Preview Newsletter
ET ACC PM 10/8/15
-
DuPont Found Liable For Cancer From Teflon Chemical – $1.6 Million In Damages
Oct 8, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Bill Walker
A federal jury on Wednesday (Oct. 7) found DuPont liable for causing a West Virginia woman’s kidney cancer by poisoning her drinking water with a chemical used to make Teflon. -
US EPA receives test data for plasticiser
Oct 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data for the substance 1H,3H-benzo[1,2-c:4,5-c′]difuran-1,3,5,7-tetrone, in response to a test rule issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Homeland Security gives glimpse of restructuring for cyberthreats
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security offered lawmakers an advance look at a shakeup in the agency's critical infrastructure protection branch. -
Poll finds wide support for plant safety upgrades
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The broad majority of Americans support requiring chemical facilities to implement new safety tools to reduce the threat of industrial accidents, according to a poll released today by groups pushing for the policies. -
EPA comes under fire following another Colorado mine spill
Oct 8, 2015 | The Washington Times
By Valerie Richardson
The Environmental Protection Agency took flak Thursday for reports of another spill from a clean-up project at a Colorado mine, this time a relatively small discharge at the Standard Mine near Crested Butte. -
(ACC Mentioned) Foes of new ozone curbs set sights on EPA permitting
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Manufacturers that fought U.S. EPA's bid to tighten the national ozone standard are now raising concerns that they'll be stuck in permitting limbo. -
Senate Democrats block energy spending bill
Oct 8, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Democrats blocked a $35.4 billion Energy Department spending bill as part of their effort to get Republicans to negotiate a new budget deal. -
States seek answers on Clean Power Plan delay
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Fourteen states seeking to challenge the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan in federal court are pushing U.S. EPA to release any internal communication explaining why the rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register. -
14 attorneys general seek evidence of deliberate delay of EPA climate rule publication
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Attorneys general from 14 states opposed to the Obama administration's sweeping new rule regulating carbon emissions from power plants submitted a Freedom of Information Act request Monday to U.S. EPA seeking evidence that the agency is purposely delaying the Clean Power Plan's publication in the Federal Register. -
N.C. may stay 'inside the fence line,' setting up EPA battle
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
North Carolina may be one of the few states that doesn't ask U.S. EPA for more time to craft an emission-reduction scenario for the agency's Clean Power Plan. -
House GOP pressured over maritime add-ons to exports bill
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Ideological divisions among conservatives is spilling into the House debate over lifting the crude oil export ban. -
Interest groups appeal to Congress on oil exports
Oct 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Activists on both sides of the crude oil export ban are making their final pitches to lawmakers before the House votes on lifting the restriction later this week. -
House oil export vote on track despite leadership chaos
Oct 8, 2015 | Politico Pro Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Tomorrow's House vote on crude exports legislation will continue despite the turmoil sparked by Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's decision to withdraw from the race for Speaker, a GOP leadership aide told POLITICO today. -
House shoots down governor's Marcellus Shale gas tax plan
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives dismissed Gov. Tom Wolf's (D) plan to tax the natural gas industry in a lopsided vote yesterday, extending a budget stalemate that has lasted 99 days. -
Renewables soon could knock the wind out of natural gas
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Energy industry experts here predict that the growth of renewable energy will challenge natural gas in the years to come, based purely on the economics. -
Passing POWER Act will drive cleaner energy and lower costs
Oct 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Joshua Reichert
What if every time you stopped to buy gas, you spilled two gallons for every one you put in the tank? -
D.C. flips switch on novel sewage-to-power system
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Washington, D.C.'s water utility is the first on the continent to install a system to generate electricity from fecal sewage sludge.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
DuPont Found Liable For Cancer From Teflon Chemical – $1.6 Million In Damages
Oct 8, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Bill Walker
A federal jury on Wednesday (Oct. 7) found DuPont liable for causing a West Virginia woman’s kidney cancer by poisoning her drinking water with a chemical used to make Teflon. The jurors ordered the company to pay $1.6 million in damages.
The jury in Columbus, Ohio, held that DuPont was guilty of negligence and infliction of emotional distress for deliberately discharging the chemical – a perfluorinated compound, or PFC, called PFOA – into the Ohio River, landfills and the air, and that the contamination caused the cancer that afflicted Carla Marie Bartlett, 59. Bartlett’s case was the first to go to trial of 3,500 lawsuits against the company for illnesses caused by the pollution of public water systems and private wells near DuPont’s Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, W. Va.
DuPont “made the Ohio River their personal toxic dumping ground so they could make more money on Teflon,” Bartlett’s lawyer, Mike Papantonio, said in closing arguments, as reported by Bloomberg Business. Despite DuPont’s callous disregard for the health of the community and its repeated efforts to hide the truth, however, the jury did not find that the company acted with malice.
Bartlett’s lawyers introduced as evidence internal DuPont documents that showed the company knew for decades that PFOA was hazardous, including a 1981 memo that reported a high level of birth defects in children of women who worked at the plant. DuPont never reported that or other damning information to the Environmental Protection Agency, a violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act for which it was fined a record $16.5 million in 2005.
Lacking authority to ban PFOA, the EPA allowed DuPont to phase it out over 10 years. The chemical is no longer made or used in the U.S., but DuPont continues to make Teflon using an alternative nonstick chemical that was rushed to market without adequate safety testing.
In 2006 DuPont settled for more than $300 million a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of 70,000 residents of the region. Under its terms DuPont is paying to filter the water systems of six area towns. The settlement also funded an independent panel of scientists to study the health effects of PFOA.
The scientists concluded there was a probable link between PFOA and kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol, setting the stage for residents with any of those diseases to sue DuPont for personal damages – the cases now on trial. Since the science panel’s work, other researchers have found links between PFOA and low birth weight, early puberty, endocrine disruption, immune problems and other conditions.
In 2005, EWG and the public health non-profit Commonweal commissioned tests of newborns’ umbilical cord blood that showed PFCs can be passed from mother to child in the womb, and recent research has found that they can also be passed on through breastfeeding.
Through its use in Teflon and hundreds of other consumer products, PFOA has spread worldwide and contaminated the blood of virtually all Americans. As EWG reported earlier this year, EPA water testing has found PFOA in the drinking water of 6.5 million people in 27 states, and new science has shown that it is harmful in the tiniest doses – hundreds of times lower than EPA’s non-enforceable heath advisory level. EPA has spent more than a decade studying the health hazards of PFOA but says it won’t even decide whether to set a legal limit for four to six years.
Although DuPont was found liable Wednesday for Bartlett’s cancer, the $1.6 million penalty will be paid by Chemours, a new spinoff company that inherited DuPont’s specialty chemicals business along with its liability for PFOA pollution. DuPont is expected to appeal the verdict.
The next trial is set for Dec. 1. Following a verdict in that case, the remaining lawsuits will be consolidated into one trial, or DuPont and Chemours could offer to settle for a lump sum to be divided among the victims.
-
US EPA receives test data for plasticiser
Oct 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data for the substance 1H,3H-benzo[1,2-c:4,5-c′]difuran-1,3,5,7-tetrone, in response to a test rule issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The substance is used as an epoxy curing and cross-linking agent, plasticiser and a synthetic intermediate.
The test data pertains to reproductive developmental toxicity.
-
Homeland Security gives glimpse of restructuring for cyberthreats
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security offered lawmakers an advance look at a shakeup in the agency's critical infrastructure protection branch.
DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate is reshaping itself to counter new threats in a "world in which cyber and physical ... are increasingly intertwined," said Suzanne Spaulding, undersecretary at the NPPD, during a hearing yesterday at the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies.
"We know that cyberattacks can have physical consequences, such as disrupting the electric grid, or causing a dam to malfunction, just as physical events such as storms and flooding can cause cyber outages," Spaulding said.
The three DHS officials who testified at the subcommittee yesterday could confirm few details about the restructuring, which Spaulding described as an "ongoing process." But the NPPD is aiming to organize its many offices under a simplified set of three directorates: one for infrastructure security, one for cyber-specific operations, and one for protecting federal facilities from physical and online threats.
House lawmakers were at turns welcoming and confrontational with the witnesses. Subcommittee Chairman John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) kicked off the hearing by expressing his "disappointment" at DHS's lack of openness to date. Last month, the subcommittee sent a bipartisan letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson voicing concerns that the agency was skirting congressional oversight with the shuffle (EnergyWire, Sept. 17). "Transparency with Congress and the American people is not a choice," Ratcliffe said, noting "I hope our message is clear."
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the full Homeland Security Committee, softened the tone somewhat by assuring the DHS officials that they had no greater allies than the members of the subcommittee.
"This [restructuring] has to be done right, because I can't think of a more important mission than this one," he said.
The NPPD houses the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team, a band of computer experts on call to assist private utilities and critical infrastructure operators with cyber emergencies. Spaulding and her two colleagues present told lawmakers they would have further information about the changes by the end of the year.
The fourth witness at the hearing, Chris Currie of the Government Accountability Office, warned of what could happen if the DHS reorganization went forward without enough oversight.
"Oftentimes, what we've seen when organizations rush through these things to address a real, pressing mission need -- often it's later on that management issues creep up, acquisition problems, human capital problems," he said. "A lot of these things take time."
-
Poll finds wide support for plant safety upgrades
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The broad majority of Americans support requiring chemical facilities to implement new safety tools to reduce the threat of industrial accidents, according to a poll released today by groups pushing for the policies.
The poll, released by the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters, found 79 percent of likely voters back forcing chemical facilities to use safer chemicals and processes -- a policy opposed by the industry.
The poll was conducted Aug. 20 to 23 on behalf of the BlueGreen Alliance, the Center for Effective Government, Communications Workers of America, Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the United Steelworkers. It surveyed 1,009 adults and had a 3.5-point margin of error.
In a similar poll conducted two years ago, the groups found 55 percent of respondents favored policies to limit the release of poisonous gases or explosions, while 7 percent were opposed and 37 percent were undecided (E&ENews PM, Oct. 11, 2013).
"For many this is a no brainer," said a memo released by polling firm Lake Research Partners.
The coalition -- a group of more than 100 organizations urging the Obama administration to adopt new regulations for chemical facilities -- is pushing for agencies to do more as signs mount that efforts have stalled.
The groups favor requiring facilities to evaluate whether they can operate their plants using safer processes, such as storing lower quantities of chemicals on site, to reduce the impact of an unplanned incident.
The coalition cited the poll results in a letter sent to the White House today. The groups wrote that the show of support means the administration should include "cost-effective inherently safer technologies" in a pending rulemaking to update U.S. EPA's risk management program.
That rulemaking is behind schedule, with EPA missing a deadline to propose a rule last month. A planned small-business review panel has yet to convene (Greenwire, Oct. 5).
The letter to President Obama warned that the groups "fear that the EPA may fall far short of the prevention policies you advocated for in the Senate, and the principles your administration advanced on Capitol Hill."
-
EPA comes under fire following another Colorado mine spill
Oct 8, 2015 | The Washington Times
By Valerie Richardson
The Environmental Protection Agency took flak Thursday for reports of another spill from a clean-up project at a Colorado mine, this time a relatively small discharge at the Standard Mine near Crested Butte.
Josh Green, spokesman for Rep. Scott Tipton, Colorado Republican, said local officials have confirmed that more than 2,000 gallons of reportedly uncontaminated water were spilled from the mine site Wednesday into a local watershed.
Mr. Tipton said the accident, coming on the heels of the Aug. 5 blowout at the Gold King Mine, raises more questions about the agency’s competence and commitment to transparency.
He said the EPA has yet to notify his office a day after the accident, which was first reported Thursday by the Crested Butte News.
“While initial reports are that the water was not contaminated, another spill caused by the actions of the EPA calls further into question this agency’s ability to adequately execute these types of projects,” Mr. Tipton said in a statement.
The agency is under investigation by the Interior Department after uncorking more than 3 million gallons of orange wastewater from the inactive Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado, which contaminated water supplies in Colorado and New Mexico along the Animas and San Juan rivers.
Agency officials were criticized for failing to notify local authorities for 24 hours after the accident. EPA administrator Gina McCarthy apologized afterward for the accident and has assured the affected communities that the agency will clean up the mess and compensate locals for their losses.
“It is troubling and frustrating that the spill occurred yesterday and once again the EPA did not notify our office,” Mr. Tipton said.
The EPA press office did not return immediately a message left Thursday requesting comment.
The Crested Butte News said Thursday on Facebook that “approximately 2,400 gallons of water spilled from a containment pond into the watershed Wednesday.”
“There is no threat to human health as a result of the spill,” the newspaper said.
Even so, the report drew several skeptical comments from readers.
“Relax everybody! The EPA says everything is hunky dory!” Donna Davenport said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Foes of new ozone curbs set sights on EPA permitting
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Manufacturers that fought U.S. EPA's bid to tighten the national ozone standard are now raising concerns that they'll be stuck in permitting limbo.
The Clean Air Act compels manufacturers to show compliance with the new limit when applying for pre-construction air permits, but EPA hasn't released guidance yet for how to go about making that demonstration.
The American Chemistry Council said the issue hits manufacturers that apply for permits in areas that meet the old standard but are projected to not meet the new, tighter limit.
"This has always been a problem," said Lorraine Gershman, the trade group's senior director of regulatory and technical affairs. "There's a disconnect between implementation and when the standards are set."
EPA last week lowered the national ambient air quality standard from 75 parts per billion -- the level set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to 70 ppb.
Manufacturers last year aired similar concerns with permitting as the House took up and passed legislation that aimed to ease the way for pre-construction permits. With the new ozone standard out, there may be renewed interest in taking up that legislation again.
Green groups, Democrats and the nation's leading association for state and local air regulators strongly objected last year to the "Promoting New Manufacturing Act." The bill, they argued, would ensure that the burden of complying with new air pollution limits fell on existing industrial facilities.
Under the Clean Air Act, manufacturers that are located in Prevention of Significant Deterioration areas -- places that meet ambient air quality standards -- must show that they won't deteriorate the air with expansion or new construction projects. They must be permitted under the most up-to-date air quality standard.
Environmentalists say it's fair to ask that of manufacturers. A lack of immediate EPA guidance, they say, has not held up projects after other new standards were put in place.
"We are not aware of any specific examples in which EPA, state or local permitting authorities were unable to issue pre-construction permits to new construction or modifications following revisions to ambient air quality standards," Natural Resources Defense Council Clean Air Director John Walke told Congress last year.
Greg Bertelsen, director of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), said permitting concern was "very real" for areas with ozone concentrations falling between 70 and 75 ppb.
EPA won't designate areas that are in nonattainment with the new standard for at least two years. Until then, he said, "the problem is, you're treated as an attainment area, but you have to be able to show that your facility won't put the area into nonattainment with the current standard. It's effectively an impossibility because before you even start putting pen to paper on your permit, your area is already over the threshold."
According to the chemistry group, the issue affects nearly $140 billion in chemical industry investment that's been largely spurred by plentiful supplies of shale gas.
Gershman said that, for chemical manufacturers, it's a bigger issue now than when the 2008 ozone standard was finalized because the industry was not in as good a position as it is now.
"There was not a wave of huge investments waiting," she said. "Seven years later, we're now at the peak of the investment cycle. Folks who were seven years ago not planning new projects are. There are a lot of questions coming."
EPA acknowledged potential permitting difficulties and included a "grandfathering" provision in last week's rule setting the final ozone standard. Facilities with a pre-construction permit that's been deemed complete, as well as those that have received a public notice of a draft permit, are allowed to continue acting under the 75 ppb standard.
EPA put a similar grandfather provision in its 2012 standard for fine particulate matter.
EPA also released a memo to regional offices last week in which it pledged to soon give guidance on how to handle permitting in PSD areas.
"We recognize that the owners and operators of emissions sources need clarity and certainty about regulatory requirements," EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe wrote in the memo, "especially when there are changes in air quality standards that may affect their construction and operations."
Manufacturers acknowledged the memo but say it doesn't answer their questions.
"EPA noted that it intends to provide additional tools. There's a recognition by EPA that these are needed tools," Gershman said. "But obviously, we don't know what EPA will be requiring."
In public comments on EPA's ozone proposal, the American Chemistry Council had asked that EPA extend that grandfathering provision to all new construction projects that have started the permitting process and have gone through public notice.Eyes on Congress
NAM's Bertelsen urged Congress to take an active role.
"We need Congress to step in here and fix the problem," Bertelsen said. "That's the solution."
Under the Promoting New Manufacturing Act, manufacturers would not have to comply with a new standard when obtaining permits if EPA does not issue guidelines on how to demonstrate compliance.
The bill would also require EPA to make public the total number of pre-construction permits, the percentage of them issued within a year of filing and the average amount of time appeals of permit decisions take. The House passed the measure last November (Greenwire, Nov. 20, 2014).
Earlier this year, Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) reintroduced the bill in the House, while Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) introduced a version in the Senate.
The permitting issue may also help fuel other pieces of legislation aimed at halting, including legislation introduced in the House and Senate that would stop implementation of the new standard until 85 percent of counties obtain the old 75 ppb limit (E&E Daily, Oct. 7).
"I think a lot of folks in Congress were waiting to see where EPA set the final standard," Gershman said. "Now that that's out there, there will be a deeper dive in implementation projects."
Capito said earlier this week that she saw an opportunity for the Promoting New Manufacturing Act to move given the concerns over EPA's new standard.
Scalise has already pushed the bill in the wake of EPA's decision to set a 70 ppb standard. Scalise said the act would fix "EPA's flawed system that is holding back manufacturing projects."
The Louisiana Republican pledged to fight EPA's final "extreme" decision.
"It is despicable that unelected bureaucrats in Washington are preventing new manufacturing facilities from being built and are raising the cost of doing business," he said, "especially when so many Americans are in need of jobs."
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air regulators, last year strongly opposed the permitting legislation, saying it would sacrifice health in favor of expedited permits.
Terry McGuire, a Washington representative for the Sierra Club who specializes in Clean Air Act issues, said the concerns about permitting highlighted a false dichotomy between cleaning up the air and growing the economy.
"In a lot of ways, I think that this is a solution in search of a problem," he said. "I would go back to the fact that the Clean Air Act has worked consistently for many decades to clean the air and grow our economy."
-
Senate Democrats block energy spending bill
Oct 8, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Democrats blocked a $35.4 billion Energy Department spending bill as part of their effort to get Republicans to negotiate a new budget deal.
The 49-47 vote fell short of the 60 necessary to proceed to a bill funding DOE and water infrastructure programs. As the Senate opened its vote, the White House threatened to veto the bill.
The same fate is expected when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in the coming weeks tries to bring up a range of FY16 spending bills covering EPA, Interior and other agencies. Spending bills overseeing the Defense Department, military construction and veterans affairs have also been blocked.
McConnell complained Democrats decided on an "arbitrary political strategy to indiscriminately filibuster every last funding bill." He touted the energy and water spending bill as one that "would enhance our energy security." The Appropriations Committee approved it 26-4 in May.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin blamed Republicans for refusing to negotiate a budget deal that increases non-defense spending and that doesn't use war-time funds to boost Defense Department funding.
The budget impasse is likely to lead to lawmakers moving a catch-all omnibus spending measure later this year.
-
States seek answers on Clean Power Plan delay
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Fourteen states seeking to challenge the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan in federal court are pushing U.S. EPA to release any internal communication explaining why the rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register.
The states, led by West Virginia, filed a Freedom of Information Act request Tuesday, asking EPA to turn over emails, faxes and any other documents related to the publication schedule.
The groundbreaking climate rule was released on Aug. 3 but not submitted for final Federal Register publication until Sept. 4. The states cannot challenge the rule in court until it is finalized in the register.
"This request is intended to help the public understand why one of [the] most touted -- and widely criticized -- rules in this Nation's history is being subject to such unexplained delays that harm the States and undermine the availability of judicial review," the states said in theirrequest.
The states have suggested that EPA is purposely delaying publication to deter litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected an attempt by states to challenge the rule before it is made final (EnergyWire, Aug. 14).
In the meantime, they say, states are already suffering "irreparable harm" because they have to begin crafting implementation plans now to meet Clean Power Plan deadlines.
"As a result, the States are now experiencing significant and irreparable harms attempting to comply with the Rule, because the Rule imposes ... certain deadlines for submission of States Plans by the States -- September 6, 2016, and September 6, 2018," the request said. "These compliance deadlines have been set by EPA irrespective of the date of publication."
EPA has denied any intentional effort to delay legal challenges. Administrator Gina McCarthy noted in congressional testimony that EPA's less controversial Mercury and Air Toxics Standards spent 62 days being prepared for publication by the Office of the Federal Register.
OFR staff last month detailed the meticulous process of preparing a rule for publication, an especially onerous task for a rule with as many amendments as the Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, Sept. 25).
Dorsey & Whitney attorney Thad Lightfoot, who previously worked for the Justice Department, said in a statement yesterday that the long delay may not be the agency's fault. But any agency meddling would be "highly unprofessional," he said.
"The Federal Register's delay in publishing the final Clean Power Plan is inexplicable and EPA may have nothing at all to do with that delay," Lightfoot said. "However, if it turns out that the agency was involved in the publication delay, such involvement by EPA would be unprecedented and highly unprofessional."
-
14 attorneys general seek evidence of deliberate delay of EPA climate rule publication
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Attorneys general from 14 states opposed to the Obama administration's sweeping new rule regulating carbon emissions from power plants submitted a Freedom of Information Act request Monday to U.S. EPA seeking evidence that the agency is purposely delaying the Clean Power Plan's publication in the Federal Register.
"EPA has provided inconsistent explanations -- at best -- regarding its role in the publication of the Rule in the Federal Register and the long delay between finalization and publication," states the letter, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R).
It adds, "the request is intended to help the public understand why one of the most touted -- and widely criticized -- rules in this Nation's history is being subject to such unexplained delays that harm the States and undermine the availability of judicial review."
"There shouldn't be any substantive changes being made that would require this much review before final publication," Aaron Cooper, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), said in an email. "That leaves few plausible explanations for the disconnect, which is why the collection of states is seeking records under a FOIA request to learn whether the EPA and the Office of Federal Register are colluding to delay final publication in order to force states into compliance with the unlawful Clean Power Plan."
Most states opposed to the Clean Power Plan are expected to sue EPA in an attempt to halt the rule when it is published in the Federal Register.
EPA's acting air chief, Janet McCabe, yesterday told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power that the agency is working "expeditiously" with theFederal Register to publish the rule (Greenwire, Oct. 7). Last month, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said she expects the rule's publication to take place in late October.'The bigger the document is, the more time it might take us'
But in the letter, the attorneys general charge that it is inconsistent for EPA to state it is working on publishing the rule "expeditiously" while also stating it "has no control over the Federal Register process."
In an interview with E&E Publishing last month, Amy Bunk, director of legal affairs and policy for the Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration, said nothing is unusual about the final rule's progress toward publication. Bunk said the length of the review period is likely due to the length of the Clean Power Plan, which is 1,560 pages long.
"We do have a general timeline for publication of documents, but the bigger the document is, the more time it might take us to review and process," Bunk said (EnergyWire, Sept. 25).
Asked to comment on Bunk's statement, a spokeswoman for Morrisey said in an email, "We remain very concerned that EPA has employed an unusual tactic of establishing a date certain for compliance before the Federal Register publishes the rule."
Morrisey said in a statement, "Every day that is lost waiting for the federal government bureaucracy to publish this rule is a day that we can't be in court challenging its illegality."
-
N.C. may stay 'inside the fence line,' setting up EPA battle
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
RALEIGH, N.C. -- North Carolina may be one of the few states that doesn't ask U.S. EPA for more time to craft an emission-reduction scenario for the agency's Clean Power Plan.
But the state may focus solely on improving the efficiency or "heat rate" at coal-fired power plants, which means its plan likely won't meet the federal plan's goal of cutting carbon emissions by 32.1 percent, the director of Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions said yesterday.
"That plan as I understand will only have a Building Block 1 approach and only reflect the reductions that can be made inside the fence line," said Tim Profeta. "What the state is saying it will produce is going to be somewhat de facto insufficient."
EPA's draft Clean Power Plan focused on four "building blocks," or ways states could meet their emission-reduction targets. Those were coal plant efficiency, increased use of natural gas, development of renewables and increased demand-side efficiency. Energy efficiency was removed in the final rule, but states can still use it to comply with EPA's targets.
Some states say that only the first building block is inside the traditional fence line of EPA air regulation, and they are looking at filing a plan that focuses on that portion only.
If North Carolina does that, it "may be the first state that has a real confrontation with EPA about what the plan is supposed to be," Profeta said during a Clean Power Plan discussion at the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association's "Making Energy Work" conference here.
States must file an initial plan by September 2016, though a number have signaled they will file legal challenges once the rule is filed to the Federal Register. Several others have said they will file a plan but then ask for a two-year extension.
North Carolina plans to sue. It also has started to consider using nuclear to meet its goals, a state official said recently (EnergyWire, Sept. 28). The Energy Policy Council is exploring the option, a spokesman for the North Carolina lieutenant governor confirmed.
Arvin Ganesan, vice president for federal policy at Advanced Energy Economy, said the driving factor in how North Carolina wants to comply with the Clean Power Plan is that the state expects the law to be overturned. He encouraged the state to develop long-term energy planning to operate in a carbon-constrained world.
"Planning is actually a silver bullet to any cost and reliability issues," he said, noting North Carolina's significant clean energy industry, which essentially gives the state a leg up in meeting EPA's goals. North Carolina also was the only one in the Southeast to adopt a mandatory renewable energy standard.
"I'm hoping that over time, in a less political environment, North Carolina is able to take advantage of those opportunities," Ganesan said.
States have to decide whether they want to pursue a mass-based plan or a rate-based one. They also can set up regional markets to trade emissions.
A rate-based plan would require the power fleet to adhere to an average amount of carbon per unit of power produced. A mass-based plan would cap the total tons of carbon the power sector could emit each year.
North Carolina's main power provider is Duke Energy Corp., which also supplies electricity to neighboring South Carolina and several other states. That Duke serves such a large area strengthens the argument that North Carolina should be open to working with other states, Profeta said.
He used another large Southeast utility, Southern Co., as an example.
"Southern Co. spans four states in the South. They don't want to have to do something on rates in Mississippi and then have to do something on mass in Georgia," he said.
North Carolina stands to benefit further from regional cooperation if Duke does pursue additional nuclear reactors. This is because the reactors that Duke continues to seek federal approval for would actually be in South Carolina, just across the state border.
Profeta pointed out that Duke, as an electric company, manages the North Carolina-South Carolina border as if it doesn't exist. But the states are taking two very different approaches to preparing their Clean Power Plan responses, he said.
While South Carolina's officials also object to the rule, the state is still developing a plan, Profeta said.
"They are doing something that's vastly different than North Carolina," he said. "That's where you might have a problem in the inefficiency of two systems that just don't align with each other."
-
House GOP pressured over maritime add-ons to exports bill
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Ideological divisions among conservatives is spilling into the House debate over lifting the crude oil export ban.
Upset by the addition of more funding for a federal program that compensates privately owned vessels that assist the military (E&ENews PM, Oct. 5), Heritage Action for America warned House members today that it will "key vote" an amendment to strike the provision from the underlying bill, which would repeal the export ban and will be on the floor tomorrow (E&E Daily, Oct. 8).
The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), would remove the funding for the Maritime Security Program from the bill. In a blog post this morning, Heritage Action said the addition of the provision "has caused a good bill to become entangled in corporate welfare and a $500 million labor union buyoff." Should the Amash amendment be adopted, the group will key vote in support of the underlying bill.
As House Republicans huddle today to choose a new speaker to replace the retiring John Boehner (R-Ohio) at the end of the month (E&E Daily, Oct. 8), Heritage Action spokesman Dan Holler also took a swipe at GOP leaders over the maritime add-on to the bill.
"To be clear, the last 24 hours should be viewed as yet another failure by this leadership team and relevant chairmen," Holler wrote. "Rather than passing a strong, principled free-market energy bill, they allowed the debate to become entangled in a half-billion dollar buyoff for Democrat votes. It puts good members in a bad position and distracts from yet another important debate."
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the sponsor of the exports bill who has led repeal efforts in the lower chamber, said yesterday that he "respectfully disagrees" with Heritage Action's position on the shipping funds. He told Greenwire that the provision is supported by the House Armed Services Committee, which was limited by budget rules from boosting the funds in the defense authorization bill.
"We supported using some of the money to increase the stipend of these ships, and after taking a look at the program, we felt it helped us strategically and agreed to do it," Barton said. "It's an authorized program, subject to appropriations. ... I don't know what conservative principle that violates."
Heritage's position on the crude exports bill sets it apart from other like-minded conservative groups, including the American Energy Alliance, which key voted in favor of Barton's bill earlier this week.
However, AEA's statement contains its own caveat -- that lifting the oil export ban should be considered "on its own merits" and not linked to an extension of renewable energy tax credits or a partial repeal of the renewable fuel standard.
While business groups are largely in favor of repeal, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America today urged House members to oppose the bill.
The group, which represents large industrial energy users, noted that the provision of the 1975 law restricting crude exports that would be repealed also gives the president the authority to restrict exports of natural gas, petroleum products, coal and petrochemical feedstocks "in the event of unforeseen circumstances to protect the national interests of the country."
"This is a vital Executive Branch responsibility that should be maintained for the welfare of the country," the group wrote in its letter.
On the other side of the political spectrum, the League of Conservation Voters yesterdayurged House members to oppose the export bill, warning that it will "strongly consider" including the vote in its annual environmental scorecard.
-
Interest groups appeal to Congress on oil exports
Oct 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Activists on both sides of the crude oil export ban are making their final pitches to lawmakers before the House votes on lifting the restriction later this week.
Letters supporting and opposing lifting the ban have poured into Congress ahead of Friday’s vote on the matter. Green groups, industry associations and conservative political groups have said they will score members’ votes on Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-Texas) bill or amendments to it.
A coalition of oil groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the Independent Petroleum Association of America, encouraged House leaders on Tuesday to support lifting the 40-year-old ban.
“Lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports will offer our global allies and trading partners an alternative source of energy, shrink global dependence on oil sourced from hostile regimes, and put America on level fitting with all other producing nations,” the letter said.
In a letter to members on Thursday, the National Association of Manufacturers said the crude oil issue will constitute a key vote this year, writing that lifting the ban would “place the U.S. into compliance with its international commitments and send a strong message to the global community that we intend to honor the basic rules of the global economy.”
The House will vote on the export ban this Friday, and a group of senators is hoping to bring the bill to the floor there soon. The White House has promised to veto the House bill, but supporters hope to find a compromise that will win its support.
Green groups praised Obama’s Wednesday veto threat. In a letter to lawmakers, 42 such organizations said lifting the ban would have a dire impact on the environment.
“There is no doubt that repealing or weakening current law, which forbids crude oil from being exported, will significantly increase climate-disrupting carbon pollution at a time when leading scientists and world leaders agree we must urgently reduce these emissions,” the groups wrote.
In a separate letter, the League of Conservation Voters called the bill a “massive giveaway to Big Oil at the expense of America consumers.” The group said it will score lawmakers’ votes.
Heritage Action, which opposes a provision in the bill boosting payments for unionized maritime shipping companies, was urging members Thursday to vote for an amendment stripping funding from the bill.
"Rather than passing a strong, principled free-market energy bill, [leadership] allowed the debate to become entangled in a half-billion dollar buyoff for Democrat votes,” spokesman Dan Holler said. “It puts good members in a bad position and distracts from yet another important debate."
-
House oil export vote on track despite leadership chaos
Oct 8, 2015 | Politico Pro Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Tomorrow's House vote on crude exports legislation will continue despite the turmoil sparked by Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's decision to withdraw from the race for Speaker, a GOP leadership aide told POLITICO today.
The vote on the overseas oil sales bill is on track to take place less than 24 hours after McCarthy's stunning cancellation of his campaign leaves the House GOP conference in a leadership vacuum.
The legislation is still expected to pass, although its Democratic support could prove weaker than supporters had hoped following Wednesday's veto threat from the White House.
-
House shoots down governor's Marcellus Shale gas tax plan
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives dismissed Gov. Tom Wolf's (D) plan to tax the natural gas industry in a lopsided vote yesterday, extending a budget stalemate that has lasted 99 days.
The House, which has 119 Republican members and 84 Democrats, voted 127-73 against an amendment that included Wolf's plan, following nearly six hours of debate.
GOP legislators argued during a webcast of the debate that taxing the gas industry would cost the state jobs. They want Wolf to reform the state's public employee pensions and make other structural changes, rather than impose broad-based taxes.
"Today, the governor finally saw what we have been telling him for months -- there is not enough support to pass his tax package," House Majority Leader Dave Reed (R) said in a statement.
Democrats said the Legislature needs to restore education and social service spending that was cut under Gov. Tom Corbett (R), and they said the drilling industry needs to pay its fair share.
Drilling in the Marcellus Shale field has turned Pennsylvania into the second-biggest gas-producing state. Unlike most oil and gas states, Pennsylvania doesn't impose a tax on production. Instead, it collects an annual impact fee on each gas well.
"Pennsylvania, frankly, is being played for suckers by the drilling industry," said state Rep. Greg Vitali, a Democrat from the Philadelphia area.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents the major shale-drilling companies, said the industry "remains under an enormous amount of pressure."
"We appreciate that many in Harrisburg recognize these harsh economic realities as well as the devastating impacts that even higher energy taxes would have on small businesses, consumers, families and manufacturers," coalition President David Spigelmyer said in a statement.
Wolf has made the natural gas tax the centerpiece of his first budget proposal. He rejected a Republican-backed budget in June, saying it relied on one-time sources of revenue and wouldn't fix the long-term deficits caused by rising pension costs (EnergyWire, July 1).
He initially asked for a 5 percent tax on the gas industry, plus a 4.7-cent surcharge for every thousand cubic feet. He lowered the proposed rate Monday to 3.5 percent plus the surcharge. He also proposed an increase in the state's personal income tax to 3.57 from 3.07 percent (EnergyWire, Oct. 7).
Wolf called the vote a victory during a webcast of a press conference, because Democrats stayed largely united and Republicans acknowledged that the state has a long-term financial problem.
"What happened today showed real courage," he said. "This vote actually gives us a real shot at balancing our budget."
-
Renewables soon could knock the wind out of natural gas
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
AUSTIN, Texas -- Energy industry experts here predict that the growth of renewable energy will challenge natural gas in the years to come, based purely on the economics.
Reporting relative ease with garnering long-term renewable power contracts with electricity distributors, renewables investors were beaming with optimism at the annual South by Southwest Eco conference, which wrapped up yesterday.
Booming investments in wind and solar in Europe and East Asia have driven the costs of those power sources down substantially in recent years, with some renewable energy technology tracking firms arguing that utility-scale renewables have achieved "grid parity" with fossil fuels in some markets.
It's a bold claim given the low cost of fossil fuels globally, including coal and natural gas. But it's a fact, panelists said. The strengthening interest in renewables that they're seeing from utilities suggests this emerging challenge faced by natural gas suppliers to Europe and parts of Asia could make its way to the United States at some point.
"Renewables have momentum," said Shalini Ramanathan, a vice president at Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc.
Ramanathan explained that utility companies are keen on adding renewables to their mix because a large wind power project promises stable pricing for 20 years or longer, based on contracts. Even though fossil fuels are cheap now, power companies remember when this wasn't the case and seem to be growing tired of the volatility and unpredictability, she said.
"They like price stability," Ramanathan said. "Now the conversation is how quickly would you like to lock down this hedge against volatility."
Ira Joseph, an analyst at PIRA Energy Group, repeated the view of others that natural gas -- especially liquefied natural gas (LNG) -- faces challenging market conditions overseas in the coming years as a result of the rise of renewable energy in Europe and Asia.
"European gas demand ... probably bottomed out in 2014 back to levels they were at in the late 1990s and early 2000s," Joseph said in an earlier phone interview. "So the growth has been taken away mostly because renewables have been added to power generation."'More volatility is better for renewables'
More bearish news for LNG has come in recent weeks when Japan moved to restart most of its nuclear power generation, further pressuring international LNG prices.
Ramanathan suggested the expanding power sector in the United States could favor renewables over natural-gas-fired generation, as well. Others hedged this view.
"The phenomenon isn't happening everywhere," said Zeina El-Azzi, an independent renewable energy adviser.
Though El-Azzi acknowledged renewables seem to be gaining ground in the United States, she said uptake depended on the distance of a project to the grid or a demand center. But she noted that as more is built in the United States and abroad, costs for deploying renewable energy continues to decline with innovation and efficiency gains. That's making long-term, steadily priced renewable power increasingly attractive to U.S. power companies.
She agreed that, though gas prices are low, it's the ups and downs in price swings that are beginning to wear down utility companies and having them look at renewables as viable options for expanding power generation in the United States.
"More volatility is better for renewables," El-Azzi said.
But unlike in Europe, where gas may be challenged, natural gas supplies in the United States will likely play a role alongside renewables in updating and transforming the U.S. power grid, some speakers argued.
Still, Ramanathan said it's becoming clear that renewable power has the wind behind its back, even in the United States.
"Renewables are in a virtuous cycle," she said.
-
Passing POWER Act will drive cleaner energy and lower costs
Oct 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Joshua Reichert
What if every time you stopped to buy gas, you spilled two gallons for every one you put in the tank?
That's akin to what happens in many power plants and factories, where up to two-thirds of the energy generated escapes, typically as steam sent skyward through smokestacks.
This is not only wasteful and costly; it's unnecessary. We have proven, affordable technologies that can capture this unused heat and harness it to generate electricity, heating and cooling.
Combined heat and power (CHP) and waste heat to power (WHP) both create electricity — and, in the case of CHP, produce thermal energy — from the hot exhaust vented during power production. And considering that, according to studies by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the energy wasted in the U.S. utility sector annually is greater than total energy use in Japan for an entire year, you'd think businesses would be lining up to install CHP and WHP systems.
But they aren't, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of awareness of the technology and the upfront cost of installing a CHP or WHP system.
Fortunately, Congress is considering a bipartisan bill that would help industry lower energy costs — including the expense of installing CHP or WHP — while reducing pollution and greatly increasing resilience to grid failures and other power interruptions.
Known as the Power Efficiency and Resiliency Act, or POWER Act, the bill would provide a 30 percent tax credit for the installation of CHP and WHP systems — the same incentive given for deploying other clean energy technologies, such as wind and solar power. The POWER Act has been introduced in both the House (H.R. 2657) and the Senate (S. 1516), and Congress should move quickly to reconcile and pass this critical legislation as part of a larger package of tax extenders.
The 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar has been a powerful tool in our national energy arsenal; thanks in part to increased investment in the two technologies, the Department of Energy says that solar and wind will account for more than half the country's new generating capacity installed in 2015. To ensure parity and make our energy use even more efficient, the credit should be extended to the lesser-known CHP and WHP systems.
Companies that can afford the significant capital necessary to install a CHP system can see substantial benefits. The Cox Interior Inc. manufacturing plant in Campbellsville, Ky., for instance, which makes home wood products, operates a five-megawatt CHP system that saves the company $4.5 million per year — and also produces more electricity than the company needs, allowing it to sell about $50,000 worth of power back to the local utility every year.
And Lorin Industries, a Michigan company that anodizes aluminum for the building industry and has recycled its wasted heat since 1943, added capacity to its CHP system in 1990. The move paid for itself in just four years, saving the company $540,000 annually largely because the company no longer needs to purchase electricity during peak times, when rates are elevated.
But without the tax credit offered by the POWER Act, many small and midsize manufacturing and commercial energy users will not be able to reap the long-term financial benefits that companies like Cox Interior and Lorin Industries have enjoyed — savings that the companies have been able to invest right back into their businesses and communities.
There's one more reason our policymakers should be doing all they can to encourage CHP and WHP adoption. When Hurricane Sandy knocked out electricity to more than 8 million people in 2012, communities, institutions and businesses with CHP generation systems were able to operate independently from the local grid. That allowed places such as Co-op City in the Bronx, Salem Community College and Princeton University in New Jersey, and New Milford and Danbury hospitals in Connecticut to keep the lights and heat on, providing refuge for residents and maintaining essential functions.
Similarly, when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, a CHP system meant that Baptist Medical Center in Jackson, Miss., was the only hospital in that metro area to stay open continuously — and to take patients from other medical facilities.
Congress has the opportunity to encourage adoption of technologies that will increase efficiency, reduce pollution, save energy and money, and boost resiliency to grid failures. Passing the POWER Act would be a powerful move in that direction.
-
D.C. flips switch on novel sewage-to-power system
Oct 8, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Washington, D.C.'s water utility is the first on the continent to install a system to generate electricity from fecal sewage sludge.
"It's a huge deal on so many fronts," D.C. Water General Manager George Hawkins said after yesterday's unveiling of the system. "It's a public utility leading the world in innovation and technology. We have private and public water companies coming from all over the world to see this."
The Norwegian system uses a kind of "pressure cooker" to kill bacteria in the sewage sludge and then allows other bacteria to consume it and release methane gas. The methane gas is collected and burned to help power the city's Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant. It will supply about a third of the 157-acre plant's power, saving the utility about $10 million a year. Additionally, the plant will save at least $13 million annually by not having to treat and truck away as much sludge.
"We can't afford to have waste be just waste," Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) said. "Every dollar spent to convert that waste into energy will help us to reach our goals."
"This is on the cusp of science, my friends," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said at the unveiling. "This is the kind of magic that results when science is put to its 21st-century use" (Katherine Shaver, Washington Post, Oct. 7). -- BTP
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested