Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/17/2015
-
(ACC Mentioned) Milestone for US Plastic Bottle Recycling
Nov 17, 2015 | Recycling International
By Ian Martin
US plastic bottle recycling climbed 3.3% last year to top 3 billion pounds or more than 1.36 million tonnes - the twenty-fifth consecutive year that Americans have increased their collection volumes, according to figures released by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) TSC Plastics Supply Chain Field Tour
Nov 17, 2015 | 3BL Media
The Sustainability Consortium hosted the Plastics Supply Chain Field Tour in the Houston and Freeport, Texas, areas on October 20-21. With the help of our sponsors—The American Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical, and Chevron Phillips Chemical... -
Osha Consults on Updated Safety and Health Programme Guidelines
Nov 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) is seeking public comments on an updated draft version of its voluntary safety and health program management guidelines. -
Lumber Liquidators Commits to Selling Vinyl Flooring Made Without Reprocessed Plastic
Nov 17, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Tony Iallonardo
Today, flooring retailer Lumber Liquidators became the first major retailer to commit to selling vinyl flooring made without reprocessed plastic. -
Let's Talk Turkey: How To Decode Labels To Choose A Better Thanksgiving Bird
Nov 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Dawn Undurraga, Megan Boyle, and Sonya Lunder
Confused by the labels on turkeys? EWG helps you sort out the facts with a new label decoder. -
Small Business Panel Launches Review of EPA Safety Program
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Greeenwire
By Sam Pearson
A delayed small business review panel began meeting earlier this month to assess proposals to update U.S. EPA's risk management program, the agency confirmed yesterday. -
Federal Guidance Reflects 'Expanding Threat Space'
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Cellphones and pipeline control panels may not be as separate as they seem. At least, that's the message in new federal guidance for securing the computer networks used in pipelines, electric utilities and other critical infrastructure systems. -
Carbon Dioxide Leak at US Coffee Plant Prompts Federal Probe
Nov 17, 2015 | ChemistryWorld
By Rebecca Trager
A US federal investigation has been launched after a carbon dioxide leak at a coffee roasting and decaffeination plant in Houston, Texas, led to the death of one employee. The incident occurred at Atlantic Coffee Solutions on 12 November. -
Inadequate Transportation Bills in Congress
Nov 17, 2015 | New York Times
By Editorial board
Congress could approve a six-year transportation bill by the end of this week, when authorization for federal transportation programs expires. -
Hague Named As Permanent EPA Region 7 Chief
Nov 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
President Obama has named former acting Region 7 Administrator Mark Hague as the region's permanent top agency official, succeeding Karl Brooks in that position after Brooks moved to the agency's personnel office earlier this year. -
EPA Plans Cross-State Pollution Update to Curb Ozone
Nov 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today proposed an update to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to help cut ozone levels in eastern states in 2017 — though the rule is based on the 2008 ozone standard that EPA recently tightened. -
Enviros Push to Fast-Track BLM Rule Lawsuit to Appeals Court
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists defending the federal government's new hydraulic fracturing rule are pushing to move their case out of a Wyoming district court as soon as possible. -
How Exporting U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Will Transform the Politics of Global Energy
Nov 17, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Jason Bordoff
The U.S. energy trade has been in the news often recently, with questions such as whether industry will be allowed to send oil overseas or import it via a certain pipeline from Canada. -
AEP CEO Sees Transmission Opportunity in Clean Power Plan
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
For Nick Akins, the future success of utilities such as American Electric Power Co. rests with the ability to "provide whatever the customer wants," even as forecasts for electricity demand flatten and environmental mandates demand extensive changes. -
Manufacturers Seek To Return EPA's GHG Permit Program To High Court
Nov 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
A group of major manufacturers is asking the Supreme Court to again review long-running litigation over EPA's greenhouse gas permit rules, filing a petition that asks the justices to provide EPA direction on how to trigger GHG limits... -
EPA Proposes Updates to its Cross-State Rule
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA today released proposed updates to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, intended to cut nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from power plants in 23 Eastern states that contribute to downwind ozone air quality problems. -
EPA Chief: ‘We Will Prevail’ in Power Plant Lawsuits
Nov 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration’s top environmental regulator predicted new, broad power plant regulations will hold up despite a series of lawsuits against them. -
White House Threatens to Veto Resolution that Would Block EPA Climate Rule
Nov 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The White House today said President Barack Obama would veto a Senate measure to block EPA's emissions regulations for existing power plants. -
Senate Launches Debate on CRA Effort to Kill Climate Rule
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Sean Reilly
The Senate today began debate on a bid to use the Congressional Review Act to kill the Obama administration's carbon rules for power plants.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Milestone for US Plastic Bottle Recycling
Nov 17, 2015 | Recycling International
By Ian Martin
US plastic bottle recycling climbed 3.3% last year to top 3 billion pounds or more than 1.36 million tonnes - the twenty-fifth consecutive year that Americans have increased their collection volumes, according to figures released by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council. The recycling rate edged a percentage point higher to 31.8%.
APR executive director Steve Alexander points out: 'Americans generated an estimated US$ 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.'
A higher percentage of all post-consumer plastic bottle material was processed by domestic reclaimers in 2014 whereas exports rose slightly in volume terms but occupied their lowest percentage share in six years (21.9%). 'The drop in exports may reflect the strength of the US dollar and growth in domestic reclamation capacity,' it is contended.
Growth in single-stream collections of household recyclables in the USA is resulting in higher bottle recycling participation rates while lack of access to away-from-home recycling continues to be a barrier to increased collection, the two organisations note.
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSC Plastics Supply Chain Field Tour
Nov 17, 2015 | 3BL Media
The Sustainability Consortium hosted the Plastics Supply Chain Field Tour in the Houston and Freeport, Texas, areas on October 20-21. With the help of our sponsors—The American Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical, and Chevron Phillips Chemical—TSC guided a group of about 20 participants through facilities involved in the manufacture and recovery of plastics, with an emphasis on plastic packaging.
The tour started at a Dow facility, Pack Studios, in Freeport. The facility serves as a research and development center where packaging concepts are developed through collaborations among product designers, scientists and technicians, and product and equipment manufacturers. The facility addresses everything from experimenting with new chemistries and processes to focus-group testing of finished packaged products. Our group saw examples of equipment used for such processes as injection molding of plastics parts, applying adhesives to films, and converting mixed plastic resins to layered films. Then we reconvened for lunch and questions with Dow staff.
From there, the tour moved to Accredo Packaging’s facility in Sugar Land. The facility is a production-scale center for flexible packaging converting that makes primary packaging for many product lines that were familiar to tour participants. After a presentation by Accredo’s staff and a Q & A session, participants were led in small groups on a tour of processes spanning from the blow film machine that converts resin to plastic film to the lithography equipment that renders brand designs on the finished packaging. After the tour, a delicious dinner with plenty of opportunity for discussion and networking capped the day.
The second day of the tour focused on plastics end-of-life. The tour began at Waste Management’s material recovery facility outside of Houston, where we learned much about what can and cannot be recycled and the economics of sorting and recycling various materials. We learned that recovery facilities are not all configured the same way, which leads to great disparities in recycling efficiencies for various materials and, it appears, great confusion among home recyclers.
After lunch and discussion, we finished the tour at Ravago’s plastics recycling center in Waller. Here participants were able to see how the loop can be closed on the plastics life cycle. The facility gathers up mostly post-industrial plastic waste in separate waste streams, depending on plastic type, and melts it back down to plastic resin pellets that serve as feedstocks for new plastic products. Though they strive to produce a high-quality product, the mixed nature of their inputs mean that they can’t produce pellets that are as high-quality as virgin plastic. This and the sheer volume of plastic that is simply never recycled both pose difficult challenges to closed-loop recycling for the plastics industry.
The key objective of the program was to provide a learning and networking opportunity to sustainability professionals who have an interest in plastics. We were able to provide a bird’s eye view of a large part of the supply chain and demonstrate some of the challenges and opportunities present in converting plastic resins to products and products back to plastic resins. Participants left with a better appreciation of these challenges and opportunities and will hopefully continue to collaborate to find more sustainable approaches to using and recovering plastics.
About The Sustainability Consortium
The Sustainability Consortium® (TSC®) is a global nonprofit organization working at the intersection of science and business to transform the consumer goods industry to deliver more sustainable products. TSC creates credible, scalable tools, strategies and services that are based in science, informed by stakeholders and focused on impact across the entire lifecycle of consumer products, including environmental, social and economic imperatives. The Sustainability Consortium is comprised of more than 100 members, including manufacturers, retailers, NGOs, civil society and corporations that work collaboratively on innovation for a new generation of products and supply networks. The Sustainability Consortium is jointly administered by Arizona State University and the University of Arkansas, with additional operations at Wageningen UR in the Netherlands and Nanjing University in China. For more information, visit www.sustainabilityconsortium.orgContact
Carolyn Baltz
Manager, Development and Member Operations
The Sustainability Consortium
CBaltz@walton.uark.edu
+1 479 575 5909 -
Osha Consults on Updated Safety and Health Programme Guidelines
Nov 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) is seeking public comments on an updated draft version of its voluntary safety and health program management guidelines.
First published in 1989, these are aimed at helping employers set up health and safety management strategies, including finding and fixing hazards before they cause injury or illness.
The deadline for comments is 15 February 2016.
-
Lumber Liquidators Commits to Selling Vinyl Flooring Made Without Reprocessed Plastic
Nov 17, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Tony Iallonardo
Today, flooring retailer Lumber Liquidators became the first major retailer to commit to selling vinyl flooring made without reprocessed plastic.
The Mind the Store Campaign, a project of Safer Chemicals, Health Families, announced that Lumber Liquidators has committed to adopt new standards that require the company’s suppliers of vinyl flooring to: end all use of reprocessed vinyl plastic in vinyl flooring; and limit lead in flooring to less than 100 parts per million (PPM). As of September 1, 2015, Lumber Liquidators has also required its suppliers to eliminate the use of ortho-phthalates in all vinyl flooring purchased. Additionally, Lumber Liquidators has committed to regularly commission independent laboratory testing by Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)-certified laboratories to monitor compliance with these policies.
Lumber Liquidators worked with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Mind the Store Campaign to develop the framework for these standards, which are expected to be phased in over the next year.
“We are encouraged by Lumber Liquidators’ decision to sell vinyl flooring made without reprocessed plastic,” said Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “This is a positive step and we hope other major flooring and home improvement retailers will join Lumber Liquidators in eliminating this unnecessary plastic.”“This is a positive step and we hope other major flooring and home improvement retailers will join Lumber Liquidators in eliminating this unnecessary plastic.”
“Lumber Liquidators is committed to setting the highest standards for the sourcing of flooring products,” said Jill Witter, Chief Compliance and Legal Officer of Lumber Liquidators. “We are pleased to work with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families on this initiative, as part of our ongoing efforts to lead the industry forward with responsible sourcing practices.”
Testing by the Ecology Center (Michigan) found that the reprocessed vinyl plastic is often contaminated with lead, cadmium, brominated flame retardants, phthalates and other toxic chemicals. In at least 69% of the floors’ inner layers tested from six major retailers, lead was present at elevated concentrations. Testing revealed lead levels as high as 10,000 ppm and cadmium at 20,000 ppm. The contamination results from the global trade in plastic waste, which is often recovered from the wire and cables from old computers and other electronics, according to the recent Healthy Building Network report Post-Consumer Polyvinyl Chloride in Building Products.
About Lumber Liquidators
With more than 370 locations, Lumber Liquidators is North America’s largest specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Company features more than 400 top quality flooring varieties, including solid and engineered hardwood, bamboo, cork, laminate and resilient vinyl. Additionally, Lumber Liquidators provides a wide selection of flooring enhancements and accessories to complement, install and maintain your new floor. Every location is staffed with flooring experts who can provide advice and useful information about Lumber Liquidators’ low priced product, much of which is in stock and ready for delivery. For more information, please visit www.LumberLiquidators.com
-
Let's Talk Turkey: How To Decode Labels To Choose A Better Thanksgiving Bird
Nov 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Dawn Undurraga, Megan Boyle, and Sonya Lunder
Confused by the labels on turkeys? EWG helps you sort out the facts with a new label decoder.
Conventional
Almost all turkeys raised and sold in the U.S. are:Bred for abnormally large, white breastRaised in crowded conditionsLikely treated with antibiotics and growth-boosting hormonesMay be injected with saline/brine, oils, flavors or preservatives
Delicious alternatives
For a better bird, look for these types or labels. Some turkeys may fit more than one category.
USDA Certified OrganicNo GMO feed, antibiotics or growth promotersOutdoor access
Heritage or HeirloomDescended from a historic breed to preserve genetic diversity and prevent extinction.Tend to be smaller than conventional turkeysTrue heritage turkeys should be bred by natural mating and raised mostly outdoors
Humanely raised
These animal welfare certifications ensure that turkeys have meaningful outdoor access and are raised without antibiotics or growth promoters.Certified HumaneGlobal Animal Partnership – Steps 3-5+Animal Welfare Approved
Pasture raised
These turkeys are raised mostly outdoors, but how much varies. The animal welfare certifications above help confirm that they have adequate time outdoors.
Labels that don’t mean much
Don’t be fooled by these labeling claims.
"Sustainable"
No standard definition – contact the producer for details.
"Free range"
These turkeys get less outdoor access than you think – they’re raised mostly indoors.
"Natural"
Questionable. The only clear benefit is that turkeys cannot be injected with colors or artificial flavors. Natural flavors may be allowed.
Learn more about healthy holiday meals: ewg.org/foodscores/holiday
-
Small Business Panel Launches Review of EPA Safety Program
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Greeenwire
By Sam Pearson
A delayed small business review panel began meeting earlier this month to assess proposals to update U.S. EPA's risk management program, the agency confirmed yesterday.
EPA updated a list of pending and potential small business advocacy review panels on its website late yesterday. For the first time, it moved the panel for modernizing the risk management program rule from a "potential" review panel to a current one.
The agency noted that the panel had started meeting Nov. 4.
Under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, industrial facilities that use large quantities of high-risk chemicals are required to prepare risk management plans that are filed with U.S. EPA and local emergency planning committees. The reports are meant to help the sites identify and prepare for unplanned releases of hazardous chemicals and let first responders know what substances are kept on site.
Under an executive order President Obama issued in 2013, EPA and other federal agencies formed a working group to develop proposals to tighten security at chemical facilities.
EPA once planned to issue a proposed rule to update the risk management program in September but has fallen behind schedule. Part of the delay is thought to stem from the delayed small business panel (Greenwire, Oct. 5).
EPA now says it expects to publish the proposed rule early next year (E&ENews PM, Nov. 6).
-
Federal Guidance Reflects 'Expanding Threat Space'
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Cellphones and pipeline control panels may not be as separate as they seem.
At least, that's the message in new federal guidance for securing the computer networks used in pipelines, electric utilities and other critical infrastructure systems.
Industrial control systems (ICS) "are starting to resemble [information technology] systems" such as personal computers, according to updates in the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Guide to ICS Security. And it's becoming nearly impossible to keep mobile phones and other potentially troublesome devices out of the ICS picture.
The guide's latest version includes an overlay designed to help critical infrastructure operators apply traditional computer security strategies to an industrial context.
The changes announced yesterday reflect the "convergence" of information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT), a phenomenon that has exposed vulnerabilities in key computer networks such as those underpinning the power grid.
"This update was motivated principally by the expanding threat space -- characterized by the increasing sophistication of cyber attacks and the operations tempo of adversaries (i.e., the frequency of such attacks, the professionalism of the attackers, and the persistence of targeting by attackers)," NIST said in its revised publication.
The revision "includes new guidance on how to tailor information technology security controls to accommodate unique ICS performance, reliability, and safety requirements," NIST said. The first draft of the document was published in May (EnergyWire, Aug. 26).
Despite the convergence, there are still important differences between the IT and OT spaces, NIST pointed out. If a big company loses email services for a few hours, it could be costly and inconvenient. But an equivalent glitch or cyberattack in an ICS environment could cause physical damage or even injury. In one widely reported case last year, hackers were able to cause "massive" damage at a German steel mill by preventing a blast furnace from properly shutting down (EnergyWire, Aug. 12).
The Department of Homeland Security conducted two assessments for "critical manufacturing" companies in the United States last month, according to the latest bulletin from the agency's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). But the energy sector saw the most activity, with five government assessments in the past two months.
The DHS newsletter published yesterday also warned of the perils of convergence.
"Critical infrastructure systems may appear isolated from mobile and [Internet of Things] devices; but from an attacker's perspective, there are many crossovers and similarities," the agency's ICS response team noted.
The juxtaposition of "new consumer devices" and "comparatively ancient ICSs" has posed headaches for grid operators and other infrastructure companies, DHS said.
The convergence comes with a silver lining, however, as many of the same approaches to good IT security carry over to the critical infrastructure arena. For instance, DHS's control system specialists have long pointed to the benefits of "logging" activity on a given network, be it corporate or operational. That way, if an attack happens, companies will have a way to look back, see what went wrong and perhaps even find out more about the hackers responsible.
The latest newsletter cited a case where an unnamed asset owner used "good logging and regular network scanning" to figure out that a seemingly infected computer system was actually fine. "Having a plan that outlines how to respond to suspicious network activity ... allowed the asset owner to mitigate this issue quickly" and recover from the false alarm, ICS-CERT said.
-
Carbon Dioxide Leak at US Coffee Plant Prompts Federal Probe
Nov 17, 2015 | ChemistryWorld
By Rebecca Trager
A US federal investigation has been launched after a carbon dioxide leak at a coffee roasting and decaffeination plant in Houston, Texas, led to the death of one employee. The incident occurred at Atlantic Coffee Solutions on 12 November.
‘The decaffeination process uses [supercritical] carbon dioxide, and when there is a leak it creates an oxygen-deficient environment,’ explains Ruy Lozano, a spokesman for Houston fire department. The firefighters who arrived on the scene closed a valve, shutting down the leak, and ventilated the area.
‘We are not sure how the leak occurred,’ Lozano stated, noting that the US Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) is investigating the accident. The agency has up to six months to complete the review and decide on any necessary citations and penalties.
The US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), which is the independent agency charged with examining serious industrial chemical accidents in the US, will not be investigating the Atlantic Coffee Solutions incident.
However, the CSB denies recent reports that it will halt new investigations until the end of the year in order to reorganise and ease current pressures created in part by a backlog of investigations. ‘The CSB does not have a moratorium on deployments,’ says spokeswoman Anne McCormick. Although the CSB is focusing on completing open investigations, she says that it will continue to pursue any ‘significant accident’ that warrants an investigation.
-
Inadequate Transportation Bills in Congress
Nov 17, 2015 | New York Times
By Editorial board
Congress could approve a six-year transportation bill by the end of this week, when authorization for federal transportation programs expires. Unfortunately, the legislation will not do nearly enough to improve aging bridges, fix highways or expand the capacity of mass transit and rail systems. Worse, it could make traveling on American roads and railways less safe.
Members of the House and Senate are now meeting in a conference committee to iron out differences between the bills passed by each chamber to authorize money for transportation projects and change federal policy on issues like car, motorcycle, bus, rail and truck safety.
While Congress wrestles with the money, this much is clear: America’s transportation system is badly in need of repair and investment. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s railways and bridges a “C+” grade and its roads and transit systems a “D” in a 2013 report. The Transportation Department estimates that 10 percent of bridges are structurally deficient.
In a speech in September, Anthony Foxx, the transportation secretary, said that the government must spend $400 billion over the next six years just to maintain the current transportation system; to improve the system would take an additional $78 billion. Yet the House passed a bill this month that budgets only $325 billion for six years. Lawmakers could have easily come up with more money had they been willing to raise the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gasoline tax, which was last increased in 1993. But members of Congress were determined not to raise the tax ahead of an election year.
The bills are just as deficient when it comes to safety. The Transportation Department and safety experts wanted Congress to substantially increase the maximum fine for violations of federal auto regulations, currently set at $35 million. Given the recalls of tens of millions of cars by companies like General Motors in the last two years, an increase is clearly needed. The department proposed raising the limit to $300 million, an amount that is still small compared with the automakers’ annual profits. But the House bill does not increase the fine at all, and the Senate measure only raises it to $105 million.
Another provision in both the House and Senate bills would prevent states from using money they get from the federal government to enforce motorcycle helmet laws. A recent Transportation Department report estimated that helmets saved 1,630 lives in 2013, and that another 715 people could have been saved if every motorcyclist had worn a helmet. The bills will also undermine public safety by requiring detailed studies before safety rules can be adopted, making it harder for federal officials to regulate buses and trucks. The House bill would also allow teenagers to drive big trucks across state borders.
In recent years, Congress has repeatedly failed to pass legislation that authorizes transportation programs for more than two years at a time. House and Senate leaders consider this six-year authorization an improvement, but in terms of policy and funding, it is far from adequate.
-
Hague Named As Permanent EPA Region 7 Chief
Nov 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
President Obama has named former acting Region 7 Administrator Mark Hague as the region's permanent top agency official, succeeding Karl Brooks in that position after Brooks moved to the agency's personnel office earlier this year.
EPA Acting Deputy Administrator Stan Meiburg announced Obama's decision in a Nov. 4 internal memo. In the letter, Meiburg says Hague “brings executive management experience, technical expertise, deep knowledge of EPA’s policy and programs, and a wide network of strong relationships internal to EPA and within Region 7.”
Hague had been the acting chief of Region 7 -- which covers Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska -- since Feb. 23, after serving as the agency's acting deputy chief financial officer. In that role he helped guide EPA's fiscal year 2016 budget process leading up to the president's formal FY16 request to Congress in February, which sought a funding increase for the agency from its current $8.13 billion up to $8.57 billion.
He has also served at EPA Headquarters in other roles at the finance office and in the agency's now-defunct Office of Noise Abatement and Control. In Region 7, he has been deputy regional administrator, director of its Enforcement Coordination Office -- where EPA says he specialized in environmental justice activities -- and as acting assistant regional administrator for the Office of Policy and Management.
-
EPA Plans Cross-State Pollution Update to Curb Ozone
Nov 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today proposed an update to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to help cut ozone levels in eastern states in 2017 — though the rule is based on the 2008 ozone standard that EPA recently tightened.
EPA’s proposal would require power plants in 23 states to install pollution controls curbing emissions of nitrogen oxides, which form ground-level ozone. EPA also proposed federal implementation plan that would take effect if states that don't get a plan approved by EPA.
The proposed rule targets 23 upwind states from Texas to New York and affects 913 coal, gas and oil-fired power plants.
The CSAPR update will reduce NOx emissions by 85,000 tons in 2017 over business as usual levels, and by 30 percent from 2014 levels that year, according to the agency. EPA estimates the benefits as high as $1.2 billion and climate change co-benefits at $23 million annually, with costs of $93 million.
Click here for the proposed rule, the regulatory impact analysis, a fact sheet and various technical support documents.
In October, EPA tightened the ozone standard from the 75 parts per billion level set in 2008 to 70 parts per billion. Eventually, EPA is likely to again target NOx standards under CSAPR to further curb ozone levels.
The agency will take comments for 45 days once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register and will hold a public meeting on Dec. 17 in Washington.
-
Enviros Push to Fast-Track BLM Rule Lawsuit to Appeals Court
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists defending the federal government's new hydraulic fracturing rule are pushing to move their case out of a Wyoming district court as soon as possible.
Attorneys for the Sierra Club, Earthworks and other groups yesterday asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to bow out of further consideration of the lawsuit and instead let the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handle the case.
The legal strategy comes six weeks after the district court granted a preliminary injunction (PI) blocking enforcement of the fracking rule while the lawsuit is ongoing. The PI ruling from Judge Scott Skavdahl included striking remarks questioning the Bureau of Land Management's authority to regulate fracking at all (EnergyWire, Oct. 1).
According to the environmentalists, the ruling signals that Skavdahl has made up his mind on the legality of the fracking rule, and additional merits briefing in his court would be a waste of time and money. They're asking the judge to convert his PI ruling to a final judgment so the government and environmental allies can appeal the full case to the 10th Circuit.
"This Court should enter a final judgment in this case because it has already determined that BLM lacks the legal authority to issue the disputed regulation," environmental attorneys wrote in a brief filed yesterday. "Because of that dispositive legal ruling, proceedings over the scope of the administrative record, or further briefing on the merits, will very likely be immaterial to a final judgment entered in this Court."
Industry challengers say the proposal would prevent them from properly arguing their case before the district court. While the PI decision included extensive discussion of BLM's authority to regulate fracking, it did not delve into other administrative arguments against the rule.
BakerHostetler attorney Mark Barron, who is representing oil and gas industry groups in the case, said the petitioners should have the opportunity to present arguments tied to the administrative record. The parties have already made citations to the voluminous record but have not yet submitted merits briefs based on it.
"The Intervenors seek authorization to file a premature appeal based on incomplete arguments wholly untethered to the record," Barron said in a statement, adding that the environmentalists' request was a form of "legal acrobatics."
Plus, he said, allowing the case to play out in district court would likely lead to quicker resolution overall.
"If the Intervenors would simply roll up their sleeves and get to work with the rest of the litigants, we could finish this case in the district court and create a proper record for appellate review sooner than possible under the Intervenors' convoluted proposal," he said.
Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman, who is representing the environmental groups, countered that any further briefing in the case would purely be for show before a judge who has already issued a clear answer to the central question of whether the fracking rule should stand.
"None of that [administrative argument] really matters if he's concluded that BLM doesn't have the legal authority to enforce the rule," Freeman told EnergyWire.
Freeman wrote in yesterday's brief that the waste of resources from continuing the case in the district court would be "substantial," as the parties would still have to hash out disputes over the administrative record and complete merits briefs to "almost inevitably lead to the same conclusion" as the PI decision.
If the court rejects the environmentalists' request, their backup plea is to put the district court case on hold while they appeal only the PI decision to the 10th Circuit.
BLM has not taken a position on the environmentalists' primary request but told the groups it is leaning toward opposing the alternative request for a stay pending appeal of the PI decision. Responses from the states, industry and government to both requests are due Nov. 30.
The strategy is another twist in the high-stakes litigation over the agency's fracking rule, which sets new safety requirements for fracked wells on public and tribal lands. The rule was immediately challenged by industry and several states after its release in March, and the coalition of environmental groups joined the case on BLM's side in June.
-
How Exporting U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Will Transform the Politics of Global Energy
Nov 17, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Jason Bordoff
The U.S. energy trade has been in the news often recently, with questions such as whether industry will be allowed to send oil overseas or import it via a certain pipeline from Canada.
Seemingly forgotten is the historic milestone that will occur early next year when a tanker for the first time ever sets sail from the U.S. lower 48 to deliver liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the global market. Supporters will tout the economic benefits, while opponents will revisit concerns about environmental and manufacturing impacts. Lost in this rhetorical battle is the view from overseas, and the significant geopolitical impacts that U.S. LNG will have.
Exporting U.S. LNG represents a stunning turnaround from the energy outlook just a decade ago. In 2005, it was projected that in 2015 the U.S. would be importing 25% of our daily gas use—a volume nearly twice what Qatar, the world’s largest LNG exporter, puts on the market today. Instead, we will now be a net gas exporter by 2017.
By 2020, the volume of global LNG trade will rise almost 50%, with the U.S. and Australia responsible for nearly all of the increase.
The coming surge in LNG-export capacity will contribute significantly to a fundamental transformation of the global gas market already under way. Less than a decade ago, Russia, Iran and Qatar were thought to be the global gas players of the future who might even form a gas OPEC. They held by far the largest gas reserves and derived geopolitical influence and leverage from monopoly supply to many gas consumers. Today, they are struggling to maintain market share, and a growing portion of global gas is supplied by OECD countries.
By the end of the decade, increased LNG trade will make natural gas a more liquid and flexible global commodity. That means supply will respond to price signals that allow markets to work more efficiently, and that prices can reflect the fundamentals of supply and demand.
Today, much of the gas consumed in Europe and Asia is still priced as a percentage of oil prices—a practice favored by gas exporters but which has been obsolete in the U.S. for two decades. Gas importers have sought to move away from so-called oil indexation, and the market has made strides in that direction—partly driven by increased competition in Europe as the U.S. shale gas boom displaced the need for LNG imports, freeing up supplies to flow into Europe instead.
LNG exports will accelerate this progress. By increasing liquidity and competition in the global market, more LNG trade will lower prices and empower consumers. That is especially true for U.S. LNG, which is tied to currently low-cost U.S. natural gas and is flexible regarding volume and destination. Consider the case of Lithuania, which recently built a new LNG import terminal and used the prospect of LNG imports as leverage to negotiate a 25% discount on its gas bill from Gazprom. A study I co-wrote a year ago found U.S. LNG exports would save Europe around $20 billion a year on its gas import bill, and cost Russia roughly the same.
Increased LNG trade can also enhance energy security for our allies. In the event of a disaster like Fukushima, the ability to pull more supply of LNG into a country through market forces makes it more secure. In Europe, where gas import dependence is rising, the Energy Union package aims to reduce vulnerability to Russian gas dependence through market integration and increased pipeline interconnectivity and flexibility. That would allow gas supply—be it from western Europe’s unused LNG capacity, new LNG terminals or other pipeline gas—to move to eastern and central Europe if needed, providing those countries with alternative options to Russian supply, thereby reducing Russian leverage. Gazprom’s grip on Europe is weakening, and U.S. LNG will accelerate that shift even as Russia seeks to counter it with projects like the Nordstream II pipeline.
There will be other losers as well. For example, the hopes of high-cost sources of new gas supply, like countries in the Eastern Mediterranean or East Africa, may be dimmed by the coming surge of LNG and recent oil price collapse.
As negotiators gather in Paris this month, climate change, too, is an increasingly important geopolitical issue. While the recent U.S.-China climate deal was rightly celebrated, coal remains dominant in Asia and hundreds of coal plants are still being built or planned. China just reported its recent coal use has been much higher than previously disclosed. Reducing carbon emissions and local pollution requires a credible pathway to meet rising energy demand without increasing coal use, including much more renewable energy as well as stable and affordable supplies of natural gas. At home, concerns about increased production to feed LNG exports are a reminder of the need to make sure domestic gas is produced safely, even though only a portion of export volumes will come from more output.
The shale boom has already transformed the domestic energy outlook. With LNG exports now starting up, the U.S. is also emerging as a global gas superpower on par with Russia and Qatar that is going to alter the landscape of global energy geopolitics and security in profound ways in the years to come.
Jason Bordoff, a former energy adviser to President Obama, is a professor of professional practice in international and public affairs and founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.
-
AEP CEO Sees Transmission Opportunity in Clean Power Plan
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
For Nick Akins, the future success of utilities such as American Electric Power Co. rests with the ability to "provide whatever the customer wants," even as forecasts for electricity demand flatten and environmental mandates demand extensive changes.
"Our business is about optimization and about services to our customers. It's not about building assets and building central station generation and meeting an ever-increasing load.
"That's done and gone," Akins, 55, said during an interview last week at the Edison Electric Institute's annual financial conference in Hollywood, Fla.
As chairman, president and CEO of Columbus, Ohio-based AEP, the affable Louisiana native also is looking to leverage his 40,000-mile transmission system -- the largest in the United States -- to better manage the new mix of electric generation that is expected to result from the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.
"The real issue coming up with the Clean Power Plan is the reoptimization of flows on the grid because as you take out generation, a large part of the mitigation's going to be transmission. And then the flows on the lines themselves change as a result because everyone's changing their generation-related connections to the system," Akins said.
Of AEP's 32,000 megawatts of generation capacity, about 54 percent is coal-fired, followed by natural gas at 26 percent, then renewables, nuclear and efficiency. In 2020, AEP will still look to coal for 49 percent of its capacity.
A special challenge is how to better manage the grid "the more you go to distributed generation," he said.
"It's asking the transmission system to do something it never has been asked to do before. It's a different way of planning. It's a different way of investment. When you take these large prime movers out of the system, you're actually depending more on transmission for the flows to occur across the system."
And as AEP adds natural gas plants along its system, "that will also change the flows on the grid, as well," he said.
"We have to look at it in a no-regrets fashion. OK, this generation's being retired. We expect this difference in flow, and this is the investment that needs to be made to ensure the integrity of the grid," Akins said.Clean Power Plan as 'catalyst'
Those investments in the grid and new generation will have to be vetted by regulators in the 11 states where AEP operates.
"There's no doubt that having a catalyst like that helps when you have a federal mandate to do something. The states and our plans have to comport with that," Akins said.
American Electric Power Co. CEO Nick Akins. Photo courtesy of AEP.
He discounted the notion that "we are going to be able to get rid" of the EPA plan to cut carbon emissions.
"I just think that that's difficult because customers, the customers are already expecting [that], and we are moving toward a cleaner energy environment. There's no question about it.
"The real issue is the pace. Can an individual state address the pace and the targets that the EPA has given them? I think that's where room for negotiation should exist because the fundamental driver is what the U.S. consumer expects from an environmental footprint perspective, but also from a cost perspective," Akins said.
"That's where we need to be out in front of the regulators, but the Clean Power Plan no doubt is a catalyst for the investments to be made to support not only the movement of the customers, but also reducing the environmental footprint."
AEP has been in discussion with its states about how to approach compliance, even as some of those states are involved in lawsuits against EPA over the rule.
Akins said he has been involved personally in discussions with some regulators and is pleased with the willingness of states to also look at compliance by crafting a sate implementation plan.
"It's already happening to a certain extent because we've had a lot of discussions with all of our states. Arkansas has turned around. Michigan's turned around. Indiana, it looks like they'll also be looking at a plan. West Virginia's looking at a plan," Akins said.
"They're all at least looking at a plan, looking at the facts," he said. Part of the equation will have AEP provide a version of its preferred plan to states and help them determine whether they are "long or short" on carbon. "Then we start addressing from a multi-state perspective," he said. "You don't have to give up your legal position to do that."
AEP's drive to "get out front" on the CPP is "somewhat selfish because we want to make sure that there's a clear plan that we can adequately invest in and be assured of recovery of during that process," Akins said.
He gave complimented EPA for its changes in the final rule made in response to near-unanimous industry concerns. "I think we have a great relationship with EPA, and I think we have a lot of credibility with EPA because we've been factual.
"So what'd they do in the final rule? They delayed [compliance] for the states. They changed the trajectory so it is more back-end-loaded to give time for the development of the resources, and they put in a reliability provision. So you can take that and say they did listen," Akins said.Rule offers 'tremendous opportunity'
Even as AEP pursues energy efficiency, demand-side management and techniques to optimize the grid, a focus will be "making sure we have the resources and the ability to provide whatever the customer wants. Otherwise, we're a sitting duck," Akins said.
"It's a tremendous, tremendous opportunity for this country to rebalance out the entire fleet. But it has to be done in a credible fashion and understanding the difference between capacity and energy. Energy will get you the environmental results you need. Capacity gets you reliability."
Akins expressed hope that state regulatory commissions "don't hold us back from being and having that relationship with the customers -- because they do trust what we do. But if they hold us back, then they're setting us up just to be a grid provider. I don't think that's a good answer," he said.
-
Manufacturers Seek To Return EPA's GHG Permit Program To High Court
Nov 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
A group of major manufacturers is asking the Supreme Court to again review long-running litigation over EPA's greenhouse gas permit rules, filing a petition that asks the justices to provide EPA direction on how to trigger GHG limits in stationary source permits -- though the effort is considered a long shot that seeks to re-litigate EPA's Clean Air Act authority to regulate the gases.
The Energy-Intensive Manufacturers (EIM) Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation, which represents iron and steel, paper and pulp, aluminum, glass, cement, and chemical interests, filed a Nov. 5 petition for a writ of certiorari asking the justices to review the appellate ruling that backed EPA's plan to set a minimum level for when GHGs must be included in best available control technology (BACT) analyses for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits -- a rule the agency has said it will publish next June.
The EIM group is the only petitioner on this request after all other parties left the case, which has been pending since 2009 and started off addressing EPA's broad initial GHG regulatory program, most of which the courts left intact.
One industry source says the EIM petition is the only one the source is aware of to be filed by the deadline.
The industry group is urging the high court to overturn a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which remanded portions of the agency's GHG “tailoring rule” to EPA.
The rule had generally sought to set GHG emissions thresholds above which new and modified stationary sources would be subject to PSD permits under the air law. But the Supreme Court, in a 2014 ruling in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, narrowed the rule's reach after finding that the agency lacked authority to require permits for facilities' GHG emissions alone.
The high court's ruling appeared to leave the agency free to retain the portions of the GHG rule requiring facilities that were subject to permit requirements for conventional pollutants -- known as “anyway” sources. The high court said that EPA should craft a de minimis threshold but provided no direction for how the agency should proceed, and returned the litigation to the appellate court to implement consistent with its ruling.
But on remand, the D.C. Circuit faced competing arguments from EPA and its critics for how to proceed. The court eventually agreed with EPA, scaling back the rule consistent with the high court's ruling, remanding it to the agency to develop its regulatory threshold for when GHGs trigger BACT reviews and permit limits while leaving the rule in place.
But EPA critics, including the manufacturers group, say the appellate court should have vacated the tailoring rule entirely because the D.C. Circuit has not addressed problems identified by the Supreme Court in UARG.
The petition says that the high court in UARG “saw many problems” with GHG regulation of anyway sources, including that it is “almost entirely a scheme of industrial energy efficiency regulation” and the court viewed it an “open question whether efficiency could be regulated at all.”
But without a vacatur from the D.C. Circuit, EPA has not considered the difficulty it will face when it seeks to implement its permit requirements that will require adoption of energy efficiency mandates, the petition says.
The petition adds that EPA is relying on “reasoning that UARG invalidates and a reading of UARG that is not supportable” in insisting “nothing more is required -- in particular it need not conduct a rulemaking that addresses the issues identified in UARG or the more basic ones that Petitioner presented to EPA before UARGand again seeks an opportunity to present.”
Broader Issues
But the questions the petition asks the high court to consider appear far broader than the narrow issue of EPA's planned permitting threshold, suggesting the petitioners are seeking to open the door to further curtail the agency's GHG permit program.
For example, the petition asks whether the D.C. Circuit decision “leaving in effect the allegedly 'automatically triggered' regulation of greenhouse gas emissions of large industrial ('anyway') sources under certain Clean Air Act permitting programs, and requiring nothing more of EPA, is consistent with” the high court's ruling in the case.
Or, the petition continues, “is vacatur of the relevant rulemaking and associated regulations required, and, further, is a valid scheme of regulation not 'automatically triggered,' but, rather, predicated upon EPA conducting a rulemaking to determine how -- and whether -- such regulation can be modified to confirm withUARG, to address the nullified or contradicted provisions of the programs' statutory components to stay within the bounds of EPA's implicitly delegated authority over greenhouse gases, and to determine whether the regulation contributes anything to reduction of greenhouse gases?”
The petition adds that the lack of administrative record in this case is “an artifact of a destructive, reason-denying era in [Clean Air Act (CAA)] GHG regulation that began with Massachusetts v. EPA and should have ended with UARG.”
During that time, between 2007 and 2014, “EPA, with the concurrence of the D.C. Circuit, thought that the term 'air pollutant' in the CAA 'unambiguously' included GHGs, and whatever resulted from plugging GHGs into the statute wherever 'air pollutant' appeared was not a potential problem to be dealt with, it was an unassailable authorization to run with. In the proceedings below, EPA, again with the concurrence of the lower court, has used UARG itself to excuse the statute- and Constitution-confounding context blindness of that era, and further, to promise its continuation.”
The petition adds that the two issues “most directly presented, concerning when a vacatur and a rulemaking are required, are of independent importance. Fortunately, they are also together a ready-made context to correct the misunderstanding of UARG that has turned the decision against itself.”
The petition says that “independently important issues in administrative law are encompassed within” these arguments, including confusion over Chevron step one and step two -- which is the ruling that gives agencies statutory interpretation authority. “EPA still thinks it is subject to a self-evident, unconditional, rulemaking-excusing, fact-and-judgment-foreclosing Chevron step-one command with respect to anyway-source PSD regulation of GHGs.”
It alleges “important constitutional issues” are involved as well, “principally, questions of the limits of the Commerce Power with the vesting of that power in Congress with the fact that the Necessary and Proper clause has restrictive force and requires congressional judgments.”
It also says that the reason confusion over this case persists, even though the petitioner believed UARGdispelled it, could be because it is “one of a rare, but perhaps growing, category of cases involving the application of a regulatory statute to unforeseen objects of regulation and problems uniquely associated with them,” what it calls an “unanticipated context case.”
It is unclear when the justices will consider the petition though EPA and other parties will likely weigh in.
Related Cases
In a related matter, the filing of the cert petition also means a handful of remaining cases under EPA's original GHG rulemakings will begin to move again in the appellate court, including a challenge to the agency's tailoring rule step 3, and a challenge to the agency's inclusion of biomass GHG in the original vehicle rule. Those cases -- American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, American Forest & Paper Association v. EPA and theNational Alliance of Forest Owners v. EPA-- are on hold for 30 days after the high court appeal deadline passes or the court acts on any petition it receives.
A separate case, Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, where industry sought to appeal environmentalists' successful challenge to EPA's temporary deferral of biomass emissions from GHG permit, did not win court endorsement for abeyance despite industry requests. Industry also opted not to petition the high court so that case finally ended when the court issued its mandate in July -- two years after siding with environmental petitioners.
-
EPA Proposes Updates to its Cross-State Rule
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA today released proposed updates to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, intended to cut nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from power plants in 23 Eastern states that contribute to downwind ozone air quality problems.
By reducing ozone pollution, "this update will help protect the health and lives of millions of Americans," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a news release.
The almost 360-page proposal identifies cuts in NOx emissions that can be achieved using proven and cost-effective control technologies, according to the release. When combined with other regulations already on the books, the proposal would lead to an approximately 30 percent reduction in NOx emissions in 2017 in comparison with last year's level, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe told reporters in a conference call, and provide up to $1.2 billion worth in annual benefits compared to an estimated $93 million price tag.
The cross-state rule was finalized four years ago. In the release, the agency said that proposed update addresses the July ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that sent back part of the rule to the agency but rejected arguments by states and other petitioners that EPA lacked the authority to put in place federal implementation plans for almost two dozen states. The proposal released today provides for that option if states don't develop their own plans.
In a statement, Clean Air Watch President Frank O'Donnell called the proposal "a step in the right direction," but one that would only help states meet a 2008 ambient ozone air standard of 75 parts per billion, not the newer standard of 70 ppb unveiled last month.
Doing anything less to help downwind states meet the new standard "will fail to adequately protect public health," O'Donnell said.
-
EPA Chief: ‘We Will Prevail’ in Power Plant Lawsuits
Nov 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration’s top environmental regulator predicted new, broad power plant regulations will hold up despite a series of lawsuits against them.
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy said that regulators knew that implementing its Clean Power Plan, a rule designed to cut emissions from power plants, “was not going to be an effort without controversy.”
The Clean Power Plan, which looks to cut power sector emissions by 32 percent by 2030, is the cornerstone of Obama’s climate change agenda. Since the EPA finalized the regulation, more than half the states and scores of interest groups and businesses have sued against it, arguing regulators overstepped their bounds in issuing the rule.
“Climate change has been an issue of tremendous controversy, no matter what we did, it would have been controversial,” McCarthy said in the interview with Columbia University's Bill Loveless.
“But I think we know that states continue to be at the table, planning while this litigation is proceeding. We feel very confident that we have provided tremendous flexibility, we’ve done it in a way that the Clean Air Act allowed, and, frankly, states have been asking us to do for ages.”
McCarthy said “litigation was expected" before the rule came out, but she repeated what she and the Obama administration have long held: that the Clean Air Act gives the agency the power to regulate power sector emissions as it is under the Clean Power Plan.
McCarthy’s interview comes the same day the Senate is debating a Congressional Review Act resolution to block the Clean Power Plan. Obama is certain to veto any resolution against the rule — something even opponents of the plan acknowledge — making litigation the most likely way for the rule to be undone.
But McCarthy said she’s confident that won’t happen.
“I think we will prevail and I think over time people will see the actions we’re asking them to take will be in the direction in which investments are heading now,” she said.
“One of the most important things about this rule was to not try to do too much too soon, but do exactly as we’re doing on international [climate policy]: Get running out of the gate fast, but send that longer-term signal."
-
White House Threatens to Veto Resolution that Would Block EPA Climate Rule
Nov 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The White House today said President Barack Obama would veto a Senate measure to block EPA's emissions regulations for existing power plants.
In an expected move, the Office of Management and Budget slammed the GOP-backed proposal to reject the EPA rule under the Congressional Review Act. The resolution of disapproval "threatens the health and economic welfare of future generations by blocking important standards to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector that take a flexible, common sense approach to addressing carbon pollution." If the resolution makes it to Obama's desk, "he would veto the bill," OMB said.
The Senate is expected to pass the measure as soon as today, presidential objections notwithstanding. The House is expected to pass companion legislation in the coming weeks.
-
Senate Launches Debate on CRA Effort to Kill Climate Rule
Nov 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Sean Reilly
The Senate today began debate on a bid to use the Congressional Review Act to kill the Obama administration's carbon rules for power plants.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) moved to open debate this morning on a CRA joint resolution to eliminate the Clean Power Plan, U.S. EPA's program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. By rule, there will be up to 10 hours of debate before the Senate votes on passage of the resolution, possibly later today.
"The Obama administration is putting facts and compassion to the side in order to advance their ideological agenda," McConnell said this morning.
Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) sponsored S.J. Res. 24 to kill the Clean Power Plan, while McConnell and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) introduced a separate resolution, S.J. Res. 23, targeting EPA's rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new and modified power plants.
Taken together, the two resolutions would strike down the central piece of President Obama's climate change agenda as the administration prepares to go to Paris at the end of the month to attend international climate negotiations. The White House today threatened to veto the Clean Power Plan resolution.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), long a proponent of U.S. action to address climate change, called the floor debate on the resolutions this week "an historic debate."
"This is a showdown on the United States Senate floor over the clean energy future of our country," he said.
McConnell today said he expected both the House and Senate to approve the resolutions. In the Senate, CRA resolutions require a simple majority, or 51 votes, for passage. The resolution targeting the Clean Power Plan has 48 co-sponsors, while the resolution aimed at the new power plants has 47 co-sponsors.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee later this afternoon will also begin a markup of CRA resolutions targeting the carbon rules and is expected to send the measures to the House floor in a vote tomorrow. The full House, however, will likely not vote on the measures until after Thanksgiving.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) today said there was "zero chance" of the resolutions being enacted into law, given that they would require a signature by the president.
"There is no way that the president is going to enact into law something that would overturn his signature environmental achievement," Schatz said.
In its veto threat, the White House said that the Clean Power Plan resolution would "undermine the public health protections of the Clean Air Act" and "stop critical U.S. efforts to reduce dangerous carbon pollution from power plants."
Congress has been successful only once at using the 1996 CRA to overturn an administrative rule. In 2001, newly elected President George W. Bush signed a CRA resolution overturning an Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule on ergonomic injuries in the workplace.
Not only would the resolutions on the Senate floor kill the Clean Power Plan and EPA's rule for new and modified power plants, but they would also prohibit the agency from promulgating any similar rules in the future.
As Congress today moved forward on the CRA resolutions, supporters and opponents of EPA's rules for power plants doubled down.
In a study released this morning, the National Mining Association warned that the Clean Power Plan would lead to a $214 billion increase in wholesale electricity prices by 2030 while achieving "meaningless" reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce today issued a key vote letter urging senators to vote in favor of both resolutions.
Green groups, on the other hand, today highlighted EPA's projections that the Clean Power Plan would result in 3,600 fewer premature deaths and 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children. They urged states to make use of the flexibility built into the program to focus actions on minority and vulnerable populations.
Yesterday, 116 environmental organizations sent letters to every senator urging them to oppose the resolutions.
A group of Senate Democrats today slammed the measures as a waste of time meant to appease the coal industry. Congress has a more pressing legislative agenda that includes addressing the terrorist attacks in Paris and moving appropriations bills, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said.
"I think a very unfortunate choice has been made by the majority leader to do this," Whitehouse said. "There are very few people who support it, but the ones that do -- the tea party, the fossil fuel industry and the Koch brothers -- are the ones who matter, obviously, the most."
Citing industry cost estimates, Capito today called the rule the most expensive EPA regulation ever on the U.S. power sector and said that it would affect a broader swath of the economy than just the coal sector. EPA, she said, is "attempting to regulate the entire energy grid."
"Congress should pass this resolution and place this issue squarely on the president's desk," Capito said.
Opponents' objective, Schatz said, was to "kick up enough dust" for the international community to wonder whether the U.S. commitment to address climate change at the upcoming negotiations in Paris is firm.
But Democrats said they were confident that President Obama would still be able to show the nation's commitment to climate change regardless of House or Senate passage of the resolutions ahead of or during the Paris talks.
"It'll be clear once they pass it -- if they have the ability to do so -- that the president will announce he's vetoing it. It'll be clear from whatever vote occurs on the Senate floor that the votes are there to sustain the president's veto," Markey predicted. "And so he [Obama] will be saying quite clearly that it is the law of the land in the United States of America."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested