Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/24/16
-
New EPA IRIS Study Agenda Increases Focus On 'Background' Chemicals
Feb 24, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's latest agenda for its influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments includes an increasing number of "background" chemicals or metals that are produced by industrial processes or pollution but also exist naturally in the environment or in the human body, increasing the agency's focus on reviewing such substances. -
Chemical Disclosure Tops State Policy Priorities, Says NGO
Feb 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Chemical disclosure will be a core state policy priority for 2016, according to analysis from the NGO, Safer States. Fragrance ingredient transparency, and measures that address full classes of chemicals, are also expected to dominate. -
US EPA Extends Comment Period for Data on Chlorinated Paraffins
Feb 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended the comment period for its request for new information on chlorinated paraffins by 30 days to 23 March. -
US Consults on Toxicology of Jet Fuels and 1-Bromopropane
Feb 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has announced the availability of draft toxicological profiles for jet fuels and 1-bromopropane. -
Gas Facility That Had Blowout Will Have to Play by New Rules
Feb 24, 2016 | Washington Post
By Brian Melley (Associated Press)
The gas storage facility that spewed methane uncontrollably for almost four months, driving thousands of families from their homes, won’t resume operations until it has undergone tougher tests than ever required before, a process that will take months and perhaps even longer. -
BNSF Details 2016 Capex Plans for Nebraska, New Mexico
Feb 24, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
BNSF Railway Co. will spend $110 million in Nebraska and $100 million in New Mexico on maintenance projects as part of its 2016 capital expenditures program, the Class I announced over the past week. -
Achieving Clean Power Plan Targets Well Ahead of Schedule
Feb 24, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Daniel S. Cohan
The United States is racing toward achieving the goals of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), even as the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia raises the prospect of a deadlocked Supreme Court ruling. Achieving CPP carbon-dioxide emissions targets 14 years ahead of schedule is now likely thanks to a remarkable confluence of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies each achieving affordability after decades of developments. -
McCarthy Defends Carbon Rule, Eyes Methane Emissions
Feb 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Edward Klump and Mike Lee
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy offered a passionate defense of the Clean Power Plan to the energy industry today, while also voicing concern about methane emissions that could lead to expanded oversight of oil and gas operations. -
EPA Critics Tally Complaints; Nev. Joins Fray
Feb 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan not only violates the Constitution but also threatens local businesses and disproportionately harms minorities, critics of the rule told a federal court yesterday. -
Cheniere Energy Set to Ship First LNG Cargo
Feb 24, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Cheniere Energy says it will ship the first major cargo of liquefied natural gas from the lower 48 U.S. states today, kickstarting a new era in U.S. energy trade with potentially massive global security implications. -
This Scare Tactic Used to Block Environmental Rules is Getting Old
Feb 24, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
It came as no surprise to environmentalists that certain industry players claimed limits on pollution from coal plants would be too costly.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
New EPA IRIS Study Agenda Increases Focus On 'Background' Chemicals
Feb 24, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's latest agenda for its influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments includes an increasing number of "background" chemicals or metals that are produced by industrial processes or pollution but also exist naturally in the environment or in the human body, increasing the agency's focus on reviewing such substances.
Close to one-third of the IRIS assessments in progress and the chemicals newly prioritized for the program to take up in the next several years are chemicals with these background issues, according to a recent presentation Lynn Flowers, associate director for health at EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) gave Feb. 10 in Washington, D.C. at the annual winter ToxForum meeting. "It's quite a list, so you can see why we're interested in this," she said. "Only one of these, methanol, has been completed recently."
Flowers identified acetaldehyde, ammonia, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, methanol, nitrate/nitrite, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) as chemicals NCEA is or will be assessing that are produced endogenously as well as exogenously.
NCEA staff are working on IRIS assessments of ammonia, ethylene oxide and formaldehyde -- and have been for some years, particularly ethylene oxide and formaldehyde, both of which encountered stiff opposition from industry criticism for stringent risk estimates in earlier drafts.
CO, NO and SO2, while under assessment by NCEA, are part of a separate program from IRIS, which assesses and regulates criteria air pollutants regulated by EPA's national ambient air quality standards.
Flowers also pointed to four trace or essential metals, chromium, manganese, nickel and vanadium, which are or soon will be undergoing IRIS assessment. EPA's efforts to assess hexavalent chromium (Cr6) have been challenged by industry criticism of a stringent cancer risk estimate, and science advisors urged the agency to delay its assessment until an industry research project into the mode of action of ingested Cr6 could be completed. The assessment is back in draft development after that setback, as well as EPA's decision to add inhalation risk analyses to the assessment.
The IRIS program nearly completed its assessment of vanadium pentoxide -- the assessment was promised in fiscal year 2015 budget justification documents -- but was scrapped after much industry pushback in favor of assessing all valence states of vanadium, and not just pentoxide.
The vanadium assessment has been added to the list of 15 assessments -- along with manganese and nickel -- the IRIS program will begin in the next several years, per the new agenda for the program released last December.
Criticism from regulated entities over stringent risk estimates in draft IRIS assessments of endogenously produced chemicals and trace metals have stymied a number of assessments in recent years, often becoming high-profile and long-running projects. There are numerous examples, some of them still ongoing, such as arsenic, dioxin, chromium, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde and methanol. The two assessments in that group that have been completed, dioxin and methanol, came after EPA decided to only finalize non-cancer risk estimates for them.
The agency's IRIS program has faced scrutiny and oversight, and since a critical National Academy of Sciences review of its draft formaldehyde assessment in 2011 has sought to overhaul the program, which last published a final assessment in December 2014, with its assessment of Libby amphibole asbestos.
Background Chemicals
Flowers said the problem with reviewing background chemicals is that standard risk assessment practices, identifying a dose of concern and applying uncertainty factors, often results in a risk estimate close to endogenous levels. Such calculations lend themselves to instant criticism from industry and other regulated entities, who argue that the risk estimates are too strict.
For example, the Methanol Institute criticized EPA's draft IRIS assessment of methanol for calculating levels that it argued would indicate that drinking a glass of orange juice was unsafe, while other groups argued that EPA's draft 2011 IRIS assessment of formaldehyde provided risk estimates that suggested that exhaled breath is dangerous.
Two years ago, at the 2014 annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, Michael Honeycutt of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, backed by industry supporters, called on EPA to "reality check" its cancer risk estimates to ensure they align with observed disease incidence in the United States.
Proponents called on EPA to compare its cancer risk estimates to the relevant cancer incidences reported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) among other information, and compare the risk values generally to ambient and endogenous levels of the agents. These officials hope such an approach will soften EPA risk values because it will force the agency to reject conservative assessment practices that are inconsistent with disease incidence.
But Ken Olden, director of NCEA, criticized these calls, even as he later suggested his staff may try to address some aspects of a reality check. He said the agency has a duty to inform the public of scientifically valid risks -- even if those risks may occur at background levels or if technologies to mitigate those risks are not yet available. "To be honest I think it would be arrogant and insensitive not to do that. Elitist," Olden told one industry critic at the first bimonthly IRIS meeting in Arlington, VA, in December 2013.
Flowers echoed Olden's concern in her remarks at the ToxForum, while also acknowledging the challenge of these concerns. She suggested there may be some credence to concerns about endogenous levels of certain chemicals or elements in the body. "Do normal levels of endogenous chemicals contribute to background rates of disease?" she asked.
Flowers pointed to advice that staff is reviewing as it seeks to finalize the draft IRIS assessment of inhaled ammonia from EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The advisors report, released last August, "made the fairly provocative statement that there is no reason to think exhaled breath is safe for continuous inhalation," Flowers noted. "You think about that and it's kind of common sense."
The issue was debated in July 2014 at a meeting of a subpanel of the SAB peer reviewing the draft assessment. Industry representatives again questioned the validity of EPA's risk estimate, arguing that it suggested that exhaled breath contains harmful levels of ammonia. Some of the advisors suggested at the meeting that characterization was correct, noting that since the chemical is a waste product, the body is trying to expel it.
For example, Panelist Henry Anderson, Chief Medical Officer for Wisconsin's Department of Health Service, said that "ammonia is a waste product. . . . We're trying to get rid of it because if it goes up, it's hazardous. Same with carbon dioxide, it's not a passive gas. I don't think we're designed to exhale and then inhale the same thing. . . . Just because we exhale it doesn't mean that's a safe level."
SAB's final report states, "There is no reason to assume that exhaled air is safe for continuous inhalation -- indeed, continuous inhalation of exhaled air, as eventually occurs in a small enclosed space, is deadly."'
Several Definitions
Another challenge, Flowers said, is that there are several definitions of background. She outlined five in her talk, pointing to two as her focus: "location, concentration and biological activity of endogenous compounds that are produced normally in the body and are also present in the environment," and "location, concentration and biological activity of trace metals or essential elements that are required for normal metabolism (including dietary intake)."
Another challenge Flowers identified is that "There's a lot of opinions about what we should do. [We could] compare normal endogenous levels to exposure [levels]. That could be informative, but probably not the full story."
Flowers also pointed to advice in the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, "Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment," which she said encouraged EPA to "to be more global . . . [we] need to think about current background exposures. And they're talking about chemicals in the environment and endogenous and also things like . . . biological susceptibility. . . .When we talk about endogenous chemicals in the body and exogenous exposure, that's a very small piece of a big puzzle."
-
Chemical Disclosure Tops State Policy Priorities, Says NGO
Feb 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Chemical disclosure will be a core state policy priority for 2016, according to analysis from the NGO, Safer States. Fragrance ingredient transparency, and measures that address full classes of chemicals, are also expected to dominate.
Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, says that 2016 is on track to be another active year for state policy, with chemicals management bills under consideration in 23 states and the District of Columbia.
The NGO tracks state-level legislation aimed at the use, restriction and disclosure of substances.
“Right-to-know” bills that would require increased disclosure of the substances present in products continue to gain momentum, Ms Doll says. A California bill (AB 708) that would have required disclosure of 100% of ingredients in cleaning products recently failed to pass. But she says that the broader scope of these disclosure laws means their passage may take several legislative sessions to achieve.
“[AB 708] is the beginning of this conversation,” she says, and it will take states time to figure out the right direction to take. She anticipates that, in 2017, similar ingredient disclosure bills will begin to emerge in other states.
Policies addressing fragrances are also cropping up, says Ms Doll, such as a Vermont bill (H 706) that would require such disclosure in cosmetics.
Another emerging trend will be policies that aim to address an entire class of chemicals, she says. For example, New York is considering a measure (S 6636) that would ban triclosan, triclocarban and derivatives of these antimicrobial compounds in cleaning products.
According to the NGO, there has also been an increase in legislative activity around certain chemical-product pairings, including:
flame retardants in children’s products and furniture;
bisphenol A (BPA) in food contact materials; and
formaldehyde in personal care products.
TSCA
A coalition of state leaders and a group of state attorneys general have recently called on congressional leaders to preserve the regulatory authority of states, during negotiations to reconcile bills passed by theHouse and Senate, to reform the nation’s decades-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
But according to Ms Doll, “states are always going to have an important role to play” in chemicals management, regardless of the shape of a final TSCA reform.
They are best positioned to react to emerging threats and will continue to hold that space, she says, especially in light of slow proposed prioritisation timelines under TSCA. They may also play a role in advising the EPA on which substances to evaluate.
“The sense is, whatever reform happens isn’t going to fill all of the gaps,” says Ms Doll. Finding the right balance between federal and state roles will be required, she adds, but “it’s really hard to see exactly what that will look like”, at this point in negotiations.
-
US EPA Extends Comment Period for Data on Chlorinated Paraffins
Feb 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended the comment period for its request for new information on chlorinated paraffins by 30 days to 23 March.
It will use the data to to inform its risk assessments on new chemical pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
-
US Consults on Toxicology of Jet Fuels and 1-Bromopropane
Feb 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has announced the availability of draft toxicological profiles for jet fuels and 1-bromopropane.
Written comments on these must be submitted by 24 May. The Federal Register is soliciting any additional studies, particularly unpublished data.
-
Gas Facility That Had Blowout Will Have to Play by New Rules
Feb 24, 2016 | Washington Post
By Brian Melley (Associated Press)
The gas storage facility that spewed methane uncontrollably for almost four months, driving thousands of families from their homes, won’t resume operations until it has undergone tougher tests than ever required before, a process that will take months and perhaps even longer.
The massive leak drew attention to the Southern California Gas Co. facility and the larger subject of old energy infrastructure nationwide. It also put heat on the state to speed up tougher new regulations that will outlaw a risky practice that put the well in jeopardy of a blowout.
“I wouldn’t say it was a wake-up call. I’d say it was a ‘You need to accelerate that process,’” said Jason Marshall, chief deputy director of the state Department of Conservation. “We’ve moved it to the top of the pile.”
In addition to passing emergency regulations, the department’s oil and gas division directed the Aliso Canyon facility to undergo tests expected to last months and operate in a safer manner — changes that could be expanded to statewide regulations, Marshall said.
Environmentalists and residents sickened by the foul smell and chemicals have called for the facility to be permanently shut down.
The facility is a major source of energy for Southern California and state utility overseers are figuring out how to provide power while it’s largely out of commission, as well as exploring what would happen if it never reopens.
During a legislative hearing this week on a bill that would prevent the facility from storing additional gas while undergoing tests of its 114 wells, state lawmakers were concerned about power outages during a shutdown.
The situation is similar to when the San Onofre nuclear plant shut down in 2013 after a radiation leak, said Michael Picker, the president of the California Public Utility Commission.
“It wasn’t just the power, but it was the ability to support power flows north and south and getting power to certain specific parts of the state,” Picker said. “A transmission line in Northern California isn’t effective in San Diego, for example.”
Unlike electricity that moves rapidly, natural gas flows about 35 mph and comes from out-of-state pipelines, so plans need to be made before it’s needed. In addition to residential and business customers, Aliso Canyon serves dozens of gas-fired power plants.
“They built a system where Aliso Canyon was too big to fail. And it failed,” said Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat who owns a home in Porter Ranch near the facility. “They say, ‘We won’t prove to you it’s safe, we’ll just prove to you it’s necessary.’”
If the facility were closed, getting new storage permitted would be unlikely because of community opposition and geologic concerns, said Jay Apt, co-director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center
“Taking something offline is probably forever,” Apt said.
SoCalGas Chief Executive Officer Dennis Arreola said the company planned to comply with new requirements and accelerate inspections at the facility that has had leaks and failures from corrosion and heavy use.
The new requirements will put a crimp in the speed at which gas is injected deep underground for storage when demand is low and withdrawn in colder weather or during demand spikes.
Tests will measure the thickness of protective steel casings, corrosion and make sure wells can withstand intense pressures.
The company will now be required to inject and withdraw the gas through narrow metal tubing that runs from the mountain-top facility to abandoned oil wells below.
SoCalGas had been using both the tubing and a much wider steel casing surrounding it to deliver larger volumes of gas. Experts said that was risky because the casing was a safety barrier if the tubing failed.
In the case of the blown-out well, the casing is believed to have failed under high pressure, allowing the gas to escape.
Marshall said the practice, which is fairly common, is forever over at Aliso Canyon and will be banned statewide once new regulations are drafted.
He said that change is “arguably more important” than requiring subsurface safety valves. The well that failed had its safety valve removed in 1979. It wasn’t required and was never replaced.
Anthony Ingraffea, a Cornell University engineering professor who identified the dual injection and withdrawal practice as a fatal flaw after studying the well’s records, applauded the new rules and test requirements.
He questioned, however, how regulators had been lax for so long.
The agency has been criticized for a lack of industry oversight and acknowledged problems just weeks before the Aliso Canyon leak was reported Oct. 23.
The promise of additional funding for new hires is not likely to appease critics.
“The rules don’t fix the problems at California’s broken oil regulatory agency, which has a scandalous track record of failing to enforce even basic regulations,” said attorney Maya Golden-Krasner of the Center for Biological Diversity.
-
BNSF Details 2016 Capex Plans for Nebraska, New Mexico
Feb 24, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
BNSF Railway Co. will spend $110 million in Nebraska and $100 million in New Mexico on maintenance projects as part of its 2016 capital expenditures program, the Class I announced over the past week.
In both states, the largest component of the projects will involve replacing and upgrading rail, ties and ballast, according to BNSF press releases.
In Nebraska, BNSF's maintenance program calls for 1,760 miles of track surfacing or undercutting work, the replacement of about 40 miles of rail and more than 160,000 ties, as well as signal upgrades necessary for federally mandated positive train control (PTC) implementation.
This year's Nebraska projects also include continuing construction of nearly 6 miles of double track on the Ravenna Subdivision between Pleasant Dale and Milford. BNSF has invested more than $575 million in its Nebraska network over the past three years.
In New Mexico, maintenance projects this year will include about 900 miles of track surfacing or undercutting work, the replacement of about 15 miles of rail and more than 195,000 ties, as well as signal upgrades required for PTC.
Other projects in New Mexico will include the continued installation of a new bridge and second track to cross the Pecos River and double track near Fort Sumner. When those bridge and double projects are completed, all but 4 miles of BNSF's 2,000-mile Southern Transcon route between the West Coast and major intermodal markets in Chicago, Dallas and Kansas City will be double tracked this year, BNSF officials said.
The Nebraska and New Mexico work is part of BNSF's $4.3 billion capital expenditures program for 2016. -
Achieving Clean Power Plan Targets Well Ahead of Schedule
Feb 24, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Daniel S. Cohan
The United States is racing toward achieving the goals of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), even as the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia raises the prospect of a deadlocked Supreme Court ruling. Achieving CPP carbon-dioxide emissions targets 14 years ahead of schedule is now likely thanks to a remarkable confluence of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies each achieving affordability after decades of developments.
Technologies from LED lights to electric cars to heat pumps are leaping past their less-efficient successors and are poised for mass adoption. Meanwhile, plunging prices push wind turbines and now solar panels into pole position for least-cost new electric capacity. Together, the technological innovations and market shifts aredrastically reducing our nation's need for coalfor electric generation, and is even slicing intonatural gas demand as well.
The Clean Power Plan requires a 32 percent reduction in power sector carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels. As of 2014, the latest year available, emissions had fallen 15 percent. U.S. power plant consumption of coal, the leading source of carbon dioxide targeted by the CPP, fell an additional 12 percent in 2015.
Oddly, the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts power plant coal consumption to stabilize through 2017. However, those forecasts are unreliable since EIA has long forecast renewable energy costs to be a factor of three or more higher than utilities actually pay for wind or solar.
The EIA's inexplicably high forecasts of coal use also appear to neglect the five-year extensionby Congress in December 2015 of tax credits for renewable energy. That extension likely will shiftall new generation to renewables for years to come, with sharp declines in coal and even natural gas.
So far in 2016, year-to-date coal production is down 32 percent from 2015, more than enough to meet the CPP limit in 2030. Since most coal is used for electricity, and since wind and solar rather than natural gas are dominating new electric generation capacity, the plunge in coal production in 2015 accelerating into 2016 is almost certainly sufficient to achieve the EPA's 2030 target this year.
Achieving CPP emissions goals 14 years ahead of schedule needed no "energy miracle." Instead, a broad array of emerging and cheapening technologies is empowering these transformations in power markets.
Simply put, efficient and renewable technologies now are ready for prime-time. Taking center stage, then cleaning the whole stage are now more matters of marketing and financial engineering than electrical engineering moonshots. Waiting any longer would be like ET waiting for an iPhone to phone home.
Prices of wind, solar energy and storage technology are plummeting. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reports that wind power cost just 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour (c/kWh) in 2014, with prices plunging further each year. Austin Energy inked a then-record low sub-4 c/kWh price for solar power last June, and Houston agreed to pay 4.8 c/kWh. EIA energy outlooks have missed these plunging prices even as other sections of the Department of Energy and the private sector report them. However, common sense can recognize that coal-laden trains from Wyoming, or even gas fracked from shale fields, will struggle to compete with direct-delivered breezes and sunshine as renewable technologies cheapen.
While Big Power pursues public-pays payouts in Ohio and anti-competitive solar penalties inArizona and Nevada, such efforts find few fans in can-do, free market America. The American can-do spirit likewise has little time for needless fears of intermittent power. A host of storage and smart grid technologies, together with efficient lights, smart thermostats, demand response technology, and dispatchable green (geothermal, hydropower) and speckled beige (natural gas, biomass) power sources are more than sufficient to achieve balance. If countries from Costa Rica and Nicaragua to Scotland and Norway can surpass 50 percent renewable electricity, it sounds downright un-American to say "no, we can't."
The transportation sector is also set for change. Competitively priced, 200-plus mile range electric vehicles (EVs) are coming soon. Tesla is building a lithium battery Gigafactory in Nevada and promises the Model 3 for around $25,000 (post-tax credit) soon. Faraday Futures is building its own massive electric car factory nearby. The Chevy Bolt, expected to appear this year, will compete with the Volt and Prius. Plug-in hybrid Ford and Mitsubishi models will compete too for a soon-to-be-crowded electric car marketplace.
The heating and cooling industry has developed transformative technology as well. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has an energy-right heat pump plan that finances the installation of high efficiency heat pumps in homes and small businesses. Cold climate air-source heat pumps are now available and Green Mountain Power, a utility in Vermont, is selling and financing heat pumps, solar panels and energy storage units and saving their customers money.
An investment can be private and does not need to come from the federal government. The resources currently allocated toward fossil fuels are poised, instead, to be invested in the development of a 21st-century energy infrastructure run on renewable energy and balanced with digital technology and storage.
Disruptive technologies inevitably bring job losses in the disrupted industry. That's been true from buggy-whip crafters to typewriter manufacturers to coal miners. Tough as change can be, at least the shift to renewable energy will likely brighten overall employment outlooks. Nationally, solar has been adding more jobs than the oil and gas extraction and pipeline companies combined, as rooftop-by-rooftop progress takes far more labor than Earth-moving equipment. However, the geographic distribution of disruptions from distributed generation is by no means uniform; fossil-heavy states like Texas, Wyoming and North Dakota could struggle most in navigating this final fossil bust.
Just as no typewriter sale could win back a MacBook owner, the fossil industry will find itself increasingly unable to compete with renewables that now make sense for the wallet, not just for the water and air. Houston already tops all U.S. cities in green power consumption with its 75 percent green power agreement for 2016.
The utility industry, private businesses, politicians and consumers can benefit from the opportunity that this energy transformation will provide. It is an exciting prospect when realized that a renewable energy infrastructure, using existing technology, is doable today. The ongoing and unstoppable (r)evolution toward efficient and renewable energy will bring more stable and affordable prices than previous sources of energy.
Disruptive technologies disrupt. Fortunately for us, the green energy disruptions can bring about a brighter, cleaner, more affordable energy and environment, even as employment shifts toward new alternatives.
Cohan is associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University. Parks is co-author of "All-Electric America: A Climate Solution and the Hopeful Future" and associate editor ofElectricityPolicy.com and Electricity Daily.
-
McCarthy Defends Carbon Rule, Eyes Methane Emissions
Feb 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Edward Klump and Mike Lee
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy offered a passionate defense of the Clean Power Plan to the energy industry today, while also voicing concern about methane emissions that could lead to expanded oversight of oil and gas operations.
McCarthy, making her third annual appearance at the IHS CERAWeek conference here, spoke about two weeks after the Supreme Court moved to stay the Clean Power Plan. The rule aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels, and targets vary by state.
"The Clean Power Plan did not go away," McCarthy said of the stay. "Does it slow down the energy transition that the Clean Power Plan was underpinning? Absolutely not."
The administrator said EPA will support states that have said they want to develop plans. The stay also doesn't take away the relationships built "through the most ... cooperative collaboration between the energy and environmental" worlds ever, McCarthy said.
The timeline for the carbon plan is somewhat uncertain, as EPA had sought at least extension requests for state plans by early September. McCarthy said the Clean Power Plan ultimately will win on its merits.
"We have an army of individuals out there that are going to keep that momentum moving forward," she said. "It has sent the investment signals that we want, and in the end we know that states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Vermont and Washington have already stood up and said, 'Despite the stay, we're going to work with EPA, and we're going to submit plans.'"
McCarthy said that, under the radar, there has been work with states and utilities -- both those suing and those that aren't -- to provide a "stable, certain opportunity for investments to be made and for money to be made in the energy sector that will provide us the benefit of a 21st-century energy system."
McCarthy did tell Daniel Yergin, the author who hosts CERAWeek, that the stay was a surprise because it was an unusual step. She said a ton of anticipated reductions shouldn't be lost.
"I think my head hit the table, only because it was unexpected," she said. "But within 10 minutes, I was back in action."
As for methane, EPA proposed rules last year to control those emissions from new oil and gas wells, but its proposal didn't address all of the hundreds of thousands of existing wells, tanks and pumps around the country (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
EPA's latest greenhouse gas inventory shows that emissions from those existing sources are more substantial than the agency thought, McCarthy said.
She acknowledged that EPA doesn't understand oil and gas production as well as it understands utilities and other sectors. But a string of studies by the Environmental Defense Fund, the University of Texas and others, which have shown that methane emissions in oil production are far higher than previous estimates, have helped, she said.
While saying, "I'm not here to make an announcement," McCarthy said the agency will have to follow the data as it becomes available.
McCarthy also used her address to say people shouldn't be worried about the country's ability to follow through on ambitious emissions targets. And she had a message for those gathered here.
"If anyone thinks that EPA is done on climate, you better think again, guys," she said. "We're not done. We're running."
-
EPA Critics Tally Complaints; Nev. Joins Fray
Feb 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan not only violates the Constitution but also threatens local businesses and disproportionately harms minorities, critics of the rule told a federal court yesterday.
Arguments from energy companies, business groups, members of Congress and, notably, the until-now neutral state of Nevada streamed in at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as yesterday marked the deadline for friend-of-the-court and intervenor briefs against the landmark rule to cut carbon emissions from power plants.
The parties were diverse, ranging from local chambers of commerce and civic groups to climate skeptics and coal companies. Members of Congress made a forceful foray into the sprawling litigation, with more than 200 lawmakers -- almost all Republicans -- arguing that the Clean Power Plan was designed to circumvent Capitol Hill (Greenwire, Feb. 23).
And Nevada, silent for months while others assembled opposition to the Clean Power Plan, finally chimed in, arguing that while the state's compliance targets are considered manageable, the plan would still end up harming Nevada in two ways.
"First, EPA's unprecedented regulations harm energy consumers in other States, thus threatening harm to the overall national economy and in turn to Nevada's vital tourism industry," Attorney General Adam Laxalt (R) wrote in a brief joined by advocacy firm Consumers' Research.
Second, he argued, the rule would open the door to "further rounds of discretionary EPA regulations" that might harm Nevada utilities, businesses and consumers more directly. And the states' acquiescence with such rules, he said, might not go over well with Nevadans.
"Under such circumstances, citizens will be at pains to disentangle which state laws and regulatory decisions to attribute wholly to state officials," the brief says, "which to chalk up in part to state officials and in substantial part to EPA; and which to attribute to a State wholly caving in and determining simply to make the best implementation possible of EPA's unwelcome policy demands."
'Unique circumstances'
Other briefs yesterday focused on alleged harm certain groups would face across the country. A coalition of local chambers of commerce and business associations, for example, argued that the climate rule would keep state policymakers from designing programs that account for local economic concerns.
"Instead of allowing States to implement and enforce performance-based standards for existing emissions sources, however, the Rule scraps Congress's design in favor of a centrally-designed, blunderbuss approach," the coalition said in an amicus brief. "In doing so, EPA has adopted a regulatory model that does not (and cannot) account for the unique circumstances that different communities throughout the nation confront."
According to the Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Independent Women's Forum, the 60 Plus Association and other civic groups, those communities most negatively affected by the Clean Power Plan include women, minorities and seniors.
"Middle- and high-income families may think little of paying more for power, because it makes up only a small portion of their overall budget," the groups said in a brief joined by Federalism in Action, the National Taxpayers Union and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. "But many within the communities [we] represent pay an exorbitant portion of their earnings on electricity, sometimes topping 23 percent of after-tax income.
"These people simply cannot afford to have their economic circumstances stretched even thinner by increased electricity costs imposed by the Plan," the brief adds. "Yet these people's voices have largely gone unheard in the Plan's formulation."
Broader arguments
Peabody Energy Corp. attorney Laurence Tribe -- a Harvard Law professor and former mentor to President Obama -- proffered familiar arguments about EPA's authority to implement the rule. In a brief with other companies intervening as petitioners in the litigation, Peabody argued that the agency should not be entitled to what's known as Chevron deference in interpreting the Clean Air Act, which includes two potentially conflicting versions of an amendment related to double regulation of sources or pollutants (EnergyWire, Aug. 3, 2015).
"EPA appeals to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council," the brief said. "But Chevron does not allow an agency to toss two 'versions' of a statute into the air and choose which one to catch. EPA's approach violates the separation of powers by usurping congressional prerogatives and judicial authority, and the statute must be construed to avoid the constitutional questions raised by EPA's interpretation."
A group of former public utility commission regulators, meanwhile, warned that the plan could dangerously disrupt the authority of existing state regulatory bodies.
"Lost in the litigation of EPA's Power Plan is its permanent and irreversible impact on state regulators and state institutions," the former regulators said, adding that state policy prerogatives would become "subordinate" to the requirements of the rule.
And a group of scientists who question the validity of widely accepted climate science argued that EPA's judgment should no longer be trusted on the issue of human contribution to atmospheric warming.
"Let us pause all CO2 related regulations until temperatures start rising for a few years," the group said. "And, even then, hold off on regulation until an unbiased scientific proof exists that the rising atmospheric CO2 levels might have played a significant role in that rise."
The D.C. Circuit's docket is now heavy with arguments against the Clean Power Plan, with more than 150 petitioners having filed their opening briefs Friday (EnergyWire, Feb. 22). EPA and its allies will respond to the arguments by the end of March. Friends-of-the-court supporting the agency will file by April 1. Challengers can reply April 15, and oral arguments are scheduled for June 2.
-
Cheniere Energy Set to Ship First LNG Cargo
Feb 24, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Cheniere Energy says it will ship the first major cargo of liquefied natural gas from the lower 48 U.S. states today, kickstarting a new era in U.S. energy trade with potentially massive global security implications.
Cheniere Executive Vice President Meg Gentle told the IHS CERAWeek conference that the company's first LNG shipment, delayed from the previously expected January departure, would be headed to Brazil from the company's Sabine Pass facility on the Texas-Louisiana border.
That facility has Department of Energy approval to ship 2.2 billion cubic feet per day for 20 years, and it represents the first of several LNG export terminals expected to come online in the coming months.
-
This Scare Tactic Used to Block Environmental Rules is Getting Old
Feb 24, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
It came as no surprise to environmentalists that certain industry players claimed limits on pollution from coal plants would be too costly.
Nor were we shocked that opponents are claiming that rules to cut smog are too expensive. Or that they’re saying the same thing about rules aimed at cutting dangerous methane leaks from oil and gas facilities.
For as long as there have been debates about clean air, some in industry have used cost as a scare tactic to control the public debate. That’s despite the fact that cleaning our air has always been a net positive for our economy.
Just ask the power company executives, electric reliabilityexperts, state regulators and even politicians who agree that curbing carbon and ozone pollution is the best path for our economy and environment.
In fact, every time we try to clean the air, we hear such exaggerated claims. Lobbyists know that it’s a good way to scare the public, few of whom are able to review economic studies to check the numbers.
So let’s consult past experiences from clean air regulations.
A careful analysis of industry claims about the cost of clean air rules demonstrates that industry consistently – and sometimes wildly – exaggerates costs. The truth is that consumers win every time we clean up pollution, and this time should be no different.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested