Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Nov 30
-
Hearing To Receive Testimony On The Well Control Rule And Other Regulations Related To Offshore Oil And Gas Production.
Dec 1, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Dec 1, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Contaminating Our Bodies With Everyday Products
Nov 28, 2015 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Kristof
IN recent weeks, two major medical organizations have issued independent warnings about toxic chemicals in products all around us. Unregulated substances, they say, are sometimes linked to breast and prostate cancer, genital deformities, obesity, diabetes and infertility. -
What Comes Out in the Wash
Nov 28, 2015 | The New York Times
By Mark Anthony Browne
ASK most people about the problem of waste plastics in the environment and they will talk about plastic bags caught in trees and the vast slicks of plastic trash found in remote areas of the Atlantic and Pacific. But the most menacing plastic waste problem is less visible and not so well publicized. -
OMB Reviewing Final Lead Paint Rule
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing a final Environmental Protection Agency rule that would amend the training certification and other requirements of the agency's lead-based paint program (RIN: 2070-AK02). The rule, proposed in January, would allow renovators to take a refresher course online and remove... -
Proposed City Council Bill Could Ban Most Beauty Products
Nov 29, 2015 | NY Post
By Amber Jamieson
New York City women might want to start stockpiling their favorite mascaras and face creams before most makeup is potentially banned under a controversial bill being mulled by the City Council. The new measure calls for a ban on the sale of “microbeads,” a plastic bead often used in exfoliators, face cleaners and toothpaste, that clog and pollute... -
(ACC Mentioned) Much Ado About Fracking
Nov 27, 2015 | Canadian Plastics
With all the controversy swirling around hydraulic fracturing these days, you’d think it had just been unleashed from out of nowhere on an unsuspecting public — sort of like Godzilla descending suddenly on Tokyo to terrify thousands of fleeing Japanese. But the truth is, it’s been around longer than a lot of us. -
Washington Crude-by-Rail Terminal Proposal Advances
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A state agency's draft environmental impact statement on a proposed crude-by-rail oil terminal for Vancouver, Wash., sees the probability of a major oil spill as “extremely low” for the trains that would bring crude to the port from the Bakken oil field. Release of the draft EIS Nov. 24 by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council... -
81 Amendments Proposed for House Energy Bill
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Measures that would repeal the renewable fuel standard, allow crude oil exports to Mexico and require a federal study on the volatility of oil shipped by rail are among the 81 amendments proposed for House energy legislation slated for the floor the week of Nov. 30. It remains to be seen which amendments, if any, will be approved... -
More Time to Comment on Offshore Alaska Oil Plan
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The public comment period will be extended for a plan to develop another offshore oil field in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Hilcorp Alaska LLC has proposed to build a gravel island for development of the Liberty oil field, from which oil would be piped ashore and then to the Trans-Alaska... -
Senators To Vet Contentious Offshore Safety Proposal
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
Senators tomorrow will vet a proposed federal rule that would regulate the safety of offshore oil and gas facilities, which industry has warned could harm their operations. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hear tomorrow from a top official within the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement... -
Climate Will Supplant Shale As Top Energy Disruptor
Nov 27, 2015 | Reuters
By Kevin Allison
Move over, shale: climate change will supplant the U.S. oil revolution as the energy industry’s No. 1 disruptor in 2016. The world’s politicians may be about to get serious on cutting greenhouse gases at the United Nations climate summit in Paris over the next two weeks. The consequences for the industry will be longer lasting than the recent revolution... -
Amendments Galore Filed To House Package
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
Lawmakers from both parties have filed dozens of amendments to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's broad energy bill ahead of this week's floor debate. The House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet this evening and tomorrow to sort through the multitude of amendments to the bill (H.R. 8), which aims to increase efficiency... -
House to Examine FERC Role in Changing Energy Landscape
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will be the subject of a House hearing Dec. 1 featuring testimony by Chairman Norman Bay and the agency's three other sitting commissioners. The Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, grid security, and natural gas pipeline permitting will be among the... -
FERC Heads To Hill To Discuss Reliability As EPA Fight Heats Up
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
The head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will appear on Capitol Hill tomorrow to discuss potential effects of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan on the electric grid, just as the House prepares to vote on language condemning the landmark climate rule. FERC Chairman Norman Bay and his colleagues will testify before... -
Congress to Launch More Bids to Undercut Climate Talks
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Republicans in Congress are readying an additional hearing, votes to undermine the centerpieces of the Obama administration's efforts on climate change and several possible other attempts to undercut the ability of U.S. negotiators to reach an international accord to address climate change in Paris. -
Mayors, California Governor Urge Strong Climate Deal
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
More than 60 U.S. mayors, including the leaders of Philadelphia, Houston and Los Angeles, and California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) are encouraging the Obama administration to complete a strong international agreement on climate change in Paris. The mayors noted the two weeks of United Nations negotiations, which were scheduled to begin Nov. 30... -
Business Said to Lack Tools for Long-Term Climate Planning
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Several businesses already have factored the short-term effect of a changing climate into their decision making, but few have incorporated long-term considerations into their plans, often citing a lack of readily available federal data and tools, a White House advisory panel said. -
Obama's Leadership To Be Tested In Paris
Nov 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Nahal Toosi
President Barack Obama kicks off a major climate change conference in Paris on Monday with a brief speech aimed at rallying the world to reach a deal to cut greenhouse gases and sealing his environmental legacy with or without Congress' help. The U.N. climate talks risk being overshadowed by concerns about terrorism following... -
Obama Eyes Legacy-Defining Climate Pact
Nov 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama heads to Paris Monday seeking to clinch an international climate pact that would help define his legacy. But major obstacles stand in the way of that goal, including the dispute over whether the document will be legally binding for all the countries participating or whether political pressure would be the main enforcement... -
World Leaders Pledge to Double Clean Energy Budgets
Nov 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
President Barack Obama and 18 other world leaders meeting Monday in Paris will pledge to double their research and development budgets into clean energy over the next five years, White House officials said today. The 19 participating countries are Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Indonesia... -
Californians To Invest Big In Bill Gates’ Clean Energy Fund
Nov 29, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By David Siders
Gov. Jerry Brown and a group of California lawmakers will not leave for Paris for international climate talks until later this week, and their role – as world leaders try to hammer out an accord – will largely consist of agitating from the sidelines. But money from the state – in many ways a more significant contribution – is already on its way. -
Wood-Based Product May Be Regulated as Fuel: EPA
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Ware
A wood-based alternative fuel may be regulated as a fuel rather than as a solid waste and is therefore subject to less stringent Clean Air Act standards when burned, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Evergreen Fuel, manufactured by Evergreen Recycling Solutions LLC, of Newark, N.J., is a nonwaste fuel product
Congressional Hearings
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Dec 1, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Dec 1, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Contaminating Our Bodies With Everyday Products
Nov 28, 2015 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Kristof
IN recent weeks, two major medical organizations have issued independent warnings about toxic chemicals in products all around us. Unregulated substances, they say, are sometimes linked to breast and prostate cancer, genital deformities, obesity, diabetes and infertility.
“Widespread exposure to toxic environmental chemicals threatens healthy human reproduction,” the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics warned in a landmark statement last month.
The warnings are a reminder that the chemical industry has inherited the mantle of Big Tobacco, minimizing science and resisting regulation in ways that cause devastating harm to unsuspecting citizens.
In the 1950s, researchers were finding that cigarettes caused cancer, but the political system lagged in responding. Now the same thing is happening with toxic chemicals.
“Exposure to toxic chemicals during pregnancy and lactation is ubiquitous,” the organization cautioned, adding that virtually every pregnant woman in America has at least 43 different chemical contaminants in her body. It cited a National Cancer Institute report finding that “to a disturbing extent babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’”
This warning now represents the medical mainstream. It was drafted by experts from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the World Health Organization, Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and similar groups.
Such medical professionals are on the front lines. They are the ones confronting rising cases of hypospadias, a birth defect in which boys are born with a urethra opening on the side of the penis rather than at the tip. They are the ones treating women with breast cancer. Both are conditions linked to early exposure to endocrine disrupters.
The other major organization that recently issued a warning is the Endocrine Society, the international association of doctors and scientists who deal with the hormone system.
“Emerging evidence ties endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure to two of the biggest public health threats facing society — diabetes and obesity,” the Endocrine Society said in announcing its 150-page “scientific statement.” It added that “mounting evidence” also ties endocrine disrupters to infertility, prostate cancer, undescended testicles, testicular cancer, breast cancer, uterine cancer, ovarian cancer and neurological issues. Sometimes these problems apparently arise in adults because of exposures decades earlier in fetal stages.
“The threat is particularly great when unborn children are exposed,” the Endocrine Society warned.
Tracey J. Woodruff of the University of California, San Francisco notes, “One myth about chemicals is that the U.S. government makes sure they’re safe before they go on the marketplace.” In fact, most are assumed to be safe unless proved otherwise.
Of the 80,000 or more chemicals in global commerce today, only a tiny share have been rigorously screened for safety. Even when a substance is retired because of health concerns, the replacement chemical may be just as bad.“It’s frustrating to see the same story over and over,” Professor Woodruff said. “Animal studies, in vitro tests or early human studies show that chemical A causes adverse effects. The chemical industry says, ‘Those are bad studies, show me the human evidence.’ The human evidence takes years and requires that people get sick. We should not have to use the public as guinea pigs.”
Europe is moving toward testing chemicals before they go on the market, but the United States is a laggard because of the power of the chemical lobby. Chemical safety legislation now before the Senate would require the Environmental Protection Agency to start a safety assessment of only 25 chemicals in the first five years — and House legislation isn’t much better.
“There are almost endless parallels with the tobacco industry,” says Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Texas at Austin and editor of the journal Endocrinology.
For now, experts say the best approach is for people to try to protect themselves. Especially for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, and for young children, try to eat organic, reduce the use of plastics, touch cash register receipts as little as possible, try to avoid flame-retardant couches and consult the consumer guides at ewg.org.
The chemical lobby spent the equivalent of $121,000 per member of Congress last year, so expect chemical companies to enjoy strong quarterly profits, more boys to be born with hypospadias and more women to die unnecessarily of breast cancer.
-
Nov 28, 2015 | The New York Times
By Mark Anthony Browne
ASK most people about the problem of waste plastics in the environment and they will talk about plastic bags caught in trees and the vast slicks of plastic trash found in remote areas of the Atlantic and Pacific. But the most menacing plastic waste problem is less visible and not so well publicized.
It’s the tiny fibers, less than one millimeter wide, that come from our clothes when we launder them. These fibers make their way into the world’s rivers and seas through the sewage and drainage systems of our cities. The pollution is worst near urban areas, but it is global and has increased by more than 450 percent since the 1960s.
These minute strands of plastic — virtually invisible to the human eye — are made from a variety of natural (animal and plant) and artificial polymers. You can’t see them when you walk along the seashore at low tide, but they’re there, by the ton.
In the samples my team and I recovered on shorelines from the poles to the Equator between 2004 and 2007, they were often over six times more abundant by number than larger plastic debris like bottles, bags and wrappers.
The presence of such fibers in the environment is particularly problematic not only because they sneak their way into the food chain, but also because they can damage the lungs of humans and animals. It’s not just plastics; natural fibers, including those from cotton and flax, can also harm lung function and cause scarring.
Tiny fiber-size synthetic polymers migrate from the lungs and guts into the bloodstream, potentially circulating for months. In extreme cases in the past, research established a link between textiles containing fibers of chrysotile (a type of asbestos) and cancer and death in humans.
At the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in California, my colleagues and I reviewed numerous medical, toxicological and ecological studies about the links between micro- and nano-size debris and disease and mortality in humans and wildlife. Medical studies showed, for example, that injecting hamsters with plastic particles caused blood cells to form clots. Other research found that plastics can cause damage by increasing concentrations of metal and protein in cells. This damages DNA, and kills cells and causes tissue inflammation.
It’s not just ingestion of microscopic synthetic polymers that’s a problem for humans and wildlife. These microplastic fibers (including natural fibers) are often infused with harmful chemicals, including dyes that can cause skin rashes in humans, surfactants often used in detergents that are known to compromise the immune system, and antimicrobials like triclosan, which can kill wildlife.
There are large concentrations of such chemicals in clothing and in areas that receive discharges from textile factories, storm-water drains and sewage-treatment plants. These areas also contain significant levels of textile fibers.
The garment industry largely works within rules made by governments. Every year, apparel companies turn 70 million metric tons of fibers into 400 billion square meters of fabric, to make around 150 billion items of clothing. These companies aren’t funding scientific work to determine whether these fibers are safe for the environment or for our health.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
This is an example where government-mandated proof-of-harm policies encourage companies to manufacture products without testing their impacts on ecology and health. Manufacturers have no incentive to innovate and so reduce fiber pollution. Instead, governments must lead by creating proof-of-safety policies that require the industry to reduce emissions of toxic fibers from products.
A new policy regime could also encourage ecologists, designers and engineers to work together to identify features of clothing that cause the shedding of fibers, developing safer alternatives. With some plastics found as debris, governments and businesses are altering how products are made, used and disposed of.
Deposit schemes for bottles and cans, for example, discourage littering and can ease the financial burden of recycling on the taxpayer. Many state governments, including California, Illinois, New Jersey, Maine, Colorado, Maryland, Indiana, Connecticut and Wisconsin, are banning “microbeads” — plastic exfoliants used in cosmetics.
The problem with such initiatives is that they often bypass research into their impacts. And without proper scientific measurement, we can’t be sure of the consequences of actions intended as meliorative.
We need to apply similar measures to our most abundant form of plastic debris: clothing fibers. Even where regulations apply, government and industry have not invested in the scientific research needed to determine whether they’re effective.
The Benign by Design program, a partnership between the University of New South Wales in Australia, the University of California, Northwestern University and the clothing designer Eileen Fisher, aims to change this. We’re pioneering tests to investigate whether washing apparel with filters can control emissions of toxic fibers. We also hope to resolve the longstanding debate over whether natural fibers are more damaging than plastic ones — an issue of obvious concern to consumers.
Industry-led changes by market leaders can mitigate ecological harm, though it is less clear how useful their existing measures are. There is a tool used by the apparel and footwear industries to try to reduce the environmental impacts of their products: the Higg Index. It is designed to monitor and reduce the quantity of water, energy, chemicals and labor manufacturers use, as well as how much waste they produce.
Like many “green chemistry” programs, it uses laboratory data about chemicals that, at sufficient concentrations, can damage organisms to modify products. The result is supposed to be cleaner processing and fewer hazardous chemicals.
To date, though, no one has done the scientific work to show whether this approach reduces the emissions and impacts of fibers. Without more research, green chemistry programs may encourage companies to abandon older chemicals that are more likely to be regarded as hazardous simply because they’ve been tested more, and to replace them with newer chemicals that may be mistakenly believed safer.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Laboratory tests are insufficient because they can’t reproduce the complex mixture of chemicals found on fibers in nature. Polymers at large often accumulate additional chemicals and biological material, including pathogens, which affects their potential to harm humans and wildlife.
A new partnership between government and industry to reduce clothing fiber pollution would fund more research and set precautionary standards. One important task would be to establish whether there is a safe “load” of fibers by using field experiments to determine how many fibers can be added to the ecosystem before there is an impact, with similar studies needed to examine effects on human health.
We also need garment makers and the manufacturers of washing machines to work together in a coordinated way to make ecologically sound decisions about materials and technologies. Right now, we can only hypothesize about what might reduce the shedding of fibers during laundering — perhaps altering their strength and type, or the ways they’re woven or filtered by washing machines — so we need to run tests to find this out. This knowledge could help the industry achieve its wish to reduce impacts on ecology and health.
Public awareness about the need for safer fabrics and cleaning methods is vital: The gold standard would be a labeling program for companies to signal their ecological compliance with trust and transparency. Something as small as the label on your winter fleece could make a world of difference.
-
OMB Reviewing Final Lead Paint Rule
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing a final Environmental Protection Agency rule that would amend the training certification and other requirements of the agency's lead-based paint program (RIN: 2070-AK02). The rule, proposed in January, would allow renovators to take a refresher course online and remove the requirement that firms, training providers and individuals apply for and be certified or accredited in each EPA-administered jurisdiction where they work, the EPA said in its description of the rulemaking (80 Fed. Reg. 1873). The goal is to increase efficiencies while lowering applicants' burden and costs, the EPA said.
-
Proposed City Council Bill Could Ban Most Beauty Products
Nov 29, 2015 | NY Post
By Amber Jamieson
New York City women might want to start stockpiling their favorite mascaras and face creams before most makeup is potentially banned under a controversial bill being mulled by the City Council.
The new measure calls for a ban on the sale of “microbeads,” a plastic bead often used in exfoliators, face cleaners and toothpaste, that clog and pollute water waters and affect marine life.
But in the wording of the council bill, a “microbead” is defined as “any manufactured particle of plastic that measures five millimeters or less in size and is added to a personal care product.”
The industry says that broad definition would include polymers that commonly appear in cosmetic products, including nail polish, lipstick, foundation, mascara and sunscreens.
“Unfortunately, the New York City Council is proposing action on cosmetics and personal-care-products ingredients well beyond plastic microbeads to a wide spectrum of ingredients that scientific research has not connected to environmental issues,” said Beth Lange, chief scientist of the Personal Care Council, a cosmetics industry group.
Cities and states across the country are introducing microbead bans, but most limit the wording to plastics “used to exfoliate or cleanse.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Much Ado About Fracking
Nov 27, 2015 | Canadian Plastics
With all the controversy swirling around hydraulic fracturing these days, you’d think it had just been unleashed from out of nowhere on an unsuspecting public — sort of like Godzilla descending suddenly on Tokyo to terrify thousands of fleeing Japanese.
But the truth is, it’s been around longer than a lot of us. Commonly called fracking, the process was first commercially introduced in the oil and gas industry way back in 1949, and involves pumping water, chemicals, and a proppant down an oil or gas well under high pressure to break open channels in the rock holding the oil or gas. The proppant can be a material such as sand, and is designed to hold the cracks open once they’re formed. This allows oil or gas to flow to the well with less resistance, which increases the amount of material that can be recovered.
It sounds simple enough, but in recent years fracking has become a political hot potato of the first magnitude, compared to which the battle over the Keystone XL pipeline sometimes seems as friendly as a knitting circle. France has banned the procedure, as has New York State. Closer to home, the governments of both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have banned large-scale fracking operations; Quebec, meanwhile, enacted a fracking moratorium several years ago that prompted a NAFTA lawsuit against Canada by U.S. firm Lone Pine Resources. So after more than 60 years, why is the process suddenly such a big deal, dividing hundreds of thousands of people into two sharp camps of supporters and opponents, both claiming to have science on their side?
There are two reasons. First, until recently, the application of fracking was on conventional, vertical wells. But over the past decade or so, fracking began to be commercially applied to horizontal wells. This allowed more area underground to be accessed, which required ever greater amounts of water and fracking chemicals that were often being pumped down to pay zones beneath aquifers. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, new developments in drilling and extraction technology have opened the door for the capture of more than 2,000 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas — enough to take us, at current rates of consumption, well into the next century.
The second reason for all the controversy is that the marriage of fracking with horizontal drilling has enabled economic oil and gas production in North America’s many shale formations for the first time. And here, as they say, is the rub. One of the largest shale gas formations is the gigantic Marcellus Shale Basin, which lies underneath parts of New York, Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, western Maryland, and West Virginia — areas with large numbers of people who are unaccustomed to having oil and gas exploration carried out in their backyards. In other words, a significant chunk of the American populace suddenly has a stake in the issue.
GET CRACKING
It’s because of the new underground vistas created by horizontal drilling that fracking has become particularly important to the chemical industry — and by extension, to plastics processors. The oil and natural gas recovered contain many of the vital raw materials that are used to manufacture plastics goods. Even better, the sudden tide of inexpensive natural gas and related feedstocks has transformed North America into one of the cheapest places on earth to make plastic. As a result, the petrochemical industry in both Canada and the U.S. has launched the biggest building spree it has seen in many years.According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the shale boom has already resulted in more than US$125 billion in investments in U.S. chemical facilities, with more on the way. These projects — consisting of new factories, expansions, and process changes to increase capacity — could lead to US$81 billion per year in new chemical industry output and 637,000 permanent new jobs by 2023, the ACC said. And more than half of the investment is by firms based outside the U.S. In Canada, meanwhile, Nova Chemicals Corporation is also investing heavily, and has revamped its Corunna, Ont. cracker to utilize up to 100 per cent natural gas liquid feedstock from the Marcellus Shale.
Access to low-cost natural gas is one incentive; location is a second. Currently, most of the oil and natural gas processed in the U.S. is handled on the Gulf Coast, but bottlenecks are developing there, and there’s a big transportation cost savings to processing it close to the source in the Marcellus Shale, which is within a 250 mile radius of some 50 per cent of North America’s plastics processing industry.
The growing investments of the chemical makers have been matched, however, by growing opposition to fracking among others — opposition that has come to centre around three main issues. The first is the risk of contaminating water supplies with fracking fluids — and it’s the issue that tends to get the most attention. On the one hand, a report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that fracking “results in impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells.”
On the other, fracking proponents argue that there are thousands of feet of impermeable rock between the fossil fuel pay zones where fracking occurs and any aquifers, meaning there is really no chance for fracking fluids to migrate from the fracking location to the aquifer. In his 2014 book Groundswell: The Case for Fracking, Canadian author Ezra Levant took a state-by-state look at fracking in the U.S. “Though hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 60 years in Texas…records do not reflect a single documented surface or groundwater contamination case associated with it,” he writes. “Also, drillers have been fracking for oil in South Dakota since the Fifties, and for gas since 1970, and still the state reports ‘no documented case of water well or aquifer damage by the fracking of oil or gas wells.’”
In truth, competing studies have been commissioned by both sides, with some concluding that fracking could contaminate aquifers, and others concluding that there is virtually no possibility of this happening. In perhaps the most objective study, a task force commissioned by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu found that “the likelihood of properly injected fracturing fluid reaching drinking water through fractures is remote.”
And even if it does happen? A 2014 Yale University study estimated that shale gas production contributes over US$100 billion to U.S. consumers annually, through job creation and lower gas prices providing relief in the form of lower heat and electricity bills. Compared to which, the study estimated that the cost of groundwater contamination could be US$250 million per year, which is a mere 1/400th the estimated benefit.
CARBON QUESTION
Opponents of fracking claim, secondly, that the procedure adds carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. This is an argument that supporters of fracking also dispute, because — as Levant points out in his book — “the U.S. has seen the most dramatic decline in carbon emissions of any country in the world over the past five years, and fracking is one reason for that.” Cheap natural gas, Levant and others argue, has resulted in many utilities swapping in cleaner burning natural gas to replace coal.The opponents, in turn, counter by saying that if the level of methane leakage from fracking operations is sufficiently high, methane’s contribution to carbon emissions will more than offset the benefit from replacing coal. A widely cited — and widely criticized — study by Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology at Cornell University, concluded that the leakages rates were indeed so high that natural gas produced from fracking was worse overall than coal. The EPA contradicted Howarth’s study and found far lower rates of methane leakage, as did a study from the University of Texas.
Third, there’s a subset of die-hard environmentalists who, it’s fair to say, don’t want to see any expansion in the usage of natural gas, period — even if it’s replacing coal — since the chemical is still a fossil fuel, and all fossil fuel consumption, they believe, should be replaced by green energy alternatives. In Canada, for example, both the Green Party and the David Suzuki Foundation have called repeatedly for a shift to renewable energy sources in direct proportion to the phase-out of fossil fuels; and not surprisingly, both are highly critical of fracking.
For the moment, the last word might just belong to chemical engineer and Wall Street Journal science writer Robert Rapier. “Ultimately, fracking is like so many other ways of producing energy — there is always a cost associated with it, and as a result we make trade-offs, which are acceptable to some, but not to others,” he writes. “Thus, fracking will continue to be embraced by some for the economic benefits and condemned by others for the environmental risks.”
To this latter group, then, it’s as dangerous as our old friend Godzilla.
-
Washington Crude-by-Rail Terminal Proposal Advances
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A state agency's draft environmental impact statement on a proposed crude-by-rail oil terminal for Vancouver, Wash., sees the probability of a major oil spill as “extremely low” for the trains that would bring crude to the port from the Bakken oil field.
Release of the draft EIS Nov. 24 by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council of Washington kicked off a public comment period that will end Jan. 8. The comment period plays out against a background of debates over oil train safety and a possible expansion of crude oil exports.
The agency considered and criticized various alternatives in the draft EIS and narrowed the choices to two: (1) the proposed project and (2) a “no action” option. The agency is to recommend one of those alternatives to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who has the authority to approve or reject the project.
The proposed $210 million terminal would be a joint venture of Tesoro Corp., one of the nation's larger refining and fuel marketing companies, and Savage Cos., a logistics company. Crude oil would be transported from the Bakken Shale in the Northern Plains to the terminal at an average rate of four trains a day, or 360,000 barrels of oil a day.
The oil would be loaded onto tanker ships on the Columbia River at an average of a little less than one ship a day for movement primarily to refineries on the U.S. West Coast.
Tesoro said construction of the terminal would take six to 12 months once permits were received.
Environmental Mitigation Planned
The draft EIS did not appear to see environmental problems from the terminal that could not be eased with mitigation measures, including those written into the proposal from Tesoro and Savage. The draft contained a broad consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, as required by the state agency (65 DEN A-15, 4/4/14).
The draft identified additional mitigation steps such as reduced ship speeds in some areas, enhanced habitat along some Columbia River shorelines and erosion control barriers during construction. It also said there is a need to study additional efforts to reduce rail congestion.
The draft EIS said the same main rail lines that would serve the new terminal already carry four oil trains a day en route to refineries on the Pacific Northwest Coast.
BNSF Railway Co. owns or controls the rail infrastructure in the Bakken region, and rail transport agreements and rates tend to favor a single carrier, the draft EIS said. That led the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to assume BNSF would be the likely rail transporter of crude oil from the Bakken to the proposed terminal, although Union Pacific Railroad also has operating rights over portions of the BNSF lines and could deliver crude to the terminal.
Tesoro and Savage said in September the rail cars that would be used for the Vancouver terminal would meet new federal requirements for a thicker tank shell, full-height head shields, a tank jacket and upgraded bottom outlet valve handle. Stronger standards for oil transportation by rail also have triggered arguments and litigation between industry and the federal government over the issue of new brake systems (227 DEN A-3, 11/25/15).
Hearing Process Also Possible
The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council also may begin adjudicative proceedings, Tesoro said in a statement released after publication of the draft EIS.
The council's “adjudication is a formal hearing process similar to a courtroom trial. In the adjudication, EFSEC hears evidence presented by the parties to the adjudication, including the applicant, state agencies and local governments, and recognized intervenors such as tribes, interest groups, other local, state, or federal agencies, an assistant attorney general as counsel for the environment, and individuals with an interest not adequately represented by the other parties,” the company said.
“The Final EIS is used by EFSEC in conjunction with additional relevant information, including information gathered during the adjudication, to inform EFSEC's recommendation and the governor's final decision,” the company said.
Another prominent voice on evolving transportation of crude oil in Washington is the state Department of Ecology, which recently issued a substantial report on the subject, motivated by several project proposals, not just the Tesoro-Savage plan (212 DEN A-9, 11/3/14).
Along with state approval, the project would need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the upgrading of the existing dock at the industrial site where the terminal would be built. A request for that permit is being evaluated by the corps.
-
81 Amendments Proposed for House Energy Bill
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Measures that would repeal the renewable fuel standard, allow crude oil exports to Mexico and require a federal study on the volatility of oil shipped by rail are among the 81 amendments proposed for House energy legislation slated for the floor the week of Nov. 30.
It remains to be seen which amendments, if any, will be approved by the House Rules Committee, which has scheduled a Dec. 1 meeting to decide which ones will be made in order to the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act (H.R. 8).
Other notable amendments include a measure by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) that would require the Energy Department to develop a 15-year plan for the safe and efficient sale of all Strategic Petroleum Reserve stocks and an amendment by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) that would bar the federal government from issuing efficiency standards that set a maximum on how much electricity products can use.
The amendment by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) to repeal the renewable fuel standard, which requires refiners and others to blend increasing amounts of corn ethanol and other biofuels into the nation's fuel supply, would be a major victory for Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil and other oil industry opponents if it is adopted, but it remains to be seen if it will be allowed by the Rules Committee.
The amendment to allow the export of crude oil to Mexico by Reps. Sean Duffy (R-Wisc.) and Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) comes as momentum builds to lift the 1970s-era ban on the export of most crude oil. The House passed legislation (H.R. 702) lifting the ban in October, although the Senate has yet to act.
Oil Exports Amendments
Two other amendments filed to the bill by Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Gene Green (D-Texas) also would lift the ban, with the Green amendment tying the change in policy to a national interest determination by the Commerce Department on a case-by-case basis.
Under an amendment by Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), the Energy Department would be required to study the maximum level of volatility “that is consistent with the safest practicable shipment of crude oil,” according to a summary.
Crude oil from the Bakken Shale region in North Dakota is more volatile and flammable than other lighter crude oils, according to a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration study released in 2014, which found the crude oil has a higher gas content, higher vapor pressure and lower flash point and boiling point than other domestic crude oils.
The underlying legislation, by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), would expedite the Energy Department's consideration of licenses to export liquefied natural gas, repeal a 2007 law requiring that federal buildings phase out the use of fossil fuels and suspend an Energy Department rulemaking setting energy efficiency standards for furnaces, among other measures.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
More Time to Comment on Offshore Alaska Oil Plan
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The public comment period will be extended for a plan to develop another offshore oil field in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Hilcorp Alaska LLC has proposed to build a gravel island for development of the Liberty oil field, from which oil would be piped ashore and then to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The comment period had been set to terminate Nov. 24 but now will extend through Jan. 26, the BOEM said in a notice set for publication Nov. 30. Hilcorp has said the field could produce up to 150 million barrels of oil (183 DEN A-6, 9/22/15). Comments can be filed at the http://www.regulations.gov website with the docket number BOEM-2015-0068. More information is available at http://www.boem.gov/Liberty.
-
Senators To Vet Contentious Offshore Safety Proposal
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
Senators tomorrow will vet a proposed federal rule that would regulate the safety of offshore oil and gas facilities, which industry has warned could harm their operations.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hear tomorrow from a top official within the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement about a rule the agency proposed in April to improve well control in offshore operations.
While the committee will hear a defense of the proposed rule from Brian Salerno, the bureau's director, the panel will also likely hear criticism from Erik Milito, the American Petroleum Institute's director of upstream and industry operations.
API in a recent statement warned that the rule would bring about few safety upgrades while raising costs for industry.
"Unfortunately, many of the prescriptive requirements contained within the proposed rule will neither improve safety nor reduce environmental risk in drilling operations, but will actually have the unintended consequence of increasing risk beyond what is presently done today under existing regulations," API wrote. "As a result, the dramatic costs and economic impacts of the rule as described below are not justified."
API has cited a report it commissioned from Blade Energy Partners and Quest Offshore, which found the agency had underestimated the cost of implementing the rule. Whereas the bureau has said it would cost about $883 million, the report found it would cost about $32 billion over a 10-year period to implement the proposal.
Some environmental groups have said the proposed rule doesn't go far enough.
Jackie Savitz, vice president of U.S. oceans at Oceana, who is also slated to testify before the Senate panel, questioned in an April 13 interview with The Wall Street Journal whether the proposed rule was strengthening offshore drilling safety or simply making adopted industry practices official.
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, Dec. 1, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Brian Salerno, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement at the Department of the Interior; Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations for the American Petroleum Institute; Mark Rockel, principal consultant of Ramboll Environ; and Jackie Savitz, vice president of U.S. oceans at Oceana.
-
Climate Will Supplant Shale As Top Energy Disruptor
Nov 27, 2015 | Reuters
By Kevin Allison
Move over, shale: climate change will supplant the U.S. oil revolution as the energy industry’s No. 1 disruptor in 2016. The world’s politicians may be about to get serious on cutting greenhouse gases at the United Nations climate summit in Paris over the next two weeks. The consequences for the industry will be longer lasting than the recent revolution in oil production.
The growth of shale, largely thanks to hydraulic fracturing technology, shook up the sector over the past few years. It allowed the United States to flirt with becoming energy self-sufficient and thus reduce the political sway of OPEC. Increasing supplies also led to a drop in prices that accelerated last year as China’s economic growth began to slow.
The price of crude is now mired around $45 a barrel, 60 percent off its 2014 high. That hit shares: the S&P Global Oil Index, which tracks the stock prices of 120 petroleum producers, had fallen 30 percent between mid-2014 and September this year. It has since rallied nearly 12 percent as hopes grow that the oil price will stabilize as both shale and OPEC producers finally adjust production properly to reflect recent turmoil.
Out of the frying pan…
The Paris talks could upend this relief. Skeptics may find it easy to dismiss the event. Little has ever been established at these jaw-jaws in the past. The Paris U.N. summit, though – officially known as the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties already has a good deal of momentum. The idea is to reach an accord that will reduce emissions by a large enough amount that the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will not be more than 2 degrees Celsius higher by 2100 than before the Industrial Revolution.
The United States and China, which between them account for some two-fifths of all CO2 emissions, in September detailed a series of accords to start limiting these pollutants over the next 10 to 15 years. In all, nearly 180 countries responsible for some 90 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions have announced reduction targets ahead of the summit. Almost 140 heads of state are to attend – including Barack Obama of the United States, China’s Xi Jinping, India’s Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin from Russia.
If all their various proposals are fully implemented, it may still not be enough to meet the 2 degree goal. That’s the threshold that many scientists regard as the starting point for dangerous climate change – though a growing number are putting the tipping point at 1.5 degrees Celsius. At that stage, yields from crops as currently grown may fall by roughly 15 percent, water flow in some river basins may drop as much as 10 percent while elsewhere rain falling during heaviest precipitation may jump by the same amount, causing floods.
Hitting a weaker target would still represent progress, though, especially if countries agreed to revisit it periodically with an eye to introducing more ambitious policies later.
Either way, the talks increase the focus on how exposed the energy industry is to changing environmental policy. The main concern among investors is how many so-called stranded assets companies may end up with – in other words, how much of their oil, gas and other energy reserves would no longer be viable – and what impact these will have on performance.
In 2011, researchers at the Carbon Tracker think tank calculated that companies and governments around the world own five times as much coal, oil and gas than be safely burned without an unacceptable risk of exceeding the 2 degree limit.
In a report published this week, the group calculates that fuel companies risk squandering over $2 trillion of capital expenditure over the next decade – around a quarter of oil majors’ potential investment – pursuing projects that may ultimately end up uneconomic due to tighter carbon policy and advances in renewable technologies. Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell would be most at risk in dollar terms.
Both companies largely dismiss talk of a carbon bubble. They argue that fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, will still be needed if policymakers want to supply a growing, more affluent global population with reliable energy. The industry appears willing to bet that the high cost of keeping global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius will make the target untenable. Better, in that case, to keep pumping, invest in technologies to make fossil fuels burn cleaner, and invest to offset the worst effects of climate change.
Forget Paris
For the first time, though, the industry is facing a combination of both political and financial pressure. So they are unlikely to be let off the hook even if the Paris summit fails to deliver a meaningful agreement.
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, for example, revealed in September that as chair of the Financial Stability Board he is considering recommending to the G20 that “more be done to develop consistent, comparable, reliable and clear disclosure around the carbon intensity of different assets.” Such information could make “climate policy a bit more like monetary policy.”
The International Energy Agency and several Wall Street firms have published studies supporting the carbon bubble logic. Earlier this month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena demanding documents related to Exxon Mobil’s communication about climate risks.
Shareholders are taking a more active role, too. At times, that’s simply a case of publicly committing to sell fossil fuel holdings. Big institutions and individuals responsible for $2.6 trillion in assets have done so, according to a September report by philanthropy consultants Arabella Advisors. That’s a 50-fold increase in assets under management over last year.
Others have used companies’ annual proxy voting process to push for more disclosure on climate risks at Exxon and Shell, for example. And research and lobby groups are corralling investors to take action, too. CDP, for example, gathers data from at least 4,500 firms – not just energy companies – on behalf of more than 800 investors responsible for some $95 trillion of assets.
All in, it puts energy companies in a bind. Those that ignore climate risk – and the willingness of politicians and financial markets to deal with it – could eventually see billions of dollars of investment go up in smoke. Those that forgo investing in fossil fuel altogether, though, may struggle to grow as the rising global population demands a better lifestyle that, currently, only more traditional energy methods can help provide. Whatever happens in Paris, climate will prove more vexing than shale in 2016.
-
Amendments Galore Filed To House Package
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
Lawmakers from both parties have filed dozens of amendments to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's broad energy bill ahead of this week's floor debate.
The House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet this evening and tomorrow to sort through the multitude of amendments to the bill (H.R. 8), which aims to increase efficiency, speed natural gas exports and boost the aging electric grid.
After months of bipartisan negotiations that collapsed over climate policy and other sticking points that Democrats wanted addressed in the measure, Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) moved the bill through committee in September with support from just three minority members (E&E Daily, Oct. 1).
Upton last week filed a manager's amendment to the bill that pares down the legislation by removing some bipartisan provisions backed by Democrats, along with others that drew objections from conservatives (Greenwire, Nov. 20).
But after segregating more contentious provisions from the bill in an effort to keep it bipartisan, more controversial issues may surface on the floor.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) has filed an amendment to repeal the crude oil exports ban, while Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) separately is proposing to exempt Mexico from the controls and codify an existing administrative exemption for Canada.
Both amendments have Democratic co-sponsors.
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) has offered an amendment that would allow the Commerce Department to restrict crude exports unless they meet a "national interest" test.
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) is proposing to repeal the renewable fuel standard, while Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) wants to repeal energy conservation standards under the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who as ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee helped negotiate the package, has filed an amendment that would delay its effective date until the U.S. Energy Information Administration analyzes the bill's impacts on carbon emissions.
An amendment by Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) would include oil sands in the IRS's definition of "crude oil," making them qualify for the excise tax that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Other amendments respond to more recent policy trends, including a proposal by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) that would require the Energy Department to develop a 15-year plan for selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with all revenues raised steered toward deficit reduction.
Green, one of just three Democrats to support the underlying bill in committee, also had filed a trio of amendments intended to sidestep the lengthy permitting dispute that stalled the Keystone XL pipeline for years.
The first would establish a permitting process within DOE, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the State Department for cross-border infrastructure projects; a second Green amendment would require these agencies to write a memorandum of understanding on permitting such projects.
Green's third amendment would require State to develop a "pre-file" process for cross-border oil pipelines.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) has offered an amendment that would require DOE to develop a management plan for federal stockpiles of excess uranium "that ensures a fair return for the taxpayers and provides long term certainty and transparency for industry and the public."
Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) have filed an amendment that would establish a national bipartisan commission on energy policy composed of 15 members from a range of backgrounds.
Also on today's Rules Committee agenda are a pair of Congressional Review Act resolutions targeting EPA's Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Nov. 18).
A second Rules meeting focused solely on the energy bill is set for tomorrow afternoon.
Schedule: The House Rules Committee meetings are Monday, Nov. 30, at 5 p.m. in H-313 Capitol and Tuesday, Dec. 1, at 3 p.m. in H-313 Capitol.
-
House to Examine FERC Role in Changing Energy Landscape
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will be the subject of a House hearing Dec. 1 featuring testimony by Chairman Norman Bay and the agency's three other sitting commissioners.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, grid security, and natural gas pipeline permitting will be among the issues addressed at the hearing, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee said.
“Given the significant shifts taking place in the energy sector, it is paramount that FERC carefully weigh decisions and policies that can adapt to new challenges and opportunities to build a market-driven, modern and flexible system while ensuring the continued safe, reliable and affordable delivery of energy to consumers,” the subcommittee said.
The commission, an independent administrative agency within the Department of Energy, regulates the transmission, reliability, and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce, as well as the transmission and sale of natural gas, the transportation of oil by pipeline and proposals to build liquefied natural gas export projects and natural gas pipelines, according to the subcommittee.
Changes Eyed
In a background memo from majority staffers, the subcommittee questioned whether FERC's current authority under the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act “require modernization to reflect current energy realities.”
“It is equally critical to evaluate whether FERC is overstepping its existing statutory boundaries to pursue policy goals not intended by Congress,” the memo said.
Other issues that may arise at the hearing include a provision of 1978 law that requires certain utilities to purchase renewable energy, natural gas permitting, hydropower licensing, and the “potential impacts of EPA's Clean Power Plan on electricity markets, fuel diversity, and electricity reliability,” the memo said.
That rule (RIN 2060-AR33), published in October, sets unique carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternatively mass-based emissions targets for the power sector in each state, but it tasks state regulators with developing plans to meet the targets.
In addition to Bay, the other current commissioners are Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark and Colette D. Honorable.
-
FERC Heads To Hill To Discuss Reliability As EPA Fight Heats Up
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
The head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will appear on Capitol Hill tomorrow to discuss potential effects of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan on the electric grid, just as the House prepares to vote on language condemning the landmark climate rule.
FERC Chairman Norman Bay and his colleagues will testify before the Republican-controlled House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on the EPA rule, as well as the potential modernization of a decades-old law bolstering renewables and other items that have been wrapped into a House energy bill.
The hearing arrives as the House is scheduled to take up two resolutions to block the Obama administration's carbon rules for power plants, a move House Democrats have not supported (see related story).
Notably, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs the subcommittee, introduced companion bills to both resolutions targeting the climate rules under the rarely used Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress a means of striking down administrative rules in an expedited manner. The White House has already threatened to veto the language.
Bay and FERC commissioners will likely be quizzed on the role they will play as states comply with EPA's rule and how it will affect the many nuclear and coal plants that have threatened to close under current market conditions.
EPA in its final iteration of the Clean Power Plan added measures to ensure grid reliability, including a safety valve and the promise to work with FERC and the Energy Department as the rule is implemented. FERC commissioners have called those steps a "great start" and said they will meet quarterly with DOE and EPA (OnPoint, Sept. 9).
Bay also said during an interview in September that he was pleased that the commission was able to reach a consensus on its advice to EPA on how the rule should be designed to protect reliability, including requiring states to submit their compliance plans to another entity -- not necessarily FERC -- for review (EnergyWire, Sept. 8).
Bay suggested that entity could be a regional transmission organization, which FERC oversees, or the North American Electric Reliability Corp.
FERC has also added staff to the division in the Office of Energy Projects that reviews certificates to deal with a growing number of applications for natural gas pipelines and other energy projects as the Clean Power Plan moves forward, Bay said.
Even so, members of the House subcommittee may push FERC for more assurances that the rule won't compromise grid reliability.
They may also dig into a host of other issues, including the pace of permitting for natural gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas export terminals and hydropower facilities -- all issues that have cropped up in the lower chamber's comprehensive energy bill moving toward a floor vote (see related story).
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, Dec. 1, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Norman Bay and Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur, Colette Honorable and Tony Clark.
-
Congress to Launch More Bids to Undercut Climate Talks
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Republicans in Congress are readying an additional hearing, votes to undermine the centerpieces of the Obama administration's efforts on climate change and several possible other attempts to undercut the ability of U.S. negotiators to reach an international accord to address climate change in Paris.
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hold a hearing Dec. 1 titled “Pitfalls of Unilateral Negotiations at the Paris Climate Change Conference” the day after President Barack Obama addresses the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP-21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris.
Both the House science panel and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings Nov. 18 to warn the administration it must submit any agreement that includes binding emissions targets or timetables to the Senate for approval. The Obama administration has long argued the final accord may be a mix of binding and non-binding elements that it believes can be reached under existing executive authority (223 DEN A-12, 11/19/15).
Nearly 200 nations will gather in Paris on Nov. 30 to begin two weeks of negotiations in what observers believe is the last best opportunity to reach a global climate change deal (228 DEN A-1, 11/27/15).
Votes Scheduled on EPA Rules
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) formally scheduled two Senate-passed resolutions (S.J. Res. 23; S.J. Res. 24) for a House floor vote the week of Nov. 30. The measures would nullify the centerpieces of Obama's domestic efforts to address climate change.
S.J. Res. 24 would immediately nullify the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which regulates carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's fleet of existing power plants. The resolution would bar the executive branch from ever promulgating a “substantially similar rule.” S.J. Res. 23 would kill off a separate regulation limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new and modified power plants (RIN 2060-AQ91).
Though both measures previously passed the Senate, they fell well short of the two-thirds majority necessary to overcome a promised presidential veto. Companion efforts to block the power plant regulations passed the full House Energy and Commerce Committee Nov. 18 on two-party line votes (223 DEN A-1, 11/19/15).
Resolutions on Climate Deal
Other efforts to undermine the talks, including a vote on a “sense of the Senate” resolution in the upper chamber, could come this week but have not been formally scheduled.
Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced a resolution Nov. 19 that says any accord agreed to by the U.S. in Paris “shall have no force or effect in the United States” and that no funding could be authorized to implement it. The resolution is nonbinding and, therefore, would not significantly impede Obama's ability to negotiate in Paris.
“There are no plans to bring the resolution to the floor at this time,” Kristina Baum, a spokeswoman for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said Nov. 25.
-
Mayors, California Governor Urge Strong Climate Deal
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
More than 60 U.S. mayors, including the leaders of Philadelphia, Houston and Los Angeles, and California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) are encouraging the Obama administration to complete a strong international agreement on climate change in Paris.
The mayors noted the two weeks of United Nations negotiations, which were scheduled to begin Nov. 30, will be “as challenging as they are critical to our cities’ environmental health and economic prosperity” but applauded domestic efforts, including the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), as important steps toward reaching an accord with nearly 200 nations to curb greenhouse gas emissions fueling climate change.
“Despite the dangerous and irresponsible stalemate in Congress, climate change is not a policy debate in communities all across the United States,” the mayors wrote in their Nov. 25 letter. “We recognize that local governments have a major role to play in reducing greenhouse gas levels, including ambitious implementation of the Clean Power Plan. We are encouraged that there is interest on the part of [the negotiators] for having language in the final agreement that specifically pertains to cities.”
Houston Mayor Annise Parker, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and dozens of others representing smaller localities around the country signed the letter to President Barack Obama.
Theirs are the latest in a series of broad and varied voices to throw their weight behind a successful outcome in Paris. Major investors, food corporations and other large companies are among the dozens of entities to issue statements ahead of the talks, which are scheduled to run through Dec. 11 (202 DEN A-1, 10/20/15).
Brown Slams State Attorneys General
Meanwhile, Brown criticized the state attorneys general of West Virginia and Texas for attempting to undermine the climate talks with an earlier letter to Secretary of State John Kerry.
“Frankly, your thoughts here are, at best, legally flimsy,” Brown wrote in a Nov. 25 letter to West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. “Political expediency and legal obfuscation won't cut it. Crass obstructionism is not a solution.”
Morrisey and Paxton said the U.S. had an obligation to disclose that the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of Obama's domestic efforts on climate change, faces lawsuits from 27 states and might not survive judicial scrutiny. They also argued Kerry should tell other countries whatever form the ultimate agreement takes will require Senate approval (227 DEN A-9, 11/25/15).
But California's Brown sharply disagreed on the Clean Power Plan's fate, pointing to the 18 states that have intervened to help the Obama administration defend its plan to curb carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
“We are also confident that the courts will uphold the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants,” the governor said. “These rules provide broad flexibility to states—including West Virginia and Texas—to tailor compliance plans.”
-
Business Said to Lack Tools for Long-Term Climate Planning
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Several businesses already have factored the short-term effect of a changing climate into their decision making, but few have incorporated long-term considerations into their plans, often citing a lack of readily available federal data and tools, a White House advisory panel said.
“With some notable exceptions, there is little activity in the private sector aimed at adapting to long-term climate-induced disruptions to supply chains and business continuity,” the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology said in a Nov. 25 letter. “Few major companies have incorporated climate data or modeling into long-term decision-making or otherwise taken steps to address these risks; and smaller and medium-sized enterprises have less capacity to understand and address risks of this kind. The near-term nature of business focus can play a role in preventing the private sector from looking at longer-term climate effects and adaptation measures.”
The letter said businesses rarely report the metrics for achieving their climate change adaptation initiatives, and they complained that federal data and tools to aid their planning can be difficult to locate and use.
More Outreach to Business Urged
The advisers recommended that the Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, which includes several governors and local officials, do more outreach to aid businesses as they develop climate adaptation strategies. The National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Sustainability also should work to improve the availability and usefulness of existing federal climate change tools to make them more applicable to the private sector's needs.
The president's council said in its letter that businesses need tools tailored to their needs and have asked to help the government in developing those databases.
The federal government also has lagged when it comes to adapting to a changing climate. The Government Accountability Office in October reported that the federal government is still in the early stages of minimizing disruptions to its $445 billion supply chain caused by events such as Superstorm Sandy. Though federal agencies are tasked by executive orders to assess and prepare for climate-related vulnerabilities, the GAO found the level of planning varied (208 DEN A-9, 10/28/15).
-
Obama's Leadership To Be Tested In Paris
Nov 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Nahal Toosi
President Barack Obama kicks off a major climate change conference in Paris on Monday with a brief speech aimed at rallying the world to reach a deal to cut greenhouse gases and sealing his environmental legacy with or without Congress' help.
The U.N. climate talks risk being overshadowed by concerns about terrorism following the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris, which killed 130 people and prompted calls to send U.S. combat troops to battle Islamic State jihadists. On Sunday, soon after landing in Paris, Obama implicitly acknowledged the link by visiting the Bataclan concert hall, where 90 people died in the attacks. He was joined by French President Francois Hollande.
The twin challenges of climate change and terrorism will test Obama’s global standing, raising the question of whether he has the political firepower and the international goodwill to lead the world on both fronts during his last year in office.
"On one hand he’s a lame duck, and everybody knows that he’s not able to bind the next administration. On the other hand, he’s also liberated, and he’s also able to do things that in a more politicized environment he was not able to do," said Ivo Daalder, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and a former U.S. ambassador to NATO.
Obama appears determined to keep sight of the primary goal this week in Paris: crafting history’s furthest-reaching deal to cut greenhouse gases, rework related government and corporate regulations and set a framework for global environmental policy.
Still, there's no question terrorism and the chaos in the Middle East will come up, at least on the sidelines. Obama is scheduled to have a dinner with Hollande where they are expected to discuss counterterrorism efforts, and with about 150 heads of states attending, he will likely encounter other top leaders with a stake in the fight.On both climate change and the fight against terrorism, the president has the benefit of the doubt from many in the world — his poll numbers in other countries tend to be better than in the U.S.
According to the Pew Research Center's spring survey of global attitudes, "across the 40 countries polled, a median of 65 percent say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs."
Climate change is an area where, according to those most recent Pew numbers, approval of how Obama is handling the issue has slipped; yet the president is more in sync with the rest of the world on the dangers posed by climate change; Unlike in America, where leading Republican presidential candidates look askance at the science, there's little disagreement overseas that climate change is a threat.
The spring Pew survey also found broad support abroad for the U.S.-led military campaign against the Islamic State. The threat has metastasized since that survey was taken, however, as the Paris attacks, which are believed to be the Islamic State's handiwork, underscored the terror network's global reach.
Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict has added to the complexity of taking on ISIL, which holds territory in both Syria and Iraq. It also has led some Obama critics to say he looks weak when compared with Russian President Vladimir Putin. (Obama and Putin will likely cross paths at the climate summit.)Obama took office ambivalent about international accords and with little appetite to take on the climate issue; America's lack of enthusiasm was a key reason the 2009 Copenhagen accord collapsed. That changed over time as it became clear that environmental regulations were one area the White House could make a difference without worrying about congressional constraints.
Now, freed from worries about another election and eager to have a global as well as domestic legacy, the president, who sees climate change as an existential threat, is unlikely to relent. His success in resisting GOP efforts to stop the Iran nuclear deal likely adds to his resolve.
Obama aides have spent many months preparing for December’s conference, the biggest such gathering since the one in Copenhagen ended in acrimony. The president has made climate change a focus of talks with numerous world leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Aides have hopped from capital to capital setting terms for a December deal. Hopes were boosted a year ago when the U.S. and China reached a greenhouse gas deal.
The Paris deal would be voluntary, so lawmakers don’t get a vote on it the way the Senate would on a treaty. That also means that an Obama successor could in theory walk away from the agreement, unraveling the executive orders put in place to implement it.
Republicans, significant numbers of whom question the science behind climate change and worry about the deal’s potential impact on U.S. industries, have threatened to withhold funds and take other steps to limit Obama’s ability to live up to the agreement.
Last week, more than 100 members of Congress released a letter expressing opposition to Obama’s pledge of $3 billion to the U.N. Green Climate Fund, calling the president’s move “unilateral” and arguing Congress should have oversight. The debate over the fund is one of several expected to arise as Obama tries to implement a potential deal from Paris.
And while the president isn't running for re-election, his would-be successors also will likely use any Paris deal as fodder for their White House campaigns.
"You can't ignore the United States. The president still has a great deal of power," said Christine Todd Whitman, who led the Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "The problem we have now is the campaign is the worst time to talk about real policy. Everything gets demagogued — by both sides."
The White House dismisses the notion that the president lacks the bandwidth to spearhead both the fight against terrorists and climate change. It also argues that climate change is itself a national security issue, pointing out that extreme fluctuations in weather can spur mass migrations and lead to battles over resources such as water and land."I know that in the press of the day a lot of the focus is on where is the attention, but the United States of America is capable of doing many things at once," Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said in a call with reporters last week. "We’re capable of waging a relentless campaign against [the Islamic State] even as we are completing a [trade] agreement, and even as we are pursuing an international climate agreement. And all of those things are necessary for the security and prosperity of the American people going forward."
During an appearance with the French president in Washington last week, Obama nodded to the security fears that have arisen since the attacks in Paris as he noted he would soon be traveling to the City of Light.
"What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children,” Obama said.
-
Obama Eyes Legacy-Defining Climate Pact
Nov 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama heads to Paris Monday seeking to clinch an international climate pact that would help define his legacy.
But major obstacles stand in the way of that goal, including the dispute over whether the document will be legally binding for all the countries participating or whether political pressure would be the main enforcement mechanism.
Obama is also facing pressure at home from Republicans who oppose his executive actions on climate change and want to derail the global deal organized under the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change.
For a president who has made climate change a top priority of his second term — and has become the first commander in chief to take significant action to counter global warming — the Paris meeting presents a rare opportunity to make significant headway in fighting climate change.
While domestic climate policies, like Obama’s carbon dioxide limits for power plants, can only have a marginal impact on global temperatures, getting the rest of the world on board can make a real difference.
“Obama 2.0 looks very different from Obama 1.0 on climate change,” said Timmons Roberts, an environmental studies professor at Brown University and fellow at the Brookings Institution.
“Obama has staked a lot on Paris being a success, as can be seen by the effort his White House has put into these bilateral agreements and commitments,” Roberts said, referring to recent high-profile agreements on climate change that Obama has made with the leaders of China, Brazil, Mexico and other nations.
The China deal was particularly historic, as it was the first time the Asian power has promised to limit greenhouse gases. China agreed to peak its emissions by 2030, and in return, the United States promised a 26 percent to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025, compared with 2005 levels.
Obama has also made a point to insert climate change language into nearly every official diplomatic communication with a foreign leader in recent months.
Those pledges became countries’ commitments under the UN deal. It’s structured in a bottom-up way, so that countries submit what they think they can do to fight climate change, and those commitments are likely to be wrapped up into the deal, along with agreements on deciding further reductions in the future and how to report progress.
The strategy reflects a departure from the top-down approach that failed to yield a deal during climate talks in Copenhagen five years ago.
One of the main controversies going into the Paris meeting is whether the deal will be legally binding.
Secretary of State John Kerry recently tussled in the press with French leaders over the issue arguing, in a Financial Times report, the Obama administration’s case that the deal should not be a binding treaty, something with which France disagrees.
It’s a top concern for Obama, since a two-thirds majority of the Senate would need to approve such a binding treaty.
“With the Senate needing a two-thirds majority, he can’t really agree to anything binding. He’s looking for something that remains voluntary,” Timmons said.
Republicans are doing everything they can to prevent the United States from entering into a deal. As part of that, they’re pressuring Obama to submit it for a vote if it obligates the United States to anything — a vote that would certainly fail.
“Just like the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations framework convention on climate change, any agreement that commits our nation to targets or timetables must go through the process established by the founders in our Constitution,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said at a recent hearing. “It must be submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent.”
But the bigger leverage for the GOP could come from funding, and from their attempts to stop Obama’s $3 billion pledge toward the Green Climate Fund. Poor nations say without the fund, they likely will not be part of the deal to cut emissions.
“When it comes to the financing: I know a lot of people over there, the 192 countries, assume that Americans are going to line up and joyfully pay $3 billion into this fund,” said Sen. James Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. “But that’s not going to happen.”
Thirty-seven senators and 110 House members have pledged to block the funding.
A key disagreement in the GOP, however, is whether to simply deny Obama’s request for money, or to block Obama from using other money for that purpose. The Senate has proposed to do the former, while House Republicans want to go farther.
Paul Bodnar, director for energy and climate change at Obama’s National Security Council, said protecting the funding is a top concern of Obama.
“As we’ve made clear, the Green Climate Fund is a priority for the president,” Bodnar said, adding that the White House is optimistic that it’ll get the money it needs.
Republicans’ other tactic against the deal is to try to show that Obama’s commitment to reductions can’t stand. For the most part, that means arguing that the carbon limits for power plants, the main pillar of the commitment, is on shaky legal and political ground, and will probably be overturned by a court or Congress.
To demonstrate that, the Senate voted recently to overturn the rule, and the House will take a similar vote next month, sending it to Obama’s desk for his certain veto. Opponents have also filed a lawsuit against the rule.
Megan Mullin, an environmental politics professor at Duke University, said Obama needs to convince world leaders and negotiators in Paris that those moves by his opponents are simply messaging.
“The challenge for the Obama administration going into Paris is to convince the rest of the world that the policy activity that has happened here in the U.S. is durable, and not susceptible to political change in 2016 and unpredictable actions by the courts,” Mullin said.
“And those who want to undermine his efforts know that,” she said. “Even if it will all be vetoed, anything that they can do now to try to prove that those commitments aren’t durable, to try to raise doubt about the durability of those commitments is helpful to their goals.”
The fact that Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted in the Appropriations Committee to save Obama’s ability to contribute to the climate fund should go a long way to show that the commitment can withstand political pressure, she said.
Obama will be in Paris on Monday and Tuesday, when he’ll participate in a number of bilateral meetings with major leaders, a meeting with the heads of various island nations and a dinner with French President Francois Hollande, among other activities.
The conference is continuing, complete with about 150 heads of state or government, despite the recent terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.
Obama and Hollande have proudly reminded their countries in recent days that the event will continue, with Obama declaring that the summit will be a “powerful rebuke” to the terrorists.
The conference will continue for another 10 days at least. Other Obama administration officials will participate in other stages of the talks, including Kerry, Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Kathryn Sullivan.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) will lead Democratic delegations to support the Obama administration, according to Bloomberg BNA. Neither lawmakers’ representatives returned requests for details about their plans.
Some congressional Republicans will also attend to reinforce their arguments to negotiators and sow doubt. Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the energy and power panel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will lead a House GOP group, although committee staff declined to provide details.
Inhofe, who has proudly declared that he served as a “one-man truth squad” aiming to derail the Copenhagen talks in 2009, said he won’t be making the jaunt this time. -
World Leaders Pledge to Double Clean Energy Budgets
Nov 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
President Barack Obama and 18 other world leaders meeting Monday in Paris will pledge to double their research and development budgets into clean energy over the next five years, White House officials said today.
The 19 participating countries are Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the U.S.
The White House puts current U.S. funding into clean energy R&D at more than $5 billion. Obama is scheduled to attend the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris Monday and Tuesday.
Separately, but in conjunction with the announcement, a group of 28 private investors from 10 countries, led by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, is committing to provide early-stage capital that will take innovative clean energy technologies from laboratories around the world and build them to scale.
“This initiative is a very important complement to efforts to mobilize finance already underway,” said Brian Deese, senior advisor to the president, in a conference call with reporters. “And importantly, it is focused on making sure that we not only take steps to deploy key clean energy through development assistance, but that the public and private sectors are investing in clean energy R&D to drive down the prices of deployable technologies,” he said.
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said the diversity of energy interests in each of the 19 countries means that as each shapes its energy portfolio, it will result in a range of technologies.
Germany, for example, is focused on wind and solar, while Saudi Arabia is looking at carbon capture and sequestration, India has an interest in addressing climate concerns, access and distribution, and the U.S. is looking at all of these technologies in different regions, Moniz said.
Normal 0 false false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
Californians To Invest Big In Bill Gates’ Clean Energy Fund
Nov 29, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By David Siders
Gov. Jerry Brown and a group of California lawmakers will not leave for Paris for international climate talks until later this week, and their role – as world leaders try to hammer out an accord – will largely consist of agitating from the sidelines.
But money from the state – in many ways a more significant contribution – is already on its way.
When Bill Gates on Monday announces the formation of a new, multibillion fund to support green energy technology, nearly a third of the members of his investment group will come from the Golden State. They include:
▪ The University of California, which previously committed to invest at least $1 billion in endowment and pension funds in climate change-related initiatives over the next five years.
▪ Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, a potential Democratic candidate for governor.
▪ Businesswoman Meg Whitman, a Republican who lost the gubernatorial race to Brown in 2010.
▪ LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman.
▪ Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.
▪ Vinod Khosla, the venture capitalist whose efforts to keep private his stretch of shore near Half Moon Bay inspired legislation last year to restore public access.
▪ Venture capitalist John Doerr.
▪ Salesforce.com founder Marc Benioff.
▪ Nat Simons, co-founder of a clean technology venture fund.
Advocates of an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions say private investment is necessary to fund technological breakthroughs that could lead to a large-scale transition away from fossil fuels. A major question around the Paris talks, however, is whether financial commitments from private investors and governments will be sufficient.
“We are facing the rising danger of climate change, and it has become clear to me that the solution will require significant innovation,” Benioff said in a prepared statement. “We don’t know what our energy mix will look like years from now, but we have to start inventing it today.”
-
Wood-Based Product May Be Regulated as Fuel: EPA
Nov 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Ware
A wood-based alternative fuel may be regulated as a fuel rather than as a solid waste and is therefore subject to less stringent Clean Air Act standards when burned, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Evergreen Fuel, manufactured by Evergreen Recycling Solutions LLC, of Newark, N.J., is a nonwaste fuel product under 40 CFR 241.3(b)(4), the EPA said in a comfort letter dated Nov. 12. The letter provides regulatory clarity under the agency's 2012 nonhazardous secondary materials rule.
The rule clarifies which materials may be treated as fuel rather than solid wastes when burned in boilers or incinerators. Solid wastes are regulated more strictly under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act than fuels are under Section 129 of the law (246 DEN A-11, 12/26/12)
Engineered Fuel Product
Evergreen Fuel is an engineered fuel product made from construction and demolition debris and some industrial and commercial material the company collects, the EPA letter said. Among the industrial and commercial material collected are plastic paper, cardboard, textile and carpets.
The material is then sorted, and those materials with high levels of contaminants are removed, along with undesirable products such as insulation, mattresses and Styrofoam, leaving a primarily wood-based product, the agency said.
After sorting, the material is made into fuel composed of 70 percent to 85 percent wood-based products, 5 percent to 10 percent paper and cardboard, and 5 percent plastics and textiles, according to the letter.
This wood-based fuel is used by energy companies as a greener alternative to coal, according to the company's website.
A nonwaste determination by the EPA doesn't preempt a state's authority to regulate a nonhazardous secondary material as a solid waste, the agency said.
Congressional Hearings
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested