
Under the bill, local areas that can't comply with the tighter standard would avoid penalties associated with noncompliance by entering into "Early Action Compact Plans" with EPA. Those agreements would spell out "measurable milestones" and allow areas to demonstrate that they will achieve the standard no later than 10 years after approval of the plans.
The lawmakers billed the legislation as providing a reasonable compliance option for localities.
"Keeping Missourians healthy by cutting down ozone pollution is a goal all stakeholders can get behind -- and it's a goal we can achieve without inflicting economic damage on communities that are struggling to meet these standards," McCaskill said in a statement. "Our bipartisan bill provides a pragmatic and reasonable path forward to help guard Missourians' health, and Missourians' livelihoods, while not accepting the false choice of jobs or the environment."
Hatch said he was concerned that Western states -- which are affected by ozone coming from overseas and from the upper atmosphere -- would not be able to meet a tighter standard.
"This bipartisan legislation directs the EPA to implement a program that allows local communities to enter into a voluntary cooperative agreement with the EPA to utilize locally crafted solutions to improve air quality so that they can comply with federal standards," he said.
The bipartisan bill comes as the National Association of Manufacturers -- one of the most vocal critics of EPA's proposal -- launched a new television ad highlighting Democratic and Republican opposition to a tighter standard. The ad is scheduled to air in Washington, D.C., through Oct. 1.
"Agreement on anything in Washington is hard to find. But one issue has brought together Democrats and Republicans, labor and business, local officials, and editorial boards across the country," the ad says. "All oppose new costly and onerous ozone regulations."
Public health and environmental groups have said that the concerns about achieving a tighter standard are overblown. Last week, Earthjustice released a report finding fault with widely cited industry cost estimates (Greenwire, Sept. 15).
They've called on EPA to set a new standard no higher than 60 ppb based on studies linking negative health effects with ozone concentrations above that level.
In a pair of letters to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Smith, the House Science chairman, said he was concerned that the Obama administration would choose a more stringent final standard to appease environmental organizations.
"Any new lower ozone standard is unnecessary at this time and could cause devastating harm to the economy," Smith wrote.
Smith has long raised concerns about lowering the ozone standard, and his committee has held several hearings questioning the science behind EPA's proposal.
He asked both McCarthy and McDonough to produce all documents and communications between or among EPA and the White House related to the final ozone standard. Of McDonough, Smith also demanded all communications between the White House and outside groups, specifically naming the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters.
The House Science chairman also requested that the administration make available several individuals, including EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe and Council on Environmental Quality Managing Director Christy Goldfuss, for interviews.

Return to headline | Return to top
Ozone Lawsuits Likely to Focus on Health, Attainability

Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Patrick Ambrosio

The seemingly inevitable litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's pending decision on where to set national ozone standards is likely to focus on the health effects of the decision, though industry groups also may challenge the attainability of the standards depending on what the agency's final decision is, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA.If the EPA moves ahead with its proposal to tighten the current 75 parts per billion ozone standards, which were set in 2008, industry opponents could raise several issues, including whether the EPA is required to consider adverse health effects linked to complying with the standards, attorneys said. Industry associations also could challenge the standards with an argument that the EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to set standards that are impossible to attain, attorneys predicted.A coalition of public health and environmental organizations that support much stronger ground-level ozone standards also could opt to litigate depending on where the EPA sets the standards. David Baron, managing attorney at Earthjustice's Washington, D.C., office, told Bloomberg BNA that if the EPA sets the standards at a level of 70 ppb, supporters of tighter standards would likely sue over the agency's failure to follow a clear scientific recommendation from an independent advisory panel.While it is tough to predict whether federal courts will be receptive to these arguments, litigants face long odds because courts typically defer to the EPA on the scientific basis behind the policy decision on where to set national ambient air quality standards, Brian Potts, a partner with Foley & Lardner LLP, said.“It's incredibly hard to challenge the NAAQS at this point,” Potts told Bloomberg BNA. “That is an incredibly uphill battle.”The agency is under an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline to issue a final decision (RIN 2060-AP38) on where to set the ozone standards. Officials with the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers and American Lung Association all said recently that they will explore their legal options if they are not comfortable with the EPA's final decision.Issues Remain for CourtsJeffrey Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP who represents the power industry, agreed that the deference courts grant to the EPA on questions of science would be a significant challenge for litigants to overcome.Holmstead, who served as EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation under President George W. Bush, told Bloomberg BNA that the agency typically makes sure its decisions on where to set national air standards are backed by significant amounts of scientific data.“The EPA goes to great lengths to ensure it has a strong record to support the NAAQS,” he said.While the courts have typically ruled in favor of the EPA in challenges to national air quality standards, Holmstead said there are still a few issues that may come up in litigation over the new ozone standards. One major issue that is likely to be raised is whether the EPA is required to consider the negative public health effects associated with attaining the ozone standards. Several industry opponents of the EPA's proposal to tighten the ozone standards filed written comments and have made public statements highlighting data linking job loss and reduced income with negative health outcomes.Baron of Earthjustice told Bloomberg BNA that such arguments would be a “waste of time” because the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that the Clean Air Act prohibited the EPA from considering compliance costs when making the decision on where to set national ambient air quality standards (Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 51 ERC 2089 (2001); 40 DEN AA-1, 2/28/01).“The Supreme Court rejected that very argument in the Whitman case 14 years ago,” Baron said. “There is just no basis for it.”Supreme Court: Adverse Effects Are ‘Pertinent'While Baron argued that the Whitman decision precludes the EPA from considering those adverse health effects, Holmstead said a footnote in that decision makes it clear that such effects should be considered by the EPA.In the footnote, Scalia said advice from the agency's scientific review committee on adverse public health effects linked to attainment strategies is “unquestionably pertinent” to the EPA's decisionmaking on where to set national air standards.Holmstead described the adverse health effect argument as a more straightforward legal argument that doesn't get into the scientific basis of the EPA's decision.“That is the kind of issue that a court could really seize upon,” he said.Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, said the issue of adverse health consequences is an issue that courts will “have to grapple with” on the revised ozone standards. By framing the compliance costs in terms of negative health consequences, the issue even fits with the Whitmanrubric that the EPA should exclusively look at the health effects of the ozone standards, Lorenzen told Bloomberg BNA.The EPA “certainly has the authority to look at the pluses and minuses of a rule from a health perspective,” Lorenzen said. “I think that will certainly be an argument.”Potts said the issue of economic effects leading to negative health effects is an “interesting argument” but said he wasn't sure how much traction that argument would get with courts.Attainability Another Likely IssueLorenzen said another issue that industry litigants would likely raise against stronger ozone standards is attainability.Many states, including several states in the Western U.S., have said that the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb proposed by the EPA for the ozone standards is beginning to approach background levels in some parts of the U.S. In those areas, there are few options left to curb pollutants that drive formation of ground-level ozone formation and the controls envisioned by the Clean Air Act may not be effective in controlling naturally occurring ozone and pollution that comes from overseas, several states have said (98 DEN A-5, 5/21/15).Janet McCabe, the EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, testified before Congress in June that the EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to consider the feasibility of meeting a national ambient air quality standard during the decision on where to set that standard.Lorenzen predicted that industry opponents will raise the issue of whether NAAQS need to be achievable and said that courts could be receptive to that argument, particularly if the final standards are at the stronger end of the proposed range.“The lower the standard, the more difficulty EPA will have in trying to get this upheld by a court,” he said.Holmstead said it will be interesting to see how the courts handle that argument, because this will be the first time there is a “pretty good showing” that background levels will make it impossible for some areas of the country to achieve the standards.“We've never really had a clear-cut case like that before,” Holmstead said.However, Holmstead said the attainability issue may be a “much stronger argument” for Congress to amend the Clean Air Act than it will be for the courts. While such legislation likely won't be passed by the 114th Congress, this revision of the ozone standards could “galvanize support” to make significant changes to the Clean Air Act for the first time since 1990, Holmstead said.Supporters May Also Challenge EPABaron of Earthjustice acknowledged that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has jurisdiction over national rules issued under the Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court have been “pretty deferential” to the EPA's policy judgements on national ambient air quality standards over the past 15 years.Baron represented the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and other petitioners in litigation over the 2008 ozone standards. Those groups unsuccessfully argued that the 75 ppb ozone standards were too weak. However, the D.C. Circuit dismissed arguments that the EPA was required to follow the advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which had recommended the standards be set somewhere between 60 ppb and 70 ppb (Mississippi v. EPA, 723 F.3d 246, 2013 BL 194344 (D.C. Cir. 2013); 142 DEN A-1, 7/24/13).Despite that ruling, Baron predicted that an EPA decision to set the ozone standards at a level of 70 ppb would trigger legal challenges that the EPA had not adequately followed the advice of CASAC. Although the 2008 primary, health-based ozone standard was upheld in the Mississippi v. EPAdecision, the court established that the EPA can only refute or reject advice from its independent science advisers if it has a “strong scientific basis” for doing so, Baron said.In June 2014, CASAC formally recommended that the EPA consider setting the ozone standards between 60 ppb and 70 ppb but cautioned that there is “substantial evidence” of adverse health effects at 70 ppb (125 DEN A-16, 6/30/14).“I think its highly likely that if EPA ends up at 70 [ppb], it would be challenged as not having followed CASAC's advice and not providing the requisite protection,” Baron said. “If there is scientific certainty that people would be harmed at 70 [ppb], then the standard has to be below that level unless EPA has a scientific reason for saying CASAC was wrong about that.”Lorenzen, who supervised the government's defense in Mississippi v. EPA during his time as a Justice Department attorney, said it would be “very difficult” to argue that the EPA's decision is too lenient. The court upheld the 75 ppb primary standard even though then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had told Congress that the 75 ppb was “legally indefensible” and publicly announced that the standard should be revised.“Not withstanding that, EPA defended that standard and ultimately prevailed,” Lorenzen said. “I think the courts will be very reluctant to second guess the agency.”Secondary Standard Challenge PossibleA legal challenge to the secondary, welfare-based ozone standard was among the other legal issues that Baron highlighted as a possibility to be raised in litigation from public health and environmental groups.The D.C. Circuit in Mississippi v. EPA remanded the 2008 secondary ozone standard back to the EPA after deciding that the agency did not adequately explain its decision to set the secondary standard at the same level as the 75 ppb primary standard. Secondary NAAQS are set at a level that will provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to vegetation.Baron said that for the current review of the ozone standards, the National Parks Services, CASAC and the EPA staff have recommended that the agency set a separate secondary standard for ozone. However, the agency proposed in November to set the secondary standard within the same range as the primary standard.“That's likely to be an issue again this time around,” Baron said. “In the past, EPA has tried to avoid doing a separate standard for protecting vegetation by arguing that the health standard will provide enough protection for both...the court rejected that in the last ozone standard.”

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S.-China Deal Boosts Hope for Paris

Sep 25, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Jean Chemnick

News that the world's largest emitting nation will soon cap greenhouse gases across its economy was met with cheers today by environmental groups hopeful that the move helps efforts to secure a global climate deal.
Advocates still reeling from Pope Francis' call during a first-ever stateside visit for greater U.S. engagement on climate were thrilled by Chinese President Xi Jinping's pledge this morning that his country would implement an emissions trading system beginning in 2017 that would cover a broad swath of the Chinese economy (Greenwire, Sept. 25).
"The prospects for a global climate agreement have brightened," said Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, in a statement. "Combined with inspirational messages this week from the pope, businesses and governments, we're edging closer to a strong outcome in Paris this year."
Xi's announcement made jointly with President Obama was intended to help set up the U.N. talks in Paris this December. It included further pledges by China to prioritize the dispatch of low-carbon electricity and to put forward $3.1 billion in international climate aid. By contrast, the United States has pledged $3 billion in aid over four years to the United Nations' Green Climate Fund.
China's "green dispatch" program means older coal-fired power plants in that country will make up a smaller portion of its generation mix -- a result consistent with China's pledge last year to draw 20 percent of its power from non-fossil-fuel resources by 2030.
Greens seemed as hopeful as Obama and Xi that their newest joint agreement -- which followed on last year's announcement of post-2020 emissions pledges -- would stimulate greater ambition at this year's conference. Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh said it would also make it difficult for the Republican-controlled Congress to deny the Obama administration the dollars it has promised.
"It lays to rest the flawed argument that Chinese pollution is an excuse for U.S. inaction," she said, referencing an oft-repeated Republican talking point that U.S. climate action would place the country at a disadvantage because China will not act.
"And it sends a powerful signal that China will join other countries in the global fight against this worldwide threat, setting the table for an effective international climate agreement later this year in Paris," Suh continued.
U.N. officials heard the news of the joint agreement while meeting in New York for the final leadership summit ahead of this year's high-stakes round of climate talks in Paris.
"I think it has been increasingly encouraging what kind of signs have come out of the two major emitters, the United States and China," said Mogens Lykketoft, president of the U.N. General Assembly.
And pro-climate-action Democrats on Capitol Hill applauded China for implementing a policy they have so far failed to enact in this country.
"Whether it is in Boston or Beijing, putting a price on carbon will be a key component to cutting the pollution warming our planet and spurring the deployment of the clean energy technologies," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who as a congressman saw his own cap-and-trade measure clear the House six years ago only to founder in the Senate.
The same announcement committed the United States and China to a host of other activities old and new. While most of the marquee announcements were China's, the United States did pledge to finalize new methane standards for landfills next year and to expand on existing programs to phase out heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons.
"With these announcements from the two largest emitters of carbon pollution on the planet, the frame of a climate agreement that will stand the test of time is emerging," said Markey. "With this start, the nations of the world can come together to build the Eiffel Tower of climate agreements in Paris this December."
But "the Eiffel Tower" of climate agreements depends on U.S. pledges not only to limit emissions under existing law but to pony up $3 billion -- an allocation that will depend at least in part on Congress.
The administration asked Congress for $500 million for the Green Climate Fund as part of its fiscal 2016 State Department budget. A senior White House official said on a call with reporters last night that "we are in the process of trying to actually sort through a [fiscal year] 2016 funding at the moment."
"So we are hopeful, and are working very closely with Congress and the Appropriations committees, as we have over the last several months, to secure the funding that we have pledged in that context," the official said.
But Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate are likely to take a dim view of sending money to foreign countries to help them cope with a problem that many in the GOP do not believe exists.
Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, poked fun at the White House's claim that the two nations had found a shared "vision" for addressing warming.
Today's action does not "alter Congress' resolution to deny the White House climate funding or a cap-and-trade regime," he said. "A vision without resources is what we call fantasy."
China's funding is "consistent" with the U.S. Green Climate Fund contribution but will be run through a separate bilateral fund, according to a fact sheet the White House released today.
Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House aide on climate, said that by opting not to contribute to the U.N. fund, China would skirt some of its rules and guidelines.
"China's decision to retain control of its climate finance pledge itself, rather than through the U.N., suggests in part a determination to leverage such funding to advance other Chinese commercial and diplomatic interests, and see that the money gets most effectively directed for its climate priorities," he said. He added that other climate donors might find alternative means of distributing their aid in the future.

Return to headline | Return to top
Boehner Move Unlikely to Impact Environment Policy

Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) surprise resignation is unlikely to significantly alter the long-term energy and environment landscape in the House, analysts told Bloomberg BNA.But depending on his replacement, it could change the prospects for passage this year of a bipartisan energy bill, if it doesn't come to a vote before Boehner's departure at the end of October, some observers said.“At the end of the day when you look at the kind of energy policy that the House has put out over the course of the last three years—drill everywhere, fossil fuel-heavy kind of policies—even if a more conservative hard-line wing comes to power I can't see them being able to do much different in terms of energy and environment,” Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the environmental group Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA.Boehner, a strident opponent of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, presided multiple times over legislation that would roll those rules back. He also backed other conservative energy and environment bills.‘A Good Ally.'“He's been a good ally over the years on most of our regulatory issues, particularly energy and environment,” Myron Ebell, energy and environment policy director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market policy research organization, told Bloomberg BNA. “I think things in this Congress will go on as pretty much laid out, which is the House passes a lot of good bills and then they go over to the Senate and they can't bring them to the floor.”Boehner, who has been speaker since 2011, announced Sept. 25 he would resign his leadership role and retire from Congress at the end of October. His resignation comes after frequent battles with the conservative wing of his caucus, which has threatened to shutdown the government over abortion funding and other hot button political issues.“This turmoil that's been churning now for a couple months is not good for the members and it's not good for the institution,” Boehner told reporters during a press conference.Energy Bill Impact?Boehner's departure could impact the prospects for wide-ranging energy legislation (H.R 8) being crafted by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), depending on who is chosen to succeed him, observers said.ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington consulting firm, said in an e-mail to clients that a “rightward lurch in the lower chamber … seems unlikely to improve prospects” for Upton's energy bill.Upton has been aiming to keep the moderate bipartisan package, which would streamline the federal siting process for interstate natural gas pipelines, free of poison pills that would bait a White House veto.“Certainly, the likely change from Boehner to more conservative leadership darkens the prospect for a moderate package,” said the Sierra Club's Pierce.A spokesman for Upton and other Republicans on the committee didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.Speaker McCarthy?The early front-runner to take over the speaker's gavel is Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who not only represents oil rich Kern County, but also the 1,550-megawatt Alta Wind Energy Center, one of the largest wind farms in the country.McCarthy, who currently serves as House Majority Leader—the No. 2 spot behind Boehner—introduced legislation in 2009 that would have extended the wind production tax credit until 2020, though he later distanced himself from that stance (117 DEN A-12, 6/18/14).If McCarthy is elected by the Republican caucus to be the next speaker, then a race will emerge to replace him as majority leader, whose duties include scheduling legislation on the floor, that could also have implications for energy.Still most of the changes could be subtle, like the end of the close relationship between Boehner and Upton, said Ebell.“I'm not sure there is going to be a significant change in anything,” Dan Holler, communications director for Heritage Action for America, the conservative group's lobbying arm, told Bloomberg BNA. “It's hard to see how it does anything dramatically.”

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Updates Plan for Possible Government Shutdown

Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

Despite reassurances from senior congressional leaders that they have a plan to prevent a government shutdown, the Environmental Protection Agency will update its contingency plans in case lawmakers are unsuccessful at preventing a lapse in funding.Stanley Meiburg, acting deputy administrator at the EPA, told employees in a Sept. 22 e-mail obtained by Bloomberg BNA that the agency was “working to update our contingency plans” to allow for an orderly shutdown of various agency activities that would stop in the event of a government shutdown.“Prudent management requires that we be prepared for all contingencies, including the possibility that a lapse could occur at the end of the month,” Meiburg wrote. “The uncertainty of the current circumstances puts our workforce in a difficult situation, and should a lapse occur, it could impose hardships on many employees as well as the people that we serve every day.”The 16-day government shutdown in October 2013 delayed non-emergency inspections of around 1,200 hazardous waste facilities, chemical facilities and drinking water systems and forced the EPA to delay risk assessments on new industrial chemicals and pesticides.The agency furloughed almost 95 percent of its workforce, and the shutdown was later estimated to have cost the entire federal government over $2 billion in lost productivity (218 DEN A-7, 11/12/13).Meiburg reiterated the agency was strongly opposed to any shutdown of operations: “The Administration strongly believes that a lapse in funding should not occur. There is enough time for Congress to prevent a lapse in appropriations.”Both the Senate and House are expected to vote on “clean” continuing resolutions the week of Sept. 28 that would extend funding for federal government operations into December. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly vowed he won't let the government shut down.

Return to headline | Return to top
Week Ahead: EPA Set to Release Ozone Rule

Sep 25, 2015 | The Hill– E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

The Environmental Protection Agency is set to release a contentious new rule limiting surface-level ozone pollution.
The agency has proposed tightening the current standard on ozone from 75 parts per billion to 65 or 70 parts per billion.
Regulators say they need to raise the standards to help the environment and improve public health. But the proposal has drawn scorn and bitter opposition from Republicans and business groups, who say the rule will be prohibitively expensive and lead to billions of dollars in compliance costs.
The EPA released its proposed rule last year, immediately kicking off a lobbying spree and public campaign by the National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups. The groups, and their Republican allies, have taken to calling the ozone proposal the “most expensive regulation ever.”
But regulators say they have the right to set federal limits on ozone, also called smog. They say strict standards are important to protecting the public and cutting down on public health problems like asthma.
The Obama administration has been reviewing the rule since August, and agreed in court to put out the new rules by Oct. 1.
On Capitol Hill, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is taking the administration to task.
On Tuesday, the committee will hold a hearing on the “economy-wide implications of President Obama’s air agenda,” and a subcommittee will meet to discuss the Endangered Species Act. Two governors and the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are slated to testify.
A committee subpanel will hold a hearing Wednesday on the role of the Army Corps of Engineers in crafting new water regulations.
A Senate Transportation Committee panel will hold a hearing on pipeline safety on Tuesday. In the House, a Transportation subcommittee will discuss Great Lakes restoration projects on Wednesday.
Away from the Capitol, The Hill is hosting an event on the proposed methane regulations from the Obama administration on Tuesday. Click here for more information the event: http://bit.ly/1LxjDs6

Return to headline | Return to top
DOE: Micro Grids, Modular Nuclear Reactors Coming

Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Adrianne Appel

The energy system of the near future will include small electric grids and modular nuclear reactors that are connected to a flexible power grid, the undersecretary of energy for science and energy said.“We have an opportunity now to transform the energy systems in this country,” Lynn Orr said Sept. 24 during a talk at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about the agency's second Quadrennial Technology Review.“We hope it's useful to universities and to the U.S., as we develop our energy portfolio,” he said.The DOE is using its quadrennial review as a guide as it prepares its fiscal year 2017 budget, Orr told Bloomberg BNA in an interview at MIT. The report was released Sept. 10 (176 DEN A-15, 9/11/15).The chapters of the report explore the technology needed for clean fuels, grid modernization, clean electricity and other parts of our present and near future energy system. About 200 DOE researchers put the report together, Orr said during his talk.“It's a snapshot of our future energy system,” he said.Aging Nuclear ReactorsWhat does the U.S. need in terms of an energy system? First, it needs economic security, since the entire system is based on energy that is bought and sold. It must be efficient, and it must be diverse in terms of the type of energy mix. It must release fewer greenhouse gases, and it must be robust enough to handle disruptions in the supply of energy, Orr said.Looking at dollars invested and kilowatts produced, coal plants are the most cost-effective form of energy generation, followed by ethanol, photovoltaic cells and transistors, Orr said.Many components of the energy system have changed significantly just since the last review in 2010, including a slowing in the rate of growth of gas consumption and the fact that the U.S. is now the largest producer of oil and gas combined, Orr said. The U.S. also has seen five nuclear power plants under construction, a nine-fold growth in solar energy use and substantial growth in wind since 2010, Orr said.About 20 percent of the power mix in the U.S. is from nuclear power, but most of the reactors will be too old in 20 years to continue operating under their current licenses. Nuclear power reactors are very costly to build. There is extensive research underway to build a new type of reactor, a modular nuclear reactor, which is small and mobile, Orr said.“You can manufacture a much smaller device with reductions in cost,” Orr said.A modernized energy grid needs upgrades to its “architecture,” or the cables and lines of the system, new and cheaper voltage sensors, tools to control power flow and better cybersecurity.Today, a full 33 percent of electricity that is generated dissipates along the energy grid before it reaches its destination where it is used.Immune to Power OutagesThe DOE used economic stimulus funds to distribute phasor-measurement units across the country. Phasor- measurement units assess the condition of sections of the grid by measuring the frequency of the electrical waves traveling through it.“Phasor units allow for a much more accurate assessment of the condition of the grid,” Orr said. If phasor units had been available in 2003, the massive blackout that hit the northeast then probably wouldn't have happened, he said. About 50 million people lost electricity during the Aug. 14, 2003, blackout, attributed to weakness in the electricity grid.Micro grids, in which a community, neighborhood or building creates and distributes its own energy, show promise, Orr said. For one, they have the benefit of “islanding” or being immune to power outages that occur in the main grid, he said.The power grid of the near future needs to be flexible enough to handle the increases and decreases of power as more solar and wind power enters the grid, Orr said.Controlling the flow of power through the system will become more important as the U.S. relies more on wind and solar power, which generate power intermittently.“In California in the middle of the day, there is enough generation by the sun to cover much of the state's needs. But as the sun gets low in the horizon, there are big ramp rates that have to happen. So you need a diversified system,” Orr said.Energy Conservation in Buildings“About 75 percent of electricity ends up in a building somewhere,” Orr said. Conservation within the buildings would make a huge difference in the nation's overall energy consumption.“If people used Energy Star certified items for all the stuff in those buildings we'd get a 20 percent reduction in energy use,” Orr said. Energy Star is a program of the Environmental Protection Agency that certifies the energy-efficient appliances.Intense research is underway to reduce the amount of water used during energy generation.“Energy and water systems are closely connected,” Orr said. About 40 percent of the water withdrawn from fresh water sources goes to power plants, he said.“These are challenges we'll have to face going forward,” Orr said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Tom Steyer Calls for Dem Debate on Climate

Sep 25, 2015 | The Hill – E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Billionaire environmentalist donor Tom Steyer is pushing Democrats to devote an entire presidential primary debate to climate change and clean energy.
Steyer, who has raised money for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said he wants a new debate before the Iowa caucuses in February.
“Climate change is an urgent threat to our economy, health, and national security, and requires immediate and bold action from our next president,” Steyer said in a statement.
“The Democratic presidential candidates understand this and have acknowledged the urgency of the climate crisis. Now it’s time for them to tell us exactly what they’d do about it,” he added.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is planning six debates for the primaries, starting with one next month in Las Vegas.
Steyer heads the NextGen Climate Action PAC, which spent $87 million in last year’s election cycle in an attempt to get climate-friendly candidates elected.
For the presidential race, he’s asked candidates to pledge a platform that would allow the United States to get half of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
All of the major Democratic hopefuls have done so.
“It’s time for the candidates and the Democratic Party to give these voters the opportunity to hear specifically from the Democratic presidential candidates about how they will address the climate crisis,” NextGen said in the statement.
Meanwhile, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have been pressuring the DNC to hold more debates than are currently scheduled.

Return to headline | Return to top
China to Expand Emissions Trading Nationally

Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Alex Nussbaum and Justin Sink

China will start a national emissions-trading system to cut global warming emissions, and make a 20 billion yuan ($3.1 billion) commitment to help poorer countries move away from fossil fuels.China also is announcing changes intended to favor electricity produced by sources that will pollute less, according to a joint statement between the U.S. and China issued Sept. 25 to coincide with Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit to the White House.“I want to commend China for announcing that it will begin a national market-based cap and trade system to limit emissions from some of its largest sectors,” President Barack Obama said during a news conference with the Chinese leader.The two presidents discussed the challenges of climate change during a private dinner Sept. 24, Obama said, and spent the next morning in a series of Oval Office meetings. Leaders of the two largest economies are using the announcement as a way to prod talks on a global agreement to stem climate change.Xi said the U.S. and China are working together “to push the Paris climate change conference to produce important progress.” Obama said that “when the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and carbon emitters come together like this, there's no reason” for other countries not to follow.“This announcement is another sign of the continued leadership of China and the United States on climate action,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “Their partnership is necessary to solve the global challenge of climate change.”Financial IncentivesChina has also agreed to limit public financing of infrastructure projects across the globe which feature high pollution and carbon emissions. And the two countries said they would implement new fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles by 2019.The measures are a follow-up to a 2014 announcement, made when Obama and Xi met in Beijing, in which China and the U.S., the world's No. 1 and 2 greenhouse polluters, jointly promised to limit their emissions (219 DEN A-8, 11/13/14).That agreement injected new life into United Nations-sponsored climate talks. Those negotiations are barreling toward a conclusion in Paris in December, where envoys from more than 190 countries are expected to gather. In a bid to give momentum to those talks, Obama and Xi also outlined a series of shared principles they want to see in the final deal.“Having the two largest emitters committing to increased action and also providing at least some clarity on the key issues for Paris really does help pave the path for a strong agreement,” David Waskow, director of the World Resources Institute's international climate initiative, said by phone.Pilot ProgramsAt the moment, China's economy is still largely driven by fossil fuels. Even as policy makers push aggressively to develop cleaner sources of energy, coal still accounts for about 64 percent of the nation's primary energy, according to National Energy Administration data.China's emissions trading system would expand on seven pilot programs already operating in the country. The national market would open in 2017 and would cover industries including power generation, iron and steel, chemicals, building materials including cement, paper-making, and non-ferrous metals.“According to our tracking, a lot of provinces haven't made a lot of progress on this front yet,” said Sophie Lu, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in Beijing. “If President Xi commits China to a 2017 start date, then he will effectively be lighting a fire under the seats of provincial governments who still need to complete carbon inventories.”Such systems typically put a cap on total emissions and then allow factories, power stations and other sources to buy and sell pollution credits. Proponents say the market encourages innovation and lowers the cost of reducing pollution.Carbon Prices“Expanding a nationwide price on carbon is an important step to help China deliver its climate targets and shift away from coal and towards renewables,” Li Shuo, a Beijing-based policy officer at Greenpeace, said in a statement. “In addition, it will place pressure on the U.S. to implement similar measures.”China's climate finance commission slightly exceeds the $3 billion in U.S. support pledged in 2014 by Obama to the UN-organized Green Climate Fund. The money has been a key demand of developing nations who say they can't agree to avoid cheaper but more polluting fossil fuels without financing from richer nations.In their joint announcement in December, the U.S. promised to cut greenhouse pollution by more than a quarter over the next decade. China pledged its emissions would reach a peak by about 2030 and to boost its use of renewable energy.To cut its reliance on coal, China is aiming to derive 20 percent of its energy from renewables and nuclear by 2030, almost double the current share.“This is part of a growing effort to shift from high-carbon investments to low-carbon ones,” the WRI's Waskow said. “With the falling price of renewable energy, what we're seeing internationally is that making that shift in fact makes a lot of economic sense in many places.”— With assistance from James Paton in Sydney.To contact the reporters on this story: Alex Nussbaum in New York at anussbaum1@bloomberg.net; Justin Sink in Washington at jsink1@bloomberg.net

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy Empowers the World’s Poor

Sep 25, 2015 | The Hill - Blog

By E. Calvin Beisner, Roy W. Spencer, Rev. Charles A Clough and Timothy D. Terrell

The White House, the United Nations, even the Vatican are in full court press for action to reduce manmade global warming at the climate summit in December.
We offer a dissenting opinion.
Many well-intentioned people believe manmade global warming is so dangerous we should spend trillions trying to prevent it by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which would require tremendous reductions in fossil fuel use.
Spending all that money on mitigating climate change takes resources away from more urgent problems like access to pure drinking water, sewage sanitation, adequate nutrition, communicable diseases, air and water and solid waste pollution, and access to electricity, all of which are of greatest concern to the world’s poor.
Additionally, the claims of dangerous manmade warming are almost certainly false. They require that CO2 has a very strong warming effect, not just by its own direct warming but far more because of positive feedbacks. That hypothesis is written into the computer climate models on which the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and various government agencies and national academies of science based their conclusions.
But models and their scenarios are not evidence but hypotheses useful for prediction and policymaking only if validated by real-world observations. But on average, they simulate twice as much warming as actually observed. Over 95 percent simulate more warming than actually observed, so the errors are not random but driven by bias. And none simulated the complete absence of statistically significant warming the last 17 to 27 years, depending on which database you consult, 18 years and 8 months, according to the satellite record, the most reliable.
So the models provide no rational grounds for any predictions about future temperature, and therefore none for any policy.
Which brings us to how climate policy relates to the world’s poor.
Because CO2’s warming effect is much smaller than previously thought, spending trillions reducing CO2 emissions will make little or no difference in future temperature or “impacts” tied to it. But it will harm everyone in the world – the poor the most.
Why? Aside from depriving the world of the fertilizing effect of added CO2, because getting energy from alternatives to the source of CO2 emissions, fossil fuels (and nuclear and, where there’s enough strong river current, hydro) is much more expensive, which is why today roughly 85 percent of all energy used in the world comes from fossil fuels. The greater alternative energy’s contribution to electricity generation becomes, the higher the price must go, and, because wind and solar are intermittent, the less stable the grid becomes.
That will be uncomfortable for middle- and high-income people in developed countries, but for the poor, it will be devastating. In fact, it already has been in, for example, the United Kingdom, where in each of the last five or six winters thousands more premature winter deaths have occurred than in previous years because Britain’s policy of replacing coal-fired power plants with wind and biomass drove fuel prices up, causing “fuel poverty.”
The impact in developing countries would be much greater. No society has ever overcome poverty without abundant, affordable, reliable energy, especially electricity. No other source comes close to fossil fuels to meeting those three requirements—abundant, affordable, reliable.
In developing countries, smoke generated by burning wood, other biomass, and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels kills some 2 to 4 million every year. The poor there desperately need large-scale, cheap, on-demand electricity.
The world’s poor need high-volume, steady, instant-on-demand, affordable electricity, which comes only from being on a grid supplied by large-scale generating plants powered by fossil fuels or nuclear (the technical demands of which are beyond most developing nations, not to mention security concerns). Wind, solar, and biofuels simply cannot produce that scale of on-demand, unfluctuating power except at far higher costs.
Prohibiting developing countries from increasing fossil fuel use means condemning them to poverty and the high rates of disease, premature death, and other suffering that invariably accompanies poverty—and, ironically, the environmental degradation that also accompanies it—for generations.
These are some of the reasons why the “BRIC” countries—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—have no intention of entering a binding agreement to limit CO2 emissions at in Paris. They are focused, as they should be, on lifting their people out of poverty, and their rising emissions, driven by rapidly rising coal use, will dwarf whatever reductions other nations might achieve.
They’re also reasons why we believe no countries should embrace such an agreement, or institute similar policies domestically (e.g., the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s “Clean Power Plan”). An open letter we’ve all signed offers further reasons. A series of YouTube video interviews with outstanding scholars, and a major paper issued a year ago, make the case in more depth. And a brief petition now puts the point simply: “For the Sake of the Poor, Don’t Fight Global Warming!”

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

PTC Deadline to Disrupt Hazmat Shipments: Industry

Sep 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rachel Leven

The pending deadline for implementation of positive train control (PTC) systems for railroads carrying certain hazardous materials will lead to issues nationwide related to drinking water, safety and the economy, railroads and hazmat shippers told Congress in a slew of letters.To prevent these consequences, Congress must extend the Dec. 31 deadline set in October 2008, railroad and chemical groups said in letters sent throughout the summer and early fall. Many of the organizations recommended passing an extension as part of the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization that will expire at the end of October.“Just about every corner of our economy relies on these chemicals, including health care, farming, manufacturing, renewable energy production, construction, and water treatment,” a group of 20 chemical manufacturers and associations, including the American Chemistry Council, said in a June letter to Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). “Halting the movement of these critical materials could have a negative ripple effect throughout many aspects of the economy.”Under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-432) and a subsequent January 2010 final rule, Congress and the Transportation Department required trains carrying intercity passengers, commuters or any amount of toxic-by-inhalation materials to implement these systems intended to prevent derailments caused by human error.With the deadline unlikely to be met, the department said it will enforce it with fines, and the rail industry is now telling Congress—in part in response to Congress's own questions—that the industry's only recourse is to limit those covered train shipments.The letters were compiled on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee's website.Shipments StuntedPositive train control systems that are intended to prevent human-error caused derailments will ultimately be implemented over roughly 70,000 miles of track. The lack of full implementation means railroads would be exposing themselves to fines of up to $25,000 per violation if they operated as usual.Railroads told Congress that they would stop moving toxic-by-inhalation substances by rail, and the process of stopping those shipments could begin before Dec. 31.Union Pacific Corp., for example, said in a Sept. 9 letter to Thune that it would likely issue an embargo notice for those materials before Thanksgiving, which would begin “several weeks prior to January 1, 2016.” CSX Corp. also said it was considering an embargo on these shipments.These embargoes could lead to a number of problems such as supply disruption, which, in turn, could lead to other problems, railroads such as Norfolk Southern Corp. and shippers said.For example, Union Pacific pointed to chlorine, which is “critical for many cities to purify their drinking water, and anyhdrous ammonia, which is needed for fertilizer for healthy crops.” The letter from the chemistry council, Dow Chemical Co. and others said the embargo could cause economic harm, leading gas stations closures, decreased crops from farmers and increased potable water prices.Many toxic-by-inhalation substances may be shipped by truck instead of rail, which Union Pacific said wouldn't be as safe as shipping those materials by rail. The rail company touted the rail industry's record as the safest mode to move hazardous materials—99.9 percent of hazmat shipments reach their destination without train incident-caused releases, it said.Legislative VehicleMany railroads and shippers pointed to the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization as the appropriate vehicle for a positive train control extension. The extension has had bipartisan support for months, but has previously been opposed by the National Transportation Safety Board (19 DEN A-13, 1/29/15).An extension has been included in proposals for the reauthorization, including the Obama administration's GROW America Act and the Senate's DRIVE Act—now H.R. 22, which addresses highway funding. However, no long-term surface transportation reauthorization has passed both chambers this year, and this month railroads urged Congress to act soon.“[T]he PTC deadline is arbitrary and disconnected from the great task and inevitable delays, including those created by the government itself, associated with developing, testing, integrating and installing PTC components, and with ensuring that the system is interoperable and safe,” a Sept. 9 letter from Norfolk Southern to Thune said. “I urge Congress to recognize this reality and adopt an extension of the deadline.”

Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below

Add recipients

Suggested