Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/10/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global IBAP Hits New Low as Automotive Petchem Costs Fall
Nov 10, 2015 | ICIS
By Mark Victory
The Global ICIS Basket of Automotive Petrochemicals (IBAP) has fallen for the fourth consecutive month to its lowest recorded level in October, ICIS analysis showed on Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Makers Urge Expanded Recycling in Honor of America Recycles Day
Nov 10, 2015 | Recycling Today
To celebrate America Recycles Day Nov. 15 and to encourage Americans to recycle more plastics year round, Plastics Make it Possible® is offering some tips to widen the types of plastics collected for recycling, as well as a chance to win an iPad Air. -
(ACC Mentioned) Harrington Takes DC Post with FoodMinds
Nov 10, 2015 | O'Dwyer's
By Greg Hazley
Kathryn Harrington, an agency vet recently embedded with the US Navy, has moved to FoodMinds in Washington as a senior VP. -
Industry Targets TCE Data Quality Issues In Challenge To EPA Work Plan
Nov 10, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Producers of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) are challenging an EPA risk assessment that the agency is using to weigh a rare ban of certain uses of the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing the "work plan" review relied on a flawed toxicology study and that the agency failed to adequately address peer reviewers' advice. -
Watchdog Finds Cybersecurity Efforts Lacking
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
The Department of Energy is falling short in protecting its data systems from cybersecurity threats, despite making progress in the last year, according to reports released this month by the DOE inspector general. -
A Cyber Wake-Up Call Rings on After 18 Years
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
One summer long ago, a team of government hackers yanked the digital carpet out from under the U.S. military. -
(ACC Mentioned) Railroads Lose Challenge of Oil-Train Rules
Nov 10, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Laura Stevens
Railroads lost an agency appeal with the U.S. Department of Transportation in a battle over new crude-by-rail rules that require the installation of expensive new brakes on trains hauling hazardous flammable materials. -
(ACC Mentioned) Regulators Deny Challenges to Federal Crude-by-Rail Rule
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators have tossed out five appeals to a "comprehensive" set of crude-by-rail safety regulations. -
Trade Deal Brings LNG Victory and Further Questions
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Last week's publication of the text underlying the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal allows stakeholders in the U.S. liquefied natural gas industry to celebrate a small victory: It includes broad access to the commodity for signatories, according to legal experts. -
EPA to State Regulators: Trust the Markets to Make the Clean Power Plan Work
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA brass yesterday demonstrated their unshakable faith that carbon trading under the Clean Power Plan will produce a large market and affordable allowances for states to purchase to comply with their greenhouse gas goals. -
At NARUC, Uncertainty is in the Eye of the Beholder
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Sean Gallagher has heard the talk of uncertainty in the power sector, whether it be around renewables or regulations. -
States, Industry Raise Policy, Legal Fears Over New EPA Interstate Air Rule
Nov 10, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
States, industry groups and environmentalists are raising serious -- and sometimes contradictory -- concerns over EPA's latest attempt to craft a rule to mitigate interstate air pollution transport, even as the proposed measure is under White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review before its expected release sometime this fall. -
Green Building Boom is Pumping Billions into U.S. Economy - and Retrofits are Fueling the Trend
Nov 10, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ellen Bell
To understand what a significant economic impact green buildings have on our economy today, consider this: Over the next three years, new LEED-certified construction will contribute more than $303 billion to the United States’ economy, a recent study concluded. This year alone, the industry will generate 2.3 million jobs.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global IBAP Hits New Low as Automotive Petchem Costs Fall
Nov 10, 2015 | ICIS
By Mark Victory
The Global ICIS Basket of Automotive Petrochemicals (IBAP) has fallen for the fourth consecutive month to its lowest recorded level in October, ICIS analysis showed on Tuesday.
Petrochemical prices fell in all three of the major auto producing regions of Europe, the US and Asia. Europe was the largest contributor to the drop, data showed. Nevertheless, the size of the overall decline in October was smaller than seen in both September and August.
The major causes of price falls in October across the globe were falling building block petrochemicals costs and continued bearishness in China.
The IBAP comprises prices for polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), acrylonitrile butadienestyrene (ABS), nylon, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonate (PC), isocyanates, polyols, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), base oils and soda ash.
In Asia and Europe, the IBAP additionally includes prices for polyacetal (POM) and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), which ICIS does not cover in the US.
Weightings are based on American Chemistry Council (ACC) and European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) data. IBAP data goes back to March 2014.
The automotive industry is a major global consumer of petrochemicals which contributes more than a third of the raw material costs of an average vehicle. ICIS tracks the movement of petrochemical raw material costs in auto production both globally and regionally with the weighted IBAP.
ICIS has launched a Global Automotive report covering the major automotive chemicals markets, and auto-industry and macroeconomic trends. For more information on the report and details on how to subscribe, please email automotive@icis.com
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Makers Urge Expanded Recycling in Honor of America Recycles Day
Nov 10, 2015 | Recycling Today
To celebrate America Recycles Day Nov. 15 and to encourage Americans to recycle more plastics year round, Plastics Make it Possible® is offering some tips to widen the types of plastics collected for recycling, as well as a chance to win an iPad Air.
Recycling plastic beverage bottles from American kitchens has become commonplace, but many other types of plastics also can be recycled, beyond the kitchen and even beyond the home, the American Chemistry Council, the Washington-based organization behind Plastics make it Possible says.
"Plastics recycling is increasing year after year, which is great news for the environment," says Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council. "We can achieve even greater gains in recycling rates by recycling more types of plastics that we use every day."
To encourage more recycling, visitors to www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/second-chances can learn more about the widening opportunities to recycle plastics and can enter for a chance to win a 16GB iPad Air (no purchase necessary) preloaded with applications, tips and information about plastics and recycling. The sweepstakes will run from Nov. 8, 2015, to Nov. 22, 2015, to focus attention on America Recycles Day, the only nationally recognized day devoted to encouraging Americans to recycle, sponsored by Keep America Beautiful (KAB).
Plastics Make it Possible also offers these plastics recycling tips that individuals can refer to year-round:It's important to be aware of all of the various types of plastics that are collected for recycling in a community—it's likely much more than bottles. Individuals can check with their local communities or trash haulers for a list of recyclables or head to KAB's www.iwanttoberecycled.org and enter their zip codes.Recycling plastics used in the kitchen is common, but the rest of the home likely has recyclables plastics, too. For example: bottles and containers for shampoo and other bathroom products, packaging for gardening supplies in the garage and bottles for cleaning products in the laundry room.Recyclers want plastic bottle caps and container lids, too. Caps can be screwed back on bottles (that can help in the recycling process).There are more than 18,000 retail collection points in the U.S. for plastic bags and film that accept bags for bread, newspapers, dry-cleaning—and even zipper bags as well as plastic wraps used to package products such as water bottles, diapers, napkins and more.Individuals who are not near a recycling bin while working or playing are encouraged to place their recyclables in plastic bags and bring them back to their home recycling bin. This will not only increase recycling, but it can help cut down on litter, too.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Harrington Takes DC Post with FoodMinds
Nov 10, 2015 | O'Dwyer's
By Greg Hazley
Kathryn Harrington, an agency vet recently embedded with the US Navy, has moved to FoodMinds in Washington as a senior VP.
FoodMinds co-founder Sue Pitman said Harrington 's hire is a response to demand for nutrition and public affairs counsel among clients.
As a SVP at kglobal, she led an embedded communications planning team at the Pentagon for the US Navy for the past year. She was previously a food and nutrition VP at Edelman and VP of public affairs for Ogilvy PR.
She also held communications posts with Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington and the American Chemistry Council. In the public sector she was a comms. director at the US Dept. of Interior and at the White House, and was a press deputy to ex-Sen. John Warner (R-Va.).
-
Industry Targets TCE Data Quality Issues In Challenge To EPA Work Plan
Nov 10, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Producers of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) are challenging an EPA risk assessment that the agency is using to weigh a rare ban of certain uses of the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing the "work plan" review relied on a flawed toxicology study and that the agency failed to adequately address peer reviewers' advice.
The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. (HSIA), in a recent request for correction under the Information Quality Act (IQA) urges EPA to revise its June 2014 assessment of TCE, arguing the review, which found risks to workers and consumers from certain uses, constitutes erroneous information under the IQA.
"EPA's exclusive reliance on a single inappropriate study as the basis for the Work Plan Assessment constitutes erroneous information, the dissemination of which contravenes the IQA," HSIA says, asking the agency to revise the review. "In particular, EPA should take into account the critical commentary offered by its own peer reviewers."
The recent IQA challenge builds on HSIA's long-standing opposition to EPA's assertion that TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects, implying a risk from short-term exposure. EPA has already rejected one of HSIA's IQA challenges on TCE, and is currently weighing a request from the group to reconsider that decision.
EPA first included the birth defects risk in its September 2011 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of TCE, a decision based in part on a controversial 2003 toxicology study by Paula D. Johnson, which industry has argued is flawed and unreproducible, and so should not be used in regulation.
HSIA, in November 2013, petitioned EPA under the IQA to revise the IRIS assessment, faulting the agency's reliance on the Johnson study. EPA rejected the petition in March on the grounds that a birth defects risk for TCE is supported by numerous studies.
In July, HSIA requested reconsideration, reiterating prior claims and arguing that the IRIS peer review was biased.
The IQA allows groups to challenge the quality of federal data, though judges have denied suits over petition responses under the Administrative Procedure Act on grounds the responses are not "final" agency actions. Given limitations on a legal challenge, an EPA denial of HSIA's July request for reconsideration might have ended industry's long-standing fight over TCE, though the challenge of the work plan review adds a new front.
EPA's June 2014 work plan assessment of TCE used in degreasing and spot cleaning, as well as in certain hobbyist uses, found risks to workers and consumers in some situations. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT) assessment was the first conducted under a novel EPA effort announced in 2012 to better assess the risk of chemicals already on the market using TSCA, which gives the agency less authority to regulate existing chemicals than new chemicals.
The agency is using the work plan assessment to support its consideration of a rare ban of TCE uses evaluated in the assessment under section 6 of TSCA. The TCE review also sets precedent for the work plan program, which the agency intends to use to assess dozens of other chemicals.
EPA Assessment
While HSIA has long opposed EPA's use of the Johnson study to support a birth defects risk for TCE, the group argues that EPA's work plan assessment relied even more heavily on the study because it includes hazard values derived from the controversial study to estimate acute risks.
Like in its prior IQA challenges, HSIA's Oct. 6 request for correction outlines flaws with the Johnson study, including that it relied on inadequate controls, has been heavily criticized in scientific literature, and that some EPA scientists have expressed low confidence in using the study to support dose-response analysis.
HSIA also notes that other studies have failed to reproduce Johnson's results, and says the group has offered to fund a federal study to review whether TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects, but that EPA has declined to take up HSIA's offer for the agency to craft guidelines for such a review.
While EPA, in rejecting HSIA's IQA challenge of the agency's IRIS assessment, argued peer reviewers' supported that review, the group argues the agency ignored the criticism several peer reviewers levied against the OPPT work plan assessment.
During an Aug. 21, 2013, conference call, several peer reviewers urged the agency to overhaul the document with additional exposure data, and backed industry claims the review was more of a screening-level assessment, relying on conservative parameters to determine whether additional investigation is needed, rather than a basis for regulation.
In the request for correction, HSIA argues that EPA failed to adequately address reviewers' criticisms, including from panel chairman and former EPA staff member Penny Fenner-Crisp.
HSIA also says EPA failed to respond or even acknowledge criticism from peer reviewer Calvin Wilhite, who questioned the agency's reliance on the Johnson study, rather than other oral and inhalation developmental toxicology studies of rodents and rabbits. Wilhite commented that EPA's draft of the review ignored Johnson's serious deficiencies and said additional studies were needed, according to the HSIA request for correction.
"EPA's denial of the earlier HSIA request for correction of the IRIS Assessment relied extensively on the peer review of the draft Toxicological Review by its Science Advisory Board, which EPA characterized as supporting its approach," HSIA says. "Here, EPA has paid no heed to any of the extensive peer review it received on the draft Work Plan Assessment, which did not support its approach at all."
-
Watchdog Finds Cybersecurity Efforts Lacking
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
The Department of Energy is falling short in protecting its data systems from cybersecurity threats, despite making progress in the last year, according to reports released this month by the DOE inspector general.
Citing a $3.7 million cybersecurity breach in 2013, the IG said a failure to implement security procedures in a more timely manner could expose the department to "increased risk of compromise." That earlier data breach compromised the names, Social Security numbers and personal data of more than 100,000 current and former department employees.
In an evaluation of the department's unclassified cybersecurity program, the IG said that more than 720 incidents were reported in fiscal 2015 related to security on DOE information systems, including the loss of equipment and "compromises to information systems."
Deficiencies include a department failure to report the full status of its cybersecurity program to the Department of Homeland Security by leaving out contractors, even though they constituted the majority of security incidents. In other cases, more than 1,300 computers didn't have antivirus updates, dozens of computer servers contained decade-old configurations, and individuals were granted access to information systems unnecessarily.
"The weaknesses occurred, in part, because the department had not ensured that policies and procedures were fully developed and/or implemented to meet all cybersecurity requirements," says the report, which is a annual IG review required by several laws, including 2014's Federal Information Security Modernization Act, which requires agencies to report on information security breaches. Investigators reviewed 22 locations, including the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Scott White, an associate clinical professor at Drexel University and a cybersecurity expert, said he was concerned that government agencies like DOE and the private sector generally are not spending enough time "creating a culture of security." Considering the sensitivity of data on government computers, there needs to be a focus on changing personal habits -- so employees, for example, are not inadvertently opening up computers to attack -- especially as more and more government data go online, he said.
In recent years, DOE has transitioned to a "cybersecurity risk management framework" to reduce threats on a more continuous basis through tools such as software to analyze systemwide risks. In the second audit, the IG found that officials had not always implemented security controls or monitored their effectiveness, however.
"Further, programs and sites had not ensured that authorizing officials responsible for accepting system risk were fully aware of the risks, weaknesses and vulnerabilities to the information systems under their purview," the audit states.
An information system at the NNSA, for example, was not categorized properly in terms of risk, "despite the severe impact to organizational operations that could occur." Other incidents included a four-year delay in assessing risks at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The reports also praises DOE for addressing many issues in earlier audits.
The department concurred with most recommendations in both reports, which generally called for the department to develop and implement required cybersecurity procedures, as well as report metrics to the Department of Homeland Security.
However, the NNSA said it was not required to take further action on a recommendation to develop, implement and maintain a department program consistent with federal requirements, as it said the cited concerns already fell under existing policies.
The reports follow a string of earlier analyses, including one from the Government Accountability Office earlier this year stating that it was "crucial" that the federal government implement measures to reduce cyber-based threats.
-
A Cyber Wake-Up Call Rings on After 18 Years
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
One summer long ago, a team of government hackers yanked the digital carpet out from under the U.S. military.
They flooded Department of Defense communications networks with traffic. They broke into computers, planted data-destroying software and cracked critical infrastructure systems. The results of the classified military exercise were so shocking that U.S. officials shared some take-aways publicly as a clarion call for action.
"The bottom line to all of this is that America's infrastructure is wide open to disruption, increasingly connected to the Internet, and connected to a technology for which there is no embedded security," then-Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre told the Council on Foreign Relations nearly two decades ago.
Since then, the June 1997 "Eligible Receiver" exercise has grown into something of a cyber legend, marking an aha moment for U.S. military planners even as details of the operation remained secret. One scholar described the interagency war game as "a myth that functions even without proof," while others ridiculed the doomsday aura surrounding coverage of the event.
Eligible Receiver was based on an eye-opening premise, made all the more surprising because most participants had no advance notice of what was happening.
"The United States has experienced multiple electronic attacks on many power systems throughout the county (over a dozen during the last few days)," reads a tasking document from the Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, obtained by EnergyWirethrough a Freedom of Information Act request. "There is a strong possibility that this is a coordinated, multi-tiered attack on the U.S., and that this attack may involve Iran, North Korea, and Cuba."
Eligible Receiver's exact scenario may be less likely to play out today, given the recent thaw in tensions between the United States and Cuba. Yet both Iran and North Korea have been implicated in major cyberattacks on U.S. targets in recent years. The Obama administration blamed North Korea's government for damaging Sony Pictures Entertainment's networks in 2014, while private cybersecurity firms have traced computer breaches at power utilities and oil companies back to Iran-based hackers (EnergyWire, Dec. 4, 2014).
Other intrusions on critical infrastructure systems have been tied to actors based in Russia and China, although linking the attacks to those countries' militaries is much harder.
Eligible Receiver highlighted many of these ambiguities with cyberwar.
"It is not easy to judge the threshold between a criminal act (terrorist, hacker, etc.) or a series of criminal acts, and a concerted attack on the security of the United States," noted Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Michael Byron in an observation report after the 1997 exercise. "This is important in deciding whether jurisdiction belongs to law enforcement agencies or the DOD."
Eighteen years later, senior defense officials are grappling with some of the same questions.
"The level of coordination was very poor during Eligible Receiver, and many people did not expect that," said Clay Wilson, a cybersecurity expert who studied the exercise for the Congressional Research Service in the 2000s. "It showed that traditional organizational structures are not well-suited for handling cybersecurity attacks -- attacks are very rapid, and they're becoming more and more secretive and quiet."
Wilson said exercises similar to Eligible Receiver "are probably happening more and more frequently" in military and infrastructure circles, although their details are closely guarded.
To this day, senior officials directly involved in the Eligible Receiver exercise declined comment to EnergyWire. The Department of Defense did not respond to requests for comment on some of the newly declassified material relating to the program.Back to sleep
Eligible Receiver was, as one observer noted, the first time the U.S. military "got really screwed" in cyberspace, albeit only in a simulation. The exercise prompted Defense to appoint a chief information officer. It also presaged U.S. Strategic Command's focus on cyber in the following decade, ultimately leading to the establishment of a unified Cyber Command under STRATCOM's aegis.
The 1997 war game "was useful in the sense that it got a lot of people's attention at the time who wouldn't have otherwise paid attention" to cybersecurity vulnerabilities, said Herb Lin, a senior research scholar for cyber policy and security at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation. "But the real question is whether the wake-up call has endured. Just because you have a very loud alarm clock doesn't mean you won't go back to sleep after a while."
Lin described a "flurry of activity" in the wake of the exercise, but before long, the U.S. military became bogged down in other priorities, not to mention two conventional wars. "There's only so much attention that they can sustain, and of course the Department of Defense always has to deal with a hundred different problems, all of high priority, at the same time," Lin said.
Operating in the asymmetrical, unpredictable cyber arena is especially challenging for forces more accustomed to fighting on air, land and sea, current and former leaders say.
"What do I do when my hacker may be in Russia, but the jumping-off point for their [attack] is in Malaysia and the actual attack happens in the United States?" said Rear Adm. Danelle Barrett, deputy director of current operations at U.S. Cyber Command, at a recent American Security Project event. "That becomes an infinitely more complicated problem, and one that several years ago we weren't structured to deal with."
That problem becomes even more complex when considering how power utilities and other private entities may play into a future cyberwar. The U.S. military often relies on these outside networks, which, in turn, may use Internet-connected and potentially vulnerable supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems.
"We're always worried about SCADA -- our systems for controlling our water and our electricity, our national infrastructure, our critical infrastructure," Barrett said.
She pointed to a 2009 disaster at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric plant in Russia that killed scores of people as the power station fell apart (Greenwire, Aug. 18, 2009). Workers prematurely brought a turbine online to compensate for a fire elsewhere and, when coupled with a computer glitch, ended up compounding the damage. While it was not a deliberate attack, "you could see how that [capability] could be used by an adversary, could be used against you," Barrett said.
The U.S. military has even considered rolling out cybersecure microgrids to lessen the risk of SCADA attacks on key installations (EnergyWire, Aug. 28).Out of the loop
The Department of Defense has a stake in ensuring the reliability of the U.S. electric system. But the bulk of it is beyond military control.
"DOD really isn't in the loop on domestic infrastructure," noted Richard Andres, a professor of national security strategy at the National War College.
Andres added that since Eligible Receiver, the government has "gotten a lot better at assigning responsibility" to different agencies for investigating and responding to cyberattacks.
For a catastrophic online attack on the power grid, the Department of Homeland Security, not Defense, would likely be first on the scene.
While such a threat would be unprecedented -- "low probability relative to others, but high risk, high cost," as DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson put it last week -- Homeland Security officials have a team of industrial cybersecurity experts on hand to help the private sector in the event of a major incident (EnergyWire, Oct. 15, 2014).
In its 2015 Cyber Strategy, the Department of Defense also raises the specter of such an event, noting that "a sophisticated actor could target an industrial control system (ICS) on a public utility to affect public safety." If a cyberattack causes widespread destruction or loss of life, the military has said it will step in. But DOD is careful to not cast itself as a cyber savior ready to blunt attacks before they spin out of control.
"The private sector owns and operates over ninety percent of all of the networks and infrastructure of cyberspace and is thus the first line of defense," DOD said in its latest Cyber Strategy, published in April (EnergyWire, April 27).
In other words, grid operators, at least initially, are on their own.Red team, blue team
The power grid had a role to play in the first Eligible Receiver exercise, even if utilities didn't get a seat at the table. A DOD spokesman said after the simulation that "we did learn that computer hackers could have a dramatic impact on the nation's infrastructure, including the electrical power grid."
The war game pitted friendly "red team" hackers against "blue team" defenders. The few dozen National Security Agency attackers weren't allowed to use any classified software or tools during their attack -- just "off the shelf" equipment, according to multiple reports.
"Many exercises for the U.S. military to test readiness and combat ability do involve a cyber dimension," said Lin of Stanford. "But those exercises can be unrealistic, especially when they involve large numbers of people."
If the red team takes out the defenders too quickly or easily, Lin explained, often organizers will restart the exercise "tying one hand behind red's back."
"Only when red cyber is not successful at shutting down the exercise does the exercise proceed," Lin observed. "Given that the military has many non-cyber training goals, that's not an unreasonable thing to do."
But he added that a reader of any after-action report "could be excused if he or she did not appreciate the remarkable impact that red cyber could have had on the entire exercise."
Even in this potentially watered-down context for direct cyber training, it took months for the Defense Information Systems Agency, the combat support network targeted in the simulation, to fully restore its systems after the June exercise. NSA didn't finish compiling the vulnerabilities it found in DISA's computers until August, according to FOIA documents, which also point to involvement from the FBI, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and a smattering of other agencies.
The Eligible Receiver assessment told of "cumulative, increasingly more violent and potentially more dangerous" information warfare strikes that would be "capable of large-scale civil and military disruptions."
It was a clear warning, first sounded more than 18 years ago. But it's not clear how well it's been heeded.
"If Eligible Receiver had resulted in permanent changes to the operating attitudes, culture and so on, it would have been a really good thing to do, it would have had much more effect," Lin said. "But in fact, what's happened is that cyber has just sort of gone up and down in importance depending on what the latest story was."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Railroads Lose Challenge of Oil-Train Rules
Nov 10, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Laura Stevens
Railroads lost an agency appeal with the U.S. Department of Transportation in a battle over new crude-by-rail rules that require the installation of expensive new brakes on trains hauling hazardous flammable materials.
In a ruling issued by its Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last week, the agency denied appeals challenging the new rules, including one from the Association of American Railroads.
“While we understand that shippers, carriers, and tank-car manufacturers for Class 3 flammable liquids will face new challenges in the wake of these regulations, we maintain that they are capable of complying with the final rule,” the agency wrote.
The rail-industry group could still appeal the decision in court. A spokesman said the organization is reviewing the decision and considering its options.
The new rules, issued by the Transportation Department in May, include the phasing in of tougher tank-car standards over several years and requirements for new braking systems on trains hauling more than 70 cars of crude oil by 2021.
The AAR had called for the department to remove the requirement for the new braking system, which rail executives have called unproven. The challenge also had requested tougher tank-car standards, including enhanced thermal protection, as well as the elimination of older tank cars considered unsafe for carrying hazardous, flammable liquids.
Concern about transporting crude oil and other flammable liquids has grown after a string of fiery oil-train derailments in the U.S. and Canada since 2013, including one in Quebec that killed 47 people.
In addition to the AAR, the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, the American Chemistry Council and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, as well as several Native American tribes, had appealed the rules to the agency.
Separate legal challenges to the rules were filed in federal appeals courts earlier this year.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Regulators Deny Challenges to Federal Crude-by-Rail Rule
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators have tossed out five appeals to a "comprehensive" set of crude-by-rail safety regulations.
The U.S. Department of Transportation stood by its recent rule to overhaul tank car standards and operating procedures for "high-hazard" trains carrying crude, ethanol and other dangerous liquids. The agency's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration published the final rule this summer after a string of oil train derailments and explosions dating back to 2013.
"While we understand that shippers, carriers, and tank car manufacturers for Class 3 flammable liquids will face new challenges in the wake of these regulations, we maintain that they are capable of complying with the final rule," PHMSA concluded in its response to the appellants.
Five industry and tribal groups had petitioned PHMSA to tweak parts of the rule. Environmental groups led by Earthjustice also filed an appeal before a June deadline, only to rescind it later so as not to interfere with ongoing litigation. Administrative appeals are distinct from legal challenges, in that they request changes directly from regulators rather than working through the court system (EnergyWire, June 22).
The Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, a not-for-profit educational group backed by chemical shippers, requested regulators ditch a mandate that electronically controlled pneumatic brakes be installed on certain high-risk trains over the six years. Transportation safety officials defended the braking requirement, which would affect at least 60,000 tank cars.
"PHMSA is highly confident that this requirement will minimize the effects of derailments involving [high-hazard flammable unit trains] by limiting the number of cars involved in the derailment and decreasing the probability of tank car punctures," the agency wrote.
Vaughn Arthur, president of the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, said in a statement that the group was "disappointed" with the denial but added that "we are still evaluating the decision."
The Association of American Railroads had also urged PHMSA to reconsider the rule's braking provisions. The trade group additionally sought tougher requirements for thermal protection on new tank cars. In theory, more thermal blanketing would help oil-laden tank cars hold out from exploding in a fire. But PHMSA said the rail industry group had failed to present a convincing case.
AAR voiced disappointment about the outcome of its appeal, noting in a statement that it had also requested certain upgrades apply to all flammable liquid cars instead of being limited to trains hauling 20 or more tanks. "This [extension] would ... close a loophole that currently allows shippers to use older DOT-111 tank cars without these safety features," AAR said, referring to an older model of tank car prone to exploding in oil and ethanol train derailments. The group added that it is considering its options for additional action on the rule.
While AAR worried about loopholes, another trade group expressed concerns that the rule was overly broad, applying to all flammable liquids rather than just oil and ethanol, the only such liquids normally shipped in mile-long "unit" trains. The American Chemistry Council said in a statement yesterday that the tank car rule "continues to create a great deal of uncertainty regarding the types of shipments that are covered by the rule and could create an unworkable timetable for upgrading tank cars."
PHMSA's tank car rule also attracted interest from the Columbia River treaty tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation in the Pacific Northwest. The tribes collectively argued in a June 5 appeal that PHMSA had failed to conduct tribal consultations as required by a 15-year-old executive order. PHMSA said the agency "respectfully disagrees" with the tribes, arguing that their concerns were addressed during the rulemaking process.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a refining industry trade group, indicated it was still reviewing PHMSA's responses to all the administrative appeals. AFPM President Chet Thompson said in a statement that he found it "perplexing" that the agency opted to reject the group's own proposal, which encouraged regulators to gather more data on shippers' progress updating tank car fleets (EnergyWire, June 10).
"We voluntarily offered to increase our regulatory obligation to give PHMSA the tools necessary to effectively implement the retrofit compliance schedule," Thompson said.
In its final rule, PHMSA requires the oldest, least-protected type DOT-111 tank cars to be phased out of crude service by Jan. 1, 2017. Shippers who fail to meet that deadline would have to report their improvement throughout the year, although they wouldn't have to share details on other tank car models in need of repairs. PHMSA called the existing language "sufficient" and pointed out that the department "may request additional reports as needed to verify industry progress toward retrofitting requirements."
Thompson said he hopes Congress will keep a close eye on crude tank car retrofits "as it works to finalize a long-term transportation plan."
"Implementing such an approach is critical to preventing any supply disruption of products, including fuels that make America's modern lifestyle possible," he said. AFPM has warned in the past that crude-by-rail disruptions could reverberate across the refining sector.
There are signs of continued congressional interest in the crude-by-rail issue. Language in the highway funding bill that passed the House last week would ease deadlines for retiring certain types of tank cars from crude or ethanol service, while giving the Transportation secretary leeway to extend the deadlines if shops couldn't keep up with required repairs.
On Sunday, an oil train derailment and leak in Wisconsin drew renewed calls for safety from lawmakers there, although no fires or injuries were reported. A major oil train crash similar to a deadly derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, two years ago could prompt Congress to pursue a more aggressive timetable for upgrading or scrapping tank cars.
-
Trade Deal Brings LNG Victory and Further Questions
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Last week's publication of the text underlying the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal allows stakeholders in the U.S. liquefied natural gas industry to celebrate a small victory: It includes broad access to the commodity for signatories, according to legal experts.
The agreement, negotiated behind closed doors over more than a decade and finally made public last Thursday, includes "national treatment for the trade of natural gas," according to an Energy Department spokesman.
The translation? If the United States and 11 other countries that have signed onto the pact ultimately ratify it, those countries will be able to purchase U.S. LNG using free trade partner status, taking advantage of a guaranteed export approval process through the Department of Energy and avoiding the possibility of permit speed bumps through the more challenging non-free-trade agreement (FTA) track there (EnergyWire, April 29).
The text, published by the White House as a series of more than 200 PDF documents, quickly drew fierce criticism from environment and labor advocates who charge that the deal would favor corporations over countries and reverse long-standing protections enacted by individual member countries (Greenwire, Nov. 5).
Some of those groups have previously warned that if the deal included FTA status for natural gas, U.S. LNG exports could increase with a resulting increase in environmentally damaging drilling, as well as increased greenhouse gas emissions from liquefying, shipping and burning the fuel.
For would-be exporters of U.S. LNG, though, seeing Japan enter the group of FTA buyers would mean easier access to the world's largest market. The other TPP players are generally seen as not significant for the U.S. LNG industry, either because they are fellow exporting countries (Australia), are already covered by another FTA with the United States (Canada, Mexico, Singapore) or are not major players for LNG.
In an interview, Hiroshi Hiraizumi, general manager of the Washington, D.C., office of the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. (JOGMEC), said Japan's interest on natural gas trade through the TPP process has waned since three major U.S. projects -- Freeport LNG, Dominion Resources' Cove Point LNG and Sempra Energy's Cameron LNG -- have secured non-FTA licenses and long-term contracts to ship LNG to Japan.
"Of course, if Japan could [have] FTA status with the United States, it's very good news for Japanese importers," Hiraizumi added.
Another country with a strong interest in the international LNG trade is Singapore, which has worked with Japan and South Korea as part of an informal "buyer's club" in an effort to strengthen the position of Asian negotiators in securing favorable LNG contract terms.
Singapore has some bulk LNG storage infrastructure, and officials have explored the idea of fostering a regional trading hub on the island to bring greater liquidity and transparency to LNG markets.
Steven Miles, head of the LNG practice at D.C. law firm Baker Botts LLP, said a Singapore trading hub could be beneficial regionally but might be set back by the TPP deal.
"I think an Asian hub makes sense both from a physical liquidity and a financial liquidity perspective," Miles said. "The real question is whether you then form a price index for that hub ... that would be a fairly dramatic change" from the current use of the "Japan Crude Cocktail," an oil-based benchmark used as a peg for LNG pricing.
Miles said the advancement of a TPP deal "takes some of the pressure off the gas pedal for a Singapore hub" because it gives Japan direct contract access to U.S. exporters, reducing the urgency for a local alternative.
For U.S. exporters targeting Japanese markets, he said, the effects of progress on the deal will be mixed.
"This will be helpful for those projects that have spent the last couple years actively pursuing the development of their projects, in terms of getting [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] licenses ... negotiating engineering, procurement and construction contracts," and pursuing dialogues with potential Japanese buyers, he said.
For developers who have been waiting for greater certainty before pushing forward, "this probably comes too late to help them, because the market obviously is much softer ... than it was one year ago, and if they're just going to turn up the dial now with marketing, it may be too late to help them."How to handle re-exports
Miles said one issue which the trade deal could bring into sharper focus is the U.S. regime around re-exports of LNG.
In May, DOE announced that Canadian company Pieridae Energy, which proposes to import natural gas from the United States through New England to Nova Scotia before liquefying it for sale to world markets, would be restricted by the same export rules as a company aiming to export U.S. gas from the United States (EnergyWire, May 27).
That decision shined a light on the question of how regulators will handle gas re-exports, and raised additional questions about how to track such shipments outside the country, especially if U.S. natural gas is mixed with fuel from other sources during handling.
Miles said a provision in the TPP deal would allow the United States to restrict the re-export of LNG from FTA partners to non-partner countries, mirroring the Canadian decision.
"The re-export question is a complicated one ... and that continues to be an issue that is very much in the public discourse at the moment," Miles said. "This is an evolving issue that DOE is looking at right now."
-
EPA to State Regulators: Trust the Markets to Make the Clean Power Plan Work
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA brass yesterday demonstrated their unshakable faith that carbon trading under the Clean Power Plan will produce a large market and affordable allowances for states to purchase to comply with their greenhouse gas goals.
But state officials at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' annual meeting this week were still swimming in the details of how such programs might end up working.
Chief among their questions are how much allowances could cost, what states they might be able to trade with and whether capping new sources of emissions, in addition to existing plants, might handicap economic growth in the future.
Asked by Colorado regulator Joshua Epel whether EPA has a "fail-safe mechanism" if well-situated states don't supply enough allowances for their coal-dependent neighbors to meet goals, EPA senior counsel Joe Goffman said during a panel discussion that "there will be kind of an 'Economics 101' signal going into the system in the form of prospective rewards to those who invest in additional reductions."
Epel also asked how EPA might act if California or states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative choose to withhold additional allowances to force fossil fuel states to shut more plants down.
"We haven't been invited to in any way, shape or form support discussions around the issue of a unilateral state decision to withhold from a broader market what would be economic credits," Goffman said. "We believe that our Clean Power Plan itself met a number of criteria that were not just focused on environmental performance but focused on economic performance and giving the states every last opportunity to work together to establish a really robust system."
In climate policy, Goffman said, "I don't think I can think of an example where the less economic option has prevailed over more economic outcomes."
Doug Scott, a former Illinois regulator and vice president of strategic initiatives at the Great Plains Institute -- which has been organizing multi-state talks on the CPP -- added that states that refused to sell allowances would do so at the expense of companies that could profit and customers that could benefit. And they would feel a lot of pressure if they made that decision.McCarthy: Plan gives 'seamless' integration
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, after providing the keynote address at the conference earlier in the afternoon, told reporters that electric utilities are integral in encouraging states to explore compliance options, including trading.
"When a rule gets finalized, they want to find the best way forward, and they've been working collaboratively with us both individually, and I assume they're having conversations in their own states," McCarthy said. "I think part of our goal here was to make sure that the Clean Power Plan could be implemented in a way that was seamless in terms of operating the way the energy system operates.
"I think utilities have been very grateful with the efforts we've taken to try to provide them additional time and to look at how to be trading-ready and to give them maximum opportunities, but it's up to them how they express their interests at the state level," she added.
In the final rule, EPA laid out how states could use trading to meet their goals without necessarily blending their different targets and submitting group plans. This "trading-ready" approach is detailed in EPA's proposed federal plan for states that do not comply. The proposed federal plan also will serve as a model rule for states that want to adopt a trading system.
Trading is now a "bedrock" of compliance, said Scott.
"It's not only allowed but actually encouraged," Scott said, and it could help ensure grid reliability and keep compliance costs down.
But one roadblock is that not all states would necessarily benefit in the short term from a large-scale trading program.
"We're starting to think about the dynamic questions about how can we help states move from designs that might in the immediate term reflect their self-interests to a more national or regionally uniform program by 2030," said Robert Wyman Jr., a lawyer with Latham & Watkins.
For example, Southeastern states with large amounts of zero-carbon nuclear power coming online might want to pursue a rate-based standard to adhere to an average rate of emissions each year, rather than capping them outright. That's because they would be "ERC machines," Scott said, "cranking out credits" to sell.
Those states might end up not having anyone to sell their credits to, however, if other states pursue mass-based plans. Rate and mass states are not allowed to trade with each other.
Goffman said states shouldn't get too wrapped up in questions about plan design but should instead think about how to integrate carbon compliance in a power system that already has built-in markets.
"Once those questions are answered, the rate vs. mass question will follow," he said.Ga. claps; N.D. grumbles
McCarthy told a ballroom full of regulators and energy company representatives that EPA is just expecting "status reports" next fall from states that want two-year extensions.
And Kelly Speakes-Backman, a former Maryland regulator and a senior vice president at the Alliance to Save Energy, said September 2016 will be the first chance states get to look around and see what their neighbors are considering. After that, there will be significant revisions before final blueprints are due in 2018, she said.
Some state regulators greeted McCarthy with relief and appreciation, while others expressed serious disappointment with the final rule.
Georgia Public Service Commission member Stan Wise thanked EPA for the extraordinary outreach and for a nod to promote nuclear power that's under construction in the final rule. Georgia is one of three states with planned new reactors. If those plants come online as expected, Georgia would likely exceed its target and be in a position to profit by selling allowances to other states.
But North Dakota Public Service Commission member Julie Fedorchak said while she appreciated the dialogue EPA had with her state, "from the proposed to the final rule was anything but thoughtful" for North Dakota.
The state's emissions rate reduction obligation quadrupled in the final rule, and EPA has promised to send staffers to North Dakota to help explore compliance paths.
-
At NARUC, Uncertainty is in the Eye of the Beholder
Nov 10, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Sean Gallagher has heard the talk of uncertainty in the power sector, whether it be around renewables or regulations.
Such worries have filtered through the annual meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) here this week, as regulators, grid operators and utilities grapple with how to proceed on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and other emissions reduction directives.
But Gallagher, vice president of state affairs at the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), said the broad path forward is certain -- and that people involved with the electric industry generally know it. He said "prudent" utilities and regulators are planning for a less carbonized world, even if the Clean Power Plan were to change somewhat in response to litigation.
"I think that sort of deep in their hearts, most utilities and most state regulators realize that this is the direction that the world is moving," Gallagher said in an interview yesterday.
He added: "There may be some uncertainty around the edges, around the margins, but directionally they know which way the world is going and they're starting to plan for it, regardless of what the politicians are doing or the state attorneys general are doing."
The tone was different yesterday among some on a panel that explored the integration of renewables in light of the Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. More than two dozen states are suing over the plan.
One of those is Texas. The state's main grid operator -- the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT -- said the effects of the carbon rule and a federal proposal on regional haze could threaten thousands of megawatts of coal-fired capacity in its region.
Warren Lasher, director of system planning at ERCOT, also said integrating renewables and developing transmission take time. Lasher noted that ERCOT's market design includes transmission planning for reliability, while generation resource development is left to decisions by investors.
"In that kind of a climate, regulatory uncertainty is ... a double whammy on the potential implications to reliability," he said.
Lasher pointed to changes over time in a proposal known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which also was the source of litigation.
"In a situation like that, it's very difficult to plan and ensure reliability of the grid," he said.
Todd Lucas, who is with Southern Co. and is also involved with the Essential Reliability Services Task Force at the North American Electric Reliability Corp., said uncertainty is a big risk in the power sector.Seeking to create certainty
Lucas said planners look at various scenarios, but investments tend to require some sense of certainty. He said technical issues can be dealt with given the proper amount of time.
At Minnesota-based Xcel Energy Inc., Aakash Chandarana said his company has sought to chart its own certainty.
"We laid out what we think is a good plan, a really solid plan over the course of the next 15 years of how we're going to transition our generation mix so that we know what we're aiming for," Chandarana said.
He said one factor involved having an aging fleet in the Upper Midwest, and the company started to make plans for the future. Xcel also has experience in bringing wind on in a cost-effective way, he said, and Minnesota has a collaborative spirit.
The thought, Chandarana said, was that instead of "letting the uncertainty continue to be uncertainty, let's take this opportunity to craft some of our own certainty."
SEIA's Gallagher said the integration of variable renewables is possible. Smart transmission investment, broader trading platforms, regional diversity of generation profiles, demand response, targeted efficiency and rate design are some of the options, he said. He said California has been involved in seeking renewable solutions.
"It's been pretty broadly demonstrated that the integration issues are manageable," Gallagher said. "They're not free and ... they do make your brain hurt a little bit. But they're eminently manageable, and we know how to do it, and we're faced with these issues whether or not we have the Clean Power Plan."
Ken Anderson, a member of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC), said in an interview that his state is unlikely to do a state plan on the Clean Power Plan unless there's some legal clarity. He said questions remain and expressed worry that Texas wouldn't get sufficient credit for new wind projects going up now.
As for ERCOT, Anderson said the grid operator is hampered by not knowing what generation is going to retire or when -- or what might replace it. He said solar energy brings benefits but that it doesn't replace coal-fired baseload power.
Anderson said it's a matter of grid stability, as there would be a need to replace the inertia that comes from a big coal plant.
"We're not a centrally planned, statist economy like California," he said, adding: "I think the market will effectively eventually kind of sort it out, but meanwhile, if you're the grid operator, how do you plan?"
-
States, Industry Raise Policy, Legal Fears Over New EPA Interstate Air Rule
Nov 10, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
States, industry groups and environmentalists are raising serious -- and sometimes contradictory -- concerns over EPA's latest attempt to craft a rule to mitigate interstate air pollution transport, even as the proposed measure is under White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review before its expected release sometime this fall.
The proposed rule now under OMB review would attempt to satisfy the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" requirement that states mitigate their air pollution that causes regulatory noncompliance in downwind areas, this time to help meet EPA's 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) set at 75 parts per billion (ppb).
Although EPA Oct. 1 adopted a tougher ozone NAAQS set at 70 ppb, the prior limit is still in force, and as a result of protracted litigation over that standard's stringency, EPA and states are years behind schedule implementing it.
The pending proposed rule would update and potentially replace the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the existing interstate air emissions trading program for power plants in 28 eastern states, because that program addresses the even older 1997 ozone NAAQS that is expressed as 84 ppb.
Like the 2008 NAAQS, CSAPR has survived litigation that included a major 2014 Supreme Court win for EPA in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., which upheld much of the rationale for CSAPR.
However the ruling left open the possibility of "as applied" challenges where states believe they have been "over-controlled" -- regulated more than is necessary for downwind states to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
On remand from the high court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, having once already vacated CSAPR entirely, remanded to EPA the emissions "budgets," or maximum pollution caps, of several states because of concerns that these states were over-controlled.
Most areas are now attaining the 75 ppb ozone standard, sources agree, and pollution allowances being traded under CSAPR are too cheap to drive down emissions to help the remaining areas attain their targets, East Coast regulators say.
However, it now appears that the forthcoming interstate rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will address the D.C. Circuit's remand and possibly solve some of these problems.
Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe, speaking Oct. 22 at an American Legal Institute -- Continuing Legal Education (ALI-CLE) conference in Washington, D.C., said that the revised emissions budgets in the new transport rule will likely "moot out" the remanded CSAPR budgets.
"We do think that that will be the case," McCabe said, noting that the new caps "will effectively replace earlier budgets." She added that the overall methodology of CSAPR "has been ratified by the courts."
Transport Rule
However, the forthcoming ozone transport rule is facing problems before it is even proposed. EPA has described the measure as a "backstop" regulation that would provide an option for EPA to step in and impose federal implementation plans (FIPs) on states that fail to craft their own state implementation plans (SIPs) to deal with the ozone transport issue -- but the rule is predicated on new EPA computer modeling that is under attack from all sides.
But confusion over the future direction of CSAPR and its progeny is leading to apparent pessimism among some state regulators about their ability to meet their good neighbor obligations.
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that states have an independent obligation to craft transport SIPS, regardless of whether EPA first defines their "significant contribution" to downwind air quality problems or not.
Notwithstanding this, Michael Dowd, Virginia's director of air quality, told the ALI-CLE conference that each state can't write a SIP individually, given the complexity involved.
"I can't do one. Tell me how I do one?" Dowd said. "We'll probably wait to be [FIP-ped] on that, because I don't know what else we do, frankly." Dowd added that the debate over what constitutes significant contribution is "far from over."
EPA in October approved some interstate transport SIPs for two western states outside the CSAPR area, Oregon and Idaho, although those plans found no significant contribution to other states' air quality problems that was not already being addressed through other mechanisms.
Sources say that although Western states will not be implicated in the air transport rule for the 2008 ozone standard, they likely will have to take steps to mitigate their interstate emissions to meet the new 70 ppb ozone NAAQS, which will also require air transport SIPs.
-
Green Building Boom is Pumping Billions into U.S. Economy - and Retrofits are Fueling the Trend
Nov 10, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ellen Bell
To understand what a significant economic impact green buildings have on our economy today, consider this:
Over the next three years, new LEED-certified construction will contribute more than $303 billion to the United States’ economy, a recent study concluded. This year alone, the industry will generate 2.3 million jobs.
By 2018, this new construction is expected to save more than $1 billion in energy usage and more than $100 million in water use.
But there’s another trend that, if included in the total green building picture, greatly expands the market for energy-efficient buildings: retrofits of already-constructed buildings.
Buildings use nearly 40 percent of all energy in the U.S. and today a growing number of commercial real estate leaders are looking for opportunities to upgrade what they’ve already got – rather than starting from scratch – to save money and lessen their environmental impact.
What’s more, they can earn certification under LEED (short for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) through a path designed specifically for existing buildings.Real estate companies look to bottom line
Organizations that need a more tailored approach to making their real estate energy-efficient have a myriad of opportunities that are now being pioneered by property owners across the country.
These commercial real estate leaders know the importance of comprehensive industry standards such as LEED. But they also know there is a great deal of potential in starting small, and in focusing on what best serves their bottom line.
Here are two examples of companies that enlisted Environmental Defense Fund’s Climate Corps program to accelerate clean energy projects in their facilities and meet their corporate energy goals.77 West Wacker, a JLL managed property in Chicago, had already tackled its base-building operations and found ways to reduce 32 percent of its energy use through LEED certification and other measures before deciding there was more to do. The building is now advancing new approachesto both comprehensive energy management and tenant engagement with the goal of cutting an additional 26.5 percent of its energy use by 2018.
Shorenstein Properties, based in San Francisco, has one of the industry’s most respected sustainability programs with 15 million square feet of its portfolio LEED-certified and an average ENERGY STAR score of 82 out of 100 points. For the last two years, Shorenstein has earned the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark “Green Star”, the highest rating, by focusing its sustainability strategy on smart operation, investment in efficiency, and tenant engagement.
These are just a couple of the organizations that are pushing advanced and outside-the-box energy management solutions in buildings that went up before the LEED boom took off, and which help set America’s building sector on the right track.
The trend isn’t limited to the U.S. Leading global brands are also making energy-efficiency a priority.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested