Preview Newsletter

ACC PM

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Novolex Buys Wisconsin Plastic Bag, Film Recycler, Maker
Oct 5, 2015 | Waste360
By Allan Gerlat

Novolex has purchased Wisconsin Film & Bag (WFB), a plastic bag and film manufacturer and recycler, for an undisclosed amount.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) Important Fire Safety Tips from NAFRA During Fire Prevention Week
Oct 5, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Robert Simon

Fires have always posed a serious risk and continue to represent a very real danger in the United States. Fire departments respond to a fire every 25 seconds and fire is a real risk that disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations such as the elderly and children. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/10/important-fire-safety-tips-from-nafra-during-fire-prevention-week/
(ACC Mentioned) Senate TSCA Reform Bill Gains Filibuster-Proof Support
Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar

Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), co-author of the Senate bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (S 697), has agreed to changes to secure the backing of two more Democratic senators.
ICCM4 Agrees Post 2020 Process
Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch

A process for continuing international efforts towards the sound management of chemicals beyond 2020 was agreed last week at the fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4).
Pressure For Chemical Law Reform Mounts
Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson

A diverse coalition of stakeholders who normally don’t agree with one another is pushing lawmakers to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—a nearly 40-year-old U.S. chemical safety law that nearly everyone says is flawed.
Senate Looks Poised To Pass Major Overhaul Of Chemical Safety Law
Oct 2, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Kate Sheppard

The Senate may pass bipartisan environmental legislation as soon as next week, and it's kind of a big deal.
Senate TSCA Bill Changes Unlikely To Ease Some Advocates' SNUR Fears
Oct 5, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo

Revisions to a Senate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill that help boost Democratic backing and ensure the measure has a 60-vote filibuster-proof level of support are unlikely to ease some environmentalists' fears that the bill would weaken EPA's significant new use rule (SNUR) power to identify chemicals of concern.

Chemical Security News

EPA Lags on Safety Update Obama ordered After Texas Blast
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson

U.S. EPA has fallen behind on a key regulation stemming from an executive order to boost chemical security that the White House once touted as a "common sense step" to reduce risk, raising questions about whether the rule can be completed before the end of President Obama's term.

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Promises Timely Guidance on Ozone Implementation
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to issue updated guidance on permitting, pollution that crosses state lines and other issues to assist state and local regulators as they begin the process of implementing the agency's new ozone standards of 70 parts per billion.
EPA Outlines Steps for Implementing Ozone Standard
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly

U.S. EPA's top air official expressed confidence that most areas of the country will be able to meet the new ozone standard and outlined agency plans in a memo to regional offices last week.
House Sets Friday Vote on Oil Exports
Oct 5, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

The House plans to vote Friday on legislation to end the decades-old ban on crude oil exports, according to a schedule released today by GOP leadership.
Week Ahead: House to Vote on Crude Oil Ban
Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

House lawmakers will cast a vote on lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, the next step in an expanding debate over the issue.
Governors of N.D., Wyo. Push for More Time
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball, Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

The governors of two coal-dependent Western states, Wyoming and North Dakota, believe they have a strong case to make to the Obama administration about the extra time they need to comply with U.S. EPA's new rule to slash CO2 emissions from power plants.
3 States Kick Off Stakeholder Planning Meetings
Oct 5, 2015 | Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

Arkansas, Georgia and Minnesota are among the states that this week will begin stakeholder meetings on the Clean Power Plan.
C2ES Report Examines Business Resilience to Impacts of Climate Change
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

Are businesses in the United States successfully translating climate change data into action to reduce risk?
Bush Adviser Says Repealing Climate Rule is a 'Straightforward' Possibility
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann

C. Boyden Gray helped Jeb Bush's father make regulations vanish in the early 1980s. Now he says it could be done to President Obama's climate rules if the younger Bush wins the White House.
EPA Faces Competing Calls Over New NOx Standard In Truck GHG Rule
Oct 5, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves

California regulators and environmentalists are urging EPA to “commit” to strict new nitrogen oxide (NOx) limits for medium- and heavy-duty trucks to limit increased emissions as a result of the agency's proposed greenhouse gas rule for the vehicles -- a request that may intensify in the wake of the scandal surrounding Volkswagen's installation of NOx “defeat devices” in millions of its diesel passenger cars that led to NOx violations but lowered GHG emissions.
3 States Kick Off Stakeholder Planning Meetings
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

Arkansas, Georgia and Minnesota are among the states that this week will begin stakeholder meetings on the Clean Power Plan.
Calif. Likely to Rely on Cap and Trade to Show Compliance with EPA Rule, But Interstate Trading Remains Unclear
Oct 5, 2015 |
By Debra Kahn

California is facing a potential surplus of emissions reductions resulting from U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, but officials are still unsure how or whether to take advantage of them.
We Need an Insurance Policy for Climate Change
Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 WIre
By Michael Green

On Sept. 25, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) detailed his plan for combating climate change in the United States: put a price on the main instigator, carbon dioxide.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Novolex Buys Wisconsin Plastic Bag, Film Recycler, Maker

Oct 5, 2015 | Waste360

By Allan Gerlat

Novolex has purchased Wisconsin Film & Bag (WFB), a plastic bag and film manufacturer and recycler, for an undisclosed amount.
The Shawano, Wis.-based WFB operates a plastics recycling plant and converting facility near its headquarters. It makes custom polyethylene bags and films as well recycled and sustainable materials. It employs about 175, according to a news release.
“This is important to us because it will further enhance our high quality packaging choices for customers while advancing our position as the industry leader in sustainability,” said Stan Bikulege, chairman and CEO of Novolex, based in Hartsville, S.C.
Private equity firm Wind Point Partners acquired Novolex (formerly Hilex Poly) in 2012. WFB is the fourth acquisition for the company since it took on new ownership. Previous Novolex purchases include Packaging Dynamics (December 2014), Duro Bag (July 2014) and a portion of Clondalkin Group’s North American Flexible Packaging Division (April 2013).
With the addition of WFB, Novolex now generates revenue of $2 billion with more than 5,200 employees and 37 manufacturing locations in North America.
The plastic bags continue to be most famous for being an environmental and political football in a battle to ban their use by consumers or find a better way to recycle them. While legislation restricting their use continues to be a popular push for environmentalists, two companies in Texas have tried to find a way to recycle the products.
In late 2014, the city of San Antonio and ReCommunity joined forces to pilot the “Bag Your Bags” program as a way to stop lightweight high-density polyethylene (HDPE) material from jamming recycling machines by asking residents to effectively create a plastic bag "ball" out of multiple bags.
Texas Disposal Services (TDS) introduced a similar program in 2011, but only one of the nearly 100 communities and municipalities it services has taken them up on the offer. That’s Georgetown, Texas, a community north of Austin which added the program when it converted its curbside recycling collection to single-stream, says Ryan Hobbs, business development for TDS.
“We came up with the 'Bag-The-Bag' film plastic recycling program and we designed a special stuffer bag that are distributed to residential customers who can place them in their pantry or under a sink and over the course of time, they can stuff all varieties of film plastic inside,” such as bread bags, newspaper bags and the wrap around paper towels, he says.
Earlier in the year, there was promising data for post-consumer plastic film recycling. It jumped 11 percent from the previous year, according to the findings from the American Chemistry Council.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) Important Fire Safety Tips from NAFRA During Fire Prevention Week

Oct 5, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

By Robert Simon

Fires have always posed a serious risk and continue to represent a very real danger in the United States. Fire departments respond to a fire every 25 seconds and fire is a real risk that disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations such as the elderly and children.[1] This is why the National Fire Protection Association’s Fire Prevention Week – which has been going on for more than 90 years – is so important.
More attention needs to be drawn to fire safety and to the overall aim of reducing the rate of deadly fires in this country. Fire Prevention Week kicks off a weeklong campaign to raise that awareness, and the American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance (NAFRA) commends NFPA’s long-standing efforts.
Families should implement various fire safety measures from smoke alarms to purchasing home products containing flame retardants that have been proven to help stop or slow the spread of fire. In situations of fire, seconds matter and every measure helps. Here are five general fire safety tips to make sure that you have all the fire prevention tools to keep you and your family safe.Keep a working smoke alarm in every bedroom. This year’s Fire Prevention Week focuses on working smoke alarms in every bedroom since roughly half of home fire deaths result from fires reported between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., when most people are asleep.Make sure any open flames are out before you leave your house and before going to bed. Always check candles and even smoldering items such as cigarette butts when leaving the home and before going to bed. While on average, products with flame retardants can withstand an open flame longer than non-flame retarded products, fires can spread quickly when no one’s home or if everyone’s asleep.Draw up and practice a home escape plan. Draw a map of your home clearly indicating all exits, including doors and windows. Make sure everyone in the family is familiar with the plan and practice the escape plan with family regularly.Always have a fire extinguisher in the home, especially in the kitchen. Fires can happen quickly, especially when cooking. It’s helpful to have a fire extinguisher in the house with easy access.Fire escape ladders can provide an alternative escape route. Especially useful for a multi-level home or in an apartment building, fire escape ladders can provide another way to escape a burning home. The most effective fire escape plans have multiple escape routes that are especially helpful in multi-family residential buildings such as apartment buildings.
[1] National Fire Protection Association. “Fires in the U.S.,” http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-in-the-us

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Senate TSCA Reform Bill Gains Filibuster-Proof Support

Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Dinesh Kumar

Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), co-author of the Senate bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (S 697), has agreed to changes to secure the backing of two more Democratic senators.
The addition of the two brings the total number of co-sponsors to 60. This is the threshold of support needed to prevent a filibuster on the Senate floor.
The changes, which secured the support of senators Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) and Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), include:
increasing the annual funding cap for industry TSCA fees from $18m to $25m, and ensuring sufficient resources to defray 25% of the EPA’s chemical safety programme costs;
setting a mandatory four-year deadline for industry compliance with EPA regulations;
clarifying and simplifying the process for state waivers from pre-emption and state co-enforcement of federal chemical safety regulations;
expediting regulatory action on the EPA’s TSCA work plan chemicals from seven years to five in most cases. These are the 90 chemicals the agency has identified as having the highest potential for exposure and hazard;
requiring the EPA to disclose the information it used to make prioritisation decisions; and
changing the provisions which allow access to confidential business information for medical professionals and first responders.
Mr Markey, who had co-authored a counter TSCA bill with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) (CW 13 March 2015), said in a joint statement with Mr Udall and Mr Durbin, that he was pleased by the “positive and meaningful” changes to the bill. They would, he said:ensure chemical companies comply with mandatory deadlines for safety regulations;expedite regulatory action on the most dangerous chemicals;allow states more flexibility to implement new chemical regulations; andgive theEPA the funds it needs to do the job.
Ms Boxer, who had vowed to complicate passage of the Udall-Vitter bill if it was taken up instead of the bill already passed by the House, is also close to a deal with the bill's sponsors to allow it to move to the Senate floor (CW 1 October 2015). It is expected to be taken up for floor consideration this week.
Mr Markey's and Mr Durbin's support shows that the bill has strong backing across the political spectrum, and that it cannot be stopped by a filibuster, said Chris Cathcart, president of the Consumer Specialty Products Association. “We are an important step closer to TSCA modernisation today, and we hope to soon take an even bigger step by passing this bill on the Senate floor.“
Urging the full Senate to take up S 697 without further delay, the American Chemistry Council said that the growing support for the measure “demonstrates the substantial improvements the bill will make to the current law and the significant benefits it will deliver to the public.”
“This is yet another major breakthrough, and we believe the bill will pass very soon, but it’s still too early to pop the champagne corks,” said Dan Newton, senior manager of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma). “We need to see the bills reconciled and a final version that provides the necessary balance between environmental protection and promoting innovation signed into law before we can celebrate. We are confident this will happen.”
Elizabeth Thompson, president of Environmental Defense Fund Action (EDFAction) – the EDF's campaign arm – called the two Democratic senators' backing a “major step forward in securing comprehensive legislation to ensure chemical safety.”
But Andy Igrejas of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, said that despite the changes, the “legislation would still contain a number of problematic provisions … and our coalition will remain opposed."

Return to headline | Return to top
ICCM4 Agrees Post 2020 Process

Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch

A process for continuing international efforts towards the sound management of chemicals beyond 2020 was agreed last week at the fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4). It includes:an independent evaluation of the UN-led voluntary chemicals management initiative, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm); anda schedule of meetings, to be agreed by March 2016, to prepare recommendations to be considered at the fifth ICCM in 2020.
Saicm stakeholders met in Geneva. They included representatives from:governments;intergovernmental organisations;industry; andpublic interest groups.
They agreed that the recommendations should support the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This was adopted, with 17 sustainable development goals, the week before in New York (CW 1 October 2015).
Between now and 2020 – the deadline by which Saicm hopes to achieve global sound chemicals management – its activities will be prioritised according to an overall orientation and guidance document also endorsed by ICCM4.
As well as encouraging stakeholders to achieve “concrete risk reduction objectives”, it calls on members of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) and the UN Environment Management Group to recommit to Saicm by July 2016.
Calls for financing and a progress report for the period 2014-2016 are also included in the document. Funding is a particular concern for Saicm (CW 1 October 2015)
ICCM4 also adopted environmentally persistent pharmaceutical products as a new "emerging policy issue". The IOMC will develop a work plan, including information generation and sharing, to fill identified knowledge gaps (GBB June 2015).
Health Care Without Harm Europe executive director Anja Leetz said: “The global community recognising pharmaceutical pollution in the environment as an emerging policy issue in the Saicm process is a good first step on a long road to protecting human health and the environment. Now concrete actions need to be taken to reduce pharmaceutical pollution during production, use and disposal."
The summit agreed various measures related to the existing Saicm emerging policy issues:the UN Environment Programme (Unep) and World Health Organization (WHO) should generate and disseminate information on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) as part of its work plan. Developing countries have called for lists of known EDCs to be compiled (CW 30 September) – an idea opposed by the chemical and pesticide industries (CW 30 September 2015);all Saicm stakeholders should implement a chemicals in products programme proposal (CW 24 August 2015);governments should consider regulation to phase out the use of lead in paint;the UN Industrial Development Organization should work with others to develop a work plan forhazardous substances used in electrical and electronics products, and original equipment manufacturers should implement various measures including take-back programmes, industrial hygiene and environmental monitoring programmes, and safer and more sustainable chemistry in manufacturing; andinformation on the sound management of nanomaterials needs to be exchanged.
The conference agreed to a proposal from the Food and Agriculture Organization, Unep and the WHO to address highly hazardous pesticides as an issue of concern.
At the close of the conference several delegates noted their satisfaction with the outcomes of the meeting. Bjorn Hansen, head of chemicals at the European Commission's environment directorate said: “ICCM4 is a crucial milestone in pushing towards the 2020 goal. The EU and its member states consider the endorsement of the overall orientation and guidance document will help all stakeholders.” The strong links between the recently-adopted sustainable development goals and chemicals and wastes, he added, “clearly demonstrates that our work is crucial”.
And the representative from Nigeria called on stakeholders to “turn the resolutions into actions”.
NGO the International POPs Environmental Network (Ipen) said ICCM4 participants had shown they had the political will to "pick up the pace" towards 2020 and beyond. A key outcome, it added, was the decision on highly hazardous pesticides: "It is the first time these substances will be tackled in a comprehensive way in a UN agreement." However, the group said that increased and sustainable funding is needed.

Return to headline | Return to top
Pressure For Chemical Law Reform Mounts

Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Britt E. Erickson

A diverse coalition of stakeholders who normally don’t agree with one another is pushing lawmakers to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—a nearly 40-year-old U.S. chemical safety law that nearly everyone says is flawed. This alliance, which includes chemical manufacturers as well as a handful of environmental, public health, animal welfare, wildlife, and labor organizations, is urging the Senate to pass legislation (S. 697) that would modernize the antiquated act and make big changes . . .
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.

Story can be found here: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i39/Pressure-Chemical-Law-Reform-Mounts.html?type=paidArticleContent

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Looks Poised To Pass Major Overhaul Of Chemical Safety Law

Oct 2, 2015 | Huffington Post

By Kate Sheppard

The Senate may pass bipartisan environmental legislation as soon as next week, and it's kind of a big deal.
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Friday announced support for a bill overhauling the country's decades-old chemical safety law, bringing the number of co-sponsors to 60.
The bill would reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which has been widely panned as outdated and ineffective at protecting the public from hazardous chemicals. It would give the Environmental Protection Agency more authority to test and regulate chemicals, and to identify risky chemicals that should not be on the market. A Senate committee approved the legislation in April.
Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have taken the lead on the reform bill, and agreed to additional changes to accommodate the concerns of Markey and Durbin. The changes include increased funding from industry fees, which will pay for additional EPA testing, as well as faster compliance timelines for regulations. The senators said the changes are also meant to make it easier for states to move forward on their own regulations if the EPA has not issued a determination on a chemical's safety.
Markey said in a statement that the changes represent "positive and meaningful progress."
The Senate legislation has caused some tensions among environmental groups over whether the proposed changes to the law go far enough. Elizabeth Thompson, president of Environmental Defense Fund Action, said the additional changes have "further strengthened" the bill and put it closer to passing Congress. "Today we are even closer to a new law that can finally protect public health and the environment from harmful chemicals," Thompson said in a statement.
Representatives from the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, March of Dimes, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine are slated to appear with senators at a press conference in support of the bill on Tuesday.
But the Safer Chemicals, Health Families coalition, which represents a number of environmental, public health and consumer groups, said that while changes are an improvement, it remains concerned about " problematic provisions" -- especially how the bill deals with state preemption. "We believe we must do better and we hope the senators will support further efforts to strengthen the bill either on the floor or in conference," Andy Igrejas, the coalition's director, said in a statement.
There is still potential for additional changes through amendments on the Senate floor, but the bill has enough support to pass as it is. Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said McConnell has said the bill "will be coming soon," but is not yet scheduled for a vote. Other Senate sources said it could come up next week, after the Senate passes the National Defense Authorization Act.

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate TSCA Bill Changes Unlikely To Ease Some Advocates' SNUR Fears

Oct 5, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Bridget DiCosmo

Revisions to a Senate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill that help boost Democratic backing and ensure the measure has a 60-vote filibuster-proof level of support are unlikely to ease some environmentalists' fears that the bill would weaken EPA's significant new use rule (SNUR) power to identify chemicals of concern.
Yet while the updates announced Oct. 2 mean that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) -- which is leading the criticism of the SNUR provisions -- is expected to continue faulting the legislation, EPA in a technical assistance document on the legislation, obtained by Inside EPA, did not express major concern with the language.
At press time the Senate was expected to this week debate the bill, S. 697, which would overhaul the 1976 TSCA. Proponents of reforming the law say updates are necessary to bolster EPA's ability to address concerns about chemicals in commerce. While attempts at moving such legislation in prior years has proven unsuccessful, the House this year approved a narrower TSCA bill and the Senate measure now has at least 60 official supporters.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), who introduced the bill with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), said that recent revisions to the billhave secured the backing of Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL). Those updates include clarifying when states can get waivers from federal preemption of their existing chemicals programs; increasing the user fees that the chemical sector would pay for TSCA programs, and other revisions.
But the changes do not appear to address a concern detailed in a Sept. 16 blog post by NRDC senior attorney Daniel Rosenberg about potentially placing limits on EPA's SNUR authority to identify chemicals of potential concern in everyday products. The bill “creates additional legal hurdles before EPA can require notification about products that contain toxic chemicals the agency believes could harm public health or the environment,” he writes.
Under current TSCA authority, EPA issues SNURs to require notice from companies at least 90 days before a new use of a chemical is adopted, which gives EPA an opportunity to obtain more information if necessary and make a decision whether limitations should be imposed on the production or use of the chemical.
SNURs are one of the few methods EPA has under TSCA to restrict the manufacture or sale of existing chemicals -- those on the market before TSCA took effect in 1976. Once in place, the SNUR requires anyone intending to make, import or process "these chemicals for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the" SNUR to alert EPA 90 days before doing so, allowing it to review the intended practice before commencement.
'Articles' Exemption
SNURs usually have an exemption for "articles," or manufactured products containing the chemicals restricted by a SNUR. But recently, EPA has issued several rule proposals without this articles exemption.
Sources have suggested that the agency's restriction of the articles exemption is expanding because more products are being imported, while fewer are manufactured in the United States, where they might fall under other regulatory scrutiny from separate agencies such as the Consumer Products Safety Commission.
Under a revised version of S. 697 that was introduced at the bill's environment panel markup, EPA would face a new limitation that it cannot impose a significant new use reporting requirement on an article being imported or processed unless the agency makes "an affirmative finding" that "the reasonable potential for exposure to the chemical substance through the article or category of articles subject to the rule warrants notification,” Rosenberg writes
Currently, EPA must consider the extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical; whether it increases the magnitude and duration of exposure; and “reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of chemical.”
Rosenberg writes that the language in the bill considered at the markup “goes well beyond these general factors for consideration,” and imposes a new limitation on EPA that means the agency would have to make a “specified finding on a case-by-case basis” on the "reasonable potential for exposure" before requiring notice of a new use of a chemical in an article or category of articles. “This is a substantial shift in the burden of proof the agency must meet before obtaining simple notice about a potential new use of a chemical in an article,” he writes.
The SNUR language was added sometime between the bill's introduction March 10 and the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee's June 17 markup, Rosenberg says, as part of negotiations designed to try and win the support of Democratic Sens. Cory Booker (NJ), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR).
Given that the revisions to S. 697 announced Oct. 2 do not appear to address the issue, advocates could push to remove the language during a conference committee process that will be needed to resolve key differences between the Senate bill if it clears the upper chamber, and the narrower House reform bill that was approved in a June vote.
Technical Assistance
EPA in the undated technical assistance document -- which compares the current TSCA with the bill considered at the Senate environment panel markup -- notes the language that addresses SNURs.
But the agency suggest it may be “consistent” with EPA's understanding of its current requirement under TSCA to justify issuing a SNUR that would apply to importers and processors as part of an article. The document says that the agency is currently required to “make a concise general statement” on that the potential for exposure to a chemical in an article warrants future notification requirements respecting that potential.
The document notes that the general statement should generally show that it has reason to anticipate that such use would raise important new questions related to the substance's potential to threaten health or the environment, and that EPA should have an opportunity to consider those questions before such use could occur.
“EPA need not conduct a detailed assessment of exposure that has not yet presented itself, but it must speak to the potential for such exposure, and why that potential reasonably warrants the establishment of a notification requirement,” the document says.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

EPA Lags on Safety Update Obama ordered After Texas Blast

Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Sam Pearson

U.S. EPA has fallen behind on a key regulation stemming from an executive order to boost chemical security that the White House once touted as a "common sense step" to reduce risk, raising questions about whether the rule can be completed before the end of President Obama's term.
EPA said in June it would convene a small-business review panel for its proposal to update the risk management program (RMP) (E&ENews PM, June 19). That program, authorized under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, requires chemical facilities storing certain quantities of high-risk substances to assess the consequences of an off-site release and report this information to EPA.
Under an executive order Obama issued in 2013 after a fertilizer explosion in West, Texas, killed 15 people, federal agencies are attempting to work together to close gaps in chemical security regulations. That includes both tightening EPA's risk management program and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's process for safety management standards.
But after initial progress, "we seem to be in somewhat of a holding pattern," said Bill Allmond, the vice president of government affairs at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates.
Though environmental and public health groups have raised concerns over the pace of EPA's regulatory update, the agency had insisted it was on track to complete the rule.
But more than three months later, the proposed small-business review panel has yet to convene. EPA missed its September deadline to release the proposed rule, which it had for months insisted it would meet. Even when the panel does begin work, observers say, it's likely to take at least two months, followed by more time for EPA to integrate the comments into its proposal and for the White House Office of Management and Budget to review the proposed rule.
But an EPA spokeswoman said the rulemaking "is just one aspect of EPA and the U.S. government's efforts to enhance the safety and security of chemical facilities throughout the nation."
"In addition to aggressively working to move the rulemaking process forward in a way that incorporates feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, EPA continues its work under the EO on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security by assisting local communities in developing a local emergency contingency plan and facilitating a dialogue between the community and chemical facilities on chemical accident prevention and preparedness," she said.
EPA has reviewed more than 100,000 public comments since it issued a request for information on possible updates to the program in 2014, the agency said. The spokeswoman added that EPA is working on related initiatives to boost information sharing and enforcement of other laws, like the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response -- the branch responsible for the risk management program -- has faced an unexpected crisis at Colorado's Gold King mine, Allmond noted, though it's not clear if that alone could be responsible for the delay.
"The agency is working on a lot of large projects simultaneously," Allmond said. "That may very well have an impact on the effort of EPA currently."
Still, critics say the delay is a sign that chemical security -- despite Obama's past interest in the issue and his call for reform after the West explosion -- is not a high priority for the administration.
"We know that when something is important to this administration, they can get rules done pretty quickly," said Ron White, the director of regulatory policy at the Center for Effective Government.
For example, the Clean Power Plan posed daunting technical challenges, but EPA still managed to issue a proposed rule within one year and a final rule in just more than two years, White said.
Businesses aren't happy with the delay either, Allmond said.
"We are anticipating changes and making resource and budget decisions according to those deadlines," Allmond said, "and when those deadlines are missed, whether it's in this instance or in some future instance, it creates unnecessary uncertainty."Senators question OSHA process
OSHA's move to use an expedited process to make changes to how it interprets existing safety policy is also drawing scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, though public interest groups say their concern is overblown.
Like the EPA program update, OSHA took the step at the recommendation of an interagency working group convened by Obama's executive order. The working group produced a report in 2014, "Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security -- A Shared Commitment," that called for agencies to work together to close information gaps and outlined a series of activities for the remainder of the president's term (Greenwire, June 6, 2014).
Still, the move has brought scrutiny from Republican Sens. James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Joni Ernst of Iowa and Steve Daines of Montana, who sent a letter to Labor Secretary Thomas Perez last week asking for information on OSHA's use of a guidance document rather than a formal rulemaking process. OSHA issued the guidance documents to outline how it plans to interpret existing process safety management regulations for highly hazardous chemicals and concentrations of chemicals, as well as guidance for facilities covered under an exception for chemical retailers, among others.
The lawmakers warned the actions could "dramatically expand the universe of regulated parties, create extreme logistical and financial burdens on regulated parties and convert flexible recommended practices into mandatory requirements -- all without the opportunity for public comment."
David Michaels, the Department of Labor's assistant secretary for occupational safety and health, has called his agency the victim of a "broken" regulatory system that makes it nearly impossible to tighten safety rules.
Michaels said at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year that Congress needs to pass legislation to strengthen the agency's authority, though there is little political will to do so (E&E Daily, Dec. 12, 2014).
OSHA is "very limited in its capacity," Greenpeace Legislative Director Rick Hind said. To fix the problem, the agency needs "more legislative authority, not to have even initial steps be blocked or sabotaged by people representing special interests."

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Promises Timely Guidance on Ozone Implementation

Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Patrick Ambrosio

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to issue updated guidance on permitting, pollution that crosses state lines and other issues to assist state and local regulators as they begin the process of implementing the agency's new ozone standards of 70 parts per billion.

The agency is planning updated guidance and rules to address several state concerns that were raised during the agency's review of the ozone standards, including the handling of wildfires and other uncontrollable events, difficulties in demonstrating transportation conformity and the handling of background ozone that could potentially cause some areas to violate tighter ozone standards.

Janet McCabe, EPA acting administrator for air and radiation, highlighted the agency's plans in an Oct. 1 memo to EPA regional offices that was released alongside the agency's final rule (RIN 2060-AP38) revising the national ambient air quality standards for ozone from 75 ppb to 70 ppb (191 DEN A-1, 10/2/15).

Several organizations, including the National Association of Clean Air Agencies and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, and individual state environmental agencies filed comments on the ozone rule that requested the EPA issue its guidance documents and propose an overall implementation rule alongside the revised ozone standards.

While the EPA didn't do that, the memo shows that the agency wants to provide states with information soon, Paul Miller, deputy director and chief scientist at the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, told Bloomberg BNA.

“EPA appears to be motivated to get guidance out as soon as possible,” Miller said.

Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA that there is a “universal sense” among states that they need timely implementation rules and guidance in order to effectively implement the new ozone standards.

“Yesterday is really just the start for the 2015 standard,” Wood said. “We would love to get as much information as soon as possible so states can do their job.”

Permitting Help Promised Soon
The issuance of permits under the new source review program, which applies to new and modified industrial facilities, is one area where the EPA has pledged to offer states help through new guidance and enhancements to existing regulations.

McCabe said in the memo that the EPA is continuing to work on tools that will help improve the permitting process, which the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups have described as lengthy and overly complicated.

Although nonattainment designations under the 2015 ozone standards will not be made until Oct. 1, 2017, state and local permitting authorities will need to consider the new ozone standards on a much faster time frame. Permitting authorities will be required to consider the 70 ppb ozone standards when issuing preconstruction permits on the effective date of the rule, which will be 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

Lorraine Gershman, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA that facilities and permitting authorities need guidance on how to make permit demonstrations in areas that attained the 75 ppb standards but would violate the 70 ppb standards based on current data, even though they aren't currently nonattainment areas.
The EPA pledged to provide guidance on the use of emissions offset programs, significant impact levels and related screening tools that the EPA said would be useful for making demonstrations under the new source review program. Gershman said the promised guidance will be “really helpful” for the industry but there are concerns about what will happen in the near future once the ozone standards are effective in December or January.

“Setting the number is only the first step in the process,” Gershman said. “For facilities, we're sort of caught immediately.”
Gershman acknowledged that the EPA included a “grandfathering” provision in the final ozone rule that will allow facilities with pending permit applications to apply the 75 ppb ozone standards, which will be helpful for those facilities.

Background, Transport Issues
The EPA also promised to provide updated guidance on several issues that could affect an area's ability to meet the ozone standards, including guidance on how to handle exceptional events, pollution that crosses state lines and high background levels of ozone.

The agency said it is developing a white paper on how to handle background ozone, which many states have said would be a problem if the ozone standards were tightened. The EPA said it only expects “a few” locations in the western U.S. will struggle with compliance because of background ozone, which is the level of ozone that is naturally occurring, transported from elsewhere or results from uncontrollable events.
Woods of AAPCA said state regulators are looking forward to that white paper and a planned EPA workshop. He said that the EPA's assertion that background ozone will only be an issue in a limited number of areas is contradicted by a review of state comments that showed there is growing national concern about the ozone standards approaching background levels.

The EPA told Bloomberg BNA in June that its planned overhaul of the exceptional events policy, which allows for the exclusion of air quality data associated with wildfires, stratospheric intrusions and other uncontrollable events, to address state concerns that the policy is costly and unpredictable (124 DEN B-1, 6/29/15).

McCabe said in the memo that the EPA intends to issue its final exceptional events rule and related guidance on the handling of data affected by wildfires before states must submit their area recommendations under the designations process, which must be done by Oct. 1, 2016.

Miller said the overhaul of the exceptional events rule will be especially important for states in the western U.S. as they move ahead with implementing the more stringent ozone standards. For states in the northeast, how to deal with interstate transport will be a continuing issue under the tighter ozone standards.

The EPA said the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires states to ensure their emissions will not affect attainment in downwind areas, can be addressed in a timely fashion using the framework of the cross-state air pollution rule. The structure of that rule, which set limits on power plant emissions in 28 states, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 (EPA v. EME Homer City Generation LP, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 78 ERC 1225, 2014 BL 118432 (2014)).

Miller said states have the first and primary responsibility to control their emissions that affect downwind areas. Those states should know what to do, given the past court decisions and number of previous transport-related rules that have been issued.

“States know what needs to be done,” he said.

The EPA submitted a proposed transport rule for the 2008 ozone standards to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Sept. 29 (190 DEN A-3, 10/1/15).

Woods said going through the process to address transport under the 2008 standards could “make life easier” for states to meet their good neighbor provision obligations under the 2015 standards. States do question whether there will be an opportunity to work “a lot smarter” on a single set of plans to address transport under both the 2008 and 2015 standards, now that the EPA has made its decision, Woods said.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Outlines Steps for Implementing Ozone Standard

Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Amanda Reilly

U.S. EPA's top air official expressed confidence that most areas of the country will be able to meet the new ozone standard and outlined agency plans in a memo to regional offices last week.
Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe laid out a schedule for meeting the new limit of 70 parts per billion that gives states about five years to submit plans for lowering ozone levels.
She also sought to reassure states and local areas that EPA will be a willing partner in reducing ground-level ozone concentrations.
"I want to emphasize that we will work with our state, local, federal and tribal partners," McCabe wrote, "to carry out the duties of ozone air quality management in a manner that maximizes common sense, flexibility and cost-effectiveness."
EPA announced Thursday that it was lowering the national ambient air quality standard from 75 ppb -- the level set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to 70 ppb based on a review of public health data (Greenwire, Oct. 1).
In the memo, McCabe said EPA will release a guidance document early next year laying out the process of designating which areas of the country are not meeting the 70 ppb limit and must take actions to reduce their pollution levels.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to finalize a list of areas that are in "nonattainment" with the new standard by Oct. 1, 2017. The agency will likely rely on 2014-2016 data to develop that list, McCabe said.
According to EPA, 213 counties with air quality monitors, excluding California, will measure ozone concentrations higher than 70 ppb based on 2012-2014 data.
EPA will propose a rule to address implementation issues, as well as update existing air quality rules and permitting guidelines to reflect the new standard, McCabe wrote.
"We recognize that the owners and operators of emissions sources need clarity and certainty about regulatory requirements, especially when there are changes in air quality standards that may affect their construction and operations," she wrote.
States won't be expected to submit to EPA formal implementation plans laying out how they will achieve the new ozone standard until 2020 or 2021, the memo says.
"The goal," McCabe said, "is achieving clean air, while recognizing the many other activities underway and the resource constraints that we and our co-regulators face."
The agency says it expects all but 14 counties will achieve the standard by 2025 thanks to other air quality regulations that are already in place.
Green groups have dismissed the new standard as not providing enough protection against the negative health effects associated with ozone pollution (Greenwire, Oct. 2).
Business and industry have argued that it will impose steep compliance costs.
Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said EPA had "threaded the needle" with its choice of a 70 ppb standard. NACAA represents state and local air regulators nationwide.
"The agency has appropriately balanced the views of divergent stakeholders with the public's right to breathe clean air," Becker said. "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."
Most areas around the country, Becker said, are on a path toward compliance with the 70 ppb limit. Businesses will have nearly a decade to meet any new requirements stemming from the new standard, based on EPA's schedule, he noted.
In California, EPA said meeting the new ozone standard will prove difficult in some of the state's most polluted air basins that are surrounded by mountains, including the Los Angeles region. Under the Clean Air Act, however, those areas will have longer to come into attainment with the new limit.
The California Air Resources Board applauded the new limit in a statement last week.
"The new standard will mean a reduction in premature mortality, hospitalizations, emergency room visits for asthma, and lost work and school days," said board Chairwoman Mary Nichols. "This is especially critical in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley, where nearly two-thirds of our state's residents live, including large numbers of people who work outside and who have asthma and other chronic heart and lung diseases."
The Air Resources Board said its strategy for cleaning up pollution from cars and trucks would help it achieve the 70 ppb standard. It urged EPA to adopt a new national standard for nitrogen oxide from heavy-duty trucks. NOx is a key ingredient of ground-level ozone.
"ARB will develop new heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standards within the next several years," the regulatory agency said, "while simultaneously petitioning U.S. EPA to establish a corresponding national standard."
Some states are warning that the new limit will be challenging to achieve due to the transport of ozone across state lines, as well as because of "background ozone" coming to the United States from overseas.
"Implementation of this new, lower standard will be difficult in Arizona," said Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division Director Eric Massey in a statement. "Emissions and options to reduce them are few, particularly in rural areas."
In a document released with the new standard, EPA said it will work "closely" with states to address high ozone concentrations in rural areas and due to background ozone.
The agency said it plans this fall to release proposed revisions to its exceptional events rule -- through which states can submit data to EPA to show that an air quality violation is beyond their control -- to make it easier to use in the face of a tighter ozone standard.
EPA is also planning to release a guidance for addressing high ozone levels due to wildfires.

Return to headline | Return to top
House Sets Friday Vote on Oil Exports

Oct 5, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

The House plans to vote Friday on legislation to end the decades-old ban on crude oil exports, according to a schedule released today by GOP leadership.
The vote on a modified version of the bill that cleared the Energy and Commerce Committee last month is expected to come the day after Republicans meet to choose new leaders in the wake of Speaker John Boehner's surprise departure.
Amendments so far submitted to the bill, which faces opposition from the White House, touch on contentious issues such as taxing carbon and efforts to gauge the impact that ending the crude export ban will have on domestic gasoline prices.

Return to headline | Return to top
Week Ahead: House to Vote on Crude Oil Ban

Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

House lawmakers will cast a vote on lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, the next step in an expanding debate over the issue.
Members of both chambers of Congress have grappled with the ban this session, and its prospects for repeal have grown markedly over the last several months.
Faced with the prospects of declining prices at home and Iranian oil flooding the market after sanctions on the country are lifted, oil producers and their legislative allies are pushing to open up the rest of the world to American crude as soon as possible.
The House will vote on a bill from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) that would end the ban, a move House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) promised last month. Senators are considering a similar measure.
Barton’s bill — like one from Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) — won’t pass as is. The White House has come out against the measure, arguing the Commerce Department already has the ability to approve crude exports under certain circumstances.
But supporters say they are open to finding some type of compromise, a prospect that presented itself at a recent Senate hearing on the matter. At a Banking Committee markup, most every Democratic senator voted against the bill, but some spoke in favor of working toward a resolution.
The bill’s movement through Congress has kicked off a lobbying campaign on the issue. Oil producers say the measure will help provide a boost to the growing American oil industry, and they are hitting the airwaves to make their case in several congressional districts around the United States.
Environmentalists and some oil refiners opposed to the measure are pushing back, however, warning against increased oil production’s effect on climate change and domestic gasoline prices.
Elsewhere, House Science subcommittees on the environment and oversight will hold a hearing Wednesday on the Environmental Protection Agency’s new ozone standards.
On Thursday, the investigative arm of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hear from a Volkswagen executive on the car manufacturer’s emissions scandal. The committee’s energy and power panel will also hold a hearing on the EPA’s carbon emissions regulations for new and existing power plants on Tuesday.
In the Senate, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on Tuesday.
The four commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will testify at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Wednesday.

Return to headline | Return to top
Governors of N.D., Wyo. Push for More Time

Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Elizabeth Harball, Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

The governors of two coal-dependent Western states, Wyoming and North Dakota, believe they have a strong case to make to the Obama administration about the extra time they need to comply with U.S. EPA's new rule to slash CO2 emissions from power plants.
Despite EPA officials' frequent claims of "unprecedented outreach" to states while crafting the final Clean Power Plan, last week the two Western governors told E&E Publishing they felt blindsided when the federal agency announced in August that both states will have to meet much steeper greenhouse gas reduction targets than initially proposed.
"I think I read it in the newspaper," said North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R).
North Dakota's emissions rate reduction jumped from 11 percent to 45 percent under the final rule. Wyoming's leapt from 19 percent to 44 percent.
"To me, to come to be that far off would suggest shoddy work," Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) said in a separate interview.
Both states plan to challenge the rule in court. But although both governors say EPA's new rule sets impossible carbon reduction targets that will harm their states' economies, the two also expressed willingness to explore what their states could do to reduce carbon emissions. Both Wyoming and North Dakota are drafting compliance plans for what they think they can achieve.
"Eventually we have to be able to put forward what we think is possible for the state of North Dakota, and we're committed to carbon reduction as much as any other state," Dalrymple said. "This is something we want to do, but we have to determine what is possible, what is even reasonably feasible."
Last week, Dalrymple and chief executives from eight power and coal companies that operate in and around his state came to Washington, D.C., to ask acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe how North Dakota's goals got so much tougher and to seek a path forward.
"We know already, no matter how hard we try, there is no way that we can achieve the 45 percent reduction in the time frame that they're talking about," Dalrymple said.Talk with McCabe was 'productive,' executives say
Executives who met with McCabe on Sept. 30 were uniform in their agreement that the meeting was "productive."
One attendee, Mac McLennan, CEO of Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., said McCabe and her staff were "very open and very willing to listen and work on seeing if there some places of mutual agreement and flexibility."
Producing a state implementation plan is going to be a "monumental" endeavor, McLennan said.
EPA "gave us some assurances that they would work very hard to ensure that we have time necessary to put together a SIP appropriately," including sending technical staff to assist state regulators and the utilities.
"It was productive in that you had all of the utilities, the [congressional] delegation, the governor, the coal companies all represented in a room together trying to push the spaghetti up the hill in the same direction. Because that doesn't always work," McLennan said.
Otter Tail Power Co. President Tim Rogelstad expressed to EPA his concern about compliance efforts and their possible effect on grid reliability because of North Dakota's position as a net exporter of electricity.
"The key is we've got to work together to try and find a path forward. Anything is possible," Rogelstad said. "The question becomes is it economic, what is it going to do to rates?"
Mike Eggl, senior vice president of Basin Electric Power Cooperative, said EPA made clear that if a state could "demonstrate it was making progress" on developing an implantation plan "that if the states were still working through a public process, they would be allowed that additional two years" until 2018.
"Previously, we'd heard that unless the SIP was substantially complete" by September of 2016, "it was likely that we would see" a federal implementation plan imposed, he said.
Eggl said EPA's commitment to send technical staff to North Dakota might help resolve "confusion over what flexibilities have been provided in the rule for things related to load growth."
Nicole Kivisto, president and CEO of MDU Resources Group Inc., also was in the meeting with McCabe.
Her spokesman, Mark Hanson, said she reported that the hourlong session was "productive in terms of getting our concerns and recommendations on the table, but there were no commitments from EPA other than to have additional meetings with our experts and their experts to further discuss timeline and flexibility with the state implementation plan."
Wyoming Gov. Mead plans to meet with EPA leadership, as well, to hash out how a state so heavily reliant on coal power can make its power fleet almost twice as clean.
"The problem I think myself and other Western governors are faced with is that it's a tough task to sit down and develop a state plan for something that you so much disagree with, but it's also tough to tell utilities who do not have the luxury of saying, 'Yeah, go ahead, governor, and let us know how it comes out in eight years,'" Mead said. "They have to make multimillion-dollar decisions now. They need certainty. Their customers need certainty."Trading carbon credits may be only solution
Coal states saw their goals get much tougher under the final rule. EPA reworked its algorithm for determining state standards, requiring more of states that produce more electricity from coal than lower-carbon natural gas.
Mead said the goals put Wyoming in a lose-lose situation. The state is responsible for coal-plant emissions, but it won't receive credit for the zero-carbon renewable energy it sells to consumers outside its borders.
"The way that it's set up now, it looks to us that there's no scenario by which Wyoming would get credit," said Mead. "We could supply huge amounts of electricity via wind to another state, and we don't get credit for that. So in terms of regionalization and trading, if we don't have something that we can provide in terms of credits from our side, which state is going to want to deal with us?"
Said Dalrymple, "if we're making investments in renewable energy, those are investments being made in our state and being made by our companies. Why would they not get credit for those investments?"
Both governors say carbon trading might be the only way for their states to achieve EPA's goals.
Working alone, Wyoming would have to increase renewables more than 1,400 percent, Mead said, "effectively giving us a [renewable portfolio standard] of 55 percent."
"For a state that gets 90 percent of its electricity from coal, that's a big shift," he said.
Dalrymple and Mead both worry about the costs of purchasing credits or allowances from other states that have reductions to spare after meeting their own goals.
Utilities "have no idea of what carbon credits might cost, and in any case, that has to be factored into the price of electricity to the consumer," Dalrymple said. "Now, is that going to make you noncompetitive with a neighboring state that doesn't need any credits, that doesn't have to charge the cost of the credits?"

Return to headline | Return to top
3 States Kick Off Stakeholder Planning Meetings

Oct 5, 2015 | Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

Correction appended.
Arkansas, Georgia and Minnesota are among the states that this week will begin stakeholder meetings on the Clean Power Plan.
Tomorrow, the Missouri Energy Initiative will host a conference in St. Louis, and two sessions will focus on the Clean Power Plan. One will feature the chairman of the Missouri Public Service Commission, Daniel Hall, and the chairman of the Michigan PSC, John Quackenbush. The other will examine grid reliability with officials from the Southwest Power Pool and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator. E&E's Jeff Tomich will report on the event.
On Wednesday, U.S. EPA acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe will be the sole witness at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on the agency's carbon rules. In announcing the hearing, subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said he expects a "thoughtful discussion" on the effective imposition of cap-and-trade requirements on the power sector.
Also Wednesday, the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association's annual "Making Energy Work" conference in Raleigh will feature a session on the state's "next steps" on the Clean Power Plan. Panelists will include officials from the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. E&E's Kristi Swartz will be reporting.
On Thursday, Georgia's Environmental Protection Division will host astakeholder meeting "examining the final Clean Power Plan." Speakers include Karen Hays, EPD's air branch chief; Judson Turner, head of the EPD; Public Service Commission Chairman Chuck Eaton; and David Hoppock from the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. They are going to review the EPD and PSC's role in developing a state plan, as well as compliance options and EPA's Clean Energy Incentive Program. E&E's Swartz will be reporting.
Also Thursday, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will convene a stakeholder meeting in St. Paul. It will include an analysis of the rule and an update on multistate meetings. E&E's Daniel Cusick will be there.
On Friday, a trio of Arkansas agencies will begin meeting with stakeholders to discuss the final EPA carbon "emission standards for existing power plants, study the efficacy and economic impacts of potential carbon reduction measures from the power sector, and develop a state strategy for Arkansas." The Little Rock meeting is hosted by the Department of Environmental Quality, the Public Service Commission and the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. E&E's Edward Klump will be there.The latest Clean Power Plan news
In case you missed it:Texas utility regulator Brandy Marty Marquez says writing a compliance plan would be a "waste" of time (EnergyWire, Oct. 2).Southern state lawmakers urged attorneys general to sue EPA and governors to reject submitting a compliance plan (EnergyWire, Oct. 2).A federal appeals court rejected another effort by Clean Power Plan opponents to stymie the rule (Greenwire, Sept. 30).State officials cautioned about the consequences of just saying no to EPA (ClimateWire, Sept. 30).A Georgia air official says the state will develop a compliance plan that allows interstate trading of carbon (EnergyWire, Sept. 30).North Carolina's Energy Policy Council is exploring the construction of new nuclear plants as a means to comply with the Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, Sept. 28).
Correction: The Missouri Energy Initiative conference in St. Louis begins tomorrow. A previous version of this story contained an incorrect date.

Return to headline | Return to top
C2ES Report Examines Business Resilience to Impacts of Climate Change

Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

Are businesses in the United States successfully translating climate change data into action to reduce risk? During today's OnPoint, Janet Peace, senior vice president at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, discusses a new report examining businesses' resilience to the impacts of climate change. She talks about the public infrastructure challenges facing businesses and explains how public-private partnerships could help facilitate the planning process.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Janet Peace, senior vice president at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Janet, thank you for coming back on the show.
Janet Peace: Oh, it's really my pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: Janet, C2ES recently released a report examining the resilience of businesses to the impacts of climate change. What's happening on the ground that led you to dig into this question about resilience?
Janet Peace: Well, you know, the climate's changing, obviously. 2014 was the globally warmest year on record, and that has implications. You know, we're seeing drought in California, we're seeing, you know, increased fires. You can't attribute any of those particular events to climate change, but these events are happening, and they're happening more frequently. You know, climate change, we -- I remember when I first started in this area, it was kind of a far in the future, we need to prepare, but it's really now. It's really here now.
Monica Trauzzi: So how are the S&P 100, then, handling the risks posed by climate change, and is there sort of a common trend that you noticed among the companies that you spoke to?
Janet Peace: Absolutely. I think the good news story is that these big companies, they don't have their head in the sand. You know, over 90 percent of the S&P Global 100 acknowledge and report on climate risk. And they're taking more steps today than when we did our first report on corporate resilience a few years ago. There's more vulnerability assessments, for example, that are actually happening now.
Monica Trauzzi: But what's still missing? Kind of what are the missing links?
Janet Peace: Well, you know -- you know, companies still are struggling. They're still struggling with connecting the dots between global climate and long-term data to local, more near-term business decisions. So there's a lot more data out there today than there used to be, but taking that global data and making it relevant. One company called it "we need actionable science that we can plan on and use in our everyday decisionmaking."
Monica Trauzzi: What does that mean, actionable science?
Janet Peace: To be able to figure out, well, if I'm going to build a facility in Cincinnati, what are the impacts that I might be wanting to consider? What are the scenarios? So taking that data and putting it into, you know, scenarios that they can plan and that they can share with their regions on.
Monica Trauzzi: Some companies expressed concerns about public infrastructure, so what's the policy tie-in?
Janet Peace: Oh, they're absolutely concerned about outside-the-fence risks, whether it's their supply chains -- a lot of companies talked about their supply chains -- and a lot of companies talked about infrastructure, so the energy inputs that they need, the roads, the bridges to be able to get their employees and their customers to and from work and to and from their markets.
Monica Trauzzi: Are companies at all sort of underestimating the potential risks that they face?
Janet Peace: You know, it's a pretty wide tent at this point. Most of the companies are addressing climate within their -- the climate risk within their enterprise risk management or business continuity processes. A lot of companies, though, are looking at historical data and they're not looking forward. That's a key thing. The changes in these risk profiles are changing over time, so companies need to bring that into their decisionmaking, but it's a challenge because they don't know exactly how to take this global data and make it a part of -- not all of them -- they don't know how to make it part of their decisionmaking.
Monica Trauzzi: So you make a set of recommendations for companies to start taking a look at. What's the No. 1 thing that companies need to do to understand if they are assessing the risk that they face properly?
Janet Peace: Well, I think you started with if they're assessing the risk properly. I mean, the No. 1 thing they should do is do a vulnerability assessment, and there's not one best way of doing that. You know, some companies are starting a little bit smaller, some companies -- we call that a bottoms-up way to assess those vulnerabilities -- and then there's a top-down, where you look at across your enterprise and say, OK, well where are my business units, what are the raw material and risks that I should be facing. And really, they're looking at climate, not as a stand-alone risk, but really as a threat multiplier. And we hear that over and over again. So the No. 1 thing they should do is assess those vulnerabilities, and if they haven't -- you know, if they haven't really done this, if it's just new for them now, they might want to start at a smaller scale. You know, you look at a particular risk, a particular region, a certain set of operations, and examine that, communicate the results, bring in the relevant folks from across the organization, whether it's, you know, you've got your sustainability people, you have the people from the risk management group, operations, the real estate group if you've got a large footprint, and your finance folks.
Monica Trauzzi: What types of public-private partnerships, what does the government need to do to help these industries move along and facilitate the planning process?
Janet Peace: I think there's a huge opportunity for companies to work with cities and regions in this planning process. You know, cities have a lot of data. Companies have a lot of resources. So partnering between the two can only result in better planning for resilience.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, very interesting. Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate your time.
Janet Peace: Oh, it's really my pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]

Return to headline | Return to top
Bush Adviser Says Repealing Climate Rule is a 'Straightforward' Possibility

Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

By Evan Lehmann

C. Boyden Gray helped Jeb Bush's father make regulations vanish in the early 1980s. Now he says it could be done to President Obama's climate rules if the younger Bush wins the White House.
Reversing the Clean Power Plan could begin in as little as 15 months, if Bush is elected, and the exercise would be "fairly straightforward," Gray said in an interview this week. Bush said on Tuesday that he would stop the rule in its tracks.
"It happened many, many times in the beginning of the Reagan administration. So it's a fairly common understanding," said Gray, who's advising Bush on energy issues.
Gray's description is one of the clearest portrayals of how a Republican presidential candidate might treat Obama's budding regulations on power plants. Others, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), have also vowed to attack the controversial regulation, but it's unclear whether they mean to erode it through lax enforcement, defund it or repeal it altogether.
In Bush's case, Gray said he could "do a rulemaking to undo it."
That tracks closely with the assessment of regulatory experts. There are no legal barriers that prevent a new president from reversing the Clean Power Plan. It could be done by proposing a new regulation, collecting public comment and then finalizing it.
"It's just the reverse," said Gray, who was closely involved in President Reagan's historic initiative against federal rules on fuel economy, power plant emissions and scores of other regulations.
The whole process could take about a year, experts said. So dismantling the rule might be completed by early 2018, when states are required to submit their plans showing how they'll contribute to Obama's goal of cutting electricity-sector emissions by 32 percent.
Erasing the regulation might be simple in theory, but it holds several challenges in practice, according to experts on law, economics and the environment. The effort could disrupt an international agreement on climate change, confuse the investment decisions of electric utilities and give rise to lawsuits claiming that U.S. EPA is ignoring the Supreme Court, they say.
The Clean Power Plan is the biggest part in the United States' promise to work with other nations on a global climate deal. An agreement could come later this year. A new president who cancels the rule would be saying "Paris is dead," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"The U.S. would be perceived as a rogue nation on the climate issue," he added, noting that geopolitical backlash could harm a future president's agenda on trade, national security and international relations.'No legal reason' stopping repeal
Obama's climate rule was completed in August, but it has "cast a shadow forward" in the electricity sector for more than a year since it was first proposed, said Dallas Burtraw, an economist at Resources for the Future. Utilities saw the proposal as one of many indicators that future generations will lean more heavily on cleaner sources of energy, he said.
"It importantly changed the investment climate in the industry," Burtraw said of the rule. "It sort of ratified what people on the ground saw was happening with respect to the relative economics of coal versus gas."
It's also prompting investments in renewable energy, he said.
A key question is whether Bush, or another Republican president, would completely erase the Clean Power Plan, or replace it with something that fits better within Republican ideology. One alternative might be to loosen its emission requirements while continuing to reduce greenhouse gases, says Nathan Richardson, an assistant professor of law at the University of South Carolina and an expert on energy regulation.
Another possibility, he said, might be to cut back or eliminate the rule's requirements that generators increase energy efficiency and renewable power outside the power plant, focusing instead on direct emissions.
A spokeswoman for Bush's campaign pointed to the court challenges that a set of states are raising against the Clean Power Plan. She didn't respond directly to a question about whether he would repeal the rule or amend it.
She said in an email: "Assuming the Carbon Rule survives a set of difficult legal challenges over the next year, which seems unlikely, the Governor will stop it in its tracks. There are numerous options for doing that."
There are historical examples of regulations being tweaked. That also requires a new rulemaking. But Richardson said no major environmental regulation has ever been completely repealed.
If that happens to the Clean Power Plan, it would likely prompt litigation that seeks to stop the repeal. But as long as an administration isn't acting in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner, it should succeed, Richardson said, noting that it's a "pretty low barrier."
"So there's no legal reason that they can't withdraw the rule," he said.
But there are other considerations. A repeal would likely reopen deep legal wounds.Gray and the Bushes
The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It's likely the agency would be sued for not complying with that finding. Richardson also says that local communities feeling the effects of climate change, like Kivalina, Alaska, could resume their lawsuits against oil and gas companies for contributing to those damages.
Those cases were stopped in 2011 when the Supreme Court ruled that localities couldn't sue energy companies because EPA is required to regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Power Plan is the source of that regulation, so the suits could resume if it's revoked, Richardson said.
Whatever the barriers are to changing the Clean Power Plan, one historian who studies regulations puts good odds on Bush to succeed if he survives the primary battle and wins the election.
Bush is making regulatory reform a cornerstone of his campaign, just as Reagan did. Last month, he promised to freeze all pending rules until his Cabinet could review them. He'll also launch a task force to revisit regulations that are in the books. Some of those that he would target govern wetlands, hydraulic fracturing and sage grouse.
It's similar to Reagan's Task Force on Regulatory Relief, which he established on his first day in office. He appointed Vice President George H.W. Bush as its chairman. Bush's lawyer, Gray, ran its day-to-day operations. About 100 proposed and finalized regulations were targeted for review.
Barry Friedman, a political science professor at the University of North Georgia and the author of a 1995 book on regulations during the Reagan and Bush presidencies, said it's unclear how many pending rules were eliminated, because the Reagan administration did it in secret.
He found just one example, by persuading an EPA regulator in North Carolina to tell him about it anonymously.
"He was, honest to god, terrified to talk with me," Friedman said in an interview.
The proposed rule would have governed nitrogen oxide emissions at power plants; it was killed before it could be finalized. He wrote in his book, "Regulation in the Reagan-Bush Era: The Eruption of Presidential Influence," that the rule just "vanished."
The Clean Power Plan is different. Because it's finalized, it can't be repealed without a long public airing. But Friedman, who described Reagan's regulatory strategists like Gray as "brilliant," doesn't doubt that they could repeal it through the regulatory process.
"They know how to make it work. Yeah," he said.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Faces Competing Calls Over New NOx Standard In Truck GHG Rule

Oct 5, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Dawn Reeves

California regulators and environmentalists are urging EPA to “commit” to strict new nitrogen oxide (NOx) limits for medium- and heavy-duty trucks to limit increased emissions as a result of the agency's proposed greenhouse gas rule for the vehicles -- a request that may intensify in the wake of the scandal surrounding Volkswagen's installation of NOx “defeat devices” in millions of its diesel passenger cars that led to NOx violations but lowered GHG emissions.
But a group of major truck and engine manufacturers is cautioning the agency against setting an aggressive NOx standard alongside the GHG rule, saying it will make it even more difficult to achieve the rule's GHG targets.
In Oct. 1 comments on EPA's proposed phase 2 GHG rule for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) said it was expecting EPA to begin efforts to develop a lower, mandatory NOx standard for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, saying such a measure is needed to address “the largest heavy-duty trucks that frequently cross state lines and therefore cannot be effectively regulated by California alone."
But EPA failed to include the commitment in the proposal so CARB warns that it will advance its own NOx standard in 2017. “If U.S. EPA fails to initiate a timely rulemaking, CARB will continue with its efforts to establish a California-only standard,” CARB's comments say.
But such a move would likely draw opposition from those engine industry officials who say they would accept a new NOx standard only if it was a national limit.
One industry source does not expect EPA to include anything binding on NOx in the final GHG rule -- expected to be issued next spring -- but does believe “we may see some sort of signal sent by EPA that [suggests] directionally that's where they are headed in order to reassure California and keep California in line for a 50-state standard.”
But officials from several integrated truck and engine manufacturers, including Caterpillar, Daimler, Navistar and Volvo, cautioned EPA in Oct. 1 comments that the GHG rule “must recognize trade-off of NOx and CO2 reduction targets” and urged the agency to limit the ambition of any NOx target.
The joint comments -- which supplement individual company comments -- discuss a “well-established inverse relationship between” NOx and carbon dioxide engine emissions. “If engine CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are to decrease . . . the engine-out NOx must increase. This means that aftertreatment system must be designed or redesigned to reduce the net tailpipe-out NOx emissions in order for the engine to remain compliant with the criteria pollutant regulation.
“An extremely ambitious NOx reduction target in the timeframe of the Phase 2 rule, even if applicable only in some portions of the U.S., would make compliance with stringent GHG standards even more challenging,” the comments say.
Unintended Consequence
At issue are concerns that new GHG and fuel economy requirements EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are proposing for trucks could have an unintended consequence of increasing emissions of NOx, an ozone precursor and a major concern for many Southern California officials whose jurisdictions suffer from high ozone levels.
To address the issue, California officials had signaled that they plan to petition EPA to develop a separate NOx standard to limit any adverse effects from the federal truck rules. California officials and environmentalists say technology exists that would allow trucks to curb emissions of both NOx and CO2.
But CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols told a July 23 meeting reviewing the proposal that the state would act under its own authority to address the issue if EPA did not. California “needs to maintain its vigilance and to be prepared to act as necessary to make sure we're getting the reductions we need from this very, very important source,” she said.
At the same meeting, an official from engine maker Cummins said in response to a question from EPA officials that the company would be willing to accept a new heavy-duty vehicle NOx rule. The official noted that California has already begun crafting such a rule, and said Cummins would be "fully committed" to new NOx regulation as long its was a uniform national limit.
The company reiterated this stance in Oct. 1 comments, saying it “supports a consistent, national program” and because of this it is “critical that EPA, NHTSA and [CARB] are all aligned in addressing fuel efficiency and CO2 as well as NOx. . . . EPA and [CARB] should work collaboratively with the goal of maintaining a national, heavy-duty NOx and GHG program.”
The issue is now likely to gain increased prominence in the wake of EPA's enforcement action against VW for installing “defeat devices” on its diesel passenger vehicles that ensured that NOx control technologies only ran when the vehicles' emissions were being tested but not when it was being driven.
The effect of the devices -- computer algorithms -- was to improve the vehicles fuel efficiency and limit GHG emissions but exceed NOx emissions, though a top EPA official said recently that it is unclear what the GHG and fuel economy effect will be once VW removes the NOx defeat devices.
“We cannot say whether the fuel economy will drop when the defeat device is removed,” EPA's Office of Transportation & Air Quality Director Chris Grundler told reporters on a Sept. 25 call.
But EPA may now be more willing to consider a separate NOx rule for trucks as the VW scandal continues to attract attention, including an Oct. 8 hearing before a House Energy & Commerce Committee oversight panel featuring a VW official and EPA as the only witnesses.
VW 'Spillover'
One industry analyst has said VW's actions “could have an effect on everyone in the diesel industry.” However, an environmentalist countered, “There isn't really a problem with meeting fuel economy standards, it's really a question of one company cutting corners.”
An industry source now notes that the VW cheating scandal does not have a direct impact on the truck rule but suspects there could be spillover. “There has been discussion about how you prevent something like this from ever happening again” and that could include extra measures in the truck rules.
Five leading truck diesel engine manufacturers were caught in the 1990s using similar defeat devices that turned off emission controls when the vehicles were running at high speeds. The discovery resulted in a massive settlement and a new emissions rule that included stricter NOx controls. But truck NOx emissions have not been tightened since that rulemaking 15 years ago.
With EPA Oct. 1 issuing a new air quality standard for ozone that will further burden many Southern California counties, the agency will face even greater pressure to act.
CARB, for example, notes in its comments that the state's South Coast air basin will need to cut heavy-duty NOx emissions by 90 percent from 2010 levels by 2031 in order to meet the 2008 ozone standard -- the limit EPA just tightened -- as reason why EPA should commit to a new NOx limit for trucks.
“CARB staff urges U.S. EPA and NHTSA to thoroughly describe the need for lower federal NOx emission standards for new heavy-duty engines in the Phase 2 rulemaking package and to initiate a parallel effort to adopt such standards as quickly as possible,” the board says.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) also calls on EPA to commit to a stricter NOx standard for trucks in its Oct. 1 comments. “We urge EPA, in the final rulemaking, to commit to strengthen NOx standards for heavy-duty trucks as soon as possible. By initiating a NOx rulemaking immediately, manfuacturers will be able to integrate the planning and the technology for CO2 and NOx reductions, helping to ensure that one benefit is not traded for the other.”
The group also warns of a potential loophole in the proposed rule that could allow for NOx emissions to increase. The proposal would change the Supplemental Engine Test (SET) and “breaks the linkage between criteria pollutants and CO2, because [particulate matter] and NOx would continue to be measured on the existing SET cycle. . . . [T]his de-linkage is of serious concern because it creates a loophole in the regulations that would lead to increases in criteria pollutants.” EDF urges EPA to maintain the same test cycle for CO2 and NOx to close the loophole.

Return to headline | Return to top
3 States Kick Off Stakeholder Planning Meetings

Oct 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

Arkansas, Georgia and Minnesota are among the states that this week will begin stakeholder meetings on the Clean Power Plan.
Today, the Missouri Energy Initiative will host a conference in St. Louis, and two sessions will focus on the Clean Power Plan. One will feature the chairman of the Missouri Public Service Commission, Daniel Hall, and the chairman of the Michigan PSC, John Quackenbush. The other will examine grid reliability with officials from the Southwest Power Pool and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator. E&E's Jeff Tomich will report on the event.
On Wednesday, U.S. EPA acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe will be the sole witness at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on the agency's carbon rules. In announcing the hearing, subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said he expects a "thoughtful discussion" on the effective imposition of cap-and-trade requirements on the power sector.
Also Wednesday, the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association's annual "Making Energy Work" conference in Raleigh will feature a session on the state's "next steps" on the Clean Power Plan. Panelists will include officials from the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. E&E's Kristi Swartz will be reporting.
On Thursday, Georgia's Environmental Protection Division will host astakeholder meeting "examining the final Clean Power Plan." Speakers include Karen Hays, EPD's air branch chief; Judson Turner, head of the EPD; Public Service Commission Chairman Chuck Eaton; and David Hoppock from the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. They are going to review the EPD and PSC's role in developing a state plan, as well as compliance options and EPA's Clean Energy Incentive Program. E&E's Swartz will be reporting.
Also Thursday, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will convene a stakeholder meeting in St. Paul. It will include an analysis of the rule and an update on multistate meetings. E&E's Daniel Cusick will be there.
On Friday, a trio of Arkansas agencies will begin meeting with stakeholders to discuss the final EPA carbon "emission standards for existing power plants, study the efficacy and economic impacts of potential carbon reduction measures from the power sector, and develop a state strategy for Arkansas." The Little Rock meeting is hosted by the Department of Environmental Quality, the Public Service Commission and the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. E&E's Edward Klump will be there.The latest Clean Power Plan news
In case you missed it:Texas utility regulator Brandy Marty Marquez says writing a compliance plan would be a "waste" of time (EnergyWire, Oct. 2).Southern state lawmakers urged attorneys general to sue EPA and governors to reject submitting a compliance plan (EnergyWire, Oct. 2).A federal appeals court rejected another effort by Clean Power Plan opponents to stymie the rule (Greenwire, Sept. 30).State officials cautioned about the consequences of just saying no to EPA (ClimateWire, Sept. 30).A Georgia air official says the state will develop a compliance plan that allows interstate trading of carbon (EnergyWire, Sept. 30).North Carolina's Energy Policy Council is exploring the construction of new nuclear plants as a means to comply with the Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, Sept. 28).

Return to headline | Return to top
Calif. Likely to Rely on Cap and Trade to Show Compliance with EPA Rule, But Interstate Trading Remains Unclear

Oct 5, 2015 |

By Debra Kahn

California is facing a potential surplus of emissions reductions resulting from U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, but officials are still unsure how or whether to take advantage of them.
California is an outlier compared to the rest of the country in that it has been pursuing economywide emissions reductions for the past decade. The state is on track to reach its target of 1990 emissions levels by 2020 and is currently writing rules to extend its climate regulations to 2030 and beyond (ClimateWire, Oct. 2).
State officials said in a white paper and at a hearing last week that they would likely submit a plan to U.S. EPA that contains a suite of existing state policies, most prominently its cap-and-trade program for power plants and other high emitters.
"It is clearly an emissions standard of the sort EPA envisions," said Craig Segall, senior staff counsel with the California Air Resources Board, the agency in charge of achieving the state's emissions goals.
Cap and trade, which sets a statewide emissions target rather than a per-megawatt-hour carbon intensity, would fall under the 'mass-based' standard offered by EPA as one of two ways to calculate states' emissions targets.
Under the mass-based version of the rule, California would have to achieve power-sector emissions of 48.4 million tons of CO2 by 2030. Its 2012 power-sector emissions were already at 46.1 million tons, a result of cap and trade as well as a renewable portfolio standard of 33 percent by 2020, an emissions performance standard that prohibits new contracts with conventional coal-fired power plants, and other measures.Calif. law raises questions
State officials said they see a larger role for cap and trade in the years after 2020. Currently, the program is expected to deliver about 22 percent of the emissions reductions required to reach 1990 levels.
For the 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels -- estimated at 260 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent -- cap and trade would cover as much as 216 million metric tons, or 83 percent of the state's total economywide emissions.
"Our existing state measures are already delivering what is functional compliance with EPA's standards," Segall said. Cap and trade provides the "backstop" authority that guarantees that the state will meet its emissions targets, even if the other complementary policies do not deliver expected reductions, he said.
Officials also said, however, that they might not want to generate tradable emissions credits from their surfeit of emissions reductions. EPA has offered the concept of "emissions rate credits" or mass-based trading as one option for states to meet their standards and is allowing states to write "trading-ready" plans without creating formal multi-state trading proposals (ClimateWire, Aug. 5).
Allowing other states to purchase California's extra headroom would let them off the hook for reducing their own emissions, said Michael Gibbs, ARB's assistant executive officer. The 2006 state law A.B. 32, which set the goal of 1990 emissions levels by 2020, prohibits "leakage" of greenhouse gases outside the state's borders, either by pushing high-emitting businesses out of state or by causing higher-emitting electricity to be consumed elsewhere. Another state law prevents linking to other emissions markets unless they are at least as stringent as California's.
"I think it's clear to us all that what we'd be doing is, we'd be allowing others to emit more than they'd otherwise have to do," Gibbs said. "That's not something we would do lightly."
"Emitters in other states would be able to purchase those credits and not reduce their emissions," he said. "This is the outcome that could occur if we want to link up with other states and sell the so-called extra emissions."
The white paper released last week is relatively mum on trading, either within the CPP or among states that may develop comparable cap-and-trade programs.To trade, or not to trade?
"ARB staff anticipates that California will have opportunities to explore collaborations over the course of the CPP compliance period," it says. "Not all of these opportunities may be realized in the initial plan submission period, but plan revisions would allow the State to explore opportunities as they develop."
California has long been interested in gaining more carbon-trading partners and is preparing to link markets with the Canadian province of Ontario, bolstering its existing linkage with Quebec. It has also been pursuing stronger links to other states through its electricity markets, with the formation last year of an energy imbalance market and the passage of a bill this year to allow other states to join the California grid operator (EnergyWire, Sept. 21).
"We are of course participating in many regional conversations," Segall said. That includes talks with other Western states through Colorado State University's Center for the New Energy Economy (ClimateWire, Aug. 21). California also plans to comment on EPA's model rules for states that don't submit their own proposals for meeting their targets.
Participants in Friday's workshop urged California to seriously consider trading with other states.
"In my view, EPA clearly intended that California and RGGI [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] could in fact have what is considered a trading-ready program and link to other states that may establish electricity-only, mass-based trading programs under the rule," said Clare Breidenich, a consultant with the Western Power Trading Forum. "I would like to see you guys go into this and fully assess the options of being trading-ready."
California will continue holding workshops through spring 2016 and aims to issue a draft compliance plan in June that would be heard by the Air Resources Board in July and submitted to EPA in September. The next workshop will be Nov. 10.
For more information on California and the Clean Power Plan, visit E&E's Clean Power Plan Hub.

Return to headline | Return to top
We Need an Insurance Policy for Climate Change

Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 WIre

By Michael Green

On Sept. 25, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) detailed his plan for combating climate change in the United States: put a price on the main instigator, carbon dioxide.
Whitehouse is the sponsor of legislation that would put a fee on greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. This bill, the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act, would charge the equivalences of the Obama administration's estimated "social cost of carbon," $45 per ton of carbon dioxide/equivalent emitted. The beauty of this proposed legislation is that it would not increase the size of the federal government. All revenue collected from this fee, around $2 trillion in 10 years, would be returned to the American public through corporate tax cuts and rebates to consumers, making it revenue neutral. The goal here is to make polluting industries more accountable for their impact while giving the incentive to reduce emissions.
Speaking to a group of CEOs and leaders of businesses groups in Boston, the senator spoke on the importance of businesses engagement for getting Republicans to support climate action: "How do we break Republicans free from the [oil sector]? You get the corporate sector to stand up for climate action." Since the Citizens United ruling, Whitehouse argued, "it has been impossible to get the GOP involved in climate action."
This talk of pushing Republicans to support carbon pricing struck me as odd. Especially since the idea of emissions pricing started with a Republican — the most famous modern Republican for that matter, Presidnet Reagan.
This idea of market-based solutions was born out of the Reagan administration. John Henry, a Washington businessman, recalls a Reagan administration lawyer, C. Boyden Gray, floating the idea of cap and trade on a hike in Maine one summer in the 1980s. Former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz praised carbon pricing in his 2008 op-ed: "Put a price out there, and let the marketplace adapt ... it's the Reagan way." It was this basis for the thinking, an "insurance policy" for the environment, that led to the Montreal Protocol in 1988, history's most successful environmental treaty. And this tradition continued.
Other conservatives have praised such proposals in the past. Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury under President George W. Bush, came out in support in 2014, saying: "We're staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. ... The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one. ... We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide ... [unleashing] a wave of innovation to develop technologies, lower the cost of clean energy and create jobs."
When acid rain become a national issue in the '90s, it was the George H.W. Bush administration which supported cleaning it by developing implementing another market-based scheme — cap and trade on nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emissions. The simple truth of it is that we have priced pollutants before, and it has had resounding results.
Businesses can take the lead on pushing for these market-based solutions. Gilbert Metcalf, professor of economics at Tufts University, also spoke to the same room of business leaders as Whitehouse, saying: "We are missing an opportunity not using the market to correct for greenhouse gases." And business leaders across the country have started to notice that opportunity.
In Massachusetts, a growing initiative of CEOs and industry executives have banded together to push for smart climate change policy. Businesses Leaders for Climate Action support a similar bill by State Sen. Michael Barrett (D) that would price carbon on a statewide level. The funds would be used in a similar way to Whitehouse's bill. Revenue collected would be redistributed to businesses and consumers, making the bill effectively revenue neutral. A study done by the Massachusetts Department of Energy and Resources found that would it stimulate job growth and reduce emissions especially in the service sector.
Businesses have an opportunity to take the lead from states on climate change. State action has been the bedrock of driving national conversations. From gay marriage to healthcare, national policy has started in the what has been called the "incubators of America" — the state legislatures. Carbon pricing initiatives have popped up in six other states, with New York being the latest. Businesses building the grassroots for future movements can be how climate change will be dealt with in America.
Green is the executive director for the Climate Action Business Association (CABA), a Boston-based coalition of businesses taking targeted action on climate change. As an activist, Green has played strategic roles in several of the largest national, as well as international campaigns dedicated to fighting climate change. Since 2012, he has served as a representative to the United Nations focusing on international climate science and policy. He also serves as the chairman for the ASBC's Committee on Energy and Environmental Policy.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Add recipients

Suggested