Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/21/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why U.S. Chemical Production Is Forecast To Rise In 2016
Dec 21, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
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) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Market Falls
Dec 21, 2015 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a new tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), fell further during the fourth quarter, slipping back 0.2 percent on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis in November. -
US Senate Passes Microbeads Phase-Out Bill
Dec 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Senate has approved a House-passed bill (CW 8 December 2015) banning the sale, or distribution, of cosmetic products containing plastic microbeads. It now heads to the President's desk. -
REACH Amendments Remove Need for in Vivo Skin and Eye Tests
Dec 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
EU member states have agreed to adopt REACH annex amendments to revise data requirements for: skin corrosion/irritation; serious eye damage/eye irritation; and acute toxicity (CW 6 October 2015). Changes will come into affect after their publication in an EU Regulation. -
U.S. Power Grid, Dams Vulnerable to Hackers
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Iranian hackers have demonstrated the ability to get into and possibly sabotage the American power grid and other infrastructure such as dams and factories. -
Closed Meetings Bring New Scrutiny to Rail Data Rules
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
U.S. transportation regulators are expected to change a rail data collection rule following more than a dozen closed-door meetings with railroads, utilities and agriculture groups. -
Report: Human Error, Defects Cause Most Railway Incidents
Dec 21, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Associated Press
Dozens of crude oil-carrying train derailments in recent years have prompted federal regulators to focus on improving the safety of tanker cars, though a newspaper's analysis of federal records show that track defects and human error are to blame for most incidents. -
So It's Come to This -- A Clean Power Plan Haiku
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
In Minneapolis last Thursday, the Center for Energy and Environment offered cocktails and haiku readings by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Assistant Commissioner David Thornton as primer to a discussion about the role of early-action credits and efficiency programs in meeting the requirements of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
EPA Critics Throw Down Gauntlet in Legal Fight
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The many foes of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are preparing to attack the Obama administration on a host of legal fronts as the court battle over the embattled rule gets underway. -
For Less Than Thirty Pieces of Silver
Dec 21, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Charlie Drevna
When the dust settles on this year’s now-traditional trillion-dollar Congressional holiday spending spree, bloviating will abound on the supposed significance of ending the longstanding prohibition on U.S. crude oil exports. Supporters will celebrate a free-market triumph, claiming a fairer shake in the global marketplace for American crude producers. Environmentalists will decry continued reliance on petroleum-based fuels, continuing to deny that safe, affordable, and reliable gasoline and diesel are what make the world’s economy go ‘round. -
Climate Change Scientists Exchange Verbal Punches Over All-Renewable Energy Solution
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Gayathri Vaidyanathan
A fault line developed in the climate science community last week, as outspoken climate scientist Naomi Oreskes called James Hansen, the former NASA scientist and climate change activist, a "climate denier." -
Smart Cities are Vital to Our Urban Future
Dec 21, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Brandon Davito
Last month, thousands of city leaders, tech companies, academics and researchers from around the world converged in Barcelona, Spain to debate the future of the modern city.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why U.S. Chemical Production Is Forecast To Rise In 2016
Dec 21, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
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) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Market Falls
Dec 21, 2015 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a new tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), fell further during the fourth quarter, slipping back 0.2 percent on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis in November.
This follows a 0.1 percent decline in October and a generally weak first half of the year. Weakness in 2015 remains centered on oilfield chemicals and a few other segments that combined weighed on overall volumes. Although there was weakness beyond oil chemicals during November, market volumes excluding oilfield chemicals were essentially flat, suggesting some stabilization of overall U.S. industrial activity.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was off 2.0 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) also on a 3MMA basis. Year-earlier comparisons were generally in the 4 percent to 6.8 percent range during 2012-2014, but since February of this year they have fallen below that range as the downturn in the oil and gas sectors affected headline volumes. In addition, the strong U.S. dollar has adversely affected a number of export-oriented customer industries. Still, on a Y/Y basis, gains remain fairly widespread among most market and functional specialty chemical segments. With few exceptions, however, year-earlier comparisons have been moderating. Headline volumes are up only 0.3 percent year-to-date (YTD).
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates. Some areas where specialty chemicals are used include adhesives, cleaning materials, cosmetic additives, construction materials, food additives, fragrances, and detergents.
This data is the only timely source of market trends for twenty-eight market and functional specialty chemical segments. Chemistry directly touches over 96 percent of all manufactured goods, and trends in these specialty chemical segments provide a detailed view of trends in manufacturing. The data also sheds light on how various consumer end-use markets are performing compared to others in the marketplace.
For related articles, news, and equipment reviews, visit our Equipment Zones -
US Senate Passes Microbeads Phase-Out Bill
Dec 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Senate has approved a House-passed bill (CW 8 December 2015) banning the sale, or distribution, of cosmetic products containing plastic microbeads. It now heads to the President's desk.
The Microbead-Free Waters Act (HR 1321) – introduced by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) – requires the phase-out to begin in July 2017.
It also bans the use of microbeads as an alternative ingredient, and preempts relevant state laws. Several states and counties, including California, have already passed bans (CW 12 October 2015).
-
REACH Amendments Remove Need for in Vivo Skin and Eye Tests
Dec 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
EU member states have agreed to adopt REACH annex amendments to revise data requirements for: skin corrosion/irritation; serious eye damage/eye irritation; and acute toxicity (CW 6 October 2015). Changes will come into affect after their publication in an EU Regulation.
The amendments remove the need for animal tests for the endpoints (CW 12 November 2014).
But – at a REACH Committee meeting on 10 December in Brussels – member states failed to agree on annex amendments for skin sensitisation.
The agreed amendments apply to information requirements for substances manufactured or imported in volumes of 1tonne or more (Annex VII), and of 10tonnes or more (Annex VIII).
Annex VIII (points 8.1 and 8.2) will no longer contain a standard information requirement for an in vivostudy for skin irritation/corrosion and serious eye damage/eye irritation. Instead, alternative test results will be sufficient.
The amendments also cover the oral toxicity of substances other than gases. Annex VIII (point 8.5) will be altered to allow the possibility to waive the dermal test for substances known to be non-toxic when ingested; in vivo evidence suggests that such substances will also be non-toxic to the skin (CW 15 July 2014).
NGO Cruelty Free International (CFI) says it is “delighted” that there is no longer a need for the Draize irritation test on rabbits, where chemicals are dropped into eyes or rubbed on the skin.
For skin sensitisation, the situation is more complex. The draft Regulation published in October highlighted alternative test methods validated by EURL-Ecvam and/or internationally agreed by the OECD. The draft suggested that these can generate enough information to assess whether a substance could cause skin sensitisation, when used in the framework of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (Iata). Insufficient information would, however, lead to the “first choice” for in vivo testing, the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA), it stated.
NGOs, including CFI and Humane Society International (HSI), had asked for “prominence” to be given to the newly validated tests under the OECD Iata for skin sensitisation. They pointed to the draft Echa guidance for skin sensitisation which refers to the Iata (CW 23 July 2015).
“We think it is such a shame that the committee did not take the opportunity to ‘future proof’ REACH and protect animal welfare by indicating that skin sensitisation should also be done without using animals, wherever possible. The alternatives together consistently correctly predict human skin allergies 90% of the time, which is better than the mouse test they should replace,” said CFI.
“It was never proposed that the Iata should be a drop-in replacement for LLNA, but that it be given at last equal prominence, with a view to ongoing developments, and considering that the tests are already validated and accepted by Echa,” said Jarlath Hynes, HSI science policy advisor.
“The kicker is potency,” he said. “The new in chemico/in vitro Iata assays do provide quantitative information but there is still some work to do to improve accuracy and to validate them for potency.
"A combined approach with in silico is emerging, but some member states feel that the complexity of this method means that they would not know how to apply the results in a regulatory context.”
NGOs first proposed annex updates in 2012. “We are frustrated that it has taken so long and do not believe it would have happened without our explicit request,” said CFI.
-
U.S. Power Grid, Dams Vulnerable to Hackers
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Iranian hackers have demonstrated the ability to get into and possibly sabotage the American power grid and other infrastructure such as dams and factories.
While tracking hackers who had taken housing files from the University of California, security researcher Brian Wallace uncovered passwords and diagrams related to dozens of U.S. power plants, according to an Associated Press investigation.
"If the geopolitical situation changes and Iran wants to target these facilities, if they have this kind of information, it will make it a lot easier," said Robert Lee, a former U.S. Air Force cyber warfare officer. "It will also help them stay quiet and stealthy inside" (Jonathan Fahey,AP/Oklahoman, Dec. 21).
For example, a small dam near New York City was hacked into from Iran in 2013, prompting worries up to the White House as Americans operate with more and more connectivity among their devices, vehicles and even infrastructure.
"Everything is being integrated, which is great, but it's not very secure," said Cesar Cerrudo, chief technology officer at IOActive Labs, a security consulting firm. The United States has more than 57,000 industrial control systems linked to the Internet, from air-conditioning units to large pipelines. This is more than any other country, according to researchers at the search engine Shodan.
It's more than a hypothetical threat. Last year, hackers took over the control system of a German steel plant and caused "massive" damage to a blast furnace, according to the German government.
The head of the National Security Agency revealed last year that hackers from Iran and other countries had reached the technical capability to take down U.S. power grids and other infrastructure (EnergyWire, Nov. 21, 2014).
Security officials were thus very concerned after obtaining intelligence about hackers getting into the controls of the U.S. dam. Though the attack was eventually traced to the very small and inconsequential Bowman Avenue Dam in Rye, N.Y., the White House and other federal officials took the threat seriously (Danny Yadron, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 20).
-
Closed Meetings Bring New Scrutiny to Rail Data Rules
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
U.S. transportation regulators are expected to change a rail data collection rule following more than a dozen closed-door meetings with railroads, utilities and agriculture groups.
Records show that between Nov. 16 and Dec. 7, Surface Transportation Board staff spoke with the Association of American Railroads, BNSF Railway Co. and the Western Coal Traffic League, among other organizations.
STB has proposed requiring railroads to post weekly performance updates, including average train speeds, the number of cars online and delays in terminals or on side tracks. Regulators have collected these statistics on a temporary basis since 2014, when severe weather and surging crude tank car traffic brought headaches for competing coal and grain shippers.
Since then, crude-by-rail shipments have slowed, dwindling coal inventories at certain power plants have bounced back, and railroads have caught up with delivering the past few grain harvests.
But regulators at STB want to continue gathering data on the health of the nation's rail system in case service interruptions return.
The rail industry has largely agreed with STB's plan, with a few caveats that came out in recent meetings. In a Dec. 7 session with STB staff, BNSF, which serves the oil-rich Bakken Shale play in North Dakota, warned of the potential for certain data to be "misconstrued by the public."
For instance, BNSF took issue with reporting the daily average number of loaded and empty cars that haven't moved in more than 48 hours. Representatives from the railroad argued that differences between its "unit train" and "single car" businesses, often used for crude and grain, respectively, could make such data misleading.
"BNSF's crude oil business is nearly 100 percent unit trains, and, by design, the trains are in constant motion," BNSF attendees pointed out, according to minutes of the discussion. "In contrast, about 50 percent of the cars in its agriculture business are devoted to non-unit train movements, which have delays in their trip plans."
The distinction may help explain why many shippers accused BNSF of favoring lucrative oil shipments over moving grains or coal in recent years, an accusation BNSF denies.
Still, other recent meetings with STB carried echoes of old debates (EnergyWire, May 1).
One member of the Western Coal Traffic League, a coalition of coal consumers including several electric utilities, recalled having to shut down four units for three months in the summer of 2014 in part because of rail disruptions, according to a summary of a Nov. 19 meeting. That gathering included presenters from Minnesota Power, Kansas City Power and Light Co., and the Lower Colorado River Authority.
"Anecdotally, it appeared that oil trains were being accorded priority over other traffic," STB noted in minutes of the meeting. "The service data helps the utilities see if problems are occurring and if they are being treated fairly."
Normally, STB would not be allowed to engage with so many outside interests during an ongoing rulemaking. But on Nov. 9, the board ruled to allow "informal dialogue" on the rail data collection issue to answer technical questions and "ultimately develop better final rules than we could develop without these meetings."
"Dialogue between stakeholders and STB technical staff is especially valuable and efficient in these informal circumstances, outside of an appearance before the Board," STB Chairman Daniel Elliott said in a statement explaining the decision.
The decision was not without controversy, however.
Thomas McFarland and Gordon MacDougall, speaking as "concerned agency practitioners," filed critical comments with the Department of Transportation agency.
"The STB is not empowered to waive its own rules of practice without a far better showing beyond the assertion this is necessary to educate its staff while keeping Members out of the process," McFarland and MacDougall wrote.
STB has said it intends to publish an updated version of the notice of proposed rulemakingissued one year ago. An agency spokesman declined to speculate when a final rule on the data collection would be ready.
-
Report: Human Error, Defects Cause Most Railway Incidents
Dec 21, 2015 | Chicago Tribune
By Associated Press
Dozens of crude oil-carrying train derailments in recent years have prompted federal regulators to focus on improving the safety of tanker cars, though a newspaper's analysis of federal records show that track defects and human error are to blame for most incidents.
Trains carrying Bakken crude — a type of highly volatile oil — have made safety an issue in cities across the country, including Columbus.
Records show that about 45 million to 137 gallons of Bakken crude oil moves through Ohio each week, with as much as 25 million gallons through Franklin County, The Columbus Dispatch (http://bit.ly/1RxLRq9) reported in the first of a three-part series on crude-train incidents.
Much of the crude oil comes from the Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota and Montana. Ohio is a way point between the formation and refineries on the East Coast.
A study finished this year by a Franklin County consultant found that crude oil tops the list of common commodities carried through the area on trains and trucks.
The study's authors watched trains pass at seven locations across the county and found that about 14 percent of the train cars carried hazardous materials. Almost half of those cars carried crude oil by offices, restaurants, apartments and the Greater Columbus Convention Center.
Ohio has a plan in place to deal with hazardous materials, but nothing specific for Bakken crude oil.
"The reason this issue is becoming more prominent is because of the weight of crude oil and ethanol trains," said Christopher Hart, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, the federal agency that investigates the most serious train crashes.
Hart said the focus on hazardous-materials crashes is to prevent derailments, ensure tank cars do not breach and ensure emergency personnel are prepared for crashes.
U.S. rail authorities have focused on tanker cars, spurring regulations that carry an estimated $1.7 billion in upgrades aimed at making the cars less likely to spill during derailment.
But records analyzed by the Dispatch show that about one-third of train incidents in the past 20 years involved track problems, such as a faulty joint, and slightly more than one-third of incidents were caused by human error, such as a crew member falling asleep.
In the past two decades, the growth in crude-oil shipments has meant more derailments and other issues, the newspaper reports.
An analysis shows that from 1995 to 2010, crude oil spilled from trains a total of 27 times, costing an average of about $46,000 a spill to clean. From 2010 to July 2015, crude oil spilled from trains 423 times at an average cleanup cost of more than $109,000.
-
So It's Come to This -- A Clean Power Plan Haiku
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
In Minneapolis last Thursday, the Center for Energy and Environment offered cocktails and haiku readings by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Assistant Commissioner David Thornton as primer to a discussion about the role of early-action credits and efficiency programs in meeting the requirements of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Minnesota regulators have said the state should be able to meet its obligations under either a mass- or rate-based regulatory approach, thanks to a diversified generation portfolio and strong state energy efficiency and conservation targets. MPCA is still collecting stakeholder input and refining comments to be submitted to EPA in late January. "We think that it's a fair plan," Thornton said.
Other participants in the CEE session included national experts Rodney Sobin of the National Association of State Energy Officials; Sara Hayes of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; and Chris James and Ken Colburn, principals of the Regulatory Assistance Project.
The experts wrapped up a series of meetings with Minnesota regulators, utility officials and other stakeholders Friday. Sobin noted that Minnesota "is pretty well-situated" to regulate power-sector carbon dioxide because its agencies have a history of working with utilities to track emissions and other environmental metrics.
Here are Thornton's haikus, with writing credit to Anna Henderson of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board: "Mass or rate-based plan/Want to change and stay the same/Ask the stakeholders." "Fear for the future/Sunk capital investments/Act now or later."
The Michigan Agency for Energy and the state's Department of Environmental Quality will announce Clean Power Plan modeling results tomorrow. The data will show "what Michigan needs to do and by when" to comply with the rule, according to a press release. E&E's Jeffrey Tomich will report on the modeling.
Dec. 31 is the deadline for stakeholders to submit comments to West Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection for a CPP feasibility study it will develop for the state Legislature. That study is due April 20.
The next state meetings aimed at guiding the development of compliance options kick off the first week of January.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on Jan. 5 will take comments on the proposed federal implementation plan and review a menu of potential compliance options. The DEQ will also develop a work plan on outreach to "vulnerable communities."
In Georgia on Jan. 7, the Environmental Protection Division will hold a meeting on EPA's program to provide incentives for early adoption of selected renewable energy measures and for energy efficiency measures for the low-income population. One panel will explore wind and solar projects while a second will look at low-income efficiency programs.
For those state agencies that have developed websites devoted to their Clean Power Plan process, we've started adding links to our state profile pages. Look for them in the left-hand column under "State Resources." See a state agency page missing? Please email us at powerplanhub@eenews.net.
In case you missed it:
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission will hold a special hearing in February to vote on its response to 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 (EnergyWire, Dec. 18).
Arkansas hasn't settled on a potential path for complying with the Clean Power Plan, but the state is seeing interest in a mass-based approach both in its jurisdiction and elsewhere in the midcontinent (EnergyWire, Dec. 17).
The cost impact of the Clean Power Plan in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator's 15-state footprint ranges from a few billion dollars to more than $100 billion over the next two decades, according to an initial analysis by the grid operator (EnergyWire, Dec. 17).
Virginia's second meeting on the Clean Power Plan ended without consensus last week on some of the most basic compliance decisions the state must make (ClimateWire, Dec. 16).
The Wyoming Legislature will hold off on considering bills that would affect the state's Clean Power Plan compliance strategy when it convenes in February, clearing the way for the state to submit an initial plan to EPA in September (ClimateWire, Dec. 16).
Florida's largest electric utility wants the Sunshine State to comply with the Clean Power Plan by requiring power plants to reach an average rate of emissions (EnergyWire, Dec. 16).
-
EPA Critics Throw Down Gauntlet in Legal Fight
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The many foes of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are preparing to attack the Obama administration on a host of legal fronts as the court battle over the embattled rule gets underway.
States, industries and other groups challenging the rule to clamp down on power plants' greenhouse gas emissions laid out their legal strategies in documents sent to a federal appeals court last week.
Among their key accusations: EPA illegally issued duplicative rules for coal-fired power plants; the rule infringes on states' rights; the agency intrudes on federal energy regulators' turf; and EPA doesn't have the authority to force states to transform their energy systems to favor certain sources of electricity.
The themes are familiar.
States and industry groups raised similar concerns when they asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit earlier this year to halt EPA's proposed rule. That effort failed, but the same groups -- plus many more -- are now challenging the final Clean Power Plan in the same court. EPA's opponents have asked the judges to halt the rule while the litigation moves forward, and the court is expected to decide early next year whether to block the rule.
In these latest filings, EPA's critics are previewing the arguments they'll make when the judges dig into the merits of the case.
Central to their arguments is the contention that EPA's climate rule illegally regulates power plants under two sections of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Power Plan regulates existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the clean air law. But two versions of that section were signed into law, one from the Senate and one from the House. Critics of the EPA rule contend that one version bars EPA from issuing standards under 111(d) for sources of pollution already covered by other regulations. A 2011 Obama administration rule regulates power plants under Section 112 of the clean air law, so foes of the climate rules say the 111(d) regulation is unlawful.
That issue was the first one raised in several of the court filings last week, including those submitted by North Dakota, the National Mining Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and a coalition of 24 states led by West Virginia.
Although EPA's opponents see that argument as a winner, the Obama administration and its allies argue the other version of Section 111(d) -- the one that originated in the Senate -- says only that EPA cannot redundantly regulate a pollutant. That would allow its greenhouse gas rule. They also say the two versions are ambiguous and that the agency deserves deference from the court in interpreting unclear statutory language.
Challengers have a host of other arguments planned, including questioning EPA's authority to regulate "beyond the fence line" of power plants.
Electric utility groups including the Utility Air Regulatory Group and the American Public Power Association plan to attack EPA's authority to "require the curtailment or closure of affected facilities and replacement of their generation by EPA-preferred sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power, rather than relying on feasible improvements in emissions performance of existing fossil fuel-fired" utilities, according to the list of issues they submitted.
The National Mining Association will question whether EPA "has the authority to force states to transform their energy economies to favor only certain sources of electricity, under the guise of regulating power plants."
Several petitioners, including Murray Energy Corp., plan to argue that EPA's rule intrudes on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's authority to regulate the interstate electricity market.
The coalition of states led by West Virginia also raised a number of state-specific legal questions. Among them: Was EPA's treatment of nuclear energy sources in Arkansas illegal? Does the rule unlawfully limit fuel diversity in New Jersey, thereby presenting reliability and cost concerns? Was Texas illegally punished in the area of wind energy under the rule? And did EPA fail to consider the impact of the rule throughout Wyoming on the greater sage grouse and other "sensitive species"?
The conservative group Energy & Environment Legal Institute plans to question whether EPA allowed personnel "with conflicts of interest to draft the rule and failed to recuse decisionmakers with 'unalterably closed minds' from reaching the determination to implement the final rule."
EPA and its supporters in the lawsuit, meanwhile, have long insisted that the rule will withstand the court's scrutiny.
"I fully feel that once we get to the merits of this case, the agency is going to be in good shape," EPA general counsel Avi Garbow said earlier this fall. "We are quite proud of what we've done with the Clean Power Plan, and now the eyes are on the lawyers in many respects to ensure that we can defend it."
-
For Less Than Thirty Pieces of Silver
Dec 21, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Charlie Drevna
When the dust settles on this year’s now-traditional trillion-dollar Congressional holiday spending spree, bloviating will abound on the supposed significance of ending the longstanding prohibition on U.S. crude oil exports. Supporters will celebrate a free-market triumph, claiming a fairer shake in the global marketplace for American crude producers. Environmentalists will decry continued reliance on petroleum-based fuels, continuing to deny that safe, affordable, and reliable gasoline and diesel are what make the world’s economy go ‘round.
And missing from most of those conversations will be any real accounting of the price that Republican members of Congress paid to plant a victory flag on the grave of the crude export ban.
Our nation’s duly elected lawmakers were so eager to help one segment (producers) of one industry (oil and gas) that they willingly sold the rest of our domestic manufacturing and energy sectors – not to mention American consumers – down the river.
The “Clean Power Plan.” President Obama’s massive new regulations on power plants were a prime target for legislative pushback by Republicans, who are rightfully concerned about both higher electricity costs for constituents and a terrible precedent of Clean Air Act misuse. But in the name of crude exports, Republicans shoved the pendulum in the other direction in the form of “green” energy handouts in the tax extenders package.
Wind and Solar Subsidies. Instead of seeing measures to slow or stop the new “Clean Power Plan” mandates in the spending bill, we now hold the bag on extensions of huge wind and solar energy subsidies, since these industries are incapable of standing on their own. Incidentally, while lifting the export ban is projected to raise about $1.4 billion in federal revenues over 10 years, the tab for those wind and solar tax breaks is expected to hit about $23.8 billion. Cheers, Congress.
The Ozone Rule. In case you missed it amid all the Clean Power Plan hubbub, on October 1 of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency issued what many experts believe is going to be the most expensive environmental regulation in history. Under the new rule, nearly a thousand counties across the country – home to close to half of all American manufacturing jobs – may be categorized as in “nonattainment,” and thus subject numerous economic penalties. This, by the way, for dubious environmental gain – particularly when one recognizes that we’ve barely even begun contending with EPA’s 2008 ozone regulations. But instead of insisting on Omnibus language to let states catch up on ozone, Republicans practiced saying “Made in China.”
The Waters of the United States Rule. Concerns abound that EPA’s redefining of what constitutes “adjacent” to navigable waters will impact everything from manufacturing facilities to small farms, irrigation ditches, and maybe even the pond in your back yard. The rule has already run headlong into a major legal thicket, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a stay in October. But Republicans gave up a chance to put another nail in the WOTUS coffin in return for getting their way on crude exports.
The Stream Buffer Rule. If our domestic coal industry weren’t already taking enough of a beating under EPA’s unprecedented new regulations, the Obama administration’s rewrite of the stream buffer zone rule will – by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s own estimation – cost 20,000 American jobs through needless regulation of an already tightly regulated industry (an independent analysis projects those job losses will be much higher). Republicans lost out on an opportunity to help protect those jobs by vacating this Department of Interior regulatory sucker-punch; instead, the Omnibus helps support Obama’s war on coal.
The “Social Cost of Carbon.” The federal government’s relatively new practice of calculating the alleged “social costs” of carbon dioxide emissions (SCC) and applying them to cost/benefit analyses for rulemakings is complicated, controversial, and little understood. At best, the practice is highly suspect; at worst, it’s outright deceptive. But SCC calculations are now applied to a wide range of things like resource development activities, energy efficiency standards, and road and infrastructure projects. Republicans initially planned to include Omnibus language to at least force agencies to adhere to the Office of Management and Budget’s standards for discount rates when undertaking SCC calculations, but forcing the federal government to apply a minimum of reason to SCC calculations became another casualty of the export-ban “compromise.”
The “Green Climate Fund.” This is the icing on the cake. The Green Climate Fund is a wealth-transfer mechanism created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whether you believe that human-caused climate change is a problem or not, the Green Climate Fund – with its goal of shuffling an arbitrary $100 billion a year from developed countries to developing ones – isn’t going to solve it. Thus, when Obama pledged a U.S. contribution of $3 billion to the GCF in late 2014, many Congressional Republicans were skeptical. A measure to block the appropriation of funds to the GCF until the new Paris climate agreement was submitted to the Senate for ratification, however, was removed from the Omnibus as part of the crude export deal. Administration officials now cite Obama’s ability to divert discretionary funds to the GCF, bypassing the Congressional appropriations process altogether.
All in all, Congressional Republicans seem to have struck quite a deal – giving up ground on no fewer than seven major energy and environmental issues in order to see the 40-year-old crude export ban lifted But at least we’ll be able to reap the immediate benefits of opening up domestically produced crude to the global market. Or as Amrita Sen, chief oil economist at Energy Aspects Ltd. in London, put it recently: “We don’t believe at current spreads there is any impact, as exports would not be profitable.”
Free markets are a great thing. But with outdated and dysfunctional policies like the federal Renewable Fuels Standard and the Jones Act still in place, our energy markets remain far from free. And for this “victory” – what a price we’ve paid.
Drevna is a senior fellow at the Institute For Energy Research in Washington, DC and former president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.
-
Climate Change Scientists Exchange Verbal Punches Over All-Renewable Energy Solution
Dec 21, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Gayathri Vaidyanathan
A fault line developed in the climate science community last week, as outspoken climate scientist Naomi Oreskes called James Hansen, the former NASA scientist and climate change activist, a "climate denier."
At the epicenter of the disagreement is energy policy. Some activists and scientists, like Oreskes, believe that renewable energy could be the panacea for the climate problem. Activists widely promoted the message of 100 percent renewables this month at the climate summit in Paris, where nations adopted a new climate accord. The view is also held by policymakers in places like California, which has a renewable energy portfolio standard that requires utilities to sell 50 percent renewable energy by 2030. San Diego last week announced that it would move to 100 percent renewables by 2035.
Renewable energy includes wind, solar, hydro and biomass but excludes nuclear energy and power plants that use carbon capture and storage.
Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.
Other scientists, like Hansen and Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at Carnegie Institution for Science, disagree with the 100 percent renewables approach. They favor a technology-neutral approach, including nuclear energy, to decarbonize the planet's energy system.
"There is a disturbing trend where energy system decisions are being made and injected into climate policy," Caldeira toldClimateWire. "Just because something is renewable doesn't mean it's good. I would much rather see a low-CO2 emissions portfolio standard."
To counter the all-renewables focus, Caldeira, Hansen and two other scientists promoted nuclear energy and a carbon tax as viable approaches at the Paris climate summit, while challenging 100 percent renewables (ClimateWire, Dec. 4).
This scuffle among major players in climate science burst into the open last week at the world's largest geology gathering in San Francisco. At a panel discussion at the American Geophysical Union conference, Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, rejected the scientists' call for nuclear energy.
"There is a lot of technical, moral, legal problems with nuclear power, and you can't just make those go away," Oreskes told Hansen, who was also on the panel.
The next day, in an editorial in London's Guardian, Oreskes labeled Hansen, Caldeira and their colleagues as "climate deniers."
The moniker is typically reserved for people who doubt mainstream climate science, but Oreskes wrote that it applied equally to people who doubt 100 percent renewable energy could solve the climate crisis.
"There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can't meet our energy needs," she wrote.A 'pretty heroic' solution?
Oreskes' belief in 100 percent renewables comes from Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, whose research has found that the world could be powered entirely by wind, water and solar by 2050, together with grid modernization, energy efficiency and demand management. Jacobson, actor Mark Ruffalo and businessman Marco Krapels have founded the Solutions Project, which champions 100 percent renewables.
Jacobson does not believe nuclear energy or biomass is necessary or cost-effective.
Most energy experts disagree with this view and find that a portfolio of energy options, including renewable energy, nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration power plants, would be needed to decarbonize beyond 2030. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations' authoritative science body, does not include a 100 percent renewable scenario.
The IPCC points out that ignoring any technological option, such as nuclear, would make it more expensive for the world to decarbonize. Steve Davis, an earth system scientist at University of California, Irvine, who studies energy systems, said that 100 percent renewables would require "pretty heroic" assumptions about the availability and cost of transmission and storage.
"You can get to pretty high level, maybe 80 percent, but the last 20 percent becomes really costly unless you have some form of storage and cheap transmission to move the power around to where it's needed," he said.
Still, Jacobson's study has caught on because it tells people what they would like to be true, Caldeira said.
"It is like saying you can eat all you want, and you don't have to exercise and you are not going to get fat and you'll be healthy," he said.Should scientists talk about policy?
The disagreement over energy systems brings to the fore a long-standing debate over whether climate scientists should talk about policy, which is not their forte. Since his retirement, Hansen has advocated various policies, such as a carbon price that allow all fossil fuel-free technologies to compete on a level playing field.
Hansen said that climate scientists should get involved in policy by collaborating with experts in economics and energy systems. Scientists are trained to be objective and analyze complicated problems, he said.
"When I was working for government, the high levels in NASA would say, 'Be sure when you talk in Washington, stick strictly to the science; don't talk about the policy.' Then who is going to talk about the policy?" he said.
Oreskes said that climate scientists should not advocate specific policies.
"We cannot judge as experts whether it is better to have a carbon tax or an emissions trading system," she said. "These are matters of social science and politics, about which most of us are quite inexpert."
Caldeira said that Oreskes seems to be advocating 100 percent renewables and is against nuclear, according to herGuardian editorial.
"For somebody that's engaged in policy advocacy to say that other people shouldn't be engaged in policy advocacy seems to be a little disingenuous," he said.
He did acknowledge, however that there is a gray area if scientists get involved in energy policy debates. If scientists are too outspoken, it could affect the credibility of their science, he said.
"But I think scientists are citizens, and I think we have a right and responsibilities as citizens to have our government do good things and not do bad things," he said.
-
Smart Cities are Vital to Our Urban Future
Dec 21, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Brandon Davito
Last month, thousands of city leaders, tech companies, academics and researchers from around the world converged in Barcelona, Spain to debate the future of the modern city.
Already, more than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, according to the United Nations. By 2050, that’s expected to increase to 66 percent. All told, an additional 2.5 billion people are expected to live in urban areas by then.
How do we prepare for this dramatic change? And, how do we do it while maintaining and improving quality of life and economic development? Critical infrastructure like power grids, water systems, lighting infrastructure and transportation are the foundations a city is built on and they’ll require modernization to match demand. These are challenges we’re tackling every day and were a major focus at Smart City Expo World Congress.
The good news is cities around the world like Copenhagen and Glasgow are already pioneering solutions through advanced information technology and Internet of Things (IoT) networks to make their cities smarter. For them, the population boom also creates tremendous opportunity – urban environments currently account for more than 80 percent of global GDP.
Cities are already competing for talent, investment and growth in the global economy. Amid strained resources, the decisions made today will affect a city’s competitiveness for generations to come. By establishing a horizontal, open standards networking platform, cities can begin deploying smart city applications – like intelligent and adaptive street lights – that will give them the highest return on investment now.
This same network infrastructure can then be leveraged again as the city begins to add new networked services – including smart parking, bike rental kiosks, air quality and environmental sensors, and many more – over time.
We have seen the diverse benefits smart cities provide to their citizens first hand for over a decade. By collaborating with cities and their utility partners, we can build initiatives that support energy generation and sustainability, efficiency and reliability, public health and safety, and economic viability.
For instance, Copenhagen, often regarded as the world’s most sustainable city, is aiming to become the first carbon neutral capital by 2025. With the help of a smart city network canopy, they will modernize street lights, implement intelligent traffic signals, and create a safer cycling network for the more than 50% of the city’s population that commutes to work.
Paris, the “City of Light,” is aiming to reduce public lighting consumption by 30% in the next decade through smart traffic controls and streetlights.
Other cities are focused on improving public safety and efficiency. Glasgow is upgrading “humble lampposts” to improve citizen safety and encourage sustainable transportation through biking and walking. Miami and other cities across South Florida, home to the world’s largest networked street light program, are using a communications network that helps identify outages and mobilizes maintenance crews to restore failed lights more quickly.
And still others are leveraging smart city technology to drive job growth. The city of Bristol in the UK is connecting streetlights, traffic controls, and other sensors across the region to create a “programmable city,” acting as an innovation lab for startups and businesses as they build intelligent services and apps.
Similarly, Chicago leaders have advocated using the city’s existing smart energy network canopy to inspire their entrepreneurial and startup communities. Their network already connects more than 4 million energy customers and smart street light programs in two suburbs.
This is great news for cities, but also for citizens. These smart city pioneers should serve as blueprints for civic leaders around the world. If we learn from each other, cities can blend fundamental infrastructure like energy and transportation with technology to build incredible things, improve efficiency and quality of life today, and plan for the future. A future where there are a lot more of us, living in cities that thrive.
Davito is vice president of Smart Cities for Silver Spring Networks.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested