Preview Newsletter
NI - ACC PM 11/4/2015
-
NGO Launches Personal Care Products Certification Programme
Nov 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Amy Franklin
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a US NGO, has launched a certification programme for personal care products, which aims to help consumers locate products that avoid “toxic and potentially harmful chemicals and contaminants commonly found in consumer goods”. -
Alaska Railroad Gets OK To Expand LNG Shipments
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The U.S. Transportation Department is dramatically expanding the amount of liquefied natural gas that the Alaska Railroad Corp. can haul from the state's southern ports and gas fields to energy-hungry consumers in the Fairbanks region. In a letter sent Monday, the Federal Railroad Administration said that effective... -
Texas Regulators Close the Books on Quakes Linked to Oil and Gas Companies
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Mike Lee
Texas oil and gas regulators closed their case against two natural gas companies whose operations were linked to a string of earthquakes in the state, saying that there wasn't enough evidence to take action. -
U.S. Congress Moves To Nullify Obama Regulation Of Power Plant Carbon Dioxide
Nov 4, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
While governments from around the world are preparing to finalize a new climate change agreement by mid-December, many in the U.S. Congress are attempting to undermine President Barack Obama’s negotiating stance. -
44 States Take Sides in Expanding Legal Brawl
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Nearly every state has taken a side in the court battle that will determine the fate of President Obama's signature climate change policy. Today, 18 states led by New York and several cities asked a federal court to allow them to defend U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan... -
GOP Bill Would Stop EPA from Regulating Greenhouse Gases
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) and more than 100 co-sponsors yesterday introduced legislation that would strip U.S. EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases. -
Coalition of 18 States to Move to Defend Carbon-Emissions Rules
Nov 4, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Brent Kendall
A group of 18 states is expected to ask a federal court on Wednesday to intervene in support of Obama administration greenhouse-gas regulations that require significant emissions cuts from hundreds of U.S. power plants. -
Senate Votes to Kill EPA’s Water Rule
Nov 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Senate approved a bill Wednesday to block the Obama administration’s new regulation setting federal authority over small waterways. -
More Evangelicals Warm Up to the Notion of Climate Change -- Poll
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
A new poll is reporting a large increase among evangelical Christians who believe in climate change, marking what experts say is a surprising shift for a conservative group with a strong history of skepticism. -
EPA Finding of No 'Widespread, Systemic' Problems Under Fire
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA's science advisers are criticizing the agency's June announcement dismissing the dangers to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. -
Coal Plant Shutdowns Drive U.S. Emissions to 20-Year Low
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. electricity production are the lowest in 20 years, according to an analysis released today by the Sierra Club.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
NGO Launches Personal Care Products Certification Programme
Nov 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Amy Franklin
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a US NGO, has launched a certification programme for personal care products, which aims to help consumers locate products that avoid “toxic and potentially harmful chemicals and contaminants commonly found in consumer goods”.
Products that demonstrate compliance with the “ EWG verified” criteria – which include requirements for ingredient transparency, avoidance or limitation of certain substances of concern, and best manufacturing practices – will be permitted to bear the certification mark on their packaging and websites.
Nneka Leiba, EWG deputy director of research, said that “only products that include robust labels and meet our robust criteria, as opposed to minimal government standards, will be awarded our mark.”
She added that the NGO seeks to “spur the development of safer products in the marketplace” through the programme.
The certification criteria outline “restricted” and “unacceptable” ingredients, the latter of which cannot be used in verified products. The ingredient lists draw from such authoritative sources as the Canadian ingredients hotlist, California's Proposition 65 carcinogens or reproductive toxicants, and EU category 1 endocrine disruptors.
“Unacceptable” ingredients include:parabens;formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers;triclosan;toluene;perfluorinated chemicals;microbeads; andphthalates.
The NGO will reassess these on an annual basis, and verified products will have 18 months “to make the necessary changes to their formulation and packaging” as new substances are listed.
The EWG verified criteria require disclosure of all ingredients on the package label, including all fragrance and flavour mixtures. Within one year of signing a licence agreement, companies must also follow EU guidelines for disclosure of fragrance allergens and for labelling nanomaterials in cosmetics.
According to EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook: “It is our hope that products bearing the EWG verified mark will be available to consumers everywhere they shop to better inform their buying decisions.”
Products eligible to seek verification include:baby;hair;makeup;nail;skin; andoral care products.
-
Alaska Railroad Gets OK To Expand LNG Shipments
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The U.S. Transportation Department is dramatically expanding the amount of liquefied natural gas that the Alaska Railroad Corp. can haul from the state's southern ports and gas fields to energy-hungry consumers in the Fairbanks region.
In a letter sent Monday, the Federal Railroad Administration said that effective immediately the railroad can transport up to 36 portable LNG tanks each week. Beginning in 2018, that limit increases to 60 tanks every four days.
The original permit allowed the company to move no more than eight tanks each week during the next two years.
The shift came less than a month after the FRA opened the door for the Alaska railroad to become the first U.S. company to transport LNG tanks by rail (EnergyWire, Oct. 15).
In other states, similar requests are pending from Union Pacific Railroad, BNSF Railway and Florida East Coast Railway.
Regulators said the Alaska Railroad's permit modifications were "based on new information presented to FRA about [the railroad's] operations and further FRA analysis."
The Alaska Railroad, an independent corporation owned by the state, applied for permission to haul LNG last November in part to make up for its declining business in shipping bulk petroleum and coal. The rail line's 656 miles of track connect businesses and ports in southern Alaska with the cities of Anchorage, Fairbanks and North Pole.
Railroad officials have said it's unclear when the Alaska LNG shipments might begin or whether the gas would come from Alaska's Cook Inlet region or from imports.
Those plans are linked to efforts by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority to provide cheaper natural gas to interior Alaska residents. That initiative, known as the Interior Energy Project, is one of the top priorities of Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I).
According to a recent demand projection from AIDEA, Interior Alaska is likely to require an average of 125,000 gallons of LNG per day by 2020. During peak winter heating months, however, demand in the region could be as high as 250,000 gallons of LNG per day.
"Even these peak LNG demands would be well within the limitations imposed under the Alaska Railroad's FRA approval to transport LNG," noted AIDEA external affairs officer Karsten Rodvik.
To bring gas to the Fairbanks region, AIDEA, which is the state development corporation, is holding hearings on five transportation proposals. A final decision on the Interior Energy Project is expected in December. No decision has been made on whether the winning plan will include transporting LNG by rail.
-
Texas Regulators Close the Books on Quakes Linked to Oil and Gas Companies
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Mike Lee
Texas oil and gas regulators closed their case against two natural gas companies whose operations were linked to a string of earthquakes in the state, saying that there wasn't enough evidence to take action.
The three-member Texas Railroad Commission voted to approve a staff recommendation that said the study of the earthquakes wasn't conclusive, essentially clearing Exxon Mobil Corp. subsidiary XTO Energy Inc. and EnerVest Ltd. of blame. The commissioners had little comment except to praise the team that heard the case in a series of trial-like hearings.
"You and the rest of the staff did a really good job of digging into the technical meat of this issue," Commissioner Ryan Sitton said.
More than 20 earthquakes struck around Azle and Reno, Texas, between November 2013 and January 2014. This April, geologists at Southern Methodist University said in a peer-reviewed paper that two wastewater injection wells, used to dispose of the byproducts from natural gas production in Barnett Shale, were the most likely cause of the shaking (Greenwire, April 21).
The SMU report was significant because it pinpointed the two injection wells in the heart of the Barnett Shale gas field.
The mayors of Azle and Reno called for the Railroad Commission to shut down the injection wells. The companies denied that they were contributing to the earthquakes.
The Railroad Commission held two show-cause hearings to determine if it should close the wells or modify their operating permits. XTO and EnerVest sent several executives to testify at the hearings, but the SMU researchers and the local officials didn't appear.
The staffers who heard the case praised the SMU report as a good start at understanding the earthquakes, but said it didn't provide enough proof to take action against the oil companies. At the same time, the staff rejected the companies' argument that the earthquakes were completely natural (Greenwire, Sept. 1).
-
U.S. Congress Moves To Nullify Obama Regulation Of Power Plant Carbon Dioxide
Nov 4, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
While governments from around the world are preparing to finalize a new climate change agreement by mid-December, many in the U.S. Congress are attempting to undermine President Barack Obama’s negotiating stance. Those lawmakers hope to scuttle Obama’s centerpiece policy to curb carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel-fired power plants, saying it will raise consumers’ electricity bills too much.
That policy, called the Clean Power Plan, is an Environmental Protection Agency rule that limits carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. EPA estimates that by 2030, the rule will shrink CO2 emissions from the power sector some 32% below 2005 levels–or by 870 million tons. It calls for coal plants to improve conversion of heat into electricity, an emissions trading program, and greater reliance on renewable energy.
By issuing the Clean Power Plan, the Obama Administration demonstrated to other countries that the U.S. President has power, through regulation, to implement domestic action to curb greenhouse gas emissions even if the majority controlling Congress opposes such action. Obama wants to show the world that the U.S. can back up its emission reduction pledges in a new climate change deal to be finalized in Paris next month.
But now, conservatives and coal-state legislators hope to rescind that EPA rule via the little-used Congressional Review Act. That 1996 law, enacted as part of Republican’s “Contract With America,” allows Congress to pass resolutions that nullify a regulation. Legislators have used this law successfully only once.
Introduced in late October, companion resolutions in the Senate (S.J. Res. 24) and House of Representatives (H.J. Res. 72)would overturn the Clean Power Plan. “Our bipartisan legislation enables senators to express their frustration with the rule,”says Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.). Lawmakers also introduced a second set of resolutions (S.J. Res. 23 and H.J. Res. 71) that would revoke a related EPA regulation that sets tough CO2 emission standards for new or refurbished fossil-fuel-fired plants.
House and Senate committees are working to vote on the resolutions in the coming days and weeks. If Congress passes them by a simple majority, which is possible, supporters would next have to garner enough votes for a two-thirds majority to override a virtually certain veto by Obama.
-
44 States Take Sides in Expanding Legal Brawl
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Nearly every state has taken a side in the court battle that will determine the fate of President Obama's signature climate change policy.
Today, 18 states led by New York and several cities asked a federal court to allow them to defend U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, a rule to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. That pits them against 26 other states and a wide range of industry groups that have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to strike down the rule.
"I can't recall a Clean Air Act rule, or other EPA rule, that had 44 states in the mix," said Joe Stanko, an attorney at Hunton & Williams.
The heavy involvement by states on both sides of the issue demonstrates the importance of the rule, which will require states to slash their power-sector carbon dioxide emissions rates by varying amounts by 2030. Opponents argue that it'll be devastating to the power sector and force electricity rates to soar, while EPA's backers insist it's a necessary step toward tackling climate change.
The states asking today to defend EPA: New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Several states and a county also signed on to the petition, including the District of Columbia; Boulder, Colo.; Chicago; New York; Philadelphia; South Miami, Fla.; and Broward County, Fla.
"The Clean Power Plan requires states to implement standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled power plants, the country's largest source of such emissions. These emission reductions will help prevent and mitigate harms that climate change poses to human health and the environment, including increased heat-related deaths, damaged coastal areas, disrupted ecosystems, more severe weather events, and longer and more frequent droughts," the states wrote to the court.
"State and municipal intervenors have a compelling interest in defending the Clean Power Plan as a means to achieve their goal of preventing and mitigating climate change harms in their states and municipalities."
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) today said in a statement, "Climate change represents an unprecedented threat to the environment, public health, and our economy. We no longer can afford to respond to this threat with denials or obstruction."
Environmental and public health groups have also asked the court to intervene in the legal skirmish on EPA's behalf (E&ENews PM, Oct. 27).
More than half the states are on the other side of the fight.
Twenty-four states are in a coalition challenging the rule: West Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Oklahoma and North Dakota have filed separate challenges.
State challengers have touted their bipartisan support. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway are Democrats.
Bracewell & Giuliani attorney Jeff Holmstead said today, "The 26 states that have challenged the rule are the most ever to challenge an EPA rule and, as far as I know, any federal action. They represent almost 80 percent of emission reductions required under the [Clean Power Plan]."
He added, "The 18 that are supporting the rule only represent about 12 percent of the reductions required under the rule and include two states that are not even covered by the rule -- Vermont and Hawaii." Holmstead is representing coal industry clients that are also challenging the rule in court.
State challengers are also asking the court to immediately halt the EPA rule, arguing that they're being "immediately and irreparably harmed" by the regulation. The court is expected to decide whether to grant the request for a stay early next year (E&ENews PM, Oct. 29).
The six states that haven't taken a side in court: Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
The legal fight over the Clean Power Plan is widely expected to wind up in the Supreme Court and may not be decided until 2018 (Greenwire, Oct. 26).
Separately, a coalition of 16 states, the District of Columbia and New York City filed a requestto the appeals court today to intervene in a lawsuit surrounding EPA's new rule that sets the first-ever carbon dioxide emission standards for new and modified power plants.
Twenty-four states and several industry groups have asked the court to strike down that rule as well (E&ENews PM, Nov. 3).
-
GOP Bill Would Stop EPA from Regulating Greenhouse Gases
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) and more than 100 co-sponsors yesterday introduced legislation that would strip U.S. EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases.
H.R. 3880 would add language to the Clean Air Act stating that the term "air pollutant" does not refer to greenhouse gases. It would also prohibit EPA from using several other environmental laws to regulate heat-trapping emissions.
"'The Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2015' will reassert that Congress never intended that the EPA would regulate greenhouse gasses," Palmer said in a statement.
The bill has 107 original co-sponsors, all Republican. A Palmer spokesman this morning said six additional co-sponsors have signed on since the bill was introduced yesterday, bringing the total to 113.
They include House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah); Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas); and Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas).
According to the Palmer statement, the bill is aimed at overturning the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that formed the basis for the agency's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Palmer accused the agency of using the court decision to justify costly regulations.
"This bill reasserts Congress's authority by prohibiting the EPA from unilaterally continuing to cause severe economic damage by regulating greenhouse gases," Palmer said in the statement.
Along with the Clean Air Act, the bill would remove EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and Solid Waste Disposal Act.
The legislation would also require EPA to analyze the employment impacts before it proposes or finalizes any agency action. Any rule found to harm employment levels would require approval by Congress and a signature by the president before it could go into effect.
At a hearing yesterday, legislation co-sponsor Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) called EPA a "renegade" agency and described Congress as attempting to "lasso" in the agency's rules to regulate carbon dioxide. The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power yesterday approved resolutions that would halt the agency's carbon dioxide rules for new and existing power plants (E&ENews PM, Nov. 3).
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, slammed Republicans' many attempts to halt EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He defended the agency as acting within the bounds of its authority to regulate carbon dioxide.
"Congress overwhelmingly passed the Clean Air Act and a Republican president signed it into law. And now EPA's fulfilling the executive's duty to take care that the law be faithfully executed," Pallone said. "EPA is doing the job we asked them to do, and it's unfortunate Republicans are using every trick in the book to prevent the agency from carrying out its mission."
-
Coalition of 18 States to Move to Defend Carbon-Emissions Rules
Nov 4, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Brent Kendall
A group of 18 states is expected to ask a federal court on Wednesday to intervene in support of Obama administration greenhouse-gas regulations that require significant emissions cuts from hundreds of U.S. power plants.
The move will mean most states in the nation are taking sides in a legal battle over a top Environmental Protection Agency initiative on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is leading the coalition seeking to let the EPA’s new rules, called the Clean Power Plan, stand, said they are “a critical step forward in responding to the threat of climate change.” Mr. Schneiderman said the intervening states were committed to joining the EPA in defending the regulations aggressively.
Mr. Schneiderman said in a written statement that the regulations were “firmly grounded in science and the law” and incorporated strategies that his state and others were using to cut power-plant pollution while maintaining electricity reliability.
The move will pit his group of states against more than two dozen other states that sued the EPA last month, shortly after the agency’s rules were officially published.
Those challengers, including coal-dependent states like West Virginia and Kentucky, argue the agency exceeded its powers and is unlawfully seeking to reorganize the nation’s energy grid. A wide range of industry groups are suing as well.
The case could call upon courts to explore relatively untested areas of the law because the EPA issued the rules through a little used provision of the Clean Air Act.
The EPA regulations require a 32% cut in power-plant carbon emissions by 2030 based on emissions levels of 2005. They are designed to force the utility industry to shift toward cleaner-burning energy sources over the next several decades. The coal industry is expected to be hit the hardest by the rules.
California, Massachusetts and Virginia are among the states that are joining New York to defend the EPA regulations.
The challengers are asking a federal appeals court to temporarily block the EPA regulations during the litigation, an early legal test for the Obama administration. Written legal briefing on that issue is expected to be completed in December.
-
Senate Votes to Kill EPA’s Water Rule
Nov 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Senate approved a bill Wednesday to block the Obama administration’s new regulation setting federal authority over small waterways.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) water rule passed on a 53-44 vote. Three Democrats joined every Republican except Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in advancing the bill.
The resolution would prevent the implementation of the water rule, but it’s ultimately unlikely to take effect, given opposition from President Obama and the GOP’s inability to secure a veto-proof majority.
But Republicans said the resolution would put their opposition to Obama’s environmental regulations squarely in the president’s hands.
“My legislation is the necessary next step in pushing back against this blatant power grab by the EPA,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), the resolution’s sponsor, said in a floor speech Wednesday.
“We will send this to the president, where he will be forced to decide between the livelihood of our rural communities nationwide and his unchecked federal agency.”
Republicans have long opposed the EPA’s water rule, which asserts federal regulatory authority over small bodies of water such as wetlands and some ponds.
Its opponents argue the rule gives the federal government too much power. Democrats from rural states have also joined the effort, warning the rule will have a negative affect on agriculture and energy development.
Wednesday’s vote came after Republicans failed to advance a bill from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that would undo the water rule and send it back the EPA with instructions for a re-write.
CRA resolutions don’t require a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster, giving Republicans an opportunity to pass a bill undoing the rule over the objection of Democrats.
“Most Democrats chose an ideological power grab over sensible clean water rules yesterday," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday.“This regulation feels a lot like the latest in a sustained Obama administration regulatory assault on their families. Well, the Senate is going to pursue another avenue today to protect the middle class from this unfair regulatory attack.”
The White House defended the rule, issuing a veto threat against the resolution on Tuesday, saying it would “nullify years of work and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water.”
“The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science and the law, is essential to ensure clean water for future generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking from the Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,” officials wrote in a Statement of Administration Policy.
The water rule faces more challenges than just the CRA. Thirty-one states and multiple industry groups have challenged the legality of the rule, and a federal court blocked its implementation last month.
Republicans said the stay order drives home their concerns over the rule.
“We’ve got a rule that two courts have already said is illegal. It will be overturned,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a floor speech.
“We don’t have to stand for this. We don’t have to endure years of confusion before the courts act.” -
More Evangelicals Warm Up to the Notion of Climate Change -- Poll
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
A new poll is reporting a large increase among evangelical Christians who believe in climate change, marking what experts say is a surprising shift for a conservative group with a strong history of skepticism.
Evangelicals who say that the planet is getting warmer jumped 16 points between May and September to 65 percent, according to a poll released this week by researchers at the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College.
That's a pronounced rise for a group that normally exhibits the lowest level of belief in warming among all religions surveyed, said Barry Rabe, a professor at the University of Michigan who oversaw the polling.
"It's a huge shift, which we were not anticipating," he said.
It's unclear what's driving the surprise results, but a number of factors could be contributing to them, Rabe said. Respondents might be reacting to the summer weather, which added to the warmest nine-month span between January and September ever recorded globally.
He also said ongoing drought conditions in the western United States could be a cause and, finally, the pope's visit to Washington, D.C., and other cities might have convinced some people that climbing temperatures are a real problem. The survey was conducted throughout the month of September, at the height of media attention around Pope Francis' visit.
The poll also avoided the most controversial element about climate change. It did not ask whether humans are contributing to it.'Leaps and bounds' in religious right
Still, if evangelicals report similar beliefs in future polls, it could mark a sharp change for a group that showed steep increases in skepticism between 2008 and the spring of 2015. No other religious group shed its belief in climate change as quickly or as strongly as evangelicals.
In 2008, more than 60 percent said warming was occurring. The low point came in 2013, when the proportion plunged to just over 45 percent. Those numbers barely moved over the next two years. This May, 49 percent reported believing in global warming. Then, six months later, the number bounced up to 65 percent, rivaling the group's highest level.
Other groups, including Catholics and Protestants, rebounded from their low points in 2010 and 2011 more quickly. By 2012, those groups tracked closely with the national average at about 68 percent.
The recent change among evangelicals occurs as Republican presidential candidates are also undergoing a subtle transition on climate. Many of them have reduced their criticisms about scientists compared with the 2012 elections. Several say that global warming is happening, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who appeared by recorded video at a clean energy summit this month organized by the Christian Coalition.
Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions and some conservative think tanks are promoting action around renewable energy and other climate-related policies. Some of them speak more about solar power and national security than climbing temperatures.
One evangelical leader said it's possible that these conservative efforts are casting clean energy initiatives in a new light. Previously, religious voters might have seen them as liberal measures that are part of a broader orthodoxy on climate change.Climate still not 'a safe place'
Now it's framed as an issue of liberty and being able to choose a cleaner source of energy than what utilities and the oil and gas industry are offering.
"I feel like we've made leaps and bounds" with evangelicals, said the religious leader, who asked not to be named, talking about his group's strategy.
"We've really been hesitant to wade too much into the media into the climate discussion because some of the people we're making progress with we would lose, if they were concerned that that's what's driving the energy discussion."
Yet the effort does include a climate element, if subtly. He said conservatives who support clean energy initiatives are freer to accept climate change because they're already contributing to its solution.
"So it suddenly becomes safe, because it doesn't require a change in my actions," he said.
The new polling provides a window into the loyal Republican base. Evangelicals accounted for more than a quarter of all voters in the 2012 presidential election. Most of them -- 78 percent -- voted for Republican Mitt Romney, while Obama captured just 21 percent of their vote.
Stronger belief in climate change won't change that lopsided result, one analyst said. It's also doubtful that it will persuade Republican lawmakers to alter their positions to support climate action, said Nathan Gonzales, editor and publisher of The Rothenberg & Gonzales Report.
He noted that the requirement of most Republican candidates to win primary elections, which encourage conservative positions, will likely overwhelm a modest climate bounce in polling.
"A Republican member might be hearing more from evangelicals who have changed how they think about climate change, but I think we're a long ways away ... for climate change to be a safe place for Republican members," Gonzales said.
-
EPA Finding of No 'Widespread, Systemic' Problems Under Fire
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA's science advisers are criticizing the agency's June announcement dismissing the dangers to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing.
They are saying the assertion that EPA's study shows fracturing hasn't led to "widespread, systemic" problems with drinking water from fracturing needs to be changed, because the terms are ill-defined.
"There's agreement the sentence needs to be modified," said David Dzombak, a Carnegie Mellon University professor chairing the EPA scientific advisory panel conducting a peer review of the agency's hydraulic fracturing study, released in June. "The sentence is ambiguous and requires clarification."
Some members of the panel have said that more weight should be given to the "severity of local impacts" on water supplies.
The panel is months away from finishing its work, which would be a recommendation to EPA, not an order.
But the panel is also recommending that the study include more about three major EPA investigations into water contamination near drilling sites that were scuttled by EPA higher-ups.
The assertion of no "widespread, systemic" problems was the top-line finding of EPA's years-in-the-making study of hydraulic fracturing and its effects on drinking water.
The study's executive summary said that researchers "did not find evidence" that fracturing activities led to "widespread, systemic impacts" on drinking water. The agency's press release stepped up the level of certainty with a headline saying the study "shows" fracturing activities "have not led" to systematic problems.
To industry, it was a clean bill of health, though the study did say there had been instances of contamination from fracturing. The press release from the American Petroleum Institute (API) said the study "confirms safety" of fracturing.
Green groups seethed about the EPA headline, saying it turned a lack of evidence into proof that "fracking" is benign. They sought to emphasize what EPA's release had downplayed -- that there were instances of contamination.
The Scientific Advisory Board panel reviewing the fracturing study met last week in Washington, D.C., to hear testimony and discuss possible recommendations. But even before the session, the fracturing study's top-line conclusions were the subject of criticism. Materials prepared for the meeting, based on previous discussions by the reviewers, said the assertion of no "widespread, systemic" problems was "of particular concern" to the panel.
"Some of the major findings are ambiguous or are inconsistent with the observations/data presented in the body of the report," the preliminary materials said.
Pennsylvania State University professor Elizabeth Boyer noted in preliminary materials that the "widespread, systemic" assertion was "widely quoted and interpreted in many different ways." She said "the executive summary and press materials should be carefully reworded" to be more clear.
The criticism continued during the meeting.
"That particular sentence in the executive summary got a good deal of discussion," Dzombak said.
Notes made during the meeting cautioned against making only "national level generalizations" while excluding local incidents.
"The report needs to acknowledge more clearly the distinction between the low frequency of national impacts vs. the severity of local impacts," the notes state.Conclusion is 'sound' -- API
Any attempts to revise the assertion of no "widespread, systemic" problems would likely be met with resistance from the oil and gas industry.
API, the industry's biggest lobbying group, told the panel that the conclusion of no systemic problems is "sound." But if anything, API executive Erik Milito said, the study was too critical of fracturing.
Milito said the absence of evidence of contamination should be viewed more strongly as proof that there has been no contamination. And in some instances, he said, the study implied the possibility of pollution despite a lack of data.
"The draft assessment report is full of conclusory statements, which are ripe in innuendo, but unsupported by data," Milito wrote. "If data is lacking to conclusively demonstrate an impact occurred, then the lack of data does not mean that impacts will result."
Milito's written comments also protested the inclusion of sampling from a water contamination investigation in Pavillion, Wyo., despite what he said were "well-documented flaws."
Pavillion is one of the three contamination investigations the science advisers want to see covered more fully in the report. The panel's materials note that they have received many public comments about Pavillion, along with controversies in Dimock, Pa., and Parker County, Texas.
"As these seem to occupy the hearts and minds of much of the public," the board materials state, "meaningful discussion of causes, conclusions and plans for remediation should be specifically discussed."
-
Coal Plant Shutdowns Drive U.S. Emissions to 20-Year Low
Nov 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. electricity production are the lowest in 20 years, according to an analysis released today by the Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club credited falling CO2 levels to large reductions in coal use driven by the retirement or the proposed retirement of nearly one-third of the nation's fleet of coal-fired power plants since 2010.
The nation has already seen more CO2 reductions than those called for in the cap-and-trade bill that failed in the 111th Congress and is on track to hit U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan reduction targets, the report also found.
"The findings quantify for the first time how over the past five years -- despite continued inaction by Congress -- an unprecedented wave of coal plant retirements has yielded deeper economy-wide carbon reductions for 2015 than those laid out in the Waxman-Markey legislation," the report says. "Moreover, thanks in part to our coal replacement work, U.S. carbon emissions are trending decisively downward."
Bloomberg Philanthropies provided funding for the report, which is based on data gathered from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. EPA and research firm Rhodium Group. Bloomberg Philanthropies has provided about $80 million to the Sierra Club for the group's Beyond Coal campaign aimed at shutting down coal-fired power plants across the country.
The Sierra Club's 2017 goal is to retire and replace at least half the U.S. coal fleet.
The report today projected that CO2 emissions from the electric sector in 2015 would be 1,983 million metric tons, the lowest since 1995.
The Rhodium Group found that economywide CO2 emissions would be 5.3 billion metric tons, about 150 million metric tons below the 2015 level projected in the 2010 Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
According to the report, the United States has retired 41,978 megawatts of coal-fired power generation since 2010. In an op-ed today on CNN.com, Sierra Club President Michael Brune and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg credited the club's Beyond Coal campaign for the CO2 reductions.
"Yes, cleaner energy sources have played an important role in reducing emissions. So did the Obama administration's tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks," they wrote. "But the biggest factor, as the new data shows, was the decline in coal use."
Bloomberg, whose charity is funding the Sierra Club's coal work, today said the report's results strengthen the U.S. position at the upcoming international climate change negotiations in Paris.
"The domestic reductions will give President Obama a strong negotiating hand at the U.N.'s climate summit in Paris," he said, "and hopefully we can help lead the rest of the world in the same direction."
The Sierra Club also found that the power sector's projected emissions fall within 5 percent of the 2022 goal in the Clean Power Plan, which EPA finalized in August to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The nation is poised to hit the Clean Power Plan's 2030 carbon dioxide goal by 2025, the report said.
Congressional critics and stakeholders have launched both legal and legislative assaults against the Clean Power Plan, arguing that it would fundamentally change the way electricity is generated and distributed in the country and come with big compliance costs.
"A Democratically controlled Congress wisely rejected cap and trade in 2010," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "and those rules are just as ill-advised today as they were five years ago."
Jack Gerard, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, yesterday evening credited the emissions decline to increased use of natural gas use and technological improvements in the gas sector.
"The real driver today to bring us to where we are, something we believe should be considered the real solution as we plan to go to Paris, talk about climate longer term," Gerard said at an Atlantic Exchange event, "is really driven by cleaner-burning natural gas."
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research today also credited natural gas for the majority of the nation's CO2 emissions reductions.
In a policy brief, the group found that emissions peaked in 2007 and were 1,022 million metric tons lower in 2014 than if they would have grown at the same rate as the economy. Nineteen percent of the reduction came from shifting to natural gas for electricity generation, the group said.
Solar energy was responsible for only 1 percent of the CO2 reduction since 2007, the institute said.
"For all the attention and federal funds given to renewable energy, it remains a blip on America's energy radar," the brief says.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested