Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 10/6

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Twelve Countries Finish Pacific Rim Trade Deal
Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Andrea Widener

The U.S. and eleven other nations reached a wide-reaching trade agreement on Oct. 5 that could govern more than 40% of the world’s economic output, if it is approved.
Boehner Sets Floor Vote for Speaker, Postpones Other Picks
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E PM
By Hannah Northey

Retiring House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) today said the lower chamber will confirm his replacement in a floor vote at the end of the month after House Republicans pick their candidate behind closed doors Thursday, but pushed back elections for other leadership posts.
Senators Warily Watching House Speaker's Race
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Daniel Bush

Senate lawmakers are watching the House speaker's race unfold with a mixture of detachment and anxiety, unsure what to make of Rep. Jason Chaffetz's long-shot bid for the post and how the leadership shakeup might affect looming fights over spending and the debt limit.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Schrader, Merkley Back Chemical Policy Reform
Oct 5, 2015 | The Lund Report
By Jan Johnson

A bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and debate imminent over a bill in the U.S. Senate would bring Congress closer than ever before to reforming chemical regulation.
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates to Press Case as Conservation Push Threatens TSCA
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson

Supporters of a bipartisan Senate bill to overhaul U.S. EPA's management of toxic chemicals will roll out an all-star slate of industry and environmental celebrities this morning in a bid to rally support for the measure, which faces threats over unrelated issues as its backers seek floor consideration.
(ACC Mentioned) FSM Scoop: BPA
Oct 6, 2015 | Food Safety Magazine
By Tiffany Maberry

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a synthetic estrogen and industrial compound often used in polycarbonate plastics to assist with hardening. It’s commonly found in the coatings of food and drink containers, baby bottles, sippy cups, food storage wrap and food packaging. It can enter the human body by way of eating, drinking, inhalation and skin absorption.
The Case for Compromise
Oct 6, 2015 | The New York Times
By Joe Nocera

In March, Moms Clean Air Force, a grass-roots environmental group co-founded by Dominique Browning, was tossed out of a coalition called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Its heresy was supporting a Senate bill that would constitute the first serious revision in nearly 40 years of the woefully outdated Toxic Substances Control Act.
Two Republicans Blocking Senate Vote on TSCA Bill
Oct 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) are blocking Senate floor consideration of a bill (S. 697) to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act unless they get a vote to reauthorize an environmental conservation program.
'Stalemate' Over LWCF-TSCA Push
Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff

Sen. Richard Burr says the Senate is in “sort of a stalemate” over his effort to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund by amending bipartisan legislation updating the Toxic Substances Control Act. Burr acknowledged he is blocking quick consideration of the TSCA update until he secures an LWCF vote, and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) announced through a spokeswoman that she was joining the effort.
California Agency Proposes Candidate Chemical Criteria Corrections
Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch

California's Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) has issued proposed amendments to its candidate chemicals identification criteria. These aim to correct or update three citations.
Target Expands Chemicals of Concern List
Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

Major US retailer Target has updated its product sustainability standard to address stakeholder feedback, and to expand its list of chemicals with high level health concerns.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Congressional Action on Cybersecurity Would Send Strong Message to China
Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By H. West Richards

Pope Francis’ visit to America garnered wall-to-wall media coverage but the second most popular news story has the greater consequence for businesses, consumers and our national security
DOE Cold Case Shows Limits of U.S.-China Cyber Cooperation
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak

In January 2013, Department of Energy computer files began trickling through suspicious Brazilian and Ukrainian networks.

Energy and Environment News

Oil Industry Gaining in Push for Repeal of U.S. Ban on Petroleum Exports
Oct 5, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Clifford Krauss

After watching the price of oil and the size of their profits plunge, a dozen top executives from some of the nation’s largest oil exploration companies flew to Washington late last winter on an urgent mission: push Congress and the White House to allow unlimited exports of American crude oil.
Tweak Seen Broadening Support for Oil Export Bill
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

Legislation that would lift the ban on most crude oil exports has been changed to increase an unrelated stipend paid to some U.S. cargo ship operators—a tweak backed by maritime unions that could draw more Democratic support for the bill, analysts said.
Maritime Interests Back House Crude Exports Bill
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E PM
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey

Maritime organizations are getting behind legislation that would end the ban on crude oil exports, after House leaders added provisions that would expand payments to private vessels that aid the U.S. military.
Grijalva Takes on Growing Call to Lift Export Ban
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey and Geof Koss

The top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee yesterday pushed back against Republican House members and industry groups calling for Congress to quickly scrap a national ban on exporting domestic crude.
Advocates See New Argument to Supplant Climate Claims
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Jenny Mandel

Many in the natural gas industry make a talking point of the fuel's lower greenhouse gas emissions compared with coal, highlighting its role as a low-carbon energy source, but advocates would do well to call attention to an entirely different attribute, according to an industry booster.
The EPA’s New Smog Limits May Be Late, But They Are a Start
Oct 5, 2015 | The Washington Post
By The Editorial Board

You've probably seen the ominous TV ads: The Obama administration is recklessly upsetting federal regulations on ozone — a primary component of smog — that are working fine already.
Obama’s Ozone Lesson
Oct 5, 2015 | Politico
By Michael Grunwald

Coal-fired power plants are a leading source of ozone pollution, so the relatively weak ozone rules the Obama administration unveiled Wednesday upset some environmentalists who want to see much more aggressive action against coal industry.
Week Ahead: EPA Defends Climate Regs
Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill
By Tim Devaney

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be on the hot seat as it defends two controversial climate regulations.
Supreme Court Decision in FERC Case Could Affect EPA
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Wilhelm

The U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of a case asking whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has authority to compensate demand-response programs in the wholesale electricity market might signal how the court will treat the Environmental Protection Agency in future statutory construction cases, legal scholars said in an Oct. 5 webinar.
Whitehouse Hopes GOP Congressman Will Partner on Carbon Bill
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has asked the 11 House Republicans who acknowledged man-made climate change in a resolution last month to take the next step and back a price on carbon.
District Court Ruling Highlights EPA Dilemma On Appealing NSR Suit Losses
Oct 5, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker

A federal district court's ruling dismissing the bulk of an EPA Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) enforcement action against a Texas utility underscores the dilemma the agency faces in deciding whether to appeal a series of losses in NSR cases, observers say, as adverse decisions on appeal could further limit EPA's NSR enforcement.
EPA, Environmentalists Oppose Texas' Bid For Parallel SSM Rule Lawsuits
Oct 5, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey

EPA and environmentalists are opposing Texas' bid for an appellate court to create two parallel suits over the agency's rule forcing states to scrap Clean Air Act emissions limit exemptions during facility startups, shutdowns and malfunctions (SSM) from their air plans, saying none of Texas' attacks on the rule warrant it having a separate suit.
Obama Doubles Down on Arctic Drilling Regs
Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The Obama administration still plans to issue regulations for oil and natural gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean despite Royal Dutch Shell's decision to abandon its drilling efforts “for the foreseeable future.”
U.N. Issues Slimmed Down Climate Text Ahead of Talks
Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia

The United Nations on Monday released a dramatically streamlined draft negotiating text that will form the foundation of the climate change deal countries hope to sign later this year in Paris.

Transportation News

(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report Shows Rail Shutdown Could Cost $30 Billion
Oct 5, 2015 | Recycling Today

A broad rail service disruption lasting one month would cost the U.S. economy $30 billion and would increase the unemployment rate with a loss of 700,000 jobs, according to a study released by theAmerican Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington.
(ACC Mentioned) Water Groups Push Congress to Extend Rail Safety Deadline
Oct 5, 2015 | Associations Now
By Katie Bascuas

As the deadline to install positive train control systems on U.S. railroads approaches, several groups representing the water industry are warning of the costs to clean water should Congress not act to allow more time to install the technology.
House Panel Set to Move Reauthorization Bill Soon
Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will push ahead with its own version of a road and transit reauthorization bill after next week's break, a spokesman confirmed yesterday evening.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Twelve Countries Finish Pacific Rim Trade Deal

Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Andrea Widener

The U.S. and eleven other nations reached a wide-reaching trade agreement on Oct. 5 that could govern more than 40% of the world’s economic output, if it is approved.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes provisions on labor, environmental protection, and e-commerce laws and would eliminate thousands of international tariffs.
“This partnership levels the playing field for our farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers by eliminating more than 18,000 taxes that various countries put on our products,” says President Barack Obama.
The American Chemistry Council, the U.S. chemical industry’s major trade association, strongly supports the pact. The deal would mean a more predictable trading environment for the chemical industry, which accounts for 14% of U.S. exports, says Cal Dooley, president of the association.
However, the pharmaceutical industry is unhappy over a last-minute compromise that loosened intellectual property protections it sought for biologic medicines.
A compromise reached last week would provide up to eight years of protections for some biologic drugs. That is fewer than the 12 years the pharmaceutical industry had wanted, but it’s more than the five years that many Democrats and health care advocacy groups had lobbied for.
Opponents say that the deal will encourage U.S. companies to send more business to low-wage workers abroad. Environmental groups are particularly concerned about a provision that would allow companies to challenge a country’s regulations or court rulings in a special international trade tribunal.
But Obama says the deal “includes the strongest commitments on labor and the environment of any trade agreement in history, and those commitments are enforceable, unlike in past agreements.”
A Pacific Rim trade agreement has been under negotiation for a decade, but contentious issues from agriculture subsidies to high-tech industry protections slowed down the talks. Participating nations are the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.
Now Obama has to push the deal through Congress. A vote is not expected until 2016.

Return to headline | Return to top
Boehner Sets Floor Vote for Speaker, Postpones Other Picks

Oct 5, 2015 | E&E PM

By Hannah Northey

Retiring House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) today said the lower chamber will confirm his replacement in a floor vote at the end of the month after House Republicans pick their candidate behind closed doors Thursday, but pushed back elections for other leadership posts.
"After the new speaker is elected on October 29th, the members of our Conference will select the rest of their leadership team," Boehner said in a statement. "The new speaker will establish the date for these additional leadership elections. This new process will ensure House Republicans have a strong, unified team to lead our conference and focus on the American people's priorities."
Boehner's announcement marks a delay for House Republicans in filling out their new leadership roster (Greenwire, Sept. 30).
Although House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has emerged as the front-runner to replace Boehner, his chances were complicated when Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, yesterday formally announced his campaign to run for speaker (E&E Daily, Oct. 5).
The other declared candidate is Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), who is popular with conservative House GOP members but has little chance of winning the conference's nomination.
Meanwhile, Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Budget Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) are locked in a race for majority leader.
Although Scalise was considered the odds-on favorite, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, endorsed Price last week, giving him a boost.
Chief Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) is running for majority whip against Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) and Reps. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) and Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.).

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Warily Watching House Speaker's Race

Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Daniel Bush

Senate lawmakers are watching the House speaker's race unfold with a mixture of detachment and anxiety, unsure what to make of Rep. Jason Chaffetz's long-shot bid for the post and how the leadership shakeup might affect looming fights over spending and the debt limit.
The Utah Republican's announcement Sunday that he would challenge House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for speaker caught several senators by surprise -- even some Republican members who recently worked with Chaffetz in the House before moving to the upper chamber.
"I know Jason, [but] I didn't know he had ambitions to be speaker of the House," Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), a former House member who was elected to the Senate last year, said in a brief interview.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the dean of Utah's congressional delegation, said he wasn't told beforehand that Chaffetz would run, though rumors had swirled for days that he might challenge McCarthy.
"I didn't know he was going to do it," Hatch said.
Hatch called Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, an "articulate, intelligent man" but questioned his hard-line stance on negotiating a budget and raising the debt limit.
Chaffetz grabbed headlines yesterday when he said that as speaker he would not rule out forcing a government shutdown to defund Planned Parenthood, a top priority for members of the House GOP's conservative flank.
Chaffetz also criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), telling reporters on Capitol Hill that McConnell was "flat-out wrong" for making the promise to avoid future shutdowns.
The next speaker will have to negotiate with McConnell and Senate Democratic leaders on several thorny issues this fall, including a budget deal to extend government funding past Dec. 11 and an agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling to avoid a first-ever default.
McCarthy was widely expected to walk away with the speaker's race to replace Boehner, who stunned Congress by announcing last month that he would retire on Oct. 30 (Greenwire, Sept. 25).
But Chaffetz is a viable alternative who could appeal to the conservative, anti-Boehner forces in the House GOP caucus that McCarthy needs to win the post. Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), is also running for speaker but has little chance of picking up more than a handful of votes.
House Republicans will nominate a candidate for speaker in a closed-door vote Thursday. Boehner announced today that a floor vote will take place on Oct. 29, but he postponed the races for majority leader and other GOP leadership slots until after that vote (E&ENews PM, Oct. 5).
Some GOP senators said they still expect McCarthy to win, despite Chaffetz's late entry into the race, though they insisted they were following the contest at arm's length.
"I think McCarthy's going to win, but I'm not in the House anymore and I don't know those dynamics," said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who left the House for the Senate this year.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, professed not to have a favorite in the race. Whoever wins will have a steep learning curve and no time to adjust to the new job before wading into the budget and debt limit debates, said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
"Obviously, regardless of who becomes speaker, there's some catch-up to be played," Baldwin told E&E Daily. "What I hope is that they pick a leader who's committed to ending governing by crisis."
Others said they've stopped trying to predict what might happen in the House.
"The House is more mysterious than ever to me," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said. "As unpredictable as the Senate may be, the House is a sort of black box that I have trouble fathoming."

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Schrader, Merkley Back Chemical Policy Reform

Oct 5, 2015 | The Lund Report

By Jan Johnson

A bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and debate imminent over a bill in the U.S. Senate would bring Congress closer than ever before to reforming chemical regulation. If passed, the law would update federal authority to regulate chemicals that pose a risk to human and environmental health; however, it is also poised to curtail state authority to protect the public from hazardous exposures.
The U.S House passed TSCA reform legislation (HR 2576) in June with a 398-1 vote; Congressman Kurt Schrader was among the co-sponsors. The Senate bill (S 697) has secured 60 cosponsors (including Senator Jeff Merkley), and debate is expected to begin in early October.
The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act is the only major environmental law of its time that has not been significantly reformed, and is widely recognized as inadequate to protect people from the risks of toxic chemicals. Over the course of the last decade, 35 states including Oregon have passed 173 measures to fill the gaps where TSCA has failed to protect the public, according to Safer States.
The current law’s restrictions have made it difficult for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect public health. Of more than 80,000 chemicals registered for use in commerce, only 200 have been tested for health and safety, and five classes of chemicals have been restricted. As a result, consumer products enter the marketplace without full health and safety data. According to a report from Washington Toxics Coalition, the state’s Department of Ecology has collected data on 49 toxic chemicals in more than 5,000 products made for children such as toys, mattresses, car seats and clothing.
The Oregon Public Health Association and the Oregon Nurses Association have joined the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and many other professional associations calling for reform.
In 1976, EPA administrator Russell Train called TSCA "one of the most important pieces of 'preventive medicine' legislation" ever passed by Congress. Yet by 1994, a review by the US Government Accountability Office noted that TSCA was largely failing to adequately assess the health risks of toxic chemicals, control harmful chemicals or make risk information available to the public. GAO recommended statutory changes to address the flaws; yet legislation introduced every year since 2010 has failed to reach a floor vote.
The American Chemistry Council has been critiqued for its powerful influence over
reform negotiations. The research nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics notes on its web site, opensecrets.org, that the industry association spent half a million dollars in campaign contributions, $11 million on lobbying and an additional $2 million on political communications in 2014 alone.
Today, there is broad consensus on the necessity of reform. Yet a documentfrom Mike Belliveau of the Environmental Health Strategy Center highlights how health and environmental groups, the American Chemistry Council and EPA differ on the role of science, public right to know, setting priorities for action on chemicals and the responsibility to protect children and vulnerable populations.
Under the 1976 TSCA, there is no requirement to consider a toxic chemical’s elevated risks to children, pregnant women or other vulnerable populations. In the 1990s, researchers began to recognize not only that children are uniquely vulnerable, but that early life exposures to toxic chemicals raise the risk of disease later in life, as detailed in a 2011 paper by doctors Philip J. Landrigan and Lynn R. Goldman in Health Affairs. Both TSCA bills have provisions to consider vulnerable populations.
The Environmental Defense Fund provides an analysis of how the House and Senate bills differ in their alignment with EPA’s essential principles for reform. EDF and seven other national groups sent a joint letter to Congress urging a vote on the Senate bill as soon as possible. But a broad coalition of health and environmental groups warns against passing a bill with significant flaws that could undermine public health. Among the major risks, warns the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition, are provisions that would limit state authority to protect public health.
Both the House and Senate versions of TSCA reform under consideration propose some pre-emption of state authority to pass such protections. In March, Oregon’s Attorney General joined five other states in a letter to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. They urged the committee to reconsider provisions that would limit state’s ability to “protect our citizens from the health and environmental risks posed by toxic chemicals within our states.” Senator Jeff Merkley secured some of the amendments during what his press release describes as “intense weekend negotiations” over markup in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in April. The bill was amended, yet both the House and Senate bills contain some pre-emption provisions.
Last Friday, Sens. Udall, Markey and Durbin announced they have negotiated further amendments to S 697 that include “mandatory protections for vulnerable populations,” and a simplified process for state waivers and protections for a state’s ability to co-enforce chemical safety regulation. Andy Igresias from Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families applauded the changes, while noting the bill remains “problematic” for its pre-emption of state action.
Both the house and senate bills will allow state laws to stand when action has been taken under state laws before August 1, 2015. This includes Oregon’s laws restricting toxic flame retardants and mercury in lighting as well as a “green chemistry” executive order to consider toxic chemicals in purchasing decisions. On July 27, Governor Kate Brown signed the Toxic Free Kids Act, which requires manufacturers of children’s products to disclose their use of chemicals that are considered high concern to children’s health. Rulemaking is underway, and the data from manufacturers is due to the Oregon Health Authority in January, 2018. The law also requires a phase-out of these chemicals in some products in 2022; this requirement could be pre-empted if federal reform is passed without further changes.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates to Press Case as Conservation Push Threatens TSCA

Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Sam Pearson

Supporters of a bipartisan Senate bill to overhaul U.S. EPA's management of toxic chemicals will roll out an all-star slate of industry and environmental celebrities this morning in a bid to rally support for the measure, which faces threats over unrelated issues as its backers seek floor consideration.
The Capitol Hill rally will be attended by a group of people who rarely appear on the same stage.
It features climate skeptic and Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and pro-industry Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), environmentally inclined Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley, Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp and National Wildlife Federation President Collin O'Mara.
Also slated to appear: Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Democratic Sens. Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Cory Booker of New Jersey, along with the original co-sponsor, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).
Bonnie Lautenberg, the widow of the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), will also be there to underscore the legislation's impact on the senator's legacy, as will officials from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Humane Society Legislative Fund, March of Dimes, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and National Association of Manufacturers.
In a way, this political diversity is the point. For months, supporters of the bill, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," have touted it as a product of compromise that can't be classified along traditional political lines.
But the bill's backers must roll out all the stops as the legislation faces new procedural threats in the Senate.
Supporters announced changes to the bill last week that won the support of two liberal holdouts -- Markey and Durbin -- and led its chief opponent, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the EPW Committee's ranking member, to drop her objection to the bill advancing, though she won't vote for it (Greenwire, Oct. 2).
Now the bill's path to the floor appears stalled as some lawmakers seek permission to attach at least one unrelated amendment, to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund (E&E Daily, Oct. 5).
"They can take up the bill as long as they offer amendments," Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), one of the bill's 60 co-sponsors, told E&E Daily. "If they want to limit it to one and it's my amendment, I'll be for it."
Burr said he wasn't concerned that his action would threaten the work done on TSCA this Congress.
"I would hope that they're just as concerned about me making progress on the Land and Water Conservation Fund that on the 30th no longer is an authorized bill, after 50 years," Burr said.
Absent an agreement for the amendment vote, Burr said, "I've got a problem with moving forward."
That doesn't mean he "necessarily" has a hold on the bill, Burr insisted, because he said he would let the bill advance to the floor as long as his amendment is allowed.
Other lawmakers have known of his opposition "for months," Burr said.
At the same time, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has spoken out in favor of ending the LWCF until the federal government changes how it manages federal lands. Lee spokeswoman Emily Long declined to comment on whether Lee would object to a motion to take up the TSCA bill if it meant Burr's amendment would see a vote.
Inhofe told E&E Daily yesterday he didn't anticipate Burr's actions would threaten the bill. Burr's views are shared by only a few senators, Inhofe said.
"I think we have [the votes] anyway," Inhofe said, noting the increase in support, especially from Senate Democrats.
"Our numbers look good," Inhofe added.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) FSM Scoop: BPA

Oct 6, 2015 | Food Safety Magazine

By Tiffany Maberry

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a synthetic estrogen and industrial compound often used in polycarbonate plastics to assist with hardening. It’s commonly found in the coatings of food and drink containers, baby bottles, sippy cups, food storage wrap and food packaging. It can enter the human body by way of eating, drinking, inhalation and skin absorption.

The arguments surrounding the use of and exposure to BPA is not new. A few years ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. And just last year, the agency confirmed that exposure levels--measured as Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI)--of 5 micrograms per day is safe--a finding based on 300 scientific studies over a 5-year span.

This brings about a puzzling question--if BPA is not safe for baby products, how is it still safe for everyone else?

The Case for BPA
It cannot be denied that--despite the arguments against BPA use--the compound does serve a very important purpose to the food industry and consumers. Simply put, the epoxy resin that lines metal cans helps to prevent corrosion and other contaminants that can lead to food safety concerns, including botulism. Without this coating, food could become contaminated by metal or microbes, not to mention that cans would eventually erode and leak. To that end, proponents strongly believe that the presence and inclusion of BPA in food packaging is necessary to ensure that food items retain their nutrition, quality and safety. Perhaps the most important part of the argument for BPA is no one has proven that it specifically or exclusively causes any illness or disease in humans.

The Case Against BPA
The apparent effects of BPA, though, are hard to swallow. With consumers demanding more transparency in terms of food safety, much attention has been placed on the synthetic compound and how it can negatively affect the human body--specifically fetal development, brain development and future behavior.

Last December, one study carried out by the Institute of Environmental Medicine College at Seoul National University examined the effects of drinking soy milk from a can. Participants that did so not only exhibited dramatic increases in BPA present in their urine, it also appeared to spike their blood pressure levels--all within just 2 hours of consumption. When the participants drank soy milk from glass bottles--which do not use BPA linings--their BPA levels and blood pressure showed no significant changes. This is the first study that shows a single exposure to BPA can have a direct, immediate impact on cardiovascular health.[1]

Researchers at Rowan University School of Medicine and Rutgers New Jersey Medical School confirmed unprecedented findings earlier this year when their study linked BPA and autism in children. The research--which involved 46 children with autism and 52 without it--proved that BPA is processed differently in both sets of children. Simply put, children with autism have a more difficult time metabolizing BPA. This study in particular is groundbreaking because previous research only involved animals, not human participants.[2]

Yet another study--this one by Canada’s University of Calgary--focused on the effects of very low doses of BPA and bisphenol S (BPS)--a BPA alternative--on zebrafish embryos. The result? Altered brain development and eventual signs of hyperactivity--both of which increased by 180 percent and 240 percent, respectively.[3]

On the other hand, some research appears to support what BPA proponents have been saying all along.

In April, a study conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health was published in The Journal of Pediatrics. According to researchers, BPA risk to newborns may be smaller than what’s been previously declared. Existing research--specifically published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--focuses on BPA exposure in Americans aged 6 years and older. No study had ever been conducted on healthy newborns since it was assumed that their underdeveloped lives would not easily process BPA, leading to increased health risks. Over an 8-month period between 2012 and 2013, researchers collected urine samples from full-term, newborn babies between 3 and 27 days old. The researchers found no “free” BPA--the chemical as it appears in consumer products--in the urine samples, but 70 percent of the samples did contain BPA glucuronide--a substance that is “biologically inert and therefore considered harmless to the body.”[4]

And the studies don’t end there.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments says that BPA exposure may also impact reproductive organs in pregnant women.[5]

The National Conference of State Legislatures and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that research links BPA exposure to a laundry list of diseases and ailments--cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and some childhood neurological disorders.[6, 7]

U.S. Regulations
Regulation of BPA use falls under the jurisdiction of the FDA. Even the agency has been known to cast doubt on the synthetic compound, hinting that exposure can have negative effects on “the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.” Thus, in 2012, the FDA decided to ban the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. The ban did not apply to other consumer products. (National Conference of State Legislatures) Individual states have followed suit, implementing and enforcing their own mandates to regulate or completely ban BPA use in products.[8]

The FDA’s current perspective is that “BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods.” Their opinion is based on the agency’s most recent safety assessment conducted in 2008 and updated in 2009.[9] Despite what this federal agency has to say, some parts of the U.S. are not ready to give up just yet.

For example, the “Toxic Free Kids Act” in North Carolina maintains that BPA should be banned because parents cannot easily decipher toxic products from safe ones.[10]

After multiple attempts dating as far back as 2009, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s scientific panel--the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee--finally voted unanimously in May 2015 to add BPA to the state’s own Proposition 65--a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. California specifically says that BPA causes “reproductive toxicity based on a report by the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction.” The report was based on laboratory tests conducted on animals. Factors that BPA impacted included litter size, body weight, birth rate and puberty.[11]

So far, at least 11 states have enforced their own laws banning BPA in certain products--primarily baby bottles and sippy cups. Many of these regulations were proposed and instituted before the FDA’s own ban.

BPA Regulations Worldwide
In January, the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavorings and Processing Aids issued a final report stating that BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group--including unborn children, infants and adolescents. With the help of various national authorities and stakeholders for the most transparent outcome possible, the EFSA’s risk assessment and evaluation included not only BPA in food, but also from a number of other potential sources of exposure. The health risk in both food and nonfood items is nonexistent because “current exposure to the chemical is too low to cause harm.” However, the EFSA has said that consumers should still use caution since high doses of BPA can have negative effects on the kidney and liver.[12, 13]

Not all parts of Europe are comfortable with use of and exposure to BPA. As of January 1, 2015, France banned the use of BPA “for products intended to come into direct contact with food”. The enforcement of this law resisted the EU’s stance on BPA, and Member States have publicly expressed their disappointed with France’s audacity to implement their own laws in regards to BPA.[14]

Earlier this year, the EcoWaste Coalition in the Philippines asked the country’s Department of Health to formally ban the manufacturing, importation, advertisement and sale of baby bottles and sippy cups containing BPA. Their reason? They claim that the synthetic compound has been linked to cases of asthma, autism, infertility and even various types of cancer but offer no citations to back these claims. The group also says there’s a number of scientific studies, again uncited, that validate their concern for public health. Critics believe that part of the reason the Philippines has not opted to ban BPA in plastic bottles and sippy cups is because the country lacks the technology and capacity to carry out such testing.[15]

Industry Views
In January, the American Chemistry Council released a statement endorsing the EFSA’s findings that BPA poses no risk as exposure levels are too low to cause any harm.[16]

[The EFSA’s final report] “provides still more substantiation that the current uses of BPA in food packaging are safe. Given that Europe is the birthplace of the Precautionary Principle, this announcement takes on even more prominence, as Europe’s leading food safety body reassures consumers that BPA exposure from foods is not a health concern,” states John Rost, chair, North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc.[17]

The plastics industry is concerned that with increased regulations and bans of BPA, both manufacturers and consumers will avoid buying plastic products without fully understanding that their exposure is typically minimal and therefore inconsequential.[18]

Some companies are even making moves to separate themselves from the perceived harms of BPA.

Trader Joe’s and a host of other brands claim not to use BPA at all. On July 30, 2015, ConAgra Foods announced that they had completed the transition to cans without BPA liners for products made in its U.S. and Canadian facilities--an effort that began in 2010. “Our ongoing commitment to consumers means that we constantly work to improve our packaging to assure quality and the overall experience,” says Gail Tavill, vice president, Packaging & Sustainable Productivity, ConAgra Foods. “We recognize consumer interest in removing BPA from our cans and are pleased to be able to respond to that desire and offer food that our consumers can feel confident in.”

The company is now working with international suppliers who still import products with BPA-lined cans, but they expect a complete transition by early 2016.[19]

Alternatives to BPA
Although it is considered a success that BPA use in products and packaging is slowly falling by the wayside, there is growing concern regarding what chemicals and materials will replace it--namely BPS and bisphenol F. Jane Muncke--managing director at the Food Packaging Forum Foundation--says that there is cause for concern if replacement materials aren’t being tested for safety. “For example, some coatings are now made with BPS that is toxicologically similar to BPA though it likely migrates less,” she says.[20] Critics believe that simply transitioning to other materials that have properties similar to those of BPA actually isn’t a step in the right direction.

Furthermore, a statement by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) goes into great detail regarding why an alternative to BPA would be far too chaotic for the industry:

“The process to find a replacement for BPA that will work in all applications will take time. This is because both the safety and quality of the food as well as the performance of the alternative must be confirmed over the entire shelf life of every food product – container combination. Also, the time it would take for companies to actually make the transition to a suitable alternative could be very lengthy given the potential changes can manufacturers and food processors would have to make in their equipment and operations.”[21]

GMA believes that a ban on BPA would immediately impact packaged and canned food items that we consume everyday--from baby food and condiments to beverages and meats.

What Happens Next?
Although the EFSA’s findings are conclusive, it is expected that they will continue to evaluate what are safe levels of BPA by incorporating outcomes from ongoing research by the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the FDA.

On the consumer front, there is still a dilemma--how does one know if the products they’re buying contain BPA? Although a number of companies have publicly abandoned BPA, many more have not.

In 2014, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) spent 8 months analyzing 252 canned food brands to find out which ones contained BPA coatings. They found that 78 brands used cans with BPA-based epoxy lining for all of their products, including Ocean Spray, Hormel, Goya, Progresso, Del Monte and Chef Boyardee. There were 31 brands that used BPA-free cans for all of their canned products, including Tyson and Sprouts Farmers Market. EWG’s study--“BPA in Canned Food: Behind the Brand Curtain”--was published in May 2015 and contains a complete summary of their analysis and results by brand.[22]

On a general level, there are things that consumers can do to limit their exposure to BPA, according to the National Institutes of Health:Reduce consumption and use of canned foods.Check plastic containers marked with cycle codes 3 or 7--they are most likely to contain BPA.Avoid microwaving plastic food containers since high temperatures can break down polycarbonates.Opt for glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers instead of plastic ones.Check food labels--some do show if they are made with neither BPA nor BPS.
With such a wide array of resources and opinions on the subject, the question of whether or not BPA is truly safe remains in the eye of the beholder.

References
1. http://medicalresearch.com/author-interviews/bpa-canned-soda-linked-increased-blood-pressure/9525/?.
2. http://njms.rutgers.edu/archives/.
3. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/5/1475.full.pdf.
4. http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/bpa-risk-to-newborns-may-be-smaller-than-previously-believed.html.
5. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/list_changes/pdf/BPAfacts041113.pdf.
6. http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/policy-update-on-state-restrictions-on-bisphenol-a.aspx.
7. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/5/1475.full.pdf.
8. http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/policy-update-on-state-restrictions-on-bisphenol-a.aspx.
9. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/UCM424266.pdf.
10. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015&BillID=S81.
11. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/list_changes/pdf/BPAfacts041113.pdf.
12. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/150121.htm.
13. http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/news/efsa-low-exposure-to-bpa-triggers-no-consumer-health-risk/?
14. http://www.bisphenol-a-europe.org/uploads/Modules/Mediaroom/stm_re_french-bpa-ban-being-enforced-01-01-2015.pdf?.
15. http://ecowastecoalition.blogspot.com/2015/01/ecowaste-coalition-pushes-doh-to-ban.html.
16. http://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/European-Food-Safety-Authority-Scientific-Experts-Strongly-Support-Safety-of-BPA.html.
17. http://www.metal-pack.org/docs/pdf/00151331.PDF.
18. http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20150507/NEWS/150509939/california-panel-deliberates-adding-bpa-to-prop-65-list.
19. http://www.conagrafoods.com/news-room/news-ConAgra-Foods-Removes-BPA-from-Cans-across-Portfolio-2072842.
20. http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Packaging/ConAgra-Foods-removes-BPA-from-all-its-US-and-Canada-cans.
21. http://www.gmaonline.org/downloads/wygwam/NR_BPA_SO.pdf.
22. http://static.ewg.org/reports/2015/bpa_in_canned_food/BPA-in-canned-food.pdf?_ga=1.151355321.1852115211.1440085498.

Return to headline | Return to top
The Case for Compromise

Oct 6, 2015 | The New York Times

By Joe Nocera

In March, Moms Clean Air Force, a grass-roots environmental group co-founded by Dominique Browning, was tossed out of a coalition called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Its heresy was supporting a Senate bill that would constitute the first serious revision in nearly 40 years of the woefully outdated Toxic Substances Control Act.
You see, the bill — officially the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act — is the result of (shudder!) compromise. Those compromises were originally hammered out by Lautenberg, a liberal Democratic senator, and David Vitter, a right-wing Republican senator allied with the chemical industry. The two men co-sponsored a bill in May 2013. Then Lautenberg died.
Senator Tom Udall, another Democrat, picked up where Lautenberg left off, and over the next two-plus years, he and Vitter continued to improve the bill while also making compromises to gain additional Senate support. In just the last week, the bipartisan bill, which the Senate is expected to vote on soon, has gained enough co-sponsors to be filibuster-proof.
In this era of polarized politics, it is something of a miracle: “an example of good, old-fashioned legislating,” Udall told me.
Browning, an old friend of mine, describes herself as an environmental pragmatist. She concluded that whatever the flaws in the bill, it was a vast improvement over the status quo — a status quo in which the Environmental Protection Agency can’t even regulate formaldehyde. She and her brain trust decided that their 570,000-member group would work to improve the bill instead of oppose it. This is also the position taken by the ever-pragmatic Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund, with which Moms Clean Air Force is affiliated.
The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, however, which includes such major environmental groups as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice, opposed the Senate bill. In a blog post, Andy Igrejas, who heads the coalition, listed provisions that he described, essentially, as gifts to the chemical industry. His coalition had thrown out E.D.F., a founding member, over the issue in 2013; now it was Moms Clean Air Force’s turn.
“They were supporting a Senate bill everyone else opposed,” Igrejas said when I asked him why. “You couldn’t do that and stay in the coalition.” He added, “At every point along the way, Fred [Krupp] would say, ‘You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Blah, blah, blah.’”
Igrejas believes that the bill, which his coalition still opposes, despite the many improvements, is better only because he and others came out so strongly against it. (I should note that the coalition supports a much narrower House bill.) The E.D.F.-Moms Clean Air Force view is that the bill got better because they were willing to roll up their sleeves and make common cause with conservative senators like Vitter and chemical industry lobbyists.
“We have always been clear that the way to get this done is to work in a bipartisan manner to support both Democrats and Republicans who were trying to solve the problem of the old law not working,” said Richard Denison, E.D.F.’s point person on the chemical bill. “And while lending our support, we also asked for improvements.” Which they got.
The bill doesn’t give environmentalists everything they want. There are thousands of unregulated chemicals, yet the bill calls for the E.P.A. to look at only 25 during the first five years after the bill becomes law. But it hardly gives the industry everything it wants, either: Chemicals that were once unregulated would now face the prospect of serious restrictions on their use.
The biggest issue is around something called “pre-emption” — meaning that states will not be able to write laws about certain chemicals if the E.P.A. starts a formal review of that chemical. Because some states, like California, are much tougher on chemicals than the federal government has been, many environmentalists don’t want any federal pre-emption. But the chemical industry, tired of dealing with different state standards, insisted on it.
The Senate bill offers a reasonable compromise that says that if the E.P.A. doesn’t act within a certain time frame, states can act on their own. This provision, notes Denison, is “an important backstop” that would prevent companies from seeking to delay E.P.A. action as long as possible.
“I could sit in my office and write a perfect bill, but it wouldn’t be one that could become law in the United States,” said Krupp. “The question isn’t whether it is perfect. The question is whether it is a really good bill. We think it is.”
Browning had another point: “If you live in California, then of course you don’t want pre-emption. But what about the rest of us poor moms who aren’t protected by serious state laws?” For them, the Senate bill’s compromises would improve their lives.
Proving, I think, that the perfect really is the enemy of the good.
Blah, blah blah notwithstanding.

Return to headline | Return to top
Two Republicans Blocking Senate Vote on TSCA Bill

Oct 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) are blocking Senate floor consideration of a bill (S. 697) to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act unless they get a vote to reauthorize an environmental conservation program.
Liz Johnson, a spokeswoman for Ayotte, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 5, “Ayotte is objecting to moving TSCA without a vote on extending” the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which uses oil and gas royalties for recreation and conservation projects.
Proponents of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) fear adding a reauthorization of the program would complicate the bill's odds of passage in the House. They also say an amendment to the chemicals bill will not accomplish the fund backers' primary goal—an immediate lifeline for the program—because it will take significant time to unite the House and Senate versions of the legislation.
The offices of Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), the sponsors of the legislation, would not comment on the status of negotiations.
Burr's office declined to comment Oct. 5, but the senator told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 1 that “if TSCA comes to the floor with an amendment process, I'm fine with TSCA coming to the floor.”
The bill enjoys broad bipartisan support from 60 senators across 38 states. Proponents expect the legislation to garner support from up to 90 senators when it comes to the floor, and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Bloomberg BNA that Senate leadership has promised the bill will eventually get a vote (192 DEN A-1, 10/5/15).
Both Ayotte and Burr are co-sponsors of S. 697, which would revamp the nation's primary chemical law for the first time since 1976.

Return to headline | Return to top
'Stalemate' Over LWCF-TSCA Push

Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)

By Eric Wolff

BURR TO QUEEN'S KNIGHT 3, STALEMATE: Sen. Richard Burr says the Senate is in “sort of a stalemate” over his effort to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund by amending bipartisan legislation updating the Toxic Substances Control Act. Burr acknowledged he is blocking quick consideration of the TSCA update until he secures an LWCF vote, and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) announced through a spokeswoman that she was joining the effort. Both are up for re-election next year.
“I’ll allow it to the floor if it’s open for amendment, even if it’s limited to one amendment,” Burr said yesterday, adding that his colleagues have “known for months” that an LWCF was the price of his cooperation. TSCA reform has more than 60 supporters on board, enough to clear a filibuster, but it remains unlikely it would come up without a unanimous consent agreement to limit the number of amendments that could be considered. A Senate aide told ME the most likely result of Burr’s efforts to tie LWCF to TSCA would be that neither item gets a vote. Meanwhile, TSCA supporters will appear at a Capitol Hill press conference today in an effort to drum up support.
— Multiple bottlenecks await the LWCF: The decades old program, whose authorization expired last week, seems to have ample support in the Senate, including a permanent re-authorization in the Cantwell-Murkowski bill currently begging for floor time. But even with backing from members of both parties, it must still overcome likely objections from Utah Sen. Mike Lee and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz. In his book, "A Time for Truth," Cruz described how he and Lee were sympatico on numerous issues, including a desire to sell off all non-parks federal land to pay off the debt. A Lee aide said he was not involved in any discussions around LWCF and TSCA; Cruz's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In the House, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop doesn't want to put a straight-forward reauthorization on the agenda. A spokeswoman tells ME he does plan a bill of his own that changes the fund, but not for a month or two. The spokeswoman did say to expect it before year end.
We'd all like to be dead like LWCF is dead: With the LWCF's authorization expired, it can no longer take in the oil and gas revenues it used to fund land purchases. But approximately $20 billion is still in its bank account, and if Congress keeps appropriating approximately $300 million of that a year, as it has been, the fund will have about 60 years to draw it down — unless Congress puts the money to other uses. LWCF fund supporters hope to reauthorize the fund soon, the program is still up and running on the back of that fat stash.
WELCOME TO TUESDAY! I'm your host Eric Wolff, and this week is shaping up to be pretty wonky with Senate maneuvering and the LWCF. I love it, and so do you. Don't lie. Send your wonkiest and your hottest tips, quips, and comments toericwolff@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @ericwolff, @Morning_Energy, and @POLITICOPro.
HOW TO BUILD A BETTER PETROLEUM RESERVE: Energy Sec. Ernest Moniz will get the limelight at today's hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as he discusses the administration's plan to upgrade and modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The White House is looking to improve the reserve's ability to distribute its oil and make changes to authority to release oil into the market. The committee will also get an earful on recent bills that propose selling of some of the oil to fund other programs. Kevin Book, Managing Director for ClearView Energy Partners, will tell the committee why that may be a poor choice, according to his prepared remarks: "Legislative proposals to sell volumes out of the SPR ... appear to be predicated upon the view that the U.S. is carrying too much petroleum insurance.' Are we? ... [T]he metaphor may apply in some respects. For example, it’s generally cheaper to buy insurance at times when the market perceives lower degrees of risk. In that vein, a period of low crude prices may be a better time to expand — rather than reduce — the size of the SPR."
ZOMBIE APPROPRIATIONS RISE ONTO SENATE CALENDAR: Anyone scanning down the Senate calendar for this week might have been slightly surprised to spot a slew of appropriations bills, including the Interior-EPA appropriation whose House incarnation collapsed under the weight of amendments related to the Confederate Flag in July. But the reappearance of the bills doesn't necessarily mean they will get a vote this week, and it certainly does not mean that they will pass. Congress remains deadlocked on budgets, and while a number of showcase votes may be in the offing, the bills would likely fail until the two parties can reach a deal on the whole budget.
BROWN TO SIGN GOLDEN STATE'S 50 PERCENT RENEWABLES PLAN TOMORROW: After some weeks of lingering, Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to sign SB350 into law on Wednesday, sources tell ME. The bill will require the state's utilities to buy half their power from renewable sources, and it will require buildinrgs to become 50 percent more energy efficient. The bill once had a provision calling for a 50 percent reduction in oil consumption (hence the use of 3-50 as a bill number), but Brown and Senate Pro Tem Kevin de Léon pulled that provision under pressure from moderate Democrats in the Senate. Brown's office declined to confirm the signing date.
CITIGROUP TO CUT BACK ON COAL: Citibank is going to reduce its lending to the global coal industry, the bank said in its "Environmental and Social Policy Framework," posted on Monday. "Climate change is a global challenge of tremendous magnitude, and Citi is helping to accelerate the transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy," the framework said. While that news is sure to cheer environmentalists, the bank hasn't bailed from all fossil fuels: It still plans to lend to companies that frack and companies that develop tar sands, though in both cases it has developed a new "risk review process."
READING GLASSES ON: ME has a lot of homework for you today. And no, we can't have class outside.
— WRI: VIRGINIA CAN BLOW BY IT'S CLEAN POWER PLAN GOALS:The World Resources Institute is releasing a fact sheet today making the case that Virginia can vastly exceed its Clean Power Plan carbon reduction targets. The commonwealth already has a 15 percent renewable portfolio standard and energy efficiency goals that would get it well on its way. Virginia also would need to increase the run time of its natural gas plants in order to displace more coal plants.
— SAVING THE SPECIES WITHOUT THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: The Sand County Foundation, which is dedicated to working with land owners on conservation issues, will be out today with a report today touting species saved without listing those species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The report is timely, coming soon after the Department of the Interior struck a deal with states that ultimately lead to it not listing the Greater Sage Grouse.
Mover, Shaker: The National Parks Service named Denise Ryan Deputy Director for Congressional and External Relations. She will lead the National Park Service’s Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs beginning October 18, 2015. Ryan has previously worked for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Wildlife Federation, the League of Conservation, and BLM.
NOW AVAILABLE: POLITICO PRO LEGISLATIVE COMPASS — This first-of-its-kind legislative data analytics and decision-making tool is changing how policy professionals manage and act on legislation. Leveraging features such as a personalized dashboard, virtual whip count, bill text comparison and 20 years of data, users will not only save time but benefit from customizing and cross-referencing information, enabling them to make smarter and faster decisions. Contact us or your Account Manager to schedule your demo today.

Return to headline | Return to top
California Agency Proposes Candidate Chemical Criteria Corrections

Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch

California's Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) has issued proposed amendments to its candidate chemicals identification criteria. These aim to correct or update three citations.
Two proposed modifications aim to correct “original drafting errors”. These would affect references to endocrine disrupting chemicals and substances with persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties covered by the EU candidate list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs).
The correction of the endocrine disruptor reference would result in the listing of three additional substances not already captured by other candidate chemical identifying criteria, according to the DTSC. These are:4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated;4-nonylphenol, branched and linear; and4-nonylphenol, branched and linear, ethoxylated.
A proposed update to reflect the publication of a more recent edition of the Report on Carcinogens – as well as the proposed PBT correction – would not result in the addition of new substances to the candidate chemical list, said the DTSC.
Two substances not currently listed on the DTSC candidate chemical list have been proposed for listing as SVHCs in the EU on the grounds of vPvB properties:UV-327; andUV-350.
DCHP, a phthalate also under consideration for SVHC designation due to endocrine-disrupting properties, is already a candidate chemical in California (CW 7 September 2015).
Candidate chemicals listed by the agency are evaluated for potential prioritisation under the state's Safer Consumer Products programme (CW 17 April 2015).
Comments on the proposed amendments will be accepted until 16 November.

Return to headline | Return to top
Target Expands Chemicals of Concern List

Oct 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

Major US retailer Target has updated its product sustainability standard to address stakeholder feedback, and to expand its list of chemicals with high level health concerns.
Health Canada's cosmetic ingredient hotlist for substances prohibited in cosmetics and the Minnesota prohibition of triclosan in cleaning products join the regulatory lists referenced in the standard. It had already included Proposition 65 and the EU candidate list of substances of very high concern, among others.
Under the retailer's scheme, covered products – which include personal care, beauty, cleaning, baby, and feminine products – receive a numerical rating that evaluates:ingredients;transparency;minimal environmental impact;certification; andkey issues within product categories.
Target says its goal is to increase its offering of products that "effectively balance price, performance and convenience" (GBB September 2014).
The company replaced its existing criteria earlier this year, although it did not widely publicise the update.
'Milestone' for Target
Mike Schade, director of the Mind the Store campaign run by NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said the change marks a "milestone for Target as they continue to leverage their purchasing power to help drive the marketplace towards safer products" (GBB May 2015).
The NGO praised the addition of triclosan to the chemicals list, and the addition of feminine products to items covered by the standard. Mr Schade also noted that the retailer's adjustment to its transparency credit clarifies that products may not receive transparency points if the ingredient list contains any generic ingredients. This, he said, “provides an incentive for brands to publicly disclose chemicals in fragrance”.
A newly-added certification section expands from 100 to 115 the possible points a product may score. Included in the expansion is a credit for products that have been certified by the EPA's Design for the Environment programme, or have achieved certain ratings under the Cradle to Cradle Product Innovation Institute's (C2CPII) certified products programme (GBB September 2015).
Also new to the standard is a pilot of a product-specific set of criteria for household cleaners. Cleaning products will be additionally evaluated based on whether they contain a “significant percentage of ingredients” that are on the DfE programme's safer chemical ingredients list (Scil). The standard lays out additional metrics covering laundry detergents and surface cleaners.
In addition the updated standard stipulates that products may only receive credit for avoiding animal testing if they have the claim verified by a third party.
Mind the Store suggested several improvements for future iterations of the standard, including recommendations to:develop a set of criteria to govern cosmetics, similar to the cleaning products pilot;determine and publicise a more formal timeline for suppliers to transition away from chemicals of concern;publish guidance for suppliers on how to assess alternative substances, to avoid making "regrettable substitutions"; andincorporate the newly-developed Chemical Footprint Project tool into the index (CW 6 July 2015).
Target could not be reached for comment by the story's deadline.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Congressional Action on Cybersecurity Would Send Strong Message to China

Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By H. West Richards

Pope Francis’ visit to America garnered wall-to-wall media coverage but the second most popular news story has the greater consequence for businesses, consumers and our national security. Chinese President Xi Jinping met with business executives in Seattle, President Obama at the White House and representatives to the United Nations in New York amid growing concerns related to Cybersecurity threats emanating from his country and other state actors and terrorist groups around the globe. Xi sounded the right tone of cooperation as Obama and American business leaders took him to task but only Congress has the means to immediately make us safer.
Obama is to be applauded for his continued chiding of China’s alleged state-sponsored corporate espionage as well as hacking into federal agencies and the Pentagon, while also working to secure a cyber arms control agreement that prevents first strikes against either country’s critical infrastructure. But White House efforts have produced few results besides perhaps, securing a more conciliatory Chinese tone, all while the number of attacks on American businesses and data stored by U.S. government agencies continues to grow exponentially.
Perhaps no system is more attractive to hackers or those wanting to disrupt America’s economy than our national electronic payments platforms, which consumers use more than ever. According to the Federal Reserve Bank, credit and debit card payments grew from one-third of noncash payments in 2000 to two-thirds in 2012; and debit card payments have grown by more than three billion transactions each year between 2009 and 2012. Yet business and consumer confidence in this vital system erodes with each cyber attack, and as government fails to take meaningful steps to protect our increasingly vulnerable data. Consumers will continue to expand their use of digital payment platforms, raising the question how the system and data will be kept secure.
“FinTech” companies – including members of the American Transaction Processors Coalition (ATPC) – are helping to answer the question by spending millions annually to protect their systems. Their customers will lose consumer business if the system fails to protect transactions at merchant stores or online marketplaces.
Electronic payments are extremely safe because of this investment and vigilance but no one company should have to go it alone when being confronted by the types of global cybersecurity threats being discussed with the Chinese president. Working together, and in partnership with government to share information on threats and ways to combat them is the only truly effective protection against cyber threats.
That is why the ATPC is calling on Congress to immediately pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. The House passed two strong bills (the Protecting Cyber Networks Act and The National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act) earlier this year and the Senate must now pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (S. 754).
These bills create an environment where private companies can freely share cybersecurity threat and attack information, and best practices with each other instead of being forced to act independently. This approach will foster a more secure payment environment while also allowing companies to move some of their current security expenditures to product innovation, talent recruitment and expansion.
Xi Jinping might be returning to China but no amount of rhetoric shared during his visit will reduce cyber attacks, which FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper both recently told Congress is the top domestic threat recognized by the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
Threats to merchants and consumers are real and not going away, whether transactions take place at a physical storefront or through an online portal. The Global State of Information Security Survey 2015 reports that the number of detected security incidents rose 48 percent from 2013 to 2014 – a 66 percent year-over-year increase from just five years ago. That means 117,000 attacks took place each day.
The threat of cyber attacks may never go away but strong new tools exist to help the private sector and government significantly minimize their impact. America’s payment rails and the financial technology companies that manage them are juicy targets, which is why we are among the leaders advocating for legislative action. The Obama administration and American businesses called for Chinese government support in ending cyber attacks. But the U.S. Senate can make us all more secure now, by following the lead of their House colleagues to pass cybersecurity legislation along solid, bipartisan lines.

Return to headline | Return to top
DOE Cold Case Shows Limits of U.S.-China Cyber Cooperation

Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Energywire

By Blake Sobczak

In January 2013, Department of Energy computer files began trickling through suspicious Brazilian and Ukrainian networks.
By the time the agency caught on to the intrusion, hackers had stolen over 200 gigabytes of data -- enough to fill an average laptop at the time.
The attackers made off with information from hundreds of employees' security clearance forms, as well as documents from the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal.
In the days following the breach, agency officials made the investigation their top priority. They cut off Internet traffic at affected offices, called in a Microsoft cyber response team and forced workers to change their passwords. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security became involved. The White House convened a meeting with then-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and other unnamed participants, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
But the case hit a snag when the Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General suggested chasing the hackers back to their suspected home base: China. The response to the hack, which a DOE privacy manager later called "confusing, frustrating and disorganized," highlights sharp limits to Sino-American cyber cooperation. Experts say a new cybersecurity deal between Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Obama won't lay to rest old suspicions or spying habits.'Out of their depth'
The cybersecurity framework Obama and Xi agreed to last month was aimed at stopping state-backed cyber espionage for economic gain.
The two leaders didn't mention recent data breaches in the U.S. government, such as a cyberattack on the Office of Personnel Management that exfiltrated sensitive background files on more than 21 million federal workers (E&E Daily, July 10).
Senior Obama administration officials have not publicly accused the Chinese government of being behind the OPM hack, despite hinting at Beijing's role.
U.S. officials also hesitated to blame China following the January 2013 cyberattack on DOE networks, documents show.
When the agency's Office of Inspector General suggested sending a formal request to China for help in finding the hackers, the Justice Department declined the case "due to the political nature of the location of actors," the OIG wrote in a closing memorandum.
"This looks like an OIG who was out of their depth," James Andrew Lewis, a senior fellow and program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an email, adding that "it becomes a counter-espionage issue, where IGs don't usually play and aren't informed."
The fact that the White House asked Napolitano to get involved "suggests they took [the case] seriously," Lewis said, "but just didn't bother asking the Chinese to cooperate in investigating their own [People's Liberation Army] spies."
Representatives from the Justice and Energy departments did not respond to requests for comment on the case, and a spokeswoman for the FBI's Cleveland division could not confirm or deny the office's involvement.
It's clear from OIG's summary that U.S. officials weren't sure what to make of a bombshell report delivered by private cybersecurity firm Mandiant on Feb. 19, just a few weeks after the investigation began. Researchers from Mandiant were able to trace a series of cyberattacks on U.S. government and private-sector targets back to Unit 61398 in China's People's Liberation Army (EnergyWire, Dec. 22, 2014).
"It is time to acknowledge the threat is originating from China, and we wanted to do our part to arm and prepare security professionals to combat the threat effectively," Dan McWhorter, the company's managing director of threat intelligence, said at the time. (Mandiant has since been acquired by cybersecurity firm FireEye.)
Mandiant's APT1 report drew a scathing response from Chinese officials, who denied any wrongdoing and maintain the government's innocence to this day.
Meanwhile, the unprecedented findings also gave pause to the U.S. government investigators pursuing the DOE case.
"A meeting is necessarcy [sic] to determine the path of this case due to the public release of Mandiant's report attributing intrusions to China," the OIG noted.IP versus NatSec
The Justice Department would go on to accuse five Chinese Army officers of spying on U.S. companies, unsealing indictments against the individuals last year and scrawling their names and likenesses on "Wanted" posters.
The U.S. government suspected those military hackers stole trade secrets that were later fed to Chinese companies, in addition to conducting cyber espionage for noneconomic, national security purposes.
The latest deal's limitations stem from its focus on the former activity, according to Robert Cattanach, co-chairman of the cybersecurity practice group at law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
In the framework, Obama and Xi agreed to end "cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors."
The heads of state also pledged to provide "timely responses" to requests for information and assistance surrounding hacking investigations.
Cattanach said the framework's omissions are telling. "The U.S. clearly signaled that it was still fine for China to do whatever it wished in the area of national security cyberespionage -- and the subtext there is, because we're doing it, too," he said.
Problems come up right away, however, due to the fact that "it's not at all clear where the dividing line is between 'acceptable' cyber hacking and 'unacceptable' cyber hacking," he said.
"I would not suggest to anybody that, 'Oh, we can let our guard down now'" that a deal has been announced, he said. "The notion that you have some very skilled hackers right now sort of attached to Chinese government, who are just going to shut down their operations, is very naïve."

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

Oil Industry Gaining in Push for Repeal of U.S. Ban on Petroleum Exports

Oct 5, 2015 | The New York Times

By Eric Lipton and Clifford Krauss

After watching the price of oil and the size of their profits plunge, a dozen top executives from some of the nation’s largest oil exploration companies flew to Washington late last winter on an urgent mission: push Congress and the White House to allow unlimited exports of American crude oil.
Now, their long-shot lobbying effort to repeal the 40-year-old export ban has gathered considerable momentum. Approval by the House is expected in the coming weeks, and two Senate committees have already endorsed the idea.
The White House and Senate Democrats may still move to block it, but the fact that the legislation is even moving ahead in an era of extreme gridlock affirms the deep-pocketed oil industry’s durable power in nation’s capital.
“The sooner this happens, the better for us,” said Kenneth P. Cohen, Exxon Mobil’s vice president for public and governmental affairs. “The momentum has picked up. The political calculus right now is very favorable for taking a look and actually doing something about this ban.”
To industry executives, the swift progress validates the inherent strength of their argument that eliminating the export ban will create jobs and drive down gasoline prices by encouraging more domestic crude oil production.
To that end, the oil industry has financed organizations whose scholars have generated reports praising the proposal. It has placed op-eds in Capitol Hill newspapers and paid for television spots in key markets, including one round of new ads introduced last week naming a dozen Democratic House members the industry is trying to pressure to back the measure.
Industry executives have even pressed foreign governments to communicate their support through “diplomatic channels.” And they have enlisted help from lawmakers from major oil-producing states, including Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas; Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat of North Dakota; and Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska. These lawmakers alone have also benefited from more than $3 million combined in direct industry campaign contributions during their careers.
Louis A. Finkel, the top lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute in Washington, calls the effort a “campaign-style engagement,” more akin to a presidential campaign.
The institute has an annual budget of about $235 million and it spends about $70 million of that on television commercials, social media posts and other advertising. A sizable chunk of the blitz this year is aimed at pushing Congress to lift the export ban.
That spending has helped build oil industry programs with names like “Energy Nation” and “Energy Citizens” — networks of millions of oil industry employees and supporters who are directed to send out tens of thousands of emails, Twitter messages (#LiftTheBan) and other appeals to create the appearance of a national consensus.
For opponents of the legislation, the wave of advocacy has been difficult to challenge.
“They are saturating Washington on this issue and defining it on their own terms,” said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a nonprofit group that has tried to raise objections to the repeal of the ban.
The export ban has been a cornerstone of American energy policy since 1975, when Congress directed President Gerald R. Ford to largely prohibit the export of oil as “consistent with the national interest,” although a few broad exemptions, like exports to Canada, were allowed.
But the calculus has changed since domestic oil production nearly doubled after 2008 because of the sharp increase in drilling and hydraulic fracturing in shale fields across the United States, slashing the country’s dependence on imports from OPEC and producing a glut of several types of crude oil.
In the last two years, the Obama administration has made modest adjustments to the ban, including giving oil companies temporary permission to swap varieties of oil with Mexico. But the industry wants a full reversal, hoping it will offer relief from the glut and price collapse, which is causing intense financial strain.Continue reading the main storyBehind the Campaign to Lift the Export Ban
With domestic oil production nearly doubling since 2008 and stubbornly low prices cutting into profits, American companies are pushing Congress and the White House to remove the ban on U.S. oil exports.
Think tanks have been a critical part of the repeal effort, with prominent centers like the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute issuing reports or sending scholars to Capitol Hill endorsing the move. These same organizations have taken large donations — in some instances exceeding $1 million a year, as was the case for Brookings — in combined contributions from industry donors.
Thomas J. Duesterberg, co-author of one Aspen Institute report — funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute, ConocoPhillips, Continental Resources, Exxon Mobil and Pioneer Natural Resources — concluded that repealing the ban would create about 630,000 jobs within five years. He said the industry funding had no impact on his findings. But it was obvious to him why the industry helped finance his project.
“Part of the way you make an argument these days, is to provide some solid economic grounding for your arguments,” Mr. Duesterberg said.
The oil companies and their trade associations made sure the reports were widely distributed on Capitol Hill and within the Obama administration — as well via social media tools.
One letter that Exxon Mobil sent via email in March to the United States transportation secretary, Anthony Foxx, said lifting the ban was a matter of “simple math,” although it did not mention that the company had helped pay for the report.
Government leaders from the Czech Republic, Japan and South Korea also started to weigh in after they were urged, according to one oil industry lobbyist, to “communicate their support through diplomatic channels that they favor a lifting of the ban.”
Many of the lawmakers involved in the push for the repeal have longstanding ties to the industry, in part because they represent states like Alaska, Texas and North Dakota, where oil exploration and production is a major economic force.
But the ties are personal as well.
Ms. Heitkamp spent a decade as a paid director of a North Dakota-basednatural gas company before being elected to the Senate. The oil and gas industry has contributed more money to her election campaigns than any other sector.
She was among the members of Congress who met in March with the delegation of oil industry executives, which included John J. Christmann IV, chief executive of Apache Corporation, and Scott D. Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, both of Texas. Ms. Heitkamp also offered the group confidential advice on how to best approach certain Democratic lawmakers to join their cause.
In an interview, Ms. Heitkamp said she then volunteered to help twist arms, making personal appeals to a long list of lawmakers, including Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, as well as President Obama.
“It is a policy that never made sense,” Ms. Heitkamp said, recalling the pitch against the ban that she made in private to Mr. Schumer and others.
Representative Steve Scalise, Republican of Louisiana and the No. 3 ranking member of his party’s leadership, sent House Republicans home for the summer recess in July with a three-ring binder packed with polling data and estimates of the number of jobs that would be created by repealing the ban — data provided in part by the industry.
“There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes,” Mr. Scalise said in an interview.
In the committee vote so far, House lawmakers who have supported the repeal, on average, have received 155 percent more money from employees at, or political action committees run by, companies and trade associations that support crude oil exports than the lawmakers who oppose it, according to an analysis by MapLight, a nonprofit group.
The biggest open question for the industry is just what it would be willing to trade in exchange for winning support from the White House and Senate Democrats. So far, some industry players have hinted that they would be willing to support extensions of wind and solar tax credits as a way to entice environmentalists. But for now, that is not looking as if it will be enough.
Ms. Heitkamp on Thursday was the sole Democrat on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to vote in favor of a bill, which she had introduced, that would repeal the ban. It passed by a 13-to-9 vote, given the Republican majority, but it is clear that changes will be needed before it will have much luck of winning passage on the Senate floor.
“This is a windfall for the oil companies,” said Kristen Orthman, a spokeswoman for the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. One estimate suggests that domestic crude sales could jump an extra $25 billion by 2025 if the ban were repealed. “There needs to be a little more balance.”
Lined up against the oil companies are the United Steelworkers union, which represents refinery workers, and environmental groups. Also against lifting the ban are a handful of refiners who benefit from the glut in domestic supplies, which lowers the price of their main raw material for producing gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
The opposition has done its own polling, and the data they have compiled suggests that lawmakers risk the enmity of voters if they support the repeal.
“For those incumbents up for re-election in the near term, the ads write themselves,” said Jay Hauck, executive director of Crude Coalition, a new trade association financed by refineries organized to fight the effort. “Senator X voted to help his friends in the oil industry and export our oil to China and raise prices on the backs of American families.”
The two sides will be fighting it out in the coming weeks — both trying to convince members of Congress that the narrative they are selling is the most compelling one. And for the oil industry, even if the legislation does not pass Congress, it will have increased pressure on the Obama administration to further loosen the ban — as the Commerce Departmenthas the power administratively to make more adjustments.
“Nothing happens by coincidence in Washington,” Mr. Hauck said. “It is all very coordinated and scripted.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Tweak Seen Broadening Support for Oil Export Bill

Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

Legislation that would lift the ban on most crude oil exports has been changed to increase an unrelated stipend paid to some U.S. cargo ship operators—a tweak backed by maritime unions that could draw more Democratic support for the bill, analysts said.
The change, via a new section of the bill added by the House Rules Committee, boosts payments made to the Maritime Security Fleet, vessels owned by companies such as APL Marine Services Ltd. and Maersk Line Ltd. that receive a federal stipend in return for making their ships available to the Defense Department during war or other national emergencies.
“Increasing costs and decreasing availability of government-impelled cargoes has resulted in the need for a higher stipend in order to assure that U.S.-flagged, U.S.-crewed vessels remain available to meet the national defense sealift requirements of the U.S. and its allies that depend on U.S. military protection,” according to a summary of the section provided by the Rules Committee.
The change to H.R. 702 was made last week as part of a “collective effort” between committees of jurisdiction and House leadership, Jill Shatzen Kerr, a spokeswoman for the Rules Committee, said in an interview with Bloomberg BNA.
Maritime Payments Increased
The change increases Maritime Security Fleet contract payments from $3.1 million a year per vessel to about $5 million a year per vessel through 2020 and $5.2 million a year per vessel in fiscal 2021, according to an analysis by ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington research firm.
The change “seems transparently intended to broaden bipartisan support,” ClearView said in a Oct. 5 research note.
“We've been involved in the discussion and we are supporting the legislation,” Klaus Luhta, chief of staff to the union International Organization of Masters, Mates, & Pilots told Bloomberg BNA. “It's a vehicle that allows our American flagged carriers to increase the funding they need to survive.”
Democratic Votes Sought
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the bill's sponsor, and other proponents of ending the ‘70s era ban on most crude oil exports hope that a strong Democratic show of support for the bill will give it momentum heading into the Senate.
The bill, which is scheduled to receive a House vote Oct. 9, is expected to pass the House, but it would need 290 votes to override a presidential veto.
Michael McKenna, a Republican lobbyist with ties to the oil industry, said the maritime payment change “juices the bill up significantly.”
“As a Democrat it's hard to look at the maritime guys and say no,” McKenna, who serves as president of MWR Strategies, told Bloomberg BNA.
The tweak by the Rules Committee, typically the last stop before a bill heads to the floor, comes as the committee is scheduled to meet Oct. 7 to consider a rule to the legislation that will decide what amendments will be offered to the bill.
Among the amendments filed before the committee are Democrat-backed measures that would reinstate the crude oil export ban if the secretary of energy determines that exporting crude has caused regional gas prices to increase and one that would requires an Energy Department study on the net greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the repeal of the crude oil export ban before the ban can be repealed.
Oil Industry Backing
The bill, which was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a 31-19 vote on Sept. 17, repeals a section of the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act that created the crude export ban (181 DEN A-1, 9/18/15).
It also bars the federal government from imposing or enforcing any similar restrictions and requires an Energy Department report on the appropriate size and makeup of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
More than a dozen oil companies including ConocoPhillips Co., Marathon Oil Corp. and Hess Corp. are lobbying to have the trade restrictions lifted, arguing the rules put in place in the wake of the Arab oil embargo no longer make sense in the face of booming domestic oil production.

Return to headline | Return to top
Maritime Interests Back House Crude Exports Bill

Oct 5, 2015 | E&E PM

By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey

Maritime organizations are getting behind legislation that would end the ban on crude oil exports, after House leaders added provisions that would expand payments to private vessels that aid the U.S. military.
USA Maritime, which includes vessel owners and unions, outlined its support for H.R. 702 in aletter to House members that touts the increased funds for the Maritime Security Program, which the Transportation Department describes as "a fleet of active, commercially viable, militarily useful, privately owned vessels to meet national defense and other security requirements."
The modified bill "will result in additional national security and economic benefits for the United States," the group writes. "It responds to the factors that threaten the continued viability of MSP by increasing the authorized funding for MSP by approximately $114 million in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, and by approximately $90 million in Fiscal Years 2019-2021."
The changes -- added by the Rules Committee ahead of Wednesday's markup of the bill for floor consideration -- touches on an aspect of the crude exports push that has unnerved some congressional allies of the powerful shipbuilding lobby, the Jones Act.
The 95-year-old law requires that commodities move within the United States on U.S.-owned vessels operated by crews that are at least three-quarters U.S. citizens. It's long been criticized by a variety of industries as an outdated law that pushes up transportation costs, but the U.S. shipping industry counters the law boosts national security by maintaining a strong domestic shipbuilding industry.
The familiar complaints about the law have resurfaced in the crude export debate, with some lawmakers arguing that Jones Act requirements will make it cheaper to send U.S. crude abroad to refine, hurting domestic refiners (E&E Daily, July 15).
The backing of the shipping industry and labor unions may help assuage lawmakers' fears over the Jones Act ramifications of allowing exports. ClearView Energy Partners today said it expects the bill to pass later this week, and "it could modestly gain backing from a modification that seems transparently intended to broaden bipartisan support."
The House Rules Committee markup will also determine whether the lower chamber takes up a handful of pending amendments, including Democratic proposals on climate change, that some analysts see as reflecting deeper partisan divides.
Reps. John Delaney (D-Md.) and Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), for example, have proposed an amendment that would add to the preamble of Barton's bill finding that clean energy investment will increase energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A second proposal from Delaney would require the departments of Energy and Treasury to study the effects of a carbon tax as a clean energy financing mechanism, funding source for subsidies to low-income families and as an offset to federal tax rates.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) also offered an amendment that would require DOE to conduct a study of the net greenhouse gas emissions within 120 days of the ban being lifted. The congressman also proposed a second amendment that would condition scrapping the ban on completion of the study.
An amendment from Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) would give the secretary of Energy the right to reinstate the crude export ban should gasoline prices increase.
ClearView Energy Partners found that many of the Democratic proposals reflect a deeper divide among Democrats and Republicans, casting doubt on their success.
"We regard recurrent themes in Democrat-sponsored amendments regarding gasoline prices and GHG emissions as another indication of partisan divisions simmering beneath the crude oil exports issue," they wrote.
But ClearView Energy Partners cast a more positive light on other amendments tied to oil sands, Iran and language barring trading with countries hostile to the United States.
Those measures include an amendment from Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) that would repeal crude oil export-related provisions of existing laws.
Another amendment from Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) would include Canadian oil sands in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a provision that the Joint Committee on Taxation has valued in excess of $1.2 billion over a 10-year budget window in the past, according to ClearView Energy Partners.
Republican Rep. Luke Messer of Indiana floated an amendment to bar crude, refined products and petrochemical exports to Iran or entities associated with Iran.

Return to headline | Return to top
Grijalva Takes on Growing Call to Lift Export Ban

Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Hannah Northey and Geof Koss

The top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee yesterday pushed back against Republican House members and industry groups calling for Congress to quickly scrap a national ban on exporting domestic crude.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, the panel's ranking member, called on fellow House members in a letter to oppose H.R. 702, accusing Republican supporters of the bill of hypocrisy.
"For decades, one of the primary goals of American energy policy was to make the United States energy independent," Grijalva wrote in the "Dear Colleague" letter. "Until recently, House Republicans seemed to share that goal."
Grijalva's letter cited comments from Republican proponents of lifting the ban -- Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop of Utah and Reps. Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Jeb Hensarling and Ted Poe of Texas and Paul Gosar of Arizona -- calling for increased domestic energy production to bolster the nation's independence. Grijalva argued that lifting the ban would move the nation away from energy independence, as the United States is still importing more than 7 million barrels of crude oil each day.
"Yet Republicans have decided that energy independence should now take a back seat to the wishes of Big Oil, which no longer cares if American energy is used in America by Americans, and simply wants a few extra dollars a barrel through selling domestic oil abroad," he wrote.
Lifting the ban would only force the United States to import more oil and increase reliance on foreign sources, he added. "It is exactly the opposite of what this country has fought for over the past 40 years," Grijalva wrote.
Although the bill by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) to lift the exports ban has been a focus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Natural Resources panel also has a hand in the debate.
At least two laws that fall under the panel's jurisdiction -- the Mineral Leasing Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act -- ban crude exports, and one staffer for the committee said lifting the ban would have myriad effects on public lands.
Proponents of Barton's bill were also busy yesterday, making their case on Capitol Hill and far beyond.
More than 130 state lawmakers from 40 states and Puerto Rico sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) yesterday calling for Congress to lift the ban and fast-track exports of liquefied natural gas.
The letter, notably, was signed by David Gowan, speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, who announced yesterday he is seeking the Republican nomination for Arizona's 1st District seat, which Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) is leaving to run for the Senate.
"The outdated federal export restrictions on crude oil and LNG are detrimental to American workers, our collective security and economic recovery in our states," lawmakers wrote in theletter posted on Boehner's website.
Boehner lauded the letter and widespread support for the legislation, calling the country's current energy policies outdated and restrictive.
And the American Energy Alliance, the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research, called for the ban to be lifted without offering Democrats incentives to boost renewables or repeal the renewable fuel standard.
The measure has more than 130 bipartisan co-sponsors and is expected to pass the House this week despite opposition from the White House, and similar efforts are underway in the Senate (E&E Daily, Oct. 5).
The back-and-forth follows the decision by House leaders to add language to the export bill increasing the authorized spending levels for a federal program that pays private vessels that aid the U.S. military.
The move earned support for the underlying bill by the maritime industry, which has previously expressed concerns about the effect of crude exports on the Jones Act, a 1920s-era law that imposes American ownership and crew requirements on commodities shipped within the United States (E&ENews PM, Oct. 5).
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has previously said she's heard little from senators about the Jones Act in the crude exports debate, said she was open to such a provision if it would help build support for the bill in the upper chamber.
"I don't know if it makes that much of a difference, but what I've suggested to others is that if it helps you on the House side and it doesn't erode the strength of the bill, certainly let's talk about it," she told E&E Daily last night.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), who is working to attract Democratic support for crude exports within her caucus and at the White House, said the House provision might help those efforts.
"There's going to be the risk that you just pile this thing on to the point where you can't really get it done, but that's certainly something we'd take a look at, and I know that a number of my colleagues have problems with what this means for the shipbuilders," she told E&E Daily after voting.
However, Heitkamp added that Democratic resistance to exports extends beyond the effect on domestic shipbuilding.
"Most of the stuff that we have heard for the most part in terms of expanding on the concept has really been the environmental stuff," she said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Advocates See New Argument to Supplant Climate Claims

Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Climatewire

By Jenny Mandel

Many in the natural gas industry make a talking point of the fuel's lower greenhouse gas emissions compared with coal, highlighting its role as a low-carbon energy source, but advocates would do well to call attention to an entirely different attribute, according to an industry booster.
"The strategic advantage of natural gas that distinguishes it from other fossil fuels is what it does for air quality," Timothy Egan, president and CEO of the Canadian Gas Association, said yesterday at the North American Gas Forum in Washington, D.C.
Egan said focusing on the carbon emissions advantage of natural gas makes the industry "one of the bad guys," keeping it in a basket with coal and oil as one of the fossil fuels contributing to global climate change.
"One of the things about the carbon story is, you talk about CO2 [and] you talk about hydrocarbons [and] you sort of bundle them together," he said.
Moving the discussion to center on air quality does more to highlight the pluses of natural gas while avoiding associations with climate change, he suggested.
Natural gas has advantages over other energy sources in terms of nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter and mercury emissions, Egan noted, making for a compelling story around air quality.
That issue is especially significant in the developing world, he noted, where coal electrification is underway and the health impacts of poor air quality are more in evidence. The air quality and human health advantages of natural gas are stark when it is compared with fuels like wood for cooking inside the home, he noted.
Egan said energy poverty can be a talking point for the natural gas industry -- both in the developing world, where the poor often lack access to clean and safe fuel sources, and even in wealthy England, where last winter the high cost of natural gas led many people to struggle with paying their utility bills.
Energy poverty arguments are even relevant in the northeastern United States, he suggested, where natural gas costs can run much higher than elsewhere in the country and lead to bill shock, though he acknowledged that in much of the United States, prices are low enough that the issue doesn't resonate.
Egan said the International Gas Union has already inched toward the air quality argument. Information on the group's website, for example, illustrates improvements to Toronto's air quality since 2009 that the group says stem from a major coal phaseout program.
The American Gas Association, which represents the U.S. industry within the International Gas Union and just started a three-year term leading the international group, is on board with the air quality message, according to AGA spokesman Jake Rubin.
"Air quality is one of the IGU's advocacy priorities during our three-year term," Rubin said. "We are preparing a report ... which will highlight four megacities around the world where natural gas has improved air quality. For example, in New York, converting from heating oil to natural gas had reduced harmful emissions."

Return to headline | Return to top
The EPA’s New Smog Limits May Be Late, But They Are a Start

Oct 5, 2015 | The Washington Post

By The Editorial Board

YOU’VE PROBABLY seen the ominous TV ads: The Obama administration is recklessly upsetting federal regulations on ozone — a primary component of smog — that are working fine already. All the nation has to do is sit back and keep improving its air under current rules, the commercials argue. “Common sense,” a concerned narrator frets in one spot, “does it exist in our nation’s capital?”
The answer, thankfully, is yes. The Obama administration, for example, has enough common sense to ignore these misleading ads.
Ozone in the upper atmosphere is a good thing, blocking harmful ultraviolet rays. When pollutants from cars, power plants and other sources cause ozone to accumulate closer to the ground and human lungs, however, it can have negative health effects, particularly on people with asthma and other pulmonary problems. That’s why, under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency must reevaluate its ozone regulations every five years and update them according to current science.
By that measure, the Obama administration’s push to change ozone regulations isn’t precipitous, it’s late: the existing regulations, which set an upper limit on ozone of 75 parts per billion, were established in 2008. Since then, it’s become only clearer that this level doesn’t reflect the current understanding of ozone’s wide-ranging health effects. The Obama administration flirted with issuing a new rule in the president’s first term but pulled back — probably to avoid accusations that he was issuing more “job-killing” regulations — pushing reality off until now.
The EPA finally released its new standard on Thursday, dropping it to 70 parts per billion. At that level, health complications from dirty air would still occur, but they would decrease. The number of children whose asthma is exacerbated will go down, along with the number of days adults can’t perform strenuous activity or have to take off work. Overall, the EPA estimates the net annual benefits between now and 2025 to be $1.5 billion to $4.5 billion, significantly outweighing the regulatory costs. It may take many years for some places — particularly in smoggy California — to meet the new standards, and regulators recognize that. But that’s no reason to avoid setting goals based on science instead of wishful thinking.
In fact, the level the EPA chose is at the high end of the range of options it was considering, which is a significant concession to industry. An EPA scientific advisory committee warned that keeping the standard at 70 parts per billion may not be protective enough, particularly for people with breathing conditions. Industry groups still criticized the announcement but admitted that it was better than it could have been. Environmentalists insisted the Obama administration wasn’t tough enough.
The environmentalists have a point, and industry should be on notice. When the rules are up for review again in five years, companies should expect standards to tighten again. Working to meet that goal would be more productive than hoping that an ad campaign will bail them out.

Return to headline | Return to top
Obama’s Ozone Lesson

Oct 5, 2015 | Politico

By Michael Grunwald

Coal-fired power plants are a leading source of ozone pollution, so the relatively weak ozone rules the Obama administration unveiled Wednesday upset some environmentalists who want to see much more aggressive action against coal industry. The Environmental Protection Agency’s limits on the disposal of coal ash, finalized last December, were also rather mild. And even though the Clean Power Plan the EPA unveiled in August to restrict carbon emissions from electricity was much stronger than the agency’s paper-tiger draft, it still won’t change the trajectory of the power industry.
But to focus too intensely on any one of those rules is to miss the dramatic effect of the overall flurry. Over the last six-plus years, in addition to the relatively modest restrictions on ozone, ash, and arguably carbon, the Obama administration has issued much tougher regulations limiting soot, sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions from coal plants. A little-noticed “regional haze” regulation protecting air quality around national parks has also been a coal-killer. In May, the EPA ordered 36 states to close loopholes that allow coal plants to emit unlimited pollution while starting up, shutting down, or malfunctioning; in July, it proposed a new rule cracking down on coal-mining operations that dump waste in streams; just last week, it finalized a new “effluent” rule cracking down on toxic discharges from certain coal plants.
When you put them all together, Obama’s new rules are absolutely changing the trajectory of the power industry. He has been an ally in the war on coal, if not exactly a committed warrior. The actual warriors in the Sierra Club and other grass-roots groups have litigated every rule, and some of the EPA’s final decisions have left them unsatisfied, but the drip-drip-drip of regulatory action is driving up the price of coal and the hassle of coal, while expanding their legal arsenal in itsbattles against the coal industry. And every new rule provides a new reason for utility executives to choose a different path.
And they are choosing a different path. On Friday, for example, Xcel Energy filed plans to shut down 1,200 megawatts worth of coal power in Minnesota and add 3,500 megawatts of wind and solar power, a major change to the coal-heavy plan Xcel filed in January. Overall, 204 of the nation’s 523 coal plants have been scheduled for retirement since 2010, eliminating 85,000 megawatts of dirty power. Utilities must plan for the long term, and they don’t want to make long-term investments in coal in a hostile regulatory environment.
Meanwhile, the coal-friendly utilities that do want to make those investments are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade their regulators to let them. After all, before allowing a utility to upgrade a coal plant to comply with one new regulation—by installing expensive scrubbers to reduce mercury, or building a “baghouse” to filter soot—regulators have to ask themselves how many additional upgrades will eventually be needed to comply with additional regulations, with ratepayers footing the bill. The attraction to coal used to be that it was dirty but cheap; the more it’s forced to clean up its mess, the less cheap it gets.
The strict mercury rules have already scrambled the financial calculations of the power industry, and the marquee carbon plan will re-scramble them, but less prominent actions can contribute to the scrambling as well. Take the obscure “start-stop-malfunction” rule, the EPA’s May effort to close a loophole that exempted many coal plants from penalties for uncontrolled emissions during startups, shutdowns, and technical difficulties. Al Armendariz, the Austin-based regional director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal initiative, said some aging plants in Texas can produce as much pollution in those short periods as they produce the rest of the year—and the state routinely lets them get away with it.
Now the EPA is trying to force states to take startup and shutdown emissions seriously, which would force the owners of the offending plants to make a decision: Either modernize their inadequate soot controls, which would cost tens of millions of dollars, or phase out the plants. And even if the plants seem viable with these upgrades, the owners have to weigh the potential costs of future upgrades.
“The state of Texas has a history of playing games, but EPA can limit their ability to turn a blind eye,” said Armendariz, a former EPA official who had to resign after expressing public hostility to fossil-fuel interests. “And remember, these plants will have to deal with the regional haze rules, too. Plus the Clean Power plan. Do you want to invest in an aging plant with all that coming down the pike?
Richard Alonso, an environmental lawyer at Bracewell & Giuliani who represents industry in pollution cases, said he expects more than a dozen states to sue EPA over the start-stop-malfunction actions. “It’s just more paperwork and more permitting and more regulatory burden,” Alonso said. It would just be an annoying little dispute, he said, except that it’s part of a barrage of annoying little disputes, all of which add up to an unprecedented assault on a besieged industry.
“It’s death by a thousand cuts,” Alonso said. “It’s another nail in the coffin.”
This week, environmentalists were dismayed by the EPA’s ozone rules, which tightened limits on smog-producing air pollution from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb, but not to the 60 ppb that some scientists and health advocates had recommended. “Not good enough,” said Environment America. “A betrayal,” complained Earthjustice. But the National Mining Association sounded even more upset, placing the ozone rules in the context of the EPA’s larger flurry of “onerous regulations.” Ozone is merely the latest entry point for investment decisions that haven’t been going coal’s way.
“Once again the fate of a sustainable manufacturing revival and breakout economic growth is jeopardized by this regulatory agency,” the association said.
As the drumbeat of coal-plant retirements has continued, huge coal interests like Alpha Natural Resources, Walter Energy, and Patriot Coal have been forced into bankruptcy. Beyond Coal hopes to see the entire industry shut down in the U.S. by 2030; that may sound unrealistic, but so did its goal of seeing one third of the industry shut down by the end of 2015, which is on track to happen.
The main problem for coal is that anti-pollution rules are making it more expensive. But another problem for coal is that its competition is getting cheap. Natural gas prices remain low. Wind prices have dropped more than 60 percent since 2009. And solar prices have dropped more than 80 percent. This morning, Solar City unveiled the world’s most efficient solar panel, which it plans to manufacture in Buffalo and sell for an unheard-of 55 cents a watt. Analysts at Deutsche Bank and other investment houses have predicted that by the end of 2016, solar will be cost-competitive with coal in most U.S. states. And investors know how much it will cost to run a wind or solar farm for the next two decades, which is no longer true of a coal plant.
So far this year, most of the new power generating capacity in the U.S. has come from wind and solar; none of it has come from coal. SolarCity chief technology officer Peter Rive told me the company is selling a new rooftop system every two or three minutes; its business grew 95 percent last year, and its workforce has grown from about 600 to about 14,000 in the Obama era.
“I don’t know if we can sustain this growth rate, but we’re going to have a lot of growth,” Rive said. “Things are changing really fast.”
Of course, solar power doesn’t produce smog, soot, mercury, effluent or ash, during startups, shutdowns or any other time. It doesn’t bury streams or warm the planet, either. President George W. Bush’s EPA didn’t update many clean-air or clean-water regulations, so it didn’t hurt coal; some of Obama’s updates have been more aggressive than others, but all of them have tilted the playing field against coal.
These trends will continue if Obama’s successor favors strong regulations of coal-fired pollution, or even modest regulations of coal-fired pollution. What could slow them down or even reverse them is a successor who favors deregulation of coal-fired pollution, as Republican leaders in Congress have advocated. This won’t be a big issue in the 2016 campaign, and to the extent it is the debate is likely to swirl almost entirely around carbon, but it could determine the future of American power.

Return to headline | Return to top
Week Ahead: EPA Defends Climate Regs

Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill

By Tim Devaney

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be on the hot seat as it defends two controversial climate regulations.
The House Science subcommittees on the Environment and Oversight will hold a joint hearing Wednesday examining what businesses say will be the “most expensive regulation in history,” the EPA's controversial new ozone standard. http://1.usa.gov/1LmmlCu
The EPA strengthened the ozone standard on Thursday, lowering the permitted level of air pollution from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion.
The action has the agency facing criticism from all sides. Business groups say the changes will devastate industry, but climate activists lament that the agency didn’t take further steps to protect the environment.
Meanwhile, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will also be holding a hearing on Wednesday examining the EPA’s climate rules for power plants that were released in August.http://1.usa.gov/1LobrMg
The EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe will testify at the hearing on the power plant rules.
Also on Wednesday, drones will be the topic of discussion during a Transportation Committee hearing. http://1.usa.gov/1VsKhJ7
That same day, the House Agriculture Committee will hold a hearing on the upcoming 2015 Dietary Guidelines . The eating recommendations are expected to be unveiled by the end of the year. http://1.usa.gov/1Kt4k1B
Across Capitol Hill, the Senate Labor Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday on the National Labor Relations Board’s controversial joint employer decision. This follows a House hearing on the same subject. Republicans are looking to roll back the policy. http://1.usa.gov/1KOFeuj
Labor will stay in the spotlight Thursday as the House Small Business Committee holds a hearing on the Department of Labor’s new overtime rules. http://1.usa.gov/1L8PTkX

Return to headline | Return to top
Supreme Court Decision in FERC Case Could Affect EPA

Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rebecca Wilhelm

The U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of a case asking whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has authority to compensate demand-response programs in the wholesale electricity market might signal how the court will treat the Environmental Protection Agency in future statutory construction cases, legal scholars said in an Oct. 5 webinar.
FERC's authority to promulgate Order 745, which was designed to reduce electricity demand during peak periods, depends on the Supreme Court's interpretation of ambiguous language in the Federal Power Act, Jody Freeman, a professor at Harvard Law School, said during a webinar held by the Environmental Law Institute previewing the Supreme Court's 2015-2016 term.
The government argues that the act extends jurisdiction to FERC over practices “affecting” wholesale electricity rates, which includes the power to regulate demand-response programs, Freeman said.
“We will see in the court's handling of this case how is it feeling about deference at the moment,” she said.
The court's decision might indicate how the court will decide future challenges to EPA interpretations of the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes, Freeman said.
The court will hear oral argument in the case on Oct. 14 (FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n, U.S., No. 14-840, oral argument scheduled 10/14/15; 191 DEN A-14, 10/2/15).
Curtailing Agency Deference
Last term the court curtailed agency discretion to interpret ambiguous statutory language when it ruled that the Clean Air Act required the EPA to consider costs before deciding it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate emissions of mercury and other air toxics from power plants (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (2015); 125 DEN A-1, 6/30/15).
That decision was “a significant shift” from prior case law, Freeman said, and it suggests that the court is less willing to defer to agency interpretations, especially in important cases.
The court sent a similar message in King v. Burwell, Freeman said. Even though the court agreed with the government's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice John Roberts made it a point in his majority opinion to say, “we often apply the two-step framework announced inChevron,” and not, “we always” apply it (King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2015 BL 202885 (2015);126 DEN A-1, 7/1/15).
“He manages to send a signal that maybe the court will not be deferential in really important cases,” Freeman said. “When you put some of this language together with Michigan you wind up feeling a little nervous if you're on the environmental side and a little bolstered if you're on the industry side.”
‘Not Good News for the Government.'
The Supreme Court “surprised everyone” when it granted certiorari Oct. 1 in Sturgeon v. Masica, Richard J. Lazarus, a professor at Harvard Law School, said during the webinar.
“No one really thought the court was going to take this case,” he said. “When the court takes a case like that, it's not good news for the government.”
The court will review whether Section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over state, native corporation and privately owned land that is physically located within the boundaries of the National Park System (Sturgeon v. Masica, U.S., No. 14-1209, certiorari granted 10/1/15; 191 DEN A-14, 10/2/15).
Specifically, John Sturgeon, an Alaska resident, argues that a regulation banning hovercraft use in all national parks should not be applied to Alaska's Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve based on the plain statutory language of ANILCA. Sturgeon challenged the regulation after park service officials prevented him from using his hovercraft on a state-owned river within the Yukon-Charley Preserve for a moose-hunting trip.
“You wouldn't think this is a cert issue,” Lazarus said. “There's no obvious reason to take this case.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Whitehouse Hopes GOP Congressman Will Partner on Carbon Bill

Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Jean Chemnick

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has asked the 11 House Republicans who acknowledged man-made climate change in a resolution last month to take the next step and back a price on carbon.
The Rhode Island Democrat and outspoken advocate for climate action says he sent an email last week to Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) and his 10 co-sponsors on the resolution asking them to work with him on legislation (ClimateWire, Sept. 17). He said he had not yet received a response.
Whitehouse said he was particularly impressed with Gibson, who followed the resolution by co-hosting a forum with Whitehouse on climate change and agriculture last week held by the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, which the senator chairs.
But he added that he expects there to be a backlash against Republicans like Gibson who buck their party's orthodoxy on climate change.
"This is escape from Denial Island, and a lot of people are going to want to punish him and the 10 others," Whitehouse told E&E Daily yesterday at the Capitol.
"I think it will be interesting to see what the consequences are in the caucus, what the consequences are politically for them," Whitehouse said. "And then we're wide open to work with them, and I hope we can find a way to get a bipartisan, bicameral bill together."
Gibson is not running for re-election in 2016, though he may announce a 2018 bid for New York governor.
Whitehouse and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who co-sponsored his carbon fee bill, unveiled the measure at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute in June.
It would establish a levy on carbon dioxide emissions that tracks with the Obama administration's social cost of carbon estimate and rises slowly over time. Whitehouse said he has heard good feedback from conservatives about it -- except for those now serving in Congress.
The concept should appeal to a conservatives like Gibson and his co-sponsors, Whitehouse said.
"So I take them at their word that this is the way they want to go, and we're there, ready, willing and able," he said.

Return to headline | Return to top
District Court Ruling Highlights EPA Dilemma On Appealing NSR Suit Losses

Oct 5, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Stuart Parker

A federal district court's ruling dismissing the bulk of an EPA Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) enforcement action against a Texas utility underscores the dilemma the agency faces in deciding whether to appeal a series of losses in NSR cases, observers say, as adverse decisions on appeal could further limit EPA's NSR enforcement.
EPA has lost several federal district court cases that claimed violations of the strict NSR permitting process. The recent Texas federal district court decision reinforces a strict statute of limitations approach that sets a time limit on pursuing such actions, while a federal district court in Michigan issued a ruling in 2011 that faulted the agency for pursuing NSR cases based on pre-construction projected emissions associated with plant upgrades.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), on EPA's behalf, has appealed the Michigan decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and oral arguments in that suit are slated for Dec. 10. DOJ has said the case, USA v. DTE Energy Company, et al., risks "eviscerating" NSR if the lower court decision is allowed to stand.
But sources suggest that the Obama administration might be fearful of pursuing appellate review of other NSR decisions for fear that the courts would back the lower court's rulings and expand the precedent to all the states within an appellate circuit, not just the state covered by the district court that issued the ruling.
DOJ has already experienced some losses in appellate NSR cases, where judges agreed with industry that NSR enforcement claims are one-time events, but those courts have ruled in the context of whether the enforcement actions can be brought at all, or whether EPA is restricted to the five-year statute of limitations.
Two more recent rulings, going against the administration, were issued by the 7th and 3rd Circuits, which both had the added complication of the plants having new owners since the alleged violations occurred. DOJ opted not to seek high court review of the 7th Circuit ruling, United States v. Midwest Generation, and similarly opted against asking the justices to take up the 3rd Circuit case, United States, et al. v. EME Homer City Generation LP, et al.
"If I were DOJ, I wouldn't want most of these issues anywhere near the Supreme Court," says one industry source, given the dilemma for EPA about a high court ruling imposing new limits on NSR enforcement.
Sources say it is unclear whether EPA will appeal the Aug. 21 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in United States of America v. Luminant Generation Company, in which the court finds that most of EPA's accusations that Luminant failed to obtain necessary air permits are time-barred.
The court found said EPA cannot pursue claims over prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits -- required under the federal NSR program -- filed after the five-year statute of limitations because the failure to obtain such a permit prior to construction of a new plant or modification is a one-time event. The agency asserts that such a failure creates an "ongoing violation" of the Clean Air Act, but the court rejected this logic, citing precedent in four circuit courts of appeals -- the 3rd, 7th, 8th and 11th Circuits -- supporting its position.
Potential Appeal
If EPA appeals the Luminant case, it would be heard by the 5th Circuit, seen by many as somewhat conservative and not necessarily friendly to EPA, given some of its recent Clean Air Act findings.
For example, the court has previously rejected EPA's efforts to modify Texas' "flexible" air permit program, which the agency said could allow circumvention of NSR by major industrial facilities.
EPA and DOJ did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Nevertheless, the agency continues to pursue NSR enforcement cases -- most recently announcing a Sept. 29 settlement with Guardian Industries Corp. to resolve alleged NSR and PSD violations at the company's flat glass manufacturing facilities throughout the United States. Under the proposed settlement, Guardian will invest more than $70 million to cut several air pollutants from its facilities, and pay a $312,000 civil penalty.
One industry attorney says the Luminant ruling is further evidence that EPA's NSR enforcement drive is in trouble. The source sees at least three distinct issues in play. First, is there a continuing violation which allows EPA to get penalties from modifications occurring more than five years prior to suit? "I think that this is a dead certain loser for EPA and I'd be shocked if they want the Supreme Court to rule on it," the source says.
Second, if the alleged violation occurs more than five years prior to suit, and the facility was sold in the meantime, is EPA out of luck? "This also seems like a loser to me," the source says.
"The last issue may be the most important. If the facility has not been sold, can EPA get injunctive relief against the owner, even if penalties are not available?," the source says.
"This is the one remaining issue where I could see DOJ concluding that: (a) it is important to EPA and (b) there is some reasonable hope that the [Supreme Court] would agree that injunctive relief is not barred," the source adds. "If EPA could find the right case to set up a circuit split on this last issue, DOJ might well do so."
However, the source cautions, the simple existence of a circuit split on an issue of NSR enforcement might not be enough to persuade the high court to take such a case because "this is a sufficiently technical, down-in-the-weeds kind of issue" that the court could decide is not worth its time.
A Texas environmentalist says it is very important that EPA continue to bring NSR enforcement actions, even where the alleged violation took place more than five years ago.
Accepting the position that NSR violations are one-time events subject to the statute of limitations "would suggest that the government has eyes and ears everywhere," the source says.
EPA cannot reasonably be expected to know when all large industrial plants in the country are making modifications that might increase air emissions and trigger NSR/PSD, the source says. "Major" sources of air pollution -- defined under the air law as those emitting 100 tons per year (tpy) or 250 tpy, depending on the pollutant -- are subject to NSR/PSD review and may be obliged to install additional pollution controls.
A Texas industry attorney would be "shocked" if EPA did not appeal the Luminant ruling at the 5th Circuit, which "really hasn't weighed in on this," and if it does "we could get some good law" on the issue.
Both the 5th and 6th Circuits have ruled in favor of the federal government and environmentalists in cases involving NSR violations that the courts deemed "ongoing," but in those cases state regulations in Louisiana and Tennessee explicitly created ongoing liability. The cases are United States v. Marine Shale Processors, decided by the 5th Circuit in 1996, and National Parks Conservation Association v. Tennessee Valley Authority, decided by the 6th Circuit in 2007.
'Gross Oversimplification'
A third industry attorney, however, contests any notion that EPA or DOJ are "scared" of appealing NSR suits or going to the Supreme Court as a "gross oversimplification."
In February 2014, DOJ environmental enforcement chief W. Benjamin Fisherow told a conference organized by American Law Institute -- Continuing Legal Education in Washington, D.C., that DOJ was then seeking a sufficiently "clean" circuit split on NSR enforcement penalties "to have something to take to the Supreme Court." Fisherow was referring to differences of view over daily NSR penalties -- which under DOJ's interpretation of "ongoing violation" could accrue at $37,000 per day, potentially for decades. He did not, however, address the statute of limitations issue.
Under a view where NSR violations are one-time events, the penalties could not accrue in this way. Also, if NSR violations are one-time events, and those take place more than five years ago, the NSR enforcement claims are time-barred if covered by the general statute of limitations.
With respect to the Texas Luminant case, "I think [the administration is] going to appeal it to the 5th Circuit. DOJ has won some big air cases in the 5th Circuit, and lost some," the attorney says. The idea that EPA would hesitate in appealing adverse NSR rulings is "preposterous," the source says.
This is partly because there is no risk to existing settlement agreements that ended NSR enforcement actions from a potential NSR appeal that goes against EPA. Many NSR enforcement actions are settled, and those agreements are then binding regardless of subsequent court findings in other cases, the source notes.
Further, most electric utility and refinery NSR enforcement actions have already been settled or resolved. Therefore, enforcement actions in these industries will dwindle, the source says. EPA is now turning its NSR enforcement program toward the carbon black industry, the source says. Carbon black is an oil-derived product used in the manufacture of rubber and plastic products, chiefly tires.
With respect to the statute of limitations, the source says this only applies to damages, but not injunctive relief. The Texas district court found otherwise, but "there is a lot of case law going the other way," the source says. "For 10 years people have said NSR is dead . . . but it continues to march on," the source says.
NSR Enforcement
In a recent major NSR enforcement action settled by EPA with an electric utility, the agency recently reached a deal with Duke Energy over alleged NSR violations dating back 15 years.
In the proposed consent decree, lodged Sept. 10 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Duke agreed to permanently shut 11 electrical generating units that the company has already stopped operating, and to run pollution controls and meet interim emissions limits on two others, of 13 that EPA originally said Duke had modified without the going through NSR.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA, Environmentalists Oppose Texas' Bid For Parallel SSM Rule Lawsuits

Oct 5, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Anthony Lacey

EPA and environmentalists are opposing Texas' bid for an appellate court to create two parallel suits over the agency's rule forcing states to scrap Clean Air Act emissions limit exemptions during facility startups, shutdowns and malfunctions (SSM) from their air plans, saying none of Texas' attacks on the rule warrant it having a separate suit.
“Texas Petitioners do not present any unique legal arguments that justify separate consideration of their petitions by this Court, so their proposed approach would only create confusion and ultimately prove inefficient,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) says in an Oct. 1 filing on EPA's behalf with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In a separate Oct. 1 filing, a coalition of environmental groups says Texas' request for a separate suit, “depends on an untenable reading of case law and of the single U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) action at issue in these cases and otherwise fails to justify its request for severance and expedited consideration.”
EPA in May finalized a rule that says 36 states must remove language from their state implementation plans (SIPs) -- blueprints for Clean Air Act compliance -- that allow air law compliance waivers during SSM periods. The rule not only forces states to remove SSM exemptions, but also related “affirmative defense” exemptions. EPA is scrapping both exemptions from its rules after the D.C. Circuit in prior rulings said the waivers were unlawful.
The “SIP Call” rulemaking directs the affected states to correct specific provisions in their SIPs, and under Clean Air Act deadlines the states must submit revised SIPs for EPA approval by Nov. 22, 2016.
A slew of industry groups and some states filed suit over the rule in both the D.C. Circuit, which typically hears suits over EPA Clean Air Act rules, and 5th Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Critics say the rule exceeds the agency's power by forcing states to revise their SIPs to remove any SSM or affirmative defense provisions -- even though their plans had in the past won final EPA approval and are being implemented.
If states fail to meet deadlines for revising their plans, the agency will step in and issue a federal implementation plan directly removing SSM and affirmative defense exemptions in those states.
Pending Challenges
A host of challenges to the rule filed in the D.C. Circuit have been consolidated in the case Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. (SLF), et al. v EPA, et al. But Texas and industry groups in that state filed suit in the 5th Circuit, claiming a prior ruling by that court made it the proper venue for their challenge.
The 5th Circuit in a 2013 ruling in Luminant Generation v. EPA upheld Texas' authority to include an affirmative defense provision in its SIP. In that case, EPA had defended the state's right to use the affirmative defense provision in the plan, which the agency had approved. Texas says therefore that the agency's SSM SIP Call is a change in position that creates a conflict for the state in either heeding the court ruling or EPA's rule.
It is this unique position that warranted the 5th Circuit hearing the case, Texas argued. But the 5th Circuit recently granted EPA's request to transfer the pending cases to the D.C. Circuit -- challenges that the agency is now trying to consolidate with the SLF lawsuit. But Texas in recent filings has reiterated what it sees as the disconnect between EPA's rule and the 5th Circuit ruling as warranting its own separate suit.
DOJ in its filing opposing the request says that the 5th Circuit's ruling in Luminant “does not control the issues to be decided in this case” which are broader challenges to EPA's authority for the SIP Call. “The holding inLuminant is not inconsistent with the SSM Action, even in the Fifth Circuit, because the question at issue inLuminant was whether EPA acted reasonably when it partially approved and partially disapproved a specific Texas SIP submission based upon its interpretations of the relevant CAA provisions at that time,” DOJ says.
DOJ adds that all the issues Texas petitioners intend to raise are based on the same administrative record that will be cited in the SLF suit, and therefore consolidating all the cases would be the most efficient outcome.
“Hearing two separate sets of petitions challenging the SSM Action would have little benefit. Consolidating all of these cases is more efficient, and does no harm. Even if there are arguments only some petitioners can raise, dealing with such idiosyncratic issues as part of a combined challenge is standard practice in consolidated cases, and Texas Petitioners would not be harmed by having their issues resolved in the context of the broader challenges to the SSM Action,” the filing says.
'Piecemeal Litigation'
The separate filing by the coalition of environmental groups including Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council makes similar arguments, and urges against creating parallel suits over the rule.
The groups also suggest that having just one suit is necessary as Luminant is relevant to the other SSM cases. “Because the meaning of Luminant is broadly relevant to these cases, setting some issues about it on a separate track would promote piecemeal litigation that disserves judicial economy,” the filing says.
“Even if there were 'unique threshold issues,' their existence would not justify the piecemeal litigation that Texas Petitioners request” for parallel suits, environmentalists argue. “Promoting judicial economy, this Court regularly consolidates cases that raise 'unique' issues with respect to a single final action, including 'threshold' issues,” they say.
Meanwhile, the Mississippi Power Company in an Oct. 1 filing says that if the court grants Texas' motion and creates a separate suit over that state's claim then it should allow the company to participate in that suit.
The company notes that the 5th Circuit's ruling in Luminant applies in Mississippi as well as Texas, “yet EPA's SIP Call seeks to require the states to take action inconsistent with that decision by a deadline of November 22, 2016,” the filing says. “This places Mississippi, like Texas, in an untenable position -- having to decide whether to submit a SIP revision to EPA based on finding that contradicts the duly-issued mandate of the Fifth Circuit, or be subject to a potential federal implementation plan by EPA for failing to respond,” the company argues.
As a result, the company says that it has an interest in the resolution of the “unique threshold issues” that Texas raised in its request for parallel litigation, and that it should have a role in that suit.

Return to headline | Return to top
Obama Doubles Down on Arctic Drilling Regs

Oct 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The Obama administration still plans to issue regulations for oil and natural gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean despite Royal Dutch Shell's decision to abandon its drilling efforts “for the foreseeable future.”
Brian Salerno, director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), said regulators are moving forward with their rules, even though drilling is not likely to return to the Arctic for years, or even decades.
“It still matters,” Salerno told Platts in an interview released Monday. “It’s not pushed to the back burner. We’re committed to going forward and finalizing the rule.”
BSEE proposed the regulations earlier this year as an attempt to account for the unique qualities of the Arctic Ocean, including its remoteness, extreme weather and wildlife.
The agency wants to require drillers to keep a backup rig nearby to drill relief wells for blowouts, be able to contain spills through mechanical means and restrict the drilling season based on ice cover, among other provisions.
Salerno said the need for the rules still stands.
“It’s very much something we feel we need to do to provide clarity, not only to the industry, but also to the public as to what will be expected, should another operator decide to exercise their rights to the leases that they hold,” he said.
The oil industry and Republicans have sharply criticized the proposal as overly prescriptive, expensive and unnecessary, while Democrats and environmentalists say the rules don’t go nearly far enough to prevent oil spills.
The regulatory effort was largely spurred by Shell’s 2012 drilling attempt, which resulted in multiple mishaps, including its drilling rig running aground on an Alaska island.
Multiple other companies, such as ConocoPhillips and Statoil, hold leases to drilling rights in the United States portion of the Arctic Ocean, but no companies have set plans to drill there.
Royal Dutch Shell last week abandoned its plans to drill in the Arctic, citing low oil and gas volumes after its exploratory drilling this summer.

Return to headline | Return to top
U.N. Issues Slimmed Down Climate Text Ahead of Talks

Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Andrew Restuccia

The United Nations on Monday released a dramatically streamlined draft negotiating text that will form the foundation of the climate change deal countries hope to sign later this year in Paris.
The new 20-page draft cuts more than 60 pages from the previous version of the document and comes after weeks of behind-the-scenes work by the co-chairmen of the U.N. climate talks, Ahmed Djoghlaf of Algeria and Daniel Reifsnyder of the United States.
The co-chairmen were tasked with slimming down the bulky 83-page text into a more succinct, manageable document that would help negotiators focus on the biggest issues at interim negotiations in Bonn, Germany, that are scheduled for Oct. 19-23. The previous text was rife with repetitive language and confusing formatting, while the shorter, 20-page version presents the text in a clearer format that crystallizes the areas of disagreement.
But the document does not resolve the most vexing issues facing negotiators.
Diplomats will continue to wrestle with the issue of climate finance, which is the aid that wealthy countries fork over to help poorer nations deal with the effects of global warming.
The text also shows that countries are still divided over precisely what the overall emissions-reduction goal should be. The document includes several options, including a "peaking of global greenhouse gas emissions," "zero net greenhouse gas emissions," a percentage reduction in emissions and vague terms like "carbon neutrality."
The new text includes both proposed language for the legally binding agreement and the separate nonbinding "decision" that will put the agreement into effect in the years after 2020. Several of the most controversial issues, like the loss and damage associated with climate change, are only mentioned in broad terms in the legally binding portion of the document.
The co-chairmen also released a separate document outlining options for dealing with climate change in the years before 2020.
In a note to negotiators outlining their thinking, the co-chairmen said they hope to hold "intensive" consultations with countries before the Bonn negotiating session to get feedback on the draft text, including a series of bilateral meetings Oct. 15-18. The Bonn talks, which immediately follow the bilateral meetings, are the last formal negotiations before countries meet in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11.
"The objective is to have an agreed modus operandi for this session before its opening so as to avoid any discussion of procedure and to start substantive negotiations immediately after a short opening plenary," co-chairmen said, adding later, "We urge Parties to make the best use of the very limited time available and to come prepared to engage in text-based negotiation with a view to forwarding to COP 21 an advanced draft Paris climate package."

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report Shows Rail Shutdown Could Cost $30 Billion

Oct 5, 2015 | Recycling Today

A broad rail service disruption lasting one month would cost the U.S. economy $30 billion and would increase the unemployment rate with a loss of 700,000 jobs, according to a study released by theAmerican Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington.

The study, “Assessment of the Economic and Social Impacts of the Failure of Congress to Extend the Compliance Deadline for Positive Train Control (PTC)”, outlines how most Americans would be impacted by a rail shutdown unless Congress steps in to extend the PTC deadline. A disruption of this scale would strand commuters across the country and prevent the flow of goods that are vital to everyday life, putting the entire economy and public health at risk, according to the ACC.

“The United States is staring down the tracks of an unprecedented shutdown of freight rail service that could seriously harm our entire economy unless Congress acts quickly to extend the PTC deadline,” says Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the ACC. “A prolonged shutdown would be truly catastrophic, likely resulting in a recession. We cannot afford to let this self-inflicted crisis happen; Congress must act now.”

According to the ACC’s study, a transportation disruption of this magnitude would have cascading impacts that would threaten the nation’s food, energy and water supplies, as well as nearly every sector of the U.S. economy, including manufacturing and construction. As the report details, a disruption of rail service lasting only one month will result in a 2.6 percentage reduction to U.S. real GDP (gross domestic product) growth during the first quarter of 2016, which would put a major chill on just about every leading indicator in the 1st quarter, including the following: the unemployment rate would increase by 0.3 percent with a loss of 700,000 jobs;household incomes would fall by more than $17 billion, depressing consumer confidence and spending; andvehicle sales would be driven down with 175,000 fewer cars sold, and housing starts would stall with almost 28,000 fewer homes built—all of which would have dire consequences for a multitude of industries throughout the supply chain. In addition to the broad negative economic impact on the nation’s economy, the rail shutdown could have far-reaching health consequences, the ACC says. Since water treatment facilities rely on the routine delivery of chlorine-based water disinfectants, the U.S. could experience drinking water shortages if shipments were disrupted, putting public health at risk, the ACC says. A group of associations representing the nation’s water utilities recently sent a letter to Congress warning that a rail shutdown caused by a failure to extend PTC “could risk a public health disaster for communities across the country.”

PTC is a sophisticated GPS-based system that is designed to prevent train collisions and derailments. Under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, railroads are required to implement PTC on lines that ship certain hazardous materials and carry passengers by rail by Dec. 31, 2015.

The Association of American Railroads, Government Accountability Office, and Federal Railroad Administration have stated that the railroads will not be able to implement PTC by the deadline. Furthermore, despite their common carrier obligation to provide service, the ACC says most major railroads have declared that they will shut down large portions of their rail lines unless the deadline is extended.

Even allowing the deadline to approach will have severe consequences, according to the ACC, as companies need time to adjust transportation plans in the face of a shutdown of freight rail service.

The ACC says Congress should act immediately to provide a reasonable, workable extension for PTC to avoid a massive disruption to freight rail service and the potentially dire consequences for the U.S. economy that would come with such a shutdown. The association says it urges the U.S. House and Senate to pass an extension this month.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Water Groups Push Congress to Extend Rail Safety Deadline

Oct 5, 2015 | Associations Now

By Katie Bascuas

As the deadline to install positive train control systems on U.S. railroads approaches, several groups representing the water industry are warning of the costs to clean water should Congress not act to allow more time to install the technology.
Congressional regulations on rail safety are having an unintended effect on the water industry.
Under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, railroads throughout the country are required to install positive train control (PTC) technology before Dec. 31, 2015. But many railroads are not going to make that deadline and are threatening partial or complete shutdowns beginning January 1 unless Congress extends it. Shutdowns would create interruptions in the delivery of water disinfection chemicals that are used to treat municipal drinking water and wastewater,according to several water groups [PDF].
“The water sector supports implementation of safe transportation of potentially hazardous materials,” the groups wrote in a letter sent to Congress late last month. “All but a handful of U.S. railroads have acknowledged, however, that due primarily to technological challenges in a PTC system, they will not be ready for the December 31 deadline. That means they will not be able to transport these critical materials without facing steep federal fines, and are therefore unlikely to handle such shipments without an extension in place.”
The letter was signed by representatives from the American Water Works Association, Association of California Water Agencies, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and National Association of Water Companies.
Other industry groups are also warning of the potential losses from rail disruption. Should railroads discontinue rail service for even a month, it could cost the U.S. economy $30 billion, according to estimates by the American Chemistry Council. Meanwhile, the American Public Transportation Association has said that installing PTC technology nationwide on commuter rail systems by the end of the year is not possible due to technology and funding challenges. According to APTA, commuter railroads carry about 38.5 million people a month.
The Importance of PTC
The need for PTC technology was highlighted this past spring after a train derailment outside of Philadelphia killed eight people.
After the crash, the Association of American Railroads, which supports PTC, spoke out on the need for additional time to implement the technology.
“[D]ue to PTC’s complexity and the enormity of the implementation task—and the fact that much of the technology PTC requires simply did not exist when the PTC mandate was passed and has had to be developed from scratch—much work remains to be done,” the group said in a policy statement.

Return to headline | Return to top
House Panel Set to Move Reauthorization Bill Soon

Oct 6, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Sean Reilly

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will push ahead with its own version of a road and transit reauthorization bill after next week's break, a spokesman confirmed yesterday evening.
"We are planning to mark up our bill soon and will announce a schedule when our members are back in town and have discussed," Jim Billimoria said in an email.
The statement came after Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said that T&I Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) had told him that staffers on the House panel would be working on the legislation over the break, followed by committee action after lawmakers return.
"They're still talking about it's going to be a six-year bill," Inhofe told reporters. "I'm excited about it."
The latest stopgap transportation funding extension expires Oct. 29, meaning that Congress will have to at least pass another short-term replacement before then to keep federal dollars flowing uninterrupted to states and transit agencies.
The Senate has already approved H.R. 22, which is ostensibly a six-year reauthorization measure encompassing road, rail and public transportation programs but is funded for only the first three years.
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested