Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Senate 'Dysfunction' Delays TSCA Vote
Oct 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Attempts to attach an unrelated amendment to the Udall-Vitter bill (S 697) have delayed its coming to the Senate floor for a vote -
Cosmetics Europe Advocates Phase-Out of Microplastics
Oct 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Cosmetics Europe has advised its members to discontinue the use of non-biodegradable microplastics in wash-off cosmetic products, by 2020. -
California Adds Ortho-Phthalates for Biomonitoring Consideration
Oct 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Biomonitoring California has added the ortho-phthalates class of chemicals to its designated substances list, as per the recommendation of its Scientific Guidance Panel (SGP) (CW 1 July 2015). -
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Diverge on Osha Exposure Limit Process
Oct 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry and governmental stakeholders have urged the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) to look to other federal agency hazard data, when updating outdated occupational permissible exposure limits (PELs). -
IG Tells Board to 'Close the Investigative Gap'
Oct 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Chemical Safety Board is still not investigating all accidents that fall within its jurisdiction, according to a U.S. EPA inspector general report released today. -
(ACC Mentioned) Letter: Implementing Train Safety
Oct 22, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Cal Dooley
As one of the nation’s largest manufacturing sectors that depends on railroads to provide safe transportation of our products, we agree that Congress must “slow this train” and provide a workable timetable to install new braking technology on trains known as positive train control. -
(ACC Mentioned) Train Service Threat Remains
Oct 22, 2015 | Daily Star Journal
By Jack Ventimiglia
The threat of freight train services beginning to shut down starting this month, with an almost total shutdown of all passenger and freight services starting nationally Jan. 1, remains on the table, though U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt extended hope during a press call Wednesday. -
House Bill Would Extend PTC Deadline
Oct 22, 2015 | Progressive Rail Roading
A surface transportation funding bill being drafted today by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee contains a measure that would extend the positive train control (PTC) deadline for three years. -
Wash. Court Weighs Environmental Review for Crude-by-Rail Facilities
Oct 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A Washington state court this week upheld a decision mandating further environmental review for crude oil facilities but denied environmentalists' attempts to use other legal tools against the projects. -
Clean Power Plan Finally Expected to be Published
Oct 22, 2015 | Politico (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
EPA’s carbon rule for power plants will formally be published in tomorrow’s The Federal Register, according to a pre-publication notice that showed up this morning. -
Obama to Publish Climate Change Rule, Sparking Legal Fight
Oct 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
President Obama’s landmark climate change regulation for power plants will be published on Friday, opening the door to challenges in Congress and the federal court system. -
It's Showtime for Legal and Hill Battles
Oct 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick and Robin Bravender
An epic legal battle surrounding the Obama administration's signature climate change rule formally kicks off tomorrow. -
Carbon Rule’s October Publication Likely to Keep it Alive Through Paris
Oct 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
EPA will publish its landmark power plant carbon rules in Friday's Federal Register, marking the start of the period when foes can file lawsuits and setting in motion the legal fight that is almost certain to end at the Supreme Court. -
EPA: Climate Rule on ‘Sound Legal and Technical Foundation’
Oct 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is confident that its landmark climate rule for power plants will withstand lawsuits, its top air regulator said. -
Rule Poses No Near-Term Threat to Public Power Credit -- S&P
Oct 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Ratings agency Standard & Poor's believes U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan poses no immediate risk to the credit quality of public power and electric cooperative utilities. -
EPA Head: Relationship with States Never Better
Oct 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 WIre
By Devin Henry
Federal environmental regulators have never had a “better relationship” with states than they do now, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said Thursday, one day before a new regulation is expected to attract a bevy of lawsuits from state attorneys general. -
Administration, States See ESPS As 'Lens' For Multi-Pollutant Planning Work
Oct 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Obama administration officials, states and some power sector representatives are touting EPA's greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants as a “lens” for multi-pollutant planning in which states and the utility sector can jointly schedule compliance with multiple air pollution rules in a more coordinated fashion.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
Senate 'Dysfunction' Delays TSCA Vote
Oct 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Attempts to attach an unrelated amendment to the Udall-Vitter bill (S 697) have delayed its coming to the Senate floor for a vote.
But Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), co-author of the bill which seeks to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), says that the measure will nevertheless pass “one way or another” (CW 7 October 2015).
The bill has gained filibuster-proof support with 60 cosponsors and is expected to pass the Senate once brought to the floor (CW 5 October 2015). However, Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) objected to allowing TSCA to come up for a vote, without an unrelated amendment to reauthorise the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
In remarks on the Senate floor, Mr Udall said that “the current strategy of holding TSCA hostage for LWCF is not the proper one. This is the sort of thing that gives the United States Senate a bad reputation for dysfunction, and I do not see how it will lead to any progress on LWCF.”
Mr Burr, who is one of the TSCA bill's cosponsors, could not be reached for comment by press time.
According to Mr Udall: "We've come so far - I'm going to keep talking and working. I'm still optimistic that we can find a path forward, but we need leadership and cooperation."
-
Cosmetics Europe Advocates Phase-Out of Microplastics
Oct 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Cosmetics Europe has advised its members to discontinue the use of non-biodegradable microplastics in wash-off cosmetic products, by 2020.
The trade body issued the recommendation on Wednesday in response to public concerns over plastic debris in the marine environment.
It says the use of plastic microparticles in personal care products accounts for “a very small fraction” of the plastic debris found in the marine environment, compared to sources such as plastic manufacturing, textile fibres and abrasion of car tyres.
But given the availability of alternative materials, Cosmetics Europe says its members should stop using microplastics that are non-biodegradable in the marine environment, in wash-off cosmetic and personal care products.
Going forward, Cosmetics Europe says it is “committed to building, with other international associations, global alignment of the cosmetics industry on this issue” and will work with regulators on a "science-based approach".
Microplastics have had a strong place in the North American and Canadian regulatory agendas this year.
Earlier this month, California signed into law a ban on personal care products containing microbeads, from 2020 (CW 12 October 2015). Several New York counties are considering a similar ban (CW 16 September 2015) and Canada is discussing a proposal to ban microplastics, by adding them to the country's List of Toxic Substances (CW 13 August 2015).
-
California Adds Ortho-Phthalates for Biomonitoring Consideration
Oct 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Biomonitoring California has added the ortho-phthalates class of chemicals to its designated substances list, as per the recommendation of its Scientific Guidance Panel (SGP) (CW 1 July 2015).
Several ortho-phthalates were already included on the state's designated chemicals list, which is the pool of substances which may be selected from, for future state biomonitoring studies.
Newly added substances include:diallyl phthalate (DAP);di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHxP);diisoheptyl phthalate (DIHpP);di-2-propylheptyl phthalate (DPHP);diundecyl phthalate (DUP);diisoundecyl phthalate (DIUP); anddiisotridecyl phthalate (DTDP).
The SGP will be considering the prioritisation of the ortho-phthalate chemical class, at its 18 November meeting (CW 2 October 2015).
According to documents reviewed by the SGP at its July meeting, ortho-phthalates are a widely used group of plasticisers, found in applications ranging from consumer products to building materials and personal care products. Listing the entire class of chemicals “would give the programme the flexibility to track changing exposures to o-phthalates as market shifts occur”, it said.
The biomonitoring programme is a joint project of three state agencies:the California Department of Public Health;the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); andthe Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Diverge on Osha Exposure Limit Process
Oct 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry and governmental stakeholders have urged the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) to look to other federal agency hazard data, when updating outdated occupational permissible exposure limits (PELs).
However, views differ on the extent to which the agency should “increase its reliance” on other agencies' information.
A year-long Osha request for information (RFI), launched in October 2014, aimed to develop a “national dialogue” on how to streamline the development of PELs (CW 10 October 2014).
“The current process for developing and revising PELs is guided by a combination of key court decisions, as well as statutory and extensive regulatory requirements that have resulted in an extremely time and resource-intensive process,” Osha said. The agency says that PELs exist for fewer than 500 chemicals, and most of those limits have not been updated since 1971.
Among several issues raised in its RFI, Osha sought feedback on its “considering greater reliance” on other federal agencies for toxicological evaluations. These included:the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh);the EPA;the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR);the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); andthe National Toxicology Program (NTP).
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) encouraged Osha, in written comments, to look to such existing information sources “to generate an understanding of worker exposure potential, sufficient for building a framework to analyse and rank relative risks” and to prioritise substances for PEL development.
However, the trade body cautioned that while consideration should be given to such bodies, “to adopt these toxicological evaluations by proxy or to accept them without applying its own independent and rigorous analysis ... would clearly conflict with well-settled case law.”
The ACC said the agency should develop specific criteria for evaluating different agencies' recommendations, given its belief that such evaluations are not “universally appropriate”.
California's workplace safety agency (Cal/Osha), however, said that, given the agency's mandate to protect worker health, “it is not appropriate to waste time, by waiting for perfect human epidemiology or recapitulating scientifically sound risk assessments made by reputable organisations.”
Cal/Osha supported Osha's use of studies conducted by federal agencies. It also recommended reliance on peer-reviewed work performed by other “reputable organisations”, such as California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) or the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc).
Niosh added that an approach where Osha relies on analyses by other authoritative bodies “avoids duplication of government resources and reduces potential confusion about multiple government analyses of the same chemical in similar exposure scenarios.”
Johnson & Johnson, however, said that while “Niosh and NTP conduct thorough, well-reasoned toxicological evaluations” that could help inform PEL development, other agencies named in the RFI are “neither transparent nor amenable to industry input, and in our experience are not on par with Niosh or NTP”.
Speaking at a recent meeting of the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication, Bill Perry, director of Osha's Directorate of Standards and Guidance, said the agency is “wide open” to additional comments.
-
IG Tells Board to 'Close the Investigative Gap'
Oct 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Chemical Safety Board is still not investigating all accidents that fall within its jurisdiction, according to a U.S. EPA inspector general report released today.
The inquiry follows up on previous IG reports that CSB was not investigating more than 90 percent of fatal accidents it recorded between fiscal 2010 and 2014.
While today's report notes that CSB has worked to close its "investigative gap" after a 2013 inquiry directed it to do so, the IG today recommended that the board refocus those efforts.
"Specifically, CSB has not fully accomplished its related strategic objective to complete timely, high-quality investigations that examine the technical, management system, organizational and regulatory causes of chemical incidents," the new report states.
CSB currently has seven open investigations, one of which dates back to 2009. The board has completed four investigations in fiscal 2015.
CSB's investigation strategy has evolved over the past few years. Traditionally, CSB focused its efforts on major chemical process accident sites, with investigations lasting more than a year. In 2010, the board began to assess smaller accidents that had significant consequences. In that year, the board also wrote three safety bulletins and case studies on critical issues facing industry.
The IG is now recommending that CSB "close the investigative gap by reprioritizing its resources to investigate all accidents that fall within its statutory mandate."
The report also recommends that the board develop protocol for closing investigations that take more than three years.
In a similar vein, the IG also found that CSB has not yet published any regulations for chemical incident reporting as it is required to do under amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in 1990.
The Government Accountability Office has previously recommended that CSB write such a regulation, but the board has yet to do so.
The IG report notes that CSB's ability to create regulations has been "impacted" by budget cuts and sequestration, which disabled any hiring efforts. But the report says CSB still must move forward with the rulemaking.
The report acknowledges that some of CSB's dysfunction could be rooted in the "toxic employee morale" that festered under the leadership of former Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso.
Moure-Eraso resigned in March at the White House's request following a heated House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing that found, among other things, that Moure-Eraso retaliated against whistleblowers (E&E Daily, March 27).
CSB is still missing a board member following Moure-Eraso's resignation.
Current Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland is conducting an organizational review of the agency and has initiated weekly staff meetings to improve communication. The report encourages CSB to continue to improve morale in order to ensure the board functions.
"The current board needs to assure that the CSB function as intended and restores open communication among staff, the board and the Chairperson," the report says.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Letter: Implementing Train Safety
Oct 22, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Cal Dooley
As one of the nation’s largest manufacturing sectors that depends on railroads to provide safe transportation of our products, we agree that Congress must “slow this train” and provide a workable timetable to install new braking technology on trains known as positive train control.
Chemical manufacturers are one of the nation's largest shippers, and the success and growth of the chemical sector in the United States relies heavily on the ability to move our products by rail.
The economic consequences of a rail shutdown are very real. Our recent economic analysis shows that a shutdown lasting only one month could pull $30 billion out of our nation’s economy.
It would increase the unemployment rate with a loss of 700,000 jobs and cause household incomes to fall by more than $17 billion.
The cascading impacts of a rail shutdown would be widespread. Major commuter rail lines like Metra in Chicago will stop running, stranding passengers across the country.
The nation’s access to food, energy and safe drinking water would also be jeopardized.
Congress must act now to prevent this far-reaching crisis and provide a reasonable extension to freight and commuter rail lines to implement this complex safety technology.
— Cal Dooley, president and CEO, American Chemistry Council, Washington
-
(ACC Mentioned) Train Service Threat Remains
Oct 22, 2015 | Daily Star Journal
By Jack Ventimiglia
The threat of freight train services beginning to shut down starting this month, with an almost total shutdown of all passenger and freight services starting nationally Jan. 1, remains on the table, though U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt extended hope during a press call Wednesday.
A total reduction of rail service would reduce the nation’s work force by about 700,000 jobs and cost $30 billion in the first quarter of 2016, an American Chemistry Council study released this month suggests. The council relies heavily on freight service to move products.
The pending shutdown is based on Congress requiring railroads to install the Positive Train Control safety system by Jan. 1, a deadline railroads have worked to meet, but one they said from the beginning they could not meet. Blunt favors granting railroads an extension, possibly by becoming part of the long-awaited federal highway bill.
“There are lots of reasons why the compliance date was not going to be reached and it’s likely to be a part of the highway bill,” he said. “But I would hope we have this resolved. There is a House and Senate agreement on extending the deadline. … I was very much a part of that agreement.”
Not everyone is in agreement that Congress did not give trains enough time to install Positive Train Control. Sen.Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, told The Hill he rejected a blanket extension that lets railroads off the hook for improving safety for passengers.
“It has been more than 45 years since the National Transportation Safety Board first urged railroads to implement positive train control – an unacceptable delay in implementation of this critical, life-saving technology that has allowed numerous, preventable tragedies,” Blumenthal said in a statement after the House measure’s introduction.
The alternative to extending the deadline for PTC is not good, Blunt said.
“If you don’t extend the deadline, frankly, our rail systems, both passenger and freight, are not going to be functioning after the first of the year and nobody wants that to happen,” he said. “Everybody suddenly seems to have had the bucket of cold water it takes to get off their soapbox and start talking about the reality of what has to happen for Positive Train Control to have a chance to be implemented.”
Starting at the end of this month, some railroads will stop taking freight orders unless an extension is granted because they will not be able to guarantee delivery, Blunt said in an interview earlier this month.
The harmful effects will start well before the deadline passes. He suggested an extension will be reached in coming days.
“I’m confident that will happen and I would bet that that happens before the 1st of November as part of whatever needs to happen on the extension of the highway bill,” Blunt said.
Amtrak passenger railroad, which stops in Warrensburg, is among railroad companies across the nation that Congress requires to install the Positive Train Control system by 2016.
Railroads suggest an extension of three years would give them time to install PTC.
Positive Train Control is a system designed to slow automatically trains going too fast. The May 12 Amtrak train wreck that claimed eight lives in Philadelphia might not have happened with PTC in place. The train traveled at 102 mph in a 50 mph zone.
Some railroad freight companies may have a difficult time paying for PTC, but the problem for Missouri Amtrak is severe. Neither Amtrak nor the state have money for PTC – Amtrak would pay $12 million and the state $18 million. As a result, Amtrak announced an intention to close in Missouri at the end of the year.
Missouri has the No. 2 and No. 3 biggest railroad exchanges in America, in Kansas City and St. Louis.
Findings in the American Chemical Council study include:
• “(A) disruption of rail service lasting only one month will result in a 2.6 percentage reduction to U.S. real GDP growth during the first quarter of 2016, which would put a major chill on just about every leading indicator in the 1st quarter, including the following:
• “The unemployment rate would increase by 0.3 percent with a loss of 700,000 jobs;
• “Household incomes would fall by over $17 billion, depressing consumer confidence and spending;
• “Vehicle sales would be driven down with 175,000 fewer cars sold, and housing starts would stall with almost 28,000 fewer homes built, all of which would have dire consequences for a multitude of industries throughout the supply chain.”
-
House Bill Would Extend PTC Deadline
Oct 22, 2015 | Progressive Rail Roading
A surface transportation funding bill being drafted today by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee contains a measure that would extend the positive train control (PTC) deadline for three years.
The bipartisan proposal, contained in the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 3763), would extend the deadline for railroads to install PTC from Dec. 31, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. After that three-year extension, the transportation secretary would have the authority to extend the deadline on an individual basis for an additional two years.
The measure comes as railroad industry executives have been urgently calling on Congress to extend the deadline beyond the year’s end. Most railroads won’t have their PTC systems operating by then. As a result, many railroads have said they will have to cease operations on parts of their networks in order to comply with federal law.
Yesterday, some House members joined rail industry leaders to call on the rest of Congress to pass legislation that would give the industry more time to complete installation of the complex safety technology.
"I'm pleased that House and Senate negotiators came to an agreement [Tuesday] on an extension of the PTC mandate that sets the bar high for safety and holds the railroads' feet to the fire," said Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) in a press release. "There is no way the railroads can meet the Jan. 1 deadline, meaning America’s railroads would soon grind to a halt."
While granting the extension, Congress should "closely track the progress of the railroads to ensure that they are making sufficient investments in PTC so that they will complete installation as quickly as possible," Lipinski said. -
Wash. Court Weighs Environmental Review for Crude-by-Rail Facilities
Oct 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A Washington state court this week upheld a decision mandating further environmental review for crude oil facilities but denied environmentalists' attempts to use other legal tools against the projects.
The Washington Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected an industry appeal of an earlier decision forcing environmental impact statements for planned rail terminal expansions. But the court also ruled that the companies involved did not have to demonstrate financial ability to cover a potential oil spill before receiving permits.
The Quinault Indian Nation, the Sierra Club and several local environmental groups were targeting proposed oil terminal development projects from Westway Terminal Co. and Imperium Terminal Services LLC. The combined expansion projects would allow the facilities to store up to 1.6 million barrels of oil at a time. Westway estimated receipt of one 120-car train every three days.
The groups' challenges are part of a broader attempt to slow the increase of crude-by-rail traffic in the Pacific Northwest. They already succeeded in persuading local regulators to vacate permits and require additional environmental review for the Grays Harbor-area projects (EnergyWire, March 20).
But the environmentalists' secondary challenge -- whether the regulators should withhold permits until companies can demonstrate they have the financial resources to manage spills -- was denied.
The groups argued that oil spill financial responsibility demonstrations required by the State Environmental Policy Act must be submitted before permitting so regulators and the public can be sure that the companies are well-equipped to handle any potential mishaps.
The court disagreed, finding that the exact language of SEPA simply doesn't specify timing.
"The statute and its implementing regulations are silent as to when a showing of financial responsibility must be made," the opinion said. "Thus, we hold that it was not error for the Board to allow only a later demonstration of responsibility here."
The court also ruled that the facilities are not subject to regulation under the state's Ocean Resources Management Act because the projects, though coastal, are land-based.
Environmental impact statements for the projects are now open for public comment.
-
Clean Power Plan Finally Expected to be Published
Oct 22, 2015 | Politico (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
CLEAN POWER PLAN — LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, START YOUR ENGINES: EPA’s carbon rule for power plants will formally be published in tomorrow’s The Federal Register, according to a pre-publication notice that showed up this morning. That means tomorrow kicks off the 60-day clock to sue over the rule. Expect the first suits to be filed shortly after the court opens for business Friday.
Story Continued Below
The Clean Power Plan, covering existing power plants, is available here. The rule for new, modified and reconstructed power plants is here. And the proposed federal implementation plan, set for finalization next year, is available here.
Just in time, environmentalists are holding a press call this morning outlining a legal defense for the rule. Meanwhile, the House Energy and Power Subcommittee also just happens to be holding a hearing this afternoon on CPP legal issues - and the witness list includes Elbert Lin, West Virginia's solicitor general and likely one of the people who will argue against the rule in front of judges down the line.
As Alex Guillen reports this morning for Pros, “The timing of the rules' publication , nearly three months after President Barack Obama rolled them out at the White House, makes it unlikely that a court will act to block them ahead of December's Paris talks, where some 200 nations will gather to hash out a pact to address climate change.”
WELCOME TO THURSDAY! I'm your host, Eric Wolff and I really don't think Luke has gone to the dark side in the new movie. J.J. Abrams isn't known for his subtlety, but the trailer lays it on just a little too thick, I say. If you think Luke is totes a Lord of the Sith, or if you have any energy tips, quips, and comments, send them to ewolff@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @ericwolff, @Morning_Energy, and @POLITICOPro.
PAUL WANTS SENATE TO GET THE FINAL OUI OUI ON PARIS ACCORD: GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul is calling for a resolution requiring President Obama to get Senate approval for any deal reached in Paris. Pro's Andrew Restuccia writes, "The Obama administration is hoping that any agreement that emerges from the Paris conference will not be structured as a treaty so it will not have to be submitted to the Senate for approval. Republicans strongly reject that strategy."
GOP POLLSTERS WARN AGAINST DISMISSING CLIMATE SCIENCE: "Participants [at Capitol Hill forum] warned that candidates risk alienating moderate swing voters if they reject climate science or oppose clean energy in the GOP primary. During a panel discussion among Republican pollsters, Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies said candidates risk being perceived as 'a dinosaur when it comes to energy policy' if they ignore clean energy. Instead, he said they should tout jobs created by wind and solar development, reduced health care spending that comes with cleaner air and national security benefits tied to reduced dependence on foreign oil." Pro's Darren Goode has more from yesterday's event put on by Young Conservatives for Energy Reform and the Christian Coalition.
HILLARY AND FERC … WAIT, WHAT? FERC got more attention from Hillary Clinton than it likely wanted when she fielded a question on its evaluation of natural gas pipelines and accused the commission of undervaluing input from locals. “Right now their mandate seems to be much more about the delivery of energy anywhere, anytime, and I don’t think that’s adequate," the Democratic presidential frontrunner said at town hall event in New Hampshire last week. Clinton also said also said “FERC needs to be part of that commitment” to confront climate change, noting that that would color her appointments to the independent agency. FERC considers environmental impacts such as air quality when it evaluates pipelines and export terminals, but climate change is outside its purview.
— Clinton also responded to a question about fracking by reiterating her position that gas is a valuable "bridge" to wean the economy off coal and oil. But she added that it was important to empower local government to reject fracking in their borders. "There are some places in the country where this extraction technology may be appropriate," Clinton said. But, she added, “We should also never preempt states and localities from saying no.”
RYAN STILL GUNNING TO BE SPEAKER: So reports POLITICO'S Jake Sherman and Lauren French: "Rep. Paul Ryan will proceed with plans to run for House speaker despite not securing the formal endorsement of the House Freedom Caucus. Ryan's decision, which came after a high-stakes meeting with the group of hard-line conservatives earlier in the day, all but ensures that the Ways and Means Committee chairman will succeed John Boehner as Republican leader at the end of the month."
THE STALLED CONSERVATION AMENDMENT: That might as well be what TSCA stands for these days. A brief exchange on the Senate floor yesterday showed a bipartisan overhaul of the decades-old Toxic Substances Control Act remains stuck in the Senate over Sen. Richard Burr’s demand for a vote on his amendment to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Sen. Tom Udall asked unanimous consent to bring up the TSCA bill he is co-sponsoring — with some sweeteners added to give it filibuster-proof support. Burr objected to that request unless he received unanimous consent to could bring up his LWCF amendment, and Utah Sen. Mike Lee said he wouldn’t let LWCF get a vote. Everyone filed their objections, and the TSCA bill remains in limbo.
** Presented by Chevron: Girls everywhere can benefit from hands-on learning and role models in STEM fields. At Chevron, we’ve partnered with TechBridge to help inspire over 14,000 young women to discover their passion for science, technology, engineering and math. Learn how Chevron supports America’s future innovators: http://tinyurl.com/qal3twg **
THE WIND CRIES … PTC: Danish wind turbine maker Vestas’ CEO Andrew Runevad, in town for Secretary of State John Kerry’s Climate and Clean Energy Investment Forum, dropped by to chat with ME about the company’s wind farm deal with Google in Kenya, climate change, and of course the Production Tax Credit. Even though wind power costs have dropped by half in the past five years, the PTC remains a “significant component” of the company’s business in the U.S. — and one of the reasons behind the industry’s advances, he said. The PTC, which expired at the end of last year but is still available to projects that were already underway, should be renewed, said Runevad, and could also be given some sort of phase-out period, so long as all forms of energy were put on a level playing field. “I’m a firm believer in the free market,” he said. Like others in the industry, the Danish company has been whipsawed by the on-again, off-again incentive, and its manufacturing operations in Colorado that were nearly mothballed a few years ago now employ about three-quarters of the 4,000 Vestas employees in the U.S. And since wind power makes up only about 4 percent of the U.S. power market, “there is a lot more to be done,” he said.
HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES? IPHONE MAKER TO SLASH CO2 EMISSIONS IN CHINA: Apple is moving to offset its energy consumption at its Chinese factories and throughout its supply chain, the company said last night. Apple recently completed construction of 40 MW of solar arrays in China, enough to offset the energy use from its offices and stores in that country. It is planning to build another 200 MW of solar, and it is partnering with companies throughout its supply chain, notably Foxxconn Technology, with an initiative to help them become more energy efficient and procure clean energy of their own.
CUZ I'M LEAVING ON A JET PLANE, DON'T KNOW WHAT MY MPG WILL BE: U.S airlines improved fuel efficiency by 1.7 percent in 2014, according to a report out today from the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation. The group's annual rankings found that the efficiency was gained mostly through operational improvements, including increases in filling seats and seating density — which, loosely translated, means bumping elbows with the person next to you is saving fuel. Alaska, Spirit, Frontier and Southwest maintained their Top 4 spots on the efficiency rankings, with Delta, Virgin and American ranking at the bottom. The gap between them is about 25 percent. EPA is moving toward regulating airplane greenhouse gas emissions, though any rule would be finished under the next administration.
COULD A CARBON TAX HAVE SAVED KEYSTONE FROM ITS QUAGMIRE? Former TransCanada executive Dennis McConaghy, now a member of the libertarian Niskanen Center, opines that a taxing carbon emissions could have allowed former Prime Minister Stephen Harper to permit substantial oil extraction while paying heed to environmental concerns. "Carbon pricing would have allowed Canada to at least claim that it had internalized economically the risk of climate change while continuing to increase its carbon emissions over the short- and medium-term … the Keystone XL pipeline project might have been salvaged." New PM Justin Trudeau has promised to act to deal with climate change, but his policy mechanism remains uncertain.
RETIRED OFFICIALS AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE: In a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal today, Madeleine Albright, Olympia Snowe, and 46 other retired high government officials issue a call to act on climate issues. "America’s elected leaders and private sector must think past tomorrow to focus on this growing problem, and take action at home and abroad," the ad reads. The ad has the logo of Partnership for a Secure America at the bottom.
BLESSED ARE THE FOUR-LEGGED: If any ME readers are on Capitol Hill tomorrow and see a chinchilla, Park police horse, alligator, terrapin, and various dogs and cats filing into the United Methodist building, they should not be alarmed. There is no ark inside, and a 40-day flood is not imminent. What they are seeing is instead a service for the Blessing of the Animals, which will be attended by a diverse set of religious leaders, Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Diane Black, and the aforementioned critters. A press announcement says the service will "be an opportunity to thank God for all creatures and reflect on the importance of saving endangered species and the role of the Endangered Species Act."
If you go: 1 p.m., United Methodist Building on Capitol Hill, south side lawn (facing the Supreme Court), 100 Maryland Ave NE
-
Obama to Publish Climate Change Rule, Sparking Legal Fight
Oct 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
President Obama’s landmark climate change regulation for power plants will be published on Friday, opening the door to challenges in Congress and the federal court system.
The challenges are expected to begin shortly after the rule appears in the Federal Register.
The publication of the rule comes nearly three months after Obama unveiled the regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The attorneys general of about 15 conservative states, led by West Virginia’s Patrick Morrisey, plan to file lawsuits against the rule shortly after it appears, claiming in federal court that the EPA is violating the Clean Air Act with the regulation.
“With this rule, the EPA is attempting to transform itself from an environmental regulator to a central planning agency for states’ energy economies,” Morrisey said after the August unveiling.
“The Clean Air Act was never intended to be used to create this type of regulatory regime, and it flies in the face of the powers granted to states under the U.S. Constitution.”
Additionally, congressional Republicans are likely to propose resolutions under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the rule. Obama has promised to veto any such action.
The rule, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, mandates a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions, through individual state targets that state regulators are responsible for meeting.
In a notice posted Thursday morning, the Office of the Federal Register said the regulation would appear in Friday’s edition.
The EPA’s opponents had cried foul when the regulation was not immediately published in the Register, claiming that the Obama administration was trying to delay challenges to it.
Morrisey and his allies filed a lawsuit against the regulation in federal court in August. But the judges dismissed his challenge as premature, since the rule was not in the Register yet.
-
It's Showtime for Legal and Hill Battles
Oct 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick and Robin Bravender
An epic legal battle surrounding the Obama administration's signature climate change rule formally kicks off tomorrow.
U.S. EPA is set to publish its Clean Power Plan -- a rule to crack down on power plants' greenhouse gas emissions -- in the Federal Register. The bureaucratic move will trigger a flurry of lawsuits and launch what promises to be a lengthy war in the courts over the Obama administration's regulation.
"Well, it's finally here," environmental attorney David Doniger said today. "You've seen the trailer -- and maybe this is not as highly awaited as the new 'Star Wars' movie -- but the Clean Power Plan will be published tomorrow."
A raft of legal challenges are expected from states and industry groups that have publicly denounced the regulation. And Republicans on Capitol Hill will roll out Congressional Review Act resolutions targeting the Clean Power Plan and a rule for new units that will be published alongside it tomorrow. But although it may take years for the rule to work its way through the courts -- ending with a likely decision by the Supreme Court -- congressional efforts are expected to end with a presidential veto if they clear both chambers.
Lawyers on both sides of the issue have been eagerly awaiting the rule's formal publication, which will precede a 60-day window for opponents to sue in federal appeals court.
States and industry litigants are expected to challenge the final existing power plant rule on many of the same grounds they previewed in lawsuits to stop last year's draft version (E&E Daily, Oct. 19). Critics are expected to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to block the rule, arguing they'll be harmed by its implementation. EPA and its allies, meanwhile, say they're confident the rule will stand up to legal scrutiny.
Among the lawsuits expected to pile in tomorrow will be one from West Virginia, one of the states leading the charge against EPA's regulations.
"The President's illegal rule will have devastating impacts on West Virginia families, and families across the country," state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) said today in a statement. "West Virginia, working with a large bipartisan coalition of other States, will be filing suit and seeking a stay of the rule promptly tomorrow."
EPA's foes are "promising to line up at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington tomorrow to file their lawsuits," Doniger said. "They will try to impress you with the number of lawsuits and with hot rhetoric about supposedly dire impacts." On EPA's side, he said, "the Clean Power Plan will have a powerful army of defenders as well, in this court battle."
Earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit dismissed an attempt by more than a dozen states, energy companies and industry groups to block EPA from finalizing its greenhouse gas standards for power plants. In an unusual move, EPA's challengers asked the judges to halt the rule before it was finished, arguing it will have a significant economic impact and questioning whether EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to issue it. The court said the challengers had to wait until the rule was final (Greenwire, June 9).
Speaking on a call this morning with reporters, EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe said the agency was focused on helping the states implement the rule, not on efforts to undo it.
"We know these processes are out there and people will engage in them," she said on the call.
But she reiterated that she was confident the rule was on firm legal footing -- a foundation that is painstakingly articulated in the 1,560-page final rule.
"So I am confident that we will continue to make progress and to show leadership on this issue, here at home and internationally," McCabe said.
McCabe and her staff have kept up a busy travel schedule since the rule was finalized to help states begin laying the groundwork for implementation. EPA staffers find themselves fielding ever more specific questions from states ahead of next year's deadline for an initial submittal toward a state implementation plan, she said. And few states are not planning.
"States generally prefer to be in the driver's seat themselves and develop their own Clean Air Act plans, and that's what I'm hearing," she said.
McCabe told a conference hosted by the Environmental Council of the States in Washington, D.C., yesterday that EPA would be as involved or not involved as states preferred as they prepare their implementation plans -- which are ultimately due by 2018.
"We are off and running about the business of implementing the Clean Power Plan," she told the ballroom full of environmental regulators. "And we will be there with you every step of the way unless you don't want us there with you on some of those steps."
Tomorrow's publication begins the 90-day public comment period for EPA's proposed model plans for states and its draft federal implementation plan. The former is intended to guide states as they craft their own plans or to act as a ready-made option, but the latter shows how EPA would enforce curbs on power plants in states that opt not to comply. EPA will also take comment on the voluntary Clean Energy Incentive Program it included in its final version of the rule for early action, and EPA announced yesterday that it planned to hold meetings with stakeholder groups to discuss the program.Capitol Hill challenges
Republicans on Capitol Hill remain relatively tight-lipped about their own plans to challenge the rule. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is taking the lead in the Senate in offering two CRA resolutions to scuttle the new and existing power plant rules. But his office declined today to say when they might be introduced.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said today that she still expects action on her bill to allow states to opt out of the existing rule and to scrap the rule for new sources. But the CRA motions will probably come to the floor sooner, she said.
"So two tracks, I think. And try to fight it that way," she said.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) has said he, too, plans to offer CRA resolutions in the House.
While these efforts will not overcome President Obama's veto, Republicans hope they will embarrass the administration as it sends negotiators to Paris next month in hopes of hammering out an international emissions deal. The U.S. submission to the United Nations process depends heavily on the power plant rules to deliver reductions over the coming years, and GOP members say the world should know that the rule is unlikely to survive.
But a senior administration official told reporters yesterday that the rule tracks with trends already happening in the U.S. power sector and therefore is likely to stand the test of time.
"So I think that we feel quite confident that we can make the case that without new law, without new authorities, and based on pretty well-established regulatory approaches, the United States is well on the trajectory to get to those goals," the official said.
Reporters Geof Koss and Kevin Bogardus contributed.
-
Carbon Rule’s October Publication Likely to Keep it Alive Through Paris
Oct 22, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
EPA will publish its landmark power plant carbon rules in Friday's Federal Register, marking the start of the period when foes can file lawsuits and setting in motion the legal fight that is almost certain to end at the Supreme Court.
The timing of the rules' publication, nearly three months after President Barack Obama rolled them out at the White House, makes it unlikely that a court will act to block them ahead of December’s Paris talks, where some 200 nations will gather to hash out a pact to address climate change.
EPA’s Clean Power Plan is the linchpin of Obama’s climate agenda, and he has cited it as a springboard that the U.S. can use in the international climate negotiations to help persuade other big polluters to trim their emissions.
Republicans and other critics of the rule have long contended that the administration would delay the publication that will open the door for legal attacks until after the Paris gathering, an assertion flatly denied by the administration.
“They got all the international credit they were looking for in the lead up to Paris by announcing the final rule back in August, but they have ensured there won’t be any type of court ruling against it by delaying publication for several months,” said Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA air chief under President George W. Bush who now lobbies for clients such as Arch Coal and DTE Energy.
While the rule will now be open to litigation, it appears likely it will stay alive through the end of the year anyway.
The Clean Air Act provides a 60-day window after publication in the Federal Register for lawsuits over regulations to be filed. Courts have already rejected attempts to block the rule ahead of publication, though those failed attempts laid groundwork for the challengers to push for rapid relief once again.
Challengers are expected to ask for a stay almost immediately, but the judges assigned to the case would be unlikely to consider those requests until that 60-day window closes, which will come shortly after the Paris talks are slated to conclude on Dec. 11. Waiting until the end of the 60-day period allows anyone who wants to sue over the rule the opportunity to weigh in, while also coincidentally sparing Obama the embarrassment of a legal setback during the U.N. gathering.
Nonetheless, the Obama administration and its supporters are preparing defenses for every possible legal challenge.
States and companies that hope to kill the climate change rule may have an uphill battle to convince a court to put it on ice while lawsuits play out. Their argument that the CPP is causing irreparable harm may fall flat, since the states have years before they must take action, and so far they only have to devote some state employees to crafting their compliance plans.
However, in the challengers’ favor is the Supreme Court’s recent decision sending EPA’s mercury rule back to the agency, a surprise ruling that had little practical effect because the rule took effect months earlier — though notably the challengers in that case never sought to stay the mercury rule. Don’t let another major EPA regulation move forward when the carbon rule may well be struck down by the courts, they will argue.
EPA’s supporters say they don’t expect the court halt the rule, but caution that nothing is set in stone.
The CPP does not kick in until 2022 — well after any lawsuits would be decided — and states essentially have until 2018 to submit final implementation plans, factors that EPA defenders say should keep the court from stepping in now to block them. Agency supporters also note that states do not actually have to do anything because EPA will directly regulate power plants in any states that decline to write implementation plans.
While the tussle over the rule for existing plants will be the fiercest battle, the challengers are also hoping to undercut it by getting EPA’s rule for new power plants tossed out first.
The Clean Air Act requires new pollution sources to be regulated before EPA can set rules for existing sources, meaning that if the rule for new plants is tossed out, the rule for existing plantswill fall as well.
The challenge to the new-plant rule will hinge on EPA’s requirement for coal plants to use highly efficient boilers and capture 20 percent of their carbon dioxide emissions. EPA relaxed those requirements compared to its proposed rule, a tacit nod to the potential legal vulnerability, but critics say it’s still an unachievable target.
For the rule for existing plants, there are three major lines of attack, each of which has the potential to kneecap the regulation: that it exceeds EPA’s authority, that it contradicts a Clean Air Act provision meant to avoid duplicative rules, and that it violates the Fifth and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.
-
EPA: Climate Rule on ‘Sound Legal and Technical Foundation’
Oct 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is confident that its landmark climate rule for power plants will withstand lawsuits, its top air regulator said.
One day before the rule is to be published in the Federal Register, the EPA’s Janet McCabe sought to reassure the public that the coming flood of lawsuits will fail.
“The Clean Power Plan is based on a sound legal and technical foundation, and it was shaped by extensive input from states, industry, energy regulators, health and environmental groups and individual members of the public from across this country,” McCabe told reporters Thursday.
“As a result, the plan is fair, flexible, affordable and designed to reflect the fast-growing trends toward cleaner American energy,” she said.
The rule seeks a 32-percent cut in the power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions, written under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
About 15 states, led by West Virginia, plan to file lawsuits in federal court, along with numerous business and fossil fuel groups. The challenge is likely to reach the Supreme Court, given the high stakes.
“We feel strongly that, given our authorities and legal precedent of the Clean Air Act that our application of 111(d) here conforms with those authorities and that legal precedent,” McCabe said.
The EPA has been under fire for the nearly three months it took between the regulation’s Aug. 3 unveiling and Friday’s publication. Since lawsuits and congressional challenges cannot be filed until the rule is published, opponents charged that the EPA wanted to delay challenges.
McCabe disagreed, saying that the delay is routine and that the EPA only took about a month before sending the rule to publishers for final action.
“This is a routine, standard process that we do every time a rule is finalized,” she said. “This actually moved along quite rapidly, considering the length of the rule and the fact that there were three packages.”
McCabe and her staff have been focusing over the last three months on answering questions from states, utilities and other stakeholders about the rule.
The questions have mostly centered around how states can apply for extensions for the rule’s deadlines and how they can take advantage of the incentive program for new renewable energy infrastructure, she said.
-
Rule Poses No Near-Term Threat to Public Power Credit -- S&P
Oct 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Ratings agency Standard & Poor's believes U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan poses no immediate risk to the credit quality of public power and electric cooperative utilities.
EPA's rule "could create operational and financial burdens for many ... particularly those that rely extensively on coal generation to meet customers' electricity needs," S&P said in a report released yesterday.
But "two principal factors underlie our view that the new rules won't have an immediate rating impact. First, the final rules provide utilities with more time to develop operational responses because interim compliance goals do not begin until 2022, two years later than in the EPA's June 2014 proposal," S&P said.
Second, S&P cited the tools the utilities have for recovering compliance costs and preserving their credit quality. "For instance, most of these utilities have autonomous ratemaking authority that gives them the agility and discretion needed to allocate compliance costs to retail customers," S&P said.
"Even for those public power and co-op utilities whose rates are subject to regulation by state or local agencies, we foresee stable ratings because we expect that regulators will facilitate the recovery of costs utilities incur to comply with the rules," said S&P credit analyst David Bodek.
"We generally agree with their conclusions," said Joe Nipper, senior vice president for regulatory affairs at the American Public Power Association.
"They do really good work; they know us well. They got it right again, and at the same time there are important unanswered questions" about compliance, he said.
"It's going to vary a little bit because there's so much diversity among our membership," Nipper said. "We're pretty optimistic about our agility to comply, including our ability to adjust rates if necessary. We are cautiously optimistic," he said.
S&P's "bottom line about uncertainties remaining is a critical element of what this means long-term for everybody," said Kirk Johnson, senior vice president of government relations for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
"It's unclear what the specific impact be on a particular utility or a particular generator is going to be in the near term, so the notion of the importance of a judicial stay coming out of somebody like S&P is an important piece of the report," Johnson said.
S&P's credit outlook has a two-year horizon.
Generally, the credit profile of public power and cooperative utilities are "stronger" than for investor-owned utilities, Bodek said in an interview.
Both "are in the A-rating category" as they "stand on their own two feet by and large. They don't have a profit motive and they don't put capital at risk as do the investor-owned utilities. So they have a more conservative business model," he said. "Because they're tax exempt, they do have lower borrowing costs."
And their "autonomous ratemaking authority also provides them with a little more agility in terms of responding to changes. They don't have to go through a rate proceeding," as do IOUs, Bodek said.
However, if compliance costs are "very onerous and rate-setting bodies -- whether residing within the utility or vested in outside agencies -- can't set rates at levels that can simultaneously be affordable for customers and preserve utility credit measures, we could downgrade utilities whose credit measures materially weaken," S&P said.'Different burdens' for utilities
Bodek noted that public power utilities, cooperatives and IOUs have "handled" compliance with previous EPA air regulations without much trouble.
"You're going to see different burdens on the utilities in terms of their responding to the Clean Power Plan. But there is an opportunity for utilities to start charting out in what direction are they going to go and what do they need to do," Bodek said.
"And if they are going to need to raise rates, do they wait until they are on the cusp of major changes and have rate shock with a large rate increase? Or are they going to have a smooth trajectory that takes them from current rates to higher rates in less painful increments?" he said.
-
EPA Head: Relationship with States Never Better
Oct 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 WIre
By Devin Henry
Federal environmental regulators have never had a “better relationship” with states than they do now, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said Thursday, one day before a new regulation is expected to attract a bevy of lawsuits from state attorneys general.
“I think EPA has, frankly, never had a better relationship, and more open, with the states, and more respectful of one another,” McCarthy said Thursday at a Center for American Progress event.
The Obama administration will formally publish the Clean Power Plan in the Federal Register on Friday, and more than a dozen states have already promised lawsuits. Several Republican governors are considering not complying with the rule, which requires that states cut their power sector carbon emissions.
Several states have already butted heads with the EPA and many have looked to rebuff its rule-making this year. About 30 states sued against a rule expanding the agency’s regulatory power over waterways this summer. A federal court issued a nationwide injunction against the rule earlier this month.
McCarthy was touting the EPA’s work with states on methane emissions limits for the natural gas sector. A handful of states have instituted methane rules, something the EPA proposed doing nationally in August.
But she also said the power plant rule is rooted in work states have already done in the energy sector.
“We’re not asking for anything to be done in the Clean Power Plan that hasn’t been fully demonstrated by states for decades,” she said. “How do you do energy efficiency, how do you do renewable energy?”
The methane rule — a regulation designed to encourage national gas operators to track and prevent emissions at their well sites — is also designed to help states, McCarthy said. Cutting down methane leaks will mean more natural gas hitting the market, which could, in turn, lead to more natural-gas-burning power plants.
“We know that cleaner-burning energy sources like natural gas is going to be central to states as they implement the Clean Power Plan and as they transition to an increasingly lower carbon future, and we want to support these efforts going forward,” she said.
-
Administration, States See ESPS As 'Lens' For Multi-Pollutant Planning Work
Oct 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Obama administration officials, states and some power sector representatives are touting EPA's greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants as a “lens” for multi-pollutant planning in which states and the utility sector can jointly schedule compliance with multiple air pollution rules in a more coordinated fashion.
While such efforts likely will not result in the submission of one comprehensive plan to address a suite of obligations, sources say, actions taken to comply with one rule could be complimentary to the GHG rule -- slated to be published in the Oct. 23 Federal Register -- or other regulations.
EPA's existing source performance standards (ESPS), also known as the Clean Power Plan, “does provide an opportunity to think about the strategies that serve all of the goals at the same time,” Jared Snyder of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation said during an Oct. 21 workshop hosted by the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS).
He added: “It may not be a single multi-pollutant plan. We're not at that point. Maybe we'll get to that point over the years to come. But we can think about strategies that will help us attain all of those various goals that are out there.”
The remarks come after EPA officials during ECOS' fall meeting in August touted a “window” of plans that will roughly align over the next few years for the GHG rule, as well as EPA's air quality standard for ozone and the regional haze program.
Similarly, White House climate advisor Megan Ceronsky told the recent ECOS meeting that the ESPS offers states two general options to undertake such planning.
One, known as the “state measures” approach, allows a state to outline a suite of efforts that will bring it into compliance with its ESPS targets by 2030, without making those efforts federally enforceable. Ceronsky said that would allow the state to gain credit for actions taken to comply with other rules.
The other approach, known as an “emission standards” plan, focuses on emission trading. Ceronsky described that as a more dynamic planning effort that would ensure power plants meet their GHG goals, while allowing them to respond to regulatory or market changes over time.
That “puts a structure in place that will assure Clean Power Plan compliance while everything else can happen independently. . . . [It ensures] the carbon reductions can happen, but with a lot of flexibility over time to change an approach as other contexts change, be it fuel prices or other environmental rules.”
Others at the event also embraced the approach. “Folks are beginning to view [the ESPS] as a lens through which they can view the rest of their environmental compliance thoughts, and I think that makes sense,” said Alex Bond of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), which represents investor-owned utilities.
Bond cautioned that multi-pollutant planning in the current regulatory environment is “not going to be perfect” because the sector's air, water and waste obligations do not always sync up.
But he praised EPA's decision in the final ESPS to provide utilities with “enough time” to consider the suite of rules, in part by delaying the start of the compliance period from 2020 to 2022 and easing interim targets.
Mercury, Haze Rules
As an example, many observers have noted that coal plant retirements spurred by EPA's mercury rule for power plants can aid states' compliance with the ESPS. Additionally, plant closures or coal-to-gas switching under a regional haze plan can also be used for compliance with GHG targets.
On the other hand, those actions can also help states attain EPA's newly tightened ozone air standard as well as air quality standards for other conventional pollutants.
Todd Parfitt, director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, agreed that multi-pollutant efforts likely won't result in “a single plan that you would submit” and are instead “an opportunity to take a look at the other initiatives that are underway.
Such work will be important, he argued, because compliance is “as much an economic issue as it is an environmental issue. From industry's perspective, I think it's going to be very important that we take a look at what benefits you get from the results of one regulation, like regional haze, for example.”
Regarding haze plans, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe told the ECOS meeting that the agency is nearly done with the “initial round” of state compliance plans, which are aimed at restoring visibility in national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions by 2064.
“As we move into the second round of regional haze planning for the states,” she said, “we are poised and at a perfect moment to have people thinking about these things holistically.”
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested