Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Feb 5
-
(ACC Mentioned) Former head of Bankers Association to Holland & Knight
Feb 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Megan R. Wilson
Frank Keating, the former leader of the American Bankers Association, has joined law and lobby firm Holland & Knight as a partner, the firm announced Thursday. Keating stepped down from the helm of the financial services trade group last year after serving as its CEO since 2011. Prior to that, he led the American Council of Life Insurers. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bill To Ban Toxic Flame Retardants Could Fizzle For 5th Time
Feb 4, 2016 | The Olympian
By Allegra Abramo
A bipartisan group of lawmakers wants to ban flame retardants linked to cancer, learning disabilities and other health problems from being used in children’s products and furniture. But legislation to do that could fail for the fifth year running if legislators cannot agree on how to ban new chemicals down the road. -
Environmentalists Seek OMB Meeting To Push IST Mandate
Feb 4, 2016 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are planning to seek a meeting with White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) officials to push their request for the Obama administration to mandate that industrial facilities use inherently safer technology (IST) as part of pending revisions to EPA's risk management plan (RMP) program. -
Preventing Cancer is Not A Game of Chance
Feb 4, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Curt DellaValle
Today is World Cancer Day, a perfect time to raise awareness and spur action in the fight against cancer. It’s a day to reflect on a very important question: What is the main cause of cancer? Is it driven by avoidable lifestyle and environmental factors or is it largely due to chance? -
OECD Publishes Data On Titanium Dioxide Nanomaterial Safety
Feb 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has released a report and annex on titanium dioxide as part of its safety of manufactured nanomaterials series. The Dossier on titanium dioxide contains data generated by the organisation's Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) testing programme. The WPMN has focused on human health and environmental safety... -
West's Warning To Other Facilities In Texas
Feb 4, 2016 | The Houston Chronicle
Nearly three years after a massive fertilizer-plant explosion in a little Czech town north of Waco took the lives of 16 people, injured more than 260 others and destroyed homes and businesses, a similar danger still exists around the state. West has been working to recover ever since its catastrophe, but other communities are just as vulnerable. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Researchers Discover New Method To Get Rare-Earth Elements From Coal
Feb 5, 2016 | Mining Technology
Researchers from Penn State and the US Department of Energy (DOE) have found an economical method to extract rare-earth elements (REEs) from coal byproducts through a chemical process called ion-exchange. The rare-earth elements widely used in many industries are a set of 17 metals such as scandium, yttrium... -
Offshore Drilling Safety Rule Nears Completion
Feb 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A regulation meant to improve offshore oil and natural gas drilling is in its last phase before it can be made final. The Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) sent its new standards for blowout preventers to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Thursday for its review, a required... -
Companies to Pay More for Wyoming Well Bonds, Drill Permits
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Oil and gas companies in Wyoming will pay higher amounts for well bonding and for drilling permits under new rules approved by the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The changes in rules governing bonding and applications for permits to drill (APDs) took effect Feb. 1. New blanket bonds will be $100,000, the commission said... -
Fact Check: Clinton Wrong On Biden Support For Keystone XL
Feb 4, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Hillary Clinton: Vice President Joe Biden might not meet Sanders' definition of 'progressive' because he "supported Keystone." Not true. Vice President Joe Biden never stated publicly that he backed Keystone XL, the controversial 1,179-mile Canada-to-Texas heavy oil pipeline that Clinton famously... -
California Drafts Carbon Rule to Target Methane Leaks
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California air quality regulators are considering whether to require oil and gas facilities to offset emissions from large methane leaks. At a Feb. 4 workshop, the California Air Resources Board suggested revising a draft regulation being developed to curb greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas operations to include provisions... -
EPA: Clean Power Plan Stay Unprecedented, Unwarranted
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Petitions to stay implementation of the Clean Power Plan are premature and unprecedented and would deprive the U.S. Supreme Court of the benefit of a lower court's consideration of the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency said (West Virginia v. EPA, U.S., No. 15A773, briefs filed 2/4/16). -
EPA Urges Supreme Court To Deny 'Unprecedented' Request
Feb 4, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
The Obama administration today urged the Supreme Court to reject a bid to halt U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, calling the appeal to the high court "extraordinary and unprecedented." In a document sent today to the high court, the administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, ticked off a number of ... -
EPA Says Utilities Cite 'Bogus' Plant Closures In High Court ESPS Stay Bid
Feb 4, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA is urging the Supreme Court to deny opponents' requests that it stay the agency's existing power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rule in part by questioning the utility industry's claims to the court that the rule will drive massive immediate coal plant retirements that will result in “irreparable harm” justifying a stay. -
ECOS Says Most States Likely to Submit Carbon Plans
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Most states will likely submit their own plans for complying with the Obama administration's greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants, even the states that are challenging the rule in court, the leader of a state environmental association predicted. Alexandra Dunn, executive director and general counsel of the Environmental... -
White House to SCOTUS: Bid To Block Climate Rule ‘Unprecedented’
Feb 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Administration officials told the Supreme Court to Thursday to reject an “extraordinary and unprecedented” request by conservative states to block its landmark climate change rule. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli accused the states, led by West Virginia, of trying to bypass the normal process for challenging the climate regulation, and said they haven’t... -
House GOP Announces Task Force To Reform Federal Rules
Feb 5, 2016 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Hess
As House Republican leaders shape their election-year agenda, nine standing committee chairmen will play a key role in developing the GOP's policy agenda on regulatory reform. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) yesterday announced membership of six task forces, including a panel on "reducing regulatory... -
OMB Reviewing Regional Haze Update Proposal
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted proposed revisions to its regional haze program for review by the White House Office of Management and Budget. The proposal, submitted Feb. 3, would change the deadline for states to update their regional haze plans, remove requirements for periodic progress report submittals and allow... -
EPA Sends Haze Air Rule Revisions For OMB Review
Feb 4, 2016 | InsideEPA
EPA has sent revisions to its regional haze air rule for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review, saying the “limited changes” will include a delay in the deadline for states to submit their next compliance plans for the rule and scrapping a requirement on submission of some periodic progress reports. -
Democrats Had a Lot of GOP Help on Energy Bill Vote
Feb 4, 2016 | Roll Call
By Jason Dick
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn was mad, and he knew just whom to blame: Democrats, who were insisting on an emergency aid package for the city of Flint, Mich., to address its poisoned water system. But the truth, as it often is, was a little more complicated. -
House Bill to Strengthen EPA Notification of Water Violations
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The Flint, Mich., water emergency arising from lead contamination of tap water has spawned bills by Michigan lawmakers seeking to rectify problems with public notification of violations and aging infrastructure that could cause public health problems. Bipartisan legislation introduced Feb. 4 would require the Environmental... -
Democrats Block Energy Bill Over Flint Dispute
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate Democrats made good on a promise to block broad energy legislation Feb. 4, after an agreement to include funding to help Flint, Mich., deal with a crisis caused by lead-tainted water couldn't be reached. A procedural vote to move forward with the 424-page energy bill (S. 2012) failed by a vote of 43-54. Sixty affirmative...
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
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Former head of Bankers Association to Holland & Knight
Feb 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Megan R. Wilson
Frank Keating, the former leader of the American Bankers Association, has joined law and lobby firm Holland & Knight as a partner, the firm announced Thursday.
Keating stepped down from the helm of the financial services trade group last year after serving as its CEO since 2011. Prior to that, he led the American Council of Life Insurers.
“Holland & Knight is one of the leading law firms serving the financial services industry, with a well-deserved reputation for helping clients successfully navigate a dynamic environment,” Keating said in a statement.
Steven Sonberg, the managing partner of Holland & Knight, said the firm is “truly fortunate” to have been chosen by Keating as the next step in his career.
“His experience and knowledge in the industry are unmatched. We have more than 250 professionals involved in our financial services practice, one of the largest of its kind in the United States, and Gov. Keating will be a tremendous strategic asset for our lawyers and our clients,” Sonberg said.
Keating, who served as the governor of Oklahoma from 1995 to 2003, will be working in the firm’s Washington and Tyson’s Corner, Va., offices.
Asked whether he was planning on lobbying for the firm, Keating says it's "too early" to speculate about federal advocacy.
“At this juncture, it is too early to say," he told The Hill through a spokeswoman. "If I am obliged to, I certainly shall.”
Among its lobbying clients in the financial services sector are the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, Amscot Financial and the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards. Holland & Knight also represents Comcast, the American Chemistry Council, the Compressed Gas Association and a host of municipal governments.
The firm earned nearly $20 million from lobbying firms alone last year, according to disclosures provided to the Senate, and is listed among the top 10 K Street firms by revenue. In addition to legal services, the firm also has public relations and coalition-building capabilities.
Keating worked as general counsel and acting deputy secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development with Secretary Jack Kemp during the George H.W. Bush administration.
Under President Ronald Reagan, he served as a U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma. In his second term, Reagan appointed Keating to serve as an assistant secretary to the Treasury Department and later as the associate attorney general at the Justice Department.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bill To Ban Toxic Flame Retardants Could Fizzle For 5th Time
Feb 4, 2016 | The Olympian
By Allegra Abramo
A bipartisan group of lawmakers wants to ban flame retardants linked to cancer, learning disabilities and other health problems from being used in children’s products and furniture. But legislation to do that could fail for the fifth year running if legislators cannot agree on how to ban new chemicals down the road.
The bill, the Toxic-Free Kids and Families Act (HB 2545), would ban five common flame retardants from upholstered furniture and children’s toys, safety seats and clothing. It also would authorize the Washington State Department of Health to ban additional flame retardants found to be of high concern for children’s health.
The House Health Care and Wellness Committee passed an amended bill 8-7 on Tuesday. In past years, versions of the legislation have passed the full House overwhelmingly only to die in the Senate.
Republicans have proposed eliminating the Health Department’s proposed authority to ban additional chemicals. That, however, would make the bill a nonstarter for the House bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kevin Van De Wege, D-Sequim.
“We’ve been pretty adamant that doing the five bans doesn’t get us anywhere, because we don’t know what they would replace them with,” said Van De Wege, who also works as a firefighter, another group particularly at risk for exposure to toxic flame retardants. “That’s not something we’re going to do.”
Some Republicans on the House health committee voiced frustration, saying they felt compelled to vote no on the bill because they don’t want to give up their authority to ban — or not ban — other flame retardants.
“Everyone agrees these chemicals need to be banned — that’s not a question,” Rep. Jay Rodne, R-Snoqualmie, said before the committee vote, echoing testimony by business groups. “I’m not confident that we should give, at this point, more authority to administrative agencies who are unelected.”
Van De Wege, along with health and environmental groups, counter that the ability to ban new chemicals is essential because replacement flame retardants could prove more dangerous.
That’s in fact what happened after Washington in 2007 became the first state to ban a group of harmful flame retardants called PDBEs linked with lower IQ and poorer attention and coordination in children, and now found in the blood of almost every American.
Some flame retardants that replaced PBDEs had been banned or voluntarily removed from children’s pajamas in the 1970s after discoveries that they cause cancer and alter genes. But these toxic chemicals, called Tris compounds, were never removed from other products and today are commonly added to foam used in furniture, car seats and other baby products.
The state needs to stop this game of chemical Whac-A-Mole, bill proponents say.
“Without a provision that allows the state to take action on future problematic flame retardants, we’re just going to end up on a toxic treadmill, where we’re going to keep coming back to the Legislature year after year,” said Ivy Sager-Rosenthal of the Washington Toxics Coalition.
Children tend to have higher levels of flame retardants in their bodies. They are thought to be at particular risk from the potential effects of the chemicals because their brains are still developing. Studies also show that because children often are on the floor and put their hands in their mouths, they are more likely to ingest the chemicals when they escape from products into house dust and the air.
The current legislation, which Van De Wege called “a very compromise bill,” seeks to retain some control for the Legislature. It would delay any agency-proposed ban of a new flame retardant from going into effect until after a full legislative session, giving lawmakers time to overrule the Department of Health. And the agency’s authority to ban new chemicals would expire after five years unless renewed by the Legislature.
A bipartisan change to the bill late last session sought to make the measure more palatable to some Republicans by shifting authority to the Department of Health, instead of the Department of Ecology, according to Van De Wege.
But business and trade groups say they prefer Ecology to remain responsible for regulating chemicals. The agency already oversees the Children’s Safe Product Act, which requires manufacturers to report if their products contain any of 66 chemicals currently on a list of high concern to children, including the five flame retardants in the bill. The bill would allow flame retardants added to that list to be banned after a public rule-making process.
Association of Washington Business lobbyist Brandon Houskeeper said his group has instead proposed that Ecology review flame retardants and make recommendations to the Legislature. That is similar to the process that led to Ecology’s current recommendation to ban the five chemicals in the bill. But Houskeeper says the agency should also have to quantify the risks of exposure to the substances.
Chemical manufacturers agree. The mere presence of chemicals in blood or breast milk does not necessarily indicate harm, said toxicologist Thomas Osimitz, testifying on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. “I think it’s important you go past just the detection of chemicals to ask at what levels, and what do those levels mean in the sense of potential health effects?” he told the House health committee recently.
Bill proponents argue that if scientists can already prove harm, society has waited too long.
“We don’t believe that you should continue to use toxic chemicals until you can prove that the levels are high enough to cause harm,” Erika Schreder, science director for the Toxics Coalition, said in an interview. “Our approach is that when safer alternatives are available, we need to stop using toxic chemicals and products.”
Firefighter groups also support the bill because they worry about the long-term effects of exposure to toxic flame retardants that are emitted as furniture burns. And firefighters already have higher rates of certain cancers than the general population, Michael White of the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters told lawmakers. These chemical flame retardants “don’t really work anyways,” he added.
Recent changes to furniture flammability standards in California mean that chemical flame retardants are no longer required in furniture there, and because California drives the national market, several large furniture retailers, including Macy’s and Ikea, are phasing out toxic flame retardants altogether.
American Chemistry Council representatives and business groups said they would prefer that the federal government take the lead in regulating flame retardants to provide businesses with more regulatory certainty. They also urged Washington lawmakers to hold off while the federal Environmental Protection Agency finishes its own study of flame retardants — the agency has been grappling with the chemicals for more than two decades now — and while Congress debates changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Senate version of the federal bill, passed in December, would curtail states’ ability to regulate chemicals in the future.
For her part, Rep. Eileen Cody, D-Seattle, House Health Care & Wellness Committee chair, isn’t inclined to wait around.
“We get tired of waiting for the feds to do things in Washington state,” she said.
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/politics-government/article58586673.html#storylink=cpy -
Environmentalists Seek OMB Meeting To Push IST Mandate
Feb 4, 2016 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are planning to seek a meeting with White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) officials to push their request for the Obama administration to mandate that industrial facilities use inherently safer technology (IST) as part of pending revisions to EPA's risk management plan (RMP) program.
EPA is expected to propose in March a rule strengthening its RMP facility accident prevention program, part of a broad federal effort to implement President Obama's Aug. 1, 2013 Executive Order 13650 on improving the safety and security of the nation's industrial plants. Obama issued the order in response to an ammonium nitrate explosion in April of that year at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 14 people and wounded 200 others.
A coalition of environmental, labor and public interest groups have long urged EPA to bolster its regulations to require facilities to use IST where feasible, such as switching to chemicals that would pose less of a risk to human health or the environment in the event of their release following an industrial accident.
However, after meeting with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in October, advocates said it appears unlikely that the pending RMP rule -- currently underdoing OMB review -- will include an IST mandate.
Advocates of an IST mandate nevertheless continue to make the case for the requirement, and an environmentalist says that proponents are planning to ask for a meeting with OMB to make their pitch.
In addition, Greenpeace released a report Feb. 4 that reiterates the request, especially for facilities using chlorine gas.
The report “Chlorine Bleach Plants Needlessly Endanger Millions,” argues that bleach manufacturing facilities can eliminate bulk storage and transport of chlorine gas by producing chlorine on-site as needed, while drinking and wastewater treatment facilities can eliminate chlorine gas storage by using ultraviolet light and liquid bleach.
The report reiterates calls for EPA to require facilities to use IST where feasible, noting specific process changes for bleach manufacturers and water facilities, and says the agency should collect and publicize data on safer alternatives.
The environmentalist says that while McCarthy and other officials have suggested EPA's forthcoming RMP proposal is unlikely to include a requirement for safer processes, the source notes that recent agency publications have at least left open the possibility of an IST requirement in a final RMP rule.
In a Nov. 19 presentation to a “Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Outreach Meeting,” EPA detailed plans for revising RMP, including new requirements for consideration of safer processes. Although the agency presentation said the proposal will not require facilities “to implement any prescribed technology,” it added that, “EPA is taking comment on whether implementation should be required.”
-
Preventing Cancer is Not A Game of Chance
Feb 4, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Curt DellaValle
Today is World Cancer Day, a perfect time to raise awareness and spur action in the fight against cancer. It’s a day to reflect on a very important question: What is the main cause of cancer? Is it driven by avoidable lifestyle and environmental factors or is it largely due to chance?
That question is particularly relevant in light of President Obama’s call in his final State of the Union address for a cancer “moonshot” to “make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.” Investing in innovative and promising treatments certainly will, and should, be a critical focus of the “moonshot” initiative, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the other side of the cancer fight – preventing it in the first place.
How much do we need to focus on prevention? Is cancer largely avoidable or not?
Early in 2015, a pair of scientists at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland tackled this question and concluded the majority of cancer is due to “bad luck.” They observed that the faster the stem cells in an organ divide and replicate, the more likely cancer is to develop. (Cell division is the body’s way of growing and replacing old or damaged cells). The premise makes sense. Every time a cell divides into new cells it’s a roll of the dice, because there is a chance – a very, very small chance – of a spontaneous error in the new cells’ DNA, such as a mutation, that could cause cancer. The more times you roll the dice, the more likely you are to come up with a bad number.
Their conclusion that about 65 percent of all cancers are a result of “bad luck” sparked a lot of debate, because the study was limited in how it accounted for external factors such as lifestyle and the environment – which can greatly influence cell division and mutation rates. Plus, we see the powerful effect of lifestyle and environment in the real world. Cancer rates vary substantially worldwide and cancer rates among immigrants more closely match the rates in their new country than in their country of origin.
This led a group at Stony Brook University in New York to reexamine the question using the same data. They concluded that cell division rates are responsible for only a baseline risk, accounting for about 10-30 percent of cancers. The remaining 70-90 percent of our risk is due to external factors including lifestyle and environmental exposures.
Whether external factors account for 90 percent or 35 percent of cancer risk, or somewhere in between, both studies point to the same thing: A substantial number of cancers are preventable.
Prevention starts with us. Living a healthy lifestyle, not smoking, eating a nutritious diet, staying physically active and avoiding sexually transmitted disease are all things within our control. We can also reduce our exposures to toxic substances.
EWG has compiled a list of 10 simple steps you can take in and around your home to further reduce cancer risk for you and your family.
When it comes to cancer, we can’t stop rolling the dice, but a healthy lifestyle and clean environment certainly shift the odds in our favor.
-
OECD Publishes Data On Titanium Dioxide Nanomaterial Safety
Feb 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has released a report and annex on titanium dioxide as part of its safety of manufactured nanomaterials series.
The Dossier on titanium dioxide contains data generated by the organisation's Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) testing programme.
The WPMN has focused on human health and environmental safety endpoints for manufactured nanomaterials.
Its brief is to assess to what extent existing test guidelines are suitable for nanomaterials. It will also gather information on their intrinsic properties, where they differ from the same material in bulk dimensions.
-
West's Warning To Other Facilities In Texas
Feb 4, 2016 | The Houston Chronicle
Nearly three years after a massive fertilizer-plant explosion in a little Czech town north of Waco took the lives of 16 people, injured more than 260 others and destroyed homes and businesses, a similar danger still exists around the state. West has been working to recover ever since its catastrophe, but other communities are just as vulnerable. So says a recent report conducted by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.
As the 265-page report notes, the West Fertilizer Co. warehouse near the center of town held an estimated 30 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. A blast that registered as a 2.1-magnitude earthquake, one of the deadliest industrial disasters in Texas history, should have been warning enough. And yet, at least 19 facilities in Texas that store five tons or more of fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate are within a half-mile of a school, hospital or nursing home. Eighty-three percent of the 40 facilities in the state that store fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate are located within a quarter-mile of residences - and the people living in those residences usually don't know of the potential danger nearby.
"The risk to the public from a catastrophic incident exists throughout the state of Texas," the report warned.
Texas officials seem only mildly concerned. Lawmakers apparently are worried more about overweening government regulation than they are about potential danger to life and property.
Granted, the Texas Legislature got a bit interested last year. Lawmakers approved legislation that allows the state fire marshal to inspect agricultural businesses that store ammonium nitrate and to report violations to the state chemist for enforcement. The law also shifted regulation of ammonium nitrate from the Department of Health Services to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, among other minor reforms. A bill that would have imposed penalties for improper storage of ammonium nitrate went nowhere.
The safety board says the reforms that did pass don't go far enough. If at least 19 Texas communities are still in danger zones, then neither lawmakers nor government regulators are protecting the public welfare.
Texas officials, whose disdain for government seems boundless, ought to ask the people of Flint, Mich., about government regulation, Flint being the struggling city where a similar disdain and a penchant for doing it on the cheap have resulted in irreparable damage. Or they might ask the people of West, where nearly 200 homes don't exist anymore and where three of the town's four public schools were destroyed or had major damage. Fifteen former West residents won't be able to answer.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Researchers Discover New Method To Get Rare-Earth Elements From Coal
Feb 5, 2016 | Mining Technology
Researchers from Penn State and the US Department of Energy (DOE) have found an economical method to extract rare-earth elements (REEs) from coal byproducts through a chemical process called ion-exchange.
The rare-earth elements widely used in many industries are a set of 17 metals such as scandium, yttrium, lanthanum and cerium.
The American Chemistry Council said that these elements support more than $329bn of economic output in North America.
Penn State professor of energy and mineral engineering Sarma Pisupati said: "We have known for many decades that rare-earth elements are found in coal seams and near other mineral veins.
"However, it was costly to extract the materials and there was relatively low demand until recently."
The researchers used by-products of coal production from the Northern Appalachian region of the US and investigated whether REEs can be safely extracted through the ion-exchange process.
The eco-friendly process requires less energy and involves rinsing the coal with a solution that releases the REEs that are bound it.
In order to carry out the study, researchers used coal byproducts, with some not considered or marked as refuse during mining operations as they were of poor quality.
The study also involved locations within the coal seam that contained the highest amounts of the elements and the highest concentration was often found in the poorest quality coal.
Several coal-mining companies in Pennsylvania are set to partner with the team to explore the possibility of a commercial REE-extraction operation.
-
Offshore Drilling Safety Rule Nears Completion
Feb 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A regulation meant to improve offshore oil and natural gas drilling is in its last phase before it can be made final.
The Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) sent its new standards for blowout preventers to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Thursday for its review, a required step before finalization.The blowout preventer rule is the most significant overhaul of offshore drilling rules since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and ensuing 87-day oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in United States history.
Blowout preventers are a key piece of safety equipment meant to stop spills. The one on the Deepwater Horizon rig failed, leading to the spill; the industry has voluntarily made significant improvements to its standards for blowout preventers since then.
The BSEE rule would require third-party verification of design standards, enhanced onshore monitoring of performance and new engineering standards for operation.
The oil industry says much of the rule is unnecessary.
“In many ways, BSEE’s proposal acknowledges how the industry has taken the lead to improve safety,” Erik Milito, director of downstream operations for the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, certain aspects of the rule, if not fixed, could have unintended consequences that increase the risk to people and the environment.”
The OMB has 90 days to review the rule, but it can extend the timeline.
-
Companies to Pay More for Wyoming Well Bonds, Drill Permits
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Oil and gas companies in Wyoming will pay higher amounts for well bonding and for drilling permits under new rules approved by the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
The changes in rules governing bonding and applications for permits to drill (APDs) took effect Feb. 1. New blanket bonds will be $100,000, the commission said, while individual well bonds are $10 per foot of vertical well bores.
The commission increased APD fees from $50 to $500, but permits will now be in effect for two years instead of just one. “So that's $250 a year, where previously it was $50 a year,” John Robitaille, vice president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 4.
The last time the commission increased the blanket bond—a bond covering all wells that a company drills—from $25,000 to $75,000, companies that had paid the bond before July 1, 2000, were “grandfathered in” and not required to pay the new, higher amount, Robitaille said.
“Now it's up to $100,000 and doesn't grandfather anyone,” he said. “Everyone will have to reach that level. I haven't heard that is going to be a problem for anyone, but when you start increasing costs on a well, it affects the economics of the well.”
Also under the new rules, administrative approvals for horizontal drilling submitted with the APD no longer require a $75 fee. However, sundry notices accompanied by a location change administrative approval will require a $75 fee.
Administrative approvals, like APDs, also will be effective for two years.
Hearing Held on Flaring Rules
On Feb. 4, the commission held a public hearing on its new proposed rules designed to minimize the flaring and venting of natural gas.
The rules reduce the amount of gas that can be vented at a well site or oil and gas lease facility to less than 30,000 cubic feet per day. Flaring continues to be authorized for up to 60,000 cubic feet per day, but the proposed rules set forth new requirements for operators to apply for permission to flare in excess of that amount.
The public comment period for the rules ended Jan. 22, and the full five-member commission will vote on them Feb. 9, Mark Watson, Wyoming Oil and Gas supervisor, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 4.
-
Fact Check: Clinton Wrong On Biden Support For Keystone XL
Feb 4, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Hillary Clinton: Vice President Joe Biden might not meet Sanders' definition of 'progressive' because he "supported Keystone."
Not true. Vice President Joe Biden never stated publicly that he backed Keystone XL, the controversial 1,179-mile Canada-to-Texas heavy oil pipeline that Clinton famously said in 2010 she was "inclined" to approve as Secretary of State but came out against last year. In fact, anti-Keystone activists in 2013 seized on a report that Biden told a Sierra Club member on a South Carolina rope line about his activism within the Obama administration to urge a rejection of the pipeline.
Sierra Club member Elaine Cooper wrote a blog item on the group's website recounting an encounter with Biden.
“I asked him about the administration’s commitment to making progress on climate and whether the president would reject the pipeline,” she wrote. “He looked at the Sierra Club hat on my head and he said, 'Yes, I do — I share your views — but I am in the minority,' and he smiled.”
-
California Drafts Carbon Rule to Target Methane Leaks
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California air quality regulators are considering whether to require oil and gas facilities to offset emissions from large methane leaks.
At a Feb. 4 workshop, the California Air Resources Board suggested revising a draft regulation being developed to curb greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas operations to include provisions that would require all the facilities to implement emissions reduction projects or develop a plan to address the leaked emissions.
The suggestion comes in response to the massive ongoing methane leak at Southern California Gas Co.'s underground natural gas storage field near Los Angeles.
CARB also said it will include in the draft regulation new monitoring and leak inspection requirements for underground gas storage fields in emergency regulations the Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has issued.
In the works since 2014, CARB's draft regulation targets fugitive and vented emissions from new and existing oil and gas facilities.
The proposed rules seek to reduce methane releases from onshore and offshore crude oil and natural gas facilities; crude oil, condensate, and produced water separation and storage facilities; underground natural gas storage sites; and natural gas gathering and boosting stations, processing plants and transmission compressor stations.
Would Set Standards for Equipment
CARB's latest version of the proposed regulation would establish standards for equipment and procedures in use at the various facilities, including vapor collection and control systems, compressors, pumps and tanks. The regulation also would address leak detection and repair requirements.
The agency's cost analysis for the regulation examines the cost of compliance per ton of methane but includes an estimated savings for the natural gas not released. For example, the standards required to reduce emissions from separators and tank systems are estimated to cost $9 per metric ton of methane reduced, but with the natural gas savings, only $7 a ton.
CARB said the rules are largely consistent with proposed federal methane rules, but certain provisions may be stricter. If approved, local air districts with oil and gas operations would likely be required to update permitting requirements.
The agency said it will continue to accept feedback on the proposal through Feb. 18.
A final draft on regulations is expected by April 1, launching a 45-day formal comment period, CARB said. The agency's governing board is tentatively scheduled to consider the carbon rule May 19 and vote on adoption in September.
-
EPA: Clean Power Plan Stay Unprecedented, Unwarranted
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Petitions to stay implementation of the Clean Power Plan are premature and unprecedented and would deprive the U.S. Supreme Court of the benefit of a lower court's consideration of the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency said (West Virginia v. EPA, U.S., No. 15A773, briefs filed 2/4/16).
“The court of appeals should have the first opportunity to analyze the issues and render an opinion that would provide useful guidance to this court,” the EPA said in a Feb. 4 brief opposing petitions from several states and utilities asking the Supreme Court to stay implementation of the Clean Power Plan until it can be litigated.
States and industry groups opposed to the Clean Power Plan cannot demonstrate that they will be irreparably harmed by the rule being in place during litigation because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which will hear arguments in June, has set an expedited review schedule that will see the case rapidly decided, the EPA argued. Seeking Supreme Court intervention now before the D.C. Circuit has even rendered its judgment would subvert the Supreme Court's role as the court of final review, the EPA said.
“Such intervention is especially unwarranted in light of the nature of this case and the D.C. Circuit's considered decision to deny a stay and expedite its review,” the EPA argued. “On the merits, applicants’ challenge to the rule implicates complex questions of statutory interpretation and environmental policy. Congress has channeled the review of nationally-applicable [Clean Air Act] regulations to the D.C. Circuit, which accordingly has specialized expertise on relevant CAA programs.”
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, sets a carbon dioxide limit for the power sector in each state, which would be implemented by state regulators. The standards would be phased in between 2022 and 2030. The rule is being challenged by 27 states as well as several utilities and industry groups.
The D.C. Circuit had unanimously denied requests from opponents of the Clean Power Plan to stay implementation of the rule until its legality could be assessed. After that request was denied, states, including West Virginia and Oklahoma, and industry groups opposed to the rule petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and halt the Clean Power Plan (17 DEN A-14, 1/27/16).
More Than Stay Sought
Beyond a stay, the EPA argues that opponents of the Clean Power Plan are effectively asking that the Supreme Court toll the deadlines for the rule. That would mean that even were the agency to ultimately prevail in court, compliance dates for the Clean Power Plan would be pushed back from the deadlines set out in the final rule.
“Entry of such a ‘stay' would mean that, even if the government ultimately prevails on the merits and the rule is sustained, implementation of each sequential step mandated by the rule would be substantially delayed,” the EPA said.
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan have said they fear states and utilities will be forced to comply with the rule only to have it later overturned by the courts after the necessary pollution control investments have been made, repeating what had happened under the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (23 DEN A-1, 2/4/16).
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had failed to properly account for costs when determining whether it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate toxic pollutants from power plants under the Clean Air Act (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (2015)). The rule has been remanded to the agency, which has proposed an updated costs analysis, but utilities have already invested in new pollution controls or shuttered aging coal-fired power plants to comply with the rule.
David Doniger, the climate and clean air program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards comparison “a giant red herring.”
“The deadlines are so far out for the Clean Power Plan rule for the states as well as the power companies that it's clear that everyone is going to have their day in court in the normal way, well in good time,” he told reporters Feb. 4.
The EPA in its brief cited statements from the Arkansas Electric Cooperative, a member of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which is challenging the rule, that “any effects from the [Clean Power Plan] prior to 2020 are essentially nonexistent.”
Stay Would Be Unprecedented
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan have acknowledged that seeking Supreme Court intervention at this state is unusual, but environmental groups and utilities that support the EPA say such a move would be unprecedented.
“A stay granted here would be unprecedented: applicants cite (and we have found) no instance, in the many decades of judicial review under the Clean Air Act and scores of other federal regulatory statutes, in which this court has ever intervened to stay federal agency regulations before any lower court has reviewed their merits,” environmental groups including the American Lung Association, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club and utilities and industry groups such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Calpine Corp. and the American Wind Energy Association, said in their brief.
In fact, Sean Donahue, an attorney representing the Environmental Defense Fund, said that the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's authority to regulate demand response rates in the wholesale energy market is evidence the court is willing to defer to agency expertise when tackling complex subjects such as the electrical grid using the authority delegated by Congress (FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n, 2015 BL 18590 (U.S. 2015); 21 DEN A-1, 2/2/16).
Donahue told reporters Feb. 4 that decision “reflects the reality of the industry it's regulating and the reality of the electric grid.”
States Tout Past Experience
Eighteen states that are supporting the EPA, including New York and California, argued in their own brief that the Clean Power Plan is largely similar to other Clean Air Act regulations administered by state regulators.
“States have extensive experience with providing regulatory oversight of power plants’ compliance decisions, including decisions taken to comply with federal emission limits for many other pollutants,” they argued. “In this way, the rule respects rather than interferes with the states’ regulation of their energy sectors.”
They also argued that staying the rule is not warranted because state regulators are not required to submit their initial compliance plans to the EPA until Sept. 6 and deadline extensions until 2018 are available, meaning the rule will likely be thoroughly litigated before final plans are due.
“Any actions states must take to oversee power plants’ decisions in complying with the rule are not imminent, because no state or federal plans have yet been finalized,” the states said. “Even once those plans are finalized, power plants will still not need to comply with the rule's emissions limits until several years later.”
Despite opposition from 27 states to the rule, Alexandra Dunn, executive director and general counsel of the Environmental Council of the States, predicted Feb. 4 that “almost every state” covered by the Clean Power Plan will meet the Sept. 6 deadline to submit their initial plans to the EPA (see related story).
Speedy Decision Anticipated
Both the challengers and supporters of the Clean Power Plan predict a rapid response from the Supreme Court on the stay requests.
Donahue predicted the decision would come in “a matter of days, not weeks.” Chief Justice John Roberts could make the decision himself or circulate the stay petitions among the full Supreme Court. Either way, Donahue predicted the court will quickly issue its decision.
“It's nothing like an opinion in a merits case,” Donahue said “It will be certainly this month and perhaps much sooner.”
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who has led legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan, also predicted a rapid decision.
“We believe we will probably know the outcome within the next week to two weeks,” he told reporters Feb. 3.
The D.C. Circuit has already scheduled oral argument in challenges to the Clean Power Plan for June 2 and possibly June 3 as well. 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).
-
EPA Urges Supreme Court To Deny 'Unprecedented' Request
Feb 4, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
The Obama administration today urged the Supreme Court to reject a bid to halt U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, calling the appeal to the high court "extraordinary and unprecedented."
In a document sent today to the high court, the administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, ticked off a number of arguments as to why the justices shouldn't step in to freeze the regulation aimed at slashing power plants' greenhouse gas emissions.
Notably, Verrilli said, the case is still pending in a lower court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to stay the rule and will soon delve into the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court's "traditional reluctance to address novel legal arguments in the first instance -- without the benefit of any sustained analysis by a lower court -- weighs strongly against intervention at this time," Verrilli said. "Applicants identify no case in which this Court has granted a stay of a generally-applicable regulation pending initial judicial review in the court of appeals."
The D.C. Circuit's decision not to freeze the rule was correct, Verrilli added. "Applicants are not entitled to relief under the traditional stay factors," he wrote. He said opponents of the rule couldn't show that they would likely win on the merits of the case and hadn't shown that they will suffer "irreparable harm" while the case proceeds on an expedited schedule in the lower court.
Finally, he said, "applicants' proposed stay would disserve the public interest. A stay that delays all of the rule's deadlines would postpone reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and thus contribute to the problem of global climate change even if the rule is ultimately sustained."
The administration's response was filed after 27 states and many industry groups asked Chief Justice John Roberts to intervene to block the rule. Roberts had asked EPA to respond by today, and he may issue a decision on his own or consult his colleagues. Lawyers on both sides of the issue are expecting the court to weigh in promptly; a response could come from the court at any time.
The state opponents of the rule are planning to file a reply tomorrow, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) told reporters yesterday. Oklahoma is one of the 27 states asking the Supreme Court to stay the rule (Greenwire, Feb. 3). EPA allies warn stay would hurt public interest, foreign policy
Meanwhile, the states and other groups backing EPA in the lower court lawsuit also urged the high court to keep the rule in place.
The states opposed to the EPA rule "have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer any irreparable injury before the court of appeals rules on the merits of their claims below," a coalition of 18 states and other regions supporting the rule told the high court.
The response backing EPA was filed by New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, the District of Columbia, and Broward County, Fla. The cities of Boulder, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and South Miami also signed on.
They added, "The harms of climate change that the rule is designed to mitigate are lasting and irreversible. Any stay that results in further delay in emission reductions would compound the harms that climate change is already causing."
Green groups, utilities and renewable energy advocates also pressed the high court to reject the stay request today.
"[P]ostponing deadlines for compliance beyond 2022 would further delay vital reductions in the largest source of the carbon pollution driving current and future climate change impacts that gravely endanger public health and welfare," the groups told the justices today.
And, they added, "Staying the Rule also would undermine the important U.S. foreign policy objective of galvanizing global efforts to curb climate-changing carbon pollution." The Clean Power Plan, the groups added, is the "central element" of domestic climate policy and "was critical to achieving serious action commitments from more than 190 nations that adopted the Paris Climate Agreement in December 2015."
-
EPA Says Utilities Cite 'Bogus' Plant Closures In High Court ESPS Stay Bid
Feb 4, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA is urging the Supreme Court to deny opponents' requests that it stay the agency's existing power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rule in part by questioning the utility industry's claims to the court that the rule will drive massive immediate coal plant retirements that will result in “irreparable harm” justifying a stay.
In a Feb. 4 filing to the high court, the agency cites recent industry comments on EPA's separate cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR), which “directly refute the predicted power plant closures described in the stay applications that are currently before the Court.”
The filing in West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al. to Chief Justice John Roberts by Solicitor General Donald Verrili, Jr. on EPA's behalf says that stay applicants argue to the court that the agency's existing source performance standards, also known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), “will cause net retirement” of 53 power plants “this year alone.”
But one of the parties, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), submitted early December comments on an update to CSAPR that “EPA should exclude the [CPP] from CSAPR's baseline air quality [modeling] because the Model assumes the retirement of an amount of coal-fired generation by 2018 'that in fact will not be retired by that time.' In a similar vein, Arkansas Electric Cooperative -- a member of applicant National Rural Electric Cooperative Association -- commented that 'any effects from the [CPP] prior to 2020 are essentially nonexistent.'”
The filing adds that EPA has conducted a review of information regarding the power plants that utility applicants assert are at risk of closure and “has determined that few, if any, of the plants upon which utility applicants rely will actually retire in the near future -- and that those that do retire will do so for reasons not attributable to the rule.”
EPA's assertion seeks to undermine stay supporters' argument that they face immediate and irreparable harm from the CPP -- one of the key criteria applicants must demonstrate for courts to grant a stay.
The agency -- supported in separate filings by a group of states, cities, environmentalists and some utilities -- also argues that the stay requests from a separate coalition of states and industry are “unprecedented” and also not needed because an appellate court has agreed to quickly consider legal challenges to the rule.
Opponents are expected to file a reply brief Feb. 5. Roberts could decide the issue by himself, or he could ask the other justices to weigh in. A decision is expected in the next few weeks.
EPA also seeks to rebut opponents' arguments that a court's earlier refusal to stay the mercury & air toxics standards (MATS) during litigation muted their high court victory because industry had complied during the protracted litigation. This, opponents argue, is another reason why the high court should take the extraordinary step of overruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and grant a stay of the CPP.
But EPA's filing says, "The MATS rulemaking and litigation have no bearing on applicants' ability to show irreparable harm in this case. Unlike the extended schedule of compliance at issue here -- in which states can obtain extensions until 2018 to submit plans, and power plants need not reduce emissions until 2022 at the earliest -- the MATS Rule required full compliance within less than three and a half years.”
'Unprecedented' Request
In their brief supporting EPA, environmentalists charge that opponents “seek to thrust this Court into the earliest stages of the court of appeals' review of an administrative rule.”
The non-state parties -- which include environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund; renewable energy organizations such as the American Wind Energy Association; and utilities including Calpine, National Grid, Next Era Energy, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison -- argue that a stay granted by the high court “would be unprecedented.”
They say applicants can point to "no instance" in the many decades of review of Clean Air Act and other federal rules where "this court has ever intervened to stay federal agency regulations before any lower court has reviewed their merits. Applicants do not simply ask this Court to undo a lower court order but rather to block Executive Branch regulations that no lower court has found faulty.”
Also, granting a stay "would encourage numerous litigants to come to this Court pleading" for the same treatment, "a burdensome task for the Court and disruptive to the lower courts' orderly and efficient disposition of these cases.”
The states' filing -- which includes New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and a number of cities -- argues that state opponents of the CPP "could opt out completely from developing their own plans to implement" the rule and rely instead on a federal plan, so their "argument that their sovereignty is irreparably harmed under this scheme cannot be squared with this Court's consistent recognition that similar cooperative-federalism schemes fully respect state sovereignty and impose no illegitimate burdens on the States.”
This seeks to counter claims by the attorneys general (AGs) of West Virginia and Oklahoma -- who are leading a 26-state coalition in seeking a stay -- that EPA's federal takeover option is a threat aimed at coercing states into drafting their own compliance plans for a rule they oppose, and to make judicial review pointless, similar to the MATS.
The AGs told reporters Feb. 3 that they were optimistic about winning a stay despite long odds.
But the filing by the state supporters adds that the high court should reject the stay because states "are continuing to experience climate change harms firsthand -- including increased flooding, more severe storms, wildfires and droughts. The harms of climate change that the Rule is designed to mitigate are lasting and irreversible. Any stay that results in further delay in emission reductions would compound the harms that climate change is already causing.”
Plant Retirements
Meanwhile, EPA's filing includes declarations by agency officials that go into further detail questioning opponents' claims of massive numbers coal plant retirements.
A supplemental declaration by Reid Harvey, director of EPA's Clean Air Markets Division, for example, says Dec. 3 utility filings on CSAPR are "contrary to their representations in this litigation" because “the utilities specifically identify units they allege our modeling shows as retiring, which they now make clear they have no intention of actually retiring.”
He adds that UARG's CSAPR submission to EPA "demonstrates that of the units on which it has information that form the basis for the Utility Applicant's theory of irreparable harm due to a modeled retirement in 2016, 97 percent will in fact continue to be operating as coal units at least until 2018.”
And he cites a Southern Company declaration filed with the D.C. Circuit in an earlier bid for the stay that the CPP would cause "the immediate closure of 20 percent of Southern Company's existing coal fleet.” Harvey says that assertion is based on an incorrect interpretation of the model, not the rule's requirements.
The utility industry was found to have made similar public claims about coal plant retirements spurred by MATS in 2011, but internal documents from Edison Electric Institute (EEI) -- which represents large investor-owned utilities -- showed that the closures were over a longer time frame and due to factors other than the rule, Inside EPA reported in November of that year. EEI predicted 48,000 megawatts of capacity closing over a decade, or less than 5 percent of total system capacity, by 2022, long after MATS was fully implemented.
-
ECOS Says Most States Likely to Submit Carbon Plans
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Most states will likely submit their own plans for complying with the Obama administration's greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants, even the states that are challenging the rule in court, the leader of a state environmental association predicted.
Alexandra Dunn, executive director and general counsel of the Environmental Council of the States, said that “almost every state” covered by the Clean Power Plan will make an initial submission to the Environmental Protection Agency by a Sept. 6 deadline.
The Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued in August 2015, requires states to meet carbon dioxide emissions targets by 2030. The targets are projected to cut overall carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. While actual emissions reductions aren't required to be achieved until 2022, state environmental agencies have a Sept. 6 deadline to make an initial submission to the EPA.
Dunn said even the 27 states that are challenging the legality of the Clean Power Plan will likely want to “control their own destiny” rather than leave implementation up to the EPA, which would have the authority to issue a federal implementation plan covering states that don't submit adequate state compliance plans. The EPA put out a draft federal plan alongside the Clean Power Plan rule that would establish a carbon trading program as a means of compliance (149 DEN B-4, 8/4/15).
“Most of those states who don't like this really would not like the federal government writing the plan and implementing the plan for them,” Dunn, speaking at an American Law Institute event in Washington, D.C., said. “What I anticipate is almost every state covered by this rule will submit something by September 6 of this year.”
Many of the states that sued the EPA over the Clean Power Plan are already taking proactive steps toward implementation, Dunn said. Wyoming, which is one of the states that has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay implementation with the rule, asked its Legislature to provide $500,000 in funding for Clean Power Plan implementation, she said.
Extension Requests Expected
There also are 18 states, including New York and California, that are supporting the EPA in litigation over the Clean Power Plan. Those states Feb. 4 told the Supreme Court that a stay isn't warranted because the Clean Power Plan is largely similar to other Clean Air Act regulations and because the litigation will likely be resolved before final state plans are due (West Virginia v. EPA, U.S., No. 15A773, briefs filed, 2/4/16; see related story).
While states must submit something by Sept. 6, the EPA anticipates that most states will request a two-year extension for filing their full state plan, Lorie Schmidt, EPA's associate general counsel for air and radiation, said at the ALI event.
Schmidt acknowledged that the Clean Power Plan may already qualify as the most litigated rule under the Clean Air Act, with several challenges filed before the final rule was even issued, but she said agency colleagues assigned to work on implementation issues are reporting progress.
Schmidt said “despite all the rhetoric” from states that are challenging the rule, there is “a lot of very good work” being done by state officials who are searching for the most cost-effective strategies to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
-
White House to SCOTUS: Bid To Block Climate Rule ‘Unprecedented’
Feb 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Administration officials told the Supreme Court to Thursday to reject an “extraordinary and unprecedented” request by conservative states to block its landmark climate change rule.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli accused the states, led by West Virginia, of trying to bypass the normal process for challenging the climate regulation, and said they haven’t demonstrated a strong case for why that should happen.“The relief that applicants request would be extraordinary and unprecedented, and their applications should be denied,” Verrilli wrote in a Thursday brief to the high court, representing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which wrote the rule.
“Applicants seek a stay before any court has expressed a view about, let alone rendered a final decision concerning, the merits of their legal claims,” he said.
“Applicants identify no case in which this court has granted a stay of a generally applicable regulation pending initial judicial review in the court of appeals.”
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last month rejected the 26 states’ petition to block the rule while it was being litigated, spurring them to appeal to the Supreme Court, a move they admit is unusual.
The states argued that the rule, which seeks a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions, would cause irreparable harm to them during the time it will take for the courts to decide its legality.
If it is eventually overturned, the states say it would be too late to stop the damage.
But the Obama administration’s attorneys said that’s not the case, since states don’t have to even submit compliance plans until 2018, and don’t have to start cutting carbon until 2022.
The states also failed to meet the other requirements for a stay, like demonstrating that it would be in the public interest and that they’re likely to proceed on the merits of the case.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will now consider whether to block the rule. He could also bring the issue up for a vote of the full court.
-
House GOP Announces Task Force To Reform Federal Rules
Feb 5, 2016 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Hess
As House Republican leaders shape their election-year agenda, nine standing committee chairmen will play a key role in developing the GOP's policy agenda on regulatory reform.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) yesterday announced membership of six task forces, including a panel on "reducing regulatory burdens" that will map out a legislative strategy for 2016.
In the announcement, the speaker's office said that the goal of the task force is to "make it easier to invest, produce, and build things in America with a regulatory system that reduces bureaucracy and eases the burden on small businesses and job creators, while still protecting the environment, public safety, and consumer interests."
Members who hold the gavel on key panels that oversee the departments of Energy and the Interior and the U.S. EPA will sit on the task force. Those include Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who has already set his sights on EPA.
"Everyone agrees that we need to protect the environment, but we must do so in a way that is open and honest. Unfortunately, EPA and other federal agencies bend the law and stretch the science to justify their own objectives," Smith said.
"Despite heavy and growing public opposition to these proposals, the Obama administration is actively going around Congress to commit the U.S. to costly new regulations that will do nothing to improve the environment but will negatively impact economic growth. I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues to come up with solutions to reduce regulatory burdens on hardworking American families," he said.
In addition to regulations, Republicans will focus on national security, tax reform, health care, poverty and restoring constitutional authority.
Republicans rolled out these themes last month in Baltimore, during their retreat. At the time, Bishop expressed interest in finding ways to streamline the process for challenging federal agency decisions both in courts and at the agency level (Greenwire, Jan. 15).
Members of the regulatory reform task force include: Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) Small Business Chairman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.)
-
OMB Reviewing Regional Haze Update Proposal
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted proposed revisions to its regional haze program for review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The proposal, submitted Feb. 3, would change the deadline for states to update their regional haze plans, remove requirements for periodic progress report submittals and allow for public and federal land managers to comment on those progress reports.
The regional haze program requires states to develop plans to address pollution that affects visibility in federally protected parks and wilderness areas. The current regulations call for states to submit revised plans for meeting their visibility goals by July 31, 2018, with additional revisions due every 10 years.
Matthew Marks, an attorney in the EPA's Office of General Counsel, said in October 2015 that the EPA planned to change that deadline from 2018 to July 31, 2021. Marks said the delay would allow states to coordinate their regional haze planning with compliance efforts under other rules, including the Clean Power Plan and the 2015 ozone standards of 70 parts per billion (206 DEN A-9, 10/26/15).
The proposal to delay the planning deadline from 2018 to 2021 wouldn't alter the deadline for submitting future revisions in 2028 and beyond, according to the EPA.
Janet McCabe, EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, told Bloomberg BNA in December 2015 that the agency plans to issue a final rule (RIN 2060-AS55) to revise the regional haze program by the end of 2016.
-
EPA Sends Haze Air Rule Revisions For OMB Review
Feb 4, 2016 | InsideEPA
EPA has sent revisions to its regional haze air rule for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review, saying the “limited changes” will include a delay in the deadline for states to submit their next compliance plans for the rule and scrapping a requirement on submission of some periodic progress reports.
OMB received the proposed rule Feb. 3, and review typically takes 90 days, though it can take more or less time depending on the regulation. OMB's website includes an outdated entry that says the agency intended to originally issue the proposal last November, and it is now unclear when EPA plans to propose or finalize the rule.
EPA's regional haze program aims to cut haze-forming emissions in order to restore visibility in national parks and wilderness areas, though the program has faced a host of delays in recent years.
Environmentalists including the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) have criticized the program for delays in states submitting their state implementation plans (SIPs) outlining the pollution controls that they will impose in order to reduce haze, as well as faulting the adequacy of some states' haze SIPs.
NPCA issued a report last year calling on EPA to revise and tighten its regional haze emissions regulations, in order to clarify and strengthen what the group says are ambiguous agency criteria for assessing the merits of state plans to comply with regional haze reduction mandates.
OMB's website says the pending proposed rule focuses on two limited changes, including a revision to the deadline for the submittal of the next comprehensive revision of each states' regional haze SIP from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, “with no effect” on the deadlines for SIP revisions due in 2028 or later.
The other change in the proposal will be “the removal of the requirement that periodic progress reports be submitted as revisions to States' SIPs and the addition of requirements to provide a new mechanism for public and Federal land manager comment on the periodic progress reports,” according to OMB's website.
-
Democrats Had a Lot of GOP Help on Energy Bill Vote
Feb 4, 2016 | Roll Call
By Jason Dick
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn was mad, and he knew just whom to blame: Democrats, who were insisting on an emergency aid package for the city of Flint, Mich., to address its poisoned water system. But the truth, as it often is, was a little more complicated.
As his colleagues voted down a move to cut off debate on a bipartisan energy bill Thursday, the Texas Republican trained his sights on the other side of the aisle.
“And because our colleagues from Michigan refused to take ‘yes’ for an answer, objected to a vote on their very amendment, the Democratic caucus has come together and brought down this bipartisan bill, killing it — at least for the time being,” Cornyn said. “This is about trying to embarrass Republicans,” he fumed.
But 15 of Cornyn’s Republican colleagues joined most, but not all, Democrats in voting against cutting off debate, pushing the number of votes below even majority support, much less the 60 required, to 43-54. Earlier Thursday, the Senate failed to cut off debate on a substitute amendment, 46-50, that included some Flint-related measures.
Even when discounting Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “no” vote — he changed his vote from an earlier “yes” because it preserves the right to return to the measure quickly — 14 Republicans voted against the party line: Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, John Boozman of Arkansas, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Jeff Flake of Arizona, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Jim Risch of Idaho, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and David Vitter of Louisiana.
Five Democrats, plus independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, broke from their caucus to support cutting off debate: Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.
The broader bill would streamline permitting for liquefied natural gas exports, mandate improvements to the electric grid’s reliability and security, raise energy efficiency standards for commercial and federal buildings and permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
McConnell announced the chamber would return to the measure on Monday at 5:30 p.m., and that in the meantime, “Hopefully, we’ll be able to salvage this important piece of legislation,” pointing to ongoing discussions between Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Michigan’s two Democratic senators, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters.
Those discussions were indeed ongoing, even on the floor during the vote. As Murkowski went to vote, she walked down the center aisle with Stabenow. Signaling the clerk to vote, Murkowski continued to talk with Michigan’s senior senator even as she raised her index finger up to signal a “yes” vote.
“There was some interesting discussion where we are on the process,” Murkowski said on the floor shortly after the vote, citing “good, strong work” and that “we have more work to do.”
-
House Bill to Strengthen EPA Notification of Water Violations
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The Flint, Mich., water emergency arising from lead contamination of tap water has spawned bills by Michigan lawmakers seeking to rectify problems with public notification of violations and aging infrastructure that could cause public health problems.
Bipartisan legislation introduced Feb. 4 would require the Environmental Protection Agency to step in and issue a public notice saying a water utility has violated the federal threshold for lead in tap water if the state in charge or the utility operator hasn't acted within 24 hours of finding out.
Authored by Reps. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the Safe Drinking Water Act Improved Compliance Awareness Act also would give an EPA employee, who learns that lead levels in tap water are exceeded, authority to bypass the state and notify the water utility of the violation. If the utility and the state still fail to act, then the EPA would step in.
The bill also would require the EPA to develop a strategic plan to handle flow of information among those affected, the state and the federal agency.
The bill would strengthen the EPA's ability to directly notify the public when lead in drinking water exceeds the federal action level of 15 parts per billion, although the agency has said no level of lead in water is really safe.
State, City, EPA Slow to Act
The bipartisan bill was offered by both lawmakers because Michigan primarily, the city of Flint and then the EPA were slow to react and respond to citizens' complaints about elevated lead levels in tap water. Contamination of Flint's tap water began after the state switched the city's water supply in April 2014 to the Flint River without adding controls to prevent corrosion of aged lead service lines.
“What happened in Flint is simply unacceptable at all levels. No amount of regrets or words can actually fix what's broken—we need concrete action,” Upton said in a Feb. 4 statement. The Michigan representative chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that oversees Safe Drinking Water Act implementation.
Kildee, who represents Flint, said the bipartisan bill is an attempt to promote accountability “and help Flint recover from this terrible man-made tragedy.”
Has Bipartisan Backing
The measure is backed by Michigan's 14-member congressional delegation that consists of five Democrats and nine Republicans.
The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, which represents large public water utilities, was still reviewing the bill, according to Dan Hartnett, the association's legislative affairs director.
“We are interested in working with Congress to look for areas of improvement regarding public notification of risks related to lead,” Hartnett told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 4.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee declined to comment on whether the bill would be subject to a hearing, when it would be marked up or whether it would be fast-tracked to the House floor for a vote. The committee deferred all questions about fast-tracking the bill to the House floor to Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
Similar to Senate Measure
The Upton-Kildee measure is similar to one Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) introduced in the Senate, which now is being considered as part of an amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act under debate in the chamber. The amendment, which also would provide federal emergency funds to Flint, is tied up in negotiations.
The Congressional Black Caucus urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to prevent Republicans from blocking the amendment to the energy bill.
Republican and Democratic senators left for the weekend after they were unable to reach agreement on how to deal with amendments to assist Flint residents.
Comprehensive Solution for Flint's Woes
Kildee also has introduced another bill, The Families of Flint Act, that would provide $385 million in grants to the city of Flint to ensure that drinking water supplies in future don't contain lead levels or pathogens that threaten public health.
He described this legislation as a comprehensive attempt to provide short- and long-term solutions to address water infrastructure, the health of children and adults exposed to lead contamination in tap water and educational programs to address developmental disabilities arising from lead exposure.
Upton isn't a co-sponsor of this measure, but Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) has signed on as a co-sponsor, as indicated earlier this week to Bloomberg BNA(22 DEN A-6, 2/3/16).
Bill Would Amend Safe Drinking Water Act
Specifically, the bill would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to create a lead prevention grant program that would fund:
• testing and sampling of water supplies and public and private lead service lines;
• repairs and upgrades to water treatment facilities; and
• optimized corrosion controls for public and private water service lines.
.
The bill would eliminate the current 20 percent cap on state Drinking Water State Revolving Funds that can be used for loan forgiveness. Moreover, the bill would require the state of Michigan to forgive existing drinking water loans made to the city of Flint.
A day earlier, Flint Mayor Karen Weaver (D) said the city would need $37 million to replace 15,000 lead service lines at an average estimated cost of $2,500 a line (23 DEN A-1, 2/4/16).
-
Democrats Block Energy Bill Over Flint Dispute
Feb 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate Democrats made good on a promise to block broad energy legislation Feb. 4, after an agreement to include funding to help Flint, Mich., deal with a crisis caused by lead-tainted water couldn't be reached.
A procedural vote to move forward with the 424-page energy bill (S. 2012) failed by a vote of 43-54. Sixty affirmative votes were needed to invoke cloture on the measure.
Negotiations over the issue are expected to continue over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor shortly after the vote.
“Hopefully we will be able to salvage this important bipartisan legislation in the next few days,” he said.
Feb. 10 Deadline
The Senate is likely to stay on the bill until Feb. 10 when it is scheduled to begin consideration of legislation (H.R. 757) related to North Korea sanctions, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and others said.
Senate work on the five-part bill, which includes language to expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports among many other measures, had been moving along swiftly until an agreement to provide direct funding in the bill for Flint fell apart (23 DEN A-3, 2/4/16).
“I was told [Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)] worked out an agreement with Republicans, they had a caucus lunch and there was a push back against it,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters. “They walked away from it. That's where it sits.”
A new compromise that included $50 million in direct funding and $500 million in loans, was rejected by Senate Democrats.
The measure would have set up two competing partisan votes on how to address the Flint crisis and “does not solve the problem,” Stabenow told reporters.
New Compromise Rejected
“What we need is dollars up front,” Stabenow said.
Specifically, the amendment by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) would provide $50 million in grants to states where a public health emergency has been declared through the Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund program. It also would provide $50 million in credits to leverage $600 million in secured loans through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, a federal program that was enacted into law in 2014, but still isn't operational.
“Sen. Murkowski remains committed to helping the people of Flint, and other affected communities across the country, even if her amendment to provide up to $550 million in aid proves unacceptable to Senate Democrats,” Michael Tadeo, a spokesman for Murkowski and other Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in an e-mail.
The crisis in Flint emerged after the state's appointed emergency manager decided to switch from the city of Detroit's water system to using water from the Flint River, but measures to control corrosion weren't put in place at the time of the switch. This allowed lead to leach out of aging pipes and into residential tap water and resulted in elevated levels of lead in children's blood and other health issues (09 DEN A-2, 1/14/16).
Bill Losing Momentum?
The energy bill, which also includes provisions that would increase cybersecurity protections for the electricity grid and expedite the licensing process for hydropower projects, would be the first broad rewrite of energy policy since the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, if enacted.
But the kerfuffle over Flint could sap its momentum.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the energy committee, told reporters other “outstanding issues” are emerging, including a threat to hold up the bill by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who is insisting that an amendment that would expand revenue sharing from offshore oil and gas development get a vote. The amendment would expand revenue sharing to Alaska as well as the mid-Atlantic states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, and it would lift the cap on revenue that the Gulf states receive, according to a summary.
“I hope we can get people to put their insistences asides and come back and try to resolve these issues,” Cantwell said.
Amena Saiyid of Bloomberg BNA in Washington and Jim Rowley of Bloomberg in Washington contributed to this report.
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
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested