Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/4/16
-
Congress Falling Short on Reforming Weak Rules on Perilous Toxics
Jan 4, 2016 | San Francisco Chronicle
When the chemical industry sings the praises of a reform bill intended to crack down on dangerous toxic substances, it’s time to worry. But that’s the case with a major bill on the verge of congressional approval that falls short of needed toughening of health and safety regulations on thousands of chemicals in everyday use. -
(ACC Mentioned) Litigation 101
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
All the lawsuits taking aim against the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan have been filed. Now the action begins. -
2016 Holds Flurry of State Planning, Legal Drama for Clean Power Plan
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will continue to enjoy the spotlight in 2016 as the Obama administration works to follow through on international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -
Some States Roll Up Their Sleeves on Clean Power Plan
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
States that are part of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and the PJM Interconnection will hold separate meetings within the next six weeks to discuss the Clean Power Plan, according to Doug Scott, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Great Plains Institute. -
Massachusetts Goes to Court Over Emissions Limits
Jan 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Massachusetts officials will go to court this week to defend against a lawsuit saying they are not doing enough to cut greenhouse gas emissions. -
Neb.'s Rural Nature Adds Twist to Compliance Planning
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Nebraska epitomizes the tension present in many state governments weighing compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
EPA Allows More Time for Input on Ozone-Related Rulemakings
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has extended the public comment periods for two rulemakings with implications for ozone regulation. -
Texas Joins Legal Fight Against 'Impossible' Ozone Standard
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Texas has joined more than a half-dozen other states in challenging U.S. EPA's recently adopted ambient air quality standard for ozone. -
Calif. Well Could Leak Methane for Months
Jan 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A methane leak at a natural gas storage well in California could be months away from being plugged, officials say. -
Environmentalists Seek OMB Meeting Over EPA Radiological Guidance
Jan 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
A host of environmental groups is raising concerns over proposed drinking water amendments to EPA's protective action guidelines for radiological emergencies, seeking discussions with the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) as the office reviews the proposal.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
-
Congress Falling Short on Reforming Weak Rules on Perilous Toxics
Jan 4, 2016 | San Francisco Chronicle
When the chemical industry sings the praises of a reform bill intended to crack down on dangerous toxic substances, it’s time to worry. But that’s the case with a major bill on the verge of congressional approval that falls short of needed toughening of health and safety regulations on thousands of chemicals in everyday use.
An overhaul is badly needed since weak federal laws are 40 years old and thousands of chemicals and industrial ingredients reach the public with little or no objective testing. The vetting process is so balky that asbestos lingered on the market for years after its dangers were well-known.
Comprehensive laws are clearly in order. After two years of debate and dickering, an update of the Toxic Substances Control Act won a unanimous voice vote approval in the Senate. A differing version of the changes was passed by the House earlier.
That political resolve sounds appealing in fixing a bad situation. The Senate bill provides a new approach: The Environmental Protection Agency will make health a top priority, with industry costs for compliance secondary. A timetable will be set to check the safety of chemicals now in circulation. Revenue for testing an ocean of substances in factories, homes and offices will be guaranteed.
The measure drew broad support in the Senate, notable in dysfunctional Washington where the EPA is the scourge of Republican lawmakers. The bill’s drawn warm words from the American Chemistry Council as a “watershed moment’’ and the National Association of Chemical Distributors, which said passage will “build confidence’’ in the regulatory system.
Snuggling up to regulators is not what industry groups normally do, especially when fresh regulations and added costs are on the line. But the reasons aren’t hard to fathom in this case.
Chemical makers are worried about states cracking down in the absence of genuine federal rules. That’s what California has done at the ballot box such as Proposition 65 in 1986, which forced companies to make safer products and warned consumers of health dangers — and in legislative votes to ban harmful chemicals in baby bottles.
Adding a dose of federal oversight puts off states impatient with Washington inaction. Under the bill, once the EPA has marked a chemical for study, a state is barred from moving more quickly to regulate it on its own, said Nancy Buermeyer, senior policy strategist with the Breast Cancer Fund.
The proposed changes add the false note of a comprehensive crackdown on government neglect in a way that leads the public to think a significant trouble spot is fixed, she said.
Though some environmental groups are going along with the bill, her group and others are not. The reasons for doubt include the still slow pace of chemical testing, concerns about screening imported goods containing unexamined substances, and the harm to stricter state-level health and safety rules.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., tried to stop the bill’s progress in her chamber. She’s the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a longtime advocate for meaningful toxic substance reform. She had pushed a genuine reform of federal laws only to have a weaker imitation taken up by the Senate.
In this case, the best hope may lie in resolving the differences between the House and Senate bills. Boxer won a promise that she would be included in the talks to produce a final bill. The outcome of those talks, expected in the next few months, will show how serious Washington lawmakers are in protecting the public from toxic dangers.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Litigation 101
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
All the lawsuits taking aim against the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan have been filed. Now the action begins.
The case against U.S. EPA's rule to curb greenhouse gases from power plants is shaping up as one of the biggest environmental law battles of all time.
Nearly 150 opponents -- including 27 states, industries and labor groups -- rushed to attack the rule with more than 50 separate lawsuits that will all be linked at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On the opposite side, 18 states, cities, greens and industry groups have jumped in to defend the agency's signature climate rule.
The fight stands to be the most closely watched case in the environmental arena in 2016 as federal judges first decide whether to grant opponents' request to scrap the rule and then dig into the merits of the case. There's a lot at stake, including billions of dollars per year for industry, President Obama's environmental legacy and the fate of the U.S. power system.
Here's a primer on what's coming next and who's involved:
Timeline
First up, D.C. Circuit judges will decide whether to freeze the rule -- a decision that could come this month.
States and industries recently wrapped up their arguments urging the court to immediately block the rule while litigation plays out, arguing that court intervention is needed to prevent irreparable harm the rule will cause and that EPA's opponents are likely to win the case on its merits.
EPA and its allies, meanwhile, have countered that the rule's challengers have no chance at winning in court and that halting the rule would hurt the public interest by delaying efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change.
Then the judges will tackle the merits of the case, involving a lengthy back-and-forth of legal filings and oral arguments from both sides.
Ultimately, a panel of three judges will hear oral arguments in the case and issue their opinion, which could come late this year or early in 2017. In 2017 or 2018, legal experts expect the legal fight over the Clean Power Plan will wind up in the Supreme Court.
Issues
EPA's challengers are preparing to attack the rule from several angles, according to court documents that lay out their prime arguments.
Among their 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 (Greenwire, Dec. 21, 2015).
For their part, EPA and its supporters say they're confident the rule will withstand scrutiny, pointing to previous Supreme Court rulings finding that EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act.
X factors
Many outside factors could influence the legal fight over the Clean Power Plan, including which judges get the case, who's in the White House next year and what happens with another embattled EPA regulation:
Judges -- Environmental lawyers are closely watching to see which three judges will be picked for the case. Of the 11 active judges and six senior retired judges who still hear cases, some are seen as friendlier to EPA regulations than others. The court previously rejected an effort by EPA's challengers to retain a panel of three conservative judges who had been randomly selected to hear arguments in a failed attempt to challenge EPA's draft Clean Power Plan in court (Greenwire, Aug. 20, 2015).
Presidential race -- The 2016 presidential election could also affect the legal battle. If a Democrat wins the White House, the administration is expected to stay the course defending the rule, but a Republican administration could withdraw its legal support. A Republican president could also propose to withdraw the rule entirely, although such a move would be subject to further legal battles.
Mercury rule -- The status of the Obama administration's rule to slash mercury emissions from power plants may also have an effect on the Clean Power Plan case. A panel of D.C. Circuit judges in December decided to keep the regulation intact after the Supreme Court found that EPA had failed to properly account for costs before issuing the rule. That rule is central to arguments made by EPA's critics in the Clean Power Plan lawsuits, where challengers contend that the mercury rule pre-empts the climate rule (Greenwire, Dec. 17, 2015).
EPA's foes
Nearly 150 groups are suing the Obama administration over the Clean Power Plan. States and industries are warning federal judges that the rule is illegal and will hurt everyone from power producers and other businesses to minority groups that will be hit by increased electricity costs.
Here's a breakdown of EPA's challengers:
27 states -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina ,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Utilities -- Utility Air Regulatory Group; American Public Power Association; Alabama Power Co.; Georgia Power Co.; Gulf Power Co.; Mississippi Power Co.; CO2 Task Force of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group Inc.; Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a division of MDU Resources Group Inc.; Westar Energy Inc.; NorthWestern Corp., doing business as NorthWestern Energy; Luminant Generation Co. LLC; Oak Grove Management Co. LLC; Big Brown Power Co. LLC; Sandow Power Co. LLC; Big Brown Lignite Co. LLC; Entergy Corp.; LG&E and KU Energy LLC; Newmont Nevada Energy Investment LLC; Prairie State Generating Co. LLC; and Minnesota Power.
Electric cooperatives -- National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Inc., Associated Electric Cooperative Inc., Big Rivers Electric Corp., Brazos Electric Power Cooperative Inc., Buckeye Power Inc., Central Montana Electric Power Cooperative, Central Power Electric Cooperative Inc., Corn Belt Power Cooperative, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Deseret Generation & Transmission Cooperative, East Kentucky Power Cooperative Inc., East River Electric Power Cooperative Inc., East Texas Electric Cooperative Inc., Georgia Transmission Corp., Golden Spread Electric Cooperative Inc., Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Inc., Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., North Carolina Electric Membership Corp., Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative Inc., Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative, Oglethorpe Power Corp., PowerSouth Energy Cooperative, Prairie Power Inc., Rushmore Electric Power Cooperative Inc., Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative Inc., San Miguel Electric Cooperative Inc., Seminole Electric Cooperative Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, South Texas Electric Cooperative Inc., Southern Illinois Power Cooperative, Sunflower Electric Power Corp., Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Inc., Upper Missouri G&T Electric Cooperative Inc., Wabash Valley Power Association Inc., Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative Inc., Basin Electric Power Cooperative, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc.
Coal, mining -- Murray Energy Corp., National Mining Association, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Lignite Energy Council, Luminant Mining Co. LLC, Luminant Big Brown Mining Co. LLC, West Virginia Coal Association, Newmont USA Ltd. and North American Coal Corp.
Other industry challengers -- National Association of Home Builders, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business, American Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Foundry Society, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Wood Council, Brick Industry Association, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, National Lime Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, Portland Cement Association, Association of American Railroads, Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation, National Alliance of Forest Owners, Denbury Onshore LLC and Biogenic CO2 Coalition.
Labor -- International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO; and United Mine Workers of America.
Legal nonprofits, other challengers -- Energy & Environment Legal Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, Independence Institute, Rio Grande Foundation, Sutherland Institute, Klaus Christoph, Samuel Damewood, Catherine Dellin, Joseph Luquire, Lisa Markham, Patrick Peterson, Kristi Rosenquist, Local Government Coalition for Renewable Energy and Louisiana Public Service Commission.
Intervenors -- Groups intervening in the case to challenge EPA's rule are Dixon Bros. Inc., Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition, Joy Global Inc., Nelson Brothers Inc., Norfolk Southern Corp., Peabody Energy Corp. and Western Explosives Systems Co.
EPA's friends
Intervening on EPA's behalf to defend the rule are 18 states as well as a host of cities, renewable energy advocates and utilities.
Here are the agency's allies:
18 states -- California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts and Virginia.
Cities, counties, mayors -- National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; Austin, Texas; Seattle; District of Columbia; Boulder, Colo.; Chicago; New York; Philadelphia; South Miami, Fla.; Baltimore; Coral Gables, Fla.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Houston; Jersey City, N.J.; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; Pinecrest, Fla.; Portland, Ore.; Providence, R.I.; Salt Lake City; San Francisco; West Palm Beach, Fla.; Broward County, Fla.; and Boulder County, Colo.
Greens, public health groups -- American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, Coal River Mountain Watch, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Kanawha Forest Coalition, Keeper of the Mountains Foundation, Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.
Industry groups -- Advanced Energy Economy, American Wind Energy Association, Solar Energy Industries Association, Calpine Corp., National Grid Generation LLC, New York Power Authority, NextEra Energy Inc., Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Southern California Edison Co.
Friends of the court -- Former EPA administrators William Ruckelshaus and William Reilly and the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law are amici curiae -- friends of the court -- supporting the administration in the case.
-
2016 Holds Flurry of State Planning, Legal Drama for Clean Power Plan
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will continue to enjoy the spotlight in 2016 as the Obama administration works to follow through on international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
States must submit at least initial thoughts about how they might cut power-sector carbon emissions by Sept. 6.
Here are the top developments ClimateWire will be tracking in the meantime:
State, utility planning advances
Most states will submit status updates in the fall and request two-year extensions to send EPA their final carbon-slashing plans.
A few states, including California, members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and Pennsylvania, could be on track to submit full plans in 2016. California has not yet specified whether it will file this year, and the RGGI states are working through how to tweak their existing cap-and-trade program to be compliant with the Clean Power Plan. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) would like to submit a full plan by Sept. 6, but that desire may be undercut by ongoing negotiations with the state Legislature to pass a budget (ClimateWire, Dec. 14, 2015).
North Carolina, which opposes the rule and is suing EPA, is poised to intentionally submit an inadequate plan in 2016 in order to speed court battles.
State leaders believe EPA only has authority to require emissions reductions at the source -- directly from regulated coal and natural gas plants. It will submit a blueprint for what would be feasible inside that "fence line" and likely will fall short of EPA's targets. But North Carolina will simultaneously develop a plan that will satisfy EPA's goals as a contingency in case lawsuits fail.
Other states plan to seek extensions.
Among the 27 states that are suing, most are drafting plans ahead of the 2018 deadline as a backup option. Even those that have not officially declared they will submit plans to EPA have been meeting with utilities and public interest groups and taking other steps to prepare, according to a recent compilation of actions submitted by suing states that are arguing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should halt the rule.
Almost all states are also involved in multi-state discussions about how their decisions might affect one another.
Nongovernmental organizations including the Center for the New Energy Economy in the West, the Great Plains Institute in the Midwest and Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in the Southeast have coordinated some of those talks, along with the Georgetown Climate Center and the Bipartisan Policy Center.
States are also meeting with others in the same grid organization. The Midcontinent States Environmental and Energy Regulators and the PJM Interconnection states group will meet separately within the next six weeks and come together for a workshop in the spring, according to Doug Scott, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Great Plains Institute.
Modeling could help states pick path forward
The grid organizations and nonprofit groups are preparing modeling to determine the least-cost compliance options.
Most of the data will become available in the coming months, and officials say it will be key to making the first decisions about state plans.
In the West, the firm Energy Strategies will finish modeling this month for New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Colorado. A second phase will consider the rest of the Western states except for California. In the Southeast, the Nicholas Institute is working on modeling. The National Governors Association is providing modeling assistance to four states -- Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Utah.
A number of private firms are also developing their own assessments.
Early stakeholder meetings within states have shown most are focusing on what plan pathway to pick -- whether to pursue an average rate of emissions or cap carbon outright. If they cap emissions, they're also considering whether to include new sources of power in that cap.
Most states will write trade-ready plans so that fossil fuel power generators can purchase credits or allowances from greener sources of energy to comply with the rule even if they fall short of their own carbon budgets. Rate-based and mass-based states cannot trade with one another, so many states are waiting to see which plan type other states will pick so they can be part of the broadest and least expensive carbon market available. They hope to get a sense of that from initial plans submitted in September.
With the exception of the Southeast states and Virginia, most states that have indicated a preliminary preference are leaning toward mass-based standards (ClimateWire, Dec. 16, 2015).
States are also awaiting final model trading rules, which EPA is accepting comments on until Jan. 21 and will finalize this summer.
For more on state activity surrounding the Clean Power Plan, visit the state pages of E&E's Power Plan Hub.
State politics are still at play
As state clean air officials work through the nuances of carbon plans, they may also have to consider interference from legislators and other officials.
Electric utilities in New Mexico have worried that a regulatory oversight board that must approve the state Environment Department's Air Quality Bureau submissions to EPA might "mess around" with the proposal (ClimateWire, Dec. 21, 2015).
Pennsylvania and Ohio lawmakers have pushed to stall compliance planning (ClimateWire, Dec. 14, 2015).
Two bills introduced in Michigan would require legislative review of any state plan.
Other states passed measures before the Clean Power Plan was finalized to ensure their involvement in the process. The West Virginia Legislature tasked its Department of Environmental Protection with analyzing whether the rule is feasible for the state to implement. If it is feasible, the agency must submit a plan for the Legislature to approve before filing it with EPA.
The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a database of legislative activity related to the Clean Power Plan.
Court battles to unfold
Twenty-seven states, along with trade groups and companies, are challenging the Clean Power Plan in lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They have asked the court to delay implementation of the rule and expect to hear a decision early this year.
Eighteen states and the District of Columbia, as well as many companies and environmental advocates, are supporting the rule in the court proceedings.
Four states -- Idaho, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Tennessee -- have not taken sides.
After the court decides whether to issue a stay, judges will dive into the merits of the lawsuit and hear oral arguments. A final decision could come late this year or early in 2017.
Opponents have argued EPA illegally issued duplicative rules for coal-fired plants, infringed on states' rights, intruded on federal energy regulators' jurisdiction and exceeded its authority in forcing states to transform their energy systems to favor certain sources of electricity (Greenwire, Dec. 21, 2015).
For more background on lawsuits against the rule, check out the E&E Power Plan Hub Legal Challenges page.
Congress out of attacks, for now
Congress last month passed resolutions to block the Clean Power Plan and rules for new power plants, but, as expected, President Obama vetoed them.
Lawmakers could withhold spending to implement the rules when an omnibus appropriations package runs out in September.
For fiscal 2016, Obama proposed giving EPA its first overall budget increase in several years, but the omnibus approved by Congress keeps agency funding flat and slightly decreases state and tribal assistance grants (Greenwire, Dec. 16, 2015).
Committees will likely continue to hold oversight hearings with high-ranking officials from EPA and other agencies involved with implementation of the rule.
While the Clean Power Plan could become an issue in election battles in 2016, Congress seems to have few tactics left for fighting the regulation unless a Republican takes over the White House.
-
Some States Roll Up Their Sleeves on Clean Power Plan
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
States that are part of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and the PJM Interconnection will hold separate meetings within the next six weeks to discuss the Clean Power Plan, according to Doug Scott, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Great Plains Institute.
The state groups will review potential plan types, take deeper dives on technical issues and look at modeling results.
The two groups will come together for a public workshop hosted by the Great Plains Institute in late March or early April, likely in Indianapolis. The Bipartisan Policy Center and Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions will assist with the workshop.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality will hold a stakeholder meeting tomorrow on the state's response to the Clean Power Plan, focusing on the proposed federal implementation plan and model trading rules for carbon. The meeting will be at MISO's operations center in Little Rock. EnergyWire's Edward Klump will be tracking the meeting.
Also tomorrow, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 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."ClimateWire's Emily Holden will be reporting.
Tomorrow evening in Wilmington, North Carolina's Division of Air Quality will host the last of an initial round of public hearings on the Clean Power Plan.
In Georgia on Thursday, the Environmental Protection Division will hold a meeting on EPA's program to provide incentives for early adoption of some renewable energy measures and for energy efficiency measures for low-income households. EnergyWire's Kristi E. Swartz will be reporting.
In Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the Council on Foreign Relations will host aconversation with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on climate policy and the recently concluded Paris talks.
In case you missed it:
Superstar lawyers gird for epic court battle over Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Dec. 24, 2015).
Xcel Energy Inc. CEO Ben Fowke looks to wind, solar as compliance options in Upper Midwest (EnergyWire, Dec. 24, 2015).
Montana, Wyoming and Kentucky double down in opposing climate rule (ClimateWire, Dec. 23, 2015).
Federal office finds Clean Power Plan isn't specific enough for smaller businesses (ClimateWire, Dec. 23, 2015).
Michigan can meet EPA's carbon reduction targets through at least the middle of the next decade by merely carrying out existing state policies (EnergyWire, Dec. 23, 2015).
North Dakota utilities, regulators air gripes about EPA carbon rule's costs, mandates (ClimateWire, Dec. 22, 2015).
New Mexico power companies are moving on Clean Power Plan but fear that politics could play havoc (ClimateWire, Dec. 21, 2015).
-
Massachusetts Goes to Court Over Emissions Limits
Jan 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Massachusetts officials will go to court this week to defend against a lawsuit saying they are not doing enough to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Conservation Law Foundation will argue before the state’s highest court that the administration of Gov. Charlie Baker (R) has not done enough to meet the targets prescribed by Massachusetts’ 2012 climate change law, the Boston Globe reports.
The law mandates a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2020 below 1990 levels.
Before the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station announced it will close, greens predicted the state would only slash emissions 20 percent in that timeline, the Globe said.
But the loss of the massive carbon-free power source as early as next year will make the target even harder. The Conservation Law Foundation is now forecasting only a 16 percent to 19 percent reduction.
“The delay in implementing the law is egregious,” Bradley Campbell, the group’s president, said in a statement. “There have been no efforts to implement the additional policies called for in the state’s clean energy and climate plan.”
Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew Beaton told state lawmakers in November that there is “not a chance” the goals will be attained in the timeline provided under the law.
In a statement to the Globe, Beaton said “Massachusetts remains a nationally recognized leader on combating climate change, but action is needed on existing policies and the administration’s proposal for cost-effective, low-carbon hydroelectric power generation.”
In court, officials have said the law only requires that the state set emissions goals, not hard caps on pollution, and it is therefore complying.
-
Neb.'s Rural Nature Adds Twist to Compliance Planning
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Nebraska epitomizes the tension present in many state governments weighing compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The governor and attorney general of this red state are in litigation with the federal government over the rule to force emissions cuts from power plants.
Its environmental regulator and major utilities, however, are doing their precautionary duty to craft compliance options aimed at mitigating possible effects on the state's electricity ratepayers and reliability.
Nebraska faces a 40 percent reduction in its rate of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 under the final EPA rule, a significant increase from the 26 percent reduction that was initially proposed.
It's also unique in that it's the only state served entirely by publicly controlled, nonprofit electric utilities. By law, they are required to provide power to the largely rural population at the lowest possible cost.
"We're holding all options open at this point in time. We really haven't centered on where we're going to land," said Jim Macy, director of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
In mid-February, Macy plans as many as nine meetings over three weeks around the state to "get public opinion on this and see what the ratepayers think," he said in an interview.
Joe Citta, the environmental manager at the state's largest electric utility, the Nebraska Public Power District, said NPPD supports the attorney general's challenge "to make sure that certain portions of the rule are legal."
"But you cannot wait and see what happens on the lawsuits," Citta said. "You have to look at how can we put together a good state plan and let the lawsuits run their course."
Warm welcome for trade
Citta has already met with other utilities, the DEQ, and officials with the state energy office and governor's office.
His utility has also been working closely with the Southwest Power Pool, a regional transmission organization serving 14 states.
He said he welcomes any effort by the SPP to "put together a regional trading scheme" for carbon as a compliance mechanism with the CPP.
"Being able to trade is definitely a positive outcome of the final rule," whether it's part of a coordinated regional scheme or because the state develops a "trading ready" compliance plan that would enable trading with any other state with a similar plan, Citta said.
If "you don't have to go it alone," there is an "opportunity for savings," Citta said.
Trading regimes such as those for EPA's acid rain rule or the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule "allow a lot of flexibility, as they help to keep costs levelized across the nation," he said.
"We don't know what the impact is until we actually see the lawsuits sort out and get the plan put together," Citta said.
"It will change of the way we do business, and there probably will be some impacts to cost. But it's way too premature to say what those impacts are going to be," he said.
Citta's counterpart at the Omaha Public Power District shares the concern about possible costs.
"Additional regulations and regulatory oversight usually don't end up in cost savings. There's more overhead, there's more administrative fees, or it causes changes in your entire infrastructure that cost money to implement," said Russ Baker, manager of environmental and regulatory affairs at OPPD.
Still, "we're going to comply with them, and we're also going to look for the opportunities that present themselves through that compliance and try to leverage them to our benefit, as well," he said.
He, too, questions EPA's authority to administer the rule but wants to work toward developing a compliance plan. "We see that there's great value in being able to work collaboratively as a group of utilities," Baker said.
Pushing for more time
But "we think we need more time," he said, which is why he would like the state to seek an extension in submitting a compliance plan to EPA.
OPPD is well on its way to cutting its carbon emissions, Baker noted, pointing to a decision to retire three coal-fired units at its North Omaha Station this year and switch the remaining two units to natural gas by 2023.
The utility is also adding 400 megawatts of wind power, with a goal of getting 33 percent of its electricity from renewables in 2023. The share of coal-fired power will have dropped to 15 percent the same year, from 31 percent in 2018.
"We read the tea leaves and the signals from the market about where things are going," Baker said.
OPPD is not alone among Nebraska utilities in taking steps to change its generation fleet.
NPPD and Lincoln Electric System, which along with OPPD provide roughly 90 percent of Nebraska's electricity, are moving in a similar direction, said Duane Hovorka, executive director of the Nebraska Wildlife Federation.
With enormous untapped potential for wind power, Nebraska "will be able to meet the new CPP standards fairly easily," Hovorka said.
Whether Hovorka's view is shared by other stakeholders may become clearer after DEQ holds its outreach meetings in February.
DEQ's Macy said the sessions will be part of a "very transparent and deliberative process" on how the state develops a "Nebraska carbon mitigation plan." He also plans to launch a website devoted to the CPP.
"We're looking at an extension so that we have adequate resources and time to analyze Nebraska's needs," Macy said.
Between late April and late June, "we will be making our final recommendation on a probable course for Nebraska, seek consensus on that and move forward on asking for that extension," he said.
Last year, the state's unicameral Legislature enacted a law requiring any compliance plan developed by the DEQ to be submitted to lawmakers along with an assessment of its effects. The law also required the Nebraska Energy Office to develop a strategic energy plan for the state.
But this year, the Legislature is only in session 60 days, concluding April 20.
An extension would make state compliance easier if the DEQ recommends changes in state law to support a plan, he said.
"So getting legislation through this year is not very likely," Macy said.
-
EPA Allows More Time for Input on Ozone-Related Rulemakings
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has extended the public comment periods for two rulemakings with implications for ozone regulation.
In separate Federal Register notices published last week, EPA said it is pushing back the comment deadline for its proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update from Jan. 19 until Feb. 1, while the cutoff for feedback on proposed changes to the agency's handling of data related to "exceptional events" is now Feb. 3, instead of Jan. 19. The extensions were prompted by requests from stakeholders and other members of the public for more time to weigh in, according to EPA.
EPA officials had unveiled their proposed changes to the exceptional events rule in early November, after saying that states could use it as a tool to address high levels of background ozone (Greenwire, Nov. 11, 2015). The proposed update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule followed later in the month; it is intended to curb power plant emissions of nitrogen oxides that waft across state lines and contribute to downwind creation of ozone, the prime ingredient in smog.
At a lightly attended public hearing last month, representatives of public health and environmental groups urged EPA to strengthen its proposal; in written comments and in interviews, some electric utility executives are voicing concern that the plan is already too stringent.
-
Texas Joins Legal Fight Against 'Impossible' Ozone Standard
Jan 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Texas has joined more than a half-dozen other states in challenging U.S. EPA's recently adopted ambient air quality standard for ozone.
That threshold of 70 parts per billion "is not supported by scientific data," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said in a news release last week, a few days after filing the petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. "Areas of the country that fail to comply with these impossible standards will be subject to costly new regulations that will harm our economy and kill jobs."
EPA published the new rule in the Oct. 26 issue of the Federal Register, opening an approximately two-month window for legal challenges to be filed. That window has now closed; at least eight other states, along with numerous business groups, are challenging the rule on the grounds that it is pointlessly strict. A coalition of environmental and medical groups also filed suit last month, arguing that a 60 ppb standard is needed to better protect human health (Greenwire, Dec. 23, 2015).
Ground-level ozone, which can irritate lung passageways and worsen asthma and other conditions, is the prime ingredient in smog. The new standard replaces the 75 ppb benchmark adopted in 2008 during President George W. Bush's administration. In deciding to lower it, EPA officials predicted that the projected annual health savings of at least $2.9 billion by 2025 would handily outstrip the estimated $1.4 billion yearly compliance cost. The agency's analysis excludes California, which is expected to need more time than the rest of the nation to fully comply.
Paxton filed the suit on behalf of both the state of Texas and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. In the release, his office said ozone levels in Texas have dropped the past 15 years, even as the state's population and economy have steadily grown.
Other states that have either filed suit or are seeking to intervene in the litigation challenging the new standard are Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin.
-
Calif. Well Could Leak Methane for Months
Jan 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A methane leak at a natural gas storage well in California could be months away from being plugged, officials say.
Southern California Gas Co, which owns the well, doesn’t expect to be able to plug the methane leak until late February or even late March, the Los Angeles Times reported this weekend.
The leak is spewing gas at a rate of about 110,000 pounds per hour, and it’s sent millions of pounds of methane into the atmosphere since it was discovered in October.
The cause of the leak is unknown, and initial efforts to plug it by injecting a chemical solution into the well failed due to obstructions several hundred feet down, the Times reported.
SoCal Gas is now drilling two relief wells in order to pump the plugging solution closer to the natural gas reservoir, but those wells will take months to complete.
Drilling for the first well started on Dec. 4 and crews have reached a depth of 4,000 feet (the natural gas reservoir is 8,500 feet down). Work on the second well will begin on Jan. 20, according to the report.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and its impact on climate change is about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Green groups have said the leak is grounds for strict new environmental rules at oil and gas storage facilities.
Local businesses and residents have sued over the leak, which has forced the evacuation of about 1,500 homes nearby.
-
Environmentalists Seek OMB Meeting Over EPA Radiological Guidance
Jan 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
A host of environmental groups is raising concerns over proposed drinking water amendments to EPA's protective action guidelines for radiological emergencies, seeking discussions with the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) as the office reviews the proposal.
The groups express concern over the possibility that the proposal will permit a marked increase in the allowable level of radioactive contaminants in drinking water, and say any such effort "would be met with a firestorm of controversy."
They urge that any such proposals be rejected, and ask for discussions with OMB senior staff undertaking the review.
At issue is EPA's recent decision to seek interagency review of proposed drinking water guidelines for radiological emergencies. The agency sent the document to OMB Dec. 5 for review. The drinking water guidelines would update EPA's Protective Action Guide (PAG) for Radiological Incidents.
EPA in 2013 issued a draft update to an earlier radiological PAG, and specifically sought comment on whether it should develop a short-term drinking water PAG. The controversial 2013 PAG manual, which is in use as interim guidance, makes several changes from the 1992 version, including applying the manual to incidents other than just nuclear power plant accidents and incorporating Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cleanup guidance for improvised nuclear devices. But EPA at the time deferred including drinking water levels.
"EPA published the PAGs without changing the water limits, but indicated it was interested at some time in the future in considering breaching the Safe Drinking Water Act [(SDWA)] limits for PAG purposes," the environmental and nuclear watchdog groups say in a Dec. 22 letter to OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Howard Shelanski.
"We presume that that is what EPA has now transmitted to OMB for approval. This could result in the public being forced to consume water with concentrations of radionuclides hundreds or even thousands of times higher than considered acceptable under the Safe Drinking Water Act," they add.
Such a proposal would spark controversy, they say, noting that scores of groups opposed such suggestions in the past. "People would be extremely upset when they learn that the Obama Administration is contemplating imposing consumption of water with vastly higher concentrations of radioactivity than considered acceptable under the Safe Drinking Water Act," they say.
The letter was sent by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch, Clean Water Action, Public Citizen, Beyond Nuclear, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Environment America, Riverkeeper, and Committee to Bridge the Gap
Economic Impacts
The groups also say economic impacts would occur with a lowering of water protection standards, noting that if a radiological release contaminated water significantly above acceptable levels, protective actions might not be undertaken. People would be exposed to highly radioactive water, and the affected area would probably close down, they say.
"Schools would close; businesses would be shuttered; people would move out rather than drink water with radioactivity concentrations far above what has been historically considered acceptable," they say.
Environmentalists and anti-nuclear advocates have long opposed the PAGs, raising concerns that the agency's endorsement of standards thousands of times weaker than EPA's cleanup and drinking water limits could undermine the agency's strict Superfund standards.
EPA has refuted charges that the PAGs will change Superfund or other agency cleanup levels, saying in a 2013 Federal Register notice seeking comment on the draft update that "PAGs are not intended to define 'safe' or 'unsafe' levels of exposure or contamination." The agency continued, "This guidance does not address or impact site cleanups occurring under other statutory authorities such as" EPA's Superfund program. And the PAG manual is not a legally binding regulation or standard and does not supersede any environmental laws, EPA has said.
But environmentalists have remained concerned about any acceptance of exposure levels less stringent than SDWA. In written comments on the 2013 PAG manual, a coalition of environmentalists criticized the agency's consideration of a drinking water PAG that referenced other entities' emergency guidelines, saying such a PAG would allow for a variety of drinking water values that could be up to tens of thousands of times less stringent than SDWA levels.
An EPA spokesman at press time was unable to comment in response to questions on the proposed drinking water guidelines and the agency's timeline for the water guidelines and finalizing the PAG.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested