Preview Newsletter
NI - ACC PM 10/23/2015
-
(ACC Mentioned) Resin Prices Can't Find a Bottom
Oct 23, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American commodity resin prices continued to search for a market bottom in September — but couldn’t seem to find one. -
Triphenyl Phosphate, Found in 'Eco-Friendly' Nail Polish, Spurs Worries
Oct 23, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
Some cosmetics manufacturers and beauty salons promote "eco-friendly" nail polishes that are free of a handful of chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive problems. -
Simple Steps For Safer Face Paint
Oct 23, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
From spooky to adorable, face paint can put the finishing touches on a great Halloween costume. -
Power Sector Issues Warning on Senate Amendments
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
A coalition of utility and power grid interests has outlined its opposition to a number of amendments to the Senate cybersecurity bill that it says would undercut the thrust of the legislation. -
The Senate Should Take a Crucial First Step on Cybersecurity
Oct 23, 2015 | Washington Post
By Editorial board
After years of failure to find a consensus on cybersecurity, the Senate is expected to vote early next week on a bill that would enable the government and the private sector to share information about malicious threats and respond to them more quickly. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Train Issue Nears Fiscal Cliff
Oct 23, 2015 | Daily Star-Journal
By Editorial board
Talk has not resolved the issue of the looming Positive Train Control deadline that, if missed, has dire economic consequences for America. -
Highway and Transit Bill Heading for House Floor, but When?
Oct 23, 2015 | Politico - Morning Transportation
By Jennifer Scholtes
House Transportation and Infrastructure leaders have harnessed a lot of bipartisan momentum in the past few days, introducing their multiyear transportation plan just a week ago... -
Congress Turns Back on Rail Safety
Oct 23, 2015 | I Free Press
By William Church
This week Congress turned its back on railroad safety. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industries Outline Early Legal Concerns Over EPA 'Consistency' Proposal
Oct 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Groups representing the energy, chemical and other major industries are outlining early legal concerns over EPA's proposal to update its "regional consistency" policy on uniform application of agency requirements... -
Final Ozone Rule Coming in Monday's Federal Register
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Obama administration's final rule setting a new ozone standard will be published Monday in the Federal Register. -
EPA Ozone NAAQS Publication Will Start Clock For Suits
Oct 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA plans to publish in the Oct. 26 Federal Register its final rule revising its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb... -
States, Industries Launch Legal Assault
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Jean Chemnick
The legal onslaught against the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan kicked off today as 25 states, industry and labor groups challenged the rule in court. -
Milestone Day for EPA Rule -- and Lawsuits
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA is publishing the final Clean Power Plan to slash carbon emissions from power plants in the Federal Register today, a much-anticipated milestone... -
Obama Sued by 24 States over Coal Rule
Oct 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of 24 states and a coal mining company filed lawsuits Friday to challenge the most significant piece of President Obama’s environmental agenda, his signature climate change rule for power plants. -
EPA Foes Teeing up Congressional Review Act Bids
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Republicans on both sides of Capitol Hill are poised to introduce resolutions early next week to kill U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and its new power plant rule, which were published in the Federal Register this morning. -
McCarthy on Clean Power Plan Lawsuits: We’re Ready
Oct 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
President Barack Obama’s EPA chief says the agency is prepared to withstand the barrage of lawsuits being filed today against its regulation of power plant greenhouse gas emissions. -
Whitfield Files House CRA Resolution Targeting Clean Power Plan
Oct 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Rep. Ed Whitfield, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee with authority over EPA's greenhouse gas emissions rules for power plants... -
EnergyWire's Kuckro Talks Legal, Legislative Challenges Facing Plan, Previews McCabe Sit-Down
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - TV
After nearly three months of anticipation, U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan was published in the Federal Register today. -
EPA Memo Lays out Details for Climate Plans, Extension Options
Oct 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
EPA sent a memo to states further outlining its expectations for the initial compliance plans they are required to submit under the Clean Power Plan... -
Fertilizer Manufacturers Sue EPA Over Air Toxics Rule
Oct 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
Fertilizer manufacturers are suing EPA over its final rule tightening air toxics standards for the sector... -
Feds Approve Oil Drilling in Alaska Reserve
Oct 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal officials have approved the first permit to drill for oil and natural gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. -
Special Session over Natural Gas Megaproject Starts Tomorrow
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Alaska Legislature is opening a special session tomorrow to consider proposals by Gov. Bill Walker (I) to reshape a state-industry partnership created to build a multibillion-dollar natural gas pipeline and export project.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Resin Prices Can't Find a Bottom
Oct 23, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American commodity resin prices continued to search for a market bottom in September — but couldn’t seem to find one.
Average per-pound selling prices for polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, PET bottle resin and PVC each fell in September. It was the second straight month that all five commodity materials experienced declines in the region.
All grades of HDPE, LDPE and LLDPE slid 4 cents per pound. PP prices dipped 1 cent. PS took a dizzying 9-cent dive. PET dropped 3 cents, while PVC prices declined by a penny.
Regional PE makers had taken the rare step of pre-announcing the 4-cent move to customers earlier in September. Market watchers regarded that move as a means for producers to limit the decline.
Crude oil prices — used as a global PE price-setter — have remained less than robust. Per-barrel prices for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude fell under $40 by late August and were still just under $50 in late trading Oct. 9.
At the Resin Technology Inc. consulting firm in Fort Worth, Texas, PE analyst Mike Burns said that regional PE prices now are expected to remain flat until oil prices approach $60 per barrel. Beyond that point, he added, regional PE makers may try to raise prices in the first part of 2016.
After the 4-cent September drop, regional PE prices now are down a net of 13 cents per pound so far in 2015. Demand for the material in the U.S. and Canada has remained solid. Through August, high and linear low density PE demand in that region each were up almost 6 percent, with low density PE sales up almost 2 percent, according to the American Chemistry Council.
For the year, regional PP prices now are down a net of 18 cents. The demand picture has been more positive, with North American sales up 5 percent through July. Domestic growth of 5.6 percent was lessened by an 11.5 percent drop in export sales during that seven-month period.
Tight supplies of both PP resin and propylene monomer feedstock have allowed North American PP makers to increase their profit margins by an estimated 10 cents per pound so far in 2015. In previous years, margin growth was flat as price drops in monomer were passed through to PP resin at the same levels.
The 9-cent PS plunge marked the second straight monthly decline for that material. Prices had slipped an average of 2 cents per pound in August, holding to a number that was pre-announced by PS makers Americas Styrenics and Styrolution.
The September PS price drop was more extreme, however, as the material followed benzene feedstock prices, which slipped 79 cents per gallon to finish September at $2.01.
October benzene prices are expected to be up slightly from that level, giving hope that regional PS prices can avoid a third straight monthly downturn. North American PS prices now are down a net of 13 cents per pound so far in 2015.
Much of the recent decline in benzene pricing is the result of increased imports, according to Phil Karig, managing director of Mathelin Bay Associates LLC, a consulting firm in St. Louis.
“As buyers around the world for benzene derivatives such as polystyrene wait to see where polymer prices will bottom, there’s a lot of short-term excess benzene that has to go somewhere,” he said. “And the U.S. market is as good a place as any, especially for exporters in countries that have seen their currencies weaken against the U.S. dollar in the last year.”
North American prices for PET bottle resin slipped an average of 3 cents per pound in September, moving that material into negative pricing territory for the year. PET prices now are down a net of 1 cent per pound so far in 2015. The September move is the second straight monthly PET price drop, following a 4-cent downturn in August.
Seasonally, PET has moved into the part of the year where cooler temperatures lead to less consumption of carbonated soft drinks and bottled water, two major PET markets. PET makers continue to struggle with lower consumption of soft drinks in general, as consumers seek healthier alternatives. That can lead to bottled water growth, but that product has been impacted in recent years by thinner bottles that use less PET per unit.
Selling prices for suspension PVC resins in the region dropped an average of 1 cent per pound in September, according to sources contacted by Plastics News.
Through August, U.S./Canadian PVC sales were down almost 1 percent vs. the same period in 2014, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales were down more than 2 percent, even as sales into export markets grew almost 3 percent.
Regional sales of PVC into most construction-related uses were flat or slightly down for the eight-month period, even as U.S. construction activity continued to improve. PVC sales into rigid pipe and tubing — which accounted for almost 45 percent of domestic sales — fell more than 1 percent.
PVC sales into extruded windows and doors also fell 1 percent, while sales into fencing and decking essentially were flat. The only construction-related segment that showed PVC sales growth for the eight months was siding and related uses, where sales grew almost 5 percent.
-
Triphenyl Phosphate, Found in 'Eco-Friendly' Nail Polish, Spurs Worries
Oct 23, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
Some cosmetics manufacturers and beauty salons promote "eco-friendly" nail polishes that are free of a handful of chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive problems.
But a new study suggests a replacement for one of those toxic compounds might be just as worrisome.
Signs of triphenyl phosphate, known as TPHP or TPP, turned up in every one of the 26 women tested a few hours after they applied nail polish commonly sold at department stores and pharmacies. The chemical, used to make polish flexible and durable, also is an ingredient in a controversial flame retardant added to furniture cushions.
Scientists are increasingly concerned about triphenyl phosphate because animal studies indicate it is an endocrine disruptor, meaning it can mimic natural hormones and scramble the healthy development of cells. One study showed the chemical can trigger obesity by causing immature bone cells to transform into fat. Another linked exposure to fertility problems.
The new study's authors said popular nail polish lines — including OPI, Sally Hansen, Revlon, Maybelline and Wet N Wild — switched to triphenyl phosphate during the past decade after pressure from consumers and retailers forced them to phase out the use of another compound, dibutyl phthalate, which is banned in cosmetics in Europe and listed as adevelopmental toxin in California.Built for longevity, acrylic and gel nails can hinder medical care in emergency
"The emerging science seems to be moving toward TPHP being problematic for similar reasons," said Heather Stapleton, a Duke University chemist who co-wrote the exposure study, published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International.
Though researchers acknowledged the small sample size in their study, they said exposure likely is widespread. Triphenyl phosphate is listed as an ingredient in half of the 3,000 nail products reviewed by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that collaborated with Stapleton on the new study and has pushed for years to overhaul regulation of cosmetics.
It is unclear what, if any, hazards the chemical poses at the levels detected in women who participated in the new study. But the discovery that levels spiked shortly after they applied nail polish shows how difficult it can be even for diligent consumers to avoid chemicals in cosmetics and household products.
Stapleton and her colleagues focused on nail polish after an earlier study found that women tend to have higher levels of TPHP in their bodies than men. In the new study, levels remained stable when the participants wore gloves fitted with synthetic nails, suggesting the chemical is absorbed through the skin rather than inhaled.
The Food and Drug Administration said in a statement that federal law doesn't require manufacturers to prove that cosmetic ingredients are safe before putting them on the market or even file product formulations with the FDA.
Echoing earlier statements about other chemicals in personal care products, the chief trade group for cosmetics manufacturers called the Stapleton-EWG study "speculative" and "misleading."
"The makers of nail polish stand behind their products and take pride in providing Americans with access to a wide variety of safe, high quality and innovative products they trust and enjoy," the Personal Care Products Council said in a statement.
In recent years several companies have started labeling nail polish as "3-free," meaning the products do not contain the toxic chemicals toluene, formaldehyde or dibutyl phthalate, the compound that triphenyl phosphate replaced in some product lines.
Several other common nail product ingredients also pose health risks to salon workers and customers. A 2007 safety brochure from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists 17 chemicals that can trigger a burning throat or lungs, labored breathing or shortness of breath.
"For women using nail polish regularly, this represents a source of chronic exposure," said Joseph Allen, a Harvard University researcher who has documented toxic air in nail salons but was not involved in the new study. "Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, consumers often can't make informed decisions about the products they purchase and use due to a lack of reporting and transparency; workers in nail salons simply have no choice at all when it comes to avoiding exposure."
The EPA is concerned about triphenyl phosphate for different reasons. The chemical is an ingredient in Firemaster 550, a flame retardant the agency once touted as safe but has since determined could pose significant health risks.
A 2012 Tribune investigation revealed the EPA endorsed Firemaster 550 even though the agency's own scientists were deeply skeptical of its safety. Studies conducted by its manufacturer found that exposing rats to the flame retardant can lower birth weight, alter female genitalia and cause skeletal malformations.
Independent scientists, including Stapleton, later found that small doses of Firemaster 550 administered to rats can trigger obesity, anxiety and other problems.
Last year the EPA added triphenyl phosphate to a list of chemicals targeted for in-depth reviews based on widespread exposure and potential toxicity.
"This is another example of why we need better cosmetics regulation and chemical regulation in general," said Johanna Congleton, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group who co-wrote the new nail polish study. "We shouldn't allow industry to keep replacing one bad chemical with another."
-
Simple Steps For Safer Face Paint
Oct 23, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
From spooky to adorable, face paint can put the finishing touches on a great Halloween costume.
It’s also a popular alternative to masks, which may be prohibited at school and can restrict vision – a big safety concern for trick-or-treaters on dark streets.
But what exactly are you putting on your children’s skin when transforming them into ghosts or tiger cubs? You might be surprised.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested 10 face paints for heavy metals and found lead in every one of them. There is no safe level of exposure to lead, and because it’s a neurotoxin, it’s particularly dangerous to children’s brains.
Six of the face paints contained nickel, cobalt or chromium, all heavy metals that can cause skin allergies. What’s more, product labels gave misleading information. Some claimed to be “hypoallergic,” even though they were made with known skin allergens. You can read the campaign’s full report, published in 2009, here.
Sen. Chuck Shumer, D-N.Y., took up the cause last weekend, calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to tighten regulation of novelty cosmetics and face paints. He warned parents to use caution with these products, especially those produced in China.
Before picking up face paint for Halloween (or a birthday party, school play or fair), read these simple steps:
Handle kids’ faces with care
Follow instructions for applying and removing face paint. Avoid the sensitive eye area and mouth. Kids tend to swallow products applied to lips, so it’s best to keep lips bare or use regular lipstick (check EWG’s Skin Deep database for good options).
Sweat can cause face paint to run, so if your child is likely to get hot, leave extra room around the eyes and mouth, bring a handkerchief for dabbing running paint or skip paint entirely. Same goes for rain.
Watch out for allergens
There is no standard or definition for the term “hypoallergenic.” Some face paints and regular cosmetics marketed as “hypoallergic” contain known skin allergens such as methylisothiazolinone, a common preservative.
Before committing to a Halloween look, smear a little face paint on your child’s forearm to test for allergic reactions. If you see redness, swelling or irritation, don’t put the paint on your child’s face.
If your child experiences an allergic reaction to a product whose label doesn’t disclose allergens, contact the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator in your state or fill out a Voluntary MedWatch form. These resources help the FDA identify and track problem products – and potentially remove them from the market.
Check labels for color additives
Color additives can be toxic. By law, the FDA must approve any color additives used in cosmetics, face paint and novelty and theatrical makeup. It also regulates how colors are used: it may approve an additive to color hair, for example, but not skin.
Don’t buy face paint with non-FDA-approved colors. You can find out which ones are approved on FDA’s Summary of Color Additives. The FDA has approved eight fluorescent (neon) colors for cosmetics and just one luminescent (glow in the dark) color (zinc sulfide).
DIY face paints colored with food
Consider making face paint at home with common ingredients like lotion, cornstarch and color from foods such as beet or spinach. Various recipes are available online, so experiment until you find one that works for your family.
If you try a homemade concoction, apply carefully, especially around eyes and mouths, do a skin test before the big day and watch out for staining. Homemade paints may not last as long as commercial options, so be prepared to reapply.
-
Power Sector Issues Warning on Senate Amendments
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
A coalition of utility and power grid interests has outlined its opposition to a number of amendments to the Senate cybersecurity bill that it says would undercut the thrust of the legislation.
The Senate on Monday will resume debate on the bill, S. 754, which would grant liability protections to companies that disclose cybersecurity data with the federal government, while also changing the manner in which such intelligence flows between the private and public sectors.
While the power interests say the bill would complement existing public and private efforts to share information about cyberthreats, they urged senators this week to oppose a number of amendments "that would significantly undermine the information sharing incentives and legal protections in the bill or unnecessarily complicate information sharing efforts."
Of primary concern is an amendment by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that would strike from the bill all references to explicit Freedom of Information Act exemptions covering information sharing on threats and defensive measures.
"Eliminating all specific references to FOIA protections from the bill would have a chilling effect on voluntary information sharing, undermining public-private security partnership efforts and thus potentially making critical infrastructure more vulnerable to cyber attacks," wrote the American Public Power Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and others.
Also "of particular concern" is an amendment by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) that would narrow the bill's definitions of threats and indicators "in a way that would likely result in more litigation, thus creating another legal disincentive to voluntary information sharing, contrary to the fundamental purpose of the legislation."
The groups are also raising concerns about a handful of other amendments, including a proposal by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) that would alter the conditions under which nongovernmental entities can "scrub" personal information before sharing it with federal authorities. The coalition says Heller's plan would impose a "more subjective" standard than the underlying bill.
The groups also flag an amendment by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) that would impose additional scrubbing of personal information by the Department of Homeland Security, which power interests say will slow information sharing.
A third amendment establishing scrubbing conditions on information sharing offered by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) would cause "legal ambiguity and [create] a disincentive to sharing information."
And an amendment by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that would sunset the bill's authorization after six years "creates uncertainty and will negatively impact participation," they wrote.
Congress has labored for years to legislate on cybersecurity against a background of ever-growing high-profile cyberattacks. However, legislative attempts to address the issue have stalled over industry concerns with giving the federal government new powers over infrastructure that is privately owned, privacy concerns, and the overlapping of jurisdiction among multiple committees.
The House earlier this year passed two bills addressing information sharing, but one key lawmaker -- House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) -- this week said the Senate's approach was unlikely to pass muster in the lower chamber (E&E Daily, Oct. 21).
-
The Senate Should Take a Crucial First Step on Cybersecurity
Oct 23, 2015 | Washington Post
By Editorial board
After years of failure to find a consensus on cybersecurity, the Senate is expected to vote early next week on a bill that would enable the government and the private sector to share information about malicious threats and respond to them more quickly. The legislation is not going to completely end the tidal wave of cyberattacks against the government and corporations, but passing it is better than doing nothing — and that is where Congress has left the matter in recent years.
The legislation, approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan 14-to-1 vote in March, is intended to iron out legal and procedural hurdles to sharing information on cyberthreats between companies and the government. Private-sector networks have been extremely vulnerable, while the government possesses sophisticated tools that might be valuable in defending those networks. If threats are shared in real time, they could be blunted. The legislation is not a magic wand. Hackers innovate destructive and intrusive attacks even faster than they can be detected. The information sharing would be voluntary. But the bill is at least a first step for Congress after several years of inconclusive debate over how to respond to attacks that have infiltrated networks ranging from those of Home Depot to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The biggest complaint about the bill is from privacy advocates, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who cast the sole dissenting vote on the intelligence committee. His concerns have been amplified recently by several tech giants. Apple told The Post this week that it opposes the legislation because of privacy concerns. In a statement, the company said, “The trust of our customers means everything to us and we don’t believe security should come at the expense of their privacy.” Some other large technology firms are also opposing the bill through a trade association. Separately, alarmist claimshave been made by privacy advocates who describe it as a “surveillance” bill.
The notion that there is a binary choice between privacy and security is false. We need both privacy protection and cybersecurity, and the Senate legislation is one step toward breaking the logjam on security. Sponsors have added privacy protections that would scrub out personal information before it is shared. They have made the legislation voluntary, so if companies are really concerned, they can stay away. A broad coalition of business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has backed the legislation, saying that cybertheft and disruption are “advancing in scope and complexity.”
The status quo is intolerable: Adversaries of the United States are invading computer networks and hauling away sensitive information and intellectual property by the gigabyte. A much stronger response is called for in all directions, both to defend U.S. networks and to punish those, such as China, doing the stealing and spying. This legislation is a needed defensive step from a Congress that has so far not acted on a vital national concern.
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Train Issue Nears Fiscal Cliff
Oct 23, 2015 | Daily Star-Journal
By Editorial board
Talk has not resolved the issue of the looming Positive Train Control deadline that, if missed, has dire economic consequences for America.
Missing the deadline threatens to begin a shutdown this month that could end Jan. 1 with rail traffic across the nation stopping.
The result could devastate consumers. An American Chemistry Council study released this month states a full shutdown would reduce the nation’s work force by about 700,000 jobs and cost $30 billion in the first quarter of 2016 alone.
The train mess created at the top of The Hill, by Congress is on the verge of rolling downhill to crush everyday people, the study shows. Household incomes are estimated to fall by more than $17 billion, depressing consumer confidence and spending; car sales would be reduced by about 175,000; house construction would drop by some 28,000; and the nation would be pushed toward a new recession at a time when many people still seek to recover from the Great Recession.
With so much at stake, what prevents Congress from extending the Positive Train Control deadline?
First, no one argues that PTC is not needed. The system slows automatically trains going too fast. The May 12 speed-related 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. PTC is needed and the sooner the better.
Second, railroads have had decades to implement PTC, but did not get serious about doing so until Congress created a 2015 deadline, with heavy fines for failure to comply, to require getting the work done. But the work remains largely unfinished and some in Congress see no reason to give railroads a break.
“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,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, told The Hill.
Third, and perhaps the most important political consideration, is Democrats want a long-term highway bill to pass. So do many Republicans, including Sen. Roy Blunt, a major PTC supporter. The highway bill is important to states, including Missouri, that want to make long-term funding plans instead of being forced to budget from one temporary plan to the next. They see pulling PTC out of the bill, as some Republicans want, as cherry-picking.
“If they think that they are going to pull out their favorite issue – such as getting an extension for Positive Train Control on a short-term extension or as a stand-alone bill – they are wrong,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, said during a speech on the Senate floor.
The nation needs PTC, and railroads need an extension after having dragged their feet in the decades before Congress set a deadline. The nation needs a long-term highway bill, an issue on which congressional foot-dragging is obvious. What the nation does not need is more governing from crisis to crisis with more posturing from parties so divided, so unwilling to compromise, that they once again appear ready to take the nation to the brink of a fiscal cliff, maybe even over that cliff, but that is exactly where Congress and the PTC system seem headed.
-
Highway and Transit Bill Heading for House Floor, but When?
Oct 23, 2015 | Politico - Morning Transportation
By Jennifer Scholtes
TRANSPO BILL HEADING FOR HOUSE FLOOR — BUT WHEN?: House Transportation and Infrastructure leaders have harnessed a lot of bipartisan momentum in the past few days, introducing their multiyear transportation plan just a week ago and already amending and approving it for House floor consideration. But that storm of legislative action has come to an abrupt halt after Thursday’s markup since lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree the measure shouldn’t be teed up for House floor passage until the Ways and Means Committee comes up with its portion of the proposal, dictating how to pay for this long-term infrastructure investment.
The holdup: Our Heather Caygle explains that T&I leaders “are sure” the bill will make it to the floor, “but no one can say how or even when.” Chairman Bill Shuster said he’s “not sure exactly what the timing is — possibly next week or the week after, but I believe it will be in short order.” The chairman acknowledged, though, that Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan’s bid to be the next House speaker isn’t helping speed that panel’s effort to come up with a revenue title for the highway and transit plan. “It slowed it down some, I’m certain,” Shuster said.
‘Do the math’: Ways and Means member Kenny Marchant told reporters this week that the timeline for tax-writers to deal with a package of offsets is fuzzy at best. If Ryan wins next week’s election for speaker, the committee will hold its own election for the next chairman a week or two after that. "Do the math on that,” Marchant said. “We're well into November before we even have a regular meeting to talk about it." The Texas Republican said he expects the House to continue with the plan to only move a transportation bill with a revenue title, and for Ryan to insist on its journey through committee, our Lauren Gardner reports. “Paul ran on regular order,” Marchant said.
SENATORS URGE HOUSE TO SKIP REVENUE STEP: Senate transportation leaders are of course suggesting House lawmakers march ahead to conference negotiations on their multiyear highway and transit plan without coming up with their own pay-fors — a route that would give the upper chamber a major advantage on those money matters. “They don’t need a revenue title to conference,” Sen. Barbara Boxer told POLITICO on Thursday. “We would get to conference and hammer out the revenue piece or preconference the revenue piece since the Senate has done the heavy lifting on it and found the pay-fors.” But our team reports that Boxer’s counterparts in the House aren’t budging on this one.
‘Real quick’: Senate EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe said he heard “disappointing news” on Thursday that the House won’t be able to move its transportation bill the first week of November as he had told usearlier this week. Our Lauren Gardner reports that the chairman was still his cheery self, though, when asked about how this all shakes out: “Once it’s on the floor, we can do a conference in a matter of minutes,” he said. “That can happen real quick.”
-
Congress Turns Back on Rail Safety
Oct 23, 2015 | I Free Press
By William Church
This week Congress turned its back on railroad safety. The House of Representative has cleared the last hurdle and next week will extend the deadline to install a vital rail safety requirement for another three years and ignored its original 2008 deadline that it gave railroads seven years to install Positive Train Control (PTC).
New York Rail Crash 2015
In that period, according to the Association of American Railroads, the number of carloads of highly flammable crude oil has increased by 5,100 percent. In terms of passenger deaths, the United States has four times the number of deaths per billion rail kilometers traveled than Europe.
Sarah Feinberg, who administers the Federal Railroad Administration, warned the House of Representative of the consequences of their actions.
“If PTC is not fully implemented,” she testified in June 2015, “by January 1, 2016 we can and should expect there to be more accidents in the months and years to follow that PTC could have prevented.”
She testified immediately following the May 2015 Philadelphia passenger accident that killed eight people that potentially was going to disrupt the lobbying efforts of the transportation industry to extend the deadline. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) warned that PTC could have prevented or reduced the impact of 140 accidents, 300 deaths, 6,500 injuries since 1970.
But the Transportation industry had another plan. According OpenSecrets, an organization that tracks lobbying efforts, the four major railroads gave members of Congress in excess of six million dollars in 2014 and specifically they gave $1.9 million dollars to the campaigns of the House of Representative Transportation Committee members.
The original deadline was pushed after a Los Angeles commuter crash. In 2008, 25 passengers were killed just outside Los Angeles in a commuter rail accident when a passenger and a freight train collided when they missed a red signal to stop. Amidst the outrage, Congress passed the requirement to install PTC systems and set the 2015 deadline.
This technology is not new. It has been installed in Europe and others places for decades and this accounts for Europe’s safer rail system. In fact, nearly two decades ago the NTSB urged Congress to mandate PTC.
PTC is a signalling system that detects problems like missed train signals or excessive speeds and can disengage the locomotive in some circumstances and in others send warnings to the locomotive cab.
This is how it works:
It would have saved eight lives this year if Amtrak had installed PTC. The rapid acceleration of the Philadelphia train Number 188, going over three times the speed limit, would have been detected and the train would have been slowed.
Five years ago the railroads submitted their implementation plans for PTC and all agreed the project could be accomplished by the December 31, 2015 deadline. Yet today, for Class 1 freight railroads, which carry over 600,000 carloads of crude oil a year, only 39 percent of locomotives will be fully equipped by the end of this year. Only 67 percent of radio base stations will be operational, and less than 35 percent of the employees trained.
Amtrak has done considerably better with 85 percent of its locomotives equipped and this rises to 97 percent in the Northeast Corridor, but this is worthless because they have only mapped about 63 perecent of track miles. However the local commuter lines like the one outside Los Angeles that killed 28 people in 2008 are only 29 percent complete.
According to a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, the reasons for this failure of public safety are numerous. Railroads blame the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the lack of availability of much needed 220 mhz radio spectrum, the delay of obtaining permits to put up signal towers on tribal lands, the lack of coordinated implementation, and the lack of enough money being provided by Congress.
Amtrak and the freight railroads have pushed back on the deadline with a threat to shut down rail service if Congress do not pass an extension. This would disrupt 26 commuter railroads with 1.7 million daily trips and some 90 freight railroads and significantly disrupt the American economy.
The Senate had already reacted to the threat by passing an extension until 2018 with unlimited extensions and placed it inside the current Highway Bill. The House of Representative followed suit and this week’s approval by the Transportation Committee cleared the final hurdle to the extension.
Both parties appear to have the votes to pass the Highway Bill so it means rail safety has been put off until 2018, and the railroads are allowed a series of two year extensions after 2018 if they fail to implement PTC. Even Senate luminaries like Senator Richard Blumenthal (D. Conn) could not stop this blanket extension when he argued for targeted extensions to keep the pressure on implementation.
“It has been 45 years since the NTSB first urged railroads to implement PTC which is an unacceptable delay in implementation of this critical life saving technology and this delay has allowed numerous, preventable tragedies.”
William Church is editor of the William Church’s Infrastructure Newsletter and former Managing Director of CIWARS (Centre for Infrastructural Warfare Studies).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industries Outline Early Legal Concerns Over EPA 'Consistency' Proposal
Oct 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Groups representing the energy, chemical and other major industries are outlining early legal concerns over EPA's proposal to update its "regional consistency" policy on uniform application of agency requirements, saying the agency's plan to exclude adverse court rulings from the policy could create significant confusion for the sectors.
A coalition of 16 industry groups including the American Chemistry Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest & Paper Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Chamber of Commerce and others said in an Oct. 5 letter to EPA that the proposed revision would "mark a fundamental change in the way that EPA applies its Regional Consistency regulations to judicial decisions" and that such a change would have a "significant effect" on the groups' members, particularly if they operate in more than one court jurisdiction.
The Texas Pipeline Association (TPA), in its own Oct. 13 comments on the proposed revision to the policy that the industry group must give it "careful consideration in order to assess the manner and extent to which the proposed changes would affect TPA members, as well as the legal issues presented by EPA's proposal."
EPA took comment through Oct. 19 on the planned revision to the policy, but announced in a notice published in the Oct. 22 Federal Register that it will reopen the public comment period through Nov. 3.
The proposal would allow EPA to exclude adverse appellate court rulings on its Clean Air Act policies from applying nationwide, which could mean different agency regional offices imposing differing requirements on industries.
The proposal released in August responds to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in May 2014 in National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project v. EPA, which vacated an EPA memo that sought to narrow the reach of an adverse 6th Circuit air permitting ruling to only the states in that circuit. The D.C. Circuit said the memo was at odds with the regional consistency policy as it would have led to differing permit requirements among all 50 states -- prompting EPA to now seek exemptions to the policy.
Under the Aug. 5 proposed rule EPA would not apply rulings by other circuit courts on locally or regionally applicable regulations -- such as the agency's regional offices' approvals of state implementation plans for complying with air standards, or Clean Air Act permitting decisions -- to states in other appellate circuits, even though this may result in inconsistent policy application and uneven application of the air law.
'Wide Latitude'
One legal source previously said the proposal would give each of the 10 regions "wide latitude" to fashion policy absent concurrence from agency Headquarters, saying the language was concerning from an enforcement perspective because "uniformity, even-handedness, and fairness are of paramount importance."
The coalition of 16 industry groups urged EPA to extend the comment deadline for the proposal, saying it needed for time to assess the plan. They asked for a 30-day comment deadline extension saying they are facing significant resource constraints in responding to myriad proposals floated recently by EPA, including its climate utility rules and proposed rule that would set first time methane emissions standards for the oil and gas industry.
"The Associations believe an extension is necessary due to the significance of the proposed rule and its ramifications, as well as the ongoing schedule of comment deadlines for a large number of other proposed rules that EPA has recently issued with overlapping comment periods," the groups say in their letter.
Similarly, TPA in its comments also urged the agency to extend the comment deadline by 60 days, saying the group was also assessing EPA's final Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, its newly adopted ambient air standard for ozone, the methane proposal and other policies. The group sought a 60-day extension.
EPA in its new Register notice says that, "After considering the request received from 16 trade and business organizations to extend the public comment period, the EPA has decided to reopen the public comment period" to Nov. 3, to ensure the public has additional time to review the proposed changes to the policy.
EPA acknowledges in the proposed rule the possible outcome of uneven enforcement by allowing some of its regions to opt against adhering to an adverse court ruling in another region. The plan "would be authorizing a region to act inconsistently with nationwide policy or interpretation to the extent that the region must do so in order to act consistently with a decision issued by a federal court that has direct jurisdiction over the region's action," EPA said.
Policy Revisions
EPA's proposal would revise its consistency policy to acknowledge exceptions to the uniformity approach, saying that "only decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and decisions of the D.C. Circuit Court that arise from challenges to 'nationally applicable regulations . . . or final action' would apply uniformly nationwide."
The proposal would also revise the rules to clarify that EPA headquarters would not need to issue new "mechanisms," which could potentially include guidance, to address federal court decisions from challenges to locally or regionally applicable actions, as they would not be deemed to affect states in other circuits.
A third revision proposes to revise the rules to "clarify that EPA regional offices' employees would not need to seek headquarters office concurrence to act inconsistently with national policy or interpretation if such action is required by a federal court decision arising from challenges to 'locally or regionally applicable' actions."
-
Final Ozone Rule Coming in Monday's Federal Register
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Congressional foes led by Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) this week indicated they intend to challenge the standard using the Congressional Review Act, a legislative oversight law.
Publication will also open the rule to lawsuits and kick off a 60-day clock for the standard to become effective.
U.S. EPA on Oct. 1 set the national ambient air quality standard for ozone at 70 parts per billion. It's the upper end of a proposed range but represents a lower limit than the 75 ppb standard set by the George W. Bush administration in 2008.
Ground-level ozone is a component of smog that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight. EPA said that, after a review of more than 1,000 studies, it determined the Bush limit didn't protect the public against negative health effects linked to ozone (Greenwire, Oct. 1).
EPA's decision comes after President Obama punted on setting a new standard in 2011 ahead of his re-election push.
According to EPA, limiting ground-level ozone concentrations to 70 ppb will save up to 660 lives, prevent 230,000 asthma attacks in children and prevent 630 asthma-related emergency visits by 2025.
Green groups, though, have opposed EPA's choice, arguing that it doesn't fulfill the Clean Air Act requirement that the standard protect the public with an adequate margin of safety. They've called for a limit to ground-level ozone of no higher than 60 ppb.
Environmentalists have threatened to file legal action challenging the 70 ppb standard (Greenwire, Sept. 29).
Industry groups, congressional Republicans and several states had urged EPA to retain the Bush standard. They've repeatedly said a lower limit would come with excessive compliance costs and have questioned the science backing EPA's decision.
EPA says the standard will cost $1.4 billion annually but achieve health care savings of up to $5.9 billion in 2025. The analysis excludes California, which is expected to take longer to come into compliance.
Joined by Republican Reps. Luke Messer, Larry Bucshon and Todd Rokita of Indiana and Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, Walorski yesterday filed a Congressional Review Act joint resolution opposing the new standard.
In a statement, Walorski cited EPA's cost estimates and said she worried that the standard would affect job growth.
"It's time to end the EPA's assault on business," Walorski said in a statement. "We should focus on policies that grow the economy, not burying job creators under red tape and burdensome mandates."
Through the CRA, Congress can disapprove new rules once they are published under an expedited process; the president, however, would likely veto any congressional action that seeks to undo the new ozone standard.
EPA is poised to make determinations on which areas of the country are out of compliance with the new standard in 2017. States with areas in "nonattainment" will be required to develop plans to reduce ozone concentrations.
Manufacturers warn that the new standard will affect new construction projects right away by creating a permitting "limbo" (Greenwire, Oct. 8).
-
EPA Ozone NAAQS Publication Will Start Clock For Suits
Oct 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA plans to publish in the Oct. 26 Federal Register its final rule revising its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, starting a 60-day Clean Air Act clock for lawsuits that could come from advocates who say the rule is too weak and industry groups that say it is too strict.
The publication comes just weeks after the agency's Oct. 1 announcement of the stricter NAAQS, which will place some more areas of the United States out of attainment with the standard. Nonattainment areas must craft strict pollution control plans to reduce ozone-forming emissions and come into attainment. EPA's critics say that these plans impose massive costs on industrial air pollution sources and drive investment away from such areas.
House Republicans held an Oct. 22 science panel hearing on the ozone standard to reiterate their claims that EPA lacks scientific justification for tightening the 75 ppb limit established in 2008.
Prior to the rule's release, a slew of groups representing various industries such as the power sector met with EPA and White House officials to also urge against a stricter standard. But the Edison Electric Institute said that if the agency did tighten the standard, it should not make it any more stringent than 70 ppb.
Environmentalists however faulted EPA for taking comment on setting a standard in the range of 65-70 ppb, while also seeking input on other limits outside that range. Advocates argue that only a 60 ppb limit would satisfy the air law mandate that NAAQS protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
EPA's decision to match its “primary” health-based standard with its “secondary” NAAQS designed to protect the environment is also prompting attacks from advocates.
Environmentalists have long urged the agency to set a distinct secondary NAAQS with a different form and averaging time that is aimed specifically at protecting the environment -- principally plants -- from the harmful effects of ground-level ozone. The current form of the ozone NAAQS is geared toward protecting humans from ozone exposures, not trees that are cumulatively exposed to ozone over a growing season, critics argue.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear any legal challenges to the ozone NAAQS, but the court has often deferred to EPA on its scientific expertise for setting the standards.
-
States, Industries Launch Legal Assault
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Jean Chemnick
The legal onslaught against the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan kicked off today as 25 states, industry and labor groups challenged the rule in court.
Today's formal publication of the U.S. EPA rule to curb power plants' greenhouse gas emissions triggered a 60-day deadline for challenging the rule in court. And opponents didn't waste any time; challenges began streaming in early this morning, and EPA's foes are asking judges to halt the power plant rules while the legal battle plays out. Today's court filings represent the opening salvo in a court fight that's expected to take years and may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
More than two dozen states opposed to EPA's regulations promptly filed lawsuits this morning.
A coalition led by West Virginia filed a petition challenging the rule on behalf of 24 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
West Virginia Assistant Attorney General J. Zak Ritchie arrived at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit early this morning to be first in line to file a lawsuit. Those who file the first petition win the distinction of being named on the lawsuit, and several petitioners were lined up at court this morning to file their petitions as soon as the clerk's office opened at 9 a.m.
"Petitioners will show that the final rule is in excess of the agency's statutory authority, goes beyond the bounds set by the United States Constitution, and otherwise is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law," the West Virginia petition says.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) told reporters on a conference call this morning that states will file a motion with the court later this afternoon asking judges to freeze the rule while they consider its legality. He called the EPA rule "one of the most onerous and illegal regulations coming out of Washington, D.C., that we've seen in a long time."
Oklahoma today filed a separate lawsuit challenging EPA's power plant rules.
Additional petitions filed before press time came from the National Mining Association, Murray Energy Corp., the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. Further challenges are expected.
The challenges to EPA's power plant rules will likely be consolidated into one lawsuit.
Opponents of the climate regulations have already previewed their arguments to the D.C. Circuit.
Early this year, the court denied an unusual request by states, energy companies and industry groups to block EPA from finalizing its proposed greenhouse gas standards for power plants. The judges refused to rule on the legality of the standards before they were finalized (Greenwire, June 9).
And in September, the appeals court denied another early effort to block the standards. Fifteen states led by West Virginia sought an emergency stay to halt the Clean Power Plan as litigation challenging the regulations played out. But the court denied that request, too, saying challengers hadn't met the "stringent standards" that apply to halt agency actions. The D.C. Circuit typically doesn't entertain challenges to air rules until they are formally published in theFederal Register (Greenwire, Sept. 9).
The coalition of states challenging EPA's final rule in court is broader than the group that waged the initial challenges. States that sued today that weren't involved in the preliminary challenges include Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas and Utah.
"We wanted to wait until the rules were final," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) told reporters today.
Many legal experts viewed the preliminary court challenges as long shots. But now that EPA's rule is officially ripe for court challenges, EPA's foes say they like their chances.
"There are many compelling legal reasons why this rule should be declared invalid," Morrisey said. And Paxton said state challengers are "pretty confident that we're going to get a stay."
Challengers are asking the court to issue a stay halting the rules "as fast as possible" to "avoid the harms to the states," Morrisey said. He said states are particularly concerned in light of a June decision by the Supreme Court that found an EPA mercury rule unlawful.
EPA said that plants had already invested in pollution controls and were "well on their way to making emissions reductions." That is "obviously unacceptable, and we're seeking a stay to avoid a repeat of that result and put an end to this unlawful rule now," Morrisey said today.
It's unclear when the court will decide whether to halt the rule. The judges may wait until the 60-day deadline for lawsuits and another 30-day deadline for filing court motions have passed to allow all interested parties to weigh in.EPA, allies on defense
But EPA and its defenders say the rule is on firm legal footing, the product of exhaustive stakeholder outreach and likely to stand the test of time.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a blog post today called the rule "fair, flexible, affordable, and designed to reflect the fast-growing trend toward cleaner American energy."
She argued that -- far from being a departure from past practice -- the existing power plan rule is "fully consistent with the Clean Air Act" and respects the "state-federal partnership" that has been the basis for air quality rules since the law was enacted in 1970.
The rule's opponents say it raises constitutional questions because EPA is preparing to implement a federal plan in states that opt not to put forward their own. The proposed federal implementation plan was also published in the Federal Register today and will be open for comment until January.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said at a hearing yesterday that the rule represented an "executive branch power grab at the expense of the legislative branch and the states."
But Richard Revesz of New York University School of Law said at the same hearing that the rule posed no constitutional problems "because states are not required to do anything." If they opt not to regulate, the federal government will instead. But there is no penalty to them for making that choice.
While the total number of states suing EPA has climbed, only five governors have thus far said they will not submit an implementation plan. The vast majority of the 25 states that will go to court hoping to topple the rule are also planning to comply with it.
McCarthy and EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe have claimed this as a victory. "We're encouraged to see that many states are beginning their own planning processes because that means they're preparing to take action," McCarthy said in today's blog post.
McCabe, air office senior counsel Joe Goffman and others note that they continue to communicate with states as they pivot to implementing the rule, often participating in lengthy meetings and calls with state administrators.
"We are committed to helping everyone better understand the Clean Power Plan and have been impressed -- but certainly not surprised -- by the remarkable level of constructive engagement across the board," McCarthy said in the post. "Conversations are happening across the country."
EPA also has allies among state attorneys general, and a group of 15 states and the District of Columbia released a statement in August criticizing the states led by West Virginia for seeking to stay the rule after it was first signed.
Today, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) said he would back EPA when it came time to defend the rule in court.
"My office is prepared to join with our partners to aggressively defend EPA's Clean Power Plan -- rules that will significantly reduce climate change pollution nationally," he said in a statement this morning. "These rules give states the flexibility to choose the best measures to cut pollution, while maintaining electrical reliability and economic growth."
Eight other states joined New York in August, pledging to stand "with EPA to defend these necessary emission standards if they are challenged in court."
And administration boosters of the rule were quick to claim some Republican support. They circulated a statement in praise of the rule from two past EPA administrators who served under Republican presidents: George H.W. Bush's Administrator William Reilly and William Ruckelshaus, who served under Presidents Nixon and Reagan.
"Already, we understand that 24 states are lined up to ask that its implementation be stayed or suspended," said the two former administrators. "The country needs to reduce CO2 from existing power plants which generate 40 percent of America's [carbon dioxide]. The rule is needed, and the courts we hope will recognize that it is on the right side of history."
Earlier this week, Reilly told a gathering of state environmental regulators who will be responsible for crafting state plans that they should "move ahead with planning and assume the rule will survive" (Greenwire, Oct. 21).
While EPA's rule requires an initial submittal next year, final plans are not due until 2018 when courts are likely to have weighed in on the rule. Failure to submit a final plan at that juncture would be "a bad idea," he said, given EPA's authority to regulate power plants directly.
-
Milestone Day for EPA Rule -- and Lawsuits
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA is publishing the final Clean Power Plan to slash carbon emissions from power plants in the Federal Register today, a much-anticipated milestone because it clears the way for objecting states to file lawsuits aimed at killing the regulation.
Also published in the Federal Register today are the final rule regulating carbon dioxide for new, modified and reconstructed power plants and the proposed federal implementation plan, which would be imposed on states that don't submit a compliance plan to EPA.
The proposed federal implementation plan will be the subject of four public hearings in November, EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe said. Its publication triggers a 90-day comment period that will end Jan. 21.
With the regulation, EPA aims to curb U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 32 percent by 2030.
McCabe told reporters on a conference call yesterday that "there is no substantive change between the pre-publication version of these rules posted online [in August] and the same rules that will be posted tomorrow."
Since the rule was first proposed last year, roughly half of U.S. states have indicated they may sue EPA to fight the regulation once the rule is formally published. Many states have already attempted to challenge the rule, including an effort led by West Virginia in August seeking an emergency stay, but their efforts were rebuffed by the courts.
EPA and its supporters, however, have repeatedly insisted that the final rule will withstand legal challenges.
EPA's opponents claim the rule exceeds the agency's authority over the power sector and is therefore legally vulnerable.
"My own view is that the proposed rule was so far beyond anything that was remotely reasonable that EPA's attempts in the final rule to crawl back to reasonableness don't even get close," Peter Glaser, a partner at Troutman Sanders LLP who frequently represents energy interests, said at a panel discussion on the rule's legal standing this week.
"The power plan is based on a sound legal and technical foundation," McCabe said. "We feel strongly that given our authorities and legal precedents under the Clean Air Act that our application of [Section] 111(d) here conforms with those authorities and that legal precedent."
The first legal actions could occur today. Lawsuits must be filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of Federal Register publication.EPA offers more on Clean Energy Incentive Program
For states planning on complying with the rule, EPA this week offered more details on a carrot it is offering to entice early efforts to shrink carbon footprints before the rule takes effect in 2022.
On Wednesday, EPA released a "next steps" document on the proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program, or CEIP, intended to encourage states to build wind and solar energy generation and install energy efficiency measures in low-income communities between 2020 and 2022, before the rule takes effect. EPA will reward participating states with early action allowances or emission rate credits, which can be used against the emissions reductions that states must make between 2022 and 2030.
The new document announces a series of meetings on the program with interested parties, including states, tribes, local governments and industry. This includes two in-person training sessions between now and the end of November for tribes and communities and a meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee on Nov. 18.
The CEIP is optional, and a discrete quantity of allowances or credits -- 300 million short tons of CO2 emissions -- will be offered, so EPA is asking states for a nonbinding indication that they want to participate in the program when they submit initial plans in September 2016, McCabe said. The CEIP is one part of the final Clean Power Plan that states have the most questions about, she added.
The document also outlines what aspects of the program the agency wants to hear more about from stakeholders. EPA is asking about when the agency should award allowances or emission reduction credits to states and how a "low-income community" should be defined under the energy efficiency part of the program.
Some clean energy advocates have faulted the CEIP for not allowing all energy efficiency programs to qualify for early-action credits or allowances (Greenwire, Aug. 17). Among them is Malcolm Woolf, senior vice president for policy and government affairs at Advanced Energy Economy.
Woolf said his group will be advocating for a broad definition of "low-income community" to open up more opportunities for the energy efficiency sector under CEIP. For example, EPA could define low-income communities by census tract, meaning buildings not necessarily occupied by low-income residents could qualify.
Kelly Speakes-Backman, a senior vice president at the Alliance to Save Energy who voiced similar concerns in the past, agreed with this approach, noting that businesses and hospitals in well-defined low-income areas could potentially qualify under the program.
"I think it is a great opportunity for us to get as much efficiency in as possible," Speakes-Backman said.
Woolf also raised concerns about the timing of the CEIP program, something EPA did not ask for input about in the document released this week. Woolf reported that companies are considering holding off on carbon-cutting projects until the CEIP program starts.
"Having a CEIP program that lets some states count projects in 2020 is good, but that's still more than four years away."Senate leader plans to challenge rule
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell next week is expected to unveil two Congressional Review Act challenges to the EPA rules, setting up votes that are calculated to embarrass the Obama administration just ahead of the Paris climate talks.
The Kentucky Republican will release the resolutions of disapproval scuttling the Clean Power Plan and a rule for new power plants together with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who earlier this year sponsored legislation that would allow states to opt out of the EPA rule.
The Capito bill would also kill the new power plant rule, which effectively requires new coal plants to use carbon capture and storage technology to cut emissions. It cleared the Environment and Public Works Committee last spring but seems unlikely to garner the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.
Next week's McConnell-Capito effort would not have that procedural problem. It employs a rarely used administrative law that allows a resolution to clear the Senate with a simple majority of the vote. This approach would also take less floor time than a bill.
But while it may pass both chambers of Congress, a CRA resolution is still subject to presidential veto.
-
Obama Sued by 24 States over Coal Rule
Oct 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of 24 states and a coal mining company filed lawsuits Friday to challenge the most significant piece of President Obama’s environmental agenda, his signature climate change rule for power plants.
The litigants accuse the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of going far beyond the authority Congress granted to it by ordering a significant transformation of states’ electricity generation, moving away from fossil fuels like coal and toward lower-carbon sources like wind and solar power.
They are asking the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the rule. They also want the court to immediately stop its implementation while it works its way through the courts.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who is leading the legal fight against the plan, called it “the single most onerous and illegal regulations that we’ve seen coming out of D.C. in a long time.”
On a call with reporters, Morrisey repeated many of the long-held arguments against the rule: that it will hurt his state’s coal mining industry, raise power rates for consumers and risk electricity reliability.
“EPA’s rule is flatly illegal and one of the most aggressive executive branch power grabs we’ve seen in a long time,” he said. “The EPA cannot do what it intends to do legally.”
Morrissey said he wants the court to rule on a stay “as soon as possible.” He noted it took a federal judge about a month to delay an EPA water regulation earlier this month, and said that could be a “guidepost” for how long litigation might take.
The climate rule, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, seeks a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon emissions by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. Each state has been assigned a specific emissions goal based on its unique circumstances, with flexibility in how the goals are met.
West Virginia and Murray led a similar coalition in two lawsuits earlier this year against the regulation that were deemed premature by the D.C. court. The first was before the final rule had been announced, and the second was in August, before it was published in the Federal Register.
The Obama administration has been steadfast in its defense of the legal backing of the rule.
The EPA said its rule is legal and will pass all court challenges.
“The Clean Power Plan has strong scientific and legal foundations, provides states with broad flexibilities to design and implement plans, and is clearly within EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act,” EPA head Gina McCarthy said in a Friday statement.
“We are confident we will again prevail against these challenges and will be able to work with states to successfully implement these first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States,” she said.
The West Virginia and Murray lawsuits came the day the rule was published in the Federal Register, the first day court challenges can legally be filed.
The states joining West Virginia are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona and North Carolina.
The attorneys general of 15 liberal states, along with the District of Columbia and New York City, are planning to intervene in the lawsuit to support the EPA.
Those state and city officials, led by New York State, said in August that they “fully anticipate defending the rules if they are challenged in court.”
Friday also marks the first day lawmakers can file challenges under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to quickly overturn regulations.
Congressional Republicans are planning to file resolutions quickly against the climate rule, but Obama has promised to veto any such legislation.
-
EPA Foes Teeing up Congressional Review Act Bids
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Republicans on both sides of Capitol Hill are poised to introduce resolutions early next week to kill U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and its new power plant rule, which were published in the Federal Register this morning.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will introduce his resolution targeting EPA's new source rule with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and will back a separate motion sponsored by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) that would scuttle the existing power plant rule.
The rule for new power plants would effectively mandate carbon capture and storage technology for new coal-fired generation, while the Clean Power Plan pursues a 32 percent cut in power-sector emissions nationwide through rules that encourage renewable energy use and efficiency over fossil fuels.
"Here's what is lost in this Administration's crusade for ideological purity: the livelihoods of our coal miners and their families," said McConnell in a statement announcing the move. "I have vowed to do all I can to fight back against this Administration on behalf of the thousands of Kentucky coal miners and their families, and this CRA is another tool in that battle."
It's a tool that the House will tap, as well. Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) announced today that he would introduce companion resolutions Monday to block both the new and the existing power plant rules.
"Now we've got EPA's cap-and-trade rules, a blueprint for economic disaster, right there in black and white in the Federal Register," said Whitfield, who chairs a key Energy and Commerce subcommittee. "Nothing in the Clean Air Act suggests EPA has such sweeping authority to implement this complicated and far-reaching scheme to commandeer each state's electricity system."
The CRA resolutions may not be the only Senate vote on the Clean Power Plan this fall. Capito's bill to permit states to opt out of the rule without fear of a federal implementation plan being imposed could still get floor time, though it is less likely to garner the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.
Capito said in a statement she'll pursue "all avenues" in combatting the rule, which she said would harm her state's coal industry.
Heitkamp's home state, North Dakota, saw its emissions reduction obligation under the final power plant rule climb from 11 to 45 percent. And the state's posture on the rule became much more aggressive, as did Heitkamp's.
"North Dakota needs flexible, feasible rules if we're going to find a realistic path forward to reduce emissions," said Heitkamp in her statement with Capito. "The EPA regulations on existing power plants don't fit the bill."
The joint resolution with Capito will allow senators like herself to "express their frustration legislatively," she said.
The resolutions will be brought under a law that allows Congress to veto newly final executive actions. The two resolutions could pass the Senate with a simple majority of the vote, but they would still be subject to presidential veto and GOP majorities if both chambers lack the votes to override it.
Still, Republicans hope the timing of the votes in the coming weeks will embarrass the administration as it prepares to send negotiators to Paris next month to hammer out a global climate change agreement. Republicans have warned that foreign officials should not take it for granted that the administration can deliver on its pledges of emissions cuts and aid dollars, because Congress backs neither.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a staunch foe of action to curb heat-trapping emissions who plans to attend the Paris confab, said in a statement last night that negotiators huddling in Bonn, Germany, this week should take note of Republicans' attitude toward any deal.
-
McCarthy on Clean Power Plan Lawsuits: We’re Ready
Oct 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
President Barack Obama’s EPA chief says the agency is prepared to withstand the barrage of lawsuits being filed today against its regulation of power plant greenhouse gas emissions.
“The Clean Power Plan has strong scientific and legal foundations, provides states with broad flexibilities to design and implement plans, and is clearly within EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a statement this morning.
“We are confident we will again prevail against these challenges and will be able to work with states to successfully implement these first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States.”
In a long-expected announcement, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said today that his state and 23 others had filed their lawsuit challenging the rule before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Morrisey has also filed a motion to stay the regulation.
But there are at least 15 states siding with EPA, including Illinois, Iowa, New York and California, in defense of the rule.
McCarthy also issued a blog post today on the EPA’s website that expressed the agency’s commitment to continuously engage with all of the states as well as industry.
-
Whitfield Files House CRA Resolution Targeting Clean Power Plan
Oct 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Rep. Ed Whitfield, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee with authority over EPA's greenhouse gas emissions rules for power plants, today announced he would author Congressional Review Act resolutions formally disapproving of them.
The Kentucky Republican, who plans to retire from Congress at the end of next year, unveiled his plans in a statement that called the newly-published EPA regulations "a blueprint for economic disaster, right there in black and white in the Federal Register,"
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is set to introduce a companion resolution of disapproval targeting the climate rules, joined by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp.
-
EnergyWire's Kuckro Talks Legal, Legislative Challenges Facing Plan, Previews McCabe Sit-Down
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - TV
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to The Cutting Edge. After months of anticipation, EPA's final Clean Power Plan hit the Federal Register today. It's a significant step that tees up a series of challenges. EnergyWire's Rod Kuckro joins me. Rod, in addition to making the final rule final, this now ushers in a period of legal and congressional action. What's the timeline that we're looking at on the legal aspects?
Rod Kuckro: Well, the law provides 60 days for people to sue, but only -- only about a half an hour ago, before -- before we were sitting down here, the 24 attorneys general announced their intention to sue, in addition to Oklahoma's going to sue separately. So -- and they're suing today. They're asking both for a stay of the rule, and they're also suing just on the merits and, to them, the merits are the rule is illegal.
Monica Trauzzi: Right. But many of these states are continuing forward with creating compliance mechanisms now.
Rod Kuckro: Ironically, yeah, the regulators are actually working on a pair of ... to actually try to comply with the rule.
Monica Trauzzi: Members of the House and Senate have already indicated that they plan to challenge the CPP through a range of legislative tools. What has teeth, though?
Rod Kuckro: Well, at the end of the day, really nothing has teeth, because anything they pass is subject to presidential veto. What -- the teeth that they are going to sort of show in their -- in their deliberations on the legislation is they're going to try to embarrass the administration in advance of the Paris talks on -- the U.N. talks on climate change. So next week, Senator McConnell will introduce the first bill. There'll be similar bills introduced in the House, and I think they'll try to move those before Thanksgiving.
Monica Trauzzi: More details as well this morning on the FIP, the federal implementation plan. What more do we know?
Rod Kuckro: Well, the FIP makes very clear to states that don't want to comply that they have two choices -- a rate-based trading program or a mass-based trading program. In any case, the federal government will impose a trading regime on states that don't comply. So the irony here is that the states that are the most critical to the plan, and that sort of decry the idea of cap and trade, if they don't play ball with EPA, that's what EPA's going to give them.
Monica Trauzzi: And this is just proposed at this point.
Rod Kuckro: Yes, it's proposed. It's out for 90-day comment period.
Monica Trauzzi: Earlier this week, you sat down with EPA air chief Janet McCabe. You'll have a story running in Monday's EnergyWire that really dives into the details of that conversation. She gave you, though, some interesting insight on the future of trading under the plan and EPA's oversight of it.
Rod Kuckro: That's true. The way she describes it is that the -- that the move to trading, both the state-to-state and region-to-region, was not EPA's idea. Now, whether that's entirely true or not, she claims the states themselves and the utilities have brought that forward because that's something they already know how to do under other EPA air rules. So essentially they want to do what they know how to do and they've done successfully. So that's why the latest iteration of the ... federal plan goes into such great detail on how a trading program's going to work.
Monica Trauzzi: The Clean Energy Incentive Program's gotten a lot of attention. What's new this week on it?
Rod Kuckro: What's new this week is EPA issued a document two days ago. It's on our website that goes into details for states. It lays out a series of conference calls that are going to occur amongst states, tribes, industry, local communities, and they go in -- there's a lot of detail about how states can take advantage of what essentially is going to be a bonus offered by EPA. It'll allow states to comply early with the Clean Power Plan in 2020 and 2021, and it's like getting extra credit on a high school test. States don't have to do it, it's not mandatory, but states that do do it will have a leg up.
Monica Trauzzi: And, of course, E&E's Power Plan Hub continues to be a critical resource for all stakeholders who are involved in the Clean Power Plan. What kinds of updates can we be expecting over the next few weeks?
Rod Kuckro: Well, we hope it's a resource people like to use. It certainly gets a lot of traffic. As of today, we have up the new -- the Federal Register rules that were published today. In addition, we'll be publishing on Monday a memo we obtained this morning that we still have to look at, but it's from EPA to the regional air administrators about how they can give guidance to states on doing early action. And then, of course, as the legal challenges are filed, our legal team will be posting not just stories, but all the various briefs that will be filed before the district court.
Monica Trauzzi: We'll be covering it all. Thanks, Rod.
Rod Kuckro: We will. Thanks.
Monica Trauzzi: More Cutting Edge coming next Friday. We'll see you then.
-
EPA Memo Lays out Details for Climate Plans, Extension Options
Oct 23, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
EPA sent a memo to states further outlining its expectations for the initial compliance plans they are required to submit under the Clean Power Plan and providing guidance for states who will need an extension to submit a plan.
The agency sent the memo yesterday, a day before the final Clean Power Plan was published in the Federal Register.
West Virginia led a coalition of states this morning in filing one of the first lawsuits challenging the carbon rule for power plants. States are asking the court to stay the rule immediately because of the harm it would do to their economies, although they face an uphill battle. EPA defenders have argued the long horizon provided before compliance is required makes a stay unnecessary.
The rule requires states to submit plans by Sept. 6, 2016, but allows for states to request an extension for two years.
“The process is simple and requires only that the state demonstrate it has taken certain preliminary and readily achievable steps towards the development of its plan,” Stephen Page, director of EPA’s office of air quality planning and standards, wrote in the memo to regional air directors, who were instructed to distribute it to state officials.
-
Fertilizer Manufacturers Sue EPA Over Air Toxics Rule
Oct 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
Fertilizer manufacturers are suing EPA over its final rule tightening air toxics standards for the sector, claiming that the agency imposed unreasonable emissions control requirements that were applicable immediately upon the rule's issuance, even though EPA never gave the companies a chance to weigh in on the mandates.
In separate lawsuits filed Oct. 16 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and a coalition of fertilizer manufacturers led by the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., ask the court to review EPA's rule on “Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR and Standards of Performance for Phosphate Processing.” The rule stemmed from a risk-and-technology review (RTR) of the sector, required under the Clean Air Act eight years after initial promulgation of air toxics rules.
TFI in its petition for review says, “EPA promulgated the Final Rule with substantial and unforeseeable changes to the terms of EPA’s Proposed Rule, issued on November 7, 2014 . . . making it impracticable for TFI to comment on those changes during the period for public comment. Further, EPA made certain provisions of the Final Rule effective immediately, and failed to address some of TFI’s comments on the Proposed Rule.” EPA in so doing violated the Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act, TFI claims.
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. and PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. In their separate petition for review do not list reasons for their suit.
Both TFI and PCS Phosphate also filed petitions for administrative reconsideration with EPA. The TFI petition, filed Oct. 15, asks EPA for a stay of the rule pending resolution of the group's complaints.
TFI in its petition for reconsideration says it takes issue with several aspects of the final rule, including EPA “Imposing a new requirement to continuously monitor the liquid and gas influent flow rates for 'low-energy' scrubbers and demonstrate continuous compliance with a minimum influent liquid-to-gas ratio, effective immediately upon publication of the Final Rule (despite, e.g., the fact that regulated facilities have no viable means to monitor the influent gas flow rate immediately);” and “Creating a new monitoring approach for low-energy scrubbers using blower design capacity, with 'appropriate adjustments for pressure drop,' which is an ambiguous and vague requirement -- and also is unworkable at some regulated facilities -- yet compliance was required upon publication of the Final Rule."
Further, TFI objects to EPA “[f]ailing to account for other available options for low-energy scrubbers (e.g., the use of scrubber design specifications and operating conditions) to determine gas flow for purposes of the new monitoring requirements;” and “Imposing an arbitrary one-year compliance deadline for existing superphosphoric acid ('SPA') process lines to install emission control equipment for previously unregulated emissions from oxidation reactors, despite receiving comments that three years would be necessary to install such equipment.”
PCS Phosphate in its Oct. 16 petition for reconsideration includes TFI's petition for reconsideration by reference in its own reconsideration petition, and adds complaints about technical requirements specific to its facilities that present “unique technical challenges for PCS facilities.”
The lawsuits and petitions for reconsideration come months after fertilizer producers raised a host of concernsabout the earlier proposed version of the rule, including vague definitions of units that would be subject to regulation and the potential high costs of installing emissions controls to meet the rule's mercury air limit.
-
Feds Approve Oil Drilling in Alaska Reserve
Oct 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal officials have approved the first permit to drill for oil and natural gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
The Greater Moose’s Tooth Unit 1 project by ConocoPhillips Co. will be the first time in the reserve’s 40-year history that it has had drilling, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which manages the area.
“Today the BLM achieved an important milestone for realizing the promise of the NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan,” BLM Director Neil Kornze said in a statement. “I’m proud of this collaborative effort to ensure thoughtful, balanced, and responsible development in the NPR-A that will provide additional economic security for Alaskans as well as a new source of oil for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.”
The reserve is the largest tract of federal land, about the size of Indiana. It was set aside mainly for drilling, while the other major federal holding in northern Alaska, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, has been closed off to drilling.
The news of ConocoPhillips’s permit was praised by Alaska officials, but they also want the Obama administration to do more to allow oil drilling.
“Approval to drill the GMT-1 project is good news for Alaska and our native Corporations who will benefit from the 7(i) revenues from this project,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement.
“But this announcement marks yet another example of the tortured path Alaskans have been forced to navigate to develop on federal lands in our state,” she said.
-
Special Session over Natural Gas Megaproject Starts Tomorrow
Oct 23, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Alaska Legislature is opening a special session tomorrow to consider proposals by Gov. Bill Walker (I) to reshape a state-industry partnership created to build a multibillion-dollar natural gas pipeline and export project.
Walker is asking the Republican-controlled Legislature to sign off on his proposal to buy out TransCanada Corp.'s contract in the Alaska LNG gas line project.
He's also championing a controversial reserve tax that would apply to energy companies that refuse to sell their North Slope resources to the pipeline project.
But at a news conference Wednesday, the governor said he would drop his tax bill if the companies involved in the Alaska LNG partnership -- BP Alaska, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. -- agree to ship their North Slope natural gas through the pipeline even if they withdraw from the megaproject.
"This has been the highest priority ... to make sure that we have project certainty," Walker said at the Anchorage briefing. "And the best way to have project certainty is to make sure that there is gas available for our project."
The governor said the North Slope energy producers asked his office to hold off on introducing any tax legislation in hopes that the state-industry partnership could reach a separate agreement on the issue.
Both of the governor's proposals face stiff resistance from Republican leaders who warn that such major shifts could jeopardize Alaska's hopes of commercializing the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available on the state's North Slope.
The special session is focused on the state's 2014 partnership with Exxon, BP and ConocoPhillips to build a North Slope gas treatment plant, an 800-mile natural gas pipeline, a liquefaction plant and a liquefied natural gas export terminal.
The state also signed a side contract under which TransCanada agreed to pay Alaska's share of the construction costs for the gas treatment plant and pipeline. In return, the state transferred its 25 percent equity interest in those facilities to TransCanada.
That pact gives the state until the end of December to buy the company's share of the deal.
Ever since being elected in November, Walker has pushed to buy out TransCanada's role in the project. He argues the change would give Alaskans a larger role in the Alaska LNG pipeline project and a greater share in the potential future benefits of the project.
But most state legislators are wary of expanding Alaska's role at a time when the state faces a $3 billion budget deficit due to low oil prices.
"There is some trepidation as we go into this that the project is tough enough given global LNG markets," said Larry Persily, former head of the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects and now special assistant for Kenai Peninsula Borough.
"Hopefully, whatever the Legislature and governor work out helps the project, not hurts the project."
In the days before the special session, state lawmakers criticized Walker for not submitting specific legislative language on his proposed changes in advance of the session.
"Unfortunately, we have lost some time to prepare and work on these issues because of the delay in receiving the bills," Alaska Senate President Kevin Meyer (R) said in a statement. "But nonetheless, we are ready to tackle these issues and move a gas line project that is in the best interest of Alaskans."
At the news conference Wednesday, Walker said his office had already sent legislators 50 pages of data backing his proposal to buy out TransCanada. And he said his staff is nearly finished with drafting a bill on the issue.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested