PM ACC 12/8/2015

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

1. (ACC Mentioned) US House Unanimously Approves Microbeads Phase Out Bill

   Dec 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The US House of Representatives has unanimously passed a bipartisan bill requiring the phase out of plastic microbeads from personal care products. It will begin on 1 July 2017.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Legislation to Ban Microbeads Passes House

   Dec 8, 2015 | Water Technology

   The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill to ban the use of plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetic products, according to a press release.
3. (ACC Mentioned) EPA's Flame Retardant Risk Analysis Plans Prompt Competing Criticisms

   Dec 8, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad
   
   
   EPA's plans to assess human health risks from three clusters of flame retardant chemicals are prompting competing criticisms, with some chemical industry officials urging against further assessment of one cluster while public health advocates...
4. People Question if Using Some Chemicals is 'Worth It', Warns Raphael

   Dec 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Emma Chynoweth
   
   
   The question of whether the use of certain chemicals is “worth it” is being asked more frequently, says Deborah Raphael, director of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment.
5. Authorisation Process Favours 'Obsolete Chemicals’

   Dec 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The stance taken by the European Commission and Echa’s committees gives too much support to authorisation applications, says the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

Chemical Security News

6. Bureau Launches New Risk-Based Inspection Program

   Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Phil Taylor
   
   
   The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement yesterday announced a new pilot program to increase oversight of offshore oil and gas facilities deemed at greater risk for accidents.

Transportation News

7. NAS Says Oil Spill Regulations Should Address Heavy Oil

   Dec 8, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

   By Elana Schor
   
   
   Federal oil-spill regulations should be strengthened to take into account the type of heavy oil that Keystone XL would have carried and that Canadian pipelines are shipping across the border in growing volumes, the National Academy of Sciences said today...
8. N.D. Training Safety Inspectors for Pilot Program

   Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

   By Nick Smith
   
   
   North Dakota hired two new railroad inspectors recently who are now training under federal inspectors to bulk up the state's monitoring of oil-heavy rails.
9. AAR, APTA Offer an Industry Outlook from the Association Perspective

   Dec 8, 2015 | Progressive Railroading

   By Julie Sneider
   
   
   In Progressive Railroading's December issue, executives of the freight and transit-rail industries shared their perspectives on their railroads' goals and anticipated challenges for 2016. Below, two industry associations — the Association of American Railroads(AAR)...

Energy and Environment News

10. EPA 'Exceptional Events' Proposal Prompts Concern From States, Advocates

    Dec 8, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    EPA's proposal to streamline and simplify its policy for when states can claim Clean Air Act compliance exemptions for air pollution associated with "exceptional events" such as dust storms is prompting early concerns from Western state air regulators...
11. Major Utility Leaves ALEC to Help States Implement Rule

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Hannah Northey
    
    
    American Electric Power Co. Inc., one of the nation's largest utilities, is leaving the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council and shifting its resources toward working with states implementing the Obama administration's landmark climate rule.
12. EPA Lawyer Looks to Sway an Apprehensive Power Industry

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Ellen M. Gilmer
    
    
    On a mission to build bridges with the power industry, U.S. EPA's top lawyer came out swinging yesterday against the politicization of the agency's latest environmental rules.
13. After House Splits On Energy Bill, Members Say Bipartisan Agreement Needed

    Dec 8, 2015 | National Journal

    By Jason Plautz
    
    
    Amid chan­ging tech­no­logy and reg­u­la­tions, law­makers from the House En­ergy and Com­merce pan­el said that there will need to be a re­cal­ib­ra­tion of the na­tion’s elec­tric grid policy—but it could take a rise above polit­ics to do it.
14. EPA Chief: US is Ready to Push Forward on Climate Change

    Dec 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry
    
    
    President Obama’s chief environmental regulator told the international climate conference in Paris on Tuesday that the U.S. is already pushing forward with a slate of new climate change rules.
15. Time is Now for Increased Climate Focus at Home and Abroad

    Dec 8, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.)
    
    
    For years Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee have asked for a hearing on the effects of climate change. And for years, that simple request – that we have an honest discussion before the oldest standing committee in the House...
16. Once Again, California Leads the Way

    Dec 8, 2015 | Washington Post

    By Katrina vanden Heuvel
    
    
    At the Paris Climate Change Conference, the world’s nations are pledging their first real steps toward addressing catastrophic climate change.
17. EDF Reconciles Dueling Methods for Methane Estimates

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Pamela King
    
    
    The Environmental Defense Fund has converged top-down and bottom-up estimates of methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure in Texas' Barnett Shale.
18. Bad News for the Climate as Methane Leaks Far Surpass Previous Estimates

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Gayathri Vaidyanathan
    
    
    Emissions of methane from the oil and gas industry vastly exceed federal government estimates, according to a definitive study published yesterday. The study finds that daily leaks of the potent greenhouse gas from oil and gas wells in Texas' Barnett Shale...
19. Los Angeles Sues Utility Over Gas Leak

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Emily Alpert Reyes
    
    
    Los Angeles has filed a lawsuit against a natural gas utility over its management of a gas leak that has prompted hundreds of families to leave their homes to escape noxious fumes.
20. Senate Dems Blast 'Out of Touch' Cruz Ahead of Hearing

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Hannah Northey and Sean Reilly
    
    
    Senate Democrats accused Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas today of wasting precious committee time and rehashing settled research by holding a hearing today laden with climate change doubters.

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

1. (ACC Mentioned) US House Unanimously Approves Microbeads Phase Out Bill

   Dec 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The US House of Representatives has unanimously passed a bipartisan bill requiring the phase out of plastic microbeads from personal care products. It will begin on 1 July 2017.

   House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) introduced the Microbead-Free Waters Act (HR 1321) earlier this year. The committee last month unanimously approved the bill (CW 19 November 2015).

   Microbeads are tiny pieces of plastic, often used as exfoliants in personal care products like face wash, soap and toothpaste. They can slip through water treatment systems after they are washed down the drain. As a result, they often end up contaminating local streams, rivers and larger bodies of water.

   The bill's authors say that scientists have found evidence of microbeads in numerous bodies of water in the US. Increasingly these include the Great Lakes, the world’s largest source of freshwater.

   As well as contributing to the build up of plastic pollution in waterways, microbeads are often mistaken by fish and other organisms as food. Fish can then pass on the chemicals found in the microbeads to other wildlife and humans. The legislation will also preempt state and local laws related to microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics.

   Applauding passage of the bill, the American Chemistry Council said: “HR 1321 is an important step to ensure we have one sensible, national standard for phasing out the use of solid plastic microbeads in personal care products across America.

   "We look forward to working with members of the US Senate in hopes that this legislation will quickly become law.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Legislation to Ban Microbeads Passes House

   Dec 8, 2015 | Water Technology

   The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill to ban the use of plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetic products, according to a press release.

   The bipartisan legislation, co-sponsored by Reps. Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph) and Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), would prohibit the manufacture of personal care products containing microbeads by July 1, 2017 and ban the delivery of these products by July 1, 2018, noted the release.

   Microbeads are tiny pieces of plastic that are used as exfoliants in face wash, soap, toothpaste and other products, stated the release. After being washed down the drain, they can pass through wastewater treatment systems and end up in streams, rivers and larger bodies of water.

   “Most people who buy personal care products that contain microbeads are unaware that these tiny bits of plastic seep into waterways, threatening the environment and ultimately our health. Our bill is a bipartisan and commonsense solution,” said Pallone in the release. “It is our responsibility to implement a nationwide ban on plastic microbeads, and spur a transition to non-synthetic alternatives. House passage is an important step towards putting a stop to this unnecessary plastic pollution, and I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to see this much-needed legislation become law.”

   “These microbeads are tiny plastic, but big time pollution,” Upton added in another release. “As someone who grew up on Lake Michigan and represents a large chunk of Michigan coastline, I understand firsthand how important it is to maintain the beauty and integrity of our Great Lakes. They may be smaller than a pinhead, but once they’ve been flushed down the drain is where the problem starts.”

   The American Chemistry Council also welcomed the passage of the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, describing the legislation as “an important step to ensure we have one sensible, national standard for phasing out the use of solid plastic microbeads in personal care products across America.”

   You can find the entire release here.

   Read more about microbeads as a contaminant.

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) EPA's Flame Retardant Risk Analysis Plans Prompt Competing Criticisms

   Dec 8, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad

   EPA's plans to assess human health risks from three clusters of flame retardant chemicals are prompting competing criticisms, with some chemical industry officials urging against further assessment of one cluster while public health advocates and chemical users are pushing for different approaches including a broader review of alternative chemicals.

   Many of the chemical, advocacy and other groups in recent comments urge EPA to better consider exposure in their analyses. Automakers and other chemical users argue that their uses of the chemicals have far more limited exposure potential to consumers that household products, while environmentalists and the Defense Department are arguing that EPA has omitted important pathways from its plans, including food exposures and treated wastewater.

   EPA in August released draft problem formulation and initial assessment documents for the three clusters that identify areas for future reviews. The three chemical clusters are Chlorinated Phosphate Esters (CPE), used in furniture foams and textiles; Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), used in plastics and certain electronics and Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides/Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), used in polystyrene foams and products.

   EPA also released a data needs assessment for a fourth flame retardant cluster, Brominated Phthalates, used in polyurethane foam products, after finding it currently lacks adequate information to support a risk assessment. The agency is accepting comments and information on that cluster through Dec. 16.

   The effort is part of EPA's novel risk assessment program seeking to more strictly regulate existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has already prompted the agency to weigh restrictions on several substances. The documents may address criticism raised during peer review of the first handful of assessments EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT) conducted as part of its TSCA workplan assessment program.

   In Nov. 18 comments on the risk analysis plans submitted on the Nov. 18 deadline for input, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers argues that "children and infants are very unlikely to receive significant exposure to flame retardants in auto parts, many of which are not accessible from the passenger compartment or which do not release their flame retardants into that compartment."

   Safety Standards

   The group, which represents the Ford Motor Company, General Motors and others, argues that industry uses the chemicals to meet fire safety standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and other bodies, and that it must be able to meet these standards. This scenario continues for the lifespan of the cars its members make, it adds, arguing that parts will need to be supplied for older cars and these will need existing flame retardant chemicals.

   The alliance also adds that EPA and NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy may be increasing automakers' use of flame retardants. "To meet applicable fuel economy standards, the automotive industry has sometimes replaced non-flammable but heavy materials, such as metals, with lighter but potentially flammable materials, such as plastics. This may actually increase the need for flame retardants in vehicles," the comments say.

   By contrast, environmental groups argue that EPA's assessment plans are inadequate because they ignore certain exposure pathways. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in its Nov. 18 comments argues that "The risk assessments resulting from these Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment documents will very likely underestimate the risks posed by the associated chemicals, due to the exclusion of many uses, sources and routes of exposure, hazard endpoints, and certain exposed populations."

   EDF protests EPA's decision to ignore food exposures other than fish "because this exposure falls under the 'purview of other federal agencies' . . . it is wholly inappropriate for EPA to exclude food as a vector and route of exposure when the contamination of food comes from production, processing, use or disposal of a chemical or a product or material containing a chemical that falls under TSCA's jurisdiction."

   EDF also calls on EPA to assess flame retardant chemicals' presence in wastewater, noting that these persistent chemicals can resist wastewater treatment "ending up in the effluent and sludge, either of which may contaminate drinking water or food sources (e.g., seafood, crops, farm animals)."

   Draft Findings

   Chemical manufacturers meanwhile are questioning the need to continue one of the assessments, and suggests the other two are insufficiently advanced to comment upon.

   In Nov. 18 comments, the North American Flame Retardant Alliance (NAFRA) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) cites EPA's draft findings on TBBPA, including a cancer potency estimate included in an appendix, and argues, "Based on the available scientific literature, exposure to TBBPA is low and the potential for toxicity is low. Again, NAFRA recommends that given this information, the Agency does not need to move forward with further evaluation."

   ACC in its comments on HBCD says "It is quite difficult, if not impossible, to comment on a plan that is as vague as the one released for HBCD." NAFRA provides similar concerns regarding EPA's initial assessment of HBCD, arguing that it is not an assessment. It also questions some of that document's comments regarding EPA's cancer risk assessment policies, arguing that it incorrectly cites policy by stating that stringent linear cancer modeling "is not mandated as the only choice available to the Agency in any guidance."

   Joint comments filed Nov. 18 by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice and Washington Toxics Coalition criticize EPA's plans with regard to the hazard the chemicals pose, questioning its literature search process, its analyses of the toxicity information as well as its plans to quantify risk for two of the flame retardant clusters, HBCD and CPE. It calls on OPPT not to use a margin of exposure approach (MOE) to calculate non-cancer risk, and instead, to use "methodology recommended by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) to harmonize assessment of cancer and non-cancer risk, so that both can be evaluated using a risk-based approach to decision-making."

   The environmentalists cite a 2009 NAS report to EPA, "Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment," to support their argument. They say that the NAS report "explicitly states that MOEs are inadequate for comparative risk analysis," and recommends calculations of probabilistic risk distributions using a spectrum of evidence from humans, animals, mechanistic and other relevant studies."

   'Incomplete Data'

   Another set of comments from a large coalition of environmentalists also cites the same NAS report. Led byAlaska Community Action on Toxics, the groups voice concern that "EPA does not intend to include known exposures and hazards in its assessments due to incomplete data. . . . ["Science and Decisions"] . . . found that this practice of failing to adequately account for risks and uncertainty where available data are limited leads to flawed risk assessments that may not sufficiently protect public health. This is unacceptable. EPA should follow the NAS recommendations -- known hazards and exposures must be accounted for, using available data to make health-protective assumptions and perform qualitative evaluations as needed."

   NRDC and colleagues also question OPPT's methods for gathering and analyzing toxicity information, arguing that EPA's draft documents "inappropriately overemphasize Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and guideline studies … GLP requirements are not necessarily associated with higher quality research, proper study design, or correct statistical analysis … As noted by the NAS, GLP criteria fail to address study bias, which is a systematic flaw in the design and conduct of a study that reduces the validity and reliability of the study results … OPPT needs to upgrade their approach so that studies are included based on their relevance to the study question, and not on who conducts the study."

   The Defense Department in its comments also questions EPA's process and transparency in reviewing the toxicity literature, asking for example, why OPPT excluded epidemiology studies from its HBCD document.

   The environmentalists also criticize OPPT's interpretation of the toxicity information, calling it problematic, in part because "there seems to be the assumption that results from all studies should be consistent, despite differences in the study design such as the endpoints measured, species tested, and doses evaluated.”

   'Narrow' Clusters

   Environmentalists suggest that EPA's clusters are "clearly too narrow because the outcome is that the chemicals contained within the cluster are excluded. This defeats the purpose of evaluating these chemicals in clusters. . . . An even more concerning prospect for these flame retardant chemicals, and industrial chemicals generally, is that the process of regrettable substitution will continue, which is also contrary to EPA's stated goal of reducing health threats from toxic chemicals."

   The automakers also called on EPA to broaden its analyses. The Association of Global Automakers, Inc., which represents Aston Martin, Honda, Subaru and others, in its Nov. 18 comments cites its experience with EPA's Design for the Environment program, which last year reviewed chemical alternatives to the flame retardant decabrominated diphenyl ether. None of the alternatives considered, including TBBPA, garnered a low hazard ranking from the agency, the automakers noted.

   "[W]e would recommend employing a holistic approach that employs a risk-based strategy for phasing out high-risk flame retardants and identifying substitutes that EPA determines to be safer alternatives," the automakers say.

   "We would further recommend that this type of strategic approach be coordinated with organizations such as NHTSA, the Department of Defense, and representatives of major trade sectors to avoid the unintended consequence of phasing out critical uses for which there are currently no substitutes. This holistic approach would also provide for some regulatory certainty and predictability, as it would allow automobile manufacturers to identify all of the chemicals that are to be phased out, rather than having to reengineer the same component each time EPA proposes an individual flame retardant for review and regulation."

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. People Question if Using Some Chemicals is 'Worth It', Warns Raphael

   Dec 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Emma Chynoweth

   The question of whether the use of certain chemicals is “worth it” is being asked more frequently, says Deborah Raphael, director of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment.

   Speaking on Monday at Chemical Watch’s Global Supply Summit in Washington, DC, she said chemicals falling into this category include some flame retardants and stain resistors.

   Ms Raphael, who ran California's Department of Toxic Substances Control for three years until 2014, said that the current market place needs to be transformed so that chemicals of concern are proactively replaced and regrettable substitutions are avoided.

   In doing this, she said, it is important to ask the right questions: is a substance legal, safe and necessary?

   However, she said people are asking increasingly if the continued use of certain substances is worth it.

   Paul Ashford, managing director of consultant Anthesis-Caleb, told the summit that knowing the hazards of substances contained in a product is a prerequisite to the adequate management of risk. But, he added, reliable tools to characterise risks of chemicals in products are only just emerging. Further refinement and validation of tools, such as GreenSuite and ProScale, is needed, he added  – but this will take several years.

   Joseph Rinkevich president of consultancy and IT tools provider SciVera, said although regulatory drivers and industry restricted substance lists (RSLs) enable companies to track and test for certain substances in products, companies – especially those with brands – increasingly want to know all the substances in their products. Such knowledge, he added, coupled with watching what is coming over the horizon in terms of substance restrictions, enables companies to be more proactive.

   Mr Rinkevich cited REACH and the EU toy safety Directive as drivers that are "helping in a paradigm shift of moving away from an RSL-strategy to this better understanding of all ingredients in a product”.

   The value of transparency on substances is very clear, he added, and that "stronger collaboration with suppliers and customers ultimately reduces costs and risks and increases innovation, resulting in better products and processes.”

   A number of frameworks are available to get full material disclosure, but the challenges include getting access to data. However, sectors like the toy industry, which has a complex supply chain, have managed to educate suppliers to use a bill of substances approach, and get information flowing to brands in Europe and the US.

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Authorisation Process Favours 'Obsolete Chemicals’

   Dec 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The stance taken by the European Commission and Echa’s committees gives too much support to authorisation applications, says the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

   In a report issued today, the NGO says that all authorisations applied for have either been granted by the Commission, or Echa has recommended they be given the green light.

   The EEB says these include applications “that did not meet basic legal requirements such as demonstrating adequate control of the risks or that benefits outweighed the risks, and/or where safer alternatives are in fact already available in the market.”

   The report is published just days before a meeting of the REACH Committee which, the EEB says, had been due to discuss a range of authorisation issues and applications – only for the Commission to remove from the agenda.

   EEB senior policy officer for chemicals, Tatiana Santos, said: ”many companies in Europe are leading the way to find alternatives to harmful chemicals and they, rather than those businesses that are lagging behind and finding ways to keep obsolete chemicals on the market, should be rewarded.

   "In this way, REACH will not only be beneficial for human health and the environment, but also help boost the European Commission’s jobs and growth agenda.”

   The EEB urges the Commission to do more to ensure substances are added to the candidate list and to Annex XIV – the list of substances subject to authorisation.

   The Commission should also provide Echa with a clear mandate "to give favourable opinions only for specific, well documented and well justified” applications. It should reject applications for broad uses of an Annex XIV substance at an early stage.

   Applications for uses for which safer alternatives exist should be rejected, it says, together with those covering a broad range of uses, such as those for the use of:the phthalate DEHP in raw and recycled PVC;the brominated flame retardant HBCDD in expanded polystyrene; andlead chromate pigments.

   The EEB also claims the additional consultation on socio-economic impacts of Annex XIV updates that the Commission now requires Echa to conduct, allows industry to seek new exemptions and shifts the burden from companies using SVHCs to third parties.

   EU member states have different views on the new consultation (CW 9 July 2015).

   The group’s report also criticises aspects of the Commission’s proposals for low-volume substances and in legacy spare parts.

   Meanwhile, the EEB says Echa’s committees for risk assessment (Rac) and socio-economic analysis (Seac) should not be helping applicants by “rewriting” applications. Seac, it says, should ensure assessments include all costs for society as well as the profits for competitors producing alternatives.

   National competent authorities and MEPs should demand the speeding up of the inclusion of SVHCs in the authorisation list, says the group. Member states should commit to producing a minimum number of SVHC proposals, and should vote against the granting of authorisations for applications that cover a broad range of uses or for which alternatives are available.

   Earlier this year the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) raised similar concerns at a meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) (CW 24 June 2015).

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

6. Bureau Launches New Risk-Based Inspection Program

   Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Phil Taylor

   The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement yesterday announced a new pilot program to increase oversight of offshore oil and gas facilities deemed at greater risk for accidents.

   The "risk-based inspection program" will identify five facilities that could be at higher risk for incidents based on their design, operating and environmental characteristics.

   The pilot program will be conducted in addition to BSEE's existing inspections and audit regime, which oversees production facilities, rigs and drilling operations.

   "By focusing on facilities based upon their risk factors, BSEE can more efficiently and effectively manage limited inspection and audit resources," said BSEE Director Brian Salerno in a statement. "However, it does not mean that the facility has a bad safety record or is a poor safety performer, only that certain risk factors are present that must be managed."

   BSEE will identify high-risk facilities by reviewing performance and compliance data from its annual inspections and safety and environmental management systems (SEMS) audits, as well as incident investigations and other reportable safety information.

   It will also consider the size of facilities and the production of hydrogen sulfide, an extremely toxic and deadly gas.

   BSEE said it will notify the operators it selects to participate in the program in the coming weeks. The five facilities will undergo "focused inspections and reviews" by an inspections team.

   The team will identify areas needing attention or improvement and ask the operator to develop an action plan addressing those concerns.

   Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, said the pilot program holds promise.

   "Industry is committed to safe offshore operations and the use of streamlined and efficient inspections," he said in an emailed statement. "If the pilot program improves and increases the efficiency of BSEE's inspection process, operators and service companies can continue to focus on safe operations without repetitive and sometimes overlapping inspections."

   The pilot effort was announced one week after Salerno testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in defense of BSEE's draft well control rule and other regulatory efforts to enhance safety five years after the Macondo well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. The draft rule would update regulations for the design, fabrication, maintenance, inspection and reporting requirements for critical well-control equipment including blowout preventers.

   During the hearing, Salerno revealed that "loss of well control" incidents are happening at the same rate today as they were before the Macondo incident. In 2013 and 2014, there were eight and seven incidents, respectively, he said.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

7. NAS Says Oil Spill Regulations Should Address Heavy Oil

   Dec 8, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

   By Elana Schor

   Federal oil-spill regulations should be strengthened to take into account the type of heavy oil that Keystone XL would have carried and that Canadian pipelines are shipping across the border in growing volumes, the National Academy of Sciences said today in a long-awaited report.

   Commissioned by lawmakers during the height of the Keystone controversy, the NAS study comes two years after a predecessor project found heavy Canadian crude no more corrosive or likely to cause pipeline accidents than other types of oil. Yet today's report warns that unlike other fuels, oil sands crude "can submerge or sink to the bottom of the water body" in the event of a leak.

   The NAS report urges the Department of Transportation, EPA, and the Coast Guard to consider "greater concern" when it comes to oil sands crude spills and to develop "special response strategies and tactics." Existing oil-spill response rules do not distinguish between the types of crude released into the environment and typically rely on the behavior of spilled conventional crude, which generally does not sink or submerge in water.

   The NAS recommends that oil producers notify pipeline regulator PHMSA about the volumes and identities of specific types of crude carried in specific pipeline sections — a significant change from the current rules that do not require companies to provide that information to federal oversight agencies.

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. N.D. Training Safety Inspectors for Pilot Program

   Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

   By Nick Smith

   North Dakota hired two new railroad inspectors recently who are now training under federal inspectors to bulk up the state's monitoring of oil-heavy rails.

   The state Public Service Commission made an agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration in July to start the pilot rail safety program, and lawmakers approved $523,345 to fund it. PSC Chairwoman Julie Fedorchak said that while training is under federal regulators, North Dakota's program will be different.

   "We'll target them in areas where people live," Fedorchak said. "They'll be focusing on areas where trains pass through, large and small towns."

   State Sen. Tyler Axness (D-Fargo) said the Legislature should make the temporary positions permanent. Beyond that, he thinks the current slowdown in oil should help.

   "This is the perfect time to see if there are those weak spots to deal with," Axness said. "There's a lot of track to catch up on."

   Oil-by-rail shipments increased more than 200 percent since 2000, and more than half the state's oil was moving by rail as of September (Nick Smith, Fargo Forum/Bismark Tribune, Dec. 6).

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. AAR, APTA Offer an Industry Outlook from the Association Perspective

   Dec 8, 2015 | Progressive Railroading

   By Julie Sneider

   In Progressive Railroading's December issue, executives of the freight and transit-rail industries shared their perspectives on their railroads' goals and anticipated challenges for 2016. Below, two industry associations — the Association of American Railroads(AAR) and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) — offer insights that are not included in the print edition of the magazine. The responses — written prior to Congress' passage of the five-year surface transportation funding bill known as the FAST Act — were provided via email by AAR President and CEO Ed Hamberger and APTA President and CEO Michael Melaniphy. 
   
   Q: What will be an important issue for the rail industry in 2016?
   
   Hamberger: The nation's economy is wrestling with indicators suggesting a tempered outlook for the first part of 2016, highlighting that freight railroads might do well in good times, but also that they assume huge risk when the economic tables turn.

   One year ago, freight rail was transporting record levels of nearly all commodities. Now that is trailing downwards as some shipments have fallen off, indicative of a cooling economy. When the economy wanes, the railroads leave hundreds of millions of dollars in stranded assets no longer in demand by rail customers. The railroads — not the taxpayer — take the hit for the track and other infrastructure no longer in use. That's because unlike most all other transportation infrastructure, rail infrastructure is funded by private railroad companies, not the public purse.
   
   By building and maintaining the nation's coast-to-coast freight rail network, considered the best in the world, freight railroads ensure that the U.S. economy functions efficiently and effectively — in good times and bad — and that millions of commuters have reliable transportation when commuter trains access our rail lines.

   Melaniphy: With the recent extension of the positive train control (PTC) installation deadline to the end of 2018, commuter-rail systems will continue to aggressively work toward PTC installation and acquiring radio spectrum. This issue came to a head this fall when the commuter- and freight-rail industries made it very clear that many operations would cease if the PTC deadline of Dec. 31, 2015, was not extended. If this had happened, it would have created a transportation crisis with serious economic consequences.
   

   Overall, for the whole rail industry, the issue of state of good repair (SOGR) is front and center. According to the Federal Transit Administration, it will take $86 billion to address all the SOGR needs, most of which is for rail.
   
   Q: What are the potential obstacles to the industry meeting its goals next year?
   
   Hamberger: The nation's current economic plight — underscored by the stranded railroad assets — provides a sobering reminder for federal regulators keen on ensuring a robust freight rail network in 2016 and beyond: If regulators want railroads to continue to take financial risk and invest in rail infrastructure to support American industry and American employment, then our railroads need balanced regulations that do not impede their ability to generate sufficient revenue.
   
   Railroads make huge investments in their network, on average about $25 billion annually over the last several years for a total of $600 billion since 1980. That level of commitment is because rail companies can earn enough to do it.
   
   Melaniphy: PTC and SOGR are two rail issues that will be on the forefront in 2016, and they are connected by the need for greater federal funding. I am responding to this question before the congressional conference committee has ironed out the differences between the House and the Senate bill. At this point, the federal government has only provided $50 million for PTC implementation.  This is a meager amount compared to the conservative $3.5 billion estimate that the commuter rail systems will have to spend on PTC (not including the cost for radio spectrum).
   
   Needless to say, this unfunded safety mandate has posed a tremendous financial challenge to commuter rail systems across the country. The challenge to find additional funding for PTC implementation remains a significant challenge. And let us not forget that it’s not just about the hardware and software, we need to invest in training our workforce and recruiting people to choose the rail industry as a career of choice.
   
   Additionally, the $86 billion backlog of SOGR needs is a heavy lift for our public funded rail agencies. It is imperative that the federal government provide the financial assistance needed to keep our rail systems safe.
   
   Q: What issues would you like the U.S. presidential candidates to address during the 2016 campaign?
   
   Hamberger: As the 2016 presidential campaign and congressional campaigns heat up, candidates should take on board this fundamental truism: A healthy freight-rail industry is vital to the nation’s economic recovery, and protecting today’s balanced regulations is essential for a robust freight rail network.
   
   Melaniphy: We have a saying, "Wherever public transportation goes, community grows." I wish that the presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle would speak strongly and often about their plans to increase federal transportation infrastructure investment. This is a topic that they could pivot to in a variety of discussions, including economic competitiveness, jobs, mobility, or helping the middle class.  
   
   For example, by pointing out that a good public transit system is critical to a community's economic competitiveness and an individual's access to jobs, they could elevate the issue of federal funding for public transportation in the 2016 presidential campaign and make it part of the national public discussion. 
   
   Our country wins when our communities grow. Rail transit not only provides access to jobs, it also has a proven track record of revitalizing neighborhoods around rail stations. The presidential candidates should be talking about the economic power of public transportation that transforms communities through transit oriented development, resulting in more walkable and livable communities. If they talk to mayors across the country, they will find a lot of support on this topic.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

10. EPA 'Exceptional Events' Proposal Prompts Concern From States, Advocates

    Dec 8, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker

    EPA's proposal to streamline and simplify its policy for when states can claim Clean Air Act compliance exemptions for air pollution associated with "exceptional events" such as dust storms is prompting early concerns from Western state air regulators who say it might have several flaws and from environmental advocates who say it could worsen air pollution.

    At a recent meeting of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) in Arlington, VA, Dan Johnson of the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) said that the proposal could result in uneven obligations for areas to prove that the air pollution limit violations would not have occurred "but for" the exceptional event. WESTAR represents 15 Western states including Arizona, California, Nevada, and others.

    Environmentalists at the CAAAC meeting were more critical, with the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) Vickie Patton calling the proposal "exceptionally difficult" and saying she has "deep concerns" with it.

    EPA on Nov. 10 unveiled its proposed rule to streamline the exceptional events policy, as well as a draft guidance on how to demonstrate that emissions from wildfires might impact ozone concentrations. EPA is taking comment on the proposal through Jan. 19, and at press time was holding a Dec. 8 hearing on the rule in Phoenix, AZ.

    States have long sought updates to the policy, which allows them to discount air pollution spikes associated with exceptional events from counting toward their compliance with federal air regulations, in particular the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). But states say the process for submitting an exceptional events request to EPA is highly complicated and that there is a major backlog of such claims still pending at the agency.

    In the proposed update to the 2007 policy, EPA seeks to simplify the process for states to win the agency's acceptance of an event as "exceptional." If the agency concurs that events qualify, states can exclude air quality data gathered during these events from reporting for the purposes of compliance with the NAAQS.

    The proposed rule makes a series of changes to ease the regulatory burden on states to prove that an event qualifies as exceptional, while the guidance document addresses use of the policy in the context of wildfire.

    The policy is a key element of how Western states with naturally high "background" levels of ozone will comply with EPA's Oct. 1 ozone NAAQS, which tightened the standard from a prior level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), set in 2008, to a level of 70 ppb. Wildfires, dust storms and other events such as stratospheric inversions can generate high levels of ozone and particulate matter (PM), which can exceed ozone and PM NAAQS, leading to "nonattainment" status, which carries with it the obligation for states to impose costly pollution controls on industry.

    States' Concerns

    WESTAR's Johnson at the Nov. 18 CAAAC meeting defended Western states' right to rely on the exceptional events policy, and in particular on the assumption, enshrined in the air law, that states need only mitigate those sources of pollution that fall within their jurisdiction and are "controllable." States are not trying to get out of imposing pollution controls, Johnson said, feeling he was obligated to "set the record straight."

    The proposed changes would reduce the burden on states, for example by eliminating a current requirement that states show they would have complied with a NAAQS "but for" the exceptional event causing high levels of pollution, which states have complained is too difficult to prove.

    EPA acknowledges in its proposed rule that the existing policy has been inconsistently implemented across different EPA regional offices. States, meanwhile, have complained that EPA has been much too slow to approve states' requests to exclude air monitoring data under the policy.

    Johnson said it is reasonable for EPA to help states with exceptional events claims so that state regulators do not have to waste resources trying to "analyze to death" the impact of a specific event.

    However, he noted early concerns that the obligations of areas in nonattainment and those currently in attainment with the NAAQS may not be evenly balanced, with areas already in nonattainment not having to do their fair share to improve air quality by having "reasonable" controls in place.

    He further noted potential issues that could arise under the wildfire guidance that might reduce the role of states in submitting exceptional events requests for certain wildfire events, in favor of federal land managers.

    Proposed Rule

    Under the proposed rule, federal land managers or agencies will be able, under certain circumstances, to submit exceptional events requests regarding fire-related events directly to EPA, rather than working with states to submit them.

    EPA proposes to codify existing provisions, established in guidance, allowing prescribed fires to qualify as exceptional events when states have certain safeguards and policies in place. The agency says it expects an increase in exceptional events requests for wildfires, as climate change increases the frequency and severity of wildfires

    EPA says states and federal land managers may use prescribed fires to limit the potential for catastrophic wildfire, and in some situations land managers may let wildfires burn, within limits, to achieve that goal. EPA aims "to make the preparation and review of demonstrations for wildland fire events more efficient and predictable for all parties."

    EDF's Patton, meanwhile, told CAAAC that environmentalists fear easing the exceptional events policy risks in effect weakening the NAAQS, by excusing high ozone levels in particular from NAAQS compliance. There is a risk that "we are fundamentally going to change the standards," Patton said

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Major Utility Leaves ALEC to Help States Implement Rule

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Hannah Northey

    American Electric Power Co. Inc., one of the nation's largest utilities, is leaving the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council and shifting its resources toward working with states implementing the Obama administration's landmark climate rule.

    "AEP will not be renewing its ALEC membership in 2016," Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for AEP, said in an email. "We reviewed our memberships and decided to reallocate resources to other areas of focus including working directly with the states and other stakeholder groups on issues like the Clean Power Plan."

    ALEC acts as a clearinghouse for free-market legislation and has had a hand in crafting bills that could make it more difficult for states to implement the Clean Power Plan.

    Yet Ohio-based AEP, which operates in 11 states, has been complimentary of the U.S. EPA climate rule, with the company's President and CEO Nick Akins calling it "a great investment opportunity" for the company during an interview at the Edison Electric Institute's annual financial conference in Hollywood, Fla., last month (EnergyWire, Nov. 17).

    Of AEP's 32,000 megawatts of generation capacity, about 54 percent is coal-fired, followed by natural gas at 26 percent, then renewables, nuclear and efficiency. In 2020, AEP will still look to coal for 49 percent of its capacity.

    In deciding to leave ALEC, the utility cited more limited financial and human resources and an evolving generation mix. And McHenry in an email pointed out the utility's dedication to curbing emissions from its fleet, including adding large-scale solar and investing in transmission to support renewables.

    "We were a founding member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and supported the Waxman-Markey climate legislation. We are currently adding large-scale solar resources to our portfolio, and also are investing heavily in transmission to support renewable integration," McHenry said. "By 2017, AEP will have cut carbon dioxide emissions from our power plants by more than 25 percent from 2005 levels, and we will achieve additional reductions in the years ahead as our generation mix continues to change."

    AEP joins companies like Royal Dutch Shell PLC in dropping their membership in ALEC. Others have included BP PLC, Google Inc., Facebook Inc. and Yahoo Inc. (Greenwire, Aug. 7).

    ALEC has also been scrapping with green groups, which have pushed companies to drop their membership with the conservative group.

    Earlier this year, ALEC responded with a cease-and-desist letter threatening legal action against groups including the Sierra Club if they did not stop rhetorically linking ALEC to climate "denial" (E&ENews PM, April 6).

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. EPA Lawyer Looks to Sway an Apprehensive Power Industry

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Ellen M. Gilmer

    On a mission to build bridges with the power industry, U.S. EPA's top lawyer came out swinging yesterday against the politicization of the agency's latest environmental rules.

    "Almost all the rhetoric is completely unfounded even though no doubt it's pleasing to many of the critics' ears," EPA general counsel Avi Garbow said. "The purpose of raising this is because if you're in the business to solve problems, sound bites do not lead to solutions."

    Garbow was at a POWER magazine conference addressing about 50 lawyers, consultants, engineers and others in the power industry worried about the impact of EPA's sweeping Clean Power Plan and other new regulations. His message: Now is the time for collaboration and optimism in the industry.

    "When we focus a little bit less on what the rules do to you and actually on what the rules can do for you -- and obviously, from the environmental protection standpoint, for others -- I think you're going to be better positioned overall to really identify new opportunities and solutions and directions to find some business success," he said. "Your orientation ... is really going to give you the advantage to see opportunities rather than constraints here."

    Such assurances were generally met with a side eye from industry, with several in the audience raising familiar questions about the Clean Power Plan's effect on grid reliability and industry's burden of complying with the numerous other new or enhanced regulations simultaneously, including National Ambient Air Quality Standards and requirements for regional haze, ozone and mercury.Piling on?

    Phoenix-based attorney Michelle De Blasi, of Gammage & Burnham, voiced the frustration of many in the room by asking Garbow how the agency is balancing the multiple rules to ensure that the industry can realistically manage the weight of several new requirements at once.

    Garbow acknowledged the volume of new rules for the industry and explained that what may seem like a cascade of regulation is in large part a result of statutory mandates and unmet deadlines.

    "If you think about the built-in cycles or timelines for many of these rulemakings, we are arguably late on many of them -- in fact, that's why so many of them are coming out recently," he said, adding later: "What we ended up with certainly in this administration are a lot of these big-ticket rules happening at or near the same point in time."

    But Garbow was quick to highlight what he sees as advantages of the timing. Most importantly, he said, all the rules were crafted under the same leadership, with advisers focusing on the interactivity between them.

    "If you look [at compliance timelines] for all these statutes, you'd see a tremendous degree of alignment and glide path for almost every one of these to make sure that facilities and companies can make investment decisions and planning choices mindful of all these things at the same time," he said.

    De Blasi remained unswayed by Garbow's optimism, telling EnergyWire that she hoped there was an opportunity for cohesion but that certain conflicts will be unavoidable. In Arizona, for example, a significant switch from the state's major coal resources to natural gas for electricity would emit less carbon but more nitrogen oxides, she noted. NOx is a precursor to ozone, and Arizona is already struggling to meet EPA's ozone standards.

    "It makes it more difficult for utilities to comply given these time frames," she said.State plans

    On the issue of state compliance with the Clean Power Plan, however, EPA and the power industry representatives here were largely on the same page.

    "I also don't think [legal challenges] should elicit from anybody in the regulated community the assumption that it is anything less than a final rule," he told the crowd. "To treat them as uncertain, I think, is wrong and risky. I think that it can weaken rather than strengthen your business position."

    Industry lawyers here largely agreed, repeatedly stressing the importance of moving forward on state implementation plans, despite any remaining uncertainty surrounding the litigation.

    "It's a gamble for us to sit back and say maybe the litigation will take care of this," Greenberg Traurig attorney Michael Cooke said in a presentation. "This is a final rule. It's the law of the land, and I think it behooves people to really try to get involved and be working on this."

    To date, most states challenging the rule in court are also working on implementation plans, abandoning their previous pledges to "just say no" (ClimateWire, Nov. 9).

    But where states have dragged their feet on implementation plans or political leaders have vowed noncompliance, Hunton & Williams attorney Allison Wood advised utility industry players to put pressure on naysayers.

    "The first thing you want to try to do is convince the state to act, because I think the state acting on its own is preferable to EPA walking in and doing it for you," she said. "The next best thing would be to really focus and do a good set of comments on the proposed federal plan, recognizing that that will probably be your compliance plan."

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. After House Splits On Energy Bill, Members Say Bipartisan Agreement Needed

    Dec 8, 2015 | National Journal

    By Jason Plautz

    Amid chan­ging tech­no­logy and reg­u­la­tions, law­makers from the House En­ergy and Com­merce pan­el said that there will need to be a re­cal­ib­ra­tion of the na­tion’s elec­tric grid policy—but it could take a rise above polit­ics to do it.

    Rep. Kev­in Cramer, a North Dakota Re­pub­lic­an, said that polit­ics around cli­mate change and fossil fuels have hampered some of the dis­cus­sions about how to mod­ern­ize the na­tion’s en­ergy pro­duc­tion and de­liv­ery.

    “There’s too much dig­ging in … we nev­er look for mu­tu­ally be­ne­fi­cial solu­tions,” Cramer said at a Na­tion­al Journ­alevent sponsored by the util­ity PG&E.

    Last week, the House passed a com­pre­hens­ive en­ergy bill from En­ergy and Com­merce Chair­man Fred Up­ton, which in­cluded sev­er­al pro­vi­sions meant to up­grade se­cur­ity and re­li­ab­il­ity of the elec­tric grid and im­prove en­ergy ef­fi­ciency.

    But the bill also con­tained lan­guage meant to stream­line oil and gas in­fra­struc­ture and didn’t go as far as Demo­crats wanted to ac­know­ledge and ad­dress cli­mate change. Demo­crats fled, dash­ing dreams of a bi­par­tis­an en­ergy bill.

    Ore­gon Demo­crat Kurt Schrader was one of the nine Demo­crats to vote for the fi­nal bill, which he said was hampered by politick­ing on both sides of the aisle.

    “I ac­tu­ally read the bill,” Schrader said. “If you read the le­gis­la­tion and don’t im­pugn it with all sorts of ne­far­i­ous ex­ag­ger­ated motives, I think you get to yes a lot more of­ten.”

    But Schrader said there was lots of room to move on the bill, es­pe­cially in pro­mot­ing re­new­able en­ergy in or­der to trans­ition away from coal and gas. Over­all, though, he said that mov­ing any en­ergy bill was im­port­ant to get start­ing po­s­i­tions for a broad­er en­ergy de­bate, which could even in­clude how to keep coal and nat­ur­al gas on the grid for now.

    Cramer like­wise ac­know­ledged that, with changes, more Demo­crats could vote for such an en­ergy bill. A Sen­ate bill, which was broad­er than the House ver­sion, passed the En­ergy and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Com­mit­tee in an 18-4 vote this sum­mer, but has yet to move to the floor.

    Cramer—who last week voted for a res­ol­u­tion against the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s car­bon emis­sion reg­u­la­tions on new and ex­ist­ing power plants—said that Re­pub­lic­ans could also back more re­new­able re­sources, al­though that needed to be coupled with a de­bate about the cost to rate­pay­ers and re­li­ab­il­ity.

    The grid, he said, could not rely solely on re­sources like sol­ar and wind amid a crack­down on coal power, since the sources could be too in­ter­mit­tent and cus­tom­ers without power. And that, he ad­ded, meant there needed to be ac­know­ledge­ment of the role of fossil fuels, even while some on the left try to chal­lenge nat­ur­al gas pipelines.

    “Every­one wants more dis­trib­uted power, more re­new­able en­ergy … but there’s a lack of un­der­stand­ing that to have that you have to have a bridge, some back­stop,” he said. “So then you have one ar­gu­ment doesn’t fit our par­tic­u­lar base agenda, or this item doesn’t … that’s why we have to have this de­bate.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. EPA Chief: US is Ready to Push Forward on Climate Change

    Dec 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry

    President Obama’s chief environmental regulator told the international climate conference in Paris on Tuesday that the U.S. is already pushing forward with a slate of new climate change rules. 

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy told climate negotiators that the U.S. is committed to cutting down on carbon pollution and fighting global warming. 

    “The U.S. is serious and committed,” she said during an event about Obama’s climate action plan. 

    “We’ve taken durable steps that are rooted in science, codified in our laws, and broadly supported by our citizens. The right market signals are there. And the technologies we need to make solutions profitable are at our fingertips.”

    McCarthy highlighted progress the U.S. has made on greening its energy systems and its transportation sector. The Clean Power Plan, the controversial, sweeping new EPA rules regulating emissions from the power sector, are the “single biggest step America has ever taken to fight climate change,” she said.

    McCarthy’s message looks to drive home the Obama administration’s contention that the U.S. is ready to carry its weight in implementing a landmark, worldwide deal to cut carbon emissions and begin tackling climate change. 

    “I also want to assure you that our plan will stick, and it will stand the test of time,” she said of the Clean Power Plan, the cornerstone of Obama’s climate pledge. 

    “First, it’s based on science and the law. Second, when I go out on the road to cities and towns across the U.S., it’s crystal clear that the American people want climate action. I see it at the community level all the way up through polls at the national scale.”

    United Nations officials hope to agree to terms on a climate accord by this weekend. As part of that deal, the United States, the world’s second-largest carbon emitter, has agreed to cut its carbon pollution by 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025. 

    Republicans have looked to raise doubts about the U.S.’s ability to do that and have warned other negotiators that the country might not be able to follow through on its pledges. They have passed legislation blocking the power plant rules, and while Obama is certain to veto those resolutions, the rules face legal challenges as well.

    But McCarthy said Tuesday that the plan will survive the challenges against it.

    “American law requires that we act to reduce greenhouse gases, and that’s exactly what we’ve been doing,” she said. 

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Time is Now for Increased Climate Focus at Home and Abroad

    Dec 8, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.)

    For years Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee have asked for a hearing on the effects of climate change. And for years, that simple request – that we have an honest discussion before the oldest standing committee in the House about a problem faced the world over – has been denied.

    So, last month, we held our own forum on climate change. Unfortunately, only Democratic members of the committee attended. We still hold out hope that our committee will examine this issue under regular order. However, we cannot stand idly by and wish it to occur while ignoring the consequences of inaction.

    On Nov. 19, in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, nearly a dozen members of Congress from around the country joined five witnesses from around the world, including a representative from the French embassy, to discuss the road to the 2015 Paris Climate Conference this December, commonly known as COP21.

    Now that COP21 is underway, we are seeing where the rubber meets the road. With the United States leading the way, more than 180 countries have already made pledges to act on climate, outlining their commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These commitments come from the European Union and other developed nations, as well as major developing nations, such as China, India and Brazil – covering approximately 95 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. This creates incredible momentum for an agreement to take place in the ensuing conference and it demonstrates the potential to achieve real progress using a bottom-up, inclusive approach to climate policy.

    Opponents of climate change use “doom and gloom” rhetoric to make claims that the United States will be at a disadvantage if we act alone, creating a false choice between a healthier environment and more robust economy. But those claims ignore the facts. We have always been able to improve the air we breathe and the water we drink while simultaneously growing our economy and creating jobs. Unfortunately, while President Obama and our international negotiators work hard to bring many of the world’s polluters to the table to address climate change in a serious way, the House of Representatives continues to advance bad policy that would do the exact opposite. This week the House is considering H.R. 8, what some have called ‘Trading Our Future for Fossil Fuels Now Act’. The House also voted on two resolutions which would block the major clean energy executive actions that were introduced in the Clean Power Plan to cut emissions from power plants.

    We harness three times as much electricity from the wind and more than twenty times as much from the sun as we did when President Obama took office. Why would we want to go backward? Going green does not sap our potential to create jobs. Establishing a framework for long-term action does not handcuff American businesses. It helps companies to innovate and expand their chances to compete in new job markets. In fact, over 150 U.S. companies with more than 11 million employees have signed the White House’s American Business Act on Climate pledge, which declares support for an ambitious agreement in Paris and commitments to a range of action.

    Even opponents of acting on climate change must admit that our biggest competitors, like China, are making serious commitments. Less than one day into the talks, nations – both developed and developing– embraced the path towards a greener future. France and India launched the International Solar Alliance on Monday morning, which will bring 120 countries together to act as a foundation for solar technology sharing – an alliance that sets a goal of achieving universal access to sustainable energy by 2030. Through Mission Innovation, 20 nations have committed to double their investment in clean energy research and development over the next 5 years. These talks already brought exciting news from philanthropists like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg as well. On Monday, they committed to forming a fund worth billions of dollars to invest in new clean energy technologies. 

    An agreement in Paris will not solve our climate crisis on its own, but it would be an important step forward. It would represent the innovation and cooperation the United States must embrace if we are to continue to be a world leader. We must work even harder to create an enduring framework to ensure countries continue to update their emissions targets on a regular basis. Only by reducing greenhouse gas and pollution targets will we be able to pass on a cleaner, healthier, safer planet to future generations. And by meeting our own commitments, we will lead by example to usher in an age of sustainable environment through renewable energy and grow our economy at the same time.

    Tonko represents New York’s 20th Congressional District and has served in the House since 2009.  He sits on the Energy and Commerce and the Science, Space and Technology committees.

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Once Again, California Leads the Way

    Dec 8, 2015 | Washington Post

    By Katrina vanden Heuvel

    At the Paris Climate Change Conference, the world’s nations are pledging their first real steps toward addressing catastrophic climate change. Yet in this country, Republicans in Congress are already vowing to block President Obama’s program, while their presidential candidates scorn scientists’ alarm. Even if Democrats hold the White House in 2016, inaction and obstruction will remain the order of the day in Washington.

    California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) says, “Somebody has to wake up the country to the real danger” and break the stalemate in Washington. And he is nominating himself to be that somebody.

    Brown led a major delegation of state officials to Paris and garnered international attention, arguing that “the real source of climate action has to come from states and provinces. . . . We’re going to build up such a drumbeat that our national counterparts — they’re going to listen.”

    Brown, along with Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), has championed the Under 2 MOU agreement, under which provinces and states across the world pledge to meet the target scientists say is the bare minimum: limiting the global average temperature change to under 2 degrees Celsius. That will require signatories to reduce emissions 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In Paris, Brown noted that the more than 50 regions and states that have signed on represent what would be the largest economy in the world.

    This year, Brown issued an executive order designed to reach that goal. It requires California to cut greenhouse gas emissions in California 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 — the most ambitious target in North America — and is consistent with California’s commitment to reduce emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

    This requires dramatic changes across the board. In his inaugural address this year, Brown announced that utilities would have to get 50 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2030 and California would seek to double efficiency savings from existing buildings. Industries will have to cut smokestack releases. Electric cars will have to become affordable enough to capture a huge portion of the market.

    California’s action matters. On its own, the state represents the seventh-largest economy in the world (neck and neck with Brazil). It has sufficient size and clout to help make markets, to drive innovation and to force companies and industries to alter their plans and product lines.

    The scope of the needed changes is breathtaking. A recent analysis by E3, an environmental consulting firm, estimated that the state could need as many as 8 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030 to meet Brown’s goals. There are only about 150,000 such vehicles on the road now. That gives the state 15 years to have 60 percent of the state’s motor vehicles be free from the internal combustion engine.

    This year, California legislators defeated a bill that would have written Brown’s pledges into law, with some Democrats voting no, fearful of a commitment to cut petroleum use in motor vehicles in half in 15 years. ButBrown argues that the California Air Resources Board has the authority it needs to work toward those goals in any case.

    And Brown is backed by popular opinion in the state. According to a recent poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California , 52 percent of Californians consider climate change to be a “very serious” problem. Interestingly, Latinos are more concerned than white adults and the young (18 to 34) more concerned than older residents (55 and older). Mired in theworst drought in state history, Californians are likely to grow more concerned, not less.

    Can states and municipalities — blue states and cities in particular — drive the reforms we so desperately need? We’ve seen the stirrings on other issues, such as when cities and states have moved to raise the minimum wage, while Republican leaders in Congress won’t even allow it to come to a vote. We’ve seen it in New York, where Mayor Bill de Blasio is raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for universal prekindergarten . And now, under Brown’s leadership, California is driving the call for action on climate change. Once more, California may be shaping our future.

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. EDF Reconciles Dueling Methods for Methane Estimates

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Pamela King

    The Environmental Defense Fund has converged top-down and bottom-up estimates of methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure in Texas' Barnett Shale.

    In past inventories, EDF has found that top-down (TD) measurements, which are based on air samples collected during regional flyovers, produce higher estimates of the potent greenhouse gas than bottom-up (BU) approaches, which rely on local measurements of facilitywide emissions.

    "Concerns about available inventories and divergent TD and BU estimates create confusion regarding policy formulation and leave room for conflicting claims about the greenhouse gas implications of increased use of natural gas," according to the study, which was published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    The paper synthesizes the results of 12 earlier studies of methane leakage in the Texas shale formation. Measured emissions are 90 percent higher than estimates based on U.S. EPA data, the study says.

    Much of the impact is from "super-emitters," which could be responsible for up to 40 percent of methane leaks nationwide, according to one of the studies published this summer (EnergyWire, July 22).

    EDF said during a conference call yesterday that its research supports regulation of methane emissions from existing sources, beyond the new and modified sources covered under a draft rule from EPA (EnergyWire, Nov. 6).

    "These convergent emissions estimates provide greater confidence that we can accurately characterize the sources of emissions, including the large impact that a small proportion of high-emitters have on total emissions and determine the implications for mitigation," the study says.

    Industry has emphasized focus on the overall methane leakage rate, which is a more accurate indicator of the climate impact of natural gas, said Steve Everley, spokesman for North Texans for Natural Gas.

    "Over the past few years, a number of peer-reviewed studies have similarly shown that methane leakage from fracking is low, and EPA's own data show that methane emissions from oil and natural gas systems have fallen 13 percent since 2011," he wrote in an emailed statement, referring to numbers published under the agency's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (EnergyWire, Oct. 7).

    "Today's study is simply another piece of evidence showing why natural gas is so important to our energy future," Everley said.

    EDF wrote in its study that the rate of methane loss it has calculated increases by 50 percent the 20-year climate impact of natural gas consumed in the Barnett.

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Bad News for the Climate as Methane Leaks Far Surpass Previous Estimates

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Gayathri Vaidyanathan

    Emissions of methane from the oil and gas industry vastly exceed federal government estimates, according to a definitive study published yesterday. The study finds that daily leaks of the potent greenhouse gas from oil and gas wells in Texas' Barnett Shale matched the annual emissions of 8,000 cars.

    Meanwhile, in California's Aliso Canyon, a natural gas storage site has leaked at least 800,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents of methane since Oct. 23, equal to the annual emissions from 168,421 cars. The size of this leak has been compared to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil well accident in the Gulf of Mexico. Sempra Energy and Southern California Gas Co., which operate the site, have said that it could take up to four months to drill an intercepting well and plug the leak.

    The leaks of methane, the primary component of natural gas, are bad news for the climate. Methane is 86 times as warming as carbon dioxide on a 20-year time scale, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The leak in the Barnett means that a Texan who uses natural gas would have a 50 percent greater climate impact over the next 20 years than a consumer elsewhere, said Steven Hamburg, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and a co-author of the study.

    "That is a big deal," he said.

    The leaks from the oil and gas industry, which is the second-largest industrial emitter, have prompted calls for greater regulation. In August, U.S. EPA proposed rules that, together with existing regulations, would curb emissions by 20 to 30 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 (ClimateWire, Aug. 19). The rules would apply only to new sources of emissions, but the agency will consider whether to regulate existing sources, as well.

    This has emerged as the flashpoint in the tussle between industry and green groups, with EPA in the middle. The American Petroleum Institute, the largest industry group, has said that all regulations of methane are duplicative and would cost $1 billion by 2025.

    "Onerous and unnecessary new regulations could have a chilling effect on the American energy renaissance, our economy and our incredible progress reducing greenhouse gas emissions," said Howard Feldman, senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs at API.Surprises for everyone, including shareholders

    According to the EDF analysis, methane leaks from oil and gas operations on federal and tribal lands cost companies $360 million in 2013. The stock price of Sempra Energy fell by 2.78 percent yesterday after the company said that it cannot yet compute the costs of the ongoing gas leak in California.

    Scientific studies have repeatedly found that the sector is not as clean as industry groups, and even EPA, assume. But these studies have a drawback.

    A handful of top-down studies, using airplanes and satellites, have found extremely high leak rates of methane from oil and gas fields. For instance, oil fields in North Dakota were found to leak 10 percent of their production in one study (ClimateWire, Oct. 22, 2014).

    Bottom-up studies, done at the ground level, have found lower leak rates (ClimateWire, Feb. 19).

    Reconciling the top-down and bottom-up measurements has proven difficult. Into that fray comes the new study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and funded mostly by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The study cost about $1 million.

    The study, done over a two-week period in 2013, included simultaneous top-down and bottom-up measurements made at the Barnett Shale. It is the first to reconcile the two sets of measurements.

    About 1.5 percent of the 103,312 metric tons of gas produced per day in 2013 leaked, the study finds. This equals a loss of $100 million per year in revenue.

    It also finds that EPA is underestimating the industry's emissions by a factor of 2.

    Accidents caused by human error -- a person leaving a hatch open or a broken valve -- at 10 percent of facilities were responsible for almost 90 percent of the emissions. And only 2 percent of facilities were responsible for almost half the emissions.

    Hamburg of EDF said that the study justifies the need for regulations on existing sources.

    "The data show that existing sources are a significant part of the problem," he said.A call for government incentives to plug the leaks

    EPA closed its comment period on its draft rule last week, after meeting with companies and industry groups over the past 30 days. It will now decide whether the rule will be altered and a final rule will be issued in June 2016.

    The Our Nation's Energy Future Coalition, an industry group comprising Apache Corp., Southwestern Energy Co., BHP Billiton Ltd. and Hess Corp. that collaborates closely with EPA on methane issues, wrote in a comment that low-emitting oil wells should not be subject to regulation. EPA should provide assurances that existing sources would not be regulated if companies implement voluntary emissions curbs, the coalition wrote.

    SWEPI LP, Royal Dutch Shell PLC's American subsidiary, also called on EPA to incentivize voluntary emissions reductions.

    The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association wrote that EPA had not considered in its calculations the costs of traveling to "remote" facilities located in wetlands or offshore to curb emissions.

    Concho Resources Inc., a Texas-based production company, wrote that the wellhead price of natural gas is lower than the $4 per thousand cubic feet assumed by EPA. It suggested the costs associated with the rule should be recalculated.

    EPA's proposal currently requires optical gas imaging cameras to be used in a leak detection and repair program. Concho pointed out that cameras manufactured by FLIR Systems Inc. would be favored, since that company allows latitude and longitude to be embedded in the photograph, per EPA requirement. Concho suggested that the operator be allowed to photograph a well identification sign instead of using GPS markers.

    The strongest protests came from API, which called EPA's proposed rule "unlawful" and challenged the regulation of methane under the Clean Air Act. API questioned EPA's social cost of methane (SCM) calculation, used to monetize the benefits of the rule.

    Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, also questioned the social cost of methane calculation used by EPA in a letter to Administrator Gina McCarthy.

    "The timing of the SCM's application is seemingly driven by the international climate negotiations so the Obama Administration can cite regulatory actions for methane and tout outlandish benefit estimates for reducing methane conjured by the SCM," he wrote.
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Los Angeles Sues Utility Over Gas Leak

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Emily Alpert Reyes

    Los Angeles has filed a lawsuit against a natural gas utility over its management of a gas leak that has prompted hundreds of families to leave their homes to escape noxious fumes.

    Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said the suit alleges Southern California Gas Co. failed to promptly report the leaking gas well at its facility in Aliso Canyon and was unprepared to fix it. The company's inaction caused a "public nuisance" from bad smells that led to nausea, headaches and nosebleeds, making the Porter Ranch neighborhood "unlivable."

    The leak also will worsen the effects of climate change, the suit alleged.

    The California Air Resources Board has calculated the leak is emitting about 50,000 kilograms of methane per hour, which Feuer said is comparable to the emissions of 200,000 vehicles during one year.

    Southern California Gas spokesman Javier Mendoza said the company had taken quick steps to address the leak and notify regulators, although it's expected to take several months more to fix. Estimates of methane releases were premature and speculative, Mendoza said.

    "We understand the leak has created concerns, heightened awareness and public urgency," Mendoza said. "SoCalGas has the same urgency, and our highest priority is to safely stop the leak as quickly as safety will allow, support the affected customers and reduce the amount of natural gas emitting into the environment during this unfortunate situation" (Emily Alpert Reyes,Los Angeles Times, Dec. 7).

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Senate Dems Blast 'Out of Touch' Cruz Ahead of Hearing

    Dec 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Hannah Northey and Sean Reilly

    Senate Democrats accused Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas today of wasting precious committee time and rehashing settled research by holding a hearing today laden with climate change doubters.

    Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Gary Peters of Michigan, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Bill Nelson of Florida criticized the Republican presidential hopeful for scheduling a hearing this afternoon featuring professors who have expressed doubt about climate science and an author at the center of an escalating legal fight (E&E Daily, Dec. 7).

    Cruz chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness -- the panel that's holding the hearing -- and has said the focus will be on discussing climate science, the effect funding has on the objectivity of research and ways in which politics can suppress opposing views.

    Standing next to a placard that read "Climate change is real. The debate is over. It's time to #actonclimate," the Democrats accused Cruz of pushing the fossil fuel industry's agenda and playing politics on the heels of President Obama's trip to international climate negotiations in Paris last week.

    "Just as America is finally reclaiming the moral and political high ground when it comes to climate ... Ted Cruz is attempting to undermine American leadership on this issue," Schatz said.

    Asked whether it is fair to lump in other congressional Republicans with Cruz, Schatz urged reporters to look at the members' records. For Republicans on the subcommittee, he said, the barometer "is whether they show up and participate in this circus."

    Udall went on to say the threat of climate change shouldn't be politicized. "There's absolutely no bipartisanship here or attempt to be bipartisan," Udall added. "Senator Cruz is out of touch."

    They also took issue with the hearing's witness list, except for Rear Adm. David Titley, a former naval oceanography operations commander and professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University. Titley is an advocate for climate action and was the Democrats' witness.

    "Look at the other three witnesses. All saying that climate change is not real and one of which is not a scientist," said Nelson, the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. "That should tell you something about the motivation of Senator Cruz in calling this hearing."

    Return to headline | Return to top