Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/12/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Transportation Committee Passes Two Key Babin Amendments to Promote Drone Safety and Prevent New Traveling Fees
Feb 12, 2016 | The Vindicator
The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously approved two amendments this week offered by U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) during the consideration of H.R. 4441, the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Industry-Led Studies Helped Erase Link Between Chemical And Cancer
Feb 12, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Biased studies by the chemical industry and reduced government testing combined to effectively delete widely suspected links between a common chemical and brain cancer, according to a new report. -
Advisors Might Temper Critical BaP Review To Advance IRIS Assessment
Feb 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Despite raising concerns about draft recommendations in a review of EPA's draft benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) assessment, the agency's chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) has approved the draft peer review of the assessment of the chemical's human health risks pending minor changes. -
Agencies Team Up on Turf Safety Study
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Three federal agencies will work together to study the safety of synthetic crumb rubber turf, officials said today. -
Amendment Calls for Rules on Drones Near Sensitive Sites
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A key trade group is lauding an amendment inserted in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization that would crack down on drones near chemical plants. -
Obama Budget Proposes Increased Funding For Chemical Safety Board
Feb 12, 2016 | Chem Info
By Meagan Parrish
This week, President Obama proposed a $4.1 trillion budget for fiscal year 2017 that includes increased spending for several key safety agencies. -
Utility Stems Methane Leak, But Many Questions Remain
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
The methane leak in Los Angeles that pushed thousands of residents from their homes has been temporarily stopped, nearly four months after it started spewing noxious odors and greenhouse gases. -
Train Derails in Idaho, Spilling 2,800 Tons of Soda Ash
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
An Idaho railway is expected to be cleared today after 31 train cars carrying soda ash derailed Wednesday morning. -
Amtrak Head Warns of Budget Cuts Amid Dropping Ridership
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Sinking oil prices leading to fewer riders has Amtrak making budget cuts, CEO Joe Boardman wrote in a letter to employees this week. -
Utilities Shrug Off Court Decision, Say Carbon-Cutting Plans are On Track
Feb 12, 2016 | Washington Post
By Joby Warrick and Steven Mufson
In a town famous for news leaks, the Supreme Court managed to deliver a genuine surprise when it moved this week to freeze the Obama administration’s signature regulation on climate change, raising doubts about U.S. promises to cut pollution blamed for Earth’s warming. -
Court Stay May Slow, Not Stop, State Carbon-Cutting Talks
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden, Elizabeth Harball and Rod Kuckro
Officials from blue, red and purple states signaled interest yesterday in continuing planning for power-sector carbon reductions, despite a Supreme Court ruling putting the Clean Power Plan on hold. -
State Regulators Offer McCarthy Broad Support For ESPS After Court Stay
Feb 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith & Dawn Reeves
State air regulators are offering EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy broad support for the agency's stalled greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants in the wake of the high court's stay, signaling that even regulators from coal states whose officials oppose the rule will continue discussions about the carbon-intensity of their power grids and suggesting that the delay may aid their eventual compliance. -
EnergyWire's Kuckro Discusses Next Steps for States, Utilities, EPA Following Rule Stay
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
As the surprise settles over this week's Supreme Court decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, stakeholders are considering next steps including, for many, whether to proceed with compliance. On today's The Cutting Edge, EnergyWire reporter Rod Kuckro discusses his latest reporting on the behind-the-scenes planning at the state, industry and agency levels.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
Feb 12, 2016 | The Vindicator
The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously approved two amendments this week offered by U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) during the consideration of H.R. 4441, the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act.
The first amendment would set strict new guidelines for the operation of drones near chemical plants and oil refineries. “As the representative of the 36th Congressional District of Texas, which is home to more petrochemical and refining facilities than any other district in the country, I was proud to offer this amendment and secure the adoption of these provisions as a way to protect our oil and gas facilities and their employees from potentially hazardous and unauthorized drone activity,” said Rep. Babin.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) offered their strong support in a statement saying the “ACC and its members thank Congressman Babin for his tremendous leadership and for working tirelessly with Chairman Shuster to craft a sensible proposal that will promote the responsible use of drones. Today’s vote will help address a mounting security concern and help safeguard chemical facilities, which play a critical role in manufacturing products that are important to the everyday health and well-being of our nation. The provisions carefully target the potential misuse of drones for illicit purposes without interfering with their growing use by the public for recreation and their use for commercial applications. We strongly support the Committee’s action to include the amendment as part of the legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and encourage Congress to follow suit.”
The second amendment offered by Babin would give the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, a final check on the ability of the new ATC Corporation’s ability to assess and impose fees on the traveling public. “By allowing Congress a 90-day review period to block the implementation of any fee increase, my amendment would let the American people know where their elected representatives stand on any proposed fee increase, no matter who is in charge of imposing them,” said Babin.
Both amendments were included in final passage H.R. 4441, the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act, which reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), provides a number of reforms to our aviation system, and upholds the FAA’s role as the nation’s aviation safety regulator. The bill, which was approved by a vote of 32 to 26, now awaits further consideration by the full House of Representatives.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Industry-Led Studies Helped Erase Link Between Chemical And Cancer
Feb 12, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Biased studies by the chemical industry and reduced government testing combined to effectively delete widely suspected links between a common chemical and brain cancer, according to a new report.
Vice News and the Center for Public Integrity this week chronicled decades-old cases of brain tumors among workers exposed to vinyl chloride on the job.
At one plant alone — a Union Carbide facility in Texas City — federal labor investigators in the late 1970s found double the normal rate of brain tumors among workers.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer in 1979 declared that vinyl chloride — which is used to make PVC material — caused brain tumors.
But nearly 30 years later, the agency reversed its decision in large part due to a 2000 review, led by the industry, that turned up inconclusive results.
The Vice and CPI report, however, concluded that industry study was "flawed, if not rigged."
The article cited thousands of documents that, in part, showed that researchers left out workers known to be exposed to vinyl chloride.
Just one of 23 brain cancer deaths in Texas City was included, and the report noted that omitting even small numbers of cases could dramatically impact the study’s conclusions.
"I think that borders on criminal," Richard Lemen, a former deputy director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, told Vice and CPI.
In subsequent decades, industry studies began to account for more and more of the scientific record surrounding potentially harmful chemicals, particularly amid government testing cutbacks in the 1980s and funding shortages today.
The American Chemistry Council responded that the IARC reversed its decision due to inconsistent study findings, small case numbers and a "lack of an exposure-response relationship."
Meanwhile, PVC plants continue to emit hundreds of thousands of pounds of vinyl chloride each year, and groundwater has been contaminated in some cases, including at a Dow plant in Illinois and near a train derailment in New Jersey.
The Environmental Protection Agency is reportedly considering stricter limits on PVC plant emissions. A final determination could come later this year.
-
Advisors Might Temper Critical BaP Review To Advance IRIS Assessment
Feb 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Despite raising concerns about draft recommendations in a review of EPA's draft benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) assessment, the agency's chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) has approved the draft peer review of the assessment of the chemical's human health risks pending minor changes.
Members of the chartered SAB suggested that some of the recommendations developed by its Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee may add a lot of work for EPA and delay the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment without being worthwhile. But after several hours of discussion Jan. 26, the executive panel voted unanimously to approve the draft peer review pending minor changes undertaken by the subpanel's chair and approved by the chartered SAB chairman before the report is transmitted to the agency.
The draft peer review raises concerns about several of the risk estimates that EPA calculated, including its skin cancer risk estimate, the first that the IRIS program has produced. That number has been scrutinized by stakeholders who have argued that the number is overly conservative. It is not entirely clear how the final report will be altered, but some advisors' concerns about the amount of work that some of the recommendations represent for EPA may temper criticism in the draft report.
In its draft report, dated Dec. 21, the peer review panel writes that it "commends the agency's efforts in deriving the IRIS Program's first dermal slope factor (DSF). However, the proposed DSF is not sufficiently supported scientifically."
The draft report goes on to suggest that EPA add two additional toxicology studies to strengthen its DSF analysis and also "more thoroughly review the evidence of skin cancer in studies of coke, steel and iron, coal gasification and aluminum workers given their relevance for evaluating the appropriateness of using the mouse-based risk assessment model for predicting skin cancer risk in humans."
One of the executive committee members, Susan Felter, a research fellow with Procter & Gamble, questioned whether the report provided a good recommendation for EPA to improve its DSF. "I'm wondering if there was discussion around other methods, other methodology," she said. "I'm a little concerned the message is, 'We're concerned, but you need to justify it better.' . . . What additional justification can be given? That's my concern. This is setting a precedent."
Another SAB member, Michael Dourson of the nonprofit consulting group Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, suggested moving the dermal slope factor out of the main report and instead adding it as an appendix, though there was no further discussion of the suggestion.
Clarification Request
Elaine Faustman, a toxicology professor at the University of Washington and the chairman of the BaP peer review panel, said that EPA managers have suggested that they will host a workshop on the BaP DSF, and asked EPA speakers to provide some clarification.
"We are planning to do some more work and discussing with the public on this," IRIS Director Vincent Cogliano told the science advisors. "The idea of coming up with a general [DSF] approach [may be] difficult because many chemicals have different properties. But there is an agency need for a BaP [DSF]. This is pretty much the only chemical that we hear that from our program and regional offices."
Cogliano added, "We'd like to do this for BaP and then perhaps" later decide how to craft more general guidance on crafting DSFs.
Despite the critical review, Cogliano and some of the executive committee members questioned whether the detailed peer review suggested more work than was practical or reasonable for EPA to undertake in order to finish the BaP assessment.
"You have to consider payoff," Cogliano said of some of the draft report's recommendations. He pointed to one recommendation requiring additional analysis which he described as "a lot of work," before adding that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) performed that analysis about five years ago. "I think that's a lot of work to replicate what IARC has already done. I'm not sure the level of effort in constructing these tables is worth it."
Cogliano also asked the committee to reconsider a draft recommendation regarding studies that the committee thought were missing from EPA's assessment and should be included. He noted that IRIS staff started the assessment before 2013, when software was adopted to assist with literature searches. He called the recommendation "A large effort, and to what benefit? I'd like to take those recommendations to say, 'Move in this direction, but not hold up this assessment [for that.]'"
Cogliano's concerns were echoed by one of the chartered SAB committee members, Gina Solomon, deputy secretary for science and health with California EPA. "I think it's the most thorough report I've ever reviewed. Extremely detailed, very well organized and very clear," Solomon said. "My only concern being in the greater scope of the IRIS assessment. If the goal is to help the program move forward more quickly, the reviewers are demanding a lot of detailed work from EPA."
Solomon added that she shared some of Cogliano's concerns. "As reviewers we do have to think about what is really important, critical to the document and making sure that EPA is identifying the appropriate hazards . . . and coming up with well supported risk numbers. But we also have to be careful not . . . to get too carried away and trying to make each of these documents perfect."
Draft Review
The draft review agrees with "EPA's conclusions that developmental neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity, male and female reproductive effects, and immunotoxicity are human hazards of BaP exposure. In addition, the SAB agrees with the classification of BaP as carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure . . . Furthermore, the SAB agrees that BaP-induced tumors arise primarily through a mutagenic mode of action resulting from BaP-induced DNA damage."
But the report questions EPA's conclusions that cardiovascular and nervous system toxicity are not potential human risks, saying that "the evidence presented in the assessment does not support EPA's conclusion . . ."
The draft report goes on to question various aspects some of EPA's other quantitative risk estimates, particularly the noncancer calculations. Regarding the oral reference dose (RfD), the amount that EPA estimates can be ingested daily over a lifetime without experiencing adverse health effects, the report agrees with EPA's choice of neurodevelopmental effects as the correct basis for the calculation, but suggests the agency needs to "provide a firmer justification for not selecting" reproductive outcomes as critical endpoints.
For the reference concentration (RfC), analogous to the RfD but for inhalation risk, the draft report concludes that "the RfC value provided in the assessment is not scientifically supported." It explains that while the reviewers agree with the study selected for the calculation, EPA used only this study, which has some "technical deficiencies," and recommends that EPA consider two additional studies to add to the RfC risk estimate.
Similarly, the report agrees with the studies and models used to calculate the oral cancer risk estimate, but recommends that EPA provide better justification "for the derivation of the final slope factor solely based on a single-sex mouse study that produced the largest cancer slope factor. The SAB suggests that data from all studies be incorporated in the derivation of the oral cancer slope factor."
The report largely agrees with the basis for the inhalation cancer risk estimates, but urges EPA to better explain key assumptions.
-
Agencies Team Up on Turf Safety Study
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Three federal agencies will work together to study the safety of synthetic crumb rubber turf, officials said today.
Officials from U.S. EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Consumer Product Safety Commission will examine the turf under a multiagency action plan, the largest federal response yet to health concerns over the product.
The agencies said they will work together to study whether athletes and young children are harmed by exposure to recycled rubber tire crumbs used in artificial turf fields. They also will try to determine what chemicals are in crumb rubber and how they may affect field users at normal exposure levels.
Parents and student athletes have raised health fears after a "60 Minutes" report last year aired the stories of former high school soccer players who said they developed cancer after spending time practicing on the fields, popular at many schools.
"Since crumb rubber is found in surfaces in schools and stadiums across the country, we need to be confident that there are no negative effects of crumb rubber, and I'm hopeful this action plan will provide much needed answers about the safety of these fields," Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement.
Pallone and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) last month asked the White House to coordinate a federal response to the issue (E&ENews PM, Jan. 21).
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment also is mulling a study of synthetic turf.
The industry, represented by the Synthetic Turf Council, has maintained there is no scientific evidence that synthetic rubber turf poses a risk to athletes.
-
Amendment Calls for Rules on Drones Near Sensitive Sites
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A key trade group is lauding an amendment inserted in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization that would crack down on drones near chemical plants.
H.R. 4441, the "Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization Act," was approved, 32-26, by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last night. Among the bill's changes is a plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system.
An amendment from Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) would require FAA to issue regulations within six months of the bill's enactment concerning how drones may be operated near critical infrastructure facilities.
These facilities are defined as facilities regulated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act and the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, as well as public drinking water systems, treatment plants, military and Department of Energy facilities, and nuclear plants.
In a statement, the American Chemistry Council said Babin's amendment strikes a balance between allowing the responsible use of drones and keeping them away from high-risk facilities.
The group said the plan "will help address a mounting security concern and help safeguard chemical facilities, which play a critical role in manufacturing products that are important to the everyday health and well-being of our nation."
The broader bill faces a difficult road amid concerns from Democrats and some interest groups that it goes too far in giving up government control of the nation's airspace.
-
Obama Budget Proposes Increased Funding For Chemical Safety Board
Feb 12, 2016 | Chem Info
By Meagan Parrish
This week, President Obama proposed a $4.1 trillion budget for fiscal year 2017 that includes increased spending for several key safety agencies.
If approved, the proposal would give the Chemical Safety Board, the independent federal agency charged with investigating chemical accidents, a $12.4 million operating budget — a bump of $1.4 million for the year. Other agency funding requests include $595 million for OSHA — an increase of $42 million — as well as $397.4 million for the Mine Safety and Health Administration — an increase of more than $20 million.
Since taking office, Obama has pushed the chemicals industry for better safety standards and in 2013 issued Executive Order 13650 “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security,” which is aimed at reducing hazardous risks in and around chemical manufacturing sites.
According to Occupational Health & Safety, the proposal got a “thumbs up” for U.S. Secretary of Labor, Thomas Perez, who said the plan “makes investments to ensure that America’s economy works for everyone.”
The budget also seeks to curb climate change with a $10-per-barrel tax on oil, among other provisions.
While it’s unclear if the proposals for the safety agencies will pass, much of the president’s last budget has met staunch resistance from congressional Republicans, and many analysts considered it dead on arrival. Republicans are now working on an alternative proposal, as both sides of the aisle will begin negotiating a compromised budget deal.
-
Utility Stems Methane Leak, But Many Questions Remain
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
The methane leak in Los Angeles that pushed thousands of residents from their homes has been temporarily stopped, nearly four months after it started spewing noxious odors and greenhouse gases.
Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas), which runs the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage site in the San Fernando Valley, said yesterday that it had connected a relief well to the base of the leaking well. The utility then pumped in heavy fluids to block the release of gas.
"We have temporarily controlled the natural gas flow from the leaking well and begun the process of sealing the well and permanently stopping the leak," said Jimmie Cho, SoCalGas'S senior vice president of gas operations and system integrity, in a statement.
The utility and state officials cautioned that it was a first step. The California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) will need to certify that the leak has ceased.
"Cement will need to be injected from the relief well into the leaking well at its base in order to permanently seal it, which could occur over the next several days," SoCalGas said. DOGGR's confirmation that the leaking well is permanently sealed could take several more days.
The utility added that it's continuing preparations to drill a backup relief well as a precautionary measure "and will continue these efforts at least until the leak has been stopped permanently, the timing of which has not been determined yet."
California Department of Conservation Chief Deputy Director Jason Marshall in a statement said that the agency was overseeing utility efforts to close the well.
"After Southern California Gas Company injects cement into the leaking well to form a permanent seal and that cement seal has dried, several tests mandated by the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources will be conducted to confirm the leaking well has been sealed," Marshall said. "We will issue a public notice that the well is officially sealed only after this state verification and testing is complete."
It's not yet clear how much climate pollution has escaped from the well. Official measurements are still being tallied.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Over the first 20 years after it's released, it's 84 to 87 times more potent than carbon dioxide, the main contributor to man-made climate change, according to Environmental Defense Fund estimates.
EDF projected that since the Aliso Canyon leak was first detected in late October, at least 95,000 metric tons of methane has been released. EDF said that equals the same 20-year climate impact as burning nearly a billion gallons of gasoline.
"Now comes the critical process of making sure this doesn't happen again and holding the company accountable," said Tim O'Connor, EDF's California oil and gas director. "SoCalGas can't respond with its checkbook alone. It has to take care of the neighbors it has harmed and take enough methane out of the air to make up for the damage this leak has caused."
Offsets for GHG pollution
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) last month told the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to work with other state agencies and by March 31 develop a program "to fully mitigate the leak's emissions of methane." SoCalGas must fund the effort, Brown said, and it will be limited to projects in California and must prioritize efforts that reduce short-lived climate pollutants.
California has the country's most ambitious goal to cut greenhouse gas pollution. It wants to slice emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent beneath 1990's point by 2050.
"We've been looking at the kinds of programs which might be available to offset the impacts of the leak," ARB spokesman Dave Clegern said in an email. "We'll need to see a bigger picture before we make any recommendations. So we're looking at the data we have so far and making preparations to correlate it with what we'll be getting as this (hopefully) winds down."
SoCalGas has said previously that it will "mitigate the environmental impact of the actual amount of natural gas released from the leak. We look forward to working with state officials to develop a framework that will achieve this goal."
Some environmental groups plan to use the leak to argue for reforms.
"The leak may be stopped, but huge questions remain about the risks of gas storage wells across California," said Maya Golden-Krasner, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "State oil officials still aren't taking strong action to protect people from these old, corroded wells, and the Aliso Canyon facility is just too dangerous to stay open."
About 4,645 households in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Porter Ranch have been relocated to hotels and apartments as a result of the leak. SoCalGas said 1,726 of those have checked out of temporary housing. The majority of residents chose to stay in their homes throughout the incident, said utility spokeswoman Stephanie Donovan.
After DOGGR confirms that the well has been permanently sealed, SoCalGas said, it plans to terminate its relocation program.
"Subject to certain exceptions, residents who have temporarily relocated to short term housing, such as hotels, will have up to eight days/seven nights to transition back home, and residents who have been placed in rental housing will have through the agreed term of their leases to return home," the utility said.
SoCalGas, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, faces numerous lawsuits linked to the leak, including from California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D), Los Angeles County and from residents. The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which oversees air matters in Los Angeles and Orange counties, sued SoCalGas for creating a public nuisance.
-
Train Derails in Idaho, Spilling 2,800 Tons of Soda Ash
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
An Idaho railway is expected to be cleared today after 31 train cars carrying soda ash derailed Wednesday morning.
About 2,800 tons
"No soda ash or other chemicals have reached our nearby waterways. But as a precaution, we will cover certain areas with tarps until the remaining cleanups have finished," Union Pacific spokesman Nathan Anderson said.
-
Amtrak Head Warns of Budget Cuts Amid Dropping Ridership
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Sinking oil prices leading to fewer riders has Amtrak making budget cuts, CEO Joe Boardman wrote in a letter to employees this week.
The passenger rail line has been underperforming "for some time," the letter said.
"You know that we had a challenging end to fiscal year 2015. And you need to be aware that prevailing market conditions are going to make fiscal year 2016 even more difficult," Boardman wrote.
The letter asks employees to help eliminate "all discretionary spending that is within our control," including halting nonessential business travel and delaying cost-intensive projects and the hiring of new employees.
Amtrak had told its stakeholders that it would have a fiscal 2015 operating loss of $235 million. But as ridership fell, the rail line instead ended with $305 million in adjusted losses.
The decline has continued in the first quarter of fiscal 2016, with the board of directors predicting that the adjusted operating loss for the year would be $245 million. And that number was based on expectations that revenue would increase and fixed costs would be held down.
"We're falling short on both counts this year," Boardman wrote. "Revenues are continuing to decline, and we haven't successfully managed our costs, especially in the area of salaries, wages and overtime. Our company needs cash to pay our daily expenses, and our cash position is becoming a concern."
Boardman said the rail line's financial woes are rooted in the plummeting price of oil.
"When gas prices are cheap, many customers who normally ride with Amtrak are either choosing to drive for shorter trips, or choosing to fly for longer trips," he wrote. "Either way, our bottom line takes a big hit."
Extreme weather like blizzards in the Northeast and flooding along routes in Texas and Louisiana have also affected ridership.
Amtrak has taken some "initial actions" to improve its financial position, Boardman wrote, including asking senior managers to develop new ways to make money and asking department heads to cut their fiscal 2016 budgets by an average of 3.8 percent.
The additional cuts to discretionary spending are also just an intermediary step while Amtrak's senior leadership team evaluates more cost-reduction options, Boardman said.
"I want to be clear: We will continue making all necessary investments to keep our employees and customers safe," Boardman wrote. "Our total commitment to safety remains unconditional, regardless of market conditions."
-
Utilities Shrug Off Court Decision, Say Carbon-Cutting Plans are On Track
Feb 12, 2016 | Washington Post
By Joby Warrick and Steven Mufson
In a town famous for news leaks, the Supreme Court managed to deliver a genuine surprise when it moved this week to freeze the Obama administration’s signature regulation on climate change, raising doubts about U.S. promises to cut pollution blamed for Earth’s warming.
But although Tuesday’s ruling startled the White House and rattled U.S. allies, it appears to have had little effect on the electricity providers most directly affected by the Clean Power Plan. About 48 hours after the court’s decision, major utility companies are reacting to the move with a collective shrug.
Executives for electricity producers and industry trade associations say they expect little deviation from what was already an industry-wide move from coal-burning to cleaner and cheaper forms of energy to produce electricity. The shift is likely to accelerate further in the near future, industry officials and analysts said, meaning that many of the administration’s carbon-cutting goals may be met regardless of what courts and lawmakers ultimately decide to do.
“Electric utilities are investing in clean energy and pursuing energy efficiency,” Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, the largest trade association of electricity providers, told a gathering of Wall Street investors less than a day after the Supreme Court announced its stay on the Clean Power Plan.
Institute officials said the court’s 5-to-4 decision “doesn’t really change anything” in an industry in which nearly all new electricity generation is coming from wind or solar facilities or from hyperefficient generators that burn natural gas. “You can’t simply put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to major strategic investments that the captains of industry are making,” said Quin Shea, the institute’s vice president for environment.
Even companies that have joined lawsuits against the administration over the rules said they already were on track to deliver reductions in carbon emissions on a scale that the Clean Power Plan envisions. For American Electric Power, an electricity provider and one of the country’s top coal users, the court case “doesn’t change our focus on the diversification of our generation fleet,” said spokeswoman Melissa McHenry. Those diversification plans include more natural gas and renewables, she said.
Coal-burning power plants are the biggest single source of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States.
Although the Supreme Court’s ruling does not address the merits of lawsuits opposing the Clean Power Plan, the decision suggests that a majority of the justices think the objections raised by opponents are serious.
The stay means that questions about the legality of the program will remain after Obama leaves office. An appeals court is not scheduled to hear the case until June, and the Supreme Court’s order said the stay would remain in effect while the losing side petitions the Supreme Court. If the court were to accept the case, that would mean an ultimate decision in 2017, when a new president will be in office.
While administration officials and environmental groups express confidence that the regulation ultimately will be upheld by the courts, they argue that the climate fight will be won even if it fails.
“There’s no question that the Clean Power Plan will accelerate our country’s transition from coal to clean energy,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “It’s also true the trend across the country away from coal, with low-cost renewables such as wind and solar and new rules to protect public health and limit mercury, soot, smog and sulfur dioxide, show that coal is not faring well in a competitive market.”
-
Court Stay May Slow, Not Stop, State Carbon-Cutting Talks
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden, Elizabeth Harball and Rod Kuckro
Officials from blue, red and purple states signaled interest yesterday in continuing planning for power-sector carbon reductions, despite a Supreme Court ruling putting the Clean Power Plan on hold.
In a spirited address to a meeting of state agency leaders, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy yesterday also encouraged the willing. She said that while the agency will respect the court decision and cannot currently enforce the rule, EPA will not slow down and will offer assistance to any state that wants to keep working.
"If you ask me if I'm disappointed in the Supreme Court decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, my answer would be absolutely yes. ... I really wanted to be the one to sign that first plan approval," McCarthy said. "But does it stop or even slow down this country in terms of our transition to a low-carbon future? Absolutely not."
She said EPA "remains fully confident in the legal merits of this rule," adding, "One decision to stay doesn't mean that the CPP isn't alive or isn't going to survive."
McCarthy's comments before the three organizations that represent state agencies and regulators involved with the rule -- the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), National Association of State Energy Officials and National Association of Clean Air Agencies -- were her first public remarks since the the court Tuesday stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan. The move has thrown many states into upheaval as they consider how, or whether, to proceed with their compliance plans.
The crowd applauded McCarthy after her speech, gave her a standing ovation -- and then peppered her with practical questions about what to do now.
Jack Betkoski, a Connecticut electricity regulator and second vice president of NARUC, which will meet next week in Washington, D.C., said the ruling "changes but does not end the need for conversation [among states]."
"We're expecting that some states will hit the pause button on compliance with this regulation, even as information and discussion about both carbon technology and ways to incorporate carbon price risk in utility planning continues," he said.
Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D), whose Center for the New Energy Economy has been coordinating talks between the Dakotas and all the states west of them, said his group had been hoping for consensus on a potential regional carbon trading regime.
"We were not close at all; we were just modeling," Ritter clarified in an interview. But "it's up to states whether they want to continue this conversation that really is about a common approach and whether states want to be a part of that or not while the case is stayed," he said.
As of yesterday, Ritter said he had been told that North Dakota, Montana, Utah, Arizona and Idaho might pause their work.
"They're stopping their own stakeholder process, but I think there's still some interest in those states in participating in a broader conversation in the West until we really see how the litigation plays out in the Supreme Court," he said. "I think utilities are interested in that conversation remaining."
State agency officials said many talks will move forward, although perhaps less formally, at a slower speed and on states' "own terms."
Delay could be months ... or longer
Franz Litz, a program consultant who conducts similar state outreach for the Midwest's Great Plains Institute, said the key question is what the stay means for the planning process.
"The frustrating thing as we sit here now under a stay is, we don't know. It's very uncertain," Litz said.
In Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock has canceled Clean Power Plan meetings, Department of Environmental Quality energy bureau chief Laura Andersen said she was optimistic that formal conversations about the state's energy future will continue. She noted that Bullock, a Democrat, believes in addressing climate change.
Anderson said Montana, a major energy exporting state for the West, still must consider the policies other states are pursuing.
"The market forces at play in the region are quite significant and will not go away just because the Clean Power Plan has a stay on it," she said.
EPA air chief Janet McCabe yesterday said states should continue their work as is. Although EPA cannot predict the court outcome, the agency is owed deference under the Clean Air Act, she said.
McCabe said the stay would mean a delay of "a few months." Litz and others countered that litigation and the pause on the rule's implementation would likely continue for more than a year, if not longer.
Philip Jones, a member of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, agreed, saying McCarthy and McCabe were being "quite optimistic."
"We're practical. We're decisionmakers on the ground. We need real numbers," Jones said.
Jones said he suspects some states might lose steam by stopping planning but many will keep working. Utilities and other interests might keep talking carbon cuts without government agencies, though, he said, taking states out of the driver's seat.
Still more state officials questioned whether it makes sense to keep looking at carbon reduction through the lens of the Clean Power Plan, which might never go into effect or could change drastically.
Miles Keogh, director of research for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said NARUC, the National Governors Association and other groups have put a hard pause on a number of meetings and publications.
NARUC canceled releasing a research paper on the rule and nixed a meeting next month on carbon trading. NGA is stalling a learning lab scheduled for the end of the month.
Better climate action without regs?
Some state officials proclaimed they would nonetheless plow ahead with planning until a final court decision.
"We will go full speed ahead," said David Thornton, assistant commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
In Illinois, leaders are still reviewing the Supreme Court's decision. The Clean Power Plan listening sessions remain "in the works," said Ann McCabe of the state's Commerce Commission.
Michigan is "pretty much putting everything on hold" in terms of planning for the Clean Power Plan, said Robert Jackson, director of the Michigan Agency for Energy's Regional and National Response Division.
However, Jackson added, Michigan will continue working with communities that may be affected by power plant closures.
"Our thought is that those closures will continue," Jackson said.
Officials from Northeastern states that are members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program, reminded listeners during the concluding session yesterday that it is possible to cut emissions without a federal driver.
Ali Mirzakhalili, director of the Division of Air Quality at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, said greenhouse gas programs might even be better achieved by some states without a U.S. regulation in place.
'A long, tough road'
While many Democratic-led states were disappointed that the stay could slow interstate talks, a Wyoming official said the extra time could help.
Al Minier, chairman of the Wyoming Public Service Commission, said the stay could relieve some pressure in the state planning process. That would give regulators time to help lawmakers understand why a state should write its own blueprint, rather than being subjected to EPA's federal plan.
"At this point, there's a hard decision that they don't have to make if they simply table this for a while, so my suspicion is that we'll table it for a while," Minier said.
Regulators in Wyoming spent much of their fall convincing the Legislature not to pass a bill that would have tied their hands in terms of compliance, he added.
Wyoming's carbon reduction targets got much harder under the final Clean Power Plan, and that has left utilities crunching the numbers and trying to figure what kind of plan to pursue to meet goals.
"It's going to be a long, tough road for us to get to the point where we can get any consensus about that or make any sense about where we're going and to be fair to people," Minier said.
Litz, of the Great Plains Institute, argued that even though the timeline is now very different given the Supreme Court's decision, there is no reason for states to stop conversations that have been taking place about the Clean Power Plan -- he called it a "no regrets" approach.
"Whether we like it or not, this is likely to impact our states, and we are public servants and we are going to do what we can to make sure that whatever the requirements are, we are going to do it in the way that makes most sense," Litz said.
Litz added that now it is up to the states to lead the momentum kicked off by the EPA's rule. "In some ways, the fact that there's a stay puts the onus now on the state officials, in a way," he said.
-
State Regulators Offer McCarthy Broad Support For ESPS After Court Stay
Feb 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith & Dawn Reeves
State air regulators are offering EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy broad support for the agency's stalled greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants in the wake of the high court's stay, signaling that even regulators from coal states whose officials oppose the rule will continue discussions about the carbon-intensity of their power grids and suggesting that the delay may aid their eventual compliance.
And at a Feb. 11 event hosted by the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), McCarthy was met with a standing ovation from state officials after she pledged continued action on climate change, as well as reassuring regulators that EPA will offer resources to states that forge ahead with compliance planning for the existing source performance standards (ESPS), also known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP).
“Are we going to respect the decision of the Supreme Court? You bet. Of course we are,” McCarthy said. “But that doesn’t mean that’s the only thing we’re working on, and that doesn’t mean that we won’t continue to support any state that voluntarily wants to move forward, and it doesn’t stop us from having incredibly fruitful conversations.”
McCarthy's comments come after the Supreme Court's unexpected decision to stay the ESPS pending judicial review. Since then, state officials appear to be split on how they will proceed, with many Republican-led states suggesting they will stop work on their ESPS planning efforts while many states led by Democrats appear to be continuing their efforts.
But at the Feb. 11 event, many state officials -- even those from states whose governors or other top officials have stopped work on their ESPS planning efforts -- said they would continue discussions on ways to lower the carbon-intensity of the grid.
For example, an energy regulator from Montana, whose Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock shortly after the stay decision canceled the state’s first ESPS stakeholder meeting, noted that the state will continue talking about the ESPS and “about what our energy future looks like in Montana.”
The ESPS is a “minor player” in the changing energy landscape, said Laura Anderson, chief of the energy bureau of Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality. “The market forces at play in the [Western] region will not go away because the Clean Power Plan has a stay on it.”
Al Minier, chair of the Wyoming Public Service Commission -- a coal-heavy state hit with a particularly stringent ESPS target -- echoed the sentiment. “I think it means that in our state and in our region, even if the Clean Power Plan is shelved, the issues are really not going to go away,” Minier said.
“And some of the issues that have been raised by the Clean Power Plan, particularly the issue of reliability, are issues that are going to require constant attention, and it’s only really with the promulgation of the Clean Power Plan that some of these have become obvious as you wade into the details,” he continued.
He added that the stay could even provide a benefit by giving states more time to study the rule and examine compliance options. “We need time to get people to descend the learning curve,” Minier said. He later added: “I really think there is a lot more thinking that needs to be done with this before we can be comfortable making a sound decision.”
Best Interests
Michael Dowd, director of the air division of Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality, cautioned states and other parties opposed to the rule to continue developing plans, noting that it is in states’ best interest to be prepared should the rule be upheld.
“Those who advocate stopping their process are being somewhat short-sighted,” Dowd said.
One industry source notes the stay is "not like an appropriations rider" in that it doesn't prohibit EPA from spending money to work with states.
"So I think they will work with states who want to work with them. Those will be mostly -- and maybe exclusively -- EPA's allies. I know a number of states that already canceled" planned meetings on ESPS compliance, the source says.
The source adds Virginia had opted to go ahead with a previously scheduled ESPS planning meeting in coming days but as many as "six other states" are canceling upcoming meetings. The source declined to specify which states.
Still, the officials' statements appeared consistent with McCarthy's calls for states to continue working on climate policy issues, stressing that agency resources will be available to any state that decides to continue with compliance planning during the stay period, which will last until legal challenges to the rule are resolved.
The stay “doesn’t preclude states, tribes and utilities from continuing to act on climate. They’re already saying that they’re going to keep moving forward,” McCarthy said, listing several states, including Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, that vowed within 24 hours of the Supreme Court decision to continue work on ESPS compliance plans.
“We expect [the stay] to be in place for a while,” said EPA’s acting air chief Janet McCabe, who joined McCarthy on stage following her remarks to answer questions. “We cannot implement or enforce [the rule] while the stay is in place,” she added, but noted the agency can do “anything that a state asks us to do on a voluntary basis."
In addition, McCabe reiterated comments that EPA will continue to develop the rule’s policy framework -- including the model trading rules and the federal implementation plan -- while the stay is in place but just “in the spirit of a program we are not implementing right now.”
McCabe did not speak to how the ESPS compliance timeline will be affected by the recent stay of the rule, though she noted that “history shows that those things get worked out.”
‘We Ain’t Done’
Despite expressing disappointment over the Supreme Court’s decision, McCarthy reiterated prior comments from the agency and other Obama administration officials that they remain “fully confident in the legal merits of this rule.”
“Our rule fits squarely within the four corners of the Clean Air Act,” McCarthy said, adding that “one decision to stay doesn’t mean that the CPP isn’t alive and isn’t going to survive.”
Beyond offering a strong defense of the rule, McCarthy’s resounding message was that a stay of the ESPS changes nothing. She highlighted the booming growth of low-carbon energy sources throughout all sectors of the U.S. economy, urging the energy sector to keep “celebrating and moving forward.” She also highlighted the recent solar and wind tax credit extensions by Congress as encouraging, and a factor that minimizes the worry that an ESPS stay will halt renewables growth.
“None of us have ever said that the Clean Power Plan was driving the market toward renewables and efficiency. We have always said that that is where the market is heading,” McCarthy said, adding that the ESPS resembled the agency “being smart enough to underpin it and make sure that momentum continues into the future.
“That didn’t change yesterday to today,” McCarthy continued. “It was true then, it’s true now, and anyone who thinks a stay that’s going to add a few months to litigation is going to change that hasn’t been listening for the past three or four years.”
McCarthy in her remarks also noted the agency is working on other climate regulations, referring more broadly to priorities McCabe laid out during a Feb. 10 webinar hosted by the American Sustainable Business Council.
And the agency will not be deterred from these priorities following the ESPS stay, McCarthy says. “If you think EPA is done on climate, please leave this room and yell at the top of your lungs, ‘They ain’t done yet, we ain’t done yet,’ because we ain’t done yet,” McCarthy said, noting that she is “revved up and ready to go.”
And while McCarthy noted her disappointment with the high court decision, and that she “really wanted to be the one to sign that first plan approval,” she urged state regulators to do as she has: “to pick myself up, rededicate myself, and tell the people in this country that we are there to serve them.”
-
EnergyWire's Kuckro Discusses Next Steps for States, Utilities, EPA Following Rule Stay
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
As the surprise settles over this week's Supreme Court decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, stakeholders are considering next steps including, for many, whether to proceed with compliance. On today's The Cutting Edge, EnergyWire reporter Rod Kuckro discusses his latest reporting on the behind-the-scenes planning at the state, industry and agency levels.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to The Cutting Edge. As the shock settles over this week's Supreme Court decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, stakeholders are now considering next steps, including for many whether to continue to comply. EnergyWire's Rod Kuckro joins me with his latest reporting on stakeholder discussions. Rod, what are the options for states right now and what are the trends that you see emerging among states in their discussions?
Rod Kuckro: Well, the states really have two choices. One is they can continue as if the stay didn't occur and they can continue working on a path towards compliance in case the stay is not successful and that the Supreme Court eventually rules in favor of EPA, and there are some states doing that: Connecticut, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania. They've said they're ready to do a plan. Delaware almost has their plan finished. But then other states -- North Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Utah -- have already said, "We're taking a pause." Now whether that has any real effect, though, in their states is questionable because the utilities are still moving ahead. And we learned this just yesterday, where E&E covered a meeting of the state electricity regulators, air regulators, and energy office heads for all 50 states, and the consensus there is that there's prudency moving ahead just so they're ready in case the rule survives.
Monica Trauzzi: Right. And the other thing is the utility mantra has always been, "We need certainty," and continuing on the path sort of ensures a certain level of certainty. So your sense is that many utilities are staying the course.
Rod Kuckro: We had seven reporters working on a story this week. We looked at 25 different utility players. And almost to a company they're all going ahead. In fact we had some great reporting from our colleague Saqib Rahim in New York where he was at a meeting where utility officials met with Wall Street analysts. And EEI, the investor-owned utility lobby, their executive said, "This doesn't change a thing." And in fact the key quote he had was great. He said, "You don't simply put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to major strategic investments that the captains of industry are making." I mean, they're already moving on that path, and they're going to go ahead for this reason, Monica: They want to be able to monetize all these improvements that they can make in distribution, transmission and clean energy investment, and they can blame it on EPA.
Monica Trauzzi: You were at an event yesterday with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, and she's always pretty candid with her comments and thoughts. What did she have to say about the court's decision and what the agency has planned next for the power plan and emissions reduction?
Rod Kuckro: Well, she was not just candid; she was combative. Now of course she was in front of a very friendly audience, but the takeaway was -- she said that EPA is confident that the rule has firm legal grounding and that it will be eventually upheld and that the stay does not preclude EPA from moving ahead on all sorts of fronts to continue down this path supporting clean energy. In particular she invited these state officials I referenced earlier to come to her and voluntarily ask for EPA's help. She does not see that as being something precluded by the stay. So what you may have happen is two classes of states will emerge over the next six months: those that want to move ahead out of prudency and those that fall farther behind and that could be left sort of holding the bag if the rule's upheld in 2017.
Monica Trauzzi: So one year ago this week E&E launched its Clean Power Plan Hub, and it's really become an essential tool for anyone involved in Clean Power Plan discussions. How has the hub been updated this week, and what do you have planned moving forward as we head into litigation?
Rod Kuckro: Well, we put up some new graphics this week that sort of tell users of the hub exactly what the status of legal challenges is state by state, and also whether or not the states are preparing a plan -- some states that are suing are also preparing a plan, at least they were before Tuesday. We are curating the thousands of comments that were submitted on the federal implementation plan and the model trading rules. We'll put up the best ones that we think our readers need to know about. But we essentially feel we have a good thing going. We have lots of terrific traffic on the hub every day. But basically we'll continue to track all the state processes that will give some clues to the industry and to investors as to where there's going to be money to be made, because in the end that's what this Clean Power Plan's all about.
Monica Trauzzi: It's such a great tool. I visit it all the time. Thanks for coming on the show, Rod.
Rod Kuckro: Thanks, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: More Cutting Edge coming next Friday. We'll see you then.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested