Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Nov 25
-
(ACC Blog) Thirty Years Of ‘Trouble’? Try 50 Years Of Safe Use
Nov 24, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
With Black Friday quickly approaching, it’s that time of the year when some organizations try to scare consumers away from their favorite products, using “red lists” and “black lists” of “scary chemicals” that people should avoid at all costs. These lists are the new holiday staples; the new pumpkin spice lattes of the season. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
US Low-Dose Review Seeks Systematic Approach
Nov 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
Officials from the US EPA have described the agency’s efforts to develop a more systematic and transparent review process for assessing low-dose effects, associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals, during a meeting of an independent committee of experts, last week. -
Biobased Chemical Companies Petition EPA for Regulation
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A new approach to naming some biobased chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act is needed to remove obstacles they face in the marketplace, the executive director of the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 24. -
US FDA Consults On Draft Guidelines For Sunscreen Innovation Act
Nov 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US FDA has released for consultation draft guidance for industry in accordance with the Sunscreen Innovation Act. They are Sunscreen Innovation Act: section 586C(c) advisory committee process; over the counter sunscreens: safety and effectiveness data; and nonprescription sunscreen drug products... -
CSB Signals Culture Change With Second Meeting in Month
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
Underscoring her determination to change the culture at the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, new CSB chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland convened the agency's second business meeting in less than a month Nov. 23, even though little had changed since the last meeting. -
Chemical Safety Board Moves To Fire Two Top Staff
Nov 24, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Turmoil at the Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board continues as CSB is poised to fire its top two staff members who have been on paid leave since June. In a Nov. 16 letter, CSB member Kristen Kulinowski, a chemist, recommends terminating Daniel Horowitz, CSB managing director. His firing is called for because of misconduct... -
Railroads Sue DOT Over Crude-by-Rail Rule
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Association of American Railroads is suing the Transportation Department over certain costly brake and tank car requirements in its final crude-by-rail rule, according to a document filed Nov. 23 in a federal appeals court (Ass'n of Am. R.R. v. DOT, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1415, 11/23/15). The railroad group, which formally filed its lawsuit against the ... -
Court Dismisses Pipeline Safety Rule Challenge
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a natural gas pipeline group against a “miscellaneous” Transportation Department pipeline safety final rule (Interstate Natural Gas Ass'n of Am. v. DOT, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1161, 11/23/15). The U.S. Court for Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Nov. 23 that the Interstate... -
Northeast States, D.C. To Develop Climate Policies Targeting Transportation
Nov 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
Five Northeastern states and Washington, D.C., announced plans today to collaborate on a regional market-based policy to cut carbon pollution from the transportation sector. The announcement by Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, which comes ahead of next week's global climate change talks in Paris, aims to... -
Four Things To Know About Oil And Gas Methane
Nov 24, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
1. Methane is a supercharged climate pollutant: Methane is a potent greenhouse gas packing a climate punch 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is released. More than a third of the climate impact we feel today is caused by short-lived pollutants, including methane, which accounts for most of that amount. -
Lawmakers Seek Methane Comment Extension
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency should extend until Jan. 17, 2016, the comment period on a suite of proposed rules intended to limit methane emissions from oil and natural gas wells, Reps. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), chairman... -
Gas Company Criticized For Uncontrolled Methane Leak Near Porter Ranch
Nov 24, 2015 | LA Times
By Abby Sewell
Air quality officials have cited Southern California Gas Co. officials over a month-long gas leak that has been sickening residents in the San Fernando Valley community of Porter Ranch, and county supervisors sharply criticized the utility Tuesday over the issue. Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who represents the affected area... -
Third Challenge to Power Plant Effluent Limits Filed
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Sierra Club Nov. 24 filed its challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently published wastewater effluent limits for power plants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 15-73578, 11/24/15). The environmental group's petition for review was filed a day after Waterkeeper Alliance... -
Utilities Urge EPA To Ensure FIP Provides Flexibility Equivalent To ESPS
Nov 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Abby Smith
Power industry groups are urging EPA to ensure that the agency's federal plan for implementing its existing power plant greenhouse gas rule in recalcitrant states provides as much flexibility as the underlying rule provides to states that submit their own implementation plans. In testimony given at EPA's recent public hearings... -
5 Signs of Texas’ Clean Energy Momentum in 2015
Nov 25, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Peter Sopher
From Apple to General Electric, it is common practice in the corporate world for established juggernauts to invest significant sums for research and development. Why? Maintaining one’s reign atop a sector requires dynamic, cutting edge innovation. The same logic applies to state economies. And when it comes to energy... -
Environmental Groups Seek to Defend Ozone Standards
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A coalition of four environmental and public health organizations want to help defend the Environmental Protection Agency's recently revised national ozone standards from lawsuits brought by industry groups and states (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, motion to intervene filed 11/24/15). -
Greens Intervene To Defend EPA Ozone Rules
Nov 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Several environmental and health groups are moving to protect a new rule limiting ozone levels against a lawsuit. Earthjustice filed court papers on Tuesday supporting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new ozone standards in a case brought by a coal company opposed to the rule. Murray Energy Corp. sued over the ozone... -
Greens Defend Ozone Standard While Still Mulling Own Challenge
Nov 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
-
Bloomberg Derides State, Federal Action On Climate Change
Nov 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By David Giambusso
Former mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday expressed little faith in the ability of state and federal elected leaders to make progress on climate change, saying that business, consumers and mayors will have a much greater impact. "Greenhouse gases in the United States have gone down 20 percent in the last few years," Bloomberg said during... -
Environmentalists Seek To Intervene In Ozone NAAQS Suit
Nov 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are seeking to intervene on EPA's behalf in litigation where coal company Murray Energy is challenging the agency's Oct. 1 decision to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) as too strict, with advocates saying that although they would prefer an even stricter limit they want to defend...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Blog) Thirty Years Of ‘Trouble’? Try 50 Years Of Safe Use
Nov 24, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
With Black Friday quickly approaching, it’s that time of the year when some organizations try to scare consumers away from their favorite products, using “red lists” and “black lists” of “scary chemicals” that people should avoid at all costs.
These lists are the new holiday staples; the new pumpkin spice lattes of the season. This year, some of these organizations are stepping up their game a little. For example, instead of the normal, yearly report about unsafe toys, a “30 Years of Trouble” report is being released, highlighting 30 years of regulations designed to improve consumer safety.
We agree that regulations are important to keeping consumers – especially children – safe from harmful toys, and we applaud the many regulators that use sound science to develop regulations that make our world a safer place.
But, we also want to caution people about some of the overblown claims made about particular chemicals in consumer products.
Phthalates – chemicals used to soften plastics, do not migrate out of products easily. In fact, they are specifically chosen as plasticizers because they are resistant to extraction, evaporation and migration. And, while they are used in a variety of commercial applications – like wire and cable or building and construction, phthalates are not expected to be in children’s toys or childcare articles because of regulatory and market changes over six years ago.
You might also hear that phthalates are a “new danger.” Phthalate safety has been studied for several decades and biomonitoring data, conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), exist for the last decade. Phthalates are widely used and, as expected, metabolites of several of the most common phthalates are found in most of the people measured, however, the detected levels are far below those deemed to be safe by regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Europe.
When talking about chemicals in our products, it’s always important to remember dose and exposure. Just because a chemical is used in a product, detectable even in the smallest doses, it doesn’t mean it’s harmful to your health. As the CDC (2005) explains:
The presence of a chemical does not imply disease. The levels or concentrations of the chemical are more important determinants of the relation to disease, when established in appropriate research studies, than the detection or presence of a chemical.
-
US Low-Dose Review Seeks Systematic Approach
Nov 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
Officials from the US EPA have described the agency’s efforts to develop a more systematic and transparent review process for assessing low-dose effects, associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals, during a meeting of an independent committee of experts, last week.
Convened by the National Research Council (NRC), the committee has been set up, following a request from the EPA for guidance on how to assess low-dose toxicity for chemicals that affect the oestrogen, androgen or thyroid pathways.
The NRC committee will select two or more case studies to illustrate a “systematic” review that integrates data from epidemiological as well as toxicological studies.
The studies should help answer the question of whether the EPA’s current assessment practices, in terms of low-dose toxicity effects, need to be rethought or recast, said Tina Bahadori of EPA’s programme for chemical safety for sustainability research, after the meeting.
The NRC review follows its 2014 assessment of the EPA’s draft report on non-monotonic dose responses (NMDR), applied to oestrogen, androgen and thyroid pathways (CW 14 May 2013). This recommended that the agency take a more “systematic” approach to evaluate the literature on non-monotonic dose response curves.
“The question that the committee is studying is very much a science question, but [NRC's input] is ultimately going to be used in decisions that are going to be influencing a policy direction,” Dr Bahadori said. EPA’s science offices often seek guidance from the NRC on research programmes, but this request, seeking NRC guidance on the agency’s process for assessing low-dose toxicity, is a joint request from the EPA’s research and policy programmes, she added.
NRC’s input could affect the EPA’s chemical screening and regulation programmes, particularly those for endocrine disruptors (EDSP), pesticides and chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), said David Dix, director of the agency's Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
The issue of low-dose endocrine toxicity, and the potential for endocrine disruption, crosses programmes at several government agencies including the EPA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha). NRC’s review could be applicable across all of these agencies, Mr Dix added.
The EPA consulted with the agencies, when it developed the request for NRC guidance on low-dose toxicity screening, Dr Bahadori said. Andrew Rooney of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who is on the NRC panel, “brings his expertise in systematic review” to the table, she said.
Last week’s meeting, the second of four that have been planned, was primarily for information gathering, according to panel chair, David Dorman, professor at North Carolina State University. The review is expected to take two and a half years.
The committee plans to hold its next meeting in February 2016.
-
Biobased Chemical Companies Petition EPA for Regulation
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A new approach to naming some biobased chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act is needed to remove obstacles they face in the marketplace, the executive director of the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 24.
BRAG has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to start developing a rule to add new sources of fats and oils to a nomenclature system, called the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) system, that it has used since 1979, said Kathleen Roberts. The goal is to achieve regulatory consistency and equity for chemicals made with new sources of fats and oils, she said.
The SDA nomenclature system provides a set of rules to generate names for chemicals derived from fats and oils. The EPA and the Soap and Detergent Association, now the American Cleaning Institute, jointly developed the nomenclature system in the 1970s as part of the agency's effort to establish its initial list of chemicals in commerce known as the TSCA Inventory.
Under SDA, New Source Doesn't Trigger New Name
The SDA system allows chemical manufacturers to switch between 35 oil sources with similar characteristics—such as corn oil and soybean oil—without changing the name of the chemical derived from those oils.
Companies making products, such as soap or candles, using chemicals derived from an oil or fat named in accordance with the SDA system do not have to file premanufacture notices (PMNs), Roberts said.
The derived chemicals are considered essentially equivalent to the SDA-named chemical already listed on the TSCA inventory, and so TSCA does not require the agency's review before they can be made.
The SDA system applies to avocado, corn, safflower, whale, sardine, poultry and 29 other natural sources of oil listed in 1979, and it applies to the synthetic petroleum equivalents of those oils.
The problem is the SDA system doesn't accommodate innovative chemicals companies are developing through algae, plants such as camelina and jatropha, and other nonfood oil sources, Roberts said.
Equivalent Chemicals Need New Name
“These novel sources yield oils that are functionally equivalent to, and may be chemically indistinguishable from, oils listed in the SDA nomenclature system,” said BRAG's petition, which the group filed Oct. 5.
Companies, however, must submit a PMN not only for the fat or oil derived from a new source but also for every other form of the same fat or oil that a customer uses to make downstream products, Roberts said.
The burden of filing a PMN for each chemical derived from the new biobased oil compound discourages companies from using these new sources of chemicals even when they want to support a renewable source of chemicals, Roberts said.
BRAG's petition asks the EPA to develop a regulation to establish an equitable way to expand the list of oil sources eligible for the SDA nomenclature system, Roberts said.
The petition did not specify how the naming system should be updated, but it suggested the EPA use authority granted under Section 8 of TSCA, which establishes the TSCA inventory.
Updating and expanding the nomenclature system would help address problems throughout the supply chain, Roberts said.
The rulemaking petition BRAG filed is authorized under Section 21 of TSCA, which also requires the agency to respond within 90 days, or by Jan. 4, 2016.
-
US FDA Consults On Draft Guidelines For Sunscreen Innovation Act
Nov 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US FDA has released for consultation draft guidance for industry in accordance with the Sunscreen Innovation Act. They are Sunscreen Innovation Act: section 586C(c) advisory committee process; over the counter sunscreens: safety and effectiveness data; and nonprescription sunscreen drug products- content and format of data submissions to support a generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) determination under the Act.
Comments can be submitted until 22 January 2016.
-
CSB Signals Culture Change With Second Meeting in Month
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
Underscoring her determination to change the culture at the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, new CSB chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland convened the agency's second business meeting in less than a month Nov. 23, even though little had changed since the last meeting.
Sutherland, who took over as head of the CSB in August, earlier had said she wanted to ensure that the board honors its commitments, one of which is to hold at least four business meetings per year to keep the public informed. The most recent meeting concluded in less than 40 minutes.
BP Recommendation Closed
Only one item was taken up for a vote, with all four board members voting to close a recommendation given to BP.
The recommendation, which stemmed from the 2005 Texas City refinery disaster that killed 15 workers and injured 180 people, directed BP's global executive board of directors to implement a program that encourages employees to report incidents without fear of retaliation, as well as to communicate key lessons learned.
BP had provided evidence that it had acted on the recommendation and asked the CSB to close it, Sutherland said.
The vote also gave another hint of a change in attitude—in May, the CSB voted to start a rulemaking to guarantee that calendared agenda items be raised at future meetings. The BP recommendation was mentioned at a July meeting, but it had not been addressed since (45 OSHR 471, 5/7/15).
In voting to approve the measure, board member Richard Engler said the CSB should be “deeply concerned” about protecting whistle-blowers.
Plans to Improve Effectiveness
Also during the meeting, Sutherland said the CSB will soon hire a consultant to assess the board's organizational structure to determine ways of improving its effectiveness. A report and recommendations are expected by spring 2016, she said.
Sutherland further reminded attendees that the CSB is focusing on wrapping up several investigations before the end of the first quarter of 2016.
Specifically, the agency wants to hold a public meeting “in the next couple of months” in Waco, Texas, on the 2013 explosion at West Fertilizer Co. and finalize the last two volumes of its Deepwater Horizon investigation for board consideration in February, Sutherland said.
She also noted that the CSB staff has been busy juggling various jobs, including finalizing its investigations while at the same time implementing organizational fixes to increase the board's effectiveness and transparency.
The CSB's next public meeting will be held in January.
-
Chemical Safety Board Moves To Fire Two Top Staff
Nov 24, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Turmoil at the Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board continues as CSB is poised to fire its top two staff members who have been on paid leave since June.
In a Nov. 16 letter, CSB member Kristen Kulinowski, a chemist, recommends terminating Daniel Horowitz, CSB managing director. His firing is called for because of misconduct and “conduct unbecoming a federal employee,” she writes in the letter to Horowitz, citing allegations made by CSB employees.
The letter was released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a watchdog group that is representing Horowitz, a 15-year CSB staffer. The board would not provide C&EN with details about the possible firing of Horowitz and Richard Loeb, CSB general counsel. Loeb and his attorney did not respond to requests for comment.
CSB Chair Vanessa Allen Sutherland will make the final decision regarding their terminations after mid-December.
Members of Congress have sought the firing of Horowitz and Loeb after lengthy investigations by an oversight committee and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General, which alleged that the two mismanaged the agency and retaliated against CSB employees. Lawmakers and the inspector general lodged similar criticisms against former CSB chair Rafael Moure-Eraso, which led to his forced resignation in March.
If Sutherland fires the two, she will be free to fill the positions. However, PEER argues that the allegations are groundless and is preparing to challenge them.
Meanwhile, CSB has not investigated a chemical accident since last February, its longest inactive period. Over this time, the U.S. has had some 19 chemically related industrial accidents with 16 fatalities, PEER says.
-
Railroads Sue DOT Over Crude-by-Rail Rule
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Association of American Railroads is suing the Transportation Department over certain costly brake and tank car requirements in its final crude-by-rail rule, according to a document filed Nov. 23 in a federal appeals court (Ass'n of Am. R.R. v. DOT, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1415, 11/23/15).
The railroad group, which formally filed its lawsuit against the department Nov. 12, is also challenging the department's alleged lack of consideration of short line railroads and failure to include certain additional protections such as top-fitting requirements.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and was consolidated to be heard along with other lawsuits challenging the rule from environmental and industry groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute.
This latest challenge comes soon after the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration—an agency within the Transportation Department—denied the association and others' administrative petitions for review of the rule.
Some of the issues railroads are most concerned about could be addressed through policy riders that have been offered for the multiyear highway bill that Senate and House lawmakers currently are working on in conference committee (222 DEN B-1, 11/18/15).
PHMSA released its final rule (RIN 2137-AE91) in May, which updates tank car, speed, classification and other requirements for large shipments of flammable liquids such as crude oil being moved by rail.
The rule was panned by the rail, oil, chemicals and other industries that opposed electronically controlled pneumatic brake requirements and other restrictions and many of which have sued. It was also the subject of frustration for environmental and public interest groups, who said speed restrictions and tank car requirements weren't stringent or protective enough (135 DEN A-20, 7/15/15).
The rule also has received the attention of states and municipalities that have become very interested in, for example, emergency notification provisions—measures that were essentially rescinded by PHMSA after the rule was issued in favor of the policy of a previous emergency order.
This has carried over into the consolidated lawsuits, for example, through the state of Washington joining the case as a friend of environmental and public interest groups involved earlier this month (141 DEN A-7, 7/23/15).
-
Court Dismisses Pipeline Safety Rule Challenge
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a natural gas pipeline group against a “miscellaneous” Transportation Department pipeline safety final rule (Interstate Natural Gas Ass'n of Am. v. DOT, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1161, 11/23/15). The U.S. Court for Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Nov. 23 that the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America couldn't bring a legal challenge to the Transportation Department's rule while simultaneously petitioning the agency administratively to reconsider the regulation (109 DEN A-6, 6/8/15). The court's ruling doesn't affect a separate lawsuit by the group against the department over the rule, meaning that D.C. Circuit lawsuit is still ongoing (Interstate Natural Gas Ass'n of America v. DOT, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1343, motion to hold in abeyance 11/13/15). The department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration “Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations” rule (RIN 2137-AE59) alters post-construction inspection requirements, among a number of other changes. The court's Nov. 23 order is available at http://src.bna.com/beL.
-
Northeast States, D.C. To Develop Climate Policies Targeting Transportation
Nov 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
Five Northeastern states and Washington, D.C., announced plans today to collaborate on a regional market-based policy to cut carbon pollution from the transportation sector.
The announcement by Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, which comes ahead of next week's global climate change talks in Paris, aims to build on the success of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an emissions budget and trading program for nine Northeast states' power sectors. That program, along with zero-emissions vehicle initiatives, clean-energy policies and market shifts away from coal, have helped the region slash the carbon intensity of its electricity sources. Direct emissions from the transportation sector there were the largest source of carbon pollution — about 35 percent in 2011, according to a new report by the Georgetown Climate Center.
“This analysis shows that significant progress in curbing pollution from the transportation sector is not only possible, it would also provide net economic benefits,” Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center, said in a statement. “The transportation sector is the largest source of emissions in this region, yet states have many options to reduce this pollution significantly while growing their economies.”
The Georgetown report found that clean transportation policies could reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 29 and 40 percent in the region by 2030. A market-based program, carbon price or mileage-based fee would boost the range of pollution cuts to 32 percent to 40 percent by 2030 and could provide revenue to pay for infrastructure upgrades, the report said.
-
Four Things To Know About Oil And Gas Methane
Nov 24, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
1. Methane is a supercharged climate pollutant
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas packing a climate punch 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is released. More than a third of the climate impact we feel today is caused by short-lived pollutants, including methane, which accounts for most of that amount. These emissions are worsening already extreme weather patterns responsible for more frequent, higher intensity storms. And, in the absence of action, these trends are expected to accelerate.
2. The oil and gas industry is responsible for over 7 million tons of methane pollution
The U.S. oil and gas sector is estimated to release more than 7 million metric tons of methane emissions into the atmosphere each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
3. Curbing emissions at both new and existing facilities is critical
In January, the administration set a goal of reducing 40 to 45 percent of oil and gas methane emissions by 2025. To help meet that goal, the Environmental Protection Agency recently announced plans to set standards for methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas supply chain. And, the Bureau of Land Management is due to propose a rule that would limit methane for existing operations on public lands. But we can’t reach the national methane reduction goal without comprehensively regulating the numerous sources currently emitting methane. EPA estimates these existing sources will be the ones responsible for 90 percent of our nation’s methane emissions over the next few years.
4. Low-cost, American-made solutions are available
A 2014 analysis by a leading energy consulting firm identified a number of technologies made by U.S. businesses that are helping oil and gas companies find and fix methane leaks. These technologies are currently on the market and enable operators to slash over 40 percent of their emissions across the supply chain by spending, on average, less than a penny per unit of gas.
The outsized opportunity to cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gases quickly, while preventing needless energy waste, makes reducing oil and gas methane emissions the best bargain in the energy business for tackling climate change. Common-sense regulations that make best practices the standard practice can help the U.S. reach its methane reduction goal.
-
Lawmakers Seek Methane Comment Extension
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency should extend until Jan. 17, 2016, the comment period on a suite of proposed rules intended to limit methane emissions from oil and natural gas wells, Reps. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, said in a Nov. 24 letter. The EPA's current Dec. 4 deadline does not allow sufficient time to review the proposed rules, which would set the first new source performance standard for methane emissions from new oil and gas wells (RIN 2060-AS30), determine when oil and gas facilities should be aggregated for permitting purposes (RIN 2060-AS06) and a proposed federal implementation plan (RIN 2060-AS27) for minor emissions sources on Indian lands (213 DEN A-22, 11/4/15). The letter is available at http://src.bna.com/bff.
-
Gas Company Criticized For Uncontrolled Methane Leak Near Porter Ranch
Nov 24, 2015 | LA Times
By Abby Sewell
Air quality officials have cited Southern California Gas Co. officials over a month-long gas leak that has been sickening residents in the San Fernando Valley community of Porter Ranch, and county supervisors sharply criticized the utility Tuesday over the issue.
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who represents the affected area, called a potentially lengthy timeline to fix the problem "nonsensical and irresponsible."
The leak at the gas company's Aliso Canyon storage facility in the Santa Susana Mountains began Oct. 23 and is emitting methane at a rate of about 50,000 kilograms per hour, accounting for about one-quarter of all methane emissions in California.
The leak is also emitting mercaptons, additives that give the natural gas a sulfur-like smell and can cause symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, headaches and nosebleeds. Porter Ranch residents have been complaining of those symptoms since the leak began. LAUSD school in Porter Ranch shows the importance of parent involvement
"People's lives are being impacted and their property is being impacted," Antonovich said. The supervisor called gas company officials on the carpet at the panel's weekly meeting Tuesday.
Angelo J. Bellomo, director of environmental health for the county's Department of Public Health, said officials there do not expect any "long-term or permanent health effects" from the emissions, but that the temporary symptoms will continue as long as the leak does.
Gas company officials have said it could take months to stop the leak. Crews have tried unsuccessfully to stop the flow of gas by pumping fluid into the well. Natural gas leak that's sickening Valley residents could take months to fix
The company is now preparing to drill a so-called "relief well" to intercept the gas if needed, a process that could take one to three months, said Jimmie Cho, senior vice president of gas operations and system integrity.
"It is our priority to safely and expeditiously stop the leak," he said.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District issued a notice of violation to the gas company on Monday, citing the "public nuisance" created by the leak. Air quality officials said it's too early to say how much the company might be fined, but the maximum penalty for such violations is generally $75,000 a day.
Gas company vice president of customer services Gillian Wright told the supervisors, "We're deeply sorry for how the leak has impacted the community."
The company has been directed by county health officials to pay for temporary relocation for residents in the affected area. So far 259 households have applied and 67 have been placed in temporary housing, Wright said.
Interested in the stories shaping California? Sign up for the free Essential California newsletter >>
Porter Ranch resident Matt Pakucko, president of local advocacy group Save Porter ranch, said he's skeptical of claims that there will be no long-term health effects on the community.
Residents' "lives have been turned upside down this last month, and it seems to be getting worse," he told the board. "People are sick, their kids are sick. They've been going through this for a month."
The gas company is also preparing to spray an odor-mitigating solution in the area of the leak, but air quality officials expressed skepticism about that approach.
Mohsen Nazemi, the AQMD's deputy executive officer, said it's unclear if the odor mitigation would work, and even if it does, the solution has its own odor that some people might be sensitive to.
"We don't believe that this is an effective way of addressing the problem," he said.
-
Third Challenge to Power Plant Effluent Limits Filed
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Sierra Club Nov. 24 filed its challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently published wastewater effluent limits for power plants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 15-73578, 11/24/15). The environmental group's petition for review was filed a day after Waterkeeper Alliance and the Environmental Integrity Project filed their petition in the Second Circuit, and Union Electric Co., and Utility Water Act Group filed theirs on Nov. 19 in the Eighth Circuit. The environmental groups have been largely supportive of the final rule except for the provision that allowed wastewater generated prior to Jan. 1, 2018, to be exempt from the new requirements. The power sector has been critical of the EPA's cost estimates, which they rejected as being too low. The Sierra Club has until Feb. 11 to file its opening brief, with a response from EPA scheduled for March 11. The purpose of the EPA's revised effluent limits (RIN 2040-AF14), unchanged since 1982, is to regulate wastewater associated with flue gas desulfurization, fly ash, bottom ash, flue gas mercury control, combustion residual leachate from landfills and surface impoundments, nonchemical metal cleaning wastes and gasification of fuels such as coal and petroleum coke (80 Fed. Reg. 67,838). The petition for review in Sierra Club v. EPA is available at http://src.bna.com/bfC.
-
Utilities Urge EPA To Ensure FIP Provides Flexibility Equivalent To ESPS
Nov 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Abby Smith
Power industry groups are urging EPA to ensure that the agency's federal plan for implementing its existing power plant greenhouse gas rule in recalcitrant states provides as much flexibility as the underlying rule provides to states that submit their own implementation plans.
In testimony given at EPA's recent public hearings in Pittsburgh, Denver, Atlanta and Washington, D.C., industry groups urged the agency to ensure any final federal implementation plan (FIP) includes a reliability safety valve (RSV) and provide the option of either a rate- or mass-based approaches, as the agency did in its final existing source performance standards (ESPS).
Industry officials stressed the importance of ensuring the FIP provides flexibility sufficient to minimize premature retirements of fossil fuel-fired power plants. “These premature retirements would undoubtedly result in significant impacts to both our customers and our employees. EPA must get the federal plan and model trading rules right,” Mark Berry, vice president of environmental affairs at Georgia Power, said in testimony representing Southern Company at the Atlanta hearing Nov. 18.
Berry, along with other industry participants, urged EPA to broaden the scope of the FIP, chiefly by finalizing both a mass- and a rate-based option for states that become subject to the federal plan. Venu Ghanta of Duke Energy also asked the agency to approve both rate- and mass-based options in testimony during the Washington, D.C., hearing, SNL Energy reported, but noted Duke's preference for the mass-based plan if EPA were to only choose one.
The industry's requests follow prior concern from utility officials at the scope of EPA's FIP is much narrower than what any state can include in a compliance plan for the ESPS. In part, the scope is limited by what the agency can legally require a state to do under the Clean Air Act. For example, the agency is not planning to give FIP states the option of regulating new and existing plants under a single mass-based target, known as a new source complement approach.
But sources say that the proposed FIP is also narrow by design. For example, the FIP does not include a RSV, the mechanism EPA included in the final ESPS to address potential reliability concerns, because the agency says any state FIP will provide enough flexibility to allow states to comply without threatening reliability.
In addition, the agency has said it will choose one compliance approach -- either a rate- or a mass-based trading program -- for all states subject to the federal plan, potentially further limiting utilities' options.
But during hearings last week, industry groups urged EPA to address such limitations in the FIP, previewing formal comments they will submit to the agency ahead of the Jan. 21 deadline.
Reliability Safety Valve
Berry and others were especially concerned that EPA failed to propose an RSV in the proposed FIP even though the agency adopted one in the final rule, a decision that Berry calls “irresponsible.”
He continued: “In fact, EPA's proposed federal plan does not meet the same standards for addressing reliability that EPA requires from states” in the final rule.
In the proposed FIP, EPA explains that while the RSV was included in the final rule “if an unanticipated catastrophic emergency caused a conflict between maintenance of electric reliability and inflexible requirements that a state plan might impose on an affected [power plant],” the FIP's trading program will not impose such “inflexible requirements.”
“Rather . . . the very nature of the federal plan, in which affected [power plants] can obtain allowances or credits if needed, supports reliability. Therefore, a reliability safety valve for the federal plan is not needed,” EPA adds.
But Berry argues that such reasoning is flawed, and “based on an allowance or credit market that may or may not materialize. This is an unacceptable and unproven mechanism to address reliability concerns.”
The FIP serves as the federally enforceable backstop to be imposed on any state that fails to submit an initial or final state plan by the September 2016 deadline or that submits an inadequate plan.
Utility officials, seeing the FIP's limitations, have urged states to at least submit an initial plan, buying them two extra years -- until 2018 -- to submit a final plan and sparing the state from being subject to the FIP until then.
Most states seem to be developing initial compliance plans, though their commitment to final plans is less certain. For example, some states, like North Carolina, have considered whether a compliance plan should only address efficiencies at coal-fired power plants, a plan that is sure to be deemed insufficient by EPA.
The proposed FIP will serve as the basis for state-specific FIPs the agency will finalize if a state fails to submit an adequate plan, though states can exit the FIP at any time by submitting an approvable state plan to the agency.
EPA also detailed model trading rules for both the mass- and rate-based compliance pathways as part of the FIP proposal, and officials say the agency will finalize both model trading rules next summer.
But John Novak, of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), questioned the amount of flexibility and reliability assurance a trading program will provide. “We seriously question the view that the emissions 'trading market' will ensure protection of reliability and that a dynamic reliability safety valve, like the one put forward by NRECA, is not needed,” Novak said during Nov. 18 testimony at the Washington, D.C., hearing.
He added: “We don't believe the 'market' will deliver enough emission-free electric generation to compensate for an unexpected electricity shortage should a large nuclear plant suddenly go offline for an extended period of time.”
In addition, Novak urged EPA to extend its Clean Energy Incentive Program to allow renewable energy and energy efficiency projects currently in operation to be eligible for early action credits. He highlighted co-ops' increasing deployment of renewable energy and shift to lower-emitting generation, asking that EPA credit “actions already underway, as well as those planned in 2020 and 2021.”
“For example, many cooperative customers meet the government's 'low-income' definition and efforts to improve their energy efficiency should be rewarded as they are implemented and not limited to an arbitrary time period,” Novak said.
Stranded Assets
Novak and other speakers were especially concerned that EPA did not provide adequate protections for co-ops, smaller member-owned utilities that largely serve rural communities, arguing that the final ESPS and the proposed FIP do not adequately take into account the remaining useful life of existing plants.
With co-ops in particular, they argue, the cost of the ESPS will be borne by the ratepayers, and thus premature shuttering of fossil fuel-fired plants before their debt is repaid would lead to stranded assets.
Thus, co-ops are urging EPA to shore up reliability mechanisms -- such as the RSV and a reliability assessment for all plans -- in both the final ESPS rule and the federal plan, as well as reconsider the treatment of co-ops under the rule.
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., a co-op serving areas in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming, is calling on EPA to “encourage states to wait on major decisions until the [model trading] rules are finalized.”
The co-op is “concerned that states are not in a position to effectively engage stakeholders and complete the necessary analyses within the short timeframe. We are concerned that states will need additional authority, funding and staffing, all of which need to be appropriated through the legislative process,” Tri-State's Andy Berger, senior manager of environmental policy, said in testimony at the Denver hearing Nov. 16.
Georgia Power's Berry also noted timing concerns during his testimony, urging EPA to provide the public a sufficient opportunity to comment on the state-specific federal plan proposals.
“EPA must evaluate numerous state-specific considerations prior to finalizing a state's federal plan, including the remaining useful lives of sources; the unreasonable cost or physical impossibility of controlling CO2 emissions; and reliability implications that may make a less stringent standard or a longer compliance schedule reasonable,” Berry said.
“An accurate evaluation can only be completed by affording stakeholders the opportunity to provide input to EPA based on their unique knowledge of the state's electric generation fleet and transmission grid.”
EPA in the final ESPS notes that it will “go through a public notice and comment process before disapproving a submitted and complete state plan, in whole or in part,” after which it will promulgate a final federal plan for that state. The agency gives itself a period of 12 months from when it disapproves a state submission to promulgate a federal plan for that state, though it has indicated it intends to quickly turn around any final FIPs.
“We note that under [Clean Air Act] section 111(d) (2) and section 110 (c), the EPA may promulgate a final federal plan for a state immediately upon making a finding of failure to submit a state plan or initial submittal, or upon making a finding of final disapproval of a state plan,” EPA writes in the final ESPS. Despite EPA's indication that there will be a notice and comment period on any state plan disapproval, it is unclear whether stakeholders would be able to also comment on the agency's state-specific FIP.
-
5 Signs of Texas’ Clean Energy Momentum in 2015
Nov 25, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Peter Sopher
From Apple to General Electric, it is common practice in the corporate world for established juggernauts to invest significant sums for research and development. Why? Maintaining one’s reign atop a sector requires dynamic, cutting edge innovation.
The same logic applies to state economies. And when it comes to energy, Texas – where oil and gas rein king – has arguably been America’s most dominant state for the past century. Over recent years, however, technologies and developments reshaping the sector have advanced at an unprecedented rate. As a result, it’s become clear that the energy sector of the future will rely far more on clean energy and smart technologies than on fossil fuels.
The good news: Texas has by far the most potential for solar and wind generation in the United States, which means the Lone Star state might be even more energy-rich in the 21st century than it has been in the past. In addition, the state’s energy sector is trending cleaner due to market forces.
And, in case you needed more proof, 2015 has been a dynamite year for clean energy momentum in Texas. Here are five reasons why:As prices have dropped, the growth rate for renewables has accelerated.
Texas’ grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), keeps track of all electric generation in the state year to year, and evidence from 2015 suggests renewables have taken off. ERCOT’s installed wind capacity – or the amount of wind energy capable of being produced – is projected to increase nearly 25 percent from 2014 by year’s end. In addition, solar capacity has increased more than 30 percent this year. And the groundwork has been laid for an explosion in 2016: ERCOT solar installations are expected to quadruple, and wind installations are forecast to grow more than 35 percent.
Why is all this wind and solar growth occurring? Prices for both are plummeting. In particular, these competitive prices have manifested in unprecedented 2015 Texas solar power deals. Austin’s utility, Austin Energy, received offers earlier this year for solar energy at 4 cents/kilowatt hour (KWh), which led Greentech Media to declare it the “Cheapest Solar Ever.” Houston, Texas’ biggest city, also made plans for solar energy to generate 7 percent of its power by late 2016 at 4.8 cents/KWh, a price that city officials estimate could save the city more than $19 billion over the deal’s 20-year lifespan.
An encouraging sign for the future is that solar costs have historically fallen over 20 percent as global capacity has doubled, and global capacity is expected to double from the 2014 level by 2017. Austin Energy expects the price of solar to drop below 2 cents/KWh by 2020.Economics are driving corporate giants and cities (even conservative ones) toward ambitious clean energy action.
Stellar clean energy prices have contributed to big Texas news from companies and cities alike in 2015.
For example, Facebook announced earlier this year that it will power its large new data center in Fort Worth using wind energy. This announcement preceded an October 2015 announcement from Procter & Gamble and followed a 2014 statement from Mars who both will power 100 percent of their U.S.-based electricity needs using Texas wind.
And last month, the municipal electric utility that serves Denton, a North Texas city of 130,000 people, announced plans to get an impressive 70 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2019. This ambitious renewables target echoes one set earlier this year by Georgetown, a fellow Texas city just north of Austin, which is on track to be 100 percent renewable by 2017. The city’s mayor, Dale Ross, minced no words in clarifying the reason behind the decision saying, “environmental zealots have not taken over our city council…Our move to wind and solar is chiefly a business decision based on cost and price stability.”
While in the past, Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso have set ambitious clean energy goals, what is especially encouraging about Denton and Georgetown is that they are politically conservative. For example, in the 2014 Senate race, Williamson County (which subsumes Georgetown) and Denton County voted 62 percent and 68 percent for the Republican candidate, respectively. Even in Texas’ conservative cities, politics are not proving to be a hindrance as renewables begin to outcompete fossil fuels.Private utilities are increasingly opening their minds to clean energy.
Earlier this year, Luminant, the state’s biggest electricity generator with a coal-heavy fleet, announced plans to power more than 50,000 homes with West Texas solar by late 2016. This is the largest solar deal in the country for an investor-owned utility in a competitive market. Although Luminant has a long way to go, it has taken its first step in the right direction.
In addition, transmission and distribution utilities, like CenterPoint, are modernizing through an aggressive push for pervasive advanced meter installations and a cleaner energy portfolio that enables customer-owned distributed energy resources (or everyday folks adding rooftop solar to their homes, for example).5 signs of Texas’ #cleanenergy momentum in 2015.
Click To TweetThe state has experienced substantial energy efficiency progress.
According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s (ACEEE) annual state rankings, Texas was most improved – jumping from 34th most efficient state in 2014 to 26th in 2015. The state’s emphasis on adopting the newest building energy codes and ensuring compliance to them was the primary driving force behind this improvement.
In addition to building codes, the perennial energy efficiency leaders within the state, Austin Energy and CPS Energy in San Antonio, continue to be on track to achieve their ambitious energy efficiency targets. Austin Energy aims to reduce peak 2020 energy demand by 17 percent through energy efficiency. In addition, CPS Energy is midway to achieving a similarly ambitious efficiency goal for 2009-2020.The Clean Power Plan anchors a future policy landscape that is favorable for renewables.
August 2015 saw the finalization of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to limit carbon pollution from our nation’s power plants for the first time ever. By emphasizing carbon-free energy sources and energy efficiency, this policy creates a landscape for clean energy growth in the United States like never before.
Fortunately, Texas is nearly 90 percent of the way toward compliance with the plan by 2030 under “business as usual.” And the even better news is the Clean Power Plan is a major boost for clean energy progress in the state because it will:Spur clean energy activity in order to achieve the remaining 12 percent gap in compliance.Add clarity for businesses about what to expect from the state’s energy sector over the coming years, meaning they can feel confident about developing long-term strategies.Provide certainty that politically-charged decisions will not hinder Texas’ current clean energy momentum.
Over the past decade, year-on-year clean energy progress has been exponential in Texas. Not only has this trend ramped up in 2015, all signs point to 2016 leaving this year in a North Texas dust storm.
And for every Coca-Cola, which has adapted to the times decade after decade to remain on top, there are 10 companies like America Online (AOL), whose market share fizzled as its competitors’ superior technologies turned its value proposition obsolete. With more years like 2015, Texas will set itself up to be the energy world’s Coca-Cola as it dominates the sector for another century.
-
Environmental Groups Seek to Defend Ozone Standards
Nov 25, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A coalition of four environmental and public health organizations want to help defend the Environmental Protection Agency's recently revised national ozone standards from lawsuits brought by industry groups and states (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, motion to intervene filed 11/24/15).
The American Lung Association, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Physicians for Social Responsibility asked a federal appeals court to allow the groups to intervene in any litigation that seeks to roll back the 2015 ozone standards of 70 parts per billion. The motion to intervene was filed Nov. 24 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
They requested the court allow the groups to participate in lawsuits filed by coal giant Murray Energy Corp. and a coalition of five states led by Arizona, the only parties that have filed over the EPA's final rule (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the ozone standards from 75 ppb to 70 ppb (208 DEN A-20, 10/28/15).
Harold Wimmer, national president and chief executive officer of the American Lung Association, said in a Nov. 24 statement that the U.S. “cannot afford to backslide” on progress toward cleaner air. The American Lung Association is one of several public health and environmental organizations that wanted the EPA to set even stronger ozone standards than 70 ppb.
David Baron, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental and public health groups, told Bloomberg BNA that the motion to intervene on behalf of the EPA does not preclude those groups from filing their own lawsuits against the ozone rule.
“Those kinds of lawsuits aren't due until end of December,” Baron said.
Baron told Bloomberg BNA in September that it was “highly likely” that environmental groups would sue if the EPA set the ozone standards at a level of 70 ppb (187 DEN A-1, 9/28/15).
Any additional lawsuits on the 2015 ozone standards must be filed with the D.C. Circuit by Dec. 28.
-
Greens Intervene To Defend EPA Ozone Rules
Nov 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Several environmental and health groups are moving to protect a new rule limiting ozone levels against a lawsuit.
Earthjustice filed court papers on Tuesday supporting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new ozone standards in a case brought by a coal company opposed to the rule. Murray Energy Corp. sued over the ozone limits in October, arguing the rule will be expensive to implement and damage coal industry jobs.
Federal regulators published the new standards on Oct. 26, tightening the acceptable level of surface ozone from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion.
Murray sued against the rule immediately, and on Monday, groups including the American Lung Association, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) stepped in to defend it.
“EPA’s decision to strengthen ozone standards and to further protect the public’s health and welfare is necessary,” PSR Executive Director Catherine Thomasson said in a statement. “But it’s being placed in jeopardy by industry’s attempts to block the new standards.”
Industry groups fought hard against the EPA’s decision to tighten the ozone standard this year, arguing it would be among the most expensive regulations ever issued and saying it would lead to thousands of job losses. Several state attorneys general have also sued against the standard.
Green groups were not pleased with the final levels, either, saying the feds should have taken a tougher stance against ozone and tightened the acceptable levels even more.
But before the rule came out, they promised to defend whatever standard the EPA would introduce from industry lawsuits against it.
“Ozone is dangerous to kids, seniors, and asthmatics,” David Baron, Earthjustice’s managing attorney, said in a statement. “Although the new anti-smog standards don’t go far enough, they will provide important additional protection to millions of Americans. Attempts to weaken these standards are baseless."
-
Greens Defend Ozone Standard While Still Mulling Own Challenge
Nov 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A coalition of environmental and public health groups are getting involved to defend EPA’s new ozone standard from lawsuits arguing it is too strict — but that doesn’t mean they won’t also sue to get a stronger standard.
In a filing in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, NRDC, the American Lung Association and Physicians for Social Responsibility ask to be allowed to defend the new standard of 70 parts per billion in lawsuits brought by coal producer Murray Energy and five states led by Arizona.
But Earthjustice air campaign manager Jessica Hodge says the groups are still entertaining the possibility of suing EPA separately.
“We know that 70 is more protective than 75 so we are filing to support EPA’s ability to strengthen the standard,” Hodge said in an email. “At the same time we believe 70 did not follow the latest science and doesn’t go far enough. We are pursuing our options on challenging the standard as too weak.”
The coalition’s filing notes that the groups disclose that they had sought a more stringent standard of 60 ppb.
But, they argue, sending the standard back to 75 ppb would expose people to "levels of ozone pollution that… endangers their health and welfare." The green groups also argue that because they disagree with EPA on the final standard, they "offer a perspective different from the one EPA is likely to provide."
-
Bloomberg Derides State, Federal Action On Climate Change
Nov 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By David Giambusso
Former mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday expressed little faith in the ability of state and federal elected leaders to make progress on climate change, saying that business, consumers and mayors will have a much greater impact.
"Greenhouse gases in the United States have gone down 20 percent in the last few years," Bloomberg said during a conference at the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan. "Why? Because the private sector financed the campaign, 'Beyond Coal,' ... and we've closed 200 of the 500 coal-fired power plants in this country. No thanks to the federal or state governments. No thanks to them."
The theme of the conference was "Confronting Climate Change Ahead of the Paris Talks," and Bloomberg was the main speaker. Bloomberg is the U.N. secretary-general's special envoy for cities and climate change, and one of his widely acknowledged legacies as mayor is his work on cutting pollution and setting the city on a more sustainable path.
Bloomberg made it clear that he is skeptical of state and federal elected officials, saying they are ruled almost entirely by a desire for re-election.
"If they are against doing anything about climate change it's because somebody is funding their campaign or they think that's where the public is," Bloomberg said. "They don't have any views. They don't have any beliefs."
Bloomberg said the public is not nearly as divided on climate change as political leaders and candidates.
"The public is in the middle when it comes to climate change," he said. "They're not crazy right and maybe they're not crazy left."
Bloomberg had a barbed comment for Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose administration just this week mandated that by 2030 half of the state's power will come from renewable, clean resources.
"The governor, for reasons beyond me, wanted to close Indian Point ... and he wanted to keep some coal-fired power plants open," Bloomberg said, referring to plants Dunkirk and Cayuga. "In America something like 13,000 Americans were dying every year from the pollutants coal-fired power plants put in the air. That's down to 6,000 by the modeling. Why? Because of the coal-fired power plants that were closed."
The Beyond Coal campaign, a Sierra Club initiative funded in large part by Bloomberg Philanthropies, was coincidentally staging a protest of Cuomo's coal policy at City Hall just before Bloomberg began his remarks uptown.
Cuomo's office did not respond directly to Bloomberg's comments but referred POLITICO New York to remarks the governor made last month regarding Indian Point's proximity to one of the biggest population centers in the world.
"It is the nuclear plant that is in the most dense community on the planet," Cuomo said last month. "It is right outside of New York City and their best answer if there is a nuclear accident is that everyone should take an iodine pill. They are supposed to have an evacuation plan for the surrounding area, when the surrounding area is New York City, you cannot evacuate New York City, what is the plan? Jump in the river and swim to New Jersey?"
Bloomberg criticized arguments in support of coal and other pollutive fuels as job savers when people's lives and health are in the balance.
"I've always wondered why newspapers don't say 'Joe says it's going to cost five jobs. Here are five people that are going to die,'" Bloomberg said. "Now five jobs, five lives — you're not going to win that battle, I would think."
He criticized U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the chamber's majority leader, in the same vein.
"Mitch McConnell went on and on because he comes from Kentucky, it's a coal state, about jobs, jobs, jobs," Bloomberg said. "Two problems with that: the comparison of jobs versus lives saved, but number two there aren't any jobs anymore."
Bloomberg said coal mining in the U.S. was now largely mechanized.
"Those days of Billy Elliot working in the mines are long gone here," he said. "There are more jobs being created in renewable energy than are being lost from coal by an order of magnitude."
Bloomberg's faith in the private sector is not a new position. He has long argued that companies that do not plan for and mitigate climate change are destined for failure. He made a similar analogy Monday.
"Can you imagine a business person, has a company, has a plant near the water, either not building a berm, moving the plant, getting an insurance policy?" Bloomberg said. "If they didn't do that they'd get fired by the shareholders."
Bloomberg said he draws hope from the private sector and the work of pragmatic mayors on combating climate change.
"It's funny but I'm a big believer in the private sector on the environment because the federal and state governments just can't do it," he said. "The business community no longer has any part of the federal government that represents them. It used to be that the Republican Party was the party of business. That's long since gone away. So the business community is sort of stuck in the middle. So they have to just do results. They're not going to get anything out of the government."
-
Environmentalists Seek To Intervene In Ozone NAAQS Suit
Nov 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are seeking to intervene on EPA's behalf in litigation where coal company Murray Energy is challenging the agency's Oct. 1 decision to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) as too strict, with advocates saying that although they would prefer an even stricter limit they want to defend EPA's revised standard.
“The EPA’s new standards were years overdue, and though they are weaker than the science-backed standards called for by medical experts, they are more protective than the standards they replaced and will help prevent many hundreds of hospital visits, asthma attacks, and deaths,” says a Nov. 24 press release from the environmentalist law firm Earthjustice announcing its filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of four citizen groups.
Earthjustice's Nov. 24 motion to intervene in defense of EPA represents the American Lung Association, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR).
“We support EPA strengthening ozone health protections, despite the weakness of the final standard. Communities around the country deserve further protections and continued progress toward clean air. EPA’s decision to strengthen ozone standards and to further protect the public’s health and welfare is necessary. But it’s being placed in jeopardy by industry’s attempts to block the new standards,” PSR Executive Director Catherine Thomasson said in the release.
EPA's final rule, formally published in the Oct. 26 Federal Register, tightened the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb.
GOP lawmakers and industry groups argue there is no scientific justification for the stricter limit and that it will put areas out of attainment with the standard, requiring them to impose potentially costly controls on industrial sources of ozone-forming emissions. EPA's critics say that this “nonattainment” status hurts affected local economies.
Environmentalists and public health advocates meanwhile argued in their public comments that only an even more stringent 60 ppb ozone NAAQS would protect public health, though they want to intervene in the suit to protect at least the 70 ppb limit from the suit filed by Murray Energy and a separate challenge filed by a coalition of five states.
In Congress, lawmakers critical of the stricter NAAQS are pursuing various legislative options to contest it, including a Senate measure seeking to undo the rule entirely and a new House bill aiming to “harmonize” deadlines for states' compliance plans for the new standard.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested