Preview Newsletter
ACC AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) PP Sales Outperform PS, EPS and PVC in 2015
Jan 28, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin makers will look back on 2015 with fondness. But makers of polystyrene, expanded PS and PVC in the region might not want to look back at all. -
Policy Points: Is Chemical Reform Coming In the 2016 Congress?
Jan 29, 2016 | Triple Pundit
By Zach Bernstein
As we move into the new year, one major question continues to emerge: In an election year, will Congress be able to pass anything? -
BRYNIARSKI: A Reform of Substance
Jan 29, 2016 | Yale News
By Austin Bryniarski
The situation in Flint, Michigan is an outrage. Residents there have been drinking water contaminated with lead, the result of incompetent city management, poor regulation and a long legacy of industrial pollution. -
Many Fertilizer Plants Are Poorly Located and Regulated, Says Report on 2013 Blast
Jan 29, 2016 | The New York Times
By Manny Fernandez
Nearly 20 fertilizer plants in Texas and others nationwide have the same dangerous proximity to schools, parks, nursing homes and housing as the one that exploded in the Central Texas town of West in 2013, federal officials said in releasing a final report on the blast Thursday. -
West Report OK’d, Stricter Ammonium Nitrate Standards Urged
Jan 29, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
Federal regulators approved a report Thursday that found inadequate emergency response coordination and training and careless storage of potentially explosive materials contributed to a catastrophic 2013 blast at a Texas fertilizer plant. -
Senate Approves First Amendments to Energy Bill
Jan 29, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senators on Thursday approved four amendments to an energy overhaul bill, the first of what will likely be several amendment votes while the energy bill is on the floor. -
Bipartisan Comity Reigns, But Poison Pills May Be Ahead
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Hannah Hess
The bipartisan spirit underlying the Senate's first foray into broad energy legislation in nearly a decade has endured through the initial days of debate, although stumbling blocks await senators when they return next week to finish the bill. -
Senators Push Amendment to Scrap Climate Rule
Jan 28, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
Senate Republicans today introduced an amendment to broad energy legislation aimed at halting the Obama administration's carbon limits for existing power plants. -
Appeals Court Sets Briefing Schedule for Epic Lawsuit
Jan 28, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
As U.S. EPA's challengers are asking the Supreme Court to halt the agency's Clean Power Plan, legal proceedings over the rule in a lower court chug along. -
Feb. 4 Deadline Set for EPA Power Plan Stay Response
Jan 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency has a Feb. 4 deadline to respond to petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to stay implementation of carbon dioxide standards for power plants while the standards are being litigated, according to a Jan. 27 order from Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. (West Virginia v. EPA, U.S., No. 15A773, order issued 1/27/16). -
Utilities Cite EPA Cost Review In Bid To Delay MACT Suits
Jan 28, 2016 | InsideEPA
Utility groups seeking to keep their lawsuits against specific technical aspects of EPA's utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule in abeyance claim the issues they raise are “inexorably” linked to a pending final cost review of the rule, and that therefore the cases should stay on hold until the agency issues the review. -
Proposal Would Alter Oil, Gas GHG Emissions Reporting
Jan 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Anthony Adragna
Oil and gas operations that are large emitters of greenhouse gases would be allowed to use new monitoring methods to detect leaks from their equipment under a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule that would alter how those facilities can report their emissions. -
Ozone Rule Not Protective, Environmental Groups Argue
Jan 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency erred when it rejected the advice of its own science advisers and set revised ozone standards that are insufficient to protect health or vegetation, environmental and public health groups told a federal appellate court (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385,statement of issues 1/27/16). -
Environmentalists Fault EPA's Rationale For Ozone NAAQS
Jan 28, 2016 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are faulting EPA's rationale for its decision to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, saying that the agency should have set a stricter standard and failed to follow advice from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). -
Fatal Flaws In EPA’s Latest Voluntary Methane Program Highlight Need For Concrete Rules
Jan 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
The Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program unveiled last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a perfect example of what can go wrong when the agency tries too hard to entice an unwilling industry to engage. -
Dem Senators Echo Greens' Call for More Methane Restrictions
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Senate Democrats are pressing the Obama administration to restrict methane emissions from oil and gas operations, echoing calls from environmentalists in recent weeks. -
Top Dem Wants to Link Flint Aid to Drought, Methane Leak
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
A top House Democratic lawmaker said yesterday that any legislative response to the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., should also address the ongoing drought and methane gas leak in California.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) PP Sales Outperform PS, EPS and PVC in 2015
Jan 28, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin makers will look back on 2015 with fondness. But makers of polystyrene, expanded PS and PVC in the region might not want to look back at all.
Sales of PP in the region grew 5.3 percent in 2015 to more than 17.2 billion pounds, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington. Domestic market growth of 6.3 percent was tempered somewhat by a drop of almost 23 percent in export sales.
Some regional PP end markets surpassed that 6.3 percent growth average. Sales of the material into injection molded housewares soared 12.2 percent, while PP sales into sheet jumped 13.6 percent. PP sales into oriented film were up 7.3 percent.
North American PS sales, however, ticked down 1.1 percent to just under 4.4 billion pounds, according to ACC. Separate domestic and export sales totals for PS are not released.
Among PS end markets, consumer/institutional lost the most ground in North America in 2015, with sales down 9.8 percent. Electrical/electronic provided a bright spot with 1.7 percent growth.
Resellers also bought 6 percent more PS in North America in 2015. Food packaging/food service again was the largest end market for PS in 2015 — contributing 62 percent of sales — but that sector posted growth of only 0.1 percent.
U.S./Canadian EPS makers in 2015 managed to hold sales flat at just under 945 million pounds, according to ACC. Domestic sales actually improved 0.5 percent, but that growth was negated by a 3.1 percent drop in export sales. EPS sales into the domestic shape market surged 12.4 percent for the year.
PVC makers in the U.S. and Canada also had a challenging 2015, as sales declined 1.9 percent to just over 14.7 billion pounds, according to ACC. A domestic sales drop of 2.1 percent was softened by a decline of only 1.5 percent in export sales.
Lower-than-expected growth in the U.S. construction market played a big role in U.S./Canadian PVC sales for 2015. The market recorded more than 1 million housing starts, but has been slow to recover from the recession of 2007-09. That’s a big deal for PVC, which generated almost 62 percent of its domestic sales from construction-related uses in 2015.
PVC’s flagship rigid pipe and tubing end market — with a 45 percent share of domestic sales in 2015 — saw demand slide almost 1 percent. But that was enough to negate most of the PVC volume growth recorded by siding and related uses (up 5.6 percent), extruded windows and doors (up 1.8 percent) and fencing and decking (up 3.4 percent).
PP’s 5.3 percent 2015 growth rate was a turnaround from the 0.2 percent loss it recorded in 2014. The 1.1 percent sales drop seen by PS in 2015 wasn’t as bad as its 2014 sales loss of 3.2 percent.
For EPS, a flat 2015 sales year was a step down from 5.1 percent growth in 2014. PVC’s 1.9 percent 2015 sales loss was slightly higher than its 2014 sales loss of 1.7 percent.
-
Policy Points: Is Chemical Reform Coming In the 2016 Congress?
Jan 29, 2016 | Triple Pundit
By Zach Bernstein
As we move into the new year, one major question continues to emerge: In an election year, will Congress be able to pass anything?
It’s accepted wisdom in Washington that, particularly with presidential elections, the odds of any major legislative victories becomes slim, even in the best of times (which this isn’t, at least as far as passing legislation goes).
Members are out campaigning and often are reluctant to take tough votes that could be used in campaign ads – or perhaps worried about letting members of the opposing party trumpet legislation they got passed.
Somewhat surprisingly, though, there is one issue that Congress continues to move on, and which could yield modest gains for consumers and businesses alike.The road to reform
The issue is chemical regulation reform, an area that’s in desperate need of an update. Existing federal law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), hasn’t been updated since it passed in 1976. And there’s a lot that’s wrong with it.
While the law was designed to allow the EPA to test chemicals for safety, tens of thousands of chemicals have never been tested because they were on the market before TSCA was passed and got grandfathered in. The EPA has only managed to restrict five chemicals, and it lacks the power to do more due to a court decision that tied the agency’s hands – a problem only Congress can fix.
This is why the past several Congresses have pushed for TSCA reform, culminating with the introduction of two pieces of legislation in the House and Senate last year.
The next step is for negotiators from the House and Senate to hammer out a compromise bill that both houses will approve. The good news is, there’s actually potential incremental progress in these bills at the outset of negotiations.
The bad news is, there’s also a lot not to like that could make the final bill worse than existing law.Strange brew
That’s particularly true with the Senate bill (S.697), known as Udall-Vitter for its bipartisan co-sponsors, who introduced different versions of the bill in previous Congresses. Much of the bill has been improved from its initial incarnation as a chemical industry wishlist. Specifically, it now includes provisions that improve transparency and create a funding mechanism for EPA to actually get chemical review work done.
But many issues remain in the current bill, including some that make it fall far short of meaningful reform. For one, it would require that a number of chemicals be set aside as “low priority,” which would let potentially harmful chemicals off the hook with relatively little scrutiny from EPA. The EPA would also have more hurdles to intercept imported products that include potentially hazardous chemicals, and expend time and resources on tasks that distract from reviewing chemicals.
Worst of all however, the bill would pre-empt states from taking action on so-called “chemicals of concern” while the EPA is studying them.
The danger goes beyond risks to consumers. Companies that produce chemicals, or use them to make their products, can be put at risk from potential health hazards that can surface years later (think fiberglass and asbestos). These can bankrupt companies and destroy entire industries. If they can’t learn which chemicals are dangerous and which aren’t, businesses nationwide could be put at risk. That’s especially unfortunate for those trying to do the right thing.Let’s get together
Fortunately, the House legislation improves on much of this. It would not pre-empt state action before the EPA makes a decision, and removes the legal barriers that were hampering EPA. While the House bill has its own issues, like inadequate resources for EPA, it does have a lot of positive language, like a faster schedule to review chemicals and allowing EPA to get to its critical work right away.
Which brings us back to the next step for chemical reform: reconciling the two bills. Negotiators will be meeting to hammer out differences between their bills, both of which are decidedly mixed bags.
Congress has a chance to do this right, but any final legislation needs to meet key principles in order to represent truly meaningful reform: Transparency for existing chemicals, a minimum safety level (with room for states to surpass it), and innovation to support the development of safer alternatives, not codify the status quo.
Both the House and Senate bills have elements that would help achieve these goals, but also much that wouldn’t. And while many businesses expressed some worry following the Senate vote, there was clear agreement on one thing: The negotiation process offers a golden opportunity to combine the best parts of both bills into a final version.
There may be few opportunities for major policy victories in the rest of the year, which is why it’s crucial for businesses to stay involved in pushing for meaningful chemical reform when the negotiators meet. This is a policy area in desperate need of an overhaul. Done wrong, however, it could end up having disastrous consequences.
-
BRYNIARSKI: A Reform of Substance
Jan 29, 2016 | Yale News
By Austin Bryniarski
The situation in Flint, Michigan is an outrage. Residents there have been drinking water contaminated with lead, the result of incompetent city management, poor regulation and a long legacy of industrial pollution. Flint might seem an anomalous failure to protect the environment and the people living within it. But I suspect that the problem is, in fact, much larger than Flint.
The major scandal began after city managers, appointed by Michigan’s governor, decided to switch the source of Flint’s drinking water from Detroit’s water system to the Flint River. The river water’s corrosiveness — a result of pollution — wears down on the lead in pipes that transport water into Flint homes. When a child drinks that water, the lead can cause a battery of neurological problems that will affect her for the rest of her life. All because of the wild imprudence of those in power.
Upon learning about Flint, I wanted to know how the scourge of lead poisoning might persist closer to home, here in New Haven. City residents aren’t necessarily exposed to lead through drinking water. In an article in the News (“What’s in your water?”, Feb. 17, 2010), then-South Central Connecticut water quality supervisor Tom Barger claimed that, “absolutely,” water in New Haven is safe from lead contamination. But in New Haven, and throughout much of the country, leaded paint may be a more significant source of lead poisoning.
Since most of New Haven’s houses were built before lead-based paint was banned from residential use in 1978, many families still live in homes where exposure can have dire consequences. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24 million homes in the U.S. have walls covered in leaded paint, and four million of them house families with small children. Poorer children are more likely to live in older homes, and thus they’re at greatest risk for poisoning.
Unlike Flint, New Haven sought to do something about its predicament. In the summer of 2014, the city and the Environmental Protection Agency partnered to investigate whether home renovators and contractors were complying with the Toxic Substances Control Act, the nation’s flagship toxic chemical regulation law. The law requires that workers be trained to renovate homes in such a way that minimizes the possibility of lead exposure. Though the EPA claimed this intervention would better prepare companies to keep their customers safe, compliance was originally only spotty at best.
Passed in 1976, TSCA has since been criticized on numerous occasions for being too weak. Because the law stipulates that only the (underfunded, overstretched) EPA must prove that a chemical is harmful, and not the companies producing it, few chemicals have actually been regulated. Of the 80,000 or so chemicals in the marketplace, only 200 have been tested for their effects on human health and the environment. And though the EPA has employed TSCA to prevent lead exposure in New Haven, the small intervention falls short of the systemic approach the agency needs to make any real impact.
Flint has been a wake-up call in realizing how ineffective laws like TSCA are in preventing human exposure to hazardous substances. The crisis might also alert us to the great number of toxic substances that aren’t regulated at all. In a few months, maybe years, the crisis in Flint will be the stuff of history, and the brown water flowing from its tap will be a potent symbol of political incompetence, poor disaster response and egregious pollution. The children there who consumed lead-poisoned water will grow older, dogged by persistent neurological disorders. And without action, the rules that allow undue exposure — as in drinking water, our homes, or outdoors — might persis as well.
As a new iteration of TSCA — in the form of a chemical safety law, passed independently by the House and Senate in December — is hashed out, Flint underscores the importance of federal legislation by illustrating the grave injustices of a system where chemical safety is insubstantial. This crisis is a national concern. We must demand comprehensive federal legislation that deals safely with toxic substances — TSCA reform services as an opportunity to demand it.
-
Many Fertilizer Plants Are Poorly Located and Regulated, Says Report on 2013 Blast
Jan 29, 2016 | The New York Times
By Manny Fernandez
Nearly 20 fertilizer plants in Texas and others nationwide have the same dangerous proximity to schools, parks, nursing homes and housing as the one that exploded in the Central Texas town of West in 2013, federal officials said in releasing a final report on the blast Thursday.
The proximity of homes and schools to the plant in West contributed to the widespread damage and death caused by the blast, and a lack of regulations has put other communities at risk of another disaster, the officials said. Fifteen people died and more than 260 others were injured in the explosion.
Nearly three years after the deadly conflagration, the officials with the United States Chemical Safety Board discussed the findings of their final investigation report on Thursday in Waco, 20 miles south of West. The 265-page report, released this week, found a series of shortcomings in federal and state oversight, as well as in the plant’s handling of the fertilizer and the training of the responding volunteer firefighters. And it warned of the dangers of the locations of fertilizer plants in Texas and around the country.
For decades, West had slowly developed schools, parks, nursing homes and housing around the plant — the nearest cluster of homes was about 370 feet from the property line and the West Intermediate School about 200 feet. The majority of those injured were within 1,500 feet of the blast.
A similar situation exists at 19 other Texas plants that store the same fertilizer and are within a half-mile of a school, hospital or nursing home, the report found. More than 1,300 facilities nationwide store the type of agricultural chemical that set off the explosion: fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate. State and federal officials have failed to issue regulations governing facility locations, and fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate is not categorized as an explosive or hazardous material, the report said.
“Many communities in Texas and nationwide are located too close to facilities resembling” the plant, the report noted, adding that the “risk to the public from a catastrophic incident exists at least within the state of Texas, if not more broadly.” On Thursday, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chairwoman of the agency, which investigates chemical disasters, told reporters, “It’s possible for another type of incident like this to happen.”
The explosion at the West Fertilizer Company plant on April 17, 2013, was one of the deadliest industrial disasters in Texas history.
The force of the blast registered as a 2.1-magnitude earthquake. Officials in the past have cited 14 confirmed deaths; 10 of the victims were volunteer firefighters and emergency responders. The report cited 15 deaths, adding a victim who lived at a nursing home damaged by the blast and died shortly afterward. Of the town’s 700 homes, about 350 were affected by the explosion, including 193 that were destroyed or severely damaged. Three of the town’s four public schools were destroyed or had major damage.
The Chemical Safety Board called it one of the most destructive episodes the agency had investigated. The fertilizer was stored at the plant in a wooden warehouse in wooden bins, in a building without a sprinkler system, in a state that has no statewide fire code.
Chemical Safety Board officials had previously described the fire and explosion as preventable, noting a lack of oversight and regulations at the local, state and federal levels. That determination was made in April 2014, when the agency released the preliminary findings of its investigation.
The report discussed Thursday was a draft of the final investigation. The agency’s board was expected to vote on it at a public meeting Thursday evening in Waco. The agency made numerous safety recommendations to officials, including revising a federal chemical-safety program to include fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate and requiring automatic fire-sprinkler systems for the indoor storage of the chemical.
Law enforcement officials have still not determined the cause of the fire.
-
West Report OK’d, Stricter Ammonium Nitrate Standards Urged
Jan 29, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
Federal regulators approved a report Thursday that found inadequate emergency response coordination and training and careless storage of potentially explosive materials contributed to a catastrophic 2013 blast at a Texas fertilizer plant.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board’s unanimous vote also adopted recommendations that federal regulators set higher standards for safe handling and storage of fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate. It came at the end of a three-hour public meeting in Waco, at which investigators presented the findings of their examination of the West Fertilizer Co. plant explosion. The blast in the Central Texas town of West killed 15 people, including volunteer firefighters trying to extinguish the blaze that led to the explosion. It injured about 200 others and leveled part of the town.
According to the report, dozens of similar plants are still operating in Texas near schools, hospitals and residential neighborhoods.
“The risk to the public from a catastrophic incident exists throughout the state of Texas,” the report said.
Texas has 80 plants that store more than 5 tons of ammonium nitrate, a chemical used in fertilizer. Nineteen plants storing fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate operate within a half-mile of a school, hospital or nursing home, according to the report. More than 30 of them are within a quarter-mile of a home or apartment building.
The West plant “was about 550 feet from the closest school, which sustained catastrophic damage as a result of the explosion, which could have resulted in additional loss of life had the school been in session at the time,” the report noted. That explosion caused about $100 million in property damage, according to the Texas Department of Insurance, and insurance-related losses were approximately $230 million.
Federal regulators say the way the fertilizer was stored, with combustible materials nearby, and the lack of ventilation were contributing factors to the detonation. But they also cited a failure to conduct safety inspections of the plant, shortcomings in emergency response such as with hazmat training, and poor land planning that allowed development to sprout around the plant over the years. The CSB report recommends that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency require risk-management plans for plants storing large amounts of fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate, and that the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration set standards for handling the fertilizer ingredient as a highly hazardous chemical.
Among those killed in the April 2013 explosion were 12 emergency personnel, primarily ones with the West Volunteer Fire Department who responded to the initial blaze. The report says the response to the fire was flawed for various reasons, including for not establishing an incident command center and a lack of understanding about the possibility of a detonation. It’s not certain how the fire started, but inspectors have three possible scenarios: faulty electrical wiring, a short circuit in a golf cart stored at the plant, or arson.
West city officials declined to address the report’s findings. A call to the plant owner was not returned, but officials there have denied allegations that the plant was negligent in how it handled and stored ammonium nitrate.
Navarro Mills Volunteer Fire Chief Phil Calvin, who lost one of his firefighters to the blast, told the board volunteer firefighters’ first priority is to start fighting a fire, not to set up a coordinated incident command.
Calvin added that because the firefighters were from several different agencies, “they didn’t have any way to communicate with West Fire Department to start with. They had no radios that could communicate with them. If the order was given to fall back, they never would have known it.”
Another error regulators cited was a lack of communication between plant and municipal officials. Just two months before the explosion, the West Intermediate School was evacuated after the principal called 911 about a fire at the plant. Neither the 911 dispatcher nor any other emergency official had informed the school that the plant was conducting a controlled burn of pallets and brush, the report says.
The Chemical Safety Board issued its preliminary findings in April 2014, including that several levels of federal, state and local government missed opportunities to prevent the tragedy.
-
Senate Approves First Amendments to Energy Bill
Jan 29, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senators on Thursday approved four amendments to an energy overhaul bill, the first of what will likely be several amendment votes while the energy bill is on the floor.
The legislation — the first energy rewrite in seven years — would change a host of policies, including provisions to speed up the export of liquefied natural gas, indefinitely expand a conservation fund, update the electricity grid and reform and update other energy policies.
Senators had offered 89 amendments to the legislation as of Thursday morning, Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said. Several with bipartisan support are set to hit the floor for votes today.
“It is the beginning of a series of steps that we will take to modernize our nation’s energy, as well as our mineral policies,” Murkowski, a bill co-sponsor, said Thursday.
The first amendment, from Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would boost research into advanced nuclear reactor technology in the U.S. It passed on an 87-4 vote.
The amendment would establish modeling and simulation programs for reactor technology, set up user facilities and a “national innovation center” for research sharing and push to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission more involved in reactor research.
“This bill is a strong signal to the rest of the world that we intend to maintain the U.S.’s leadership in nuclear technology,” Crapo said in a floor speech.
The Senate also approved, on a 62-29 vote, an amendment from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) requiring a report on the impact of crude oil exports on U.S. consumers, refiners and shippers. Markey opposed lifting the ban on crude oil exports when lawmakers passed such a measure last year.
Two other amendments — relating to carbon capture technology and manufacturing — were approved on voice votes.
Lawmakers are also set to consider amendments relating to energy reliability, the drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and funding for an energy technology agency Thursday.
Murkowski said other votes could come throughout the day. Senate leadership expects to finalize and pass the energy bill — which has broad bipartisan support — sometime next week.
-
Bipartisan Comity Reigns, But Poison Pills May Be Ahead
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Hannah Hess
The bipartisan spirit underlying the Senate's first foray into broad energy legislation in nearly a decade has endured through the initial days of debate, although stumbling blocks await senators when they return next week to finish the bill.
The chamber worked through a list of relatively noncontroversial amendments yesterday. Senators authorized new research into advanced nuclear reactors and boosted spending levels for the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E (Greenwire, Jan. 28; E&ENews PM, Jan. 28).
Lawmakers approved another batch of amendments by voice vote, which included measures to modernize energy policy for tribal land, expand research into water treatment facilities, reinstate the license for Montana's Gibson Dam project and require a federal study on the feasibility of opening an ethane storage and distribution hub in the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale plays.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) attributed the relatively smooth sailing early on to restraint on behalf of his colleagues.
"I think that's part of it," he told E&E Daily yesterday. "People are not trying to offer nongermane, sort of messaging, amendments and gum up the process so far, and I keep my fingers crossed."
Cornyn also credited Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is managing the floor debate with ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).
"I give a lot of credit to Senator Murkowski, who very skillfully in the committee process with Senator Cantwell, she wisely separated the more controversial issues like oil exports into a separate bucket," Cornyn said.
A Senate GOP aide yesterday credited both senators for sidestepping amendment pitfalls, saying both sides "are rowing in the same direction."
Murkowski and Cantwell agreed to champion a measure from Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) to modernize terms in the U.S. Code relating to minorities, wiping "Eskimo, Oriental, Puerto Rican" and other outdated lingo from the books.
Lawmakers also agreed to incorporate an amendment from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to modify national goals for geothermal production to include cost-shared exploration drilling.Poison pills on the horizon?
There may be trouble ahead for lawmakers wanting to keep the legislation bipartisan. The queue of potential amendments is lengthy and continues to grow.
Republicans yesterday signaled they'll push ahead with trying to undo U.S. EPA's new Clean Power Plan (E&ENews PM, Jan. 28). But even if the get a vote, rule critics will likely fall short of the necessary votes.
Liberal Democrats are plotting once again to put the Senate on the record regarding climate change. Details, however, are under wraps until next week, said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), one of the effort's key champions.
Democrats also are determined to use the energy package as a vehicle for addressing the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich. But they drew a cool response from Republicans over their $600 million amendment (E&ENews PM, Jan. 28).
Also on the horizon is a Republican-led push to stymie the Obama administration's new moratorium on the leasing of federal coal reserves to mining companies. The Interior Department is studying the climate and economic impacts of leasing.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), from the country's top coal-producing state, submitted an amendment to lift the moratorium the day President Obama leaves office, Jan. 20, 2017, even though the ongoing review will take years.
Amendment co-sponsor Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) had already introduced an amendment to simply lift the moratorium unless Congress can be sure the administration will not hurt coal-field employment or federal revenues from coal leasing.
At least one coal-state Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, said he would support amendments to lift the moratorium. It's not clear whether either will get a vote.
"It should be market-driven, but just saying you don't want it," he said about leasing. "You're not just going to do it because that's your policy? That's not acceptable."
Barrasso also proposed an amendment forbidding any increase in coal royalty rates unless Interior, the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission agree it would not raise electricity prices or undermine grid reliability.
An amendment by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) would bar EPA from declaring individual counties in "nonattainment" with ozone standards unless it has an air quality monitor in that county.
As of last May, about one-quarter of some 3,100 counties nationwide had ozone monitors, the bulk of them clustered in urban areas, according to Johnson's office.
The proposed requirement "is extremely important," Johnson said during an interview yesterday. "We want to make sure that we have measurements in all those counties, so that we're not making assumptions."Other amendments
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and other Democrats proposed to block Interior from allowing drilling off the Atlantic coast.
Menendez also offered amendments to remove limits on oil spill liability and close what many Democrats call tax loopholes for big oil companies.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and other Democrats have introduced an amendment to require campaign finance disclosures for political donors who stand to receive revenues of $1 million or more from fossil fuels.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is targeting natural gas exports. He introduced an amendment to stop the approval of new applications if the administration determines exports would increase the price of natural gas for American consumers.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment to expand the government's Rigs to Reefs program, which allows companies to save on decommissioning costs by turning their old Gulf of Mexico rigs into fish habitats.
The program has gradually increased its activity, but at a slow pace (EnergyWire, July 21, 2015). Vitter's amendment would speed up the review process and create new "planning areas" where companies can tow rigs.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) introduced an amendment, backed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), to support state net-metering policies to promote renewable energy.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) introduced an amendment to revive his "National Park Access Act." The bipartisan measure to refund roughly $2 million that six states paid during the 2013 government shutdown to reopen parks has cleared committee in the last two sessions of Congress.
Flake's legislation nearly passed on a voice vote last month but was one of several public lands bills blocked by Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas who is also running for president (Greenwire, Dec. 18, 2015).
Democrats have filed amendments addressing Puerto Rico's debt crisis. But Republicans remain opposed to extending federal Chapter 9 bankruptcy protections to the territory (E&E Daily, Jan. 28).DOE
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois offered an amendment to boost funding for DOE's Office of Science in annual increments, from $5.4 billion in fiscal 2016 to $7.13 billion in fiscal 2020. The original language would have authorized about a billion dollars less for 2020.
The Office of Science is responsible for 10 of the nation's 17 national laboratories and is the lead federal agency supporting basic science research for energy.
Democrats also offered amendments responding to a report last year offering recommendations on improving the effectiveness of the national labs. A congressionally mandated commission authored the report.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), for example, offered an amendment requiring the secretary of Energy "to ensure that the costs of general and administrative overhead" do not come from laboratory-directed research and development.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) also proposed several amendments to streamline DOE's management of national labs and ensure that they have more tools to partner with the private sector.
"I think your legislation is very much in the direction that we endorse," said TJ Glauthier, co-chair of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories, regarding the amendments.
"Laboratories ought to be freer to enter into agreements with private industry -- especially small businesses are really hampered by not being able to do that easily," Glauthier said. "There are lots of companies out there who want to work with the laboratories, but it is time-consuming and cumbersome."
Reporters Sean Reilly, Christa Marshall, Emily Yehle, Dylan Brown and Corbin Hiar contributed.
-
Senators Push Amendment to Scrap Climate Rule
Jan 28, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
Senate Republicans today introduced an amendment to broad energy legislation aimed at halting the Obama administration's carbon limits for existing power plants.
But opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan said their amendment was unlikely to pass if it's subject to a 60-vote threshold. It's even unclear whether the measure will receive a vote.
"I think it might get a vote," Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said. "The challenge is getting to 60."
The amendment offered by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) would withdraw EPA's rule, which requires states to develop and put in place plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector.
The measure is the latest in a string of attempts in Congress to overturn the Clean Power Plan. Late last year, lawmakers sent President Obama resolutions to kill rules covering existing and new power plants. The president vetoed both.
Blunt has previously said that the Clean Power Plan would lead to job losses and higher energy bills. Capito has separately introduced stand-alone legislation to roll back the program.
Despite the new amendment's hurdles, Capito said the measure was a way of "reconfirming that we've got some big issues with the Clean Power Plan."
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a critic of the Clean Power Plan, today pledged to continue pushing "common-sense" funding for technology to "use the fossil cleaner" instead of EPA's carbon limits.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), on the other hand, called the attack on the Clean Power Plan "disappointing, but not surprising."
Beyond the amendments blocking the EPA rule, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) yesterday introduced two measures requiring EPA to study the economic and environmental effects of the Clean Power Plan and compelling the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to independently analyze how the rule would affect grid reliability.Social cost of carbon
Senate Republicans today also targeted the Obama administration's social cost of carbon estimates, developed to monetize the incremental environmental damage of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The amendment by Sens. Blunt, Inhofe and James Lankford (R-Okla.) would force the director of the Office of Management and Budget to show lawmakers the modeling used to develop the social cost of carbon estimates.
Republicans and energy companies have long accused the administration of developing the SCC estimates behind closed doors. They reject regulators using the SCC in project reviews.
Lankford today said critics of the Obama administration's estimates would keep up the pressure. He questioned how agencies came up with the SCC calculation and said they should have followed the Administrative Procedures Act.
"It was done in a way that we can't get any transparency on how they actually made the decision. They say they'll model it, but we don't know who was in it. We don't know how it was done, and it effects so many people," said Lankford, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is in the midst of a comprehensive review of the SCC. Earlier this week, a National Academies panel released an interim report finding the administration did not need to adjust the estimates at this time (E&ENews PM, Jan. 26).
Senate Democrats in favor of action to address climate change are planning to introduce their own climate-related amendments next week, said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). In a brief interview today, Schatz said the amendments would break "new ground" and not simply rehash prior Senate battles over whether or not climate change exists and is man-made.
Reporters Geof Koss and Hannah Hess contributed.
-
Appeals Court Sets Briefing Schedule for Epic Lawsuit
Jan 28, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
As U.S. EPA's challengers are asking the Supreme Court to halt the agency's Clean Power Plan, legal proceedings over the rule in a lower court chug along.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit this afternoon issued a short order setting a schedule for all the involved parties to file briefs in the epic case. A broad coalition of utilities, industries and other groups have filed a combined 39 lawsuits from 157 petitioners asking the D.C. Circuit to review the rule.
A panel of three judges today directed petitioners to file their first briefs by Feb. 19. Additional briefs from intervenors supporting the petitioners and friend-of-the-court briefs are due Feb. 23.
The government's response is due March 28. Intervenors backing EPA must file their briefs by March 29, and pro-EPA friend-of-the-court briefs are due April 1.
Reply briefs from EPA's challengers are due April 15, and final briefs must be filed by April 22, the judges said.
The court has scheduled oral arguments over the administration's rule to slash power plants' greenhouse gas emissions for June 2, under an expedited schedule.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is considering several petitions asking it to halt the rule while the proceedings play out in the D.C. Circuit (Greenwire, Jan. 27).
Click here to read the court's latest order.
-
Feb. 4 Deadline Set for EPA Power Plan Stay Response
Jan 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency has a Feb. 4 deadline to respond to petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to stay implementation of carbon dioxide standards for power plants while the standards are being litigated, according to a Jan. 27 order from Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. (West Virginia v. EPA, U.S., No. 15A773, order issued 1/27/16).
Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order Jan. 28 setting a briefing in the litigation over the Clean Power Plan, which is scheduled for argument in June.
The federal appellate court has denied motions to halt the EPA's Clean Power Plan while the rule is being litigated. But 29 states and state agencies, led by West Virginia, have petitioned the Supreme Court to stay the rule. Additionally a coalition of 60 utilities as well as several business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, Murray Energy Corp., Peabody Energy Corp., the National Mining Association and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, also filed petitions (17 DEN A-14, 1/27/16).
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) sets a carbon dioxide limit for the power sector in each state, which would be implemented by state regulators. The rule is being challenged by 27 states as well as several industry groups.
Briefing Format, Panel Set
The D.C. Circuit issued an order Jan. 28 setting a briefing schedule in the litigation that closely hews to the timeline sought by the EPA in a proposed briefing format filed with the court Jan. 27.
The court's schedule will require petitioners to submit no more than two opening briefs by Feb. 19, with briefs from supporting intervenors and amici due by Feb. 23. The EPA's brief would be due by March 28, with intervenors on the agency's behalf to file by March 29 and amici by April 1. Petitioner reply briefs would be due by April 15.
Petitioners in their own proposed briefing format had asked the court for a slightly different briefing format that would allow them to file separate briefs for challenges to the fundamental legality of the Clean Power Plan and for challenges relating to implementation of the rule.
In the Jan. 21 order denying motions to stay the Clean Power Plan, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit announced argument will be heard June 2, with the possibility of argument extending to June 3. Argument will be heard by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith Rogers and Sri Srinivasan (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, order issued, 1/21/16).
-
Utilities Cite EPA Cost Review In Bid To Delay MACT Suits
Jan 28, 2016 | InsideEPA
Utility groups seeking to keep their lawsuits against specific technical aspects of EPA's utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule in abeyance claim the issues they raise are “inexorably” linked to a pending final cost review of the rule, and that therefore the cases should stay on hold until the agency issues the review.
In a Jan. 27 joint filing, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing investor-owned utilities, and ARIPPA, a Pennsylvania utility burning coal waste, say that their issues in ARIPPA, et al. v. EPA, et al., now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, are distinct from the other two suits consolidated under ARIPPA. The cases all challenge EPA's refusal to reconsider specific aspects of its MACT rule.
The groups oppose EPA's motion to proceed to briefing with all issues in the existing case, asking instead that the court sever their issues into separate cases and hold them in abeyance pending EPA's final cost review, expected in April, which is designed to justify the agency's earlier finding that the MACT was “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act. EPA has said the review and suits are distinct and has urged an end to the abeyance.
Contrary to EPA's claim that the finding has no bearing on their issues, which the agency says are now “ripe for decision,” the utilities groups in their new filing say their cases are “inexorably related” to the finding.
“ARIPPA generally raises issues concerning the hydrogen chloride ('HCl') limit imposed under the [MACT] rule for coal refuse-fired circulating fluidized bed [CFB] boilers, where the HCl limit does not reflect the design and operating characteristics of these unique sources,” the groups say.
“UARG generally raises issues concerning the use by EPA of contaminated emissions data for certain non-mercury metal hazardous air pollutants which EPA collected as part of EPA’s Information Collection Request, and the inadequacy of the opportunity to comment on EPA’s Mercury Technical Support Document,” they add, the latter referencing a document that supports the “appropriate and necessary” finding.
EPA’s consideration of UARG’s comments on flawed emissions data “could, and should, lead the Agency to revise its health-related findings regarding whether some form of regulation” of power plant air toxics emissions is “appropriate and necessary,” the groups say.
Similarly, EPA's cost-benefit calculations for the MACT “fail to account for the economic burden and associated loss of environmental benefit of applying the [MACT] rule to multiple ARIPPA plants that cannot satisfy emission limitations established based on conventional coal-fired [power plants], and therefore would be forced to close,” the filing says. Therefore, “EPA should consider the unique aspects of ARIPPA’s coal refuse-fired CFB units as directly relevant to the appropriate and necessary inquiry,” the groups say.
Other groups participating in the suit currently consolidated as ARIPPA are environmentalists, who claim EPA's standards are incorrectly calculated and not tough enough, and utility Hawaiian Electric, which raises issues specific to its oil-fired power plants outside the continental United States.
-
Proposal Would Alter Oil, Gas GHG Emissions Reporting
Jan 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Anthony Adragna
Oil and gas operations that are large emitters of greenhouse gases would be allowed to use new monitoring methods to detect leaks from their equipment under a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule that would alter how those facilities can report their emissions.
The proposed rule, slated to be published in the Federal Register Jan. 29, would amend just subpart W of the agency's greenhouse gas reporting program at 40 C.F.R. Part 98 to align the monitoring requirements with those included in proposed methane limits for new and modified oil and gas infrastructure.
According to the agency, the changes would reduce the “burden for entities subject to the fugitive leak detection requirements in both programs.” Compliance costs are estimated at $50,000 annually and would affect 251 entities.
“The proposed amendments would also allow facilities to use a consistent method to demonstrate compliance with multiple EPA programs,” the text of the proposed rule states.
Public comments on the changes to the greenhouse gas reporting program, which first came into existence in 2009, would be due Feb. 28. The agency said it intends to finalize the rule in 2016.
There have been multiple recent changes to the program. In December, the agency proposed updates to 30 subparts of the greenhouse gas reporting rule covering major industrial emitters like power plants, refineries, chemical plants, underground coal mines and other large facilities (246 DEN A-1, 12/23/15).
Other Components of Rule
In addition to the new monitoring methods, the agency said the proposed rule (RIN 2060-AS73) would include “emission factors for leaking equipment to be used in conjunction with the new monitoring methods” that would assist entities in measuring and reporting their emissions.
The EPA also proposed that none of the new data reporting components would be entitled to confidential business protections.
According to the agency, allowing new monitoring methods to be used by emitters in measuring their emissions is responsive to comments on prior regulatory updates where industry groups objected to mandating one specific calculation method.
The new amendments would allow entities to “use the information from a leak survey conducted on their equipment,” which the agency said could “provide more accurate estimates than the current method used.”
Stem From Proposed Rule
In September 2015, the EPA proposed new source performance standards for new and modified oil and gas infrastructure (80 Fed. Reg. 56,593) that would required entities to implement a fugitive emissions monitoring and repair program for the first time. That proposed rule is expected to be finalized in 2016.
Advanced monitoring techniques, including optical gas imaging, were proposed by the agency as one way the oil and gas sectors could identify fugitive emissions from their equipment. The latest proposed rule would add those techniques to the greenhouse gas reporting program.
-
Ozone Rule Not Protective, Environmental Groups Argue
Jan 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency erred when it rejected the advice of its own science advisers and set revised ozone standards that are insufficient to protect health or vegetation, environmental and public health groups told a federal appellate court (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385,statement of issues 1/27/16).
The EPA failed to explain how setting its revised national ambient air quality standards for ozone at 70 parts per billion is sufficient to protect public health despite scientific evidence of adverse health risks from exposures to lower concentrations of the pollutant, the Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the National Parks Conservation Association, Appalachian Mountain Club and West Harlem Environmental Action Inc. said in astatement of issues filed Jan. 27 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee had recommended the standards be set somewhere between 60 ppb and 70 ppb.
The environmental and health groups also plan to argue the EPA's revised ozone standards (RIN 2060-AP38), set in October 2015, will allow “repeated exceedances of ambient ozone levels that EPA concedes are dangerous.”
The prior ozone standards were set at 75 ppb by the Bush administration.
Standards Don't Protect Environment
The groups also plan to argue the EPA improperly rejected the advice of its science advisers and the National Park Service when it failed to set a separate secondary air quality standard for ozone. Instead, the EPA had set both the primary standard, which protects public health, and the secondary standard, which protects public welfare and the environment, at 70 ppb.
Although the Sierra Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility are challenging the EPA's ozone standards as insufficient to protect public health, the groups also have joined the American Lung Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council in seeking to defend the rule from lawsuits brought by industry groups (227 DEN A-1, 11/25/15).
-
Environmentalists Fault EPA's Rationale For Ozone NAAQS
Jan 28, 2016 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are faulting EPA's rationale for its decision to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, saying that the agency should have set a stricter standard and failed to follow advice from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
A coalition of environmental groups raised the criticisms in a Jan. 27 statement of issues that they plan to raise in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suit Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, which consolidates a host of challenges to the rule. The advocacy groups are Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Parks Conservation Association, Appalachian Mountain Club, and West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc.
EPA in an Oct. 1 rulemaking tightened the 2008 NAAQS of 75 ppb down to 70 ppb, prompting outcry from industry groups who say there is no scientific justification for a stricter standard and from environmentalists and public health advocates who say scientific data on ozone's human health impacts warrants a much stricter limit.
The agency set the secondary NAAQS, designed to protect the environment compared to the primary human health-based standard, at the same level and with the same “form” averaged over eight hours.
CASAC, which advises EPA on NAAQS reviews, had recommended that the agency set the primary NAAQS within a range of 60 ppb to 70 ppb -- but also cautioned that the limit should be lower than 70 ppb to allow an “adequate margin of safety” to protect vulnerable groups, as required by the Clean Air Act.
CASAC further agreed with EPA staff's recommendation that the agency set a unique secondary standard, using a different form expressed in parts per million-hours, to protect plants. This standard would focus on the summertime ozone season. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, however, opted not to set the unique secondary NAAQS, setting the secondary standard at the same level as the primary and with the same form. Doing so would provide the same level of protection for the environment as a unique secondary NAAQS, McCarthy concluded.
Environmentalists in their statement of issues question whether EPA's NAAQS rule is unlawful, among other reasons, for “[f]ailing to rationally explain its departure from the scientific finding of its own science advisors that there is substantial scientific certainty that adverse health effects occur at and below ozone levels of [70ppb].”
Further, they criticize EPA for “Rejecting the advice of its staff, its science advisors, and the National Park Service that a secondary (welfare) standard identical to the primary standard was not scientifically justified and would not assure requisite protection of trees and plants from ozone damage?”
The groups also say they intend to question EPA's decision to exempt certain new and modified industrial facilities from the air law requirement that they will not “cause or contribute to” a violation of the new NAAQS.
-
Fatal Flaws In EPA’s Latest Voluntary Methane Program Highlight Need For Concrete Rules
Jan 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
The Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program unveiled last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a perfect example of what can go wrong when the agency tries too hard to entice an unwilling industry to engage.
For years, EPA has offered voluntary “pollution prevention” programs to encourage companies to achieve environmental goals faster or cheaper than they might under regulations alone. Done right, voluntary programs stimulate innovation and reward true leaders. But weak efforts accomplish nothing, handing out laurels for token efforts that amount to business as usual – or less.
Gaping Holes
The problem with the EPA Methane Challenge program is that it falls short on thoroughness, rigor, and urgency. For starters, it lacks a critical yardstick to measure progress, requiring no quantitative goals whatsoever. Among other problems and deficiencies:The new program doesn’t require or even mention the need to set emissions targets for participating companies, making it entirely possible that a company’s overall methane emissions could increase yet still win official kudos from the agency.Companies are free to pick and choose what practices they implement, all but guaranteeing that EPA will end up rewarding cherry-picking by companies.Companies aren’t required to implement practices to find or fix methane leaks as a condition of program participation, despite the fact that leaks, equipment malfunctions, and equipment failures are a widespread problem that accounts for a major share of industry emissions.Despite pressing need, the program gives companies five years to fully implement commitments, even though cost effective strategies and technologies for reducing emissions are widely documented, readily available, and in some cases, already successfully deployed in the field by leading companies.
A Reason for Skepticism
So far, industry’s track record with voluntary programs is not impressive. Over the past 20 years, the EPA’s current voluntary program for the oil and gas program — Natural Gas STAR — has achieved a meager one percent participation rate in the oil and gas industry.
When EDF recently surveyed 65 of the biggest companies in the oil and gas industry, we found that exactly none have publicly disclosed methane emission reduction targets, and less than a third report any methane emissions information at all. For those that did, the data was scattershot.
The oil and gas industry is eager to point out that methane emissions have come down over time even as production has gone up, but they are less quick acknowledge areas (such as in the gathering and processing sector) where the data shows emissions have been increasing. Nor will they tell you that emissions associated with leaks, equipment malfunctions, and equipment failures are grossly underreported in official government emissions inventories.
A Missed Opportunity
According to a recent survey, less than a third of Americans trust oil and gas companies to operate responsibly and just 15 percent trust those companies to accurately report their emissions. That is why this new program offered by EPA is so disappointing.
Voluntary programs designed to work in coordination with regulation can be – and have been – used to reward early action and steps beyond compliance. Unfortunately, this program does neither. Here, all signs point to an effort intended to set a low bar in hopes of boosting previously meager participation by industry.
Unfortunately, by setting the bar low, the new program won’t do much for the environment or improve the public’s confidence in the industry or government to address a significant pollution problem.
The goal of the Challenge is worthy, and we sincerely hope it will make a contribution in that direction. But with the weak track record of industry participation in voluntary programs, and the shortcomings of this one, the need for regulatory standards is more clear than ever.
-
Dem Senators Echo Greens' Call for More Methane Restrictions
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Senate Democrats are pressing the Obama administration to restrict methane emissions from oil and gas operations, echoing calls from environmentalists in recent weeks.
The calls come as methane continues to leak from a natural gas storage facility in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles County in California. In a letter yesterday, 21 Democratic senators pointed to the leak as an "unfortunate reminder of how dangerous methane leaks can be."
Led by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the senators asked that U.S. EPA propose Clean Air Act standards for existing oil and gas operations, as well as strengthen a proposal to address emissions from new sources.
"Addressing methane from existing oil and gas sources is one of the most significant steps we can take to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and bolster the effectiveness of [President Obama's Climate Action Plan]," the senators wrote. "The U.S. should continue to be as comprehensive as possible in its regulation of methane and other greenhouse gases as we continue to set an international example."
Schatz separately is attempting to use the broader energy legislation currently being debated in the Senate to compel EPA to issue the standards (see related story). On Wednesday, he offered an amendment that would compel EPA to propose new rules within 240 days.
About a third of methane emissions in the United States stem from the oil and gas sector, according to EPA. As part of the president's climate plan, the White House has pledged to reduce methane emissions from the sector by 40 to 45 percent by 2025 compared with 2012 levels.
EPA last year proposed methane restrictions for new and modified oil and gas operations that include requirements that operators find and repair leaks.
The Democratic senators said that EPA must also address existing operations in order for the Obama administration to meet its international climate change pledge.
"Moving forward with this rulemaking would sustain our international leadership on this issue," the senators wrote, "and put forward a precedent that other countries can follow, much as they have done with our current methane commitment."
Environmental groups have made similar pleas to the Obama administration, using the ongoing California leak to bolster their case (Greenwire, Jan. 11). The oil and gas industry, on the other hand, says that companies' voluntary actions are enough to reduce methane emissions.
In a recent interview, Janet McCabe, acting EPA air chief, said that the agency's role in light of the California leak was to coordinate the response. She indicated that the agency is not currently looking into national rules for existing facilities (Greenwire, Jan. 21).
The coalition of Senate Democrats said it "strongly" supports EPA's proposal to address methane emissions from new sources. But the group also called on EPA to expand that proposal to certain equipment and activities at oil and gas operations. Those sources include liquids unloading, intermittent pneumatic controllers and compressors at well sites.
"These sources are associated with significant methane emissions, and low cost controls exist for all of them," the senators wrote. "We therefore urge EPA to cover them in the final rule."
-
Top Dem Wants to Link Flint Aid to Drought, Methane Leak
Jan 29, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
A top House Democratic lawmaker said yesterday that any legislative response to the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., should also address the ongoing drought and methane gas leak in California.
"If you are going to do a bill to deal with environmental catastrophe, why would you deal with one and not another?" said California Rep. Xavier Becerra, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus yesterday.
The issue of Flint's lead-tainted water came up during a closed-door session of House Democrats with Vice President Joe Biden at the party's legislative retreat here. Biden offered details on ongoing government relief efforts in Flint, warned of the dire impacts of lead poisoning and did not rule out supplemental spending to help repair the city's aging infrastructure (E&ENews PM, Jan. 28).
During that discussion, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), whose district covers the Porter Ranch community outside of Los Angeles where a leak at a natural gas facility has been spewing methane since October, suggested any Flint measure should also address the ongoing leak.
Sherman said Wednesday he is eyeing draft legislation that would give federal agencies more authority to respond to the leak, but he has not settled on a proposal. He added that agencies already may have the needed authorities to oversee natural gas facilities but might not be as aggressive as they should be in using them.
Becerra said the leak has not gotten as much attention but has displaced thousands of residents and is one of the worst natural gas leaks in history.
"People are not hearing as much about Porter Ranch because you are not seeing the effect as dramatically as you are with Flint," he said.
On drought legislation, Becerra did not offer any specifics. Despite negotiating for almost two years, California lawmakers have failed to come up with consensus legislation to deal with the drought, now in its fourth year.Focus on Flint
Several Democrats at the retreat said the Flint crisis perpetuates public distrust in government but could also help them make their case for prioritizing certain federal spending.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who accused Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) of "malfeasance" for his role in changing the city's water supply, said it's "no wonder that people have the attitude they have toward government." She likened the situation in Flint to the faulty federal response to Hurricane Katrina and said it would help make the case for more spending on infrastructure, such as water systems.
Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) said Democrats could use Flint to illustrate their differences with Republicans over budget priorities, such as protecting drinking water.
"All you have to do is contrast the proposals of the Democratic caucus with the [House Speaker] Paul Ryan budget and you can see clear as day what party has the vision to invest in protecting Americans, in making sure they are strong, healthy and their children can thrive," he said.
Rep. Ann McLane Kuster (D-N.H.) said security issues are expected to be themes in this year's elections and Democrats would be wise to use Flint to focus on "family security." She added, "Parents across the country look at Flint with trepidation that this could happen in their communities."
Becerra, meanwhile, said he also hopes there will eventually be criminal indictments for what happened in Flint.
"We don't want to see a situation like we saw with the Wall Street meltdown where no one on Wall Street paid the price," Becerra said. "Many of us believe what went down in Flint should cause someone to have a rap sheet."
One Michigan Democrat, speaking on background, expressed extreme frustration with the water problems but also said Democrats should be cautious in their criticism because there is blame to be shared across all levels of government.
Indeed, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans have focused on mistakes make by U.S. EPA in monitoring the Flint water supply for high lead levels (E&ENews PM, Jan. 21).
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested