Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/30/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Building Materials Make the “Tiny” House Energy Efficient
Nov 30, 2015 | Consumer Affairs
By Mark Huffman
As we have previously noted, “tiny” houses -- small dwellings often less than 200 square feet -- are becoming increasingly popular in the U.S. -
(ACC Mentioned) Livin' Large in a Tiny (Mostly Plastic) House
Nov 30, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Norbert Sparrow
America is downsizing. At least, that's what it seems like from an LA perspective. -
Echa Consults on Substance Identity Profile Proposals
Nov 30, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Echa says there is “a need to (legally) reinforce” the notion that information on the scope of the substance covered is a prerequisite for the submission of a lead registrant dossier. -
The Beauty Industry Now Has Its Own Green 'Seal of Approval'
Nov 30, 2015 | The Guardian
By Amy Westervelt
It may soon be easier for shoppers to find beauty products without toxic chemicals. The Environmental Working Group nonprofit launched a new label this month called EWG Verified, which certifies personal care products as free from chemicals of concern. -
Experts Say Accurate Clean Power Plan Cost Estimate Won't Arrive for Years
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
Interest groups recently have rolled out a proliferating number of price tags for the Obama administration's new limits on power plant carbon emissions. -
Utica Shale Boom Moving Closer to Reality, CSU Economists Predict (Photos)
Nov 23, 2015 | Cleveland
By John Funk
The enormous productivity of Ohio's shale gas industry has done more than drive down gas prices and create jobs on drilling rigs in rural Ohio. -
EPA Questions Report Downplaying Fracking's Impact on Drinking Water
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Don Hopey
A U.S. EPA advisory board found that there was insufficient evidence presented in a draft report on hydraulic fracturing released by the agency in June. -
Enviros Appeal Judge's Decision to Stall Fracking Rule
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists defending the Obama administration's new hydraulic fracturing rule are challenging a federal court's decision to block the rollout of the new standards. -
Energy Sector Says EPA Voluntary Methane Plan Must Avoid Permit Limits
Nov 30, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Oil and gas transmission companies are largely supporting EPA's proposed voluntary program for reducing methane emissions from the sector, but are seeking assurances from the agency that the methane cuts companies achieve under the program will never be used as the basis for Clean Air Act permit limits or other regulatory mandates. -
3 States Join Lawsuit Seeking to Upend New Ozone Standard
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Three states are seeking to join a legal challenge to U.S. EPA's new ozone standard, contending that happenstances of geography could unfairly push them out of compliance. -
Paris Climate Talks Open as House Aims to Thwart Power Plant Rules
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Two weeks of U.N. negotiations to curb greenhouse gas emissions and help poor countries deal with climate change begin today in Paris. -
GOP Rebuffs Obama’s Climate Plans as UN Conference Starts
Nov 30, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Devin Henry
Senior congressional Republicans attacked President Obama’s climate agenda over the weekend before he left for a major climate summit in Paris. -
Advocates Tout EPA 'Conflict' On Water Transfers Ahead Of Oral Argument
Nov 30, 2015 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists and EPA are sparring over whether the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule undercuts its defense of the 2008 policy exempting most water transfers from CWA permitting, as appellate judges prepare to weigh Dec. 1 oral argument in the advocates' facial challenge against the transfer rule.
Industry and Association News
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Building Materials Make the “Tiny” House Energy Efficient
Nov 30, 2015 | Consumer Affairs
By Mark Huffman
As we have previously noted, “tiny” houses -- small dwellings often less than 200 square feet -- are becoming increasingly popular in the U.S.
A tiny house is often built from scratch by the person who plans to occupy it, using materials close at hand. But more and more, tiny houses are being manufactured by companies.
Recently, Zack Giffin, co-host of FYI Network's "Tiny House Nation," teamed up with manufacturers to build an energy efficient tiny house using new plastic building products that are designed to maximize a home's overall energy efficiency.Cheap to build and operate
Since people usually build a tiny house because it costs less, the builders thought, "why not make it as energy efficient to operate?" That way it's not only inexpensive to build, but also to heat and cool.
By some estimates U.S. residences use more than 40% of the nation's energy. That's due in part to older, less efficient building materials. The plastic tiny house uses new plastic building products that promote efficiency in any size building.
The prototype is set up at the California Science Center in Los Angeles, where guests can explore it to learn how these new building products, used both inside and out, can reduce energy use, improve durability, and make it easier to maintain.Improve any home's efficiency
"This tiny house is a great way to show how modern building materials can improve any home's energy efficiency," said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council. "In one small space, visitors can see more than a dozen ways that innovative plastic building products work together to help save energy and money on utility bills."
Russell credited Griffin for his knowledge in building and design conservation. He said he hopes the plastic tiny house will call attention to the need for improved energy efficiency in all homes.
The building products used to construct the prototype include airtight polyurethane foam insulation, a UV-resistant polycarbonate skylight, and plastic solar shingles that both protect the roof and generate energy.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Livin' Large in a Tiny (Mostly Plastic) House
Nov 30, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Norbert Sparrow
America is downsizing. At least, that's what it seems like from an LA perspective. SUVs are learning to play nice with smart cars and Fiat 500s; cars of all shapes and sizes are sharing the road with bicycle riders around the city; and who would think to order a Big Gulp in a non-ironic way? Even hostile or unwelcome behavior has gone small, as in micro-aggressions (my favorite new word). And then there's the Tiny House Nation, a movement that celebrates living in a very snug version of the American dream. Zack Giffin, who co-hosts the FYI Network show, was in town to promote the opening of an energy-efficient tiny house exhibit at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. The exhibit, which is an initiative of the Plastics Make it Possible program from the American Chemistry Council, is open to the public for the next three months.
Plastics are used throughout the tiny house—from solar shingles on the roof and polyurethane spray foam insulation to cross-linked polyethylene plumbing and vinyl windows—to improve energy efficiency. The take-away for visitors to the exhibit is that all of these features can be applied to a house of any size to measurably reduce the carbon footprint. It's worth doing: The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that houses and buildings in the United States consume a whopping 41% of our nation's energy. The judicious use of plastics and renewable energy can slash that rate.
Giffin, an extreme skier, has been living in a 112-square-foot house for a couple of years. He parks it near the slopes, and the resorts generally don't mind because, says Giffin, it's adorable and built of high-quality materials. But the tiny home movement also has converts in the cities. Some see a viable alternative to rentals, which have soared in cost in recent years because of the housing shortage. The movement also attracts individuals committed to making sustainable lifestyle choices and not wasting resources. "The environmental benefits are one thing," Giffin toldPlasticsToday, "and the economics are another, but it's also about reducing the clutter and enabling an adventurous lifestyle that can get you off the grid. All of that, and it's a home you can be proud of."
Through the TV show and his public appearances, Giffin wants to educate, not just consumers, but also industry.
"Early on, I was surprised to learn that recyclable materials for building and construction were not as readily available as I thought," Giffin toldPlasticsToday. "Part of what I'm trying to do is inform manufacturers that this is a legitimate market they need to serve." On the demand side, he wants to encourage "consumers to look at the options," and the house that he helped construct for the Plastics Make it Possible exhibit is designed to raise that awareness.
In addition to the material's durability—"the house has traveled thousands of miles without a crack in the drywall thanks to the rigidity of the spray foam insulation"—and its light weight—"especially important when you're towing"—it enables "so many aspects of energy efficiency." Giffin notes that the thermal envelope was especially important, and that relies on "several small pieces that come together to produce a secure, well-insulated home, from the plastic front door to the insulation. People don't think about all the little pieces that can go together to create an energy-efficient home."
Specifically, those pieces in the tiny house on display at the Science Center include:
• Polyurethane spray foam insulation courtesy of Dow Building Solutions, the Center for the Polyurethane Industries and WhySprayFoam.org.
• Vinyl siding and trim courtesy of Associated Materials, the Vinyl Institute, the Vinyl Siding Institute Inc. and National Housing Center.
• Polyiso foam insulation Thermasheath-3 and RSeal construction tape courtesy of Rmax Operating LLC, Axiom Communications Group and Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association.
• Dow Powerhouse solar shingles courtesy of Dow Building Solutions and Dow Solar Field Operations.
• Vinyl windows courtesy of Tiltco, a division of Windoworld Industries Inc. and American Architectural Manufacturers Association.
• Wasco polycarbonate skylight courtesy of Wasco Products Inc. and Covestro.
• Jeld-Wen Architectural Fiberglass door courtesy of Covestro and Innovation Exhibits, Ohio.
• Polyethylene cross-linked pipe courtesy of Uponor and the Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association. Pipe installed is Acme-Cash.
• Luxury vinyl flooring courtesy of Metroflor and the Vinyl Institute.Despite the abundant use of plastics, the interior feels cosy, and that is deliberate. "We don't want people to feel like they are living in a plastic bottle," says Giffin, and wood furnishings and trimming exude warmth and comfort.
The cost of a tiny home can vary between $30,000 and $75,000, depending on the amenities and how much elbow grease you want to put into it yourself, but for Giffin, $50,000 is a good benchmark for a tiny house that, well, feels like home.
-
Echa Consults on Substance Identity Profile Proposals
Nov 30, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Echa says there is “a need to (legally) reinforce” the notion that information on the scope of the substance covered is a prerequisite for the submission of a lead registrant dossier.
In a paper submitted to the latest meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal), in mid-November, the agency asked member states to what extent a “reinforced legal basis” for this would be desirable.
The document explains that for substances registered by many firms, each registrant, including the lead registrant, reports its own specific composition in its own dossier. But the joint registration covers the full range of compositions reported in the member dossiers.
This means the full range of compositions – the substance identity profiles (SIPs) – is not reported in any dossier, and there is no guidance that clarifies that this information should be explicitly reported in dossiers.
Many dossiers have been rejected due to poor or incorrectly established substance identity. Experts say they have seen cases of companies leaving it late to complete their profile, only to find they are in the wrong consortium or Sief – putting them under extreme pressure to complete their registration (GBB July/Aug 2015).
“Current legal requirements, practical implementation in Iuclid and the absence of explicit guidance on [substance] sameness reporting,” the paper says, “have created practical obstacles for registrants to both report the scope of the registered substance … and to demonstrate the relevance of the Annex VII-XI data included in the lead registrant dossier for all compositions within its scope.”
Echa says REACH Article 11(1) provides a legal basis for making such reporting mandatory, and that agreement on the scope of a substance covered by a registration, and on the set of data is a prerequisite to the joint submission.
Verification that a dossier contains this information could be done, says Echa, at the “business rules” stage of the dossier submission process. This is where all the format and context checks are conducted.
The agency is asking for views on whether this reporting should be retroactively applied to existing registrants, for example, when they submit updated dossiers.
Ensuring that registrations includes SIPs could make the data-sharing process – and data-sharing disputes – more transparent, says the paper.
It also points out that the implementation of the “one substance, one registration” principle foreseen in the proposed data sharing Regulation will also require SIP information to be available. This is because enforcing one submission of information for the same substance requires the sameness criteria being applied to define the registered substance by both parties to be available.
Another benefit, says the paper, is if the SIP is available on the dissemination page of Echa’s website, it will help SMEs screen for registrations that cover their compositions of the registered substance and help them decide their obligations for joint submission and data sharing.
-
The Beauty Industry Now Has Its Own Green 'Seal of Approval'
Nov 30, 2015 | The Guardian
By Amy Westervelt
It may soon be easier for shoppers to find beauty products without toxic chemicals. The Environmental Working Group nonprofit launched a new label this month called EWG Verified, which certifies personal care products as free from chemicals of concern.
The program is an extension of the group’s work with the Skin Deep database, which for more than a decade now has given tens of millions of visitors information on the chemical contents and relative safety of their favorite cosmetics and shampoos.
Before now, the personal care industry has mostly shied away from eco-labels, in spite of rising interest in non-toxic beauty products from consumers and the increasing popularity of eco-labels for other types of consumer products.
The number of eco-labels on consumer products across industries has grown from a few dozen in the 1990s to more than 400 today. The labels have helped some companies justify price premiums, but have also served to confuse consumers in industries like food where a large number of labels with varying degrees of credibility – ranging from baseless “all natural” claims to more rigorous organic certifications – can make it difficult for shoppers to separate the green from the greenwashed.
On-package labeling could become a common practice as retailers like Walmart and Target roll out programs vetting the chemical ingredients in personal care products.
“Eco-labeling is a critical step in the regulation of the private sector, and third party labels are generally more trustworthy than the industry’s self-certified labels,” says Xinghua Li, a professor of media studies at Babson College, who researches green advertising. “The cosmetic industry needs it just as urgently as the food industry: products we put on our skin are just as important as the food we put into our mouths.”
An increase in eco-certification programs could be good for the personal care industry even if it doesn’t equate to more on-product labels. In a recent study on the value of eco-labels, UCLA researchers linked the rise of eco-labels to the price premium they can help command, but pointed out that the certification processes behind various labels alone can also deliver benefits to companies. The researchers cite the wine industry as an example because so many vineyards go through eco certification programs but opt not to use the companion eco-labels on their bottles.
“We find that consumers are not willing to pay a premium for wine eco-labels, but that certified though unlabeled wine enjoys a significant premium,” writes Magali Delmas, the lead author of the study. Delmas adds that eco certification may lead to improved production processes, which in turn help to produce a higher quality product that can be sold at a price premium.
That could be a template for personal care products, too. Nneka Leiba, deputy director of research for EWG, says she hopes consumers will recognize and trust the EWG Verified label, which will then persuade more personal care manufacturers to stop using toxic chemicals. “We thought it could be useful for consumers to see something at the point of sale, but also we were hearing pretty frequently from companies, asking if they could use our logo on their products to indicate that they had scored well in the Skin Deep database,” she says. “And we thought, ‘Hey that’s good idea, let’s make some criteria’.”
Criteria for using the EWG Verified mark are slightly more stringent than those for scoring green in the Skin Deep database.
In the database, EWG checks product ingredients against available studies and government databases on chemical toxicity, then assigns a score of one to 10 to each product based on more than a dozen criteria related to its relative hazard and how much information is available about the product and its ingredients. Products in the 0-2 range are marked green for “low hazards”; those with a score of 3-6 are yellow for “moderate hazards”; and products scoring 7-10 are listed as red for “high hazards”.
To qualify for the EWG Verified seal, a product must not contain any of the ingredients on EWG’s lists of restricted and unacceptable ingredients. Companies also must fully disclose all ingredients on the label (and not use any catch-all terms like “fragrance”, for example) and must prove they are adequately preserving their products without using toxic chemicals.
The new seal doesn’t mean the Skin Deep database is coming to an end, however. EWG will continue to run the database because not every company – or every product within a company – will be eligible for the EWG Verified mark. Most sunscreens and products containing popular facial cream ingredient retinol, for example, do not meet the criteria for EWG Verified.
“The database is also necessary for showcasing bad actors in the market – those that are scoring red or yellow – and differentiating those brands and products from those that are rating green,” Leiba adds.
Healthy Lifestyle Brands, a brand management firm that works with various wellness-focused businesses, is administering the EWG Verified mark. Companies have to pay to apply for certification, but EWG wouldn’t disclose the fees. The money will help pay for EWG’s ongoing research into ingredients and will cover the costs of administering the program, according to EWG spokesperson Monica Amarelo.
EWG Verified has launched with two brands: Beauty Counter and MyChelle Cosmetics. MyChelle chief marketing officer Kimberly Heathman says she expects the EWG Verified seal will help attract new customers. MyChelle plans to market its EWG Verified affiliation on its website, marketing materials and product packaging.
Rebecca Brooks, a marketing consultant and founder of the market research firm Alter Agents, says the label will help brands differentiate themselves even if they do nothing more than put it on their products. “Consumers will see it as an official label, so even if people don’t know EWG, it will stand out to them,” she says.
Brooks says it could also help cultivate customer loyalty, especially given her firm’s research showing that brand loyalty is waning these days. Factors such as prices and product reviews tend to sway millennials more than they do brand-loyal boomers. More certification programs for personal care products could emerge if EWG Verified proves to be successful in boosting sales for its participants.
However, a label boom in the personal care industry could be problematic for both the companies in the EWG Verified program and consumers. More labels could confuse consumers, water down the value of EWG Verified and leave companies once again struggling to differentiate themselves, according to Brooks.
“If I were a brand that was going to pay EWG to get verified, I would want some certainty that the marketplace won’t become crowded with other stamps and labels that would make my EWG marker irrelevant,” Brooks says. “So there’s a certain onus on them to promote and push to consumers about their label, what it means, and why it matters.”
-
Experts Say Accurate Clean Power Plan Cost Estimate Won't Arrive for Years
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
Interest groups recently have rolled out a proliferating number of price tags for the Obama administration's new limits on power plant carbon emissions. The estimates are often vastly different -- some call the rule affordable; others determine it will be costly. Nonetheless, they are already ammunition for politicians debating the Clean Power Plan on both sides of the aisle.
For example, an analysis backed by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity found the energy sector will spend up to $292 billion to comply with the Clean Power Plan. Both U.S. EPA and environmental groups called this a gross overestimate, arguing that under policies incentivized by the climate rule, consumers will spend between 7 and 7.7 percent less on electricity by 2030.
However, the utilities and regional transmission organizations that must put the Clean Power Plan into action aren't comfortable making predictions about the rule's cost quite yet.
The possibilities involved in compliance are enormously complex, they say, and it will be months until states indicate which of a bevy of paths they might choose. Those decisions will have a major impact on how expensive the Clean Power Plan is.
"We're not necessarily trying to say we know what the cost is going to be because, quite frankly, we don't. I don't think anybody truly knows," said Michael Kormos, executive vice president and chief operations officer of PJM Interconnection, the Mid-Atlantic grid organization. PJM will release preliminary economic modeling in the spring, but Kormos stressed that many unknowns will remain.
"Everything is really going to be based on the assumptions ... what gas prices will be, what the cost of renewables will or won't be in 2025," Kormos said. "The biggest uncertainty is, what are the individual states going to do, and how do [the plans] stitch back together?"Paths under 'unique rule'
Under the final Clean Power Plan, EPA presented states with a web of compliance choices. States can meet their targets under a rate-based system, a limit on pounds of carbon emissions per megawatt-hour. Or states can choose a mass-based target, meaning EPA caps the total pounds of carbon that power plants can emit.
In each of these systems, EPA is allowing states to participate in separate carbon-trading programs -- either within a single state or among states. These could be limited to in-state trading or could involve other states. Trading could greatly reduce overall compliance costs, grid experts agree. However, states may make decisions that limit whom they can trade with.
At this point, it's anyone's guess what size and scope of carbon-trading systems might evolve under the Clean Power Plan. States will only hint at their leanings in an initial filing next September and won't have to submit final compliance plans until 2018.
"It's kind of a unique rule," said Amlan Saha, vice president at M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC, a consulting firm helping states model compliance options. "When a rule was finalized in the past, we at least knew what form it would take when it's implemented.
"The fundamental thing we will need to estimate anything like cost or impact on rates is to know which state is going to do mass and which state is going to do rate," Saha added. "That is totally not clear at this time. We are seeing some signals here and there, but if we are to do a pure technical economic analysis of the rule, we are still far away from the stage where we would be able to do that meaningfully."
At this point, organizations responsible for the electric grid like PJM and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) are focused on modeling economic scenarios to give states an idea of the relative cost of different compliance paths.
"Obviously we've got some bookends we can look at. What if all states go mass-based and do regional trading? What if all states go rate-based and do regional trading? What if you have a mixture of the two?" said Kari Bennett, senior director of program strategy for MISO, a regional transmission organization that serves 15 states in the Midwest and South.
"EPA, in giving states a lot of options, introduced a lot of complexity," Bennett said. "We're trying to be thoughtful and deliberate in how we are analyzing our options and the complexity."Modeling 90 scenarios?
Trying to predict how carbon trading systems might work isn't the only challenge for Clean Power Plan cost calculators.
The future price of energy resources like natural gas and renewable energy can be modeled but is ultimately uncertain. Also, Saha explained that it's tricky to pick apart which costs are due to the Clean Power Plan and which costs are attached to other policies.
"A lot of states have very ambitious [renewable portfolio standards] or energy efficiency standards in place," said Saha. "To the extent that those programs bring in a lot of renewable energy or energy efficiency savings, should we assign any of those costs to the CPP?"
Bennett explained that MISO is not attempting to model all possible costs associated with the regulation.
"We know that there is also the potential for things like employment impacts that could end up factoring into ultimate total costs," said Bennett. "That is really hard for us to factor in -- those end up being really localized and case-specific cost scenarios."
In the end, regional transmission organizations must model many scenarios and communicate what they mean to states and power companies, said Kormos. But that will be a challenge because the rule can play out in so many ways, he added.
"I forget the total number of scenarios we are going to run, but it is probably in the 70, 80, 90 range at this point," he said.Dodging the 'target on their backs'
Analysts behind some recent cost estimates on the Clean Power Plan defended their conclusions as reasonable given that EPA published its own cost estimate when the rule was released in August.
"EPA has to do it for the regulatory impact analysis; people want to know whether that seems like a reasonable estimate or not, so that's why we did it," said Anne Smith of National Economic Research Associates Inc. (NERA), an author of the report prepared for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity determining the rule would cost up to $292 billion.
Smith recently testified before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and criticized EPA's cost calculations and claims regarding the health co-benefits of the Clean Power Plan.
Asked why, unlike regional transmission organizations, NERA limited its modeling to specific scenarios, Smith responded, "We didn't have time to do 90 [scenarios]. We had time to do five, and given that our objective is to get a bounding on the order of magnitude and nature of impacts rather than to make business decisions off of this, I don't think it merited doing a whole lot more."
Thomas Hewson, principal at Energy Ventures Analysis and author of a report that determined the rule will cause a $214 billion increase in electricity prices by 2030, also defended his conclusions, even though he did not model for multistate trading. The report was commissioned by the National Mining Association.
"We were trying to come up with a case comparable with what EPA modeled; EPA did not do trading," Hewson said. "I realize that trading definitely can potentially ease some of the issues in many states."
Hewson also said that the fact that the National Mining Association commissioned the report did not influence his findings.
"The people who pay me to do the reports obviously were first people who felt they had the target on their backs," Hewson said. "I do not feel that it's in anyone's interest to slant or bias results or to try to get some preconceived notions."'You can almost get any number you want'
Environmental advocacy groups also defended their claim that due to energy efficiency incentives, electricity bills will be lower under the Clean Power Plan. But they also acknowledged states must embrace energy efficiency for this to happen.
A recent Public Citizen report claiming that the Clean Power Plan will lower electricity bills said: "It is important to note that the actual outcomes will depend on state policy choices. State officials will decide how to comply with the Clean Power Plan, and they can choose policies that are better or worse for electricity customers."
David Arkush, managing director of Public Citizen's Climate Program, argued it is unlikely states will forgo the opportunity of energy efficiency.
"It really does mystify me why any governor or state official wouldn't want to promote energy efficiency," Arkush said.
But utilities and regional transmission organizations remain wary of the projections being put out by interest groups.
"When you are looking at cost projections, you really need to look at the assumptions they are using," Kormos of PJM said. "You can almost get any number you want by obviously changing the assumptions to fit."
-
Utica Shale Boom Moving Closer to Reality, CSU Economists Predict (Photos)
Nov 23, 2015 | Cleveland
By John Funk
The enormous productivity of Ohio's shale gas industry has done more than drive down gas prices and create jobs on drilling rigs in rural Ohio.
Shale gas well development over the last four years, though now at a crawl because of low prices, has already set the stage for a petrochemical and plastics manufacturing boom.
And that boom ought to occur over the next five years, a comprehensive report and analysis released this week by Cleveland State University argues. The three-part, nearly 300-page study is the work of the Center for Economic Development's Energy Policy Center at CSU's Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs.
The analysis goes well beyond typical economic forecasts commissioned by the industry which typically count jobs, wages and taxes that for whatever reason often don't materialize.
The study looks at the extraordinary productivity of the wells developed so far, the capacity of the processing plants and pipelines, both those in service and those on the drawing boards, and the most likely rate of additional wells being drilled and gas production over the next five years.
And its conclusion hinges on a lucky fact that a good portion of the shale play under Ohio, West Virginia, and to a lesser extent Pennsylvania, produces not just methane but propane, butane and ethane, a trio of hydrocarbons called "natural gas liquids" or NGLs. They could not find workers with the skills, who were drug-free and willing to work more than 40 hours a week."
Ethane is the NGL that will fuel the boom, the analysis argues, because it is a valuable petrochemical. And because there will be so much of it.
The study projects that by 2020, the region -- Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia -- will have such a surplus of ethane, which must be separated from methane before natural gas can be used as a fuel, that it will only make economic sense to build ethane refineries here rather than try to ship the volatile ethane to crackers on the Gulf Coast.
Called "crackers," the ethane refineries convert, or crack and reconfigure, the ethane molecules into the building blocks used by the entire plastics and polymer and chemical industries.
"The region is capable of extracting enough ... (NGLs) to supply multiple crackers," said economist Iryna Lendel in an interview. "Not just one, or two, or even three, but multiple."
Lendel is the assistant director of the Center for Economic Development at the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs and a co-author of the massive report.
"Everybody has been concentrating on production," she said. "They forgot that we should be focusing on downstream development -- on manufacturing, because manufacturing creates permanent jobs that requires skills and pay well."
Lendel said three companies are proposing to build the multi-billion-dollar plants, Shell Chemical, on the Pennsylvania-Ohio border, a Brazilian consortium, in Parkersburg, West Virginia, and a Japanese-Thai consortium in Belmont County, Ohio.
With a total estimated cost of at least $14 billion, the three refineries alone would create more than 10,000 construction jobs and nearly 1,000 highly paid permanent jobs, the study estimates.
The three projects are not under construction or even permitted, but the developers have not walked away either, said Lendel. "I think we are in pretty good shape," she said. "The commitment is still there."
And the crackers are just the beginning.
The ethylene and other engineered molecules that they produce are the feed stock for the petrochemical industry, which already employs nearly 74,000 people in Ohio, another 50,000 in Pennsylvania and nearly 11,000 in West Virginia, or more than two-thirds of the entire U.S. petrochemical workforce.
Local ethane crackers would give regional petrochemical plants a cost advantage because they would not have to order ethylene from distant crackers, the report argues.
Andrew Thomas, executive-in-residence at CSU's Energy Policy Center, and co-author, said the point of the analysis is that Ohio can, and ought to, build manufacturing on its mineral wealth rather than allow the enormous gas production to create an "extraction economy in which minerals are taken out of the ground and shipped elsewhere to create wealth."
So what happened to the promised jobs in the well fields?
A previous CSU analysis predicted about 55,000 so-called "upstream" jobs would be created drilling and fracturing the shale and supplying the operations.
"We projected about 50,000 to 55,000 jobs altogether, including supply chain jobs," said Lendel. "We are there. The jobs were created because work had to be done.
"Were they all filled by Ohioans? I doubt it. They could not find workers with the skills, who were drug-free and willing to work more than 40 hours a week."
The study and analysis were commissioned by the Regional Economic Competitiveness Strategy (RECS) Shale Committee with support from the Economic Growth Foundation and Jobs Ohio. Click here to download a copy of the report.
-
EPA Questions Report Downplaying Fracking's Impact on Drinking Water
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Don Hopey
A U.S. EPA advisory board found that there was insufficient evidence presented in a draft report on hydraulic fracturing released by the agency in June. That report concluded that shale gas fracking has not caused significant degradation of the country's water supplies.
The earlier study was commissioned by Congress to evaluate the risks to water supplies from hydraulic fracturing. The peer-reviewed report from the Science Advisory Board released in October noted that there were gaps and deficiencies in the data cited by the study.
"Of particular concern is the statement of no widespread, systemic impacts on drinking-water resources," the advisory board report pointed out. "Neither the system of interest nor the definitions of widespread, systemic or impact are clear -- and it is not clear how this statement reflects the uncertainties and data limitations described in the Report's chapters."
The committee recommended that revisions be made to the study's conclusion to make it "more precise and specific".
-
Enviros Appeal Judge's Decision to Stall Fracking Rule
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists defending the Obama administration's new hydraulic fracturing rule are challenging a federal court's decision to block the rollout of the new standards.
The Sierra Club, Earthworks, Western Resource Advocates and other groups on Friday filed a notice of appeal in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging a lower court's September decision to grant industry and states' request for a preliminary injunction.
The Bureau of Land Management rule, which regulates well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells on public and tribal lands, has been mired in litigation since its release in March.
The rule has been on hold by the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming while oil and gas industry groups and several Western states challenge its legality. In Friday's appeal, the environmental groups argue that the rule should be enforced while the litigation moves forward.
The appeal of the preliminary injunction comes a week after the environmental defendants attempted to persuade the district court to pass the entire case up to the 10th Circuit. The lower court has not yet ruled on that motion (EnergyWire, Nov. 17).
Federal defendants have not indicated plans to join in the appeals process. The deadline is today.
-
Energy Sector Says EPA Voluntary Methane Plan Must Avoid Permit Limits
Nov 30, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Oil and gas transmission companies are largely supporting EPA's proposed voluntary program for reducing methane emissions from the sector, but are seeking assurances from the agency that the methane cuts companies achieve under the program will never be used as the basis for Clean Air Act permit limits or other regulatory mandates.
"[V]olunteering companies must have assurances from EPA that their voluntary commitment to meet certain emission reduction targets does not create mandatory permit requirements once the voluntary program terminates," the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) says in comments filed Nov. 13.
INGAA also says EPA should assure companies they will not be penalized if they inadvertently under-perform on commitments to methane cuts or fail to meet specific reduction targets or milestones in the program, suggesting that EPA might not otherwise be able to achieve the "ambitious commitments" it says it is seeking from industry participants.
In separate Nov. 13 comments, the American Gas Association (AGA) -- representing natural gas distribution companies -- urges EPA to recognize companies that make early commitments to participate in the program.
AGA also stresses that the agency should avoid establishing penalty or regulatory enforcement provisions for the voluntary program, and should also allow companies to set individual timing and endpoint goals that are reasonably expected to be achievable as allowed by the state public utility commission or another state regulator.
EPA accepted stakeholder feedback through Nov. 13 on its proposed Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program, which builds on the existing Natural Gas STAR program that encourages oil and natural gas companies to adopt "cost-effective technologies and practices" to reduce emissions of the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) methane.
The proposed voluntary program is intended as a partnership between EPA and industry, setting best practices for facilities to cut emissions of methane. As a result, many in industry have urged EPA to allow participation in the voluntary program as an alternative to strict new source performance standards (NSPS) that the agency is in the process of finalizing for the sector.
The agency is crafting the framework as part of a package to cut the sector's methane emissions in accordance with the President's goal of reducing 40-45 percent of the sector's methane by 2025.
EPA recently proposed a suite of rules for the sector including an update to its NSPS to impose first-time methane limits on new oil and gas sources, and draft control techniques guidelines for reducing emissions from existing sources. EPA is taking comment on the regulations through an extended Dec. 4 deadline.
Methane Challenge
For the Methane Challenge, EPA proposes to gives companies two options for participating, the first being One Future, an existing industry program in which companies make commitments to achieve specific rates of emissions intensity across all facilities within a specific segment by 2025.
The second option would mean that companies would commit to company-wide implementation of best management practices (BMPs) selected by EPA to reduce methane emissions from key sources by a specific date.
The agency in 2014 floated a different Natural Gas STAR Gold program that was also designed to encourage voluntary reductions of methane from the sector, but scrapped the effort in July following industry criticism that the program would have been overly burdensome and few companies would have participated.
In contrast, comments filed on the new Methane Challenge proposal are generally supportive of the program's overall framework -- though industry warns the agency against ever trying to translate the methane reductions achieved in the program to regulatory mandates such as air permit limits.
INGAA says in its comments that it "believes the most important aspect of a federal voluntary program is that the program remains truly voluntary."
AGA's separate comments say that, "There should be no penalty or regulatory enforcement provisions in this voluntary program."
In a recent technical support document, the agency appeared to try to enhance flexibility for oil and natural gas production companies that might take part in the program, by ensuring the plan will not duplicate pending methane rules for the sector or GHG reporting requirements.
In its Nov. 13 comments, INGAA says it generally supports EPA's overall approach in the revised plan. But the group urges EPA to accept its directed inspection and maintenance guidelines (DI&M) as the BMP for reducing methane emissions at leaking compressor stations and pipeline operations.
"Including INGAA's DI&M as an approved BMP will encourage companies to participate in the voluntary Methane Challenge program," the group says.
LDAR Program
INGAA is seeking to steer EPA away from requiring companies to commit to a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program that the agency has included in its recent proposed NSPS. INGAA says that LDAR will result in unnecessary costs associated with monitoring frequency. Industry also criticizes the LDAR approach because it takes away flexibility from operators to prioritize fixing leaks based on magnitude and risk.
By contrast, the DI&M approach allows companies to focus on finding and fixing 80 percent of leaks for segments, which industry says allows them to prioritize fixing the largest leaks first and is better for addressing existing sources.
"Should EPA expect use of a LDAR program in the Methane Challenge (as it proposed in the . . . New Source Performance Standard) it would discourage program participation," the comments say.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), representing energy producers, says in its Nov. 13 comments that it appreciates the BMP option and that it is the preferred approach of many of its member companies, and suggests the agency should coordinate the program with other regulatory actions, including EPA's draft control techniques guidelines for the sector's existing sources, as such coordination could ensure broader industry participation.
API warns that some of its members have identified several uncertainties in EPA's approach that may pose a barrier to commitment, including offering additional time for companies to decide whether to participate as charter members beyond the early 2016 time frame EPA initially laid out.
Additionally, API says the comment period for the proposal should remain open until industry has a chance to review forthcoming Bureau of Land Management draft flaring regulations, and that EPA should offer regulatory incentives for participating.
For example, "One incentive pathway would be to consider companies with ambitious voluntary programs addressing new and existing sources to become exempt from the requirements" in the forthcoming NSPS and CTG rules, API says.
-
3 States Join Lawsuit Seeking to Upend New Ozone Standard
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Three states are seeking to join a legal challenge to U.S. EPA's new ozone standard, contending that happenstances of geography could unfairly push them out of compliance.
In a motion filed last Wednesday, attorneys general for Wisconsin, Utah and Kentucky said they want to highlight "the arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional nature of the ozone rule resulting from the interstate and international transport of ozone." The trio is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to let them intervene in the lawsuit filed last month by Arizona and four other states after EPA lowered the ambient air quality standard for the toxic pollutant from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb.
Those five states, which also include Arkansas, New Mexico, North Dakota and Oklahoma, have not yet laid out the precise grounds for their challenge. But in Wednesday's filing, the other three states said they could provide complementary arguments on "specific geographic issues," such as the effects of altitude and the impact of ozone wafting across state lines.
The new rule's "'one size fits all' nationwide standard does not properly account for these issues," the filing said.
In Wisconsin, for example, the lower standard will mainly affect counties along Lake Michigan on the state's eastern side, even though ozone in those areas comes from outside Wisconsin, according to the motion.
"So while Wisconsin is penalized for its ozone levels and placed on an unequal footing with other states, Wisconsin does not have the ability to cure its own ambient ozone levels," the filing added. In all three states, the new 70 ppb threshold will lead to the designation of new and expanded "nonattainment" areas under the Clean Air Act, meaning that ozone-producing industries will have to significantly boost spending on emissions-control equipment, the filing said.
As a result, expansion of those industries -- including chemical companies, breweries and drug manufacturers -- will be stifled or eliminated, according to the motion, which adds that the standard will place an added burden on states by expanding the length of the ozone monitoring season.
Ground-level ozone, which can irritate bronchial tubes and aggravate such diseases as asthma and emphysema, is a key ingredient in smog. The 75 ppb standard had been in place since 2008. In opting to lower it, EPA officials predicted that compliance costs would add up to about $1.4 billion annually but lead to health care savings of up to $5.9 billion per year. The agency's analysis excludes California, which is expected to take longer than the rest of the country to come into compliance (E&ENews PM, Oct. 1).
The appellate court has consolidated the states' lawsuit with a separate challenge from Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp., the nation's largest privately owned coal company. Under an approximately two-month window opened by the rule's Oct. 26 publication in the Federal Register, other prospective challengers have until Dec. 28 to mount their own appeals.
In a motion also filed last week, the Sierra Club and three other environmental groups asked to intervene on EPA's behalf but have not ruled out an appeal opposing the 70 ppb threshold on the grounds that it is too weak.
-
Paris Climate Talks Open as House Aims to Thwart Power Plant Rules
Nov 30, 2015 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Two weeks of U.N. negotiations to curb greenhouse gas emissions and help poor countries deal with climate change begin today in Paris.
The opening day will feature speeches from President Obama, Chinese President Xi Jinping and more than 120 other heads of state (ClimateWire, Nov. 25).
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
Meanwhile, the House is teeing up legislation to void the Obama administration's climate rules for the electricity sector, which are a linchpin of the United States' international commitments and would reduce carbon emissions from power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
The House Rules Committee meets at 5 p.m. today to review Congressional Review Act challenges to the rules for new and existing power plants.
The resolutions have already cleared the Senate and will likely pass through the House, although the president has sworn to veto them.
Tomorrow, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power will hold an oversight hearing with all four members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Republican lawmakers will likely question the agency about plans for ensuring grid reliability as states move toward reducing CO2 emissions.
In Missouri on Wednesday, the Department of Natural Resources' Air Pollution Control Program will host a stakeholder meeting on the Clean Power Plan's Clean Energy Incentive Program, which incentivizes early investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency policies. EnergyWire reporter Jeffrey Tomich will attend.
On Thursday, the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance will host a webinar on key regional takeaways, including from recent public meetings on the regulation's model trading rules and proposed federal plan.
On Friday, the Southwest Power Pool -- a grid organization operating in 14 states -- will hold a task force meeting on the Clean Power Plan.
In case you missed it:Power companies are lobbying U.S. EPA for a flexible federal plan for states that don't submit adequate blueprints of their own (EnergyWire, Nov. 23).North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) began attacking Gov. Pat McCrory (R), whose job he is seeking, for suing EPA over the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Nov. 25).ClimateWire's Lisa Friedman answers eight common questions about this week's climate talks (ClimateWire, Nov. 25).
-
GOP Rebuffs Obama’s Climate Plans as UN Conference Starts
Nov 30, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Devin Henry
Senior congressional Republicans attacked President Obama’s climate agenda over the weekend before he left for a major climate summit in Paris.
In a pair of op-eds, Republican leaders repeated long-standing arguments against the U.S.’s involvement in an international climate deal, warning that such an accord wouldn’t pass muster in Congress and saying that Obama is ignoring the energy reality at home.
“The president’s international negotiating partners at that conference should proceed with caution before entering into an unattainable deal with this administration, because commitments the president makes there would rest on a house of cards of his own making,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wrote in a Friday op-ed in The Washington Post.
Republicans have worked to undercut Obama’s negotiating position on climate, with senatorspushing resolutions calling for a vote on a final deal and lawmakers threatening to withhold U.S. funding for a key international climate fund.
They’ve also pushed back against Obama’s domestic climate agenda, which makes up the bulk of the pledges the president is bringing to the table in Paris.
The House will vote this week on resolutions undoing Obama’s landmark carbon emissions standards for power plants, rules that dozens of states have sued against. While Obama is certain to veto the resolutions, the GOP hopes the move will show the world their opposition to his proposals and demonstrate that U.S. climate commitments aren’t permanent.
“Congress and more than half of the states have already made clear that he won’t be speaking for us,” McConnell wrote. “The courts will also continue working to determine if this power plan is legal.”
Republicans have slammed Obama for pushing federal climate regulations, arguing that the American energy sector is already driving down carbon emissions.
In a Sunday op-ed in Reuters, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Obama "ignores” declining emissions from the power sector, which McCarthy attributed to increasing reliance on natural gas.
“The conclusion the president should draw from this and bring to the table with the international community is clear: only by embracing the free market can we improve the world’s environmental outlook while also strengthening our economies,” McCarthy wrote. “And this is exactly the vision the Republican-led Congress intends to project to the world.”
Obama has powered forward with his climate platform despite Republican opposition. In a Monday speech to leaders in Paris, he noted his power plant rules and his rejection to the Keystone XL pipeline and called them symbols of the U.S.’s commitment to fighting climate change.
“I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter, to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it,” he said.
-
Advocates Tout EPA 'Conflict' On Water Transfers Ahead Of Oral Argument
Nov 30, 2015 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists and EPA are sparring over whether the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule undercuts its defense of the 2008 policy exempting most water transfers from CWA permitting, as appellate judges prepare to weigh Dec. 1 oral argument in the advocates' facial challenge against the transfer rule.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing on EPA's behalf, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. et al. v. EPA, et al., to ignore claims from the challengers that the two rules contradict each other on whether permit mandates necessarily interfere with states' ability to allocate water supply -- a major factor in the transfer rule litigation.
The 2008 rule generally says a transfer of water between distinct waterbodies does not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit unless it is subject to intervening industrial, agricultural, or other use. Environmentalists say the rule exposes receiving waters to serious chemical and biological changes, and are seeking to uphold a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that partially vacated it.
However, DOJ and its allies, including many Western states, have countered that the transfer rule is a reasonable implementation of the CWA, along with claims that permitting water transfers would threaten states' power to manage their water supplies -- authority that is specifically protected by the water law.
With oral argument imminent, the advocates are now looking to turn that claim against DOJ. In the latest briefing, the challengers have charged that EPA's statements in the jurisdiction rule that permits issued as a result of that policy would not impact states' water management seem to contradict its claims in the water transfer litigation.
"Neither the CWA nor the rule impairs the authorities of States to allocate quantities of water. Instead, [they] serve to enhance the quality of the water that the States allocate. . . . Even if the rule were to have an incidental effect on water quantity or allocation, which it does not, the rule would still be consistent with Section 101(g) of the CWA," EPA said in its technical support document for the jurisdiction rule.
Section 101(g) of the water law says "the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by this Act."
The advocates' Nov. 6 letter notes that EPA went on to say the CWA's water-supply sections "do not limit the water pollution controls that can be imposed on such water allocation," such as discharge permits.
Statutory 'Ambiguity'
But DOJ counters in a Nov. 22 letter that it is not arguing that water transfer permits are clearly barred as interfering with states' water supply policy. Instead, it says, the language of the law is ambiguous and EPA considered section 101(g) a signal that Congress meant for regulators to interpret its provisions as maintaining states' freedom in that arena where possible.
"[I]n light of the ambiguity of the statutory term 'addition . . . to navigable waters,' EPA properly considered congressional policies to guide its interpretation, including Congress's policy preference to preserve state authority over water allocation," DOJ's letter says.
The CWA mandates permits for the "addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source," but EPA in crafting the transfer rule adopted a "unitary waters" reading of that language, holding that all jurisdictional waters should be treated as a unitary whole for permitting purposes. Under that theory pollution being transferred directly from one waterbody to another cannot qualify as an "addition" requiring a permit because it was already in a navigable water -- rather, only pollutants that originate outside the universe of jurisdictional waters require a permit.
DOJ has argued in briefs that the unitary waters theory is a reasonable reading of the CWA, and that courts must therefore defer to it under the landmark 1984 Supreme Court ruling Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. There, the high court said that agencies deserve judicial deference when they interpret an "ambiguous" law, as long as their reading of the statute is reasonable.
However, in a Nov. 24 letter, a coalition of states led by New York -- which is challenging the transfer rule along with environmentalists -- say the unitary waters theory also conflicts with the jurisdiction rule, because that rule is based on the CWA regulated individual "waters of the United States" rather than a collective whole.
"Indeed, the rule creates a process for evaluating water bodies 'individually' to determine whether they are protected by the CWA. EPA's recent rule thus demonstrates that the jurisdictional term 'waters of the United States' is meant to protect each water body that falls within its scope. . . . the same term should not be twisted here to exempt individual water bodies from protection against pollutants carried by water transfers," the Nov. 24 letter says.
Agency Deference
In prior letters to the court, New York also argued that recent Supreme Court rulings narrowed the deference agencies should receive under Chevron -- setting up Trout Unlimited as one of the first cases to test the decisions' impact on environmental law.
Majorities of the high court in two major recent cases refused to defer to an agency's reading of a governing statute, first with a 6-3 ruling issued June 25 in King v. Burwell that upheld a key part of President Obama's health care law but did not defer to the administration's interpretation of the statutory text. Chief Justice John Roberts held in that decision that the ambiguity at issue was so fundamental that Congress would not have meant for agencies to interpret it with deference.
That was followed by a June 29 5-4 decision in Michigan v. EPA where Justice Antonin Scalia faulted EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act in crafting its utility air toxics rule.
New York argued in July 23 letters that the rulings showed a lack of deference to the agencies, and that the same principle should apply in the challenge to the water transfer rule, but DOJ downplayed the claim.
While Michigan dealt with a threshold decision to issue a broad new regulation and faulted EPA for not considering costs in deciding to develop the utility air rule, DOJ argued that the transfer rule "is an interpretation of ambiguous statutory text in light of Congressional intent and competing policy considerations; far from imposing billions of dollars of new costs, the [rule] merely formalized the agency's longstanding position."
On the health care ruling, DOJ argued that the decision to exempt some water transfers from permits does not rise to the "extraordinary" levels the justices said warranted discarding Chevron deference in King. Its letter pointed out that King dealt with a rule crafted by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not expert in health care policy, but EPA is expert in weighing environmental regulation.
Industry and Association News
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
Add recipients
Suggested