Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/13/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) Canadian Scientists Identify New Short-Chain Perfluorinated Contaminant
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Scientists from Environment and Climate Change Canada have discovered a perfluorinated alkyl substance (PFAS) in fish, which appears to be related to short-chain C4-based products, widely manufactured by industry over the past decade. -
US EPA Drops Proposal to Set Time Limits for CBI Claims
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has dropped its proposal to issue a rulemaking, to set time limits on confidential business information claims for chemicals, the agency's watchdog said in a report to Congress. -
US EPA Launches High-Throughput Screening Tox Challenge
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A group of US federal bodies, led by the EPA, has launched a $1m competition to find high-throughput screening (HTS) assays for toxicity testing that incorporates chemical metabolism. -
ASTM Releases Alternatives Analysis Standard
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A new ASTM standard has been developed that will assist manufacturers in evaluating chemical alternatives for consumer products. -
Researchers Investigate Mechanisms of Flame Retardant Toxicity
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A team of Chinese, Singaporean and North American researchers have shown how the flame retardant tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCP) affects fish livers. -
Report on 2015 California Refinery Blast to be Unveiled
Jan 13, 2016 | Washington Post
By Gillian Flaccus
A blast at a California refinery could have been much worse if debris from the explosion had pierced a nearby tank holding tens of thousands of pounds of a toxic acid, according to an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. -
Governor Activates National Guard to Tackle Tainted Taps
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Mitch Smith
Michigan's governor has activated the National Guard and reached out to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in an effort to address lead-contaminated drinking water in Flint. -
How The Federal Government Botched Flint's Water Crisis
Jan 12, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Arthur Delaney and Philip Lewis
Over the summer, people in Flint, Michigan, discovered they had been drinking tap water with dangerously high levels of lead, a neurotoxin that can cause miscarriages and damage children's developing brains. The state government admitted in October that its own actions had contributed to the public health emergency, and several state officials resigned in disgrace at the end of December. -
NTSB's 'Most Wanted List' Stresses PTC, Transit-Rail Safety
Jan 13, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
Completing positive train control (PTC) implementation by 2018 and improving oversight of transit-rail systems rank among the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB)"Most Wanted List" for 2016, which was announced today. -
Lawmakers React to President's Final Address, Climate and Energy Vision
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E TV
In his final State of the Union address, President Obama laid out a long-term vision on climate and energy, highlighting climate change as an urgent challenge. In this E&ETV Special Report, members of Congress react to the president's statements on energy technology, oil and coal development, and efforts to address climate change. Lawmakers interviewed include Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Reps. Pete Olson (R-Texas), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Bob Latta (R-Ohio), John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) and Gene Green (D-Texas). -
Hints and Nods Point to Vast Energy Changes
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim and Joel Kirkland
The energy world has come a long way since President Obama took office in 2009 -- whether you consider him responsible for those changes or not. -
Obama Touts Clean Energy Efforts In State Of The Union
Jan 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
President Obama used his final State of the Union address Jan. 12 to tout his efforts to advance clean energy and address climate change, prompting praise from environmentalists for major administration policies such as EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for power plants and criticism from industry groups. -
State of the Union: 2 Clean Energy Developments You May Have Missed
Jan 13, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Elgie Holstein
In his final State of the Union address, President Obama chose to forego a lengthy recitation of his policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions and of his other environmental accomplishments. -
Calif. Energy Producers Split on Cap and Trade's Appropriateness
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Debra Kahn
Some California energy companies are pushing back on the state's plan to use its cap-and-trade program as the main tool for compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Dynegy Counters Ohio Plans with Proposal for More Natural Gas
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Dynegy Inc. is countering proposals by rivals American Electric Power Co. Inc. and FirstEnergy Corp., saying it can trump offers to supply power to millions of the companies' Ohio utility customers for the next eight years at a lower cost by constructing new natural-gas-fired power plants. -
Enviros Work to Keep Logging, Gas Pipeline Out of Md. Park
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Rana Kobell
Maryland environmentalists fended off a utility's plan to cut down trees to help high-voltage power lines through a state park but now face another threat from a different company to build a natural gas pipeline in the area. -
House Handily Clears Bill to Block WOTUS
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
A disapproval resolution aimed at killing the Obama administration's contentious water rule sailed through the House this morning in its last step before reaching the president's desk. -
House Votes To Scrap EPA's CWA Jurisdiction Rule
Jan 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
House lawmakers in a 253-166 vote have approved a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution that would scrap EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' joint rulemaking to define Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction, but President Obama's advisers have already recommended that he veto the legislation.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Canadian Scientists Identify New Short-Chain Perfluorinated Contaminant
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Scientists from Environment and Climate Change Canada have discovered a perfluorinated alkyl substance (PFAS) in fish, which appears to be related to short-chain C4-based products, widely manufactured by industry over the past decade.
Perfluoro-1-butane sulfonamide (FBSA) has been identified in lake trout from the Great Lakes, at levels of up to 3.75 nanograms (ng) per gram (g) wet weight (ww), according to a recent paper published inEnvironmental Science and Technology. FBSA is also found at lower levels in trout from more remote lakes in northern Canada.
Overall some 32 out of 33 trout samples had detectable levels, showing contamination is almost ubiquitous.
Lake trout are a top predator but samples of perch from the Great Lakes basin, a species lower down in the food chain preyed upon by trout, showed lower levels of FBSA than trout in the same area (with concentrations up to 0.47ng/g ww). This is consistent with progressive bioaccumulation in this aquatic food web.
However, the scientists found the highest level in a single sample of flounder fish from the Western Scheldt estuary in the Netherlands. The level was 80ng/g ww, suggesting there may be significant environmental contamination in this industrial area.
FBSA was also found at lower levels in three fish species bought from a Canadian supermarket, demonstrating that it may be present in the human food chain. The highest levels were found in fish livers at up to 0.76ng/g ww.
The authors pin the likely sources on surfactants produced since 2003. Since that time, they note that 3M Company has produced a series of surface treatment products that contain C4 fluorinated polymers, derived from perfluorobutane sulfonyl fluoride (PBSF).
They also point to the 2006 US EPA brokered industry-wide agreement to phase out longer-chain perfluorinated products (C8 and longer) because of their persistent and bioaccumulative potential (Global Business Briefing, May 2012).
“Some of the new alternatives to the longer-chain PFASs are shorter-chain homologue replacements, such as perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS),” the authors conclude. “Although these new fluorinated polymer products have been on the market for more than a decade, their environmental behaviours and the safety of these alternatives have not been well studied or documented, and information on their biodegradability, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicology and effects are still lacking.”
They also note that the current high volume production, use and release of PFBS products could result in accumulation in the food web. Previous work by the authors, published in 2014, demonstrated that FBSA can be produced by rat liver cell cultures, exposed to a PFBS-containing fabric protection spray.
However, they say that it is not yet clear whether these products are degraded to FBSA in the environment, which then accumulates in fish, or whether the products are first accumulated in fish and then metabolised to FBSA.
“More research is warranted as to the sources and fate of FBSA,” the authors conclude. As well as surface treatment products, PFBS compounds are also used as defoaming agents in the metal plating industry.
3M was asked to comment on the research but said it was reviewing the study and a comment would be “premature”. However, it added that PFBS chemistry was not unique to the company.
The American Chemistry Council told Chemical Watch that none of its members, including the six members of the FluoroCouncil (Archroma, Arkema, Asahi Glass, Daikin Industries, Solvay Specialty Polymers and Chemours), manufactured PFBS chemicals.
Dr Michael Warhurst from NGO ChemTrust commented: "Yet again, despite all the claimed improvements in chemicals regulation, we are seeing what seems to be a new contaminant accumulating in the environment. This shows that the regulations aren't working, and that the chemical industry continues to move from one problem chemical to another, rather than moving to truly greener chemistry.”
-
US EPA Drops Proposal to Set Time Limits for CBI Claims
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has dropped its proposal to issue a rulemaking, to set time limits on confidential business information claims for chemicals, the agency's watchdog said in a report to Congress.
The agency had said it expected to issue such a rule in relation to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by 30 September 2014 (CW 19 June 2014). This was in response to a 2012 recommendation from the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
It subsequently said this was delayed, due to “further senior management discussions, leading to a decision to develop a more complex and comprehensive rule”.
In a report to Congress last February, the OIG quoted the EPA as saying that it was still in the “development stage” of the CBI rulemaking and did not have a “timeframe for issuing the proposal” (CW 12 February 2015).
But the OIG told Congress late last year that “the agency is no longer pursuing development of new rulemaking to address” its recommendation that the EPA “establish a time limit for all CBI requests to allow for eventual public access to health and safety data for chemicals”. No specific reason was given for the decision.
However, TSCA reform bills passed by the Senate (CW 18 December 2015) and the House (CW 24 June 2015 ) set time limits. The Senate bill mandates that claims will expire after 10 years if not resubstantiated, while the House bill says they will expire in that time.
The agency did not respond, by our deadline, to the question of whether congressional action prompted the decision not to pursue the rulemaking.
Separately, the OIG also suggested that the agency “establish and publish a plan, with milestone dates, for determining whether to propose a chemical disclosure rule to help address public concerns on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) chemicals.”
In 2014, the EPA started a process to evaluate whether to set federal requirements for disclosure of such chemicals (CW 9 May 2014) but it has not developed a plan of action yet, the report said.
-
US EPA Launches High-Throughput Screening Tox Challenge
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A group of US federal bodies, led by the EPA, has launched a $1m competition to find high-throughput screening (HTS) assays for toxicity testing that incorporates chemical metabolism.
HTS assays are a large and growing part of the modern toolkit for regulatory toxicologists as the risk management community moves away from heavy reliance on animal testing. They involve the researcher using highly automated equipment to rapidly test subtly different combinations of chemical and biological substances, in solution via microtiter plates, comprising thousands of tiny reaction wells.
However, the assays are generally limited to assessment of the parent substance. This is problematic because chemical substances are often metabolised by enzymes as they move through biological systems. The HTS assays, routinely used in chemical risk management, are not able to assess the products of such metabolism and, thus, can fail to highlight important toxicity issues.
Existing technologies – such as recombinant enzymes, liver microsomes, liver S9 fractions and primary hepatocytes – could help fill this gap, but they have not yet been adapted to allow metabolic transformations in cell-based, HTS assays.
The deadline for entering the first stage of Transform Tox Testing Challenge: Innovating for Metabolism is 8 April.
Up to ten 'semi-finalists' will receive $10,000 in prize money, in May, and progress to the second stage, which will require a working prototype. A maximum of five will receive a second stage prize of up to $100,000 and progress to the final stage, which will require a commercially viable method or technology. The overall winner will receive up to $400,000.
The EPA will run the competition in conjunction with two National Institutes of Health (NIH) bodies: the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), located within the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).
-
ASTM Releases Alternatives Analysis Standard
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A new ASTM standard has been developed that will assist manufacturers in evaluating chemical alternatives for consumer products.
The guidance outlines social, economic and ecological considerations to be evaluated when comparing chemical alternatives. Its lifecycle perspective includes considerations ranging from raw material acquisition and transport through to a product's use and end of life.
According to Michael Schmeida, chairman of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Committee on Sustainability (E60), which developed the guide, “the analysis in the new standard helps set the overall context of how green chemistry tools, such as assessment of alternatives and risks, can fit into the overall product development scheme within an organisation.”
Mr Schmeida notes that while other alternatives assessment tools focus on hazards or risks associated with specific ingredients, these do not examine a product's lifecycle or “holistically look at all three attributes of sustainability”.
This ASTM standard (E 3027), on the other hand, is an analysis tool designed “to offer a framework that assists the user in developing a means to accomplish that holistic look”, he says.
The standard was developed, in part, as a response to the California Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. The rule will require manufacturers of regulated product and chemical pairs to develop alternatives analyses (CW 19 November 2015).
“We certainly hope that it is used by industry groups in shaping their responses to SCP rule inquiries,” says Mr Schmeida.
Regarding the future evolution of the standard, the chairman speculates that it could be adapted to better address the needs of individual sectors.
“It is actually my own personal hope that some day this standard no longer needs to exist; ideally, because every ASTM committee has developed their own, more specific document to their specific industry sectors,” he says.
The standard, "Guide for making sustainability-related chemical selection decisions in the lifecycle of products", was developed by a broad stakeholder group, which included NGOs, industry representatives and governmental organisations.
-
Researchers Investigate Mechanisms of Flame Retardant Toxicity
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A team of Chinese, Singaporean and North American researchers have shown how the flame retardant tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCP) affects fish livers.
TDCP is widely used in plastics, textiles, varnishes, electronics equipment and furniture. It is often used as a replacement for polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) retardants but its use in toys is restricted by the EU (CW 20 June 2014). It is classified under the CLP Regulation as a category 2 carcinogen.
It is also known to be a contaminant in indoor air, household dust, rivers (CW 28 May 2013), wildlife and human tissue.
In a paper published in Nature, the researchers say they investigated the toxicity of TDCP to the liver, using zebra fish exposed to three different levels of the substance. The fish livers were analysed through RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) and reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) to understand the molecular mechanisms of toxicity.
The results identified 583 differentially expressed genes (306 up-regulated and 277 down-regulated) in exposed fish compared with controls. Up-regulated genes included those involved in stress, immune and inflammatory responses. Hepatic inflammation was further confirmed by microscopic cell observations.
The up- and down-regulated genes were subjected to Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment and KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) pathway analyses – methods involving databases of known metabolism, genetics and cell signalling pathways.
The exposure to TDCP significantly up-regulated the expression of several biomarker genes for hepatotoxicity, caused hepatic vacuolisation and apoptosis of liver cells, and an increase in liver size.
-
Report on 2015 California Refinery Blast to be Unveiled
Jan 13, 2016 | Washington Post
By Gillian Flaccus
A blast at a California refinery could have been much worse if debris from the explosion had pierced a nearby tank holding tens of thousands of pounds of a toxic acid, according to an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents.
Investigators from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board are expected to discuss that near-hit and other safety issues on Wednesday as they present a report on the Feb. 18, 2015, blast that injured four contractors and coated neighboring homes and cars with white ash.
ExxonMobil sold the refinery to New Jersey-based PBF Energy Inc. in September but continued repairs have delayed the deal.
California workplace regulators issued $566,000 in fines last summer for health and safety violations related to the blast. The plant is located in a densely populated area of the city of Torrance, about 20 miles southwest of Los Angeles.
A state investigation by the California Occupational Health and Safety Administration — also known as Cal OHSA — blamed the blast on a vapor that leaked from a fluid catalytic cracker unit into an electrostatic precipitator.
The fluid catalytic cracker unit refines gasoline and is critical to producing California-grade fuel.
The special blend means the state typically has the highest gas prices in the U.S.
Management knew the leak posed a hazard but didn’t correct the problem and had had problems with the FCC unit for as long as nine years, Cal OHSA said.
The company is appealing the agency’s findings.
“ExxonMobil stands on its record of good faith compliance with all agencies, including the Chemical Safety Board, and we look forward to hearing their perspectives on the incident and reviewing the preliminary report,” Todd Spitler, a spokesman for ExxonMobil, said in a statement Tuesday night.
Spitler’s statement said the company’s investigation found there was no evidence of harm to the community from the damaged unit at the refinery, and ExxonMobil has stringent safety measures in place to assure that’s the case.
The latest update from the independent federal investigators comes amid growing concern from residents and state lawmakers about the refinery’s use of modified hydrofluoric acid, or HF, at the site.
Debris from scaffolding went flying during the explosion and could have caused a “potentially catastrophic release of extremely toxic modified HF into the neighboring community,” the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said in a statement.
Residents have formed a watchdog group to pressure the refinery over its use of modified hydrofluoric acid, which is used as a catalyst to make higher-octane fuels, since last year’s incident.
“A piece of equipment was sent flying out and it landed just feet from a tankful of modified hydrofluoric acid. Even though the explosion didn’t cause a release, it was just because of dumb luck,” said Sally Hayati, a member of the Torrance Refinery Action Alliance.
“There are a lot of people in our area who don’t even know it’s at the refinery. There are some of us who do know and we’re concerned, we’re very concerned.”
Two other recent incidents at the plant have also frayed nerves.
In September, the Fire Department reported a leak of modified hydrofluoric acid and a month later, a leak in a pressurized pipe caused a large steam cloud above the refinery as sirens urged residents to shelter in place.
ExxonMobil said what had leaked was mostly steam. A state investigation is pending.
The refinery on 750 acres produces 1.8 billion gallons of gasoline a year, which accounts for about 8.3 percent of the state’s total refining capacity.
-
Governor Activates National Guard to Tackle Tainted Taps
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Mitch Smith
Michigan's governor has activated the National Guard and reached out to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in an effort to address lead-contaminated drinking water in Flint.
Republican Gov. Rick Snyder's administration has been criticized for its delayed response in addressing the scope of Flint's tainted drinking water issue, after the city switched its water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River in 2014 in an effort to cut costs.
In recent days, the governor has responded to the issue by apologizing to residents for the state's delayed reaction, declaring a state of emergency and increasing efforts to distribute water filters and bottled water.
A spokesman for FEMA, Rafael Lemaitre, said yesterday that the agency would work with state officials to devise a long-term recovery plan.
Snyder said troops would likely begin arriving in Flint today, with more than 30 on the ground by Friday. The announcement said deployment would place troops in distribution sites staffed by American Red Cross volunteers, allowing personnel to provide free filters and water testing kits door-to-door.
-
How The Federal Government Botched Flint's Water Crisis
Jan 12, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Arthur Delaney and Philip Lewis
Over the summer, people in Flint, Michigan, discovered they had been drinking tap water with dangerously high levels of lead, a neurotoxin that can cause miscarriages and damage children's developing brains. The state government admitted in October that its own actions had contributed to the public health emergency, and several state officials resigned in disgrace at the end of December.
Local public officials have called on the federal government to intervene. In her successful mayoral bid this past fall, Karen Weaver campaigned in part on that demand.
"We need federal help," Weaver said in September, something she essentially repeated in December when declaring a state of emergency.
In fact, the federal government was already deeply involved. It took the efforts of private citizens to expose the threat to public health, as it had in Washington, D.C., when that city suffered a major water lead crisis a decade ago.
"This experience has really shattered my trust in government," said Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, a Flint pediatrician whose research showed a spike in lead poisoning among children after the city switched its water supply in 2014. "It's not that I was naive to start with, but you'd expect that utilities, states, federal agencies would take their jobs seriously and try to protect people rather than deliberately mislead, lie and make up excuses not to protect public health."
People outside the government who were veterans of the D.C. water contamination and coverup helped blow the whistle in Flint. Hanna-Attisha became involved thanks partly to an August barbecue with two lifelong friends, one of whom happened to have worked for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington when the city's taps spewed lead from 2001 through 2004.
They talked about the then-smoldering controversy over the decision to pull the city's water from the Flint River instead of buying it from Detroit's system. Brown stuff was coming out of people's faucets -- it tasted bad and caused rashes. The city had changed the water supply at the behest of emergency managers installed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) in what was supposed to be a cost-saving move. Flint officials toasted the change even though everyone should have known, thanks to an earlier analysis, that the river water could be dangerously corrosive to city pipes.
Residents could tell something had gone wrong with the tap water (it was brown!), but officials pooh-poohed concerns about high lead levels -- just as they had in Washington. Elin Betanzo, the former EPA official, knew a way to the truth.
"You have access to all the health records for the children of Flint," Betanzo recalled telling Hanna-Attisha that night. "I said, 'You've got to do this: You've got to look at your blood lead levels.'"
As director of the pediatric residency program at Hurley Medical Center in Flint, Hanna-Attisha could sidestep the government to get her hands on blood lead data for children in Flint. It was the same kind of data that had been crucial in Washington.
In 2001, a change in treatment chemicals caused unsafe amounts of lead to leach from Washington's aging pipes into the water supply. The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority and the EPA knew of high lead levels by 2002, but it wasn't until abombshell Washington Post story that the public learned the full scope of the problem -- in January 2004.
Then, two months after the Post story, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a calming report that said nobody had been hurt. Among the 201 residents in homes that had excessively high water lead levels -- more than 300 parts per billion -- nobody's blood lead exceeded the government's "level of concern," the CDC said. Local officials seized on the report, declaring Washington's toxic tap-water event a non-crisis after all.
That CDC study seemed to alter the government's very understanding of the dangers of lead in water. A local task force created to respond to the crisis said in its final report that "there is scant scientific evidence to suggest a direct connection between lead in drinking water and lead absorption into the body" -- a statement that contradicted several previous peer-reviewed studies.
Shortly after the CDC's study came out, the EPA also removed warnings from some of its websites that water with lead levels above 40 parts per billion "poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of children and pregnant women." An EPA spokesperson later said the agency couldn't find a scientific basis for the statement when it updated its websites.
Today the agency's position is that no amount of lead in water is safe. The EPA requires local water systems to take action when the lead in water from 10 percent of tested taps exceeds 15 parts per billion.
Lead poisoning is most commonly caused by peeling paint and lead dust in homes constructed before 1978, when the U.S. government banned lead paint for domestic applications. But experts have long known that lead in water can be just as harmful.
In children, the symptoms of lead poisoning include stunted growth, irritability, weight loss, abdominal pain, hearing loss and cognitive dysfunction. But these symptoms might not become apparent for years, and tracing them definitively to lead is all but impossible. Most horrifyingly, kids who suffer lead poisoning can permanently lose IQ points.
Marc Edwards, a civil engineering professor with Virginia Tech and an expert on drinking water safety, was skeptical of the CDC's claim that nobody in Washington had been hurt. He tested a theory that maybe the type of rust in city pipes didn't transmit lead as speedily. That theory didn't pan out. In 2005, Edwards -- who two years later would receive a MacArthur "genius" grant -- went on the offense with a series of Freedom of Information Act requests. The local and federal agencies involved in water oversight refused to provide the data on lead levels in D.C. children's blood that underlay the CDC's claims. Using the same strategy that Hanna-Attisha would later deploy in Flint, Edwards obtained the data from a local hospital.
In 2009, Edwards published research finding that high lead levels in D.C. water from 2001 through 2004 resulted in high blood lead levels in hundreds -- and perhaps thousands -- of D.C. children. Research that he published in 2013 showed a spike in late-term miscarriages that correlated with the high water lead levels a decade earlier.
Edwards' FOIA requests revealed damning details about the CDC's report, including several emails from officials concerned that key information had been omitted. Crucially, many of the children in the sample had been drinking bottled, instead of tap, water at the time their blood was taken. Abstaining from water with high lead levels for even a short period results in a drop in blood lead.
"Do we want to mention that many of DC residents … have been drinking bottled water before any of this went public?" one of the report's co-authors wrote in an email shortly before the paper was published. That confounding detail was left out.
Edwards’ efforts paid off -- The Washington Post's Robert McCartney reported thatEdwards had succeeded in "forcing the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to admit that it had misled the public about the risk of lead in the District's drinking water." A House subcommittee in 2010 investigated the CDC's report and produced a scathing paper of its own. It called the agency's conclusions "scientifically indefensible."
"The CDC report flew in the face of every peer-reviewed scientific study on the effect of lead exposure that had ever been published, and they went forward knowing it was based on flawed information," said former Rep. Brad Miller, who had chaired the subcommittee, in an interview with The Huffington Post.
The CDC didn't retract its report, but added some important asterisks -- including a "notice to readers" explaining that "the blood lead levels did not necessarily represent what peak blood levels might have been before the problems with the DC water supply were recognized." It also explained that some blood data had been missing from the original analysis.
In 2011, the journal Environmental Research published a continuation of the CDC's work that found that lead pipes carrying water directly to people's houses were, in fact, a risk factor for high lead levels in Washington's kids from 2001 through 2004.
Dr. Tom Frieden, who became director of the CDC in 2009, said the following year that the original report "left room for misinterpretation and may have led some people to improperly minimize concerns about lead exposure and conclude that lead in the water had never been a problem."
Miller, a liberal Democrat from North Carolina who has since left Congress, found the whole experience exasperating.
"It undermines the credibility of government agencies," he said. "I found articles in right-wing publications that seemed to relish the stories as evidence that government can't be trusted."
Last year, it happened again.
One morning in August, Michael Webber was sitting at his desk, browsing on the computer with his father-in-law.
"Everything's normal, fine. All of a sudden, I noticed a fuzzy spot," Webber, 45, told HuffPost. "And I'm like, 'What is that?' I closed my right eye and my vision was just gone. And I'm like, 'That's odd.'"
Webber lives in a moderate-to-low income neighborhood on the south side of Flint with his wife and two daughters. They get by on Social Security disability benefits because of spinal injuries, hers from a car accident, his a degenerative condition.
"My husband said to my dad, 'How unusual, I just lost vision in one eye. I can't see out of it,'" Keri Webber recalled in an interview.
Michael Webber said his doctors told him that his blood pressure had risen swiftly enough to cause an "eye stroke." An opthamologist told him his full vision would never come back.
"An artery in my eye burst. Now, we have been tracking my blood pressure, which had been steadily elevating since the switch" to the Flint River as the city's water supply, Webber said. "They're just saying it's due to high blood pressure. However, my blood pressure normally is 140 over 80. I'm getting readings 160 over 95, 160 over 100."
High blood pressure is a symptom of lead poisoning in adults. The Webbers said they quit drinking from their taps in June and limited bathing to twice a week.
Dr. Ana Navas-Acien, main author of a 2006 review of the scientific literature on the relationship between lead and cardiovascular disease, said that available research doesn't indicate how long symptoms persist after exposure stops. Blood lead levels can decline within a month, but the lead doesn't actually go away.
"Lead accumulates in the body, in the bones, and from there it remains as an internal source of exposure for a long time," Navas-Acien, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Keri Webber is certain the water poisoned her husband.
"He's not middle-aged, he's certainly not elderly," she said. "And we have [been to] 14 doctor's appointments in two weeks, and what they have found is he had an eye stroke, literally, due to high blood pressure. They ruled out everything but lead."
The city and state governments resisted tackling Flint's problem last year even in the face of several bright red flags.
In June, more than a year after the city had begun using the Flint River as its water source, an EPA official named Miguel Del Toral wrote up the preliminary results of his investigation into reports of high lead levels. The memo lamented the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's failure to make sure the river water was treated so that it wouldn't corrode the city's pipes, many of which contained lead. Del Toral explained that federal rules require systems of Flint's size to control for corrosion.
"A major concern from a public health standpoint is the absence of corrosion control treatment in the City of Flint for mitigating lead and copper levels in the drinking water," Del Toral wrote. "Recent drinking water sample results indicate the presence of high lead results in the drinking water, which is to be expected in a public water system that is not providing corrosion control treatment. The lack of any mitigating treatment for lead is of serious concern for residents that live in homes with lead service lines or partial lead service lines, which are common throughout the City of Flint."
That memo wasn't supposed to be released, but Curt Guyette, a reporter for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, obtained a copy from Lee Ann Walters, a Flint resident who had been given a copy by Del Toral after he took water samples from her house. She'd contacted the EPA because she was worried about her water and her kids.
City and state officials downplayed Del Toral's report, and the EPA said it was only a draft that wasn't supposed to be released. Brad Wurfel, a spokesman for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, told a local reporter in July that "anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water in Flint can relax." In August, department officials met with Flint residents -- including Walters -- and told them that Del Toral had been "handled" and that his report wouldn't be finalized.
Edwards, the Virginia Tech professor, had been watching the Flint water situation since Walters sought him out for additional tests on her water, which Edwards' analysis revealed to have "toxic waste" levels of lead. When he heard about the meeting and the dismissive tone that officials took with Walters, he got mad.
"I was shaking with anger because to brag, smirk, laugh at a mother with lead-poisoned kids, what kind of people do that?" Edwards said. "Frankly, they're just evil, horrible people."
His experience battling various levels of government over Washington's water crisis has left him so jaded that he almost sounds like a conspiracy theorist.
"In D.C., I learned that you can't trust your kids with a government agency," Edwards said.
After Michigan state officials downplayed Del Toral's report, Edwards assembled a team of his Virginia Tech colleagues and students to independently test Flint's water, marshaling the help of activists and volunteers there to collect samples. When state officials said they doubted his preliminary results, which showed high lead levels, Edwards launched FOIA requests for Michigan's own data and official correspondence related to the government's response.
Edwards' team also created a website, FlintWaterStudy.org, where they publicly posted everything they found -- a strategy inspired by D.C. water safety activist Yanna Lambrinidou, who had run a similar website in Washington.
"Once we saw the lead in water was high, we started directly working with ACLU and the activist groups in Flint, which is kind of something you don't do, because people will say you're an activist," Edwards said. "But what I learned in D.C., science alone is powerless, absolutely powerless, to these agencies. Facts mean nothing to these people. Scientific truth means nothing to them."
The emails uncovered through Edwards' record requests revealed bumbling by the state government, but also the degree to which the EPA helped state and local leaders try to allay public concerns.
Susan Hedman, the administrator of the regional EPA office, told then-Mayor Dayne Walling in a July email that Del Toral's "preliminary draft report should not have been released outside the agency" -- something Hedman reiterated in several other messages. During his unsuccessful re-election campaign, Walling told voters that Del Toral's report didn't reflect the opinion of the entire agency.
"Hedman just buried the thing," Edwards said. "Edit and vet it until no one cares."
In a recent interview, Hedman said Del Toral's urging that the state implement corrosion control for Flint's water was a recommendation that the EPA was already making to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. She said the EPA clammed up about the memo because it contained identifying information about a private citizen, Lee Ann Walters, and her children's blood lead levels. The EPA stayed quiet even after Wurfel, the Michigan department spokesman, called Del Toral a "rogue employee" in the fall.
"It seemed the best course of action for us at the time was not to talk about the report per se," Hedman said, noting that the EPA did say it was helping state and local agencies with the water situation.
Though the EPA stayed mum about Del Toral's report, Hedman said the Department of Environmental Quality apologized to him for the "rogue" characterization. She emphasized that Del Toral is part of the team. "He is one of the top experts in the world on lead and copper in drinking water and a key member of EPA's Flint Safe Drinking Water Task Force," she said.
In late September, Dr. Hanna-Attisha released her findings documenting a spike in blood lead levels among Flint's kids that corresponded with the city's water switch (the research was later formally published in the American Journal of Public Health). The county government issued a lead advisory, and in October the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality admitted that it had failed to follow federal rules for corrosion control. Soon after, Flint switched back to Detroit's water system, though it's unclear how soon lead levels will fall.
HuffPost asked Hedman why it took outside pressure to force a change.
"An informed public that calls on government to take action is an important force for protection of the environment and public health," Hedman said.
Hanna-Attisha put it more strongly: "This poisoning of an entire population was entirely preventable."
At the end of the year, Wurfel and Department of Environmental Quality director Dan Wyant both resigned. "I want the Flint community to know how very sorry I am that this has happened," Gov. Snyder said at the time.
Several Flint residents have sued over the harm to their health, but if what happened in Washington is any guide, they won't get swift justice.
Several D.C. parents went to court, asking for compensation for injuries to their children allegedly caused by lead poisoning. The courts wouldn't let a class action case proceed, and now just a handful of families expect to go to trial this year.
One of the plaintiffs, John Parkhurst, a single father of two boys, alleges that the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (now DC Water) knew of high lead levels in 2001 and did nothing to warn consumers. In 2007, worried about his sons' behavioral and learning difficulties, Parkhurst took them to a doctor for neurophysical evaluation, which identified learning and attention problems. The cost of medication and therapy for the boys eventually totaled as much as $75,000, the suit contends, and the boys also face "diminished earning capacity because of the intellectual impairments they have suffered."
Washington has kept its lead levels below the EPA's required action level since 2005, and DC Water said lead levels are historically low.
Despite scientific evidence that, at a minimum, hundreds of children suffered elevated blood lead levels in the early 2000s, DC Water chief George Hawkins told HuffPost that it's not clear to him that anyone had been harmed by the once-toxic water. Hawkins formerly served as the city's point person on lead poisoning prevention.
"In most of the lead cases we worried about in the city, you almost always track it down to lead paint or something of a much greater concentration," Hawkins said. "I think the jury is still out."
-
NTSB's 'Most Wanted List' Stresses PTC, Transit-Rail Safety
Jan 13, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
Completing positive train control (PTC) implementation by 2018 and improving oversight of transit-rail systems rank among the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB)"Most Wanted List" for 2016, which was announced today.
Although the new federal FAST Actallows railroads to apply for additional extensions to implement PTC, the NTSB urged them to get their systems ready for the technology as as soon as possible.
"The extension should allow many more railroads to comply with the law, but the NTSB encourages railroads not to wait for 2018," NTSB officials said in a fact sheet on the topic.
Citing transit-rail accidents in Chicago and Washington, D.C., the board also advocated that transit-rail systems be constantly monitored and improved to maintain and enhance safety.
Transit systems that operate rail should be "subject to competent oversight bodies that have standards and rules, and the power to enforce these rules," NTSB officials said.
Even though each system has unique equipment, operating environments and challenges, all need strong safety oversight to continue safe operations, NTSB officials said.
Other rail-related items on NTSB's list include:
• equipping locomotive cabs with audio and image recorders and equipping some light-rail vehicles with recorders;
• requiring comprehensive medical certification for train operators, including creating a process for dealing with conditions that could impair safety; and
• establishing a fatigue risk management program and continually monitoring ways to reduce fatigue-related risks for personnel performing safety-critical tasks. -
Lawmakers React to President's Final Address, Climate and Energy Vision
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E TV
In his final State of the Union address, President Obama laid out a long-term vision on climate and energy, highlighting climate change as an urgent challenge. In this E&ETV Special Report, members of Congress react to the president's statements on energy technology, oil and coal development, and efforts to address climate change. Lawmakers interviewed include Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Reps. Pete Olson (R-Texas), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Bob Latta (R-Ohio), John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) and Gene Green (D-Texas).
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to E&ETV's coverage of President Obama's final State of the Union address. The president this evening laid out a long-term vision on climate and energy highlighting climate change as an urgent challenge. E&ETV spoke with members of Congress immediately following the speech for their reactions.
Monica Trauzzi: Senator, the president called tonight for a change to the way we do politics. He'd like to see constructive debates. Is that possible on climate change?
Sen. Jeff Merkley: Well, certainly I think that we will take a big stride in that direction. As more of my colleagues across the aisle come to recognize this is the responsibility of our human civilization and our generation to take on the pollution that's wreaking such havoc on our forests, on our fishing and on our farms.
Monica Trauzzi: Did he talk enough about oil, natural gas?
Sen. Jeff Merkley: Well, certainly he addressed the fact that we are embedded in a fossil fuel system of energy, that we've got to pivot to renewable energy, and that we can create a tremendous number of jobs at the same time that we're doing that. And I think so many would like to create a war between the economy and the environment, and that simply doesn't exist here. This is a win-win opportunity.
Monica Trauzzi: Congressman, a big focus on climate change tonight. What did you make of the President's challenge to climate deniers?
Rep. Pete Olson: I laughed. I mean, I've said over and over our climate is changing, that's been a fact since God created the Earth. The problem is right now we don't know how much man is making that change happen. So let's take a deep breath and do some studies, and then do some studies about water, because right now all the studies are on land around cities. Let's diversify, actually see what's happening to our planet, see what we can control and not control. Again, I am not this, well, let's just say I disagree with the president's attack on people who just question his motives, because this is not so much for the world, this is politics.
Monica Trauzzi: Did he miss the mark though by not talking more about oil and natural gas development here in the United States?
Rep. Bob Latta: No. I think what he was trying to do was address the aftermath of 200 nations coming together in Paris and agreeing to an effort to reduce carbon emission, and you do that best with energy efficiency as your fuel of choice, and a growth of renewable energy opportunities, expansion of those opportunities, research that can lead to the linchpin of battery development, the storage opportunity which is important. So I read into that potential that is beyond belief, and that again reaches to blue collar, white collar, you know, four-year, two-year degrees, over to the Ph.D.s. So everyone with apprenticeship programs and training and retraining and higher ed can have an opportunity in our economy.
Monica Trauzzi: The president called for a change to the way we do politics. Do you think a rational constructive debate is possible on climate change?
Rep. John Shimkus: Well, and again, I think that the president brings this up, but he's had seven years to come to Congress to say, "I'd like to work with you," but really what the president has done is say "I'm not going to work with you." The president in one of his other State of the Union's said, "You know, I'm going to use my phone and my pen, I'm going to bypass you all." So that's not the way you have a constructive conversation in this town. It's really getting to know people and also sitting down and say across the table, "How can we do things?" But I didn't hear the president say that. It's pretty much now after all these years, now he's saying, "Well, now we have to do something," but it's pretty much, maybe it's the way the president wants to have things done and not the way the American people want to have things done, or to have things done where you have to, you can't get everything you want all the time, you have to sit down with folks to find out what those issues are that you can agree on to go forward on. I didn't hear that tonight.
Monica Trauzzi: But we are doing those things. I mean, the ban on crude oil exports?
Rep. John Shimkus: Well, there's no one who's going to deny the president has a war on coal, and coal miners are losing their jobs, coal-powered power plants are being shut down because of this administration's attacks on coal and fossil fuels in this country. So we need to get back to making sure that everybody has the opportunity for jobs and economic growth, and that's our coal miners in our coal fields.
Monica Trauzzi: So what did you make of the president saying that he plans to push to change the way oil and coal resources are managed? Do you think that'll bolster the workforce in those communities?
Rep. John Shimkus: No, I think it's a joke. Because where fossil fuels has developed is in the private sector and the private lands. Federal government micromanaging the means of production is ripe for failure and it's overregulation, it's just another way to really stop fossil fuel use in this country.
Monica Trauzzi: Congressman, the president tonight called for a change to the way we do politics. Are rational constructive debates on climate change possible?
Rep. Bill Johnson: Well, I don't know if rational debates on climate change because the president has a very different idea than I and most of the people that I represent and my colleagues do. It's interesting to me that after seven years of division and partisanship he now wants to call in his eighth year for political unity. I mean, I don't know that I've ever seen a president in my lifetime look more small and irrelevant in the face of such global challenges. No, he talks about a robust economy. We've got the lowest labor participation rate in our country in decades with almost a third of our citizens either out of work or no longer looking for a job. He talks about a more safe and secure world, and yet he struck a deal with a nuclear Iran that's moving closer and closer to a nuclear weapon and capturing some of our warriors just today. He talks about how we're more secure from terrorism when ISIS is on the move and they're growing throughout the world. He talks about a vibrant economy when the coal industry, many of whom I represent in eastern and southeastern Ohio, are on the ropes with tens of thousands worrying about whether they're going to keep their jobs.
Monica Trauzzi: Congressman, what did you think of the president's challenge this evening to climate deniers saying that they are pretty lonely?
Rep. Gene Green: Well, I think there's still some work to be done. I agree with him that there is an issue with climate change and we need to address it, but I think we can address it with a lot of our current opportunities. Natural gas is a bridge to the future. Nuclear power, expansion of nuclear power. I know he just talked about the wind and solar, and in Texas we have grown substantially with wind. Not as much on solar. But again, we need to make sure that those fossil fuels and the ones that are less carbon emitting are the ones that are that bridge to that future that we may have 15 or 20 years from now. But right now, we need to make sure people can afford to turn on their lights and turn on their air conditioner in the summer or their heating in the winter. The speech was pretty well devoid of energy references except for the wind and the solar. But again, I recognize climate change is something we have to deal with, but I think we need to deal with it with all the cards on the table, in all our opportunities be able to do it, in nuclear where we've started expanding a little bit, we need to move more on that. But again, natural gas is the bridge, less carbon emissions, it's the bridge to the future of that cleaner energy.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you for watching E&ETV's special coverage of the State of the Union 2016. We'll see you back in the studio tomorrow.
-
Hints and Nods Point to Vast Energy Changes
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim and Joel Kirkland
The energy world has come a long way since President Obama took office in 2009 -- whether you consider him responsible for those changes or not.
The last seven years have seen a major Canadian pipeline canceled, a groundbreaking climate deal in Paris and the return of $2-a-gallon gasoline. Solar and wind costs have plummeted, some of coal's largest corporations have gone bankrupt, and natural gas has become a major factor in shrinking the U.S. carbon footprint.
If you were a time traveler from 2009, you would not recognize the energy world of 2016. Gone are the racking debates about where to find cheap, reliable sources of oil and gas. Fears about overdependence on resources from the Middle East have calmed. An international climate deal seemed laughably quixotic after the 2009 talks; now, there is one.
Energy didn't take center stage in President Obama's address last night. But the president did hint at many of the changes that occurred on his watch -- and those he'd still like to see. For the time travelers among us: Here's what you missed.
"Meanwhile, we've cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly 60 percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth."
As the George W. Bush administration wound down, public debates on energy continued to swirl around the question of where the United States could possibly find cheap, reliable supplies of oil and gas. The shale revolution transformed that.
Natural gas is abundant: The United States has 84 years of supply at current consumption rates, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration -- and reserves are still growing. This abundance has chopped the price of natural gas by more than half since the month Obama took office, disappointing producers and delighting consumers.
Utilities have scaled up on gas and scaled down on coal, resulting in cuts to U.S. carbon emissions. Last year, for the first time in EIA records, natural gas actually generated more electrons than coal for a full month.
What about oil?
U.S. oil production has risen from about 5 million barrels per day in 2011 to over 9 million bpd in early 2015. Credit Suisse called this a major cause of "the greatest oil production surge in history."
The surge was so great that U.S. refineries weren't even ready for it. These refineries, ideally designed for imported types of crude, discovered a massive, cheap feedstock and enjoyed a burst of earnings (EnergyWire, June 23, 2015).
"Gas under two bucks a gallon ain't bad, either."
In 2016, it's harder to complain about gasoline prices than in 2009. EIA sees gasoline prices averaging $2.03 per gallon this year -- that's not a typo, time travelers -- and reaching their seven-year low next month.
Last year, these low prices induced Americans to buy more of their favorite kinds of cars: trucks and SUVs. But this abundance has also had more subtle effects on the public debate about energy: It's calmed concerns about Middle Eastern oil supply, for instance, and it's taken the spotlight off the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the future of offshore drilling.
Obama got a laugh with this punch line, but he didn't go into the myriad and bizarre factors that have allowed prices to fall this far. Today, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is scrambling to maintain market share and is willing to brook $30 oil if necessary. The United States is the world's third-largest liquids producer, not that far behind Saudi Arabia and Russia, according to the International Energy Agency. And the emerging economies, above all China, aren't driving demand growth like they used to. A $2.03 sign can't say all that, but it is an executive summary.
"We're taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy -- something environmentalists and tea partiers have teamed up to support."
Tea party activist Debbie Dooley grabbed headlines when she rallied conservatives around an expansion of rooftop solar power in Georgia, taking on the state's electricity monopoly, Southern Co.
Obama's reference was a nod to a steady transition away from a heavy reliance on coal-fired generation in the Southeast and industrial Midwest. Rapidly declining costs and increasing deployment of solar panels and wind power have triggered raucous political fights, often pitting powerful utilities against consumers in GOP-led states.
Dooley, co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party Patriots, became a political sensation in 2013, when tea party activists joined the Sierra Club's Georgia chapter to press Southern Co. and state lawmakers to allow more solar onto the grid. She took her brand of tea party activism to the state capitals of Arizona and Wisconsin, where similar regulatory battles were playing out.
Last year, Floridians for Solar Choice, an umbrella group of like-minded conservatives and clean energy advocates, together pursued a ballot initiative that would open Florida's market to rooftop solar. The group includes the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) and Conservatives for Energy Freedom, a 501(c)(4) organization started by Dooley.
The saga continues in 2016. Rooftop solar installers SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc. this month started pulling out of Nevada, after the state cut the compensation for solar producers who sell excess power to regional utility NV Energy.
"In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power."
This is true, but it's complicated. Advancing turbine technology has made producing wind power cheaper and more efficient. Still, two of the largest energy markets, Texas and California, struggle at times to balance their electricity markets when too much wind power is being produced during the wrong times of day.
In the West, utilities are talking about developing a regional power market, in part because of the large price swings tied to overproducing wind generation at night, for example.
Iowa has been a Midwest leader in wind power, and that's been an economic boon. It's attracted Google and Facebook, which have set up massive data centers powered by Iowa wind farms.
Yet wind and solar suffer from the same problem as they did when Obama moved into the White House. Without some form of advanced energy storage to capture wind and solar power for longer periods, the growth of renewable energy across the nation's power grid is probably limited. Tens of billions of dollars and years of continued research and development will go into energy storage before it's widely deployed.
-
Obama Touts Clean Energy Efforts In State Of The Union
Jan 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
President Obama used his final State of the Union address Jan. 12 to tout his efforts to advance clean energy and address climate change, prompting praise from environmentalists for major administration policies such as EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for power plants and criticism from industry groups.
While the president's speech was thinner than usual on policy proposals, Obama indicated that he planned to clamp down on the climate impacts of oil and coal -- a top priority for environmentalists.
“I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet. And that way, we put money back into those communities, and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system,” he said.
Obama also touted prior investments in clean energy sources such as solar and wind as a model for the future. “[E]ven if the planet wasn’t at stake, even if 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record -- until 2015 turned out to be even hotter -- why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future?” he said.
Following the speech, League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said the president “once again demonstrated his tremendous commitment to meeting the challenge of climate change and protecting our air, water, lands and wildlife for generations to come.” Karpinski touted EPA's issuance of the Clean Power Plan, the first-ever direct limits on GHGs from existing and newly constructed power plants.
“Thanks to the president’s leadership, 2015 was a banner year for climate and conservation, including major victories on the Clean Power Plan, the historic international Paris climate agreement, the extension of critical clean energy tax credits, and the rejection of the dirty and dangerous Keystone XL pipeline,” he said.
Karpinski added, “Tonight’s powerful speech makes clear that the president intends to build on all of this progress in his final year in office, and we will be there with him at every step of the way.”
In a separate statement, Sierra Club's Executive Director Michael Brune said, “The President’s leadership has fostered an era of unprecedented clean energy growth, the rejection of dangerous, dirty fossil fuel projects like Arctic drilling and Keystone XL, and a historic, universal agreement by 200 countries to act on climate.
“To complete this legacy, it’s clear that new policies will be needed to help ramp up the booming clean energy economy and cut even more carbon pollution,” Brune said. He added that Obama “has laid out a new vision to do that by addressing how we manage oil and coal on public lands in this country -- and we know significant changes are needed to keep these dirty fuels in the ground so we protect the planet and American families.”
But industry officials criticized the president. American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued a statement calling Obama's climate legacy “a long and painful road.”
“When it’s all said and done, the president’s legacy will be marred by higher energy costs for those who can least afford it, and fewer economic opportunities for young Americans just beginning to enter the workforce,” he said.
Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, pushed back on Obama's call for new requirements for energy leasing and other measures, saying it will further stifle production on public lands.
“The administration has advanced nearly 100 regulations impacting all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry over the past year, which hinders production. Instead of bombarding our economy with duplicative, job-crushing new regulations, President Obama should embrace policies that recognize America’s energy resurgence, including environmental improvements,” he said.
-
State of the Union: 2 Clean Energy Developments You May Have Missed
Jan 13, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Elgie Holstein
In his final State of the Union address, President Obama chose to forego a lengthy recitation of his policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions and of his other environmental accomplishments.
After noting that the scientific debate over climate change is long since over (today’s climate deniers must be “pretty lonely”) Obama instead highlighted two developments that will accelerate America’s transition to a clean energy economy.
A flexible grid: Coming soon to every town?
Addressing the growing political consensus around a more flexible electric grid, the president cited the collaboration between “environmentalists and Tea Partiers” in support of new, decentralized systems for generating and storing power locally.
That is the kind of new thinking about microgrids and smart electricity systems that Environmental Defense Fund is fighting for in states across the country. Such systems can also transcend partisan divides.
A new plan for fossil fuel projects on public lands
Importantly, the president also called for an accelerated departure from reliance on “dirty energy” – the fuels of the past.
In a new proposal, Obama announced a plan to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, “so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.”
For at least 140 years, the federal government has been leasing publicly owned natural resources on public lands on terms designed to maximize production of fossil fuels. Last night, the president said he wants to change that.
Instead, he wants higher fees and royalty payments to cut subsidies for fuels that worsen the climate.
And he wants to use the new funds to support local communities where the mining and drilling occur, and to help rebuild America’s transportation system – a much better return for the taxpayers.
Obama’s record on climate change
In his speech, President Obama took no victory lap on his environmental, energy and climate record – even though he deserves one. Many of the elements of his signature Climate Action Plan will deliver ever-deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for years to come. Specifically, the administration’s:
Clean Power Plan will, for the first time, impose carbon emissions limits on the nation’s aging fleet of coal-fired power plants.
vehicle fuel economy standards are already working to double vehicle efficiency by 2025 and to drive the introduction of new low and zero-emitting vehicle technologies.
methane reduction rules for the oil and gas industry and his appliance efficiency standards will also lower emissions.
breakthrough diplomacy that brought China to the table as a partner helped forge the unprecedented international climate agreement in Paris last year.
Though President Obama mentioned none of those landmark achievements in his speech, it’s clear they are all based on a unifying set of beliefs that have made him an environmental champion.
Having inherited an economy with more than 10 percent unemployment, collapsing industries, and disappearing jobs and household savings, the president has stuck to his core environmental principles.
Speaking of his climate agenda last night, he reminded us that, “the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, and the planet we’ll preserve – that’s the kind of future our kids and grandkids deserve.”
-
Calif. Energy Producers Split on Cap and Trade's Appropriateness
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Debra Kahn
Some California energy companies are pushing back on the state's plan to use its cap-and-trade program as the main tool for compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
In public comments filed in response to the state's plan to demonstrate that its power plant emissions will meet EPA's emissions targets, oil companies urged California to consider relying on other policies like the state's renewable portfolio standard and energy efficiency standards.
State officials have said they envision using cap and trade as the primary "state measure" that will demonstrate compliance with the federal plan, which requires California to reduce its power-sector emissions about 13 percent below 2012 emissions levels, in terms of pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt-hour (ClimateWire, Dec. 15, 2015).
State officials expect to comfortably exceed those targets, thanks to the 2006 law A.B. 32. As the only state with an economywide carbon cap, California is already on track to reduce its greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and is writing regulations to reach 40 percent below that by 2030.
But because the cap-and-trade market is economywide, California will have to figure out how to break out its power-sector emissions, especially if it wants to trade allowances with other states, like members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. California's Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols confirmed earlier this week that talks have begun with New York and other RGGI states about the possibility of some kind of link (ClimateWire, Jan. 12).
The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents oil companies including BP PLC, Chevron Corp., Shell Oil Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp., filed comments warning that submitting the cap-and-trade program for federal approval could reduce regulators' flexibility to make changes to it in the future.
Another group with overlapping membership, the Energy Producers and Users Coalition,echoed WSPA's comments.
"[T]he state CPP plan could restrict California's options in the future by potentially locking the submitted version of the cap-and-trade rule into place," WSPA President Cathy Reheis-Boydwrote. She also recommended that California apply for a two-year extension to file its final plan with EPA, as it could take 12 to 18 months to go through all the rulemaking procedures to get its program to mesh with EPA's.
Utilities push for linking trading systems
Meanwhile, a separate group of energy producers came out in favor of using cap and trade as the main compliance mechanism.
The Independent Energy Producers Association, which represents solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, cogeneration and gas-fired plants, wrote that it would be administratively cheaper to use the existing program rather than "creating a completely new greenhouse gas emissions compliance paradigm."
Utilities are also urging California to consider using the CPP as an impetus to link its cap-and-trade system with others. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. filed comments saying that linking could potentially lower compliance costs.
"While linkage between states employing a state measures approach does not appear to be possible, these states may still be effectively linked by both linking to the same (presumably larger) [electric generating unit]-only market," wrote Claire Halbrook, PG&E's climate policy principal.
Like WSPA, however, PG&E is also warning against the possibility of ceding too much authority to EPA, for fear of limiting its flexibility to make changes.
"ARB should work to assure that any federally enforceable requirements it adopts for affected [electric generating units] in the CPP plan are similar to EPA's minimal but effective requirements for acid rain sources," she said
Public comments from power traders also raised the possibility of California requesting an extension to complete its CPP plan. The Western Power Trading Forum argued that state regulators should deal with near-term changes to the cap-and-trade program first and request more time from EPA to address changes that would be needed to mesh the program with the CPP.
-
Dynegy Counters Ohio Plans with Proposal for More Natural Gas
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Dynegy Inc. is countering proposals by rivals American Electric Power Co. Inc. and FirstEnergy Corp., saying it can trump offers to supply power to millions of the companies' Ohio utility customers for the next eight years at a lower cost by constructing new natural-gas-fired power plants.
The proposal by Houston-based Dynegy is the latest twist in a pair of controversial cases pending before Ohio regulators. Each involves incumbent utilities owned by AEP and FirstEnergy proposing to enter into power supply contracts with generation-owning affiliates.
Specifically, Dynegy said it can save Ohio consumers $5 billion over the next eight years -- $2.5 billion per utility -- compared to what they would pay under the plans by AEP and FirstEnergy under review by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. It would do so by constructing 6,300 megawatts of new gas-fired generation.
Dynegy said the plants would use Ohio-produced gas, help the state meet obligations under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, and benefit consumer and the state's economy in the form of new jobs and construction activity.
"We believe the counter-proposals are uniformly better for Ohio consumers and businesses ... keeping and creating jobs in the state that stimulate economic growth and development rather than weakening Ohio's competitive position," said Robert Flexon, Dynegy's CEO, in a statement. "We ask for serious consideration from the PUCO [Public Utilities Commission of Ohio] and Ohio elected and state officials for our proposals."
Dynegy, in fact, hasn't filed any formal proposals with the state. But the company said it's prepared to do so in response to "exorbitant and counter-productive subsidies currently under consideration" by the PUCO.
"If the PUCO and other elected officials in the state are interested in protecting consumers' and business' long-term interests while ensuring long-term reliability and price stability, then in lieu of accepting FirstEnergy's and AEP's proposals for long term power purchase agreements, the PUCO should adopt one of the alternate, superior proposals Dynegy is putting forth," Flexon said.
The company is the second power producer to propose an alternative to utility plans in recent weeks. In testimony on Dec. 30, Chicago-based Exelon Corp. urged the Ohio commission to reject the FirstEnergy plan. If not, Exelon said it could put forward a proposal that would save FirstEnergy customers $2 billion over the next eight years (EnergyWire, Jan. 5).
Columbus-based AEP and FirstEnergy, based in Akron, criticized Dynegy's proposal.
Terri Flora, an AEP spokeswoman, said there is "no basis for Dynegy's claims of cost savings. They are suggesting that they can provide generation at a lower cost based on inflated assumptions that do not reflect current market realities."
FirstEnergy spokesman Doug Colafella said the Dynegy proposal "misses the point about maintaining fuel diversity in Ohio, an important ingredient for ensuring price stability."
"Dynegy's 'eggs in one basket' proposal offers few specifics and provides no assurances that its power plants in the region will continue operating over the long-term," Colafella said. "While its brand of investors may be willing to tolerate its 'boom and bust' approach to energy markets, this approach fails to deliver on two key policy goals in Ohio -- energy stability and economic stability."
FirstEnergy and AEP each filed updated proposals last month that are supported by commission staff and several other parties. The plans would guarantee income for certain power plants for the next eight years (EnergyWire, Dec. 15, 2015).
While the AEP and FirstEnergy proposals differ in details, both promise more predictable, stable pricing and to preserve thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in local taxes.
Under the income-guarantee proposals, the utilities would enter agreements to buy all of the output from the plants and sell it through the wholesale market run by regional grid manager PJM Interconnection LLC. The difference between costs and revenues would be a charge or credit to customers.
Meanwhile, critics -- such as the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, environmental advocates and rival generators including Dynegy -- have called the plans bailouts that would merely pad company profits.
-
Enviros Work to Keep Logging, Gas Pipeline Out of Md. Park
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Rana Kobell
Maryland environmentalists fended off a utility's plan to cut down trees to help high-voltage power lines through a state park but now face another threat from a different company to build a natural gas pipeline in the area.
The group Gunpowder Riverkeeper successfully blocked a proposed tree-clearing project around the high-voltage power lines within Gunpowder Falls State Park, which help Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. bring electricity to 1.5 million Baltimore-area residents. The company also wanted to spray herbicides and sell the timber.
Gunpowder Riverkeeper Theaux Le Gardeur said the decision by Maryland's Department of Natural Resources to impose permit conditions that led to the project's being scrapped was "meaningful and protective" and "sets a good precedent."
The group is now pressuring another utility, Columbia Gas of Maryland, which is seeking state approval to build a 21-mile natural gas pipeline through the park.
The company says the pipeline would make service more reliable for customers north and east of Baltimore, but environmentalists worry that it would cross 81 streams, and state officials have required monitoring at only one stream.
-
House Handily Clears Bill to Block WOTUS
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
A disapproval resolution aimed at killing the Obama administration's contentious water rule sailed through the House this morning in its last step before reaching the president's desk.
The House voted 253-166 in favor of S.J. Res. 22, a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to block the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule -- better known as the Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS. The resolution, introduced by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), passed the upper chamber in November (Greenwire, Nov. 4, 2015).
The measure now will be sent to President Obama, who has promised to veto any legislation that seeks to dismantle the regulation, which redefines which waterways and wetlands receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act. Opponents of the rule -- including most Republican lawmakers, agriculture groups and developers -- say the rule finalized last year would broaden the federal government's jurisdiction over land and could leave landowners on the hook for certain activities, like plowing and dredging.
Once the bill reaches the White House, the president will have 10 days to take action. If he vetoes it as expected, the legislation will then go back to the Senate for an attempted override vote. Supporters of the rule say an attempt to pass the resolution by a required two-thirds vote will likely fail.
"If you look at just the Senate votes on both S. 1140 and the CRA, there are enough senators who recognize the importance of the Clean Water Rule and the need to protect the small streams and wetlands that feed the drinking water of one in three Americans," said Madeleine Foote, a legislative representative with the League of Conservation Voters. S. 1140 is a stand-alone measure that narrowly failed in the Senate before the chamber moved on to the CRA resolution (E&ENews PM, Nov. 3, 2015).
House opponents of WOTUS claimed in a debate this morning that the resolution reflects a growing rejection of federal policies affecting landowners.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) brought up the ongoing standoff in Burns, Ore., in which an armed group of protesters have taken over a federal wildlife refuge in protest of U.S. land management policies, as an example.
But Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said the existing President George W. Bush-era guidance on Clean Water Act jurisdiction was more problematic than the Obama administration's rule.
WOTUS is currently stayed in federal appeals court as judges mull whether the multiple legal challenges to the regulation filed last year should be heard in district courts or appeals courts.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) published an op-ed in the Omaha World-Herald this morning lambasting the administration's rule, calling it "another example of Washington bureaucrats sticking their nose where it doesn't belong."
The president is visiting Omaha, Neb., today as part of a nationwide tour to meet with communities after his State of the Union address last night.
-
House Votes To Scrap EPA's CWA Jurisdiction Rule
Jan 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
House lawmakers in a 253-166 vote have approved a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution that would scrap EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' joint rulemaking to define Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction, but President Obama's advisers have already recommended that he veto the legislation.
The House held its vote Jan. 13 to approve the CRA resolution, S.J.Res. 22, which previously cleared the Senate in a 53-44 vote on Nov. 4. The measure now heads to the president and the expected veto. The CRA gives Congress 60 days after finalization of an agency rule to block it, but a veto would require two-thirds of Congress to overcome.
Observers doubt that Congress has the votes to overcome the expected veto of the resolution, which targetsthe agencies' joint rulemaking that is designed to resolve confusion about the CWA's scope but also faces challenges in federal district and appeals courts.
Last year, ahead of the Senate's vote to approve its version of the CRA resolution, the White House issued a Nov. 3 Statement of Administration Policy saying the bill would “nullify years of work and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water. EPA and Army have sought the views of and listened carefully to the public throughout the extensive public engagement process for this rule.”
It concluded, “Simply put, S.J. Res. 22 is not an act of good governance. It would sow confusion and invite conflict at a time when our communities and businesses need clarity and certainty around clean water regulation.”
A Nov. 13 press release from House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T&I) Republicans touted the vote to scrap the rule. The release echoes long-running GOP and industry claims that the rule “gives the federal government sweeping new authority to regulate virtually all waters or wet areas in the United States.”
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), T&I chairman, said after the vote to approve S.J. Res. 22 that, “The President needs to put a stop to this harmful rule once and for all. A majority of the American people’s representatives in both the House and the Senate have now voted, in a resounding manner, to scrap this rule, and the President should listen.”
In a separate Nov. 13 press release, the League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski criticized the House vote -- but also noted the White House's existing veto threat. “By disregarding the massive public support for the Clean Water Rule, this vote puts profits ahead of the clean water our families, communities, and businesses depend on. Fortunately, President Obama has made clear he would veto this egregious attack and remains committed to protecting our water, air, lands, wildlife and climate for generations to come,” he said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested