Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Dec 14
-
(ACC Mentioned) Zack Giffin Is Big On Tiny Houses; See His Handiwork At California Science Center
Dec 12, 2015 | Los Angeles Times
By Michael Darling
The tiny house movement shows no signs of slowing down. Anyone who wants to immerse himself or herself in the phenomenon can opt for magazines, books, websites or the FYI network's "Tiny House Nation," co-hosted by Zack Giffin. Or they can visit the California Science Center, where they can inspect a 170-square-foot tiny house for... -
Odds For TSCA Overhaul Could See Boost From LWCF In Omnibus
Dec 14, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
Rumors that a proposed omnibus spending bill could include language reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund may prove good news for backers of a stalled chemical safety bill. The chemical bill, which would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has failed to reach the Senate... -
New EPA Website For Self-Auditing Seen As Boost For Disclosure Policy
Dec 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA's launch of a new website for facilities to self-report violations of environmental laws is a welcome signal that the agency is standing behind its long-running policy granting more lenient penalties for entities that self-report violations, says an industry source, despite EPA previously appearing to lose interest in the program. -
Obama Administration Could Appeal Fracking Rule Injunction
Dec 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Obama administration attorneys are opening the door to appealing a Wyoming federal court decision that temporarily blocked a new regulation on hydraulic fracturing on federal land. Justice Department attorneys representing the Interior Department filed a “notice of appeal” late Thursday of the appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit... -
Bill to Nix Waste Loophole for Oil, Gas Introduced
Dec 14, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Ware
A bill to eliminate a hazardous waste exemption for oil and gas companies that was added to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1980 was introduced by Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.). The “Closing Loopholes and Ending Arbitrary and Needless Evasion of Regulations Act” (H.R. 4215), introduced Dec. 10, would force oil, gas and... -
How Fracking Has Helped The US Lead On Climate
Dec 11, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Katie Brown, Ph.D.
As representatives from around the world work to finalize an agreement in the last few days at the Paris COP21 climate conference, it’s important to acknowledge the fact that hydraulic fracturing and the increased use of natural gas has done more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than any other government scheme or agreement. -
Eastern States Urge EPA To Expand Oil, Gas Air Rules For More NOx Cuts
Dec 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Eastern states are urging EPA to expand its proposed methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) standards from new and modified oil and gas drilling operations to include direct controls on ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx), saying such controls will be vital in helping states attain EPA's recently tightened ozone air standard. -
SEC Wants More Info On Money Paid By Drillers
Dec 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Federal regulators are pushing new rules to gather more information on energy developers’ payments to the federal government. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a rule Friday that would require fuel and mineral developers to disclose payments they make to the federal government and governments of foreign... -
Bill Bucking Clean Power Plan Pre-Filed in Kentucky
Dec 14, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
Legislation has been pre-filed in Kentucky that would declare it “a sanctuary state from over-reaching regulatory authority” of the Environmental Protection Agency by barring Clean Power Plan compliance without the general assembly's approval. The measure (BR 408) would prohibit the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet from... -
Senate Confirms DOE Office of Science Director Nominee
Dec 14, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Senate confirmed the nomination of Cherry Ann Murray to serve as director of the Energy Department's Office of Science. Murray won Senate confirmation by voice vote on Dec. 10. Her nomination was reported favorably out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee Nov. 19... -
Obama's Fragile Climate Legacy
Dec 13, 2015 | Politico
By Sarah Wheaton
Barack Obama wants to be remembered as the president who saved the world from climate change. But the 195-nation accord aimed at curbing global warming may be the most fragile of his presidential achievements so far. More than any of his other top accomplishments—economic recovery, health care reform, the Iran deal... -
Kerry: Climate Deal Is A 'Signal'
Dec 13, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Kevin Robillard
Secretary of State John Kerry, making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, portrayed the international climate deal struck in Paris on Saturday as an important step in battling climate change, not the final one. Asked about the lack of legally binding mechanisms in the deal to make sure countries meet their carbon emissions... -
Nations Back Historic Paris Climate Pact, Framework For Stricter GHG Limits
Dec 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Nearly 200 countries have come together here to overcome stark differences and agree on a landmark international climate change agreement that for the first time includes efforts by all nations to cut greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and outlines a framework process for progressively strengthening countries' GHG... -
Climate Text Presses For Aggressive Temperature Target, Greenhouse Gas 'Balance'
Dec 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia, Sara Stefanini and Kalina Oroschakoff
The draft international climate deal released today is a careful accommodation between the demands of developed and developing countries. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius released the 31-page text this afternoon that will form the basis for the final climate deal, and which could be approved as early as this afternoon. -
EPA Funding Uncertain As Congress Delays FY16 Bill
Dec 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA's funding levels for fiscal year 2016 remain uncertain as Congress has delayed from Dec. 11 to Dec. 16 its deadline for lawmakers to reach agreement on an omnibus funding measure for FY16, with a Capitol Hill source saying lawmakers are struggling to resolve fights over EPA policy riders, and spending and tax issues. -
Republicans Urge Drought Language for Omnibus
Dec 14, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
House Republicans made what amounted to a last-minute plea Dec. 11 to include in an omnibus appropriations bill measures to alleviate an extraordinarily severe drought in California. During a Capitol Hill news conference, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other members of his party from California alternately criticized Sen... -
Calif. Republicans Slam Feinstein Over Drought Impasse
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss and Debra Kahn
California Republicans today blamed Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for a breakdown in talks over including drought relief legislation in the omnibus spending measure under development, adding that the Golden State will be unable to take advantage of a particularly wet winter from El Niño conditions as a result. -
Drought Bill 'Slight' Likely To Push Negotiations To 2016
Dec 14, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Debra Kahn
Infighting among California's congressional delegation has likely put off a legislative attempt to deal with the state's historic drought for another year. After an apparent attempt to circumvent the state's senators in inserting drought language into the omnibus spending bill, House Republicans on Friday blamed Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) ...
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management 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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Zack Giffin Is Big On Tiny Houses; See His Handiwork At California Science Center
Dec 12, 2015 | Los Angeles Times
By Michael Darling
The tiny house movement shows no signs of slowing down. Anyone who wants to immerse himself or herself in the phenomenon can opt for magazines, books, websites or the FYI network's "Tiny House Nation," co-hosted by Zack Giffin. Or they can visit the California Science Center, where they can inspect a 170-square-foot tiny house for themselves.
Giffin worked with Plastics Make It Possible, a division of the American Chemistry Council, to design the structure, which is made mostly of energy-efficient plastic materials. The exhibit "A Tiny House That's Big on Energy Efficiency" will be on view through Feb. 16.
Before the exhibit opened, we sat down with Giffin, a skier and contractor who moves his own tiny house to slopes around the U.S. each winter, to talk about the tiny trend.
Why do you think there's such an interest in tiny houses?
In my mind [the interest] can be divided into three categories. No. 1 is economics. The process of obtaining wealth through real estate is not a sure [thing] anymore in a lot of people's minds. Another big piece is environmental, and the third piece is the desire to be close within a community.
How did you get involved in the tiny house movement?
I just wanted someplace that was my own. I had rented for long enough and I traveled quite a bit, but I needed that grounded feeling that comes with having a place of my own. It didn't need to be a really big place, but it needed to be mine. I'm a carpenter, so I appreciate the workmanship that goes into these houses.
How did you get involved in designing this house?
[Plastics Make It Possible] commissioned me to build a house showcasing the most advanced plastic building materials … and really do it with a focus on energy efficiency throughout the house.
How did you incorporate plastics into the design?
We used the plastics for the functional aspects and wood for the aesthetics. The idea that I was trying to get out was that it doesn't feel like you're living in a plastic water bottle.
Do you think tiny houses could be used for low-income housing?
The thing that's missing from a lot of lower-income housing options [is that] people have that space, but they don't have pride in it or a personal stake in it. But tiny homes are custom-built, and that process can make the homeowner feel like someone has paid attention to their needs. It means that when you get into that space, you can feel a personal pride in ownership. What I'm trying to do with these homes is show that even though it's lower-cost, you don't have to sacrifice your dignity.
How else can tiny houses play a role in going green?
We have to be careful as Americans of what we're projecting, that the only way to be happy is to have a 3,000-square-foot home. The world can't afford to have all 8 billion people living in 3,000 square feet. When we're addressing climate change and carbon footprints, I think that there's been [too much] conversation about transportation. Our housing accounts for 40% of our country's energy use. What I'm here to say is that [big] isn't what's required to be happy.
-
Odds For TSCA Overhaul Could See Boost From LWCF In Omnibus
Dec 14, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
Rumors that a proposed omnibus spending bill could include language reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund may prove good news for backers of a stalled chemical safety bill.
The chemical bill, which would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has failed to reach the Senate floor despite having the support of a broad majority of senators. The impasse has existed since September, when a few lawmakers decided to hold up the bill to press for changes to LWCF.
If the LWCF issue is resolved in the year-end spending bill, the chemical bill, S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," would seem to have a clear path to the Senate floor.
Lawmakers passed a short-term spending bill Friday to prevent a government shutdown. They planned to continue spending negotiations through the weekend, though no votes are scheduled for today (Greenwire, Dec. 11).
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill in recent weeks have floated the possibility that the LWCF could be among the bargaining chips in a deal to lift the ban on crude oil exports or simply could hop aboard whatever last-ditch plan keeps the federal government open.
Even if the LWCF logjam clears, the bill still may not be considered until February, one lobbyist who has worked on the issue said Friday.
Another said the secretive nature of the negotiations makes it hard to know what will emerge.
"I think you hear every day about different rumors over what's in and outside of these deals," said Alan Rowsome, the senior director of government affairs at the Wilderness Society, "and I'm not sure anybody besides the people that are in the room behind closed doors clearly know."
In a statement, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a co-sponsor of the bill, held out hope that it could reach the floor this month.
Udall said LWCF, which he supports, should be reauthorized and funded on its merits.
"I'm hopeful for a positive outcome in the omnibus that will allow us to move beyond those objections and pass TSCA reform by the end of the year," Udall said.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), another co-sponsor, said in a statement that he is "completely confident that no number of inconsequential distractions will derail the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act's inevitable passage."
There are some signs opponents of LWCF may be softening their rhetoric, though it's not clear how that will affect the Senate.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said Friday that he wouldn't object to a one- or two-year extension of the LWCF without making structural changes to the program as long as the GOP receives "something of value" in the omnibus (E&ENews PM, Dec. 11).
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said last week that Democrats were rumored to want increased funding for U.S. EPA or the LWCF (E&E Daily, Dec. 10).
It's uncertain if Bishop's and Simpson's words carry weight with Senate opponents of LWCF, who in recent months stalled floor consideration of the chemicals bill over the unrelated program. Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Ted Cruz of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona argued in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) earlier this month that leadership should not permit LWCF funding in the omnibus (E&E Daily, Dec. 8).
"This never should have gotten to this point," Rowsome said.
-
New EPA Website For Self-Auditing Seen As Boost For Disclosure Policy
Dec 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA's launch of a new website for facilities to self-report violations of environmental laws is a welcome signal that the agency is standing behind its long-running policy granting more lenient penalties for entities that self-report violations, says an industry source, despite EPA previously appearing to lose interest in the program.
EPA brought the eDisclosure portal online Dec. 9 following the publication of a notice in that day's Federal Register announcing its existence. EPA says on its website that the portal allows businesses to “quickly be able to get some of their more routine types of disclosures resolved."
The industry source says that even though it is unclear whether the portal will have a significant practical impact on operators' ability to report violations of laws such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, the fact that EPA is moving forward with a new mechanism for its self-audit program is encouraging.
“The great news is that we're talking about the continuation of the audit policy. That is a good sign and it reflects a commitment by EPA to continue that policy,” says the source.
“As far as the portal itself -- as always, there's what's on paper, and there's what's ultimately implemented. Obviously we're continuing to read through it and examine what this notice says,” the source adds.
EPA in the Register notice says it is not making any substantive change to the audit policy through the new portal, but hopes to make the reporting process more efficient and thus more accessible to industry.
“Although EPA is not modifying the substantive conditions in its Audit Policy or Small Business Compliance Policy, the eDisclosure portal launched today streamlines and modernizes EPA’s approach to handling disclosures under these two policies. Today’s changes will result in faster and more efficient resolution of self-disclosures, while saving considerable time and resources for regulated entities and EPA,” the notice says.
Companies that can self-report will be looking particularly closely at “how the whole transparency issue looks -- how does it go between regions and headquarters,” the industry source adds.
Stakeholders have recently warned that EPA appears to have shifted focus away from the self-audit policy it launched in 2000, which provides incentives such as penalty mitigation and avoiding criminal prosecution for companies that disclose and correct violations -- provided that the disclosure meets certain standards.
These stakeholders have said that in recent years agency officials seemed to de-prioritize the program, especially as it prepares to shift into its “next generation” enforcement framework. Next generation enforcement would rely less on site inspections to force compliance, and more on advanced monitoring, electronic reporting and self-implementing rules as a matter of course, rather than treating self-reporting as a special case.
In addition, EPA officials have signaled that administering the audit rule takes significant resources and may be inconsistent with EPA's goal of focusing enforcement on violations that pose the greatest risks. For instance, at an American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education (ALI-CLE) seminar earlier this year, Edward McTiernan of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation said federal regulators have “stepped back” from the self-audit program and called on states to step into the “void” created by a lack of EPA activity.
-
Obama Administration Could Appeal Fracking Rule Injunction
Dec 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Obama administration attorneys are opening the door to appealing a Wyoming federal court decision that temporarily blocked a new regulation on hydraulic fracturing on federal land.
Justice Department attorneys representing the Interior Department filed a “notice of appeal” late Thursday of the appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, based in Denver.
An Interior Department spokeswoman said the filing is only a “protective” measure to reserve the agency’s right to file a formal appeal at a later date. But officials have not yet decided whether to do that, the spokeswoman said.Judge Scott Skavdahl of the District Court of Wyoming ruled in September that the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) cannot enforce the rule, citing his doubt that Congress has given regulators authority to write it.“At this point, the court does not believe Congress has granted or delegated to the BLM authority to regulate fracking,” he wrote. “It is hard to analytically conclude or infer that, having expressly removed the regulatory authority from the EPA, Congress intended to vest it in the BLM, particularly where the BLM had not previously been regulating the practice.”
The injunction prevents Interior from enforcing the rule while the court system considers the merits of the case.
Interior has consistently maintained that it acted within the bounds of the law.
The BLM made the rule final in March as the first major regulations on fracking from the federal government.
Fracking has been at the center of the domestic natural gas boom of recent years. But regulators felt that the previous decades-old rules on gas drilling did not sufficiently account for technological advances in the process and environmental concerns about the process.
The state of Wyoming sued, and was soon joined by other states and gas drilling groups, saying Interior does not have the authority to enforce the new standards.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America, one of the groups challenging the rule, said its confident in the merits of its case.
“IPAA has long-said that the federal government’s efforts are duplicative and not needed, given that states are — and have for over 60 years been — in the best position to safely regulate hydraulic fracturing,” spokesman Neal Kirby said.
“BLM’s rule is far-reaching and it has not shown a compelling case that necessitates this rule, nor any specific risk this rule would reduce.”
A coalition of environmental groups that joined the litigation to defend the BLM filed notice Nov. 27 that it was appealing the ruling as well.
-
Bill to Nix Waste Loophole for Oil, Gas Introduced
Dec 14, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Ware
A bill to eliminate a hazardous waste exemption for oil and gas companies that was added to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1980 was introduced by Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.).
The “Closing Loopholes and Ending Arbitrary and Needless Evasion of Regulations Act” (H.R. 4215), introduced Dec. 10, would force oil, gas and geothermal companies “to play by the same rules as other industries,” according to a statement from Cartwright's office.
“Under current federal law, oil and gas companies do not even have to test the majority of their waste to see if it is toxic, leaving us with no way of knowing what is being disposed of and how it is being treated,” Cartwright said in the statement.
The measure was introduced with 100 co-sponsors and endorsed by 206 organizations across the U.S., according to the statement. An aide told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 11 that the congressman is trying to gain more supporters in the House for the bill.
The bill was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
RCRA, enacted in 1976, requires the safe disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials. In 1980, the law was amended to exempt waste from the production and development of oil and natural gas, as well as geothermal waste, the statement said.
States are tasked with regulating disposal of these wastes, and the results are mixed, it said.
“RCRA is meant to protect the public and the environment from hazardous waste,” Cartwright said. “Toxins pose health and environmental risks no matter what industry produces them. It's time to hold oil and natural gas producers to the same standards that other industries have complied with for over 30 years.”
Cartwright filed an identical bill in 2013, his aide said.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
How Fracking Has Helped The US Lead On Climate
Dec 11, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Katie Brown, Ph.D.
As representatives from around the world work to finalize an agreement in the last few days at the Paris COP21 climate conference, it’s important to acknowledge the fact that hydraulic fracturing and the increased use of natural gas has done more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than any other government scheme or agreement.
Without adopting stringent policies such as the Kyoto treaty or cap-and-trade, the United States, the largest economy in the world, has the distinction of being the only country in the world to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. That’s why, in his address to world leaders at COP21, President Obama was able to tout that the “advances we’ve made have helped drive our economic output to all-time highs, and drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly two decades.”
The evidence of shale gas’ enormous role in reducing emissions is all around us. In fact, the world’s most prominent climate scientists, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has credited the fracking boom and U.S. natural gas for the great progress that’s been made on climate change:
“A key development since AR4 is the rapid deployment of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal-drilling technologies, which has increased and diversified the gas supply and allowed for a more extensive switching of power and heat production from coal to gas (IEA, 2012b); this is an important reason for a reduction of GHG emissions in the United States.” (emphasis added)
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), since 2005, natural gas has prevented more than one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted from power plants in the United States. Meanwhile, by comparison, the use of renewable energy has prevented only 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. EIA also noted as natural gas fired electricity generation ramped up, power plant greenhouse gas emissions reached a 27-year low in April 2015.
If that’s not enough, the Paris-based International Energy Agency’s (IEA) latest World Energy Outlook pointed out that natural gas is a “valuable component of a gradually decarbonizing electricity and energy system.” IEA previously hailed the “decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States” as “one of the bright spots in the global picture” and went on to note, “One of the key reasons has been the increased availability of natural gas, linked to the shale gas revolution.”
Finally, The Breakthrough Institute (BTI) – an environmental group founded by individuals whom Time Magazine recognized as “heroes of the environment” – released a report in 2013 that demonstrated that natural gas has prevented 17 times more carbon dioxide emissions than wind, solar, and geothermal combined.
The science has been echoed by Obama, as well as his top regulators and administration officials, all of whom have touted the environmental benefits of natural gas. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy said recently, “Responsible development of natural gas is an important part of our work to curb climate change and support a robust clean energy market at home.” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz noted that natural gas bas “been a big contributor to our carbon reduction.” Obama has pointed out that natural gas “not only can provide safe, cheap power, it can also help reduce our carbon emissions.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) put it well when he explained, “We’ve been improving our emissions in this county without agreeing to the Kyoto accords, without Congressional action because of innovation form the natural gas area.”
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that natural gas has played a huge role in reducing emissions, anti-fracking groups, such as Food & Water Watch, the Sierra Club the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace, among others – who claim climate change poses the “largest environmental threat ever known by humankind” – continue to deny the science.
While they insist the IPCC is “gold standard” for climate science, they refuse to acknowledge what these scientists have determined about natural gas’ climate benefits. They have also launched a campaign that involves denying the science of the EPA’s five year comprehensive study, which found “no widespread, systemic impacts” to groundwater resources. For these groups, the facts and the science take a back seat to their overall ideology of eliminating all fossil fuels – an ideology that even former White House advisor John Podesta has called “completely impractical.”
As the Paris talks come to a close it’s important to remember that if the United States truly wants to make an impact it should move away from activists’ “completely impractical” solutions and instead take heed of the real – and very positive – environmental impacts of natural gas.
-
Eastern States Urge EPA To Expand Oil, Gas Air Rules For More NOx Cuts
Dec 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Eastern states are urging EPA to expand its proposed methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) standards from new and modified oil and gas drilling operations to include direct controls on ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx), saying such controls will be vital in helping states attain EPA's recently tightened ozone air standard.
While EPA's proposed rule focuses on forcing cuts in the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane and VOCs -- which, like NOx, also lead to ozone formation -- the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is urging the agency to update and tighten its 2006 NOx limits for the oil and gas sector.
DEP in Nov. 23 comments filed ahead of a Dec. 4 deadline for input on the rules asks EPA to quickly promulgate amendments to reduce NOx from sources such as stationary spark internal combustion engines, simple cycle turbines, heaters, and re-boilers.
Similarly, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in undated comments says that EPA data show NOx emissions from the industry were estimated at more than 880,000 tons per year in 2011. “Because this represents such a significant and growing source of NOx emissions, DEC urges EPA to address NOx emissions from source categories in this sector that are not currently regulated under the [new source performance standards] NSPS, and update existing standards to require greater reduction levels,” according to DEC's comments.
In separate Dec. 3 comments, Delaware's Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control in Dec. 3 comments points out that VOC and NOx emissions from the sector are often released in close proximity to one another, providing for the atmospheric contact and mixing that facilitates the formation of ozone.
Forcing greater cuts in pollutants that lead to ozone creation could be a major help for eastern states as they weigh strategies for meeting EPA's recently tightened ozone national ambient national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The agency on Oct. 1 revised the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb.
The stricter NAAQS is expected to place some areas out of attainment with the NAAQS for the first time, triggering a Clean Air Act mandate that they craft strict pollution controls on sources of ozone such as power plants or industrial facilities, which can include a reliance on emissions reductions from EPA measures.
Even if EPA opts against tightening its existing NOx limits for oil and gas drilling, the rule could still help reduce ozone levels nationwide through the proposed revised controls on VOC emissions as part of the new source performance standards (NSPS) rulemaking that includes the first-time limit on methane.
Ozone Reductions
The agency alongside the proposed NSPS also released draft control techniques guidelines (CTG) for the sector to help areas in ozone NAAQS nonattainment identify options to reduce air pollution from existing oil and gas drilling operations. The CTGs do not directly impose binding regulations for VOC sources, instead providing recommendations for states to consider in determining reasonable available control technology (RACT) to cut VOC emissions from certain existing sources. States may use different technologies or approaches than are outlined in the CTGs, but RACT is subject to EPA approval and a state must show its approach will achieve the required pollution cuts.
Under section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, states would have to submit revisions to their state implementation plans for complying with the NAAQS to EPA for approval within two years of the agency finalizing the CTGs.
The draft CTG for the oil and gas industry would apply in areas out of attainment with the NAAQS and throughout the 12-state Ozone Transport Region in the Northeast that have struggled with high ozone levels. The region includes Washington, D.C., portions of Northern Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
In Dec. 4 comments, the American Petroleum Institute (API) outlines a number of concerns with the CTGs, including the modeling on which EPA bases its RACT recommendations, faulting the agency's use of economic studies that are based on average facilities that do not account for the full range of sources, and saying that the notification, monitoring, testing and reporting measures are significantly more burdensome for smaller facilities than are justified.
API is also criticizing the NSPS, saying EPA may not lawfully base emissions rules targeting methane solely on a 2009 GHG endangerment finding focused on mobile source carbon dioxide emissions, arguing that section 111 of the Clean Air Act requires the agency to issue a separate finding on methane specific to the oil and gas sector.
“It is unlawful for EPA to regulate only methane from oil and natural gas sources based on an endangerment finding that is largely attributable to other GHG pollutants from non-stationary sources,” API says. “Given that EPA concluded that carbon dioxide from motor vehicles -- not methane -- is the 'driver of climate change,' EPA cannot rely on that past finding in a rule that regulates only methane,” the comments say.
Industry's Concerns
Other industry groups in their comments outline a host of other concerns with the proposed NSPS. Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), which represents the transmission pipeline sector, says that the proposed rule's definition of “modification” improperly assumes that any addition of a compressor or compressor capacity at a compressor station would increase fugitive emissions at the entire station.
INGAA in its Dec. 4 comments urges EPA to narrow and clarify the “modification” definition to specify physical or operational changes that do not increase fugitive emissions.
The American Gas Association (AGA), which represents the transmission and distribution sector, in Dec. 4 comments backs EPA's proposal to not impose a mandatory NSPS for methane or VOC emissions from natural gas distribution systems. But the group says it is “very concerned that the proposed rule does not clearly define the dividing line between transmission and distribution.”
The group objects to EPA’s reliance on the term “city gate,” or “the delivery point at which natural gas is transferred from a transmission pipeline to the local gas utility” but AGA says the term is not used consistently throughout the industry and could create confusion. “To avoid confusion, AGA requests EPA not to use the term 'city gate,' but instead to use the term 'local distribution company (LDC) custody transfer station' -- defined to mean a metering station where the LDC takes the natural gas supply from its upstream supplier, either an interstate transmission pipeline or a local natural gas producer, for delivery to customers through the LDC’s intrastate transmission or distribution lines,” the group says.
-
SEC Wants More Info On Money Paid By Drillers
Dec 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Federal regulators are pushing new rules to gather more information on energy developers’ payments to the federal government.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a rule Friday that would require fuel and mineral developers to disclose payments they make to the federal government and governments of foreign countries to win extraction rights.The rule, if finalized, would apply to oil, natural gas and mineral developers who are otherwise required to make annual reports to the SEC.
The rules are similar to those imposed on drillers by the European Union and Canada, the board said. The rule would “further the statutory objective to advance U.S. policy interests by promoting greater transparency about payments related to resource extraction,” the SEC said in a press release.
“These proposed rules would implement a statutory mandate and require disclosure consistent with other payment transparency disclosure regimes around the world,” SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White said in a statement.
A leading oil and natural gas lobbying group immediately hit back against the rule on Friday.
The American Petroleum Institute said the standards would require drillers to reveal sensitive financial information about their operations and put them at a disadvantage because foreign firms wouldn’t need to file the same paperwork.
“Not only could the rule hurt the millions of Americans who own shares in oil and natural gas companies, it could also cost jobs and damage America’s energy security by making it more difficult for U.S. firms to gain access to resources abroad,” Stephen Comstock, API’s director of tax and accounting policy, said in a statement.
The SEC will collect comments on the proposal until Jan. 25.
-
Bill Bucking Clean Power Plan Pre-Filed in Kentucky
Dec 14, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
Legislation has been pre-filed in Kentucky that would declare it “a sanctuary state from over-reaching regulatory authority” of the Environmental Protection Agency by barring Clean Power Plan compliance without the general assembly's approval.
The measure (BR 408) would prohibit the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet from adopting administrative regulations or imposing permit conditions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants until the agency is authorized to do so by state lawmakers or compelled to do so by federal statute.
According to the bill, pre-filed Dec. 9 by Rep. Jim Gooch (D), the EPA has exaggerated the benefits and underestimated the costs of its Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which calls for Kentucky to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by nearly 30 percent from 2012 levels by 2030.
The Clean Power Plan sets carbon dioxide emissions limits for the power sector in each state, which would be implemented by state regulators.
The legislation would amend KRS 224.20-125 to block cabinet action and assert the state's authority to regulate air quality.
By way of explanation, the bill says the Obama administration “has made serious errors in environmental, energy and foreign policy with disastrous consequences to the nation,” therefore its authority to enforce the Clean Power Plan in Kentucky “is devoid of merit.”
Kentucky Challenges Rule
Kentucky is one of several states suing the EPA for “double regulating carbon dioxide,” said the bill, noting the pollutant is already controlled under other sections of the Clean Air Act (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, responses filed 12/8/15).
Moreover, the bill said, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reserves powers for the states that are not delegated to the federal government.
In his inaugural speech Dec. 8 the state's new governor, Matt Bevin (R), said his administration will fight “federal overreach” by regulatory agencies, notably the EPA, echoing his campaign pledge to ignore federal carbon dioxide regulations on Tenth Amendment grounds (237 DEN A-11, 12/10/15).
Recently, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urged states to simply ignore the EPA's requirement to submit a compliance plan by Sept. 6, 2016, and risk having one imposed on them if the new rules are upheld in court.
A 2012 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found Kentucky leads the nation in toxic air pollution from power plants. Those plants are the main source of man-made greenhouse gasses causing climate change.
The Kentucky General Assembly convenes its 2016 session on Jan. 5.
-
Senate Confirms DOE Office of Science Director Nominee
Dec 14, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Senate confirmed the nomination of Cherry Ann Murray to serve as director of the Energy Department's Office of Science.
Murray won Senate confirmation by voice vote on Dec. 10. Her nomination was reported favorably out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee Nov. 19 (224 DEN A-11, 11/20/15)(223 ECR, 11/19/15)(39 CRR 1399, 11/23/15).
She will be sworn in as early as next week, an Energy Department official told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 11.
For the past year, Murray has been the Benjamin Peirce professor of technology and public policy and professor of physics at Harvard University. She also served as the dean of Harvard University's Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences from 2010-2014.
She previously served as principal associate director for science and technology at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif.(151 DEN A-21, 8/6/15).
“Dr. Murray will be an outstanding director of the Office of Science, drawing upon her experience in academia as professor and dean of one of the country's leading universities of engineering and applied sciences, key R&D leadership roles in industry, and as former head of science and technology at one of the department's national laboratories,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in a Dec. 11 statement.
Oversees 10 National Labs
The Office of Science manages 10 of the Energy Department's 17 national laboratories.
Murray will oversee research in advanced scientific computing, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, fusion energy sciences, high energy physics and nuclear physics, according to the department's statement.
Patricia Dehmer, the deputy director for science programs in the Energy Department's Office of Science, has been serving as acting director of the office since April 2013, when former director William Brinkman left, the department official told Bloomberg BNA.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
Obama's Fragile Climate Legacy
Dec 13, 2015 | Politico
By Sarah Wheaton
Barack Obama wants to be remembered as the president who saved the world from climate change. But the 195-nation accord aimed at curbing global warming may be the most fragile of his presidential achievements so far.
More than any of his other top accomplishments—economic recovery, health care reform, the Iran deal, all of which involved Congress to some extent—Obama’s environmental legacy rests on the exercise of executive power over the objections of Republican lawmakers.
In announcing the deal from the White House on Saturday, the president used pointed language to note that his administration laid the groundwork without help from Congress. He cited new limits on power plant emissions, investments in renewable technologies and an agreement with China to do the same — all actions he took on his own.
"Today thanks to strong, principled American leadership," he said, we'll leave our children "a world that is safer and more secure, more prosperous and more free, and that is our most important mission in our short time here on this earth."
The reliance on presidential authorities means that while Obama can take much of the credit for the agreement, its ultimate success is in the hands of the next administration.
"The President is making promises he can’t keep, writing checks he can’t cash, and stepping over the middle class to take credit for an ‘agreement’ that is subject to being shredded in 13 months," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.
Key parts of the Paris pact are nonbinding, the only way Obama could avoid seeking approval of the deal in Congress, something he knew would be impossible. He learned that lesson in his first term, when cap-and-trade legislation failed on Capitol Hill, prompting the Environmental Protection Agency to develop its own set of greenhouse gas rules. Those regulations are now at the mercy of the courts, which will decide over the coming years whether the president overstepped his authority as president.
It’s a reminder that even as consensus grows among scientists and world leaders about climate change and what must be done to limit its consequences, the U.S. political system is not on board.The global accord, which includes other major polluters like China and India, marks a particular political triumph for Obama over his Republican detractors, said a former top climate adviser.
“All their arguments are being broken down one by one, but they still haven’t been clued in that the rest of the world is moving,” said Heather Zichal, who left the White House in 2013.
Obama has boasted that America has cut its carbon emissions more than any other advanced nation even amid economic recovery, calling moves to pit the environment against the imperative to create jobs a “false choice.” In Paris, Zichal said, the administration made moot the argument that America shouldn’t act alone while others continue polluting. That will make it easier for other Democrats to run on green platforms, Zichal predicted.
“Nobody’s screaming that their energy bills are on fire; jobs have not been lost,” she said.
Obama’s unilateral moves did clear the path for Paris: The U.S. commitment to lower emissions is based on the new power-plant emissions regulations imposed by the EPA earlier this year, and Obama cited the need to have credibility going into the talks as a key factor in his decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline last month.
And early in his presidency, Obama played a direct and personal role when he and Hillary Clinton, then his secretary of state, realized that the leaders of developing countries were suspiciously absent from sessions of an earlier U.N. conference in Copenhagen. According to Clinton's memoirs, they barged into a secret meeting called by the Chinese in an apparent effort to isolate the U.S., with Obama calling out "Mr. Premier!" to force Premier Wen Jiabao to include them in the discussion.
Then a year ago, Obama personally negotiated a deal with the Chinese that committed both countries to concrete emissions reductions, which was arguably the key step toward gaining the participation of the rest of the developing world. China’s credibility took a hit earlier this year when it revealed that its emissions were much higher than initially acknowledged in the bilateral deal with the U.S., off by a staggering 17 percent, but the revelation did not scuttle the larger deal.
Still, a number of U.S. disputes could tarnish or threaten the deal even before Obama leaves office.
As international negotiators were haggling over the fine print in Le Bourget, congressional aides in Washington were approaching a deal for the budget that is likely to end a 40-year ban on exporting American crude oil. The provision, enacted in response to the energy crisis of the 1970s, would have minimal impact on the climate. But the psychological defeat for greens puts the White House in an awkward position. That's because administration officials may want advocacy groups to be more vocal about their displeasure about the limits in the Paris deal, like limited financing for poor countries to move to clean energy, and a lack of hard commitments to keep temperatures from rising above 2 degrees Celsius. Island nations made a push to lower that goal to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
“The threshold for climate leadership is clear: Binding inclusion of indigenous and human rights, significant finance for less developed nations, a 1.5 degree target, and a commitment to set stronger reduction targets in the coming years with greater domestic reductions now,” Rainforest Action Network director Lindsey Allen said in an email.
“So even though President Obama has brought a needed course correction from previous obstructionist administrations, let's be clear that a climate leader is one that uses their full leverage in the face of this global challenge. And Obama has yet to rise to that bar,” Allen added, calling on the president to bar oil drilling on public lands.Other leading climate groups gave Obama more credit.
“Decisive leadership and action from President Obama and other world leaders, an increasingly powerful climate movement, and strong progress in the U.S. and globally to move off coal cleared the way for every nation to come to the table,” said Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune in a statement. “This historic international agreement is what the American people demanded, what future generations deserve, and what the world needs.”
In his remarks at the White House, Obama acknowledged that "the problem's not solved because of this accord.“ However, he insisted that it "will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change and will pave the way for even more progress in successive stages over the coming years.”
"So I believe this moment can be a turning point for the world," Obama concluded. "We’ve shown that the world has both the will and the ability to take on this challenge."
He didn't complete the thought out loud, but he didn't need to: At least for now. At least until the next election cycle.
-
Kerry: Climate Deal Is A 'Signal'
Dec 13, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Kevin Robillard
Secretary of State John Kerry, making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, portrayed the international climate deal struck in Paris on Saturday as an important step in battling climate change, not the final one.
Asked about the lack of legally binding mechanisms in the deal to make sure countries meet their carbon emissions targets, Kerry said the marketplace would do what governments could not.
"The result will be a very clear signal to the marketplace of the world, that people are moving into low-carbon, no-carbon, alternative, renewable energy, and I think it’s going to create millions of jobs, enormous investments into R&D, and that R&D is going to create the solutions, not government," Kerry said on ABC's "This Week."
Kerry also said he was confident a GOP candidate who denies the existence of climate change couldn't win the presidency. Many of the Republicans running for president said they wouldn't have participated in the Paris talks and wouldn't work to implement the deal.
"I don’t believe the American people, who predominately do believe what is happening with climate change ... are going to accept as a genuine leader someone who doesn’t understand the science of climate change and isn’t willing to do something about it," Kerry said.
On NBC's "Meet The Press," Kerry said he was confident President Barack Obama would defend the agreement from a legislative assault. Some Republicans have suggested blocking funding for implementation.
"if people want to tempt the President's veto, I really believe they do so inviting him to take the steps that he will do to protect what he believes is a critical, urgent, national security issue for our country," Kerry said. "And the president, as you know, has been able to secure money for clinical programs on the basis of the fact that there is that check and balance between the Congress and the executive. So I think the President's going to stand up for his program, no matter what."
-
Nations Back Historic Paris Climate Pact, Framework For Stricter GHG Limits
Dec 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Nearly 200 countries have come together here to overcome stark differences and agree on a landmark international climate change agreement that for the first time includes efforts by all nations to cut greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and outlines a framework process for progressively strengthening countries' GHG targets.
The Paris Agreement, as it is known, creates a framework for cooperative international climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, and could ultimately drive much stricter climate policies in multiple sectors in the United States and other countries.
The agreement was gaveled into force by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius shortly before 7:30 p.m. Paris time on Dec. 12, following a short plenary meeting of countries' representatives.
Fabius shortly afterward joined with French President Francois Hollande and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who had earlier given strong speeches urging countries to approve the deal.
“We have come to a defining moment on a long journey,” Ban told the delegates. “The document with which you have just been presented is historic. It promises to set the world on a new path to a low-emissions, climate resilient future.”
But many sources note that while the Paris agreement is historic, there remains much work to be done to implement key provisions in the deal, which aims to provide a broad international approach to post-2020 climate efforts and has been in the works for years.
While Paris “puts a marker down” for when emissions will start being reduced, “more work is going to need to be done,” Nathaniel Keohane, Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) vice president for global climate, told reporters on the sidelines of the conference here Dec. 12
The deal – approved at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – was approved by consensus, as is required under U.N. procedure, after two weeks of tough negotiations at the summit.
The Obama administration sought to play a leading role in the deal, with Secretary of State John Kerry present all week – one of his longest commitments, one source says.
The U.S. effort drew praise from many groups. Tim Gore of Oxfam said the U.S. displayed a “sea change” in its leadership efforts from the “dark days” when it was not seriously engaged. He also had high praise for the leadership of island nations, the Philippines, Columbia and Peru for showing ambition in their own pledges and setting the tone in seeking high ambition.
However, he criticized the U.S. and the European Union for not living up to is responsibilities, in particular on finance.
The final deal aims to balance the interests of a variety of countries on the deal's long-term temperature goal, a process to boost the ambition of countries' targets every five years, climate finance for developing countries, climate-related “loss and damage,” and monitoring and reporting provisions of GHG reductions, known as transparency.
Also, key to the Obama administration is that the deal was crafted in a way that will allow it to avoid Senate ratification. Further, there is strong language on the use of emission trading markets.
Carefully Crafted
he final deal appears to include all of the major issues that countries across the development spectrum said they had to have in a deal, though the language was carefully crafted to win wide approval.
“The tension between each of the elements held the whole thing together,” said Thomas Spencer, of the Paris-based Institute for Sustainable Development & International Relations, during a Dec. 12 press briefing. He added that the deal is “far above a lowest common denominator agreement.”
EDF's Keohane said that the final text contains “artful language,” including that its long-term goal is “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.”
He called that a “wonky way of expressing emission neutrality” in order to garner broad agreement, such as addressing India's overarching concerns that it be able to continue with planned coal plant development along with boosting renewables in order to bring electricity to 300 million residents, as it emerged in a new role as a leader of developing nations.
The long-term goal also coincides with previously released language aiming to limit pre-industrial global temperature increases to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, while “making efforts” to limit such increases to 1.5 degrees.
One source notes that the reference to the stricter goal – a key demand from poor, vulnerable countries – will result in periodic reports showing the “gap” between efforts and both temperature goals, which could provide added pressure on governments and business to boost their efforts. Samantha Smith of World Wildlife Fund said the 1.5-degree language marks a “critical threshold” for the Arctic, coral reefs, tropical forests and island dwellers.
On the crucial issue of finance, the deal explicitly says developed parties will finance developing countries. Also, “Other parties are encouraged to provide, or continue to provide such support voluntarily.” Further, the deal sets a $100 billion floor for post-2020 commitments from developed nations, though that is in included in a separate “decision document” that is not legally binding, and it says a new floor will be determined by 2025 – something environmentalists said was disappointing.
Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, tells InsideEPA/climate that the agreement "provides the broad foundation for meaningful progress on climate change, and represents a dramatic departure from the Kyoto Protocol and 20 years of climate negotiations. This is only a foundation for progress, of course, but is a sufficiently broad foundation to make increased ambition over time potentially feasible for the first time.”
Even so, Stavins warns that it will take 10 to 20 years to know if the Paris Agreement is “truly successful.”
'High-Ambition' Group
One key turning point during the two-week talks was the announcement of a “high-ambition coalition” that brought together wealthy countries such as the United States and EU, as well as poorer developing nations such as small island states. The group continued to attract members in the closing days, including medium-sized countries such as Mexico, Chile and Canada. On the final day of negotiations, it even gained Brazil as a member, which was seen as a key political coup to pressure China and India to accept a deal.
The coalition served “to exert pressure on the major emerging economies from both developed countries and vulnerable developing countries,” said Elliot Diringer of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). “The small island countries have very different interests than China, and pressure from them on China helps deliver a deal.”
As the group continued to press for a strong deal, large developing countries such as China and South Africa, which are not members, were forced to state publicly that they were also for “ambition” in the deal.
A critical component of that ambition is a tool to require countries to “take stock” of their progress toward meeting long-term temperature goals, and to subsequently revise their GHG mitigation targets. Keohane also called language on the issue “artful” because it sought to overcome Chinese resistance to an early initial review after it submitted a 10-year plan, through 2030.
Now, the language says all parties “shall” reconvene in five years, but does not require the goals to be ratcheted up in 2020, though it does say the plans “will represent a progression.” Keohane says that “creates a very strong expectation to come back in five years to address ambition.”
The decision document released alongside the agreement would require a “stock take” of progress in 2018, followed by future cycles each five years. Michael Jacobs of the New Climate Economy Project said that the language on the reviews is slightly stronger than previous drafts of the deal. “This is an incredibly strong architecture of legally binding rules to require every country to do this in successive five year cycles,” he said.
And Jake Schmidt of the Natural Resources Defense Council praised language for requiring expert-level and multi-lateral progress reviews.
Non-Binding Targets
As expected, the deal does not make countries' GHG reduction targets binding at an international level. Instead, targets will be “nationally determined” and based on policies that are domestically binding. The EU had pushed for binding targets, but conceded early in the talks that such a demand would cross a “red line” for the United States.
Observers widely agreed that including binding targets in the deal would require the pact to be sent to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, and the GOP-controlled chamber almost certainly would not approve the deal.
Language in the final deal says that countries “shall pursue domestic mitigation measures with the aim of achieving the objectives of” their targets, with observers saying the “aim of achieving” phrase makes the sentence fall just short of a legally binding requirement.
Daniel Bodansky of C2ES says that phrase is key because it mirrors language in the original UNFCCC, which the Obama administration has argued is the framework for this deal.
Also, the language in the financing section saying that “Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention,” also directly refers to the original convention that was ratified by the Senate.
Given the U.S. position on the issue, Jacobs said, “That is about as strong a legal basis as can be found.”
But Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group that opposes the deal and is seeking Senate ratification, told InsideEPA/climate Dec. 9 that his group will argue that the agreement “is in fact a treaty that requires ratification. [U.S. climate envoy] Todd Stern is looking for the magic words to make it not a treaty.”
However, he did acknowledge that the Senate is unlikely to break a precedent of not exercising its constitutional authority on not offering advise and consent unless asked, even in the current harsh partisan atmosphere. “I'm not sure there will be a vote about Paris,” he said. “But there will be a ratcheting down of the EPA budget” as a result of Paris.
The deal also includes a robust section on trading markets, allowing countries to using “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes” to implement their targets. It also would create a “mechanism” to promote GHG mitigation efforts that could be used to create credits. It also says countries shall use “robust rules” to ensure there is no “double counting” of emission cuts.
“We're pleased to see the [deal] enhanced cooperation through market approaches,” says Dirk Forrister of the International Emissions Trading Association. “It also includes a mechanism for sustainable development, open for all who want to use it. Crucially, these are both underpinned by robust accounting provisions.”
Transparency, Liability
Another critical item, at least for the United States, is that the transparency language moves to a single system but does not use the words “common” or “unified,” as it had sought. Instead, it sets up a framework to move toward a single system with flexibility recognizing countries differing abilities, and imposes a 2018 deadline for that process to be determined. Diringer said the key term will be whether “flexibility” means bifurcated or not.
And while there is a stand-alone article on loss and damage, recognizing that climate impacts will occur even under robust mitigation and adaptation efforts – something that the United States initially opposed – Stavins notes that the decision text explicitly says there is no liability or compensation triggered. “That decision was absolutely essential from the perspective of the largest emitters,” he says.
Also, environmentalists noted that the first-time loss-and-damage article will be accompanied by new litigation efforts, with Oxfam's Gore noting this is “not the end of the fight around liability.”
Moreover, sources say the administration's push for a nuanced approach to differentiation – reflecting developed and developing countries' roles in addressing climate change – was ultimately aimed at getting a “foot in the door” toward finally removing a binary treatment of the two groups of countries that was enshrined in the 1992 UNFCCC.
That effort was first reflected in a document approved at 2014 U.N. talks in Lima. That document reiterated the long-standing notion that countries have “common but differentiated responsibilities,” but also added the phrase, “in light of different national circumstances.”
The new “in light of” phrase, which is also included in the final Paris deal, aims to reflect that some developing countries are becoming industrialized and growing increasingly wealthy, and as such should start to contribute to international climate efforts.
That more nuanced treatment is reflected in several portions of the deal, however, the United States' position for a larger role for developing countries in several areas was watered down to reach agreement.
Mainstream environmental groups offered strong praise for the Paris deal. Ned Helme of the Center for Clean Air Policy tells InsideEPA/climate Dec. 12 that he is “optimistic that Paris will start a race to the top. The challenge now before us is to achieve concrete action in every nation.”
Additionally, Ray Kopp of Resources for the Future tells InsideEPA/climate that the Paris process “has resulted in a complete re-boot of the manner in which the world will deal with the climate change. The new, bottom-up process of pledge and review guarantees for the first time all nations agree to take voluntary actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This stands in sharp contrast to the previous top-down Kyoto process where only developed countries were expected to act and where little was accomplished in terms of global emission reductions. Time will tell how effective the new regime will be.” Groups that tend to push for stricter policies, however, said the deal was too weak for those most at risk. Those two types of groups had appeared fractured just ahead of the announcement.
-
Climate Text Presses For Aggressive Temperature Target, Greenhouse Gas 'Balance'
Dec 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia, Sara Stefanini and Kalina Oroschakoff
The draft international climate deal released today is a careful accommodation between the demands of developed and developing countries.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius released the 31-page text this afternoon that will form the basis for the final climate deal, and which could be approved as early as this afternoon. Negotiators will meet again at 3:45 p.m. Paris time to debate the document and potentially make changes.
The legally binding portion of the text calls for limiting the global warming to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. In a win for small islands and other vulnerable countries, it says nations should "pursue efforts" to keep temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), "recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change."
The text sets a goal of reaching "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible" and undertaking "rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science" to find a balance between human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and those that are naturally absorbed in the second half of the century. That language, though vague, appears to indicate a goal of putting the planet on a path toward net zero emissions, although it does not specifically cite "neutrality," a concession to countries like China and India.
Developing countries secured a standalone article that specifically recognizes the importance of “averting, minimizing and addressing” the loss and damage caused by climate change, both from extreme weather events such as storms and slow-onset events like droughts.
The draft says governments should improve their understanding, work and support of what can be done for loss and damage, and points to early warning systems, comprehensive risk assessment and management and risk insurance, among other measures.
It does not, however, make any mention of liability or compensation for loss and damage caused by climate change, which would have been a red line for the United States, U.K. and other developed countries.
The draft includes language in the non-binding portion of the text that urges countries to set a "new collective quantified goal" that goes beyond the previous pledge to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 from public and private sources. The decision to put that language in the non-binding portion of the deal is a concession to the U.S., where domestic political opposition is preventing President Barack Obama from agreeing to legally binding financial targets.
Developing countries had pushed back hard against attempts by developed countries to broaden the donor base to include emerging developing nations in the global effort to mobilize financial the resources to combat climate change. The text continues to put pressure on wealthy countries to step up their financial commitments progressively, while other countries are "encouraged" to follow suit on a voluntary basis.
The binding portion of the text also commits countries to take stock of their domestic climate change plans starting in 2023 and then every five years after that. It calls on countries to submit new domestic climate plans every five years. Those plans should represent a "progression" beyond their previous plans and "reflect [countries'] highest possible ambition."
Greens and civil society groups were quick to welcome the text. "Crucially the Paris Accord has not left poor countries behind. Richer countries have committed to deliver the finance they promised to help developing countries adapt and grow in a clean and sustainable way,” said Mohamed Adow of Christian Aid.
-
EPA Funding Uncertain As Congress Delays FY16 Bill
Dec 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA's funding levels for fiscal year 2016 remain uncertain as Congress has delayed from Dec. 11 to Dec. 16 its deadline for lawmakers to reach agreement on an omnibus funding measure for FY16, with a Capitol Hill source saying lawmakers are struggling to resolve fights over EPA policy riders, and spending and tax issues.
The Senate on Dec. 10 approved by voice vote the five-day extension for the current continuing resolution (CR) that is funding EPA and other government agencies at existing levels. The House at press time was expected to approve the measure, giving Congress more time to reach a deal and avoid a government shutdown.
A Democratic staffer says negotiations on the omnibus bill have run into a “roadblock” created both by conflicts over environmental and other policy riders, and the push for a separate deal on extending an array of tax cuts set to expire soon.
“There is a degree to which the appropriations conversation is intertwined with discussion on tax extenders, and that is happening mainly at the leadership level,” complicating the process, the staffer says.
Talks over the FY16 omnibus in particular have been slowed by the push by some of EPA's GOP critics to include language blocking rules they oppose, with Democrats continuing to demand a “clean” spending bill without environmental policy provisions.
“We continue to believe that Republicans need to drop the ideological policy riders that are causing this roadblock,” the staffer says.
Prominent budget riders under debate include measures blocking EPA's controversial greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants, and the Clean Water Act rule on which waterbodies are protected as “waters of the United States.”
The tax-cut negotiations have reportedly expanded to include lifting the decades-old ban on crude oil exports, a priority for Republicans, and reauthorizing the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which Democrats have urged since the fund expired earlier this year.
A deal on the LWCF could also allow legislation reworking the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to move forward, since the Senate's TSCA reform bill has stalled over attempts to attach LWCF reauthorization to it as an amendment. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) has refused to allow the bill to come to a vote without a reauthorization rider, but Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and other GOP senators oppose reauthorization of the fund without changes to how it operates and would fight the amendment.
-
Republicans Urge Drought Language for Omnibus
Dec 14, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
House Republicans made what amounted to a last-minute plea Dec. 11 to include in an omnibus appropriations bill measures to alleviate an extraordinarily severe drought in California.
During a Capitol Hill news conference, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other members of his party from California alternately criticized Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for walking back from a compromise effort and said there is still a possibility to get the needed language into an omnibus fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill by Dec. 16.
“I ask, what will it take?” McCarthy said, lamenting what he saw as a reluctance on the part of Feinstein to reach a final deal with the speed that the drought crisis merited.
The lawmakers stressed the opportunity to change federal water management practices immediately so that surplus water from the winter rainy season can be captured and stored or channeled to users. They added that the idea to add California drought and water management language to the omnibus was Feinstein's.
Feinstein issued a statement minutes before the news conference saying she expected to have another bill ready next week to move through regular order, starting at the committee level. Republicans said that process would not occur fast enough.
“The rain is coming. The omnibus is moving,” Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) said.
If instead a pair of Senate and House bills must move through the usual committee routes and a House-Senate conference, “we're going to blow this window and go on to June or July,” Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) said.
Environmental Law Elements Disputed
Feinstein distanced herself a week earlier from the attempt to use the omnibus appropriations bill. She reinforced her position in her Dec. 11 statement by objecting that she and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) had not vetted all final drought-related language for the omnibus.
“The bill that Republicans tried to place in the omnibus last week—in my name and without my knowledge—hadn't been reviewed by me, Senator Boxer, the state or the White House. Each of those parties is key to coming up with a bill that can actually be signed into law,” Feinstein said.
“There were at least a half-dozen items in the bill that I had rejected and that would have drawn objections from state or federal agencies—some of them would likely violate environmental law,” she said. “Several more provisions were still being negotiated and hadn't been reviewed by state or federal stakeholders.”
McCarthy said the language offered for the omnibus was “largely a byproduct of months of negotiation and compromise.” Republicans received a letter from the Obama administration agreeing that nothing in the compromise language violated the Endangered Species Act or the regulatory decisions, called biological opinions, issued under authority of the act, he said.
Half of the language offered for the omnibus was verbatim from Feinstein's proposals, and half was watered-down versions of Republican proposals, leaving out a Republican proposal rejected by Feinstein, according to Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.).
McClintock added that Feinstein has a long history of inserting water-related language into omnibus appropriations bills and in fact has some such language already in the pending omnibus.
‘Why Are We Not Doing That?'
McCarthy said Feinstein's motivation in thinking of adding the drought bill to the omnibus was the same as that of the Republicans—to make immediate changes allowing surplus rainy-season water to be captured rather than allowed to flow out to sea.
The idea would be to pump more water out of rivers into canals and storage when storms add more water to the rivers than are needed to meet the requirements of endangered fish species.
“Why are we not doing that?” LaMalfa said. “It's common sense.”
Those hopes for surplus water are augmented by forecasts that the El Niño weather phenomenon will increase rains in California in the coming months. The state's rainy season typically runs from November to March.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates extensive water infrastructure in California through what is called the Central Valley Project. Change in its operations would be at the heart of the strategy of capturing surplus stormwater.
Other elements of the compromise legislation were oriented more toward long-term solutions, such as greater support for desalination projects and more water storage.
-
Calif. Republicans Slam Feinstein Over Drought Impasse
Dec 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss and Debra Kahn
California Republicans today blamed Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for a breakdown in talks over including drought relief legislation in the omnibus spending measure under development, adding that the Golden State will be unable to take advantage of a particularly wet winter from El Niño conditions as a result.
In a press conference, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other members repeatedly accused Feinstein of "moving the goal posts" during months of negotiations on compromise drought provisions.
"We met every criteria" Feinstein sought, McCarthy said, saying the deal under discussion would not have violated the Endangered Species Act or biological opinions governing species management in the state. "This is too important to play politics."
In a statement released ahead of the event, Feinstein accused Republicans of retaining provisions she had already rejected.
"The bill that Republicans tried to place in the omnibus last week -- in my name and without my knowledge -- hadn't been reviewed by me, Senator [Barbara] Boxer [D-Calif.], the state or the White House. Each of those parties is key to coming up with a bill that can actually be signed into law," she said.
"There were at least a half-dozen items in the bill that I had rejected and that would have drawn objections from state or federal agencies -- some of them would likely violate environmental law. Several more provisions were still being negotiated and hadn't been reviewed by state or federal stakeholders," she added.
Feinstein said that she believed the two sides had "come to closure on virtually all of the issues," and expected language early next week that state and federal agencies could sign off on. She indicated she would consult with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on moving the bill through regular order.
Pressed by a reporter on Feinstein's statement on a new bill, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) said, "This is the first I've heard of that."
"I wish her luck" in passing the bill through the Senate via regular order, he added.
The House members repeatedly criticized Feinstein for abandoning the omnibus as a vehicle for tackling drought.
"Taking advantage of a must-pass omnibus was Senator Feinstein's idea, and I agreed" with the idea, Calvert said.
Feinstein and House Republicans have been working for the past two years on legislation dealing with California's ongoing drought, now in its fourth year. One of the main points of contention has been over whether to maintain existing Endangered Species Act protections for fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the state's main water delivery hub.
House Republicans tried to insert drought language into the omnibus government spending bill last December, as well, but failed after Feinstein, Boxer and the White House came out in opposition to the House-passed bill (E&ENews PM, Dec. 9, 2014).
Negotiations hit a speed bump last week when McCarthy attempted an end run around California's Senate delegation, introducing language for inclusion in the omnibus that closely resembled a House-passed bill from earlier this year. While it includes areas of bipartisan agreement, including language on water storage, reuse and recycling projects and assistance for small, low-income communities, it also contains language similar to a House-passed bill from earlier this year. That bill, H.R. 2898, would loosen environmental restrictions and raise the bar for how much water should be pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to parched agricultural communities in the Central Valley and municipalities farther south.
The draft had Feinstein's name attached, but she immediately distanced herself herself from it and this week said she opposed the attempt to include language in the omnibus (E&ENews PM, Dec. 4).
Feinstein and Boxer's measure, S. 1894, would take a less proscriptive approach, instead offering federal agencies more flexibility to make decisions aimed at increasing flows, while also making significant investments in desalination, water recycling and other long-term efforts (E&E Daily, Oct. 28).
-
Drought Bill 'Slight' Likely To Push Negotiations To 2016
Dec 14, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Debra Kahn
Infighting among California's congressional delegation has likely put off a legislative attempt to deal with the state's historic drought for another year.
After an apparent attempt to circumvent the state's senators in inserting drought language into the omnibus spending bill, House Republicans on Friday blamed Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for the breakdown in talks (Greenwire, Dec. 11).
"The deal was close to being done, but unfortunately, Senator Feinstein took umbrage over something that occurred in a closed-door meeting," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.). "That small slight was not worth throwing away all that we achieved."
The "slight" was that Feinstein's name was attached to draft language that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) introduced Dec. 4 as a potential addition to the omnibus bill (E&ENews PM, Dec. 4). Feinstein blasted the move, saying the language didn't reflect her position, and withdrew her support for including it in the must-pass spending bill.
"There were at least a half-dozen items in the bill that I had rejected and that would have drawn objections from state or federal agencies -- some of them would likely violate environmental law," she said in a statement last week. "Several more provisions were still being negotiated and hadn't been reviewed by state or federal stakeholders."
Feinstein and House Republicans have been working for the past two years on legislation dealing with California's ongoing drought, now in its fourth year. One of the main points of contention has been over whether to maintain existing Endangered Species Act protections for fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the state's main water delivery hub.
This year's work was substantively a reprise of last year's efforts, although the endgame differed slightly. House Republicans tried to insert drought language into the omnibus government spending bill last December, as well, but failed after Feinstein, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the White House came out in opposition to the House-passed bill (E&ENews PM, Dec. 9, 2014).
This year, the sides appeared closer to agreement on the language of the bill, although there were still conflicts over the Republicans' main objective -- tweaks to operational criteria in the delta that would send more water south to farms and cities. The latest public language would have directed managers of the state and federal water delivery systems to maximize deliveries from the delta, especially during the first few storms of the year, in addition to boosting water storage, reuse and recycling projects and assistance for small, low-income communities affected by the drought.
Talks continued after the House-Senate rupture, and Feinstein expressed optimism Friday ahead of the Republicans' news conference.
"We've worked hard all week to resolve these outstanding provisions, and I believe we've come to closure on virtually all of them," she said. "I expect that by early next week we'll have a bill that the state and federal government can sign off on. At that point, I plan to present the bill to Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman [Lisa] Murkowski [R-Alaska] and ranking member [Maria] Cantwell [D-Wash.] and discuss the best way to move the bill forward through regular order."
But Calvert was circumspect on Feinstein's proposal to move a bill via regular order.
"This is the first I've heard of that," he said. "I wish her luck."
It was unclear whether the Obama administration had reviewed the latest bill. Calvert said the administration had indicated that the language did not violate the Endangered Species Act or the biological opinions protecting delta smelt and chinook salmon under the law but then "walked it back." Feinstein said the language hadn't been reviewed by the White House or by California officials, but others said that it had gone through agency review.
House Democrats expressed frustration at the proceedings.
"The Republican response to our senators this morning was more than disappointing," said Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who last week led a letter from 21 House Democrats to President Obama asking him to keep the drought language out of the omnibus. "Despite their statements, I do not agree that this was an open and transparent process. These unfinished negotiations did not receive final sign-off from our Senate and House colleagues and certainly did not result in a fully vetted bipartisan product."
McNerney said he would introduce a bill early next year promoting "forward-thinking water and energy policies along with a focus on regional self-sufficiency and water infrastructure."
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management 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