Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/2/2015
-
(ACC Mentioned) Group Campaigns Against Flame Retardants in EPA Review Dustup
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Some furniture and carpet companies continue to use flame retardant chemicals suspected of causing health problems even though regulations no longer require their use, a report from a chemical safety group said. -
EPA Chemicals Office Crafting Guide On Systematic Review Processes
Dec 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA's chemicals chief has directed agency staff to craft a new document describing the systematic review processes used within the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)... -
Auto Industry Concerned by EPA Flame Retardant Assessments
Dec 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The automobile industry has raised concerns about potential restrictions, arising from the US EPA's proposed risk assessments for three clusters of flame retardants (CW 17 August 2015). They say they raise the issue known as 'regrettable substitution'. -
Echa BoA Dismisses Hexyl Salicylate Appeal
Dec 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) has dismissed an appeal lodged by trade group International Flavors and Fragrances (IFF), concerning the lead registrants dossier for hexyl salicylate. -
Ban Microbeads Here to Save Wildlife Far Away
Dec 2, 2015 | New York Daily News
By John Calvelli
A provocative conservation film premieres tonight on the Discovery Channel. While “Racing Extinction” might seem to look at challenges facing wildlife a world away, marine species in our backyard face urgent threats of their own. -
FAST Act on the Fast Track to Approval
Dec 2, 2015 | Railway Age
By Carolina Worrell
Congressional conferees on Dec. 1, 2015 reached an agreement on the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, a five-year surface transportation reauthorization bill and the first long-term bill of its kind in a decade. -
Conference Committee Passes Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill
Dec 2, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Isaac Sancken
Today, Congressman Dan Lipinski (IL-3) joined the other members of the House-Senate Conference Committee to announce that they have completed negotiations on the first long-term federal road and transit funding bill in 10 years. -
N.Y. Official Seeks Stronger Federal Crude-by-Rail Regulation
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) is calling on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to regulate the vapor pressure of tanker cars carrying crude, seeking to close what he calls a "dangerous loophole." -
EPA Advances Updates to Its Cross-State Rule
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is poised to launch a 45-day public comment period on a plan that would require significant reductions in many power plants' allowable emissions of nitrogen oxides. -
In Symbolic Memo to Paris, House Votes to Kill Clean Power Plan
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball and Emily Holden
House Republicans cleared two resolutions yesterday to kill U.S. EPA's regulations to limit greenhouse gases from power plants, rebuking the Obama administration's climate agenda at home and abroad. -
House Votes To Block GHG Rules In Bid To Blunt Paris Talks, Set 2016 Path
Dec 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
The House has approved a pair of Senate resolutions disapproving EPA's greenhouse gas rules for both existing and new power plants but the votes, which fell short of what is needed to override a presidential veto, are intended to undercut the administration's climate change commitments... -
Climate Envoy: GOP Votes Aren’t Hurting Paris Talks
Dec 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration’s top negotiator for the Paris climate talks said congressional votes against the White House’s environmental agenda aren’t hurting the United States’ position. -
Obama Says Carbon Price is Better Than Regulations
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Steven Chu was meeting with the president for his "exit interview" when the outgoing Energy secretary told his boss that the best way to attack climate change is with a carbon tax. -
Democrats Balk Over 'Toxic' Riders in GOP Omnibus Proposal
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Top House and Senate Democrats are rejecting a House GOP omnibus spending proposal that includes a number of unspecified "poison pill" environmental riders. -
Interior to Appeal Injunction of Fracking Rule
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration is poised to join environmentalists in appealing a federal judge's decision to block the Interior Department's hydraulic fracturing rule. -
District Court Dismisses Suit Seeking Ammonia NAAQS
Dec 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
A federal district court has dismissed environmentalists' suit seeking to force EPA to set first-time national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ammonia under the Clean Air Act, saying the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case because of the advocates' failure to give the agency the statutory 180 days' notice before filing suit.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Group Campaigns Against Flame Retardants in EPA Review Dustup
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Some furniture and carpet companies continue to use flame retardant chemicals suspected of causing health problems even though regulations no longer require their use, a report from a chemical safety group said.
The report by the advocacy group Clean and Healthy New York said that while some companies have phased out flame retardant chemicals in the past few years, others have not taken a similar interest.
The group's "Safe Sofas and More" campaign said it surveyed mattress, furniture and carpet padding manufacturers and found "a significant percentage" of them did not take steps to avoid flame retardant chemicals or failed to provide information.
Though the issue has seen more attention from furniture makers, many mattresses and carpet padding also contain flame retardant chemicals, the report said.
These "laggards," the report said, threaten consumer health and safety by using products many consider unnecessary.
Bobbi Chase Wilding, Clean and Healthy New York's deputy director, in a statement said the chemicals serve no purpose.
"In 2015, there is no need for home furniture makers or mattress manufacturers to allow flame retardant chemicals in the products they sell," Wilding said. "These chemicals come out into house dust, enter people's bodies and the environment, and can harm our health."
Though California changed a state regulation that led to the widespread use of flame retardant chemicals in electronics and furniture, regulators have not required the phaseout of additional flame retardants in recent years. The North American Flame Retardant Alliance, a branch of the American Chemistry Council that represents flame retardant manufacturers, has continued to defend the products as safe, noting EPA has not restricted their use.EPA regs take heat from all sides
Regulation to restrict the use of flame retardants has so far been limited, though U.S. EPA is examining three subsets of the chemicals under its work plan chemicals program -- the agency's attempt to make the most of its existing legal authorities to address existing chemicals that may cause health problems.
EPA began evaluating the safety of three "clusters" of flame retardants earlier this year and said it would take a more preliminary look at a fourth subset of the chemicals on which it had less data. The agency said it planned to complete an initial review, called a "work plan chemical problem formulation and initial assessment," to determine whether regulations are needed under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (Greenwire, Aug. 17).
Late last month, public comment periods concluded on three of the clusters -- chlorinated phosphate esters, cyclic aliphatic bromides and tetrabromobisphenol A. But the agency's actions have so far failed to satisfy either industry groups or advocates of tighter review of flame retardant chemicals.
Industry groups, in public comments, pushed back on the agency review.
EPA had failed to prove the chemicals are sufficiently similar to be grouped together in clusters or pose risks to consumers, workers or the environment, wrote Robert Simon, vice president of the American Chemistry Council's chemical products and technology division.
Even the phrase "initial assessment" is inaccurate, Simon argued, and could create "unnecessary questions and concerns in the marketplace."
EPA is instead conducting "a review of existing assessments, data sources, and data gaps," Simon argued.
Others, including Heather Stapleton, a professor at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment who has studied flame retardant chemicals, warned that EPA's description of the evaluation seemed to overlook additional paths of exposure to the substances from other products and underestimate their risk.
The EPA plan's failure to consider all exposures "will certainly underestimate risk," wroteNathan Donley, a staff scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. "You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could legitimately argue against that last point."
The Environmental Defense Fund argued in public comments that EPA must strike a balance in order to complete a timely review while recognizing the final product is likely to contain data gaps. The agency should publish a schedule of its review and explain itself if it falls behind on its deadlines, EDF argued.
-
EPA Chemicals Office Crafting Guide On Systematic Review Processes
Dec 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA's chemicals chief has directed agency staff to craft a new document describing the systematic review processes used within the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), as part of an effort to improve transparency in the office's risk assessment and management practices.
Systematic review approaches are relatively new to environmental health sciences, and have been adopted from medical literature review approaches used to inform treatment. Generally speaking, these approaches provide pre-determined standards for how scientific questions are researched and evaluated in existing literature. The approaches are intended to make such processes more rigorous, by evaluating studies' quality, biases and appropriateness to the question under review. They are also intended to be more transparent, by documenting how and why these decisions are made
The agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD), and particularly its National Center for Environmental Assessment, has been investing heavily in reviewing and testing systematic review approaches in recent years following longstanding concerns about how that center's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program has evaluated toxicity studies for its often controversial assessments. ORD scientists have also been collaborating with National Toxicology Program colleagues, who have developed a systematic review approach that agency is using in its assessments.
Now OCSPP is also seeking to clarify its systematic review approaches, with OCSPP's Stanley Barone telling a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel Nov. 17 that staff has drafted a framework describing how OCSPP staff analyzes information and reaches conclusions about it.
Barone told the committee members that an early draft of the framework has been shared with other EPA offices for interagency review. He said that EPA will release the draft publicly for comment this winter. Barone spoke at the Washington, D.C., meeting of an EPA-sponsored NAS committee reviewing whether the agency's chemical toxicity testing approach sufficiently addresses potential risk to human and wildlife health from exposures to low doses of endocrine active chemicals.
"It does outline all of the guidance and how we use the agency's guidelines. It also outlines approaches we are using now as well as approaches that we're going to talk about with ORD," Barone said. "Our intention is to take comment and finalize our framework in the spring, and then publish and release this framework in the summer in 2016."
Barone explained that his colleagues are "using this as both a training tool as well as a transparency effort for the public. Because one of the criticisms we've received is, it's not transparent how we're using systematic review. Often times we do it, but we're not as transparent as we should be. So we're striving to be more transparent."
Barone added that when completed, the OCSPP's systematic review framework will be updated periodically, as new protocols and procedures are crafted.
OCSPP chief Jim Jones asked science leaders in the office to create the document. An agency official tellsInside EPA that NAS' review last year of EPA's white paper reviewing chemicals with non-monotonic dose response curves and their potential low dose human health effects "pointed out the importance" of transparency in reviewing and evaluating toxicity literature.
In response, Jones asked OCSPP science division leaders to craft a document explaining how OCSPP staff perform evaluations and reach conclusions "in a way that memorializes it," the official says.
-
Auto Industry Concerned by EPA Flame Retardant Assessments
Dec 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The automobile industry has raised concerns about potential restrictions, arising from the US EPA's proposed risk assessments for three clusters of flame retardants (CW 17 August 2015). They say they raise the issue known as 'regrettable substitution'.
In August, the agency released initial assessments under its work plan programme, in a bid to identify “scenarios where further risk assessment may be necessary”. The chemical groups concerned are:
tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), also known as brominated bisphenol A;
chlorinated phosphate esters; and
cyclic aliphatic bromides/hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) cluster.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufactures said, in comments, that several regulations and performance requirements require the industry to use flame retardants in components. And members of the alliance and their suppliers use some of those targeted by the EPA.
Some are replacements for those that the agency previously identified as posing significant risk to health or the environment, it said.
In conducting the assessments, it is not enough for the agency to say that a particular flame retardant has risks, “since all have risks of some kind”. Instead, the group said, the agency should evaluate which of them have “distinctly low risks and, thus, are very unlikely to be restricted in the future”.
The Association of Global Automakers said that the use of these flame retardants is “essential in vehicles for consumer safety” and so the EPA “needs to provide predictability as to which alternatives are acceptable”.
It also needs to “clearly distinguish between the types of exposure, associated with the chemicals themselves versus their use in articles, the association said, adding that the EPA should consider exemptions for replacement parts to ensure that automobiles can be safely repaired.
The North American Flame Retardant Alliance (Nafra) said the agency should use separate exposure scenarios for reactive versus additive applications for TBBPA. The chemical's use in printed circuit boards or laminates is a reactive application.
It is also used as an additive flame retardant, mainly in plastics for products such as electrical housing or piping.
“These two applications, reactive vs additive, exhibit different profiles for TBBPA exposure and must be considered separately, when identifying exposure scenarios and determining any future regulatory action,” the group said.
It also called on the agency to “more clearly justify” the inclusion of TCCP in the chlorinated phosphate esters cluster. “The EU risk assessment for TCPP did not identify unacceptable risks for workers, consumers, general population or ecological receptors,” Nafra said, and questioned the need for the EPA to to do a “redundant analysis”.
The Environmental Defense Fund said the limited scope of the assessments, proposed by EPA, are bound to result in dramatically underestimated risks from these chemicals, and urged the EPA to make that clear.
Also, “inadequate or overly conflated justifications are provided for many key decisions and there are inconsistencies in the documents' content, transparency and format,” the group added.
For example, the EDF said, in justifying why it has excluded specific exposure scenarios and/or cluster chemicals from further assessment, the agency “frequently conflates, or fails to distinguish between, its expectation of low risk potential versus the insufficiency of data needed to conduct a risk assessment.”
The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) said the targeted chemicals have widespread use in consumer products and building materials and as a result are “universally detected in human blood, urine and breast milk”.
Given the “widespread exposure and toxicity, it is critical that the the EPA's assessments are transparent, comprehensive and fully account” for the risks the chemicals pose.
-
Echa BoA Dismisses Hexyl Salicylate Appeal
Dec 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) has dismissed an appeal lodged by trade group International Flavors and Fragrances (IFF), concerning the lead registrants dossier for hexyl salicylate.
The appeal, lodged in May, last year, called on the BoA to annul Echa’s request for the registrants to update their dossier with the following additional information (CW 3 July 2014):in vitro dermal absorption study;a 28-day repeated dose toxicity study in the rat, by inhalation; andto update its chemical safety report (CSR)
The trade group argued that the requested studies would not directly address the carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) concerns, identified when the substance was included in the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) in 2012 (CW 29 February 2012).
The appellant also claimed the agency “exceeded its competence”, by investigating further concerns in the contested decision.
It said that the evaluating member state competent authority introduced an additional concern, relating to local toxicity via the inhalation route. It argued that it did this, without “explaining or identifying any links between this additional concern and the initial concern”.
As local toxicity via inhalation would not qualify as a "property of concern", the agency “misused its powers”, it said.
However, Echa said the claims should be rejected, because the appellants understanding of the Corap substance evaluation process is “not in line with the aim, purpose and objectives of the REACH Regulation”. It stated that when substances are included in the Corap list, they have not yet been evaluated. The concern is, therefore, “indicative and not exhaustive or conclusive”.
Agreeing with Echa, the BoA said that the identification of “initial grounds for concern cannot be interpreted as restricting or limiting the scope of the substance evaluation process”.
“Such an approach would ignore any new concerns, which are identified after the substance evaluation procedure began, and so potentially overlook threats to human health or the environment,” it added.
The BoA has decided that the registrants must submit the requested information by 27 January 2017.
The IFF told Chemical Watch that having received the results of the BoA’s decision, it will now work closely with the substance lead registrant and the other co-registrants to comply with the outcome of the appeal.
-
Ban Microbeads Here to Save Wildlife Far Away
Dec 2, 2015 | New York Daily News
By John Calvelli
A provocative conservation film premieres tonight on the Discovery Channel. While “Racing Extinction” might seem to look at challenges facing wildlife a world away, marine species in our backyard face urgent threats of their own. Indeed, our medicine cabinets hold products with materials now making their way to the waters around New York that marine wildlife call home.
New York consumers may be familiar with microbeads — the tiny plastics found in personal care products like toothpaste and facial cleansers to aid exfoliation. But you may not know that the beads, some smaller than a sand grain, have chemicals that collect other pollutants from the waters, including DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), that are highly toxic.
Washed down our bathroom sinks, they can pass through wastewater treatment plants without being filtered out. The plastic acts as a sponge for pesticides, heavy metals and other toxins, moving them up the food chain. These particles, which break down very slowly in aquatic environments, can be mistaken for food by fish and other marine wildlife. We then eat the fish.
The New York City Council has taken a proactive stand against microbeads by proposing legislation to ban personal care products that contain these pollutants. Councilman Daniel Garodnick’s 2015 bill banning personal-care products containing microbeads has 29 cosponsors. We’re counting on our leaders to protect our waters and wildlife by passing the bill this year.
Why is this legislation important? We know that the health of our local waters is vital to our city’s success and our well-being. New Yorkers appreciate the benefits of living in a coastal environment — whether that means jogging or biking along the shore, kayaking in our rivers or choosing seafood from sustainable fisheries.
But the waters that surround New York also serve as a feeding ground, nursery and migratory corridor for hundreds of aquatic wildlife species, many threatened or endangered. One of the most fragile local marine areas in the New York seascape lies 100 miles off the shores of New York City. The Hudson Canyon, the largest submarine canyon on the East Coast, provides habitat to more than 260 species, including fish, sharks and skates.
All of these species are susceptible to plastics pollution, but the problem goes beyond New York. While New York State alone washes 19 tons of microbeads into local waters each year, a new study in Nature reports that this is just a part of the estimated 8 trillion microbeads going into U.S. water systems daily. As many as 350,000 plastic microbeads can be found in a single product.
State and federal action has been incremental. Illinois and New Jersey have already banned the beads and New York State will revisit a similar ban when a new session starts in January. At the federal level, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), along with others, have introduced bipartisan legislation entitled the Microbead-Free Waters Act. The House version of the bill was recently advanced out of committee.
Some companies (including Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and L’Oreal) have already begun or are starting to phase out the use of microbeads in their products and are developing safe natural abrasive alternatives.
These are all necessary and positive steps. But a strong ban like the one proposed in New York City is imperative to ensure that products containing microbeads are banished from shelves for good, with no loopholes allowing these toxin-attracting pollutants to enter our waters.
So if you decide to tune in to the Discovery Channel this evening — and I hope you do — remember that clean waterways are vital to protecting the marine environment that surrounds us.
Passage of a microbead ban in New York City would send a powerful message that we demand a healthy local marine environment.
Don’t forget that each of us can play a role simply by being educated consumers. The next time you open that medicine cabinet, take a moment to look at the products you have purchased. “Banning the bead” in your home is a first step in the race against extinction.
Calvelli is executive vice president for public affairs at the Wildlife Conservation Society.
-
FAST Act on the Fast Track to Approval
Dec 2, 2015 | Railway Age
By Carolina Worrell
Congressional conferees on Dec. 1, 2015 reached an agreement on the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, a five-year surface transportation reauthorization bill and the first long-term bill of its kind in a decade. It comes after years of predeccesor-bill extensions and partisan bickering. Of interest to freight railroads are key provisions on safety enhancements for tank cars moving flammable liquids in the U.S. and electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) train braking.
On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Senate approved the DRIVE Act on a bipartisan vote of 65-34. After House passage of similar legislation, the Senate and House formed a conference committee on which Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) both served to resolve the differences between the two bills. The text of the agreement, now known as the FAST Act, is available here.
Rail provisions in the FAST Act that exited the House-Senate conference committee include the following:
• Rail Infrastructure Improvements – Improves rail infrastructure and safety by consolidating rail grant programs, cutting red tape and dedicating resources for best use. It also establishes a Federal-State partnership to bring passenger rail assets into a state of good repair.
• Expedites Rail Projects – Accelerates the delivery of rail projects by significantly reforming environmental and historic preservation review processes, applying existing exemptions already used for highways to make critical rail investments go further.
• Dedicated Funding for Positive Train Control (PTC) – Establishes a new limited authorization with guaranteed funding for the Secretary of Transportation to provide commuter railroads and States with grants and/or loans that can leverage approximately $2+ billion in financing for PTC implementation.
• Testing of Electronically-Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) Brakes – Preserves the DOT’s final rule requiring ECP brakes on certain trains by 2021 and 2023, while requiring an independent evaluation and real-world derailment test. It requires DOT to re-evaluate its final rule within the next two years using the results of the evaluation and testing.
• Liability Cap – Increases the passenger rail liability cap to $295 million (adjusting the current $200 million cap for inflation), applies the increase to the Amtrak accident in Philadelphia on May 12, 2015, and adjusts the cap for inflation every five years going forward.
• Cameras on Passenger Trains – Requires all passenger railroads to install inward-facing cameras to better monitor train crews and assist in accident investigations, and outward-facing cameras to better monitor track conditions, fulfilling a long-standing recommendation from the National Transportation Safety Board.
• Thermal Blankets on Tank Cars Carrying Flammable Liquids – Closes a potential loophole in Department of Transportation regulations and reduces the risk of thermal tears, which is when a pool fire causes a tank car to rupture and potentially result in greater damage.
• Real-Time Emergency Response Information – Improves emergency response by requiring railroads to provide accurate, real-time, and electronic train consist information (e.g., the location of hazardous materials on a train) to first responders on the scene of an accident.
• Grade Crossing Safety – Increases safety at highway-rail crossings by requiring action plans to improve engineering, education, and enforcement, evaluating the use of locomotive horns and quiet zones, and examining methods to address blocked crossings.
• Passenger Rail Safety – Enhances passenger rail safety by requiring speed limit action plans, redundant signal protection, alerters, and other measures to reduce the risk of over-speed derailments and worker fatalities.
• Passenger Rail Reform – Reauthorizes Amtrak services, empowers states, improves planning, and better leverages private sector resources. It also creates a working group and rail restoration program to explore options for resuming service discontinued after Hurricane Katrina. Many of these provisions are based on the bipartisan Railroad Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act (S. 1626), which passed Committee by voice vote in June.
• Railroad Loan Financing Reform – Reforms the existing $35 billion Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program to increase transparency and flexibility, expand access for limited option freight rail shippers, and provide tools to reduce taxpayer risks.
Association of American Railroads (AAR) President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger applauded Congressional conferees on reaching agreement.
Hamberger said provisions requiring increased thermal blanket protection for tank cars, restrictions on the use of older DOT-111 tank cars moving flammable liquids and the requirement for top fittings protection on tank car retrofits address what the rail industry felt were safety shortcomings with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) tank car rule enacted in May.
"The AAR's position has always been that the tank car rule was a good start, but didn't advance safety as much as it could," said Hamberger.
Hamberger said the House and the Senate should be commended for the hard work and bipartisan efforts that went into making possible a highway bill the country has long needed. This legislation, he said, demonstrates that it's possible to put partisan politics aside and deliver on the expectations of American voters.
The AAR also welcomed a measure in the surface transportation legislation to streamline the environmental permitting process for rail infrastructure projects based on previously enacted reforms for highway and transit projects. The reforms are designed to increase capacity, improve safety, hire new employees and provide efficient service to rail customers.
"America's freight rail industry is pleased with the commonsense reforms intended to address duplicative and burdensome permitting delays, unrelated to environmental quality," said Hamberger.
-
Conference Committee Passes Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill
Dec 2, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Isaac Sancken
Today, Congressman Dan Lipinski (IL-3) joined the other members of the House-Senate Conference Committee to announce that they have completed negotiations on the first long-term federal road and transit funding bill in 10 years. As the only House Transportation Committee member from Illinois appointed to work out the compromise, Lipinski helped make sure the final bill increases funding for local road and transit projects and addresses regional transportation priorities that will ease congestion and increase safety. The bill, known as the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, will be considered on the House floor on Thursday.
"The fact that we were able to reach agreement on a road and transit funding bill is great news for the nation, especially people that live and work in northeastern Illinois," said Rep. Lipinski. "I fought hard in the Transportation Committee, on the House floor, and in the conference negotiations, and was able to make this bill better at each step. Illinois will receive more money to ease congestion on our roads, including funding to specifically fix problems related to the region's position as the nation's freight transportation hub. This includes two new freight programs that will help fund the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) rail modernization plan, specifically encompassing money to build underpasses for roads that cross rail lines. Local transit riders will see improvements from the increased funding for Metra, CTA, and Pace. While this bill will not solve all of our congestion problems, it is a good step forward and will help improve quality of life in the region."
The FAST Act provides $281 billion for roads and transit over five years, with funding increasing 5.1% in the first year and 2% in subsequent years. Illinois will receive approximately $7.5 billion in guaranteed funding for roads; this averages out to $1.51 billion per year, up from $1.37 billion in 2015. The bill establishes two new programs to help regions - such as northeastern Illinois - that suffer from congestion caused by freight moving on trucks and trains. One program provides $11 billion in formula funds and the other provides $5 billion for grants to projects such as grade separations to eliminate blocked roads at rail crossings. Illinois will also receive nearly $3 billion in transit support, with the opportunity for more funding through competitive grant programs.
The FAST Act includes $199 million in support for commuter rail agencies, such as Metra, to install and test Positive Train Control safety technology. The bill also includes the first Amtrak reauthorization in seven years, providing $8 billion over five years compared to $5.8 billion in four years in the original House bill. Congressman Lipinski was also able to remove from the final bill restrictions on the use of certain federal funds for transit projects; such limitations could have made the Core Capacity and New Starts components of the Red and Purple Line Modernization Projects infeasible without severely restricting CTA spending on other lines and routes. Funding for the Transportation Alternatives Program, which supports investment in infrastructure for bicycling, walking, and other active transportation means, was also maintained despite efforts to reduce or eliminate the program.
In addition, Rep. Lipinski was able to include provisions in the bill that increase the safety of rail cars carrying oil and other hazardous materials, support the deployment of zero-emission buses, and help boost American manufacturing jobs by improving Buy American laws. In his role as the top Democrat on the Research and Technology Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, he was also able to add language to the research portion of the bill to speed the development and deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles, which will improve safety, save fuel, and reduce congestion on our roads.
-
N.Y. Official Seeks Stronger Federal Crude-by-Rail Regulation
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) is calling on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to regulate the vapor pressure of tanker cars carrying crude, seeking to close what he calls a "dangerous loophole."
Saying that crude oil is less explosive and flammable when it has a lower vapor pressure, Schneiderman filed a petition with PHMSA today asking that crude transported by rail achieve a vapor pressure of less than 9 pounds per square inch.
"Recent catastrophic rail accidents send a clear warning that we need to do whatever we can to reduce the dangers that crude oil shipments pose to communities across New York State," he said in a statement. "In New York, trains carrying millions of gallons of crude oil routinely travel through our cities and towns without any limit on its explosiveness or flammability -- which makes crude oil more likely to catch fire and explode in train accidents. The federal government needs to close this extremely dangerous loophole, and ensure that residents of the communities in harm's way of oil trains receive the greatest possible protection."
The federal government does not currently regulate vapor pressure of rail cars carrying crude.
In his petition, Schneiderman cites recent derailments of trains carrying crude oil, including the 2013 explosion in Lac Mégantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people.
In many of those cases, the vapor pressure of the oil being transported exceeded 9 pounds per square inch.
While Schneiderman praised tightened PHMSA regulations finalized this summer to "enhance the structural integrity" of tanker cars, he noted that the agency has not yet tackled vapor pressure.
"To protect our communities and our environment in which these accidents could occur, it is important to limit the volatility of the crude oil itself," the petition says.
In a statement today, the American Petroleum Institute pushed back against the notion that lower vapor pressure would prevent such fatalities, saying vapor pressure is not the only factor in how hazardous a shipment of crude may be.
"Safety solutions must be developed using a scientific, fact-based approach to avoid creating unintended consequences for other stakeholders or operations," the organization said. "Vapor pressure alone is a poor parameter for crude oil transport classification and solely using vapor pressure as a metric could lead to erroneous results."
Crude oil shipments by rail have been increasing in the United States. The country saw just 9,500 carloads of crude oil rail shipments in 2008, compared with 493,126 carloads last year, according to the Association of American Railroads. Up to 44 unit trains carrying between 2 million and 3.5 million gallons of oil travel through New York state annually.
Many environmentalists fear the number of crude-by-rail shipments will only increase in coming months following the Obama administration's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline (EnergyWire, Nov. 13).
Almost 20 percent of Bakken crude oil is shipped through New York, through cities like Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester and Albany.
"A rail tank car explosion or fire along these routes of the size and intensity of those in recent events would imperil the safety and welfare of thousands of New York State residents who live, work, travel and recreate along the way," Schneiderman writes in his petition.
-
EPA Advances Updates to Its Cross-State Rule
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is poised to launch a 45-day public comment period on a plan that would require significant reductions in many power plants' allowable emissions of nitrogen oxides.
The agency will publish a proposed update to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in tomorrow'sFederal Register.
EPA officials unveiled the proposal last month. The draft update would apply to NOx emissions from plants in 23 states that contribute to downwind ozone air quality problems. States covered by the proposal are concentrated in the eastern United States and include North Carolina, New York and Virginia, but also range as far west as Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
In sunlight, nitrogen oxides can react with volatile organic chemicals to form ozone, the main ingredient in smog.
The proposal is intended to address a July ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found the agency had erred in setting 2014 budgets for ozone season NOx emissions for 11 states.
The court, which otherwise upheld the 2011 cross-state pollution rule against broader challenges from states and industry plaintiffs, found that EPA's framework required states "to reduce pollutants beyond the point necessary to achieve downwind attainment" (Greenwire, July 28).
Nonetheless, the impact of the proposed update could be substantial. When combined with other regulatory actions already under way, EPA predicts that it will cut ozone season NOx emissions by 150,000 tons by 2017 in comparison with 2014 levels, a reduction of more than 30 percent.
In a conference call with reporters last month, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe said the plan would produce up to $1.2 billion in yearly benefits compared with an estimated $93 million price tag. EPA officials also maintain that utilities can make the added NOx reductions with existing technology.
Depending on an area's location, the ozone season can range from several months to the entire year.
Reaction from the power industry has so far been muted. Spokesmen for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, could not be reached for comment this morning.
But some environmental groups and the head of an organization representing state air regulators have noted that the proposal is geared toward meeting the 2008 ambient air quality standard for ozone of 75 parts per billion, not the new 70 ppb benchmark set in October.
In a statement after the plan was released, Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, called it a concrete step toward reducing power plant releases but said it fell short of what states and local governments need to comply with the new ozone standard.
A public hearing on the proposal is set for Dec. 17 in Washington, D.C.
-
In Symbolic Memo to Paris, House Votes to Kill Clean Power Plan
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball and Emily Holden
House Republicans cleared two resolutions yesterday to kill U.S. EPA's regulations to limit greenhouse gases from power plants, rebuking the Obama administration's climate agenda at home and abroad.
President Obama plans to veto the measures, which the GOP-controlled Senate passed before the Thanksgiving recess.
"We decided explicitly to bring these resolutions to the floor as the climate change conference is taking place in Paris because we want the world to know that there are differences of opinion between the Congress and the president on this issue and on his clean energy plan," Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who introduced the resolutions, said on the House floor. "We're not debating the science of climate change, but we are debating the president's view on the way you address it."
The House voted 235-188 for the resolution to thwart new power plant standards and 242-180 for the resolution against the existing plant rule, the Clean Power Plan.
Democrats and groups supporting the EPA rule, called the Clean Power Plan, quickly condemned yesterday's vote.
"It is embarrassing and ironic that in the middle of this historic event on climate change, as the world consensus is strengthening and moving towards action, the best that our Republican Congress can do is vote on two pieces of legislation that would undo much of the progress we've already made," Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said on the floor.
Coal backers, however, were triumphant.
"Congressman Whitfield's stout defense against an out of control regulatory agency that is operating well outside of its bounds is commendable," said Mike Duncan, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, in a statement. "His leadership, and the votes of all who joined him today, send a direct message of opposition to both the President and the world at large."House Republicans to board plane to Paris
But Whitfield said the votes will be a key part of the message Republicans take with them to the U.N. climate talks in Paris later this month.
"We have a strong message from the Congress -- both the Senate and the House -- that there is significant disagreement with the president's policies," he said. "Whether he vetoes it or he doesn't veto it, what our message is is that we want the world to know that America's not in lockstep with the president and what he's trying to implement in this country."
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) said on the House floor yesterday that the failure of the Waxman-Markey carbon cap-and-trade bill in 2009 and Democrats' loss of congressional control show that the American people do not want carbon trading, which is generally seen as a key strategy for states to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
After the chamber's final votes, Whitfield plans to get on a plane with more than 20 House Democrats and Republicans who will bring two very different sets of views about how durable and popular the president's climate agenda is.
"I understand the plane will be full," he said.
Democrats will outnumber Republicans, he said, but he expressed confidence that GOP lawmakers would make their message heard.
"It doesn't take as many of us to speak as loudly as it does them," he joked.FERC leaders spar on reliability
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan have argued that it could risk power outages as the country shifts from coal-fired plants to more natural gas and renewable energy.
At a different hearing yesterday, Democratic members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power that existing grid protocols will keep the lights on while the country makes an accelerated shift toward cleaner fuels.
FERC Chairman Norman Bay noted that three federal agencies -- FERC, EPA and DOE -- are coordinating to ensure a smooth transition while states start to comply with the Clean Power Plan, and they met for their first quarterly meeting last month.
Staff members from the agencies met on Nov. 2, according to EPA. They will gather again in January to share information and monitor reliability concerns as states decide how to meet their carbon reduction goals.
"We speak often formally and informally at both the staff and management level on reliability and other important issues," EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said. "This cross-agency engagement helps to assure the public that important public health and environmental protections are achieved without interfering with the country's reliable supply of electricity."
EPA also made a number of changes to the final Clean Power Plan to safeguard reliability, including pushing the initial compliance timeline to 2022 from 2020, instituting a reliability "safety valve" to allow states to exceed their emissions goals in emergency situations, evening out interim goals between 2022 and 2030, and allowing more flexibility by spelling out carbon trading options, Bay said.
Republican FERC Commissioner Tony Clark countered that states still don't have enough time to build needed natural gas pipelines and electric power lines.A 'period of tremendous change' for energy
Bay and FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur both noted that a main way FERC can help with Clean Power Plan implementation is to make sure power markets are functioning well.
"We're going through this period of tremendous change in the energy space," Bay said. "So I think it's important for FERC to use the statutory authorities that Congress has given FERC to help the markets, market participants and industry adapt to that change while maintaining reliability and just and reasonable rates."
LaFleur said those shifts are driven by an abundance of natural gas and an increase in renewable energy and demand-side technologies, as well as environmental requirements.
"When so much is changing ... it's particularly important that markets send accurate price signals, both to existing resources ... and new resources," LaFleur said. "We've been focused very hard on making the markets do just that."
LaFleur noted that FERC has, over the last year and a half, been working through capacity market changes with the Eastern grid organizations, for example. She said FERC is focused on making sure sources of baseload power -- typically fossil fuels and nuclear energy that can run at any time -- are adequately compensated for the benefits they provide to the grid.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) asked how FERC might help to discourage carbon-free nuclear generation from going offline as states face environmental regulations. Illinois is facing multiple potential nuclear unit closures.
"The hope is that with more effective price formation, that can send better signals to different kind of resources, including the kind of baseload resources that you noted," Bay said. "We're doing a whole host of things that are seeking to improve the efficiency of wholesale markets."
-
House Votes To Block GHG Rules In Bid To Blunt Paris Talks, Set 2016 Path
Dec 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
The House has approved a pair of Senate resolutions disapproving EPA's greenhouse gas rules for both existing and new power plants but the votes, which fell short of what is needed to override a presidential veto, are intended to undercut the administration's climate change commitments now in play in Paris and to record lawmakers' votes for use in the 2016 election.
The House Dec. 1 in a 242-180 vote approved a resolution deeming that EPA's GHG rules for existing power plants should have “no force or effect.” And the chamber in a 235-188 vote likewise approved a similar resolution rejecting EPA's GHG rules for new power plants.
Debate on the resolutions broke down mostly along familiar partisan and regional lines, with Democrats citing the threat of climate change and costs of inaction to push back against Republican arguments that EPA's GHG rules, particularly for existing plants, would harm the economy and grid reliability.
Both votes, in tandem with similar votes last month in the Senate, signal that a majority of Capitol Hill lawmakers support overturning the EPA regulations using expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
But the resolutions have no chance of becoming law as President Obama has promised to veto them -- and congressional supporters lack the votes to override.
But they are designed to signal to other countries -- and a Republican base skeptical of GHG controls -- that the GOP Congress remains opposed to the administration's climate change initiatives. “We want to send a message to the climate change conference in Paris that in America there is serious disagreement with the extreme policies of this president,” said Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce power subcommittee, during Dec. 1 floor debate on the resolutions.
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) in separate floor remarks said the votes were also intended to provide ammunition in anticipation of political battles over the climate change issue in the next election. “Whether members of this body support these rules or oppose them, the measures before us today will provide each member the opportunity to be officially registered on where they stand on these EPA rules,” Burgess said.
Democrats appeared to relish the prospect of an election-year debate on climate change. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) sought to simultaneously characterize the vote as symbolic in its short-term effect but meaningful as a long-term legacy vote for lawmakers. “This is largely a symbolic vote,” Castor said, but added that “many will come to regret that legacy” of opposing solutions to climate change.
In line with Burgess' comments, both the conservative-aligned Americans for Prosperity and the environmental group League of Conservation Voters have pledged to include the CRA votes in their respective scorecards of lawmakers' records.
Republicans will have another opportunity to put lawmakers' energy stances on the record as they are slated to vote as soon as Dec. 2 on an energy package that would accelerated the fossil fuel development through steps including streamlined approval of natural gas pipelines.
That legislation began as a bipartisan effort but has since morphed into another opportunity for the GOP Congress to frame itself in opposition to the Obama administration' energy policies they argue would hamper the economy. The White House in a Dec. 1 statement of policy threatened to veto the legislation, citing several concerns including multiple provisions the administration claims would erode environmental protections
Paris Commitments
While the House votes are intended to undercut the administration's negotiating position in Paris, during a Dec. 1 press conference there Obama dismissed Republican opposition to his climate programs as political “games” out of step with the broader public.
“The good news is that the politics inside the United States is changing as well,” he said, citing a recent poll in which two thirds of respondents expressed support for the United States being a signatory to the next climate deal.
He also downplayed claims that the United States would not be able to follow through on its commitments,and defended it as a reliable partner in working with other nations to curb and adapt to climate change.
“Sometimes it may be hard for Republicans to support something that I'm doing but, you know, that's more a matter of the games Washington plays. And that's why I think people should be confident that we'll meet our commitments on this,” he said in response to a query on whether Congress would block U.S. climate programs, including contributions to an international fund to aid developing country climate efforts.
Obama argued that even if he is succeeded by a Republican, the new president will have to engage with the majority of global leaders that are concerned about, and committed to addressing, climate change. “Whoever is the next president of the United States, if they come in, and they suggest somehow that that global consensus -- not just 99.5 percent of scientists and experts, but 99 percent of world leaders think this is really important -- I think the president of the United States is going to need to think this is really important,” Obama said.
He said later in his press conference that he views a carbon tax as “the most elegant way” to drive innovation and reduce emissions, adding that “obviously, I’m not under any illusion that this Congress will impose something like that."
His assessment was underscored by a House Science Committee hearing Dec. 1 where Republicans reiterated their strong opposition to the EPA's rules, as well as other portions of the administration's climate agenda.
Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued that EPA's GHG rules for existing plants -- the “centerpiece” of the administration's climate agenda -- are “all pain and no gain,” given what he argued would be harsh economic impacts from the rules and a negligible change in global temperatures from those rules by the end of the century.
Witnesses at the hearing included former Mitt Romney campaign adviser Oren Cass, now a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, who argued that the Obama administration appeared poised to agree to a climate deal in which developing nations are not pledging emissions reductions beyond their business as usual trajectories.
“The only likely achievement of the Paris conference is an agreement by developed nations including the U.S. to transfer enormous sums of wealth to poor countries,” said Cass.
Baker and Hostetler attorney Andrew Grossman, who has represented Oklahoma in litigation challenging EPA's rules, argued in his testimony the Paris talks are a “farce” because Obama's efforts to implement the deal as an executive agreement without congressional support limits both commitments to binding emissions targets and U.S. aid to developing nations.
But World Resources Institute's Andrew Steer in his testimony played up prospects for a successful Paris agreement and referenced prior analysis by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which found that nations could reduce GHGs at a benefit to the economy due to factors including fuel savings and health benefits. “The overall cost [of GHG cuts] would be less than zero compared to current trends,” Steer argued.
-
Climate Envoy: GOP Votes Aren’t Hurting Paris Talks
Dec 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration’s top negotiator for the Paris climate talks said congressional votes against the White House’s environmental agenda aren’t hurting the United States’ position.
Todd Stern, the State Department’s special envoy for climate change, told reporters in Paris on Wednesday that he’s fielded questions about the Republican-backed votes from other diplomats, but he’s assured them that President Obama’s policies will stand.
Stern made the remarks a day after the House voted to overturn two landmark Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that require power plants to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.
“I don’t actually think that has much of an effect here,” Stern told reporters. Obama plans to veto both measures.
“It produces questions, so I have had countries ask me about, but what I have said is that the Clean Power Plan rule is going to go forward,” he said.
“The president’s not going to accept such resolutions, and we are entirely confident that the Clean Power Plan will go forward. And so, to the extent that I’m asked — I’ve been asked once or twice — I just explain that.”
Because of Obama’s veto threat, Congress's action was largely symbolic, timed to coincide with the opening days of the Paris talks.
The GOP wants to send a signal to world leaders that Obama’s pledge to cut the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent cannot be met because the power plant rules will be overturned, be it by the next president, Congress or the federal courts.
“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,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.
The Senate passed similar resolutions in November.
It’s just one tactic Republicans are using to try to derail the United Nations talks, where negotiators are trying to reach an international agreement to combat climate change. That deal is not likely to impose legally binding emissions cuts, however, because some countries, including the U.S., do not think they could approve such an accord.
-
Obama Says Carbon Price is Better Than Regulations
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Steven Chu was meeting with the president for his "exit interview" when the outgoing Energy secretary told his boss that the best way to attack climate change is with a carbon tax.
That marked a shift in thinking for the physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in 1997. Chu supported President Obama's earliest efforts to apply a cap-and-trade system to the economy nationwide. But the program's use of carbon credits, and the way they could be given to favored industries, made him realize that cap and trade is "easier to game."
A carbon tax is simpler and cheaper. And that's what Chu told Obama in their last private conservation in late 2012, after Obama won re-election in a campaign that rarely mentioned the issue that now dominates his agenda -- climate change.
Obama's response was politically realistic, Chu said in an interview yesterday.
"He said, 'It's not gonna happen,'" Chu said. "And in his term, he's right."
The conversation happened two years after major climate legislation failed to find traction in the Senate. But Obama suggested yesterday that he still believes that an economywide carbon price is a better option than the Clean Power Plan, the regulatory approach he's using to advance a global agreement on climate change over the next two weeks in Paris.
"I have long believed that the most elegant way to drive innovation and to reduce carbon emissions is to put a price on it," Obama said yesterday in a press conference in Paris.
He echoed economists who describe greenhouse gas emissions as "externalities" -- things of value that aren't correctly priced by the market. The economic impact of carbon emissions on sea-level rise, for example, isn't counted in the price of gasoline.
"And so, you know, I think that as the science around climate change is more accepted, as people start realizing that even today you can put a price on the damage that climate change is doing -- you know, you go down to Miami, and when it's flooding at high tide on a sunny day and fish are swimming through the middle of the streets ... there's a cost to that," Obama added.A slam against 'fighting weather'
He noted that as businesses, like property insurers, begin to identify climate risks, it might prompt lawmakers to put a price on emissions.
"And the more the market on its own starts putting a price on it because of risk, it may be that the politics around setting up a cap-and-trade system, for example, shifts, as well," Obama said. "Obviously, I'm not under any illusion that this Congress will impose something like that."
Many Republicans don't see a significant risk from rising temperatures. So putting a price on it, to them, seems like an expensive government program without a clear goal. Terrorism, however, is a threat that voters easily understand, some of them say.
"Instead of focusing on the perceived threat to national security of the SUV in your driveway, President Obama should be standing up and leading to defeat radical Islamic terrorism," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican candidate for president, said yesterday in the Capitol. "But he refuses to confront the very real threats facing America today."
Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who has previously expressed belief in climate change, dismissed Obama's discussion about pricing carbon as a distraction from the risks of the Islamic State terrorist group known as ISIS.
"I wish that all these leaders back in Paris right now would be talking about coalescing around fighting ISIS instead of talking about fighting weather," Heller said yesterday. "Because that's where the American people are."Chu: Tax carbon at $60
Chu is one of 32 experts to sign an open letter urging climate negotiators in Paris to use carbon taxes in their respective countries to confront rising temperatures, rather than the buffet of policies being presented by individual nations. Others include George Shultz, secretary of State under President Reagan; conservative economist Greg Mankiw; and Nobel Prize-winning economists Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Schelling and Kenneth Arrow.
"This single policy change -- explicitly using prices within existing markets to shift investment and behavior across all sectors -- offers greater potential to combat global warming than any other policy, with minimal regulatory and enforcement costs," says the letter organized by the Carbon Tax Center.
It's another signal to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) that liberal and conservative climate advocates are "unanimous" in their support of pricing carbon.
"There's a huge move toward a carbon price," he said yesterday. "Wherever you go where Republicans have come up with a solution on climate change, it's always a price on carbon, let the market work with that price, make it fair, and bring the revenues back to people with price reductions or other benefits, so we're not growing the size of government. We're there."
Chu said he had been "agnostic" about whether cap and trade or a carbon tax was the better tool to address climbing temperatures before he entered office in 2009. But he said his thinking "evolved" after the bitter fight over cap and trade ended unsuccessfully in 2010.
Now he likes the idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax that ramps up to $50 or $60 a ton by 2030. Much of the economic pain from rising energy costs could be minimized by using the revenue to reduce payroll taxes and increase Social Security benefits for retirees, he said.
"Other people say it needs to go to $100 a ton," Chu said. "I don't know if that's needed. I think if it's, let's say, $60 a ton by 2030, that's gonna spur a lot of innovation."
-
Democrats Balk Over 'Toxic' Riders in GOP Omnibus Proposal
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Top House and Senate Democrats are rejecting a House GOP omnibus spending proposal that includes a number of unspecified "poison pill" environmental riders.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, called the detailed proposal from House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) "a nonstarter."
"The riders are toxic, and we're not at the detox phase yet," she told Greenwire this morning. "You know, they're unacceptable."
She declined to discuss which riders are included in the plan, but Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday said he anticipated a list of around 100 riders coming from the House (E&E Daily, Dec. 2).
Mikulski said the two sides continue to negotiate on the measure, which Rogers wants to unveil by Monday. A Rogers spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.
"What we need is a more reasonable approach, but it's just not acceptable to our principles," Mikulski said of the GOP plan.
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the ranking member on the House Appropriations panel, also rejected Republicans' opening omnibus overture.
"My job is to fight to make these bills reflect Democratic values to the greatest extent possible," she said in a statement. "I won't simply go along and get along by agreeing to poison pill riders. Surely Republicans understand that doubling down on the same bad proposals over and over isn't a negotiation."
Republicans have made clear they're trying to use the end-of-year negotiations to push back against a host of Obama administration policies, including U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
Supporters of easing the crude oil export ban are also furiously pushing to see a repeal included in whatever legislative vehicle they can muster.
Asked about crude exports, Mikulski signaled the issue is being discussed in the separate tax extenders debate, although that package is expected to be joined with the omnibus.
Major environmental groups yesterday urged senators against trading a repeal of the export ban for extensions of clean energy tax breaks, as Reid and others have suggested.
"To be clear, there is no conceivable 'deal' that would be sufficient for our organizations to withdraw our objections to lifting the crude export ban," wrote the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International and others. "Specifically, suggestions that include extending clean energy tax incentives in exchange for lifting the ban are particularly untenable. Continued investment in renewable electricity must not come at the cost of the very climate gains we hope to achieve from their expansion."
While negotiators are said to be edging closer to a deal on a tax extenders package, a spokeswoman for Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said today there's no agreement yet.
"There is no deal on bipartisan tax extenders legislation," spokeswoman Julia Lawless said in an email. "Members are continuing discussions to develop a workable package that will provide responsible tax relief for American families and job creators."
-
Interior to Appeal Injunction of Fracking Rule
Dec 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration is poised to join environmentalists in appealing a federal judge's decision to block the Interior Department's hydraulic fracturing rule.
Speaking yesterday at a District of Columbia Bar event, Richard McNeer, a senior attorney in Interior's Office of the Solicitor, said the agency plans to head to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge a preliminary injunction granted this fall by a Wyoming district court.
The injunction, which blocks implementation of the rule while litigation moves forward, was a serious setback for the administration and supporters of the rule, with Judge Scott Skavdahl questioning whether Interior's Bureau of Land Management even had authority to regulate fracking on public lands (EnergyWire, Oct. 1).
McNeer noted that he was not officially speaking on behalf of Interior, but Wilderness Society attorney Nada Culver confirmed that the government and environmental groups are on the same page in the appeals process.
The environmental groups helping to defend the fracking rule against state and industry challenges appealed the preliminary injunction ruling over the weekend, asking the 10th Circuit to review the order.
Government lawyers have another legal tactic in mind: asking the district court to bifurcate the case to focus on the question of agency authority. While the preliminary injunction order does not set precedent itself, a final judgment from the district court would.
McNeer said such a ruling could be narrow in scope, focusing on an industry argument that the Safe Drinking Water Act and Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempt fracking from federal regulation. Or it could be more detrimental, finding that the agency doesn't have authority over fracking under its broader statutory mandates. In either case, the judgment would be appealed.
But in the interim, McNeer said, Interior would also likely join the environmentalist-led appeal of the preliminary injunction order.
BakerHostetler attorney Mark Barron, who is representing the Independent Petroleum Association of America in challenging the rule, said the appeal of the preliminary injunction is premature and distracts from merits arguments in the case. Instead, he said, the parties should wait for the supplemental administrative record to be filed in January, complete merits briefing in the district court, wait for a final judgment and then take the full case to the 10th Circuit.
Dan Naatz, vice president of federal resources for IPAA, agreed, adding that the group of independent producers is generally reluctant to be involved in such lengthy litigation but that "there's a lot at stake" with the fracking rule.
Culver, of the Wilderness Society, said the government and environmental groups involved in the case want to quickly undo the preliminary injunction and affirm the agency's authority now.
"The idea of getting input and looking at how we can accommodate different states is one thing," she said. "But saying that the feds shouldn't be regulating where they're in charge of 700 million acres is just not a workable concept."
McNeer said the fracking rule was a necessary regulatory update in the face of increased fracking activity across public lands.
"The existing regs are virtually, 'Yeah, let us know if you're going to frack a well unusually, but if you frack it routinely, tell us about it later,'" he said.
The new rule updates requirements for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure and requires operators to submit their fracking plans and other information for approval. The rule was released in March and has been tied up in litigation ever since.
-
District Court Dismisses Suit Seeking Ammonia NAAQS
Dec 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
A federal district court has dismissed environmentalists' suit seeking to force EPA to set first-time national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ammonia under the Clean Air Act, saying the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case because of the advocates' failure to give the agency the statutory 180 days' notice before filing suit.
In a Dec. 1 memorandum opinion in the suit, Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), et al. v. EPA, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia says that under the air law, EIP and other groups pursuing the case must comply with the 180-day requirement, and that the groups cannot avoid this procedural hurdle by relying on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which lacks such a provision.
Jackson finds that the suit falls within the citizen suit provision of the air law -- which says plaintiffs must first give EPA 180 days' notice of their intent to sue -- and that it displaces the APA in this instance. “The Court finds that the citizen-suit provision of the Clean Air Act does provide plaintiffs with an adequate remedy for the wrong they have alleged, and that plaintiffs have failed to comply with its notice requirement. So plaintiffs are not free to bring an action under the APA, and there is no other applicable government waiver of sovereign immunity. Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.”
EIP and other environmental groups filed the suit claiming “unreasonable delay” by EPA in establishing an ammonia NAAQS, one of several pollutants commonly emitted by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that environmentalists have long urged the agency to regulate with strict air rules. They asked the court to compel EPA under the APA to respond to their 2011 petition seeking regulation of ammonia.
The groups in their petition asked the agency to issue a finding that ammonia endangers public health and welfare, and impose NAAQS for the gas. Establishment of NAAQS would require states to include measures to curb ammonia emissions in their state implementation plans to achieve air law compliance, and would trigger new Clean Air Act permitting requirements for sources of the gas such as CAFOs.
Jackson writes that despite the APA's requirement that a federal agency “conclude a matter presented to it” “within a reasonable time,” the “APA makes clear that if another statute provides an 'adequate remedy in a court,' the APA cannot supply the cause of action, which means that it cannot serve as the waiver of sovereign immunity either.”
EIP and other groups have another CAFO air rule suit pending in the D.C. district court that seeks a 90-day deadline to force the agency to respond to their petition from 2009 seeking air rules for CAFOs.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested