Preview Newsletter
NI - ACC PM 10/9/2015
-
(ACC Mentioned) HFO1233zd Wins Innovation Award
Oct 8, 2015 | Cooling Post
Honeywell’s Solstice Liquid Blowing Agent (LBA), the HFO 1233zd(E), has won a top chemical award. -
Momentum Grows Behind Ryan for Speaker -- But so Far He Demurs
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones, Sean Reilly and Geof Koss
Momentum is growing among House Republicans for Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a former vice presidential candidate, to run for speaker to fill the power vacuum within the caucus. -
Top Republicans Appeal to Ryan to Seek Speaker’s Job and Unify Party
Oct 9, 2015 | New York Times
By David S. Herszenhorn
House Republicans, struggling to regroup and reunify their conference in the face of a leadership crisis, achieved no new clarity on Friday about who might step forward to claim the speaker’s gavel as attention remained focused on Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, who has said repeatedly he does not want the job. -
Senate Impasse Over Legislation Renews Doubts About TSCA Reform Vote
Oct 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Senate disputes over legislation including energy appropriations and a measure to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) are preventing a vote on a bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill... -
California Becomes Latest State to Ban Plastic Microbeads
Oct 9, 2015 | New York Times
By Rachel Abrams
Gov. Jerry Brown of California signed legislation on Thursday that bans plastic microbeads, giving his state one of the country’s strongest laws against the tiny abrasives used in exfoliators and other products. -
Company Can't Identify Chemicals in Pasadena Blaze
Oct 9, 2015 | Houston Chronicle
By Matt Dempsey and Mark Collette
For the second time in a week, fire erupted at a Pasadena industrial site, injuring two firefighters and raising more questions about the safety of workers and the public in the nation's biggest petrochemical complex. -
Three Killed in Blast at Natural Gas Plant in Louisiana
Oct 9, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Alison Sider
Three workers were killed in an explosion and fire Thursday at a natural gas plant in Gibson, La., according to Williams Partners LP, the company that owns the facility. -
When Will We Decide to Hit Back on Cybersecurity?
Oct 9, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Peter L. Levin
The recent cyber intrusions into Sony and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management have highlighted to the general public a festering weakness: America’s cybersecurity policy framework is wholly inadequate. -
Appeals Court Halts WOTUS Rule Nationwide
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E -Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A federal appeals court today halted a high-profile Obama administration rule defining the scope of the Clean Water Act, marking the latest legal blow to the controversial policy. -
Court Blocks Obama’s Water Rule Nationwide
Oct 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal court ruled Friday that President Obama’s regulation to protect small waterways from pollution cannot be enforced nationwide. -
6th Circuit Order Blocking EPA CWA Rule Hints At Court Scrapping Policy
Oct 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has issued an order blocking EPA from implementing its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule nationwide while it weighs whether it has authority to hear suits over the rule, though at least two judges suggest if they hear the suit then they will scrap the policy for exceeding EPA's authority. -
Court Grants Nationwide Stay of EPA's Waters Rule
Oct 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Jenny Hopkinson
The EPA will have to stop the implementation of its Clean Water Rule following a federal court ruling today that backs the arguments made by 18 states. -
E&E Daily's Bush Talks Impact of Leadership Uncertainty on Energy Legislation
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E- TV
How will yesterday's decision by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to drop out of the race for speaker affect the future of energy legislation in the House this fall? -
EPA’s New Ozone Standard Is Science-Based
Oct 9, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Janet McCabe
Your editorial “The Twilight Ozone” (Oct. 2) is a rerun of the long-discredited argument that environmental standards somehow harm the economy. You blindly ignore science, the law and history. -
House Backs Crude Exports but Misses Veto Override Margin
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The House today easily passed legislation to end the decades-old ban on crude oil exports but failed to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised presidential veto. -
House Endorses Oil Exports Amid Echoes of Keystone Fight
Oct 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The House moved Friday to legalize crude oil exports for the first time in four decades, siding with the petroleum industry in a power struggle that echoes its long feud with greens over the Keystone XL pipeline. -
Lifting Ban on Crude Oil Exports will Jumpstart a New Energy Era
Oct 9, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dan K. Eberhart
When an energy bill is introduced in Congress that promises an epic change in the global balance of power, it’s natural that lawmakers, media, and everyday people will debate its merits. -
Gov. Cuomo Aims to Link U.S. Northeast's Carbon Market with Calif.'s
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) yesterday announced his state will "explore the possibility" of linking the Northeast's carbon cap-and-trade system with California's, envisioning a "North American market" where emissions allowances... -
Ga. Hammers Ahead on Rule as it Mulls Lawsuit
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
The director of Georgia's Environmental Protection Division told a packed room of electric utility officials, policymakers, clean energy advocates and others to set aside their personal views of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and help the Peach State draft a plan that would meet its carbon-reduction goals. -
Pa. Gas Extraction Linked to Pre-Term Birth -- Study
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Pamela King
Pregnant women living near Pennsylvania gas wells are more likely to have a pre-term birth, but it's not clear what factors are influencing that risk, according to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. -
Capito Bill Would Clip EPA's Wings on Clean Power Plan -- CBO
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito's bill to scuttle U.S. EPA's power plant carbon rules would also severely restrict the scope of any replacement rules, the Congressional Budget Office said yesterday. -
Amtrak Threatens Partial Shutdown
Oct 9, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation Wire
By Keith Laing
Amtrak is warning Congress that it will have to shut down service on many of its long-distance train routes if lawmakers do not extend a federal deadline for automating trains. -
Lawsuit Wants Plans Mandated for Dealing With Big Oil Spills
Oct 9, 2015 | AP (In the New York Times)
An environmental group sued the federal government Thursday, contending it gives pipeline owners and operators a free pass on developing legally required plans for dealing with oil spills into lakes, rivers and other inland waterways. -
Officials: Broken Rail Caused West Virginia Train Derailment
Oct 9, 2015 | AP (In the Washington Post)
By John Raby
A fiery oil train derailment in southern West Virginia last February resulted from a broken rail that started with a crack that should have been detected but was missed in two inspections, federal investigators said Friday.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) HFO1233zd Wins Innovation Award
Oct 8, 2015 | Cooling Post
Honeywell’s Solstice Liquid Blowing Agent (LBA), the HFO 1233zd(E), has won a top chemical award.
The low GWP gas, which is also being used as a refrigerant in chillers and as a constituent in other low GWP refrigerant blends, is also sold by Honeywell as the foam blowing agent Solstice LBA.
As a critical material used in energy-efficient polyurethane foam insulation, Solstice LBA was named the winner of the 2015 Polyurethane Innovation Award by the American Chemistry Council’s Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI).
Solstice LBA was voted top innovation from among three finalists by judges and attendees of the CPI Polyurethanes Technical Conference in Orlando, Florida. The award highlights the role that innovation plays in the polyurethane industry and recognises companies and individuals whose vision and perseverance bring new products, technologies and initiatives to the marketplace.
-
Momentum Grows Behind Ryan for Speaker -- But so Far He Demurs
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones, Sean Reilly and Geof Koss
Momentum is growing among House Republicans for Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a former vice presidential candidate, to run for speaker to fill the power vacuum within the caucus.
But Ryan reiterated today, both before and after a tense hourlong meeting of the House Republican Conference, that he has no intention of seeking the job and prefers to stay on as the Ways and Means Committee's chairman -- meaning the House is about to leave town for a week without any resolution to the leadership crisis in sight.
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's (R-Calif.) surprise decision to bow out of the race for speaker yesterday, plus dissatisfaction with other candidates, have left members looking for a colleague who can unite different factions of the GOP conference. Many are looking to Ryan even as the Wisconsin lawmaker stresses he is not seeking the job.
"If Paul Ryan runs, I mean, clearly he would be somebody I would support, I would love it if he did it," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), one of two declared candidates.
Chaffetz, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he decided to run a week ago because members like Ryan weren't coming forward. "He'd be the kind of person I could get excited about," he said while emerging from this morning's caucus meeting.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said of Ryan, "Right now he has the clout, he has the stature, that he could overcome a lot, bring sides together. He has the stature that nobody else has."
But Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), the other member officially running for speaker, said he wouldn't drop out even if Ryan decided to run. "I'm not challenging him," he said. "I'm challenging the process."
The House Freedom Caucus, a loose collection of 30 to 40 conservatives, has endorsed Webster, and today Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said he was sticking by that choice. "No, no change in that," he told throngs of reporters.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), former chairman of the Oversight panel, has left the door open to running, but only if Ryan doesn't. "Then and only then will we talk about it," Issa said.
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), less well known than other confirmed or potential candidates, said he would think about running. "I got to go home and talk to my family," he said.
But like other potential choices, Westmoreland said he would also back Ryan. "I encouraged him. He just smiled, I think. Because there were like 15 people talking to him," Westmoreland said.
On the way into the GOP caucus meeting this morning, Ryan himself said, "I have nothing new to say." Chaffetz observed, "He has been a drumbeat in consistency in saying he's not going to do it."
Later in the morning, a spokesman released a statement that said, "Chairman Ryan appreciates the support he's getting from his colleagues but is still not running for Speaker."
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), a Freedom Caucus leader, said the conservative group hadn't discussed a possible Ryan candidacy but said the Ways and Means chairman would likely face the same interview process as other candidates.
For many lawmakers within the House GOP, the decision is whether to choose someone who would serve only through the end of the 114th Congress next year or to elect a "permanent speaker," said freshman Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia.
Retiring Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, has been mentioned as a possible interim speaker. Outgoing Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had planned to leave Congress at the end of the month but said yesterday he would remain until his successor is chosen.
Lawmakers did not provide details about when new elections for speaker may take place. "That's all still a work in progress," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Many lawmakers said they would use next week's recess to think things over.
GOP lawmakers did, however, attempt to portray an attitude of harmony within the caucus rather than disarray. "It's a good discussion," said Blackburn. Asked whether the meeting was cordial, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) replied, "Sure, it was. We are optimists." Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said, "Our conference is going to try to come together."Change in culture, rules?
Loudermilk also described this morning's meeting as exceptionally cordial but made clear that he believes a change in the culture of Washington, D.C., is paramount.
Before moving ahead with the election for speaker, he said, "let's address the process." Loudermilk added, "Let's make sure that every member of Congress has a voice."
Offering a similar view was Rep. Luke Messer of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. While Ryan would make a great speaker, Messer said, "I think this is less about who and more about how."
Messer said he plans to be closely involved in a review of House and Republican conference rules and procedures urged yesterday by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and 18 other GOP lawmakers, including Ryan.
Members "need to come together to figure out what we are and where we are going as a conference before we figure out who will lead us," they said in a letter to colleagues.
Other signers included House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas).
Huelskamp downplayed personality in the race for speaker. "This is about procedure ... it's not about ideology," said the lawmaker, one of the leaders and most outspoken members on the conservative end of the spectrum.
"Daniel Webster's voting record wasn't too much different from Kevin McCarthy's, so it's about procedure and respecting individuals, including more in the process, more inclusive rather than the other way around," said Huelskamp. "Those are the questions we would have of any speaker."
House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) didn't seem too keen on the concept of rule changes this morning.
"There's a lot of discussion about some of our problems," he said, including the filibuster in the Senate. "I don't think the way we respond to that is changing rules to go to a 50-vote rule." He added that the House should focus on its own issues.
-
Top Republicans Appeal to Ryan to Seek Speaker’s Job and Unify Party
Oct 9, 2015 | New York Times
By David S. Herszenhorn
House Republicans, struggling to regroup and reunify their conference in the face of a leadership crisis, achieved no new clarity on Friday about who might step forward to claim the speaker’s gavel as attention remained focused on Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, who has said repeatedly he does not want the job.
Mr. Ryan, the Republican nominee for vice president in 2012 and now chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, is viewed by many House Republicans as perhaps the only person who could bring the conference back together, after the resignation of Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and a stunning decision on Thursday by the majority leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, to drop his bid for speaker.
Both Mr. Boehner and Mr. McCarthy have been trying to cajole Mr. Ryan into running and several lawmakers leaving a conference meeting in the basement of the Capitol said they believed Mr. Ryan was softening his position and would return to Wisconsin to discuss the situation with his family and closest advisers.PhotoRepresentative Kevin McCarthy of California walked to a meeting at the Capitol on Friday, a day after dropping out of the race for House speaker.
“He’s the consensus candidate at this point,” said Representative Darrell Issa of California, who was standing in a hallway outside the meeting and whose comment reflected the extent to which many Republicans have refused to accept Mr. Ryan’s own insistence that he is not, in fact, a candidate.
“He’s both vetted and he has experience of chairing not one but now two committees,” Mr. Issa said, referring to Mr. Ryan’s prior role as chairman of the Budget Committee. “And so what you are hearing in there is the preparatory work for a more successful conference once we find a new speaker, but you are also hearing people universally or nearly universally asking Paul Ryan to go home over the weekend and reconsider.”
Mr. Ryan, upon entering and exiting the meeting, made no comment, which in itself some of his colleagues viewed as notable given his previously forceful denials of interest.
The leadership void in the House is playing out as Congress braces for a series of major battles over crucial fiscal issues, including a need to raise the federal debt ceiling by early next month, and the need for an agreement on a broad spending plan to avoid a government shutdown by Dec. 11.
Several lawmakers described the mood in the meeting as positive, almost convivial, even as House Republicans grappled with their most serious leadership crisis since 1998 when Representative Bob Livingston, who had been chosen to replace Speaker Newt Gingrich, suddenly withdrew amid revelations about an extramarital affair.
In the meeting on Friday morning, Mr. Boehner, who had been hounded for nearly his entire time as speaker by the far-right flank of his conference, reassured rank-and-file lawmakers that he would remain until a new speaker was chosen. That suggested he could stay as speaker and in Congress, beyond his previously announced retirement date at the end of October, though Mr. Boehner said he believed a new speaker could be chosen before then.
Professing himself “as shocked as you were” about Mr. McCarthy’s decision, Mr. Boehner told House Republicans that he had postponed the vote “to allow the shock to wear off a bit,” according to a Republican official in the room.Continue reading the main storyPossible Candidates for a Brokered House Speaker Race
With Representative Kevin McCarthy’s stunning decision to withdraw from the race for speaker on Thursday, the Republican leadership elections were turned upside down. The competitive races were supposed to be those for lower-tier positions. Now the big uncertainty is who the next speaker will be.
Mr. Boehner urged lawmakers not to let the leadership tumult interfere with their work. “We’ve got to continue to address the people’s priorities; this institution cannot grind to a halt,” he said.
And while he said he believed a speaker could be elected by the end of October, he added: “But at the end of the day, that’s really up to the people in this room.”
During the meeting, the Republicans also agreed to form a task force to to address a debate over internal rules.
The hard-right lawmakers who had pushed for Mr. Boehner’s ouster have made a long list of demands for changes in how the House operates, including major adjustments to the composition of a committee that decides other committee chairmanships, and also changes in the way legislation and amendments can be brought to the floor.
Those demands, as well as others regarding various leadership posts, apparently contributed to Mr. McCarthy’s decision to withdraw, even though he had been the heavy favorite to succeed Mr. Boehner. The Freedom Caucus, a group of about 40 hard-right lawmakers, had announced its support in the speaker’s race for Representative Daniel Webster, a little-known lawmaker from Florida.
Their bloc of votes essentially made it certain that Mr. McCarthy would be short of the 218 votes needed on the floor of the House for his election later in the month, and that he would have had to spend several weeks trying to meet the group’s demands to win their backing.
Members of the Freedom Caucus said they would continue to support Mr. Webster for the time being, though several said they would be happy to meet with Mr. Ryan and consider his candidacy.
Mr. Issa said Mr. Ryan could not avoid conferring with colleagues over the speakership.
“Paul Ryan has been meeting with people nonstop because too many of us have his phone number and know where he works out in the morning,” Mr. Issa said, “And he is obviously dealing with the fact that this isn’t the job he asked for or even wants but may be a job that the conference needs him to take.”
Even as supporters of Mr. McCarthy, including many veteran lawmakers, expressed dismay at the disarray, critics of the party establishment were headed into Friday’s meeting hopeful for an opportunity to turn a new page.
The gulf between mainstream Republicans and the hard-liners who demanded Mr. Boehner’s resignation is now so great that one veteran Republican even raised the possibility of teaming up with Democrats to elect a new speaker — an idea that would normally be unthinkable in modern American politics, in which such elections normally break on party lines.
“The question is: Who’s going to be the next person to step up?” asked Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, who is serving his sixth term.
“In order to pass any bill around this place, everybody knows we need to assemble a bipartisan coalition,” he said, pointing to a stopgap spending measure that was adopted last week with more Democratic votes than Republican ones.
“Same thing will happen on the debt ceiling, budget agreement, omnibus, there will be a bipartisan coalition,” Mr. Dent continued. “I suspect at some point if we can’t get 218 Republicans to vote for a speaker candidate, we will have to assemble a bipartisan coalition to elect a speaker.”
Representative Kevin McCarthy announces that he is withdrawing from the race for House speaker, adding that “a new face” is needed to unite the Republican conference.
The requirement for Speaker appears to be to someone who can get the votes of 218 people total from either party who are not afraid that...Southern Boy 4 minutes ago
I have complete confidence in the Republicans to find a leader who unite the party behind its common cause.Tommy 4 minutes ago
So, let me get this straight. The House "Freedom Caucus" - consisting of about 40 of the 240 or so GOP house members, or approximately 1/6.
While potentially appealing to voters disgusted with partisan rancor and paralysis in Congress, such a prospect still remains highly unlikely. But Mr. Dent’s remark highlighted the frustration among many Republicans that their caucus is so fractured that serving as speaker — a post second in the line of succession to the presidency — has little appeal.
While Mr. Ryan may ultimately yield to the entreaties of his colleagues, he has ample reasons not to want the gavel. It is hardly clear that the job will be any easier for him than it was for Mr. Boehner, especially because conservatives are demanding changes in how the House operates that will only diminish the speaker’s power. And Mr. Ryan’s prospective presidential ambitions would not be enhanced by serving as speaker.
In addition, Mr. Ryan, who has a deep interest in policy, now has his dream job on the Ways and Means Committee.
“Ryan said to me all the time, ‘All I want to be is chairman of Ways and Means,’ and he has it,” said Bill Thomas, a retired representative from California whom Mr. McCarthy replaced.
Mr. Thomas, in a telephone interview, said the hard-liners in theRepublican Party were making it impossible for their colleagues to govern. “Any time when you try to do something in the House, it’s through a coalition of the willing,” he said. “Being not for something, being on the Committee to Help Stamp Out Committees simply is a nonsensical position.”
However, many of the requests that the Freedom Caucus, a group of about 40 conservatives, has made in exchange for its votes for a new speaker would decentralize leadership in the House and make it even more difficult for speakers to pull together such coalitions.
In Mr. Boehner’s case, he has already had to turn to Democrats to pass spending legislation to prevent a government shutdown. A similar situation looms within just a few weeks when the government will reach its limit on borrowing and Congress will have to vote on raising the debt ceiling.
Some conservative Republicans have said that they will vote to raise the debt ceiling only if it is attached to significant reductions in mandatory spending programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. While Mr. Boehner could potentially lift the ceiling once again with the help of Democrats, such a move would only worsen the fissures among Republicans.
Representative Peter Roskam of Illinois had urged Republicans to come to a consensus on a number of issues, including policy priorities and potential changes in how the House operates, before moving to a vote on the new speaker, saying the party needs “a plan, not a person.”
Mr. Roskam in a statement on Thursday voiced his own surprise at Mr. McCarthy’s decision to withdraw and issued a renewed call for consensus. “It’s clear we can’t move forward until we unite around a shared definition of success,” he said.
His view was echoed by the former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said Republicans needed to slow down and regroup. In a telephone interview, Mr. Gingrich said, “They should take a deep breath and have a series of daylong meetings to really listen to each other for a while.”
-
Senate Impasse Over Legislation Renews Doubts About TSCA Reform Vote
Oct 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Senate disputes over legislation including energy appropriations and a measure to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) are preventing a vote on a bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill, and it is unclear when senators might debate the legislation after the Senate reconvenes on Oct. 19.
The impasse over unrelated bills is a set-back for the bill's supporters, who had urged their colleagues to allow for a vote on S. 697 before TSCA reaches the fortieth anniversary of its enactment on Oct. 11. “Don't let TSCA turn 40 without reforming it,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) at an Oct. 6 press conference in Washington, D.C. Udall introduced the original TSCA bill with Senate environment committee member David Vitter (R-LA).
The TSCA bill has at least 60 declared supporters -- enough to overcome a potential filibuster threat -- after Udall and Vitter agreed to various revisions to attract additional support from Democrats.
Some environmentalists and states are, however, looking for additional changes to S. 697 to win their support, with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) saying that the revised bill does not address its fears about language that could weaken EPA's significant new use rule (SNUR) power to identify chemicals of concern.
Separately, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) -- two groups representing state officials -- in a recent letter to the top Republican and Democratic members of the Senate say they welcome the push for TSCA reform but add that changes to the bill are necessary. For example, the groups call for softer preemption of state chemicals programs and other updates.
Senators finished their work Oct. 8 without holding a vote on the reform bill, and although the upper chamber will hold a handful of pro forma sessions in the coming days it is out of session from Oct. 12-16.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn's (R-TX) office says the Senate will next convene Oct. 19 and resume consideration of a motion to proceed on a “sanctuary cities” bill, S. 2146, unrelated to TSCA reform. The Senate Press Gallery says that the Senate would likely then attempt on Oct. 20 to vote to invoke cloture on S. 2146.
Pending Legislation
Further complicating the prospects for TSCA reform, Democrats blocked the energy and water appropriations legislation, H.R. 2028, from proceeding before the Columbus Day break. The 49-47 vote to prevent cloture drew the ire of Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chair of the Appropriations Committee's energy and water panel, who called it “a very bad precedent and it really insults the Senate.”
He added, “That's not the way we are supposed to do our jobs. . . . To vote ‘no’ sets a dangerous precedent for the Senate that says we are not interested in doing what taxpayers elected us to do.”
When the Senate reconvenes, TSCA reform sponsors still have to solve an ongoing fight over a push to reauthorize the LWCF, which expired Sept. 30. The fund helps acquire and maintain park lands and is funded by companies drilling offshore for oil and gas. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is seeking to offer an amendment to the TSCA reform bill that would reauthorize the fund -- but that is dividing supporters of S. 697.
Politico has reported that the amendment could face opposition from a handful of senators including Republicans Ted Cruz (TX) and Mike Lee (UT), leading to neither the rider nor the bill getting a vote.
Udall at the Oct. 6 press conference said he supports Burr and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) in pushing a stand-alone bill to reauthorize the LWCF, and is trying to reach a deal with the senators through which they would drop the planned TSCA bill amendment in exchange for Udall helping to promote support for the LWCF bill.
Ayotte and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) both attempted during Senate floor action Oct. 8 to advance the standalone LWCF reauthorization bill, calling for unanimous consent of its passage.
Both efforts were quickly stifled with Sens. Lee and James Lankford (R-OK) objecting. Neither Ayotte's nor Burr's spokespersons responded to requests for comment regarding the situation.
States' Concerns
Even if senators can reach agreement on how to resolve the impasse over unrelated legislation, they might still have to address some lingering concerns about the bill from advocates and states.
Separate from NRDC's doubts over the SNUR language, NCSL and ECOS sent a Sept. 23 letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) saying they are “grateful for the changes that have been made to previous versions” of the bill “but believe that continued dialogue with the states as well as additional modifications are critical for a final comprehensive law that protects public health and the environment.”
In particular, the two states groups urge the senators to ensure that the final TSCA measure limits preemption of state chemicals programs; permits states to regulate chemicals during the period when states seek a waiver to regulate chemicals that have been assessed by EPA; and address concerns about how to ensure that EPA has the necessary funding and other resources “to fully implement this legislation” should it become law.
If the Senate approves S. 697 in the coming weeks, it will then head to conference committee to be reconciled with a much narrower TSCA reform bill, H.R. 2576, which cleared the House in a 398-1 vote in June. Both chambers would then hold votes on the reconciled final version of the bill.
-
California Becomes Latest State to Ban Plastic Microbeads
Oct 9, 2015 | New York Times
By Rachel Abrams
Gov. Jerry Brown of California signed legislation on Thursday that bans plastic microbeads, giving his state one of the country’s strongest laws against the tiny abrasives used in exfoliators and other products.
“We’re obviously incredibly excited,” said Stiv Wilson, director of campaigns at the nonprofit group the Story of Stuff Project. “We just passed a very simple ban on plastic microbeads without any loopholes.”
The consumer products industry had objected to certain aspects of the bill, arguing that it was overly restrictive and did not allow companies to come up with environmentally friendly alternatives. The California rules include a prohibition against biodegradable microbeads, which other states with similar legislation allow.
At least six other states have passed laws restricting microbeads, including Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland and New Jersey.
Lisa Powers, a spokeswoman for the Personal Care Products Council, said in an email that the industry trade group had taken a neutral position on the bill.
Microbeads look like tiny dots suspended in cleansers and other toiletries. Manufacturers including Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gambleadvertise their exfoliating power, particularly in face and body scrubs.
But when consumers rinse these products off, the microbeads flow from sinks and showers into the water. Billions of microbeads have the same effect as grinding up plastic water bottles and dumping them into the ocean, environmentalists say.
-
Company Can't Identify Chemicals in Pasadena Blaze
Oct 9, 2015 | Houston Chronicle
By Matt Dempsey and Mark Collette
For the second time in a week, fire erupted at a Pasadena industrial site, injuring two firefighters and raising more questions about the safety of workers and the public in the nation's biggest petrochemical complex.
Schutz Container Systems, where workers rid plastic tanks of the chemical industry's leftovers, couldn't tell first-responders Wednesday night what materials ignited, what was stored in the facility or where their records were, Pasadena Fire Marshal David Brannon said. It complicated both treating the injured and extinguishing the fire.
"The folks that were exposed - we didn't even know how to decontaminate them," Brannon said.
The injured, members of the La Porte Fire Department, inhaled fumes and eventually were treated at Bayshore Medical Center and released. Brannon still doesn't know what they breathed in.
"It was a fiasco, and we're not happy about it at all," he said. "This is one of the worst ones I've dealt with in 25 years. ... Nobody could give us answers."
Facilities that handle hazardous chemicals are required by federal law to document those inventories to help with emergency planning and response.
Schutz officials did not return multiple messages from the Chronicle. Harris County Pollution Control also was waiting to hear from the company, spokeswoman Latrice Babin said.
The fire started rapidly when two chemicals reacted in the enclosed facility at about 8 p.m., Brannon said. None of the employees were wearing protective equipment beyond their regular uniforms when the fire broke out, Brannon said. He was astonished that none were hurt.
Twice since 2014, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the facility for failing to provide adequate procedures or respiratory equipment, and failing to lock out machinery before servicing it.
HazMat crew sent in
After the initial attack on the fire, Brannon pulled back his crew so Harris County HazMat members wearing protective equipment could test the air inside. It delayed firefighting about 90 minutes, he said. Sprinklers helped contain the fire.
HazMat conducted air monitoring outside Schutz as well and found nothing unusual, Brannon said.
The German-based company bills itself as one of the largest providers of intermediate bulk containers in North America. The containers - plastic cubes usually in metal cages and attached to pallets for easy shipping - are used for everything from toxic chemicals to food ingredients. Each carries about 300 gallons. The Pasadena site cleans old tanks and repurposes the plastic, Brannon said.
On Sept. 29, someone complained to the Environmental Protection Agency that containers at Schutz were leaking unknown chemicals into the ground and mixing with runoff water. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is investigating the claim, according to spokeswoman Andrea Morrow.
-
Three Killed in Blast at Natural Gas Plant in Louisiana
Oct 9, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Alison Sider
Three workers were killed in an explosion and fire Thursday at a natural gas plant in Gibson, La., according to Williams Partners LP, the company that owns the facility.
The plant, located 70 miles southwest of New Orleans, wasn’t operating at the time of the blast, the company said. The fire happened during maintenance work on a tank known as a “slug catcher,” which is designed to remove liquids and impurities from the natural...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required. Story can be found here:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/three-killed-in-blast-at-natural-gas-plant-in-louisiana-1444347373
-
When Will We Decide to Hit Back on Cybersecurity?
Oct 9, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Peter L. Levin
The recent cyber intrusions into Sony and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management have highlighted to the general public a festering weakness: America’s cybersecurity policy framework is wholly inadequate. We continue to fumble the creation of a coherent strategy supported by clear operational guidelines and meaningful response capabilities.
Because we have not effectively addressed the problem, we’ve unwittingly raised the stakes in a way that will ultimately lead to a trigger event for which we’ll have no legitimate alternative beyond publicly declaring that “now you’ve gone too far,” followed by kinetic retaliation.
Our adversaries, our allies, and our nation deserve something better than this know-it-when-we-see it strategy that currently guides our thinking.Finding a solution to this challenge is no easy task. First, there is currently neither a domestic agreement nor an international norm against which we can measure a proportional response to a cyber-intrusion.
A generation ago, the federal government executed people for revealing nuclear secrets to our Cold War adversaries. But today we hardly notice when the Chinese government steals plans for our most advanced weapons systems, as has been widely reported, or exfiltrates the personnel files of tens of millions of federal employees.
Clearly our definition of proportional response to espionage has changed, leaving us vulnerable to the perception – never mind the reality – of arbitrary rules of engagement.
Therefore, the first order of business in crafting a solution is to define what constitutes a cyber-attack: Ostensibly, it is one that converts any kind of information into an action or event that either: interferes with individual liberty or personal choice; disrupts an activity of daily living or costs money to remediate; or destroys or handicaps a physical asset, irrespective of ownership or use.
These categories can help discriminate what matters more from what matters less.
Next, the U.S. should remove the destabilizing ambiguity of how we will protect ourselves domestically, and what would trigger a response overseas. The current impasse diminishes any deterrent because we are a rule-driven society, and it’s difficult to justify the use of force without clear rules. Importantly, such a framework could be designed to maintain flexibility and choice regarding individual privacy, corporate participation, and military response. These goals are not mutually exclusive; they just need to be clear.
When it comes to the actual response, the U.S. is well equipped to interfere with, economically disrupt, or kinetically harm an enemy. And while the U.S. government is widely believed to have successfully launched the Stuxnet virus on Iran’s nuclear program in a digital attack, we have been reluctant to actively respond to either that country or any of our other three largest digital antagonists – China, Russia, or North Korea – when it comes to internet mischief, data exfiltration, or outright theft.
So what, then, would constitute a proportional (re)action?
Establishing expectations is complicated because the international community has lost its confidence in U.S. leadership on this topic. They publicly complain of our broad definition self-defense, regardless of the physical hazard. Even our friends privately raise concerns that we do not follow our own rules. But that does not mean we should not make them
Our response to cyber intrusions should be subtle, dynamic, and known. It could range from slow degradation of a foreign network to more dramatic expressions of proportional discouragement. Our actions can be geographically scaled, penetratingly deep, and vaguely attributable. Their execution should be sanctioned and structured, not extra-legal or impulsive.
The U.S. government urgently needs to consolidate and rationalize its cyber capabilities. This will require muscular executive leadership as well as congressional collaboration and approval. Our cybersecurity policy apparatus is fragmented and fractured, with overlapping responsibilities, self-negating authorities, and internecine rivalries that handicap authentic defense at the expense of agency interest or prestige. The situation has gotten worse, even as the need has become more urgent.
But to do nothing, and to claim nothing, is to evince an unwise defensive posture of forbearance or inability, even as our adversaries ratchet up and test their capabilities as if it were a benign military exercise. We simply cannot continue to offer a well-lit terrestrial landing pad, easily accessed from borderless reaches of cyber-space. It’s high time we put some defenses around it, and made intrusion a more risky and expensive proposition.
-
Appeals Court Halts WOTUS Rule Nationwide
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E -Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A federal appeals court today halted a high-profile Obama administration rule defining the scope of the Clean Water Act, marking the latest legal blow to the controversial policy.
Judges on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati issued an order granting states' request to stay the Waters of the U.S. rule while the court considers its legality.
"The Clean Water Rule is hereby STAYED, nationwide, pending further order of the court," according to the split opinion issued by the court today. "... [W]e conclude that petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims," the judges wrote.
The order comes in response to challenges by 18 states to the Waters of the U.S. rule from U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers and puts the regime on hold pending legal review. The rule aimed to clarify which waters fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, but the regulation has been fiercely criticized by some states and agricultural and other industry groups.
The states argued they would face irreparable harm from the rule and the patchwork of implementation. "Given the rule's manifest illegality and harms to the states, this inconsistent application of the WOTUS rule should not be allowed to stand," the states told the judges.
A third judge dissented in today's opinion, writing that he did not believe the appeals court should issue a stay before determining that it had jurisdiction to review the rule.
A number of lawsuits have been filed in both district and appeals courts, and it is yet to be determined which court will ultimately hear the consolidated challenges.
In late August, a North Dakota federal judge blocked the rule's implementation in the 13 states whose case appeared before him but declined to extend the injunction more broadly.
-
Court Blocks Obama’s Water Rule Nationwide
Oct 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal court ruled Friday that President Obama’s regulation to protect small waterways from pollution cannot be enforced nationwide.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Cincinnati-based Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a stinging defeat to Obama’s most ambitious effort to keep streams and wetlands clean, saying it looks likely that the rule, dubbed “waters of the United States,” is illegal.
“We conclude that petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims,” the judges wrote in their decision, explaining that the Environmental Protection Agency’s new guidelines for determining whether water is subject to federal control — based mostly on the water’s distance and connection to larger water bodies — is “at odds” with a key Supreme Court ruling.
The judges said they have yet to decide whether they have jurisdiction to review the regulation, but a stay would make it easier to determine that.
“A stay allows for a more deliberate determination whether this exercise of executive power, enabled by Congress and explicated by the Supreme Court, is proper under the dictates of federal law,” the court said.
“A stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new Rule and whether they will survive legal testing. A stay honors the policy of cooperative federalism that informs the Clean Water Act and must attend the shared responsibility for safeguarding the nation’s waters.”
The decision expands a stay that a North Dakota judge imposed in August, the day before the rule took effect, and that only applied to 13 states.
The National Federation of Independent Business, one of the groups that sued to stop the rule, cheered Friday’s decision.
“Small businesses everywhere this morning are breathing a sigh of relief,” Karen Harned, executive director of the group’s legal foundation, said in a statement.
“The court very properly acknowledged that the WOTUS rule has created a ‘whirlwind of confusion’ and that blocking its implementation in every state is the practicable way to resolve the deep legal question of whether it can withstand constitutional muster.”
Waters of the United States has become one of the most controversial environmental regulations under Obama.
Republicans, nearly 30 states and a wide range of business interests say that it is a major overreach of federal power, putting the EPA in charge of nearly every square inch of private and state land.
The EPA and the Army Corps, which enforce the rule together, said it was necessary to clarify the federal government’s authority and ensure protection of small waterways that are connected to bigger ones, as called for under the Clean Water Act.
The Friday decision means those small waterways will, for the time being, go without Clean Water Act authority.
The stay is not the final word on the regulation, since the court still needs to go through the process of making a full ruling on it. After that, it can be appealed up to the Supreme Court.
-
6th Circuit Order Blocking EPA CWA Rule Hints At Court Scrapping Policy
Oct 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has issued an order blocking EPA from implementing its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule nationwide while it weighs whether it has authority to hear suits over the rule, though at least two judges suggest if they hear the suit then they will scrap the policy for exceeding EPA's authority.
The Oct. 9 order by Judge David McKeague on behalf of fellow Judge Richard Allen Griffin nevertheless drew a dissent from Senior Judge Damon J. Keith who said it is premature of the court to issue an injunction blocking the rule before it even decides whether it has jurisdiction to hear the litigation over the policy. Keith in his brief dissent did not address the majority's several attacks on the legality of specific provisions in the rule.
The 6th Circuit is still weighing arguments over whether it has authority to hear challenges to the CWA rule. The CWA is unclear on whether challenges to nationally applicable rules issued under the water law must be heard in federal district or appellate courts, prompting myriad lawsuits at both levels.
Critics of the rule -- including industry groups and Republican lawmakers -- say it unlawfully exceeds EPA's authority by expanding the water law's reach far beyond what Congress intended. They welcomed the national stay of the rule, which follows a recent federal district court order blocking the rule's implementation in 13 states.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Chair of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee that oversees EPA, said the ruling is a good signal for legal challenges to the CWA policy but also bolsters the case for S. 1140, a bill that would force EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw their joint rulemaking and then launch an extensive round of consultation with states, industry and others to inform a new version of the regulation.
“This means that the court is likely to overturn the rule. Because this process can take several years, the Sixth Circuit’s ruling makes it all the more important for Congress to pass” S. 1140, Inhofe says.
Coal firm Murray Energy -- the lead challenger in the consolidated 6th Circuit case -- also issued an Oct. 9 statement where company head Robert E. Murray described the 6th Circuit's order as “a very good decision and yet another signal that this Rule is an absolutely illegal overreach by President Obama and his Democrat supporters.”
'Irresponsible Decision'
Although at least two of the three 6th Circuit judges overseeing the consolidated suits over the CWA rule suggested they would scrap the regulation if they agree to hear the case, environmentalists are optimistic EPA could win an eventual suit on the merits. League of Conservation Voters Legislative Representative Madeleine Foote said in an Oct. 9 statement that while “[w]e strongly disagree with this irresponsible decision. . . . We hope the court’s final decision ensures these critically important public health protections are once again the law of the land.”
Environmentalists say the Obama administration's CWA rule -- jointly crafted by EPA and the Corps -- resolves uncertainty about the law's scope following the 2006 Supreme Court case Rapanos v. United States that created competing tests for jurisdiction, and will ensure better protection of U.S. waters.
McKeague in the stay order acknowledges the uncertainty caused by the Rapanos ruling and the need for a national regulation to resolve the issue, but says EPA's rule appears to be legally questionable.
The order says challengers have shown “a substantial probability of success on the merits,” citing flaws in how the rule defines a “significant nexus” between waterbodies and EPA and the Corps' alleged failure to give notice that it was considering many of the provisions included in their joint final rule.
“[T]he rulemaking process by which the distance limitations were adopted is facially suspect. . . . Nor have respondents identified specific scientific support substantiating the reasonableness of the bright-line standards they ultimately chose. Their argument that 'brightline tests are a fact of regulatory life' and that they used 'their technical expertise to promulgate a practical rule' is undoubtedly true, but not sufficient,” the order says.
The 6th Circuit's decision ends the piecemeal implementation of the rule that took effect Aug. 28. The uneven implementation had been in place after U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota Chief District Judge Ralph Erickson issued a more limited order that blocked the rule only within the 13 states suing over it in that court.
EPA said in response to that order that it would continue to use guidance from 2008 on CWA jurisdiction in those 13 states, signaling that it might do the same nationwide now that the rule has been stayed completely.
Significant Nexus
McKeague's order raises questions about EPA's adoption of distance-based thresholds for when waters have a significant nexus, which EPA says is the best way to implement the test for jurisdiction established by Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion in Rapanos -- one of two tests for jurisdiction established in that case, the other test crafted by Justice Antonin Scalia.
“Even assuming, for present purposes, as the parties do, that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanosrepresents the best instruction on the permissible parameters of 'waters of the United States' as used in the Clean Water Act, it is far from clear that the new Rule’s distance limitations are harmonious with the instruction,” McKeague writes.
The judge adds that challengers in the 6th Circuit case have raised apparently valid claims that there is no direct relationship between the 2014 proposal the agencies took public comment on and the distance-based limits on which waters can have a significant nexus that the final rule includes.
“Although the record compiled by respondent agencies is extensive, respondents have failed to identify anything in the record that would substantiate a finding that the public had reasonably specific notice that the distance-based limitations adopted in the Rule were among the range of alternatives being considered,” the order says.
Beyond the challengers' claims on the rule's merits, McKeague says national uniformity and stability also support a nationwide stay -- especially with Erickson having already blocked its implementation in his district court case.
“In light of the disparate rulings on this very question issued by district courts around the country -- enforcement of the Rule having been preliminarily enjoined in thirteen state[s] -- a stay will, consistent with Congress’s stated purpose of establishing a national policy, restore uniformity of regulation under the familiar, if imperfect, pre-Rule regime, pending judicial review,” the order says.
Court's Jurisdiction
Keith in his dissent did not address the CWA rule on the merits but instead argued that the court must first decide whether it has jurisdiction over the suit before it can stay the rule. “If we lack jurisdiction to review the Rule, then we lack jurisdiction to grant a stay,” he writes in his dissent.
The 6th Circuit must now decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear the consolidated lawsuits over the CWA rule. Challengers to the rule have favored review in the district courts while EPA and its supporters have sought to hear the case in appellate courts, but it is unclear whether the 6th Circuit's signals that it could ultimately back the challengers' position will change those arguments.
Meanwhile, parties in the district court cases are awaiting a decision from the federal courts' multi-district litigation panel on whether to consolidate the host of separate district-level challenges to the rule. The panel signaled at Oct. 1 oral arguments that they will reject EPA's push to combine the suits, but there is no deadline for the judges to issue their final ruling on that question.
-
Court Grants Nationwide Stay of EPA's Waters Rule
Oct 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Jenny Hopkinson
The EPA will have to stop the implementation of its Clean Water Rule following a federal court ruling today that backs the arguments made by 18 states.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said this morning that given the potential ramifications of the rule, the legal process should be allowed to play out before businesses, landowners and states are subject to the provisions. The decision puts an end to the implementation of the measure in the 37 states that were not subject to an injunction issued by a federal judge in North Dakota in August.
Circuit Judge David McKeague wrote in the majority opinion that although the states didn't necessarily show that they will suffer immediate harm if the rule moves ahead, "neither is there any indication that the integrity of the nation’s waters will suffer imminent injury if the new scheme is not immediately implemented and enforced."
McKeague was joined in the opinion by Judge Richard Griffin. Judge Damon Keith disagreed with the decision, arguing in a dissenting opinion that the case does not fall within the court's jurisdiction, so they lack the authority to block the rule.
-
E&E Daily's Bush Talks Impact of Leadership Uncertainty on Energy Legislation
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E- TV
How will yesterday's decision by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to drop out of the race for speaker affect the future of energy legislation in the House this fall? On today's The Cutting Edge, E&E Daily reporter Daniel Bush discusses the latest developments in the speakership race and explains how yesterday's news could affect votes on key energy issues.
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to The Cutting Edge. How will yesterday's House leadership stunner affect the future of key energy legislation? E&E Daily's Dan Bush has been tracking all the latest developments from Capitol Hill. Dan, very surprising day yesterday. How does Kevin McCarthy's decision to not seek the speakership impact the level of order we can expect from the House this fall?
Daniel Bush: Right now it's fair to say the House is in complete disarray. There's a scramble on to find somebody who can step up and run for speaker successfully, but right now it's unclear that any member of the GOP caucus has the 218 votes that they would need to win a floor vote, and at the same time, Congress is facing several huge fiscal issues, from raising the debt limit on November 5th to avoiding another government shutdown on December 11th. So the prospects for this stuff is tricky.
Monica Trauzzi: So obviously the crude oil export bill has received a lot of attention and been a big focus throughout the fall, including from the White House, where we've heard indications from the president that he would veto any such bill. Despite leadership uncertainty, the House has moved forward on the crude oil export bill, but there was some controversy. What were the most controversial amendments there?
Daniel Bush: Sure, so there's an amendment fight between Democrats and Republicans over key provisions of the bill. Democrats have been asking for stipulations, restrictions on the crude oil export bill in order to get their support. Some have called for a year delay in implementing it. Frank Pallone, the -- sorry, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has put forward language that would require the president to sign off only if he determined that it didn't increase carbon emissions. So that's been the main fight, and Republicans have, so far, blocked Democratic amendments to the bill and appear, you know, eager to move forward with their version of the legislation.
Monica Trauzzi: So if this leadership uncertainty stretches beyond the end of October, what will the broader impacts be, then, on energy and the legislation that's trying to move through the House?
Daniel Bush: Sure. So the crude oil export ban bill is sort of one part of it, but there's been a broader debate over energy reform in general. There's a big package moving through the House right now. Fred Upton, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, had hoped to put that bill on the floor sometime this fall, but obviously the speaker's race has thrown a wrench into that, and it's unclear at this point when there's time in the calendar for them to get to that legislation. So clearly there's going to be delay. We don't know yet how long.
Monica Trauzzi: So there are a lot of names going in the ring right now for who the next speaker could be. How could that person, that one person really shape the future and the agenda that we see coming out of the House?
Daniel Bush: It's going to be very difficult. You mentioned that there are several people sort of in the mix. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, is being petitioned hard to get in. Somebody like him would have to unite the more moderate wing of the caucus with the Freedom Caucus in the Republican Party, the more conservative element. That's going to be very difficult to do, and it's going to affect, as you said, all sorts of legislation moving forward, and it's difficult at this point to see how the Republican Party in the near term can come together on these big energy and fiscal issues.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. Fascinating to watch. Thank you for coming on the show.
Daniel Bush: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: More Cutting Edge coming next Friday. We'll see you then.
-
EPA’s New Ozone Standard Is Science-Based
Oct 9, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Janet McCabe
Your editorial “The Twilight Ozone” (Oct. 2) is a rerun of the long-discredited argument that environmental standards somehow harm the economy. You blindly ignore science, the law and history.
Clear evidence from clinical studies and an independent panel’s expert advice strongly indicated that the previous standard wasn’t sufficiently protective of American health. Based on the science, the administrator strengthened the...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/epas-new-ozone-standard-is-science-based-1444338743
-
House Backs Crude Exports but Misses Veto Override Margin
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The House today easily passed legislation to end the decades-old ban on crude oil exports but failed to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised presidential veto.
Members backed the bill (H.R. 702) by a 261-159 margin, handing Republicans a win on a major energy goal. But that victory was muted somewhat by the failure to secure the 290 votes needed for a veto override.
The White House's veto threat, which called the bill unnecessary, may have cost some Democratic votes (E&ENews PM, Oct. 7).
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) took the unusual step of disavowing the bill that she is a sponsor of, saying it "does not appropriately consider" national security, environmental and consumer impacts of the measure.
Lawmakers repeated a host of familiar arguments for and against the bill, with proponents citing a body of studies that paint a rosy economic portrait and geopolitical benefits of allowing crude exports.
"Everything about this says yes," said Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). "It's time to lift this relic of the 1970s."
But Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, called the bill unnecessary, noting that the administration has authority to allow some exports.
"The bottom line is that it is imperative for Congress to consider a host of factors before we lift the current restrictions and certainly if we are to completely dismantle our nation's ability to restrict oil exports, as proposed by H.R. 702," he said.
Democratic opponents characterized the bill as a giveaway to Big Oil. In a reference to bipartisan interest in a deal, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said the measure should be part of a broader energy strategy.
"If you're going to hand out another goody to the oil industry, let's have a more comprehensive approach," he said.
The House debated amendments from members of both parties that addressed a number of aspects of the crude exports debate.
The chamber rejected on a 109-306 vote an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) that would have stripped a provision from the bill to boost authorized spending levels for the Maritime Security Program. The provision, added this week by House leaders, won support for the bill from maritime interests, including labor groups, but Amash said it had nothing to do with crude exports and therefore belonged in defense legislation.
Lawmakers voted 414-1 for an amendment offered by Reps. Luke Messer (R-Ind.) and Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) that would allow the president to restrict crude exports to state sponsors of terrorism.
A second Messer amendment that would restrict exports of crude and refined petroleum products to Iran was adopted on a 419-0 vote.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the original sponsor of the underlying bill who managed the floor debate, also agreed to accept a number of fairly noncontroversial amendments in the interest of attempting to make a 1:40 p.m. flight.
That included an amendment by Reps. John Delaney (D-Md.), Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) and Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) to add language to the bill finding that the United States has reduced its oil consumption over the past decade and that increased investment in clean energy technology and efficiency will lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase national security.
A second climate-related amendment by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) that would require the Energy Department to tally the greenhouse gas consequences of lifting the ban was adopted by voice vote after Barton asked the sponsor to forgo a roll call vote.
Huffman agreed, after noting that the majority had blocked other bids by Pallone and himself to calculate the environmental costs of the bill. "Instead of analyzing full impacts before voting, the majority has adopted a 'pollute first, ask questions later' approach," said Huffman. Lifting the 40-year-old ban on exports, he said, would boost oil production especially in environmentally sensitive areas offshore or on public lands.
Also agreed to by voice vote was an amendment by Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) requiring a study of the effects on consumers and the economy of lifting the ban.
Republicans also agreed to accept an amendment by Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) to authorize DOE to continue developing partnerships in the areas of gas and oil exploration, production and refining with minority-serving institutions.
Barton also agreed to accept a pair of amendments by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). The first would require the executive branch to report to Congress within 10 years about the impact of lifting the export ban on "energy and national security." The second would require a report within 180 days on how lifting the ban would help veterans and women in the United States, while promoting energy and national security.
Jackson Lee agreed to Barton's offer to add the amendments on a voice vote but first sought a commitment that they would be considered a serious addition to the underlying bill.
Noting that he would be on the conference committee should the Senate pass its own exports measure, Barton assured his Texas colleague they would.
"Your amendments will be in the conference report that goes to the president if we get that far," he said.
One of the 10 amendments made in order for the debate -- a proposal by Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) that would hand the federal government the power to reduce exports in the event they cause "sustained crude oil supply shortages or sustained crude oil prices significantly above world market levels" -- was not offered without explanation.
The chamber rejected by a 179-242 margin a Democratic motion to recommit that would have added language saying the bill doesn't prevent the federal government from enforcing "federal laws or regulations necessary to protect human health, the environment, or public safety."
"Should Big Oil profits trump the need for pipeline safety?" Huffman asked, eliciting a resounding "no" from Democrats.
Barton called the proposal unnecessary.
-
House Endorses Oil Exports Amid Echoes of Keystone Fight
Oct 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The House moved Friday to legalize crude oil exports for the first time in four decades, siding with the petroleum industry in a power struggle that echoes its long feud with greens over the Keystone XL pipeline.
Despite the 261-159 vote, the pro-oil forces face growing resistance from the same environmental groups that have spent seven years fighting Keystone to a standstill — along with opposition from the White House and Democrats like Hillary Clinton. But this time, oil supporters are optimistic they’ll prevail in the end.
The arguments for and against crude exports broadly parallel the debate about building the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline: In both cases, Republicans say the move would create jobs at home, enhance national security and lessen the influence of rivals like Russia. Greens say it would encourage carbon-spewing oil production, damaging the fight against climate change. And the White House wants Congress to stay out of the issue — a message lawmakers pointedly ignored Friday.
Export supporters also call the ban an outdated relic of the scarcity-haunted 1970s, unsuited to an era when the fracking boom has turned the U.S. into one of the world’s top oil producers. So far, though, they're short of the 60 votes they would need to get past a filibuster in the Senate.
In contrast to the anti-Keystone campaign, greens have been slower to mobilize on exports, but they are beginning to wake up to the fight. The godfather of the Keystone opposition, climate activist Bill McKibben, offered a warning before the vote to lawmakers who back crude exports: "We will hang it around their necks at every opportunity, an oil-soaked albatross."
That peril isn't deterring pro-Keystone Republicans like Donald Trump, who has called the ban "archaic." But President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both came out against Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton's bill last month — shortly after Clinton announced her opposition to Arctic offshore drilling and just before she declared she opposes Keystone, two moves that drew cheers from the Democratic Party's green base.
Still, the oil industry's supporters are hopeful. "There is not a nationally organized effort to keep the export ban in place for environmental reasons like you had on Keystone XL,” said one private-sector exports advocate, who noted that the pipeline sparked “ideological opposition” from Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid way back in the fall of 2011. “You don’t have Tom Steyer cutting ads and air dropping in, funding opposition groups.”
Even Obama and Clinton aren't saying they oppose the principle of easing the export restrictions. The White House has said the Commerce Department can already make decisions on export proposals, while Clinton has said she might support exports as part of "a broader energy plan that does include concessions from the oil and gas industry." Meanwhile, Reid has expressed openness to a Senate deal in which Democrats would support exports in return for concessions,starting with extensions of clean-energy tax breaks, though many of them would be nonstarters for Republicans and the oil industry.
Speculating about that kind of trade-off is still a common parlor game for pundits when it comes to Keystone, though nothing has ever come of it. On crude exports, however, one conservationist is already talking about a deal: National Wildlife Federation President Collin O'Mara last month proposed a package of concessionsthat environmentalists could demand in exchange for eliminating the ban, including new regulations on the petroleum industry and an extension of clean-energy tax credits.
But other greens say they're poised to escalate their opposition as the exports bill works its way to the Senate. And their successful fight to stymie the pipeline can serve as a template. "The nice thing about the Keystone battle for us is that it's going to have lasting impact," said Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club’s fuels campaign.
League of Conservation Voters lobbyist Zach Drennen was just as confident on oil exports as his group is about killing Keystone. “Republicans this session have not had a great track record of getting their leadership's priorities to the president's desk, despite their campaign promises,” he said.
The pool of Democratic Senate moderates who might join the GOP's cause on exports is smaller than it was in the most recent Keystone battle, when Congress passed a pro-pipeline bill that Obama vetoed in February. North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp and West Virginia's Joe Manchin are the only Senate Democrats to come out in favor of the legislation so far, while Mark Warner (D-Va.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Angus King (I-Maine) are considered potential swing votes on exports, just as they were during the heyday of the Keystone battle.
Two pro-Keystone Democrats, Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Jon Tester of Montana, also expressed openness to ending export limits this month, although they ultimately opposed a Heitkamp-led bill on oil trade.
“At the end of the day, it passes the House but I don't see a path forward yet for it in the Senate,” conceded Stephen Brown, vice president of the independent oil refiner Tesoro, which supports easing the ban.
When Congress imposed the export ban in the 1970s, fears of scarcity following the Arab oil embargo led to a strategy of keeping domestically produced crude at home. Now the world is awash in a glut of inexpensive oil, spurring the drive by U.S. oil producers to find new markets abroad. The plunge in oil prices during the past year has also lessened — though not entirely eliminated — the danger that lawmakers who unleash exports would take the blame if prices rise at the pump.
At the heart of the pro-exports campaign is a national security argument broadly similar to the case for Keystone. Republicans and industry interests pitch secure supplies of both U.S. and Canadian oil as valuable geopolitical assets that can insulate America and its allies from threats including Russian aggression in Ukraine and Iran's imminent return to the global oil market.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) advanced that case Thursday in a letter chastising Treasury Secretary Jack Lew for what she calls Obama's inconsistency on the issue. "The Administration’s recent statements criticizing legislative efforts regarding U.S. oil exports stand in stark contrast to prior Administration policy designed to support Libyan and Syrian rebels in their efforts to export oil from their countries,” she wrote.
Backers of both exports and Keystone also promise job creation and lower gasoline prices as new fuel reaches the market, while their opponents contend that putting that new oil on the global market would mainly benefit countries like China.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz poured cold water on some of the pro-exports arguments this week, telling senators that the current low prices mean that markets are not "looking for that oil" that U.S. producers hope to sell abroad. That dynamic resembles the damage that plummeting crude prices have wreaked on the Canadian oil industry and Keystone's prospects for success.
But industry backers of exports see several factors playing to their advantage that broke for green groups during the battle over Keystone. The most obvious divergence is marketing: Keystone is a tangible, multibillion-dollar target, easy to demonize on a protest sign or in a television ad — while crude exports are not.
On Keystone, "the answer is either yes or no," GOP energy lobbyist Mike McKenna said. "Exports can be graded and shaded and nuanced."
-
Lifting Ban on Crude Oil Exports will Jumpstart a New Energy Era
Oct 9, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dan K. Eberhart
When an energy bill is introduced in Congress that promises an epic change in the global balance of power, it’s natural that lawmakers, media, and everyday people will debate its merits.
And the repeal of the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil represents such a bill.
The ban has been in place since the 1970s, when the U.S. suffered a devastating oil embargo courtesy of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The embargo instilled fears about U.S. energy dependency and OPEC’s power as a “swing producer,” able to manipulate global petroleum supplies and prices at will. By December 1975, President Gerald Ford signed a ban on most U.S. energy exports that remains in place today.
But today, America’s boom in shale oil and gas exploration has pushed domestic petroleum stockpiles to near historic levels. Thanks to innovations in drilling technologies, the U.S. actually surpassed both Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s top energy producer in 2014, churning out almost nine million barrels of oil per day –80 percent more than in 2008.
All the signs are pointing to our future as the world’s energy superpower.
In Congress, momentum for energy policy change is gathering. And with pending legislation in both the House and Senate that endorse lifting the ban, it seems as though America is about to cross a great divide.
Should we adopt a “smart,” “all-in” energy policy that includes renewables and environmental protections, but also recognizes that 80 percent of the world’s energy needs are still met by fossil fuels?
Will we recognize that lifting the decades old ban on crude oil is a significant step toward creating an energy interdependent global marketplace – one that provides a stable, alternate energy resource to countries otherwise dependent on hostile oil-producing regimes?
The devil is in the details, of course. But the momentum is growing rapidly.
On Friday, we expect a full House vote on a separate bill to green-light all crude oil and natural gas exports. Faced with plummeting oil and gas prices and economic doldrums that have reverberated throughout the U.S. and the world, the GOP-controlled House, led by current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), is very likely to pass the measure.
The Obama administration has indicated that any move to lift the export ban should be the U.S. Commerce Department’s decision. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the fact that Republicans are advocating for oil exports shows they are in the pocket of oil and natural gas interests, and Obama will oppose any Republican-sponsored bill.
But several Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), now suggest that compromise is in order.
An energy “grand bargain” could be struck if comprehensive legislation offered incentives for both parties to act. In this scenario, Heitkamp predicts, Obama would sign an energy bill passed by Congress provided that a package lifting the export ban also included strong incentives and tax breaks for renewables and climate protections.
Removing the export ban will certainly bolster energy companies, currently crippled by low oil prices, and desperate for reformed export rules that would help keep our domestic energy industry alive. But more than bootstrapping our own economy, a vote to end the U.S. crude export ban will usher in a new era of thinking about global energy interdependence and the power of free markets.
It will be a clear message that we stand ready help to vulnerable nations everywhere – from Eastern Europe to Africa to parts of the Middle East, South America and Asia – to find alternate routes of supply that are stable, fairly priced, and secure.
And we can only hope the U.S. will take the leap.
-
Gov. Cuomo Aims to Link U.S. Northeast's Carbon Market with Calif.'s
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) yesterday announced his state will "explore the possibility" of linking the Northeast's carbon cap-and-trade system with California's, envisioning a "North American market" where emissions allowances are bought and sold across the United States as well as in Canada.
During a speech alongside former Vice President Al Gore yesterday at Columbia University, Cuomo called carbon markets "a powerful tool for reducing the pollution that is contributing to climate change," but added, "Small regional coalitions are not enough."
"Therefore, today, I have directed my administration to reach out to our partners in other states, such as California, as well as the Canadian provinces, about building a broader North American market to collectively reduce harmful emissions," Cuomo said. "Hopefully, this will drive a national discussion to every state in the nation."
In a release made public after the remarks, the governor's office added that the administration will pursue a linkage between the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade system that involves eight other Northeastern states, and California's carbon market, which is also linked to the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
"Connecting these markets would be more cost-effective and stable, thereby supporting clean energy and driving international carbon emission reductions," the release stated. "New York State will also engage other states and provinces to build a broader carbon market and further drive an international discussion that encourages government action on carbon emissions."
Praising both New York and California for the states' aggressive climate policies in a speech after Cuomo's remarks, Gore said, "We really do have the prospect of seeing the emergence of a North America market in carbon emissions and the instruments that will accelerate that decarbonization of our economy."
This announcement was also cheered by environmental advocates.
"The Governor's commitment to work toward a North American carbon market underscores the importance of putting a price on carbon and highlights the effectiveness of existing cap-and-trade programs, including the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and the California-Quebec system," Derek Walker, associate vice president of global climate at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.
However, representatives for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the California Air Resources Board, which administers the state's cap-and-trade system, provided no additional details on the potential linkage. It remains unclear if the two systems are actively discussing the idea.
"We are committed to working with others to expand the number of jurisdictions that put a price on carbon," a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board said in a statement.No immediate response from the West
RGGI did not return a request for comment in time for publication, directing an emailed inquiry to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Carbon trading between states is widely seen as a key mechanism that may be used to comply with the Obama administration's sweeping new rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Yesterday, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power that the Clean Power Plan "does not set in place a cap-and-trade program," but she did say that interstate trading is a tool that could help states maintain an affordable and reliable power supply (Greenwire, Oct. 7).
RGGI is regarded as a model for interstate trading under the rule. New York, for example, is expected to easily meet EPA's targets laid out by the final Clean Power Plan, and a recent analysis by the nonprofit Acadia Center determined that it and other states will be able to use RGGI to comply with the Clean Power Plan if the program makes only "a few minor changes."
Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said in an emailed statement that "market-based approaches to reducing carbon emissions are already proving to be effective and efficient," adding that many additional states "are looking into how they could use these approaches to implement the Clean Power Plan."
Cuomo's announcement was made along with a series of other commitments yesterday, including a $1 billion pledge to the New York solar industry and a memorandum of understanding between New York and other states, provinces and cities called the Under 2 MOU committing to help maintain Earth's average temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. California, which has been gathering participants to the MOU ahead of the U.N. climate talks in December, now counts 42 signatories in 19 countries.
"Climate change is a reality, and not to address it is gross negligence by government and irresponsible as citizens," Cuomo said.
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) put out a statement praising Cuomo for signing the MOU but not mentioning the possibility of linking markets.
"Across the globe, imaginative leaders of states, provinces and cities are taking decisive action to stem the mounting threats of global warming," Brown said. "Governor Cuomo's participation marks a real milestone in the subnational movement to block dangerous climate change."
-
Ga. Hammers Ahead on Rule as it Mulls Lawsuit
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
The director of Georgia's Environmental Protection Division told a packed room of electric utility officials, policymakers, clean energy advocates and others to set aside their personal views of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and help the Peach State draft a plan that would meet its carbon-reduction goals.
"Irrespective of your view on whether the plan is great or not great, when you get around to doing this, it's historic, and it's not the typical approach under the Clean Air Act," said Judson Turner at the EPD's first stakeholder meeting since the final rule was issued in August.
"Whether it's legal, we'll see," he added.
Georgia is not one of 14 states seeking to challenge the rule once it is published in the Federal Register, but the option to sue remains. In his short talk yesterday morning, Turner was firm that EPD would draft a compliance plan to submit to EPA, but questioned the Clean Power Plan's legality several times.
"We're going to be put in a position to try and put together a plan, and in consultation here with the governor and the attorney general here in Georgia, and they are going to make their position on" whether to take legal action, Turner said.
In the meantime, Turner said Georgia's governor has directed him to work as best as he can within the existing legal framework to write a plan that is good for the state.
"He means reliability, he means affordability," Turner said, referring to keeping the lights on and electric utility bills from skyrocketing, two chief concerns of the rule's critics.
When asked for further details afterward, Turner said he was not in a position to make news on Georgia's legal strategy but offered this:
"There's going to be lawsuits in 20-plus states, I suspect Georgia is going to definitely consider that," Turner said in an interview with EnergyWire.
A spokesman for Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens' office declined comment on the issue at this time.
Georgia must cut its power-sector carbon emissions rate 34 percent from 2012 levels by 2030 to meet targets set by EPA's Clean Power Plan. The state intends to ask EPA for an extension when it files its initial plan next September (EnergyWire, Sept. 29).Getting down to specifics
Yesterday's meeting marked a shift between just talking about the Clean Power Plan to developing a process on how the state will meet its targets. EPD plans to hold another large stakeholder meeting in January, but likely will host smaller meetings on specific topics starting later this month.
Turner told EnergyWire that Georgia probably won't make any key decisions on its plan until January. These decisions include whether the state will pursue a rate- or mass-based plan and whether it will link up with neighboring states for a carbon market or prepare itself to trade with states nationwide.
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.
States that link up to form their own carbon trading market all would have to agree to pick a rate- or mass-based one. The group cannot contain a mix of states that have chosen different compliance paths.
This critical decision has particular significance for the Southeast, which has three states -- including Georgia -- that are building nuclear reactors, a policy analyst said.
Those states would benefit directly from those reactors if the state uses a rate-based plan. They get an indirect benefit from the additional emission-free nuclear power if a mass-based plan is followed.
"I think this is a key question ... are all of your states in your region going to go mass-based or are they going to go rate-based?" said David Hoppock, a senior policy associate with Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. "I think that is much more an open question in the Southeast because of the states with new nuclear units."
Turner said Georgia has worked with South Carolina and Tennessee when it filed comments on the draft rule regarding nuclear power plants under construction. The states asked that EPA allow those emission-free projects to count toward compliance.
Beyond that, he hasn't talked with air regulators in neighboring states at this point but said it likely will happen soon. Georgia is home to Southern Co., which operates electric utilities here and in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi, which means the states already are connected, at least when it comes to transmission lines.
"I suspect there will be multiple conversations with those states," Turner said.
-
Pa. Gas Extraction Linked to Pre-Term Birth -- Study
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Pamela King
Pregnant women living near Pennsylvania gas wells are more likely to have a pre-term birth, but it's not clear what factors are influencing that risk, according to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The study, published last week in the journal Epidemiology, said the impact of hydraulic fracturing on air and water quality and the stress of living near a noisy well pad could be contributing to high-risk pregnancies. The research was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholars program, and National Science Foundation's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship.
"The growth in the fracking industry has gotten way out ahead of our ability to assess what the environmental and, just as importantly, public health impacts are," study leader Brian Schwartz, a professor in the Bloomberg School's Department of Environmental Health Sciences, said in a statement yesterday. "More than 8,000 unconventional gas wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania alone, and we're allowing this while knowing almost nothing about what it can do to health. Our research adds evidence to the very few studies that have been done in showing adverse health outcomes associated with the fracking industry."
Using health data from 40 northern and central Pennsylvania counties, Schwartz and his colleagues analyzed the records of 9,384 women who gave birth to 10,946 babies between January 2009 and January 2013. The researchers stacked those data against information on how close the mothers were to fracked wells and the level of activity at those sites.
Proximity to the most active quartile of drilling and production activity was associated with a 40 percent increase in the likelihood of birth before 37 weeks of gestation, the study found. Mothers in that category were also 30 percent more likely to experience a "high-risk" pregnancy, which entails elevated blood pressure or excessive weight gain, according to the research.
Of all the pregnancies included in the study, 11 percent of those babies were born before full gestation. The majority (79 percent) were born between 32 and 36 weeks.
"Fracking is a public health disaster unfolding before our very eyes," Gina Angiola, a board member of the Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, said in an emailed statement. "As a retired Ob/Gyn physician and a mother, I am appalled that this industry continues to expand operations in the face of a rapidly growing body of research showing serious, often irreversible, health harms. A premature birth can lead to a lifetime of health problems and expenses. Families suffer, while industry profits. Unacceptable."
Risks of early birth include infant death and long-term neurological disability, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Johns Hopkins paper follows a slate of reproductive health research out of Colorado (EnergyWire, Dec. 17, 2013; EnergyWire, Dec. 9, 2014). The Pennsylvania findings stand in contrast to a study last year on mothers in Denver, Fort Collins and Boulder. That paper linked proximity to oil and gas production with the occurrence of congenital heart defects -- but found no correlation between fossil fuels extraction and premature birth (EnergyWire, Feb. 3, 2014).
An industry group said the Johns Hopkins study is too limited to draw any definitive conclusions.
"This study doesn't take any environmental samples, doesn’t account for many factors that can cause premature birth, and relies heavily on assumptions," said Nicole Jacobs, Pennsylvania director for Energy in Depth.
The group also criticized Schwartz for his ties to the Post Carbon Institute, which in a December 2014 blog post called fracking a "virus."
Officials at the Pennsylvania Department of Health said they are working to compile a more complete health registry system to identify potential impacts of natural gas development.
In the meantime, Schwartz and his fellow researchers recommended a closer look at regulations governing the Keystone State's oil and gas industry.
"The first few studies have all shown health impacts," Schwartz said. "Policymakers need to consider findings like these in thinking about how they allow this industry to go forward."
-
Capito Bill Would Clip EPA's Wings on Clean Power Plan -- CBO
Oct 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito's bill to scuttle U.S. EPA's power plant carbon rules would also severely restrict the scope of any replacement rules, the Congressional Budget Office said yesterday.
The West Virginia Republican's bill, S. 1324, would kill the Clean Power Plan by allowing states to opt out of compliance at will without fear that a federal implementation plan would be constructed to take its place, the CBO report noted. It also would require the agency to set aside rules for new and modified facilities that were final in August and that together make up the core of President Obama's second-term Climate Action Plan.
While the measure would allow the agency to put forward rules to take their place -- and CBO assumes that EPA would do so -- it's not clear that those rules could require technology that differs from a business-as-usual scenario. Rules for existing plants could not be promulgated until EPA makes a report to Congress on their climate and economic effects and issues state-specific plans.
A separate provision of the bill, which CBO does not mention, would bar EPA from regulating under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act at all if it has already done so under Section 112, effectively codifying in law a legal objection often raised by opponents of the Clean Air Act that will figure in coming litigation. EPA's 2011 mercury and air toxics rule is written under Section 112.
Rules for new and modified facilities must be based "on actual emissions levels achieved by at least six different electric generating units across the United States when operating for a continuous 12-month period." So, in effect, they couldn't go beyond the current state-of-the-art technology for newly built coal and natural gas generation.
The report acknowledges that the Capito measure "would not prohibit EPA from continuing to work on activities related to power plants, such as developing guidance and providing technical assistance to states." But David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it would dramatically change EPA's regulatory authority.
"It's basically saying that instead of being a plumber that comes to your home and fixes your pipes, [EPA is] now allowed to give you advice over the phone," he said.
The Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Capito bill in August, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has expressed his support. It tracks with his strategy of persuading state governors to "just say no" to implementing EPA's rule.
But while the House has passed roughly similar legislation, it remains unclear whether McConnell will make room for Capito's bill in a busy fall legislative schedule -- especially as it seems unlikely it would garner the 60 votes needed to pass.
Instead, McConnell and Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) are readying Congressional Review Act resolutions for after EPA publishes the new and existing power plant rules in the Federal Register. They could pass the Senate with a simple majority of the vote, and while they would not be expected to withstand a presidential veto, McConnell hopes they would show the world ahead of this year's climate talks in Paris that Congress is not united behind Obama's climate pledges.
Doniger criticized Republicans for seeking to undermine global confidence in the U.S. pledge.
"The Republicans spent more than a decade arguing that we shouldn't act alone because other countries are unreliable, now they're arguing that they shouldn't act because we're unreliable," he said.
-
Amtrak Threatens Partial Shutdown
Oct 9, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation Wire
By Keith Laing
Amtrak is warning Congress that it will have to shut down service on many of its long-distance train routes if lawmakers do not extend a federal deadline for automating trains.
Railroads currently have until Dec. 31 to install an automated train navigation system known as Positive Train Control (PTC), which regulates the speed and track movements of trains.
Amtrak stays it will be able to meet the deadline on most of the tracks it owns in the Northeast, but the company says it is reliant in other parts of the country on freight railroads that have already said they will shut down service in January 2016 to avoid fines for not meeting the deadline.
"Most of the 21,000-mile national network that Amtrak operates over is owned by other railroads that host our trains. The host is responsible for installation on their infrastructure," Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman wrote in a letter dated Oct. 5 to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who is chairman of the Senate committee that handles transportation issues.
"The host is responsible for installation on their infrastructure," Boardman continued. "Many freight railroads have stated that they may refuse to transport certain freight and may suspend passenger service on their track that is not PTC-compliant, if the current December 31, 2015 deadline is not extended."
The December deadline for automated trains was set under a law passed in the aftermath of a 2008 commuter rail crash in California.
Lawmakers have moved to extend the deadline for at the behest of freight companies, but the effort stalled after a deadly Philadelphia Amtrak crash in May that killed multiple passengers.
Boardman said in his letter that Amtrak will have little choice but to shut down service on routes that operate on freight rail tracks, even though the company supports moving to the automated PTC train navigation system.
"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 are not PTC complaint or where MTEAs have not be obtained," he said, noting that "this suspension will also impact Amtrak's state supported services that operate in partnership with states across the country" such as California, Connecticut, Illinois and Virginia.
"Amtrak expects to operate Northeast Corridor services where PTC has been installed and will operate our national network of services to the extended permitted by the law and FRA," Boardman wrote. "Should Congress fail to pass legislation to extend the PTC deadline beyond December 31, 2015, there will be significant impacts to our service and our customers and tenant railroads."
Boardman told lawmakers Amtrak "will need to begin to notifying passengers through our reservation system of disruptions that may occur as a result of the PTC deadline," beginning on Dec. 1.
"The potential economic impacts would also be substantial, since a vast majority of our network would be inoperable without an extension of the deadline," he wrote. "We will work with the multitude of partners that rely on Amtrak service, from state and local partners, to commuter rail operators, to the freight railroads, to ensure that passengers and partners are aware of any disruptions that may occur."
Supporters of extending the deadline have sounded the alarm about a potential shutdown of the nation's train services.
"I believe, absent Congressional action, we will begin to see the effects of the deadline four to six weeks prior to the December 31st deadline as railroads begin to cycle traffic off their lines," Thune who is chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said during a recent confirmation hearing for Acting Federal Railroad Administration chief Sarah Feinberg.
“This is a looming economic and safety disaster that is completely avoidable," Thune continued.
Passenger advocacy groups have pressured Congress and rail companies to figure out a way to keep trains on the tracks at the beginning of next year.
"You're 17 times more likely to be killed in a car crash than a train accident, so for Congress to allow the absence of PTC to force commuters onto highways is the ultimate case of letting the perfect get in the way of the good,” National Association of Railroad Passengers President Jim Mathews said in a statement.
Transportation department officials in the Obama administration have told lawmakers they have little choice but to enforce the law that Congress passed.
"We will enforce the law as of the deadline of Dec. 31, so on Jan. 1 we will enforce the deadline and the law," Feinberg said in her confirmation hearing.
-
Lawsuit Wants Plans Mandated for Dealing With Big Oil Spills
Oct 9, 2015 | AP (In the New York Times)
An environmental group sued the federal government Thursday, contending it gives pipeline owners and operators a free pass on developing legally required plans for dealing with oil spills into lakes, rivers and other inland waterways.
The National Wildlife Federation lawsuit accuses the U.S. Department of Transportation of failing for 20 years to issue regulations on crafting the spill strategies and of allowing companies to operate without them. The plans were ordered under the Oil Pollution Act, which was enacted in 1990 following the Exxon Valdez disaster, and were supposed to be finished by 1995.
"The Department of Transportation's failure to review or approve spill response plans is a huge oversight that has left communities and wildlife vulnerable to catastrophic spills," said Neil Kagan, senior counsel for the federation.
The department referred a request for comment to the U.S. Department of Justice, which said it would review the lawsuit but had no further comment.
The Department of Transportation last week proposed tightening safety rules for pipelines carrying crude oil and other hazardous liquids, including requiring operators to inspect lines in rural areas now exempt and to report problems with smaller, currently unregulated lines.
The wildlife federation, which filed suit in U.S. District Court in Detroit, said those steps don't address what happens after pipeline incidents occur. The Oil Pollution Act requires plans that make sure pipeline operators have enough resources available to remove as much oil as possible during a "worst case" spill and limit damage to public health and the environment, including fish, wildlife, shorelines and beaches.
But the department has yet to approve any such plans, the suit said. It asks the court to set a schedule for them to be submitted and reviewed, and to order the department to issue necessary regulations.
Pipelines carrying oil products or hazardous liquids cross inland waters at least 100 feet wide at 5,110 places nationwide, the suit said. It said the pipeline agency has identified 20 accidents at inland water crossings between 1991 and 2012. Two spills in recent years have sent more than 100,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River. In Michigan, a ruptured pipeline in 2010 released 840,000 gallons into the Kalamazoo River and a creek.
The wildlife federation and other environmental groups also have warned of risks from twin pipelines running beneath the Straits of Mackinac, the nearly 5-mile-wide waterway linking Lakes Huron and Michigan. Enbridge Energy Partners LP, which operates the 62-year-old lines, has said they are inspected regularly and pose no threat.
"The oil pipeline industry's track record of spills, accidents and disasters underscores the need for iron-clad protections," said Mike Shriberg, executive director of the federation's Great Lakes Regional Center.
-
Officials: Broken Rail Caused West Virginia Train Derailment
Oct 9, 2015 | AP (In the Washington Post)
By John Raby
A fiery oil train derailment in southern West Virginia last February resulted from a broken rail that started with a crack that should have been detected but was missed in two inspections, federal investigators said Friday.
A CSX train was carrying 3 million gallons of Bakken crude when it derailed Feb. 16 during a snowstorm in Mount Carbon. Twenty-seven of the train’s 109 cars derailed. Twenty cars leaked crude oil.
The Federal Railroad Administration said the broken rail resulted from a crack that had expanded. The problem was missed by CSX Corp. and a contractor on inspections in December 2014 and last January, said Sarah Feinberg, the FRA’s acting chief.
“This accident, like many rail accidents, was preventable,” Feinberg said at a news conference.
Rail contractors drive along the tracks in trucks equipped with technology to take EKG- or sonar-type readings, searching for potential flaws and defects as they move along. Feinberg said the contractor’s equipment picked up a potential problem during the inspections, but the operator indicated in subsequent interviews that the problem appeared to be due to surface conditions, not a flaw in the rail.
If the operator had left the vehicle to inspect the location more closely or used a hand-held device, “FRA investigators believe the rail defect could have been discovered prior to the derailment,” Feinberg said.
The rail was near the location of another broken rail discovered earlier by an FRA inspector that was repaired in May 2014.
FRA chief safety officer Bob Lauby said the sheer weight of trains likely played a role in expanding the crack in the rail. He believed weather wasn’t a factor.
CSX and the contractor have been fined $25,000 apiece for failing to verify a potential rail defect, the FRA said.
“Our country relies on the safe transportation of large quantities of energy products across the nation, and it is our responsibility to require operators to implement strict safety standards,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a news release. “FRA’s findings and action today should make it clear to rail operators that we will do exactly that.”
The derailment shot fireballs into the sky, burned down a nearby house and caused fires on the ground that smoldered for days.
The owner of the destroyed home was treated for inhalation injuries. No one else in the area was hurt.
The FRA said it will issue an advisory urging more detailed inspections where defects and flaws are suspected. It also will seek advanced training for rail inspection vehicle operators.
“There is a huge amount of track in this country,” Feinberg said. “Where we see a need for action in order to increase safety, we will not hesitate to take it. It is increasingly clear that as limits are pushed on rail wear, there is cause for concern and need for action.”
The administration also will look into the need for rail wear standards and possibly requiring railroads to slow trains or replace rails where certain conditions pose safety risks.
Speed had previously been ruled out as a factor. The FRA has said the train was going 33 mph at the time of the crash. The speed limit was 50 mph.
The derailment occurred about a mile outside the small college town of Montgomery while school was in session.
Oil from the tank cars left a sludge deposit in the Kanawha River and an adjoining creek, and a sheen along the shorelines, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Two water treatment plants downstream closed their intakes temporarily after the derailment and customers were asked to conserve water.
Under a March consent order with the EPA, the railroad agreed to a long-term plan for cleaning up and restoring the area around the derailment. CSX has said more than 181,000 gallons of crude oil was recovered after the accident and thousands of tons of soil has been removed and shipped for disposal.
The train was bound for Yorktown, Virginia. In recent years, trains hauling crude from the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana have been involved in fiery derailments in six states.
A lawsuit was filed in September against CSX on behalf of more than 200 residents of Fayette County.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested