Preview Newsletter
NI - ACC PM 10/14/2015
-
Wanted: House Speaker Willing to Compromise, Poll Says
Oct 14, 2015 | Roll Call
By Kate Ackley
Even though conservative rebels within the GOP conference want a staunch conservative to replace Speaker John A. Boehner, most Americans say they’d prefer a new House leader who is willing to compromise, a new Economist/YouGov poll found. -
With Ryan on the Fence, Uncertainty Looms for Caucus, Agenda
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E- Greenwire
By Geof Koss and Daniel Bush
House Republicans from across the GOP caucus continue to toy with the idea of throwing their hats in the ring to become the next speaker, but nearly all the would-be candidates are signaling they will forgo the race if Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) decides he wants the job. -
EPA Rolls out New Standards for Aluminum Producers
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Aluminum production facilities will be subject to new standards for several air pollutants, as well as face new work practice and monitoring requirements under a new rule that will be published tomorrow. -
Natural Gas Overreliance Could Cost Customers, Advocacy Group Warns
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
States shifting from coal-fired power and relying too much on natural gas to meet regulatory goals may expose consumers to price fluctuations, the Union of Concerned Scientists argues in a report released yesterday. -
Industry Lobbyist Mum on Possible Exports-for-Renewables Deal
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The head of the American Petroleum Institute today repeatedly declined to offer an opinion as to whether the group would support a legislative compromise to lift the crude oil export ban in exchange for extending... -
Toxic Secrets: New Report Shows Fracking Gag Rules Threaten Public Health
Oct 14, 2015 | National Resources Defense Council
By Miriam Rotkin-Ellman
Nobody wants to be kept in the dark about their health, or the health of their loved ones. And when it comes to keeping people healthy and safe from toxic chemicals, lack of information... -
Utilities Back Clean Power Plan as Market Pushes Them Away from Coal
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Rebecca Smith
Most electric utilities are staying out of the fight launched by coal companies and at least 16 state governments to battle the Obama administration's rule cutting carbon emissions from power plants. -
EPA Recommends Further Restrictions on Okla. Disposal Wells
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA wants Oklahoma oil and gas regulators to do more to head off man-made earthquakes, including further limits on the amount of wastewater that oil companies can inject underground. -
States Seek 11th Circuit Ruling On CWA Rule Suit Authority To Protect Stay
Oct 14, 2015 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
A coalition of 11 states is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to rule on which courts have power to hear suits over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule... -
DOJ Seeks to Halt WOTUS Case Until Jurisdiction is Determined
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
The Obama administration moved yesterday to put a key lawsuit challenging its controversial water rule on hold until a separate federal appeals court says whether it will review the regulations... -
Climate Change Emerges as a Central Campaign Theme for Democrats
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
The Democratic hopefuls for president vowed to embrace forceful measures to combat climate change in their curtain-raising debate last night without explaining how they would enlist... -
Candidates Frame Argument for Climate Action in Security Terms
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Democratic presidential primary contenders reiterated their near-unanimous support for taking action to combat climate change in the party's first debate last night... -
DOE Faces Tangled Task on Energy Efficiency
Oct 14, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
President Barack Obama is counting on energy efficiency to deliver about half of the carbon cuts he has pledged as part of the U.S. climate change goal... -
Justices Question Regulators' Reach in Fight over Energy Rule
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Supreme Court justices today probed whether federal regulators overstepped legal limits with a rule incentivizing energy conservation. -
States Seek to Validate Efficiency Projects for Carbon Rule Compliance
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
Tennessee officials are leading a multistate effort to streamline the evaluation of energy efficiency investments, which could help these projects qualify for compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, officials said. -
Calif. Carbon Offsets Face Slowdown in Market Development
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California's market for carbon offsets is limping along as a result of uncertain policies, project developers and customers said last week. -
Environmentalists Cite CSAPR Ruling In Push For Retroactive PM2.5 Limits
Oct 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are seeking to bolster their suit trying to force retroactive application of stricter fine particulate matter (PM2.5) control requirements by citing an appellate court's ruling... -
14 Carbon-Intensive Companies Call for 'Balanced' Paris Deal
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Fourteen companies from carbon-intensive industries issued a statement today calling for this year's U.N. climate talks to produce a "more balanced and durable multilateral framework" to guide national efforts to contain warming. -
California Leads the Way on Climate Change
Oct 14, 2015 | New York Times
By Robert B. Semple, Jr.
On the whole, state governments, especially those with Republican-dominated legislatures, have been remarkably passive and uninventive in recent years on the matter of climate change. -
Industry Says EPA Might Expand Types Of Railroad Ties Considered 'Fuel'
Oct 14, 2015 | InsideEPA
The treated wood industry says EPA has signaled it plans to slightly expand the types of railroad ties deemed non-waste fuel when it finalizes a pending rule currently under White House review... -
CSX Expects Rail Volume Slump to Persist
Oct 14, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Laura Stevens
Rail volumes are expected to continue to fall through the end of the year, CSX Corp. executives said Wednesday.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Wanted: House Speaker Willing to Compromise, Poll Says
Oct 14, 2015 | Roll Call
By Kate Ackley
Even though conservative rebels within the GOP conference want a staunch conservative to replace Speaker John A. Boehner, most Americans say they’d prefer a new House leader who is willing to compromise, a new Economist/YouGov poll found.
That majority view differs from the opinions of some in the tea party movement who are driving Boehner out of office.
Fully 63 percent of respondents said they want a new speaker who compromises to get things done — putting them at odds with the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus and conservative grassroots organizations that are calling for one of their own atop the House leadership.
That gulf between the hard-line conservatives and the party’s establishment has pushed the House GOP leadership’s future into chaos.
Ohio’s Boehner announced Sept. 25 he planned to resign at the end of this month, and his presumed successor, Kevin McCarthy of California, abruptly dropped out of the race last week just as his colleagues were poised to nominate him for the gavel. Many conservatives said they viewed McCarthy as a younger version of Boehner, whom tea party activists contend gave in too much to President Barack Obama on spending and budget issues.
Boehner has said he will remain on the job until his successor is picked.
Among those polled who are at least somewhat supportive of the tea party movement, 54 percent said they want the next speaker to stick to his or her principles, no matter what.
But most Americans — 60 percent of all respondents — said they wanted the next speaker to put more emphasis on working with Democrats and Obama to accomplish more. Meanwhile, 31 percent of adults said they would like Boehner’s successor to be less conservative.
Those findings are a contrast to what the tea party craves in a leader: 59 percent of adults who are at least somewhat supportive of the movement say they want a more conservative candidate to helm the chamber. Nearly 5 in 10, or 47 percent, of respondents who are at least somewhat supportive of the tea party say they want the next speaker to oppose Democrats and the president even if that means Congress accomplishes less.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who heads the House Freedom Caucus, reiterated his group’s endorsement of Florida Rep. Daniel Webster for speaker during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." But Jordan also indicated the roughly 40 caucus members may be open to Ways and Means Chairman Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.
“He's a great communicator, the kind of messenger I think our party needs,” Jordan said of Ryan, who is being urged by many colleagues to seek the job. “And certainly, if he gets in the race, I think our group would look favorably on him.”
Ryan has said repeatedly he is not interested in running.
Jordan, though, said the speaker's race was less about personalities and more about “reforming” the institution. “It’s about what’s going to change the business as usual attitude around there,” he said.
The Economist/YouGov poll also found that nearly half of Americans do not think much of Boehner’s job as speaker: 48 percent said they somewhat or strongly disapprove of his handling the job.
-
With Ryan on the Fence, Uncertainty Looms for Caucus, Agenda
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E- Greenwire
By Geof Koss and Daniel Bush
House Republicans from across the GOP caucus continue to toy with the idea of throwing their hats in the ring to become the next speaker, but nearly all the would-be candidates are signaling they will forgo the race if Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) decides he wants the job.
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), the chairman of the sizable Republican Study Committee, is the latest prominent GOP lawmaker to flirt with a run for speaker but "will step aside and support" Ryan should the Ways and Means Committee chairman decide to run, spokesman Andre Castro said in an email yesterday.
While Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) are the only Republicans who have declared they are actively running to replace Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Flores joins a growing number of colleagues who have signaled interest in jumping in.
Also sitting on deck as Ryan weighs the chorus of calls for him to lead the caucus are Republican Reps. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Darrell Issa of California and the retiring John Kline of Minnesota, to name a few (Greenwire, Oct. 9). Kline would serve on an interim basis until the end of this Congress.
The power vacuum is even drawing interest from members on the lowest rungs of the seniority ladder.
First-term Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) yesterday announced on Facebook that he's "looking at" running for speaker if Ryan takes a pass. "In our country's history, there have been other freshmen speakers -- though it has been a long time," Zinke conceded.
While Ryan continues to demur over the speaker job, for now he appears to be the only potential candidate capable of uniting the various factions within the GOP caucus.
Yet Ryan also faces grumbling by conservatives in some corners, who have publicly questioned whether the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee is conservative enoughto be speaker.
But those complaints focus on Ryan's stances on immigration and his willingness to cut deals with Democrats, rather than his views on energy and environmental policy, which remain largely in lockstep with the anti-regulatory, free-market mindset of the House GOP caucus.
"The president has installed a heavy-handed compliance culture dependent on regulations, favorable tax treatment, and spending on administration-favored constituencies," states the fiscal 2015 budget resolution -- the last spending blueprint the Wisconsin Republican authored as House Budget Committee chairman.
The Ryan budget, which the House passed in April 2014 by a 219-205 margin, took aim at federal climate change funding, urged the consolidation of overlapping programs at EPA and other agencies, supported on- and offshore drilling on public lands, and would have steered funds from the selling of public lands toward deficit reduction. It also cut funds for "non-core energy research" at the Energy Department, while also rescinding unspent stimulus funds for the department's loan guarantee program.
As current House Ways and Means chairman, Ryan has ignored calls to extend the renewable production tax credit and other expired clean energy incentives strongly opposed by conservatives.
As Ryan weighs a speaker's bid now, he remains an influential voice on budget issues even after giving up the Budget Committee gavel to head the Ways and Means Committee at the start of this year.
The lower chamber's fiscal 2016 budget resolution, which passed on a largely party-line vote of 226-197 in April, called for spending cuts to environmental and clean energy programs. The entire Democratic House caucus and 14 GOP members voted against the proposal.
The blueprint was developed by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who replaced Ryan as chairman of the Budget Committee and threw his hat in the ring to become the No. 2 House Republican last month before Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced that he would remain in the post rather than run for speaker (Greenwire, Oct. 8).
Price's budget plan would withhold funding to implement U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, ozone standards that were finalized after the House approved its budget plan and a proposed stream buffer rule aimed at protecting waterways from pollution from coal mining.
The plan also called for cuts to federal climate change programs and DOE loans for biofuels and other clean energy research championed by the Obama administration.
Nonetheless, criticism of Ryan from the right holds implications for the fall agenda, given that, as Ways and Means chairman, he'll play a key role in negotiations over budget caps and tax policies, including the extenders package that includes many clean energy incentives.
While some conservatives see Ryan as too squishy on immigration, Redstate.com editor Erick Erickson last week also called him out for the 2013 budget deal he negotiated with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who was chairwoman of the Senate Budget panel at the time.
That agreement provided two years of relief from stringent budget caps and is often pointed to as a model for a similar deal that Democrats hope will replace the current continuing resolution after it expires on Dec. 11.
But it also provided a vehicle for moving a few energy-specific items, a scenario with parallels to the current political environment, where GOP backers are looking at all legislative options for easing crude oil export restrictions.
In addition to temporarily boosting the budgets for federal agencies, the Murray-Ryan budget deal also repealed an ultra-deepwater oil and gas research program created in 2005 and funded at $50 million annually, carried implementing legislation for a 2012 U.S.-Mexico agreement on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and barred DOE from accepting "royalty-in-kind" payments for filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
While a repeal of the crude export ban is a politically more difficult change to move through Congress, Republican backers of exports and key industry officials have made clear they're looking to must-pass legislation before the end of the year to ease the ban.
American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard reiterated that possibility on a conference call with reporters today, although he repeatedly deflected questions over whether the industry would be willing to accept a deal that would end the exports ban while extending renewable tax credits.
"That's a speculative question because I'm not sure that deal's ever going to be presented," Gerard said (see related story).
-
EPA Rolls out New Standards for Aluminum Producers
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Aluminum production facilities will be subject to new standards for several air pollutants, as well as face new work practice and monitoring requirements under a new rule that will be published tomorrow.
The rule represents an update to 1997 standards for primary aluminum production facilities. Those facilities make aluminum out of refined bauxite ore using a "potline" process in which electrolytic reduction takes place in a series of cells, or pots.
U.S. EPA finalized the new standards last month after a risk and technology review. The rule will be published tomorrow in the Federal Register.
"Once the final standards are in place," EPA said in a fact sheet, "the public health and environment will be protected with an ample margin of safety."
According to EPA, there are 11 facilities in nine states that produce aluminum from refined bauxite ore.
The new rule sets technology-based standards for particulate matter as a surrogate for hazardous metals. It also sets standards for polycyclic organic matter, carbonyl sulfide, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyl, dioxin and furan emissions.
For older facilities, the rule establishes new risk-based standards for polycyclic organic matter, arsenic and nickel emissions. The emissions limitations included in the rule begin to take effect in one year.
Facilities also will be subject to new work practice standards during startup, shutdown and malfunction events at facilities, as well as new monitoring requirements.
EPA earlier this year updated its air toxic standards for secondary aluminum production, or the production of aluminum out of scrap materials.
-
Natural Gas Overreliance Could Cost Customers, Advocacy Group Warns
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
States shifting from coal-fired power and relying too much on natural gas to meet regulatory goals may expose consumers to price fluctuations, the Union of Concerned Scientists argues in a report released yesterday.
John Rogers, report co-author and senior energy analyst for UCS, said states should especially pay attention to how much they depend on natural gas plants to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan to cut electric-sector greenhouse gas emissions.
"In some cases, it's going to be the easiest thing to do, to switch over an existing coal plant to natural gas," Rogers said. "Certainly, the low prices we're seeing now are going to be attractive to some states."
Rogers warned that although natural gas prices are low now, they have historically been volatile. More than half of states are getting more than half of their new power generation from natural gas, and he argues that represents an overreliance that is risky for consumers.
UCS says natural gas overreliance will also force customers to pay for infrastructure investments that utilities might abandon as renewables become more price competitive.
Six states -- Florida, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- are at the highest risk of overreliance, according to UCS.
Amy Farrell, vice president of market development for America's Natural Gas Alliance, said in a statement that the UCS paper "has very little connection to electricity market and supply realities" and "employs old thinking about natural gas supplies, price stability and reliability."
"In reality, natural gas provides dependable, affordable baseload power necessary to support renewable generation when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine," she said.
Dan Whitten, a spokesman for ANGA, added that "the abundance of American natural gas has changed the long-term price and supply paradigm in this country."
Rogers noted natural gas should have a role in providing support to renewables, but he said states should consider limiting that role so natural gas is a "complement, not a competitor."
EPA in its final rule answered calls from environmental advocates to incentivize renewable power ahead of natural gas. For one, EPA provided more lead time for states to comply -- which should give them flexibility to pursue zero-carbon energy that might take longer to build.
EPA predicts renewable energy -- primarily wind and solar power -- will supply 28 percent of total generation capacity in 2030. The draft rule projected 22 percent as the estimated renewable power capacity share. But that growth in renewable power is dependent on economic and political headwinds, EnergyWire has reported (EnergyWire, Aug. 7).
-
Industry Lobbyist Mum on Possible Exports-for-Renewables Deal
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The head of the American Petroleum Institute today repeatedly declined to offer an opinion as to whether the group would support a legislative compromise to lift the crude oil export ban in exchange for extending key renewable energy tax incentives.
API President and CEO Jack Gerard told reporters he was "heartened" by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's August comments that the Nevada Democrat was open to talks of lifting the ban if more tax credits for renewables are on the table (Greenwire, Aug. 25).
Reid's comments echoed a sentiment expressed by other Senate Democrats, who have argued that a boost for the oil sector should include help for renewables.
"You've heard about a half dozen more who've said, 'Hey, I'm open to this, but I'd like to look at this issue.' Or 'I'd like to look at this issue,'" Gerard said on a conference call. "Very few other issues have as much momentum as this one does."
But after citing Reid's comments, Gerard deflected repeated questions over whether the industry could get behind an agreement built on the top Senate Democrat's suggestion of linking crude oil exports to renewable energy tax breaks.
"I think there's a variety of options out there," Gerard said. "We could probably identify 20 to 30 paths to success here. I do think it is significant that you're hearing more and more say we could work something out here. People see that momentum."
Pressed further, Gerard sought to pass the buck to congressional leaders, while arguing that a change in exports policy should be based on the merits.
"I think we're in the early stages of what will somebody do, what will somebody offer? We're not really focused on that right now," he said. "We'll leave that to the leadership. Our focus is this is good for the American people, it's good for the American economy, it's good for American consumers. We're for it, and we're going to continue to advocate for it."
Gerard's hesitation on the question highlights the intense political pressure that an exports-for-renewables deal entails, given that Democrats would likely target the billions in dollars in tax breaks the oil and gas industry enjoys as a way to pay for extending the production tax credit, the investment tax credit or both.
Asked again about a possible deal, Gerard reiterated comments he made Friday after the House easily passed legislation lifting the ban, when he criticized suggestions that Congress impose new taxes on the industry in exchange for greenlighting exports (Greenwire, Oct. 12).
"Let me tell you what we strongly oppose," he said. "There have been some who have suggested we need to go back and put a tax on the domestic oil and gas industry. That's one of the sillier proposals I've heard. Why would you go and raise the cost to the American consumer, to the American producer, to make them noncompetitive in exchange for the ability to be competitive by going into the global marketplace?"
After declining to provide the "yes or no" answer one reporter demanded to a "straightforward" question about a deal, Gerard indicated the industry's preference for a simple legislative repeal.
"The cleanest, clearest path to success is just a straight up-and-down bill that says lift the ban on crude oil exports in the United States," he said.
But Gerard paused when pressed on whether there's enough Democratic votes to move such a bill through the Senate.
"Again the process will determine that, but I think there's strong Democratic support for lifting the ban on crude oil exports," he said.
Nonetheless, Gerard predicted that a repeal will happen before the end of the year, citing a number of must-pass bills as potential vehicles.
"It's our expectation that the crude export ban will be lifted this year," he said.
-
Toxic Secrets: New Report Shows Fracking Gag Rules Threaten Public Health
Oct 14, 2015 | National Resources Defense Council
By Miriam Rotkin-Ellman
Nobody wants to be kept in the dark about their health, or the health of their loved ones. And when it comes to keeping people healthy and safe from toxic chemicals, lack of information can cause a lot of damage, and even be deadly. Stories like the 2008 reportof a critically ill nurse - whose doctors were unable to get information on the chemicals to which she was exposed when she treated a worker covered in fracking fluids - show the danger of secrets related to fracking.
A new report out today, however, shows that politicians and the oil and gas industry arecontinuing to meddle and interfere with good patient care. Politics in the Exam Room: A Growing Threat is a collaborative effort from a variety of diverse nonprofit organizations, focused on a wide array issues--including environmental policy, gun control and reproductive rights. Each organization weighed in on our separate areas of focus and the ways in which politicians are interfering with the professional and ethical standards of healthcare. Within it, NRDC's chapter--"Toxic Exposures"--looks at laws which protect corporate secrets at the expense of patients potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals used in fracking.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a chemical-intensive process that has fueled a massive expansion of oil and gas extraction across the United States in recent years - bringing heavy industrial activity increasingly closer to homes, schools and communities. In fact, more than 15 million Americans--nearly 1 in 20 people here--now live within a mile of at least one well.
A large number of the chemicals used in fracking present significant environmental andhuman health threats--from respiratory hazards and harm to the reproductive system, to known or probable carcinogens. People can be exposed to these chemicals at the well site, in drinking water, and in the air - originating from accidents, blowouts, explosions, above or below-ground leaks and spills, leaking and faulty wastewater disposal, and equipment leaks and releases. The transportation and storage of fracking chemicals, and the resulting contaminated wastewater, also present risks for communities and workers far from the well site. Yet, these chemicals are largely kept secret from the public and even in those states which do require disclosure; the information is incomplete, unreliable and subject to restrictions.
Whether it's a toxic spill into a river or treating someone sprayed with chemicals, medical professionals need to know what the chemicals are and how they can be toxic to people. And they need that information quickly. However, the laws in multiple states have prioritized secrets - to protect companies - over good medicine. These laws places extra hurdles and burdens on medical professionals, making it hard to get the information and then placing restrictions on who they can share the information with - including prohibiting doctors from telling their own patients.
These laws are bad for public health for a number of reasons:Sharing and communicating about the cause of an illness is an essential part of the relationship between patients and medical providers - and in some cases family members.Oftentimes, healthcare providers may need assistance from specialists to help them properly diagnose and treat health problems from chemical exposures - sharing the names of the chemicals is critical to making sure the patient gets the proper treatment.Healthcare providers may need to warn others who could also have been exposed and/or notify the proper authorities.Vague and confusing language in many of these laws coupled with the threat of lawsuits and potential for criminal liability for non-compliance can discourage medical professionals from treating people with potential exposures. In rural areas, with few healthcare providers, this can result in huge barriers for people who need medical care.
These barriers unnecessarily disrupt care and threaten the quality of the medical and public health services in communities living with the threats of fracking pollution. Corporate secrets should not trump people's health, and trade secret protections for chemicals used in fracking should be eliminated.
Playing politics with medical treatment has serious consequences. With fracking impacting more and more Americans, we need our decision-makers to start prioritizing people's health over the interests of a dangerous industry.
-
Utilities Back Clean Power Plan as Market Pushes Them Away from Coal
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Rebecca Smith
Most electric utilities are staying out of the fight launched by coal companies and at least 16 state governments to battle the Obama administration's rule cutting carbon emissions from power plants.
Electricity producers from Dominion Resources Inc. in Virginia to Dynegy Inc. in Houston are planning to comply with the regulation. They say economic forces are nudging them away from coal and toward cheap natural gas and renewable energy regardless of federal regulations.
"Everybody is moving in this direction anyway," said Dominion CEO Tom Farrell.
Todd Carter, the president of Panda Power Funds, a private-equity investor and generating-plant developer based in Dallas, said that "price is a larger force in electricity markets today than what Washington is doing with regulations."
With the shale boom, natural gas has become cheaper than coal, sending coal consumption by utilities in the direction of a 25-year low, according to recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
"Our coal assets are still running, but they're not making any money," said Bob Flexon, CEO of Dynegy. "All the earnings are coming from our gas portfolio."
Switching from an old coal plant to a modern natural-gas-powered one can cut carbon dioxide emissions between 50 to 60 percent for every megawatt-hour of electricity produced, according to U.S. EPA. The EPA regulation aims to prevent utilities from relying solely on one fuel, like gas, by encouraging the development of renewable energy projects.
Not all utilities have agreed to go along with the EPA's plan to cut CO2 emissions from the power industry. Ohio-based American Electric Power Company Inc., for example, is urging the states in which it operates to start drafting carbon-cutting plans for compliance with the federal regulations. But it also participates in the Utility Air Regulatory Group, which has challenged the regulations in the past and may do so again (Rebecca Smith, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 11).
-
EPA Recommends Further Restrictions on Okla. Disposal Wells
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA wants Oklahoma oil and gas regulators to do more to head off man-made earthquakes, including further limits on the amount of wastewater that oil companies can inject underground.
EPA finished a review late last month of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) wastewater program and wrote that it "recommends that OCC implement additional regulatory actions ... including further reduction of injection volumes."
Such restrictions have not been easy for OCC to accomplish. Oklahoma issued its first volume restrictions in August, months after Kansas had implemented such cuts. Commission officials have questioned whether they have authority EnergyWire, Oct. 9). More recently, a Tulsa company has challenged the restrictions (EnergyWire, Oct. 13).
OCC spokesman Matt Skinner said the review shows that EPA is supportive of the state agency's approach and actions.
"We look at that as an endorsement of what we've done so far, and encouragement to continue," Skinner said.
Bob Jackman, a Tulsa geologist who started a petition to get EPA to take over the state program, said he doesn't think EPA will do any more to prod the state on volume cuts.
"They are very, very cautious," Jackman said. "They are not going to get involved."
The EPA review makes no mention of any prospect of federal takeover of the program.
The drilling wastewater disposal wells that have been linked to hundreds of earthquakes in Oklahoma are regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. In Oklahoma, like most oil and gas states, EPA years ago gave the state authority to enforce the SDWA. But EPA still regularly reviews the program.
The SDWA does not make it illegal to cause earthquakes. But quakes are considered a potential threat to aquifers, and the law does seek to prevent pollution of drinking water.
Scientists say the unprecedented swarms of man-made earthquakes are likely the result of favorably aligned faults and production methods that create uniquely large volumes of wastewater. There were 585 earthquakes last year of magnitude 3 or greater. This year, there have been more than 700.
"The single biggest issue facing the OCC in 2014 was the dramatic increase in seismic activity in some areas of the state," stated the review, sent under the signature of William Honker, director of the Water Quality Protection Division for EPA's Dallas-based Region 6.
The document noted that EPA assigned a geologist from Region 6 to help the commission with the earthquake issue.
The EPA review, dated Sept. 29, also included a laundry list of problems with the state's system for tracking disposal by oil and gas companies, called risk-based data management system (RBDMS). The review said the system is difficult to search and often inaccurate.
Problems with the system, it said, made it difficult for both the public and even the agency's staff to get information needed to understand the state's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.
"RBDMS is difficult for OCC UIC staff use due to major data accessibility problems and unreliability," the review said.
-
States Seek 11th Circuit Ruling On CWA Rule Suit Authority To Protect Stay
Oct 14, 2015 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
A coalition of 11 states is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to rule on which courts have power to hear suits over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, saying a ruling is vital to preserve their ability to seek a federal district court stay of the rule in their states if the 6th Circuit ends its nationwide stay of the rule.
The 11th Circuit is currently weighing an appeal of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Judge Lisa Wood's Aug. 27 decision that refused to stay the regulation and said litigation over the rule belongs in the appellate courts. The coalition of states appealed the ruling in State of Georgia, et al., v. EPA, seeking a determination from the 11th Circuit that it lacks authority to hear suits over the rule and sending it back to the district court.
A host of district court cases are pending after the panel of judges that weighs multi-district litigation issued a decision Oct. 13 rejecting EPA's request to consolidate those lower court lawsuits.
Separately, the 6th Circuit has issued a nationwide stay of the CWA rule until it decides whether it has jurisdiction to hear consolidated suits over the regulation filed in appeals courts. The coalition of 11 states fear that if the court says the district courts are the proper venue then it will terminate the currently enacted stay.
If the 6th Circuit issues such a decision prior to the 11th Circuit ruling, the states warn in an Oct. 13 letter to the 11th Circuit that it could mean the CWA rule going back into effect without them being able to seek a stay from Wood in the district court. This is because the 11th Circuit oversees Georgia, so only it or the Supreme Court can order Wood to resume proceedings there.
Under such a scenario the 11 states might have to once again comply with EPA's rule even though states involved in separate district court litigation would be under a previously issued stay. U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota Chief District Judge Ralph Erickson in August granted an injunction against the rule's implementation that applies in 13 states that are pursuing their own lawsuit over the CWA rule in his court.
The coalition of 11 states in State of Georgia believe that the only way to preserve their ability to quickly seek a district court stay in the future is for the 11th Circuit to rule ahead of the 6th Circuit.
“[I]f the Sixth Circuit ultimately concludes it lacks jurisdiction over this case -- as the States believe it will -- equity strongly favors placing the Southern District of Georgia in a position to issue immediate injunctive relief to continue the Sixth Circuit’s stay. Any other course could force the States in this litigation back into the perverse situation where the [CWA] Rule applies to them, but not to the States in the North Dakota litigation,” says the states' letter to the 11th Circuit's clerk of the court from the coalition of 11 states: Georgia, Florida, West Virginia, Alabama, Indiana, North Carolina, Kansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Utah and Wisconsin.
“Any threat of the re-application of the Rule, for any period of time, is particularly problematic because the Rule is illegal and harmful to the States and the public,” the 11 states say.
They note that the only two courts to have considered the merits of the rule -- the North Dakota court and the 6th Circuit -- have said in their orders granting stays that the rule appears to violate the CWA and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which are the leading legal attacks critics are making on the policy.
Legal Confusion
Despite the two stays, Wood and other district judges have ruled against granting stays and questioned their authority to hear the suits, underscoring confusion over how challenges to the CWA rule will proceed. Section 509 of the CWA says that only challenges to specific types of rules must be initiated at the appellate level, while others should be brought to district court, but it is unclear which category a rule governing the reach of the act falls under.
Critics have filed over a dozen suits in district courts, as well as petitions for review in appellate courts, which were consolidated before the 6th Circuit as Murray Energy Cooperation, et al., v. EPA, et al.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly crafted the rule, but industry and state critics say it is unlawful and extends the agencies' reach far beyond what Congress intended when it crafted the water law. The rule went into effect Aug. 28 in all states except those covered by the North Dakota judge's stay. EPA said it would continue to use George W. Bush EPA guidance on CWA jurisdiction in those 13 states, but implement the new rule elsewhere. However, the 6th Circuit decision prevents the agency from implementing the new rule in any state.
But the states in their Oct. 13 letter worry that if the 6th Circuit eventually decides it lacks authority to hear the consolidated suits, its nationwide stay will evaporate. The only way to avoid the rule going back into effect in that case is if the 11th Circuit lets their suit resume at the district level before a 6th Circuit decision, the brief says.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing on behalf of EPA and the Corps is urging the 11th Circuit to wait for a decision on venue in Murray Energy before reaching its own conclusion on the subject.
“If this Court waits for the Sixth Circuit -- where all petitions for review have already been consolidated -- to issue its ruling on jurisdiction, then this Court will be able to consider the result in its analysis, potentially avoiding conflicting decisions and confusion about where judicial review of the Rule should occur,” DOJ said inan Oct. 9 letter to the court.
But the states counter in their Oct. 13 letter that the 11th Circuit will not be bound by the 6th Circuit's ruling and thus has no reason to wait.
“As the States have pointed out, the Agencies’ argument for delay is meritless because both this Court and the Sixth Circuit will need to apply their own judgment in deciding the jurisdictional issue,” the states say.
The states add that an 11th Circuit ruling on the CWA section 509 issue also give the 11th Circuit the chance to clarify its 2012 decision in Friends of the Everglades v. EPA, which said the water law gave district courts, rather than appellate courts, jurisdiction over a rule exempting many water transfers from discharge permits. Proper application of that precedent “has divided the district courts,” the states say.
Pending Litigation
If the 11th Circuit returns the case to the district court, Wood would then face renewed calls from the 11 states to issue an injunction against the rule -- something she previously refused to do in her Aug. 27 order.
Wood said that the district court does not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction because challenges to the rule should be heard in the appellate courts. “Upon due consideration, the Court concludes that original subject matter jurisdiction over this case is proper in the Courts of Appeal, given that the Rule, as drafted, constitutes a limitation promulgated under [section 509] of the Clean Water Act, and the Court does not have jurisdiction in this case.”
Regardless of whether district courts or appellate courts decide they have jurisdiction over the rule, observers generally expect that the Supreme Court will eventually be asked to resolve the legal fights.
But the outcome of such a case is uncertain given the the Obama administration's rule is designed to end confusion about the water law's reach stemming from a 2006 high court decision that created competing tests for jurisdiction.
-
DOJ Seeks to Halt WOTUS Case Until Jurisdiction is Determined
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
The Obama administration moved yesterday to put a key lawsuit challenging its controversial water rule on hold until a separate federal appeals court says whether it will review the regulations and is making similar moves in other district courts today.
In court documents filed late yesterday, the Department of Justice asked the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota to halt its proceedings until the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether it has jurisdiction to review several lawsuits that have been centralized there.
Under the Clean Water Act, certain types of challenges can go directly to federal appeals court, bypassing district courts. The question is whether the issues raised in challenges to U.S. EPA and the Army's Waters of the U.S. rule meet the requirements for doing so.
Dozens of challenges have already been lodged in both types of courts, and judges have come to differing conclusions about who has jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the scenario was significantly complicated yesterday when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled against consolidating the district court cases (Greenwire, Oct. 13).
Now, the Justice Department is worried that those district court cases will begin moving forward before the 6th Circuit makes the key decision about whether jurisdiction belongs with it or with district courts. That decision isn't necessarily binding on district courts outside the 6th Circuit, but it would likely be influential.
The motion filed yesterday pertains to a challenge from 13 states filed in North Dakota. That case, led by North Dakota, is the furthest along of the more than a dozen challenges that are pending in district courts and is the case where plaintiffs first won a preliminary injunction.
In its motion, DOJ argued that staying proceedings until the 6th Circuit rules on jurisdiction would prevent parties from wasting time and energy if the case ultimately ends up in appellate court. Moreover, DOJ argued that the preliminary injunction means that the plaintiffs are already protected from harm.
But the 13 states challenging the rule in that case are pressing to move forward quickly. In a filing yesterday, they opposed the government's motion and reiterated their request for a schedule in the case, arguing that the North Dakota court had already decided "conclusively, and properly," that it holds jurisdiction over the issue.
DOJ also filed stay motions in multiple other cases today.
All briefs are due to the 6th Circuit by Nov. 4, and lawyers expect that a decision on jurisdiction could come quickly thereafter.
-
Climate Change Emerges as a Central Campaign Theme for Democrats
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
The Democratic hopefuls for president vowed to embrace forceful measures to combat climate change in their curtain-raising debate last night without explaining how they would enlist the help of Republican lawmakers needed to enact their ambitious plans.
Four of the five candidates raised the climate issue in their opening statements, marking a clear contrast to the 2012 presidential election, when President Obama largely avoided the topic. One analyst described the debate as a symbol of growing Democratic confidence that climate change can win primary votes while also exposing Republicans to vulnerabilities in the general election.
Former Md. governor Martin O'Malley. Photo courtesy of Flickr.
The most persistent calls for action perhaps came from Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont.
"We must square our shoulders against the great threat of climate change," O'Malley said as the debate opened in Las Vegas. "As president I intend to sign as my very first order in office an order that moves us as a nation and dedicates our resources to solving this problem and moving us to a 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050."
Sanders cast an eye back to legislation he introduced in 2013 to create a carbon tax. He also said rising temperatures are a top national security threat facing the nation, suggesting that the planet "may well not be habitable" if strong action isn't achieved.
"Climate change is real, it's caused by human activity and we have a moral responsibility to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and leave this planet a habitable planet for our children and grandchildren," Sanders said.
Hillary Clinton, former secretary of State, and Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican and the past governor of Rhode Island, also raised the risks of not acting on greenhouse gas emissions without being prompted by CNN's Anderson Cooper, the moderator.
Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a Vietnam-era Marine who served as secretary of the Navy, expressed skepticism about the impact that the United States could make on global temperatures without the cooperation of major emitters like China and India. He described the agreement struck this year between the United States and China, which pledged to peak its emission levels around 2030, as "illusory."
Hillary Clinton, still the leader in the polls. Photo courtesy of Flickr.
"We are not going to solve climate change with the laws here" in the United States, Webb said. "We need to solve this in a global way."
Clinton was criticized by O'Malley for switching positions on the Keystone XL pipeline, to which she recently announced her opposition. To fend off that attack, she pointed to her role in helping Obama to convince China to emission targets under the 2009 Copenhagen accord.
"I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone," Clinton said. "But I have been on the forefront of dealing with climate change starting in 2009 when President Obama and I crashed a meeting with the Chinese and got them to sign up for the first international agreement to combat climate change that they'd ever joined. So I'm not taking a backseat to anybody on my values, my principles and the results that I get."'A stunning evolution' of an issue
Paul Bledsoe, a climate official under the Clinton administration, said the candidates' emphasis on climate reflects a growing strategy among Democrats to use the issue to win votes and attack Republicans. Clinton folded the environmental challenge into her themes on economic growth, while Sanders occupies the "moral" position to protect the Earth from rising emissions, Bledsoe said.
"This debate shows that climate has become a central issue, right up there with income inequality and broader economic concerns," Bledsoe said. "It's a stunning evolution, one that also shows Democrats see climate change has a profound GOP vulnerability in the general election."
The debate provided the first view of the candidates standing together, following months of steadily declining poll numbers for Clinton and rising favorability for Sanders. She is perhaps no longer the inevitable nominee, but Clinton still holds commanding leads nationally.
Clinton captured 45 percent of support among respondents in a Fox News poll released yesterday, easily outpacing Sanders by 20 points and Vice President Joe Biden, who is expected to make a decision about running soon, by 26 points. Those findings are similar to other recent polls.
Clinton is trailing in just one early voting state, New Hampshire, where Sanders holds a 9-point edge, according to RealClearPolitics. Clinton leads by wide margins in Iowa and South Carolina. The other three candidates -- O'Malley, Chafee and Webb -- all received 1 percent or less in recent polling.
Republicans celebrated the Democrats' inaugural performance in front of a national audience, happy to finally see their foes face each other rather than launching criticisms at the unwieldly field of GOP candidates.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) referred to all five Democrats as "outdated politicians." He has promoted his youth in pointed contrasts to both Republican and Democratic opponents. Yesterday, Rubio lampooned Clinton and Sanders, the visibly older front-runners, as failing to grasp on-demand Internet services like Uber. He also attacked their positions on gay marriage and energy regulation, but he didn't mention climate change.
"They believe a revolutionary technology like hydraulic fracturing, which has unleashed American energy and created thousands of jobs, is a risky practice that must be stopped," Rubio said yesterday in a post on Medium.
Rubio, who's 44, is 23 years younger than Clinton and 30 years junior to Sanders.
On fracking, Clinton has expressed concern about its release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, but has repeatedly said that the process can be safely regulated. Sanders has said that he hopes local officials "all over America" ban the process. His state of Vermont already has.Four years ago, climate barely surfaced
The debate symbolizes an election season that's ripe with discussions about climate change. Four years ago, the issue barely surfaced. Now both parties are finding new ways to present it for electoral appeal.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who has a bipartisan record on clean energy, is casting himself as a tough guy when compared to Obama, who he called a "weakling" Monday. Christie was referring to Obama's assertion Sunday on "60 Minutes" that his action on climate change is a bigger indication of world leadership than Russian President Vladimir Putin's military escalation in Syria.
"And he thinks that the way leadership should be shown right now is on climate change?" Christie said on Fox News, saying he would be open to shooting down Russian planes over Syria as president. "He's so woefully out of touch with the American people and what they're concerned about. It is startling."
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is the only Republican candidate describing climate change as a challenge for the next president. He barely registers in national polls and he sought to bring attention to himself this week by telling New Hampshire voters that he trusts the science behind rising temperatures.
"To my friends on the right who deny the science, tell me why," Graham said Monday at a bipartisan event hosted by No Labels. "When 90 percent of climatologists tell you it's real, who am I to tell them they don't know what they are talking about."
Last night's debate held important meaning for the Democrats, most of whom were being introduced to the nation for the first time. Action on climate change is a key consideration for many Democratic voters and the candidates have responded with general plans to confront climbing temperatures.How to deal with deniers in Congress?
Clinton announced this summer that she'll create a "Clean Energy Challenge" to increase the amount of rooftop solar power by 700 percent nationwide, amounting to 140 gigawatts by 2020. The plan also calls for producing enough renewable energy to power every home in the United States by 2025. It would use grants and "market incentives" to achieve its goals.
Sanders joined Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to introduce carbon tax legislation in 2013. It called for a $20 tax on each ton of emissions released by 2,869 fossil fuel producers. It would have risen 5.6 percent annually, raising up to $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The revenue would have been used for family rebates and renewable energy and efficiency programs.
O'Malley, who made headlines this summer by saying that climate change in part gave root to the Islamic State (ISIS), says he would work with Congress to pass legislation that caps emissions nationally. A similar effort failed five years ago.
The candidates' promises have left some climate activists wanting more. Billionaire Tom Steyer, founder of NextGen Climate, urged CNN to focus the debate almost entirely on climate issues. The candidates need to "articulate, defend, and refine their plans," he said in a memo two weeks ago.
Should a Democrat be elected, it's likely that enacting their climate plans will require the cooperation of Republican lawmakers. None of them used the debate to describe how that would be accomplished.
That concern was reflected by the League of Conservation Voters, who asked its members before the debate to vote on the most important question that should be asked. They wanted to know how a Democratic president would deal with "climate change deniers in Congress."
"In the run up to international climate talks in Paris later this year, it's critical that we hear from the candidates about how they will maintain the momentum for action on climate action," said Daniel Weiss, the group's senior vice president for campaigns.
-
Candidates Frame Argument for Climate Action in Security Terms
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Democratic presidential primary contenders reiterated their near-unanimous support for taking action to combat climate change in the party's first debate last night, but several candidates also showcased a change in tactics by embracing programs to reduce carbon emissions as a national security issue.
In a two-hour-long debate hosted by CNN, Democratic contenders led by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) repeatedly raised their concerns about the need to address global warming, whether with policies such as a carbon tax or tax benefits for the renewables industries.
"Today, the scientific community is virtually unanimous: Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and we have a moral responsibility to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and leave this planet a habitable planet for our children and our grandchildren," said Sanders, one of four candidates along with Clinton, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee to address climate change policy in his opening remarks.
Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, hit on the green-jobs argument, saying that the nation must take "the opportunity posed by climate change to grow our economy" in her opening remarks.
The candidates did not mention the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan to address carbon emissions from power plants. But the field also put new emphasis on another pitch for climate change policy: national security.
Both Sanders and O'Malley cited climate change when asked by moderator Anderson Cooper to name the greatest security threat facing the United States.
"The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis," Sanders said.
O'Malley, who has previously asserted that the Syrian civil war and the subsequent rise of the Islamic State group in the Middle East were spurred in large part by a climate-change-induced drought in the region, similarly pointed to climate change in his response.
"Climate change, of course, makes cascading threats even worse," O'Malley said.
While that apparent shift among Democratic presidential contenders to frame climate change policy as a security issue may be a new tact on the campaign trail, League of Conservation Voters Senior Vice President of Campaigns Daniel Weiss noted that it is not a new argument.
"The candidates that talked about climate change as a national security threat are only saying the same thing that the Pentagon and the CIA have been warning for years," Weiss said, pointing to a 2014 Defense Department report that named climate change as an immediate threat to national security.
But Weiss acknowledged that highlighting the connection between global warming and national security could help candidates strengthen the case for climate change policies.
"Americans are generally more focused on domestic impacts and opportunities from climate change, but there is a security element to it," Weiss said.
During the debate, Sanders also sought to link another issue to climate change policies, arguing that until Congress addresses campaign finance reform, lawmakers are unlikely to enact policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
"Nothing is gonna happen unless we are prepared to deal with campaign finance reform, because the fossil fuel industry is funding the Republican Party, which denies the reality of climate change and certainly is not prepared to go forward aggressively," Sanders said.
-
DOE Faces Tangled Task on Energy Efficiency
Oct 14, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
President Barack Obama is counting on energy efficiency to deliver about half of the carbon cuts he has pledged as part of the U.S. climate change goal, but the balky process used by the federal government to set the rules is complicating the effort, as is the growing chorus of GOP complaints.
Energy efficiency has long been seen as one of the cheapest, simplest methods of cutting energy usage, and the federal government has been setting national standards for dozens of products since the Reagan administration, such as refrigerators and furnaces. But the devices the Energy Department now regulates are becoming more complex, while Obama’s call to link efficiency to his climate agenda is drawing pushback from Republicans on an issue that typically garners bipartisan support.
“It seems to some of us that DOE is using the Energy Policy Conservation Act to further the president's climate goals, an objective wholly outside the statutory purpose and requirements of EPCA,” Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said earlier this year, referring to the 1975law that kicked off federal efficiency programs and has been amended several times since.
“This would lead me to believe that the DOE's aggressive efficiency push is to benefit the president's negotiating position in Paris this year, rather than what may be in the best interests of American consumers and manufacturers.”
The Obama administration has enacted 10 times as many new efficiency rules as its predecessor, thanks in part to an expansion of DOE’s portfolio in the final years of the George W. Bush administration. But rules for even some simple-sounding devices such as fans are years overdue, and energy regulators are struggling to wrap their arms around vastly more complex products like computers.
Meanwhile, DOE has increasingly been forced to defend its work in court, while regulated industries have pressed Congress to fix ill-fitting standards — despite the department’s best efforts to work closely with manufacturers early in the process. And agency standards for some products, particularly for electronics, could complicate international trade debates.
The cash savings from energy efficiency are real, and can be massive. For example, while the average refrigerator has gotten bigger since the late 1970s,the models on the showroom floor today use less than a quarter of the electricity.
Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan counts on DOE efficiency standards to prevent about 3 billion metric tons worth of carbon dioxide emissions through 2030, out of a total of 6 billion tons it aims to reduce by that time overall. That means the cuts from efficiency standards would be the equivalent of taking every car and truck off American roads for about two years.
And under Obama, the budget for appliance standards-making at DOE has more than doubled from $22 million fiscal 2008 to $47 million for fiscal 2014, an agency spokesperson said. About 20 federal employees work on the rules.
Whitfield and other GOP lawmakers have hounded DOE’s standards chief Kathleen Hogan for injecting politics into the efficiency rulemaking process, but she dismissed those assertions in a recent interview.
“This administration has put a lot of emphasis on the appliance standards program because of the tremendous savings that can be achieved across this country,” said Hogan, DOE’s deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency.
DOE standards project energy savings over a 30-year period, but new efficiency rules are becoming more difficult to calibrate, and the process keeps growing more complex.
“If energy efficiency is truly going to be this great tool for addressing climate change, and also lowering costs, we have to become a lot more serious about understanding the reality of what’s working and what isn’t,” said Dian Grueneich, a senior research scholar at Stanford and the Hoover Institution, who focuses on efficiency programs in California, where she was a former utility regulator.
And climate plan or not, she said, DOE’s been under pressure to get rules done. “The feeling was that they’d gotten way far behind.”
Part of the problem is that DOE’s calculations have to predict human behavior, even as the number of ways people can use technology proliferates.
“One reason is that our devices have more options — whether it’s a dishwasher or a stove or a computer, you name it … and that’s a challenge for a regulatory scheme,” said Andrew deLaski, the executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
The increase in the options available for televisions, dishwashers, clothes dryers and other devices is a boon for consumers, but all those choices make regulators’ lives far more difficult. It’s far easier to predict how people will use an appliance — and estimate the savings promised by regulation — with only one or two settings.
Even relatively simple products have proven difficult to regulate.
In 2011, DOE announced that it would explore setting efficiency standards for industrial fans and blowers, which have a variety of applications in factory air circulators and building exhaust systems, among others. But more than four years later, the agency still hasn’t proposed a rule and there are questions about how effective one would be. Because fans have so many applications, DOE must devise a standard that doesn’t unfairly penalize a particular industry.
DOE’s struggles with simple contraptions foreshadow the difficulty regulators would face with more ambitious endeavors such as improving the efficiency of computers. In addition to being vastly more sophisticated, computers can be deployed in so many different ways that predicting how consumers will use them becomes far more unwieldy.
The electronics industry says DOE shouldn’t bother regulating computers, and Congress has not requested efficiency standards for them, unlike most other products the department regulates. But DOE is exploring its options. Hogan also said that there are discussions between DOE and industry looking ahead to the day when nearly everything you buy — from a dishwasher to a thermostat — will be able to connect to the so-called Internet of Things.
Yet electronics may test the limits of DOE’s existing standard-setting process.
For example, efficiency standards are typically designed to ensure a fair “payback” period, in which the reduced spending on energy would offset the higher up-front cost of a more efficient product. Since 2005, DOE is also required to revisit their standards every six years.
But while refrigerators and clothes dryers tend to operate for a decade or more — enabling regulators to press for more expensive upgrades that need a longer payback period — computer lifetimes are considerably shorter. The average desktop computer and laptop are expected to live less than six years, according to the Consumer Electronics Association.
“We would argue, in almost all cases, we need something [for electronics] other than what we’ve seen happen for 30 years in the appliance world,” said Doug Johnson, the vice president for technology policy for CEA.
Meanwhile, Noah Horowitz, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, argues that there are some elements that are common to all computers, such as power converters, that can be made more efficient.
DOE's counterparts around the world are grappling with the same issue, which could lead to a patchwork of country-by-country rules for computer makers. Unlike most household appliances, Apple, Microsoft and others tech companies sell many of the same products in several countries. So, U.S. companies would prefer that DOE avoid creating a standard that might conflict with those overseas, in much the same way they prefer a single federal rule over a variety of state-by-state requirements.
Efficiency regulations have also been a source of “non-tariff trade barriers” that have drawn renewed attention from the World Trade Organization and other international forums, and various trade agreements have sought to remove other obstacles to international flows of goods and services, Johnson said.
“What’s left that creates cost? It’s mismatched, misaligned, problematic regulations in various areas,” he said.
The International Energy Agency has estimated that up to 50 billion devices will be online by 2020 as part of the Internet of Things, and the G20 has observed that those devices are now using more electricity in their standby modes alone than all of Germany did in 2012. The U.K. is taking the lead within the G20 on devising an approach for making “networked devices” more efficient. There are plans to issue a progress report next month at the group’s summit in Turkey.
Though attention tends to focus on the rules once they have been proposed or finalized, the real wonks begin to dig in by battling over the “test procedures” on devices used to establish the technical foundations.
“You don’t see a lot of press around the test procedures but [that’s where] a lot of the really critical technical work is going on,” Hogan said.
It’s best to make sure tests are simple, cheap and easy to replicate, said deLaski. “But increasingly, these simple tests aren’t good representations of the consumption of the device.”
Even products seeing updates to their existing standards have complicated the lives of DOE regulators and those using the products in the field.
This year, electric co-ops and environmental groups convinced Congress to reverse part of standard issued for electric water heaters because DOE hadn’t envisioned using them as a tool for moderating power prices. And appliance-makers’ trade association sued DOE over a recent rule for walk-in coolers and freezers, resulting in a settlement that tossed out parts of the standard and called for DOE to find better methods for addressing its errors.
“We think it’s long overdue,” said Steve Yurek, president of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the trade association that sued DOE over the standard. “They needed to have a better process so that the only solution to an error in the final rule can’t be either you sue them or you get a legislative change to fix it. It just didn’t make sense.”
-
Justices Question Regulators' Reach in Fight over Energy Rule
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Supreme Court justices today probed whether federal regulators overstepped legal limits with a rule incentivizing energy conservation.
At issue is the scope of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's power in a case on a demand-response rule that required that power users be paid for committing to scale back electricity use at times of peak demand.
A lower court threw out the rule last year, agreeing with power generators and other challengers that FERC -- charged with regulating wholesale electricity sales -- had overstepped its authority by wading into the retail electricity market. Retail power sales to businesses and residential customers legally fall under states' jurisdiction.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said it's clear that the wholesale and retail markets affect each other but questioned where to draw the regulatory line. "The statute makes a distinction," he said. "We have to make a distinction."
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested too that a boundary is needed to prevent FERC from broadly expanding its regulatory reach.
"What is the limiting principle that you would suggest?" he asked.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing FERC, said he was comfortable with the court drawing a line but argued that in this case, the agency was acting well within its authority. All the conduct FERC is regulating "occurs in the wholesale market," he told the court.
Grid operators and power providers -- represented by the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), American Public Power Association and others -- led the charge to upend the rule, telling the courts that it sets an unfair compensation scheme and is illegal because it's beyond FERC's jurisdiction.
Justice Antonin Scalia questioned why FERC has the ability to allow states to opt out of the rule if they choose to do so. He asked whether that wasn't an acknowledgement that FERC was "mucking around" in states' business.
Paul Clement, an attorney representing FERC's challengers today, argued that FERC's order was "impermissibly" on the retail side of the line.
FERC's challengers had written in a brief to the court that the agency "cannot expand its own jurisdiction at the expense of the states' exclusive jurisdiction by asserting a need to regulate a 'direct effect' on wholesale rates that FERC has created by inviting retail customers into the wholesale market."
Verrilli argued there is no text explicitly barring FERC from issuing the rule and that the justices should therefore defer to the agency's authority.
At least one justice appeared to agree with that argument, noting he and his colleagues on the court are not electricity regulators.
"Is what they're doing here unreasonable?" Justice Stephen Breyer asked.
The case has sparked the interest of a broad range of parties across the energy and environmental realm who have weighed in with briefs to the high court (Greenwire, Oct. 12).
Adoption of FERC's Order 745 was controversial at the time of its adoption.
Republican Commissioner Philip Moeller at the time issued dissent, in which he argued that organized markets should continue to develop their own rules regarding demand-response compensation. He also expressed concern the rule would grant preferential treatment for demand resources in some cases and discriminate in other cases.
Tony Clark, another Republican FERC commissioner, has also said the rule erred in requiring demand-response providers to be compensated in the energy markets at the same rate as an electric supply offer (Greenwire, June 12).
Clark and FERC Chairman Norman Bay were among those present for the arguments today.
Today's arguments were heard by eight justices; Justice Samuel Alito was recused from the case.
A decision in the consolidated cases -- FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association andEnerNOC v. Electric Power Supply Association -- is due by the end of June.
-
States Seek to Validate Efficiency Projects for Carbon Rule Compliance
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
Tennessee officials are leading a multistate effort to streamline the evaluation of energy efficiency investments, which could help these projects qualify for compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, officials said.
The Department of Energy has earmarked an $800,000 planning grant for the project, designed to create a voluntary national energy efficiency registry, which would standardize benchmarks for evaluating energy investment projects, ranging from traditional building insulation installations to advanced technologies that improve power grid efficiency.
Tennessee expects grant terms to be settled and the award finalized by early December, with a two-year completion period, according to Eric Ward, deputy communications director for the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.
The National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) assembled a group of environmental agencies for the project from six states: Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Pennsylvania, in addition to Tennessee. The team also includes APX Inc., which develops operating programs for energy and environmental markets, and the Climate Registry, an 8-year-old nonprofit that designs and runs greenhouse gas reporting programs.
Stephen Cowell, a pioneering energy efficiency executive who now heads the Massachusetts nonprofit E4theFuture, said his organization provided a grant to launch the energy efficiency registry proposal.
He said the registry would act as an "umpire" to review and authenticate energy efficiency investments. "We really felt it would help the states if they had that kind of support mechanism to facilitate energy efficiency," he said.
In addition to the state environment officials working on the project, engineering services companies like Siemens and Johnson Controls also support it, he said.
"They agree there needs to be a central umpire to check the box and say, 'Yes, these are genuine energy efficiency investment megawatt-hours that can be accepted as part of compliance,'" Cowell said. That isn't the job of state air regulators, he added.A trading platform
DOE said a registry would "streamline EE [energy efficiency] project verification, provide recognition of public/private investments, and support state energy and environmental planning." It could also serve as the basis for a future market-based program for trading energy efficiency credits, DOE said.
NASEO Executive Director David Terry discussed the program yesterday at a conference on "Smart Grid and Climate Change," held by the Association for Demand Response and Smart Grid, in Washington, D.C.
Terry said that while the registry was not tailored specifically for Clean Power Plan compliance, it could be used by states that choose either a rate- or mass-based carbon reduction CPP strategy. The challenge, he said, "was how to make it streamlined enough to be attractive to utilities and state regulators and still be rigorous. It is very much a work in progress."
A possible energy efficiency registry was an example of new regulatory strategies that are urgently needed to help states meet the challenges of the Clean Power Plan and the fast-moving changes in energy technologies, speakers at yesterday's conference said.
"Lots of times, we ask our regulatory utility commissioners to make sometimes difficult, controversial political decisions," Terry said, rather than handling them on the policy side. Getting a policy consensus first, before asking regulators to move forward, would help them a lot, he added.
Jeff Burleson, vice president at Southern Co., said policymakers need to understand the requirement for balancing objectives of grid operators. "The [state] regulators recognize the need for balance. You've got to balance clean, safe, reliable and affordable."
"If you get any one of those out of balance and put too much emphasis on any one, it creates problems," Burleson said. "In some cases ... EPA, in our view, has a lot of focus on clean, but not so much focus on reliability and affordability."
"There is a need for policy change around pricing and also around technologies that would signal the right price to customers ... to consume electricity at different times of day," said Eric Schmitt, vice president for operations for the California Independent System Operator, the state's wholesale power grid operator. The rapid growth of solar energy generation and electric car use is profoundly changing energy demand patterns in parts of the state, making it increasingly important to prompt consumers to shift energy use to low-demand parts of the day whenever possible. The key is flexible retail electricity rates that rise or fall during the day, depending on supply and demand, he said.
"We need not only innovation in technology, we need innovation in the institutions around those technologies," said Bryan Hannegan, associate laboratory director at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "If regulations don't allow innovation around rate design" and prices, "utilities will have no way to get compensated," he said.
-
Calif. Carbon Offsets Face Slowdown in Market Development
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California's market for carbon offsets is limping along as a result of uncertain policies, project developers and customers said last week.
The market is intended to provide emitters with a lower-cost option than the state-issued carbon allowances, which have been sold at quarterly auctions since November 2012. Under the state's cap-and-trade system, businesses are allowed to substitute offsets -- from sectors of the economy that aren't already subject to emissions-capping regulations -- for up to 8 percent of their total emissions.
But a series of moves over the past year have dampened potential supplies of offsets, sending prices for the instruments upward. At around $12 per ton, offsets are barely cheaper than allowances, which have been trading at roughly $12.70 per ton. That makes them less attractive to emitters looking for a way to lower their cap-and-trade costs.
"As far as offsets being a cost containment tool, it's been a bit disappointing, the evolution of the market over the past year," said Mike Emerson, manager of energy and carbon trading at Southern California Gas Co., at a carbon markets conference put on last week by Argus Media.
The supply crunch can be traced to a series of moves by regulators that have made potential project owners lose confidence in offsets. First was the California Air Resources Board's decision last November to cancel 89,000 offsets generated from the destruction of ozone-depleting substances, due to issues with the destruction company's compliance with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (ClimateWire, Nov. 17, 2014).
The company, Massachusetts-based Clean Harbors Inc., subsequently decided to stop processing ODS projects for the California market, leaving just one remaining facility in the United States that is producing California credits, said Mary Grady, director of business development for the American Carbon Registry, one of two nonprofits that registers and verifies offset projects for the state.
"That was a very unfortunate outcome," she said. As well, CARB is now investigating a project that destroyed methane from livestock operations for potentially violating air quality permitting rules in Indiana.Risks of invalidation grow
Another blow to the market came earlier this year when CARB revised its protocol for generating offsets from forests, requiring a larger buffer of trees to remain intact in a given harvesting area and potentially expanding the number of credits that can be invalidated in the event of a violation. That could reduce the future supply of forestry credits by 40 to 60 percent, said Kevin Townsend, chief commercial officer for offset developer Blue Source.
Townsend said his company evaluated 40 different potential forestry projects last year that would have generated 24 million tons of offsets, and none of them came to fruition. "They all said no, thank you," he said. "That's a tremendous failure to incentivize emissions reduction projects."
As limited supplies and administrative costs have sent prices upward, eroding the spread between offsets and allowances, some customers are turned off.
"It's been tough to get people within the company comfortable with offsets," Emerson said. "As that benefit shrinks, it's even tougher to make the case for offsets."
Customers are also wary of the potential for CARB to invalidate credits. Environmental credit broker Jackie Ferlita said she spoke to a large oil company recently that was concerned about the public scrutiny they might face if their purchases were invalidated.
"You can trace limited demand almost entirely to invalidation risk," Townsend said.
Supplies could increase if CARB decides to add more offset protocols, particularly from agricultural sectors like wetlands restoration, fertilizer management and avoided conversion of grasslands to crop production, Grady said. Other existing protocols, including reducing emissions from rice cultivation and methane from coal mines, could see a boost if CARB establishes regulations to extend cap-and-trade past 2020, she said.
"I don't really anticipate there's going to be a big uptick until we get a post-2020 signal," Grady said.
-
Environmentalists Cite CSAPR Ruling In Push For Retroactive PM2.5 Limits
Oct 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are seeking to bolster their suit trying to force retroactive application of stricter fine particulate matter (PM2.5) control requirements by citing an appellate court's ruling that backed EPA's ability to retroactively invalidate previously approved state air quality plans under its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).
In an Oct. 9 letter advising of supplemental legal authority, Earthjustice on behalf of WildEarth Guardians tells the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the court's July 28 ruling on air pollution transport in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA is relevant to the PM2.5 litigation. Although the court vacated and remanded key parts of the CSAPR interstate air trading program to the agency, it backed EPA on its statutory authority to retroactively apply new emissions mandates.
Earthjustice says the ruling is relevant to its pending case WildEarth Guardians, et al. v. EPA, in which advocates are asking the court to force EPA and states to implement its PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under the terms of the Clean Air Act's “subpart 4” provisions, which are specific to particulate matter and more stringent than the “subpart 1” provisions that apply to all six NAAQS criteria pollutants in general.
Environmentalists want the court to scrap EPA's June 2014 rule imposing subpart 4 controls prospectively only and not retroactively for state implementation plans (SIPs) for meeting the PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule responded to a D.C. Circuit ruling in 2013 in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA saying EPA wrongly implemented its PM2.5 standards under the less-stringent subpart 1 requirements. After the ruling, advocates urged EPA to apply the tougher measures in areas that had earlier been deemed in nonattainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has defended its position on PM2.5 implementation by arguing that applying subpart 4 provisions to states in the 2014 rule would have amounted to unlawful retroactive regulation. Further, EPA relies on the fact that the D.C. Circuit in NRDC declined to vacate an earlier PM2.5 implementation rule that also applied subpart 1. Environmental groups counter that the agency must comply with the court's finding in NRDC.
Advocates say the CSAPR ruling underscores that EPA can retroactively apply requirements to comply with court decisions. The court in EME Homer City backed EPA's ability to withdraw its approval of SIPs that states crafted to comply with an earlier emissions trading program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
EPA when crafting CSAPR invalidated the CAIR SIPs, which it claimed it had approved “in error” in light of the 2008 D.C. Circuit ruling in North Carolina v. EPA. In that case the court remanded but did not vacate CAIR because of “fatal flaws,” which eventually led the agency to issue CSAPR as a replacement for CAIR. The decision cleared the way for EPA to impose federal implementation plans (FIPs) on states with invalidated SIPs.
The court in its July CSAPR ruling in EME Homer City cited its finding in North Carolina to support EPA's position that the agency could invalidate the CAIR-based SIPs and impose CSAPR FIPs.
Court's Ruling
The unanimous CSAPR decision says that “when our decision in North Carolina deemed CAIR to be an invalid effort to implement the requirements of the [air law] good neighbor provision, that ruling meant that the initial approval of the CAIR SIPs was in error at the time it was done.” The good neighbor provision requires states to mitigate their air emissions that contribute to NAAQS attainment problems in other states.
“[C]ritically, the decision to remand without vacatur did not alter the core holding of North Carolina: CAIR contained 'fatal flaws' and needed to be replaced. . . Our decision to remand without vacating, therefore, does not change the conclusion that EPA’s original approvals of the CAIR SIPs were 'in error' given our decision inNorth Carolina,” says the EME Homer City ruling that advocates are now citing in their Oct. 9 letter.
Environmentalists say the court's holding in EME Homer City is relevant because it found that “EPA’s prior approval of State compliance with a regulatory program that the court subsequently found to be unlawful did not immunize that State from being subject to the consequences of the law as properly applied.”
Their letter in the PM2.5 suit also notes the CSAPR panel's reliance on the Supreme Court's 1994 ruling inRivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., which said, “A judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction.”
However, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, one of two California air districts supporting EPA in the WildEarth Guardians case, in an Oct. 13 reply letter to the D.C. Circuit says the advocates' letter is flawed.
“Petitioners’ reliance upon this isolated legal principle demonstrates their failure to comprehend the distinction between retroactive application of a court’s interpretation of a statute and retroactive implementation of administrative rules. The EME Homer City court itself recognized that remand without vacatur of an EPA rule, even one that is 'fundamentally flawed,' is appropriate where vacatur would cause 'substantial disruptions,'” the letter says.
The air district adds, “Here, retroactively applying Subpart 4 requirements would unfairly expose States to punitive consequences for not meeting attainment and SIP submittal deadlines of which States were unaware when such alleged deadlines passed.”
-
14 Carbon-Intensive Companies Call for 'Balanced' Paris Deal
Oct 14, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Fourteen companies from carbon-intensive industries issued a statement today calling for this year's U.N. climate talks to produce a "more balanced and durable multilateral framework" to guide national efforts to contain warming.
The companies that signed on to the statement coordinated by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) ranged from aluminum producers to utilities to petroleum corporations.
All the companies are part of an informal C2ES working group on Paris.
"We recognize the rising environmental, social, economic, and security risks posed by climate change, and that delaying action will result in greater risks and costs," the statement says. "We stand ready to work with governments and our civil society partners to deliver and implement a sensible and effective global climate agreement in Paris."
The French presidency of this year's round of U.N. climate talks, which begins in Paris at the end of November, has said that corporations should play a role in helping to foster an agreement. And many corporations have made new pledges of their own ahead of the conference, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and seven other U.S. companies that vowed last month to transition to 100 percent renewable electricity use.
The participants in today's statement are based in the United States or have major operations here, but most are multinational corporations that also have interests abroad and face foreign competition. The statement calls for the Paris talks to produce an accord that covers all major economies and that provides for transparency of domestic actions and policies -- both important parts of the U.S. negotiating position.
The list includes Alcoa Inc., a lightweight metals manufacturer that also signed a pledge in July at the White House with a dozen other companies that they would spend a collective $140 billion to combat warming and endorse "a strong outcome in the Paris climate negotiations" (ClimateWire, July 27).
Other companies that signed today's C2ES statement included Alstom Inc., BHP Billiton Ltd., BP PLC, Calpine Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Intel Corp., LafargeHolcim, National Grid, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Rio Tinto Group, Schneider Electric, Shell Oil Corp. and Siemens Corp.
The statement is part of ongoing C2ES efforts to focus attention on the opportunity for a meaningful agreement in Paris. Earlier this year, C2ES released a co-chairs report from a yearlong dialogue it held with negotiators from China, the United States and 20 other countries laying out key elements of a balanced and durable agreement.
-
California Leads the Way on Climate Change
Oct 14, 2015 | New York Times
By Robert B. Semple, Jr.
On the whole, state governments, especially those with Republican-dominated legislatures, have been remarkably passive and uninventive in recent years on the matter of climate change. Indeed, at least a dozen states have challenged the Obama administration’s new rule regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and have vowed to do everything they can to see it overturned in court.
And then there is California, which stands apart in its commitment to a healthier, cleaner and less carbon-intensive energy future. Its demanding effficiency rules for appliances and equipment have become a de facto national standard by driving manufacturers to improve their products. The same is true of the state’s fuel economy standards, which have long been more aggressive than any other state’s and which played a decisive role in establishing the landmark federal fuel economy standards finalized by the Obama administration in 2012.
As for comprehensive climate change legislation, in 2006, while Congress continued to flounder in its ultimately unsuccessful efforts to cap carbon emissions, California passed a landmark bill known as AB 32, committing the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a substantial reduction over business-as-usual trajectories. The California Air Resources Board later put in place a series of regulations and strategies to meet this goal, including mandates for renewable energy and a market-based cap-and-trade program to limit emissions. In 2010, a well-financed coalition of right-wing ideologues and out-of-state oil and gas interests, chiefly Valero and Tesoro and Charles and David Koch, tried to kill the law with an initiative on the state ballot. They failed miserably.
California continues its forward march. Last week, Governor Jerry Brown signed a new climate law — SB 350 — that represents the most significant act of energy and climate policy leadership in any state since AB 32. There was much handwringing (some by Mr. Brown) over the legislature’s failure to approve a provision requiring a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by 2030. But this was essentially a feel-good, aspirational goal that even some moderate Democrats were leery of. What survived was the real stuff: three concrete and legally binding clean-energy initiatives. One provision doubles down on efficiency, mandating a 100 percent increase in energy savings in California’s homes, businesses and factories — an ambitious goal that, by some estimates, could reduce statewide energy needs by nearly a third by 2030. Another requires utilities to purchase half of their power from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2030, with penalties for non-compliance; still another provides new incentives for utilities to install additional charging stations, the shortage of which is a major roadblock to what appears to be a growing appetite for electric vehicles.
One remarkable aspect of the bill was its broad support — the major utilities, labor unions, consumer advocates and the environmental community all wheeled in behind it. The world is in need of hopeful signs as it heads into the global climate summit in Paris in December. California’s continued commitment to a de-carbonized economy is surely one of them.
-
Industry Says EPA Might Expand Types Of Railroad Ties Considered 'Fuel'
Oct 14, 2015 | InsideEPA
The treated wood industry says EPA has signaled it plans to slightly expand the types of railroad ties deemed non-waste fuel when it finalizes a pending rule currently under White House review, but the industry remains concerned the agency is viewing less favorably a petition to deem even more types of treated wood items as non-waste fuel.
But an EPA spokeswoman says in an Oct. 9 statement that the treated wood industry is mischaracterizing EPA's discussions. She says while the agency will not comment on the details of the final rule, statements made by the industry in a recent letter "do not accurately characterize EPA's discussions with the Treated Wood Council's representatives." She says the agency's "position will be fully explained" in the rule's preamble.
According to the Aug. 21 letter from the Treated Wood Council (TWC) to EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Director Barnes Johnson, EPA staff in a July 20 meeting with industry signaled the agency's thoughts on categorical determinations of items that can be burned as fuel rather than being subject to more stringent air emissions limits for waste incineration.
The letter is one of several documents that was distributed to White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) personnel during a Sept. 30 meeting with industry and EPA representatives on the agency's final rule to add creosote-treated railroad ties, certain construction and demolition wood, and paper recycling residuals to the list of materials considered non-waste fuels under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act.
EPA proposed the additions in March 2014 following the promulgation of its 2013 Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule. The final rule has been under OMB review since July 15, and EPA projects it will publish it next month.
The pending rule stems from the NHSM rule -- which a federal appeals court earlier this year upheld. Under the NHSM rule, the agency included a rulemaking process that allows for making categorical determinations to expand the list of non-waste fuels under the NHSM rule.
The material listed must meet criteria, such as demonstrating that it has not been previously discarded, or if so, has been adequately processed and is used as a product fuel, EPA says in the proposed rule for adding to the list. The material also must be used as a non-waste fuel in a combustion unit and meet legitimacy criteria, or alternatively be a legitimate fuel product, EPA says in the proposal.
Pending Rule
OMB and EPA at the Sept. 30 meeting heard from a number of industry groups on the pending rule, including TWC, rail companies, the Association of American Railroads, Railway Tie Association, and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association.
An industry source says OMB at the meeting gave no date for sending the rule back to EPA, only saying the office was "working on it as quickly as we can."
TWC has sought to expand the list of NHSM to cover more types of treated wood biomass, petitioning EPA in 2013 to make categorical determinations for wood treated with borate-based preservatives, copper-based preservatives, pentachlorophenol, oilborned copper naphthenate and creosote. EPA said in the proposed rule it is still reviewing TWC's 2013 petition.
In 2014 comments on the draft rule, industry groups urged EPA to include borate-treated ties in its definition of creosote-treated ties, noting the agency has already determined the use of borate compounds on wood would not add contaminants at levels that exceed comparable traditional fuels.
Newer railroad ties are commonly treated with both creosote and borate, so if EPA does not expand the definition to include both preservatives, "the utility of the [creosote treated railroad ties] non-waste listing may be short-lived," said a coalition of industry groups including the American Forest & Paper Association, American Wood Council, Biomass Power Association, Construction & Demolition Recycling Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
TWC in its Aug. 21 letter reiterates its push for EPA to add ties treated with copper naphthenate (CuN), dual-treated CuN-borate (CuNB), and dual-treated creosote-borate (CB) formulations, offering data to show that these meet legitimacy criteria and are processed to result in a valuable fuel.
The group says in the letter that EPA staff told the group at the July 20 meeting that due to comments on the pending rule, "EPA was planning to take favorable action to add CB dual-treated ties to the categorical non-waste determination for creosote-treated rail ties."
'Categorical Non-Waste'
The letter says EPA appears to be "motivated" to quickly respond to market realities "in adding CB-treated ties as a categorical non-waste, to avoid their deselection in favor of alternatives that involve greater fossil-fuel consumption and consequently higher environmental and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions."
At the same time, TWC laments that EPA at the July 20 meeting allegedly reversed its previous position regarding the consideration of additional treated wood products to the list under a possible future rulemaking. At the meeting, "EPA staff said that TWC's petition, covering both CuN- and CuNB-treated ties as well as other materials included in the petition, was too broad and would be denied in an 'all or nothing' approach under which none of the materials could move forward unless all satisfied EPA's judgment," the letter says.
"This approach is in conflict not only with EPA's previous statement to TWC about how it would proceed, but also with EPA's stated intention in the Proposed Rule," the group says. It points to EPA's statement in the proposed rule in which the agency said that upon completing its review of TWC's petition, if "the information supports a categorical listing of one or more of these other treated wood materials, the Agency would propose those materials in a future rulemaking."
The group says a recent survey by the railroad industry supports the belief that CuNB-treated rail ties are growing in use as an alternative to creosote- and CB-treated ties. The group makes the case for EPA to support a categorical non-waste listing that includes CuN- and CuNB-treated ties as it moves to add CB-treated rail ties to the list.
The industry source says TWC is still collecting data for EPA on the matter, and that the group shared the letter with OMB for educational purposes.
-
CSX Expects Rail Volume Slump to Persist
Oct 14, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Laura Stevens
Rail volumes are expected to continue to fall through the end of the year, CSX Corp. executives said Wednesday.
“Although we are projecting stable to favorable conditions for several key markets, this will be more than offset by unfavorable conditions for the remainder of the portfolio,” said CFO Frank Lonegro on the company’s earnings call with analysts.
Bright spots for the railroad continue to be growth in its intermodal business, or the transportation of containers and trailers. While fuel prices have declined, making truckers more competitive with rail, CSX said it expects to continue to gain market share and command strong prices. The automotive industry is also expected to continue to boost shipments by rail.TOP LOGISTICS NEWS
Get the latest logistics and supply chain news and analysis via an email newsletter. Sign up here.
But chemicals will be down in the fourth quarter, with crude oil volumes falling by at least 25% quarter-over-quarter. Metals will continue to be hit as a strong dollar fuels imports and domestic production falls, reflecting a similar decline to the third quarter. Domestic coal volumes will decline by about a fifth in the fourth quarter as low natural gas prices have caused power plans to switch fuels, a trend that should continue into 2016.
“Overall, we expect fourth-quarter volume declines as we cycle a strong 2014 volume environment, continue to feel the effects of low natural gas and crude oil prices and the impact of strong currency on our export and import-sensitive markets,” Mr. Lonegro said.
In order to control costs, the railroad is running longer trains – lengths were up 10% in the third quarter compared with the same quarter a year ago – and reducing its workforce. In the fourth quarter, its average headcount will be down 6%.
For the quarter, CSX reported a profit of $507 million, or 52 cents a share, down from $509 million, or 51 cents, a year earlier. Revenue dropped 8.8% to $2.94 billion.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested