Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 12/3/2015
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fragrance Trade Group Leader to Depart
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Greeenwire
By Sam Pearson
The head of a trade organization representing manufacturers of fragrance chemicals will leave the group early next year. -
Udall Says TSCA Reform Can Still be Passed This Year
Dec 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
With less then two weeks left in the legislative calendar, supporters of the Senate bill to update the decades-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are still hopeful of passage of the measure, this year. -
Vitter Eyes TSCA Reform As Legislative Priority Ahead Of 2016 Retirement
Dec 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), a leading sponsor of pending legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), sees the bill as one of his top remaining legislative priorities ahead of his recently announced retirement in 2016, according to his office... -
EPA's Updated Chemical Dashboard Includes Exposure Data
Dec 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The US EPA has launched a new, expanded version of its interactive Chemical Safety for Sustainability (iCSS) “dashboard”, which includes exposure data and predictions, as well as consumer product information (CW 23 January 2014). -
Compliance Issues Persist Beyond GHS Extended Deadline
Dec 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US trade groups that petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) for deadline relief from requirements, brought under Hazard Communication 2012 (HCS 2012), say that issues persist for formulators and distributors... -
Commission Draft Regulation Proposes Changes to Echa BoA
Dec 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A preliminary version of a draft Regulation, setting out organisational changes to Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA), was recently presented to member state officials. It includes proposals to give it more autonomy and staff. -
Cyber-Incident Database Could Have 'Cascading Consequences' -- Report
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
At least eight big pitfalls lie in the way of building a central, anonymized library of cybersecurity incidents, according to a report published yesterday through the Department of Homeland Security. -
House Passes Energy Infrastructure, Exports Bill
Dec 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
The House approved a bill to modernize energy infrastructure and open the door for oil and natural gas exports, part of a Republican campaign to press the case for fossil fuels as an alternative to the Obama administration’s climate change agenda. -
GOP Blasts Obama Climate Pedge, Says Gas is the Answer
Dec 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Republicans are dismissing President Barack Obama's push for a global climate deal in Paris this week, while at the same time touting an energy plan that would indirectly help states cooperate with his push to cut greenhouse gas emissions. -
EPA Utility MACT 'Appropriate' Cost Finding Likely To Survive Legal Fight
Dec 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's revised finding that it is "appropriate and necessary" under the Clean Air Act to regulate air toxics emissions from power plants after considering the costs of such regulation is likely to survive a potential future legal challenge... -
Sweeping Package Passes House, Faces Turbulent Road
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The House passed the Energy and Commerce Committee's broad energy legislation this morning, sending the Senate a bill aimed at modernizing the electric grid and speeding natural gas exports. -
S&P's Ferguson Discusses Rule's Impact on Energy Markets, Credit
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - TV
As state governments, industry and regulators dig in to potential Clean Power Plan compliance pathways, which industries could sustain the most significant credit impacts resulting from the rule's implementation? -
EPA's Carbon Plan Is Here To Stay No Matter Who Controls The White House
Dec 3, 2015 | Forbes
By Ken Silverstein
Will the divide between President Obama and the GOP-led Congress over climate change impede or imperil this country’s commitment to the cause? -
Former EPA Chiefs Ruckelshaus, Reilly Back Agency in Court
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Two former U.S. EPA administrators from Republican administrations today sought to back the agency in the legal challenge to its landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants. -
Calif. Utility Says Massive Methane Leak May Take Months to Fix
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Diana Crandall
At a Los Angeles City Council meeting Tuesday, one of the nation's largest gas utilities said it could take another three months to fix a leak that has already caused reports of dizziness and nausea, required 200 families to relocate and released a quarter of the state's methane emissions. -
N.Y. Sets Out to Mandate 50% Renewables by 2030
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Madelyn Beck
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo yesterday started the process of making the state's clean energy plan legally binding. -
Fla. Bill Backed by Industry Gains Steam
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
An industry-backed bill that could open Florida's door to the hydraulic fracturing industry continues to move thorough the state Legislature despite growing opposition from other heavy hitters at the state Capitol. -
Reagan, Bush ’41 Memos Reveal Sharp Contrast With Today’s GOP on Climate and the Environment
Dec 3, 2015 | Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
The memos, stamped “confidential” and kept under wraps for years, portray a White House eager to assert U.S. leadership on climate change.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fragrance Trade Group Leader to Depart
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Greeenwire
By Sam Pearson
The head of a trade organization representing manufacturers of fragrance chemicals will leave the group early next year.
Jennifer Abril, president of the International Fragrance Association North America, will step down from the role after more than seven years at the helm, the group said today.
Abril will continue to manage the organization while a search for her replacement occurs, it said. She previously served as the director of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates' ChemStewards program and also worked in international affairs and marketing at the American Chemistry Council, according to her LinkedIn profile.
The group says it represents the companies that make more than 90 percent of all fragrances developed and sold in the United States and Canada.
Under Abril's leadership, IFRA North America "has grown to become a strong voice for the industry in Washington, D.C. and beyond," said John Vernieri, the immediate past chairman of IFRA North America's board of directors, in a statement. "We have increased our capabilities and influence, moving the Association into a position of presence and respect among our peers and policymakers."
Fragrance products, which are included in a variety of personal care and consumer goods, are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. EPA depending on their use. But some advocacy groups say the agencies fail to perform sufficient independent research on chemicals used as fragrance. In addition, they question whether federal regulators should rely on IFRA lists of fragrance chemicals determined to be safe or take a more independent role to evaluate the products.
In a recent report by advocacy group Women's Voices for the Earth, "Unpacking the Fragrance Industry: Policy Failures, the Trade Secret Myth and Public Health," the group argued that chemicals used to create fragrances rely on safety studies supplied almost exclusively by the International Fragrance Association and its research branch, the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials.
The industry group has lobbied against an optional EPA labeling program to let companies tout their products as "fragrance free." It's also pushed back against efforts to require companies to disclose more ingredients used in fragrances (Greenwire, May 7).
-
Udall Says TSCA Reform Can Still be Passed This Year
Dec 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
With less then two weeks left in the legislative calendar, supporters of the Senate bill to update the decades-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are still hopeful of passage of the measure, this year.
After the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the Udall-Vitter bill in April by a 15-5 vote, Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), co-author of the measure, made two unsuccessful attempts in October to get unanimous consent to the bring the bill (S 697) to the Senate floor, without extraneous amendments (CW 22 October 2015) and (CW 29 October 2015).
On each occasion, he was thwarted by Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), who insisted on attaching an amendment, relating to the reauthorisation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
"We still have time to pass chemical safety reform by the end of the year, and I'm working very hard, along with several other senators, to find a path forward,” Mr Udall told Chemical Watch. “Well over 60 senators support bipartisan chemical safety reform, and we can get this done if we keep our shoulder to the wheel.”
Senator David Vitter, who co-authored the bill with Mr Udall, told Chemical Watch that he has “complete confidence that the Senate will soon dismiss inconsequential distractions in order to schedule, vote on, and pass the majorly bipartisan bill ... within a very short time period, launching the United States toward substantially updating and reforming the outdated TSCA with historic support."
Representative John Shimkus (R-Illinois), who spearheaded the TSCA reform bill in the House, pointed out that his bill passed by a 398-1 vote and added that “the Senate bill has broad, bipartisan support as well. After the Senate works through its process, I remain optimistic that we can come together to resolve our policy differences and get TSCA reform signed into law this Congress.”
Mr Shimkus chairs the House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
-
Vitter Eyes TSCA Reform As Legislative Priority Ahead Of 2016 Retirement
Dec 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), a leading sponsor of pending legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), sees the bill as one of his top remaining legislative priorities ahead of his recently announced retirement in 2016, according to his office, and observers expect a reinvigorated push for a floor vote on the bill.
"I'm hopeful [the bill] is the kind of thing that Vitter would want to see come to fruition," says one chemical industry source tracking the TSCA bill. "I can't think of legislation he's been more attached to."
But a second industry source cautions that Vitter is no longer ranking member of the Senate environment committee and may not be as invested in pushing the TSCA reform bill as he had been earlier in the legislative process. But the source adds that if the bill were to become law, "he could claim he is still an effective senator."
A spokeswomen for Vitter's office also says that the TSCA bill remains one of Vitter's top legislative priorities for the remainder of the term, which ends Jan. 3, 2017 following his decision not to seek reelection. Vitter opted to retire after his Nov. 21 loss to Democrat John Bel Edwards in Louisiana's gubernatorial election.
Vitter and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) in March introduced the TSCA bill, S. 697, known as the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" after the late Democratic senator from New Jersey who previously worked on TSCA reform legislation with Vitter. S. 697 cleared the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee in a 15-5 vote during an April 28 markup over strenuous objections from Ranking Member Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
Boxer had threatened a filibuster of the legislation, which currently has 58 co-sponsors and more than 60 declared votes. The senator objected to language that she said would too broadly preempt existing state chemicals programs, such as those in California. However, revisions to the bill that were agreed to earlier this fall led to Boxer agreeing to let the bill come to a floor vote -- though she is withholding her support pending additional changes.
But the bill has been twice blocked in October by objections from Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), who sought to attach an amendment to S. 697 that would reauthorize the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). When Udall sought unanimous consent to bring the bill to the floor, Burr objected on Oct. 21 and again Oct. 28.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and other GOP senators oppose reauthorization of the fund without changes to how it operates and would fight the amendment, stymieing both the LWCF and TSCA bills.
LWCF Dispute
The LWCF helps acquire and maintain park lands and is funded by companies drilling offshore for oil and gas. Lee and Burr are supporters of the TSCA reform legislation, but their sparring over the LWCF has created major uncertainty about when a vote could take place on either the measure to reauthorize the fund or the TSCA bill.
TSCA reform supporters are hopeful that the bill could gain new traction after the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 18 unanimously approved full reauthorization of the LWCF as an amendment to S. 556, which is legislation that would expand access to federal lands for fishing and hunting.
"The legislation the Committee supported on a bipartisan basis makes some critical reforms to the program, but maintains the original intent of the fund which is to assist in the conservation of both scenic landscapes and local ballfields and parks, without asking taxpayers to pick up the tab," Burr said in a press release.
A group of 14 senators Nov. 18 sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), asking the leadership to consider attaching a measure to permanently reauthorize the LWCF in any "must-pass" legislation up for a vote before the end of the year. Udall and Burr both signed the letter, indicating a possible deal that could allow TSCA to move forward to a floor vote.
Congress watchers say the letter could reflect an agreement to allow the TSCA bill to advance to a vote by potentially resolving the LWCF fight. The second chemical industry source says the letter is promising, though other legislative priorities and a looming Dec. 18 deadline for legislation also present challenges. "My view is any and all options need to be considered and this is one," that source says.
But a third industry source says it is unclear that McConnell will make the LWCF a priority given the looming fight over budget legislation. Even if McConnell were to prioritize legislation to resolve the LWCF dispute, he might not able to find a legislative vehicle, the source adds.
-
EPA's Updated Chemical Dashboard Includes Exposure Data
Dec 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The US EPA has launched a new, expanded version of its interactive Chemical Safety for Sustainability (iCSS) “dashboard”, which includes exposure data and predictions, as well as consumer product information (CW 23 January 2014).
The freely available dashboard holds data from US screening programmes ToxCast and Tox21, as well as from ExpoCast, an EPA initiative to develop tools to screen, evaluate and classify chemicals, based on their potential for human exposure (CW 27 June 2013).
“The first dashboard contained high-throughput screening data but didn't have any information on exposure predictions or on which chemicals are found in which types of consumer products,” explained Monica Linnenbrink from the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The new dashboard contains test data on about 8,000 chemicals, compared with 1,800 previously, as well as chemical structures, physical–chemical properties, and information from the EPA's chemical product category database.
Users can search results by assay or by chemical, with different filtering options. These come with “interactive” graphs and charts, which can be downloaded and used for reports or presentations, said Ms Linnenbrink.
The improvements follow feedback from a host of stakeholder workshops. “Some of the feedback was that stakeholders wanted more information about the assays. We have really improved definitions of specific assays, as well as providing information on whether they have been published in peer-reviewed journals,” said Ms Linnenbrink. “Tags” now provide a snapshot of an assay, including tissue, organism, biological target and target family.
The dashboard's exposure data come directly from the US National Human Health and Nutrition Survey (Nhanes). The EPA has also used Nhanes data to build computer models to predict exposure for chemicals not included in the survey.
"We are working on how to combine the data in meaningful ways to do high-throughput screening level assessment, which combines exposure data, ToxCast bioactivity data, and high-throughput toxicokinetics data,” explained Matt Martin, project lead for the iCSS dashboard.
Combining data in such a way would be hugely helpful to researchers, for example, allowing them to convert from an in vitro concentration to an in vivo dose, he added. “We have a lot of pieces working well separately. There is still a lot of research to be done on how to combine results.”
-
Compliance Issues Persist Beyond GHS Extended Deadline
Dec 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US trade groups that petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) for deadline relief from requirements, brought under Hazard Communication 2012 (HCS 2012), say that issues persist for formulators and distributors, despite the extension granted by the agency (CW 9 July 2015).
The extension was given in response to a 2014 letter, co-signed by nine trade groups. This raised concerns about the feasibility of the shared 1 June compliance deadline for both raw materials suppliers and formulators, under the rulemaking that brought HCS in line with the UN's Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for chemicals classification and labelling (CW 3 March 2015).
According to Bill Balek, director of legislative and environmental services at the Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association, “while Osha's relaxed enforcement policy around the effective dates has provided some relief, distributors, in particular, are at the mercy of their upstream suppliers, and few have achieved full compliance.”
Osha guidance granted mixture formulators a six-month extension to create a compliant safe data sheet (SDS), starting from when they received the last raw material ingredient SDS for a product. This was provided they could demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith effort” to come into compliance by 1 June. It also gave an additional six months to create compliant labels, following the update to the SDS.
Nevertheless, the 1 December deadline for distributors to ship only products with HCS 2012-compliant labels remained in place.
In guidance documents issued by Osha, the agency acknowledged that “there may be distributors that are, consequently, unable to comply with the 1 December effective date”, where the manufacturer could not comply with HCS by 1 June. In such cases, it said that distributors may continue to ship products with HCS 1994 labels, provided the distributor has “exercised reasonable diligence and good faith to comply".
The guidance noted that Osha officials will consider "whether the distributor is able to document its communication with the manufacturer or importer about the circumstances for the noncompliance with HCS 2012", when determining "good faith efforts".
According to Mr Balek, the reason that formulators and distributors of cleaning products “continue to struggle” with the compliance changes, brought about by HCS 2012, is “largely attributable to Osha's approach to establishing essentially one effective date for all members of the supply chain”.
Mark Collatz, director of regulatory affairs at the Adhesives and Sealants Council (ASC), said that distributors need to document their discussions with suppliers, to demonstrate their attempts to become compliant. He added the trade group has encouraged manufacturing members, who have made use of the extended deadline to clearly communicate to their customers why there have been delays, to provide timelines of when they expect to be compliant.
Jennifer Gibson, vice president of regulatory affairs at the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD), said that “there are still challenges” with compliance, after the 1 December deadline, but that most of these issues are being worked through between individual companies and suppliers.
She added that the industry is “gradually getting there”, but that the process has been “tough”.
The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
-
Commission Draft Regulation Proposes Changes to Echa BoA
Dec 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A preliminary version of a draft Regulation, setting out organisational changes to Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA), was recently presented to member state officials. It includes proposals to give it more autonomy and staff.
In October, the European Commission told Chemical Watch it was going to propose measures to reinforce the BoA's independence, following an assessment by Echa's Management Board (CW 14 October 2015).
Presented at a recent meeting of the competent authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal), the paper advocates giving powers to the BoA chair to direct the work of registry staff – those responsible for administrative duties. This has, so far, been a task for Echa’s executive director.
This, it states, would “avoid any conflict of interest”, since the BoA reviews Echa's decisions.
It also includes provisions for the creation of an “additional chamber”, where the BoA chair can allocate cases to ensure “continuity of operations”. This, it says, appears justified by the expected increase in the number and complexity of cases, in particular, in relation to evaluation appeals.
Members of the additional chamber would be either members of the BoA or “additional/alternate members”.
“The aim of this provision is not to create a second chamber of the Board of Appeal but to give full effect to Article 90(3)(2) of REACH [which requires all BoA members to remain independent and free from other duties of the agency]”.
Echa told Chemical Watch that “in principle, the agency shares the objectives of the draft Caracal paper but there are still a number of open questions for which we have no answers yet.”
These, it says, are mainly related to the details of “practical arrangements and daily life aspects”. It includes how rules and processes, for companies and staff, will work in practice when they function “independently” from the secretariat.
The paper also suggests the following clarifications to procedural issues:require confidentiality requests to be justified. “The appeal announcement cannot be treated as confidential,” it says;allowing effective participation of case “interveners”. This would involve streamlining the intervention procedure (making the conditions for the application to intervene clear) and extending the deadline for submitting such an application to three weeks from two;add a new provision that clarifies that the parties should bear their own costs;the possibility for parties to find an amicable agreement, under the supervision of one member of the BoA;withdrawal of an appeal: in such cases, the procedure would be simplified, as the chairman (instead of the BoA) would be able to close proceedings;clarify and simplify existing provisions on representation, and to save costs, parties would no longer need to be represented by a lawyer; andinclude references, where appropriate, to the biocidal products Regulation, for example, within decision text.
-
Cyber-Incident Database Could Have 'Cascading Consequences' -- Report
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
At least eight big pitfalls lie in the way of building a central, anonymized library of cybersecurity incidents, according to a report published yesterday through the Department of Homeland Security.
A cross-sector database of online attacks could help protect critical infrastructure and prop up the budding market for cyber insurance, DHS officials have suggested. But while more comprehensive information on cybersecurity risks would be useful to insurers, the new report warns that "aggregated data that shows the cascading consequences and total costs" of certain cyberattacks "could make some of the most common cyber incidents uninsurable or prohibitively expensive to insure."
Yesterday's white paper is a product of the Cyber Incident Data and Analysis Working Group, composed of academics, information security professionals and government workers. DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) organized the group to explore the potential for a cyber incident data repository.
Several groups are already dedicated to getting information about cyberthreats out to the critical infrastructure community, including the privately run Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center and DHS's own Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team. President Obama issued an executive order earlier this year promoting participation in the broad category of Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, citing the need "to address cyber threats to public health and safety, national security, and economic security of the United States" (EnergyWire, Jan. 14).
Yet there is still no single place to review cyberattacks on banks, electric utilities, oil companies and other key institutions. Such aggregation "would support a host of advances for cyber risk management professionals generally, including enhanced cyber risk data and trend analysis, bolstered in-house cybersecurity programs, and improved cybersecurity solutions, products and services," noted Tom Finan, senior cybersecurity strategist and counsel in NPPD's Office of Strategy and Policy at DHS.
The broader working group came to the same conclusion in the latest report, noting that a cyber database "could make a major contribution to driving the Administration's critical infrastructure protection and national resilience goals."
Several obstacles stand in the way, based on the report, including ensuring the anonymity of contributors, overcoming cultural challenges, shielding companies from commercial harm and sorting out technical issues.
The role of government was also presented as a dilemma.
"Because of the specific types of information that the kind of repository envisioned here would hold, some of which might have regulatory implications, participants likely will insist that it not be owned, operated, or controlled by the Federal government," the paper notes. DHS representatives have said the agency does not intend to actually set up the database.
Even if the repository isn't directly tied to the government, merely planning to host the program on U.S. soil raises its own problems, the report concludes. Edward Snowden's sweeping disclosures of the National Security Agency's spying could discourage participation from foreign companies or firms with international boards. Some members of the working group suggested limiting early participation to American companies for this reason.
The report also suggests that government agencies share details about their own cyber breaches to the database to build trust. "Such contributions ... could help assure that information sharing between the government and the private sector is bi-directional and mutually beneficial," the white paper states.
Congress has attempted to tackle some of the obstacles identified in the report. Both the House and Senate have passed measures to offer liability protection to companies deciding to share information with each other or with the federal government. Lawmakers are now working to sort out differences in the multiple versions of the legislation.
Without endorsing specific bills, yesterday's white paper points out that "safe harbor" laws could "help overcome internal resistance" in companies that may be on the fence about info sharing.
A DHS official said the working group's next step will be to further define the cyber incident data repository conceptually.
-
House Passes Energy Infrastructure, Exports Bill
Dec 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
The House approved a bill to modernize energy infrastructure and open the door for oil and natural gas exports, part of a Republican campaign to press the case for fossil fuels as an alternative to the Obama administration’s climate change agenda.
Lawmakers approved the bill, 249-174.
Thursday's vote, which comes as some 200 countries meet in Paris to try to hammer out a new global pact to fight climate change, was designed to show Republicans' preference to boost natural gas and oil production, which has surged in the U.S. over the past decade.
But the bill itself had nothing directly to do with the Paris talks and little to do with climate change, which Democrats cited in their opposition.
Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) had offered an amendment requiring the Energy Information Administration to conduct an analysis of the bill’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions, though the measure was rejected Thursday morning by Republicans who contended that Pallone was simply trying to delay the bill.
Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton said the bill is needed to fix “a federal permitting process that is not designed to expeditiously handle the many projects necessary to bring online the nation’s growing energy output and to meet the energy needs of homeowners and businesses.”
Republicans said they had relied on the Energy Department’s quadrennial energy review as a guidepost for some of the provisions, and Democrats generally agreewith Upton's assessment that “it has been nearly a decade since we last considered a broad energy package, and a lot has changed.”
But the effort to reach a broad bipartisan compromise fell apart when Republicans added late language that included either requiring or opening the door for tighter deadlines to review permits for LNG exports or new natural gas pipelines.
The White House had already threatened to veto the bill even before amendments were approved this week that would lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports and expedite cross-boundary oil, natural gas and electric transmission projects, a partial rebuke to the years-long process that culminated in Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The White House’s veto threat said the bill would stifle the administration’s energy efficiency efforts by undermining building code and appliance standards, as well as “undermine already successful initiatives designed to modernize the nation's energy infrastructure.”
The final vote approving the bill Thursday fell short of the two-thirds that would be needed to overturn a veto. And a bipartisan Senate energy bill that would join the House measure in any bicameral conference remains in limbo, awaiting floor time that appears increasingly unlikely this Congress.
Lawmakers considered nearly 40 amendments but the highlight was approval again of language from Texas lawmakers to lift the oil export ban. The amendment was nearly identical to a bill the House approved in October and supporters said they’ll likely try to offer it on other big bills this Congress to increase its chances of getting signed into law. The amendment from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) lost net support from Democrats compared to House passage of his bill in early October. Seven Democrats switched their support from the Oct. 9 bill and voted against Barton’s amendment Wednesday, while new support came from Reps. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who opposed the October bill, and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)who did not vote on it in October.
Senate Democrats may be considering trading the lifting of the oil export ban in an omnibus spending bill to get Republicans to drop more onerous environmental and other riders.
Democrats got several amendments in the House bill, including one from Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) allowing community solar projects to be connected to the electric grid, and another from Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.) requiring an Energy Department study of volatility of crude oil shipped by rail.
-
GOP Blasts Obama Climate Pedge, Says Gas is the Answer
Dec 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Republicans are dismissing President Barack Obama's push for a global climate deal in Paris this week, while at the same time touting an energy plan that would indirectly help states cooperate with his push to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The GOP plan includes provisions that would help utilities replace coal-fired power plants with lower-emissions natural gas to comply with Obama's Clean Power Plan. But that's not their main goal, Republicans insist.
“Much of the infrastructure we’re approving in this bill does help utilities comply with” the EPA carbon rules, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said, referring to the energy bill (H.R. 8) on track to pass Thursday. “That same infrastructure will help them in any growing scenario, where more generation has to be put on distribution.”
Passage of the bill would come two days after the House voted to block EPA's new carbon rules, which are driving some of that gas demand, and amid shifting rhetoric around climate change from Obama administration critics.
While their anti-regulatory zeal has not waned, few Republicans and their allies in the oil industry overtly questioned climate science when criticizing the president's trip to Paris this week, instead slamming talks as a distraction from more important issues such as terrorism. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy encouraged Obama to tout emissions reductions from gas in his Paris pitch.
"For America to succeed — leading the world in safe and abundant energy while also growing our economy — we must embrace the free market principles and spirit of innovation at the heart of our energy renaissance," McCarthy said earlier this week. "At the U.N. climate conference, the president is ignoring what works, and the country isn’t following. Congress is showing the world there is a better way."
To hear Republican leaders tell it, this week’s legislation from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is a 21st-century policy blueprint, incorporating needed permitting reforms to make pipelines easier to build, boosting efficiency and encouraging more U.S. energy exports. Upton had hoped to secure widespread bipartisan support for the bill, but Democrats balked this summer amid disputes over its support for oil and natural gas over renewables and efficiency — an approach they say will keep the U.S. energy mix mired in the 19th century.
The House energy bill's focus on increasing natural gas infrastructure is often billed as a consequence of coming EPA emissions regulations, which would produce up to a 7 percent increase the need for gas infrastructure, according to an ICF International study commissioned by the Advanced Energy Economy Institute earlier this year. The bill also would liberalize liquefied natural gas exports, another source of rising demand.
Republicans also have taken to promoting the relatively narrow bill by blasting Obama for attending climate talks in a city still reeling from the recent Islamic State attacks. Rather than talking about the environment, they say, the president should spend his time on the fight against terrorism.
“[T]he White House hopes to negotiate a climate change deal in supported by nothing more than a massive slate of regulations that will reduce the reliability and affordability of the energy that powers our lives,” McCarthy's office said this week. “Meanwhile, our fight against ISIS continues halfheartedly.”
The Senate voted to block EPA's carbon rules last month, but Obama's promised veto will prevent their resolutions from having any effect. Otherwise, Republicans in the upper chamber have paid relatively little attention to the Paris talks this week. A bipartisan companion to the Upton bill that came out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this summer does not appear likely to see floor time soon.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) shrugged off the notion that his party needed its own specific climate strategy as an alternative to Obama's plans in Paris, saying even cutting U.S. emissions to zero would not offset increased global emissions tied to China and India.
Like an increasing number of his colleagues, Barrasso sidestepped an opportunity to question the scientific consensus linking human activity to global warming, as he has in the past.
Obama "says 'science is science,' I say math is math," he added in an interview Tuesday. "What the president's doing is hurting the U.S. economy."
House Republicans view their bill’s collection of infrastructure and security plans, including a section that speeds natural gas export approvals and another that prevents DOE from playing a more active role in crafting building efficiency codes, as extending their long-standing support for maintaining fossil fuels’ role in the nation’s energy mix.
“I don’t see it as a major shift in our emphasis or what we’re trying to do,” Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said. “I think everything we’re seeing over here is simply an all of the above approach.”
Environmentalists have heaped scorn upon the House bill, particularly the inclusion of language letting pipelines traverse parks that Bishop's committee worked on, and dismissed House leaders' touting of Thursday's energy bill as a viable climate plan.
“The Republicans don’t have a proactive response to climate change, plain and simple,” said David Turnbull, campaigns director for the green group Oil Change International. “Promoting more fossil fuels while scientists are telling us we have to keep the vast majority underground is just denying reality. The entire world has convened in Paris to work productively towards real climate solutions and it’s time for members of Congress in Washington to catch up.”
-
EPA Utility MACT 'Appropriate' Cost Finding Likely To Survive Legal Fight
Dec 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's revised finding that it is "appropriate and necessary" under the Clean Air Act to regulate air toxics emissions from power plants after considering the costs of such regulation is likely to survive a potential future legal challenge, observers say, because the air law gives the agency broad discretion in how to conduct the cost analysis.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would hear any lawsuit filed over the proposed appropriate and necessary finding that the agency issued Nov. 20 for its utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule. But first the court will hear oral argument Dec. 4 in ongoing litigation over the MACT itself, with industry groups urging the court to vacate the rule and EPA saying it should be left in place.
The Supreme Court in its 5-4 ruling from June in Michigan v. EPA faulted the agency for not considering costs in the initial finding that led to the development of the MACT. EPA argued it considered costs later in the process when it set the rule's emissions limits, and that it had discretion on when to weigh costs as the air law was not explicit on the issue. But the majority of justices said cost should have been a factor in the decision to regulate.
The court then remanded litigation over the rule to the D.C. Circuit in the case White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, which is weighing motions on how to proceed. Power companies opposed to the rule argue that theMichigan ruling undermines the entire basis for the MACT and that the appellate court must vacate it.
EPA in briefing has countered that its proposed cost review released last month satisfies the Supreme Court's mandate to weigh costs in the appropriate and necessary determination for crafting the rule -- also known as the power plant mercury and air toxics standards -- under the Clean Air Act's section 112 air toxics program.
The appropriate and necessary finding required under section 112(n)(1)(A) of the law is unique to the electric utility sector, and therefore there is no direct precedent for EPA to follow on how to craft a cost review.
The agency stopped short of a full cost-benefit analysis of the rule, instead concluding that a more limited assessment of implementation costs shows the rule is still a valid policy. EPA published the cost review in the Dec. 1 Federal Register and will take comment on it for 45 days, and then craft a final version with a target issue date of May. EPA says the D.C. Circuit should not vacate the MACT during this time.
Potential Lawsuit
Should the court determine after the imminent oral argument to leave the rule in place, opponents of the MACT could next file a legal challenge to the eventual final version of the cost review.
But legal experts doubt the success of such a challenge, with an environmental attorney noting that the ruling in Michigan only said that EPA had to do a cost review -- and did not specify how to conduct the review. The air law is also silent on how such a review should be done. The source says this indicates the D.C. Circuit would likely defer to the agency's approach on the merits of the cost finding under the Chevron doctrine where courts grant deference to federal agencies' statutory interpretations where a statute is either silent or ambiguous on a issue.
The source believes that the eventual final version of the cost finding "undoubtedly will be litigated" by the power industry and states opposed to the MACT. But the source says "the Supreme Court spoke briefly to EPA's discretion in Michigan, suggesting EPA would enjoy traditional Chevron deference, which is heightened under DC Circuit and Supreme Court case law in technical matters like these particularly within EPA's expertise."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his majority opinion in Michigan wrote, "We need not and do not hold that the law unambiguously required the Agency, when making this preliminary estimate, to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value. It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost."
One industry legal source says, "If EPA finalizes this conclusion -- that a full consideration of costs does not change its finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate power plants under [Clean Air Act] section 112 -- it will be hard to challenge it in court. The Supreme Court gave them a lot of latitude."
'Reasonable' Update
Another industry attorney says, "What EPA has to do in response to the ruling is to justify the rule as 'appropriate and necessary' based on consideration of costs of compliance. Not the cost-benefit analyses that the agency did later in the rulemaking" when it was deciding how to set the emissions standards. "The agency is not under any mandate to update those analyses. So yes, it is reasonable that EPA did not update those."
A third industry attorney says EPA's revised appropriate and necessary finding with consideration of cost is "probably fine. EPA has reconsidered rules before, after remand, based on the earlier record. So this isn't a new thing."
The source adds that any potential lawsuit over the cost finding could stretch into 2017, as the deadline to sue would be 60 days after EPA plans to finalize the finding in May, and briefing could take many months. As a result, any suit could be moot because the utility sector likely will have fully implemented the rule by then. The rule had a compliance deadline of April 16, though some power plants secured extensions until next April.
The environmentalist says that assuming the MACT rule survives the current push for vacatur in White Stallion, litigation of the revised appropriate and necessary finding is inevitable, but EPA stands a good chance of success. Environmentalists cite as reason for the optimism the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 ruling from April 2014 that upheld the utility MACT entirely, rejecting many industry criticisms of various provisions.
-
Sweeping Package Passes House, Faces Turbulent Road
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The House passed the Energy and Commerce Committee's broad energy legislation this morning, sending the Senate a bill aimed at modernizing the electric grid and speeding natural gas exports.
Lawmakers voted 249-174 to approve H.R. 8, the "North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015," with the support of nine Democrats. Republican Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, Walter Jones of North Carolina and Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted against the bill.
Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) warned his colleagues they would go down in history as the "greatest ignoramuses of all time" for ignoring climate change, offering a last-minute procedural move to stop the bill.
"Sticking our heads in the sand, pretending a serious problem will go away on its own, doing nothing in the face of a grave threat, is not the American way, and it never was," Cartwright said.
But House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) boasted the bill would promote access to affordable, reliable energy by improving the infrastructure that was already in place so it can withstand new threats. Thanks to innovation, Upton said, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have "significantly declined" and will continue to decline as a share of worldwide emissions.
The energy panel's top Democrat, Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, cautioned the sweeping package could have negative impacts "on the environment, on air pollution and on climate change." Lawmakers rejected his amendment, 181-243, to prohibit the measure from taking effect until the U.S. Energy Information Administration had analyzed and scored its carbon impact.
Despite today's passage in the House, some energy analysts said the legislation has a turbulent road ahead, given the Obama administration's veto threats (E&E Daily, Dec. 1).
ClearView Energy Partners LLC's Kevin Book wrote in a note to clients yesterday that the bill was unlikely to be enacted into law with or without the addition of language to scrap the nation's decades-old ban on exporting domestic crude oil. Book also said the likelihood of members lifting the export ban during this session of Congress stands at a meager 15 percent.
"We regard H.R. 8 as just as unlikely to make its way to the President's desk with crude exports language as it was without crude exports language," Book wrote.
Yesterday, lawmakers attached 27 amendments to the bill, including a contentious amendment from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) to allow international sales of crude oil. The House also added an amendment offered by Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) that would consolidate federal permit reviews of cross-border infrastructure projects that stalled the Keystone XL pipeline for years (E&E Daily, Dec. 3).
The League of Conservation Voters urged a "no" vote, warning yesterday in a letter to lawmakers that the bill "further entrenches fossil fuels while failing to make the necessary clean energy investments for our future." A provision that would allow pipelines to be built on national park land without what they say are necessary environmental reviews also drew their ire.
-
S&P's Ferguson Discusses Rule's Impact on Energy Markets, Credit
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - TV
As state governments, industry and regulators dig in to potential Clean Power Plan compliance pathways, which industries could sustain the most significant credit impacts resulting from the rule's implementation? During today's OnPoint, Michael Ferguson, associate director of Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, discusses a new series of analyses on the impact the plan could have on energy markets, credit and the viability of power generators.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi, and with me today is Michael Ferguson, associate director of Standard & Poor's Ratings Services. Michael, thank you for joining me.
Michael Ferguson: Thank you for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Michael, as states, industry and regulators dig into potential Clean Power Plan compliance pathways, S&P has compiled a series of analyses on the impact of the plan on the various stakeholders and on credit. Which industries could sustain the most significant impacts resulting from the rules implementation?
Michael Ferguson: Certainly. I think you can look at a lot of industries and say that, by and large, there are going to be positive outcomes from this. If you look at natural gas infrastructure in the midstream energy space, if you look at renewables, these are largely positive developments for them, and of course, they're continuations of trends that have been underway anyway.
Where the impacts are a little bit more mixed, I think, is within the IPP space, within the merchant power generation space, and I -- the reason I say that is there are a couple of factors at work there that are complicating analysis to this. We look at IPPs -- and there are very different types of IPPs out there. There are some that are more weighted towards nuclear assets and gas-fired assets; there are some that are still more focused on coal-fired generation. So if you look at that and you look at this as a rule that effectively penalizes coal-fired generation to the benefit of, again, of natural-gas-fired generation or potentially nuclear units, think some of the coal-heavy IPPs could suffer as a result of this over time.
The real variable here is whether or not the EPA and the states that are formulating their own SIPs underneath the federal guidance, whether or not they're going to choose to use demand reduction as a means for reducing carbon emissions, and that's certainly a viable strategy, and I think that that's been endorsed by the EPA. So that happens. Not only is the dispatch curved in a shift in favor of gas-fired generators, but the actual power price may not go up as much as some folks think that it's going to as a consequence of the rule.
So I think that there's still a lot of moving parts there, and we'll see how that comes together as the SIPs are put in place and as we see how much the states plan to rely on demand-side management to comply with the rule.
Monica Trauzzi: How do natural gas price trends impact potential compliance pathways for stakeholders, and also, sort of the overall impact that the plan has on industry?
Michael Ferguson: Sure. Natural gas prices are obviously very crucial for something like this. Part of the reason why a plan like this has been seen, by some participants, as not being overly onerous and expensive is that gas prices, in our estimation, and I think in the estimation of the EPA, are slated to remain low for a long period of time. Now, there's no certainty in that, of course. There are other trends that could upset the apple cart there, but it's one of those -- it's one of these things where it -- natural-gas-fired generation has become more appealing even independent of coal-fired -- independent of carbon regulation because it's become more economical than coal-fired generation, and this should continue going forward. So any incremental price increases are going to have to be weighed against the fact that natural gas plants are just inherently going to be better in this -- in a Clean Power Plan environment because they're not going to carry the same carbon costs. There's just another component to energy margins you earn to energy economy here that has to be considered going forward.
And as far as how industry is going to be affected by this, I think, certainly, you're going to see a lot of industries that are energy-intensive; they're going to look to ways to be resourceful, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. I think you've seen, in some of the parts of the country, where demand reduction is already being priced into capacity markets. It hasn't been as much in recent auctions, but to the extent that it is, you're going to see that continue because it's going to be a way to curb price increases for certain industries that are very sensitive to it.
Monica Trauzzi: How, then, does the heavier emphasis on renewables in the final plan impact gas-fired generation?
Michael Ferguson: Certainly. So one of the things you're already seeing in -- and again, this is independent of the Clean Power Plan. One of the things you're already seeing in states like Texas, for instance, a heavy influx of renewables is actually depressing power pricing, and it's depressing power pricing for natural-gas-fired generators. Effectively, what you see is that excess renewables -- greater supplies of renewables -- are depressing power prices; they're creating lower demand for gas-fired generation. I think that that has a weakening effect on power prices, and to the extent that that continues going forward, that renewables penetrate to a greater degree, I think you'd see energy margins continue to weaken somewhat for gas-fired generators. Now, the other side of the coin, there is that as you introduce more and more renewables onto the grid, the grid becomes inherently less reliable, inherently more intermittent, and I could say the same thing about introducing more demand reduction strategies.
So what does that say? Well, we've seen that in certain grids such as ISO New England and the PJM, in the past, there have been challenges with reliability, not through the Clean Power Plan, due to just gas transmission issues, and the way that this -- that's been addressed in the past is by a more significant focus on a stronger capacity market construct. So I think that if you see the grid becoming less reliable -- and certainly, that was one of the chief criticisms of the Clean Power Plan -- I think you would see stronger capacity markets in certain unregulated markets in the country. And even in markets where there are very weak capacity constructs right now or no capacity constructs, that may be an idea, as a compliance strategy, to ensure reliability amid a very changing grid.
Monica Trauzzi: Trading mechanisms are being considered by most --
Michael Ferguson: They are.
Monica Trauzzi: -- if not all of the states. How wide of a reach are you expecting carbon trading to have on Clean Power Plan compliance?
Michael Ferguson: It'll be significant, we think. Certainly, we expect a lot of states are going to want to use a market-based mechanism in order to reduce carbon emissions. Why? Because it creates incentive -- as it has done in California, as it has done in the RGGI states -- to reduce carbon emissions, and this causes generators to be more resourceful, not just to switch from coal to gas, but how to make coal plants that are still going to be there more efficient.
How to use renewables more efficiently -- it creates a more efficient grid in some ways, and I think the most efficient way to manage carbon trading, to manage allowance trading, is by having wider regional alliances. If you look at what's going on in RGGI right now, the RGGI carbon prices -- the allowance prices -- have come way down in recent years. Part of the reason that they have is that they've been very successful in remediating carbon. But it wouldn't have been quite as successful had we been looking at individual state exchanges. Now, that works in California because it's such a large state with such a large reduction goal in the past, but if you had looked at Connecticut or Rhode Island doing their own carbon exchanges, you wouldn't have had the level of transparency, liquidity and fundability required in order to successfully remediate carbon emissions or provide incentives for that.
So I suspect that you could see some like-minded states bonding together in order to create regional carbon alliances in order to create, again, more transparent markets.
Monica Trauzzi: And on the question of mass-based versus rate-based, you're predicting that most states will go the mass-based route. Who would benefit, though, from going the rate-based route?
Michael Ferguson: Yeah, I suspect that there -- most states would probably benefit from a mass-based approach because it is a little bit more flexible and permits more avenues. However, if you look at states like South Carolina, which are going to lean pretty heavily on nuclear generation, that speaks to using more of a rate-based goal, and there could be other states that fall into that bucket.
Monica Trauzzi: And your sense is that existing nuclear facilities were -- we'll see their lives extended so that nuclear generation can play a role in compliance. Is that consistent, though, with what we've seen lately with many nuclear facilities retiring?
Michael Ferguson: Sure. Well, the nuclear facilities that have retired have not retired because they've gotten to the end of their useful lives, necessarily. I mean, that may be the actual reason, but in reality, some of these have retired because they're not economical anymore. Because in a low-gas-price environment, a nuclear asset with this massive fixed costs and variable cost structure that isn't that flexible, they don't tend to do well. So I think you've seen a lot of the merchant nuclear units closing for that reason.
However, in an area where we're pricing carbon, nuclear assets tend to benefit from something like that. Certainly, they don't emit any carbon, and if you see any uplift in power prices, it's going to benefit nuclear units, which are going to continue to run at baseload levels, but they need higher margins to continue to exist, and that's going to be an interesting dynamic over the next couple years. Certainly, a lot of nuclear units are not doing well right now, but you have to wonder if it makes sense to tide these over because they are so important for liability purposes, if there's going to be incentives given by states and by utilities to keep them open between now and 2022, when, presumably, they would start to collect some kind of a carbon fee.
Monica Trauzzi: So in 2030, what are your predictions for what the power grid will look like?
Michael Ferguson: Well, very different. We expect that there's going to be about 80 gigawatts of coal closures between now and then. We expect a lot of these nuclear units, as you say, are still going to remain open except for the ones where we have seen scheduled closures. We also expect that the capacity of the grid is going to exceed about 30 percent of renewables. Certainly, installed renewable capacity has increased recently.
There's one big variable here that's starting to be talked about a little bit more. Battery storage could change all of this. The extent that battery storage becomes more economical -- and we're not necessarily anticipating that it will, but if it does, you're going to see us relying much more heavily on renewable, and you're effectively going to have baseload renewables if that's the case. Of course, doing that would require more and more transmission installations, and that could be a significant component of the grid, but certainly, the grid of the future's going to look a lot less centralized than today's grid. We're going to move from something that is effectively regional to something that is done both at the local level, but also connecting regions together over time.
Monica Trauzzi: Lots of moving parts. Thank you for coming on the show.
Michael Ferguson: There certainly are.
Monica Trauzzi: Thanks for your insights.
Michael Ferguson: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
-
EPA's Carbon Plan Is Here To Stay No Matter Who Controls The White House
Dec 3, 2015 | Forbes
By Ken Silverstein
Will the divide between President Obama and the GOP-led Congress over climate change impede or imperil this country’s commitment to the cause? The issue has become even more pressing as both chambers have voted to nix the president’s plan to curb carbon emissions, saying that the economic fallout would be too onerous and that the price of electricity would rise as a result.
For those who feel that addressing climate change is a mandatory matter — a big chunk of the country, in fact — then the congressional votes certainly don’t inspire the confidence of the global community, or the businesses questioning their next moves. But the reality is that once regulations are enacted and ultimately upheld in the courts, generally, they become a part of the American mosaic.
“We are working on a compliance plan,” says Susan Bitter Smith, chair of the Arizona Corporation Commission, at the recent Public Utilities Fortnightlyconference in Scottsdale, Ariz. “But, concurrently, we have joined the lawsuit” to have the Clean Power Plan tossed.
Arizona, for example, is home to some coal-fired power plants that have been retrofitted with modern pollution controls. The Environmental Protection Agency’s early drafts took a more aggressive approach but it has since modified its goal and the state could be on a “glide path” to success.
To be precise, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan requires a 32 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, from 2005 levels. The agency has provided lots of flexibility, allowing states to comply by switching to cleaner burning fuels and by trading carbon credits among themselves.
The United States, in fact, is well on its to way getting there, given that natural gas-fired generation is replacing coal-powered plants that release about a third of all man-made carbon emissions. EPA estimates the cost of compliance to be between $7 billion and $8 billion by 2030, producing $31 billion in benefits. Industrial groups differ, saying that the cost would be $40 billion and $366 billion and that the benefits would be considerably less.
To this end, the GOP-led U.S. House of Representatives voted on December 1 to block the Clean Power Plan and to limit EPA’s ability to curb emissions from new power plants, both of which are designed to resurrect the ailing coal sector here. Those votes nearly mimic ones taken by the U.S. Senate two weeks earlier. The president will certainly veto the measures.
“If the U.S. tries to commit itself to all these draconian things, it won’t make any difference on the global stage,” says Robert Murray, chief executive of Murray Energy, at the Fortnightly conference.“If they follow the U.S. Supreme Court precedence, this whole global goofiness is gone,” he adds, referring to the Hight Court’s decision to remand the mercury rules back to a lower court. It had said that EPA had not properly considered costs when it enacted the rules and thus, it wants the issue revisited.
“This president and his supporters are appeasing elitists and environmentalists,” Murray continued, who notes that he and his business are the lead plaintiffs in one of the suits against EPA. “This is a human issue.”
In June 2015, natural gas surpassed coal as the leading fuel source used for electric generation. It has been like that every month since then. Still, coal now supplies 39 percent of all fuel used to make electricity while natural gas makes up 32 percent of that. Mr. Murray says that he does not feel coal will fall below the 30 percent threshold in this country.
Consider that more than two dozen coal companies have declared bankruptcy or are in financial trouble; according to Mr. Murray, only three such companies are cash flow positive, including his. And in West Virginia alone, according to the Wall Street Journal, since 2009 332 coal mines have closed while nearly 10,000 jobs were lost — jobs valued at $100,000 a year. And, nationally, more mine closures will be necessary as the major coal burning utilities shut them down.
The good news is that modern industries are stepping up — ones tied to the New Energy Economy and to natural gas exploration and distribution. At the Fortnightly conference, some panelists said that if the jobs don’t come to you, then you have to go to the jobs, meaning that those seeking work will need to move to where the economic opportunities now exist. And by extension, the affected states need to diversify their economies.
“Yes, the economy does heal: for industries that lose jobs there will, eventually, be demand in other places,” adds Doug Meade, an economist at the University of Maryland, in an earlier interview with this writer.
It is this uncertainty, though, that is now playing out politically in such states as Kentucky and West Virginia, which has been trending from liberal “blue” to conservative “red.”
And according to some onlookers, it may very well be the dynamic that is also playing out in the current federal criminal trial of Massey Energy’s former chief executive Don Blankenship. He became known for railing against the Obama administration and its “heavy regulatory hand” — a position that may be drawing a lot of sympathy. In that case, the jury has said it is “deadlocked,” although it is still deliberating.“It is clear to me that regulations are forcing us to move away from coal,” says Tom Fanning, chief executive of Southern Co., at the Fortnightly conference. “But we have to do this in a way that does not destroy the livelihoods of those who work in the industry. The human consequences are enormous of shutting down plants.” In Putman County, Georgia, he says that the plant closures will affect 19 percent of its tax base.
While there is hardship, there remains promise — the hope to find new business lines while combating the global warming phenomenon. Consider NRG Energy Inc.: While it has long provided electricity from coal, it now says that it is well on its way to reducing its carbon footprint and that it has already cut heat-trapping emissions by 40 percent from 2005 levels. It’s not finished and aims to reduce its carbon releases 50 percent by 2030, and 90 percent by 2050.
Altogether, 147 businesses have come out in support of the Clean Power Plan, most of which signed a letter stating as much to President Obama, including: Alcoa Inc., Berkshire Hathaway, BMW, Dupont, EMC Corp. and General Motors Co. The non-profit sustainability group, Ceres, says that $36 trillion is needed, globally, to finance new clean energy technology between now and 2050.
The reality is that this country is already halfway toward its carbon goals — a trend that seems unstoppable, given the cheap price of abundant natural gas and the thinning coal seams in Central Appalachia. When the growth of new and greener technologies is factored in, along with the ecologically-minded American public, it will be hard to reverse the regulatory clock no matter who is elected to office.
-
Former EPA Chiefs Ruckelshaus, Reilly Back Agency in Court
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Two former U.S. EPA administrators from Republican administrations today sought to back the agency in the legal challenge to its landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants.
William Ruckelshaus, the agency's first administrator under President Nixon, and William Reilly, who served under President George H.W. Bush, asked a federal appeals court to intervene in litigation seeking to undermine President Obama's Clean Power Plan.
Twenty-seven states and countless industry and trade groups have challenged the regulations, which would require coal-fired power plants to slash their emissions of heat-trapping gases.
The litigation will likely be the largest and most complex lawsuit ever challenging an environmental regulation, with most observers expecting it to eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Currently, the challenges have been consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Yesterday, Ruckelshaus and Reilly -- represented by Harvard Law professor Richard Lazarus -- asked the court to participate in support of EPA.
"The Clean Power Plan represents the very kind of pollution control program they endorsed while at EPA," the former administrators wrote in a court filing. "It provides for simultaneously pragmatic, flexible, and cost-effective pollution control programs, and it properly respects State sovereignty by providing States with substantial authority and flexibility in deciding whether and how best to administer the Clean Power Plan."
The Clean Power Plan, a key pillar in Obama's effort to address climate change, would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 by providing a series of "building blocks" or ways for states to meet reduction rates.
Support from Ruckelshaus, who also led EPA during President Reagan's administration, and Reilly is not unexpected. Both have been critical of opposition to EPA's climate change regulations.
But, as their filing suggests, they would provide a historical perspective on the Clean Power Plan regime.
"They are uniquely positioned to offer this important, historical perspective on statutory interpretation and administration, which is distinct from the kinds of legal arguments expected from the parties," they wrote.
Ruckelshaus, as EPA's first administrator, promulgated the first-ever national air standards. And Reilly "championed the enactment of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990," which include the provisions at issue in the litigation -- Sections 111(d) and 112.
Environmental groups and 18 other states are also backing EPA in the case (Greenwire, Nov. 4).
-
Calif. Utility Says Massive Methane Leak May Take Months to Fix
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Diana Crandall
At a Los Angeles City Council meeting Tuesday, one of the nation's largest gas utilities said it could take another three months to fix a leak that has already caused reports of dizziness and nausea, required 200 families to relocate and released a quarter of the state's methane emissions.
Southern California Gas Co. on Oct. 23 detected the leak, which is believed to be from a broken pipe several hundred feet underground. Dennis Arriola, the utility's president and CEO, said Tuesday that the company would start drilling down to the leak this week, hoping to fill the line with fluids and cement.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has received nearly 1,000 complaints from residents concerned over the rotten-egg smell, as well as reports of nosebleeds, headaches, breathing difficulties and more.
The California Air Resources Board estimates that the storage field at Aliso Canyon has released methane equivalent to 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or one year of driving 160,000 cars.
About 500 more families are waiting to be moved out of the area at the utility's expense, even though Southern California Gas insists that the leak doesn't pose a safety risk outdoors. County health officials said effects from long-term exposure to the gas are still unknown (Diana Crandall, Reuters, Dec. 1).
-
N.Y. Sets Out to Mandate 50% Renewables by 2030
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Madelyn Beck
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo yesterday started the process of making the state's clean energy plan legally binding.
Cuomo (D) sent a letter to Audrey Zibelman, chairwoman of the state's Public Service Commission, directing her and the department to start drafting a clean energy standard. It is to include provisions that the state produce at least 50 percent renewable energy by 2030, called the "50 by 30" goal, according to the letter.
The governor initially announced the statewide goal in June as part of his state energy plan (EnergyWire, June 26). Yesterday's announcement seeks to codify the requirement to make it binding. Word of the move first came in late November (Greenwire, Nov. 23).
"I am thrilled to see Governor Cuomo's commitment to turn the state's clean energy goals into an enforceable mandate," Zibelman said in a statement.
The plan works in tandem with the state's Reforming the Energy Vision, or REV, initiative. That initiative includes incentives and goals for the state's energy future, including a 40 percent reduction in 1990-level carbon emissions by 2030.
The governor also said in his letter that the department should make sure the state's nuclear power plants can keep running. Because of their emission-free power generation, Cuomo said, losing them would "eviscerate the emissions reductions achieved through the state's renewable energy programs, diminish fuel diversity, increase price volatility and financially harm host communities."
To achieve the state's "50 by 30" goal, Cuomo directed the commission to finish the plan by July 2016 and send it to the state Public Service Commission, of which the Department of Public Service is the staff arm.
In a statement, Cuomo said, "As discussions continue in Paris, we are taking real, enforceable actions in New York to lay the foundation for a thriving clean energy economy."
-
Fla. Bill Backed by Industry Gains Steam
Dec 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
An industry-backed bill that could open Florida's door to the hydraulic fracturing industry continues to move thorough the state Legislature despite growing opposition from other heavy hitters at the state Capitol.
Florida has had oil and gas drilling for decades, and hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- is legal, though there's been only one report of the practice actually taking place. A proposal (H.B. 191) that would require the state's Department of Environmental Protection to study the impact of fracking passed its fiscal milestone yesterday morning.
The bill would give $1 million to the DEP for the study and place a moratorium on fracking until the agency has created regulations for the practice. That would take a couple of years, but numerous environmental advocates and health care professionals are calling for a complete statewide ban regardless.
Such opposition from those groups is expected. Fracking requires shale formations to be broken up with a combination of water and chemicals before they'll produce gas. The process has been blamed for water and air pollution as well as bringing noise, truck traffic and other side effects to rural areas across the country.
But the bill is getting tangled up with two groups that have significant sway in Tallahassee: the Florida League of Cities and Florida Association of Counties. This is because the bill would make the DEP the permitting and regulating agency and pre-empt local control.
Roughly 20 counties and 40 cities have passed resolutions banning fracking, significantly for this reason. The "home rule" issue also concerns the equally powerful Florida's AFL-CIO, which also passed a resolution calling for a statewide ban and opposing any regulations.
"The pre-emption of local control is telling our members they can't go to the government that's closest to them, that's closest to the people, and ask that something be done," said Rich Templin, the main lobbyist for Florida's AFL-CIO.
Templin said one of the quickest ways to get a bill passed is to tout jobs. He said job creation won't happen if fracking is allowed in Florida.
"The labor in these projects is an international market. The drilling companies bring in their own international teams; local hiring is absolutely last," he said during yesterday's hearing, which was broadcast online.Multiple bills on fracking filed
Lawmakers have filed various bills regarding fracking for their colleagues to consider during the upcoming legislative session. A few call for an all-out ban on fracking, while others would place restrictions on it.
The proposal that the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and Natural Resources passed yesterday has been in front of lawmakers in some form over the past four years. The 9-3 committee vote was split along party lines.
Rep. Ray Rodrigues, a Republican who represents the Fort Myers area, said he continues to negotiate the home rule issue and will have it worked out before the bill goes to the floor.
The bill has one more stop before that happens.
Rodrigues and Rep. Cary Pigman (R) have effectively shepherded the bill through two committees, pushing the idea that no fracking would take place until the DEP completes its study, which it must do by June 2017. The protracted rulemaking process would begin after that.
Numerous fracking studies are out there, but none that is particular to Florida, Rodrigues has argued.
"There's been no study done specific to Florida and specific to Florida's geology," said Rodrigues, testifying at an earlier committee hearing, which also was broadcast online.
Florida's geology has a lot of limestone.
"Before drilling takes place, we should know if it's safe," he said.
Horizontal drilling and fracking have created a robust natural gas industry in the United States, leading to ample supplies and significantly lower prices. Major Southeastern utilities such as Duke Energy Corp., Southern Co. and the Tennessee Valley Authority have dramatically transitioned away from getting electricity from coal-fired power plants to natural gas ones.
Several regulated electric companies in the Southeast and across the nation have recently told customers their utility bills would drop because of lower natural gas prices, as well.
Florida gets more than half of its electricity from natural gas, and that amount is set to grow because of proposed pipelines and power plants. Fracking supporters argue that the ability to drill in Florida would create an additional energy supply for the state, which is a peninsula.
There are more than 160 wells currently operating in Florida, according to Dave Mica, director of the Florida Petroleum Council, testifying at a previous hearing. He considers the bill a step in the right direction.
"Our track record is sound; we've been a sound neighbor," he said. "Our environmental record is very, very good."
This week is the last of several scheduled committee meeting weeks for the year. The full session starts Jan. 12.
-
Reagan, Bush ’41 Memos Reveal Sharp Contrast With Today’s GOP on Climate and the Environment
Dec 3, 2015 | Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
The memos, stamped “confidential” and kept under wraps for years, portray a White House eager to assert U.S. leadership on climate change. Global warming will have “profound consequences,” one document warns, and the United States “cannot wait” until all scientific questions are resolved before taking action.
The source of the memos: Not the Obama White House, but policy advisers to former president George H. W. Bush.
The memos were among several formerly classified documents from the Bush and Reagan administrations obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and released on Wednesday by the National Security Archive. The documents portray senior officials in the two Republican administrations pressing for an aggressive response to international environmental issues of the day — including, during Bush’s term, climate change.
The assertive posture contrasts with the positions taken this week by leading Republican presidential contenders, several of whom publicly mocked Obama’s efforts to secure an international climate treaty in Paris. The GOP-controlled House voted Tuesday to block the administration’s signature regulation to cut greenhouse-gas pollution from U.S. power plants.
The 11 memos released on Wednesday provide snapshots of internal White House deliberations on key environmental issues during the 1980s. Some shed light on the debate over the 1989 Montreal Protocol, which phased out production of industrial chemicals linked to the destruction of the Earth’s ozone layer.
A 1987 memo shows Reagan White House officials pushing back against members of Reagan’s own cabinet in arguing for a strong treaty safeguarding the thin band of atmospheric ozone that protects the Earth from harmful radiation from space. “Many regard this issue as the most important priority on the global environmental agenda,” John D. Negroponte, then a State Department assistant secretary for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, writes to then-Secretary of State George Shultz.
The memo warns against efforts to weaken the treaty, saying such a move “would damage our international credibility, unleash major domestic criticism, and probably result in unilateral U.S.” controls on ozone-depleting chemicals. Negroponte argues instead for a position that is “prudently addressing the environmental risks, while providing a market stimulus and a reasonable time-frame for industry to develop alternate products.”
Two years later, advisers to the George H.W. Bush administration are seen advocating a serious U.S. response to climate change, an issue that was just beginning to draw international attention in the late 1980s. A 1989 memo to then-Secretary of State James A. Baker III asserts that the United States should take a leadership role in the fight against a threat it calls “the most far reaching environmental issue of our time.”
“If the climate change within the range of current predictions actually occurs, the consequences for every nation and every aspect of human activity will be profound,” acting assistant secretary Richard J. Smith writes in the memo.
Smith then cites Baker’s own words to a working-group meeting a few months earlier: “As you yourself stated,” he writes, “we cannot wait until all the uncertainties have been resolved before we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare for whatever climate change we are already committed to.”
The memos reflect the moderate stance on climate change adopted by Republican leaders both in the White House and in Congress throughout the 1980s and 1990s. By contrast, many of today’s GOP successors to Bush and Reagan dispute the scientific consensus on man-made climate change and oppose efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump recently said he is “not a believer” in man-made climate change, an issue he dismissed as something “created by and for the Chinese.”
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who in the past has acknowledged the existence of climate change, said Tuesday, “It’s not a crisis.”
“That’s my feeling. I didn’t say I was relying on any scientist,” Christie told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “I don’t see evidence that it’s a crisis. I don’t.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested