Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Ford is Innovating with Materials Science
Oct 28, 2015 | Fortune
By Sue Callaway
Henry Ford would be proud that his namesake company is leading the automotive industry’s charge to work advanced materials into vehicles and high-tech systems into factories. -
(ACC Mentioned) Top Lobbyists 2015: Associations
Oct 28, 2015 | The Hill
In a town where access equals power, an army of lobbyists thousands strong battles daily to help shape virtually every piece of legislation introduced in Congress and policy decision handed down by the federal government. -
Obama Urges Passage of Measure Holding up TSCA Bill
Oct 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
US President Barack Obama is urging Congress to pass a measure that is being blamed for blocking the Senate floor consideration of the Udall-Vitter bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Macy's to Ensure Furniture is Flame Retardant-Free
Oct 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US retailer Macy's is surveying its furniture suppliers to see if any are still using flame retardants, and will ask any which still are to “discontinue immediately”. -
Cybersecurity Legislation Clears Senate
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Senate passed a cybersecurity bill yesterday that would ease the flow of online threat information between U.S. agencies and the private sector, overriding concerns from civil liberties groups over NSA spying. -
House Passes PTC Deadline Extension, Short-Term Transportation Funding Bill
Oct 28, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
The House of Representatives yesterday approved a three-week extension of surface transportation funding and a three-year extension of the deadline for railroads to implement positive train control (PTC) technology. -
Senate Poised to Clear Short-Term Transpo Patch
Oct 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro (Morning Transportation)
By Jennifer Scholtes
The 22-day transportation policy extension the House passed on Tuesday is now journeying through the Senate’s “hotline” process, meaning it should be set for a quick passage vote today if no senator makes a formal objection. -
Five States Sue Over EPA's Ozone Rule
Oct 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Five states, led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, have sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its new limits on ozone. -
5 States Challenge EPA Ozone Rule
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Five states launched a lawsuit yesterday against U.S. EPA's new national ambient air quality standard for ozone. -
Murray Energy Files First Of Many Ozone Challenges
Oct 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
Coal mining company Murray Energy filed suit Oct. 26 challenging EPA's tougher ozone standards, the same day the agency published the standards in the Federal Register and making it the first lawsuit among likely several expected to be filed ahead of a Dec. 28 deadline to sue EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. -
How Critics Plan to Torpedo Obama’s Prized Climate Rule
Oct 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Opponents of President Obama’s climate rule for power plants are uniting behind a legal strategy aimed at blocking the contentious regulations from taking effect. -
'Just Say No' Strategy Appears To Be Crumbling
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
In March, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had a prescription for states unhappy with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan: "Just say no." -
Lacking Votes, Senate Critics of GHG Rules Seek Political 'Accountability'
Oct 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
Backers of new congressional resolutions to formally disapprove of EPA's greenhouse gas rules are conceding they have little chance of overturning the regulations, but say their goal is to force political “accountability” for the rules' alleged economic harm and undercut the Obama administration's negotiating position going into Paris climate talks. -
McCabe Savors Role as Evangelist for Agency's Carbon Rules
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
These days, Janet McCabe's workweek pretty much revolves around conversations with other regulators and industry about U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Draft OMB FY14 Regulatory Report Highlights Impacts Of EPA Air Rules
Oct 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
The White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) draft annual report to Congress on new regulations’ costs and benefits credits EPA’s air rules with nearly all of the impacts from major federal rules in fiscal years 2004-2014, while urging agencies to improve their own cost-benefit analyses of individual policies. -
Amid Enviro Pressure, EPA to Push Disclosure Regs for Gas Plants
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental litigation paid off this week as U.S. EPA vowed to craft new disclosure requirements for natural gas processing plants.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Ford is Innovating with Materials Science
Oct 28, 2015 | Fortune
By Sue Callaway
Henry Ford would be proud that his namesake company is leading the automotive industry’s charge to work advanced materials into vehicles and high-tech systems into factories. It was the founder, after all, who in 1941 introduced the Soybean Car, the world’s first plastic people carrier. The prototype didn’t stand up to wartime priorities or crash testing. But it was ahead of its time, as modern materials science proves.
The automaker is the first to use a groundbreaking type of aluminum called Micromill, made by Alcoa. Ford F 1.42% first gained attention last year for making its most important vehicle, the F-150 pickup truck, entirely out of aluminum, which is lightweight but expensive and difficult to shape. Micromill—which debuted in some F-150 components in October—is thinner, stronger, and 40% more formable than today’s automotive aluminum. Rivals like Audi and Jaguar have also invested in aluminum technology, but Ford’s efforts put it at a scale that’s difficult to match.
Ford also won the support of the U.S. Department of Energy to build a “multi-material lightweight vehicle” with auto supplier Magna International that would meet standard crash tests and other safety regulations. The resulting design, based on a Ford Fusion, weighed 23.5% less than a conventional model. “We worked on every material—steel, aluminum, magnesium, composites, plastics—to find the right solution for each component,” says Matt Zaluzec, Ford’s head of global materials and manufacturing research.
A 2015 F-150 on the assembly line in Dearborn, Mich.Photo: Sam VarnHagen—Ford
Driving much of the materials-science effort in the auto industry are looming deadlines to meet corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, which mandate an average fleetwide fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. A 10% weight reduction typically results in a fuel-efficiency gain of between 3% and 4%.
“It’s not only about fuel consumption and emissions,” says Steve Russell, a vice president at the American Chemistry Council, with which Ford is working on polymers. “Light-weighting also improves acceleration, handling, and braking.”
The efficiencies don’t stop at the vehicles. Ford has spent the past decade rehabbing its River Rouge Complex in Dearborn, Mich., where F-Series trucks are built, with new robotics, stamping equipment, chemical and heat treatments, and an aluminum-recycling system.
“Be ready to revise any system, scrap any method, abandon any theory, if the success of the job requires it,” Henry Ford wrote in 1923. The maxim couldn’t be more apt today.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Top Lobbyists 2015: Associations
Oct 28, 2015 | The Hill
In a town where access equals power, an army of lobbyists thousands strong battles daily to help shape virtually every piece of legislation introduced in Congress and policy decision handed down by the federal government.
But only a select few have earned a spot on The Hill’s Top Lobbyists list.
Those named to this year’s list have climbed to the top of their profession, demonstrating an ability to influence Washington’s power brokers on behalf of the interest groups, corporations and industries they represent.
Some hail from D.C.-based trade groups, which allow businesses across the country to present a unified front at the capital.
Others are advocates who rely on grassroots organizing to amplify their messages above the din of countless voices vying for attention.
For corporate lobbyists, a singular focus can translate to expertise on many of the top economic issues facing Washington.
And then there are the hired guns, who’ve proven an ability to shape the agenda for a broad array of clients.
Not all of those named to this year’s Top Lobbyists list are formally registered as lobbyists. We use the term broadly here, so as to encompass a larger picture of Washington’s influence industry. While not everyone listed on these pages fits the traditional K Street mold, they all have demonstrated a knack for making things happen.
Today: Top lobbyists from associations and grassroots groups. Coming tomorrow: Top corporate lobbyists and hired guns.
Mitch Bainwol, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Bainwol, who has represented automakers in Washington since 2011, helped steer the industry along a bumpy road after companies such as Volkswagen, Toyota and General Motors issued multiple recalls resulting in contentious congressional hearings.Mark Baker, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Baker uses his experience as a 37-year flight veteran to raise the profile of the general aviation industry in Washington as Congress considers a new funding bill for the Federal Aviation Administration.Meredith Attwell Baker and Jot Carpenter, CTIA-The Wireless Association
The wireless trade association has a busy fall and winter ahead as the industry closely monitors preparations for an upcoming airwaves auction and eyes an expected spectrum reform bill.Michael Beckerman, The Internet Association
Beckerman represents member companies such as Uber and FanDuel that are posing previously unforeseen questions for lawmakers and regulators.Kenneth Bentsen Jr., Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
Former Rep. Bentsen (D-Texas) has kept SIFMA in the thick of a number of financial fights, including leading the charge against the White House’s push to set new rules on retirement plan advisers.B. Dan Berger, Brad Thaler and Jillian Pevo, National Association of Federal Credit Unions
Berger, Thaler and Pevo work to ensure that credit unions retain a seat at the table as Washington debates a host of legislative and regulatory issues involving the financial sector.John Bozzella, Global Automakers
Bozzella is in his second year at the group’s helm and is leading the organization at a crucial moment as the auto industry comes under close scrutiny in Washington and abroad.Tom Buis, Growth Energy
The threats against the federal ethanol mandate are increasing, and farmers are looking to Buis to defend the industry’s position.Kevin Burke, Airports Council International – North America
Burke’s second year leading the lobbying group for the nation’s airports saw him locked in a standoff with airlines over the amount of money passengers can be charged for airport improvements via fees added to the price of flight tickets.Nicholas Calio, Airlines for America
Calio and the airlines have sought to convince the Obama administration and Congress to weigh in on a fight with Middle Eastern carriers over alleged international flight subsidies they say violate Open Skies agreements.Kateri Callahan, Alliance to Save Energy
Callahan’s goal is to advance energy efficiency policies, a concept that receives strong bipartisan support in Washington.Robert Cresanti, International Franchise Association
Cresanti took the helm of the IFA last month in the midst of a major battle over the National Labor Relations Board’s controversial joint employer policy.Dan Danner, National Federation of Independent Business
Lobbying against burdensome regulations and pushing for tax reform have been top priorities for Danner, who will step down from his role as president and CEO of the nation’s leading small-business group at the end of the year.Richard Deem, American Medical Association
A former Reagan administration health official, this year Deem helped achieve a decade-old goal of nixing the sustainable growth rate.Bob Dinneen, Renewable Fuels Association
As the Obama administration closes in on setting a new ethanol mandate for fuel through the end of 2016, Dinneen remains a vocal advocate for the highest possible required levels.Chris Dodd, Motion Picture Association of America
The former Democratic senator from Connecticut is a key player in the ongoing debate in Congress over copyright policy.Thomas Donohue and R. Bruce Josten, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
At odds with President Obama on many issues, the prominent business lobby won major victories alongside the White House on trade promotion authority legislation and completion of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership.Calvin Dooley, American Chemistry Council
With legislation on the table, the ACC’s president and CEO is pushing Congress to adopt the toxic chemicals reform bill that passed the House earlier this year.Marty Durbin, America’s Natural Gas Alliance
Durbin and the ANGA are on the front lines of a national battle over fracking as federal regulators are cracking down on some aspects of natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing.Martin Edwards, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Edwards is working to ensure that the country’s newfound abundance of natural gas can get where it needs to go through major pipeline infrastructure.John Engler, Business Roundtable
Engler is focused on a host of Washington’s most contentious issues, including expanding trade, reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, cybersecurity, immigration reform, reducing regulations implemented by the Obama administration, and an overhaul of the tax code.Camden Fine, Independent Community Bankers of America
Looking out for the banking industry’s little guy, Fine is pushing for sweeping changes at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including the addition of a five-member commission and an independent inspector general to increase accountability.Alex Flint, Nuclear Energy Institute
The nuclear sector won victories in the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants, but Flint and the NEI still face stiff headwinds in promoting their industry.Geoff Freeman, American Gaming Association
With Nevada’s prominent spot in the 2016 election, Freeman is putting his members front and center.David French, National Retail Federation
French is leading the retail industry’s charge on swipe-fee reform, apparel rules in trade deals and reporting requirements under the healthcare law, among others.Lee Fuller, Independent Petroleum Association of America
Fuller, a former Senate aide, has a busy schedule with lobbying battles on oil exports, endangered species, hydraulic fracturing and other issues that matter to the nation’s oil drillers.Dean Garfield, Information Technology Industry Council
Garfield, a former Motion Picture Association of America executive, directs a trade association that speaks for some of tech’s top companies and is a voice in the national conversation about how to make tech a more diverse field.Jack Gerard, American Petroleum Institute
Gerard, one of biggest lobbying names in Washington, D.C., has made significant progress with industry priorities such as oil exports this year, but the battle is far from over.Jerry Giovaniello, National Association of Realtors
Giovaniello kept his focus on ability-to-repay rules, guarantee fees, housing finance reform and lowering Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance premiums.Mark Gorman and David Culver, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States
The alcohol industry group has been busy protecting its members from higher taxes while fending off trade barriers.Rob Gramlich, American Wind Energy Association
The Obama administration is leaning heavily on renewable power to clean up energy production, and Gramlich’s group stands to make big gains.James Greenwood, Biotechnology Industry Organization
A former congressman from Pennsylvania and senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Greenwood has kept busy as the group juggles issues relating to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the 21st Century Cures Act and calls for stricter regulation of drug prices.Edward Hamberger, Association of American Railroads
Hamberger was part of a successful push for a congressional agreement to extend a deadline for automated trains on most of the nation’s railways.Gerald Howard, National Association of Home Builders
Howard is leading home builders in a fight against new Obama administration labor, overtime and clean water regulations that raise costs for builders and homebuyers.Richard Hunt, Consumer Bankers Association
Hunt’s work at the CBA, whether sparring with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or airing banks’ perspective on the student loan debate, has kept retail banks in the mix.Jeremy Allen and Erik Komendant, America’s Health Insurance Plans
Allen — a former pharmaceutical lobbyist who now oversees GOP lobbying efforts — tag teams advocacy for the nation’s largest insurer group with Komendant, a former Blue Dog Coalition policy director who now oversees Democratic lobbying.Chip Kahn, Federation of American Hospitals
As the D.C. liaison to hundreds of for-profit hospital chains, Kahn has overseen a time of unprecedented changes to hospital payments, patient safety and reimbursements under ObamaCare.Dirk Kempthorne, American Council of Life Insurers
The former Republican senator and governor from Idaho leads life insurers as they deal with issues such as new capital requirements from the Federal Reserve.Thomas Kuhn and Brian Wolff, Edison Electric Institute
Kuhn manages the association of electric companies from the C-suite, while Wolff, a former Democratic operative, spearheads the group’s grassroots political outreach as the electric industry faces increasing renewable energy and grid challenges.Katherine Lugar, American Hotel & Lodging Association
Lugar has increased the hotel trade group’s focus on advocacy and achieved record PAC contributions.Linda Lipsen, American Association for Justice
Lipsen’s group represents the nation’s trial lawyers in Washington and has fought for courtroom attorneys on Capitol Hill.Walter McCormick, Jr., USTelecom
McCormick and his organization advocate for the broadband industry on a range of issues before Congress and the Federal Communications Commission.Dave McCurdy and Kyle Rogers, American Gas Association
Former Rep. McCurdy (D-Okla.), now president and CEO of the association, and Rogers, a 17-year veteran of the AGA, are working to leverage the growth in the natural gas market into new business.Nancy McLernon, Organization for International Investment
McLernon and her organization advocate for foreign-owned companies trying to operate in the U.S. and is pushing for the country to adopt new trade deals.Mark Merritt, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association
Merritt has aggressively taken on the drugstore lobby as he fights for lower prescription prices for the 250 million health plans administered by pharmacy benefit managers nationwide.David Melcher, Aerospace Industries Association
Melcher was tapped to lead the AIA in June, replacing longtime chief Marion Blakey. Before taking the reins at the industry heavyweight, Melcher served as president of aerospace company Exelis.Rob Nichols, American Bankers Association
Nichols, a former Treasury Department official, is putting his experience as the leader of the Financial Services Forum to work as the new head of the banking heavyweight.Rich Nolan, National Mining Association
The Capitol Hill veteran has his hands full fighting a steady stream of Environmental Protection Agency regulations as the Obama administration looks to tamp down on greenhouse gas emissions.Jim Nussle, Credit Union National Association
A former eight-term Republican congressman from Iowa and director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, Nussle has led the CUNA since September 2014.Mark Parkinson, American Health Care Association
The nursing homes group led by the former Democratic Kansas governor was an early supporter of Congress’s “doc fix” legislation, which eliminated a decade-old automatic payment cut.Tim Pawlenty and Francis Creighton, Financial Services Roundtable
Pawlenty, the former GOP governor of Minnesota, and Creighton, a former top staffer for Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), keep the nation’s top financial executives in the loop.Michael Powell, National Cable & Telecommunications Association
Powell, the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is now fighting the agency he once led to block net neutrality rules.Leigh Ann Pusey, American Insurance Association
Pusey has spent nearly 20 years with the AIA, representing hundreds of insurers.John Rother, National Coalition on Health Care
A former vice president at AARP, Rother now leads a group of more than 80 organizations, from insurers to unions, aiming to reform the healthcare system and lower costs.Bob Rusbuldt and Charles Symington, Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America
Rusbuldt, Symington and “Big I” notched a major win this year with the extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.Norb Ryan Jr., Military Officers Association of America
Ryan, a retired Navy vice admiral, spent the last year fighting to preserve U.S. troop pay and benefits against budget cuts, a cause he’ll continue to champion in upcoming fiscal fights.Stephen Sandherr, The Associated General Contractors of America
Sandherr is pushing Congress to pass a long-term transit and highway funding bill while advocating on behalf of construction jobs as the industry revs up.J.C. Scott, AdvaMed
Scott has been working to repeal the medical device tax since coming over from the American Council of Life Insurers in 2011, and bipartisan support is building.Gary Shapiro, Consumer Electronics Association
The CEA is an important voice in the burgeoning Internet of Things, with Shapiro testifying before Congress on the subject in July.Cicely Simpson, National Restaurant Association
Simpson took over the influential group in 2015 after seven years as the chief lobbyist at Dunkin’ Brands.Gordon Smith, National Association of Broadcasters
Broadcasters have been lobbying hard in preparation of the first-of-its-kind incentive auction, during which TV stations will be pressed to sell off their airwaves to make room for more wireless devices.Scott Talbott, Electronic Transactions Association
Talbott and his Electronic Transaction Association have been focusing on the transition to chip-embedded credit cards and readers aimed at cutting back on data breaches.Mary Kay Thatcher, American Farm Bureau Federation
Thatcher, a longtime agricultural lobbyist, pressed lawmakers in 2015 to maintain crop insurance subsidies, which farmers worry could be exposed to serious cuts.Chet Thompson, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
Thompson, who took over as AFPM’s president this year, brings to the post decades of experience working on energy policy.Jay Timmons and Aric Newhouse, National Association of Manufacturers
Timmons and Newhouse have criticized the Obama administration’s climate agenda, labeling the new ozone standard the “most expensive regulation in history.” They have also helped to lead the charge to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and expand trade opportunities for manufacturers overseas.Stephen Ubl, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
The incoming CEO at PhRMA is credited with lifting the profile of the medical device industry in Washington after 17 years at AdvaMed.Richard Umbdenstock, American Hospital Association
Umbdenstock, who will end his eight-year tenure as head of the leading hospital trade group at the end of the year, is shepherding the industry through Medicare payment reforms and urging states to expand Medicaid.Dirk Van Dongen, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
Van Dongen knows how to deftly mobilize the group’s extensive grass-roots network on a host of policy issues.Nathaniel Wienecke, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
In addition to working to extend the Terorrism Risk Insurance Act, the group is delving into insurance to protect companies from cybersecurity threats. -
Obama Urges Passage of Measure Holding up TSCA Bill
Oct 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
US President Barack Obama is urging Congress to pass a measure that is being blamed for blocking the Senate floor consideration of the Udall-Vitter bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act.
In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Mr Obama blamed Republicans in Congress for failure to pass a measure to reauthorise and fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
He said Republicans let the fund expire despite strong bipartisan support.
Attempts to attach the LWCF reauthorisation measure to the Udall-Vitter bill is thwarting its consideration on the Senate floor because its co-author, Senator Tom Udall, wants the measure to be taken up as it currently stands (CW 22 October 2015).
-
Macy's to Ensure Furniture is Flame Retardant-Free
Oct 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US retailer Macy's is surveying its furniture suppliers to see if any are still using flame retardants, and will ask any which still are to “discontinue immediately”.
Macy's will ensure that furniture it sells is absent from added flame retardant chemicals, defined by those in concentrations above 1,000 parts per million (ppm), in filling materials, cover fabrics, and decking and barrier materials.
According to Jim Sluzewski, Macy’s senior vice president of corporate communications and external affairs, this includes halogenated, phosphorous-based, nitrogen-based and nanoscale flame retardants, as well as “any chemical or chemical compound for which 'flame retardant' appears on the substance safety data sheet”.
He said that the company will also ensure that its furniture suppliers label products as containing or not containing added flame retardants.
Mr Sluzewski said that many of the company's major vendors had already discontinued the use of chemical flame retardants in recent months, following a relaxation of California's furniture flammability standards. The state's previous standards had required the use of chemical flame retardants to be met, and had resulted in many US furniture manufacturers adding the substances to furniture on a nationwide basis (CW 22 October 2014).
“If the flame retardants are not required – and if there are questions about safety – they should not be required in the products we sell,” he added.
Mike Schade, director of the Mind the Store campaign of NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, called the news “a huge win”. The NGO had sent a formal request to the company, initiated an online petition, and planned to hold a national “day of action” advocating for flame retardant-free furniture.
“The flame retardants that have historically and recently [been] used in furniture are chemicals of concern or emerging concern,” said Mr Schade. According to the organisation, flame retardants migrate out of products and can be inhaled and ingested when they collect in indoor dust (CW 15 October 2015).
-
Cybersecurity Legislation Clears Senate
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Senate passed a cybersecurity bill yesterday that would ease the flow of online threat information between U.S. agencies and the private sector, overriding concerns from civil liberties groups over NSA spying.
The "Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act" (CISA), sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), offers legal protection to firms sharing cyberthreat data with the federal government, in addition to authorizing certain defensive cyber measures.
Critics worry S. 754 clears the way for sensitive personal information to reach the U.S. intelligence community. Proponents of the legislation, including several major electricity industry groups, have called it an important first step toward addressing a string of high-profile hacks against American companies and critical infrastructure networks.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked the specter of a "crippling" cyberattack on U.S. power or banking systems while vouching for the bill on the Senate floor yesterday. "If it sounds scary, that's because it is scary -- cyber terrorists could potentially bring the United States to its knees ... a catastrophic cyberattack is not far-fetched," he said.
U.S. electric utilities are quick to point out that a large-scale cyberattack on the grid is unlikely. Groups including the Edison Electric Institute and the American Public Power Association have supported information-sharing efforts in Congress as a way to bolster existing safeguards. Most big utilities subscribe to private information sharing portals to stay up to date on the latest attacks, vulnerabilities and hacking strategies.
"We believe that CISA provides a framework necessary to foster even more meaningful information sharing while maintaining the proper balance between liability and privacy protections," said EEI President Tom Kuhn in a statement yesterday. "We look forward to working with both the House and the Senate to develop a final cybersecurity information sharing bill that can be signed into law by the President."
Chris Blask, chairman of the Industrial Control Systems Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ICS-ISAC), called yesterday's CISA vote "encouraging," noting that "it's good that we're having these conversations at the congressional level."
He didn't share the privacy worries that spurred tech giants including Apple Inc. and Google to oppose CISA.
"We certainly don't need to be sharing [personally identifiable information], really sensitive information like that," he said of his own center, which operates under the Webster University Cyberspace Research Institute. "A lot of the really high-value information is simply knowing that a facility of a given type had a given experience," he said, and then passing along the general outline of how that experience played out.
The White House has thrown its support behind the Senate bill that passed yesterday, calling it "one piece of a larger suite of legislation needed to provide the private sector, the Federal Government, and law enforcement with the necessary tools to combat cyber threats." The Obama administration had some initial misgivings about CISA's privacy protections before coming around to the bill this month.
Several lawmakers suggested tweaks to address privacy and transparency concerns, but five separate amendments on these issues failed to pass yesterday after catching flak from lobbyists in the utility industry (Greenwire, Oct. 23). One amendment, proposed by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), sought to hold the Department of Homeland Security more accountable for "stripping" threat information of any personally identifiable details before sharing it with other entities. But Burr repeatedly warned that even minor changes to the bill risked the "delicate balance" necessary for bipartisan support.
That balance may not hold up in the House, which passed two pieces of legislation earlier this year aimed at streamlining information sharing. Differences between CISA and the House bills will need to be smoothed out in conference before any cyber info sharing legislation can reach President Obama's desk.
-
House Passes PTC Deadline Extension, Short-Term Transportation Funding Bill
Oct 28, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
The House of Representatives yesterday approved a three-week extension of surface transportation funding and a three-year extension of the deadline for railroads to implement positive train control (PTC) technology.
The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2015 (H.R. 3819) would extend the authorization for federal highway and transit programs through Nov. 20, and would prevent a shutdown of the U.S. rail system by extending the PTC deadline though 2018. The current PTC deadline is Dec. 31. Existing legislation that authorizes transportation funding expires Thursday.
The measure was introduced and passed last week by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The bill will ensure that states can continue to pay for transportation projects while Congress continues to debate on a longer term bill, said T&I Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) in a press release.
"H.R. 3819 also recognizes that failing to extend the positive train control deadline now will have devastating economic impacts," he added. "Not only will railroads stop shipping important chemicals critical to manufacturing, agriculture, clean drinking water, and other industrial activities, but passenger and commuter rail transportation will virtually screech to a halt."
Most railroads have said they will not be able to meet current PTC deadline. As a result, many have also said they will have to cease operations after Jan. 1 in locations where they do not yet have PTC systems installed. The Federal Railroad Administration has said it will enforce the Dec. 31 deadline, which was set by Congress in 2008.
"A PTC-related rail shutdown would pull $30 billion out of the economy in the first quarter and lead to 700,000 jobs lost in just one month," Shuster said. "It's our responsibility to extend this deadline now, and avoid shutting down much of our rail system." -
Senate Poised to Clear Short-Term Transpo Patch
Oct 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro (Morning Transportation)
By Jennifer Scholtes
SENATE POISED TO CLEAR SHORT-TERM TRANSPO PATCH: The 22-day transportation policy extension the House passed on Tuesday is now journeying through the Senate’s “hotline” process, meaning it should be set for a quick passage vote today if no senator makes a formal objection. According to a Senate Democratic aide, the chamber’s leaders sent out the hotline notice Tuesday afternoon, giving lawmakers a chance to speak out if they plan to stand in the way of a swift unanimous consent request to clear the bill before authority expires at midnight Thursday.
Story Continued Below
PTC drama: While Sen. Barbara Boxer has been clear about her opposition to the inclusion of positive train control language and has threatened to block the measure, she hasn’t said whether she’ll go so far as to raise a procedural objection that would likely result in an impasse so unsurmountable that DOT’s authority would lapse. And Boxer’s counterparts are secretly saying they think she’ll let this one go.
‘Resounding signal’: Sen. John Thune tells MT that the “big vote in the House is a pretty resounding signal that there’s broad, bipartisan support for the negotiated language on PTC.” But when we asked Boxer whether the House’s voice vote approval has affected her opposition, she said the lower chamber’s support doesn’t faze her because “they are the ones that did the wrong thing.”
IT’S WEDNESDAY: Good morning and thanks for tuning into POLITICO’s Morning Transportation, your daily tipsheet on all things trains, planes, automobiles and ports.
Reach out: jscholtes@politico.com or @jascholtes.
“Watch who's comin' at you, but don't fuss. Watch who's gonna get you back on the bus.”
DOT PREPARES FOR NEW ERA OF CAR JIGGERING: The Department of Transportation now gets to spend the next year reviewing and readying for car owners and security researchers to be allowed to tamper with vehicle software, following the Librarian of Congress’ new copyright exemption this week that will eventually permit access to onboard computers for diagnosis, repair, “lawful modification” and “good-faith” studies aimed at improving vehicle safety and security. And that yearlong wait has technologists worried that the gains made this week could be undone by federal agencies, Pro Technology's David Perera reports this morning.
Limited access: As David explained when word of the new rules came down on Tuesday, “the librarian did not go nearly as far as car-tinkering proponents desired, since its decision still prohibits access to computer programs ‘primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle.’ Also, the rule excludes tinkering ‘on behalf of’ vehicle owners, saying that allowing third parties to do so on behalf of owners would require new legislation.” Our Lauren Gardner reports that while auto safety advocates are generally cheering the decision, they’re also suggested the new rules should have allowed similar access to telematics systems, which they say can adversely affect safety.
Automaker outrage: As expected, car manufacturers didn’t take the news well, arguing that the changes would allow access to complex systems essential to modern vehicles, Lauren explains.
Broken system?: Even those who are praising this new leniency are speaking out against the copyright exemption process. Pro Technology’s Alex Byers and Nancy Scola report that “tech advocates, while welcoming some of the new permissions, say the 17-year-old process for granting them has outlived its usefulness. They say the Librarian of Congress and Copyright Office have been saddled with a task that goes beyond their expertise in this software-saturated era.” And from Capitol Hill, Sen. Ron Wyden isvoicing the same concerns, saying a triennial review “simply does not keep up with the pace of innovation.”
HOUSE PLANS TO TAKE UP MULTI-YEAR HIGHWAY BILL NEXT WEEK: Rep. Peter DeFazio tells POLITICO that he expects the multiyear highway and transit bill to be on the House floor next Tuesday and Wednesday. And Rep. Dave Reichert, a senior Republican on Ways and Means, confirms that House leaders hope to have offsets ready by next week and that those pay-fors will likely look a lot like the Senate’s. Still, he noted that there's a lot still up in the air: “The processes of government have sort of gotten a little fuzzy over the last few days, don't you think?"
SENATE POISED TO CONFIRM FRA CHIEF: Sarah Feinberg could get the congressional nod any day now to toss aside the “acting” prefix in her title as head of the Federal Railroad Administration and to settle more permanently into her role as agency administrator. Considering the Senate Commerce Committee’s overwhelming vote of approval on Tuesday, the nomination isn’t expected to hit any snags that would prevent confirmation.
Ridin’ solo: Sen. Deb Fischer was the lone “nay” vote in the 19-1 committee tally. And while the senator says she won’t try to hold up Feinberg’s nomination on the floor, she told our Heather Caygle that she hasn’t been pleased with the way the acting administrator has dealt with an FRA program that allowed rail workers in central Nebraska to confidentially report near-accidents without fear of retribution.
‘Doesn’t bode well’: The agency’s “mismanagement,” Fischer argues, “resulted in the termination of Union Pacific’s close call reporting system,” which had helped nearly 5,000 employees at the world’s largest rail yard facility. “They are not supporting the workers that are out there, and I just felt it was mishandled and they weren’t being responsive to our request,” Fischer told Heather. “If that’s how she will be acting as administrator, it doesn’t bode well.”
FAA DIRECTOR TO UPDATE SENATE ON DRONES: FAA chief Michael Huerta is heading to the Senate Appropriations transportation subcommittee this morning to explain more about plans to integrate drones into the national airspace. Morning Tech reports that the hearing is likely to draw out more details on the proposed national drone registry, announced last week as a way to keep track of who has drones and, if necessary, who’s responsible for any misuse. Other speakers at today’s hearing include Tim Canoll, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, and Marty Rogers, deputy director of the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence.
MAYORS COMPLAIN 2016 CANDIDATES IGNORE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES: America’s mayors aren’t impressed with the folks running for president right now, according to new data we’ve dredged up as part of POLITICO’s ongoing national survey of mayors. Benjamin Wofford reports for POLITICO Magazine that “aging and deteriorating infrastructure was cited as the top concern by more than half of the mayors surveyed — yet most mayors felt that the issue had been largely absent from the campaign trail and televised debates.” Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges says deteriorating infrastructure is “a silent crisis,” and Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn says “we will not succeed” without “a major investment and partnership with the federal government to repair what we have and build what we need … ”
LAST-MINUTE GOP UPRISING COMPLICATES BUDGET DEAL: Dozens of Republican lawmakers are telling House leaders they might vote against Speaker John Boehner’s budget deal due to qualms with crop insurance programs and other provisions.POLITICO’s Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan report that “aides in both parties expect the bill to pass, but the number of GOP defections is a notable rebuke to Boehner and other top Republicans.”
Oil pay-for: In the Senate, meanwhile, Barbara Boxer says the Strategic Petroleum Reserve offset leaders used in the transportation funding bill the Senate passed in July shouldn’t be imperiled by the use of oil sales to help pay for the budget deal, POLITICO Energy’s Elana Schor reports. The long-term highway and transit plan has “not lost a penny,” Boxer says.
DELTA + A4A = SPLITSVILLE: The airline industry’s main trade group is forced to move forward now without its pivotal alliance with the world’s largest airline. Our Kathyrn A. Wolfe explains that Delta’s decision to sever its relationship with Airlines for America “is sure to have some impact,” although it’s unclear how exactly this move will affect the group. And Kathy notes that the move “is not entirely surprising — Delta has been at odds with A4A's stance in favor of efforts to spin air traffic control functions away from the FAA for some time now, which has forced uncomfortable asterisks on some of the group's statements and called into question how much it speaks for the industry, which is much of the point of an industry trade group.”
‘War on competition’: Folks duking it out in the Open Skies battle have pounced on the announcement as an opportunity to encourage A4A to leave U.S. diplomatic deals with the Gulf Airlines as they are. “With Delta gone, we can’t help but notice that only 20 percent of A4A’s membership supports the war on competition,” Jonathan Grella, executive vice president for public affairs at the U.S. Travel Association, said in a written statement. “Is it time for A4A to do the bidding of 80 percent of their members and endorse the preservation of Open Skies?”
HI, I’M A CAR NAMED ALICE, DO YOU WANT TO FOLLOW ME?: European university researchers say it’ll be easy to track individual cars using the vehicle-to-vehicle communications protocol that may become mandatory in the United States in 2017. V2V proponents tout how roads of the future will be a lot safer once cars broadcast their location to each other. But Morning Cybersecurity explains that an experiment with some inexpensive equipment found that tracking V2V-equiped vehicles with startling degrees of accuracy is also possible. “The vehicle is saying, ‘I’m Alice, this is my location, this is my speed and my direction.’ Everyone around you can listen to that,” Jonathan Petit, one of the researchers, told Wired.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-transportation/2015/10/senate-poised-to-clear-short-term-transpo-patch-dot-prepares-for-new-era-of-car-jiggering-house-plans-to-take-up-multi-year-highway-bill-next-week-fra-nomination-awaits-confirmation-210963#ixzz3psfdus4N -
Five States Sue Over EPA's Ozone Rule
Oct 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Five states, led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, have sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its new limits on ozone.
The lawsuit, released Tuesday, is the first filed against the standards by states, which are charged under the EPA’s regulations with reducing ozone to acceptable levels.
In a statement, Brnovich questioned whether the EPA conducted an appropriate scientific review before issuing its new standard of 70 parts per billion on Oct. 1.
“The financial stakes for this state are enormous if we are unable to comply and I am going to do everything within my power as attorney general to protect Arizona,” he said.
The EPA tightened the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion over the objection of business groups and Republican lawmakers, who had warned implementing the rule would be difficult and expensive.
Murray Energy Corp., a coal company, on Monday sued the EPA over the standards, after the rule was published in the Federal Register. Arkansas, New Mexico, North Dakota and Oklahoma joined Arizona in its lawsuit on Tuesday.
When she announced the rule earlier this month, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency pored over thousands of new public health studies to set the acceptable ozone limit at 70 parts per billion. Businesses had asked regulators to keep the level steady, while public health groups had hoped to see it go even lower.
The standards, McCarthy said then, are achievable, projecting that outside of California, which has severe smog issues, only 14 counties will be out of attainment by 2025.
But Brnovich disputed that this week.
“We all want clean air, however, reducing the ozone standards to 70 parts per billion will be nearly impossible for Arizona to attain,” he said.
“The new rule completely ignores Congress’s intent that the EPA set ozone levels for the states that are actually attainable.”
-
5 States Challenge EPA Ozone Rule
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Five states launched a lawsuit yesterday against U.S. EPA's new national ambient air quality standard for ozone.
Led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the states of Arkansas, North Dakota and Oklahoma, along with the New Mexico Environmental Department, filed a petition for review of the standard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
States are likely to question both EPA's scientific analysis and the feasibility of meeting the standard in later court filings.
"The new rule completely ignores Congress' intent that the EPA set ozone levels for the states that are actually attainable," Brnovich said in a statement. "Furthermore, the EPA failed to conduct the appropriate independent scientific review and research necessary before publishing this rule."
The lawsuit is the second legal challenge to EPA's ozone standard. Earlier this week, coal giant Murray Energy Corp. petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the new limit (E&ENews PM, Oct. 26).
On Oct. 1, EPA unveiled the new ozone standard of 70 parts per billion, the upper end of a proposed range but lower than the 2008 standard of 75 ppb set by the George W. Bush administration.
Ground-level ozone is a component of smog. Ozone forms when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in sunlight. EPA said that it determined after a review of more than 1,000 studies that the 75 ppb limit was no longer adequate to protect the public against adverse health effects associated with ozone pollution.
States will be required to develop and put in place Clean Air Act plans to lower ozone levels in areas found to be out of compliance with the 70 ppb standard.
EPA's publication of the standard on Monday started the clock on a 60-day deadline for parties to challenge the rule.
While the court filing yesterday doesn't lay out any arguments, the states are likely to contend that the final standard is arbitrary and capricious under law and that the scientific evidence does not support a tighter limit. Under the Clean Air Act, the new standard must be set at a limit that is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
The attorneys general of several states -- including Arkansas, North Dakota and Oklahoma -- argued earlier this year in a letter to EPA that there are no human clinical studies that demonstrate significant public health effects below 72 ppb of ozone.
The attorneys general also said in their letter that the standards are not achievable because of high background concentrations of ozone resulting from ozone falling from the upper atmosphere, overseas pollution and wildfires.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has separately raised concerns about the ability of rural areas with few industrial sources of pollution to meet the standard.
"Implementation of this new, lower standard will be difficult in Arizona," ADEQ Air Quality Division Director Eric Massey said in a statement.
EPA has defended its choice. In the final rule, the agency said it identified 72 ppb as a harmful exposure to ozone and that limiting ground-level concentrations of the pollutant to 70 ppb would provide the public with the margin of safety required by the Clean Air Act.
The agency is also aiming to update its tools to address background levels of ozone, though EPA officials have said that concerns about background are overblown. EPA says that the majority of the nation will achieve the 70 ppb limit by 2025 thanks to other air regulations that are already in place.
-
Murray Energy Files First Of Many Ozone Challenges
Oct 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
Coal mining company Murray Energy filed suit Oct. 26 challenging EPA's tougher ozone standards, the same day the agency published the standards in the Federal Register and making it the first lawsuit among likely several expected to be filed ahead of a Dec. 28 deadline to sue EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Murray is seeking to overturn EPA's Oct. 1 final national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, in which EPA tightened the prior ozone limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb. Industry groups and mainly Republican lawmakers are opposing the rule, which they claim needlessly increases compliance costs while delivering questionable health benefits.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, have been vocal in opposing the NAAQS, claiming it is too weak. Dueling lawsuits are therefore expected at the D.C. Circuit. Previously, the court has consolidated industry and environmentalists' competing challenges to NAAQS rules, including the 2008 standard of 75 ppb, into one complex lawsuit.
The court upheld the health-based “primary” NAAQS in that case, State of Mississippi, et al. v. EPA, et al., but remanded the welfare-based “secondary standard” that EPA also set at 75 ppb, asking EPA to explain why it set the primary and secondary standards at identical levels. EPA has again set those standards at the same level, providing one possible avenue of attack for environmentalists seeking a “distinct” secondary standard to protect the environment.
In an Oct. 26 statement announcing its suit, Murray Energy Chairman, President and CEO Robert Murray claims the regulation will destroy coal industry jobs. “This Ozone Rule is yet another illegal and destructive action aimed at killing these jobs. We have the law, science, economics, cold hard energy facts, and the Constitution on our side,” he says.
Murray cites a hotly contested analysis by economic consulting firm NERA, which claims the rule will cost the economy $140 billion per year. EPA's own cost-benefit analysis, by contrast, shows a net benefit to the economy from the rule, while environmentalists have commissioned their own analysis by consultants Synapse that finds fault with many of the assumptions underlying NERA's analysis.
Murray Energy's lawsuit does not list the company's legal arguments against the rule. However, the company'sMarch 17 comments on the then-proposed version of the rule, in which EPA proposed a standard in the range of 65 ppb to 75 ppb, the company focuses heavily on EPA's treatment of “background” ozone, which results from natural processes or foreign sources and which local regulators cannot control.
By setting the standard close to, or at, peak background levels found in the mountain West, EPA would be failing the Clean Air Act's “arbitrary and capricious” standard for rulemaking by setting a standard that cannot be achieved, the company argues in the comments. “It is clear from legislative history and from the structure of the [air law] that Congress did not intend EPA to regulate at or below background levels. But this is precisely what EPA will be doing.”
EPA, however, says that a standard set at 70 ppb will not, generally, approach background levels, and that regulatory exemptions are also available to states experiencing high background levels for reasons beyond their control. Murray Energy rejects this logic, saying, “Nor are the proposed waiver procedures an adequate response to this problem. The exceptional events policy does include 'a natural event,' but excludes 'stagnation of air masses or meteorological events' including 'a meteorological event involving high temperature or lack of precipitation.'”
Other industry groups that may sue, including the National Association of Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute, are weighing their options, both in terms of litigation and legislation, sources with these groups say. On the legislative front, Republicans are preparing to advance Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions to block the ozone NAAQS, charging that the strict new standards are unnecessary to protect public health and prohibitively costly for the economy.
A group of GOP lawmakers Oct. 22 introduced a joint House-Senate resolution, H.J. Res. 70, to disapprove the new NAAQS. Also, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the Senate environment committee, says he will support a Senate resolution under the CRA to block the rule.
-
How Critics Plan to Torpedo Obama’s Prized Climate Rule
Oct 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Opponents of President Obama’s climate rule for power plants are uniting behind a legal strategy aimed at blocking the contentious regulations from taking effect.
Since a wave of nearly two-dozen lawsuits hit the Clean Power Plan last week, critics of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule have grown increasingly optimistic that they can convince a federal court to issue a stay.
A win on that front, however temporary, would complicate both the rule’s implementation and the Obama administration’s bid for an international deal at climate talks in Paris later this year.
The rule’s supporters say the litigants have a steep hill to climb in making the case for a stay, projecting confidence that they’ll win the first skirmish of what will likely be a years-long legal battle over Obama’s signature climate policy.
“Blocking rules midstream, before a court hears the merits of the case, is an extraordinary and rarely successful remedy,” Joanne Spalding, a senior managing attorney at the Sierra Club, said last week. “There is a high bar to getting a stay, and in most cases, litigants don’t even ask, and when they do, most stay requests are denied.”
Those lining up against the plan include states, businesses and commodity groups. Many have said they want a panel of federal judges to block the rule while the underlying case against it moves through the courts.
Such stay requests must overcome a series of legal hurdles, including a test of eventual success in the underlying case and evidence of harm it will cause if it’s not paused while the matter is resolved.
The first standard involves judges’ interpretations of the broader legal issues surrounding the Clean Power Plan. But officials suing to stop the rule said they expect to be able to demonstrate its potential harm.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, announcing his state’s stay request last week, pointed to a recent EPA pollution rule. Although the Supreme Court overturned the rule this year, many states and power plants had already complied with the standards before the legal battle concluded.
“The fact is that we want to ensure that we have the court consider our arguments on its merits and not run into a situation where the EPA gets to say, ‘Well, they have to come into compliance anyway, even though we believe the rule will ultimately be deemed unlawful,’” he said.
Business groups made a similar argument.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued this week that allowing the rule to go forward will force states and power plants to begin costly preparations necessary to implement the rule even as the courts wait to consider its legality.
“Those investments may or may not be allowable — as considered by the states — and certainly may not be retrievable or recoverable,” Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, said.
“We feel it is very, very important for this not only to go through a timely judicial review, but in the interim, that there be a stay put on this rule so that unnecessary damages do not occur.”
Plan supporters scoff at that line of attack, noting that the Clean Power Plan won’t require power plants to comply with the rule until 2022 and that it gives states at least two years to first write their implementation plans.
After publishing the rule in the Federal Register last week, the EPA and the White House promoted it as a legal and achievable plan. White House spokesman Eric Schultz criticized detractors for “[rushing] to the courts to try and prevent something they weren’t able to do legislatively” and questioned their likelihood of succeeding.
Those calling for a stay are likely to face a skeptical court panel.
“The strongest legal argument that the opponents are making is … that EPA doesn’t have the authority to do these things, and that, in turn, is a question of how much deference do the courts give the EPA on this particular issue,” said James Van Nostrand, a West Virginia University environmental law professor, who noted that courts had previously dismissed challenges to the Clean Power Plan when it was in the proposal stage.
If opponents succeed in forcing a stay, Van Nostrand said he expects states to take different paths on the rule: Democratic states and those expecting the rule to win out might continue work toward implementation, while some Republican-run states might delay.
But such a ruling could hurt the strong hand the Obama administration hopes to play at the United Nations climate conference scheduled for December.
Morrisey said an order blocking the regulations before the Paris talks is possible, citing the October stay issued against an EPA water rule as a timing guideline. That scenario, critics believe, would show the Obama administration’s limitations when it comes to executing its most potent greenhouse gas regulation over the will of a hostile Congress and skeptical judiciary.
But Van Nostrand said a stay decision is unlikely before the conference, and even Chamber of Commerce officials said this week that they don’t expect a ruling until early 2016.
But the prospect of an early halt to the rule has rattled green groups nonetheless.
“These standards are the cornerstone of President Obama’s climate action plan that forms the basis of the United States’ commitments to the Paris climate negotiations,” Spalding said.
“A stay would undermine those negotiations and weaken our ability to reach a meaningful agreement to reduce pollution worldwide.”
-
'Just Say No' Strategy Appears To Be Crumbling
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
In March, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had a prescription for states unhappy with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan: "Just say no."
In newspaper columns, public statements and a much-publicized letter to the nation's governors, the Kentucky Republican counseled states that EPA would ultimately be unable to use the existing power plant rule to force an overhaul of their power grids (E&E Daily, March 20).
The rule was an attempt to commandeer state authority, he argued. By simply refusing to implement it, governors could bring EPA's efforts to a screeching halt and allow the courts and Congress to act.
As spring turned to summer, McConnell became so personally associated with "just say no" that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) used a May meeting with the leader in Washington, D.C., to hint that he would add his state to a list of likely noncompliants that would come to include Indiana, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Oklahoma.
But since the rule was finalized on Aug. 3, "just say no" has slowly and quietly receded. McConnell no longer references it, preferring instead to cite the legal challenges stacking up in the courts and to Congressional Review Act resolutions that have now been offered in both chambers of Congress.
Twenty-four states have filed suit, up from the 16 that launched a pre-emptive challenge of the draft. Meanwhile the list of states "just saying no" is shrinking, not growing. The trend in many states is two-pronged -- attorneys general file suit while environmental regulators and cabinet members grapple behind the scenes with compliance strategies.
The Great Plains Institute, Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, the Center for the New Energy Economy and others are all involved in briefing states -- many of which are hostile to EPA's rule -- that want to explore their options.
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) was the first to pledge not to submit a state plan and released an executive order to that effect after the rule was final. But last week her energy secretary, Michael Teague, stunned a D.C. ballroom full of state environment regulators by proclaiming that Oklahoma would submit a compliance plan after all (ClimateWire, Oct. 27).
One coal industry expert said that if Oklahoma -- "the frigging poster child for 'just say no'" -- is now saying yes, it is hard to see who is still in the noncompliance camp.
Texas is also discussing compliance options, while West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) announced yesterday that his administration will begin working on a plan shortly with the hopes that it will eventually win EPA approval. The Mountain State never signed on to "just say no," but its attorney general is leading the states' lawsuit while its senators, Shelley Moore Capito (R) and Joe Manchin (D), spearhead legislative efforts to scuttle the rule (Greenwire, Oct. 27).
And as states peel off, the coal expert says, others are encouraged to do so. "Just say no" depended on safety in numbers. EPA would be forced to use limited resources to promulgate many separate state-specific federal implementation plans (FIP) and defend them -- a task that would allow opportunities for delay and litigation stretching for years.
Now any state that says no risks doing so alone. And it's unclear what form the federal plan would take. EPA proposed FIP and model rules on Aug. 3 when the final rule was unveiled, but while the model rule or rules are due to be final next summer, the agency has said it might not finalize a FIP until it needs to use it to regulate utilities in a noncompliant state.Did McConnell's strategy work?
So, what changed?
One Senate aide familiar with the strategy said it slipped from the agenda because it succeeded. By beating the "just say no" drum, McConnell won changes to the rule that will ensure that states don't take steps to comply before the courts have ruled, incurring economic costs that may not be necessary.
The draft version of the rule would have required states to commit themselves to a compliance strategy by 2016 unless they successfully petitioned for an extra year or committed to join an interstate trading program -- in which they could submit a plan in 2018.
"As others have suggested, the EPA's deadlines were very likely designed to force states to develop and submit implementation plans before the courts can decide on the legality of the CPP," McConnell wrote in that letter to governors in March.
The final version's deadlines are very different. It still requires an initial submission next year, but EPA's acting air chief Janet McCabe and others have made it clear they are looking for a sketch, not a finished portrait. And states have ample latitude to change their minds, McCabe assured state regulators gathered at last week's Environmental Council of the States meeting in D.C.
The new deadline for submission of a detailed plan is 2018. And that roughly coincides with when the Supreme Court is likely to have handed down a decision on the rule -- either settling questions of its legality for good or sending EPA back to the drawing board on substantial sections of the rule.
Governors can sit back and wait for two years for the courts to throw out the rule or for the power structure in Washington to change, the aide said.
"At a minimum we've kicked this into the next president, and quite frankly, a Republican president would be in a good position to roll it back," the aide said.
Meanwhile the strategy's legal architect is staying mum. Peter Glaser, the Troutman Sanders LLP partner who first floated the "just say no" strategy in a paper published by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies last year, declined to comment on the grounds that he is now involved in the litigation against EPA's rule.
"Lawyer hat is now the only one I'm wearing," he said in an email toGreenwire.
But Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said deadlines weren't the only thing that changed between the draft and final versions of the power plant rule. It also became clear, he said, that "there was really no reason at all for a state to give up its authority just to make a point."
If a state opts not to comply with a rule, it cedes control of how it is implemented to EPA, which would then impose its own plan in the state. And there is no industry support for that chain of events. Even leaders of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association -- which has expressed grave concern about the rule's possible effects on poor rural ratepayers -- has said they want to deal with state regulators, not EPA.
"If public, private and rural utilities are all saying they prefer state flexibility under a state compliance strategy over a federal implementation plan, then it's no wonder that no one is seriously considering standing down," Becker said.
This all played out before with EPA's 2011 greenhouse gas permitting rule, said Becker. After the rule was proposed, numerous states said they would not comply but were later persuaded by their private sector to reverse course. Finally, only Texas refused to integrate greenhouse gases into its state permitting plan, and EPA took over permitting. Austin enacted legislation to allow Texas to take over greenhouse gas permitting in 2013, and the state began issuing permits a year later.State opposition fading
Becker said resistance to state implementation of the power plant rule will also be short-lived. Faced with the certainty of a federal plan, he said, states will opt at least to make some changes to the proposal that will make it more user-friendly -- even if they continue to dislike the rule.
Think tanks around the country are working to help states understand the rule and their compliance options. Doug Scott, vice president of strategic initiatives for the Great Plains Institute, said at last week's meeting of state regulators that most of the states he works with are litigating to stop it. But the governors' offices, energy departments and environmental regulators that Great Plains advises want to know what their compliance options are to help them decide how and whether to craft a plan. He called this "prudent."
"I've been a lawyer a long time, and you don't always win when you go to court," Scott said. "So the question becomes, if that doesn't win for the states that are upset with the rule and are challenging it, what's the plan B?"
By pushing back the date at which states must submit a detailed plan, EPA also gave them longer to decide to "just say no."
"Until September of 2016 and arguably until September of 2018, you really don't know who the 'just say no' states are," Scott said.
Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies Executive Director Clint Woods said states were holding their fire in part because they are genuinely trying to get a handle on the many changes that have occurred between draft and final. If the agency can change the rule so much, he said, states wonder how drastically it could change the proposed FIP.
The next three years could change the balance of power in state capitols across the country, as well as in D.C. Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D), for example, has never heeded his senior senator's call to "just say no," but the Democrat and Republican in this year's tight race to replace him both pledged not to submit plans if elected -- but they, too, could change their minds.
Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said states should comply because it is in their best interest to do so.
"If they feel like they have to sue, that's part of their responsibility, but another part of the responsibility is to prepare," said the former EPA deputy administrator.
"Why a state would either say, 'We're not going to do anything or what we're going to do is demonstrably not approvable at this early stage,' other than for political reasons, I don't know what they would gain one way or the other," he said.
-
Lacking Votes, Senate Critics of GHG Rules Seek Political 'Accountability'
Oct 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
Backers of new congressional resolutions to formally disapprove of EPA's greenhouse gas rules are conceding they have little chance of overturning the regulations, but say their goal is to force political “accountability” for the rules' alleged economic harm and undercut the Obama administration's negotiating position going into Paris climate talks.
“Our options to stop [the GHG rules] are quite limited,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said during a Senate floor colloquy Oct. 27. “But we are here today to stand up for our people, the ratepayers of America . . . And the communities that are being devastated by this” EPA program, he said.
His comments came in the wake of separate resolutions introduced in both the House and Senate that would target EPA's GHG rules for both existing and new power plants. In the House, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) has introduced separate resolutions targeting the new and existing source rules. And in the Senate, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) have introduced a resolution targeting the existing source rule while McConnell and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) have introduced a resolution targeting the new source rule.
Consideration of the resolutions will be governed by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which creates a privileged process in the Senate so that supporters do not have to overcome the usual 60-vote threshold.
In remarks to Inside EPA, Senate environment committee chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), who is cosponsoring both resolutions, did not rule out the possibility that the Senate could vote as soon as this week, though a Republican aide said no timeline has been announced.
But McConnell acknowledged the limits of seeking to overturn the GHG regulations under the CRA process because supporters lack the votes to overcome an almost certain veto from President Obama. “[E]ven though we can pass it through here with a simple majority [President Obama] is likely to veto it,” McConnell said.
McConnell argued during his remarks that the Obama administration's issuance of the EPA rules reflected a “sort of arrogant, single-handed, messianic goal” of dealing with “worldwide climate,” reiterating arguments by EPA critics that the rules would hurt the economy while having little environmental benefit.
“I suspect . . . this effort by the United States would have about as much impact as dropping a pebble in the ocean and yet we are paying a real price for it at home.”
While the colloquy was intended to tout the CRA resolutions, the lawmakers' remarks broke little new ground in their criticism of EPA's regulations. But they provided the clearest signals to date that lawmakers in both chambers are looking to get lawmakers on the record on EPA's final GHG rules, likely before the Paris talks.
“This forces accountability,” said Inhofe in his Senate floor remarks, criticizing the EPA rules as developed by “unelected bureaucrats.” Inhofe added, “If the president vetoes [a resolution of disapproval] then it will come back for a veto override, and then people know who is for it and who is against it.”
Paris Talks
Inhofe, in a separate conversation with reporters, added that it is important for the CRA votes to occur before the Paris talks, in order to send a message to other nations that the U.S. is not likely to follow through with Obama administration climate commitments.
“They are going to be inundated with people who say all the things that we are going to do in this country [to reduce emissions], and we want to make sure that they know we are not going to do it,” Inhofe said.
Heitkamp in her remarks during the colloquy characterized the EPA rules as unfair to rural electric co-ops in her state who invested heavily in coal generation decades ago, when new natural gas plants were illegal.
And Manchin in his remarks criticized EPA's GHG rule for new plants, citing what he argued was the lack of commercially viable carbon capture and storage technology.
Like other speakers, Manchin also acknowledged that lawmakers face an uphill battle to actually overturn EPA's rules and that critics were instead relying on pending litigation. “It is a shame that we have to rely on the courts to protect something we should be doing in the halls of this Senate,” Manchin said.
Senate Energy panel chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), another frequent EPA critic, acknowledged in Oct. 27 remarks to Inside EPA that a straight repeal of the EPA rules using the CRA is a “hard lift.” But she added, “there are many who feel very very strongly that I want to have an ability to weigh in on this and if it is possible to influence it. That is what they are seeking to do.”
And Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) in Oct. 27 remarks to reporters offered the clearest indication yet that she would likely not vote to block the rules, underscoring the reality that EPA opponents will need additional Democrats beyond those that have already expressed concern over EPA's rules if they are to succeed in overturning them.
“In general I support the right of the EPA to regulate carbon pollution. I don't think the EPA's regulations are perfect by any means but I'm not inclined to vote to invalidate them,” Collins said.
While the CRA resolutions face long odds, critics are also pushing other measures to block or overturn EPA's rules.
Lawmakers in both chambers have also floated separate legislation that would block EPA's current GHG rules and restrict the agency's ability to issue new ones.
Air Act Interpretation
And most recently, the House Judiciary Committee Oct 27 marked up legislation by Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) that would codify an interpretation of the Clean Air Act barring EPA from regulating GHGs from any source already regulated under the act's air toxics provisions.
The bill, H.R. 2834, seeks to codify environmental law as a single title in the U.S. Code. But opponents of the law say it also includes an interpretation of the air law that critics have been making in pending litigation: that EPA is barred from regulating existing power plants under section 111 of the air act because it is already regulating them under section 112. The critics say such dual regulation is unlawful.
But the issue is complicated because House and Senate amendments to section 111(d) were never reconciled in conference before the 1990 air act amendments were enacted. The Senate amendment would explicitly allow EPA's proposed rule by limiting section 111(d)'s "112 exclusion" to pollutants already regulated under that section. The House amendment could be read as prohibiting the rule because it focuses on source categories, not pollutants.
EPA has criticized the bill. The agency's general counsel, Avi Garbow, said in a letter that “by selectively using one text and not including other language that had been enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President, the restated provision, if it were law, would exacerbate the confusion.”
And Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), the ranking Democrat on the House energy committee, charged in an Oct. 27 letter to committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) that the bill infringes on the energy committee's jurisdiction.
“Judiciary is, in effect, writing national policy on matters within our jurisdiction and running roughshod over the prerogatives of our Committee and the legislative process. Such policy decisions should be made through regular order, including full consideration by our Committee, not disguised as non-controversial, technical changes to established law in a manner that could mislead Members of both parties,” he wrote.
-
McCabe Savors Role as Evangelist for Agency's Carbon Rules
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
These days, Janet McCabe's workweek pretty much revolves around conversations with other regulators and industry about U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Lots of them and all over the country.
The acting assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, McCabe, along with her senior counsel Joe Goffman, is the public face of the agency as it tries to garner support for its controversial, all-encompassing effort to cut back on carbon dioxide emission from the nation's fleet of coal-fired power plants by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
A Harvard University-educated attorney and former Indiana environmental regulator, McCabe projects a serene confidence in the rightness of her agency's proposed rule and its foundation in the Clean Air Act.
"People are taking this seriously, which they should, and I'm not the least bit surprised that they are. They appreciate, like we do, all of the reasons why these rules are important" to combat climate change and some "very grim possibilities if we don't do something about it," McCabe said in an interview days before the agency's rule was published in the Federal Register.
"There are huge air quality concerns that could be addressed as co-benefits of this rule. But there are also implications to the way energy is produced -- I think very, very positive ones for an industry that is in transition," she said.
The air quality "co-benefits" of the Clean Power Plan center on the "opportunity" to bring a menu of air rules to the table and "do one big planning exercise, and have it all coordinated," McCabe said.
In addition to the CPP, McCabe mentioned sulfur dioxide rules, ozone standards, regional haze rules, and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that states and utilities are facing. "There are some efficiencies of scale. We need to help the states as much as we can with technical support, so that they shouldn't have to invent things that we can do for everybody, things like a trading platform," she said.
"We're talking with states a lot and many, many other stakeholders," McCabe said.Listening tour
"We started right out of the gate with having opportunities for states to get on the phone with us," she said.
For example, McCabe and her staff have hosted six conference calls on technical aspects of the rule "where they tee up the questions on different topics. Each [call] is a discrete topic. The states identify the topics, and we just go around until they run out of questions on that particular topic," she said.
U.S. EPA acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe. Photo courtesy of EPA.
"We've made it clear through our regional offices that any state that wants to have a call with us, we'll set it up. When [former Democratic Colorado] Gov. [Bill] Ritter has a meeting with the [Center for the New Energy Economy] and wants us to come, we send people. And it's not always Joe and me. It's often our technical experts on this or that issue," she said.
Still, McCabe is living a peripatetic life. "We were on the road a lot when the proposal went out, and then we backed off as we were finalizing the rule. And now we and others from [the Office of Air and Radiation] are on the road talking to people because it would be helpful for us to go."
McCabe also pointed to all the "convening that's going on" in the way of meetings sponsored by such groups as Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions "that are helping to bring people together."
"I'm very encouraged by the conversations I've been having with the states. And even some of the states that feel particularly challenged by this," she said.
McCabe singled out EPA's responsiveness to electric utilities in particular. "They've made some very clear points to us about what was important to them, if they needed more time, if they needed more flexibility, you know, they needed a series of things to make sure that they could plan. We know that they're thinking long term, and we think that the final rule was really responsive to those issues that they put on the table. To the extent that they're comfortable moving forward with it, and can work with their states to find good ways to do it. That's great," she said.Cost concerns
McCabe says critics who predict large electric rate increases stemming from compliance efforts need to look at the effects of previous EPA rulemakings "where you're looking into the future and trying to figure out what might happen."
"There are all kinds of variable that none of us can figure right now. We did our best in our regulatory impact analysis to try to look forward using appropriate tools, and we came up with a good result, which is that over time because of energy efficiency, bills will go down. And we think that there is a lot of stuff built into this long-term trajectory that will allow people to take stock all along the way. And if things are going sour, you figure out a different way to do it," she said.
One way to prevent cost issues is the regional approach to compliance, an approach EPA touts as less expensive and has been discussing with the nation's regional transmission organizations that operate the grid and dispatch power plants, she said.
But McCabe stressed that states are in the driver's seat with their ability to develop "trading-ready" plans to ease compliance.
"The states are talking to one another, so I think that those relationships are finding themselves, and I think we can be helpful by making sure that people understand, yes, you know, you can do it that way; you can do this way. It all works," she said.
"I think everybody can get there. That's what our analysis showed. When you look across regions, and you open things up that everybody can collectively get to where they need to be, and you can do it in a way that's sensitive to these concerns along the way. [States] have lots of time. Nobody needs to do anything until 2022 at the start," McCabe said.
When her workweek winds down, McCabe returns to her home in Indianapolis, where she has lived since 1993 and from where she commutes to Washington, D.C., every week.
"My mind is on [the Clean Power Plan] a lot. So I go home every weekend, get a little bit of separation. I do work at home. But at least I'm at home, you know, with the dog and the spouse," McCabe said.
"I do think it would be nice to fast-forward to 2030 and see where we are."
-
Draft OMB FY14 Regulatory Report Highlights Impacts Of EPA Air Rules
Oct 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
The White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) draft annual report to Congress on new regulations’ costs and benefits credits EPA’s air rules with nearly all of the impacts from major federal rules in fiscal years 2004-2014, while urging agencies to improve their own cost-benefit analyses of individual policies.
The draft report, which was posted online along with a notice in the Oct. 26 Federal Register, fulfills a statutory mandate for the executive branch to each year quantify the impacts of regulations that took effect over a rolling 10-year period. For rules promulgated in the decade ending in FY14 it finds $160.2 billion to $787.7 billion worth of benefits, measured in 2010 dollars, against $37.6 billion to $45.4 billion in costs -- nearly all of which come from EPA rules for controlling air pollution.
Air regulations are credited with creating $157.4 billion to $777.9 billion in benefits and $36.6 billion to $44.1 billion in costs. The draft report also lists negative costs for the agency’s waste rules in that time period, claiming that they saved the economy $300 million to $400 million while producing as much $300 million in benefits -- although the minimum benefits are listed as zero.
The water office is credited with $1.1 billion to $4 billion in benefits and $600 million to $700 million in costs.
OMB considered only two EPA rules issued in 2014 to be “major” rules subject to reporting requirements -- the Clean Water Act rule for cooling water intake structures, and the “Tier 3” fuel and vehicle emissions rule. The draft finds less than $100 million in benefits from the cooling water rule against $300 million in costs, while theTier 3 rule is assessed at $3.9 billion to $12.9 billion in benefits and $1.3 billion in costs.
In assessing impacts of past years’ rules, OMB struggled to assign specific benefits to EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), a rule designed to curb interstate air pollution as a replacement to the George W. Bush-era Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
“We recognize that the attribution and accounting raises some complex questions, and that on one view, not taken here, our approach greatly understates the net benefits of CSAPR -- on that view, it does so by tens of billions of dollars. For the purposes of this Report, we have attributed the benefits and costs of the two rules on an incremental basis. A certain amount of equipment has been installed under CAIR, and we attributed both the costs and benefits due to those controls to CAIR. For CSAPR, which is about 30% more stringent than CAIR, we attributed its costs and benefits only due to the additional equipment required over and above the requirements of CAIR,” the report says.
Consistent Measurement
Along with its assessment of individual rules’ impacts, the draft also urges agencies to refine their cost-benefit assessments. For instance, it calls on regulators to measure costs and benefits “in a consistent manner” across policies, to acknowledge that “the opportunity costs (or cost savings) of a regulation might not be reflected in budgets,” and to allow for indirect effects such as changes in the labor market as a result of new mandates.
The report is likely to become a fresh data point in the ongoing debate over the accuracy of agencies’ assessments of their rules’ costs and benefits. Critics have argued that EPA’s methods in particular dramatically underestimate the economic costs of agency rules. A new agency Science Advisory Board panel is reviewing “economy-wide” models in an effort to resolve such criticism.
OMB’s draft report was originally expected to be issued by the end of FY15 on Sept. 30, leading Republican lawmakers to call for a detailed explanation from OMB on the delay. In an Oct. 8 joint statement, Sens. James Inhofe (OK) and James Lankford (OK), chairs of the Environment & Public Works Committee and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee’s panel on regulatory affairs and federal management, respectively, asked OMB to swiftly issue the draft report and brief Congress on its development.
“This report is not only a statutory mandate, it also provides critical information to the public and helps Congress fulfill its oversight responsibilities. As you are aware, the report is the only government-issued document that discloses the overall annual costs and benefits of federal regulations,” the joint statement said.
“Overall, we are disappointed your office is ignoring a statutory mandate to publish the report and are concerned the delay may be an effort to withhold key information on the costs and benefits of its regulatory agenda from the public,” it continued.
OMB is taking comment on the draft through Dec. 21.
-
Amid Enviro Pressure, EPA to Push Disclosure Regs for Gas Plants
Oct 28, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental litigation paid off this week as U.S. EPA vowed to craft new disclosure requirements for natural gas processing plants.
The rules would for the first time require gas plants to report to the Toxics Release Inventory, an annual catalog of air, water and land emissions from industrial sites. Natural gas well pads, storage tanks and processing plants have long been exempt from the disclosure program.
EPA's announcement comes after years of pressure from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Integrity Project and several other groups, which have pushed for the industry to be included in the TRI.
"With this decision, EPA is taking an important step in the right direction," EIP attorney Adam Kron said in a statement. "Public reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory allows communities to measure environmental impacts and plan for their future. It also motivates companies to reduce their toxic footprint, and provides insight into how well our environmental laws are working."
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) gives EPA discretion over what facilities must report to the catalog. The agency considered adding oil and gas facilities during a 1996 rulemaking but never reached a decision on the issue (EnergyWire, Jan. 8).
The environmental groups took their cause to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in January, arguing that EPA had ignored environmentalists' 2012 petition requesting the change. After settlement discussions began, EPA announced in April that it would make a decision on the petition by Friday.
The decision, received by the environmental groups Monday, notes that processing plants are handling record levels of natural gas, with more than 551 plants processing more than 19 trillion cubic feet of natural gas last year. The agency estimates that more than half those plants would meet the thresholds for reporting chemical releases to the TRI.
"With respect to the information factor, the addition of natural gas processing facilities to the TRI would meaningfully increase the information available to the public and further the purposes of EPCRA," Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote in the response.
But EPA's decision does not grant all of environmentalists' wishes. Though the groups pushed for TRI reporting for well pads, compressor stations and other small infrastructure, EPA rejected that portion of the request, finding that the facilities would rarely meet the employee or chemical thresholds for TRI reporting.
"EPA estimates that, as a result, TRI reporting from such well-level activities would present a limited picture of the chemical releases associated with these activities," the decision said.
The environmental groups argued that the well sites and compressor stations should be aggregated to count as a single facility, but EPA found that they are simply too spread out. The agency also outlined the numerous other initiatives aimed at boosting environmental safety at oil and gas wells, including wastewater management guidelines and limits on methane emissions.
Katherine McFate, president of the Center for Effective Government, one the of the other petitioners, said that the agency's decision was still an improvement worth celebrating and that environmentalists should continue pushing for cradle-to-grave disclosure.
"Although we would prefer broader oversight of the gas and petroleum industry, this ruling is a major advance in the fight to improve health and safety and environmental standards," she said in a statement.
Gas Processors Association President Mark Sutton responded in a statement that the midstream industry already complies with extensive reporting requirements and that the environmental groups have seized control of the agency's agenda. But, he added, the association is eager to work with EPA in crafting the rule.
"GPA has always been willing to participate in discussions with EPA and has worked collaboratively with the agency for many years," he said. "Although we do not agree with EPA's rationale to expand the TRI reporting requirements, we look forward to working with them through the rule making process."
Reporter Mike Lee contributed.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested