Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/18/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why U.S. Chemical Production Is Forecast To Rise In 2016
Dec 18, 2015 | Chemical Engineering
By Marc S. Reisch
Despite a strong dollar and a faltering global economy, U.S. chemical production will continue to rise in 2016 thanks to the availability of low-cost energy and raw materials and strong gains in U.S. sales of cars and new homes. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Senate Passes Chemical Safety Bill
Dec 18, 2015 | Chemicals Technology
The US Senate has passed the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, by voice vote, to regulate the chemicals industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) And Just Like That, TSCA Passes Senate
Dec 18, 2015 | Politico Pro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
The Senate, by voice vote and with no debate, last night approved a sweeping update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, an amazingly swift resolution to a years-long and drama-filled effort that picked up major momentum this year. -
Senators Seek Deal with House as TSCA Bill Nears Finish Line
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers have yet to determine whether an overhaul of the nation's chemical safety system will be considered by a conference committee or can be worked out in private, senators said today. -
Senators Celebrate Victory with Chemical Safety Reform
Dec 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A bipartisan group of senators celebrated victory Friday after years of negotiations toward a major chemical safety bill that passed the Senate Thursday night. -
A Moment to Celebrate: Senate Passes Bill to Reform Outdated Chemical Safety Law
Dec 18, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Karin Rives
The United States just took a huge step toward bringing our woefully outdated chemical safety law into the 21st century. -
Feds Increase Efforts To Target Worker Safety Crimes
Dec 18, 2015 | Construction Equipment
In an effort to prevent and deter crimes that put the lives and the health of workers at risk, the Departments of Justice and Labor announced today a plan to more effectively prosecute such crimes. -
Cyber Info Sharing Helps and Haunts Energy Firms
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Congress is poised to turn on the tap for online threat data as part of a $1.15 trillion spending bill. -
VA Expands Disability Eligibility to More Camp Lejeune Vets
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Ben Panko
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has moved to grant presumptive disability status to more veterans who served at the heavily polluted Camp Lejeune military base, drawing praise from North Carolina's senators. -
More States Pondering a Challenge to EPA Climate Rule -- Source
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Three more states are considering piling onto a massive lawsuit targeting the Obama administration's sweeping new climate rule, according to a pro-coal lobbying group. -
Comply with the Clean Power Plan? No Problem for the Northwest
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By David Ferris
As states and utilities across the country struggle with how to meet the demands of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, the states of the Pacific Northwest will clear their hurdles with relatively little effort, according to a new regional strategic document. -
N.C. Agency to Take Up EPA Compliance Strategy in Feb.
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission will hold a special hearing in February to vote on its response to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, a response that is widely expected to expand the governor's legal challenge to the Obama administration's climate initiative. -
Why the Paris Agreement Could Mark the Beginning of the End for Global Warming Denial
Dec 18, 2015 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
After 195 countries agreed in Paris Dec. 12 to a sweeping agreement to try to bring global warming under control, there has been much analysis of what this means for the future of energy. But there are reasons to think that it also may have a surprising impact on the future of politics, even in the U.S. -
Water and Rock Could be Mixing a Radioactive Cocktail -- Study
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A team of Dartmouth College researchers are seeking to understand the processes that transform frack fluid -- a combination of fresh water, sand and chemicals -- into briny, radioactive waste. -
EPA Region Should Better Oversee Monitoring Sites -- IG
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA's Region 6 could do a better job of keeping tabs on sites that monitor for fine particulates, according to a report released yesterday by the agency's inspector general. -
Congress Approves Spending Deal Lifting Oil Export Ban
Dec 18, 2015 | Politico Pro
By Darren Goode
Congress sent a massive spending deal to the White House Friday that would lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports while extending clean energy tax breaks and preserving President Barack Obama’s ability to adhere to the commitments he made as part of the global climate deal reached in Paris this month.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why U.S. Chemical Production Is Forecast To Rise In 2016
Dec 18, 2015 | Chemical Engineering
By Marc S. Reisch
Despite a strong dollar and a faltering global economy, U.S. chemical production will continue to rise in 2016 thanks to the availability of low-cost energy and raw materials and strong gains in U.S. sales of cars and new homes.
“The fundamentals are strong,” says T. Kevin Swift, chief economist of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S. chemical industry’s major trade association, which just released its 2016 forecast. In 2015, “consumer spending accelerated, the job market began to firm, and households enjoyed extra savings from lower energy costs,” Swift says, setting the stage for strong chemical output in 2016.
Accordingly, U.S. chemical production, excluding pharmaceuticals, will rise 3.1% in 2016, ACC predicts, after a 3.8% increase this year.
The outlook, Swift notes, is much better than in Europe, where economic growth is slower and producers don’t have the advantage of the low-cost shale-derived energy and feedstocks available to U.S. producers. The European Chemical Industry Council, the European counterpart to ACC, anticipates a 1.0% production increase in 2016 after a 0.5% rise this year.
As the world economy slowly recovers, Swift says, low-cost shale gas will allow U.S. chemical and polymer makers to boost exports and remain among the lowest-cost producers globally. ACC forecasts that the U.S. chemical trade surplus, an expected $34.1 billion in 2015, will reach $59.1 billion in 2020.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Senate Passes Chemical Safety Bill
Dec 18, 2015 | Chemicals Technology
The US Senate has passed the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, by voice vote, to regulate the chemicals industry.
It will pave way for overhauling the federal regulatory law for chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA).
The passage of the bill will set standards of safety, as well as strengthening government control in regulating all kinds of chemicals.
The bill, considered to be the first move towards drafting regulations for governing unsafe chemicals in around 40 years, seeks to provide a new set of protection for people, belonging to various quarters.
Sections of people, including pregnant women, children and workers who are susceptible to chemical effects, would benefit from the updated act.
The bill will further set deadlines for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to act in case of violations. Following the voice vote approval, the bill has now gone to the House for final approval.
Senate Environment Committee chairman and R-Okla Senator James Inhofe was quoted by AP as saying: "This bill will create more regulatory certainty for American businesses and uniform protections for American families."
Inhofe, a top supporter of the bill, noted that it would offer regulatory certainty to American businesses, as well as facilitating making future investment decisions and safeguarding public health and the environment.
The bill has been sponsored by Republican David Vitter of Louisiana and Democrat Tom Udall of New Mexico.
The bill is named after a New Jersey senator, the late Frank Lautenberg, who pressed for chemical reform before his death in 2013.
The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSUS) has lobbied the US Senate for the latest update of the bill.
HSUS president and CEO Wayne Pacelle said: "Each year, tens of thousands of animals are killed to test industrial chemicals, including those found in common household products.
"These animals suffer terribly, as harsh chemicals are rubbed into their skin, forced down their throats and dropped in their eyes.
"This breakthrough bill would help make chemical testing smarter, faster and more reliable for regulatory decision-making, and protect animals' lives."
American Chemistry Council president and CEO Cal Dooley said: "After years of significant contributions from the public health, environmental, labor, consumer groups and industry, the US is now closer to updating the nation's primary chemical safety law for the first time in four decades.
"Today's bipartisan passage of the 'Frank R Lautenberg Chemicals Safety for the 21st Century Act' is a watershed moment in the history of US environmental legislation.
-
(ACC Mentioned) And Just Like That, TSCA Passes Senate
Dec 18, 2015 | Politico Pro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
The Senate, by voice vote and with no debate, last night approved a sweeping update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, an amazingly swift resolution to a years-long and drama-filled effort that picked up major momentum this year. The quick action came after Barbara Boxer relented on her late push this week to have the Senate agree to a formal bicameral conference that included Senate Democrats Boxer handpicked. Boxer opposes the Senate version for trumping California toxics law and vowed to help craft a bicameral deal that would better protect children and win the backing of public health groups. “I will have the opportunity to be in the room at every step and express their views,” she said.
The final TSCA compromise, which emerged from negotiations led by Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter, updated a law that environmental and chemical groups agree badly needs revamping. American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley called the Senate passage “a watershed moment in the history of U.S. environmental legislation.” EDFAction Executive Director Fred Krupp said passing the bill — named after the late-Sen. Frank Lautenberg — “gives us the best chance in two generations to put an end to a national scandal — a dangerously ineffective chemical safety system that was broken on arrival in 1976.”
It's just a bill on Capitol Hill: “The next step is for the House to look at it and decide whether to amend it or suggest a conference,” an Udall spokeswoman emailed. “So we'll know more in the new year. Conversations will happen on how to proceed.” Rep. John Shimkus, lead sponsor of the House bill, told ME Thursday before the Senate action, “I think we’re going to get there” whether it goes to a formal conference or not.
-
Senators Seek Deal with House as TSCA Bill Nears Finish Line
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers have yet to determine whether an overhaul of the nation's chemical safety system will be considered by a conference committee or can be worked out in private, senators said today.
After passing legislation last night, senators are already in discussions with their House counterparts about the two bills, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said at a news conference touting the legislation this morning, and talks are expected to continue over the upcoming congressional recess, with progress expected next year.
"We're all in very significant and productive discussions with the House about getting that done," said Vitter, who introduced the bill with Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) earlier this year.
The Senate last night approved by voice vote a bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 last night -- the first major action the chamber has taken on reforming the chemicals bill, and the most significant piece of environmental legislation to clear the chamber in decades (E&E Daily, Dec. 18).
Speaking with a poster of the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) -- a longtime chemical safety advocate -- behind them, lawmakers said the bill is imperfect but strong enough to bring significant changes to how chemicals are regulated in the United States.
"When a sailing ship is in the doldrums, it's not moving. Its sails are just flapping -- there's no progress; it's just sitting there. And for decades, chemical safety regulation in this country was in the doldrums," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said. "This bill puts wind in the sails of this ship."
Lawmakers this morning touted what they described as a spirit of cooperation on the proposal. It started after the bill's introduction in March and continued with a series of negotiations that brought additional lawmakers on board in several phases (Greenwire, Oct. 2).
The bill aims to make it easier for EPA to evaluate the safety of toxic chemicals, by helping the agency obtain safety information, perform health studies and issue regulations if chemicals are found harmful. Though lawmakers didn't always agree on everything at first, consensus grew as they learned how difficult and toothless the existing law was, said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).
It was "really pathetic" that so few chemicals have been evaluated for safety since TSCA became law nearly 40 years ago, Carper said.
The bill also makes changes to EPA programs and policies, putting in place standards that specify what kind of scientific underpinnings EPA must use when it determines the safety of a chemical, something important to Vitter; a sustainable chemistry program pushed by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.); and limits on animal testing sought by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and animal welfare groups (E&E Daily, June 23).
To allow a unanimous consent agreement to go forward on the Senate floor, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said yesterday she had been promised the opportunity to "be in the room at every step" as talks with the House proceed.
Those negotiations could take the form of a formal conference committee -- akin to one Boxer and Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) led over a recent multiyear transportation bill -- or faster talks, like how Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) privately reached a deal on the "Every Child Achieves Act," and then completed conference in about a day, Udall said.
-
Senators Celebrate Victory with Chemical Safety Reform
Dec 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A bipartisan group of senators celebrated victory Friday after years of negotiations toward a major chemical safety bill that passed the Senate Thursday night.
The senators, led by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) said their efforts, including multiple actions to amend the bill throughout 2015, are a testament to the high stakes of chemical safety and the ability of lawmakers to compromise and work together respectfully.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named after the late New Jersey Democratic senator who led the effort before his 2013 death, make major changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
It gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) new authority and funding to study and regulate toxic substances like asbestos, while adding protections for the industry against state regulations.
“This is an historic moment. What we did was a momentous occasion,” Udall said at a news conference. “After years and years of negotiations and collaboration, after working with stakeholders across the country, we made tremendous progress toward bipartisan environmental reform on TSCA.”
“I think it is a very, very strong product,” said Vitter, who had partnered with Lautenberg on the legislation before the former New Jersey senator's death.
“It updates environmental standards in this part of the law, it updates EPA’s authority in a proper way, but it also focuses EPA on the chemicals it needs to focus on, demands complete transparency and use of sound science and has a national program so that American industry can remain innovators and don’t get burdened by 51 rulebooks from states all around the country,” he said. “It strikes an appropriate balance between states’ role and EPA’s leading role.”
The bill came years after lawmakers and health advocates had started to sound alarms over the inability of the EPA to effectively keep toxic substances out of commerce.
The poster child for the failures was frequently asbestos, which is not banned but is known to cause a respiratory illnesses if inhaled.
“It’s a statute right now that simply doesn’t work, because ever since the industry successfully challenged EPA’s asbestos ban, EPA’s authority to regulate dangerous chemicals has been broken,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said it’s important to keep in mind how much the legislation will help the chemical industry, which will create jobs.
“I think one thing people forget about is the value this has in terms of jobs,” he said.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was consistently the strongest force against the bill through the legislative process this year.
She blocked quick Senate consideration of it earlier this week, but dropped her objection when her colleagues assured her that she’d be part of the House-Senate negotiations toward a final law.
Udall and Vitter said the next step for the bill will be to formally negotiate with the House on how to square the Lautenberg bill with the House’s own chemical reform bill that it passed earlier this year.
Udall said that shouldn’t be too difficult.
“I don’t think there are a lot of differences, because the House bill is a narrower bill and ours is much broader and deals with areas that the House didn’t really deal with,” he said. “We have a very good relationship with the House members that are key on this.”
The senators said they plan to start negotiations during the Christmas break that will start later Friday, and they hope to have a final product ready for votes in both chambers early next year.
-
A Moment to Celebrate: Senate Passes Bill to Reform Outdated Chemical Safety Law
Dec 18, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Karin Rives
The United States just took a huge step toward bringing our woefully outdated chemical safety law into the 21st century.
The U.S. Senate – finally – brought the Lautenberg Act to the floor by unanimous consent and passed it without objection last night. The legislation, which will help protect Americans from toxic chemicals in everyday products, now needs to be reconciled with a bill the House has passed, and be signed into law by President Obama.
The vote came thanks to the engagement by “an ever-enlarging circle of Senators and stakeholders, who saw the potential for a public health and environmental breakthrough, and who had the courage to work toward a compromise bill even in the most partisan of climates,” notes Richard Denison, Environmental Defense Fund’s lead senior scientist, in a blog post.
It took political risk-taking, a willingness to seek common ground and compromise – and countless days, weeks and months of “plain old hard work,” he writes.
Learn more about the Senate vote, and what it all means, from Richard’s report.
-
Feds Increase Efforts To Target Worker Safety Crimes
Dec 18, 2015 | Construction Equipment
In an effort to prevent and deter crimes that put the lives and the health of workers at risk, the Departments of Justice and Labor announced today a plan to more effectively prosecute such crimes. Under the new plan, the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices will work with the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and Wage and Hour Division (WHD) to investigate and prosecute worker endangerment violations.
“On an average day in America, 13 workers die on the job, thousands are injured and 150 succumb to diseases they obtained from exposure to carcinogens and other toxic and hazardous substances while they worked,” said Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates. “Given the troubling statistics on workplace deaths and injuries, the Department of Justice is redoubling its efforts to hold accountable those who unlawfully jeopardize workers’ health and safety.”
“Safety and security in the workplace are a shared commitment. Workplace injuries and illnesses cause an enormous amount of physical, financial and emotional hardship for workers and their families, and underscore the urgent need for employers to provide a safe workplace for their employees,” said Department of Labor Deputy Secretary Chris Lu. “Today’s announcement demonstrates a renewed commitment by both the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice to utilize criminal prosecution as an enforcement tool to protect the health and safety of workers.”
Starting last year, the Departments of Justice and Labor began meetings to explore a joint effort to increase the frequency and effectiveness of criminal prosecutions of worker endangerment violations. This culminated in a decision to consolidate the authorities to pursue worker safety statutes within the Department’s Environment and Natural Resource Division’s Environmental Crimes Section. In in a memo sent today to all 93 U.S. Attorneys across the country, Deputy Attorney General Yates urged federal prosecutors to work with the Environmental Crimes Section in pursuing worker endangerment violations. The worker safety statutes generally provide for only misdemeanor penalties. However, prosecutors have now been encouraged to consider utilizing Title 18 and environmental offenses, which often occur in conjunction with worker safety crimes, to enhance penalties and increase deterrence. Statutes included in this plan are the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, and the Mine Safety and Health Act (MINE Act).
In addition to prosecuting environmental crimes, the Environment and Natural Resources Division has also been strengthening its efforts to pursue civil cases that involve worker safety violations under statutes such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Violations of a number of provisions under these statutes can have a direct impact on workers tasked with handling dangerous chemicals and other materials, cleaning up spills and responding to hazardous releases.
-
Cyber Info Sharing Helps and Haunts Energy Firms
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Congress is poised to turn on the tap for online threat data as part of a $1.15 trillion spending bill.
Legislation tucked into the fiscal 2016 omnibus package would shield companies from liability if they share certain cybersecurity information with the federal government.
The goal is to get more actionable data on cyberthreats flowing between the Department of Homeland Security and the privately owned stewards of most U.S. infrastructure, from banks to utilities.
Electricity industry groups have welcomed the "Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act's" inclusion in the far-reaching omnibus funding bill. Observers say the provisions could spark more communication about technical cyberthreats, helping stave off attackers while revealing trends in malicious activity. But the bill stops short of opening a crucial well of data to insurers: damage from cyber incidents.
Jon Kerner, partner at ScottMadden Inc., an energy consulting firm, described a deep-seated reluctance to spread information on cyber incidents due to the risk that they could be traced back to the company reporting them. Bulk electric power providers face some of the only enforceable federal cybersecurity regulations in the U.S., and big utilities worry about the legal and regulatory risks of sharing even basic information on threats, vulnerabilities and incidents with the government.
"The information-sharing legislation that [lawmakers] are trying to get through is going to eliminate some of those frictions" with energy companies, said Kerner, who leads ScottMadden's cybersecurity practice. But energy firms may still be touchy when it comes to detailing costs and losses from their own incidents, wondering whether such disclosure "is going to come back to haunt them," Kerner added.
That poses a dilemma as companies operating critical control networks start shopping in the budding cyber insurance market. That industry bases its policies on hard data: past incidents, settled lawsuits, known risks and potential costs.
"How does the cybersecurity market model that risk if they don't have transparency into what's going on? I don't know," Kerner said.
Not a single cyberattack is known to have caused a power outage in the United States. Worldwide, publicly known cases of hackers causing physical damage can be counted on one hand. Data breaches are more common but don't reflect the full scope of the Internet threat facing power utilities.
A September report from the Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. and the Atlantic Council reflects the uncertainty. In the insurer's best-case scenario, a strong and resilient Internet generates a net global benefit of $190 trillion from 2010 to 2030. The worst-case "Clockwork Orange" outlook for cybersecurity and Internet governance knocks that figure down by $120 trillion over the same time period.
Defining 'big and bad'
The cybersecurity act attached to this week's omnibus spending package would make the Department of Homeland Security responsible for handling threat information provided by the private sector, barring presidential action. But the agency has separately been working behind the scenes to set up a database that includes the times those threats get through -- in other words, a library of concrete cyberattacks and their side effects.
The catch? The central database wouldn't be part of DHS, based on conversations among industry and government stakeholders. In fact, it's not yet known how the system would be built, let alone who would manage it.
One point is clear -- such a collection of cyberattacks and outcomes would be valuable to academics, the insurance industry and even the U.S. government, which has a stake in protecting key industries from hackers. The end game is for insurers to offer cheaper policies to companies that can show they are adopting cybersecurity best practices.
"It's a dilemma for insurance companies -- I think they struggle with how to price this," said Phil Yannella, partner and co-leader of the privacy and data security practice at Ballard Spahr LLP. "And I think that it's somewhat of a struggle for companies to figure out how much insurance they really need."
Another challenge lies in convincing companies to contribute to yet another database, when other reporting requirements abound -- particularly in the energy sector. A report released this week by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP found that energy and utilities executives see data security as the biggest compliance-related risk through 2020. That perception may only grow in 2016 as new critical infrastructure protection standards take effect for physical and cybersecurity.
Some have worried about what, hypothetically, additional reporting could reveal.
"The concern was: 'Well, what if we actually succeed in sharing information, and we come to discover that this kind of incident is so expensive: Is this even insurable?'" said one DHS official.
"I think what was underlying that was not only fear of how big the loss could be, but also a recognition that we don't know what might be an effective way to, if not prevent, mitigate" certain cyber incidents, the official noted. "There's potentially a lot of fear out there."
Still, the official stressed that participants in the Cyber Incident Data and Analysis Working Group have largely agreed there is a need for more knowledge.
"What are the contours of the problem? Until we know how big and bad it is, we can't really start discovering what do we do about it."
Cyber firebreaks
Lloyd's, the global insurance market operator, estimated in July that a coordinated cyberattack on the U.S. power grid could cause $243 billion in losses and damages (EnergyWire, July 9).
In its analysis, carried out in conjunction with the University of Cambridge's Centre for Risk Studies, Lloyd's observed that the unlikely but "technically possible" scenario could affect 50 power generators and cut power to 93 million people.
Lloyd's said electric utilities would be helped to some extent by tariffs that set a high bar for holding power providers liable for outages. But such cases would only represent the tip of the iceberg for accountability in a disaster that could cause widespread business interruptions, fires, deaths and other mayhem.
For one example, insurers "would end up paying out on property insurance for the fires, even though the proximate cause was a cyberattack," noted Éireann Leverett, founder and CEO of Concinnity Risks Ltd. and a key contributor to the Lloyd's analysis. "That's why [insurers] are suddenly waking up -- they're going, 'Oh, we're already silently covering this anyway'" through all-risk insurance and other plans.
Leverett said he is optimistic about the prospects for a central cyber incident database along the lines of what DHS advocates, although he said there "will be a lot of tension and friction on the way to getting there."
In the meantime, he said energy companies will continue sharing lessons learned from incidents through existing, closed portals, while insurers will do what they can to get a handle on the "scary market" that is cyber.
He likened their predicament to insuring against forest fires -- "you are pretty confident you're not going to lose all the forests at the same time, but you do want to make sure there are gaps between the forests, as well, that there are firebreaks," he said. "[Insurers] are working on finding the cyber firebreaks."
A first step on threats?
The Cybersecurity Act of 2015 brings together three related pieces of cyber legislation -- one bill that had passed the Senate, and two that had passed the House earlier this year. The act takes up a lengthy section of the bipartisan omnibus spending package slated to be voted on today.
The bill takes pains to make sharing cybersecurity information less of a risk for companies.
For one, it promises to keep firms disclosing cyberthreats out of legal hot water. The goal is to encourage sharing, not lawsuits. The bill includes similar protection from regulatory backlash.
The text also pledges not to step on any toes at existing information sharing centers, such as the nonprofit Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center. The bill goes a step further by granting companies freedom to pass cybersecurity information to one another without catching the eye of antitrust enforcers.
Privacy and civil liberties groups have voiced concerns over parts of the bill that could let personal information flow from the private sector into the hands of U.S. intelligence agents. The bill includes requirements for companies to scrub identifiable data out of cyberthreat "indicators" before sharing them, but groups such as Fight for the Future argue that the language is not nearly strong enough.
Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have taken a more favorable view of the legislation. Power utility groups including the Edison Electric Institute and the American Public Power Association have cheered the Cybersecurity Act's inclusion in the omnibus.
The bill takes care to key in critical infrastructure by defining "information systems" to include industrial controls. It also considers state, tribal or locally operated utilities as "private entities" deserving of the bill's safeguards.
Amy Thomas, government relations director at APPA, said the group was "very pleased" to see the Cybersecurity Act in the omnibus.
She pointed out in a statement that the power sector already shares data on cyberthreats, but added that "there remains a need for the government and industry to better share actionable security information in a timely and confidential manner."
Thomas said she expects enactment of the legislation will "foster even more meaningful information sharing while maintaining the proper balance between liability and privacy protections."
-
VA Expands Disability Eligibility to More Camp Lejeune Vets
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Ben Panko
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has moved to grant presumptive disability status to more veterans who served at the heavily polluted Camp Lejeune military base, drawing praise from North Carolina's senators.
"The VA is finally granting some justice to veterans who were exposed to contaminated drinking water while assigned to Camp Lejeune," Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said in a statement about the VA decision to expand disability compensation eligibility to veterans who served at the camp between 1953 and 1987 and have certain illnesses.
During that time period, the Marine Corps base in North Carolina drew its tap water from wells that were later found to be heavily contaminated with dry solvents and benzene (E&ENews PM, Feb. 19, 2010). A 2014 government study linked the development of multiple cancers among veterans who served at the base to the contaminated water (Greenwire, Feb. 20, 2014). Another study in 2013, meanwhile, linked dozens of birth defects and childhood cancers developed by children living at the base to the water, as well (Greenwire, Dec. 9, 2013).
The VA has been under intense political and activist pressure to expand the list of illnesses eligible for presumptive disability status, which expedites receiving benefits (E&E Daily, Sept. 30).
"This is victory for those who have long suffered as a result of the toxic exposure to chemicals while serving our country at Camp Lejeune," Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said in a statement. "God bless all of these men and women."
-
More States Pondering a Challenge to EPA Climate Rule -- Source
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Three more states are considering piling onto a massive lawsuit targeting the Obama administration's sweeping new climate rule, according to a pro-coal lobbying group.
Paul Bailey, senior vice president for federal affairs and policy with the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, reported that attorneys general for Nevada and Tennessee, as well as the Iowa governor's office, are thinking of joining 27 other states in suing EPA in an attempt to kill the Clean Power Plan.
Bailey first indicated that at least one more state might challenge the Clean Power Plan this week at a Tennessee state committee hearing on the rule.
"There are 27 states suing EPA right now ... to overturn the Clean Power Plan, we think there might be a 28th state sometime soon," Bailey told the Tennessee General Assembly's Government Operations Joint Committee on Wednesday.
The offices of the Nevada and Tennessee attorneys general did not confirm or deny ACCCE's report.
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, a Democrat, is participating in a multistate motion to intervene in support of the Clean Power Plan but has indicated that this action went against the wishes of the Iowa governor, a Republican. Ben Hammes, a spokesman for Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, said, "We haven't taken any formal steps to consider joining the lawsuit. It's not on the agenda right now."
The states must decide if they are going to challenge the regulation soon, however. The 60-day filing deadline for lawsuits challenging the rule is Tuesday.
The Clean Power Plan, which aims to slash carbon emissions from U.S. power plants 32 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels, is already among the most contentious interstate legal battles over a federal regulation in history. The vast majority of states are either challenging or supporting the rule in court, and Nevada, Tennessee, Idaho and Pennsylvania are the only states affected by the regulation that have not yet taken a legal position. It is widely expected that the Supreme Court will make the final decision on the rule's legality.
ACCCE's position is that the Clean Power Plan is unlawful and frequently argues that the rule will drive up electricity costs for consumers, although environmental groups and EPA dispute those claims. It frequently emphasizes the fact that over half of U.S. states are opposing the rule in court.
"The widespread state opposition to the President's power plan is proof positive that states do not want D.C. bureaucrats dictating how to produce and regulate power," Laura Sheehan, a spokeswoman for ACCCE, said in a statement. "With every state that joins the 27 already suing EPA, the collective opposition is only strengthened."
Tenn. 'in a good position' to comply
At the Tennessee hearing this week, industry representatives indicated that while they have concerns about the Clean Power Plan, it won't be a challenge for the state to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
Mike Knotts, director of government affairs for the Tennessee Electric Cooperative Association, said rising electricity rates and electric reliability impacts may be issues under the regulation but added that "the good news is that Tennessee is actually in a favorable position to comply with this rule -- the incremental changes that TVA [the Tennessee Valley Authority] has made will make this easier."
Utility Tennessee Valley Authority is a federal agency, spokesman Scott Brooks noted, so it will not publicly take a position on the Clean Power Plan or Tennessee's approach to the rule. But Brooks added, "We think we're in a good position to meet what's laid out so far."
The Tennessee attorney general's office did not comment on whether it is planning to challenge the Clean Power Plan in court, but it did say it is considering input from TVA and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.
"The initial concern, identified by both TDEC and TVA, was that EPA was not crediting TVA's under construction nuclear towards Tennessee's carbon dioxide goal. That concern has been alleviated in the final rule," Harlow Sumerford, a spokesman for Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery (R), said in a statement. "We will continue to monitor the situation, as well as consult with impacted parties."
-
Comply with the Clean Power Plan? No Problem for the Northwest
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By David Ferris
As states and utilities across the country struggle with how to meet the demands of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, the states of the Pacific Northwest will clear their hurdles with relatively little effort, according to a new regional strategic document.
The northwest corner of the country will see its carbon emissions drop significantly in the early 2020s as three coal-fired power plants are phased out and the area makes new strides in efficient lighting and appliances.
Without even trying to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, the Pacific Northwest will see its carbon emissions drop from 55 million metric tons this year to about 34 million metric tons in 2035.
The projection came in the form of a 20-year draft planpublished by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, which coordinates the electricity needs of four states: Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. The council updates its plan every five years and for decades has made energy efficiency a priority.
The draft states that in the current 20-year plan, "energy efficiency consistently proved the least expensive and least economically risky resource." Under almost every scenario the council looked at, energy efficiency will absorb the region's growth in energy needs until 2035.
The plan's serene conclusions, however, paper over significant differences in how its member states get electricity and how they view the Clean Power Plan. Montana has joined with 23 other states to challenge the plan in court, while Oregon and Washington support it.
Montana heavily relies on coal for its power, while that fuel plays a small and diminishing role in the other states. Under the federal plan, Montana is required to reduce its carbon emissions rate by 21 percent by 2030. The state is also a major exporter of coal.
Climate change cramps power outlook
One practical purpose of the Northwest council's plan is to guide the vision of the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency that operates many of the hydroelectric dams that serve as the Northwest's power backbone.
All is not rosy, however. The area faces a risk of not being able to meet its peak power demand in the winter because dry years and severe storms are becoming more likely as the climate changes, interfering with the rhythm of the region's water flows and dams.
Most parts of the country experience their peak electricity usage in the summer, when everyone is cranking the air conditioning. But the Pacific Northwest, with its mild summers, experiences its peak in the winter when all the electric heaters are on.
The region usually can meet its own peak needs, but if it can't, planners say that salvation lies in demand response. In demand-response programs, utilities dampen demand on peak-use days by asking electricity users to voluntarily curb their energy use. Such programs are becoming more widespread and sophisticated.
The bulk of energy savings, however, will come from new generations of appliances and upgrades. The changes with the highest potential, the report said, include widespread adoption of LED bulbs, better weatherization of homes, more efficient water heaters and intelligent power strips that turn off gadgets when not in use.
"It's the connection between the digital world, the Internet, and pretty mundane activities like heating or turning your lights on" that will save most electricity, Tom Eckman, the council's director of power planning, said to the Associated Press.
-
N.C. Agency to Take Up EPA Compliance Strategy in Feb.
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission will hold a special hearing in February to vote on its response to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, a response that is widely expected to expand the governor's legal challenge to the Obama administration's climate initiative.
The commission completed two days of hearings yesterday on its proposal, which covers efficiency improvements by the state's existing coal- and natural gas-fired power plants but rejects two other compliance building blocks in the EPA plan, involving increases in renewable power and new gas-fired generation.
Gov. Pat McCrory (R) has challenged those two parts of EPA's compliance strategy, arguing that EPA's legal authority is limited to directly regulating generator emissions.
A favorable vote by the commission in February would send the state plan to EPA, and if the federal agency rejected it as inadequate -- a decision anticipated by environmental group representatives -- then McCrory's administration would have new grounds for a lawsuit against the plan, said Myra Blake, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. North Carolina is already among the states that are trying to block EPA's rule.
"The plan that the EMC will be voting on would not comply with the CPP. It would only achieve a fraction of reductions required under the plan," Blake said. "That is exactly what they are looking for, so they can bring a legal challenge when the EPA rejects the EMC plan as inadequate."
"If the plan doesn't meet the targets that EPA identifies, the agency will almost certainly reject the plan," said Jonas Monast, director of the Climate and Energy Program at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. The CPP directs North Carolina to reduce power plant carbon dioxide emission rates by 32 percent by 2030 compared with 2012 levels.
The state Division of Air Quality, which wrote North Carolina's Clean Power Plan compliance proposal that the commission will vote on, will also begin next year to draft a backup plan intended to satisfy all of EPA's carbon emissions reductions goals if legal action fails, said division spokeswoman Stephanie Hawco. "We will be preparing a [second] plan that complies with all three building blocks. We will not submit the backup plan unless and until a challenge is not successful," she said. This second plan would be meant to protect North Carolina from a federally imposed compliance plan.
June Blotnick, executive director of Clean Air Carolina, was one of the speakers at the Wednesday commission meeting and an organizer of a rally before the meeting in front of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center in Charlotte. About 100 people attended the rally, calling on McCrory's administration to create a more stringent compliance plan, Blotnick said. Some carried signs saying, "We Can Do More."
"The plan that was prepared was not even close to the reality of what's happening to the energy sector on the ground in North Carolina," said Blotnick, referring to the growth of carbon-free solar power generation in the state. "It was the least amount they could have submitted."
These arguments, however, have not won over McCrory and Donald van der Vaart, the secretary of the state Department of Environment Quality, who challenge the EPA initiative as infringement on the state's energy program and prerogatives.
-
Why the Paris Agreement Could Mark the Beginning of the End for Global Warming Denial
Dec 18, 2015 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
After 195 countries agreed in Paris Dec. 12 to a sweeping agreement to try to bring global warming under control, there has been much analysis of what this means for the future of energy. But there are reasons to think that it also may have a surprising impact on the future of politics, even in the U.S. — namely, by taking away some of the motivations and dynamics that, for so long, have driven global warming skepticism, doubt and denial.
That may at first seem surprising — after all, even as negotiators drove toward an agreement in Paris, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was hosting a hearing in which he once again claimed that there hadn’t even been any “significant global warming” in the past 18 years (even as we’re witnessing what is by far the warmest year on record). And we can expect to hear more of the same throughout the campaign season (although climate change was curiously absent from the latest GOP presidential debate).
However, if you take a longer term perspective — and if you examine the history of politicized, public scientific debates — then you see that the world is littered with forms of scientific doubt and denial that eventually declined and dwindled away. There used to be huge skepticism that chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, were damaging the planet’s stratospheric ozone layer — or that smokestack and car emissions were causing acid rain. And we all know how much doubt there used to be about the health dangers of smoking.
Yet today, while some individuals may still harbor scientific doubt on those matters, there are no longer significant movements around them, and they are no longer substantially a focus of debate or public policy. The matters feel settled now. The same, someday, will likely happen with global warming — but the question is when, and what will trigger the shift?
Psychologists have conducted considerable, often fascinating research on what drives climate change doubt — and it’s these findings that explain why Paris could potentially help to end it. Not immediately, to be sure, and not alone. The outcome will also depend heavily on what happens domestically with President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which will have at least as much of an impact on thinking and the tenor of debate in this country.
But the key point is that the Clean Power Plan and Paris agreement are both solutions. As such, they move people from a world of fighting over the science in order to determine whether action is justified, to a world of taking action and consulting the science. The dynamic is fundamentally different.
Thus it’s over the long term, as the reality sinks in that the entire world has now moved to address the climate problem, that there are indeed reasons to think that doubt will slowly decline.
Shifting the status quo. One key idea that suggests this conclusion is the notion that climate change denial is, in part, a manifestation of what is called “status quo” bias — implicit and default justifications of the current, industrial system for getting energy. This system not only benefits many people, but is also simply what we are more familiar with. And there is mountainous evidence suggesting that we tend to be biased toward the familiar and the well-established.
Status quo biases make political and social systems very hard to change — but at the same time, once they actually do change, the same biases then work to enforce the new status quo.
“Historically speaking, many people once opposed child labor laws, voting rights for women, fluoridation of drinking water, admissions of minority students into universities, and so on,” says John Jost, a social psychologist at New York University who has written widely on what he calls this “system justification” tendency. “Once these initiatives became established policies, the opposition slowly dissipated. For better and for worse, the status quo exerts a kind of motivational force on our thinking.”
In the context of this idea, what’s striking about the Paris accord is that it establishes a new global status quo that is built around comprehensive, country-by-country action to address climate change. And over time, based on this theory, that could lessen the motivations behind denial.
“Climate change denialism has become completely marginalized now, because the world is moving on,” says Michael Mann, a climate researcher with Penn State University. Indeed, even prior to Paris, there were clear signs of public opinion shifts, in favor of more and more Americans accepting that global warming is happening (a majority position in the public at large).
Undercutting “solution aversion.” On top of this idea about shifting status quos, there is also the key insight that the denial of science on climate change isn’t really motivated by science at all — even though it comes adorned with scientific claims, such as Ted Cruz’s assertion that satellite data don’t support the idea that it has been warming lately.
Rather, climate change doubt or denial appears to actually be a way of rationalizing a deep rejection of the perceived solution to climate change. On the political right, this is believed to be a command and control intervention in the economy (read: the Clean Power Plan) so as to favor some types of energy over others, and thus deeply inimical to libertarian or free market values.
Duke University researchers Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay published a paper late last year suggesting that “Republicans’ increased skepticism toward environmental sciences may be partly attributable to a conflict between specific ideological values and the most popularly discussed environmental solutions.” They called this “solution aversion.”
The Paris agreement presents just such a solution — so they are likely to oppose it strongly. The Clean Power Plan is even more ideologically offensive because of the way it uses government regulation to change the energy system.
However, once these solutions take hold, and people see that the world won’t end because of them and that there won’t be economic calamity, then the whole affair will simply be a lot less worth fighting over. Solution aversion could lose its force as the solution works, and as the status quo shifts.
But there’s a key catch here, explains Troy Campbell, lead author of the “solution aversion” paper and now a professor at the University of Oregon’s Lundquist College of Business.
“We know from past work that often, once something becomes the status quo, we stop fighting it as much as we did, and we will stop fighting things the more we see they are solidified and unchangeable,” says Anderson. But he cautions, “People can persist, and if people are surrounded by other people who disagree with [the Paris agreement], they can [persevere] in that disagreement, and it will be especially true if people believe they can overthrow these things, or they can resist this.”
The fight isn’t over — yet. Campbell points to Obamacare, where the changed status quo hasn’t stopped congressional Republicans from voting repeatedly to repeal the now implemented law. They clearly feel that the battle isn’t totally lost, that the status quo hasn’t really changed. (On the other hand, if they fail in these battles, their children will grow up with that new status quo and likely be far less motivated to question it).
On the climate deal, Campbell notes that for now, despite the fact that they can’t do anything about the actions of 194 separate countries in joining the agreement, opponents still clearly feel empowered to resist it at home. Here, the fight will be principally over the Clean Power Plan, which is centrally tied to the Paris agreement because it is the number one piece of evidence showing the world that the U.S. is really serious about cutting emissions.
Campbell cites, in particular, a recent statement by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell: “Before [Obama’s] international partners pop the champagne, they should remember that this is an unattainable deal based on a domestic energy plan that is likely illegal, that half the states have sued to halt, and that Congress has already voted to reject.”
This is also a key reminder that while Republican presidential candidates really haven’t attacked the Paris deal much yet, the GOP and allies in industry have been systematically fighting the Clean Power Plan, both legally and rhetorically. But here too, notes Greg Sargent, there are hints of more compliance by state-level Republican elected officials, who might realize over time that hey, this policy isn’t actually so bad, or so hard to live with.
There is, in other words, another potential status quo shift here in the form of this policy. Moreover, the growth of the clean energy industry, which isalready happening but will be further driven by the Clean Power Plan, will also create a new status quo and a new energy establishment that will become entrenched around acceptance of climate change, not its rejection.
Granted, all of this is theoretical and could be derailed by future events — like legal attacks on the Clean Power Plan, or a future Republican president who vows to halt the Clean Power Plan or withdraw from the Paris accord.
Moreover, not everyone is convinced these sorts of dynamics are yet in play. One skeptic that Paris will kill climate denial is Princeton climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who recalls the science denial that emerged around threats of ozone depletion and acid rain. He pointedly observes that one major round of skepticism about the role of ozone-depleting chemicals actually came shortly after the adoption of the Montreal Protocol, the global treaty that, today, is widely viewed as having addressed the problem.
“Denialism draws its oxygen from larger political agendas and Paris won’t put an end to those,” says Oppenheimer. “There will still be plenty of opposition to regulating greenhouse gas emissions, to regulation in general, and to any sort of international cooperation.”
One thing seems clear — with campaign season in full force, and President Obama’s moves around climate change hotly opposed on the political right, the climate issue will not die down immediately. When it comes to attacking climate science, Paris may give added oxygen, for a time.
But around 2020, as temperatures continue rising and as the world begins the first round of assessing how effective the Paris climate accord has been — well, matters then may feel very different indeed.
-
Water and Rock Could be Mixing a Radioactive Cocktail -- Study
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A team of Dartmouth College researchers are seeking to understand the processes that transform frack fluid -- a combination of fresh water, sand and chemicals -- into briny, radioactive waste.
Their study, published this week in the journal Applied Geochemistry, begins to answer at least one part of that question. While the processes that salinate injected fresh water during hydraulic fracturing remain a mystery, the Dartmouth scientists did determine that the fluid's salt content helps attract barium, radium's "chemical brother," said author Mukul Sharma.
"Based on barium yields determined from laboratory leaching experiments of the Marcellus Shale and a reasonable estimate of the water/rock mass ratio during hydraulic fracturing, we suggest that all of the barium in produced water can be reconciled with leaching directly from the fractured rock," Sharma, a professor of earth sciences at Dartmouth, said in a Tuesday statement. "Importantly, barium behavior allows us to understand the behavior of radium, which is very abundant in produced water and is a very real environmental concern.
"There has been much discussion about injection of water with lots of toxic compounds during fracking. What is less known is that produced water is hazardous waste and chemical reactions between water and the rock are likely playing a role in its formation, not simply a mixing of freshwater with natural brines in the rock."
Radium is a key contributor to environmental radioactivity and has been pinpointed in prior research as a major contaminant in produced water spills (EnergyWire, Nov. 4). Because radium is present in much lower concentrations than barium -- and because the two elements exhibit similar behaviors in the environment -- the latter can serve as a stand-in of sorts for studies of the former, said co-author Devon Renock.
Renock, Sharma and research scientist Joshua Landis built on a previous study, led by Brian Stewart of the University of Pittsburgh, to isolate the behavior of barium during hydraulic fracturing. Their work "confirms and expands on" Stewart's findings by simulating a hydraulic fracturing environment to show that "barium released directly from the shale can create the concentrations reported in produced water," said Liz Chapman, a geochemist for Echelon Applied Geosciences in Pennsylvania.
The Dartmouth researchers relied on samples from three Marcellus drill cores. Sharma said the team tried to obtain additional samples, but options were limited. Still, he said, the samples they had offered reasonable insight.
"The chemistry does not change in a fundamental way," Sharma said.
Once barium-rich wastewater reaches the surface, it creates a disposal problem. Sharma said his "pie-in-the-sky" goal is to create conditions that would produce fracking wastewater with minimal salt, barium and radium. If left alone, barium naturally separates from wastewater in the well bore as the fluid comes in contact with oxygen, creating barium sulfate, or hard scale, Sharma said. Producers employ anti-scaling agents to prevent the buildup, which would clog production, but Sharma imagines there's a chemical workaround.
That's a puzzle he and his colleagues are trying to solve.
Sharma, Renock and Landis are also studying the effect of bacteria on elements like barium and radium and the mechanisms by which barium was mobilized during the early stages of shale formation. A forthcoming study will track the movement of radium throughout the fracking process.
-
EPA Region Should Better Oversee Monitoring Sites -- IG
Dec 18, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA's Region 6 could do a better job of keeping tabs on sites that monitor for fine particulates, according to a report released yesterday by the agency's inspector general.
The region covers Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and 66 tribes. While state and local monitoring plans in the area included most of the information sought by EPA, they did not furnish evidence that the sites in fact met requirements, according to the report, which noted that lapses can have real-world consequences.
The 2012 discovery of changed ground cover conditions at one New Mexico particulate monitoring site, for example, led EPA to void years' worth of data from the site, although the agency still had enough information from other sources to make an attainment designation last year for the state, the report said.
As a rule, monitoring sites for fine particulates, technically known as PM2.5, are not supposed to be located on unpaved areas unless there is year-round vegetative ground cover to keep wind-blown dusts to a minimum, the report said. In the case of the New Mexico site, the ground cover had been removed; the New Mexico Environment Department linked the changed conditions to an increase in PM2.5 exceedances, according to the IG.
EPA could also do more to ensure that periodic state and local reviews of monitoring networks have practical value, the report said. In 2010, five out of six such "network assessments" looked at whether new PM2.5 monitoring sites were needed. Of those, only the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality concluded that they were, the report said.
In a joint written response attached to the report, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe and Region 6 Administrator Ron Curry said that those 2010 assessments represented "the initial phase of a learning curve for state and local monitoring agencies" and that EPA expected better results from another round completed this year.
McCabe added that her office is wrapping up work on a final monitoring rule that will simplify the language on siting requirements. McCabe and Curry generally agreed, however, with the IG's recommended changes, such as emphasizing that network assessments address "the minimum elements required by regulation."
-
Congress Approves Spending Deal Lifting Oil Export Ban
Dec 18, 2015 | Politico Pro
By Darren Goode
Congress sent a massive spending deal to the White House Friday that would lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports while extending clean energy tax breaks and preserving President Barack Obama’s ability to adhere to the commitments he made as part of the global climate deal reached in Paris this month.
The oil and renewable provisions negotiated as part of the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill represent the most significant energy policy enacted in years, a compromise that delivered major wins to interests on either side of the ideological spectrum. The omnibus sailed through the House 316-113, with the winning votes split virtually evenly among the two parties. The omnibus was packaged with a $680 billion tax cut package that passed the House Thursday, and the combined bill cleared the Senate, 65-33.
The compromise handed a major victory to Republicans and oil-state Democrats. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was the first to call for an end to the Ford-era ban on crude exports early last year, and the campaign quickly accelerated amid falling prices and the impending end to sanctions on Iran’s oil industry. But it remains to be seen whether the ban’s end will have much immediate impact, amid a global supply glut that has left prices well under $40 a barrel.
But Democrats gained a big haul in return. The deal extends and phases out the wind production tax credit until 2020, and phases down the solar investment tax credit until 2022. That should provide a bridge until the administration’s Clean Power Plan takes hold to further boost demand for carbon-free power.
And notably, the bill contains no Republican riders targeting major elements of President Barack Obama’s environmental and climate agenda and legacy. It leaves in place EPA greenhouse gas restrictions for power plants and its Waters of the U.S. rule, as well as Interior Department rules on hydraulic fracturing and stream buffer zone controls, among other high-profile initiatives.
The bill also does not block the administration’s ability contribute to the Green Climate Fund, the United Nations-run bank tasked with helping poor countries deal with the effects of climate change, to which Obama has pledged a total of $3 billion.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi overcame objections from progressive Democrats to lifting the oil export ban, arguing that Republicans’ “desperate thirst” to do so led them to give up clean energy provisions that would “eliminate around ten times more carbon pollution than the exports of oil will add” and preserve the rest of the administration’s climate agenda. In the end, just 18 House Democrats opposed the deal.
The lack of riders incensed some coal-state Republicans who said they were promised more by GOP leaders in a final deal. “I feel we were disregarded,” said Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), chair of the Congressional Coal Caucus, who voted against the spending deal.
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) touted language directing Interior to consult with states on the stream buffer rule and an infusion of economic assistance to clean up abandoned coal mines, especially in Appalachia.
EPA funding would remain flat from last year around $8.1 billion — which Republicans noted also was the lowest level of funding for the agency since 2008. The Interior Department would recieve $12 billion, more than $1 billion above last year. The Energy Department would see funding increased across its accounts. And the Army Corps of Engineers would see its budget rise 10 percent.
The White House backed the measure, noting it was “largely free of new unrelated ideological riders” and praised the wind and solar tax incentives as “driving significant reductions in carbon pollution and other dangerous air pollutants and providing certainty for investments in clean energy.”
Despite these wins, the overall deal was viewed as a convoluted mixed bag, leading the League of Conservation Voters to decline to include it in its annual scorecard. Groups linked to the Koch brothers, as well as to more liberal environmental groups both opposed the deal, representing dissatisfaction on both poles of the energy-politics divide.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested