Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/23/15
-
A Body at Rest: Congress Planning a Light Schedule for Next Year
Nov 23, 2015 | Washington Post
By Mike DeBonis
The approaching holidays have many Americans counting the days until they can kick back, relax and celebrate with their families and friends. -
OSHA Expects to Finalize Long-Stalled Silica Rule
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Obama administration anticipates a February release date for its final rule on occupational exposure to crystalline silica. -
Rail Supplier News from Bombardier, Saft, Alstom, Thales and ACS Solutions (Nov. 23)
Nov 23, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
The Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec (CDPQ) is slated to buy a 30 percent common equity stake in Bombardier Transportation's newly-formed holding company, known as Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd. (BT Holdco), for $1.5 billion. -
Industry Wants Supreme Court to Rein in EPA Permitting Rules
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
An industry group is asking the Supreme Court to reject a lower court's interpretation of a major ruling surrounding U.S. EPA's permitting rules for greenhouse gases. -
Public Approval of EPA Drops -- Poll
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Fewer Americans hold a favorable view of U.S. EPA than two years ago, according to polling released today. -
EPA Defends Its Power Plant Mercury Rule
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is standing by its rule to cut mercury from power plants, saying that consideration of compliance costs makes no difference to its original decision to impose emissions standards on airborne releases of the toxic metal and other hazardous substances. -
Power Companies Advocate for Flexible Federal Backstop
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
Even tough opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are lobbying the agency to hone its draft model rules for carbon trading as well as its backup plan for states that don't submit their own blueprints. -
Grid Organizations to Take the Lead on Clean Power Plan Modeling
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Congress is in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday this week so there will be a hiatus in hearings about the Clean Power Plan and the Obama administration's ambitions for international climate talks in Paris that begin next month. -
Greens Hit Senators for Voting to Block Carbon Rule
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Green groups are launching ad campaigns today targeting senators who voted to block the Obama administration's carbon rules for power plants. -
Delayed EPA CWA Rule Review Touts Quicker Growth In Mitigation Banks
Nov 23, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA in a long-delayed review of its 2008 Clean Water Act (CWA) rule crafted with the Army Corps of Engineers to establish uniform standards for using compensatory mitigation banks to offset lost wetlands says that the policy has helped cut permitting times and expanded the mitigation banking sector to new geographic areas. -
UN Conference is Opportunity to Renew Climate Change Partnership with Canada
Nov 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Amanda D. Rodewald
With the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris fast approaching, speculations about its outcomes continue to grow. -
Small New York Apartments Waste Big Energy
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
Inefficient heating systems in New York City apartments waste energy, but a new report suggests a few simple fixes.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
A Body at Rest: Congress Planning a Light Schedule for Next Year
Nov 23, 2015 | Washington Post
By Mike DeBonis
The approaching holidays have many Americans counting the days until they can kick back, relax and celebrate with their families and friends.
For members of Congress, that count is especially short.
Both the House and the Senate are away for their customary Thanksgiving recess this week, and the House plans only 12 more days of business this year.
The long trend toward shorter stints in Washington and longer “district work periods” back home has continued in the 114th Congress, and next year looks to be even more relaxed: Congressional calendars released earlier this month show that the Senate plans to spend no more than 143 days legislating next year, with the House planning only 111 days in Washington.
That spare schedule reflects the demands of an election year: Unusually early national party conventions mean lawmakers will be taking the second half of July off, without giving up any of their traditional August recess. And October through mid-November is cleared for campaigning ahead of the Nov. 8 general election.
But it also reflects the widespread understanding that Congress just might not have much to do next year.
Tensions between President Obama and GOP congressional leaders, magnified by the political freight of an election year, mean few substantial measures have hope of advancing. And, more important, lawmakers have cleared out — or are in the process of clearing out — the few must-pass bills required to meet deadlines before the next Congress is sworn in.
“There’s a bunch of things that we could do and probably will do, but, at this point, if you look at next year, a lot of the heavy lifting for next year’s been done this year,” said Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.
Perhaps most crucial was the budget deal forged between Obama and outgoing House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) before his retirement last month. That accord set spending levels and raised the federal debt limit through 2017, and is expected to greatly ease the process of passing government funding bills through the next election, although sticking points do remain.
Both houses are expected to meet other crucial deadlines.
House and Senate conferees are working to bridge gaps on a bill to authorize six years of transportation projects, and new House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has an internal process to smooth the passage of an omnibus appropriations measure before a possible Dec. 12 government shutdown. Another extension of dozens of popular tax breaks is expected to pass before a year-end deadline, and negotiators reached an accord last week to rewrite the controversial No Child Left Behind education law.
Meanwhile, thorny policy issues appear to be off the table for 2016. Immigration reform proposals remain in a deep freeze, with Republicans fuming over Obama’s 2014 executive orders and Democrats unwilling to entertain any reform bill that does not offer illegal immigrants a path to legal status. Ryan has said Obama is “untrustworthy” on the issue and has called a comprehensive reform bill a nonstarter during his presidency.
Obama’s request for a new war-powers authorization to cover the fight against the Islamic State terrorist organization, made in February, has seemingly faded into political oblivion — despite the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Obama’s decision to redeploy a small number of ground forces in the Middle East. Republicans say Obama already has the authority he needs.
Congressional Republicans are in much the same position as they were in 2000, and similar to the situation Democrats faced in 2008, having control of both chambers of Congress as the opposition-party president winds down his eighth year in office.
As they did then, they must now walk a fine line between providing enough of a positive agenda to defend their majorities in Washington while not getting ahead of their own party’s eventual presidential nominee.
Most likely to move in the coming months are relatively small-bore policy bills: A rewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act, for instance, is in the Senate’s pipeline, and hopes have risen that the House might finally take action on a mental health reform bill.
And leaders of both parties in both chambers have said they hope to see movement on a criminal justice reform bill that could significantly lighten prison sentences for nonviolent offenders.
The legislative centerpiece for 2016, however, is likely to be a huge fight over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the sprawling trade deal that represents a key part of Obama’s economic and foreign policy legacy. Because its passage probably would require Republicans to support a presidential priority in an election year, there is widespread speculation that a final vote could be pushed to a post-election lame-duck session.
Republicans face a task different from what their predecessors faced 15 years ago, when President Bill Clinton maintained his popularity amid one of the strongest periods of economic growth in the country’s history.
Their presidential nominee, George W. Bush, emerged relatively early, and they worked on a modest agenda of tax cuts, increased defense spending and entitlement overhauls — well aware that it would not be signed into law by Clinton but would help frame the presidential race.
In 2008, Democrats had the advantage of Bush ending his tenure as one of the most unpopular presidents ever. The disadvantage was not having a nominee until June as Obama and Hillary Clinton waged an epic primary battle.
Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), then the Senate majority leader, worked with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to craft an agenda that focused on issues that put Republicans on the defensive — unemployment insurance, home heating assistance — as the economy headed into a deep recession.
Whatever remaining plans existed were ripped up in the fall when the financial markets collapsed, leading Bush and congressional Democrats to work together to bail out Wall Street weeks before Election Day — a reminder that circumstances can easily derail expectations.
Although Republican leaders have framed next year’s light schedule as a reflection of a productive 2015, Democrats see it a sign of promises unfulfilled.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) pointed to pledges from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that he would set a more robust legislative pace, saying, “He hasn’t seemed to figure out what he wants to put on the floor, so we don’t do much except for a lot of show votes.”
Senators of both parties expressed frustration with the 2016 calendar.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called it “embarrassingly thin” and “a recognition of the fact that Ryan and McConnell have no plans to legislate” next year. “We’ve been crying out for the Senate to take up immigration, to take up an [Authorization for Use of Military Force], to take up tax reform,” he said. “There’s no takers in Republican leadership.”
But Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said Democrats share plenty of blame for the gridlock — referring to their filibusters of spending bills this year.
“I understand the guys who are up for election, how they want to have the opportunity to get back and campaign, I get that,” he said. “But it would be really nice if we had a series of deadlines that we would self-impose to get our work done in a timely fashion.”
-
OSHA Expects to Finalize Long-Stalled Silica Rule
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Obama administration anticipates a February release date for its final rule on occupational exposure to crystalline silica.
A timetable for the long-delayed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation was included in a wide-ranging agenda released Friday by the Office of Management and Budget (Greenwire, Nov. 20). The final rule would affect hydraulic fracturing operations, which use silica sand to prop open shale passages, allowing hydrocarbons to flow through.
OSHA estimates the rule would save 700 lives and prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis -- a fatal lung disease that can result from inhaling just a small amount of silica dust over time -- per year. Annual costs for implementation of the rule would total $664 million, according to the agency.
Frac sand producers, which are controlled by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, have had significant input on the rule. The National Industrial Sand Association's (NISA) occupational health program served as a model for OSHA's measures on workplace and medical monitoring (EnergyWire, June 15).
But NISA and oil and gas trade groups have criticized OSHA's proposal to halve the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for silica. When properly enforced, the current limit effectively protects against silica-related disease, according to a joint comment on the draft rule submitted by the American Petroleum Institute and the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
"OSHA's selection of key studies, interpretation of study results, and application of data analysis models, however, are unbalanced with a bias towards accepting adverse effects as real and causally related to silica exposure, while discounting study results that conflict with such interpretations," the industry groups wrote. "On balance, the associations do not believe that an objective assessment of the scientific literature supports the need to lower the PEL to protect workers."
Technologies are available to reduce workers' exposure to silica at frack sites. One such tool is the "mini-baghouse," which fits atop sand movers to control dust emissions from thief hatches. Researchers at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are currently testing the prototype.
"Results from the evaluation found that the mini-baghouse reduced the amount of airborne respirable crystalline silica by 79 to 99 percent," the institute wrote in a Nov. 4 update. "NIOSH is now seeking additional industry partners to help advance this novel, potentially life-saving technology and help bring it to market through a commercial licensing agreement."
-
Rail Supplier News from Bombardier, Saft, Alstom, Thales and ACS Solutions (Nov. 23)
Nov 23, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
The Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec (CDPQ) is slated to buy a 30 percent common equity stake in Bombardier Transportation's newly-formed holding company, known as Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd. (BT Holdco), for $1.5 billion. The transaction will be executed through a private placement and values Bombardier Transportation at $5 billion, officials said in a joint press release. BT Holdco will keep its operational headquarters in Germany, but will be governed independently by a new board to be composed of seven members, including three named by CDPQ. Alain Bellemare will serve as chair. When completed, the transaction is expected to "crystallize the value of Bombardier Transportation" and strengthen the company's financial position with no increase in debt, officials said.
Saft has signed a $4.25 million onboard battery system replacement contract with SNCF, France's state-owned railway operator. Saft will enable SNCF to migrate its entire fleet of more than 200TER 2N NG trainsets to nickel-based batteries, which will help improve performance and reliability over their service life. Saft's specialized MRX batteries have been developed specifically for the intensive usage typical of rail backup operations. Additionally, the batteries offer a higher energy capability at extreme temperatures to ensure continuity of train services in areas of France that experience severe winters.
Alstom has delivered its latest batch of X'Trapolis passenger trains to Public Transport Victoria ahead of schedule. The eight units, which were tested at Alstom's regional manufacturing center in Ballarat, Australia, will be used for the agency's suburban network in Melbourne. They'll expand the X'Trapolis operating fleet to 82 trains.
Thales has been selected to provide its central control system and communication system for Sydney Metro, which is the first fully automated passenger-rail system in Australia when it opens in the first half of 2019. The company will deliver both systems to the Northwest Rapid Transit (NRT) consortium as a key supplier to NRT's systems joint venture.
ACS Solutions has received a multimillion dollar order for positive train control (PTC) kits from a Class I railroad. The kits include cabling specifically designed and manufactured for PTC initiatives, company officials said in a press release. ACS Solutions provides cables and connector assemblies, antennae, and filters for nearly every piece of the system, including Internet protocol (IP) networks, back office supper systems, train management computers and onboard radios and equipment. Company officials did not disclose the name of the railroad. Meanwhile, Dave Fox has purchased ACS Solutions, making the business a veteran-owned company. -
Industry Wants Supreme Court to Rein in EPA Permitting Rules
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
An industry group is asking the Supreme Court to reject a lower court's interpretation of a major ruling surrounding U.S. EPA's permitting rules for greenhouse gases.
A group of companies called the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation this month filed a petition with the high court, asking the justices to hear its appeal and vacate EPA's rule requiring permits for stationary sources' greenhouse gas emissions.
The latest appeal to the high court is part of a lengthy and high-stakes legal battle surrounding EPA's permitting regime that the high court already weighed in on, issuing a ruling seen as largely favorable to EPA.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion in 2014 upheld EPA's authority to mandate that sources install control technologies for greenhouse gas emissions at sources that otherwise qualify for Clean Air Act permits. The court also trimmed EPA's program, however, finding that the agency could not require stationary sources to apply for permits and install pollution controls based solely on their greenhouse gas emissions (Greenwire, June 23, 2014).
The Supreme Court remanded several issues to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which in turn took a narrow view of the high court's ruling. But industry groups challenged that interpretation, arguing that the D.C. Circuit should have thrown out EPA's permitting rules based on the Supreme Court's ruling, and that EPA should conduct another rulemaking if the regulation is to proceed.
"Our principal contention is that any agency action that fails to understand this and thus fails even to attempt to respond to it is procedurally flawed and must be vacated, to be replaced, if the scheme of regulation at issue is to exist at all, by a rulemaking that deals with the core problem," the industry group wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court this month.
A broad coalition of groups had previously asked the federal appeals court for a rehearing of its "amended judgment" either by a three-judge panel or en banc by all of the circuit's judges. But the D.C. Circuit denied both requests in August, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court (Greenwire, Aug. 10).
It requires the votes of four justices to grant Supreme Court review.
-
Public Approval of EPA Drops -- Poll
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Fewer Americans hold a favorable view of U.S. EPA than two years ago, according to polling released today.
The Pew Research Center conducted a survey analyzing the public mood on government and politics, including specific federal agencies. Approval ratings for several government departments dropped, according to the group's findings.
Researchers found that 52 percent of Americans had a favorable view of EPA. That's a 10-point decline from October 2013.
Other government agencies fared worse than EPA in the poll, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, which saw a 29-point drop in its approval in the same period. The Department of Justice and the Food and Drug Administration also had steeper declines in their favorability.
Pew also found there is a partisan divide when it comes to approving of EPA. Only 39 percent of Republicans view EPA favorably, compared with 67 percent of Democrats, according to Pew.
Likewise, 89 percent of Democrats say government should play a major role in protecting the environment, compared with 58 percent of Republicans.
Pew also found that 59 percent of Americans believe the government is doing a good job protecting the environment. The government's approval ratings when it came to certain tasks, such as responding to natural disasters or keeping the country safe from terrorism, were on the high end.
"Amid a climate of deep distrust and frustration with government, the public's ratings of the federal government's performance in a range of areas stand out for being relatively positive. In 10 of the 13 areas tested in the survey, half or more say the federal government is doing a very good or somewhat good job," Pew said in its report.
But overall, the federal government didn't win stellar marks from those surveyed by the research group.
"A year ahead of the presidential election, the American public is deeply cynical about government, politics and the nation's elected leaders in a way that has become quite familiar," Pew said.
Just 19 percent of Americans said they trust the government always or most of the time. In addition, 55 percent said "ordinary Americans" would be more effective in solving the country's problems.
Pew's report is based on polling from telephone interviews conducted from Aug. 27 to Oct. 4. A national sample of 6,004 adults were interviewed for the report, including over landlines as well as cellphones.
-
EPA Defends Its Power Plant Mercury Rule
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is standing by its rule to cut mercury from power plants, saying that consideration of compliance costs makes no difference to its original decision to impose emissions standards on airborne releases of the toxic metal and other hazardous substances.
In a proposed supplemental finding issued late Friday, the agency concluded that the benefits of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) were substantial enough to justify the cost of new technology and other steps to cut power plant pollution.
"In sum, the significant advantages of regulating these emissions outweigh the costs of regulation," EPA officials wrote in the draft finding, which will have a 45-day public comment period once it's published in the Federal Register. If requested, a public hearing will be held next month in North Carolina.
The agency's analysis shows that "the costs and impacts of MATS are reasonable and that the power sector can cut mercury and other toxics, while continuing to provide all Americans with affordable, reliable electricity," acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe wrote in an accompanying blog post.
The proposal -- buttressed by a 31-page legal memorandum -- comes as a federal court is considering whether to gut the rule.
At the National Mining Association, which is part of the coalition of states and industry groups challenging the standards, spokesman Luke Popovich found it unsurprising that EPA would uphold its original analysis, but said the group suspects the agency is “double-counting” benefits already ascribed to other regulations.
"This EPA has no credibility on that score," Popovich said in a phone interview this morning.
The Supreme Court issued an opinion in June that found EPA should have considered costs in deciding that it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate hazardous emissions from oil- and gas-fired plants (Greenwire, June 29). The high court sent the standards back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in September.
EPA and its backers want the rule kept in place, while opponents of the rule are urging the court to vacate it. The appeals court on Friday announced it will hear oral arguments on Dec. 4 over whether it should vacate the rule while EPA works to comply with the Supreme Court's decision. The agency has committed to fully addressing the high court's concerns by April 15 -- the compliance date for power plants that sought a one-year extension to the rule. In a governmentwide regulatory plan released Friday, however, the agency said release of the final rule is now set for next May.
EPA had rolled out the standards, which also regulate emissions of lead, arsenic and other toxic substances, in late 2011. Although the agency considered costs in the course of developing the rule, its decision to impose standards in the first place was based solely on a public health analysis.
The mining association, the state of Michigan and other plaintiffs in the lawsuit have urged the appellate court to throw out the rule.
"An agency's rule cannot continue to have the force of law, imposing binding obligations on private citizens when it has been declared unlawful," they wrote in a September motion.
EPA lawyers pushed back in a reply earlier this month, saying the plaintiffs had "put forth no demonstration of significant harm to industry" by leaving the regulations in place for the time being. On Friday, the agency filed a copy of the supplemental finding with the court. Siding with EPA are Massachusetts and other states that said in their own response that the standards are already delivering substantial public health benefits that would be disrupted even by a stay.
One green group quickly hailed the proposed finding. "This is very welcome news for all who care about clean air for our communities and families," Graham McCahan, a senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. "The scientific basis for reducing this dangerous air pollution is as strong and compelling as ever, and we also now know that the costs of compliance have plummeted from original estimates."
Coal-fired power plants are the nation's largest emitters of mercury; once the standards are fully in place, EPA has estimated they will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and yield between $37 billion and $90 billion in health benefits.
But with an estimated $9.6 billion yearly compliance cost, MATS ranks among the most expensive regulations ever issued by the agency. In asking the appellate court to scrap the rule, states and industry critics said that EPA relied on co-benefits -- health benefits not directly attributable to reductions in mercury emissions -- to devise the numbers for the projected health benefits.
In their proposed finding, however, EPA officials said the Clean Air Act gives them "substantial discretion in identifying appropriate metrics for considering cost." They also concluded that a cost-benefit analysis is not needed to make "a threshold finding" on whether regulation is appropriate. But to the extent that such an analysis is used to evaluate whether regulations on power plants' emissions of hazardous air pollutants are warranted, they wrote, "it is important to account for the full range of benefits associated with the action, including benefits that cannot be monetized due to lack of data."
They also concluded that the regulations' impact on the power industry would be modest. Utility revenue from retail electric sales climbed 29 percent from $277 billion in 2000 to a peak of $357 billion in 2008. But even at the 2000 figure, the estimated yearly price tag for compliance costs for MATS would amount to approximately 3.5 percent of sales, they said.
Similarly, the cost of new construction and equipment needed to meet the new standards ranges from 3 to 6 percent of total power-sector capital expenditures over a decade, while the regulations will add about 3 percent to retail electricity rates on average, "well within the range of annual variability" over the period from 2000 to 2011, according to the finding. And because many power plants can pass on costs to customers, the estimated compliance expense is "in fact less of a burden" on plant owners, the finding added.
In return, the standards are expected to cut annual emissions of mercury by 75 percent and release of fine particulate matter by 19 percent from coal-fired power plants with a generating capacity greater than 25 megawatts from what they would otherwise be this year, the agency said.
Prenatal exposure to mercury can damage children's nervous systems, while ingestion of nickel, arsenic and other hazardous pollutants can trigger a variety of harmful health effects, the finding added. While cost is one factor that EPA must consider under the Clean Air Act in deciding whether to impose new regulations on the utility industry, the statute "does not support a conclusion that cost should be the predominant or overriding factor," the agency said.
-
Power Companies Advocate for Flexible Federal Backstop
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
Even tough opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are lobbying the agency to hone its draft model rules for carbon trading as well as its backup plan for states that don't submit their own blueprints.
EPA has argued that trading mechanisms, as spelled out in its proposals, will help power companies ensure against grid outages and keep energy affordable as coal plants shut down. Utilities could keep critical facilities online, as long as they purchase carbon allowances or credits held by cleaner energy projects.
But John Novak, executive director of environmental issues for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), said carbon trading won't help small co-ops that are heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Their customers will lose investments when plants with "remaining useful life" retire, and they will have to pay for replacement power, too, he told EPA officials last week.
"There is no question that the price of buying allowances or credits will increase the cost of electricity," Novak said in prepared remarks. In an interview, though, he added, "Clearly, our members are interested, if this is going forward, in having a workable trading program."
Investor-owned utilities took a similar tone.
Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Co., predicted that approximately 20 percent of its parent company's generating capacity will retire under the Clean Power Plan.
"These premature retirements would undoubtedly result in significant impacts to both our customers and our employees," Mark Berry, vice president of environmental affairs at Georgia Power, said in remarks for an EPA meeting in Atlanta. "EPA must get the federal and model trading rules right."
Duke Energy Corp., which last year found "significant flaws" with EPA's proposed rule, said it supports using market-based approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and backs "many of the specific elements underpinning the trading programs in EPA's proposal."
The comments were the first EPA has heard in a public setting since proposing the model trading rules and federal plan in August. EPA is soliciting feedback in the Federal Register until Jan. 21. The agency expects to publish the model rules this summer but will not officially finalize the federal plan, EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison confirmed. Instead, the agency will only use the proposed federal plan guidelines "if a state fails to submit a plan on time, fails to meet its CPP goal, or if an affected (electric generating unit) covered by a 111(d) plan fails to meet its Clean Power Plan obligations."
"EPA will address individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis, to determine the appropriate response and resolution," Harrison said. Since most states will at least request two-year extensions in the fall, those situations might not materialize until 2018.
Novak said that means states won't know what awaits them if they don't write their own plans, and they won't be able to make educated decisions.Keeping options on the table
Electricity providers stressed that EPA should make its federal plan as flexible as possible, including by allowing for multiple plan forms.
EPA proposed two options for a federal plan but said it likely intends to use only one. Both would require power generators to reach certain emissions levels by purchasing credits or allowances if they produce more carbon than they are allowed. One would require generators to meet a specific rate of emissions, and the other would cap carbon outright.
Georgia Power says EPA should keep both options available and that the agency is "ignoring the negative impacts certain federal plan pathways may have on a state."
Generators under one type of plan cannot trade with generators under another, which could put Southern Co. in a tricky position if any of its power plants must adhere to a federal plan and cannot trade with generators in other states.
Venu Ghanta, director of federal environmental and energy policy for Duke Energy, said it would be helpful for EPA to allow both rate- and mass-based federal plans.
But if EPA picks only one type, Duke would prefer mass-based trading, which Ghanta said utilities have more experience using.
While utilities are concerned about the outcome of the federal plan, Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, predicted hardly any states will need to implement a federal plan.
"There is no utility or state that we know of that has expressed preference for a federal plan over a state plan," Becker said. "I can't imagine a state moving forward if the major utilities in that state disapprove."Buying time
NRECA is encouraging co-ops to support their states in asking for a two-year extension in September, in the hope that the courts will overturn the Clean Power Plan.
EPA helped ease the burden for states by pushing back deadlines by two years, Novak said. But it also made compliance tougher for co-ops in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming, which saw much stricter goals under the final rule.
"What we are recommending is that everyone, even those that are opposing the Clean Power Plan, consider filing the initial submittal to buy yourself an additional two years," Novak said. "At that point, it's possible that by the time state plans are due, litigation could be resolved."
NRECA thinks the Supreme Court could review the rule as early as June 2018, a few months before state plans are due, although that would be a tight timeline.
In prepared remarks for EPA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued states need more time to prepare their requests for extensions. State agencies don't have enough resources to implement the Clean Power Plan, ozone standards and water rules simultaneously, the U.S. Chamber said.
Mary Martin, a lawyer for the chamber, said "it is imperative that the EPA give the states meaningful flexibility in terms of implementation and compliance" and suggested that EPA not require initial filings from states until one year after EPA finalizes its model trading rules.
But Becker said the extension requests required of states will not be a heavy lift. And he said state agencies need money, not time.
"The solution is not to delay the program but to help states find the necessary resources to make sure that the plans are adequate," Becker said.
While the U.S. Chamber at the national level argued for delaying the Clean Power Plan, the Virginia Chamber of Commerce last week touted a study contracted by power company Dominion Resources Inc. that found investments for environmental goals, including for the Clean Power Plan, will inject $10.1 billion into the state's economy.'A race against time'
Environmental and clean air advocates flooded the public hearings in Washington, D.C., and Atlanta last week, focusing their comments less on the trading rules and more on the negative health effects of pollution. Unlike last year's two-day listening sessions on the proposed Clean Power Plan, far fewer elected officials, electric utilities and business groups were present.
Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, said the federal plan should cover emissions from new power plants, in addition to existing ones. Georgia Power argued it should not.
Sierra Club wants EPA to adhere to a "swift deadline" for implementing federal plans when states fail to submit their own.
Hitt said EPA should not allocate allowances to generators for free but should find a way for them to make money for low-income communities and communities of color.
"Most generators will pass the cost of compliance on to consumers even if they get allowances for free," Hitt's prepared remarks said. "This money needs to stay in the public trust and be invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy."
Hitt also expressed concerns that a trading program could cause localized emissions increases, allowing some coal plants in overburdened communities to stay online and even generate more power and carbon by purchasing allowances from clean energy projects elsewhere.
Marilyn Brown, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor and co-author of a study that advocates for energy efficiency and renewable power as a way to meet CPP targets, asked EPA to quickly finalize parts of the model rule and release them as soon as possible, so states can use them for planning.
"[It] is a very important opportunity for states to be compatible with others, ensuring that companies and individuals have flexibility," Brown said.
"We are in a race against time," she added.
-
Grid Organizations to Take the Lead on Clean Power Plan Modeling
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Congress is in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday this week so there will be a hiatus in hearings about the Clean Power Plan and the Obama administration's ambitions for international climate talks in Paris that begin next month.
But the action will pick up the week of Nov. 30 when Congress returns, and the House will take up a pair of resolutions that would void the U.S. EPA rules to control carbon from new and existing power plants. The resolutions passed the Senate last week. President Obama has promised to veto both.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
In recent days, those on either side of the Clean Power Plan debate have been issuing a flurry of analyses and studies that relate to the long-term consequences of the EPA rule. Not surprisingly, each reached a conclusion backed up by the underlying position of the particular interest group.
On one end of the spectrum, Public Citizen released a study that said the Clean Power Plan can lower electricity bills in every state. On the other, the National Mining Association commissioned a report by Energy Ventures Analysis that found the Clean Power Plan would raise wholesale electricity prices $214 billion by 2030.
The analyses that may well be deemed the most credible will be those underway by the major regional transmission organizations.
Last week, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and the PJM Interconnection (PJM), released documents outlining the scope and timing of their upcoming analyses of the Clean Power Plan's costs and impact on electric reliability.
MISO expects that its analysis will be published around June 2016; PJM aims to release itsanalysis in May 2016.
Both organizations acknowledged that the cost projections would be preliminary due to uncertainties like how individual states will comply with the rule and the cost of natural gas.
In case you missed it:Stakeholders in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative weigh whether to expand its cap-and-trade program for carbon allowances to states outside RGGI as part of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan (ClimateWire, Nov. 20).Dominion Virginia Power is asking the state to develop a rate-based plan for curbing carbon emissions under the Clean Power Plan rather than capping the total emissions of carbon dioxide allowed from power plants (ClimateWire, Nov. 18).The Senate approved two resolutions that would kill EPA's carbon rules for power plants. The vote on both was 52-46 (E&E Daily, Nov. 18).EPA's proposed "alternative compliance pathway" for power plants slated to retire before 2030 offers cold comfort to the industry (ClimateWire, Nov. 17).AEP CEO Nick Akins sees transmission opportunity in Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, Nov. 17).Large investor-owned electric utilities that operate in multiple states agree that the cheapest way to cut carbon emissions under the Clean Power Plan is to create the biggest interstate trading system possible. But on the specifics, they diverge (ClimateWire, Nov. 16).
-
Greens Hit Senators for Voting to Block Carbon Rule
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Green groups are launching ad campaigns today targeting senators who voted to block the Obama administration's carbon rules for power plants.
The League of Conservation Voters' $25,000 weeklong Facebook campaign criticizes Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Richard Burr and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Dean Heller of Nevada.
The Sierra Club separately began running print and digital ads yesterday in the Indianapolis and South Bend areas targeting Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana.
All of the senators targeted by the campaigns voted last week for two resolutions that would block U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants and the agency's CO2 rule for new power plants.
The resolutions would also block EPA from issuing similar rules in the future. President Obama has threatened to veto both resolutions; the House is expected to take them up after the Thanksgiving recess (E&E Daily, Nov. 18).
Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, charged that the senators at the center of its ad campaign "put themselves in the camp of the climate change deniers who refuse to act."
The Sierra Club is also this week running a print ad in The St. Louis American, an African-American newspaper, thanking Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) for her vote opposing both resolutions.
Next week, the Obama administration will participate in international climate change negotiations in Paris. Congressional supporters of the resolutions are hoping to send a message that Congress is not on board with the administration's climate change agenda.
-
Delayed EPA CWA Rule Review Touts Quicker Growth In Mitigation Banks
Nov 23, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA in a long-delayed review of its 2008 Clean Water Act (CWA) rule crafted with the Army Corps of Engineers to establish uniform standards for using compensatory mitigation banks to offset lost wetlands says that the policy has helped cut permitting times and expanded the mitigation banking sector to new geographic areas.
President Obama is touting the findings as part of his recently released memorandum for EPA and other agencies to enhance their mitigation policies, directing them to adopt a clear and consistent approach for avoidance and minimization of, and compensatory mitigation for, the impacts of their activities and the projects they approve, and the White House touted the EPA-Corps mitigation rule as helping encourage private investment in mitigation.
EPA and the Corps have been weighing whether to develop guidance aimed at more systematic wetlands approaches across their respective regions, and the Corps said in 2012 it would review the 2008 rule as at that time five years had passed since its inception. It is unclear why that review was delayed until earlier this year.
The retrospective review finds among its main findings that as a result of the rule, impacts to wetlands and waters covered by the CWA are "avoided and minimized as much as possible" as part of water law section 404 dredge-and-fill permits.
It also finds that the number of approved mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs has increased since 2008; that there has been an increased focus on stream mitigation since the rule's release; that use of mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs to credits to meet compensatory mitigation requirements has cut permitting times; and that since 2008 "there has been an increased reliance on mitigation bank and in lieu-fee program credits."
But the review does not reveal whether the agencies are considering new guidance on the issue, nor does it mention the EPA and Corps joint rulemaking issued earlier this year to define the CWA's scope.
While it is unclear why the review was delayed, it indicates that since the 2008 rule took effect, more than 550 private mitigation banks have been approved, resulting in up to 50 percent faster permitting time periods.
EPA and the Corps generally require development projects conducted under dredge-and-fill activities that impact wetlands to adopt mitigation plans for offsetting the impact to developed areas.
Mitigation Regulation
The agencies in their March 31, 2008, compensatory mitigation regulation clarified requirements for curbing impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources, including recommendations from the National Research Council for improving the mitigation projects. The Council recommended adoption of a watershed approach, for example, for selecting and designing approaches based on the needs of the watershed in which the impacts would occur to address factors like local hydrology, ecological benefits and land use.
The rule set ecological performance standards for various compensation efforts, required regular monitoring to ensure the standards are met, and clarified components of a compensation plan based on aquatic ecosystem science.
A major component of the rule was the creation of a preferential hierarchy of compensation mechanisms; mitigation banks are first given preference, followed by in-lieu fee programs, followed by permittee-responsible mitigation.
The agencies in their review of the rule say, "Banks and in-lieu fee programs are usually considered preferable to permittee-responsible mitigation, as they involve such aspects as: consolidating compensatory mitigation projects where ecologically appropriate, using a watershed approach, providing a greater level of financial planning, and scientific expertise, reducing temporal losses of functions, and reducing uncertainty over project success."
Under the wetlands banking program, property owners can build, enhance or restore wetlands meant to offset the destruction of wetlands elsewhere from approval of CWA section 404 permits. When builders seek a water law section 404 permit to destroy wetlands, they have to include in their application mitigation measures, which demonstrate what the applicant intends to do to offset the destruction of the wetlands.
A seller of wetland bank credits must meet certain criteria, including guarantees that the wetlands that are created through the bank will remain in perpetuity, in order to qualify.
EPA and the Corps in their joint review highlight several main findings, including that impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters are generally avoided during the section 404 permitting process due to strict minimization requirements.
The agencies also highlight an increase in the proportion of the country covered by accessible wetland and stream mitigation banks -- with the latter having increased in both focus and density since the 2008 rule.
"There has been continued growth in the numbers of approved mitigation banks both in areas where mitigation banking was prevalent prior to the 2008 Mitigation Rule and in areas previously unserved by mitigation banks, driven largely by growth in private commercial mitigation banking," the review says.
Stream Credits
The agencies also say that there has been a substantial increase in the amount of wetland and stream mitigation credits available for use as compensatory mitigation, and that the number of banks that also provide stream credits has doubled since 2008. More Corps districts have also expanded their requirements for compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable stream impacts, the document says.
The Corps' permit data collected through 2014 also show that increased use of mitigation banks can reduce permit processing time frames, and permittee-responsible mitigation may increase the time it takes for a project permit to be approved.
The data indicate that permit processing times averaged 120 days when mitigation bank credits and in lieu fee program credits averaged 136 days, compared with 177 days for on-site permittee-responsible mitigation and 243 days for off-site permittee responsible mitigation.
While the review does not mention EPA and the Corps' final CWA jurisdiction rulemaking, sources previously said the jurisdiction rule could boost creation of mitigation banks because the rule is likely to drive more CWA permitting in regions that have previously seen scant mitigation.
In particular, the rule could increase interest in stream mitigation banks and other options because it would formally extend CWA jurisdiction to all "tributaries" or waters that contribute flow, either directly or through another water to a jurisdictional waterbody characterized by the presence of the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark.
A mitigation banking source previously said, for example, that the jurisdiction rule could help "provide a floor" for Corps' district offices to take a more active approach to approving stream mitigation in accordance with CWA permits, as some states like North Carolina have done.
The White House in a summary of the president's new mitigation memorandum says that the agencies' review of the 2008 mitigation rule shows "less than 10 percent of development permits result in significant impacts to protected waters. The losses from these impacts can be offset by using mitigation banks and local restoration programs."
The summary released Nov. 3 adds that since the 2008 rule's implementation, "more than 550 new private mitigation banks have been approved creating a supply of credits for private developers to utilize and ensuring 50 percent faster permitting times. In many cases, these successful investments in environmental protection and restoration are made years in advance of development permits. The approach has been both profitable for a new class of small businesses and impact investors and effective at making Federal permitting quicker."
Obama's memo says that agencies in crafting "clean and consistent" new approaches for enhancing their mitigation policies "should also recognize that existing legal authorities contain additional protections for some resources that are of such irreplaceable character that minimization and compensation measures, may not be adequate, and therefore agencies should design policies to promote avoidance of impacts to these resources,"
Mitigation policies should establish a "net benefit goal or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal" for natural resources the agency manages that are important, scarce, or sensitive, or wherever doing so is consistent with the agency's mission, according to the president's memorandum. The language appears to be stronger than in the 2008 EPA-Corps rule, which only held that "no net loss of wetlands," is a major goal of the wetlands program.
-
UN Conference is Opportunity to Renew Climate Change Partnership with Canada
Nov 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Amanda D. Rodewald
With the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris fast approaching, speculations about its outcomes continue to grow. One key question that looms large is: Can we count on North America — the U.S. and Canada, specifically — to step up and be an earnest partner this time?
Earlier this month, Canadian Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said that he intended to launch negotiations with the United States and Mexico on a continental energy and climate accord while in Paris. It's a promising sign. The global community has long called on the U.S. and Canada to stop stalling and make real, binding commitments to reduce emissions. North America is the second largest carbon-dioxide emitting region of the world, trailing only China. The U.S. and Canada also rank among the top countries globally for per capita carbon dioxide emissions.
Unlike our neighbor Mexico, which ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1993, neither the U.S. nor Canada has agreed to its emission reduction targets or been especially ambitious with emission reduction plans. While there have been progressive moves by British Columbia to implement arevenue-neutral carbon tax and efforts by Ontario and Québec to phase out coal-powered electricity, emissions in Canada continue to rise with extraction and production of oil sands. Here in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a rule to limit carbon emissions from electric utility generating units, but Congress continues to consider legislation to override it and ban the enforcement of carbon limits on power plants.limits on power plants (H.J. Res. 67 and S. 1645, Sec. 417).
But there are signals that COP21 could be the moment when both countries shed their "split personalities" on climate change. The election of a new government in Canada marks a promising opportunity for the U.S. and Canada to be stronger allies in this fight. President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline did nothing to damper relations U.S.–Canadian relations, contrary to some pundits' predictions. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau remarked that the U.S.-Canada relationship "is much bigger than any one project," and new Liberal Government House Leader Dominic LeBlanc noted that the decision provided an opportunity to "reset the relationship" so that the two nations could work more constructively against the global threat of climate change. What's more, Trudeau has pledged to focus on climate change, reform environmental regulation, phase out subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and increase investments in clean technology. The Obama administration, likewise, has established a strong agenda for climate change, provided incentives for clean energy, and released groundbreaking policies like the EPA Clean Power Plant Rule. On top of that, millions of people in both nations are embracing the emphatic message from Pope Francis that addressing climate change is a moral obligation.
Now is the time to align our countries' efforts to realize more efficient and effective outcomes. We can create stronger links among the states and provinces that will ultimately deliver on many of our national greenhouse gas emissions goals. California and Québec already have linked cap-and-trade programs via their agreement for "The Harmonization and Integration of Cap-and-Trade Programs for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions," and Ontario is soon to join.
Partnership opportunities also exist in the development and implementation of new technology related to energy production, especially as related to commercial scale, power-generating carbon dioxide capture and storage projects. Canada recently opened the world's first carbon-capture project (Boundary Dam) in Saskatchewan and has another planned in Alberta, while the U.S. has two carbon-capture projects under construction in Mississippi and Texas, with two others planned. Encouragingly, a recent study by ICF International reported that industry could cut Canada's methane emissions by 45 percent by adopting currently available emissions-control technologies and operating practices — and at relatively low cost after initial capital investment.
The U.S. and Canada must work together to realize these and other outcomes. We can develop and align regulations, carbon financing, and market-based approaches. We can leverage government spending on and incentives for clean energy infrastructure. We can lead by example to decarbonize our electricity supplies. We have the resources, ingenuity and talent to be global leaders in responsibly addressing climate change. We only have to find the will.
With the Trudeau government's interest in making real progress on reducing carbon emissions, the U.S. has the chance to work with Canada to address the global threat of climate change. COP21 is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss to ensure a more secure and sustainable future for all.
-
Small New York Apartments Waste Big Energy
Nov 23, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
Inefficient heating systems in New York City apartments waste energy, but a new report suggests a few simple fixes.
Installing a tiny plate in each radiator's valve to slow the release of steam, adding insulation and a temperature sensor, and placing a control knob on the exterior of each radiator are a few changes recommended by the report to boost energy efficiency. Released Friday, the report was written by Natural Resources Defense Council-affiliated Energy Efficiency for All and the consulting firm Steven Winter Associates Inc.
The city's biggest share of carbon emissions from buildings come from apartments, the report notes, largely because of old heating systems designed for coal, not today's oil and gas.
New York City has set a goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions from buildings by 3.4 million tons a year by 2025. Cutting down on energy waste by implementing these small retrofits could also lead to savings of $147 million annually, according to the report.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested