Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Dec 2
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Stabilizes
Dec 1, 2015 | Powder & Bulks Solids
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), stabilized in November, rising 0.1 percent following three consecutive months of decline. October data was revised up 0.3 percent and September by 0.2 percent. All data is measured on a three-month... -
(ACC Mentioned) US Agencies Test Less Than 1% Of Chemicals
Dec 1, 2015 | ChemistryWorld
By Rebecca Trager
Less than 1% of the chemicals currently registered for commercial use in the US have undergone testing by government agencies, according to the Center for Effective Government (CEG). The Washington, DC-based non-profit revealed in a recent report that only 250 of the roughly 84,000 chemicals registered for the US market have... -
(ACC Mentioned) US Resin Output Down 1.5pc From 2014: ACC
Dec 1, 2015 | Argus Media
The US produced 6.3bn lbs of plastic resins in October, down 1.5pc from a year earlier, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Year-to-date production is up 2.6pc at 65.1bn lbs. -
(ACC Mentioned) Food and Beverage Packaging Innovation in the U.S.: Consumer Perspectives
Dec 1, 2015 | PR Newswire
Packaged Facts' brand-new report, Food and Beverage Packaging Innovation in the U.S.: Consumer Perspectives, is divided into three sections: 1) The first section focuses on packaging types and materials, and the state of recycling. 2) The second part of the report analyzes extensive data from a proprietary Packaged Facts... -
(ACC Mentioned) St. Louis Park Backs Away From Plastic Bag Ban
Dec 1, 2015 | Star Tribune
By John Reinan
Earlier this year, St. Louis Park took aim at being the first city in Minnesota to ban plastic bags. Now city leaders are backing away from that goal — it would be more symbolic than substantive, they say — but moving ahead on a companion proposal requiring all takeout food packaging to be reusable, recyclable or compostable. -
(ACC Mentioned) When People Make Toxic Tides Shift
Dec 1, 2015 | Southwest
By Mikki Morrissette
In 2002, the Denver-based insulation company Johns Manville decided that the science (and market) around the dangers of formaldehyde were too strong to ignore, and it stopped using the chemical to make insulation. At the time, the company reported, “While there is no evidence to suggest that the level of formaldehyde released by... -
(ACC Mentioned) 8 Million Tons Of Plastic Waste Ends Up In Oceans A Year
Dec 2, 2015 | Consultancy UK
Every year, 8 million tons of plastic waste makes into the oceans. 150 million tons of plastic is now estimated to be afloat, of which 95% is unrecoverable. In a bid to prevent plastic waste entering into ocean ecosystems, Ocean Conservancy and the McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment consider practical steps that the 5... -
EPA Scientists Working To Continue EDSP 'Pivot' To CompTox Assays
Dec 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA scientists are working to continue the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program's (EDSP) "pivot" toward increased use of computational and high throughput screening in human cells, moving beyond the estrogen receptor model that can replace three of the original EDSP assays to new androgen and thyroid models. -
House to Vote Again on Oil Exports
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House was expected to vote again on lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports after the House Rules Committee voted Dec. 1 to allow an amendment repealing the trade prohibition to be offered to a broader energy bill. The amendment to H.R. 8 by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) would repeal the long-standing ban and is similar to... -
New York Wants Oil Companies to Treat Oil Shipped on Trains
Dec 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Alison Sider
New York’s attorney general is calling on federal transportation regulators to impose new safety rules governing the combustibility of crude oil shipped by rail. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wants energy companies to treat crude oil using a process that removes volatile gases before the fuel can be loaded onto trains. -
Rule for Safer Offshore Drilling Nears Completion
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A federal regulator told a Senate committee Dec. 1 his agency will talk again with industry representatives as the agency works to finish its review of public comments on a proposed rule to improve well control for offshore oil and natural gas exploration. The target for completing the final “well control rule” and sending it to the White... -
Senators Vet Proposed Federal Drilling Rules
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Madelyn Beck
Senators, oil industry officials and environmentalists dove into the issue of offshore drilling regulations yesterday, as the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement tries to draft rules to prevent spills like the 2010 BP PLC Deepwater Horizon disaster. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee called... -
Resolutions to Kill Clean Power Plan Move Toward Final Vote
Dec 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Hannah Hess
Two Senate-passed resolutions that would block a central piece of President Obama's climate plan overcame a procedural hurdle in the House today and are teed up for a final vote this evening. The House voted 242-179 along party lines to limit debate on two resolutions through the Congressional Review Act that would kill U.S. EPA's ... -
House Casts Symbolic Vote To Kill Clean Power Plan, EPA Rule
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
A majority of House Republicans and a smattering of Democrats last night approved language to block critical portions of President Obama's climate agenda despite insufficient support to overcome veto threats from the White House. Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who led the charge in shepherding the Senate-passed resolutions through the lower... -
House Votes to Kill EPA Carbon Rules; Undercut Paris Talks
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Andrew Childers
As nations of the world begin two weeks of negotiations toward an international deal to address climate change, the House went on record Dec. 1 as strongly opposed to the Obama administration's domestic efforts on that front in what will ultimately be a largely symbolic effort to nullify two regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions... -
House Votes to Block EPA Power-Plant Rules
Dec 1, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The Republican-controlled House Tuesday approved a pair of measures blocking federal rules to cut power-plant emissions, a symbolic move aimed at sowing doubt about President Barack Obama’s climate agenda while world leaders gather in Paris to forge an accord on the problem. -
Congress Rebukes Climate Rules As Obama Returns From Paris
Dec 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Congress voted to block EPA carbon rules for power plants Tuesday, dealing a symbolic blow to President Barack Obama's climate change agenda just as he returns from a landmark summit in Paris. While the move will not stop the regulations at the heart of Obama's pledge to drastically cut U.S. emissions... -
73 More Companies Back Obama On Climate Pact
Dec 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama on Tuesday announced that 73 more companies are supporting his drive for an international climate change agreement. Tuesday’s announcement of additions to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge, which comes in the beginning days of the United Nations meeting in Paris aimed at finalizing an international pact... -
Bill Gates, Moniz Hit Hill To Promote Clean Energy Fund
Dec 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
Just days after the announcement of a new multibillion-dollar global fund to boost clean energy research, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz made the rounds on Capitol Hill today to sell the plan. Speaking to E&ENews PM after a private meeting that included Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman... -
Union Challenges Carbon Limits on New Power Plants
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A union filed its own challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide performance standards for new and modified power plants, following similar lawsuits brought by North Dakota and other opponents of the rule (Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 15-1434, 12/1/15). -
Lawmakers Say EPA's Power Plan Threatens Grid Reliability
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
House Republicans attacked the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan during an oversight hearing, saying it would harm the reliability of the electric grid and could lead to higher costs for consumers. Their comments at the Dec. 1 congressional hearing coincided with international talks in Paris toward a climate...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Stabilizes
Dec 1, 2015 | Powder & Bulks Solids
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), stabilized in November, rising 0.1 percent following three consecutive months of decline.
October data was revised up 0.3 percent and September by 0.2 percent. All data is measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). The pattern reverses a downward trend that had begun to gain momentum. Accounting for adjustments, the CAB remains up 1.3 percent over this time last year, a deceleration of annual growth. In November 2014, the CAB logged a 3.4 percent annual gain over October 2013. The unadjusted CAB reading for November was also up, rising 0.4 percent.
The CAB has four primary components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators.
During November chemical equity prices strengthened and led overall equity market performance. Product prices and inventories were relatively stable.
The CAB is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy's business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
Applying the CAB back to 1919, it has been shown to provide a lead of two to 14 months, with an average lead of eight months at cycle peaks as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The median lead was also eight months. At business cycle troughs, the CAB leads by one to seven months, with an average lead of four months. The median lead was three months. The CAB is rebased to the average lead (in months) of an average 100 in the base year (the year 2012 was used) of a reference time series. The latter is the Federal Reserve's Industrial Production Index.
U.S. exports continue to fall, influenced by a slowing global economy. Global trade continues to lag behind both global industrial production and broader economic activity.
The CAB comprises indicators relating to the production of chlorine and other alkalies, pigments, plastic resins, and other selected basic industrial chemicals; chemical company stock data; hours worked in chemicals; publicly sourced, chemical price information; end-use (or customer) industry sales-to-inventories; and several broader leading economic measures (building permits and new orders). Each month, ACC provides a barometer number, which reflects activity data for the current month, as well as a three-month moving average. The CAB was developed by the economics department at the American Chemistry Council.The next CAB is currently planned for December 22, 2015.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Agencies Test Less Than 1% Of Chemicals
Dec 1, 2015 | ChemistryWorld
By Rebecca Trager
Less than 1% of the chemicals currently registered for commercial use in the US have undergone testing by government agencies, according to the Center for Effective Government (CEG). The Washington, DC-based non-profit revealed in a recent report that only 250 of the roughly 84,000 chemicals registered for the US market have undergone testing, and just nine of those substances have been restricted.
In addition, CEG found that only 42% of the active chemical manufacturing plants in the US have been inspected in the last three to five years. Serious environmental or workplace safety violations were found in a quarter of those that were inspected, the organisation says.
As the number of older chemical production facilities grows in the US, the resources of state and local enforcement agencies appear to be shrinking. For example, since 2010 the enforcement budgets of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have been slashed by 20% and 14% respectively, according to CEG.
The organisation also warns that the current penalties for safety violations are too lenient. Even if a worker is killed on the job, the maximum fine that OSHA can impose on a facility is $70,000 (£46,476) per violation, and the average fine following a worker’s death was just above $5,000 in fiscal year 2014, CEG says. That’s ‘a small cost of doing business for chemical companies that make billions in profits’, the group states.
In its report, CEG says more chemical manufacturing facilities should be regularly inspected, and calls for harsher penalties for those that violate safety and environmental standards. It also recommends that all companies shift to so-called ‘inherently safer chemicals and technologies’ when they are available. The US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has said this could include using less explosive chemical blends, or storing smaller quantities of hazardous chemicals in fireproof concrete structures.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a chemical industry lobby group, says that enhancing safety continues to be one of the top priorities of its member companies, and objects to what it calls the CEG report’s ‘mischaracterisation’.The trade group notes that the US chemical industry invests more than $14 billion annually in environmental, health, safety and security programmes, and it says more than half of its member companies had no process safety incidents in 2014.
‘We believe that creating a specific regulatory mandate to adopt safer alternatives, as some groups have suggested, is unnecessary and would be counter-productive,’ the ACC states. Instead, it says, facility operators should be allowed to decide which combination of safety measures will deliver the best results.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Resin Output Down 1.5pc From 2014: ACC
Dec 1, 2015 | Argus Media
The US produced 6.3bn lbs of plastic resins in October, down 1.5pc from a year earlier, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Year-to-date production is up 2.6pc at 65.1bn lbs.
Sales and internal use of resins rose 4.9pc to 6.6bn lbs in October versus last year. Sales so far this year are up 3.4pc at 65.6bn lbs.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Food and Beverage Packaging Innovation in the U.S.: Consumer Perspectives
Dec 1, 2015 | PR Newswire
Packaged Facts' brand-new report, Food and Beverage Packaging Innovation in the U.S.: Consumer Perspectives, is divided into three sections:
1) The first section focuses on packaging types and materials, and the state of recycling.
2) The second part of the report analyzes extensive data from a proprietary Packaged Facts National Consumer Survey conducted in April 2015, and Simmons National Consumer Survey data from Experian Marketing Services, as well as other published surveys, to delve deeply into what features today's consumers are seeking in food and beverage packaging.
3) The final chapter presents key demographic, lifestyle, and eating trends that are affecting packaging use and decisions, and considerations that play important roles in the messages marketers convey. Cited are more than 50 examples of recently introduced food and beverage products along with photographs or diagrams.
In addition to the Packaged Facts consumer survey, our primary research for Food and Beverage Packaging Innovation in the U.S. includes on-site examinations of on-site examination of products in retail stores. Secondary research involved evaluating and comparing data and reports by government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (EPA); and reports by industry associations such as the American Chemistry Council, the Can Manufacturers Institute, the Container Recycling Institute, the Flexible Packaging Association, and the Glass Packaging Institute. Additional secondary sources included reviewing more than 250 articles and reports found in industry and consumer media; websites and literature from individual food and beverage companies; and other Packaged Facts reports. -
(ACC Mentioned) St. Louis Park Backs Away From Plastic Bag Ban
Dec 1, 2015 | Star Tribune
By John Reinan
Earlier this year, St. Louis Park took aim at being the first city in Minnesota to ban plastic bags.
Now city leaders are backing away from that goal — it would be more symbolic than substantive, they say — but moving ahead on a companion proposal requiring all takeout food packaging to be reusable, recyclable or compostable.
A public hearing on the proposal is set for next week.
“We’ve tabled the bag thing altogether,” said Jake Spano, a City Council member who will be sworn in as mayor next month. “If we’re really serious about making a difference in our waste stream, [bags are] such a tiny portion of it.”
A handful of major U.S. cities have banned plastic bags in recent years, but the trend may be slowing.
Chicago passed a bag ban that took effect in August, but the ordinance provided a wide range of exceptions. Earlier this year, Dallas repealed a five-cent fee on plastic bags and rejected an attempt to ban them entirely.
Arizona passed a state law this year prohibiting any local bans, taxes or fees on plastic bags, while Californians will vote next year on a statewide bag ban that’s vigorously opposed by business groups.
Plastic bags make up only about half of 1 percent of St. Louis Park’s waste stream, city officials said. Meanwhile, materials that could be recycled or composted, such as packaging, account for more than half the city’s solid waste.
Minneapolis banned several types of polystyrene and plastic food containers earlier this year, and the city is also considering a plastic bag ban.
Potential marketing benefits
St. Louis Park’s proposed “zero waste packaging” ordinance would not specifically ban foam cups, plates and clamshell containers. But in practice, “it’s likely that most foam containers would not be eligible” anyway, said Kala Fisher, the city’s solid waste coordinator.
That’s because metro-area recycling facilities don’t want to process polystyrene foam containers and don’t have a market for them, Fisher said, even though it’s possible to recycle those materials and more than 100 cities nationwide do it.
The takeout container proposal is opposed by a roster of heavy-hitting business groups, including the Minnesota Retailers Association, the Minnesota Restaurant Association and the Minnesota Grocers Association. But Spano said businesses should look at the proposal as a potential marketing tool.
“There are people who have made this a part of their brand and a part of their message,” Spano said. “They market themselves based on their environmental practices.”
The plastics industry supports increased recycling, which is why foam takeout containers should be allowed, an industry spokesman said.
“We do support the concept of the ordinance,” said Mike Levy, director of the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group of the American Chemistry Council. “We feel that St. Louis Park, in moving toward more recycling, should include all materials.”
For example, Los Angeles allows all plastic — including foam — in its single-stream curbside recycling program, Levy said. The best way to encourage recycling facilities to take foam products is to start providing them with a supply, he said.
The public hearing on the St. Louis Park proposal will begin at 7:30 p.m. Monday at City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. The ordinance could pass as soon as Dec. 21, but wouldn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2017. That would give businesses a year to adjust, and the city time enough to make decisions on exactly how the program would take shape, Fisher said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) When People Make Toxic Tides Shift
Dec 1, 2015 | Southwest
By Mikki Morrissette
In 2002, the Denver-based insulation company Johns Manville decided that the science (and market) around the dangers of formaldehyde were too strong to ignore, and it stopped using the chemical to make insulation.
At the time, the company reported, “While there is no evidence to suggest that the level of formaldehyde released by traditionally bonded insulation is at all harmful, concern about indoor air quality has continued to be expressed by architects, builders, and consumers.”
By 2011, four other manufacturers needed to follow suit. And in summer 2015, the last roll of insulation containing formaldehyde was produced.
At a recent Healthy Building Network discussion in Minneapolis, it was pointed out that the pressure to reduce this cancer-causing chemical was not led by the revelation that it caused cancer — that declaration wasn’t made until 2014, after a long battle with the American Chemistry Council lobby.
The pressure came from the market. It took homebuilders and consumers many years of collective action — and raising questions — to lead to product changes. Certain manufacturers wanted to be market leaders in offering more sustainable products.
Similar changes have happened with other toxic building materials that have spiked health issues over the decades — in paints, vinyl flooring, glues and treatments used in furnishings.
But, until there is a tipping point in market demand, materials using dubious toxins are still created and sold to consumers who don’t know what the impact of them might be — or whether there are safer options.
Until consumers ask questions and demand healthier materials, it is often easiest for less green-minded builders and manufacturers to not disclose the content of their products.
The impact of “we”
We have smoke-free buildings. Energy Star appliances are popular choices. We require lead- and asbestos-free environments. But prior to public support, none of those things were standard.
It costs businesses money to change production methods. Many chemicals have been grandfathered in as “safe enough unless proven otherwise,” and thus are not subject to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scrutiny.
At the Healthy Building Network discussion, it was noted that in certain New York mortgage underwriting requirements, it is now required by compliance to include energy efficiency mandates. That has been “a game changer,” one participant said.
What if we could get Minnesota consumers to raise enough concern about our health issues (autism, asthma, cancer) that the Minnesota health care system, for example, would ask for green efficiency standards to be met in all new and improved construction efforts?
What if we could make this a question of values — “can you tell me what is in these products, or can’t you?” What if our impact as consumers prompted more dangerous products to be discontinued?
Home Depot, for example, announced in 2015 that it would stop using certain vinyl flooring that was a danger especially to infants and toddlers. Lowes and others followed suit shortly after. Health impacts of these chemicals on developing bodies can include cancer, learning disabilities and asthma.
At the first “Sustainable We” forum in October, 40 people came together — including three park commissioners — to talk about the growing public concern over the use of pesticides in the park system, the yields of chemical vs. organic community garden experiments, how toxic chemicals are regulated, and what we as residents wish we were doing differently as a community around these issues. One result of the group conversation was a general consensus that Minneapolis might be shifting its idea of what we consider “beautiful,” thanks to growing community voice.
As one participant said, a few years ago we wanted all lawns to be a limited height. But that policy was changed when more residents said “that’s no longer our aesthetic.” He believes Minneapolis is ready for a more complex vision of what we want our parks and yards to look like. “It’s OK if they aren’t perfect. If our ball fields aren’t lush. We’re coming to a different understanding of what a good-looking ecosystem looks like.”
Join us in the series of monthly conversations, in different locations, about these interconnected topics.
The Nov. 16 discussion focused on the life cycle of waste.
On Dec. 14, we talk with sustainable home designers about whether we can meet city climate action goals, given our current building stock.
In January we look more deeply at toxins in the environment.
For more on toxicity issues, visit MPLSGreen.com as the conversations and questions continue to evolve with local residents and experts.
-
(ACC Mentioned) 8 Million Tons Of Plastic Waste Ends Up In Oceans A Year
Dec 2, 2015 | Consultancy UK
Every year, 8 million tons of plastic waste makes into the oceans. 150 million tons of plastic is now estimated to be afloat, of which 95% is unrecoverable. In a bid to prevent plastic waste entering into ocean ecosystems, Ocean Conservancy and the McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment consider practical steps that the 5 largest polluters can do to stem the tide. Their research finds that practical solutions could decrease total waste entering oceans by 45% by 2025, and sustain effort could eliminate leakage almost completely by 2035.
Plastic waste is a blight on the world’s oceans. Estimates show that the total plastic waste that has leaked or has been dumped in the world’s oceans now stands at 150 million metric tons. By 2025, this is projected to reach 250 million tons, which means that for every three tons of fish in the oceans there will be one ton of plastic. This plastic waste persistently and negatively affects the ocean ecosystem, entering the ocean food web to cause diseases in ocean dwelling organisms.
The production of plastic is only set to increase in the coming decades as more and more consumers start buying products encased in plastic. Plastic is in most instances part of a linear economic cycle – use and discard. The collection and disposal of discarded plastic waste is for many emerging economies a quagmire, as its population’s use of plastic lags behind the mechanisms to deal with discard. As it stands, efforts to clean waste once in the oceans is extremely problematic, even cleaning the beaches and dealing with the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” would collect only 5% of the total 95% of waste the is unreachable below the ocean waves.
In a recent report, titled ‘Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean’, by Ocean Conservancy, the Trash Free Seas Alliance* and the McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment, the lifecycle of plastics as they move from discard into the oceans is explored and concrete measures for stemming the tide are considered.
Plastic leakage
The report highlights that the vast majority (80%) of plastic waste entering the oceans comes from land based sources. In terms of location, the majority of waste (between 55% and 60%) comes from five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. These countries have been enjoying rapid economic growth in recent decades, yet in many the infrastructure to deal with the waste generated by the prosperity has lagged behind. At the moment, a total of 8 million metric tons makes it into the oceans per year, which in a ‘business as usual’-scenario will increase rapidly over the next 20 years to 30 million metric tons per year by 2035.The profile of how waste enters the oceans differs considerably between countries, and is in part related to the economics surrounding disposal. The research shows that the largest waste enters from plastic waste that has low residual value, such that there is little incentive in recycling it. This plastic enters the oceans from a number of different sources, and collection is not always a guarantee of success.
In China for instance, where a relatively strong recycling system exists, the majority of waste flows from uncollected discard, where of the 48.1 million tons, 60% is not collected, of which 14%, or 4.2 million tons makes it into the ocean. Of waste that has been collected, only 0.8% makes it into the oceans. The loss to the sea is often the result of poorly placed and open dump sites near the ocean.
In the Philippines, the numbers disclose a different story. Of the 2.7 million tons, 84% is collected once it is discarded. However, once collected it is not properly dealt with, such that 17% ends up leaking into the oceans. Of the 16% not collected, 31% makes it into the ocean. Given that the Philippines tends to be closely located to the sea, 70%-90% of waste dumped illegally by companies looking to cut costs before it reaches dump sites tends to end up in the oceans.
Stemming the tide
Besides quantifying the level of waste, the researchers sought to identify how best to stem the tide from land-based sources and identified 21 ‘levers’ that can be used to improve the level of waste that makes it into oceans. The reports models the net effect of the 21 levers to find out how easy or difficult each is to implement, and how effective they would be in reducing waste.Interestingly, the most effective measures also tend to be the easiest to implement. The five most effective measures following from the analysis are to increase collection services, cover dump sites, and optimise the hauler system, gasification, and electrification. Improving collection would reduce leakage in the five countries considered by 23%, while improving storage would reduce leakage by a further 26%. Combining all levers would result in the reduction of 60% in the five countries, and of 45% across the world.
The cost
The total cost of reducing plastic leakage into the oceans for the 5 countries by 60% would cost an aggregate $5 billion per year. Particularly collection costs add between $4.5 and $5 billion, while properly policing dump sites would add up to around $600 million per year. Not all techniques result in a net deficit, with electrification adding up to $300 million to coffers. -
EPA Scientists Working To Continue EDSP 'Pivot' To CompTox Assays
Dec 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA scientists are working to continue the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program's (EDSP) "pivot" toward increased use of computational and high throughput screening in human cells, moving beyond the estrogen receptor model that can replace three of the original EDSP assays to new androgen and thyroid models.
Speaking at the recent FutureTox III conference on in vitro and computational toxicology approaches in Arlington, VA, EPA's toxics chief Jim Jones indicated that he hopes agency staff can complete over the next year or so a model to replace some of the androgen receptor assays in the first tier of the original EDSP screening program, similar to the model that EPA staff proposed last June to replace three of the estrogen receptor assays.
Jones and other agency officials have argued that programs like EDSP, which must screen or test thousands of chemicals, cannot make adequate headway without utilizing the new in vitro and computational toxicology approaches.
Still, Jones told FutureTox attendees that it is important to broaden public support for the approaches. "It's important that civil society be brought along," he said, acknowledging that is "very challenging because [the computational and in vitro toxicology approaches] are so scientifically dense."
Jones added that the complexity of the science also "creates challenges for bringing along some stakeholders. [Non-governmental organizations] particularly are challenged by their resource constraints. We've got to find a way to bring them along . . . or we will find ourselves without broad support."
Jones also called on the scientists to use the in vitro approaches to conquer some long-standing risk assessment problems, such as mixtures assessments. "We've not moved the ball far [on mixtures] as a society," he said. "And yet our daily lives are being exposed to mixtures. We've had a great excuse for 50 years or so: it couldn't be done. Now, we hold, potentially, the key."
The EDSP group last June proposed a model utilizing nearly a score of assays in EPA's computational toxicology research program, ToxCast, to replace three of the original assays in EDSP tier one: EDSP tier one estrogen-receptor binding, estrogen receptor transcriptional activation (ERTA) and the uterotrophic assays.
Nicole Kleinstreuer, a contractor to the National Toxicology Program, said at the Nov. 19 conference that EPA hopes by January 2017 to "replace the Androgen receptor binding assay and the Herschberger assay with a very similar pathway-based model that incorporates a suite of ToxCast and Tox21 assays that are relevant to the androgen receptor," referencing Jones' comments.
EDSP Screening
EDSP screens chemicals for their ability to interact with estrogen, androgen or thyroid hormones, and Kleinstreuer hinted that "there are [also] additional pathways under development for thyroid, specifically. . . . Thyroid is not as far along in terms of the coverage as estrogen and androgen, but we are mapping a critical map of data for that pathway to start building models."
An agency source says EPA scientists aim to present the new in vitro androgen model to the agency's Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) for peer review "sometime in 2016." Agency scientists are focused on the androgen pathway, with the thyroid pathway furthest from completion, though they intend to address it with a similar approach as that taken for the estrogen and androgen pathways, the source says.
Since the SAP does not meet frequently, there is some hope that if possible, the team can also have a preliminary plan put together for developing the thyroid model to discuss with the SAP in 2016, the source says.
EPA in a June Federal Register notice describing what agency staff have called "the pivot" from animal toxicology-based assays to in vitro and computational approaches says the new approach "can serve as an alternative for some of the current assays in the [EDSP] Tier 1 battery." EDSP Tier 1 contains 11 animal-based assays intended to indicate whether chemicals may interfere with human estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormones.
EPA created the program and its two-tiered screening system in response to a 1996 directive from Congress in the Food Quality Protection Act. EDSP is intended to address pesticide chemicals as well as drinking water contaminants. EPA has estimated the total group of chemicals to number around 10,000.
But EPA has acknowledged that the existing EDSP is incapable of screening so many chemicals in a reasonable amount of time. The original assays, performed in lab animals, take extended amounts of time, consume thousands of animals and are expensive to conduct. Critics, often industry and animal rights stakeholders, have also questioned some of the assays' reliability.
Test Orders
So far, EPA has issued test orders for less than 100 chemicals, and just 52 have been screened in the first tier of assays. The agency has yet to send any chemicals to the second tier of assays, intended to provide dose-response information for risk assessment. For some time, the agency has indicated that it is looking to its computational toxicology research program for a potential answer.
Of the 52 chemicals screened in the first tier of the original EDSP, just 18 have been flagged to undergo some or all of the endocrine tests that the agency plans to include in its first use of EDSP tier 2 testing.
David Dix, former head of EPA's computational toxicology research program and now director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's policy office, told FutureTox attendees that by not prioritizing the first list of chemicals ordered in 2009 to undergo Tier 1 EDSP screening, agency staff ended up confirming a lot of negatives. "Years of effort and millions of dollars were spent to confirm these were not estrogen receptor agonists," Dix said. He added that existing ToxCast data on 60 of the chemicals on the second list of chemicals for EDSP Tier 1 screening -- proposed in 2013 and yet to be finalized -- "show very little to no estrogen receptor activity . . ."
Dix also praised the new estrogen model for what he considered greater sensitivity than the assays it replaced. "The estrogen receptor model performs very well, as well or better than the existing" assays, he said. He noted that the model, which includes 18 in vitro assays, was validated against 23 reference chemicals.
"The estrogen receptor model was in 100 percent agreement with the Tier 1 estrogen receptor, ERTA and uterotrophic results . . . somewhat amazingly," Dix said. "It's proved itself to be more sensitive than the Tier 1 assays, perhaps due to [its] redundancy."
After Dix's remarks, one meeting attendee questioned Dix about replacing one of the original EDSP Tier 1 assays, a fish assay intended to explore ecotoxicity concerns, with the CompTox approaches. The questioner raised the concern that the ToxCast assays focus on human toxicity. Dix replied that the two major pathways, androgen and estrogen, "are highly conserved across taxa. The proof will be in the pudding. My prediction is that for most chemicals . . . ToxCast . . . will do a good job."
-
House to Vote Again on Oil Exports
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House was expected to vote again on lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports after the House Rules Committee voted Dec. 1 to allow an amendment repealing the trade prohibition to be offered to a broader energy bill.
The amendment to H.R. 8 by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) would repeal the long-standing ban and is similar to legislation (H.R. 702) that passed the House on a 261-159 vote in October under a veto threat from the Obama administration.
Similarly, the White House has issued a veto threat for H.R. 8, meaning Barton's amendment is likely meant to draw attention to the issue, which is a top priority for oil companies such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips that stand to benefit from the change.
“It will happen one way or the other,” Barton told Bloomberg BNA. “We want it to happen sooner.”
Debate on the underlying legislation, a broad energy bill which if passed would be the first rewrite of energy policy since 2007, includes a range of provisions, including a measure that would expedite the Energy Department's consideration of liquefied natural gas export projects.
Debate on the legislation was expected to begin as soon as Dec. 2, with final passage as soon as Dec. 3 as the House rushes to complete its work before its winter recess.
Solar, Oil Train Amendments Approved
Other amendments approved by the Rules Committee include a measure by Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), that would require a federal study on 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.
Other amendments to be voted on the House floor include a measure meant to encourage the use of community solar projects by allowing them to be connected to distribution systems and through other means.
Amendments that would have repealed the renewable fuel standard and made other tweaks to the program that mandates billions of gallons of ethanol and other renewable fuels into the nation's motor fuel supply weren't ruled in order by the committee.
-
New York Wants Oil Companies to Treat Oil Shipped on Trains
Dec 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Alison Sider
New York’s attorney general is calling on federal transportation regulators to impose new safety rules governing the combustibility of crude oil shipped by rail.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wants energy companies to treat crude oil using a process that removes volatile gases before the fuel can be loaded onto trains. These gases have been linked to fiery explosions after railroad accidents, including the deadly 2013 crash in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.
On Tuesday, Mr. Schneiderman petitioned the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to impose a cap on the vapor pressure of crude transported by train. The rule he is proposing would require energy companies to use equipment known as stabilizers, which use heat and pressure to remove light hydrocarbon molecules such as butane and propane from the oil. While common in Texas, this equipment is rarer in newer oil fields like the Bakken Shale in North Dakota.
“In New York, trains carrying millions of gallons of crude oil routinely travel through our cities and towns without any limit on its flammability and explosiveness—which makes crude oil more likely to catch fire and explode in train accidents,” he said in a statement. “The federal government needs to close this extremely dangerous loophole.”
Energy companies and industry groups have argued that vapor pressure isn’t the best predictor of whether a train’s cargo is likely to explode, and said that regulators should focus on keeping trains from running off the rails.
“We believe safety improvements must be developed using a holistic approach that examines prevention, mitigation and response,” the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, said in a statement.
The business of moving oil on trains grew rapidly in recent years a s output surged in places like North Dakota, which aren’t hooked into existing pipeline networks. New York’s state capitol has become a hub for oil trains moving crude from Bakken Shale oil fields to East Coast refineries.
Several oil trains nationwide have derailed and exploded since 2013, prompting concerns about the safety of both the trains and their cargo. Federal safety regulations issued this year largely focused on making sure the cars that carry the new oil pouring from shale formations are sturdy enough to handle a derailment, and improving trains’ braking systems.
This year, North Dakota began requiring companies shipping oil from the state to strip gases from crudes that show high vapor pressure. But the state rule has a higher threshold for vapor pressure—13.7 pounds per square inch—than the 9 pounds per square inch that Mr. Schneiderman wants.
Oil train traffic has dropped off dramatically amid oil prices that are 50% lower than their 2014 peak: the number oil train carloads fell by more than 23% in the third quarter compared with the same stretch of 2014, according to the Association of American Railroads.
-
Rule for Safer Offshore Drilling Nears Completion
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A federal regulator told a Senate committee Dec. 1 his agency will talk again with industry representatives as the agency works to finish its review of public comments on a proposed rule to improve well control for offshore oil and natural gas exploration.
The target for completing the final “well control rule” and sending it to the White House Office of Management and Budget is sometime in January, but that action could slip a little beyond January, Brian Salerno, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, told reporters after the committee hearing.
BSEE also is aiming to complete in January a final rule on Arctic offshore drilling, similarly without any assurance that it will go to OMB that month.
For the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the hearing allowed repeated rounds of discussion of whether the proposed rule was too prescriptive rather than relying more on performance requirements that leave companies more leeway on how they meet the targets.
Industry officials and engineers have questioned the practicality of some technical elements of the proposed rule and have taken issue with cost calculations (138 DEN A-2, 7/20/15).
BSEE officials are scheduled to meet again with industry representatives Dec. 7 to seek more clarification about the objections. The agency has had more than 50 meetings with industry experts and other stakeholders on the rule to get clarifications of objections, Salerno testified.
‘We've Made Progress...But...'
The impending well control rule will codify much of what the American Petroleum Institute has developed as voluntary requirements for better equipment and practices since the disaster of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and fire at the Macondo well, which was being drilled by BP Plc in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.
“We've made progress since Deepwater Horizon, but loss of well control remains an issue,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate committee, said during the hearing.
“In fact, since 2010, there have been 23 separate loss of well control incidents,” Cantwell said. “The administration estimates that we experience between six and eight of these incidents each year.”
Salerno provided testimony on those incident rates. There were 15 incidents involving loss of well control during 2013-2014, a rate on par with such incidents before the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, he said.
Flexibility in Compliance Debated
Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations for the American Petroleum Institute, said his organization supports a lot of the proposed well control rule (RIN 1014-AA11) and only wants to see improvements in some areas to make it practical and a cost-effective rule in its final form.
The American Petroleum Institute has referred to the rule as having a “one-size-fits-all” approach in its prescriptions for technology and practices, but Salerno disagreed.
The rule, like existing federal practice in offshore oil and gas regulation, allows alternative compliance methods to be proposed by companies, Salerno said.
Approvals of alternative compliance methods have been harder and harder to get over the last five years, Milito said.
The speed of implementation was discussed. Salerno acknowledged some things cannot be done quickly and noted that BSEE is proposing to give industry seven years to integrate better blowout preventers into operations. Blowout preventers are sets of valves that can be three stories high, with shear rams for cutting and sealing off a pipe when it well gets out of control.
The better blowout preventers would have technology to center pipes for shearing. The blowout preventer used by BP at the Macondo well failed to shear an off-center pipe.
Arctic Rule Coming Along, Too
The Senate hearing also discussed BSEE's proposed Arctic rule, a set of regulations modified for the special conditions of offshore oil and gas work in the Arctic (RIN 1082-AA00).
The subject is significant especially to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who expressed her frustration that Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Statoil ASA have given up, at least for now, on exploration in the Arctic waters north of Alaska (222 DEN A-7, 11/18/15).
Murkowski said she wanted to see a modern, adaptable leasing structure designed to help, than rather to block, exploration in federal Arctic waters.
“Moving forward, I think you can probably expect more from me on this,” Murkowski said.
Cantwell, who has been working with Murkowski on a number of issues, cautioned that the United States does not have the ability to clean up oil in ice, a reference to the potential for floating Arctic ice to impede work on an oil spill, possibly for months.
Cantwell added that she and Murkowski were in agreement on the need for more U.S. icebreakers.
-
Senators Vet Proposed Federal Drilling Rules
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Madelyn Beck
Senators, oil industry officials and environmentalists dove into the issue of offshore drilling regulations yesterday, as the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement tries to draft rules to prevent spills like the 2010 BP PLC Deepwater Horizon disaster.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee called for the hearing on the Well Control Rule draft, including a panel discussion with members from BSEE, the American Petroleum Institute, environment and health science consulting firm Ramboll Environ Inc., and environmental group Oceana.
BSEE's draft rules, released in April, are 264 pages long and have a combination of both hard regulatory regulations and performance-based rules. This technical document has BSEE continuing to sift through 5,000 pages of comments from about 175 individuals and groups.
"We're still in the deliberation process," Brian Salerno, director of BSEE, said after the hearing. "These are thick comments."
BSEE'S website says the rule is meant to fill gaps left open when regulations were quickly added after the 2010 Gulf spill. The draft includes rules for maintenance, manufacture and repair of oil blowout preventers, technology requirements, and increased oversight, among other things.
The cost of the rules is under debate. BSEE's study estimated it would cost about $883 million over 10 years, while API estimated it would cost about $32 billion.
Salerno said the BSEE will recalculate the costs as officials complete the rule, though he doesn't agree with API's estimate. Grounds for debate
Yesterday's discussion was mostly over making sure rules were more helpful than harmful and finding a balance of specificity and vagueness across the industry.
Mark Rockel, a principal consultant for Ramboll Environ, said that some regulations to mitigate oil spill damage would require more boats in the water, which might actually increase environmental risks.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) was also skeptical of a rule that would require more protective equipment to be placed along the piping system, comparing it to Rube Goldberg machines.
"The more 'Rube Goldberg-ish' it is, the more it fails," he said.
BSEE's Salerno defended his agency's work, saying these regulations are meant to, and will, ultimately help and that BSEE is still considering the public comments.
Erik Milito, the director of upstream and industry operations at API, added that outside a few change requests, the industry group is largely supportive of the new rules. Types of rules
The hearing next turned to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, the ongoing Paris climate talks and the Arctic drilling rules as senators tried to discuss the merits of the U.S. oil industry as a whole. As part of those conversations, Republican members urged caution on the rigidity of regulations and said the government should avoid rules that would put the U.S. industry at a competitive disadvantage or inadvertently overlook specific situations.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the committee, sees it differently. She said she hopes for more concrete rules so they can act as a "bright line" that everyone can look to and understand.
Salerno said even if a regulation doesn't match what a specific oil well needs, there's always the option of filling out a request for "alternative compliance" for the rules, which he said the oil industry often does.
Some environmentalists, though, don't think the rules go far enough. Jacqueline "Jackie" Savitz, vice president for U.S. Oceans of Oceana, called for BSEE to add more technical requirements to the blowout preventers and shorten the compliance periods, which give industries up to seven years to install some types of upgrades.
Salerno said BSEE officials will have another meeting with oil industry representatives next week, and then they'll continue sifting through comments, aiming to finish their report with new cost estimates by January -- though it could be delayed.
Even then, it will need to go to the Office of Management and Budget for further evaluation, which Salerno said could take 60 days or more because, he said, "we're all being cautious."
-
Resolutions to Kill Clean Power Plan Move Toward Final Vote
Dec 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Hannah Hess
Two Senate-passed resolutions that would block a central piece of President Obama's climate plan overcame a procedural hurdle in the House today and are teed up for a final vote this evening.
The House voted 242-179 along party lines to limit debate on two resolutions through the Congressional Review Act that would kill U.S. EPA's carbon rules for power plants.
H.J. Res. 71 would block EPA's rule to lower carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants, and H.J. Res. 72 would eliminate the Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.
The Senate approved both resolutions on 52-46 votes before the Thanksgiving recess.
House Republicans have said they hope the resolutions send a strong signal to participants in Paris climate negotiations that President Obama does not have unilateral support back home, an assertion that Democrats took issue with today on the House floor.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said on the floor that debating the resolutions was appropriate given the Paris talks. Whitfield complained that EPA didn't consult with Congress before moving forward with its climate rule.
"Each of these measures poses a serious risk to the nation's electricity system, and combined they may well represent the biggest threat to our energy future. For the sake of affordable and reliable energy as well as jobs, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of disapproving these ill-advised rules," Whitfield said during opening debate on the resolutions.
But Democrats shot back, accusing Republicans of standing in the way of the nation's climate progress without offering proposals to modernize the electric grid.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said on the floor it's unfortunate that climate data have become politically charged and that the best Republicans can do -- even as global consensus strengthens -- is to vote to undo the Obama administration's hard work.
Blumenauer also blasted the lower chamber's sweeping energy bill, H.R. 8, which is heading for a floor debate in coming days. He called it a "fossil fuel giveaway" that would accelerate climate change, and urged Congress to enact a revenue-neutral carbon tax that is a "nonpartisan, non-ideological, grand slam policy."
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) reiterated his distaste for the resolutions, calling them poorly drafted messaging bills that Obama is sure to veto upon arrival.
"As we gather here, leaders from all around the world are meeting in Paris to talk about how to deal with the issue of climate change, and what we should be doing here is providing some wind at the back not only of our president, but of all the leaders of the world. ... Instead of doing that, we're doing this," McGovern said. "It's really sad what we've come to here."
Off Capitol Hill, the measures have attracted a wide array of supporters and opponents.
More than 180 groups have attempted to drum up support in recent days, including the National Mining Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Public Power Association and National Association of Manufacturers.
On the other side, green groups like the American Lung Association, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council have warned that the Republican resolutions are misplaced and will undermine climate progress in the United States.
"Blocking the Clean Power Plan means depriving the American people of significant health benefits," the American Lung Association and a number of other health groups wrote in a letter circulated to stir opposition to the resolutions. "The Clean Power Plan is estimated to prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths and 90,000 asthma attacks in 2030, as well as prevent 300,000 missed days of work and school."
-
House Casts Symbolic Vote To Kill Clean Power Plan, EPA Rule
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
A majority of House Republicans and a smattering of Democrats last night approved language to block critical portions of President Obama's climate agenda despite insufficient support to overcome veto threats from the White House.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who led the charge in shepherding the Senate-passed resolutions through the lower chamber, struck a defiant tone following the vote, saying there was bicameral, bipartisan support for blocking the U.S. EPA rules to curb carbon dioxide emissions at new and existing power plants.
"I don't care what the president does on it -- we've acted," the retiring chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power told E&E Daily. "We've done all we can do, and both these resolutions passed overwhelmingly in the House. They were both adopted in the Senate."
The House voted 242-180 to approve S.J. Res. 24 to kill the Clean Power Plan, with the support of Democratic Reps. Brad Ashford of Nebraska, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Henry Cuellar of Texas and Collin Peterson of Minnesota. Republican Reps. Bob Dold of Illinois and Richard Hanna of New York voted against the resolution.
The chamber also voted 235-188 to approve S.J. Res. 23, targeting EPA's rule to reduce CO2 emissions from new and modified power plants.
While the same four Democrats voted to approve the resolution, 10 Republicans voted against the measure, including Reps. Dold; Hanna; Carlos Curbelo of Florida; Michael Fitzpatrick, Ryan Costello and Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania; Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, John Katko and Chris Gibson of New York; and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
Democrats in debate preceding the vote criticized Republicans for casting a mainly symbolic vote to embarrass the Obama administration as the president calls for climate action at international negotiations in Paris this week.
But Whitfield in debate said the EPA rules are dangerous and ill-thought-out and shot back that he plans to take his message straight to the City of Light in coming days, though details on the congressional trip remain sparse (E&E Daily, Dec. 1).
"I don't even know where we're staying. I don't know the schedule," Whitfield said. "I know we're supposed to get together for a briefing, I think later this week."
Budget negotiations nearly scuttled the initial plan for the bipartisan congressional delegation set to leave on Dec. 9.
Whitfield said Monday that if things "flared up" on Capitol Hill, the trip might be canceled, but yesterday said he believes it will be possible to attend the end of the climate talks. He also predicted a sizable crowd, though he did not specify which names would be on the congressional guest list. A spokesman said in an email to E&E Daily that the committee would not be disclosing details of the Paris trip ahead of the delegation "[o]ut of an abundance of caution."
Other Republicans on the House floor argued that the Obama administration had not consulted Congress before moving forward with the EPA rules and that the Clean Power Plan threatened to spike power prices and destabilize the grid. House Democrats rejected those warnings as fearmongering, arguing that EPA has the authority to regulate pollution under the Clean Air Act and the United States should lead efforts to reduce dangerous emissions.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said on the House floor that the "Republican propaganda machine" was spreading false information, and called on Congress to help coal mining communities to find new means of employment.
"[Republicans say] you either have no regulations or you have no economy ... that simply is not true," McDermott said. "I heard the same arguments when they said you have to stop smoking on airplanes ... [today] the air's cleaned up on planes, it's cleaned up at restaurants, it's cleaned up on this floor because we had regulations."
Still, Republicans in both chambers celebrated the vote as a sign that would serve to undermine Obama's climate legacy, even if they couldn't overcome a veto threat.
"I commend the House for passing the Senate's resolutions of disapproval to stop the president's economically devastating carbon regulations," Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a statement. "The message could not be more clear that Republican and Democrats in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House do not support the president's climate agenda and the international community should take note."
-
House Votes to Kill EPA Carbon Rules; Undercut Paris Talks
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Andrew Childers
As nations of the world begin two weeks of negotiations toward an international deal to address climate change, the House went on record Dec. 1 as strongly opposed to the Obama administration's domestic efforts on that front in what will ultimately be a largely symbolic effort to nullify two regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Both resolutions (S.J. Res 23; S.J. Res. 24) passed the House by large majorities but were well short of the two-thirds margin they would need to override President Barack Obama's threatened veto. The efforts, which passed the Senate Nov. 17, now head to the president's desk where he is expected to veto them.
The vote on S.J. Res. 24, which would nullify carbon dioxide emissions limits for existing power plants, passed on a 242 to 180 vote, while S.J. Res. 23, which would thwart a related regulation on new and modified power plants, passed by a slimmer 235 to 188 vote.
Republican lawmakers said the votes were important, despite Obama's veto threat, because they showed significant portions of the country opposed the centerpieces of the president's efforts to address climate change. They said world leaders should be wary of administration promises made at the Paris climate talks because Congress would fight funding efforts on climate change, and litigation would likely overturn the rules.
“I might say that it's appropriate that we are debating these resolutions today because we know the president and other leaders are meeting in France as we speak,” Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), author of House versions of the resolutions, said on the House floor. “They're speaking with generalities, they're not being detailed in their plans and yet in America we are becoming aware more every day of exactly what EPA's regulations—the impact they're having on the American people.”
New Efforts to Undermine Talks
The votes came as Senate and House Republicans launched new efforts to attempt to undercut the administration's position in Paris.
House Science, Space and Technology Committee members heard testimony from majority-invited witnesses warning of grave economic consequences and little environmental benefits from a deal, while a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee white paper outlined “the policy, technical, and legal shortcomings” of the administration's approach to the climate negotiations.
Despite the wave of letters, hearings and votes meant to undermine the Obama administration's efforts on climate change, it remains unclear if Congress can stop them. One remaining tool, which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has called his “best” option, is blocking funding through an upcoming omnibus bill though the administration has vowed to oppose such attempts.
Would Block Clean Power Plan
Each resolution, offered under the Congressional Review Act, would nullify a different Environmental Protection Agency regulation on power plant emissions and bar the agency from ever pursuing a “substantially similar” rule.
S.J. Res. 24 would kill off the agency's Clean Power Plan, which limits carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's fleet of existing power plants, while S.J. Res. 23 would thwart a similar regulation setting carbon dioxide emissions limits for new and modified power plants.
Both EPA regulations were published in the Oct. 23 Federal Register (80 Fed. Reg. 64,510; 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662). The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) sets carbon dioxide emissions limits for the power sector in each state that would then be implemented by state regulators. The new source performance standards (RIN 2060-AQ91) effectively require the partial use of carbon capture and storage technologies to meet emissions limits.
Three Democrats joined with the vast majority of Senate Republicans to pass both resolutions on 52-to-46 votes Nov. 17 (222 DEN A-13, 11/18/15).
House Hearing Questions Talks
Meanwhile, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee held its second hearing in two weeks to question whether Obama had the authority to reach an agreement on climate change and to slam the president for pursuing a deal despite strong objections in Congress.
“The administration has packaged up all these regulations and promised their implementation to the [United Nations],” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the committee's chairman, said. “The president's plan ignores good science and only seeks to advance a partisan political agenda. The president should come back to Congress with any agreement that is made in Paris. He won't, because he knows the Senate would not ratify it.”
Republicans in the House and Senate have warned Obama at several hearings and in several letters prior to the beginning of the Paris talks, slated to run through Dec. 11, that Congress might withhold funding necessary to implement portions of the agreement and reiterated their position that any deal should be submitted to the Senate for its approval (223 DEN A-12, 11/19/15).
Senate Republicans Tout Limitations
Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee also downplayed Obama's ability to deliver on the promised greenhouse gas emissions reductions in a Dec. 1 white paper.
The Republicans argue that any agreement reached in Paris must be approved by the Senate, where it would likely die.
Additionally, Obama hasn't fully outlined how he intends to deliver on his pledge to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, and many of the measures already undertaken, including the EPA's carbon dioxide standards for power plants, are subject to legal and congressional pushback. Many of Obama's initiatives could be rolled back by the next administration, the Republicans said.
“Rather than work with Congress, President Obama has chosen to go-it-alone to ‘decarbonize' the American economy through unilateral executive actions that will not stand the test of time,” the Senate Republicans said. “While this may serve to polish President Obama's reputation among the environmental activist community, it will not result in a binding international agreement or meaningfully impact global temperatures.”
Groups Urge More Ambitious Goals
Despite Republican efforts to scuttle any eventual climate deal, a coalition of 150 environmental and social advocacy groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Green Peace USA and Physicians for Social Responsibility, urged Obama in a Dec. 1 letter to set more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals and move the U.S. to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.
“On behalf of the millions of Americans that our organizations represent, we urge you to bring reality to your rhetoric—and be the bold climate leader that both domestic and international communities need,” the groups said.
-
House Votes to Block EPA Power-Plant Rules
Dec 1, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The Republican-controlled House Tuesday approved a pair of measures blocking federal rules to cut power-plant emissions, a symbolic move aimed at sowing doubt about President Barack Obama’s climate agenda while world leaders gather in Paris to forge an accord on the problem.
The votes are part of a multifront attack congressional Republicans are mounting against Mr. Obama’s climate policies. GOP lawmakers are also working to block federal dollars from supporting global climate efforts, and they are moving separate energy legislation this week that they say shows a contrast between their priorities and Mr. Obama’s.
And former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, campaigning for president in Iowa, said Tuesday that “I’m not sure I would have gone to the climate summit if I was president today” due to concerns about the potential economic impact on the U.S. of an agreement.
The House, in two separate votes, passed measures nullifying recent Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting carbon emissions from existing power plants and limiting emissions from new ones. The Senate passed similar measures in mid-November, employing a rarely used legislative tool that allows it to nullify recent federal rules without reaching a 60-vote majority.
Mr. Obama has promised to veto the bills.
The EPA regulations represent the central commitment Mr. Obama is making to the United Nations conference that began Monday in Paris and extends through Dec. 11. Mr. Obama wrapped up a two-day visit to the summit Tuesday afternoon.
“You have the president leaving Paris, and you’ll also have a contrast,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) told reporters on Capitol Hill. “[With] what the president’s proposing now—a regulatory cap-and-trade [program]—you’ll see disapproval, not just from the Senate, but in the House as well.”
Citing the regulations’ role in improving public health and fighting climate change, the White House has said Mr. Obama would veto the measures should they reach his desk, an action that may coincide with the end of the Paris conference. Republicans likely lack the votes to override such a veto.
The measure disapproving the EPA rule on existing power plants passed 242-180 and the measure on future plants was approved 235-188. In each case, 10 or fewer members of each party crossed party lines.
Republicans nonetheless hope to send a message that Mr. Obama’s commitments on climate change could be undone by a new president or by legal challenges.
More than two dozen states, almost all headed by Republican governors, have sued to stop the EPA rules, which call for a 32% cut in carbon emissions from existing power plants.
Speaking to reporters before leaving Paris Tuesday, Mr. Obama said his successor should appreciate how seriously most world leaders take climate change, a position most Republican presidential candidates don’t share.
“Not just 99.5% of scientists and experts, but 99% of world leaders think this is really important,” Mr. Obama said. “I think the president of the United States is going to need to think this is really important.”
The House is scheduled to begin debate later Tuesday on a separate bill that includes various proposals Republicans say should be the focus of energy policy, rather than the climate-change policies Mr. Obama is pushing.
That measure, which the House is expected pass later this week, would expedite exports of natural gas, add new requirements to ensure the electricity grid remains operating, and streamline other aspects of energy policy in the wake of the country’s oil and natural-gas boom.
The White House threatened to veto the bill Monday, saying in a statement that it undermines “already successful initiatives” the administration is pursuing.
-
Congress Rebukes Climate Rules As Obama Returns From Paris
Dec 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Congress voted to block EPA carbon rules for power plants Tuesday, dealing a symbolic blow to President Barack Obama's climate change agenda just as he returns from a landmark summit in Paris.
While the move will not stop the regulations at the heart of Obama's pledge to drastically cut U.S. emissions, Republicans hope they can show other world leaders that the president's successor may be unwilling to follow through on that commitment.
“We want the world to know that there is disagreement with the president on this issue," said Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs the House Energy and Power Subcommittee and helped lead the push.
The House adopted two Senate-passed resolutions blocking EPA rules that apply to new and existing power plants, but the White House has already promised that Obama will veto them. The president returns to Washington Tuesday evening after attending the first two days of the United Nations negotiations in Paris aimed at producing a new global agreement to limit carbon emissions and help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change.
Republicans acknowledge they would not be able to overturn the veto but say they are sending an important message.
“You’re not going to get anybody’s attention unless you do something forcefully, and I think that Congress acted forcefully today to make sure that people are listening to both sides of the debate,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who chairs a Foreign Affairs subcommittee overseeing Europe and emerging threats.
Both resolutions, drafted under the rarely used Congressional Review Act, passed with mostly Republican support. Lawmakers voted 242-180 to pass a resolution that would block EPA rules governing existing power plants, with four Democrats joining all but two Republicans in support. They voted 235-188 to block rules for new or modified power plants; on that vote four Democrats were in favor and 10 Republicans were opposed.
It was the latest in a series of GOP efforts to force Obama to submit a potential Paris agreement for congressional approval, a move the administration has resisted because of the likelihood it would be blocked.
"So while the president is at this climate conference, the American people have that as a very, very low priority," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a press briefing Tuesday. "They're focused on jobs, the economy ... and whatever the president agrees to in Paris is something he's going to have to come and discuss with the United States Senate and bring it to Congress."
Republicans also have threatened to block the $500 million for next year the administration requested as part of its pledged contribution to the U.N.'s Green Climate Fund. GOP lawmakers also are pushing riders to an omnibus spending bill that would prevent EPA from enforcing carbon rules, but Democrats have promised to protect the administration's climate agenda. It remains to be seen how negotiations play out, but congressional leaders from both parties expect they will be able to reach a deal before funding expires Dec. 11, which is also the last scheduled day of the climate summit.
Before leaving Paris on Tuesday, Obama dismissed fears that Republicans would be able to stymie a deal and said the world should not worry that the U.S. would not live up to the commitments he made there. He said the U.S. would "absolutely meet our commitments" and that he was confident a Democrat would succeed him in the White House. Even a GOP president would have trouble abandoning all action on climate change, he said.
“The good news is the politics inside the United States is changing as well,” Obama said. “Sometimes it may be hard for Republicans to support something that I'm doing, but that's more a matter of games Washington plays, and that's why I think people should be confident that we'll meet our commitments on this.”
Members of Congress from both parties are still mulling their own trips to Paris during the summit, but it remains to be seen whether any will be able to get omnibus negotiations in Washington long enough to attend.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he hopes to squeeze in a quick trip with fellow senators to show "there are members of Congress that strongly support what the president is doing and we are moving forward and the United States' leadership is going to be there."
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who dismisses mainstream climate science and briefly traveled to the previous 2009 U.N. summit in Copenhagen, said he is less concerned about traveling to Paris because he does not expect negotiators to reach a legally binding deal. But he released a white paper Tuesday outlining ways Congress could undermine a deal, and he is sending some aides to Paris.
"I doubt it'd be worthwhile but I'm going to wait and see if anything comes up," the Environment and Public Works Committee chairman said. “Now they're recognizing that there's not going to be anything binding coming from this.”
Obama today reiterated his position that the mechanism under which countries review their domestic climate change targets should be legally binding. But Obama's decision to stress that position comes amid confusion and frustration from some countries toward the United States over the legal nature of any deal that emerges. While it supports making some aspects of the deal legally binding, the administration strongly opposes making the climate change targets themselves binding because that would trigger a requirement to submit the final agreement to the Senate, where Republicans would reject it.
-
73 More Companies Back Obama On Climate Pact
Dec 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama on Tuesday announced that 73 more companies are supporting his drive for an international climate change agreement.
Tuesday’s announcement of additions to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge, which comes in the beginning days of the United Nations meeting in Paris aimed at finalizing an international pact, nearly doubles the number of companies participating in the program.By taking the pledge, the companies are saying they support a “strong agreement” in the Paris negotiations, and that they will undertake efforts in their own companies to help fight climate change.
It’s meant to show opponents of Obama’s climate agenda, like congressional Republicans, that corporate America is on the president’s side.
Obama is wrapping up his two-day visit to the Paris negotiations on Tuesday.
More than 150 companies have now signed on to the pledge.
The signatories announced Tuesday include big, recognizable names like Amazon.com Inc., DuPont, Staples Inc., MGM Resorts International, JetBlue Airways Corp. and 21st Century Fox, the parent company of the right-leaning Fox News Channel.
Many of the companies on the pledge separately bought an ad Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal expressing their support for a low-carbon economy and for a strong deal in Paris.
“We want this economy to be energy efficient and low carbon,” they wrote in the ad. “We believe there are cost-effective and innovative solutions that can help us achieve that objective. Failure to tackle climate change could put America’s economic prosperity at risk. But the right action now would create jobs and boost competitiveness.”
The 69 companies signing on to that ad include DuPont, Microsoft Corp., Unilever, Coca-Cola Co. and other big national and multinational names.
-
Bill Gates, Moniz Hit Hill To Promote Clean Energy Fund
Dec 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
Just days after the announcement of a new multibillion-dollar global fund to boost clean energy research, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz made the rounds on Capitol Hill today to sell the plan.
Speaking to E&ENews PM after a private meeting that included Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and members of the Senate GOP Energy and Environment Working Group, Moniz said he and Gates made the trip "to discuss with some members what it's about."
The fund, announced in Paris yesterday by President Obama and spearheaded by Gates, includes a pledge by 19 nations to double clean energy research and development funding to $20 billion, with 28 major companies putting up billions of their own in aid (Greenwire, Nov. 29).
Moniz emphasized that Mission Innovation and Breakthrough Energy Coalition are unprecedented efforts in terms of size and approach.
"This is not just more venture capital," he told reporters. "Its investors are explicitly saying that not only are they putting billions on the table, but they're going to be looking at making much more patient high-risk investments than would be typical even of a venture capital fund."
Under this week's announcement, the United States agreed to double its share of clean energy research to about $10 billion by 2021.
Moniz said today's meetings are intended to start building political support on Capitol Hill for the initiative, which he described in a Boston Globe op-ed yesterday.
"We have to work with the Congress to see how we can hopefully get on the launching trajectory before the R&D doubling," he said. "That's the idea. The increase is more in the early stage of R&D, which is what these investors are looking for, the high-risk transformational technologies. The initiatives are very much linked and are very high-leverage because we're talking about now 20 countries doubling R&D over five years. That's the basis of probably another $10 billion and billions of dollars more put in this new form of investment focused on the innovation pipelines that are being expanded in these 20 countries."
Energy research is a rare area that continues to enjoy broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, although Republicans tend to favor spending on basic research. The participation of Murkowski bodes well for the initiative, given her role as Energy chairwoman and a senior appropriator.
Gates did not exit the Capitol with Moniz, but today's meeting marked his second trip to Capitol Hill since October, when he met with Murkowski and other Republican senators to discuss energy innovation.
-
Union Challenges Carbon Limits on New Power Plants
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A union filed its own challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide performance standards for new and modified power plants, following similar lawsuits brought by North Dakota and other opponents of the rule (Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 15-1434, 12/1/15).
The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO filed its petition for review Dec. 1 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The lawsuit challenges the EPA's new source performance standards (RIN 2060-AQ91), which set the first carbon dioxide emissions limits for new and modified power plants. Eugene Trisko, the attorney representing the union, could not be reached for comment.
North Dakota, the first state to file a challenge to the rule, argued that the EPA has not shown that the carbon capture systems necessary for new coal-fired power plants to achieve the standard of 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour have been adequately demonstrated for the purposes of the Clean Air Act, according to its statement of isues filed Nov. 27 (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, statement of issues filed 11/27/15; 230 DEN A-19, 12/1/15).
The House passed a resolution Dec. 1 to overturn the performance standards as well as the EPA's Clean Power Plan, which sets similar carbon dioxide emissions limits for existing power plants (see related story).
The Boilermakers have already filed a separate challenge to the Clean Power Plan that has been consolidated with similar lawsuits brought by states and industry groups (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 15-1363, motion to intervene 11/5/15; 214 DEN A-3, 11/5/15).
-
Lawmakers Say EPA's Power Plan Threatens Grid Reliability
Dec 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
House Republicans attacked the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan during an oversight hearing, saying it would harm the reliability of the electric grid and could lead to higher costs for consumers.
Their comments at the Dec. 1 congressional hearing coincided with international talks in Paris toward a climate agreement. Later in the day, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted by large majorities for resolutions that would nullify the carbon rules for power plants, the Obama administration's key effort to reduce planet-warming emissions (See related article).
“EPA has leapfrogged beyond [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] and granted itself authority over electricity well beyond anything in the Federal Power Act,” Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said during the subcommittee's FERC oversight hearing hours before the Republican-controlled House voted for two Senate-passed resolutions that would nullify the carbon rules for power plants
Whitfield, along with other House Republicans, raised concerns that since the rule would force states to shut down coal-fired plants and diversify their resource mix with more intermittent renewables like wind and solar power, this could lead to outages and reliability concerns.
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said that since FERC's creation in 1920, “it has never faced a rival federal agency setting policy at odds with FERC's core mission.” He said the EPA's rule jeopardizes reliability by “giving priority to greenhouse gas reductions over cost considerations in setting the generation mix.”
The EPA 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.
Need for More Infrastructure Cited
Many new natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines still need to be built in order to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan mandates, the FERC's Tony Clark said at the hearing.
“You're going to change dramatically the generation fleet and have a lot more renewables, and then you're going to need a lot more natural gas to back up those renewables,” Clark said. “It's going to require some major infrastructure projects in the gas and electric transmission side.”
Clark said that while the deadlines for state implementation plans were pushed back by two years from 2016 to 2018, he's concerned there won't be enough infrastructure built to integrate renewable resources onto the grid by the time the Clean Power Plan's carbon emission reduction targets go into effect in 2022.
“These are not projects conceived of, permitted and built in a very short time, which can end up costing more to consumers,” he said.
Clark said that new gas pipelines can take three years to five years to build, while electric transmission lines can take five years to 10 years, or up to 12 years if they cross federal lands.
Growth in Pipeline Development
FERC is in charge of approving interstate gas pipelines, and it has already seen the number of such applications increase dramatically in the past few years with the shale gas boom in the U.S.
The agency has reached an historical number of certificates it has been processing for interstate gas pipelines, Clark said.
For instance, Clark said as of August 2014, FERC had pending pipeline applications totalling 24 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of capacity and 1,000 miles of pipelines, which grew by November 2015 to 50 Bcf capacity and 4,600 miles of pipelines. And FERC was able to process the applications within one year for 92 percent of all cases, Clark said.
“But it's going to be very difficult to maintain that high average when we have this volume of pipeline [applications],” he said.
FERC Chairman Norman Bay said the agency has used existing resources to add eight employees to its Office of Energy Policy in the past six months to review the increased number of pipeline applications.
Concerns About Nuclear Reactor Closures
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said he was concerned about the growing number of reliable nuclear reactors that are closing due to market conditions. He said he was worried how states would be able to replace these carbon-free generation sources to meet the Clean Power Plan's carbon reduction targets.
Eight reactors in the U.S. are either in the decommissioning process or planning to close in the coming years, primarily due to difficulty competing in unregulated wholesale energy markets(207 DEN A-8, 10/27/15).
FERC's Bay said the agency has been working on changes to price formation in the energy markets and has issued a series of orders on price formation in the past months(224 DEN A-10, 11/20/15).
He said changes to energy price formation could help with more accurately valuing and compensating baseload generation sources, like nuclear generation. “Resources should be compensated for the value they provide when they provide it,” Bay said.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested