Preview Newsletter
ET ACC PM 9/28/2015
-
(ACC Mention) Studies show need to restrict endocrine disruptors -- scientists
Sep 28, 2015 | GreenWire
By Sam Pearson
More evidence is emerging of the role played by hormone-disrupting chemicals in health threats, requiring more attention to the issue, a scientific organization said today. -
(ACC Mention) Had we been given the opportunity, here’s what we would have offered the NIEHS on its new NTP RoC Handbook
Sep 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Council
By Nancy Beck
One way in which the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) could demonstrate its commitment to transparency is by seeking public comment on its guidance documents prior to finalizing and implementing them. -
TSCA PART 1: LOOKING BACK BEFORE MOVING FORWARD
Sep 28, 2015 | Energy and Environment Blog
By Pat Rizzuto
Senior senators are calling for an update of the Toxic Substances Control Act — the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, S. 697 — to reach the Senate floor this fall. -
If shutdown is averted, cyberbill faces smooth sailing
Sep 28, 2015 | Washington Examiner
By Charlie Mitchell
If Congress can get past the threat of a government shutdown this week, the prospects for Senate floor action on cybersecurity legislation would brighten appreciably. -
Week ahead: EPA set to release ozone rule
Sep 28, 2015 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency is set to release a contentious new rule limiting surface-level ozone pollution. -
EPA To Model Trading Program In ESPS FIP On State Compliance Plans
Sep 28, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA plans to shape the federal implementation plan (FIP) for its final power plant greenhouse gas rule on stakeholder discussions in states as they develop plans to comply with the underlying rule, a top agency official says, with the aim of creating an emissions trading system that is compatible with most state plans. -
Congress must hold EPA responsible for its own environmental disaster
Sep 28, 2015 | Fox News
By Steve Forbes
If President Obama could play golf as well as his administration practices hypocrisy, he would easily win every major tournament. Take the way Obama’s pet regulatory agency, the EPA treats its own environmental accidents with those that occur in the private sector. -
Gas turbines, not batteries, may provide the easiest path forward for renewables
Sep 28, 2015 | ClimateWire
By Umair Irfan
For ramping up renewables, storing electrons may not be the gatekeeper as some policymakers presume, a new study has found. -
UV Provides OPEX Advantage for Well Injection water Used in Enhanced Oil Recovery
Sep 28, 2015 | Offshore Technology
By UV Technology
atg UV Technology, a UK manufacturer of water treatment packages for the oil and gas sector have seen growing interest in the application of UV disinfection for the treatment of seawater used for well injection in enhanced oil recovery applications. -
Shale gas market analysis, market size, application analysis, regional outlook, competitive strategies and forecasts from 2014 to 2020 examined in new market research report
Sep 28, 2015 | WhaTech
By Sherry James
Shale gas market is expected to witness considerable growth over the forecast period owing to increasing application in industrial, residential, power generation, transportation, and commercial. -
More Clean Power For New York State
Sep 28, 2015 | Energy Matters
By Energy Matters
New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo last week announced USD $175 million for five large-scale clean energy projects in the state. -
Rail Service Threatened as Deadline for Train Safety System Looms
Sep 28, 2015 | New York Times
By Ron Nixon
Even after spending nearly $6 billion, the rail industry says it will not be able to meet its year-end, government-imposed deadline to install a system known as positive train control, which is intended to prevent collisions or derailments caused by excessive speed.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mention) Studies show need to restrict endocrine disruptors -- scientists
Sep 28, 2015 | GreenWire
By Sam Pearson
More evidence is emerging of the role played by hormone-disrupting chemicals in health threats, requiring more attention to the issue, a scientific organization said today.
The Endocrine Society, in an update to a scientific statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) it issued more than six years ago, said new research since then has found exposure to EDCs is associated with diabetes, obesity, infertility, hormone-related cancers, neurological issues and other ailments.
The chemicals promote these health problems by mimicking or blocking the body's natural hormones, changing how cells develop, the group said.
"The evidence is more definitive than ever before -- EDCs disrupt hormones in a manner that harms human health," said Andrea Gore, a professor and chairwoman of pharmacology at the University of Texas, Austin, who led a task force that developed the statement.
The group said "hundreds of studies" showed how developing fetuses are especially vulnerable to EDCs. A study published earlier this year estimated that the European Union faces more than €150 billion ($165 billion) per year in health costs associated with the substances (E&ENews PM, March 5).
The findings, which were published in the Endocrine Society's journal, Endocrine Reviews, note that many scientists believe EDCs behave differently from other substances, by showing health effects even at low doses and in non-monotonic exposure relationships.
The group said EDCs may contribute to obesity by altering the development of cells in a fetus. In addition, the chemicals may target cells in the pancreas, fat cells and liver cells, which could lead to excessive levels of insulin in the body and increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, the statement said.
Though researchers have gained new understanding of the effects of EDCs, the statement said, more work was needed to "take novel approaches to more directly infer cause and effect in humans."
The group's report in 2009 argued that policymakers and scientists must work to better understand EDCs and work to reduce the public's exposure to the chemicals. But that report faced criticism from the American Chemistry Council as "a scare tactic that will not promote public health" (Greenwire, June 11, 2009).
ACC also criticized the new report, with spokeswoman Kathryn St. John saying in a statement that it "disregards the state of the science associated with the effects of chemicals on the endocrine system and makes broad, unsupported claims about the relationship between certain chemicals and disease," including by failing to distinguish between chemicals that interact with the endocrine system but don't disrupt it.
In doing so, the scientists' group "discounts the extensive reviews by experts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority that were unable to substantiate the health significance of the so called low-dose effects, and questioned the validity of the non-monotonic hypothesis," St. John said.
The International Council of Chemical Associations, an industry group of which ACC is a member, released its own set of principles for identifying EDCs today and argued some recent studies "have failed to incorporate critical information including exposure and weight of evidence analysis ... reducing their relevancy to sound decision-making."
ACC President Cal Dooley said in a statement that companies agree that more research is needed to better understand how chemicals affect the endocrine system.
"By improving screening and testing, we can support evidence-based decision making by regulatory agencies as they develop and implement programs intended to reduce risks associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals," Dooley said.
The principles the trade group said regulatory agencies should adhere to include labeling chemicals as endocrine disruptors only if a scientific consensus exists, using credible test methods and data, avoiding duplicative testing, considering real-world exposure levels, and using weight-of-the-evidence analysis to avoid letting outlier data skew results.
"The hypothesis that low levels of exposure can cause harmful effects that are not adequately captured by traditional toxicological studies is often discussed, but rigorous reviews by scientists at regulatory agencies have been unable to validate the hypothesis, so changes to current testing and safety assessment approaches are not warranted," the group said.
-
Sep 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Council
By Nancy Beck
One way in which the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) could demonstrate its commitment to transparency is by seeking public comment on its guidance documents prior to finalizing and implementing them. Not only would this help NTP to develop a robust approach, but it would also allow outside experts, all with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, to contribute what they have learned over the course of decades of experience.
When the National Research Council (NRC) conducted their review of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in 2014, they stressed the importance of ensuring broad and diverse stakeholder engagement in the IRIS process. There is no reason for the NTP program to be held to different standards, especially when developing new approaches that are relevant to multiple agencies and stakeholders.
With the publication earlier this summer of its new “Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens Monographs,” NTP missed a valuable opportunity to increase confidence in the program’s accountability to the public and ensure its approaches and conclusions are based on the best available methodologies and information.
What the Handbook is and why it matters
The Handbook provides guidance and instructions for developing the Report on Carcinogens (RoC)—specifically, preparing monographs (focused evaluations) for substances the NTP considers for listing in the RoC. The monographs are the product of a literature-based review and evaluation. The Handbook is designed to provide a clear and formal process for NTP to follow in creating the RoC.
The Handbook is important because many stakeholders see the RoC as an authoritative body on the state of the science for a particular chemical or substance. RoC listings inform decisions by outside groups, including states and other federal agencies, to help manage the safety of certain chemicals and whether they should be present in products.
While NTP has always described its process for conducting literature reviews, the Handbook is essentially the first of its kind. It describes the actual approach for conducting a scientific evaluation for the RoC and includes sections on identifying and selecting studies, extracting data from studies, and evaluating the quality and utility of individual studies. It essentially spells out a process for NTP to follow that will determine the fate of a specific chemistry.
Although ACC views the current version of the Handbook as a needed addition to the NTP chemical review process, the guidance is not as strong as it should be—or as it could have been, if NIEHS had allowed other experts to offer their feedback first.
Below, there are three areas where NTP delivered improvements with its Handbook and seven significant and impactful areas where it could have delivered more improvements had it taken full advantage of the vast expertise outside of NTP.
What the Handbook deliversStandardized Approach: One important benefit of the new Handbook is that it creates a standardized approach for preparing RoC monographs. In theory, this approach would allow any third party to follow the guidance provided by the Handbook and conduct an independent review. It also enables interested parties to evaluate the monographs against the Handbook’s standards. If the standardized approach falls short, however, the scientific evaluations will suffer.Quality and Utility Discussions: Another benefit the Handbook delivers is its emphasis on the importance of clearly articulating the standards for judging quality and utility of research before beginning an assessment. When conversations about quality and utility take place prior to an assessment, scientists can ensure everyone is on the same page before beginning the hard work of conducting reviews, rather than afterwards.Sound Decisions (potentially): Most importantly, if the guidance provided is sound, the Handbook can help ensure the decisions the NTP makes about RoC candidate chemicals are well-informed, based on a robust evaluation of the scientific evidence, consistent with one another, and relatively simple to evaluate and understand.
What the Handbook missedTransparency: As mentioned earlier, the NTP could have demonstrated its commitment to transparency and accountability to the public by inviting outside comment on the Handbook prior to publishing it. Although the Handbook was subject to review by five individuals, two of them are former NTP board members, and, it appears, none of them specialize in the systematic review approaches NTP is trying to implement. In addition, the five reviewers do not represent a diverse set of stakeholders and scientific perspectives.Weight-of-Evidence: NTP doesn’t explain how negative evidence or conflicting evidence will be considered during the data integration step, nor does NTP emphasize that the highest quality/utility studies should be given the greatest weight. For instance, in NTP’s example of presenting tumor data from animal studies, the figure does not take study quality into account. Thus readers of the figure can come away with a misleading interpretation of the data. Similarly, the evidence-based tables should include the overall quality determination for the study.Mechanistic Data: For mechanistic data (critical information that may explain how chemicals act in animals and in humans), NTP seems to only rely on authoritative and secondary reviews. It is not clear why NTP would discount primary literature that would be extremely helpful. NTP also discusses relying on characteristics of carcinogenesis; however, the publication NTP relies on here is not publicly available, another example of NTP falling short when it comes to transparency. In addition, mechanistic data is useful for more than helping to interpret other studies, yet NTP does not seem to take full advantage of the utility of mechanistic data.Strength of Association: It is disappointing that NTP does not consider the strength of an association to be critically important. The Handbook suggests that for human studies, there could still be causal associations even though the strength of evidence (e.g., relative risk ratio) is weak. It’s not clear how NTP can infer causality if an association is weak.Listing Criteria: The NTP missed an opportunity to update the listing criteria for known and reasonably anticipated carcinogens. The current standards used by NTP do not consider the weight of all the available evidence but follow an incomplete “strength of some evidence” approach. If it is not clear why this is radically incomplete, imagine if a trial judge instructed the jury to follow the same protocol: “Ignore this piece of conflicting evidence and focus instead on whether these bits seem convincing enough—by themselves”!Confounding: When evaluating human studies, it is normal to consider factors that may confound a study result; NTP does not consider confounding as part of the study quality/utility evaluation but treats it separately. As the ability to understand and dissect confounding influences on a study relate directly to the value and quality of a study, these findings should be incorporated into the overall study quality/utility rating.Animal Studies: NTP focuses predominantly on the evaluation of human studies and spends less time discussing animal and mechanistic studies, which are often more widely available than data from human studies. Unfortunately, NTP does not consider these information streams as sufficiently informative or important to help inform human health hazards. The current NTP listing criteria can be fulfilled with two positive animal studies, which are assumed to be relevant to humans unless there is compellingevidence otherwise. However, NTP does not explain its standards for what constitutes compellingevidence, and this gap decreases the transparency of their decisions.
There is no doubt that NTP’s previous “black box” approach for developing the RoC needed to be changed, and the creation of its Handbook is a step in the right direction. However, it would be premature to view it as complete. It should be treated as a work in progress that could greatly benefit by incorporating review and comments from additional experts.
There is broad recognition in the NRC comments and elsewhere of the value of public input and dialogue, and so we strongly encourage NIEHS and other federal agencies that are developing and incorporating systematic review practices into their chemical specific evaluations to ensure that “handbooks,” “guidance documents,” and other important tools benefit from stakeholder input and dialogue.
-
TSCA PART 1: LOOKING BACK BEFORE MOVING FORWARD
Sep 28, 2015 | Energy and Environment Blog
By Pat Rizzuto
Senior senators are calling for an update of the Toxic Substances Control Act — the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, S. 697 — to reach the Senate floor this fall. It’s timely, then, to look back at why.
Modernizing TSCA is supported by industry groups, states, nonprofits and the Environmental Protection agency. All of them agree on two key points:
First, the EPA should have the authority to get hazard and exposure data so it can decide when chemicals or particular uses of them present risks that should be managed.
Second, the agency needs the resources and authorities to carry out risk management decisions.
Such concepts seem so basic it’s hard to understand why the 39-year-old statute wouldn’t have given the EPA that authority already.
To help explain, we turned to a 2011 forum organized by the Chemical Heritage Foundation, a group whose mission is to foster dialogue on science and technology in society. The foundation brought together five former EPA officials who oversaw chemicals management at the agency over four decades. The five shared their experiences implementing TSCA.
The former officials —Glenn Schweizer, Charles Elkins, Mark Greenwood, Charles Auer and James Aidala—each offered particular insights. Each agreed, however, on key problems in the law that thwarted Congress’ intention to give the agency oversight over chemicals already in commerce and ones that manufacturers would like to sell.
Here are some of their comments from the Chemical Heritage Foundation’s TSCA Oral History Project. They agreed on these points:
TSCA’s stipulations made it extremely hard for the EPA to obtain from chemical manufacturers toxicity and other data about chemicals in commerce:
“In my view the central failing of TSCA was the inability to create the hazard and exposure information needed to inform decisions.” — Charles Auer, a chemist who worked at EPA for 33 years and directed the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) from 2002 to 2009.
TSCA lacks an agenda or deadlines:
“This is a statute that doesn’t have an agenda. … If you don’t have an agenda it’s very difficult to stay on course.” — Mark Greenwood, an attorney in the Office of General Counsel from 1978 to 1990 and OPPT director from 1990 to 1994.
“Deadlines help you be accountable and compete for resources.”—James Aidala, associate assistant administrator of prevention, pesticides and toxic substances from 1993 to 2000.
Different administrations had different agendas:
“We had a section 6 hit list of a dozen chemicals that should be controlled in some way. … We had a plan. We laid it all out, timetables for each section [of TSCA]. .... When the new administration came in, we were told to forget it.” — Glenn Schweitzer, the first director of the EPA's Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) from 1973 to 1977.
Industry’s views were dominant, while other groups were absent from the discussion:
“The only people the agency heard from were the regulated industry.” —Charles Auer.
“You’re sitting there across from the industry representatives who are telling you how much this will cost them and how they don’t want to do the work, and you’re saying as the director, ‘But we need to do this.’ They’re looking you in the eye and saying, ‘Why? Who’s asking you to?’ And in fact no one is asking you to.” — Charles `Chuck’ Elkins, director of the OTS from 1986 to 1990.
by Pat Rizzuto
-
If shutdown is averted, cyberbill faces smooth sailing
Sep 28, 2015 | Washington Examiner
By Charlie Mitchell
If Congress can get past the threat of a government shutdown this week, the prospects for Senate floor action on cybersecurity legislation would brighten appreciably.
But opponents of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, which is primed for Senate consideration this fall, are promising to make the process as painful as possible for senators and companies that back the legislation.
A large bipartisan majority in the House has already passed info-sharing legislation, so the Senate is now the focus of intense lobbying efforts.
How painful could opponents make it? A recent show of support for legislation on info-sharing by 13 technology companies prompted a sharp-edged social media campaign denouncing the firms for "betraying" online privacy principles.
By the middle of last week, the digital rights group Fight for the Future was claiming 15,000 "angry emails" had been sent to companies that signed a Sept. 14 letter to congressional leaders calling for action on info-sharing.
The industry letter was orchestrated by BSA/The Software Alliance and signed by Microsoft, Apple, Adobe Systems, IBM, Oracle, Siemens, Symantec, Altium, AutoDesk, CA Technologies, DataStax, MiniTab and Salesforce.
Of note, the industry letter cited the potential benefits of "cyberthreat information sharing legislation" without specifically mentioning the Senate Intelligence Committee-passed cyberbill or similar House-passed measures. Further, it buried the endorsement within a laundry list of tech-sector legislative priorities.
It was a relatively mild call for action, especially in comparison to the pro-cyberbill campaigns undertaken by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups. The U.S. Chamber has been going toe-to-toe with online privacy activists in the social media battle over the bill.
Many industry groups say improved information sharing among companies and between industry and government is essential to better understanding and responding to a fast-changing cyberthreat environment.
The pending cyberlegislation contains extensive elements to protect "personally identifiable information" within the sharing process, supporters say.
Tech companies risk far greater political blowback for endorsing cyberlegislation than do groups representing the energy or banking sectors, for example.
The digital rights activists were particularly offended by the declaration of support for cyberlegislation by companies like Microsoft, which famously dropped their backing for similar House legislation in previous years over privacy concerns.
Privacy groups announced they would boycott web-hosting and other services provided by companies that endorse CISA.
According to Fight for the Future, "The public backlash has come with a simple message: 'You betrayed us.'"
The group wrote: "Fight for the Future plans to continue exposing companies that support anti-user legislation like CISA, and will work to get every popular website and tech company on the record about this crucial legislation. Many popular companies have opposed bills like CISA including Reddit, Imgur, Namecheap, Wordpress and Mozilla."
Is the social media campaign having an impact?
"Vocal minorities," commented one Senate staffer in an office actively pushing to get the bill to the floor. "It sure hasn't reached the level of a couple of years ago." The source said protests pale in comparison to the online "blackout" organized in 2012 in opposition to the "Stop Online Privacy Act."
And yet, if and when the info-sharing bill makes it to the floor, the digital rights groups' position will be amplified by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who delivered what amounted to a manifesto against info-sharing legislation during an early August floor speech.
Wyden said the "voluntary" info-sharing process in the bill was a sham, because individuals would have no say in whether their personal data was shared between industry and government.
The Oregon Democrat said the liability protection offered under the bill strips citizens of their right to seek legal redress when their personal information is mishandled.
And, Wyden said, leading technologists believe the bill just wouldn't do much to improve cybersecurity.
Despite this determined opposition, it's difficult to see opponents being able to block the bill if it does reach the floor.
Based on past comments and procedural votes, more than a dozen Democrats seem inclined to vote for an info-sharing bill as long as the process is seen as fair and senators have a chance to adjust the measure through amendments.
No more than a handful, and perhaps only two or three, Republicans are seen in the "no" camp. And the White House is encouraging Senate passage, which would lead to negotiations over a final version of the legislation.
The calendar is still probably the biggest obstacle.
The short-term government funding agreement likely to pass this week will probably carry over until Dec. 11, giving lawmakers two months to work on other legislative business as they seek a final deal on funding for the rest of fiscal 2016, which begins on Oct. 1.
The Senate has other priorities, including the defense authorization bill, highway funding, Toxic Substances Control Act reform and the assorted legislative wish-lists of 100 senators.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed in August on the basic outlines of a cybersecurity debate, specifying that a total of 22 amendments could be offered for consideration.
The leaders still must reach a time agreement on the overall debate, a procedural step that has consistently foiled efforts to get the measure to the floor. That could involve a tricky effort to get senators on board for paring down the amendment list to a more manageable number.
But if the threat of a government shutdown goes away this week, the possibility of a thorough cybersecurity debate on the Senate floor, the first in three years, seems increasingly likely.
-
Week ahead: EPA set to release ozone rule
Sep 28, 2015 | The Hill
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
-
EPA To Model Trading Program In ESPS FIP On State Compliance Plans
Sep 28, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
NEW YORK -- EPA plans to shape the federal implementation plan (FIP) for its final power plant greenhouse gas rule on stakeholder discussions in states as they develop plans to comply with the underlying rule, a top agency official says, with the aim of creating an emissions trading system that is compatible with most state plans.
“What we would like to see happen . . . is as the universe of stakeholders engage in discussions as to what the best approach is, those discussions will also be informing where we go from proposal to final with regard to the federal plan,” EPA air office attorney Joe Goffman said in his Sept. 24 keynote address at the Carbon Forum North America conference here hosted by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA).
Goffman said that EPA, in some ways, “narrowed our own choices with respect to what we proposed in the federal plan,” because the FIP “by definition focuses solely on the implementation mechanism and not on the standard itself.”
The remarks suggest that even though EPA offers the proposed FIP as a model rule for states looking to include a trading program in their plans, the agency may also be looking to states to resolve some of the unanswered questions regarding how such trading programs would function, rather than states receiving guidance from EPA.
Even though EPA and other speakers at the conference are urging states to adopt trading programs to comply with the rule, some observers note that states “are not there yet” and are still assessing multiple compliance options.
Once published in the Federal Register, alongside the final existing source performance standards (ESPS) and a companion rule for new and modified power plants, the FIP will be subject to public comment for 90 days. EPA then plans to revise the plan before finalizing it next summer.
EPA says that it would then be in a position to impose the FIP on any state that refuses to submit an “initial” compliance plan by a September 2016 deadline.
In the proposal, EPA included separate rate- and mass-based trading programs, though it says it intends to finalize only one program -- which some observers expect will be the mass-based program due to cost savings -- and that all states subject to the FIP would be placed in that program.
Many stakeholders had assumed that states would look to the model trading rules in the FIP to craft their compliance plans to include an approach that would be easily approved by EPA.
But EPA is now awaiting states' initial compliance plans, though some observers say the timing of the final federal plan next summer and the deadline for initial state plans next September could create challenges.
“The timing is funny. States will work on plans now, and if they don't get a final [FIP] for a while, it won't be useful,” Sarah Jackson of Synapse Energy Economics told Inside EPA. “The proposal is there for them to build on, but the timing could be a bit more helpful.”
But Goffman said state and other comments on the proposed FIP will ensure that the final version is compatible with state plans. He says that agency history “really favors some sort of credit or allowance trading,” citing the acid rain program and EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. He added that it is important for states subject to the FIP to be able to trade with other states that include emissions trading in their plans.
Goffman also argued that a larger trading system is what utility industry groups recommended to EPA in comments on the proposed ESPS and interactions with the agency.
“One of messages we think we're hearing is that utilities and investors are still asking for what they've always asked for: a consistent price signal when it comes to carbon markets,” he said at the conference, adding that providing that would require states to develop “broadly consistent approaches, presumably ones that included some form of trading.”
Mass-Based Trading
Goffman's trading comments were echoed by utility group representatives and other advocates at the IETA conference, who extolled the benefits of a mass-based “trading ready” compliance approach.
Brian Wolff, senior vice president of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), said a consistent price signal is important for long-term industry planning, and as such the optimal approach for utilities is a mass-based cap-and-trade program.
“It would be better when you're actually removing state borders and you're able to count things that exist elsewhere. It really is something that just makes sense for our industry, that we might have a trading program that is similar [to cap and trade]. And a mass-based program like that would work well,” Wolff said.
EEI, which represents investor-owned utilities, had previously supported the trading program in the Waxman-Markey climate bill, while other utility industry groups have more strongly resisted climate policies.
Bruce Braine, senior vice president of American Electric Power (AEP), said during a separate roundtable discussion that EPA “tilted the deck” toward a mass-based approach and that it would be “very tough” to set up a rate-based trading program.
Many stakeholders at the conference similarly supported a mass-based trading approach as the most flexible and cost-effective means for states to comply with EPA's rule without having to gain additional approval from EPA to trade.
And they say the option was eased with the “trading ready” option included in the final rule, in which each state crafts its own plan but includes a set of “common elements” that allow its power plants to trade with plants in other approved states.
That concept allows for a “much more national conversation. The states are not limited to trading within their own regions” like in the proposed rule, says Lissa Lynch of the Georgetown Climate Center.
EPA has also signaled its support for mass-based compliance, touting the option as far less expensive than rate-based plans. The agency also smoothed adoption of mass-based trading in its final rule, observers say.
“We've made clear that if utilities and states want to create not just state-level trading markets, but also broad regional trading markets -- we've made getting onto that path quickly and with relatively low transaction costs readily available,” Goffman said at the IETA forum.
'Not There Yet'
Despite the widespread stakeholder support of mass-based trading, Lynch, who works with states on ESPS compliance, says states are not yet sold on that approach.
“As market experts, I think a lot of people are zeroing in on mass-based, trading ready approaches as the best way to go. The states are not there yet,” Lynch said, adding that many states are also considering rate-based compliance. “There is a general sense that a mass-based, trading ready approach is going to be the most streamlined, but that is by no means the only option that states are considering.”
Her remarks echo the dynamic from a recent meeting of Western states, in which stakeholders argued that trading would be the best compliance option but states were far from settling on a favored approach. Many Western states “are still pretty far behind in their thinking,” said a source at the recent meeting, noting there “certainly is not a lot in the way of getting down into the meat in terms of thinking about compliance choices and implementation options yet.”
Lynch says part of the reason why states are taking a “hard look” at rate-based compliance is because they are concerned about a limited potential for growth under a mass-based emissions cap for existing sources, or a limit for existing and new plants using EPA's “new source complement.”
Under existing source-only caps, Lynch notes, EPA included a “substantial amount of growth” to make them more equivalent to rate-based targets. That comes in the form of an “unneeded renewables” addition, which some sources have said accounts for about 12 percent of a state's overall mass-based target.
Even so, Lynch says states “are still working through the math that went into that and really trying to understand how much growth and [are asking], 'Is it going to be enough for me?'”
Further, states are not required to choose a compliance approach by next year's September deadline, Lynch says, noting that EPA's minimal requirements or initial plans allow a state to report that it is still considering both rate- and mass-based approaches. In an update due in 2017, states would be required to choose their desired compliance pathway, before submitting a final compliance plan in 2018.
But she hopes advocates and power companies will encourage states to make a decision early -- “as early as possible, so as many states as possible are signaling” they will choose a mass-based trading approach.
“If you get a critical mass of states to put that in their initial submission, then you have a much more certain world of trading than if everybody takes the opportunity to submit an initial submission that says, 'We're looking at all our options; we'll get back to you in a year,'” Lynch said.
AEP's Braine, however, predicts that most states will not commit to an exact compliance pathway in their initial plans. But, he says, states will most likely “provide some indication, very much in the same way EPA provided indication [in the final ESPS], of what their preferred course is probably going to be. And I think a lot of those will be mass.” -- Abby Smith (asmith@iwpnews.com)
-
Congress must hold EPA responsible for its own environmental disaster
Sep 28, 2015 | Fox News
By Steve Forbes
If President Obama could play golf as well as his administration practices hypocrisy, he would easily win every major tournament. Take the way Obama’s pet regulatory agency, the EPA treats its own environmental accidents with those that occur in the private sector. Examine the EPA’s latest debacle – its disastrous spill into a Colorado river. An EPA contractor breached a wall at a long-shuttered mine and roughly three million gallons of fluid laden with arsenic, lead, mercury, and other heavy metals flowed freely into the Animas River.
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez, and local leaders have rightly called for accountability and transparency.
The EPA’s response to its own environmental disaster has been anything but honest, transparent or thorough. The EPA released documents – only after weeks of pressure and in an effort to bury the news at the end of the week – revealing how officials knew of the potential for a spill more than a year before the debacle near Durango.
“Conditions may exist that could result in a blow-out of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine,” reads a June 2014 EPA report. A separate May 2015 report by an EPA contractor again warned of the risk of a spill and recommended building a pond to collect contaminated water in case of failure.
The EPA – yes the agency that delights in pointing the accusatory finger and rushes to judgment when businesses have their industrial mishaps - did not see the need to heed its own recommendations.
Our system of government is based on fairness and equal treatment under the law. We should all be concerned when the government is willing to apply double standards that favor its own ineptitude.
Many Colorado families, including members of the Navajo Nation and residents of nearby Silverton, are wondering if the EPA will ever hold anyone accountable. I’m not holding my breath.
For proper perspective, let’s review how the EPA treated three other industrial spills: the EPA’s spill near Lake Oconee and the Oconee River in Georgia, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s spill on the Emory River in Tennessee, and Duke Energy’s spill on the Dan River in North Carolina.
While the media (rightly) focuses on the situation in Colorado, an equally troubling situation at the Mary Leila Cotton Mill near Greensboro, Georgia is going largely ignored.
Earlier this year EPA contractors struck a water main at the long-abandoned nineteenth century mill, releasing heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury into a creek that feeds into the Oconee River and Lake Oconee.
Watchdog.org, a project of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, reported that the EPA offered conflicting statements, even denying involvement, before finally admitting that it triggered the catastrophic spill.
Perhaps the biggest spill in recent memory occurred in 2008 when a dike failed at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Plant, causing 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash to cascade into the Emory and Clinch Rivers. The spill left more than 300 acres of land covered in sludge, destroyed or damaged dozens of homes, and displaced many families.
This was the largest coal ash spill in American history. But because the Tennessee Valley Authority is a federally owned corporation, it was spared the wrath of any EPA punishment or fines.
The federal government levied no fine against the TVA and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation levied only a pittance of a fine- $11.5 million.
Contrast those mishaps with the federal and state government’s treatment of Duke Energy following a 2014 Dan River coal ash spill, which paled in comparison to the TVA spill. The federal government fined the power company $102 million for restitution and community service. Then North Carolina’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources piled on, fining the company an additional $25.1 million for no particular incident – it just wanted to slap Duke around a little more.
Three cases of industrial accidents, one caused by the EPA, another by a federally owned power corporation, and a third by a private sector energy company: is anyone experiencing shock to learn that Duke Energy was the only one targeted for such arbitrary treatment and fines?
Who really expects accountability from the federal government for the EPA’s disasters?
Our system of government is based on fairness and equal treatment under the law. We should all be concerned when the government is willing to apply double standards that favor its own ineptitude.
Both parties in Congress must hold the EPA accountable for its own environmental debacle near Durango.
Steve Forbes is Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media. His latest book, with co-author Elizabeth Ames, is "Money: How the Destruction of the Dollar Threatens the Global Economy - and What We Can Do About It (McGraw-Hill May 13, 2014).
-
Gas turbines, not batteries, may provide the easiest path forward for renewables
Sep 28, 2015 | ClimateWire
By Umair Irfan
For ramping up renewables, storing electrons may not be the gatekeeper as some policymakers presume, a new study has found.
Clouds passing overhead and lulls in the wind make turbines and photovoltaics waver in power output. This can destabilize the grid and create energy shortfalls, forcing another electricity source to fill the gaps to keep the lights on.
Using a battery, a compressed air cavern or flywheel to soak up excess power when it's available and dish it out when needed is an attractive prospect, but many of the technologies aren't mature enough to deploy at the scales needed to keep up with renewables hitting double-digit penetration rates in some markets.
This is no cause for alarm, according to a report published last week in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.
It turns out that current natural gas turbines, nuclear reactors and hydroelectric dams could help renewables drastically displace dirtier fossil fuels on the grid, thereby lowering the carbon intensity of electricity generation.
"If you allow for some dispatchable power, you really don't need much storage," said David Keith, a co-author of the study and a professor of applied physics at Harvard University.
Keith reached this conclusion after modeling the economics of bulk electricity storage systems, devices that can hang onto power for several hours on the grid. The model accounted for performance, capital costs and fuel prices, with the aim of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
"The novelty of this paper is that it's doing a careful and clean job of energy system analysis that's transparent and simple," said Keith.An overestimated need for storage?
It turned out that energy storage loses economically compared to natural gas turbines or dispatchable zero-carbon generators. This means that the low-carbon grid of the future can run on much of the technology that exists today rather than waiting for a hypothetical battery that's cheap and easy to scale.
The findings run contrary to conventional wisdom that suggests that renewables need storage to compensate for intermittency before they catch on, though Keith noted that some other studies had also suggested that the purported need for energy storage is overstated.
"You could take wind from 4 percent to 40 percent and still not use much storage," he said.
This is further supported by some real-world examples. In Germany, renewables are approaching one-third of the country's energy supply, with a big chunk coming from intermittent wind and solar. However, the country has negligible energy storage but maintains one of the most stable electric grids in Europe using dispatchable power and energy trading.
The insistence on storage stems from "energy idealism" that aims to bring carbon emissions down to zero from generators, instead of using renewables and cleaner fossil fuels to displace dirtier energy sources -- even though the latter approach is more economically viable, according to Keith. Opponents of renewable energy mandates also cite inadequate storage as a reason for blocking requirements for cleaner energy.
Jay Apt, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University who was not involved in this research, praised the new study. "It's a very rigorous look at a future where energy storage is not required," he said.
"None of this means that storage isn't useful in smaller applications," Apt added. "There will be off-grid applications, microgrid applications and emergency power applications where storage is extremely valuable."
-
UV Provides OPEX Advantage for Well Injection water Used in Enhanced Oil Recovery
Sep 28, 2015 | Offshore Technology
By UV Technology
atg UV Technology, a UK manufacturer of water treatment packages for the oil and gas sector have seen growing interest in the application of UV disinfection for the treatment of seawater used for well injection in enhanced oil recovery applications.
UV light is a chemical-free, physical disinfection technique that is widely used throughout the offshore sector for applications such as potable water disinfection, RO membrane protection and BOP hydraulic operation fluids.
Microorganism and bacteria control is increasingly an important topic of discussion in the oil and gas industry, with a number of operators linking instances of poor water quality used in stimulation fluids to an increase in operational costs, and the failure of capital assets.
Negative consequences of inadequate water treatment include:Microbiological induced corrosionDamage of capital equipment and componentsLoss of fluid stability during injection.Souring the well with hydrogen sulphide gas H2SSolids formation and plugging of equipment and pipeworkSolids formation and plugging of the well
atg UV Technology have successfully used UV for the control of microorganisms such as SRBs (sulphate-reducing bacteria), acid producing bacteria and slime forming bacteria in well injection applications for more than 30 years. Using standard UV doses, a single pass through a UV treatment system (0.2s exposure) will typically achieve a minimum 5.0 log (99.999%) reduction of sulphate-reducing bacteria (based on an seawater influent of 1.1 x 1,100,000 of SRBs).
Working with Conoco Phillips, atg UV Technology carried out the original research (1993) into the effectiveness of UV treatment for SRB reduction used in well injection applications, which lead to the supply of a number offshore UV treatment plants being installed in the Norwegian North Sea sector, with the largest plant - Eldfisk and Ekofisk treating 4,500 m³/h and 4,000m³/h daily.
Significantly reduce OPEX costs
UV treatment significantly reduces the need for chemical biocides, which typically have a high associated operational cost and are hazardous to handle, transport and store in an offshore environment. As a chemical-free, physical sterilisation technology, a correctly sized UV treatment package will typically reduce the volumes of required biocide by 90%, and maintain a minimum 5.0 log reduction (99.999%) of SRB's and other microorganisms from the water.
In a recent study, a leading US oil and gas operator compared the costs of using chemical biocides (acrolein injection, transportation, handling and storage) for a 2,000m³/h well injection project versus a chemical free, UV disinfection package.
The results, based on a five-year OPEX calculation (2,000m³/h) showed a substantial business case for using UV disinfection:
UV treatment package: £129,000
Biocide (acrolein injection): £3,459,000A typical atg UV Technology UV disinfection package for well injection treatment and SRB reduction is supplied within a standard 20ft DNV certified offshore container. The package is designed to be fully turnkey and is both simple to operate and easy to install into existing pipe work with minimal disruption. A small amount of biocide such as hypochlorite is still required to maintain residual protection, and occasional shock dosing with chemicals may still be needed to flush pipework downstream of the UV package.
However as the UV system is used as the primary disinfection solution, post-treatment with chemicals does not require the complex monitoring equipment that would be necessary if biocides were used as a primary disinfectant for everyday operation.
atg UV Technology are currently trailing a number of UV packages for well injection water, produced water reinjection, produced water discharge and recently have received government-backed funding to complete a UV trial for the treatment of flowback water produced from shale gas wells during hydraulic fracturing operations.
-
Sep 28, 2015 | WhaTech
By Sherry James
Shale gas market is expected to witness considerable growth over the forecast period owing to increasing application in industrial, residential, power generation, transportation, and commercial. Depleting reservoirs coupled with growing energy demand are the major factor driving the global shale gas market over the forecast period.
- Advertisement -
Shale gas production is highly concentrated in U.S. and Canada, and the trend is expected to continue in this region over the foreseeable period.
Environmental concerns over drilling coupled with excessive water usage are expected to hamper the market in Europe. Increasing crude oil prices have led to shift in focus toward unconventional source of energy.
This trend is expected to drive the global shale gas market over the next six years. Favorable government regulation regarding shale exploration to meet the global energy demand is further likely to compel the market growth in near future.
Shift in trend toward the use of unconventional gases is further likely to complement the market growth. Growing energy demand cannot be met with the supply of conventional gases.
- Advertisement - Unconventional gases are alternative source of energy.Power generation is the major application segment of shale gas. Favorable regulatory system regarding use of unconventional gas coupled with environmental issues regarding conventional energy form of power generation is expected to be the major factor driving the market over the foreseeable period.
Shift in focus toward use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Natural Gas (LPG) in Transportation is further likely to complement the global shale gas market.
Browse Detail Report with TOC @http://www.hexaresearch.com/research-report/shale-gas-industry/
High production cost coupled with excessive water usage is expected to remain the major factor restraining the market over the forecast period. Shale gas exploration has led to extraction chemical leakage and greenhouse gas emission.
This serious factor is likely to hinder the market growth over the foreseeable period.
North America was the major shale gas market in 2013, and is expected to experience significant growth over the next six years. In the recent past, the whole energy scenario was changed owing to shale gas exploration in U.S.
Earlier U.S. was the net importer of conventional gas. However, rapid production activity and shale gas exploration have made the U.S.
a net exporter in 2012. Asia pacific market is expected to witness considerable growth over the next six years owing to large number of untapped reservoirs in China.
Foreign investors joint hand with Chinese companies to explore and produce shale gas to meet the global energy demand. This trend is further likely to create an ample opportunity for the market participant in this region.
Through-out support from Chinese government in form of tax benefits and financial incentives is expected to propel the market in this region. Increasing oil prices has led the vehicle users in India and China to look for alternate source of fuel.
This shift in focus toward alternate source is anticipated to have positive impact on shale gas market in Asia Pacific region. Environmental issue coupled with stringent government regulation regarding exploration of shale gas in France and Poland is expected to hamper the shale gas market in Europe.
Request a sample copy of this Report @http://www.hexaresearch.com/sample/238
Global shale gas market is highly competitive in nature, and is dominated by existing top players in the market. Shift in focus toward the use of unconventional energy coupled with increasing crude oil prices is likely to create an opportunity for new entrants as well as existing player in the market.
Some key players operating in global market include Antero Resources, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, BHP Billiton, Devon Energy, Cabot Oil & gas, EnCana Corporation, Reliance Industries Ltd., ExxonMobil, Statoil, Shell, Talisman Energy Inc., SM Energy and Total SA.
-
More Clean Power For New York State
Sep 28, 2015 | Energy Matters
By Energy Matters
New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo last week announced USD $175 million for five large-scale clean energy projects in the state.
The five projects will add approximately 116 megawatts of capacity and generate around 356,000 megawatt-hours of clean electricity per year; enough to provide for the power needs of 54,000 average-sized homes.
The largest project is the 100MW Ball Hill Wind Farm; which will be constructed in Chautauqua County, in the towns of Villenova and Hanover.
The other projects are a 9.6 MW anaerobic digestion biogas-to-electricity facility in Staten Island, a 5.2 MW addition to an existing hydroelectric facility in Lewis County, a 790 kilowatt (kW) fuel cell installation at Morgan Stanley Headquarters in New York City and a new 560 kW minimum flow turbine at a hydroelectric facility in Oswego County.
“Through these projects, we are developing a world-class technology infrastructure while using the renewable energy necessary to reduce our carbon footprint and create a greener New York,” said Governor Cuomo.
Support for these projects is under New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
According to NYSERDA, every $1 invested in RPS Main Tier projects sees $3 in economic benefits for New York state in the form of jobs, payments to public entities, purchase of goods and services within the state and land leases.
The weighted average award price for this round of projects $24.57 per megawatt-hour over the 20-year terms of the awarded contracts.
“Under the State’s 2015 Energy Plan, New York now has a clear path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of renewable energy resources, and these projects help advance the plan’s goals,” said John B. Rhodes, President and CEO, NYSERDA.
New York’s State Energy Plan has set a 2030 goal of 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, 50% of energy generation from renewable energy sources and 600 trillion Btu increase in statewide energy efficiency – the latter equating to a 23% reduction in energy consumption by buildings. The State also has a longer term goal of decreasing total carbon emissions 80% by 2050.
Also announced by Governor Cuomo last week were 53 state-supported combined heat and power (CHP) projects. When these projects join the ranks of existing CHP installations, they will collectively offset more than 200 megawatts of grid power, equivalent to the energy required to power more than 32,000 homes.
-
Rail Service Threatened as Deadline for Train Safety System Looms
Sep 28, 2015 | New York Times
By Ron Nixon
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested