Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/6/15
-
(ACC Blog) Does WHO Make the Case for Prop 65 Reform?
Nov 5, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
When the World Health Organization (WHO) pronounced last week that hot dogs and bacon are carcinogens and that red meat may also harm you, carnivores AND vegetarians alike were right to wonder, “What’s really going on here?” If past health warnings are a model, we’re still going to find hot dogs at the ballpark and ribs at the 4th of July picnic – unless of course you live in California. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bottle Recycling Rate Stands in 2014
Nov 6, 2015 | Recycling Today
Plastic bottle recycling grew 97 million pounds in 2014, increasing 3.3 percent to top 3 billion pounds, according to figures released jointly by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) Bottle Recycling in U.S. Breaks Record as it Tops 3 Billion Pounds
Nov 6, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Kari Embree
According to statistics released by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR; Washington, DC) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.), plastic bottle recycling grew 97 million pounds in 2015, increasing 3.3%, to top 3 billion pounds for the year. The recycling rate for plastic bottles rose 1.0% to 31.8% for the year. -
Agencies Receive Conflicting Comments On Update Of Biotech Reviews
Nov 6, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Federal agencies, including EPA, are receiving conflicting comments on how to improve regulation of biotechnology through an update of a decades-old framework, with industry emphasizing the products' safety, and environmentalists and consumer advocates seeking reviews of all biotechnology products before they go on the market. -
Industry, NGOs Protest California's Proposed Lead Exposure Approach
Nov 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A California agency's proposed modification of the maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for lead will increase litigation risk and unnecessary warning labels under Proposition 65, according to industry groups and NGOs. -
Washington State Investigates Possible Cadmium, Phthalate Violations
Nov 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Washington Department of Ecology is to investigate “apparent self-reported violations” of state cadmium and phthalate limits in children's products. -
Echa Outlines Changes to REACH Registration Process
Nov 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Echa has outlined changes it plans to make to the REACH registration process. -
EPA Chemical Rule Will Disappoint Labor
Nov 6, 2015 | Politico - Morning Shift
By Brian Mahoney
A forthcoming regulation to address chemical safety in the wake of the 2013 West, Texas, explosion won’t likely contain a provision that labor groups and environmentalists say is necessary to prevent another disaster. -
Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline Plan
Nov 6, 2015 | Roll Call
By John T. Bennett
The White House is rejecting a Canadian company’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline, sounding a death knell for the controversial project that has long pitted President Barack Obama against Republicans and the energy industry. -
Obama's Climate Rule Will Tower Over Regulators' National Meeting
Nov 6, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
State electric regulators gather in Austin, Texas, this weekend for their first national meeting since U.S. EPA released its final Clean Power Plan in August, and attendees expect planning for the rule to dominate discussions. -
Lawsuits Over Obama Rule Pit State AGs Against Governors
Nov 6, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Governors and their states' top attorneys don't always agree on legal strategies. Case in point: the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. -
Texas Energy Company Says it Supports Rule
Nov 6, 2015 | E&E Energywire
A Texas energy company is moving in an opposite direction of the state and is supporting U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Enviros Voice Support for Expanding EPA Draft Rule
Nov 6, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Community activists and environmental advocates gathered on Capitol Hill yesterday to support U.S. EPA's proposed controls over methane emissions from new and modified oil and gas operations -- and to call for expanding the rule to cover existing sources.
Industry and Association News
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
-
(ACC Blog) Does WHO Make the Case for Prop 65 Reform?
Nov 5, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
When the World Health Organization (WHO) pronounced last week that hot dogs and bacon are carcinogens and that red meat may also harm you, carnivores AND vegetarians alike were right to wonder, “What’s really going on here?” If past health warnings are a model, we’re still going to find hot dogs at the ballpark and ribs at the 4th of July picnic – unless of course you live in California.
Yes, out on the left coast pundits and policy wonks (like us) have been quick to ask if meat will now come with a warning label. The WHO has unwittingly provided a proof point for the need to reform Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Prop 65 requires “clear and reasonable” warning labels on products containing ingredients “known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm.” WHO’s recent determination will allow California to add these products to their list of more than 900 other substances.
What began as a notification program to notify residents of significant amounts of chemicals in products they purchase has veered wildly off course and become almost meaningless as everything from automobiles to the gates of Disneyland now carry warning labels. Unfortunately, the law can only be changed through legislative reform, leaving California residents and others to wonder whether lawmakers have taken them out of the realm of “reasonable” and into a world of pure imagination. Isn’t it time for lawmakers to look at significant reform?
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bottle Recycling Rate Stands in 2014
Nov 6, 2015 | Recycling Today
Plastic bottle recycling grew 97 million pounds in 2014, increasing 3.3 percent to top 3 billion pounds, according to figures released jointly by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The organizations say this amounting to a 31.8 percent recycling rate in 2014.
Trends in plastics recycling highlighted in the report, “National Post-Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report,” include:Single-stream collection of household recyclables continues to grow, resulting in higher participation rates.Use of plastic bottles in packaging applications is expanding but is offset by continued lightweighting and increased use of concentrates with smaller, lighter bottles.Lack of access to away-from-home recycling continues to be a barrier to increased collection.
During 2014, the collection of high-density polyethylene (HDPE, or No. 2 plastic) bottles—a category that includes milk jugs and household cleaner and detergent bottles—rose to nearly 1.1 billion pounds, a gain of more than 62 million pounds from 2013, for a recycling rate of 33.6 percent.
According to the report, a higher percentage of postconsumer plastic bottle material was processed by domestic reclaimers in 2014. Exports of all postconsumer plastic bottles rose slightly (in pounds) but, at 21.9 percent, fell to the lowest percentage of exports in six years. This was because the amount of bottles collected increased faster than exports did, the organizations say, adding that the drop in exports may reflect the strength of the U.S. dollar and growth in domestic reclamation capacity.
U.S. reclamation capacity for HDPE increased to its highest level ever in 2014. Exports of HDPE bottles rose from 15.6 to 19.7 percent (218 million pounds) of domestically collected material, and domestic reclaimers processed approximately 951 million pounds of HDPE bottles in 2014.
“The message to American consumers is that plastic bottles are valuable resources even after they’ve been used,” says Steve Alexander, executive director of APR. “Americans generated an estimated $730 million in recycled plastic bottles in 2014. The simple act of recycling helps generate local revenue, supports recycling jobs and enables us to continue to benefit from these useful resources.”
Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the ACC, says, “This report clearly illustrates 25 years of year-over-year growth in recycling plastic bottles. Plastics help reduce energy use and conserve resources—and after use, these efficient products and packages are increasingly valued as recycled materials. We’re confident that plastics recycling will continue to grow, and we will continue working to accelerate that growth.”
This year’s survey also found that the collection of polypropylene (PP, No. 5) bottles increased 28.3 percent, reaching 79.5 million pounds, for a recycling rate of 44.9 percent. Domestic processing of postconsumer PP bottles grew to 65.3 million pounds. PP bottles deliberately recycled as PP (instead of being blended with HDPE) rose from 44.2 million pounds in 2013 to 45.6 million pounds in 2014.
Although PP caps, closures and nonbottle containers are widely collected for recycling in the United States, these data are presented in a separate report on recycling nonbottle rigid plastics, which will be released in the coming months, the organizations say.
Together, polyethylene terephthalate (PET, No. 1) and HDPE bottles continue to make up nearly 97 percent of the U.S. market for plastic bottles, with PP comprising 1.9 percent, LDPE (low-density polyethylene) 0.8 percent and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) 0.4 percent, according to the report.
Data on PET recycling referenced in the report were separately funded and published by APR and theNational Association for PET Container Resources. A separate report, “2014 Report on Post-Consumer PET Container Recycling Activity,” is available on APR’s website.
The 25th annual “National Post-Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report” is based on a survey of reclaimers conducted by Moore Recycling Associates Inc. of Sonoma, California.
Resources for municipal recyclers are available at www.recycleyourplastics.org.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bottle Recycling in U.S. Breaks Record as it Tops 3 Billion Pounds
Nov 6, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Kari Embree
According to statistics released by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR; Washington, DC) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.), plastic bottle recycling grew 97 million pounds in 2015, increasing 3.3%, to top 3 billion pounds for the year. The recycling rate for plastic bottles rose 1.0% to 31.8% for the year.
“The message to American consumers is that plastic bottles are valuable resources even after they’ve been used,” said Steve Alexander, Executive Director of APR. “Americans generated an estimated $730 million in recycled plastic bottles in 2014. The simple act of recycling helps generate local revenue, supports recycling jobs, and enables us to continue to benefit from these useful resources.”
In 2014, the collection of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles—milk jugs, bottles for household cleaners and detergents—climbed to nearly 1.1 billion pounds, a gain of over 62 million pounds from 2013. The recycling rate for HDPE bottles rose to 33.6%.
A higher percentage of all postconsumer plastic bottle material was processed by domestic reclaimers in 2014. Exports of all postconsumer plastic bottles rose slightly (in pounds) but fell to the lowest percentage of exports in six years (21.9%) as the amount of bottles collected increased faster than did exports, according to the report. The drop in exports may reflect the strength of the U.S. dollar and growth in domestic reclamation capacity.
U.S. reclamation capacity for HDPE reached its highest level ever in 2014. Exports of HDPE bottles rose from 15.6 to 19.7% (218 million pounds) of domestically collected material, and domestic reclaimers processed approximately 951 million pounds of HDPE bottles in 2014.
“This report clearly illustrates 25 years of year-over-year growth in recycling plastic bottles,” added Steve Russell, Vice President of Plastics for the American Chemistry Council. “Plastics help reduce energy use and conserve resources—and after use, these efficient products and packages are increasingly valued as recycled materials. We’re confident that plastics recycling will continue to grow, and we will continue working to accelerate that growth.”
The survey also found that the collection of polypropylene (PP) bottles spiked 28.3% for the year to reach 79.5 million pounds, as the collection rate sprang to 44.9%. Domestic processing of postconsumer PP bottles grew to 65.3 million pounds. PP bottles deliberately recycled as PP (instead of blended with HDPE) rose from 44.2 million pounds in 2013 to 45.6 million pounds in 2014.
Together, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and HDPE bottles continue to make up nearly 97% of the domestic market for plastic bottles with PP comprising 1.9%, LDPE 0.8% and PVC 0.4%.
The 25th annual National Post-Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report marks the twenty-fifth consecutive year that Americans have increased the pounds of plastic bottles collected for recycling since the survey began in 1990.
-
Agencies Receive Conflicting Comments On Update Of Biotech Reviews
Nov 6, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Federal agencies, including EPA, are receiving conflicting comments on how to improve regulation of biotechnology through an update of a decades-old framework, with industry emphasizing the products' safety, and environmentalists and consumer advocates seeking reviews of all biotechnology products before they go on the market.
Officials with EPA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Oct. 30 held the first of several public meetings to support an effort, announced this summer, to update the federal coordinated framework for how the three agencies regulate biotechnology.
During the meeting, environmentalists and consumer advocates argued that the coordinated framework, last updated in 1992, is broken because it calls for regulating biotechnology, such as genetically-modified (GM) crops, using existing authorities even though the technologies are fundamentally different from their conventional counterparts.
"The coordinated framework has never worked, and federal agencies must dramatically re-think how genetically-modified organisms are regulated to protect" human health and the environment, Tim Schwab of Food and Water Watch said.
The public meeting is part of an effort White House officials launched in July to update the 1986 coordinated framework and address long-standing concerns that uncertainty over the jurisdiction of agencies and a lack of predictability in the time of reviews are leading to unnecessary burdens and costs.
In a July 2 memo, "Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products," the White Office of Science and Technology Policy says the administration is seeking to update the framework to ensure regulations protect human health and the environment without unnecessarily hindering technology.
The memo tasked an interagency working group of EPA, FDA and USDA with updating the framework to clarify the roles of agencies that regulate biotechnology and to craft a long-term strategy to ensure federal regulators remain equipped to efficiently assess potential risks of emerging technologies.
During the meeting, federal officials emphasized that existing regulations are adequate to ensure safety and highlighted where inter-agency coordination already occurs. Officials also outlined an array of statutes, including the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, administered by EPA, and the plant protection act, which USDA oversees, that are relevant to oversight of biotech products.
Federal Oversight
In comments, advocates pressed for more consistent and stringent reviews and sought to show that federal oversight of similar GM products varies significantly depending on which agency is tasked with regulating certain products derived from the same technology. Certain products are allowed on the market essentially unchecked, advocates said.
"All genetically-engineered organisms should be required to go through mandatory, systematic assessment for health and environmental impacts," Michael Hansen of Consumers Union said.
Specifically targeting EPA, Hansen argued that the agency regulates GM microorganisms under TSCA even though those products present a fundamentally different risk from toxic chemicals because they can reproduce and spread.
Alexis Baden-Mayer, of the Organic Consumers Association, urged EPA to ban glyphosate, noting the herbicide, commonly used on GM crops, was recently designated a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
She also called for a "moratorium on all [GM organisms] that turn our food into insecticides, or allow use of [GM seeds] that soak up dangerous herbicides."
Industry officials, meanwhile, emphasized biotechnology's growing importance in food production and cautioned that over-regulation will stifle innovation. Officials with Dupont and the law firm Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., which represents industry clients, called for science-based assessments that consider products' risks and benefits.
Terry Medley, of Dupont, called for competitive import-export policies that facilitate trade and said expedited reviews should be allowed for products using already-familiar biotechnologies.
Richard Engler, of Bergeson & Campbell, said more transparent risk-based reviews will improve public understanding of biotechnology. Agencies need adequate funding to ensure adequate and transparent reviews, he said, adding that federal technology centers are needed to facilitate regulators' understanding of new technologies and facilitate information sharing between agencies.
Val Giddings, of the Information Technology and Information Foundation, argued that the coordinated framework was established more to address public perception of risk, rather than any real risks from biotechnology. Yet over time, new information backing the products' safety has still led to new regulatory burdens, he said.
"Can we please change this broken cycle?" Giddings said. "It would be nice if review of the coordinated framework would take serious its responsibility to restore balance between regulatory oversight and the level of hazard of products."
-
Industry, NGOs Protest California's Proposed Lead Exposure Approach
Nov 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A California agency's proposed modification of the maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for lead will increase litigation risk and unnecessary warning labels under Proposition 65, according to industry groups and NGOs.
In response to a petition from the NGO Center for Environmental Health (CEH), the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) is proposing to replace the existing 0.5µg/day MADL for lead with a set of 13 distinct safe harbour levels, based on exposure duration (CW 1 September 2015).
However, the CEH, along with other NGOs, and a coalition of more than 80 industry stakeholders –spearheaded by the California Chamber of Commerce – say in written comments that this is “problematic”.
Commenters agreed that the proposal would:lead to increased litigation and costs, as businesses would need to undertake costly complex analysis to determine the frequency of exposure; andincrease the occurrence of unnecessary warning labels, as companies would follow the most conservative safe harbour level – the single day MADL – to avoid risk of litigation.
In its comments the California-based NGO Environmental Law Foundation says: “While we agree with Oehha’s goals in adopting a new MADL for lead, we cannot support this incarnation of such a regulation and will vigorously oppose it; we see little hope it would survive review.”
In addition to concerns over the intermittent exposure approach, the CEH says that the 15µg/day blood lead level (BLL) – upon which the agency based its MADLs – cannot by definition "represent a No Observable Effect Level” (NOEL), given that cited studies demonstrate reproductive effects at lower levels.
The NGO says the agency should revise and re-propose a single MADL, based on a NOEL of 2-3µg/dL.
The industry coalition also says that 15µg/dL NOEL “is not adequately justified”, given “incongruous findings” in the cited study that showed no effects at levels as high as 45µg/dL.
It argues that the uncertainty factor used by the agency to calculate Prop 65 threshold values is inappropriate: “Many toxicologists, including some at Oehha, have stated that the 1000-fold uncertainty factor is unjustified as both a scientific and policy matter – and particularly with respect to a chemical like lead that has been studied extensively.”
It protests that the agency did not provide “sufficient time for the coalition to comment on this highly technical proposal”, parts of which were made available less than 24 hours before the 14 October workshop. A request for an extension was denied, it adds.
The coalition urges the Oehha to "reconsider this proposal and certainly to not move forward with the levels or concepts proposed.”
The proposal was released as part of a pre-regulatory process from the agency. It says that these documents “could change substantially prior to the commencement of a formal rulemaking”.
-
Washington State Investigates Possible Cadmium, Phthalate Violations
Nov 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Washington Department of Ecology is to investigate “apparent self-reported violations” of state cadmium and phthalate limits in children's products.
These are reported under the state's Children's Safe Products Act (CSPA).
The move follows a request for action from the NGO Washington Toxics Coalition (WTC). It says that reports submitted by manufacturers “show numerous examples of products that appear to violate state standards” (CW 5 September 2014).
Washington prohibits the sale of children's products containing cadmium above 40ppm and phthalates at more than 1,000ppm. However, the state's authority is partially preempted by certain federal safety regulations, including the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).
In a letter to the department, the WTC says that while federal law preempts the state from enforcing the ban for certain products (for example toys), "it can and should enforce the ban on products not covered by federal law, including clothing and personal care products."
In a letter back to the coalition, Darin Rice, manager of the hazardous waste and toxics reduction programme at the Department of Ecology, responded that the department is “now beginning the process of investigating these self-reported violations”.
According to another department spokesperson, the bulk of CSPA enforcement efforts have relied on the state's product testing programme. The department reports products that exceed federal safety standards to the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) “all the time”, he said (CW 23 April 2014).
The majority of state-level violations discovered through the testing programme have been for product manufacturers failing to report the presence of a chemical of high concern to children, he added.
Consistent with how the department handles violations discovered through product testing, it will contact the product manufacturers who self-reported violations, and work with them to identify the correct course of action “to correct verified violations and ensure that children's products sold in Washington meet the state's standards”.
Mr Rice told the WTC that the Department of Ecology will "continue to emphasise product testing as the best and surest path to assure compliance". However, it will add to that a "routine evaluation of reported information and subsequent follow-up of apparent violations".
Such an approach, he said, “will establish a more comprehensive approach to hold manufacturers accountable for complying with both state and federal chemical regulations”.
-
Echa Outlines Changes to REACH Registration Process
Nov 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Echa has outlined changes it plans to make to the REACH registration process. These will incorporate lessons learned from the previous registration deadlines in 2010 and 2013, as well as reflecting new legislative requirements.
“We are revising the registration process in preparation for the final registration deadline in 2018. IT tools will be significantly improved, required information will be more explicit and the concept of joint registration enhanced,” said an Echa official at a meeting it organised in Brussels this week with industry associations Cefic, Eurometaux, Concawe and Fecc.
The changes affect four main areas:one substance, one registration, where a Commission implementing Regulation under preparation will clarify the rules for data and cost sharing. It will also strengthen the obligation to submit joint registrations. Once implemented, REACH-IT will not allow separate registrations, when a joint registration already exists;an updated completeness check process, including revised rules for considering a registration complete. Additionally, Echa will include a manual verification step to prevent dossiers without relevant information bypassing the system. This updated check will apply both to initial submissions as well as dossier updates;revised IT tools. These will include Iuclid 6, to take stock of revised OECD harmonised templates and a desktop version that will be easier to install; the chemical safety report tool, Chesar 3, which will enable assessment of complex cases; and the new version of REACH-IT, which will be revamped with SMEs in mind; andbetter dissemination of information from registration dossiers. The agency plans to improve how information on chemicals is presented on its website. It will consist of a basic set of data per substance – the so-called info card – followed by a more extensive information sheet – the brief profile. The availability of data in a downloadable format is also being explored.
Echa said a key message is that registrants should start preparing for the changes and plan dossier submissions accordingly.
-
EPA Chemical Rule Will Disappoint Labor
Nov 6, 2015 | Politico - Morning Shift
By Brian Mahoney
WEST, TEXAS, RULEMAKING WILL DISAPPOINT LABOR: A forthcoming regulation to address chemical safety in the wake of the 2013 West, Texas, explosion won’t likely contain a provision that labor groups and environmentalists say is necessary to prevent another disaster.
The long-anticipated update to the EPA’s “risk management plan” rule is the agency's response to an executive order that President Barack Obama issued after the explosion at the West Fertilizer Company. The disaster, caused by exploded ammonium nitrate, killed 15 people and exposed weaknesses in how dangerous chemicals are stored and regulated.
POLITICO has learned that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy indicated during an Oct. 13 meeting with environmental activists that the updated plan will not include a so-called Inherently Safer Technologies component, according to several people who were present at that meeting. Inherently Safer Technologies, or IST, is a “design concept” that requires companies to implement, whenever feasible, a wide range of practices to prevent chemical explosions, including the use of less hazardous materials and the alteration of procedures to reduce the likelihood of human error.
The meeting’s attendees were “told point blank that there was really no way IST is going to be included,” said David LeGrande, coordinator for occupational safety and health at the Communications Workers of America. “Just too large of a step for the administration to take on.” Brian Mahoney has more for Pros here:http://politico.pro/1Q7uhbI
-
Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline Plan
Nov 6, 2015 | Roll Call
By John T. Bennett
The White House is rejecting a Canadian company’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline, sounding a death knell for the controversial project that has long pitted President Barack Obama against Republicans and the energy industry.
“The State Department has decided the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interests of the United States. I agree with that decision,” Obama said Friday at the White House.
By rejecting the pipeline, Obama is siding with environment-minded experts and Democrats who believe it would cause ample environmental damage on its 1,200-mile path from the U.S.-Canadian border to the Gulf Coast. And he’s handing Republican lawmakers and candidates who have long supported the project a new talking point ahead of the 2016 elections.
The State Department’s decision to recommend Obama block the plan could end years of political posturing over TransCanada Corp.’s application to build the $8 billion oil sands pipeline.
The recommendation from Foggy Bottom comes after TransCanada asked the State Department to suspend a review of its application to build the pipeline from Canada until at least mid-2016.
The administration and proponents of the pipeline have long sparred over the merits of launching the project, with each accusing the other side of politicizing the plan and a State Department review of it.
“When things that are worthy of technical consideration get politicized, that rarely speeds up the technical consideration,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this week. “That … typically has the effect of slowing it down.”
Critics of the president who are in favor of the massive project have claimed Obama has done much of the politicizing.
“It’s become painfully clear that the President is more interested in appeasing deep-pocketed special interests and extremists than helping tens of thousands of Americans who could have benefited from Keystone’s good jobs,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said Obama’s “continued political posturing when met with ideas he doesn’t agree reveals a lack of critical thinking and a mindless attachment to ideology above the common good.”
TransCanada and other proponents had lauded the economic benefits of the project, saying it would have created thousands of jobs and provided a jolt for the still-recovering U.S. economy. The actual job-creation numbers, however, were murky.
Project proponents once claimed it would deliver more than 100,000 jobs. But the State Department later brought that number down to around 4,000 — with only 35 permanent positions.
Ed Felker, Emma Dumain and Matthew Fleming contributed to this report.
-
Obama's Climate Rule Will Tower Over Regulators' National Meeting
Nov 6, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
State electric regulators gather in Austin, Texas, this weekend for their first national meeting since U.S. EPA released its final Clean Power Plan in August, and attendees expect planning for the rule to dominate discussions.
The annual conference of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners will draw a crowd of at least 1,200 and feature several panels on the practical decisions states must make in writing blueprints to cut power-sector carbon emissions by 2030.
Those panels will focus on what role renewable energy will play under various plan models and how to preserve baseload power and grid reliability while integrating greener electricity. A Monday afternoon talk will explore how states can use multistate trading systems to meet their individual goals.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Senior Counsel Joe Goffman will speak about the rule, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission members Cheryl LaFleur, Tony Clark and Colette Honorable will also make appearances.
Speakers on the agenda hope the discussions will be more practical than theoretical, as officials have had three months to digest the final rule and even those in states challenging the legality of the regulation are exploring compliance options.
"While the topic headings might sound a lot the same [as previous meetings], I think some of the details of the conversation may turn out to be a bit different," said Paul Allen, senior vice president at the consulting firm M.J. Bradley & Associates. "We'll be listening carefully to whether states are kind of transitioning into compliance mode, trying to really figure out how to craft at least initial plans."
Allen's firm has offered a compliance calculator for officials to explore how various options stack up in their state, and about 800 people have downloaded the tool, he said.
"What you're seeing is a lot of states who have an argument with the rule and have filed legal objections to it; a lot of those states are also trying to figure out what their plan B is and are looking at what do we file," said Doug Scott, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Great Plains Institute, which has been organizing state talks on the regulation.Developing a 'trade-ready state'
Air regulators -- not electric regulators -- are responsible for submitting at least initial plans to EPA by September 2016. But electric regulators are on the ground level of the CPP planning process, offering technical expertise on paths that could ensure against blackouts and keep power affordable.
Many have been coordinating with other states' agencies via grid operators and nongovernmental organizations that lead regional Clean Power Plan discussions. NARUC, however, offers an opportunity to hear what farther-flung states are thinking and, most importantly, what plan formats they might pursue.
The draft Clean Power Plan suggested states could work together to submit group plans and limit the cost of compliance.
Based on that structure, states envisioned more regional cap-and-trade systems like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast, said Ken Colburn, principal at the Regulatory Assistance Project, which advises state regulators.
That idea in the final rule has been "eclipsed by a much more flexible idea of a trading-ready state," Colburn said. States could adopt common plan formats and measures -- for the way they count emissions reductions from renewable energy, for example -- and decide who to trade with later, he said. States that fall short of their goals could purchase credits or allowances from those that overshoot their requirements.
"The way the final rule's written, your trading partner could be anybody," Scott said.
But there is a catch. States must choose either a rate-based plan -- to curb the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of power produced each year -- or a mass-based plan that would cap CO2 emissions outright. States in one camp will not be able to trade with states in the other.
In other words, "the decisions of those around you are going to affect the cost of compliance for you, and that means if everybody around you is going rate-based, you are going to need to rethink your mass-based [plan] because the cost differential that you may have won is now going to go up," explained Kelly Speakes-Backman, senior vice president of policy and research for the Alliance to Save Energy and a former Maryland electric regulator and RGGI chairwoman.
"Most states aren't ready to say definitively where they're going, but I think there's certainly an acknowledgement that, from an administrator's perspective, mass-based is simpler," said Sarah Adair, a senior policy associate at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. The Nicholas Institute has been organizing state talks in the Southeast.
E9 Energy Insight, a firm that tracks public utility commission dockets, today released a briefthat predicts what type of plans states might pursue, and mass-based plans are in the lead. The list also details whether a state would be in a position to sell or buy carbon credits in a trading system.
Adair believes states are waiting on modeling results from utilities and nongovernmental organizations that will be coming out in the next couple of months.
"What's really going to help states start making decisions ... is when we start seeing some of the analysis," Adair said.
She added that "the problem will be that there are too many numbers, not not enough numbers."Looking at baseload power
In another major change in the final rule, EPA will require states that choose to cap their emissions to either include new sources of carbon in that cap or prove new plants won't expand the state's carbon footprint or cause "carbon leakage."
In that respect especially, "the final rule is substantially different from the proposed rule, so the conversation about compliance under the proposed rule and the final rule are completely different," said Asim Haque, a member of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio who will moderate a panel Tuesday on preserving baseload power.
The final rule was a major change for states that were building a lot of new natural-gas-fired power, Haque said.
Haque said the panel will explore concerns that the Clean Power Plan could change the fuel mix enough to make it difficult to meet electric demand.
"This is not a discussion about bucking the U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. This is not a conversation about lawsuits," Haque said. "This is a conversation of 'We have baseload generation in this country -- how do we ensure that we maintain the economic viability ... of these baseload generators in order to meet demand going forward?'"
-
Lawsuits Over Obama Rule Pit State AGs Against Governors
Nov 6, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Governors and their states' top attorneys don't always agree on legal strategies.
Case in point: the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.
The legal battle now includes 45 states: 27 states suing over the rule against 18 states backing U.S. EPA's plans to cut power plants' greenhouse gas emissions. In at least three of those states -- Colorado, Maryland and Iowa -- the governors are at odds with the attorneys general.
It's not uncommon for state attorneys general and governors to spar over contentious legal issues. Both positions are elected separately in most states, and in some the offices are occupied by officials from opposing parties. But the high stakes and high visibility of the Clean Power Plan have brought more scrutiny to the lawsuits -- and more attention to in-state fighting -- than usual.
"I think it has more to do with the issue itself, the fact that this is such a high-profile political issue," said Christine Todd Whitman, a former EPA administrator and Republican governor of New Jersey.
"You can demonize it pretty quickly," she said of the EPA rule. She credited the agency with making the rule flexible but said that given its broad impacts, "it just makes it a whole lot easier to score the political points."
In Colorado, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper opposes efforts by the state's Republican attorney general to upend the EPA rule in court. Hickenlooper has asked the Colorado Supreme Court to affirm that his office has the final say on the state's involvement in federal lawsuits (EnergyWire, Nov. 5).
In Maryland, Democratic Attorney General Brian Frosh opposed Republican Gov. Larry Hogan this week by joining a coalition of states supporting EPA in court (Greenwire, Nov. 5).
Iowa Democratic Attorney General Tom Miller also joined that coalition of EPA backers, despite Republican Gov. Terry Branstad's opposition to the rule.
"That's happened on occasion in the last few years, which is not surprising," Miller told reporters earlier this week. "We're in different parties and have different views on issues, particularly on relationships with the federal government."
Such public rifts on high-profile political issues aren't unusual, said Mark Pryor, a Democrat who served as both a U.S. senator and attorney general in Arkansas.
When Pryor was the state's top attorney, Republican Mike Huckabee was in the governor's office.
"The bottom line is that these state attorney generals are elected by the people to be the chief legal officer of the state," Pryor said. "The governor is elected by the people to be the governor of the state."
The attorney general's authority rests on a particular state's constitution, "and they're all going to be a little different," Pryor said. "I've always taken the view that on these type of matters, it's the attorney general's prerogative to take the legal positions for the state."
In 43 states, attorneys general are popularly elected, according to the National Association of Attorneys General. In five states -- Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Wyoming -- attorneys general are appointed by the governor. Maine's Legislature elects the state's attorney general by secret ballot, and in Tennessee, the attorney general is picked by the state's Supreme Court.
Former governors and attorneys general said differences in opinion about how to represent the state in lawsuits can happen on a broad range of issues, from environmental rules to health care. Similar divisions played out during the legal battle over the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act.
Haley Barbour, former Republican governor of Mississippi, said there were instances during his tenure when he was at odds with the state's Democratic attorney general on lawsuits about the environment and other topics.
"There were several occasions when he and I disagreed," Barbour said. "And if he chose not to represent the state on an issue in which I thought the state should be involved in the litigation, I would give him the opportunity, and if he chose not to, then I had the right to hire outside counsel and the state would enter into the litigation."Miss. joins the fight
Mississippi yesterday became the 27th state to oppose the Clean Power Plan in the pending lawsuit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The lawsuit was filed by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, part of the executive branch controlled by the Republican governor, Phil Bryant. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is a Democrat.
"It would not be unprecedented if the executive branch gave the attorney general some time to decide whether he wanted to file, and if he decided he was not going to, that then the executive branch -- whether it's the governor or in this case the Department of Environmental Quality -- would file separately," Barbour said.
These types of intrastate fights are happening more often than they used to, said Doug Gansler, former Democratic attorney general of Maryland, who served as president of the National Association of Attorneys General.
"It's become a more political office, so what happens is, people with political agendas often run for attorney general now," said Gansler, who lost a bid to become Maryland's governor last year.
"In the olden days, it would be sort of the revered, seasoned lawyer that would run or a prosecutor would run," he added. "Today, you'll get more political-type people that will run for attorney general and use some of these lawsuits, for example, the EPA-type suits, will look at them more along political lines than on their merits."
-
Texas Energy Company Says it Supports Rule
Nov 6, 2015 | E&E Energywire
A Texas energy company is moving in an opposite direction of the state and is supporting U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Calpine Corp. was set to file court papers yesterday in support of the CPP and stands to gain from it. While the plan would put pressure on coal-powered plants' high emissions, Calpine largely runs on low-emissions natural gas.
All the while, Texas and West Virginia are leading a multistate lawsuit against the CPP, with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) calling the plan a federal overreach that will increase electricity costs.
The Clean Power Plan requires most states to either make their own plan or have a federal plan imposed to cut carbon emissions at existing plants by varying amounts.
Calpine CEO Thad Hill told the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday that he wants to look at what should be done if the plan is upheld.
"The state is going to do what the state feels they need to do," he said, "and we just want to make sure there's a plan B conversation happening"
-
Enviros Voice Support for Expanding EPA Draft Rule
Nov 6, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Community activists and environmental advocates gathered on Capitol Hill yesterday to support U.S. EPA's proposed controls over methane emissions from new and modified oil and gas operations -- and to call for expanding the rule to cover existing sources.
EPA's draft rule would require oil and gas operators to fix leaks, capture gas from completed wells, and cap emissions from certain equipment at well pads and transmission compressor stations (Greenwire, Aug. 18). Trade groups have said the industry is already making major strides in reducing emissions, rendering new regulations unnecessary (EnergyWire, Oct. 7).
Because the technology to make those emissions reductions exists, EPA's rule is a common-sense measure, Jim Harrison, a regional representative for the Utility Workers Union of America, said during a briefing coordinated by Earthjustice and the Sierra Club.
"We realize that EPA's objective is one of improving the environment, but we would like to point out that many times there is a nexus between environmental protection and public and worker safety," Harrison wrote in prepared remarks. "Reducing methane leaks across the stream (both upstream and downstream) can produce a double benefit."
He called on EPA to include existing oil and gas infrastructure under its rule.
Agency officials have said that because EPA is wrapping existing sources into its rules on volatile organic compounds and because some states are implementing their own methane-curbing measures, federal oversight of methane leakage from new and modified equipment is sufficient (Greenwire, Sept. 29).
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club also invited people to speak about their personal experiences with energy development.
Kristi Mogen, a member of the Powder River Basin Resource Council, said she and her friends call themselves "survivors" of the shale boom. Mogen said her husband and daughter have suffered endocrine disruption. A neighbor was diagnosed with cancer and died within three months.
EPA's rule would help ameliorate some of those health impacts, Mogen said.
"When we cut methane emissions, we cut those other toxins," she said.
Industry and Association News
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
Add recipients
Suggested