Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Dec 7
-
Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate
Dec 8, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 3:00 PM -
Hearing To Examine Terrorism And The Global Oil Markets.
Dec 10, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
A 10-Year Checkup On The Quest To Detox Commercial Products
Dec 7, 2015 | GreenBiz
By Mark Rossi
In the last 50 years, manmade chemicals have made their way into almost every industrial and manufacturing process — basically every commercial product. Synthetic chemicals have become the foundation of our society, and the United States alone produces and imports tens of billions of pounds of chemicals every single day. -
(ACC Blog) LiveScience Op-Ed: Plastics Recycling Continuing To Make Real Progress
Dec 4, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Contrary to what you might have seen in the press recently, plastics recycling is continuing to make real progress. Steve Alexander of the Association of Plastics Recyclers, Steve Sikra of the Procter & Gamble Company, and I recently joined forces to set the record straight. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) Demand For Petrochemical Industry Jobs Continues
Dec 6, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Rebecca Maitland
The expansion of the petrochemical and chemical industries means thousands of jobs, as well as educational programs for skilled workers. The petrochemical industry in Baytown, which is approximately 26 miles east of Houston, has become a worldwide epicenter for the chemical and petrochemical industries, and adding thousands... -
(ACC Mentioned) California Gets Tiny Plastic House
Dec 7, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
An exhibit titled “A Tiny House That’s Big on Energy Efficiency” has opened at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. The centerpiece is a 16-m2 (170 sq ft) house that incorporates polyurethane insulation, vinyl siding, and Dow Chemical’s Powerhouse solar shingles, among other plastic products. -
(ACC Mentioned) 4 Reasons Why Falling Oil Prices Are Worse Than You Think
Dec 5, 2015 | The Motley Fool
By Travis Hoium
Falling oil prices have a sweeping impact on the domestic economy, for both better and worse. No one is going to complain about paying less for gasoline at the pump and some businesses love the lower cost of oil. But the fall of oil isn’t good for everyone. -
Advisers Advance Review of EPA Fracking Study
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The Environmental Protection Agency needs more clarity and caution in the generalities it will include in its final report on the risks posed by hydraulic fracturing to drinking water, according to several of the agency's science advisers. A Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel formed to review the EPA study spent several hours Dec. 3 making progress... -
Big Oil Bracing for New Fight to Keep Government Payments Hidden
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dave Michaels
Big energy companies are bracing for the next round in their fight to stop U.S. regulators from making them reveal what they pay foreign governments for rights to extract oil, gas and minerals. The Securities and Exchange Commission plans to vote Dec. 11 on a revised proposal for addressing ... -
Offshore Decommissioning Costs Need to Be Reported
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Offshore oil and gas lessees on the Outer Continental Shelf are now required to submit summaries of actual expenditures for the decommissioning of wells, platforms and other facilities in federal waters. The requirement for cost reporting will allow better estimates of financial assurance levels needed to minimize... -
600 Health Professionals Seek Strong EPA Methane Rule
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
More than 600 public health professionals urged the Environmental Protection Agency to set the most stringent possible limits on methane from new oil and gas wells Dec. 4, while industry argued that emissions already are falling and new rules are unnecessary. -
Industry Faults EPA's Novel Methane Benefits Estimates In Oil & Gas NSPS
Dec 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Oil and gas industry groups are strongly criticizing EPA's novel use of social cost of methane (SCM) metric to estimate the benefits of its proposed rule to control the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) from the sector, saying the SCM values the agency calculated are “highly uncertain and likely overstated.” -
Groups Move To Influence Proposed Methane Rule
Dec 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The oil and natural gas industry’s top lobbying group and a collection of healthcare professionals are among those looking to influence a forthcoming Obama rule on methane emissions. Friday was the deadline for comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural gas wells. -
No Decision in Spat Between Colorado Leaders Over Suit
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) is weighing alternatives now that the state Supreme Court has declined to consider his petition challenging Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman's (R) decision to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over its Clean Power Plan (Hickenlooper v. Coffman, Colo., No. 2015SA296, 12/3/15). -
Judges Question Need to Vacate EPA Mercury Rule
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A panel of federal appeals court judges appeared to be disinclined to grant a request to vacate the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards for power plants, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the agency erred by not considering cost when it decided to regulate power plant emissions ... -
Judges Question Need To Trash Mercury Rule While EPA Fixes
Dec 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
A panel of federal judges on Friday signaled their willingness to keep EPA’s mercury rule in place while the agency completes a new economic analysis ordered by the Supreme Court. Such a decision would be a win for EPA, though one judge acknowledged the agency will almost certainly face... -
McCarthy Takes Power Plant Rule Road Show To Paris
Dec 7, 2015 | Environment Leader
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA chief Gina McCarthy takes her campaign for the Clean Power Plan to Paris this week, promoting the agency's ability to achieve greenhouse gas reductions through the rule in speeches and panel discussions at the U.N. climate conference. This weekend, McCarthy was scheduled to deliver the keynote address... -
Judges Likely To Grant EPA Bid For Utility MACT Remand Without Vacatur
Dec 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Appellate judges hearing Dec. 4 oral argument over EPA's power plant air toxics rule appear likely to grant the agency's request to remand it to EPA while the agency finalizes a cost review of the regulation rather than vacating it entirely as sought by the rule's critics, but the judges might also set a strict deadline for completing the cost study. -
After Failing To Win Stay Of MACT, Utility Mistakenly Orders Air Controls
Dec 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Western utility Tri-State Generation and Transmission Inc., which failed in a recent push to win an appellate court-ordered stay of EPA's utility air toxics rule, told the court hours before oral argument in litigation over the rule that it mistakenly ordered pollution controls for the power plant for which it was seeking the stay. -
Bill Would Bar New Carbon Rules Absent World Action
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Legislation introduced late Dec. 3 would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing any carbon dioxide emissions limits for power plants unless countries responsible for 80 percent of non-U.S. emission enact similarly stringent policies. -
Health Educators Join Forces on Climate Change
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Four dozen schools of public health, medicine and nursing from around the world have joined a U.S. effort to make sure the next generation of health professionals is ready to deal with the effects of climate change, from longer allergy seasons to more life-threatening heat waves and storms. The White House announced at international...
Congressional Hearings
Chemical Management News
Industry and Association News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Dec 8, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 3:00 PM
-
Hearing To Examine Terrorism And The Global Oil Markets.
Dec 10, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
A 10-Year Checkup On The Quest To Detox Commercial Products
Dec 7, 2015 | GreenBiz
By Mark Rossi
In the last 50 years, manmade chemicals have made their way into almost every industrial and manufacturing process — basically every commercial product.
Synthetic chemicals have become the foundation of our society, and the United States alone produces and imports tens of billions of pounds of chemicals every single day. It’s a staggering amount, and it’s expected to double in the next two decades.
The law that regulates this massive amount of chemicals is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) passed in 1976. Since then, our chemical use has grown along with our understanding of the risks. Yet the law has remained untouched.
Many attempts have been made to update our federal chemical regulations, but to date, no progress has been made. The legislative process is designed to be slow and deliberate, but in this case it’s a stretch to even call it a snail’s pace.
We need faster paths toward change, because over the past few decades we’ve seen a surge in chronic diseases and illnesses, especially in children. Increasing rates of asthma, neurobehavioral disorders such as autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, along with childhood cancer, can all be linked in part to exposure to toxic chemicals:In 2012, 6.8 million children under age 18 had asthma; an increase of more than 158 percent since 1980.The prevalence of autism increased from 6.7 to 14.7 per thousand children from 2000 to 2010, an increase from 1 in 150 to 1 in 68.The incidence of childhood cancers jumped over 35 percent between 1975 and 2012.
Our health is intimately tied to our environment, and there’s overwhelming evidence that many synthetic chemicals we’re exposed to every day are impacting us in negative ways.
This isn’t groundbreaking news. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been fighting for change for decades. And businesses have been shifting towards safer chemicals simply because it’s better for the bottom line by meeting customer demands and reducing liabilities.What if they worked together?
Ten years ago, Clean Production Action looked across the landscape of business leaders moving to safer chemicals, along with the NGOs orchestrating campaigns promoting the same goal. We saw many synergies, so we brought them together to see if indeed there was common ground.
BizNGO was born out of this 2005 meeting — a first-of-its-kind collaboration of businesses and environmental groups working together for safer chemicals and sustainable materials.
What makes it unique is the unexpected alliance of typically opposing forces. We’re able to hash through the complex obstacles of phasing toxic chemicals out of supply chains, and collaborate on solutions — without waiting for the government to act.
After 10 years, we’re seeing increased engagement and significant impacts from this bilateral collaboration.
"There are not only a growing number of NGOs that have been participating and playing an active role in the network, but we’re also seeing more and more businesses across different sectors, including some of the world’s largest Fortune 500 companies," said Mike Schade of the NGO Safer Chemicals Healthy Families. "We all recognize that we can’t solve these problems on our own."
Together, we’ve created numerous practical tools to be used by companies, including the Alternatives Assessment Protocol, a featured framework in reports by the National Research Council, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse.
Our Guide to Safer Chemicals set the foundation for our newest program, the Chemical Footprint Project, which is the first common metric of its kind for publicly benchmarking corporate chemicals management and profiling leadership companies.
The Chemical Footprint Project creates a level transparency that was unimaginable 10 years ago. Even though it is still in its infancy, it’s a game-changing tool publicly supported by companies such as Kaiser Permanente and Staples.
"The industry is used to managing risk at the end of the pipeline," said Bart Sights, senior director of the global development network at Levi Strauss & Co. and keynote speaker at the upcoming BizNGO-Chemical Footprint Conference. "This is a totally different approach that identifies and removes hazards up front in a proactive and precautionary manner."
Together, businesses and NGOs are turning things around. Everyone at the table is trying to transform the chemical economy from one of high hazards to safer and healthier alternatives. We’re co-pioneering new paths, and there’s a type of magic that is transpiring.
Do we still need legislative reform at the federal level? Of course; it’s crucial. But we don’t need to wait for policies to make progress. BizNGO shows there are other paths toward change that shift the marketplace to a less toxic world.
-
(ACC Blog) LiveScience Op-Ed: Plastics Recycling Continuing To Make Real Progress
Dec 4, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Contrary to what you might have seen in the press recently, plastics recycling is continuing to make real progress. Steve Alexander of the Association of Plastics Recyclers, Steve Sikra of the Procter & Gamble Company, and I recently joined forces to set the record straight.
A lot of our recent progress can be attributed to collaboration among plastics makers, brand owners, retailers and recyclers, as we write in a joint op-ed, “Plastics Recycling is Working: Here’s Why“:
As a nation, the United States is making strong and steady progress in recycling our most common plastics — Americans have recycled more plastics each year than the prior year for the last two and a half decades.
Take plastic bottles: In 2014, U.S. consumers recycled a record high of more than 3 billion pounds of plastic bottles — generating an estimated $730 million in revenue from selling bales of plastic material — and the recycling rate climbed to an all-time high of 32 percent . And unlike the early days, consumers today are advised to twist caps on before tossing their empty bottles in the bin, because recyclers want the caps too.
That’s all good news, but some of the most dramatic gains are happening in flexible polyethylene packaging and with other plastic containers. Between 2005 and 2013, the recycling of flexible plastic film (bags and wraps) jumped nearly 75 percent to reach more than 1 billion pounds, and the recycling rate grew to 17 percent. To achieve these increases, groups like ours came together to come up with innovative solutions.
You can read the full op-ed and learn more about the latest plastics recycling statistics and program developments at LiveScience.com
-
(ACC Mentioned) Demand For Petrochemical Industry Jobs Continues
Dec 6, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Rebecca Maitland
The expansion of the petrochemical and chemical industries means thousands of jobs, as well as educational programs for skilled workers.
The petrochemical industry in Baytown, which is approximately 26 miles east of Houston, has become a worldwide epicenter for the chemical and petrochemical industries, and adding thousands of jobs.
"The two largest plants in Baytown are ExxonMobil and Chevron Phillips. They both are spending over $5 million each on their plant expansions. In construction, for all of the expansions including the smaller plants, we are looking at over 20,000 additional construction workers. The construction will continue for another two to three years, and there are more jobs in every area, across the board," said Patti Jett, coordinator of public affairs at Baytown Chamber of Commerce.
In July 2014, ExxonMobil announced it started construction of a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker at its Baytown, complex and associated premium product facilities in nearby Mont Belvieu.
"The project is made possible in large part by abundant, affordable supplies of U.S. natural gas for energy and chemical feedstock," said Neil Chapman, president of ExxonMobil Chemical Company.
The chemical industry and other industrial sectors account for nearly 30 percent of U.S. natural gas demand.
"Shale development has provided U.S. chemical producers a double benefit as an energy source and as a key raw material to make plastics and other essential products, creating jobs and economic activity across the value chain," Chapman said.
The project will employ about 10,000 construction workers, create 4,000 related jobs in nearby Houston communities and add 350 permanent positions at the Baytown complex.
It is expected to increase regional economic activity by roughly $870 million per year and generate more than $90 million per year in additional tax revenues for local communities.
"This expansion will provide many great opportunities for workers with technical skills who are interested in energy and chemical manufacturing. These are high-paying jobs that lead to fulfilling and rewarding careers in an industry that's vital to the American economy," Chapman said.
The average annual wage in the Texas chemical industry is about $100,000.
To support the project's need for skilled workers, ExxonMobil has committed $1 million to the Community College Petrochemical Initiative, a training program offered by nine Houston-area community colleges to provide technical skills to high school graduates, returning military veterans and others.
The program has earned state and federal recognition for recruiting and training instrument technicians, welders, pipefitters and other skilled employees for the chemical industry. This program will involve 50,000 students and educators over the next five years.
Also in 2014, Chevron Phillips Chemical broke ground on a $6 billion expansion of its facilities in Baytown. The company will also build two new facilities in Old Ocean, near Sweeny, Texas.
"The construction workforce will total about 10,000 workers over the course of the three-year construction period, and once everything is complete and we are up and running, we have about 400 permanent long-term jobs to operate and maintain both asset bases," said Peter Cella, president and CEO, Chevron Phillips Chemical.
The American Chemistry Council has tracked 238 chemical investment projects across the country valued at $145 billion that have been publicly announced as of June of 2015.
In Texas, there will be 84 new projects, with new capital investments of $45 billion, and over 150,000 direct and indirect jobs, providing $1.8 billion in state and local tax revenue.
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Gets Tiny Plastic House
Dec 7, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
An exhibit titled “A Tiny House That’s Big on Energy Efficiency” has opened at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. The centerpiece is a 16-m2 (170 sq ft) house that incorporates polyurethane insulation, vinyl siding, and Dow Chemical’s Powerhouse solar shingles, among other plastic products. The house is sponsored by Plastics Make It Possible, an initiative of the American Chemistry Council.
Subscription needed for full story.
-
(ACC Mentioned) 4 Reasons Why Falling Oil Prices Are Worse Than You Think
Dec 5, 2015 | The Motley Fool
By Travis Hoium
Falling oil prices have a sweeping impact on the domestic economy, for both better and worse. No one is going to complain about paying less for gasoline at the pump and some businesses love the lower cost of oil. But the fall of oil isn't good for everyone.
Here are a few places where falling oil prices will have a negative impact on the economy and stocks you might own.
Adam Galas: While U.S. consumers are certainly benefiting from the cheapest gas prices in years, there is a dark side to low oil prices. Perhaps the biggest is that well-paying oil sector jobs are being lost at a prodigious rate.
For example, oil service giants Schlumberger (NYSE:SLB), Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), and Baker Hughes (NYSE:BHI) have, among the three of them, announced 51,000 layoffs since the oil crash began.
Add in mounting layoffs from integrated oil giants and numerous independent U.S. oil and gas producers, and it's estimated that worldwide oil job losses have now reached 200,000. Unfortunately for oil workers, these layoffs aren't likely to stop anytime soon.
As Schlumberger CEO Paal Kibsgaard told analysts during the company's most recent earnings call, "The likely recovery in our activity levels now seems to be a 2017 event."
Things are also likely to get worse due to industry consolidation that naturally occurs during an oil slump. For instance, Schlumberger is in the process of buying Cameron International, the world's seventh largest oil services company, for $12.7 billion.
That's not even the biggest oil services merger currently underway. That honor goes to Halliburton, which is buying up Baker Hughes for $34.6 billion.
Such megamergers naturally bring with them a hunt for synergistic cost savings, often in the form of elimination of overlapping business unit employee positions. That means even more job cuts might be in the offing.
That's especially true the longer the oil bust lasts, which even some of the most experienced minds in the industry can't predict. In the words of Halliburton Chairman, and CEO Dave Lesar, "In my 22 years in this business, I've never seen a market where we've had less near-term visibility... we are managing this business on a near real-time basis, customer-by-customer, district-by-district, product line-by-product line, and, yes, even crew-by-crew."
Travis Hoium: The energy industry isn't a stand-alone business in the global economy, so a decline in oil prices doesn't just impact energy companies. There are companies that supply fracking material, housing for workers, insurance, and other goods consumed by energy companies. But I'd like to focus on energy's contribution to the decline in commodities like steel.
Energy is one of the largest consumers of commodities like steel and aluminum, which are used to produce everything from drilling rigs to pipelines. You can see below that U.S. Steel (NYSE:X) has seen demand drop like a rock since oil prices started to decline because capital investment has been cut by an estimated $200 billion this year alone. This weak demand in energy has combined with growing imports from China (from oversupply there) to crush steel demand.
X Revenue (Quarterly) data by YCharts.
Even further down the supply chain is a company like Caterpillar (NYSE:CAT), which builds equipment that extracts raw materials that go into creating steel and is even used directly by the energy industry itself. In the third quarter, machinery, energy, and transportation sales dropped 19% from a year earlier and sales are expected to fall another 5%-10% in 2016.
Energy is a highly capital-intensive business that drives hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity every year. So, when oil prices drop and investment is shelved the impact reaches much farther than just energy related companies. Steel and industrial equipment are two industries negatively affected more than you might think.
Jason Hall: Falling oil prices do a world of good for the U.S. economy, but there's one potential negative consequence that many people don't know about: It could actually hurt American manufacturing if cheap oil is here to stay.
One of the bright spots in American manufacturing is the petrochemical industry, which produces chemicals used to make everything from car tires to fertilizer to fabrics. According to the American Chemistry Council, chemical companies have committed $153 billion in new investment in production in the U.S. over the next decade.
The council estimates that this will create more than 800,000 permanent jobs, paying an average salary of over $69,400 and generating more than $322 billion in annual economic output.
Cheap oil could throw a wrench in those investments, though, because cheap, plentiful domestic natural gas is an ideal feedstock to produce the raw ingredients manufacturers need, but it's not the only feedstock that can be used.
Crude oil can also serve to produce many of these products, but it's more expensive to process. However, cheap oil is making overseas chemical manufacturing using oil cost competitive with American chemical manufacturing, because lower overseas labor costs offset the difference.
Bottom line: If oil stays low for an extended period of time, we may see projects get delayed or even cancelled, meaning fewer new good-paying manufacturing jobs being created in the U.S. That's not even factoring in the job losses in the gas fields since less natural gas will be needed for domestic manufacturing.
Rich Smith: And here's another "bad" thing about falling oil prices -- which at first seems like a "good" thing: When oil prices fall, gas prices fall with them.
Good news, right? But consider this: When gas prices fall, consumers tend to be more willing to buy gas-guzzling cars, trucks, and SUVs, because, after all, gas is cheap!
Now here's the problem: Cheap oil prices, and cheap gas prices, never last. The increased buying of gas guzzlers increases demand for gas, which increases demand for oil, which drives the price of both gas and oil back up. It may take a while for this to happen, but it always happens, and it will happen again to today's low gas prices.
In fact, a recent Consumer Federation of America survey revealed that car buyers expect to see gas prices rise from the $2 today , to perhaps $3.20 a gallon in as little as two years -- a 60% increase, and more than a dollar more than the $2 that gas costs today.
Unfortunately, that's not the end of the bad news. Research shows that every $1 rise in the price of gas results in about a 10% decline in the resale value of a full-size SUV (for example). To put that in perspective, Kelley Blue Book puts the average price of a new car (truck, or SUV) at $33,560 today . The fuel efficiency on such a new vehicle is about 25 mpg. Times, say, 12,000 miles driven per year, that works out to about 480 gallons of fuel consumed per year -- or roughly $960 spent on gas annually.
A $1 increase in gas prices will therefore cost a driver an extra $480 a year at the pump -- and an additional $3,356 in depreciation! Total damage: $3,836 for every $1 move in gas prices back toward "normal."
And that, dear friends, is how good news about falling oil prices quickly turns into bad news.
It's all about perspective
Falling oil prices may or may not be beneficial to you personally, but for the economy as a whole, oil has both positives and negatives. Job losses, more oil consumption, and industries negatively affected by low oil prices are just a few bad side effects. Something to think about next time you are paying $2 per gallon for gasoline. -
Advisers Advance Review of EPA Fracking Study
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The Environmental Protection Agency needs more clarity and caution in the generalities it will include in its final report on the risks posed by hydraulic fracturing to drinking water, according to several of the agency's science advisers.
A Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel formed to review the EPA study spent several hours Dec. 3 making progress on the key points it will highlight in its critique. Overall, the panelists said the EPA had done a good job of surveying available data but had written too many generalities that could give an impression of being unsupported by data.
In many cases, the supporting data apparently was available but was not adequately cited along with the generalities, the advisers said during their lengthy public teleconference. It is the generalities—such as the finding of no evidence of widespread, systemic risks—that have especially drawn fire from critics of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the practice widely used to stimulate oil and natural gas production.
The advisers had already produced a redlined document containing many of the preliminary key points the advisers had developed through a meeting in late October and subsequent edits. The document, very much a work in progress, illustrated the advisers' efforts to shape their own judgments of the EPA's report.
More such self-editing was still to be done in December, followed by further stages of review in early 2016.
Tentative Timetable Set for 2016
David Dzombak, chair of the hydraulic fracturing research advisory panel, said the SAB panel is aiming for its draft review to be available for its own review—by panelists and the public—in mid- to late January. A public teleconference is scheduled for Feb. 1-2. More steps may be needed, but the timetable laid out by Dzombak called for the full SAB to discuss the fracking panel's review in May.
The full SAB (the “chartered SAB” in its own jargon) will then have to determine when it has chewed over the subject enough to have a finished critique for the EPA.
In its October meeting, the advisory panel came back repeatedly to the problem of generalities that failed to adequately address the likelihood and severity of risks (210 DEN A-12, 10/30/15).
What Could or Would Happen
During the Dec. 3 teleconference, the science advisers mostly focused on additional points having to do with water supply and the nature of the water that comes from a hydraulically fractured oil or gas well. And as they had in October, they wrestled with issues of likelihood and severity—central factors in conveying degree of risk.
The advisers worried about generalities implying the vertical or horizontal distance between a spill or a fracking site and a water well is a central factor in determining risk. Maybe so, but contaminated water can migrate a considerable distance horizontally from a spill site, the advisers said.
That discussion brought the advisers back to the worrisome issue of likelihood. Spilled contaminants could migrate a long distance, given the right geological conditions, but that did not mean they would. The EPA report needed phrasing to acknowledge possibilities without overplaying them, the advisers indicated.
The advisers did not care for the EPA's use of some statistics to extrapolate national patterns or average patterns in water use for fracking.
Water use at a national scale may not be a problem, but that fact does not enlighten anyone about local water stresses, one adviser said. “We thought that extrapolation was a setback rather than a help,” another adviser said.
-
Big Oil Bracing for New Fight to Keep Government Payments Hidden
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dave Michaels
Big energy companies are bracing for the next round in their fight to stop U.S. regulators from making them reveal what they pay foreign governments for rights to extract oil, gas and minerals.
The Securities and Exchange Commission plans to vote Dec. 11 on a revised proposal for addressing a Dodd-Frank Act requirement that firms whose shares trade in the U.S. publicly report payments such as taxes, royalties and other fees, according to a notice posted Dec. 4. Lawmakers inserted the provision in the landmark financial-regulation overhaul, saying it would help reduce corruption in poor countries.
The measure will require companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. to report how much they spend to develop specific projects, as opposed to simply providing totals for each country as the industry wanted, according to two people familiar with the matter. The approach could set off a new battle between energy firms that sued the SEC to overturn an earlier version and groups like Oxfam America, which filed its own lawsuit to force the regulator to complete the regulation (171 DEN A-20, 9/3/15).
“This shows that the SEC recognizes these rules don't work without full transparency,” said Jonathan Kaufman, an attorney with EarthRights International, which represents Oxfam. “Not only will full transparency help investors and citizens of resource-rich countries, but it's not going to cause the catastrophic effects that the oil companies were claiming.”
Gina Talamona, an SEC spokeswoman, declined to comment on the proposal.
Reduce Corruption
Supported by advocates such as George Soros and Bill Gates, who say it will help ensure natural-resource revenue is well spent, the rule has sparked controversy since it was included in Dodd-Frank. Congressional Democrats and other backers of the rule said the transparency also will give investors a fuller view of political risk faced by companies.
Many Republican lawmakers oppose the reports, noting those payments had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Former SEC Commissioner Daniel Gallagher, a Republican who left the agency in October, said the rule didn't fit with the agency's core mission. Even SEC Chair Mary Jo White said in 2013 that she objected to efforts that “seek to effectuate social policy or political change through the SEC's powers of mandatory disclosure.”
The SEC first passed rules requiring the disclosures by public companies that produce oil, natural gas or minerals in 2012 (163 DEN A-7, 8/23/12).
The agency said the requirements would carry an up-front, total compliance cost of about $1 billion across all firms subject to the regime and ongoing compliance costs of $200 million to $400 million annually.
Confidential Information
The American Petroleum Institute, whose members include the largest oil companies, sued to block the rules just months later, arguing the SEC could have decided to keep some of the payment information confidential.
API said the revelations would create an advantage for foreign competitors, who would know how to tailor future bids against U.S. producers.
“The continued concern from industry is that you'll hit the U.S. majors and some of the Western European majors, but that is not going to pick up the Russian state-owned energy company and the Chinese state-owned companies that will never report this kind of information to anyone,” said Scott Kimpel, a former SEC lawyer who is now a partner at Hunton & Williams.
Favorable Ruling
In 2013, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates ruled in favor of the industry and invalidated the rule, finding that the SEC erred by asserting that Dodd-Frank didn't give the agency discretion to withhold some payment information.
The industry lawsuit also faulted the initial rule because it didn't exempt payments to governments that restrict reporting. The new proposal will allow companies to seek relief if a country's laws bar disclosure, the people said.
The revised measure also responds to Bates's ruling by showing the agency considered whether to keep detailed payment information confidential, the people said. It still won't allow that but will include a legal explanation for the choice, the people said.
API told the SEC in November 2013 that companies shouldn't have to reveal how much they pay each government for the rights to develop a new lease. Instead, reports should simply show how much money was paid to each government entity and in which state or region the activity occurred, the group wrote.
International Competitiveness
“The SEC can issue rules that meet their legal obligations to promote transparency while also protecting firms' international competitiveness,” said Carlton Carroll, an API spokesman. “The timely development of a new rule following our suggestions could be a win-win for payment transparency and American jobs.”
Oxfam, a nonprofit international aid group, sued the SEC in 2014 to press for a new version of the rule. The agency replied in October that it would issue a revised proposal by the end of 2015 and pass a final version by June of next year.
The rule may provide a new test of the SEC's ability to craft rules that stand up to legal scrutiny. The SEC has lost several court decisions that found the SEC's analysis of economic costs and benefits was defective.
“I think another lawsuit is inevitable,” said Robert Treuhold, a partner at Shearman & Sterling in New York. “It's not clear that on this accelerated rulemaking timetable that the SEC would be able to do a sufficient job on the cost-benefit analysis to withstand attack. I'm sure that will be looked at closely.”
-
Offshore Decommissioning Costs Need to Be Reported
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Offshore oil and gas lessees on the Outer Continental Shelf are now required to submit summaries of actual expenditures for the decommissioning of wells, platforms and other facilities in federal waters.
The requirement for cost reporting will allow better estimates of financial assurance levels needed to minimize the risk of a company defaulting on its obligations to dismantle and remove facilities. A final rule mandating the reporting was published Dec. 4 in the Federal Register (80 Fed. Reg. 75,806).
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) issued the rule to govern decommissioning procedures to protect the environment and to remove offshore hazards. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), as leasing agent for federal offshore waters, is the agency that includes financial assurance obligations in lease terms, typically through bonding obligations.
The final rule (RIN 1014-AA24) contains a few modifications and notes to address objections raised by some industry representatives that the rule could prove unduly burdensome. In particular, the final rule drops a requirement for supporting documentation and instead requires a lessee to submit only a summary of its decommissioning costs and a certification statement by a company official.
Additional supporting information will be required only when a regional supervisor requests such information on a case-by-case basis.
More Changes May Follow
BOEM earlier this year issued proposed guidance to clarify procedures on how the agency will determine the financial ability of oil and natural gas companies to carry out their offshore responsibilities, especially the obligation to dismantle and remove facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The proposal was issued as a notice to lessees. BOEM took comments on it through Nov. 6. It included such a set of criteria for regional directors to use in assessing a company's financial capabilities (185 DEN A-12, 9/24/15).
The BSEE's and BOEM's predecessor agency, the Minerals Management Service, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2009 that led to the cost reporting rule. The notice also contained a proposed consolidation of mechanisms for maintaining and extending leases past their primary terms.
The BSEE said Dec. 4 it may issue a final rule in the future regarding the proposed consolidation of mechanisms for extending and maintaining leases beyond their primary terms.
-
600 Health Professionals Seek Strong EPA Methane Rule
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
More than 600 public health professionals urged the Environmental Protection Agency to set the most stringent possible limits on methane from new oil and gas wells Dec. 4, while industry argued that emissions already are falling and new rules are unnecessary.
While pushing the EPA to move aggressively to curb emissions from new and modified wells, the doctors and nurses said in a Dec. 4 letter to Administrator Gina McCarthy that the agency must set similar limits for existing wells as well, something the administration has not yet committed to doing.
“These standards will not only help to mitigate climate change and its associated health risks by curtailing emissions of methane—an especially potent greenhouse gas—from new and modified sources, but will also limit emissions of toxic and carcinogenic air pollutants, benefiting public health in communities across the country,” they wrote in a letter made available by the American Lung Association. “Furthermore, we call on EPA to develop standards to limit similar emissions from existing sources as well, to truly protect public health.”
‘Duplicative and Costly.'
Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute argued that any new federal regulations would be “duplicative and costly” as the industry has already taken voluntary steps to capture more methane, a key component of natural gas.
“Emissions will continue to fall as operators innovate and find more ways to capture methane for consumers,” Howard Feldman, director of scientific and regulatory affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, told reporters Dec. 4. “These voluntary efforts are the best way to reduce emissions from existing sources, and they're already working.”
Feldman cited a Dec. 3 analysis by NERA Economic Consulting that argues the benefits of the EPA's rule are “highly uncertain and very likely overstated” and lack adequate peer review.
The proposed new source performance standards (RIN 2060-AS30) are part of a package of proposals for the industry including a rule to determine when oil and gas facilities should be aggregated for permitting purposes (RIN 2060-AS06) and a proposed federal implementation plan (RIN 2060-AS27) for minor emissions sources on Indian lands (160 DEN A-1, 8/19/15).
Potent Greenhouse Gas
Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas that is between 28 and 36 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period, according to the EPA.
The public comment period on the proposed performance standards closed Dec. 4.
More than 125 environmental groups urged the EPA to strengthen the methane rules in a Dec. 2 letter to the EPA. Eighteen organizations representing the Latino community also urged the EPA to issue the strongest possible standards to curb methane emissions (232 DEN A-3, 12/3/15).
-
Industry Faults EPA's Novel Methane Benefits Estimates In Oil & Gas NSPS
Dec 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Oil and gas industry groups are strongly criticizing EPA's novel use of social cost of methane (SCM) metric to estimate the benefits of its proposed rule to control the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) from the sector, saying the SCM values the agency calculated are “highly uncertain and likely overstated.”
EPA's use of the metric in its proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) setting first time methane controls for a host of oil and gas sources mark one of earliest uses of the values to quantify direct climate benefits of a regulation limiting methane, resulting in a cost-benefit calculation that accounts for nearly all of the rules' monetized benefits.
The metric, which EPA has also used to estimate the benefits of rules limiting methane releases from landfills and heavy-duty trucks that are fueled by natural gas, shows greater benefits than the administration's social cost of carbon, because methane is a more potent GHG than carbon dioxide.
But a Dec. 3 report from NERA Economic Consulting, conducted on behalf of the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), is criticizing the values, saying they are based on a single 2014 study whose estimates are significantly greater than estimates in other published analyses, have not been subject to proper level of peer review and improperly reflect global benefits as opposed to domestic.
The report -- which was released one day before EPA's comment period on the proposed NSPS closed Dec. 4 -- concludes that EPA's regulatory impact analysis (RIA), which estimated that the proposed rule would yield a monetized climate benefit of $88 million to approximately $550 million in 2020 and $220 million to $1.4 billion in 2025, is “highly uncertain” and the costs are “likely understated.”
The reasons the RIA estimates are flawed, the report says, include reliance on the 2014 study, Marten et al., despite other published studies whose findings are inconsistent with those results, that the SCM estimates reflect global benefits, which NERA says is contrary to the Office of Management & Budget's 2003 guidelines, and that it did not undergo a full scientific peer review.
“In the absence of a full scientific peer review of the methodology behind EPA’s [SCM] estimates and the degree of sensitivity of the net benefits estimates to alternative reasonable assumptions call into question the reliability of all of the RIA’s benefits and net benefits estimates,” the report says. “It is for these reasons that EPA’s SC-CH4 estimates are too premature and are inappropriate for use in making major national policy decisions.”
While EPA conducted an internal peer review and the Marten, et al. study has been separately peer-reviewed, NERA faults the RIA for lacking a “more rigorous independent scientific review” given that the SCM estimates reflect a novel use of modeling, and may not adequately account for uncertainty factors.
Moreover, the report says, the SCM estimates may be overstating the values because they are based on a set of five socioeconomic scenarios, and four of them assume no incremental policies in the near term future to reduce emissions. “Use of scenarios that assume no future emissions control policies to estimate the benefit of reducing a ton of emissions in the near-term overstates” the SCM estimates, the report says.
API Comments
American Petroleum Institute (API) in its comments to be filed on the proposed rule ahead of the Dec. 4 comment deadline is planning on citing the NERA report, API's Howard Feldman, senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs, told reporters during a Dec. 4 call.
The report indicates that the SCM estimates are “highly speculative,” and could actually result in net costs of more than $1 billion in 2025,” Feldman said on the call, as opposed to the net benefits that EPA touts in the RIA.
Focusing the estimates on domestic climate benefits, NERA says, would “result in significantly smaller climate benefits resulting in net costs for the Proposed Rule."
The SCM values, though they have thus far only been used in justifying EPA's oil and gas proposal and a landfill methane proposal, have drawn criticism from industry that they suffer from many of the same flaws that afflict the administration's social cost of carbon (SCC) metric, including an insufficient discount rate, use of global, rather than only domestic, benefits, and a failure to subject the calculations to adequate peer review.
Wayne D'Angelo of the law firm Kelley Drye & Warren, raised the issue in an Aug. 19 blog post that the agency's cost-benefit review the draft NSPS, based on its new SCM metric, is too uncertain to provide sufficient confidence in the rule's overall benefits.
"EPA offers both cost and benefit estimates 'give or take' about $100 million each. Importantly, EPA has good reason to doubt its benefits calculations in particular," he writes. "EPA calculated future benefits using an estimate of the social cost of methane that has never before been used in rulemaking," he wrote.
The proposed NSPS would set first-time emissions limits for methane from the industry, as well as set controls for volatile organic compounds and methane for some sources not regulated under an earlier 2012 NSPS, such as hydraulically fractured oil wells and downstream compressors and other equipment.
Environmentalists, who support the first-time methane controls, have praised use of the SCM values to help justify strict new climate rules that regulate methane, the greenhouse gas (GHG) that is significantly more potent than CO2.
Center for American Progress (CAP) says in Dec. 4 statement that while the proposed NSPS is a “good start,” it must be the “first step, not the last,” in securing methane pollution reductions from the sector if the United States is to meet president Obama's stated goal of reducing methane pollution by 40 percent to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025.
The group is touting EPA's estimate of reducing leakage of up to 400,000 short tons of methane in 2025, a carbon dioxide equivalent of preventing the combustion of more than 1 billion gallons of gasoline or shutting down two coal-fired power plants.
But the group is renewing environmentalists' calls for the administration to quickly launch a rulemaking to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas sector's existing sources, saying the NSPS proposal “triggers Section 111(d)” of the Clean Air Act. Section 111(d) says EPA “shall” issue regulations for states to submit plans for reducing methane from wells, equipment, and facilities that are already in operation, following issuing an NSPS.
While the agency is directly regulating methane for the first time, environmentalists are pressing their calls to regulate methane from existing sources under section 111(d). The agency did use 111(d) to regulate GHGs from existing power plants in its recent climate rule for that sector, but is pushing control technique guidelines and voluntary measures instead for existing drilling operations in lieu of a direct limit on methane.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said recently the agency is gathering data to consider whether there is a need for future rules on existing sources of methane at oil and gas facilities, but says the agency will first focus on finalizing the NSPS and a proposed voluntary program for existing sources that will provide more information on the issue. “That's one of the things we're trying to look at now, what are the gaps still in the system and what is necessary to fill those gaps,” McCarthy told an Oct. 22 CAP discussion on reducing methane from the oil and gas sector.
-
Groups Move To Influence Proposed Methane Rule
Dec 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The oil and natural gas industry’s top lobbying group and a collection of healthcare professionals are among those looking to influence a forthcoming Obama rule on methane emissions.
Friday was the deadline for comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural gas wells. The proposed rule is part of an Obama administration strategy to cut methane emissions by up to 45 percent from 2012 levels over the next decade. The proposed rule focuses on new and modified wells, and requires drillers to use new technologies to track and block leaks — both accidental and purposeful — during the production and transmission of oil and gas. Methane is the key component of natural gas, and a potent greenhouse gas.
The oil and gas industry says new federal standards for methane emissions aren’t necessary, noting that producers already have done a lot to cut emissions on their own.
The American Petroleum Institute noted Friday that natural gas producers have a financial incentive to cutting emissions, because it means they can capture and sell more product on the market.
“EPA’s proposal for additional methane regulations on oil and gas wells and transmission are duplicative and costly,” Howard Feldman, API’s senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs, said Friday.
“They could also undermine the progress our industry has made lowering greenhouse gas emissions.The fact is that America is already leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even as oil and natural gas production has risen dramatically, methane emissions have fallen, thanks to industry leadership and investment in new technologies.”
Green groups have said a strong methane rule is among the best things Obama can still do to make progress on climate change issues during the remainder of his term. Methane has about 25 times the global warming power of carbon dioxide.
Public health groups, too, support a new methane rule. In a Friday letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, more than 600 public health professionals said a stronger emissions standard would help curb emissions of “toxic and carcinogenic air pollutants, benefiting public health in communities across the country.”
“To protect our children, our communities and the public, the United States must significantly reduce greenhouse gases,” they wrote.
“Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Reducing methane is an essential step to reduce the burden of climate change, but the benefits go far outside the impact on the climate. Lifesaving benefits to public health can begin immediately.”
The Obama administration hopes to finalize the methane rule sometime next year.
-
No Decision in Spat Between Colorado Leaders Over Suit
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) is weighing alternatives now that the state Supreme Court has declined to consider his petition challenging Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman's (R) decision to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over its Clean Power Plan (Hickenlooper v. Coffman, Colo., No. 2015SA296, 12/3/15).
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Dec. 3 because there is an “adequate alternative remedy” available to Hickenlooper, the governor's petition for rule to show cause is denied. Hickenlooper filed a petition in November asking the state high court to rule that he, not Coffman, has the ultimate authority to decide when the state will or will not sue the federal government in federal court.
Acted Independently
Independently of Hickenlooper, Coffman decided Colorado would join 23 other states Oct. 23 in a suit against the EPA seeking to clarify whether the federal agency has authority under Sec. 111(d) of the Clean Air Act “to usurp the states’ control over their power grids,” according to a statement from the attorney general's office.
Three days later Hickenlooper announced he opposed Coffman's decision to sue, saying the attorney general has filed “an unprecedented number” of lawsuits without support or “collaboration with her clients.” Such suits “create conflicts in state-wide policy that are contrary to the best interest” of the state, he said (215 DEN A-1, 11/6/15).
Jacki Cooper Melmed, chief legal counsel to the governor, said in a statement the disagreement between the governor and the attorney general is not over the legal merits of the lawsuits, but rather about the direction of Colorado executive branch policy, which the governor “is empowered to direct under our constitution and laws.”
‘Separate and Distinct.'
In a Dec. 3 statement, Coffman said the roles of the governor and attorney general are separate and distinct.
“The two executive officers must work independently to best serve all the citizens of Colorado,” she said. “I look forward to a successful working relationship with Governor Hickenlooper while always remembering my duty to Coloradans as their lawyer.”
Kathy Green, spokeswoman for the governor, said Hickenlooper was disappointed by the denial of the petition by the court, saying he was hoping “they would just cut to the chase.”
She noted the court, in its 1-page ruling, left undecided “whether the attorney general can legally bring federal lawsuits on behalf of Colorado without the governor's authority.” Two of the court's seven justices said they would grant the petition, she said.
‘Importance of the Issue.'
“The Court did not deny the importance of this issue nor did it uphold the legality of the attorney general's actions,” she said. “While two justices would have had the Court decide the issue now, the other five justices declined to do so at this point because they believed the governor has ‘an adequate alternative remedy.' ”
Green said the governor's office “will give careful consideration” to the Supreme Court's guidance as to what to do next. One of the alternatives is to file a petition at the district level, giving higher courts a record to review, she said.
-
Judges Question Need to Vacate EPA Mercury Rule
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A panel of federal appeals court judges appeared to be disinclined to grant a request to vacate the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards for power plants, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the agency erred by not considering cost when it decided to regulate power plant emissions (White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1100, oral arguments 12/4/15).
Industry and states that oppose the standards argued Dec. 4 that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should vacate the standards because the EPA lacked the authority to promulgate the rule, known as MATS, because it has still not adequately fulfilled a congressional precondition to first determine it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions before promulgating standards under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
The EPA, along with intervening states, environmental groups and power companies, argued that the rule should be remanded without vacatur so the agency can address the Supreme Court's decision without causing disruption to the public health protections achieved by the rule and without devaluing the investments made by power plant operators that are already in compliance with the standards.
Vacatur of Rule at Issue
Members of the three-judge panel that heard arguments questioned whether circuit precedent required vacatur of the MATS rule and whether there would be any practical effects on industry given the EPA's plan to reaffirm its appropriate and necessary finding this spring. Argument was heard by Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Judith Rogers.
Michigan Solicitor General Aaron Lindstrom, who argued on behalf of the industry and state petitioners, argued that the EPA does not have the authority to promulgate the MATS rule because the agency has still not fulfilled a “substantive precondition” from Congress that it make an “appropriate and necessary” finding after reviewing the need to regulate, which the Supreme Court in June ruled must factor in some consideration of cost to the power industry (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (2015); 125 DEN A-1, 6/30/15).
“The rule must be vacated,” Lindstrom said.
The 2012 MATS rule (RIN 2060–AP52, RIN 2060-AR31) was projected by the agency to cost $9.6 billion per year. Most plants have either already invested in pollution controls or opted to shut down, though some plants have until April 15, 2016, to come into compliance under a one-year extension that was available.
EPA Authority Questioned
Lindstrom argued that the D.C. Circuit had previously vacated rules because the EPA did not have the authority to promulgate them.
James Pew, an Earthjustice attorney who represented the Sierra Club and other intervening groups in the litigation, told Bloomberg BNA that the industry and state petitioners tried to argue that the court should not engage in its “usual balancing of equities” in weighing vacatur for a “very formalistic reason.”
“Judge Garland and Judge Kavanaugh were both very skeptical about that,” Pew said.
Pew predicted that the D.C. Circuit will likely rule pretty quickly, given that some of the parties involved in the case have expressed a need for a quick resolution.
Kavanaugh said the EPA's current situation, that it did not have authority to promulgate Section 112 standards without first making a finding that included cost consideration, seems “a little different” than a situation where a court has clearly found that an agency lacked the authority to do something.
“If we say, as we sometimes do, the statute does not give the agency authority to do X...the reason we vacate, I believe, is there's nothing they're going to be able to do about that,” Kavanaugh said.
Kavanaugh said in instances where the agency may have the authority, but didn't explain it correctly or didn't consider a relevant factor, that is a “different kind of case.”
The EPA in November issued a supplemental proposed finding (RIN 2060-AS76) that cost consideration doesn't alter the EPA's appropriate and necessary finding. The agency projects it will issue a final supplemental finding in spring 2016 (225 DEN A-13, 11/23/15)
Garland: ‘Nothing Special' About Case
Garland said there is “nothing special” about the MATS case and compared it to several other cases where the D.C. Circuit left major EPA rules in place despite significant legal flaws. He specifically cited a 2008 decision that found “fundamental” deficiencies in the Clean Air Interstate Rule but left that rule in place while the EPA worked on a valid replacement and a 2015 decision to remand invalid emissions budgets promulgated under the cross-state air pollution rule back to the EPA for further consideration (North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 67 ERC 1151, 2008 BL 146717 (D.C. Cir. 2008); EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 80 ERC 2005, 2015 BL 239912 (D.C. Cir. 2015); 145 DEN A-6, 7/29/15).
Rogers offered limited comments during arguments, though she noted that she was a member of the panel that initially vacated the Clean Air Interstate Rule, then reversed its decision due to state concerns about disruption.
Thomas Lorenzen, a partner with Crowell & Moring LLP who attended the arguments, said although Rogers didn't say much during arguments, she is “probably leaning EPA's way” based on her previous opinions on use of the remand without vacatur option.
Focus on Possible Disruptions
Pew said the D.C. Circuit panel seemed to focus on the consequences of vacating MATS versus leaving the standards in place. He said Kavanaugh and Garland kept pressing attorneys on both sides of the dispute to explain what disruptions could be caused by the court's decision.
The court, in a 1993 decision, established a two-factor test for deciding whether to vacate an agency action on remand. Under the Allied-Signal test, the court considers the seriousness of the order's deficiencies and the disruptive consequences of vacating the rule only to have it later be reissued (Allied-Signal Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146, 300 U.S. App. D.C. 198 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).
Stephanie Talbert, a Justice Department attorney who argued on behalf of the EPA, said application of that two-factor test “weighs heavily” in the EPA's favor. She argued the Supreme Court identified a “single limited deficiency” that the EPA is on track to quickly address.
Kavanaugh questioned whether anything “on the ground” would change if MATS were vacated but then reissued by the EPA. He said it seems it would be prudent for plants to “keep going” if they know that the EPA is likely to reaffirm the rule in spring 2016.
Lindstrom argued that the practical effect of vacating the MATS standards would be avoided additional costs on power plants that already have made investments to comply with the standards, as well as avoided costs for power plants that received a compliance extension. Plants that already made the necessary capital investments could avoid an estimated $158 million in ongoing annual costs attributed to compliance with the standards, Lindstrom said.
Both Talbert and Melissa A. Hoffer, assistant attorney general for Massachusetts, cited the rule's public health protections, including protection from cancer and developmental disabilities linked to exposure to pollutants regulated by MATS, as something that could be disrupted by vacatur. Hoffer argued on behalf of states who intervened in support of the rule.
Brendan Collins, a partner at Ballard Spahr LLP who argued on behalf of Calpine Corp., Exelon Corp. and other industry groups that intervened on the EPA's behalf, identified possible disruptions for the electric utilities if the MATS rule were to be vacated.
The MATS rule required power plants to “pony up” and install pollution controls or opt to shut down, Collins said. The surviving plants expected higher revenues to justify the higher capital and operating costs under MATS, he said. If the rule were to be vacated and plants that received a compliance extension were allowed to operate without making those necessary investments, the investments that other plants made would be devalued, Collins argued.
Collins added that although the EPA is talking about quickly reaffirming the “appropriate and necessary finding,” it is “by no means certain” that the EPA would be able to quickly resurrect the rule. He said it “could be years” before power plant standards were back in place if the EPA were required to go through a full rulemaking process. Several attorneys told Bloomberg BNA in advance of the arguments that a decision to vacate the appropriate and necessary finding and the MATS standards could force the EPA to go through a lengthy rulemaking process (232 DEN A-6, 12/3/15).
Lorenzen described Collins' concern that it could take a year or more to reissue MATS as a “telling statement” that the court will be thinking about when it decides whether to vacate the standards. If the court determines the EPA needs to start over on regulating power plant emissions, that would be a “much more disruptive delay” to the industry intervenors than a four-month period where the rule is not in effect.
EPA Confident on Timing
During argument, Garland questioned the level of EPA's confidence that it will be able to complete its work on remand by April 15, 2016, the date by which the plants that received a one-year extension must come into compliance or shut down.
Talbert said the EPA is on track to do that, though she noted that there are certain things that are outside the EPA's control, including the number of comments that it will receive on its proposal.
Releasing the proposal in advance of arguments likely helped the federal government's position during arguments, Pew said. Had that proposal not been released, there would have been some suspicion over whether the agency was actually going to be able to go through that process by April, he said.
“Getting the first step done showed the agency was serious,” Pew said.
If the court is concerned about the agency's ability to reaffirm its finding by April, it could opt to vacate the rule but withhold issuance of the mandate that would actually strike down MATS, Lorenzen suggested. That would allow the court to retain jurisdiction over the issue, while functionally leaving the standards in place on remand, Lorenzen said.
If the court were to simply remand MATS back to the EPA without vacatur, the court would lose jurisdiction over the issue and would be unable to act if the EPA did not meet its schedule for reaffirming the finding, according to Lorenzen.
Lorenzen said the idea that vacatur and withholding the court's mandate is the “better course” was suggested by Judge A. Raymond Randolph in a 2004 opinion that was later withdrawn (Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363, 58 ERC 2057 (D.C. Cir. 2004)).
Co-Benefits Discussion
Kavanaugh and Garland both raised the issue of the EPA's use of co-benefits to justify regulations, a practice that Chief Justice John Roberts criticized during oral arguments in Michigan v. EPA.
Garland noted that the deficiency identified by the Supreme Court did not involve the co-benefit issue, but he questioned Talbert on why the EPA was unable to quantify the economic effect of avoided cancer cases and other public health benefits of the rule. She said it is difficult to quantify due to limited data.
Kavanaugh cited Roberts' extensive criticism of co-benefits, but said that would likely be the “key battleground” in future litigation on EPA's action on remand.
The court's attitude on the co-benefits issue appears to be that it is a “question for another day,” Lorenzen said. He said that issue will be “far more ripe for resolution” if and when the EPA promulgates a final supplemental appropriate and necessary finding that includes an analysis based on co-benefits.
Sean Donahue, an attorney representing the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental intervenors, noted before the court that the EPA's proposed supplemental finding does not rely on the use of co-benefits to justify the need to regulate power plant emissions.
The EPA's proposed supplemental finding did cite its formal cost-benefit analysis prepared for the MATS rule, which counted co-benefits attributed to the regulation, but the agency noted that such a formal analysis is not required. The agency relied on several other types of analyses, including comparing the costs of the MATS rule to the power sector's revenue and the increase in the price of electricity.
-
Judges Question Need To Trash Mercury Rule While EPA Fixes
Dec 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
A panel of federal judges on Friday signaled their willingness to keep EPA’s mercury rule in place while the agency completes a new economic analysis ordered by the Supreme Court.
Such a decision would be a win for EPA, though one judge acknowledged the agency will almost certainly face a subsequent legal battle over its fix.
The Supreme Court in June ruled 5-4 that EPA erred when it did not consider costs in its “appropriate and necessary” finding, the initial decision to regulate that EPA first made in 2000 and that ultimately led to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. But it did not prevent EPA from enforcing the rule while it produced a new finding, leaving that decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appellate judges focused on how utilities would respond if the court vacated the rule.
“Will something really change on the ground?” asked Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the panel member who in 2014 said he thought EPA should have considered costs in its initial decision to regulate, a view upheld at the Supreme Court.
Michigan Solicitor General Aaron Lindstrom, representing state and industry challengers, said that running the mercury pollution controls for the four months before EPA is expected to fix the rule would impose unfair expenses on power plant operators. He cited an EPA estimate that compliance with the rule costs $158 million per year.
But the administration and its green allies warned that air quality and public health would be threatened if power plant operators chose to turn off those controls. They also said many states rely on the mercury rule to meet air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland — who grilled Justice Department attorney Stephanie Talbert on whether EPA really can finish the fix by April — noted that Lindstrom and the other challengers represent far less generating capacity than utilities that support EPA’s arguments.
Those utilities, including Exelon and National Grid, argued in court that vacating the rule would prove disruptive because so many companies have already made investments to comply with the rule.
Garland also said he believes the mercury rule should follow a precedent set more than 20 years ago in which a court can order an agency to fix a rule without actually vacating it. That requires the judges to determine whether the flaw was serious enough to justify any harms to the public that would come from not enforcing the rule.
Kavanaugh said that with EPA on track to issue a new finding to the rule in April, it is only “prudent” for power plants to continue using or installing their pollution controls. And he said he did not believe previous cases require that the court toss out the mercury rule now.
The key question, Kavanaugh said, is whether EPA will reach "the same bottom line" in a new rule. EPA's proposal to fix the rule said it would have remained essentially unchanged if costs had been considered from the start.
The third panel member, Judge Judith W. Rogers, who along with Garland had previously sided with EPA on the cost consideration issue, was largely silent during arguments.
EPA has moved quickly to patch up the rule, just this week publishing a proposal saying that — after considering costs — it made the right call in deciding that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury, and that it would have written the same rule from the beginning. If the circuit sides with EPA and allows the new finding to take effect, the mercury rule will likely continue uninterrupted.
EPA is taking public comment on the proposal and says it can finalize the fix by spring.
-
McCarthy Takes Power Plant Rule Road Show To Paris
Dec 7, 2015 | Environment Leader
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA chief Gina McCarthy takes her campaign for the Clean Power Plan to Paris this week, promoting the agency's ability to achieve greenhouse gas reductions through the rule in speeches and panel discussions at the U.N. climate conference.
This weekend, McCarthy was scheduled to deliver the keynote address in a side event co-hosted by the Edison Electric Institute about charting a low-carbon course for the U.S. power sector.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
Planned speakers included executives from electric utilities Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and PNM Resources Inc., as well as the president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and the executive vice president of EEI.
Today, McCarthy speaks about the Clean Power Plan alongside European Commission Environmental Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, and tomorrow she will discuss EPA's role in delivering on President Obama's overall climate plan.
On Wednesday, EEI and the International Emissions Trading Association co-sponsor an event to highlight how utilities might use carbon trading markets to meet CPP targets.
Officials from PG&E, Calpine Corp. and Berkshire Hathaway will participate, and EPA air chief Janet McCabe will speak.
Also Wednesday, Standard & Poor's in Paris will release a report on tools the investment community can use to manage climate risk.
On Thursday, McCarthy will speak at a side event to outline how policies in the administration's Climate Action Plan will put the country on target for 2025 greenhouse gas emissions goals.
Most of the events McCarthy attends will be live-streamed. Keep an eye out for news from E&E reporters Lisa Friedman, Jean Chemnick and Joel Kirkland, all of whom are reporting from Paris.
In the United States today, EPA general counsel Avi Garbow will keynote a conference in Las Vegas on the legal implications of new power industry regulations, particularly the Clean Power Plan. EnergyWire's Ellen M. Gilmer will be reporting.
On Thursday evening, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control will host in Columbia what is billed as a public engagement session on the state energy plan and EPA's Clean Power Plan.
In other news, Colorado released a schedule of upcoming meetings on the rule. Two meetings in January will focus on the Clean Energy Incentive Program. One in February in Denver will explore compliance options, and another in March will focus on demand growth cost and reliability. The state's Air Pollution Control Division also released a summary of public comments received so far and a plan development timeline.
The Kansas Corporation Commission began soliciting public comments on the CPP last week. Read more on that below.
In case you missed it: Pennsylvania environment chief John Quigley aims to be among first states to comply with Clean Power Plan (ClimateWire, Dec. 4). Kansas utility regulators ordered a probe of the rule and will examine options to redispatch power (EnergyWire, Dec. 4). EPA warned a federal court against granting a stay of the greenhouse gas rules and argued industry and opposing states face no irreparable harm (E&ENews PM, Dec. 3). Missouri's air regulator is nearly certain the state will favor a mass-based compliance strategy preferred by state's electric generators (EnergyWire, Dec. 3). FERC's Tony Clark says some states will be challenged to build new pipelines and transmission lines in time to comply with Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Dec. 1).
Experts say accurate estimates of Clean Power Plan costs won't be possible for years (EnergyWire, Nov. 30).
-
Judges Likely To Grant EPA Bid For Utility MACT Remand Without Vacatur
Dec 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Appellate judges hearing Dec. 4 oral argument over EPA's power plant air toxics rule appear likely to grant the agency's request to remand it to EPA while the agency finalizes a cost review of the regulation rather than vacating it entirely as sought by the rule's critics, but the judges might also set a strict deadline for completing the cost study.
At least two of the judges of the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit questioned the potential disruption to the power sector from vacating the rule, compared to leaving it in place while EPA pursues the cost assessment. They indicated that precedent established in the remand without vacatur of the agency's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) case warrant remand.
For the Bush-era CAIR -- an emissions trading program -- the D.C. Circuit in a 2008 decision in North Carolina v. EPA remanded the contested rule to the agency so that it could revise it and address legal flaws the judges identified. At the time, the court said vacating the rule could cause more problems than leaving it in place.
“Here, we are convinced that, notwithstanding the relative flaws of CAIR, allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with our opinion would at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR. Accordingly, a remand without vacatur is appropriate in this case,” the ruling said.
Separately, the court in a 1993 ruling in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. NRC created a two-factor test to use when deciding to vacate or only remand a rule, which considers first, the seriousness of the deficiency in the federal agency's decision, and therefore its ability to be remedied on remand, and second, the disruptive consequences of vacatur.
The D.C. Circuit is weighing both those rulings as part of its consideration of how to proceed with the MACT in consolidated litigation over the rule known as White Stallion Energy Center, et al. v. EPA, et al.
The appellate case is resuming after the Supreme Court in 5-4 ruling from June faulted the agency for not considering costs in its initial finding that developing the rule was “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act. EPA argued that it weighed costs later when setting the rule's emissions standards, and noted the law was not explicit on when to weigh costs. The D.C. Circuit initially agreed with that claim in a 2-1 ruling in 2014.
But the high court's majority said that costs should have been a factor upfront, though they did not weigh in on the merits of the rule itself, which the D.C. Circuit in its initial ruling broadly upheld.
Cost Assessment
EPA on Nov. 20 then released its proposed cost review of the MACT, which it says addresses the Supreme Court ruling. The agency is taking comment through Jan. 15 on the proposal, which is a more limited assessment of the rule's implementation costs rather than a more sweeping new cost-benefit review.
While some industry observers say EPA likely has the necessary air law discretion on how to conduct cost analysis to win any expected suit over the final version of the cost review, some power companies are telling the D.C. Circuit that the analysis is unlawful and that the high court ruling warrants scrapping the MACT entirely.
But the Department of Justice (DOJ) in briefing with the D.C. Circuit has highlighted what it says would be the harmful disruption to both the environment and the utility industry from scrapping the utility MACT due to lost benefits from emissions controls. DOJ says the court should remand the rule to EPA and leave it in place while it takes comment on its proposed cost review for the MACT, which it plans to finalize by May.
Echoing these arguments, environmentalists in a recent response brief stressed the harm to the public that an outright vacatur of the MACT rule would cause through higher pollution from power plants, and the relative lack of consideration of environmental and public health harms in industry briefing in the suit.
Through their questioning at oral argument, Judges Merrick Garland and Judith Rogers appeared to support a remand of the rule while the agency processes the final cost assessment.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh's position was more ambiguous, as he asked tough questions of all parties, although he appeared to agree with Garland on the need for EPA to stick to a hard deadline in the event the court decides against vacating the MACT -- suggesting at least the possibility of a unanimous decision.
Much of the discussion at arguments focused on the practical effects that a vacatur would have, rather than the issue of EPA's lacking legal authority to issue the utility air toxics rule.
Vacatur Request
Attorney Aaron Lindstrom, representing states and industry groups that are seeking vacatur of the MACT, urged the court to scrap the rule based on this alleged lack of authority, but the judges returned repeatedly to discussion of the precedent set by the 1993 Allied-Signal ruling.
Lindstrom argued that the seriousness of EPA's deficiency in the appropriate and necessary finding means the court need not consider the disruptive consequences of vacatur, saying that still some 40 percent of power plants do not have to comply with the MACT until April 15. Given that many of these have installed or are installing pollution controls, Lindstrom focused on the cost of running controls, rather than installing them, in his argument for vacatur, estimating that plants would save $158 million annually by not running controls.
But Kavanaugh and Garland both assumed that if the rule is vacated, EPA would re-issue the rule in short order. For a plant installing controls, then, “the prudent investment would suggest, keep going,” Kavanaugh said.
On the disruptive consequences, Garland noted that Lindstrom represented only one power plant -- the White Stallion Energy Center project in Texas. Garland added that a much larger group of low-emitting utilities intervening in the case, Calpine Corporation, Exelon Corporation, National Grid Generation, LLC and Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc., have stated clearly their opposition to vacatur because of the disruptive effects that would result. “You have one plant,” Garland told Lindstrom, saying the case presents “equitable” issues.
Judge Rogers, in a rare interjection during the arguments, asserted that “we are having the same discussion now” as the court had when it first vacated, then revived CAIR pending remand. In that ruling, the court noted the disruptive effects to public health, industry and states' efforts to comply with the Clean Air Act.
Attorney Brendan Collins, arguing for Calpine and allied utilities, underscored that if the court vacates the MACT, investments by utilities in pollution controls will be “devalued, or even entirely stranded” if uncontrolled plants continue to operate, incurring lower costs than the “clean” utilities.
Collins also warned that if the court scraps the MACT, it is by no means guaranteed that EPA will quickly reissue the rule, given the need for public notice-and-comment on such a policy.
Melissa Hoffer, of the Massachusetts Attorney-General's office and representing 19 states that are supportive of the air toxics rule, urged the court to keep the MACT in effect to preserve its health-protective benefits. Vacating the MACT “translates to actual harms to real people fairly immediately,” she said.
Potential Deadline
DOJ attorney Stephanie Talbert, representing EPA, insisted that Allied Signal “is the law of the Circuit” that must be applied, and the precedent weighs heavily in EPA's favor.
Garland conditioned his support for that position on EPA issuing a timely final revision to its appropriate and necessary finding, asking if EPA can issue the final finding by April 16 -- the date by which power plants with a one-year MACT compliance deadline extension must comply with the rule.
“EPA is on track to meet that intended deadline,” said Talbert.
Kavanaugh asked Talbert about whether EPA's reliance on “co-benefits” of reducing pollutants not targeted by the MACT to justify the cost of the rule could be a problem, given Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' doubts over co-benefits' validity during Supreme Court oral argument in Michigan.
Kavanaugh said he assumed that once EPA's final appropriate and necessary finding is issued with the cost review, this will be “the battleground.”
Talbert replied that the issue is not now before the court, as EPA's revised finding is now only a proposal. Garland added that the Supreme Court expressly did not rule on the issue of co-benefits.
Garland did press Talbert, however, on why EPA did not quantify the health benefits of reducing certain air toxics under the MACT, relying instead on co-benefits. Talbert said it was too difficult to quantify certain effects, such as cancer, because of a lack of data.
-
After Failing To Win Stay Of MACT, Utility Mistakenly Orders Air Controls
Dec 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Western utility Tri-State Generation and Transmission Inc., which failed in a recent push to win an appellate court-ordered stay of EPA's utility air toxics rule, told the court hours before oral argument in litigation over the rule that it mistakenly ordered pollution controls for the power plant for which it was seeking the stay.
Tri-State has twice unsuccessfully asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to stay the looming April 16 compliance deadline for the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule as it applies to the company's Nucla power plant in Colorado. The company argued that the stay should be imposed until litigation over the MACT is resolved, in order to avoid investing in controls for a rule that could be scrapped.
The D.C. Circuit in White Stallion Energy Center, et al. v. EPA, et al. is weighing a remand of legal challenges to the rule from the Supreme Court. The justices in a 5-4 ruling in June in Michigan v. EPA said the agency erred by not considering costs in its initial decision that the rule was “appropriate and necessary.”
EPA in November then issued a proposed cost review of the MACT to satisfy the ruling, and is urging the D.C. Circuit to leave the air toxics rule in place while it works toward a final version of the cost assessment by a self-imposed May deadline. Some industry groups and states opposed to the rule say the D.C. Circuit should vacate it entirely, but at Dec. 4 oral argument at least two judges appeared likely to reject that request.
Ahead of the argument, Tri-State -- which is intervening in White Stallion on behalf of the rule's critics -- submitted a Dec. 2 supplemental motion to govern proceedings. In the filing, the company admits that because of a management “misunderstanding” over whether to order the pollution controls, it ended up ordering them, even though it had told the court in prior briefs that it had made no decision on whether to buy the controls.
“Apparently unbeknownst to Tri-State senior management, an authorized Tri-State employee signed a contract for this equipment in mid-July. As a result, Tri-State has in fact ordered control equipment that would allow Nucla to comply” with the MACT's hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission limit, the company says.
Tri-State says it “has suspended all work under the contract,” and can terminate it “at any time,” but is still liable for the fabrication of the HCl control equipment that is now partially complete. “Although the control equipment has been ordered, Tri-State continues to believe that it should not be required to incur the additional cost of completing fabrication, installing, and operating new pollution control equipment to comply” with the MACT “unless and until EPA makes a new regulatory finding that is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision,” the company concludes.
-
Bill Would Bar New Carbon Rules Absent World Action
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Legislation introduced late Dec. 3 would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing any carbon dioxide emissions limits for power plants unless countries responsible for 80 percent of non-U.S. emission enact similarly stringent policies.
The Fighting Against Imbalanced Regulatory (FAIR) Burdens Act of 2015 (H.R. 4169), sponsored by Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.), would require the EPA to certify that other nations had enacted similar emissions requirements along similar time frames as proposed U.S. actions before implementing any new regulations.
“The American people cannot and should not be unfairly burdened with imbalanced and ineffective climate change rules,” Rothfus said in a statement. “Any policy we undertake should be carefully considered for effectiveness, fairness, and its impact on the lives and livelihoods of the American people.”
Negotiators from around the world are currently gathered in Paris in hopes of reaching the first-ever international agreement to tackle climate change. President Barack Obama's lead domestic initiative to curb carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, the EPA's Clean Power Plan, takes effect Dec. 22.
Major international emitters, including China and India, have already announced significant joint commitments with the U.S. to address greenhouse gas emissions that are fueling climate change.
Chinese President Xi Jinping in late September announced his nation would begin a national emissions trading program, while Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi earlier this year vowed new cooperation toward reaching a global climate agreement and cutting hydrofluorocarbons (230 DEN A-1, 12/1/15).
Other Republicans co-sponsoring the Rothfus bill include Reps. David McKinley (W.Va.), Andy Barr (Ky.), Kristi Noem (S.D.), Alex Mooney (W.Va.), Ryan Zinke (Mont.), Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Marlin Stutzman (Ind.), Robert Pittenger (N.C.), Randy Weber (Texas) and David Rouzer (N.C.).
Barrasso Releases Report
Meanwhile, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) released a report Dec. 4 underscoring his position that any international climate agreement would ignore the voices of many citizens opposed to President Barack Obama's environmental policies, require false promises about the nation's ability to meet emissions reduction pledges and threaten the economy by binding the country to specific timetables for greenhouse gas reductions.
“Developing nations are anxious to get U.S. taxpayer dollars, which are widely seen as the linchpin of any climate deal,” the report said. “Congress should respond by rejecting the president's budget request for these funds and insisting that any deal President Obama signs — whether it is called a ‘treaty' or an ‘agreement' — be subject to congressional approval.”
Republicans have issued stern letters, held multiple hearings and repeatedly threatened to withhold funding to implement any international agreement reached in Paris. The Obama administration maintains the negotiations in Paris are taking place under existing executive authority and said the final form of the agreement will be decided at the talks (233 DEN A-7, 12/4/15).
-
Health Educators Join Forces on Climate Change
Dec 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Four dozen schools of public health, medicine and nursing from around the world have joined a U.S. effort to make sure the next generation of health professionals is ready to deal with the effects of climate change, from longer allergy seasons to more life-threatening heat waves and storms. The White House announced at international climate talks in Paris on Dec. 4 that 118 total schools from 14 additional countries, including France and India, have signed onto the Health Educators Climate Commitment it launched in April. Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health will lead their work to share best practices, develop a core knowledge set for graduates and start academic partnerships and training opportunities, especially in countries with insufficient resources. Public health is one issue that can make climate change resonate with more people, though research shows many Americans still cannot connect the dots between rising temperatures and seas and risks of illness, injury or death (115 DEN A-7, 6/16/14).
Congressional Hearings
Chemical Management News
Industry and Association News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested