Preview Newsletter

NI - ACC PM 10/7/2015

Industry and Association News

Four Reasons Obama’s Trade Deal Could Have Trouble in Congress and One big Reason it Could Succeed
Oct 7, 2015 | Washington Post
By Kelsey Snell, Karoun Demirjian and Catherine Ho

The announcement on Monday that negotiators reached a deal on a sweeping 12-nation Pacific Rim trade deal may have been cause for celebration for President Obama.
TPP is a Good Deal for the Middle Class
Oct 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jay Chittooran

Now that the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries have reached agreement on the landmark Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), all eyes turn to Congress for ratification.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Throws Presidential Candidates a Curveball
Oct 6, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Laura Meckler and Janet Hook

The Pacific trade deal is injecting a volatile issue into the 2016 presidential race, where risks lurk for presidential candidates in both parties.
Hillary Clinton Faces a Tough Choice on Trade
Oct 7, 2015 | Washington Post
By Ruth Marcus

Hillary Clinton is facing one of the most fateful decisions of the presidential primary season: what to say about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and when to say it.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Senate TSCA Bill Supporters Rally for Early Passage
Oct 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch

Senators, and others supporters of the Udall-Vitter bill, rallied outside the Capitol building on Tuesday to press for the passage of the measure that seeks to update the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Dems Urge LWCF Vote Separate from Chemicals Bill
Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson

Top Democrats today urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to schedule floor time for a bipartisan bill to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
US EPA Denies Petition for Mercury Rulemaking
Oct 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch

The US EPA has denied a petition, urging the agency to promulgate a rule that requires those who manufacture or import mercury, mercury compounds or mercury added products, to keep records of, and submit information to the agency about such activity.
Industry says California Lacks Evidence to List Furfuryl Alcohol
Oct 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch

Comments submitted by industry groups to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha), on its proposal to list furfuryl alcohol under Proposition 65...
Advocates, Researchers Question Scope Of EPA Authority Over SynBio
Oct 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad

Environmentalists and researchers are questioning the breadth of authority that EPA has over chemicals and other products created using bioengineering, or synthetic biology (synbio), arguing that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) creates loopholes that limit EPA's overview to the product created...

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

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA's Announcement to Strengthen Ozone Standard Met with Opposition
Oct 7, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week
By Jing Chen

US EPA’s plans to strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb), from 75 ppb, has met with industry opposition.
House GOP Predicts 'Strong Vote' on Crude Exports Bill
Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush and Geof Koss

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged House lawmakers today to support a bill lifting the decades-old ban on crude oil exports that's set for a Friday floor vote.
GOP Lawmaker Floats Trading TPP for Oil Exports
Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Afternoon Energy
By Jennifer Schutt

Rep. Kevin Cramer, a House Energy and Commerce Committee member, today floated a new tactic to lift the decades-old ban on crude oil exports.
Heritage Blasts ‘Union Buyoff’ in Oil Export Bill
Oct 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

A major conservative lobbying group is blasting House Republicans for inserting into a crude oil export bill a provision to increase payments to certain unionized maritime shipping companies.
States Seek Communications Records on EPA Carbon Rule Publication
Oct 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen

A group of states led by West Virginia have filed a Freedom of Information Act request for communications between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register over publication of the agency’s power plant carbon rule.
Utility Group Bows to the Inevitable, Gets Wish on Ozone Rule
Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly

In late September, the trade group representing investor-owned utilities attended two meetings with top White House and U.S. EPA officials. Its request: Set a new ozone standard at 70 parts per billion.
Why Can the E.P.A. Regulate Smog, but not Greenhouse Gases?
Oct 7, 2015 | New York Times
By Gregg Easterbrook

Last week the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled stringent new regulations on smog, and it’s crystal clear the agency has legal authority to impose these rules.
Barton: Clean Air Act not Meant to Create Cap and Trade
Oct 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen

Rep. Joe Barton today said Congress did not intend for EPA to use cap and trade to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants when it amended the Clean Air Act in 1990.
Methane Emissions Fall for 3rd Consecutive Year -- EPA
Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Pamela King

Greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector are on the rise, but methane leakage continues to fall, according to new U.S. EPA data.
Leaked Docs: Dems Coordinate To Discredit EPA Critics
Oct 7, 2015 | Daily Caller
By Michael Bastasch

Democratic gubernatorial offices around the country have been relying on the same activist-drafted, cookie-cutter talking points when it comes to discrediting critics of the Obama administration’s global warming agenda.
EPA Confident Climate Rule Will Withstand Court Attacks, Political Transition
Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Debra Kahn

U.S. EPA's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants will be able to withstand political and legal challenges, the head of the agency's Southwest operations said yesterday.
Brown to Sign Landmark Climate Bill Today
Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is expected to sign a broad climate change measure today to increase the state's renewable electricity use by 50 percent and double energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030.
World Coal Association's Sporton Discusses Global Disconnect on Industry's Future
Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - TV

What is the global coal industry seeking from governments at this December's United Nations climate meeting in Paris?

Transportation News

Amtrak May Suspend Rail Service in Mid-December
Oct 7, 2015 | Progressive Railroading

Add Amtrak to the list of railroads that may suspend some rail service if Congress doesn’t extend a Dec. 31 deadline for railroads to install positive train control (PTC) safety technology.

Industry and Association News

Four Reasons Obama’s Trade Deal Could Have Trouble in Congress and One big Reason it Could Succeed

Oct 7, 2015 | Washington Post

By Kelsey Snell, Karoun Demirjian and Catherine Ho

The announcement on Monday that negotiators reached a deal on a sweeping 12-nation Pacific Rim trade deal may have been cause for celebration for President Obama.
But support in Congress is far from guaranteed as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is getting a mixed reception from lawmakers.
Due to the rules governing consideration of trade deals, it could be a while before the deal is considered with congressional aides speculating the first votes could start sometime in April. The White House is expected to heavily lobby members in the coming months to try and convince reticent lawmakers in both parties that the deal would boost exports, create new jobs and help make the Pacific region more secure.
[A long road ahead for newly minted Pacific Rim trade agreement]
The president’s biggest advantage in getting congressional approval is that the trade deal will be considered under special fast-track rules, known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), that were enacted earlier this year. Under this process, the agreement will be subject to a simple up or down vote and lawmakers can not amend or filibuster the pact.
Working against Obama is the waning support from Republicans for the deal, the expected intense lobbying from outside groups and the continuing skepticism among members of his own party that the agreement will be good for workers.
What follows is a look at the one big reason the deal could get through Congress and the four challenges that could stand in its way.
Obama’s advantage — Fast-track trade rules: Obama worked closely with Republicans in Congress earlier this year to enact legislation that would allow trade deals to be considered under the fast-track TPA rules, a rare area of bipartisan cooperation between the White House and Congress.
Once legislation to implement the pact is introduced, Congress cannot amend the agreement and it takes just a simple majority to approve the deal. Those rules, which are commonly used to help convince international negotiators that Congress won’t meddle in the details of a long-sought agreement, should make it easier to get a bill through Congress. They remove the threat of filibuster and prevent the introduction of any “poison pill” amendments that could sink the entire package.
Due to the long congressional review process established by the law that set up the fast-track rules, it may be April before legislation implementing the deal begins moving.
Between now and then, observers will be keeping a careful eye on how many of the Republicans and moderate Democrats who supported giving the president TPA sour on the actual deal as they pore over the details and get lobbied by special interest groups.
What could go wrong for the White House…
1. Republicans may be hesitant to hand Obama a victory: Republicans have traditionally liked the idea of free-trade agreements, but on TPP some likely backers have already expressed skepticism.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who was a force behind putting the fast-track rules in place, said in a statement that the TPP falls “woefully short” of the goals and objectives of a successful deal because it does not do enough to improve access to global markets for American-made products.
“The United States should not settle for a mediocre deal that fails to set high-standard trade rules in the Asia-Pacific region for years to come,” Hatch said.
The presidential election could potentially complicate the debate over the trade deal if Republicans become more reluctant to give Obama a victory on an issue he views as a big part of his economic policy legacy.
Not all of the candidates on the GOP campaign trail have opined on the newly-signed TPP, but their positions to date on the issue have been mixed.
Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), for instance, have spoken positively about the need for such free trade agreements. Rubio voted for the fast-track authority, though Cruz voted against the bill over a dust-up concerning the Export-Import Bank.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, has called TPP “an attack on America’s business.”
2. Obama may not have the support of some key Democrats. It is not uncommon for lawmakers to be cautious in their early assessments of a trade agreement and some key Democrats have been hesitant to back Obama.
Trade has traditionally been a divisive issue for Democrats who pride themselves on protecting American workers, supporting unions and working for higher wages. But this deal was particularly difficult for some in the president’s party.
“I have said throughout the negotiations that I will oppose any trade agreement that does not protect American workers and human rights, create jobs, and help hard-working families in my district,” said Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee that has jurisdiction over trade. “During the negotiations there was little evidence that this was going to be a good deal for the majority of American workers.”
Some Democrats complained that they were not given the chance to have much input while the deal was being negotiated.
“Early reports indicate that this agreement is a bad deal for the working men and women of the American auto industry and for many other sectors of the U.S. economy,” said Rep. Debbie Dingel (D-Mich.) “The negotiators’ cloak and dagger approach has resulted in Members of Congress and the public being forced to operate on hearsay – not facts – because to date, we have been unable to access the secret web of side agreements and backroom deals that are associated with the latest rounds of negotiations.”
Trade agreements are typically negotiated in private meetings between highly specialized trade negotiators who tell tales of deals hashed out in late night sessions in hotel suites and in tiny basement boardrooms. It is common for elements of a trade agreement to be kept quiet while sensitive details are still in flux, but Democrats grew frustrated with what they saw as an unprecedented level of secrecy in the TPP negotiations.
3. Powerful outside lobbying groups oppose the deal. Special interest groups have been waiting for the details of the pact to emerge and now that lawmakers have the chance to freely delve into the deal’s hundreds of pages of legal jargon the groups will happily be there to help interpret the complicated details.
[Industry, labor and environmental groups gear up to oppose TPP trade deal]
Among the most contentious issues is the way the deal handles pharmaceuticals, particularly a class of drugs known as biologics. Pharmaceutical companies wanted intellectual property protection for those medicines for 12 years, but the trade deal only grants protection for up to eight years. Lobbying group PhRMA said this provision is “disappointing.”
Another contentious issue is the investor-state dispute settlement section, which allows out-of court arbitration between multinational corporations and foreign governments over regulations on such things as environmental and public health policies. Environmental groups argue this process tends to favor corporations.
The tobacco industry opposes this part of the deal as well, but for a different reason. It is specifically barred from taking advantage of the arbitration process, which will make it harder to challenge anti-smoking initiatives.
4. If the final vote falls during primary season, vulnerable candidates could be nervous about backing a controversial deal. Congressional aides estimate that the first set of votes on the TPP deal could happen in April, right in the heat of primary season. The first state primaries start on Feb. 1 and many vulnerable members will still be on the ballot in late-spring.
Wisconsin, home to vulnerable Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, has its primary scheduled for April 5. Pennsylvania, home to vulnerable Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, is scheduled to vote on April 26. Though Toomey and Johnson will likely face their biggest challenge in the general election, their votes on trade could become a major campaign issue.
Other senators facing tough reelection campaigns, such as Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), may have early primaries where TPP could be an issue.

Return to headline | Return to top
TPP is a Good Deal for the Middle Class

Oct 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Jay Chittooran

Now that the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries have reached agreement on the landmark Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), all eyes turn to Congress for ratification. We can expect opponents to trot out old arguments falsely comparing this deal to NAFTA. There have been free trade deals with 17 countries since NAFTA, all of which are better than the North American trade bloc.
The fact is that TPP includes key labor, environmental, and human rights provisions that make it the most progressive trade deal ever. Just as important, the deal is critical to create opportunity for the American middle class in a vastly new economic era. To be against this trade deal is to be stuck in the 1990s and unable to see how, with the global economy, modern trade agreements have changed.
ADVERTISEMENT
The charged debate over the TPP begins with one unalterable fact: in today’s economy, there is no path to middle-class prosperity without putting more Made in the USA products on foreign shelves. When NAFTA entered into force in 1994, over 80 percent of the world’s output was produced by the advanced countries. But in 2013, the developing world surpassed the old guard, and within a decade these emerging economies will produce twice that of the developed economies.
Meanwhile, the United States is failing to tap into these markets—putting future middle class jobs and wages at risk. Of the 40 largest world economies, the United States ranks 39th in exports as a share of gross domestic product. And in Asia, one of the fastest-growing regions in the world, we’re doing especially poorly. From 2000 to 2014, the Asian import market more than tripled, but U.S. market share fell by 46 percent, the biggest drop of any of the 25 largest exporters into Asia, except Japan. Had the United States kept its share, we would have had an additional $275 billion in exports to this region. And since exports contribute 18 percent more to manufacturing workers' wages, that’s a serious loss for thousands of American workers. Instead, these exports, jobs, and wages went to other countries, like Brazil, Russia, India, and China. In other words, at a time when world markets are bursting, we’re failing to put our goods in play.
However, hope is not lost. Modern free trade deals give U.S. firms, and the jobs they support, equal footing with foreign businesses. And post-NAFTA, that is what we have done. In the 17 countries in which the United States has concluded a trade deal since 2000, our goods trade balance with those nations went from a $3 billion deficit to a $31 billion surplus. In the five most significant of these 17 deals, U.S. exports increased in four out of five product categories by an average of 157 percent. In Maryland, that meant that BTE Technologies could increase sales to Korea by 134 percent after the US-Korea agreement in 2012.
But these 17 trade deals were simply the undercard for the title fight that is TPP.
TPP encompasses 40 percent of the world’s economic output. It rewrites the rules of commerce in our image, not in the image of state-run economies like China. It does what trade deals are supposed to do—lowering tariffs, eliminating quotas, and rewriting that arbitrary rules that keep our products from foreign shelves. It adds the difference-makers that deals of the past shunted aside, like the strongest environmental, labor, and human rights provisions of all time for a trade deal. It’ll make the world a better, cleaner, and fairer place. It allows us to finally rewrite NAFTA which left out some of the key ingredients that make trade deals work better for everyone. On top of it all, TPP makes sure American middle class jobs can compete and grow in the face of overwhelming foreign competition.
Trade debates are always heated, but there has never been an agreement this good on so many levels.
But, as we found in the last 17 deals, when the standards go up, American products win, American companies win, and American workers win. For the future of the American middle class, Congress must now pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Return to headline | Return to top
Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Throws Presidential Candidates a Curveball

Oct 6, 2015 | Wall Street Journal

By Laura Meckler and Janet Hook

The Pacific trade deal is injecting a volatile issue into the 2016 presidential race, where risks lurk for presidential candidates in both parties.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.

Story can be found here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trade-deal-throws-presidential-candidates-a-curveball-1444174712

Return to headline | Return to top
Hillary Clinton Faces a Tough Choice on Trade

Oct 7, 2015 | Washington Post

By Ruth Marcus

Hillary Clinton is facing one of the most fateful decisions of the presidential primary season: what to say about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and when to say it.
Politically, Clinton’s decision is a true “Sophie’s Choice.” Whatever she does is guaranteed to generate criticism and anger key constituencies. The best-case scenario for Clinton would have been to have negotiations blow up and therefore avoid having to take a position.Ruth Marcus is a columnist for The Post, specializing in American politics and domestic policy. View ArchiveFacebookRSS
Now that failure is not an option, there are four possible permutations. Clinton could embrace the agreement swiftly, or she could embrace it eventually. Conversely, she could come out against it quickly, or come around to opposing it eventually.
The first option — quick support — is my preferred one, substantively and even politically. The final option — eventual opposition — is the one that is both the most likely and, I would argue, the worst for her politically.
Indeed, timing is as important as the substance. Whichever way Clinton goes on the trade deal, this would be a good moment to channel her inner Macbeth: “when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well it were done quickly.” Waiting would simply reinforce the perception of Clinton as a poll-tested, finger-in-the-wind politician with few core convictions other than that she should be president.The TPP, explained in 75 secondsPlay Video1:18The U.S. and 11 other nations have come up with a trade deal after years of negotiations. But what's in it, who hates it, and what happens next? (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)
Here’s my less-than-optimistic case for quick support. It’s not only the right outcome — it’s the one that I think Clinton believes in her heart is the right outcome. Yes, she has issues with the base — or, more accurately, the base has issues with her. Labor would go berserk if she were to support the deal. At this point, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) leading in the New Hampshire polls — and already having announced against the TPP — Clinton is not exactly operating from the position of dominance she once envisioned.
And yet, Clinton has already taken steps to shore up her bona fides with the base. For environmentalists unhappy about the TPP, she came out, disappointingly in my view, against the Keystone XL pipeline. For labor, she came out, even more disappointingly, against the “Cadillac tax” on overly generous health-care plans.
At some point, has Clinton not earned enough leeway and goodwill to break with the base? Supporting the TPP would cost her, certainly — but it would also demonstrate her independence and authenticity. “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open, free, transparent, fair trade,” Clinton declared in November 2012.
Sure, Clinton can argue that what was agreed to fell short of the glittering standard she once endorsed. But there is something to be said for not looking like a craven, desperate flip-flopper. Isn’t there?
But Clinton’s instinct, her book title notwithstanding, is to evade hard choices. She poked fun at this tendency on “Saturday Night Live,” referring to her dithering on the Keystone pipeline and same-sex marriage. “Nothing wrong with taking your time,” Clinton as Val the bartender, told Kate McKinnon as Hillary. “What’s important is getting it right.” You have to wonder whether the impending trade deal was far from her mind.
And Clinton’s campaign performance to date on trade has been less than encouraging. She wouldn’t take a position on whether Congress should approve fast-track negotiation authority for the president because that was an obscure, inside-the-Beltway legislative issue, her campaign fatuously insisted.
Until, that is, she came out against it — kinda sorta, first saying that Obama should use the moment to negotiate a better deal, then adding that she would “probably” vote against it. At least if it failed to include aid for displaced workers, which did eventually pass. In other words, clear as mud.
So will Clinton, facing Sanders in the Democratic debate Oct. 13, take a decisive position for or against the deal? Or will she duck, citing the need to study the as-yet-unreleased text (it won’t be public for more than a month) before reaching a final conclusion?
History suggests she will duck. And also that, after much hemming and hawing on Clinton’s part; after pundits like me pouncing on her evasiveness and inconsistency; after incessant pounding from interest groups and activists, Clinton will end up opposing the deal.
That would be the worst of all worlds — which is, all too often, exactly where Clinton finds herself.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Senate TSCA Bill Supporters Rally for Early Passage

Oct 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch

Senators, and others supporters of the Udall-Vitter bill, rallied outside the Capitol building on Tuesday to press for the passage of the measure that seeks to update the Toxic Substances Control Act.
They included Senators Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and David Vitter (R-Louisiana), co-authors of the bill, Environment and Public Works Committee chairman James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), American Chemistry Council president Cal Dooley, Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, and Sara Amundson, executive director of the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
“This bill (S 697) is the product of years of work, collaboration and positive input from lawmakers across the country, who understand that we need a national solution to our broken chemical safety law — one that will ensure Americans in New Mexico or Ohio or Massachusetts have the same protections as those in all 50 states,” Mr Udall told reporters.
“With about 1,000 new chemicals coming on the market each year, 39 years is too long to go without protections for children and families,” he said.
Meanwhile, Mr Udall and Mr Inhofe are pushing back against a proposal by two Republican senators to attach an unrelated amendment to the Udall-Vitter bill. Senators Richard Burr (North Carolina) and Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire) want to attach an amendment for reauthorisation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
Mr Udall said he is working with Mr Burr to get a vote on LWCF, but wants S 697 to be taken up on the Senate floor as it is.
If you open up the TSCA bill to one amendment, “then you have opened it up to 100 amendments.” That would be detrimental to to the bill's passage.

Return to headline | Return to top
Dems Urge LWCF Vote Separate from Chemicals Bill

Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Sam Pearson

Top Democrats today urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to schedule floor time for a bipartisan bill to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Doing so would smooth passage of legislation to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, since the LWCF fight has emerged as a roadblock to the bipartisan chemicals bill.
Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) have said they will object to floor consideration of S. 697, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," absent an agreement to allow a vote on an amendment reauthorizing the LWCF. That program expired Sept. 30 after Congress failed to extend it.
If Burr and Ayotte dropped their objections, chemical bill co-sponsors Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have said, the TSCA legislation could pass by a wide majority in a floor vote as soon as tomorrow. But it's not clear whether allowing the LWCF vote would provoke other senators like Mike Lee (R-Utah) to object on the grounds that the bill doesn't reform the conservation program.
The letter to McConnell, which was signed by Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said LWCF supports more than $646 billion in economic activity and over 6 million jobs across the country.
The lawmakers said Republicans have wasted valuable floor time this year on "show votes that were destined to fail," allowing the clock to expire on LWCF reauthorization.
The program "has gathered strong bipartisan support" in the past, the lawmakers noted.
"Not only do we need to reauthorize the program permanently, but Congress must strive to provide full funding for the backlog of conservation projects across the country," the lawmakers wrote.
Burr earlier this week said he wasn't concerned that his push for a vote on reauthorizing LWCF would threaten the TSCA bill. But Collin O'Mara, the president of the National Wildlife Federation, which supports both proposals, said the issue needed to be dealt with separately (Greenwire, Oct. 6).
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said senators who share his view that the LWCF needs to be reformed had reached out to him yesterday.
"They put some kind of hold on there," Bishop said. He added, "I'm not encouraging them to do that."
Bishop said he was comfortable with a short-term extension for the LWCF, "but if you're going to extend it permanently, there has to be the kinds of changes within the system, so it actually uses the money wisely. Sometimes the administration's vision for how to use that money is really narrow."
Bishop said he still plans to introduce a long-planned reform bill "within a month." That bill originally had been slated for the spring (E&E Daily, June 24).

Return to headline | Return to top
US EPA Denies Petition for Mercury Rulemaking

Oct 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch

The US EPA has denied a petition, urging the agency to promulgate a rule that requires those who manufacture or import mercury, mercury compounds or mercury added products, to keep records of, and submit information to the agency about such activity.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association submitted the petition, under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The petitioners contended that there is “no mechanism in place to obtain such data”, which is underscored by the data gaps in the Interstate Mercury Reduction Clearinghouse and the limitations of agency resources, including the EPA strategy to address mercury-containing products.
While the EPA agrees with many aspects of the petition, it believes that “continued implementation” of this strategy is a “faster, more efficient pathway toward achieving our shared goals, and is confident that actions contemplated under [it] are both sufficient to carry out TSCA and preferable to the requested rulemaking,” the agency said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Industry says California Lacks Evidence to List Furfuryl Alcohol

Oct 7, 2015 | Chemical Watch

Comments submitted by industry groups to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha), on its proposal to list furfuryl alcohol under Proposition 65, say that the agency lacks sufficient evidence to determine the substance's carcinogenicity (CW 23 July 2015).
The proposal to list furfuryl alcohol – which is used as a foundry binder and can be formed in food processes during the dehydration of sugars, among other uses – relies on a 2014 US EPA report that found the substance to be a likely carcinogen.
However, a comment letter from the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association says that the US EPA has yet to “formally identify” the substance as causing cancer, and that the federal agency's assessment of the substance fails to meet California's “sufficient evidence” requirement.
Comments from Illovo Sugar, a parent company to several North American industrial chemical manufacturers, say that the National Toxicology Program study, relied upon by the EPA, has been available since 1999 and that, since that time, they are “unaware of any other authoritative body that has reviewed the results and has come to the same conclusions as the review group within the EPA”.
The California Metals Coalition said they believe the agency should review the Echa furfuryl alcohol dossier to determine whether it should be listed under Prop 65.
The group also said that should Oehha move forward with listing the substance, a safe harbour level should be simultaneously issued so that users can “determine whether the warnings can be omitted for specific uses” within manufacturing.

Return to headline | Return to top
Advocates, Researchers Question Scope Of EPA Authority Over SynBio

Oct 7, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Maria Hegstad

Environmentalists and researchers are questioning the breadth of authority that EPA has over chemicals and other products created using bioengineering, or synthetic biology (synbio), arguing that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) creates loopholes that limit EPA's overview to the product created, which they worry leaves the process unregulated.
"There is a tension of the regulatory process versus the product," said Dana Perls, with Friends of the Earth. Bioengineering is unique because the process matters as much as the product, and if the process "doesn't fall within the purview of TSCA, what other agency covers [it]? It seems there are a lot of loopholes and gaps," she said at a public event where EPA staff sought input to update a 1997 biotechnology guidance document.
Jeff Morris, deputy director for programs in EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), replied that "TSCA gives the agency broad authority to assess a new substance. EPA's mandate is to look at the product, but that's pretty broad."
The guidance under discussion at the Sept. 30 event explains to industry how to submit biotechnologies to EPA for review prior to commercial research or commercialization. The agency intends to focus its discussion on synbio algae technology, as it has been dealing with a growing number of such submissions in recent years.
Todd Kuiken, a senior program associate with the Wilson Center Synthetic Biology Project, questioned agency staffers about how they will consider parts of synbio organisms, which may occur in multiple organisms. "How does EPA consider synbio parts? Are the parts themselves under review or is it the combination of those parts into a working system?"
"It's not the parts that we're evaluating, its the final behavior and characteristics of the microorganism," repliedGwendolyn McClung, a microbiologist in OPPT's risk assessment division. "As far as the parts go . . . the whole thing would have to be identical in order for it not to be new."
Industrial Biotechnology
Industrial biotechnology, or synbio, "is evolving so rapidly that no widely accepted definitions exist," according to the Wilson Center Synthetic Biology Project's website. The site describes synbio as recent advances in science that allow researchers to create new organisms by engineering new DNA sequences. These new organisms can do things like "produce biofuels or excrete the precursors of medical drugs. To many people, this is the essence of synthetic biology," the website says.
A recent committee from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) heralded biotechnology as a solution to fossil fuels demand, since petrochemicals are the feedstocks for many chemicals. In their stead, NAS argued in a report released last spring, these feedstocks could be replaced or augmented by synbio processes, reducing the demand for fossil fuels.
Engineered algae originally centered around creating biofuels, but has since broadened to other products, many of which are chemicals and so fall under EPA authority, Kuiken told Inside EPA in a recent interview. He added that many of the chemicals are not new chemicals, but rather old ones produced through new methods.
Whether a chemical is new is a key issue to EPA's oversight through TSCA, wherein new and existing chemicals are treated very differently. Existing chemicals, those on the market when TSCA was enacted in 1976, are largely grandfathered under the existing law. EPA has limited ability to gather data on these chemicals from manufacturers or to curtail their use, leading to strident calls from environmentalists and public health advocates for reform of the law.
By contrast, any new chemical must be submitted to EPA for review before a company commercializes it, and the agency can limit or halt its proposal -- submitted to EPA review as a Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN) or TSCA Environmental Release Application (TERA) -- if it has concerns that the product presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
Product's 'Newness'
During EPA's Sept. 30 algae workshop, Mark Segal, a microbiologist in the risk assessment division of OPPT, explained that it is a product's "newness" that determines whether EPA reviews it as part of this process.
Microorganisms considered new and subject to TSCA Section 5 new chemical reviews are those that are "intergeneric," according to slides Segal presented at the workshop. These are "formed by the deliberate combination of genetic material from organisms classified in different taxonomic genera"; "constructed with synthetic genes that are not identical to DNA that would be derived from the same genus as the recipient" and not on the TSCA inventory.
"When we define something as new and subject to our oversight, it doesn't mean that it's hazardous," Segal added. "All new substances undergo review [unless there's an exemption.] It's a matter of defining newness."
But Kuiken said after the event that there are concerns that new processes for creating existing chemicals already on the TSCA inventory may not be reviewed by EPA, because these scenarios wouldn't meet EPA's newness test. Kuiken also questioned EPA staff at the event about his recent report, which concluded that EPA has no synbio research budget.
Morris replied that OPPT coordinates closely with the agency's research office, but did not say if a research program is planned.
An EPA Office of Research and Development official, Andy Gillespie, asked OPPT staff what are the "top two or three specific R&D advances that would most help you deal with the growing number of MCANs and TERAs?"
McClung was unable to provide an immediate response, but asked to continue the conversation. Morris urged the continued advancement of highthroughput toxicity testing.
Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the International Center for Technology Assessment, argued that EPA needs new authorities to regulate synbio. "I think you need new authorities, I think the law needs to be changed to require product developers not the EPA to demonstrate that there are no unreasonable adverse effects before it can go to market."
Hansen added that he worries that the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews EPA rules, may limit how EPA can use Significant New Use Rules -- one of its tools under TSCA -- to address synbio, which Hansen said has happened with EPA's nanotech rules.
Synbio Moratorium
Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth's Perls called for EPA to set a moratorium on all commercial synbio projects until agency staff perform full lifecycle assessments on all synbio projects proposed.
"EPA should require a full lifecycle and holistic assessment of all organisms engineered via synthetic biology before, during and after the lab before any synthetic organisms are released into the environment or enter our consumer products," Perls said. "We need strong national regulatory oversight . . . Without these in place, Friends of the Earth encourages a firm moratorium on the environmental release and commercial use of synthetic biology organisms . . ."
Perls explained some of her concerns with the technology, such as the possibility of engineered organisms escaping from a lab and entering the environment. "The impacts of release could include genetic contamination of wild species, disruption of natural ecosystems, facilitation of harmful algal blooms, and release of chemical and biological pollutants."
McClung outlined some of the many things that agency staff want to know about engineered algae as they consider whether to grant permission for a commercial experiment of commercialization of a product created with biotech. These include algae's potential for horizontal gene transfer into the natural environment, potential for human health effects such as toxin production or allergenic effects, effects on food webs in the environment and the potential for algal bloom formation.

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA's Announcement to Strengthen Ozone Standard Met with Opposition

Oct 7, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week

By Jing Chen

US EPA’s plans to strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb), from 75 ppb, has met with industry opposition. ACC says the American Chemistry Council says the new standard and lack of regulatory guidance may harm economic growth and industry’s US expansion plans.

“EPA’s action puts $10 billion in chemical industry investment at risk,” ACC says. “We are very concerned that some projects – new facilities, plant expansions and factory restarts – will remain in limbo until EPA explains how to obtain a permit under the new standards.”

ACC notes that permitting requirements are binding on manufacturing facilities right away, but guidance on how to meet the requirements remains unclear. “There are going to be a number of counties that are deemed attainment with the current 75 ppb ozone NAAQS, but have ozone monitor readings above the new 70 ppb standard,” ACC says. Producers looking to build or expand in these areas “will be in a kind of limbo,” ACC says. “In order to build or expand a facility, they must obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit showing that the facility will not ‘cause or contribute to’ a violation of the new 70 ppb standard, but EPA has provided no clear rules as to how to do so.”

EPA is required to provide the rules and guidance, but it has often taken years to do so. “For example, EPA finished the requirements for the 2008 ozone standards just this past March,” ACC says.

ACC says it has discussed the permitting “paradox” with EPA. “We hope that guidance for the new standards will be provided soon,” ACC says. “Before facilities can even apply for a permit, they need some degree of certainty about the process.”
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) is also opposed to the new rule, also claiming that lowering the ozone standard has a negative impact on the economic growth of the country, specifically the manufacturing sector. “This rule is just one of the administration’s many high-cost regulations that continue to place undue hardship on not only the fuel and petrochemical manufacturers, but on American workers, businesses, and communities,” AFPM president Chet Thompson said in a statement.

EPA says it examined nearly 2,300 studies in this review of the ozone standards including more than 1,000 new studies published since the last review of the standards in 2008.The revised standards will significantly improve public health protection, EPA says. Depending on the severity of ozone problem, areas would have until between 2020 and 2037 to meet the standards.

Return to headline | Return to top
House GOP Predicts 'Strong Vote' on Crude Exports Bill

Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Daniel Bush and Geof Koss

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged House lawmakers today to support a bill lifting the decades-old ban on crude oil exports that's set for a Friday floor vote.
Boehner and his House GOP leadership team doubled down on Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Texas)H.R. 702, which would end the 1970s-era ban on exporting domestic crude, arguing that the change would spur economic growth and create up to 1 million new jobs.
"America's energy boom has the potential to reset" the economy if the export ban is lifted, Boehner told reporters, reiterating comments he made earlier this year when he announced his support for Barton's bill (E&ENews PM, July 29). "I hope the House will work together in a bipartisan fashion" to approve the measure, Boehner added.
While the bill should easily pass the GOP-controlled House, Republican leaders are hoping to secure enough Democratic votes to show the legislation has support on both sides of the aisle.
Barton's bill has drawn more than 130 co-sponsors, including at least 16 Democrats. Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said there's growing support for the bill among Democrats, though he didn't give a whip count.
Republican lawmakers have said privately that they hope to get 20 to 30 Democratic votes Friday. "I think you're going to see a strong vote coming out of the House," Scalise said.
But the House GOP's effort to recruit Democrats suffered a setback yesterday when Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) surprised Barton and other Republicans by announcing he would vote against the legislation (E&E Daily, Oct. 7).
Green, who was considering backing the measure, said he changed his mind after Barton rejected his amendments to the legislation. Green filed an amendment that would allow the president to impose licensing requirements on crude exports for up to a year following a national emergency (E&E Daily, Oct. 7).
A second Green amendment would require the Commerce Department to license exports after conducting a "national interest" test.
Other Democratic proposals, filed ahead of this afternoon's Rules Committee meeting on the bill, aim to delay the law's implementation date. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) has an amendment that would prevent the bill from taking effect until all rulemakings required by a 2011 pipeline safety law have been finalized.
Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) is aiming to delay implementation until the president determines that crude exports won't lead to a major increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
An amendment from Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) would simply postpone the effective date until one year after enactment.
Other members have filed amendments that look to bring unrelated issues into the exports debate, including a proposal by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) that would require a Government Accountability Office study on the renewable fuel standard.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) has put forth a plan that would create an "Infrastructure and Opportunity Trust Fund" and "Unconditional War on Poverty" program within the Treasury Department, paid for by modifications of foreign tax credit rules that apply to major oil companies.

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Lawmaker Floats Trading TPP for Oil Exports

Oct 6, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Afternoon Energy

By Jennifer Schutt

GOP LAWMAKER FLOATS TRADING TPP FOR OIL EXPORTS: Rep. Kevin Cramer, a House Energy and Commerce Committee member, today floated a new tactic to lift the decades-old ban on crude oil exports. Republicans should make their support for President Barack Obama's landmark Trans-Pacific Partnership deal contingent on the White House easing its resistance to legislation ending the ban, Cramer said, although he acknowledged he had not yet consulted with his colleagues about the idea. "We have to be prepared to use our TPP vote, or at least I am," to help secure the White House's support for a quick end to the export ban, Cramer told POLITICO today, adding that he is "not crazy about" backing Obama on the trade deal, "especially if he's unwilling to give us oil exports."
— Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz earlier in the day threw cold wateron the export push, saying "it's hard to argue there's been a lot of production being hemmed in by" the decades-old export ban. U.S. oil production would have to rise past 12 million barrels per day — from about 9.3 million bpd now — before "there might be an impact" in terms of shut-in production tied to the export ban, Moniz told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
SENATE SETS ENERGY APPROPRIATIONS VOTE FOR THURSDAY:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a vote for Thursday to start debate on a $35.4 billion spending bill for the Energy Department next year. But the measure is almost certain to fall victim to the partisan budget impasse that is holding up Senate consideration of individual fiscal year 2016 spending bills. McConnell moved to file cloture today on taking up the FY16 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, setting up the Thursday vote. But it's likely to fall short of the needed 60 votes as Democrats press for a new budget deal that would remove the caps for all spending bills.
— A Republican aide needled Democrats ahead of their expected filibuster,pointing to the bipartisan 26-4 vote that sent the energy and water bill out of committee. Democrats should explain “why they’re obstructing such a bipartisan measure” and “why their opposition justifies what’s in effect a move toward a shutdown,” the GOP aide said.
Welcome to Afternoon Energy. I’m your host, Jennifer Shutt. Send your energy news and tips to jshutt@politico.com, mdaily@politico.com andnjuliano@politico.com, and keep up with us on Twitter at @JenniferShutt,@dailym1, @nickjuliano, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
KEYSTONE FOE SAYS TRANSCANADA MOVE DELAYS EMINENT DOMAIN FIGHT: TransCanada may have abandoned its Keystone XL eminent domain proceedings against Nebraska landowners, but opponents of the pipeline are making new legal moves of their own by invoking a state law that they say prevents the pipeline company from restarting the condemnation process for two years. Landowners' lawyer and former U.S. Senate candidate David Domina wrote today that even though TransCanada has changed its plans and vowed to seek approval from the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the company "would have to wait out 24 months from the dates of its dismissals in County Court last week and this week before it could restart eminent domain proceedings against the landowners."
FERC’S MOELLER LEAVING AT THE END OF OCTOBER: Outgoing FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller announced today that he intends to leave the agency at the end of the month, even though he previously said he expected to stay until a successor was confirmed. "FERC is an amazing agency, and I have been honored and privileged to have had the opportunity to serve our nation as a FERC commissioner. After leaving the Commission I plan to pursue other opportunities in the energy field," Moeller said in a statement. Moeller announced in May that he wouldn't be up for a third term at the agency.
FORMER DOD CHIEF SAYS EPA ‘NOT FAIR’ ON PEBBLE MINE: EPA's moves to block the planned Pebble Mine in Alaska were "not fair," according to a report out today from former Defense Secretary and Sen. William Cohen. Cohen was commissioned by the mine's developers, though he avoids taking a position on whether the gold and copper mine should move forward. Click here for the executive summary and here for the full 346-page report. Last year, EPA issued a watershed report that found large-scale mining in the region would most likely threaten the environment. The mine's backers argue that EPA essentially vetoed their project pre-emptively, and they have filed a lawsuit over the assessment.
WINTER IS COMING: The oversupply of crude oil is expected to get a bit of a reprieve this winter, according to the Energy Information Administration’s short-term energy outlook. Production, which dropped by approximately 120,000 barrels a day from August to September, is expected to continue declining through next fall, at which point EIA expects it to begin rising. The outlook also predicts that solar- and wind-power generation will increase by a margin in the double digits during 2016. Houses heated by natural gas are expected to see bills reduced by about 10 percent, those using heating oil are expected to spend about 25 percent less than last year and electricity bills should decline by about 30 percent this winter, according to the winter fuels outlook.
OPEC CHIEF: OIL NEEDS $10 TRILLION BY 2040: The global oil market will remain oversupplied in 2016, but a dramatic fall in investment in new production this year could mean future price spikes, OPEC’s secretary-general said today. The oil producers’ cartel expects upstream investment to fall by 22.4 percent year-on-year in 2015, Abdalla Salem El-Badri said at the Oil & Money conference. That’s in line with a separate International Energy Agency forecast of a 20 percent drop. The global oil industry will need about $10 trillion worth of investment between now and 2040 if it wants to keep up with demand and avoid price spikes, he added. Sara Stefanini reports.
IRAN OFFERING NEW CONTRACTS TO LURE INVESTORS: Iran plans to revamp its oil and gas contracts by making them more generous to foreign companies in a bid to lure investment needed to revive its energy industry, the chairman of the petroleum ministry’s oil contracts restructuring committee said today. The government plans to unveil a replacement for its more rigid buyback contract, in addition to opening more than 50 new exploration areas, in the coming months. Sara Stefanini reports.
BLOOMBERG, STEYER TALK CLIMATE CHANGE: Former New York City Mayor and U.N. Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael Bloomberg sat down with climate change activist and fellow billionaire Tom Steyer today to talk about the issues associated with Earth’s changing climate. During the 30-minute exchange, Bloomberg advocated for reducing the subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. “It is true we spend something like half a trillion dollars on subsidies for fossil fuel industry. And a lot less on renewables. That has got to change,” Bloomberg said. Republicans should make their support for President Barack Obama's landmark Trans-Pacific Partnership deal contingent on the White House easing its resistance to legislation ending the ban, Cramer said, although he acknowledged he had not yet consulted with his colleagues about the idea. "We have to be prepared to use our TPP vote, or at least I am," to help secure the White House's support for a quick end to the export ban, Cramer told POLITICO today, adding that he is "not crazy about" backing Obama on the trade deal, "especially if he's unwilling to give us oil exports."
— Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz earlier in the day threw cold wateron the export push, saying "it's hard to argue there's been a lot of production being hemmed in by" the decades-old export ban. U.S. oil production would have to rise past 12 million barrels per day — from about 9.3 million bpd now — before "there might be an impact" in terms of shut-in production tied to the export ban, Moniz told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
SENATE SETS ENERGY APPROPRIATIONS VOTE FOR THURSDAY:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a vote for Thursday to start debate on a $35.4 billion spending bill for the Energy Department next year. But the measure is almost certain to fall victim to the partisan budget impasse that is holding up Senate consideration of individual fiscal year 2016 spending bills. McConnell moved to file cloture today on taking up the FY16 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, setting up the Thursday vote. But it's likely to fall short of the needed 60 votes as Democrats press for a new budget deal that would remove the caps for all spending bills.
— A Republican aide needled Democrats ahead of their expected filibuster,pointing to the bipartisan 26-4 vote that sent the energy and water bill out of committee. Democrats should explain “why they’re obstructing such a bipartisan measure” and “why their opposition justifies what’s in effect a move toward a shutdown,” the GOP aide said.
Welcome to Afternoon Energy. I’m your host, Jennifer Shutt. Send your energy news and tips to jshutt@politico.com, mdaily@politico.com andnjuliano@politico.com, and keep up with us on Twitter at @JenniferShutt,@dailym1, @nickjuliano, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
KEYSTONE FOE SAYS TRANSCANADA MOVE DELAYS EMINENT DOMAIN FIGHT: TransCanada may have abandoned its Keystone XL eminent domain proceedings against Nebraska landowners, but opponents of the pipeline are making new legal moves of their own by invoking a state law that they say prevents the pipeline company from restarting the condemnation process for two years. Landowners' lawyer and former U.S. Senate candidate David Domina wrote today that even though TransCanada has changed its plans and vowed to seek approval from the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the company "would have to wait out 24 months from the dates of its dismissals in County Court last week and this week before it could restart eminent domain proceedings against the landowners."
FERC’S MOELLER LEAVING AT THE END OF OCTOBER: Outgoing FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller announced today that he intends to leave the agency at the end of the month, even though he previously said he expected to stay until a successor was confirmed. "FERC is an amazing agency, and I have been honored and privileged to have had the opportunity to serve our nation as a FERC commissioner. After leaving the Commission I plan to pursue other opportunities in the energy field," Moeller said in a statement. Moeller announced in May that he wouldn't be up for a third term at the agency.
FORMER DOD CHIEF SAYS EPA ‘NOT FAIR’ ON PEBBLE MINE: EPA's moves to block the planned Pebble Mine in Alaska were "not fair," according to a report out today from former Defense Secretary and Sen. William Cohen. Cohen was commissioned by the mine's developers, though he avoids taking a position on whether the gold and copper mine should move forward. Click here for the executive summary and here for the full 346-page report. Last year, EPA issued a watershed report that found large-scale mining in the region would most likely threaten the environment. The mine's backers argue that EPA essentially vetoed their project pre-emptively, and they have filed a lawsuit over the assessment.
WINTER IS COMING: The oversupply of crude oil is expected to get a bit of a reprieve this winter, according to the Energy Information Administration’s short-term energy outlook. Production, which dropped by approximately 120,000 barrels a day from August to September, is expected to continue declining through next fall, at which point EIA expects it to begin rising. The outlook also predicts that solar- and wind-power generation will increase by a margin in the double digits during 2016. Houses heated by natural gas are expected to see bills reduced by about 10 percent, those using heating oil are expected to spend about 25 percent less than last year and electricity bills should decline by about 30 percent this winter, according to the winter fuels outlook.
OPEC CHIEF: OIL NEEDS $10 TRILLION BY 2040: The global oil market will remain oversupplied in 2016, but a dramatic fall in investment in new production this year could mean future price spikes, OPEC’s secretary-general said today. The oil producers’ cartel expects upstream investment to fall by 22.4 percent year-on-year in 2015, Abdalla Salem El-Badri said at the Oil & Money conference. That’s in line with a separate International Energy Agency forecast of a 20 percent drop. The global oil industry will need about $10 trillion worth of investment between now and 2040 if it wants to keep up with demand and avoid price spikes, he added. Sara Stefanini reports.
IRAN OFFERING NEW CONTRACTS TO LURE INVESTORS: Iran plans to revamp its oil and gas contracts by making them more generous to foreign companies in a bid to lure investment needed to revive its energy industry, the chairman of the petroleum ministry’s oil contracts restructuring committee said today. The government plans to unveil a replacement for its more rigid buyback contract, in addition to opening more than 50 new exploration areas, in the coming months. Sara Stefanini reports.
BLOOMBERG, STEYER TALK CLIMATE CHANGE: Former New York City Mayor and U.N. Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael Bloomberg sat down with climate change activist and fellow billionaire Tom Steyer today to talk about the issues associated with Earth’s changing climate. During the 30-minute exchange, Bloomberg advocated for reducing the subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. “It is true we spend something like half a trillion dollars on subsidies for fossil fuel industry. And a lot less on renewables. That has got to change,” Bloomberg said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Heritage Blasts ‘Union Buyoff’ in Oil Export Bill

Oct 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

A major conservative lobbying group is blasting House Republicans for inserting into a crude oil export bill a provision to increase payments to certain unionized maritime shipping companies.
Heritage Action for America, the lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation, said the bill’s funding increase to the Maritime Security Program (MSP) “has entangled good policy in corporate welfare and a $500 million labor union buyoff.”
The money would increase the maritime program’s funding dramatically, and the largest chunk of the funding would go to subsidiaries of Netherlands-based Maersk Group, Heritage wrote in a blog post.
“If the 61.3 percent increase in MSP funding was truly a matter of national security, there is every reason to expect it would have been included in the defense bill that the Senate is expected to clear later this week,” Heritage wrote. “Instead, reminiscent of the earmarking days, taxpayer money is being used to literally buy votes.”
The House is planning to vote Friday on the bill to overturn the 40-year-old restrictions on exporting crude oil from the United States.
Heritage has not yet decided whether to designate the bill as a “key vote,” which would make it part of the group’s scorecard, a widely used measure of lawmakers’ conservatism.
The maritime program regularly pays a fleet of privately owned, United States-flagged ships with union crews in exchange for a promise that the United States could use the ships if needed for military purposes.
The new money was inserted into the bill sometime before the House Rules Committee posted it on Monday.
It appears aimed at increasing Democratic support for the bill. Some Democrats have complained that opening the domestic oil market to the world would increase oil prices, hurting oil refiners and the shipping companies that bring crude to the refiners.
But the move could backfire and cause conservative Republicans to drop support if enough lawmakers agree with Heritage.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the export bill’s sponsor, defended the new provision, saying the House Armed Services Committee, which usually oversees the maritime program, approved of it.
“I think it helps the bill. It helps our military posture, it’s paid for, it’s not mandatory,” Barton said. “I don’t see the negative. You’ve got to look pretty hard to find the negative.”
Barton seemed surprised at Heritage’s position, saying that the benefits of oil exports, such as competing on the world stage and potentially hurting oil producers such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, should receive conservative support.
“I don’t see how you can be against that from a conservative standpoint,” he said.
Barton said he does not plan to remove the provision, and he does not believe it’ll hurt the bill’s chances of passing.

Return to headline | Return to top
States Seek Communications Records on EPA Carbon Rule Publication

Oct 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Alex Guillen

A group of states led by West Virginia have filed a Freedom of Information Act request for communications between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register over publication of the agency’s power plant carbon rule.
“Publishing a rule typically occurs much faster than it has in this case,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said. “Our goal is to understand the cause behind the unusually long delay between the finalization and publication of the Clean Power Plan.”
Morrisey and other critics of the rule tried to block it ahead of publication, but were rebuffed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court ruled that they must wait until the regulation is published in the Federal Register to sue.
EPA spent a month performing a final review of the rule for typos and other non-substantive issues on Sept. 4, then shipped it off to OFR, which is part of the National Archives and Records Administration.
Agency officials have said they expect the rule to appear in the Register sometime in the coming weeks, based off past publishing times for similarly sized rules.
Fourteen states joined the FOIA request: West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and Kentucky.

Return to headline | Return to top
Utility Group Bows to the Inevitable, Gets Wish on Ozone Rule

Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Amanda Reilly

In late September, the trade group representing investor-owned utilities attended two meetings with top White House and U.S. EPA officials. Its request: Set a new ozone standard at 70 parts per billion.
Six days later, the Obama administration unveiled its final new national ambient air quality standard at that level. With most stakeholders panning the decision, the Edison Electric Institute is among the few offering any sort of support for the agency's choice of 70 ppb.
"EEI advocated throughout the rulemaking process that, should a new ozone standard be set, it should be at the top end of the proposed range at 70 parts-per-billion (ppb)," EEI President Tom Kuhn said in a statement. "While compliance challenges remain with the new standard at 70 ppb, EPA has recognized the serious implementation concerns raised by stakeholders of setting the standard below 70 ppb."
EPA last November had proposed to tighten the existing ozone standard of 75 ppb set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration to between 65 and 70 ppb based on a review of public health science. The agency found that the 75 ppb limit was no longer adequate to protect the public as the Clean Air Act required.
What followed was an intense lobbying campaign involving dozens of stakeholders. Green groups called on EPA to set a new standard no higher than 60 ppb, while powerful industry and business groups urged EPA to retain the existing standard.
The Edison Electric Institute -- which represents all U.S. investor-owned electric utilities -- did not make anyone available for an interview. But in a review of publicly available documents and statements, the trade group appears to have accepted that a lower ozone standard was inevitable and so pushed for EPA to choose the upper end of its proposed range.
The institute, for example, told EPA in a March public comment that it did not believe EPA should lower the ozone standard. But EEI noted that, if EPA felt it necessary to revise the 2008 limit, the agency should choose 70 ppb.
"Any standard lower than 70 ppb would require significantly greater justification than EPA has provided in its proposal," the institute said.
EEI asked for more "relief mechanisms" to address background levels of ozone, as well as more guidance on how to handle permitting under the tighter standard.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co., an EEI member and the largest owner of rate-regulated renewable generation, made similar arguments in a comment to EPA.
In contrast, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a voluntary group of electric generating companies, argued that the scientific evidence didn't at all justify a new standard and that EPA should retain the 75 ppb limit. Several other power companies individually raised concerns about a tighter standard.
On Sept. 25, three representatives from EEI and two from San Juan Generating Station operator PNM Resources Inc. -- another EEI member -- met with the White House and EPA in back-to-back meetings, according to attendance records. Dan Utech, President Obama's top climate adviser, attended the White House meeting, while EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe attended the one with the agency.
EEI and PNM representatives provided a handout at the EPA meeting titled "Reasons the agency should finalize an achievable level of 70 ppb," according to a document posted yesterday in the public docket.
"The lower the agency sets a new standard, the more it will increase permitting costs and delays while also requiring further regulation of the interstate ozone precursors from all sources," the handout says.
"A final ozone standard of no lower than 70 ppb -- the top end of its proposed range -- would both provide real environmental benefit," the memo continued, "and give states a reasonable path forward to implement the final standard."
The group said a standard lower than 70 ppb would complicate efforts for states to comply with the final Clean Power Plan, EPA's plan for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. A lower standard would also make it difficult for high-elevation areas that experience high background ozone levels to comply, EEI said.
EEI said EPA should take a cue from its experience putting in place the 2010 sulfur dioxide standard, suggesting that the agency has had difficulty finalizing its list of areas that are out of compliance because its limit was too low.
EEI also argued that EPA had "ample support" for setting a 70 ppb standard because it was in the range that the agency's science advisers recommended in June 2014.
Kuhn noted in his statement that the electric power sector has already made "great progress" reducing nitrogen oxides -- a key component of ozone -- as well as sulfur dioxide over the last two decades.
"EEI will continue to work with our members, the states, and affected customers to determine how compliance with the new ozone standard will impact the implementation of other major EPA regulations," Kuhn said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Why Can the E.P.A. Regulate Smog, but not Greenhouse Gases?

Oct 7, 2015 | New York Times

By Gregg Easterbrook

Last week the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled stringent new regulations on smog, and it’s crystal clear the agency has legal authority to impose these rules. The E.P.A. also recently announced an initiative to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants, though its legal authority to regulate emissions that cause global warming is murky. Some states will sue to block the plan; years of litigation may be in the offing.
Here’s the rub. Smog has been decreasing steadily, down 18 percent since 2000 and 33 percent since 1980. Greenhouse-gas accumulation in the atmosphere is increasing steadily. Yet perversely, the federal government has a well-defined authority to act on the environmental issue that’s getting better, but not on the one that’s getting worse.
Our major environmental laws are a generation or more out of date — written for conditions of the past, not the present. The Clean Air Act, signed by President Richard M. Nixon in 1970, has not been amended since 1990, a quarter-century ago. The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, has not been updated since 1987. The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, was last amended in 1982. The National Environmental Policy Act, the law that mandates environmental impact statements, was passed in 1970 and last amended in 1982.Continue reading the main storySign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Or take our myriad recycling programs. Many such initiatives were set in motion by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, passed in 1976 and not substantively amended since 1986. When Congress approved this legislation, it was believed the country was running out of primary materials, and of landfill space. Both assumptions turned out to be false, but the federal law, and its local derivatives, live on.
Protection of nature and of public health are data-driven sciences — yet environmental laws are grounded in obsolete information. Like generals fighting the last battle, regulators and their opponents keep rehashing disputes of the 1960s and 1970s, the period when the enabling statutes of environmental protection were being debated by Congress.
Urban air quality is one such dispute. Back in the day, smog was a national emergency: During the 1970s, Los Angeles averaged 125 Stage 1 smog alerts per year. By 2003, the city had gone five years without any Stage 1 alerts. Today the city averages about seven bad air-quality days per year — still a concern, but no longer an extreme threat to health. Nearly all other American cities show similar improvement.
Written when smog was an emergency, the Clean Air Act allows the E.P.A. to require that states, businesses and individuals reduce smog-forming emissions regardless of the economic damage done. Some parts of the act forbid the E.P.A. even to consider cost or job losses. That sort of thinking was appropriate during the smog emergencies of the past. Now it’s counterproductive.
Decades ago the E.P.A.’s target for urban smog levels was 120 parts per billion of air. The level has gone down in stages to 75 parts per billion today; last week the E.P.A. dropped the target to 70 parts per billion. But the smog-forming emissions that could be stopped in a cost-effective manner have for the most part already been stopped, while naturally occurring smog, a fair share of the problem, cannot be eradicated at any price. A point of diminishing returns may have been reached, where knocking out the next increment of smog would require substantial expenditures for slight gains in public health.
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
Meanwhile the Clean Air Act is silent on greenhouse gases, because when the law was written, global warming was a fuzzy hypothesis. Today there is persuasive scientific proof of artificially triggered climate change.Continue reading the main storyRECENT COMMENTSMike Roddy 28 minutes ago
There are two problems with this essay. The first is that the House must approve the budget, which they won't do if it includes money for...David Goich 1 hour ago
Everyone is already saying how the Republicans won't compromise, which is probably true, but it's also important to realize that it's not...Terence 1 hour ago
To further my point, the Court has generally granted deference to the EPA when their regulatory power is in question (the Chevron Deference...SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
In an ideal world the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws based on conditions of the 1960s and 1970s would be amended to reflect circumstances of the new century. But the same poisoned dynamic that afflicts nearly everything on Capitol Hill prevents this common-sense step.
The Republican Party’s right blames environmental protection for imagined ills, and wants to eviscerate antipollution legislation. The Democratic Party’s left blames industry for all it dislikes, and wants even outdated restrictions treated as sacrosanct.
CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY23COMMENTS
But there is a compromise the political world has missed: The Democratic presidential contenders endorse the Keystone pipeline, in return for the Republican presidential contenders’ backing the E.P.A.’s effort to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
This is a classic compromise in which each side gives something and gets something. The pipeline would help ensure American petroleum security; activists of the left should drop the silly pretense that Keystone is some kind of doomsday device. Carbon restrictions on power plants absolutely must come, and are likely to be good for everyone; activists of the right should stop fighting the future.
If the presidential contenders could shake hands on this compromise — even if any pair of two did so — the nation would benefit, and the stage might be set for constructive revisions of environmental laws following the 2016 election. Peace needs to break out on environmental protection. The presidential contenders can prove they are leaders by taking the first step.

Return to headline | Return to top
Barton: Clean Air Act not Meant to Create Cap and Trade

Oct 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Alex Guillen

Rep. Joe Barton today said Congress did not intend for EPA to use cap and trade to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants when it amended the Clean Air Act in 1990.
The Texas Republican, a former Energy and Commerce Committee chairman who voted for the 1990 amendments, said lawmakers spent a great deal of time crafting the bill’s acid rain provisions but spent “no time” on Section 111(d), the section EPA used for its Clean Power Plan.
“Now your agency is using section 111(d) to give EPA basically total authority to create in a regulatory fashion a cap and trade program for carbon dioxide, which there was no intent of Congress in the early ’90s,” Barton said. “I think that’s just wrong.”
Janet McCabe, EPA’s acting air chief, replied that the rule doesn’t require states to use trading systems to meet their reduction goals, though it is an option.
“I was here in 1990, I voted for the Clean Air Act amendments,” Barton replied. “Your agency is trying to do something with it that it was never intended to.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Methane Emissions Fall for 3rd Consecutive Year -- EPA

Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Pamela King

Greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector are on the rise, but methane leakage continues to fall, according to new U.S. EPA data.
Petroleum and natural gas systems emitted 236 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere in 2014, up from 228 million metric tons CO2e in 2013, yesterday's updateto EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) shows. Methane emissions ticked down from 77 million metric tons CO2e in 2013 to 73 million metric tons CO2e last year, marking the third consecutive year that measurement has declined.
"The EPA expects that the GHGRP will be an important tool for the Agency and the public to analyze emissions and understand emissions trends," EPA wrote in its oil and gas emissionsprofile.
It could also serve as the basis for regulations like EPA's proposed methane rule (Greenwire, Sept. 29). The agency's latest numbers seem to undercut its own claims that emissions could rise more than 25 percent without new federal controls, said Steve Everley, spokesman for North Texans for Natural Gas.
"EPA has claimed that without new regulations, methane emissions will go up," he said. "What's that based on?"
Reductions in methane emissions appear to be the result of existing regulation, and further cuts will be made possible only by additional rulemakings, said Matt Watson, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund's climate and energy program.
A table toward the bottom of EPA's energy industry profile indicates that the bulk of emissions reductions between 2011 and 2014 came from gas well completions and workovers, a regulated source, he said.
"This data shows that regulations work, and promises of voluntary action don't," Watson said in an emailed statement. "The largest methane reductions come from a practice that is subject to national standards, while the biggest increases come from sources that remain largely unregulated."
EPA cautioned that its data are limited. By the Environmental Defense Fund's estimation, the data set covers about half of U.S. wells.

Return to headline | Return to top
Leaked Docs: Dems Coordinate To Discredit EPA Critics

Oct 7, 2015 | Daily Caller

By Michael Bastasch

Democratic gubernatorial offices around the country have been relying on the same activist-drafted, cookie-cutter talking points when it comes to discrediting critics of the Obama administration’s global warming agenda.
Documents obtained by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute andpublished Wednesday by The Washington Free Beacon reveal how Democrats circulated talking points to “sow doubts about our opponents [sic] motives” — their “opponents” being those that opposed EPA power plant regulations.
Political consultants with ties to the Climate Action Campaign circulatedresearch by the polling firm Hart Research Associates that warned voters are skeptical of EPA rules because their “default belief is that electricity bills will go up.” The email containing the memo included an invite staffers to a conference call with White House policy advisors.
“Denying [electricity] rate increases strains credulity with many audiences,” reads the Hart memo circulated among Democratic operatives and staffers.
Sam Ricketts, who heads up the Washington, D.C., office for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, also sent a template press release on how governors offices can support EPA regulations and tie them to fighting extreme weather.
“Today’s announcement by the Administration is a welcome sign that [STATE] now has a partner in fighting climate change,” according to Ricketts’ memo. “We have seen the impacts climate change is having on our communities, from increased health risks to [LOCAL EXTREME WEATHER EVENT] hurting thousands in [TOWN], and have recognized we can no longer fail to act.”
Ricketts noted that this template was also developed by the Climate Action Campaign and were based on Hart’s research.
The advocacy memos also suggested Democrats “strongly and consistently sow doubts about our opponents motives when responding to any criticism of the Climate Action Plan or its components.” Their main tactic: make energy companies the bad guys.
“The key to success is a visible adversary,” according to the memo. “In this case, that adversary is power companies, though this line of messaging easily could be adapted to encompass the coal industry or any other dirty energy advocate.”
The EPA’s power plant regulations, called the Clean Power Plan, has ignited a huge legal battle between states, the coal industry and the Obama administration. At least 15 states are planning to sue the EPA over its new rules, which limit carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants.
EPA has been pushing back against criticisms of the Clean Power Plan, saying it gives states plenty of flexibility and will lower electricity costs in the long-run.
“This is a rule that is regulating carbon pollution from the largest source of carbon pollution in this country,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told The Wall Street Journal in March. “It is being done consistent with exactly what the [Clean Air Act] tells us we’re supposed to do. And we are doing it in the way that brings the most flexibility to the states so that they can understand what direction they want to take.”
The EPA has also called concerns that global warming rules would harm the economy fear mongering. The agency points to the fact that federal pollutions controls have made the air cleaner while the economy has grown.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Confident Climate Rule Will Withstand Court Attacks, Political Transition

Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

By Debra Kahn

U.S. EPA's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants will be able to withstand political and legal challenges, the head of the agency's Southwest operations said yesterday.
Speaking at a carbon markets conference yesterday put on by Argus Media, EPA Region 9 Administrator Jared Blumenfeld said the Clean Power Plan to control utilities' emissions under the Clean Air Act would be able to weather changes in the executive branch.
"When you look at what it would take to fundamentally change the Clean Air Act, I don't think the political landscape, as fractured as it is now, would lead to a change to the Clean Air Act in the near future," Blumenfeld said in response to a question from a Tesoro Corp. representative about how the program might fare under a Republican president.
Blumenfeld pointed out that the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, which set up trading programs to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants, among other measures, were signed by President George H.W. Bush.
Bush's legal counsel at the time, C. Boyden Gray, now advises the former president's son, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush. Gray said earlier this week that Bush would be able to undo the CPP through the regulatory process by early 2018, if elected (ClimateWire, Oct. 5).
But Blumenfeld said it would be hard to dislodge the CPP. "These rules are pretty much self-implementing in many cases," he said. "They have timelines, they have requirements, they have thresholds, and so they move forward. I am stunned by just the amount of forward motion and momentum that exists within the regulatory framework, particularly in the Clean Air Act."
As for court action, which is already being undertaken by 15 states and being contemplated by others including Arkansas, Colorado, North Carolina and Texas, Blumenfeld said the rule was written specifically to survive the legal system (EnergyWire, Aug. 15).A tough act to tamper with
The final version of the rule, released in August, doesn't include energy efficiency as one of four explicit policies that states can use to comply with the targets; opponents argued that it was too far-reaching to require electric utilities to figure out how to reduce demand for their product (Greenwire, Aug. 1).
"I think there will obviously be legal and other challenges," Blumenfeld said. "We took a very conservative legal approach to make sure that this stands up in court. That was one of the reasons that energy efficiency, frankly, was taken out of the building blocks; we thought there was a legal vulnerability. Even though it remains a compliance tool, we didn't have that as one of the building blocks. So I think this will stand the legal test of time, and I think it will also stand the political test of time."
An industry lawyer said a crucial point would be whether the inevitable lawsuit receives a stay to delay implementation of the rule.
"It's a key question," said JP Brisson, a partner at Latham & Watkins who represents emitters in the utility and petroleum sectors. If a lawsuit "takes five, six, seven years to resolve and the rule is effective during the challenges, what does it say to states? The lawsuit is kind of meaningless."
Brisson said EPA increased its defense against a stay by adjusting the final rule to give states two more years to submit their implementation plans and by delaying the start of the program an additional two years, until 2022.
"Those are factors that would essentially support the agency's position that a stay should not be granted," he said.
A California regulator and former Sierra Club litigator agreed. "It's very hard to show irreparable harm in this context," said Craig Segall, senior staff counsel with the California Air Resources Board, the agency in charge of achieving the state's emissions goals under the CPP and the state's own climate regulations. "There's really one sensible regulatory response, which is to continue planning."
Efforts to reverse the rule within EPA itself would also be cumbersome, he said. "The machinery of the act is such that once these regulations are in place, states have to keep planning for them," he said. "You're talking about essentially as massive a rulemaking effort to replace this as there was to put it in place in the first place."

Return to headline | Return to top
Brown to Sign Landmark Climate Bill Today

Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is expected to sign a broad climate change measure today to increase the state's renewable electricity use by 50 percent and double energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030.
"We have the technological means, and now we have the legal mandate to reduce carbon pollution," Brown said.
The state Legislature passed the bill last month (ClimateWire, Sept. 14).
California is already on track to generate at least a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 (AP/Wall Street Journal, Oct. 7). -- SP

Return to headline | Return to top
World Coal Association's Sporton Discusses Global Disconnect on Industry's Future

Oct 7, 2015 | E&E - TV

What is the global coal industry seeking from governments at this December's United Nations climate meeting in Paris? During today's OnPoint, Benjamin Sporton, chief executive of the World Coal Association, explains why he believes developing nations will continue to rely on coal, even as they bring more clean energy online. He also discusses the challenging market dynamics facing the U.S. coal industry and talks about the viability of commercial-scale carbon capture and storage technology.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Benjamin Sporton, chief executive of the World Coal Association. Benjamin, thanks for joining me.
Benjamin Sporton: Oh, no, thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Benjamin, such a wide range of interests and political dynamics represented by your organization. What is the one message you're hoping to deliver at the U.N. Paris meeting in December?
Benjamin Sporton: What we're really focused on messaging is that coal is playing a really important role in powering up the developing and emerging economies through Asia, that coal has a really important role to play there, but in fact, elsewhere around the world, and that we can do with the fact that coal is in demand and being used by looking at a role for high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fire technology moving towards carbon capture and storage in the future and that we can meet both our development and our climate obligations and ambitions as integrated priorities by using those technologies.
Monica Trauzzi: But there is that big question mark about whether those developing countries should be focused on coal or whether they should be leapfrogging to newer, cleaner technologies.
Benjamin Sporton: A lot of those countries need a lot of energy, and so they're actually looking at both sides of that equation. Take, for example, India's INDC that they released earlier this week. That's sort of very big ambition there for growing renewables in India, but at the same time, they're looking at building about 290 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations. So these countries need so much energy that they're looking at renewables, they're looking at gas, they're looking at nuclear, some of them, and many of them are looking at a very significant role for coal, which is why I think we need to have a big focus on helping them use the best coal technology.
Monica Trauzzi: So overall, does your organization support efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions?
Benjamin Sporton: Yeah, absolutely. I think it's important to focus on how we can reduce emissions, but recognize the fact that many developing and emerging economies are looking for affordable, reliable energy. In many cases, they get that from coal. So what we need to do is help them use that coal in the most efficient, the cleanest way possible by using modern high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fire power stations. These plants, which are in operation around the world at the moment, can reduce emissions from coal by about -- CO2 emissions from coal by about 35 to 40 percent, depending on the technology. The other really important thing for them is that they reduce the non-CO2 emissions as well, the particulate matter -- SOx, NOx and those kind of things -- can almost eliminate those emissions. So you get big CO2 benefits, but you also get big clean air benefits as well.
Monica Trauzzi: So what does this all translate to in terms of financing? Are you looking for specific commitments from the international community, from governments to continue the development of coal, and specifically clean coal technologies?
Benjamin Sporton: Yeah. Well, I think it's really important to do is that we have financing in the international sphere for helping countries move away from the less efficient subcritical coal technologies and help them to deploy the high-efficiency, low-emission technologies. The World Coal Association, earlier this year, launched a paper -- a concept paper called "A Global Platform for Accelerating Coal Efficiency." The idea behind that is to try and help those countries that are using coal to move away from the less efficient, subcritical technologies and help them go down a pathway of high-efficiency, low-emissions coal to overcome the technological barriers -- not all of them have access to this technology -- to help them actually get that technology, and obviously, to help them finance it as well. We think it's an important role that the international community can play -- development banks and others -- to help finance just the added capital costs that some of these plants do have.
Monica Trauzzi: So we've been at this conversation about carbon and capture and storage technology for quite some time. I had many guests on the show discussing it. Why aren't we at commercial viability yet, and what's the timeline for commercially scalable CCS?
Benjamin Sporton: I think the big thing we need to recognize is that in the last 10 years or so, there's been something like $2 trillion invested in renewable technologies. Only 1 percent of that has been in carbon capture and storage, and we need to ask ourselves why. I think one of the main reasons for that is that we haven't seen the same sort of policies ... directed towards renewables as -- directed towards carbon capture and storage as we have seen directed towards renewables. We don't get the same sort of policy positions put in favor; we don't hear politicians talk about carbon capture and storage as much. Renewable technology often gets, for example, feed-in tariffs or contracts for difference, things like that. Very rarely, if ever, is that directed towards carbon capture and storage. I think we need more consistent policy support for CCS. We need to recognize that all our emission technologies have a role to play and we need more government support for that.
Monica Trauzzi: There really does seem to be sort of this two-pronged conversation on coal. Here in the U.S., for example, there is this push to clean up coal, but also for diversification in the electric power sector. When you consider a country like Turkey, though, they're rapidly growing and expanding their use of coal. Is there sort of a global disconnect on coal and what its future should be?
Benjamin Sporton: I think we're seeing countries in North America and in Europe, they've had very big focus on pushing towards renewables and other technologies. That has had an impact in terms of economic competitiveness and the cost of that. The energy vendor in Germany has been a very expensive exercise, and I'm based in the U.K., and we've seen electricity prices increase as we've had a push towards renewables there. Here in the United States, the Clean Power Plan is, I think, expected to move the kind of mix of coal -- coal's contribution to the mix -- from about 33 to 35 percent today to about 27 percent of the mix in 2030 at huge economic cost, and I think that's just -- it's interesting.
Monica Trauzzi: Which is up for debate.
Benjamin Sporton: Oh, it's up for debate, maybe, but I think the evidence shows that it will be very expensive to do that, and that leads to an impression, I think, that we can move away from coal, but economies, particularly in developing and emerging Asia, are still growing, they're industrializing, they're urbanizing, and they're looking for affordable, reliable energy. For them, renewables will have a role to play, but they don't necessarily meet the huge demand for electricity that exists in those countries. Gas might not be an option for some of those countries because it is more expensive, needs more infrastructure, and things like that. So a lot of these countries are looking to coal because they've either got it domestically or they can access it easily on the seaborne market, and I think that is why they're looking at coal, and many of them want to use it in an affordable, reliable, accessible, but also clean way. India in their INDC this week really made it clear that coal is the backbone of their electricity mix even while they're pushing towards renewables, but they're really focused on trying to use it in the cleanest way possible.
Monica Trauzzi: In the U.S., the shift away from coal is not just about policy; market conditions don't really support the growth of coal as an industry. So do you ultimately consider the U.S. a lost market and not necessarily an area where you'll see growth?
Benjamin Sporton: Well, the market conditions here, I think, have been driven by the emergence of shale gas technology, and I think that obviously has had an impact. Obviously, the regulations that have been put on coal have also had an impact, but I don't see coal going away here in the United States at all. As I mentioned, the Clean Power Plan looks towards 2030, when coal will still be 27 percent of the electricity mix here in the U.S. So it's still playing a very big role in providing affordable and reliable energy here in the United States and I think it will continue to do so for a long time. The mix will change, obviously, but coal is not going away here in the U.S. as it's not going away in Europe and in many other countries as well. It's just playing a -- perhaps a different role, but it's playing a very big role throughout the emerging and developing economies in Asia.
Monica Trauzzi: What do you make of the growing global trend around fossil fuel divestments?
Benjamin Sporton: What concerns me, I guess, about fossil fuel divestment is the fact that it can risk investment in cleaner technologies. So the International Energy Agency has really made clear for their 2 degrees scenario that we need $1.9 trillion of investment in cleaner coal technology. That includes high-efficiency, low-emissions coal and carbon capture and storage. If we have companies and businesses divesting from coal, I think that threatens the investment that we need in that cleaner coal technology to meet our 2 degree target.
Monica Trauzzi: We'll end it right there. Very interesting conversation.
Benjamin Sporton: Thanks very much.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you for coming on the show, I appreciate it.
Benjamin Sporton: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

Amtrak May Suspend Rail Service in Mid-December

Oct 7, 2015 | Progressive Railroading

Add Amtrak to the list of railroads that may suspend some rail service if Congress doesn’t extend a Dec. 31 deadline for railroads to install positive train control (PTC) safety technology.

Amtrak President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman on Monday warned Congress that, as of Dec. 1, it will begin notifying passengers through the railroad’s reservation system of service disruptions that may occur if the PTC deadline isn’t postponed.

"There will be significant impacts to our service and on our customers and tenant railroads," Boardman wrote in an Oct. 5 letter to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. "The potential economic impacts would also be substantial, since a vast majority of our network would be inoperable without an extension of the deadline."

Amtrak will work with state and local partners, commuter-rail operators and freight railroad to ensure that passengers and partners are aware of service disruptions that may occur, he added.

Amtrak is the latest passenger or freight railroad to notify Congress of a potential rail-service shutdown that could occur after Dec. 31. The rail industry has been warning Congress for years that railroads will need more time to implement the new technology.

Amtrak has said it will be able to meet the PTC deadline for most of the track it owns, which includes the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C.

However, most of the 21,000-mile national network that Amtrak operates is owned by other railroads, and those railroads are responsible for PTC installation on their infrastructure. Many freight railroads have said they may refuse to transport freight and may suspend passenger service on their track that is not PTC-compliant, Boardman’s letter stated.

"Based on information that we have gathered from the hosts, Amtrak will plan on suspending service on the national network beginning mid-December on routes that not PTC compliant," he wrote.

The Senate included an extension in a broader transportation bill that hasn’t yet passed Congress. Meanwhile, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last week introduced a bill that would extend the deadline for three years. House and Senate leaders have said that they are negotiating to get some legislation to President Obama this month, according to news reports.

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested