ACC PM

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Why McCarthy’s Short Resume Matters

   Oct 1, 2015 | National Journal

   By Alex Rogers
   
   
   Over the next few months, the na­tion’s bor­row­ing au­thor­ity and many of its pop­u­lar but ex­pired tax be­ne­fits will need to be ex­ten­ded.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Chemical Economy Shows Early Signs Of A Slowdown

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News

   By Marc S. Reisch
   
   
   Signs are mounting that the chemical economy is slowing.
3. (ACC Mentioned) Report Puts Cost of Ocean Plastic Cleanup at $5 Billion

   Oct 1, 2015 | Plastics News

   By Gayle S. Putrich
   
   
   That there are literally tons of plastic in the world’s oceans is hardly new information, especially to the plastics industry. But now there is finally an in-depth examination of where it originates and how it ends up in the water — and an actionable plan to stop the flow of plastic trash into the oceans by 2035.
4. (ACC Mentioned) Prices Fall for Polystyrene and PET

   Oct 1, 2015 | PlasticsNews

   By Frank Esposito
   
   
   Downward pricing trends continued in September for solid polystyrene and PET bottle resins in North America.

Chemical Management News

5. Boxer Close to Deal with Senate TSCA Bill's Sponsors

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Dinesh Kumar
   
   
   Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) is close to a deal with the sponsors of the Udall-Vittter TSCA reform bill (S 697) that would allow it to proceed on the Senate floor, according to well-placed Senate sources.
6. Chemistry Runs Through all SDGs, Says Unep Head

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   Commenting on the UN General Assembly adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, along with a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme said: “The SDGs are quantitatively and substantively a step ahead from what we have had before anytime in the past 30 years.”
7. Industry Group: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Safe at Low Levels

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chem.Info

   By Andy Szal
   
   
   An international chemical industry group this week argued that chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine system are safe at low levels and that changes to current testing "are not warranted."
8. Feds Won't Say If Artificial Turf on Your Kid's Soccer Field Is Safe

   Oct 1, 2015 | NBC News

   By Hannah Rappleye, Kevin Monahan, and Stephanie Gosk
   
   
   Despite a series of NBC News reports on the growing debate about the safety of crumb rubber artificial turf, the federal agencies that regulate the product have remained largely silent.
9. Get Lobbying on Chemicals, Doctors Told by Health Body

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Leigh Stringer
   
   
   A global health organisation has called for reproductive health professionals to lobby for policies that prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals.

Chemical Security News

10. Chem Safety Board Violated Sunshine Act With Surprise Vote -- IG

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Sam Pearson
    
    
    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board violated the Sunshine Act when it voted on broad governance changes at a public meeting earlier this year without issuing notice it would consider the items, the U.S. EPA inspector general said today.
11. More Legislation Emerges as Businesses Voice Colo. Spill Woes

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Manuel Quiñones
    
    
    Lawmakers keep pushing for more legislation to address the fallout from August's abandoned mine spill in southwestern Colorado, as communities and businesses demand compensation for an array of harms.

Energy and Environment News

12. Senate Panel Approves Oil Export Bill

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry
    
    
    The Senate Banking Committee approved a bill to lift the ban on crude oil exports on Thursday.
13. Senate Banking Advances Oil Export Bill

    Oct 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Elana Schor
    
    
    The Senate Banking Committee today approved legislation ending the crude export ban, 13-9, setting up a nascent push by the GOP to attach similar language to a must-pass vehicle before year's end.
14. Senate Banking Backs Repealing Oil Export Ban

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Geof Koss
    
    
    The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee approved legislation today to repeal the crude oil export ban, but only after adopting an Iran sanctions amendment that lawmakers warned would complicate the measure's future prospects.
15. Court Says BLM Lacks Authority to Regulate Fracking

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Ellen M. Gilmer
    
    
    The Obama administration does not have authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands, a federal judge decided yesterday.
16. Colo. to Roll Out Local-Control Rules Ahead of 2016 Elections

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Mike Lee
    
    
    Colorado energy regulators will publish rules as soon as Friday designed to give local governments a say in how oil and gas is developed in their jurisdictions.
17. SAB Panel Seeks To Clarify Scope Of Review For Draft EPA Fracking Study

    Oct 1, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Bridget DiCosmo
    
    
    An EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel is seeking to clarify the scope of agency charge questions to guide its review of EPA's draft analysis of hydraulic fracturing's potential drinking water impacts, including the extent to which the panel should consider the lack of quantitative data on the frequency and severity of impacts in the study.
18. EPA Ozone Rule Costly, Duplicative, Unnecessary

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio)
    
    
    Soon, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed ozone rule is expected to go into effect. It stands to be the costliest regulation in history, imposing new standards that are overly burdensome, technically unattainable and deficiently demonstrative of providing any environmental or public health benefits.
19. Obama Tightens Ozone Limit, But Greens Fume

    Oct 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Alex Guillen
    
    
    Handing a win to the energy industry and business groups, the Obama administration today approved a 70-parts-per-billion standard for smog-producing ozone, according to an environmental group briefed on the rule.
20. Obama Administration to Tighten Smog Limits But Will Satisfy Few

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Washington Post

    By Juliet Eilperin
    
    
    The Environmental Protection Agency will propose tightening limits on smog-related pollution Thursday, according to individuals briefed on the decision, but the new standard will fall short of what environmentalists and public health experts had recommended.
21. EPA to Set Stricter Air-Pollution Standard for Ozone

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Amy Harder
    
    
    The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday will set a sweeping federal air-pollution limit on ground-level ozone, one of several environmental regulations fueling a clash between the Obama administration and the business community.
22. President’s Unapologetic Regulatory Push

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Jay Timmons
    
    
    August in Washington, D.C., is generally the time when the city powers down. But this summer, we saw a regulatory onslaught from the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
23. EPA's 70 ppb Ozone Standard Spurs Criticisms From Advocates, Industry

    Oct 1, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Anthony Lacey
    
    
    EPA's final ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) revises the existing 75 parts per billion (ppb) standard down to 70 ppb, according to press reports, prompting wide-ranging attacks as it is far weaker than the 60 ppb limit sought by public health advocates yet at odds with industry's call to retain the 75 ppb standard.
24. E.P.A. to Unveil New Limit for Smog-Causing Ozone Emissions

    Oct 1, 2015 | The New York Times

    By Coral Davenport
    
    
    The Obama administration on Thursday will unveil a major new regulation on smog-causing emissions that spew from smokestacks and tailpipes, significantly tightening the current Bush-era standards but falling short of more stringent regulations that public health advocates and environmentalists had urged.
25. EPA to Tighten Federal Limits on Ozone

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry
    
    
    Federal regulators intend to tighten the standard for surface level ozone pollution, but only on the least restrictive end of the range they’ve long been considering, officials will announce Thursday.
26. Obama Admin to Strengthen Ozone Standard

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Amanda Reilly
    
    
    U.S. EPA today will tighten the national ozone standard to 70 parts per billion, the upper end of the range the agency proposed last November, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the rule.
27. N.D. Delegation, Governor Meet with McCabe to Protest Rule

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    North Dakota's congressional delegation and governor met yesterday with U.S. EPA air chief Janet McCabe to register their concerns about how her agency's Clean Power Plan would affect their state.
28. Wyo. Gov. Mead Discusses Coal-Heavy State's Plans for Compliance, Litigation on Power Plan

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - TV

    As a major coal producer, consumer and exporter, what are Wyoming's plans for complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan?
29. Air board Targets Cuts to Climate Pollutants like Methane, Black Carbon

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E Climatewire

    By Anne C. Mulkern
    
    
    California launched its next attack on the climate front yesterday with a proposal on how to cut short-lived climate pollutants like black carbon, methane and refrigerator gases.
30. U.S. Climate Envoy Sees Momentum for Global Deal as U.N. Readies Draft Text

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Lisa Friedman
    
    
    The "moment is now" to create a new global climate change regime, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern said yesterday as plans for cutting emissions from dozens of countries rolled in to the United Nations.

Transportation News

31. (ACC Mentioned) Fight Fires Up Over ‘Blanket’ PTC Provisions

    Oct 1, 2015 | Politico (Morning Transportation)

    By Jennifer Scholtes
    
    
    Now that House T&I leaders have laid out their plans for extending the positive train control deadline, the battle is just beginning over whether to treat all rail operators the same or to give special leniency to those who have tried hard to mind the mandate.
32. (ACC Mentioned) Think Positive Train Control Thoughts

    Oct 1, 2015 | Politico (Morning Energy)

    By Eric Wolff
    
    
    If Congress does not extend a deadline for implementing train safety technology, the economy stands to take a beating, according to a report out today from the American Chemistry Council.
33. (ACC Mentioned) Bill Introduced to Extend PTC Deadline

    Oct 1, 2015 | Progressive Railroading

    The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's leadership yesterday introduced a bipartisan bill that would extend the deadline for railroads to implement positive train control (PTC) technology through the end of 2018.
34. Editorial: Positive Train Control Must Wait, But the Wait Shouldn't Be Too Long

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Los Angeles Times

    By The Times Editorial Board
    
    
    After a Metrolink passenger train with an engineer text-messaging at the controls slammed into a freight train in Chatsworth in 2008, killing 25 people and injuring 135, Congress finally passed a law ordering railroads to install systems that could automatically slow or stop trains in dangerous situations. Safety advocates had been pushing the technology, known as positive train control, for two decades with few takers on Capitol Hill or among railroads.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Why McCarthy’s Short Resume Matters

   Oct 1, 2015 | National Journal

   By Alex Rogers

   Over the next few months, the na­tion’s bor­row­ing au­thor­ity and many of its pop­u­lar but ex­pired tax be­ne­fits will need to be ex­ten­ded. Fed­er­al trans­port­a­tion fund­ing has to be re­plen­ished. And mem­bers of both parties want a budget deal for the next two years while avert­ing a gov­ern­ment shut­down fueled by abor­tion polit­ics. If House Speak­er John Boehner re­tired to­mor­row in­stead of at the end of Oc­to­ber, could his re­place­ment helm the ne­go­ti­ations with Mitch Mc­Con­nell, Harry Re­id, Nancy Pelosi, and Pres­id­ent Obama?

   The re­cent past is a weak guide: House Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Kev­in Mc­Carthy will likely be the least-ex­per­i­enced mem­ber to be­come House speak­er in about 125 years. He rose to the top of D.C. in a flash—about eight years—up the lead­er­ship lad­der, fo­cus­ing less on ne­go­ti­at­ing com­prom­ises and more on build­ing the ranks of Re­pub­lic­ans (tak­ing the House in 2010) and his re­la­tion­ships with them, al­though in his role as his party’s primary vote-counter there were a hand­ful of high-pro­file face-plants. Oth­ers—wheth­er it be Boehner or com­mit­tee chairs Paul Ry­an or Har­old Ro­gers—have been more in­flu­en­tial on spend­ing is­sues, but in the fu­ture, Mc­Carthy will prob­ably need to step up.

   Those who have known him for a while—from his days lead­ing the GOP minor­ity in the Cali­for­nia State As­sembly—say Mc­Carthy is up to the task.

   Tony Strick­land, a former GOP mem­ber of the state As­sembly and Sen­ate, re­calls go­ing in 2003 to Denny’s after play­ing pickup bas­ket­ball and ask­ing the then-fresh­man if he was in­ter­ested in lead­ing the state GOP in the As­sembly. In the middle of the night, Mc­Carthy agreed. They mapped out their strategy on a nap­kin, and Mc­Carthy be­came the first fresh­man to win the post.

   “He brings people to­geth­er,” says Strick­land. “He sits and talks to people about what their goals are. … In Sac­ra­mento, he would get groups of people to­geth­er to go to movies, play bas­ket­ball [and] soft­ball, whatever, just to build ca­marader­ie among folks.

   “Likab­il­ity goes a long way,” he ad­ded. “It really felt like you were there as a team in­stead of just there as an in­di­vidu­al.”

   As a mem­ber of the state’s “Big 5”—the in­form­al group in­clud­ing the gov­ernor and le­gis­lat­ive lead­ers—Mc­Carthy was in­volved in a series of budget ne­go­ti­ations, as well as a ma­jor work­ers’ com­pens­a­tion over­haul, which Strick­land cred­its as Mc­Carthy’s greatest achieve­ment, while ac­know­ledging that then-Gov. Arnold Schwar­zeneg­ger’s threats to work around the Le­gis­lature and push a bal­lot ini­ti­at­ive played a ma­jor role in get­ting Demo­crat­ic mem­bers to the table.

   “The fact that we got it through was a huge vic­tory be­cause it was dead on ar­rival for many years,” says Strick­land. “I would say that Mc­Carthy and Schwar­zeneg­ger de­serve a lot of cred­it for that.”

   But oth­ers say Mc­Carthy’s greatest strength was in polit­ics in­stead of le­gis­lat­ing. Those in the gov­ernor’s of­fice at the time paint a pic­ture that many Re­pub­lic­an House mem­bers would wel­come: a bot­tom-up ap­proach to gov­ern­ing.

   “This is why I think Kev­in is go­ing to make a great speak­er: It’s not so much what Kev­in’s policy ac­com­plish­ments were, it was the fact that he em­powered his caucus,” says Richard Costigan, who served as the li­ais­on between Schwar­zeneg­ger and the Le­gis­lature. “Kev­in didn’t have to be the one out front. Kev­in was the one … who pushed his caucus and let his mem­bers have the suc­cess.”

   “It was a dif­fi­cult po­s­i­tion for him to be a driver on policy, just be­cause he’s in the minor­ity party and [work­ing] for a Re­pub­lic­an gov­ernor,” adds Rob Stutz­man, a former top com­mu­nic­a­tions aide to Schwar­zeneg­ger.

   Of course, some may prefer that style. And Ron­ald Peters, a pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Ok­lahoma spe­cial­iz­ing in the speak­er­ship, notes that while speak­ers such as Tom Fo­ley, Sam Ray­burn, and Boehner all chaired com­mit­tees, “more of­ten than not” the 20th-cen­tury speak­ers didn’t, rising through the party lead­er­ship in­stead.

   Dave Camp, the re­cently-re­tired Ways and Means Com­mit­tee chair­man who dropped a ma­jor tax-re­form bill on his way out, says that the speak­er should be hands-off. “The role of the speak­er shouldn’t be to write le­gis­la­tion,” Camp says. “You really want a speak­er that em­powers the com­mit­tee chairs and the com­mit­tee mem­bers to go to work and to craft le­gis­la­tion. That’s how you build con­sensus. That’s how you de­vel­op a work­able agenda that can ac­tu­ally be im­ple­men­ted.”

   Camp, Strick­land, Costigan, Stutz­man, and oth­ers see Mc­Carthy’s abil­ity to con­nect with di­verse mem­bers in­side the con­fer­ence as one of his ma­jor selling points as speak­er. Camp says that is his “his greatest strength,” and that his ex­per­i­ence help­ing elect many of the mem­bers he now leads will be an “in­valu­able” as­set.

   Mc­Carthy’s de­sire to re­cruit oth­ers traveled well from Sac­ra­mento to Wash­ing­ton. In 2009, Stutz­man re­mem­bers see­ing Mc­Carthy at the Den­ver air­port in the United lounge. “He is por­ing over all these files of can­did­ates and he starts telling them to me, talk­ing about chal­lengers that he’s helped re­cruit, people he’s helped raise money,” Stutz­man says. “This was be­fore any­one who was sober was even ima­gin­ing the Re­pub­lic­ans could take the House.

   “His charm helps him,” Stutz­man adds, “but he works his ass off.”

   The ques­tion now is wheth­er that sun­shine de­mean­or can turn in­to votes in a suc­cess­ful agenda. Mc­Carthy’s re­l­at­ive in­ex­per­i­ence will be tested by the same forces that di­vide the Re­pub­lic­an Party, as well as Con­gress and the White House. Cal Dooley, a Demo­crat who used to serve a Cali­for­nia dis­trict near Mc­Carthy’s one-time boss Bill Thomas, says that the ma­jor ques­tion isn’t Mc­Carthy’s back­ground but his con­fer­ence.

   “The com­pos­i­tion of the Re­pub­lic­an con­fer­ence hasn’t changed,” says Dooley, who now runs the Amer­ic­an Chem­istry Coun­cil, a power­ful trade group. “The ques­tion will be, does Kev­in have the abil­ity through per­haps stronger per­son­al re­la­tion­ships to hold the Re­pub­lic­an con­fer­ence to­geth­er on really dif­fi­cult, chal­len­ging is­sues? I think any­one is go­ing to have a very dif­fi­cult time uni­fy­ing the Re­pub­lic­an con­fer­ence, but I think Kev­in prob­ably has the skills to do it as well [as]—if not bet­ter than—any­one else in the Re­pub­lic­an Con­gress.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Chemical Economy Shows Early Signs Of A Slowdown

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News

   By Marc S. Reisch

   Signs are mounting that the chemical economy is slowing.

   Speaking at a recent investors meeting, BASF Chairman Kurt Bock said low oil prices and geopolitical developments have led BASF to revise downward its 2011 expectations for annual global chemical production growth between 2015 and 2020 to 3.9% from 4.0%. Growth in industrial production will slip to 3.5% from the firm’s earlier 3.7% prediction, Bock also said.

   More immediate signs of a slowdown come from the American Chemistry Council and Huntsman Corp. ACC reports that its Chemical Activity Barometer, a leading indicator of U.S. chemical business activity, dropped 0.4% in September after a 0.2% decline in August. Kevin Swift, ACC’s chief economist, says that “chemical, other equity, and product prices all continue to suffer, signaling a likely slowdown in broader economic activity.”

   Separately, Huntsman Corp. warned investors that certain trends would hurt third-quarter earnings when it reports them to shareholders in a few weeks. Among those trends are “headwinds” from a strong U.S. dollar, soft demand in Asia, and lower margins on certain commodity products because of lower oil prices.

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) Report Puts Cost of Ocean Plastic Cleanup at $5 Billion

   Oct 1, 2015 | Plastics News

   By Gayle S. Putrich

   That there are literally tons of plastic in the world’s oceans is hardly new information, especially to the plastics industry. But now there is finally an in-depth examination of where it originates and how it ends up in the water — and an actionable plan to stop the flow of plastic trash into the oceans by 2035.

   A new Ocean Conservancy report, Stemming the Tide: Land-Based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean, identifies the location-specific origins of most of the world’s plastic marine debris and how it leaks into the oceans as well as outlines of practical solutions, their relevant economics, and short- and long-term plans for implementation in five priority countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand.

   “Today’s report, for the first time, outlines a specific path forward for the reduction, and ultimate elimination, of plastic waste in the oceans,” said Ocean Conservancy CEO Andreas Merkl. “The report's findings confirm what many have long thought — that ocean plastic solutions actually begin on land. It will take a coordinated effort of industry, [non-governmental organizations] and government to solve this growing economic and environmental problem.”

   The report, released Sept. 30, was a multi-year effort of the Washington-based non-profit advocacy group in partnership with the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment and Trash Free Seas Alliance partners including Dow Chemical Co., Coca-Cola Co. and the American Chemistry Council.

   Experts estimate 8 million tons of plastic “leaks” out of the waste system and into the watershed each year, according to the report, most coming from industrializing countries in Asia.

   “These are countries where the consumption of plastic is skyrocketing and waste management is not keeping up,” Merkl said.

   The report proposes a five-point solution to cutting the “leakage” from land-based sources by 45 percent by 2025 with the ultimate goal of eliminating it by 2035. The cost of meeting those goals are estimated to be about $5 billion annually, according to the report, but significant returns to the global economy are possible once the proper infrastructure is in place.

   Proposed solutions include expanded service collection and ultimately increased waste collection rates; closing leakage points within the collection systems of all five countries, including targeting illegal dumping and containing legal open dump sites; implementing the latest waste-to-energy programs such as gasification or incineration with energy recovery; and improving systems to manually sort waste to extract high-value plastics for recycling and convert a significant portion of low-value plastic to refuse-derived fuel.

   While the problem of marine plastics may still sound tremendously huge, some industry leaders see the new report as actually lifting some of the weight of this global problem.Michael A. MarcotteSteve Russell of the American Chemistry Council, during NPE 2015.

   “We’re really excited about this work. This quantifies the problem and identifies solutions,” said Jeff Wooster, global sustainability director for Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics. “It answers the questions of ‘Where is it coming from and what can we do to keep it out of the oceans?’”

   The next hurdle is implementation, namely, funding it. Private investment is needed to build waste management systems, and while the report’s authors at McKinsey called the comparatively low $5 billion price tag “one of the most solvable of the environmental challenges we collectively face,” it still has to come from somewhere.

   Merkl says one of the many advantages of the depth of the new report is that the amount of infrastructure is defined, as are the future locations for waste management facilities that will stop plastics from reaching the ocean.

   “The next step now is to get to work in the places that really, really matter and create the conditions to make waste management investment attractive. We need to create investment space, encourage the politics and policies that create investment incentives, pull together classically structured finance, bring together international expertise and local enthusiasm,” Merkl said. “We’re not asking anyone to ban products. We don’t think that’s effective. It’s not an imposition of Western product bans, it’s a way to help accelerate existing local demand … it’s sort of the opposite of colonial control.”

   Local enthusiasm for tackling this global problem is already growing, said ACC’s Vice President of Plastics Steve Russell.

   “There is actually a hunger for solutions in these communities,” said Russell, who has attended meetings for mayors and regional leaders in the Philippines as data was being gathered for the report. “[The mayors] know they have a problem, none of them want to live in a place where solid waste isn’t properly managed.

   “There is a surprisingly enthusiastic interest in what tools might be available, especially when the solutions are economically sustainable.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. (ACC Mentioned) Prices Fall for Polystyrene and PET

   Oct 1, 2015 | PlasticsNews

   By Frank Esposito

   Downward pricing trends continued in September for solid polystyrene and PET bottle resins in North America.

   Solid PS prices plunged an average of 9 cents per pound, marking the second straight monthly decline for that material. Prices had slipped an average of 2 cents per pound in August, holding to a number that was pre-announced by PS makers Americas Styrenics and Styrolution.

   The September PS price drop was more extreme, however, as the material followed benzene feedstock prices, which slipped 79 cents per gallon to finish September at $2.01 — a drop of about 28 percent.

   October benzene prices are expected to be up slightly from that level, giving hope that regional PS prices can avoid a third straight monthly downturn. North American PS prices now are down a net of 13 cents per pound so far in 2015.

   Much of the recent decline in benzene pricing is the result of increased imports, according to Phil Karig, managing director of the Mathelin Bay Associates LLC consulting firm in St. Louis.

   "As buyers around the world for benzene derivatives such as polystyrene wait to see where polymer prices will bottom, there's a lot of short-term excess benzene that has to go somewhere," he said. "And the U.S. market is as good a place as any, especially for exporters in countries that have seen their currencies weaken against the U.S. dollar in the last year."

   Through August, North American PS sales were down almost 1 percent vs. the same period in 2014, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington. Most of that decline can be traced to the consumer and institutional end market, where eight-month sales fell almost 11 percent. Sales of PS into the market-leading food packaging/food service sector were up 1 percent for that same period.

   North American prices for PET bottle resin slipped an average of 3 cents per pound in September, moving that material into negative pricing territory for the year. PET prices now are down a net of 1 cent per pound so far in 2015. The September move is the second straight monthly PET price drop, following a 4-cent downturn in August.

   Seasonally, PET is moving into the part of the year where cooler temperatures lead to less consumption of carbonated soft drinks and bottled water, two major PET markets. PET makers continue to struggle with lower consumption of soft drinks in general, as consumers seek healthier alternatives. That can lead to bottled water growth, but that product has been impacted in recent years by thinner bottles that use less PET per unit.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

5. Boxer Close to Deal with Senate TSCA Bill's Sponsors

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Dinesh Kumar

   Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) is close to a deal with the sponsors of the Udall-Vittter TSCA reform bill (S 697) that would allow it to proceed on the Senate floor, according to well-placed Senate sources. The measure is expected to be taken up for floor consideration in the next few days.

   However, it is not yet known which issues Ms Boxer, a strident critic of the bill, is seeking changes on in exchange for her support. In June, she had vowed to complicate passage of the Udall-Vitter bill if it was taken up instead of a parallel bill passed by the House (CW 30 June 2015).

   Some of Ms Boxer's principal concerns with the Senate bill have been about provisions that would pre-empt state action on chemicals.

   Ms Boxer is the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which passed the bill in April (CW 29 April 2015). The House overwhelmingly passed its own version of TSCA reform in June (CW 24 June 2015).

   Her support for the Udall-Vitter bill would ease passage of the measure out of the Senate. The bill now has 56 cosponsors, 23 of them Democrats, in the 100-member chamber.

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Chemistry Runs Through all SDGs, Says Unep Head

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   Commenting on the UN General Assembly adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, along with a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme said: “The SDGs are quantitatively and substantively a step ahead from what we have had before anytime in the past 30 years.”

   Speaking at the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4), Mr Steiner said chemical products play a direct role in several of the SDGs. These include clean water, good health and responsible consumption and production, however "chemistry occurs in them all.”

   He added that in the past sustainable development has been dealt with through “trade offs” between industrial growth, and environment and human health.

   Often though these have been unjust, resulting in different groups benefiting while others fall victim, he said. “If the world is going to sustain ten billion people … we need sustainable chemistry to ensure our footprint is reasonable.”

   He added there is a need to move away from dealing with chemicals on the market, one by one. “We have to go downstream and think how we redefine the criteria we use to support sustainable chemistry and reconfigure the way governments then deploy them.”

   He noted that the International Sustainable Chemistry Collaborative Centre (ISC3) – recently announced by Germany (CW 29 September 2015) – should help in this process of moving to more intelligent and empowering approaches to sustainable chemistry.

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Industry Group: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Safe at Low Levels

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chem.Info

   By Andy Szal

   An international chemical industry group this week argued that chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine system are safe at low levels and that changes to current testing "are not warranted."
   
   Chemical Watch reports that the International Council of Chemical Associations issued 11 principles for endocrine-disrupting chemicals — which affect hormone production — at the United Nations chemical conference ICCM4.
   
   The ICCA argued that rigorous scientific reviews failed to establish that low levels of exposure to those chemicals resulted in harmful effects, and that current testing standards should remain in place.
   
   “The U.S. EPA and the European Food and Safety Authority have thoroughly examined this and they have not been able to replicate the same health outcomes,” ICCA spokeswoman Anne Womack Kolton told CW.
   
   Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are found in thousands of household products, and numerous studies linked exposure to them to a wide range of health problems.
   
   Some scientists at the ICCM4 conference suggested that testing of those chemicals should begin at lower levels. A report earlier this year said that endocrine-disrupting chemicals cost Europe's economy some $209 billion annually.
   
   “We need to take an evidence-based approach that proves innocence in contrast to what currently occurs, which is a dangerous and unnatural experiment on human health," said New York University's Leonardo Trasande, according to CW.
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Feds Won't Say If Artificial Turf on Your Kid's Soccer Field Is Safe

   Oct 1, 2015 | NBC News

   By Hannah Rappleye, Kevin Monahan, and Stephanie Gosk

   Despite a series of NBC News reports on the growing debate about the safety of crumb rubber artificial turf, the federal agencies that regulate the product have remained largely silent.

   Earlier this month, in fact, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency would not answer a direct on-camera question about whether the surface found on playgrounds and athletic fields across the country is safe for kids to play on.

   Watch the full report on NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt at 6:30 p.m. ET

   "I have nothing to say about that right now," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told NBC's Stephanie Gosk when Gosk caught up with her in a Capitol Hill hallway. Prior to their encounter, NBC had already made repeated requests for interviews with the EPA without success.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy pauses while testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington. Evan Vucci / AP

   While critics and supporters of crumb rubber turf don't agree on whether the surface poses a health risk — the industry says studies have shown no link with illness, while some parents and activists demand more testing — all sides want federal regulators to take a clear public position.

   "I think the federal government should step up to the plate," said Jerry Hill, a California state senator who proposed legislation this year that would have postponed the installation of new fields until a comprehensive study was performed. "We want to know, 'Is this a product that is safe for our children, and protecting their health, or is it not?'"

   READ: NBC News' original investigation on this story

   Rom Reddy, CEO of SprinTurf , one of the largest synthetic turf companies, said he also wants the EPA to speak out on the issue, and affirm that studies prove his product is safe.

   "There is more than enough information for them to act," Reddy said.A Growing List

   Meanwhile, University of Washington women's soccer coach Amy Griffin keeps adding names to her list of athletes — most of them soccer goalies — who played on crumb rubber turf and have been diagnosed with various forms of cancer.

   After a story about Griffin aired on NBC News last fall, many people contacted her, and the list has grown from 34 goalkeepers to at least 63. She notes that the Washington State Department of Health has also begun its own research.

   "It's not just me knocking on people's doors and going, 'Don't you think this is weird?'" said Griffin.

   Griffin began keeping the list after she discovered that several goalies she knew had been diagnosed with the same cancer. She and some of those athletes questioned whether crumb rubber could be exposing them to chemicals and carcinogens.Amy Griffin, Associate Head Coach for the women's soccer team at the University of Washington, sits on the bleachers before a game in Portland, Ore. Griffin, who has coached goalkeepers since the 1980s, is questioning whether chemicals in crumb rubber artificial turf are making goalkeepers sick. HANNAH RAPPLEYE / NBC News

   Returning calls and emails is something she's glad to do, Griffin said. But, she added, "I'm an assistant soccer coach. I do think it's weird that people are calling me instead of the government."

   Crumb rubber artificial turf is a popular playing surface found in thousands of U.S. schools, parks and professional stadiums. It's made from a combination of green nylon blades of "grass" and black crumb rubber infill, created by pulverizing millions of recycled tires.

   The surface was designed to be more durable and cheaper to maintain than natural grass fields, and softer and more yielding — and thus less likely to cause injuries — than previous generations of artificial turf.Little Black Dots

   But some coaches, doctors and parents have raised questions about the chemicals found in the little black dots that make up the rubber infill and often wind up stuck to the skin, shoes and clothes of athletes.

   According to the EPA, mercury, lead, benzene and arsenic, among several other chemicals, heavy metals, and carcinogens, have been found in tires.

   But no research has linked crumb or shredded rubber to cancer, and Griffin's list of goalies is anecdotal, not a scientific data set.

   NBC News reviewed dozens of studies. Several studies that concluded crumb rubber does not present acute health risks also included the caveat that more research is needed. No study has examined the effects of regular exposure to shredded or crumb rubber on young children, over an extended period of time —something some experts believe should be done.

   While some doctors and toxicologists remain concerned about exposure, others say their worries are overblown. Dr. Laura Green, an MIT-educated toxicologist and independent consultant, said that the process used to manufacture tires — called vulcanization — ensures that chemicals and carcinogens remain trapped inside.

   "It's always been true that a carcinogenic gas has been used to make tires, but it's never been true, never, that once tires are made, once they are in use, and once they are crumb balled that they liberate that or any other carcinogen," said Dr. Green. She recently worked for the turf industry as a consultant, but said she has always believed crumb rubber poses no health risk to children.

   "There's zero reason to be concerned that playing on synthetic turf will put your child at risk for cancer," she added. "It's simply not true."Crumb rubber pellets recovered from an artificial turf field, left, and Nike Grind rubber bits, nestled among fake blades of grass, at right. Hannah Rappleye (L) / NBC News

   Rom Reddy of SprinTurf also said that the scientific evidence is clear.

   "We have looked at these independent studies, we have done validation studies," Reddy said. "Crumb rubber is safer than urban and rural soils, and safer than the children's toy standard."

   But Paul Anastas, former head chemist for the EPA, disagrees that these studies have proven crumb rubber to be safe.

   "Tires were not designed to be playgrounds," Anastas, who is now Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering at Yale. "They were designed to be tires."

   "I'm a scientist," he added. "I'm also a parent. When I am faced with decisions about things that could affect the health of my children, and there are open questions, why would I take the chance?"Parents Want Answers

   In 2008 and 2009, both the CPSC and the EPA announced crumb rubber turf was safe to play on. But both agencies have recently softened their stance.

   Last May, CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye told members of the House Energy Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade that "safe to play on means something to parents that I don't think we intended to convey and that we shouldn't have conveyed."

   "Parents do not care which agency does what when it comes to the safety of crumb rubber — they just want to know whether crumb rubber, as part of an artificial turf field or as playground fill, is safe for their children to play on," Chairman Kaye told NBC News in a statement. "As long as I am chairman, CPSC will continue to work closely with our federal and state partners toward ending the uncertainty surrounding crumb rubber."

   The EPA conducted a limited study in 2008, which the agency now says was intended only to help develop future studies, rather than offer conclusions about the material's safety.

   Neither the EPA nor the CPSC plans on commissioning future studies of the material, although both agencies have told NBC News they will offer technical assistance to an upcoming study commissioned by California's environmental agency.

   "The agency believes more testing needs to be done," said an EPA statement last fall. "But, currently, the decision to use tire crumb remains a state and local decision."

   NBC News has made at least 10 requests for interviews with the EPA since September 2014. Each time, a spokesperson for the EPA declined. Liz Purchia, spokesperson for the EPA, said that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy doesn't have time.

   For now, many states and cities really are trying to sort the issue out themselves.New Research on Horizon

   In the past year, several states have considered bills that call for moratoriums on new turf fields and ask for new studies of turf. The industry has responded by sending lobbyists across the country to fight the legislation.

   Early this year state Sen. Jerry Hill, a San Mateo Democrat, introduced SB 47, which would have implemented a two-year moratorium on the installation of new crumb rubber fields and playgrounds until the state produced a new study. It also would have required school districts to consider bids for alternative infill, such as organic material, when planning to install artificial turf fields.

   The turf and scrap tire trade groups, as well as labor groups, spent tens of thousands lobbying against the bill. And in California, as in other states, the industry has won.

   Terry Leveille, president of the California-based lobbying firm TL & Associates, helped defeat Hill's bill in Sacramento. It never got out of committee. At a scrap recycling conference this year, Leveille told industry representatives that he and the Synthetic Turf Council, an industry group, had also lobbied successfully against legislation in Virginia, and deflected a Minnesota bill with "a promise to fund a new $50,000 study."

   But pressure from Sen. Hill and environmental activists did produce results. California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment hascommissioned the study Hill wanted. It's expected to take about three years to complete.

   "There's been no study that really looks at the cumulative effect on children's health, over a long period of time," said Hill. Researchers, he added, will examine the "health impact of a child inhaling it, ingesting it, getting into their cuts and bruises" on a regular basis.

   Liz Purchia, spokesperson for the EPA, told NBC News in a statement that the EPA will "serve in a technical advisory capacity" to scientists conducting the study. "By working with the state of California, and other federal and state agencies," she wrote, "we will be able to identify critical remaining research gaps and optimize research efforts, while conserving resources and eliminating the duplication of activities," Purchia wrote.

   The CPSC will also be assisting with the study.

   On the local level, since the first NBC News report in 2014 more than 50 counties and cities in 17 states have debated or reassessed their approach to crumb rubber turf. While many of those locales have decided to move forward with crumb rubber turf installation, Montgomery County, Maryland, a suburban county with 1 million residents just outside Washington, banned new crumb rubber fields this spring.

   For her part, Amy Griffin says she will continue to keep her list and push for more comprehensive studies.

   "I hope facts come out so that everyone can make good choices and we can feel good about it," Griffin said. "Not, 'Well this seems like a good choice 'cause we don't know anything,' but 'This is a great choice because we know everything.' That's what I want."

   Rom Reddy, the turf executive, urges parents to act. "Write to Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the EPA, and say, 'Enough,'" Reddy said. "It is time to look at this information and act and put parents' minds to rest."

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Get Lobbying on Chemicals, Doctors Told by Health Body

   Oct 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Leigh Stringer

   A global health organisation has called for reproductive health professionals to lobby for policies that prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals.

   In an paper published today, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Figo) said doctors need to do more than advise patients about the health risks of chemical exposure.

   “We need to advocate for policies that will protect our patients and communities from the dangers of involuntary exposure to toxic chemicals,” said Jeanne A Conry, co-author and former president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

   Figo said: "Miscarriage and still birth, impaired foetal growth, congenital malformations, impaired or reduced neurodevelopment and cognitive function, and an increase in cancer, attention problems, ADHD behaviours and hyperactivity are among the list of poor health outcomes, linked to chemicals such as pesticides, air pollutants, plastics, solvents and more."

   Figo honorary secretary and lead author of the Opinion, Gian Carlo Di Renzo, said: “We are drowning our world in untested and unsafe chemicals and the price we are paying in terms of our reproductive health is of serious concern.”

   “Given accumulating evidence of adverse health impacts, related to toxic chemicals, including the potential for inter-generational harm, Figo has wisely proposed a series of recommendations that health professionals can do to reduce the burden of unsafe chemicals on patients and communities,” said Figo president, professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, who is also past president of the British Medical Association.

   The paper, which was published in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, was written by an international group of doctors and scientists from professional societies and the World Health Organisation (WHO), and is supported by NGOs such as Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) and Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).
   
   “Harmful exposure to toxic chemicals in the womb occurs at very low levels and the effects cannot be reversed. This is why we consider it vital that doctors, midwives and other professionals call for protection against toxic chemicals,” said Anne Barre, co-president of WECF France.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

10. Chem Safety Board Violated Sunshine Act With Surprise Vote -- IG

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Sam Pearson

    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board violated the Sunshine Act when it voted on broad governance changes at a public meeting earlier this year without issuing notice it would consider the items, the U.S. EPA inspector general said today.

    The EPA Office of Inspector General -- which has jurisdiction over CSB -- said in a report that CSB erred in approving the changes because its announcement published in the Federal Register for the Jan. 28 meeting to approve the final report of the agency's investigation of Chevron Corp.'s 2012 refinery fire in Richmond, Calif., made no mention of other topics under discussion.

    Rather, the notice said only that the board "may also consider such other items of business as determined by the Chairperson."

    Despite the lack of notice, CSB board member Manuel Ehrlich introduced a motion to terminate five investigations and make governance changes to increase the authority of then-Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso.

    CSB had already spent more than $800,000 on the investigations, the IG report said.

    "CSB Board members and staff were unable to explain why the motion was not included in the public meeting announcement," the report said. "By not announcing a motion that included terminating investigations, CSB kept the public uninformed of its planned actions to end the investigations, in violation of the Sunshine Act and the Act's transparency goals."

    The action also kept then-board member Mark Griffon from knowing that the matter was under consideration, the report said. Griffon, who said he was unprepared to discuss the items, subsequently voted against the motion, but it passed 2-1. The failure to inform Griffon was a violation of CSB guidance to circulate agenda items to board members in advance of meetings, the IG's office said.

    Moure-Eraso resigned under pressure from the White House earlier this year, and the remaining board members later voted to rescind the governance changes (E&ENews PM, May 6). The board members have so far declined to reopen the closed investigations but decided to fold two of the closed investigations into a forthcoming refinery safety report.

    CSB could address the issue by providing training to board members and staff and providing complete and accurate notices of public meetings in the future, the report said. In the agency's response to the report, new CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland said some of this training has already occurred.

    "We do not anticipate a repeat of these issues on this topic," Sutherland wrote.

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. More Legislation Emerges as Businesses Voice Colo. Spill Woes

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Manuel Quiñones

    Lawmakers keep pushing for more legislation to address the fallout from August's abandoned mine spill in southwestern Colorado, as communities and businesses demand compensation for an array of harms.

    U.S. EPA and its contractor helped cause the 3-million-gallon wastewater spill while trying to study ways of draining the Gold King mine near Silverton.

    Today, area business leaders pressed lawmakers for action during a hearing of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, the fifth such session on Capitol Hill in recent weeks.

    La Plata County Commissioner Bradford Blake, holding up a newspaper with a picture of the spill, told lawmakers, "This was seen around the world," and said the photo was worth millions of dollars in advertising -- "the wrong kind of advertising."

    Blake said the rafting industry was particularly affected by the Animas River closure after the spill. Businesses had to lay off workers immediately, and one company had upward of $100,000 in losses.

    EPA has said the Animas and San Juan rivers are back to pre-spill conditions. But communities worry about pollution in sediment and rock, and the lasting perception among visitors.

    DeAnne Gallegos, executive director of the Silverton Chamber of Commerce, said that without tourism, her community could become "one more ghost town."

    "To say your cash register didn't change today doesn't mean it's not going to change tomorrow," she added.

    The hearing -- led by Colorado Sens. Cory Gardner (R) and Michael Bennet (D) -- was less acrimonious than previous congressional sessions, where Republican lawmakers and the Navajo Nation blasted EPA for its response. Still, there was some criticism of the agency.

    Gallegos said that leaders had to "fight to get EPA to do a community meeting," and that Administrator Gina McCarthy had not set foot in the county. "There was a lot of 'We'll get back to you.'"

    The Navajos have asked for the spill area to be declared a Superfund site to ensure cleanup and protection of downstream communities. But as evidence of the range of views on this issue, many Colorado residents are less enthusiastic, and EPA has to weigh both sides.

    Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), who testified at the hearing, said a Superfund designation "could severely damage the town's reputation and prove costly to the area's economy." He said, "A listing under the Superfund could taint the area for decades to come."

    In a written statement to the committee, EPA said it would "continue to take responsibility" for cleanup and pointed to the ongoing claims process. Businesses and residents have two years to file claims.

    Andrew Corra, owner of 4Corners Riversports in Durango, said he was confident that "a lot of people will be made whole." But skeptical lawmakers and businesses wonder whether they can trust EPA and what exact damage the federal government will be willing to pay for.'Ticking time bomb'

    Yesterday, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) introduced the second in a series of planned bills in response to the spill focusing on EPA liability and compensation.

    The first, H.R. 3531, would strip EPA of federal liability protections in cases where the agency causes damage during environmental remediation efforts.

    Westmoreland's new H.R. 3655 would require EPA to reimburse the Treasury Department for settlements or judgments against the federal government.

    Last month, Colorado and New Mexico Democrats in both the Senate and House introduced legislation to set up a claims office within EPA. The bill would also require more EPA study into abandoned mine problems.

    Corra said, "This is a ticking time bomb that hangs over our heads." Because of ongoing pollution concerns, he and others are worried about investment in the area. Leaders also spoke about people backing away from real estate transactions.

    "I think everybody agrees EPA messed this up," Corra said. But he joined lawmakers in pressing for a long-term solution to polluted water releases from abandoned mines, which pre-date the Gold King spill and continue.

    Sources also say good Samaritan legislation, to protect groups from liability when stepping in to help clean up abandoned mines, is forthcoming, perhaps as soon as next week.

    Tipton said such a bill could be "one of the possible solutions as opposed to Superfund designation." Gardner added, "In reality, what we have to work on right now is legislation to allow these mines across the West to be cleaned by good Samaritans."

    But Democrats like Bennet, many of whom support good Samaritan legislation, are also pressing for hardrock mining law reforms, including adding a fee on current production for abandoned mine reclamation.

    Bennet said such action was necessary "to make sure mining companies pay royalties to taxpayers just like everybody else on public land." Gardner appeared at least open to discussing the idea.

    Corra said, "The spill makes clear that the piecemeal approach in the past is not working. We need a comprehensive approach to cleaning this up."

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

12. Senate Panel Approves Oil Export Bill

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry

    The Senate Banking Committee approved a bill to lift the ban on crude oil exports on Thursday.

    The measure, pushed by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and others, cleared the committee on a 13-9 vote.

    Among Democrats, only Heitkamp supported the bill. But others left the door open to supporting some type of compromise legislation going forward, and have a wish list of proposals to attach to it.

    Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) acknowledged that his state could reap some of the benefits of expanded oil production if crude exports are allowed. He suggested a final bill on the matter could be used as a vehicle for conservation or renewable energy policies, or that it should be merged into a broader energy package.

    “These are all important things and I think if we work together in a bipartisan way — set politics aside — we can do some things that are very positive for the county with this ban,” he said.

    Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) said a final bill should address its impact on refinery workers and waterway operators he worries would be put out of work. He also said that Congress could require oil exporters to use only American-made products to get the oil to market.

    “These are the kind of things that make sense, so it’s not just a one-off here,” he said. “Can we achieve these goals? We can, if we’re willing to work together and put a program together.”

    Heitkamp’s bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and the push to lift the export ban has garnered some bipartisan support.

    But the White House said last month that it opposes the effort, and Heitkamp acknowledges that she is trying to craft a compromise to get the measure passed. Last month, she suggested tying renewable energy tax credits to the legislation to win some Democratic support.

    The Banking Committee fielded a handful of amendments to the bill on Thursday.

    Senators rejected a push from Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.) to end federal biofuel mandates in conjunction with lifting the oil export ban. They did, however, adopt a measure requiring Iran to pay all court judgments to Americans victimized by Iranian terror attacks before lifting the export sanctions on that country.

    Heitkamp and other Democrats warned that the amendment was a “poison pill” that could kill the bill. But she said before the vote that she hopes to be able to work around it and integrate other compromise measures in the bill.

    “While I’m disappointed that we’re taking this turn, I think that we can still move this ball forward,” she said.

    “I think we will continue to have this broader discussion ... taking a look at how we can, in fact, do the right thing.” 

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Senate Banking Advances Oil Export Bill

    Oct 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Elana Schor

    The Senate Banking Committee today approved legislation ending the crude export ban, 13-9, setting up a nascent push by the GOP to attach similar language to a must-pass vehicle before year's end.

    The bill that cleared the committee today, with Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) joining all Republicans in support, now faces a tough climb to 60 votes amid mounting partisanship that surrounds oil exports even as the House prepares to pass its own version of the proposal next week.

    Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) today forecast the endgame by remarking that the committee's bill would likely not be the vehicle to end the export ban — particularly after Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) succeeded in attaching language related to the nuclear deal with Iran, a poison pill for many Democrats.

    Toomey also offered an amendment that would wind down the corn ethanol mandate but won only seven votes including his own. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), David Vitter (R-La.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Corker, and Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) joined him in voting yes.

    Two Democrats eyed by the GOP and oil industry as potential swing votes on the export ban, Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.), signaled that their support might be difficult to win; both voted for two Menendez amendments that bill supporters opposed as weakening its ultimate goals. One would have demanded a study on potential job losses; the other would have required U.S. production exceed consumption before exports could be authorized.

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Senate Banking Backs Repealing Oil Export Ban

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Geof Koss

    The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee approved legislation today to repeal the crude oil export ban, but only after adopting an Iran sanctions amendment that lawmakers warned would complicate the measure's future prospects.

    The panel voted 13-9 for the bill, S. 1372, sponsored by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, the lone committee Democrat to support the measure repealing the ban. The vote is the second by a Senate panel to support ending the ban, after the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in July approved companion legislation.

    While today's vote adds to momentum for ending the 1970s-era ban, the milestone was blunted somewhat by the addition of an amendment by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that would block the easing of sanctions on Iran under the recent international nuclear agreement until Tehran pays out judgments owed to U.S. citizens over terrorist attacks.

    "Some of those victims reside in Pennsylvania," Toomey told the panel during debate on his amendment.

    Democrats charged that Toomey's effort was another attempt by Republicans to thwart the Iran deal, which took effect after critics last month failed to advance a disapproval resolution blocking it.

    "This amendment kills the bill, we know that," said Banking ranking member Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who opposed the underlying bill.

    Joining Republicans in backing the amendment was Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a vociferous opponent of the Iran deal, who called the amendment "on point" to Heitkamp's bill.

    Speaking at the start of the markup, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) sought to downplay the ramifications of the range of expected amendments, saying the underlying bill won't be the legislative vehicle that ultimately lifts the ban.

    He suggested the crude exports issue could surface as a policy rider in budget negotiations over the next few months. "This could very possibly be added to that," Corker said.

    Export backers easily turned back a second politically charged Toomey amendment that would have ended the renewable fuel standard's conventional ethanol mandate, met largely by corn.

    Brown complained that the Banking panel was sticking its nose into the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. "Just as EPW shouldn't be having hearings on monetary policy ... I don't think this committee should be holding hearings on the Clean Air Act," he said.

    The amendment fell, 7-15.

    The panel also rejected on a 6-16 vote a Menendez amendment that would have required the president to certify that the United States is producing more oil than it's consuming before lifting the ban.

    While Heitkamp was the lone Democrat to support ending the ban, several other members of the minority suggested they were open to doing so as part of a broader energy bill.

    "If there's a realistic chance of getting this passed, it's going to require a more comprehensive approach," said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Court Says BLM Lacks Authority to Regulate Fracking

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Ellen M. Gilmer

    The Obama administration does not have authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands, a federal judge decided yesterday.

    In a major blow to the Bureau of Land Management and environmentalists who support stricter fracking oversight, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming enjoined BLM's years-in-the-making fracking rule, blocking enforcement of the new regulation while the court considers industry and state challenges.

    "One of the fundamental questions presented in this case is whether Congress granted or delegated to the BLM the authority or jurisdiction to regulate fracking," Judge Scott Skavdahl wrote, adding later: "At this point, the Court does not believe Congress has granted or delegated to the BLM authority to regulate fracking."

    The decision sent shock waves through the Interior Department and environmental community. The rule's backers have consistently argued that BLM has broad authority to regulate oil and gas production on federal land and that increased fracking regulation is crucial to ensure safety and environmental protection.

    "BLM has well-established authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing and other downhole aspects of drilling on federal lands," said Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman. "The requirements in this rule are amply supported by the administrative record."

    The rule, released in March, would set new requirements for well construction, water management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells on public and tribal lands. BLM said it is consulting with the Department of Justice to determine how to respond to the preliminary injunction.

    Freeman told EnergyWire that the environmental groups who intervened to help BLM defend the rule will continue fighting to ensure it takes effect. An appeal would go to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Challengers' arguments

    Industry groups and several states, meanwhile, celebrated the decision as an affirmation that BLM had gone too far.

    The plaintiff states -- Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota and Utah -- were behind the first argument discussed in the decision that Congress intended for states to handle regulation of fracking.

    "Today's decision supports Wyoming's position -- Congress has addressed hydraulic fracturing and precluded federal regulation of it," Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) said in a statement. "Wyoming has sound and responsible rules for hydraulic fracturing -- those rules have been in place for years."

    Industry groups celebrated the decision, too, as Skavdahl also relied on their arguments about procedural and technical problems with the fracking rule.

    "Even if the BLM had the authority to promulgate the Fracking Rule, the Court is troubled by the paucity of evidentiary support for the Rule," the decision said.

    The court found that public concern about fracking may have been sufficient to spur investigation of the issue but that public concern alone couldn't justify the final requirements. The agency did not adequately demonstrate the risks of fracking or how the rule would address them, the judge said.

    "The BLM has neither substantiated the existence of a problem this rule is meant to address, identified a gap in existing regulations the final rule will fill, nor described how the final rule will achieve its stated objectives," Skavdahl continued. "Rather, the Fracking Rule seems a remedy in search of harm."

    Barry Russell, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a plaintiff in the case, said the decision confirmed what industry has been saying all along: that additional federal regulation is duplicative.

    "Today's decision is consistent with IPAA's position that BLM's efforts are not needed and that states are -- and have for 60 years been -- in the best position to safely regulate hydraulic fracturing," Russell said.

    The Western Energy Alliance's Kathleen Sgamma agreed, noting that the fracking rule was based on "unfounded claims" about fracking's harms.Contentious logic

    While the district court's opinion was multifaceted, critics were most concerned about the judge's interpretation of BLM's authority, or lack thereof.

    In explaining his interpretation, Skavdahl relied heavily on an argument from the states challenging the rule: that the Safe Drinking Water Act specifically delegated fracking regulation to U.S. EPA and that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 subsequently exempted fracking from EPA oversight -- effectively removing it from the realm of federal oversight.

    "Through the EPAct's amendment to the SDWA, Congress clearly expressed its intent that non-diesel hydraulic fracturing be removed from the realm of federal regulation, thereby lodging authority to regulate that activity within the States and Tribes," he wrote, citing a 2009 law review article from law school professor Hannah Wiseman.

    But Wiseman herself disputes that interpretation of her article, which explored federal regulation of oil and gas (EnergyWire, Aug. 18). She testified before Congress earlier this year to clarify that her article addressed only a narrow exemption for hydraulic fracturing from Safe Drinking Water Act oversight -- not a broader exemption from public lands laws.

    Wiseman told EnergyWire she was surprised the court decision cited her article in the first place.

    "It's extremely surprising to see a court rely on a law review article for a ruling on whether a particular activity is exempt from federal regulation," she said. "I would have expected a citation to statute, regulation and case law.

    "The government had pointed out that the article did not mean what the states said it meant," she added.

    Reporter Mike Soraghan contributed.

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Colo. to Roll Out Local-Control Rules Ahead of 2016 Elections

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Mike Lee

    Colorado energy regulators will publish rules as soon as Friday designed to give local governments a say in how oil and gas is developed in their jurisdictions.

    The proposal was spurred in part by local bans on drilling and hydraulic fracturing that passed in a half-dozen communities on the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in 2014. Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) appointed a statewide task force last year to come up with proposals to lessen the impact of energy development on populated areas, as part of a deal requiring environmental groups to withdraw their attempts to force a statewide election that would have expanded local control over the industry (EnergyWire, Feb. 25).

    The rule proposals come out as activists and an industry group prepare for potential elections on oil and gas production in 2016.

    The rules will tackle the heart of the conflict over fracking in urban areas -- how much control cities and counties have over the location of oil and gas wells in their jurisdictions, said Matt Lepore, executive director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

    "Siting has the potential to be a thorny issue," Lepore said in an interview on the sidelines of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission conference here.

    One proposal will require oil companies to consult with local governments about the sites of "large scale oil and gas facilities" in urban areas. Cities and counties won't have veto power over the location of the sites, but the task force recommended a mediation process to resolve conflicts.

    Another proposal would require oil companies to provide towns and cities with maps of their existing well sites and a good faith estimate of the number of wells they plan to drill over five years.

    Hickenlooper said in May that a statewide vote on fracking was unlikely in 2016 (Greenwire, May 27). However, Frack Free Colorado, a grass-roots group that helped organize the 2014 initiatives, said on its website that it's trying to hold training programs in 50 cities by 2016.

    And Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development, a group funded by oil companies to fight local initiatives, is gearing up for 2016.

    "It's going to be a fairly cluttered ballot," Mark Truax, the group's director, said Tuesday at the IOGCC conference.

    The group has already helped elect pro-energy city council members in Fort Collins and Denver and may try to persuade legislators to change Colorado's initiative law to discourage anti-fracking petition drives, Truax said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. SAB Panel Seeks To Clarify Scope Of Review For Draft EPA Fracking Study

    Oct 1, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Bridget DiCosmo

    An EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel is seeking to clarify the scope of agency charge questions to guide its review of EPA's draft analysis of hydraulic fracturing's potential drinking water impacts, including the extent to which the panel should consider the lack of quantitative data on the frequency and severity of impacts in the study.

    “It's not clear to me how we assess how clearly” those factors were identified in the draft report given that it lacks specific quantification of the frequency and severity of impacts related to fracking and drinking water resources, panel member Peter Bloomfield, of North Carolina State University, said during a Sept. 30 teleconference.

    Bloomfield was commenting on an agency charge question that directs the panel to examine whether EPA met its goal in the draft assessment to “review, analyze and synthesize available data and information concerning the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources in the United States, including identifying factors affecting the frequency and severity of any potential impacts.”

    Elaine Faustman, of the University of Washington, said on the call, “I have concerns about how this is worded as well, because the document is so narrowly focused, our charge also has to be narrowly focused.”

    The draft assessment, released in June, is not intended to be a quantitative risk assessment, but instead identifies mechanisms by which fracking could potentially impact drinking water.

    These mechanisms include water withdrawals in areas of low water availability; spills of fracking fluids and wastewater; fracking directly into underground sources of drinking water; underground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate wastewater management, according to the agency's draft assessment.

    EPA's Jeffrey Frithsen said during the Sept. 30 call that while the agency did not have adequate data to expressly quantify the frequency and severity of impacts, the agency sought to identify which factors serve to modify potential impacts, indicating that the agency believes it is important that the SAB panel review those factors.

    “We did not want the assessment to be just a litany of potential impacts,” he said. For example, EPA sought to identify factors such as droughts that could affect the severity of drinking water resource impacts from withdrawals of fresh water for use in fracking operations.

    The panel ultimately decided not to amend the charge question but rather to address the issue in later charge questions on the portions of the draft analysis that dealt with each stage of the fracking-water lifecycle, including flowback and produced water, wastewater management, chemical mixing, water acquisition and well injection.

    But the lengthy discussion suggests that the panel might focus its review on the limitations of the draft analysis, including the extent to which EPA examined the severity and frequency of impacts, whether the agency properly accounted for technological and operational changes in the industry and data gaps.

    'Research Gaps'

    The SAB panel is slated to submit individual preliminary comments ahead of its planned Oct. 28-30 meeting to be held in Washington, D.C. The panel will attempt to reach consensus on the set of eight charge questions and then draft a report summarizing its recommendations for the agency, with the agency anticipating a final report some time in 2016.

    “I just have a strong feeling that the best use of my comments isn't going to be adding a bunch of comments on the study components,” but rather to focus on “the research gaps part of this,” said U.S. Geological Survey's Daniel Goode, a member of the SAB review panel.

    Dean Malouta, of White Mountain Energy Consulting, noted that the draft assessment “lacked a time sense” of specific industry practices and whether they were still going on, whether efforts were being made to modify them in favor of safer alternatives, and how technology might shift them over time.

    Stephen Almond, of Fritz Industries, echoed that the draft analysis appears to lack a time frame for how industry practices have changed or might continue to evolve over time.

    Meanwhile, Walter Hufford, of Talisman Energy, pointed out that “we should be careful about how impacts is used in the report,” noting that EPA discussed impacts from activities that are “frankly, not fracking,” such as spills and other operations issues, and that the agency has “defined impacts pretty broadly.”

    The panel also discussed adding language to one charge question, on whether additional information, background, literature, or research gaps should be included in the draft report, to include an examination of whether “major findings” can be gleaned from the draft analysis but are not thoroughly discussed.

    “An alternative question is, have the major findings been adequately emphasized,” said SAB panelist Susan Brantley, of the Pennsylvania State University.

    EPA conducted the massive study at the behest of a federal budget law, examining findings across five phases of the fracking-water lifecycle for potential impacts.

    The agency found no “widespread, systematic impacts,” but several “vulnerabilities.” For example, on chemical mixing, EPA found that the frequency of on-site spills from hydraulic fracturing activities could be estimated for two states, Colorado and Pennsylvania, from approximately 0.4 to 12.2 spills per 100 wells, but not nationally due to data availability constraints. 

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. EPA Ozone Rule Costly, Duplicative, Unnecessary

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio)

    Soon, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed ozone rule is expected to go into effect. It stands to be the costliest regulation in history, imposing new standards that are overly burdensome, technically unattainable and deficiently demonstrative of providing any environmental or public health benefits. 

    Unfortunately, this administration has chosen to ignore the ramifications of this rule while promoting an increasingly radical environmental agenda. The argument in favor of this – and a growing number of new polices – builds upon a deceptive premise, one that implies the protection of our environment is incompatible with fostering the growth of our energy and manufacturing sectors.  

    This is a false choice. States and industry have already demonstrated the ability to balance environmental stewardship and promote the economic growth these industries have provided.    

    Recent data has shown that the adherence to current regulations – both state and federal – and to industry best practices, is already working to reduce ozone while still allowing for economic growth. The EPA’s own data indicates that U.S. ozone precursor emissions have been cut in half since 1980, reducing ozone in the air by 33 percent. 

    This new ozone rule, proposed last year as part of the Administration’s climate agenda, will revise the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from the current standard of 75 parts per billion to a level between 65-70. 

    As counties across the country are investing billions of dollars to meet the current NAAQS standards – those introduced in 2008 - the EPA is now on the verge of implementing standards so stringent that 2,110 counties – 67 percent of the country -would fail them. Without allowing sufficient time for counties to implement these requirements – the Agency only issued guidance to states on implementation this year - the EPA has effectively moved the goalposts in the middle of the game. As counties fail to meet attainment, they would be subjected to costly regulatory restrictions and compliance requirements. This creates uncertainty that will stifle future investments in counties that the Agency designates in “non-attainment”. 

    The proposed levels are so low that some parts of the country could fall into nonattainment even if all human activity in the area were to cease.  Indeed, both the Yosemite and the Grand Canyon National Parks would be in violation of the EPA’s proposed rule. 

    This rule would essentially create a nation of nonattainment areas. 

    Since the rule was initially proposed last year, we have heard from experts in a range of fields and industries confirming even the possibility of this rule being implemented have proven detrimental to our workforce’s growth, and our economy as a whole.  

    A recent study conducted on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers projects that the EPA’s proposal could reduce the U.S. GDP by $140 billion annually, and eliminate 1.4 million job equivalents per year.  Overall compliance costs could exceed $1 trillion, making this proposal the most expensive regulation in U.S. history. The impact in my home state of Ohio would be especially significant, with projections of over 22,000 lost jobs and $22 billion in Gross State Product Loss from 2017 to 2040. 

    I represent a district with about 60,000 manufacturing jobs. These hard working Americans in both small and large businesses should not be faced with the choice of complying with EPA regulations or staying in business.  

    A recent poll showed 69 percent of Ohioans think a stricter ozone rule would make it harder for local businesses to start new operations or grow existing ones. This conclusion has also been reached by the manufacturing, energy, construction and transportation industries. 

    The EPA, when proceeding with new regulations, must take into consideration what is actually achievable, and what would cause significant harm to our economy. Recognizing the great burden the ozone rule would place on business both large and small across the country, Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) and I recently reintroduced the Clean Air, Strong Economies (CASE) Act, which would require the EPA to include feasibility and economic impact assessments when issuing major rules under the Clean Air Act. 

    This bipartisan legislation would allow the agency to balance improving our air quality, while ensuring the process does the least harm to our economy. 

    We all want clean air. We want to preserve the environment for our children and future generations. We also need to create the best environment for our businesses to prosper. Despite what the administration is purporting, we are already demonstrating the ability to do both: preserving our environment and growing our economy through best practices, and commonsense regulations. 

    Latta has represented Ohio’s 5th Congressional District since 2007. He sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Obama Tightens Ozone Limit, But Greens Fume

    Oct 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Alex Guillen

    Handing a win to the energy industry and business groups, the Obama administration today approved a 70-parts-per-billion standard for smog-producing ozone, according to an environmental group briefed on the rule. The level is stricter than what current rules require but far laxer than green groups had been seeking.

    The new number is lower than the 75 ppb standard set by George W. Bush’s EPA in 2008, but environmentalists and public health groups had said a limit of 60 ppb standard is needed to lessen illnesses like childhood asthma. Industry groups argued that such cuts that steep would wreck the economy.

    EPA declined to confirm the figure ahead of the regulation's release later this afternoon.

    Business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers, which barraged the airwaves with ads denouncing the tightened limits, said there’s no need to drop the ozone limit at all — but if EPA were going ahead anyway, it should go no lower than 70 ppb. That level represents the high end of the 65-70 ppb standard that EPA proposed last year.

    Today's move comes four years after the White House outraged environmentalists and public health groups by postponing any action on ozone until after President Barack Obama's reelection.

    Ozone, which is created by cars, power plants and industrial activities as well as natural sources, poses health risks for people with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Earthjustice indicated it will sue EPA over the 70 ppb standard. It is unclear whether business or industry groups will also challenge the new standard in court.

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Obama Administration to Tighten Smog Limits But Will Satisfy Few

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Washington Post

    By Juliet Eilperin

    The Environmental Protection Agency will propose tightening limits on smog-related pollution Thursday, according to individuals briefed on the decision, but the new standard will fall short of what environmentalists and public health experts had recommended.

    The new threshold for ground-level ozone, which forms when emissions from power plants, other industrial facilities, vehicles and landfills react in sunlight, will be lowered from its current level of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70. EPA’s scientific advisory committee had recommended the agency set the new level somewhere between 60 and 70 ppb.

    The issue of how to regulate smog, which can cause or aggravate such health problems as asthma and heart disease and is a suspect in premature death, has been a contentious one for decades. While the determination is supposed to be made solely on scientific concerns rather than economic ones, any lowered limit carries enormous economic consequences for states and cities across the nation. Communities that consistently fail to meet the standard could eventually face restrictions on certain kinds of industrial development.

    “EPA has threaded the needle in strengthening the ozone standard,” said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air regulators. “The agency has appropriately balanced the views of divergent stakeholders with the public’s right to breathe clean air. By following the expert advice of its independent science advisers, EPA has set the stage for state and local air pollution control agencies to begin implementing this important program.”

    [READ: On smog, industry gets unexpected help from a black business group]

    But environmentalists and groups such as the American Lung Association had pushed for a much tougher standard. In June 2014, EPA’s group of independent science advisers, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, had said the most vulnerable groups might still suffer adverse consequences under a limit of 70 ppb.

    The committee “advises that, based on the scientific evidence, a level of 70 ppb provides little margin of safety for the protection of public health, particularly for sensitive subpopulations,” it wrote.

    John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, faulted the administration’s decision Thursday.

    “The president’s legacy is shaping up to be one of unprecedented leadership on combating climate change, but weakness on health standards for smog pollution,” Walke said.

    American Lung Association president and CEO Harold P. Wimmer said in a statement that “while the updated standard is a step in the right direction,” setting it at 70 “simply does not reflect what the science shows is necessary to truly protect public health.”

    Earlier this month, according to several individuals, the White House Council on Environmental Quality discussed the idea of setting the standard at 68 ppb. But industry officials, who have campaigned to preserve the current standard of 75 ppb, said such a change would have a major impact on their operations.

    Paul Noe, vice president for operations at the American Forest and Paper Association, said his group determined that dropping the standard from 70 to 68 would increase the costs of compliance for pulp and paper firms 10-fold. It would increase the number of affected pulp and paper facilities from 41 to 114, according to the analysis, raising the total costs from $125 million to $1.1 billion.
    The skyline of downtown Los Angeles seen through a thick layer of smog. (Reuters/Fred Prouser)

    “We appreciate the fact we were given the opportunity to speak with [Office of Management and Budget], EPA and other White House offices about our concern about going further” below 70, he said.

    But Noe said that since nitrogen oxide, the pollution most associated with smog, has been cut in half since 1990, and is set to be reduced by another third between now and 2025, it made no sense to reduce the existing standard given that many communities are still striving to meet it.

    “We’re disappointed in the decision to reduce the standard before the current standard’s yet be implemented,” he said.

    National Manufacturers Association CEO Jay Timmons said in a statement Thursday that while “the worst-case scenario had been avoided,” the EPA rule is still “overly burdensome, costly and misguided.”

    “We know that this regulation could have been worse, but it still feels like a punch in the gut,” said Tom Riordan, CEO of Neenah Enterprises, Inc. and a NAM member. “Manufacturers are tough and resilient, but when Washington puts politics above job creation, we still pay a price.”

    At an appearance last week before the Business Roundtable, the president emphasized that his administration was legally obligated to examine the federal smog standard on a regular basis. “The ozone rules date back to when I was I think still in law school, before I had any gray hair.”

    “We are mindful that in some cases, because of the nature of where pollutants are generated, where they blow, that this can create a really complicated situation for certain local jurisdictions and local communities, and some states and counties end up being hit worse than others,” he said.  “And we’re trying to work with those states and those communities as best we can taking their concerns into account.”

    While Obama has sided with environmentalists repeatedly throughout his tenure, the question of how to regulate ozone is one of the few areas in which the White House has often been at odds with its liberal base. In September 2011 the presidentpulled back an EPA proposal to tighten the standard, arguing it did not make sense to increase the regulatory burden on the private sector “particularly as our economy continues to recover.”

    According to records on OMB’s Web site, Howard Shelanski, a top official of OMB who reviews proposed regulations, personally attended meetings last month on ozone that administration officials held with the National Association of Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute and Marathon Oil Corp., but sent deputies to a session with environmental and public health advocates such as the American Nurses Association, Earthjustice and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. EPA to Set Stricter Air-Pollution Standard for Ozone

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Amy Harder

    The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday will set a sweeping federal air-pollution limit on ground-level ozone, one of several environmental regulations fueling a clash between the Obama administration and the business community.

    The EPA will set a final standard of 70 parts per billion of ozone in the air, down from the current level of 75 parts per billion, people familiar with the matter said. The government is expected to announce the details of the regulations later Thursday.

    The ozone limit is likely to prompt criticism both from environmental groups that say it isn’t strong enough and business executives who didn’t want the EPA to change the standard at all. Some company and state officials have said they could support a standard of 70 but nothing lower, indicating the EPA is seeking to find some middle ground on the hotly divisive issue.

    “We know that this regulation could have been worse, but it still feels like a punch in the gut,” said Tom Riordan, CEO and president of Neenah Enterprises, a metals-manufacturing company based in Wisconsin that has about 2,100 employees. “Manufacturers are tough and resilient, but when Washington puts politics above job creation, we still pay a price.”

    The limit is at the high end of the range that the EPA’s independent scientific advisory panel recommended last year, which was between 60 and 70 parts per billion. The current level, established in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration, is set at 75 parts per billion.

    “The level chosen, of 70 parts per billion, simply does not reflect what the science shows is necessary to truly protect public health,” said Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, one of the public-health groups that sued the EPA to issue the standard by Oct. 1. “Nonetheless, the standard announced today offers significantly greater protection than the previous, outdated standard.”

    The ozone standard, mandated under the Clean Air Act, isn’t a direct regulation on business. States, however, must comply, which in turn would compel utilities, factories, refineries and other businesses and municipalities that emit smog-forming pollution—including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds—to install new pollution equipment.

    Business leaders say they consider the stringency of the standard before deciding whether to invest in an area that isn’t meeting it.

    Exposure to ground-level ozone can exacerbate a range of respiratory problems, including asthma, and is particularly harmful to children and older people, the EPA has said.

    The EPA’s expected announcement is the latest in a string of regulatory actions the administration is taking near the end of President Barack Obama’s time in the White House to address environmental and energy issues. Earlier this week, the EPA announced final rules setting first-ever national limits on toxic discharge from power plants and updated regulations on air emissions, including benzene, from oil refineries.

    At the top of this agenda are Mr. Obama’s climate regulations, which EPA unveiled in August at a White House event with the president. Those rules aim to cut carbon emissions from power plants 32% by 2030 based on emissions levels in 2005.

    The ozone standard, though less high profile compared to Mr. Obama’s climate rules, is nonetheless controversial. Thursday’s expected announcement was reanimating a battle between businesses and environmental groups that flared up four years ago in one of the most surprising environmental decisions during Mr. Obama’s first term.

    The standard the EPA is announcing Thursday is estimated to have a compliance cost of $3.9 billion a year by 2025, according to estimates the EPA issued when the rules were first proposed late last year. The EPA at the time said the limit also would yield public-health benefits valued between $6.4 billion and $13 billion a year by 2025.

    Current law prohibits the EPA from considering cost when deciding the standard, instead requiring the agency to look strictly at the latest science. But Mr. Obama told business leaders last month he would ensure the public-health benefits outweighed the cost.

    “We don’t issue a regulation where the costs are not lower than the benefits,” Mr. Obama said at a Sept. 16 meeting with the trade group Business Roundtable.

    Mr. Obama, citing economic concerns, in 2011 rejected an earlier EPA proposal that would have set the ozone standard between 60 and 70 parts per billion, which the agency estimated at the time could have compliance costs between $19 billion and $90 billion a year.

    The EPA is issuing the final ozone standard by an Oct. 1 court deadline, compelled by a lawsuit brought by environmental and public-health groups, and after nearly a year of taking public comment on the issue.

    Environmental and public-health groups have lobbied for a lower limit of 60 parts per billion. Industry groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have urged the administration to not update the limit set in the Bush administration.

    Some areas of the country are still not complying with the 2008 standard, which business groups point to as a reason the EPA should hold off on issuing a tougher limit. More than 90% of counties with ozone monitors are meeting a 75 parts per billion limit, according to an EPA spokeswoman.

    The spokeswoman said the agency’s approximately 1,300 ozone monitors are placed in regions with large populations and economic development where smog forms the most.

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. President’s Unapologetic Regulatory Push

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Jay Timmons

    August in Washington, D.C., is generally the time when the city powers down. But this summer, we saw a regulatory onslaught from the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    This August, President Obama unveiled a costly and unnecessary proposed rule to regulate methane emissions from our nation’s energy producers, and in the beginning of August, he unveiled the overreaching Clean Power Plan. 

    All these regulations and the several more that have come out of the EPA this summer could be dwarfed by the impacts of another major regulation due out at any moment: a more stringent ozone standard. 

    The EPA is on the verge of releasing a new ozone standard that by all accounts could be the most expensive regulation in history, costing the economy as much as $140 billion per year, putting more than 1 million jobs in jeopardy and harming already struggling communities.  

    For manufacturers, this could be devastating. And these are the same manufacturers that support an estimated 17.6 million jobs and contribute $2.09 trillion to the economy. 

    Since 1980, ozone levels have fallen 33 percent thanks in large part to innovations conceived, built and advanced by manufacturers across the country. Obama himself said in August that America has “solved” the smog problem in this country. And regulations, technologies and investments to improve fuel economy, increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions will drive further air quality improvements over the next decade and beyond. 

    Our air quality is improving. So why mess with success and endanger an already sluggish economic recovery in the process? 

    A recent National Association of Manufacturers’ (NAM) study shows that tightening the existing standard to the EPA’s proposed new measurement could put 1.4 million jobs at risk per year. It would harm households and industrial energy consumers alike. It could drain $1.8 trillion from our GDP between 2017 and 2040.   

    And the new standard could force entire regions of the country into so-called “nonattainment,” no-economic-growth zones—a sort of regulatory limbo that can make it all but impossible for businesses to expand operations or engage in growth-related activities.  

    At a time when cities and states need more enterprise zones, the last measure they need from Washington is forced no-growth zones. That’s why more than 260 organizations, including the NAM, mayors and local leaders from across the country and 22 governors have asked President Obama not to move forward with a tighter standard. Senators and governors from the President’s own party oppose changing the current standards and inflicting pain on working Americans. Bipartisanship is difficult in Washington, D.C., but on opposing new ozone rules, Democrats, Republicans and even major editorial boards have found common ground. 

    Many states are still scrambling to implement the current requirement. Manufacturers and others are working hard to do the same, investing time and money that can’t be allocated elsewhere to hire more workers and grow businesses.   

    Moving the goal line just as we are getting close to it makes no sense.  

    By setting emissions limits so close to naturally occurring levels, Obama’s EPA effectively guarantees that some states will fail to meet the new requirements. The economic consequences will be immense, and even the EPA will fall into the unenviable position of trying to police counties on a case-by-case basis. 

    That will put manufacturers as well as governors, mayors and local leaders on defense, instead of allowing all of us to aggressively court more business, strengthen our communities and expand prosperity for everyone. And by taking the time to implement the current standard, ozone levels will continue to decline, ensuring clean air for years to come. 

    There is an old proverb that states, “If you want to go far, go together.”  

    Let’s work together to first reach the goals in front of us rather than subject struggling communities to meet arbitrary new requirements. When it comes to regulating our businesses and manufacturers, let’s avoid the failed divisive politics of yesterday. Let’s grow together, in an environmentally responsible manner, now.

    Timmons is the president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers.

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. EPA's 70 ppb Ozone Standard Spurs Criticisms From Advocates, Industry

    Oct 1, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Anthony Lacey

    EPA's final ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) revises the existing 75 parts per billion (ppb) standard down to 70 ppb, according to press reports, prompting wide-ranging attacks as it is far weaker than the 60 ppb limit sought by public health advocates yet at odds with industry's call to retain the 75 ppb standard.

    Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune in an Oct. 1 statement on the 70 ppb limit said, “The Obama administration has fallen short of setting a smog standard that fully protects the health of our families, making this decision a missed opportunity to clean up our air and protect the most vulnerable Americans. “

    Several industry groups -- including the American Petroleum Institute (API), American Forest & Paper Association and Institute For Energy Research (IER) -- said a stricter NAAQS is unnecessary and will impose massive costs. API said it will urge Congress to block EPA from implementing the tighter limit.

    The final rule, which at press time EPA planned to announce later Oct. 1, was required under a judicial deadline after the agency missed a Clean Air Act-mandated deadline to review its 2008 ozone standard of 75 ppb in 2013. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) endorsed tightening the limit to within the range of 60 ppb-70 ppb in order to protect public health, but the agency in November proposed a narrower range of 65 ppb-70 ppb.

    While the final rule was undergoing White House Office of Management & Budget pre-publication review, industry sources told Inside EPA that EPA was leaning toward the 70 ppb standard -- though some officials within the White House Council on Environmental Quality were said to prefer a more-stringent 68 ppb limit.

    The New York Times then reported Oct. 1 that the final standard is 70 ppb, which is unlikely to satisfy many stakeholders including environmentalists, industry and others. Litigation over the revised standard is likely, though any suits face a high hurdle as appellate judges often defer to EPA's judgment on setting NAAQS.

    An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment on the Times report.

    When EPA floated the proposed version of the rule in November, it estimated that a 70 ppb standard would create $6.4 billion to $13 billion in health benefits compared to costs of $3.9 billion. The agency bases the benefits on values such as avoidance of premature death, asthma attacks and missed work days.

     By law, the agency cannot consider costs in setting the level of NAAQS and must do so based solely on scientific data about a criteria pollutant's adverse impacts. The “primary” health-based standard must under the air law be set at a level requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.

    The “secondary” NAAQS is designed to protect the environment, and one state air official says that the agency's final rule matches the secondary limit at the same level as the primary 70 ppb standard.

    Environmentalists had urged the agency to tighten the NAAQS down to 60 ppb, and ahead of the final rulesuggested that they might sue EPA if it were to finalize a 70 ppb limit.

    Industry groups, Republican lawmakers and other EPA critics, however, had urged the agency to retain the existing 2008 ozone standard of 75 ppb. They warned that a stricter limit risks placing many areas of the United States out of attainment with the NAAQS. That triggers requirements for states to impose potentially expensive controls on industrial sources of ozone-forming pollution, which critics say harms local economies.

    IER President Thomas Pyle in a statement referenced the costs of the ozone rule alongside those of EPA's recently finalized greenhouse gas standards for power plants, saying, “President Obama’s ozone regulation is another gut punch to poor and middle class families. Just as EPA admitted its carbon regulation will inflict pain on low-income and minority populations, the president’s ozone regulation will cause undue burden on those who can least afford it.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

24. E.P.A. to Unveil New Limit for Smog-Causing Ozone Emissions

    Oct 1, 2015 | The New York Times

    By Coral Davenport

    The Obama administration on Thursday will unveil a major new regulation on smog-causing emissions that spew from smokestacks and tailpipes, significantly tightening the current Bush-era standards but falling short of more stringent regulations that public health advocates and environmentalists had urged.

    The Environmental Protection Agency has set the new national standard for ozone, a smog-causing gas that often forms on hot, sunny days when chemical emissions from power plants, factories and vehicles mix in the air, at 70 parts per billion, tightening the current standard of 75 parts per billion set in 2008, according to people familiar with the plan but not authorized to speak on the record. Smog has been linked to asthma, heart and lung disease, and premature death.

    The agency’s scientific panel had recommended a new standard of 60 to 70 parts per billion, and last year, the administration released a draft proposal which would have lowered the standard to a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion. Administration officials had sought public comment on a 60-parts-per-billion plan, keeping open the possibility that the final rule could be even stricter.

    Since then, the nation’s business and manufacturing lobbies, including the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable and American Petroleum Institute have waged an all-fronts campaign to persuade the Obama administration to make the new standard as weak as possible. The groups were joined by dozens of mayors and local lawmakers, including many Democrats, who, in letters to the E.P.A. and the White House, said that a strict new ozone rule could lead to the closing of factories and power plants across the country.

    The new rule, set at the weakest standard in the range recommended by E.P.A.’s scientists, suggests that the industry groups were successful in influencing the White House. The industry lobbies said they were disappointed that the standard had been tightened at all, but pleased that the new rule represents the least stringent of the options on the table.

    Return to headline | Return to top

25. EPA to Tighten Federal Limits on Ozone

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry

    Federal regulators intend to tighten the standard for surface level ozone pollution, but only on the least restrictive end of the range they’ve long been considering, officials will announce Thursday.

     

    According to reports, the Environmental Protection Agency will announce a new ozone standard of 70 parts per billion, a level tougher than the 75 parts per billion limit currently on the books.

     

    The EPA had been considering implementing a standard between 65 and 70 parts per billion, and its scientific advisory board last year recommended a limit between 60 and 70 parts per billion.

     

    The EPA would not confirm the reports to The Hill. The agency will make a formal announcement on the ozone limits Thursday afternoon.

     

    The new regulation drew criticism from both industry groups and environmental organizations within minutes of news reports on it.

     

    Manufacturers and energy interests have hammered the EPA for proposing to strengthen the standard, saying tough rules on ozone pollution will be expensive to implement and threaten jobs. Industry officials had hoped the Obama administration would choose not to change the standard at all.

     

    “After an unprecedented level of outreach by manufacturers and other stakeholders, the worst-case scenario was avoided,” National Association of Manufacturers President Jay Timmons said in a statement.

     

    “However, make no mistake: The new ozone standard will inflict pain on companies that build things in America — and destroy job opportunities for American workers. Now it’s time for Congress to step up and take a stand for working families.”

     

    On the other side, environment and health groups have pushed the EPA to go even further than the 70 parts per billion standard, saying a stronger limit would help improve public health.

     

    In a statement, Earthjustice said Thursday that the new standard is “far weaker than called for by the nation’s leading medical organizations.”

     

    “This action falls far short of what’s needed to protect the 1 in 10 children who live with asthma,” said Lisa Garcia, Earthjustice’s vice president of Healthy Communities.  “The science shows that ozone is dangerous to these kids at the levels allowed by this new standard.”

     

    The agency last updated its standards for ozone, or smog, in 2008, a move that prompted lawsuits from both industry groups and health organizations. This week, both NAM and supporters of a strong new standard predicted a string of lawsuits against any new standard, but especially one set at 70 parts per billion.

     

    Republican lawmakers are also likely to take aim at the new rule. 

     

    House lawmakers attempted to block the new rule during the appropriations process this year, and members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee grilled an EPA officialover the rule this week

     

    Industry groups are already pushing lawmakers to combat the standards. 

     

    “Our nation’s air is getting cleaner as we implement the existing standards, but the administration ignored science by changing the standards before allowing current standards to work,” American Petroleum Institute president Jack Gerard said in a statement. 

     

    “It’s time for Congress to step in and block this unnecessary and costly regulation to protect American consumers.” 

     

    In a video released Thursday, the EPA said it expects “most U.S. counties” to meet the new standard by 2025.

     

    “EPA is strengthening the air quality health standard for ground level ozone,” the EPA said in the video. “Less smog means fewer lives lost too soon, fewer asthma attacks, fewer emergency room visit, fewer sicks days for working families and school children.”

     

    But the American Lung Association, which had been pushing the EPA to issue a limit of 60 parts per billion, said the new standard doesn’t go far enough.

     

    “The level chosen … simply does not reflect what the science shows is necessary to truly protect public health,” Harold Wimmer, the group’s president, said. 

     

    “Protecting the public health is the fundamental requirement of the national standard under the Clean Air Act, and saving lives and protecting health should be the only consideration, based on the law.”

     

    This story was updated at 1 p.m.

     

    Return to headline | Return to top

26. Obama Admin to Strengthen Ozone Standard

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Amanda Reilly

    U.S. EPA today will tighten the national ozone standard to 70 parts per billion, the upper end of the range the agency proposed last November, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the rule.

    The current ozone standard is 75 ppb, which was set by the George W. Bush administration in 2008. EPA had been under a court-ordered deadline to sign the new standard no later than today.

    EPA said in an online video it's strengthening the standard "based on what the science tells us is necessary to protect the health of Americans."

    Ground-level ozone is a key ingredient in smog and forms when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in sunlight. Ozone exposure has been linked to adverse health effects such as reduced lung function and asthma exacerbation, particularly in children and the elderly.

    "Less smog means fewer lives lost too soon, fewer asthma attacks, fewer emergency room visits, fewer sick days for working families and schoolchildren," EPA says in the video.

    EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is scheduled to speak on the standard this afternoon alongside Grand Rapids, Mich., Mayor George Heartwell. The agency has also scheduled numerous calls with stakeholders throughout the day, according to sources.

    Today's decision came after the Obama administration, faced with upcoming elections, pulled the plug on setting a more stringent standard in 2011 -- a move that greatly angered environmental groups.

    EPA had been widely expected to choose 70 ppb as the final standard, but its decision is unlikely to make anyone happy. Expect lawsuits to follow (Greenwire, Sept. 29).

    Green groups had pushed for a new standard no higher than 60 ppb, arguing that studies have linked adverse health effects with ground-level ozone concentrations above that level. Last year, EPA's own science advisers recommended a new standard in the range of 60 to 70 ppb, noting that the 70 ppb limit was probably not strong enough to protect public health as the Clean Air Act required.

    In a statement today, Earthjustice slammed the administration for choosing a "weak" standard.

    "This weak-kneed action leaves children, seniors, and asthmatics without the protection doctors say they need from this dangerous pollutant," said David Baron, managing attorney at Earthjustice.

    Business and industry groups, on the other hand, had waged an aggressive and expensive campaign against a tighter limit, calling on EPA to retain the 75 ppb standard. They warned that a lower limit would come with high compliance costs and questioned the science behind EPA's contention that the existing standard was no longer adequate to protect public health.

    But EPA says most counties that monitor their air quality will meet the new standard by 2025 thanks to a variety of air regulations that are already in place.

    "Clean air and a healthy environment help to strengthen our economy," the agency said.

    The National Association of Manufacturers, one of the most vocal critics of a tighter standard, today said that EPA had avoided the "worst-cased scenario" with a 70 ppb limit but still called the final action "misguided."

    "Make no mistake: The new ozone standard will inflict pain on companies that build things in America -- and destroy job opportunities for American workers," NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons said. "Now it's time for Congress to step up and take a stand for working families."

    EPA's congressional critics are girding to oppose the agency's final action. Two House Science, Space and Technology subcommittees are planning to hold a hearing next Wednesday on the new limit.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to Twitter this morning to warn that EPA's rule threatened to be the "most expensive regulation in history."

    John Walke, senior attorney and clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, vowed to defend against attempts to change the Clean Air Act in Congress while pushing for a tighter standard.

    "We will fend off political attacks that threaten the Clean Air Act's guarantee of safe air based on medical science alone," he said. "And we will keep fighting for ozone limits that adequately protect Americans' health."

    Return to headline | Return to top

27. N.D. Delegation, Governor Meet with McCabe to Protest Rule

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jean Chemnick

    North Dakota's congressional delegation and governor met yesterday with U.S. EPA air chief Janet McCabe to register their concerns about how her agency's Clean Power Plan would affect their state.

    Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) set up the meeting with McCabe when he called EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy after the existing power plant rule was final to protest its hefty increase in responsibilities for North Dakota compared with last year's draft. The state would be required to cut greenhouse gas emissions from its power sector by 45 percent by 2030 under the final version released in August, where the 2014 draft assigned it an 11 percent emissions trim -- the lowest of any state in the country.

    Yesterday's meeting on Capitol Hill included Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D); Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R), who was in town for the Western Governors' Association meeting; staff from Rep. Kevin Cramer's (R) office; and representatives of the state's coal and utilities sectors.

    The North Dakota delegation attempted to drive home how difficult it would be for their state to cut power-sector emissions almost in half in 15 years, according to a statement released by Hoeven's office.

    "This CO2 rule does not work and we need more time to address it," Hoeven said in the statement. He added that the North Dakotans asked for three years to submit an implementation plan instead of one.

    "We also talked about getting more flexibility and even an administrative exemption for North Dakota that would work based on our circumstances," he said.

    Heitkamp, for her part, said she secured McCabe's promise to send technical staff to North Dakota -- "not just to understand the issues facing our utilities, but to work closely with our utilities and regulators in putting together a plan that works for North Dakota while trying to achieve the reduced emissions goal."

    She added that state regulators "need EPA to be realistic about what can be achieved within the time frame the agency put in place so that our utilities have certainty that they can continue to provide reliable and affordable electricity to their customers."

    Both Hoeven and Heitkamp have pledged to oppose the rule via legislation. Hoeven backs a bill by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) that would allow states to opt out of the rule without triggering a federal implementation plan, but Heitkamp has not said whether she will support that bill if it comes to the floor for a vote this autumn.

    Despite their opposition to the plan, North Dakota is moving forward with implementation at the urging of its power sector, Dalrymple confirmed this week in an interview on E&ETV (E&ETV, Sept. 30). But he called the rule "unrealistic."

    "We are committed to carbon reduction in North Dakota, but it has to be realistic," he said, adding that the state needs more time to make cuts.

    While both chambers of Congress are expected to vote this fall to scuttle the rule, those efforts face a presidential veto. That's why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and others have urged governors like Dalrymple who oppose the regulation to refuse to comply.

    North Dakota has promised to join with others in challenging the rule in court.

    Asked about the conversation with North Dakota's representatives and officials, EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said McCabe explained how the final rule affords all states the opportunity to submit an implementation plan as late as 2018.

    A preliminary draft plan would be due next year, but states have three years to provide details about how they will meet their targets.

    For more information on North Dakota and the Clean Power Plan, visit E&E's Power Plan Hub.

    Return to headline | Return to top

28. Wyo. Gov. Mead Discusses Coal-Heavy State's Plans for Compliance, Litigation on Power Plan

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - TV

    As a major coal producer, consumer and exporter, what are Wyoming's plans for complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan? During today's OnPoint, Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) discusses the questions and concerns he has with the targets EPA has established for his state. He talks about the role natural gas, wind energy and emissions trading could play in a compliance mechanism. Mead also addresses Wyoming's plans to litigate the power plan.Transcript

    Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Gov. Matt Mead, Republican of Wyoming. Governor, thank you for joining me.

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Monica, thanks for having me on. I appreciate it.

    Monica Trauzzi: Governor, Wyoming is a major coal producer in the United States. Your state uses majority coal for power generation, and you also send coal to more than half the states in the United States. What happens to your state's robust coal industry under the Clean Power Plan?

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Well, Monica, it's devastating. I mean -- and you're right. We export roughly 400 million, 390 million tons per year. We're by far the largest coal producer, 30-plus states we supply coal to, and so when we see the Clean Power Plan, what it will do to our state, it will be -- not only be so detrimental to the coal industry in our state, but we think it's going to hurt the country by our inability to provide affordable energy source for so many states. As we see where Wyoming is, you know, in the draft plan, we had reduced CO2 by 19 percent. We, like a lot of other Western states, commented, and we were rewarded by upping it to 44 percent. It would require us to increase use of renewables by about 1,400 percent, effectively causing us to have a 55 percent renewable energy portfolio. It is not doable.

    Monica Trauzzi: With your current energy mix for power production, you've been able to maintain low electricity prices in your state as compared to all states in the country. Do you have a sense yet of what impact the Clean Power Plan will have on rates for consumers?

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Well, we know they're going to go up, and it's funny, I had a chance during the hearing to ask the administrator about that, and her answer was they'll initially go up, but they're going to go down. I don't see how that is possible. We have about the lowest electricity costs in the country. We're usually in the top five, top 10, about 7 cents. And what that has allowed us to do is to be -- remain competitive in manufacturing, it's allowed us to increase our technology business by attracting things such as data centers, and about 90 percent of the electricity we use in the state is coal-fired generation. So it's impossible yet to know the exact numbers, how much it will go up, because we don't know what we are going to be able to trade or not trade under a SIP or a FIP, and so we don't know, but we know it's going to go up, and we think it's going to go up dramatically.

    Monica Trauzzi: So you have some tools at your disposal, like natural gas. How do you plan to harness the abundant natural gas supplies in your state to comply with the Clean Power Plan?

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Well, fortunately we have some very good infrastructure already in place in terms of natural gas. We're usually in the top two or three in terms of natural gas production. We love the opportunity to use and develop natural gas, but the challenge is, you know, to do this fuel switching from coal to natural gas, there's this huge expense then, not only in the switching itself, but in stranding assets. In other words, we've already made so many improvements on these coal-fired plants, have so much invested into them, and to say you're just going to set them to the side and get a natural-gas-fired plant, not only the cost of that change, but stranding assets is not just left on the utility company. It's going to be passed on to the consumers, and so we'll pay for it both for the change and pay for the past stranded assets if it's able to go through.

    Monica Trauzzi: Was there a retraction, do you think, from the draft to final rule in terms of how EPA handles natural gas and how much you can use natural gas in compliance?

    Gov. Matthew Mead: We think that at least there was a change. I don't know if we'd call it a retraction, but I think that when you look at North Dakota, when you look at Wyoming, when you look at other states where they had more than double increase from the draft to the final, it calls into question, you know, how do they even come up with the draft numbers or the final numbers? I mean, that is a significant change and calls into question, in my mind, their ability to even assess the assets or how this plan is going to work. And with regard to natural gas, you know, we certainly have plenty of natural gas, but I think it's a very dangerous situation for the federal government to be in the business of saying this is what you're going to use for a fuel source because had they done that in the past, they would have inevitably been wrong on this.

    Monica Trauzzi: Well, but they're not just looking at natural gas. There's also a Clean Energy Incentive Program built into the plan, and your state is a strong producer of wind energy. Are you looking to tap into the Clean Energy Incentive Program to expand your state's use of wind energy?

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Yeah, we're -- as a matter of fact, we're getting ready to build what we think is, at least in the nation if not the world, the largest wind farm. It's going to be a 3,000-megawatt wind farm, and -- which is all very good, but in terms of the Clean Power Plan, in that context, the question is who gets credit for it, because the way it looks to us now is, if we produce electricity via coal to another state, that state gets coal -- or that state gets credit. If we produce electricity via wind, say to California, California gets credit. There's no scenario that we can find where we get credit, whether we're producing with coal or producing with wind. And so, you know, what's the incentive of ours to go to renewable if we're -- if we don't get the production credit in terms of reduction of CO2?

    Monica Trauzzi: Well, unless you're using it in-state.

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Unless using it in-state, but, you know, the amount of wind we have, best onshore wind in the country, you know, for us to get the benefit in terms of money back to our taxpayers, you know, we can provide some of that in-state, but you still have to recognize, whether it's wind or solar, it's not windy all the time and it's not sunny all the time. You still need that baseload ability.

    Monica Trauzzi: You mentioned trading earlier. How good, how likely is that multistate trading option looking for you?

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Well, it's difficult to tell because, you know, one of the challenges is we could reach an agreement, say, with one, two, three other states if we were inclined to do so, but then you also have the utilities. I mean, how are the utilities going to operate with one another? What agreements are they going to make? And that's where it gets very complex is we could reach agreements with states, but are the utilities, some of which, you know, operate in multiple states, you know, how do they design it? And is the state's design going to be consistent with what they need to do in order to stay in business?

    Monica Trauzzi: What are your plans for litigation?

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Well, we're going to litigate. It's -- even at 19 percent in the draft, it just didn't look doable to us. And secondly, when it's up to 44 percent, even if I said this is really what I want to do, I don't even know, infrastructure-wise how we would get this done in the time frame that they allocated for us. That's No. 1. No. 2 is what it will cause is not only stranded assets in terms of the coal-fired plants, but we have this wonderful resource, coal, that not only helps Wyoming and other states, but really is an opportunity for the country to stay competitive, to add to our energy security and thus our national security. It makes no sense to me to try to, by manipulation of rule, cut off coal because it's a great resource for our country.

    Monica Trauzzi: So you're planning to litigate, but on a separate track, you're also working towards creating a compliance mechanism so that you don't fall in that category that has to comply with the FIP.

    Gov. Matthew Mead: I'm not quite ready to say that yet, but we don't want to be leaving our utilities, our citizens flat-footed, so we are -- option is certainly we're going to litigate, but we are trying to see what a SIP would look like, a state implementation plan, because all things being equal, I'd much rather have state regulations than the federal regulations. So we're trying to provide as many options as possible, but hopefully we're successful in litigation.

    Monica Trauzzi: You serve as chair of the Western Governors' Association. Is there a broad agreement among the governors on the Clean Power Plan and its impacts?

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Well, I think there is. I mean, I don't know that I've talked to every one of them, but you know, what I do know is there's consensus among Western governors. Listen, we all have an interest in making any energy source as clean, as efficient as possible. This is not the way to go about it. The better way is to incentivize innovation and technology as we're doing in Wyoming, looking at capturing a slipstream off a coal-fired plant, seeing if it could be used for petrochemicals, things like graphene. Certainly to capture enhanced oil recovery. Those are the areas where I think the solutions are going to be found rather than this regulation because this regulation is going to suppress coal to the degree, who's going to want to invest in innovation and technology if it looks like it's a dying industry. So Western governors, we pride ourselves on clean environment, and we want to continue that, but you've got to go about it in the right way, and this looks like to us the wrong way.

    Monica Trauzzi: All right. The debate continues. We'll end it there, Governor. Thank you for coming on the show.

    Gov. Matthew Mead: Thanks very much. Appreciate it.

    Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

    [End of Audio]

    Return to headline | Return to top

29. Air board Targets Cuts to Climate Pollutants like Methane, Black Carbon

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E Climatewire

    By Anne C. Mulkern

    California launched its next attack on the climate front yesterday with a proposal on how to cut short-lived climate pollutants like black carbon, methane and refrigerator gases.

    In a draft strategy, the Air Resources Board (ARB) said it would seek a number of changes to pare the pollutants, part of its effort to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius. Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) remain in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time than carbon dioxide and other longer-lived greenhouse gases but are estimated to be responsible for about 40 percent of current "net climate forcing," it said.

    "The impacts of climate change are already upon us," the draft said. "California continues to suffer through historic temperatures, drought, and wildfires, and the State faces the prospect of an epochal El Niño season in the coming winter. Each year seems to bring a new global temperature record, and new evidence suggests sea levels are rising much faster than predicted."

    "While the climate impacts of CO2 reductions take decades or more to materialize, cutting emissions of SLCPs can immediately slow global warming and reduce the impacts of climate change," the draft added.

    The draft offers a number of proposals, including regulations on several fronts. The agency is expected to look at options later this year. The goal is by 2030 to cut yearly emissions of several pollutants from 2013 levels. ARB seeks to shrink black carbon pollution to 19 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) from 39 MMTCO2e by 2030; methane to 71 MMTCO2e from 118 MMTCO2e; and fluorinated gases (F-gases) to 24 MMTCO2e from 40 MMTCO2e.

    The largest source of black carbon emissions in California, by far, the paper said, is wildfire.

    "An average wildfire season contributes two-thirds of current black carbon emissions in California," it said. "Because of climate change and drought, many of California's forests are already in a perilous condition and require accelerated management and investment to protect them."

    Several federal, state and local agencies are working on a comprehensive "Forest Carbon Plan," which is expected to be released next year.

    "As part of this and related efforts, black carbon mitigation will be considered along with forest health, carbon sequestration, habitat and watershed production, and other drivers associated with protecting our forests," it said.Thinning of forests could reduce 'black carbon footprint'

    In addition to that, it said, there should be a look at removing dead growth in forests. Right now, it said, the "current rate of fuel reduction activity is insufficient to improve forest health and avoid catastrophic wildfire and produce resilient forests."

    That removed wood and other products should not be burned, which right now is common practice, the draft said.

    "Finding a productive use for this forestry residue, such as in bioenergy or liquid fuels production, can help California reduce its forest-derived black carbon footprint while meeting renewable energy and low carbon fuel goals, providing jobs, fostering rural economic development, and enhancing energy security," it added.

    ARB also will seek to cut soot produced by fuel combustion in the industrial and power sectors and burning of wood fireplaces in residences.

    "Reducing 2030 residential wood combustion black carbon emissions by half ... would set California on a path toward meeting the 2030 target proposed in this Draft Strategy," the paper said.

    ARB is proposing teaming with local air districts to "determine the most effective approach to avoid new residential wood combustion emissions in California. This could include encouraging the installation of gas fireplaces or non-wood burning centralized heating in new construction."Targeting methane emissions at dairies, landfills

    Methane emissions need to be cut because they are the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions globally.

    "Agriculture represents the largest methane source in California, accounting for nearly 60 percent of methane emissions," the ARB paper said. "Landfills are the next largest source of methane, accounting for a fifth of statewide methane emissions. Pipeline leaks, oil and gas extraction, wastewater, and other industrial and miscellaneous sources make up the remainder of emissions."

    California has the most dairy cows in the country and with those, the highest aggregated dairy methane emissions, it said.

    ARB in the paper proposed regulating new dairies by 2018 with rules for manure management. It likely would also cover expansions at existing dairies that occur on or after the effective date of the proposed regulation.

    In many cases, installing anaerobic digesters at dairies may not yet be cost-effective, if the only marketable product is energy, the draft said. But offering environmental credits may help "offer attractive rates of return for farmers and investors."

    ARB also should look at requiring diversion of organic material from landfills, the paper said. Under one proposed regulation, material would be diverted to organics recycling facilities to make useful products, including compost, fuel or energy.

    "These facilities may be developed at existing landfill and other waste management sites, or at new stand-alone sites," the draft said. "Organic wastes could also be diverted to regional waste water treatment plants or dairies for co-digestion with wastewater sludge, biosolids, or manure."

    Working with local air boards, ARB already is looking at a rule to cut vapor emissions of methane from oil and gas production, processing and storage. It likely will require: vapor collection on uncontrolled oil and water separators and storage tanks with emissions above a set methane standard; vapor collection on all uncontrolled well stimulation circulation tanks; leak detection and repair on components; and several other changes.New refrigerants spike GHGs

    F-gases are the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions both globally and in California, the paper said. The majority of those come from "fugitive emissions of refrigerants used in refrigeration and air-conditioning (AC) systems."

    More than half of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment uses HCFC-22, a pollutant that's scheduled for a nationwide phaseout by 2020. But that refrigerant is being replaced with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that have higher global warming potentials (GWPs), increasing the greenhouse gas impact of refrigerants, the paper said.

    "A window of opportunity exists in the next five years to accelerate the transition of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment to lower-GWP refrigerants, before another generation of equipment is locked into using higher-GWP refrigerants over their average lifetimes of 15 to 20 years," the proposal said.

    On the international stage, countries will meet in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in November to discuss an HFC phase-down effort. Depending on what happens there, ARB might pursue a California schedule on an HFC phase-down "that will meet the State GHG emission reduction goals," the draft said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

30. U.S. Climate Envoy Sees Momentum for Global Deal as U.N. Readies Draft Text

    Oct 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Lisa Friedman

    The "moment is now" to create a new global climate change regime, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern said yesterday as plans for cutting emissions from dozens of countries rolled in to the United Nations.

    The pledges, known as intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), bring the number of countries setting formal carbon-slashing targets to 130. That, Stern said, represents more than three-quarters of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and is a "striking demonstration" that most of the world wants a new global deal.

    Todd Stern, U.S. climate negotiator.Photo courtesy of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

    As of late Tuesday, all of the world's major greenhouse gas polluters had submitted targets, with the exception of India, whose target is expected to be unveiled tomorrow.

    "People are looking for success," Stern said after a two-day meeting in New York of top negotiators from the world's leading economies. "It doesn't mean we're there on everything, because we're not, but I do think the spirit, the overall engagement and approach, was positive."

    The INDCs will be the foundation of the accord leaders hope to reach in Paris in December. And while the past several days saw a frenzy of climate activity, from Pope Francis' call for a "courageous and responsible effort" to protect the environment to a sweeping agreement between the United States and China, the real work begins next week.

    That's when the co-chairs of the U.N. body overseeing the negotiations are expected to issue draft text that diplomats can dive into and start whittling down. With just 10 formal negotiating days left before the Paris conference, negotiators need to start on the nitty-gritty work of eliminating options -- which means eliminating proposals from various countries.Upcoming World Bank, Bonn meetings to set stage

    But Stern yesterday said he believes compromises are in sight on key issues, and activists agreed.

    "If this were the Tour de France, we are now entering the final stages leading up to Paris ... and there is quite a wind at our back," said David Waskow, international climate director for the World Resources Institute.

    Upcoming key events include a World Bank finance meeting in Lima, Peru, next week at which several countries are likely to increase their pledges either to the Green Climate Fund or for climate aid in general. The U.S. State Department has said it has "no plans" to increase President Obama's pledge of $3 billion over four years.

    Negotiators will then meet in Bonn, Germany, in October for the final mini-round of talks before Paris. Waskow and WRI's global climate director, Jennifer Morgan, said key issues there are likely to be about how the INDCs fit into an accord that sends a long-term signal about shifting to a low- or zero-carbon economy.

    That, they said, includes a debate over whether countries will meet regularly to review and boost their targets.

    Stern called the outlook encouraging.

    "I think what is to be gained by a success in Paris is very high. This would be, for the first time, a universal, durable, ambitious agreement that would set up a regime with ambition and strong transparency, with everybody engaged and a system of ramping up progressively on an accelerated basis over time," he said. "There's a lot at stake right now."

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

31. (ACC Mentioned) Fight Fires Up Over ‘Blanket’ PTC Provisions

    Oct 1, 2015 | Politico (Morning Transportation)

    By Jennifer Scholtes

    FIGHT FIRES UP OVER ‘BLANKET’ PTC PROVISIONS: Now that House T&I leaders have laid out their plans for extending the positive train control deadline, the battle is just beginning over whether to treat all rail operators the same or to give special leniency to those who have tried hard to mind the mandate. The proposal House lawmakers unveiled on Wednesday was a bipartisan effort. And in the Senate, Commerce Chairman John Thune says he backs the plan. But T&I ranking Democrat Peter DeFazio and Sen. Richard Blumenthal are ready to fight against offering up to five years of blanket exception to all railroads.

    Story Continued Below

    ‘Good-faith effort’: "What I don’t want to do is reward people that drag their feet, or will continue to drag their feet, versus people who have made the strongest good-faith effort and investments they can,” DeFazio said Wednesday. In that same vein, Blumenthal says he only wants to see free passes go to railroads that have diligently tried to comply with the existing law. "Only by holding railroads’ feet to the fire will this critical, life-saving technology finally be implemented,” the senator said on Wednesday.

    Differing reads: It’s not that DeFazio opposes the bill, he says — but rather, that he disagrees with the way Republicans are interpreting the text he helped craft. GOP aides say the legislation would provide an extension through 2018, plus the power for DOT to extend through 2019 or 2020 for all railroads. But DeFazio insists the measure actually stipulates that those two extra years would only apply to individual railroads, or groups of them. And the ranking member says the deal isn’t done: "It’s not the final language.”

    Industry expectations: Our Lauren Gardner reports that one of the railroad industry’s top lobbyists says he’s confident carriers won’t be asking lawmakers for another extension in 2018. “We are willing to live up to that commitment of, by the end of ’18, we will have everything installed,” the Association of American Railroads’ Ian Jefferies, a former Senate Commerce staffer, said Tuesday at a Hill briefing. “Now I will say, again, we will need additional time to test and validate the system.”

    IT’S THURSDAY: Good morning and thanks for reading POLITICO’s Morning Transportation, your daily tipsheet on trains, planes, automobiles and ports.

    Reach out: jscholtes@politico.com or @jascholtes.

    “I’m riding fast. I’m riding all day long.”

    HAPPY NEW FISCAL YEAR!: Today marks the start of fiscal 2016. And contrary to popular belief prior to John Boehner’s resignation announcement last week, federal funding is still flowing. As is the case with these kick-the-can, short-term spending bills, Congress’ action this week “just sets up another showdown threat — with even higher stakes — in December,” POLITICO’s Lauren French and Seung Min Kim report.

    TOLLERS BEWARE — MICA REMEMBERS THAT MANDATE: In one year, all highway tolling posts receiving federal aid are supposed to be all set up so a driver can use one pass to pay at every such station throughout the country. And toll operators that don’t make it happen by the October 2016 deadline will pay a price, Rep. John Mica says. The congressman has announced that he’s working on a bill to punish those who don’t fall in line with the interoperability mandate, which particularly interests him because he dreamed up the requirement back when he was T&I chairman and pushed the language to enactment within the MAP-21 legislation signed into law in 2012. “Some of those in the industry may not like the incentive,” he said on Wednesday. “I’m not going to give you all the details, but there will be a toll and price to pay.”

    NTSB PUTS ONUS ON CONGRESS TO SWOOP METRO UNDER DOT’S WING: Although the NTSB addressed its letter to DOT this week recommending that the FRA step in to oversee the safety of D.C.’s transit system, it’s really up to Congress to heed or reject the advice. Our Kathryn A. Wolfe reports that the letter is “a stark indictment of the transit agency's long-running problems with safety” and that the safety board is specifically asking that the department “seek statutory changes that would allow the DOT to designate WMATA as a ‘commuter authority,’ which would allow FRA to exercise direct oversight.”

    Holding out: Whether DOT will actually make that request is unclear so far. While the department says it is looking at ways to “increase” direct federal oversight of WMATA, it hasn’t said whether it will ask Congress to provide FRA with the additional oversight powers. Even if DOT ends up calling on lawmakers for this, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton says “NTSB’s recommendations will likely be impeded by Congress’ demonstrated inability to act swiftly.”

    TRADE OFFICIALS CONTINUE AUTO TALKS: International trade talks are scheduled to wrap up down in Atlanta today, but negotiators have the option of extending the dialogue for at least one more day. Pro Trade’s Doug Palmer reports that top trade officials from the U.S., Japan, Mexico and Canada met in groups of two on Wednesday to try to make some headway on the auto rule-of-origin issue that’s been holding up the overall trade deal and that it “remains unclear whether the TPP countries will wrap up work this week.”

    HIGHWAY BILL ACTION LOOKS HOPEFUL UNDER LIKELY LEADER: One week from now, House Republicans will pick Speaker John Boehner’s successor to run the chamber and will likely select a new slate of leaders to stand beside that new GOP chief. POLITICO’s Lauren French and John Bresnahan note that it’s looking like House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is a favorite to fill Boehner’s shoes. For those in the transportation world, that pick would certainly be significant considering McCarthy said just this week that combining tax reform with a long-term transportation funding bill will be one of his top two policy goals if he’s elected speaker.

    There’s updates almost hourly on this scramble for power. So if you can’t get enough, bookmark POLITICO’s newest blog: The Gavel.

    VW HEADACHE SWELLS ACROSS EUROPE: When the EPA announced two weeks ago that about 482,000 Volkswagen vehicles in the United States have been pumping out pollutants way above the legal limit, that tally was surely shocking. But now that the U.S. has gotten a handle on the scope of the problem, European officials are beginning to measure the scale of the crisis in their own countries, tallying damage that far exceeds what we’re seeing here. From over in Brussels, POLITICO Europe’s Vince Chadwick reports that Volkswagen says nearly 1.2 million vehicles in the U.K. were equipped with defeat devices. That total doesn’t include the more than 984,000 affected vehicles in France, more than 94,000 in Portugal and 148,000 in the Czech Republic. To complicate the crisis even more, POLITICO Europe’s Anca Gurzu reports that VW has received more than €4 billion in loans from the European Investment Bank over the last decade, with much of the money going to research aimed at developing cleaner engines.

    IG FAULTS FAA FALLBACK PLAN: DOT’s inspector general reported this week that the FAA put in place a lousy “plan B” after a contractor set fire to critical equipment in a Chicago traffic control center last year. Kathy notes that “the arson ended up disrupting air traffic for two weeks, delaying or canceling thousands of flights and causing $350 million in losses for various aviation interests. According to the report, the FAA's contingency plan in place at the time of the incident didn't have procedures for handing off air traffic control responsibilities to another facility, and the agency ended up having to dust off a plan from 2008 instead.” FAA officials say the agency has made such strides in the past year, though, that air traffic control systems are now “more resilient and less vulnerable” to incidents like that. “The agency systematically evaluated its ability to minimize the ‘insider threat,’” the FAA said in a statement this week.

    PTC-RELATED RAIL LAPSES COULD COST BILLIONS: Even with newfound optimism this week that Congress will act by year’s end to drag out the positive train control deadline, an extension is still far from a sure bet. And if lawmakers fail to push off this mandate before Jan. 1, their inaction could pull $30 billion out of the U.S. economy just in the first quarter of 2016, the American Chemistry Council says in a new analysis out this morning. The group predicts that the ensuing shutdown of rail service would cause unemployment rates to rise by 0.3 percent, amounting to a loss of 700,000 jobs, and would cause household income to fall by $17 billion.

    MT MAILBAG: Six House lawmakers wrote this week to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, asking to meet with him to discuss “the threats posed by the subsidized Gulf carriers to the U.S. airline industry and to U.S. workers’ jobs.” The legislators are calling on DOT to “swiftly address these trade violations” now that the public comment period is closed for weighing in on whether the Obama administration should reopen negotiations with Qatar and UAE. “Failure to confront these actions will set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements with other nations and will lead to significant job losses and cuts in airline service in the United States,” the letter states. “It is our hope that a meeting with you will allow for a better understanding of Congress’s concerns and the timely need for consultations with Qatar and the UAE, as provided for in the bilateral aviation agreements.”

    
    
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-transportation/2015/10/pro-morning-transportation-210491#ixzz3nKsY4TED
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

32. (ACC Mentioned) Think Positive Train Control Thoughts

    Oct 1, 2015 | Politico (Morning Energy)

    By Eric Wolff

    If Congress does not extend a deadline for implementing train safety technology, the economy stands to take a beating, according to a report out today from the American Chemistry Council. All rail lines carrying hazardous materials must implement positive train control, a GPS technology that improves train operational safety, by the end of the year. Many lines are not up to date, despite having been ordered to do so by Congress in 2008. The report says that failing to extend the deadline could stop train traffic on lines across the country, costing the economy $30 billion.
    
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

33. (ACC Mentioned) Bill Introduced to Extend PTC Deadline

    Oct 1, 2015 | Progressive Railroading

    The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's leadership yesterday introduced a bipartisan bill that would extend the deadline for railroads to implement positive train control (PTC) technology through the end of 2018.
    
    The bill would extend the deadline for three years, but also allow an additional two years at the discretion of the U.S. Department of Transportation for railroads facing circumstances beyond their control.
    
    If passed by Congress, the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (H.R. 3651) would help to avert a shutdown of a significant portion of freight- and passenger-rail services on Jan. 1, 2016, the day after the current deadline. 
    
    A majority of railroads have said they will not have PTC fully operational on their systems by Dec. 31. Many railroads also have indicated they would cease operations on track that is not PTC ready in order to avoid legal ramifications for operating out of federal regulatory compliance.
    
    Recently, a Government Accountability Office study on the issue confirmed that railroads have faced a number of challenges in implementing the complex technology, and most will not be able to meet the deadline.
    
    "Completion of the positive train control mandate by the end of the year is not achievable, and extending the deadline is essential to preventing significant disruptions of both passenger and freight rail service across the country,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), one of the bill's sponsors. "Railroads must implement this important but complicated safety technology in a responsible manner, and we need to give them the necessary time to do so."
    
    While allowing an extension, the bill would also ensure that railroads will be held accountable to implement the PTC safety technology mandated by Congress, said Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), also a sponsor of the bill.
    
    "Without an extension, freight railroads will be forced to suspend shipments of certain chemicals, including some used in treating drinking water and in fertilizers; commuter railroads will need to cease operations, significantly impacting commutes in major metropolitan regions; and all Amtrak service outside of portions of the Northeast Corridor will be suspended," Denham said.
    
    The legislation drew praise from the railroad industry.
    
    "The committee leadership clearly recognizes the need for immediate action to forestall the looming economic crisis that would result from widespread freight and passenger rail service disruption," said Association of American Railroads President and Chief Executive Officer Ed Hamberger. "We look forward to working with both the House and Senate bipartisan leadership to quickly get the PTC extension across the finish line and to the president’s desk for signature."
    
    Representing the passenger-rail side of the industry, American Public Transportation Association President and Chief Executive Officer Michael Melaniphy had this to say: "We urge swift passage of this legislation and strongly encourage the Senate and House of Representatives to work together to reach consensus so that a commuter service shutdown can be avoided and that the commuter rail operators can focus their attention on installing PTC in a safe and effective manner."  
    
    Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council released a new report that assessed the economic and social impact if Congress does not extend the PTC deadline. 
    
    "The United States is staring down the tracks of an unprecedented shutdown of freight rail service that could seriously harm our entire economy unless Congress acts quickly to extend the PTC deadline," said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. "A prolonged shutdown would be truly catastrophic, likely resulting in a recession. We cannot afford to let this self-inflicted crisis happen; Congress must act now." 
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

34. Editorial: Positive Train Control Must Wait, But the Wait Shouldn't Be Too Long

    Oct 1, 2015 | The Los Angeles Times

    By The Times Editorial Board

    After a Metrolink passenger train with an engineer text-messaging at the controls slammed into a freight train in Chatsworth in 2008, killing 25 people and injuring 135, Congress finally passed a law ordering railroads to install systems that could automatically slow or stop trains in dangerous situations. Safety advocates had been pushing the technology, known as positive train control, for two decades with few takers on Capitol Hill or among railroads. But the horrific accident — and the fact that equipment existed to prevent such carnage — led lawmakers to enact the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which mandated positive train control systems by the end of this year on about 60,000 miles of rail lines that carry passengers or hazardous materials.

    That was an ambitious deadline for installing the technology, which uses global positioning satellites, sensors on engines and alongside tracks, and computers to monitor and take control of a train if the crew ignores signals or speed limits. And now it's clear that the vast majority of railroads will not meet it. This is not a surprise. The Government Accountability Office warned in 2013 that most railroads were behind schedule on installation. (The rare exception is Metrolink, which now has the technology in operation on its own tracks and trains, and is close to completing installation on tracks it shares with freight rail lines.) Although safety advocates complain that railroads were too slow to start work, there's no question that railroads have struggled with the complexity of designing and installing sophisticated systems capable of working across privately owned rail lines.

    Some railroads have threatened to halt service rather than face fines and liability for operating without positive train control beyond the deadline. A widespread disruption could be devastating to the economy, considering that 40% of intercity freight traffic moves by rail. The Senate passed a bill earlier this year to postpone the deadline, and on Wednesday the House introduced its version, which would push the deadline to the end of 2018 and allow two additional one-year extensions on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, there is understandable concern among railroads and their customers that Congress will dither and delay action until the last possible minute, despite bipartisan agreement on the need for an extension. Rather than risk a shutdown of crucial transportation services, Congress ought to fast-track a solution.

    Yet a reprieve shouldn't be an excuse to slow progress toward installing this vital safety technology. The need for positive train control was demonstrated again in May, when the derailment of a speeding train near Philadelphia killed eight passengers and injured 200. Any extension should include milestones, progress reports and scrutiny by railroad regulators to ensure positive train control is a reality sooner rather than later.

    Return to headline | Return to top