Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 2/26/2016
-
(ACC Blog) What’s So Funny About a World Without Engineers?
Feb 26, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ryan Baldwin
A world without engineers actually isn’t funny — at all. -
(ACC Mentioned) Of Ingredients, Greed and Expediency: Big Chem and the Big Stink
Feb 26, 2016 | Earth Island Journal
By Ed Rampell
Jon Whelan’s documentary Stink! proves, among other things, that the feminist insight “the personal is political” remains true. -
(ACC Mentioned) Reduce Waste and Feed the Poor ... By Selling Expired Food?
Feb 26, 2016 | CBS News
By David Schepp
When it comes to feeding the world's population, it literally is feast or famine. According to the United Nations, a third of all food produced around the world for human consumption (about 1.3 billion tons) is lost or wasted... -
3 Pivotal Themes in Our Partnership with Walmart, And Why It's Important to Think Big
Feb 26, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
I’ll be honest: We had pushback from some of our board members and colleagues in the environmental community when we decided 10 years ago to put a team of experts in Bentonville, Arkansas, home of... -
US Agency Consults on PFOA, PFOS Immunotoxicity Monograph
Feb 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A draft monograph on immunotoxicity associated with exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), has been put out for consultation in the US. -
Microplastics Found in Treatment-Plant Discharges
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
Wastewater treatment plants are inadvertently dumping flecks of plastic into rivers, potentially affecting drinking water supplies, according to new research. -
Senate Reignites GMO Labeling Debate
Feb 26, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry Committee is expected to vote as early as this week on legislation that would prohibit states from requiring labels on genetically modified foods -
Will Consumers Scan QR Codes?
Feb 26, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Will consumers use their smartphones to figure whether the food they’re buying contains genetically engineered ingredients, or GMOs? -
U.S. Alert Confirms Grid Hack in Ukraine
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has broken its silence about suspicious power outages in western Ukraine late last year. -
Report: Rail Hazmat Safety Violations Should Be Prosecuted
Feb 26, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Joan Lowy
Federal regulators are failing to refer serious safety violations involving freight rail shipments of crude oil and other hazardous cargo for criminal prosecution, according to a report Friday by a government watchdog. -
Bid for Mercury Stay Tests Justices' Zeal for Curbing EPA
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
When the Supreme Court took the unusual step this month to freeze U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, many wondered whether it would be bombarded with bids to block environmental rules. -
Greenwire's Bravender Discusses Mercury Stay Request, Obama Nominee Discord
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E TV
All eyes are on the Supreme Court this week as President Obama weighs options for his pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. As the debate over a nominee continues, SCOTUS is considering several major energy... -
EPA Seeks States' Help on 'Background' Ozone Concerns Cited by Critics
Feb 26, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking state air regulators and others to help resolve concerns about naturally occurring “background” ozone air pollution including research gaps and tools states could use to calculate background levels... -
Western Regulators Rap EPA's Stance on Background Ozone
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
States in the Mountain West could face challenges meeting U.S. EPA's new ozone standard thanks to background levels of the gas, agency officials acknowledged at a workshop here this week... -
Alternative to Clean Power Plan Not Catching On
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Last month, a group of law school professors claimed Paris had armed U.S. EPA with an unprecedented tool that would allow it to achieve something like President Obama's first-term goal of a national carbon program. -
Sanders Shouldn't Hit 'Reset' on Clean Power Plan
Feb 26, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Richard Revesz
The Clean Power Plan is the most significant effort to date to control U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. -
Ore. 'Reassessing Landscape' After Stay
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Oregon is continuing to pursue greenhouse gas emissions reductions from its power sector, but its timeline for coming up with a plan to meet federal climate change regulations is up in the air. -
Bid for 6th Circuit CWA Lawsuit Review Could Help Overturn Permit Ruling
Feb 26, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
An expected petition for the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to reconsider a panel ruling giving the court power to hear suits over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule could be a vehicle for overturning... -
Time to Cut Natural Gas Waste on Federal Lands
Feb 26, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bob Abbey and Mike Dombeck
Each year on federal lands across the country, millions of dollars of revenue is literally released up into the air, robbing taxpayers of income generated by oil and gas royalties on public lands...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) What’s So Funny About a World Without Engineers?
Feb 26, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ryan Baldwin
A world without engineers actually isn’t funny — at all.
A world without engineers would look a lot like the frightening dystopias of science fiction or fantasy films. But there’s another way to consider that scenario – one that uses a lighter, more humorous touch.
Be An Engineer
Through its ‘Be An Engineer‘ initiative, ExxonMobil has chosen to use a little humor to talk about a complex challenge: the need for more engineers. Indeed, the company is collaborating with a variety of like-minded organizations to inspire the next generation of engineers.
Recently, ExxonMobil chose the theme of ‘A World Without Engineers’ as a lighthearted way to share resources and incredible stories of innovation – giving us a window into the lives of the engineers behind the myriad solutions, technologies and innovations that create the world as we know it.
Check out some of the videos below and you’ll see what we mean.
Who would have thought engineers are making such an impact on our day-to-day lives?
If there were no engineers, the world would be a lot less fun.
Thanks to engineers, accepting a dare from your big brother is safer than it used to be.
Solving 21st-Century Challenges – “It’s What You Do”
Engineers are critical to the way in which the world works. But more engineers, and more kinds of engineers, are needed to address the challenges facing the 21st century.
While the examples in these videos are fun and meant to make us smile a bit, there are many other examplesof engineering that are quite literally saving lives, and making our world safer and smarter.
So, if you’re an engineer, you help make the things that make modern life possible. It’s what you do. If you want to help solve 21st century challenges, you study Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). It’s what you do!
Be sure to visit BeAnEngineer.com for more resources you can share with a young person in your life.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Of Ingredients, Greed and Expediency: Big Chem and the Big Stink
Feb 26, 2016 | Earth Island Journal
By Ed Rampell
Jon Whelan’s documentary Stink! proves, among other things, that the feminist insight “the personal is political” remains true. According to his film, the untimely death of Whelan’s wife Heather from breast cancer, combined with the pungent odor of brand new pajamas he bought for his daughters, propelled the New York-based writer/director to investigate the chemical industry. Like Ulysses with a camera, Whelan embarks on an odyssey that takes him from corporate boardrooms to the halls of Congress, pitting him against the Cyclops of Big Chem.
Bought as a Christmas present, the pajamas’ noticeable scent prompted Whelan to phone HQ Justice, the company selling the bedclothes. Unable to get answers as to the cause of the PJs’ smell from customer service reps, and after corporate executives declined to take or return his calls, Whelan sent the pajamas to a laboratory for testing, which turned up some dubious results.
Tired of being stonewalled, like Michael Moore hot on the heels of General Motors’ CEO in 1989’sRoger & Me, Whelan tracked down Justice’s then-CEO Michael Rayden at a Manhattan shareholders meeting. The documentarian is admitted to the meeting because he owns a single share of the publically-owned corporation. Confronted and questioned by Whelan, Rayden confesses he doesn’t know all of the chemicals that Justice uses.
But the 90-minute nonfiction film goes beyond just the ironically named Justice to take on the whole ethos and corporate culture of “Better Living Through Chemistry,” which chemical giant DuPont promoted beginning in the 1930s.
Starting with his initial phone calls to Justice, which are recorded and presented onscreen along with corporate employees’ voices, Whelan stumbles upon an astounding fact: The “Cancer Loophole” — Corporations do not have to disclose all of the ingredients on their products’ labels.
Under the innocent-sounding rubric of “fragrance,” many chemicals in perfumes, shaving creams, colognes, etc., do not have to be revealed because under existing law they are regarded as “recipes” similar to fast food’s secret sauce or Coke’s formula. Thus, they are regarded as “trade secrets” and legally protected like proprietary private information. This includes not having to disclose carcinogens and phthalates — endocrine disrupting chemicals impacting hormones — in products. People outraged by how financial deregulation enabled Wall Street to wreck the economy in 2008 should likewise scrutinize governmental oversight — or lack there of — of Big Chem.
While Mike Nichols depicted Karen Silkwood in a 1983 feature starring Meryl Streep about a metallurgy worker who tried to blow the whistle on a plutonium-processing plant, Whelan has Brandon Silk. This high school student is repeatedly hospitalized because, according to Stink!, although he doesn’t use Axe grooming products, some male classmates do. According to the film, the ingredients of these fragrances, deodorants, and antiperspirants, cause Silk’s throat to close, making it hard for him to swallow — just a whiff sickens him.
Although these household and other products may contain harmful chemicals, Axe’s TV commercials, targeting vulnerable teenage boys, depict hordes of scantily clad young women ravishing an Axe-wearing young man. Axe does not divulge the ingredients in its products. Skeptical about Axe’s lack of disclosure Brandon’s mother, Rosa Silk, asks the question that sums up Stink!’s main point: “What are you hiding?”
Axe isn’t the only offender. The documentary goes on to expose how some stores, such as Abercrombie & Fitch (notorious for sexualized advertising), deploy fragrances to affect moods of shoppers in their stores.
This problem has metastasized to the point where, according to Stink!, even some charities are suspect. The doc alleges that at least one 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization investing in anti-breast cancer research opportunistically ballyhoos “Promise Me” perfume. Additional research conducted for this review yielded similar concerns cited by separate sources not mentioned in the wide-ranging documentary. In 2012, for example, AlterNet reported on the Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s involvement with the perfume: “It was discovered that the organization’s pink ribbon-branded Promise Me perfume contained hormone-disrupting chemicals like galaxolide.”
Stink! also rather disturbingly exposes that federal agencies designated to be the public’s governmental watchdogs — including the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency — have little actual regulatory and oversight powers vis-à-vis the corporate chemical behemoths when it comes to disclosure of chemical use. Much of Big Chem’s disclosure is, the nonfiction film charges, “voluntary” — as to be expected, few companies comply. Chillingly, Stink!contends that this lack of mandatory disclosure even extends to one of environmentalists’ biggestenfants terribles, fracking, which the doc contends includes a process that unleashes a “toxic stew of chemicals.” At the possible expense of public health, the ingredients in the frackers’ stew are protected from disclosure because they’re — you know! — “trade secrets.”
Talk about “fracked up:” Whelan and director of photography Daniel Carter take their camera to the topsy-turvy Alice in Wonderland that is Washington, DeCeit. There, then-Senator John Kerry chews out FDA bureaucrats onscreen, proclaiming “you don’t protect America,” because their toothless bureaucracy can’t demand chemical disclosures or product recalls.
Stink! also highlights that the European Union bans 11,000 ingredients and chemicals permitted in the United States, adding that even developing nations, such as Egypt, have been far more proactive on this front than the US. Andy Igrejas, national campaign director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, one of several eco-activists interviewed onscreen, poignantly points out: “Made in America should be a positive thing, not a warning label.” The doc cleverly adds that permissive American policies can actually undercut US competitiveness and trade — the EU and other nations may not want to import products when companies don’t disclose if they use ingredients violating foreign laws.
Whelan also waylays New Jersey GOP Congressman Leonard Lance, a Big Chem mouthpiece who received $79,000 in contributions from the Health Products/Pharmaceuticals industry in 2015-2016 according to the Center for Responsive Politics’s www.opensecrets.org. According to the website, which is dedicated to “informing citizens about how money in politics affects their lives,” Lance’s largest donor for this period is NJ-headquartered Celgene Corp., a global biopharmaceutical company that contributed $12,400, while California-based Amgen Inc., a biotechnology company with a worldwide reach, came in second, donating $5,100, mostly from its PAC. Lance sponsored the Orwellian-named Cosmetic Safety Amendment Act of 2012, which Stink! argues would actually have made makeup more unsafe had it passed.
Inside the US Capitol Building our man Whelan catches up with Cal Dooley, a former Democratic Congressman who “traded up,” and has, instant presto, become the president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), earning $1 million-plus per year. Whelan wails into Dooley, asking: “Does a consumer have a right to know if there’s a carcinogen in a product for a baby?” (Indeed, inquiring minds want to know.) Whelan plaintively adds, “Industry wants to have it both ways. They don’t want to prove chemicals are safe and they don’t want to disclose their ingredients.” Conscious that the camera is running, Dooley appears to remain affable during the encounter as the Big Chem mouthpiece double-talks Whelan, spewing the company line until he can make his getaway.
Whelan also exposes the corrupting role of lobbying in capitalist America’s pay-for-play political system and tangles with ACC lobbyist Stephen Rosario, who predictably argues “bans are very drastic.” However, Stink! claims only five out of 80,000 ingredients have actually been prohibited in the US.
Stink! also touches on the ACC’s lobbying with respect to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. While Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) strive to strengthen the EPA-administered TSCA, which regulates the introduction of new or already existing chemicals, ACC predictably advocates “modernizing” the TSCA with legislation that Stink! argues would defang and further de-regulate the Act.
Why does Big Chem resist revealing all of its ingredients, including chemicals that aren’t even banned (at least in America)? “Businesses are writing the rules… that increase profitability,” entrepreneur Jeffrey Hollander, who has argued for sustainable business practices and is formerly of Seventh Generation, says in the film. Identifying components that are carcinogenic and/or otherwise considered to be health hazards could deter consumers from using those products and perhaps lead to their prohibition. Thus labeling — and truth in advertising — can cut into corporations’ bottom lines, just as labeling foods using GMOs could reduce Monsanto’s profits.
Detractors may argue Whelan’s politics are too personal and that, considering his wife’s early death and anxiety concerning his young daughters, he’s far too emotionally involved to objectively report what he himself calls a “love, crime and mystery story.” But others are likely to find that Whelan rightfully “objects” to unfair possible hazards, and in making such a big stink over Big Chem’s refusal to provide disclosure, he’s a muckraker in the tradition of Upton Sinclair, whose 1906 novelThe Jungle laid bare the meatpacking industry’s unsanitary conditions. And by shining a light on Big Chem’s big cover-up in his engaging, well-made film, Jon Whelan reminds us, as the Beatles sang in their 1968 “White Album:” “Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey.”
Stink! was released February 16 on VOD on Amazon, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Vimeo.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Reduce Waste and Feed the Poor ... By Selling Expired Food?
Feb 26, 2016 | CBS News
By David Schepp
When it comes to feeding the world's population, it literally is feast or famine. According to the United Nations, a third of all food produced around the world for human consumption (about 1.3 billion tons) is lost or wasted, even as nearly a billion people worldwide lack enough food to lead a healthy active life.
In Copenhagen, one supermarket is looking to reduce waste while helping to feed the poor by selling food with past due sell-by dates and damaged packaging for as much as half the price posted at regular stores. Known as WeFood, the store is Denmark's first surplus food supermarket.
The nonprofit behind the concept, Folkekirkens Nodhjaelp, wants to appeal to both low-income consumers with tight budgets and environmentally conscious shoppers.
To round out its offerings, WeFood has made agreements with suppliers of citrus fruits, meat, and organic fruit and nut bars. It also struck a deal with one of the biggest supermarket chains in Denmark for bread and other products.
Annually, Denmark wastes about 770,000 tons of food, though the country today throws away about 25 percent less food than it did five years, an effort aided in part by reduced prices for nearly expired food at many supermarkets.
In France, a law passed this month requires supermarkets to donate unsold food to charities and food banks and prohibits retailers from pouring bleach on items tossed in the garbage, a tactic used to thwart foragers. The senator who introduced the legislation is now looking to establish a similar ban across the entire European Union.
For many U.S. consumers, the thought of buying food that is expired (or nearly so) is incomprehensible, though efforts are being made to help shoppers better understand what the dates printed on packages mean.
The confusion is one reason Americans throw away about $640 worth of food every year, according to a recent survey from the American Chemistry Council. (The U.S. also is tops among nations in the amount of food wasted each year, with as much as 40 percent of all food produced in the country getting thrown out.)
To make better use of food that would otherwise go wasted, former Trader Joe's executive Doug Rauch opened an "expired" food market in Boston last summer.
Known as Daily Table, the membership-only supermarket offers steep discounts (much like WeFood) on fresh food and pantry staples. Daily Table is aided in its effort to sell food at such cheap prices through donations and by purchasing food that other supermarkets aren't willing to buy.
And despite what the labels may suggest, the food is safe. The date printed on packaging clues consumers into when the product is at its best, peak flavor, said Rauch.
The flavor or quality may start to degrade over time, but food safety isn't an issue, said Rauch.
For now, Daily Table has just one location -- in Boston's Dorchester neighborhood -- but the nonprofit business hopes to grow the concept across Massachusetts and the nation.
After opening last summer, the store was greeted by crowds eager to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables that aren't easy to find in the low-income area. But the concept also met with some resistance from local activists, who said Rauch was peddling "hand-me-down" food.
-
3 Pivotal Themes in Our Partnership with Walmart, And Why It's Important to Think Big
Feb 26, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
I’ll be honest: We had pushback from some of our board members and colleagues in the environmental community when we decided 10 years ago to put a team of experts in Bentonville, Arkansas, home of Walmart’s headquarters.
Back then, Environmental Defense Fund was the only nonprofit willing to let the public know we were meeting with Walmart. The world’s largest private employer had its critics, and still does.
But we saw in Walmart incredible potential to drive sustainability, and were determined to make the most of the company’s rare convergence of market power and environmental ambition. We began a partnership that continues to bring outsized environmental results that extend far beyond a single company.
This week, as I joined Walmart’s Chief Sustainability Officer Kathleen McLaughlin on stage at the GreenBiz16 conference in Phoenix, we talked about three pivotal themes that helped elevate this extraordinary partnership to heights neither side had imagined.
1) Big goals are key; we took risks to achieve them.
We wanted to help Walmart set big goals, especially when it came to addressing climate impacts.
When we first started, however, nobody knew quite how to meet those goals, so we tried lots of things. We experimented with temperature adjustments for storing ice cream, relabeled apparel to have it washed in cold water, and encouraged Walmart to work with Unilever to sell water-efficient shower heads.
We also suffered setbacks.
For retailers, when a carton of eggs contains even one damaged egg, the whole carton must be thrown out. That’s translates into 5 billion perfectly good eggs being tossed annually.
Our idea: Label individual eggs so that any damaged eggs could be replaced at the store. For Walmart, this would mean a daily saving of 1 million eggs, 10 billion gallons of water, 29 million gallons of fuel use, and $50 million in costs.
That’s until a regulatory roadblock put an end to the project. Health regulations don’t allow repackaging egg cartons at retail stores.
We cut our losses – and pushed on.
2) The supply chain is where you reach scale
The size of Walmart’s operations was staggering, its influence in the retail industry was unmatched and its significant brand visibility all added up to extraordinary possibility.
We hoped Walmart could make its operations more efficient, and that it would set an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goal.
What we hadn’t considered at the outset was the massive opportunity hiding in Walmart’s extensive supply chain. Importantly, 90 percent of Walmart’s environmental footprint is in the company’s supply chain.
Walmart gave us access to the inner workings of its business – to the staff and to the company’s data. In turn, we showed them the analysis and guideposts for the road ahead.
Together, we zeroed in on finding the biggest greenhouse gas hot spots in the chain – and that’s when we started to really create change at scale.
3) Opportunities multiply faster than you think
The ripple effect of our partnership with Walmart has reached hundreds of influential brands, hundreds of thousands of suppliers and millions of consumers.
Our work on Walmart’s chemicals policy catalyzed taking toxics out of more than 10,000 products. That action has shown other retailers, and public policy makers that we can have safer lotions, cleaners, shampoos and other household products.
Now more than 80 percent of products on retail shelves are being evaluated.
What started as a partnership between two organizations became a collaborative effort among many. The results speak for themselves.An approach that works
GreenBiz Chairman and Executive Editor Joel Makower asked Kathleen why, with all the great non-profits that Walmart works with, has the partnership with EDF succeeded for so long?
She responded that our grounding in science, pragmatic approach and ability to speak the language of business was exactly what Walmart needed to move forward.
As Walmart solidifies its sustainability goals for the next 10 years, we’ll continue to look to science, pragmatism and proven market-based solutions to help Walmart match its new goals to the company’s scale and influence.
Most of all, we will continue to work together to find opportunities to further define what corporate leadership needs to be, now and in the future, so that we can assure that both business and the planet can thrive.
-
US Agency Consults on PFOA, PFOS Immunotoxicity Monograph
Feb 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A draft monograph on immunotoxicity associated with exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), has been put out for consultation in the US.
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) prepared the draft, and the consultation is being carried out by Office of Health Assessment and Translation (Ohat). This is a division of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). It serves “as an environmental health resource to the public and regulatory health agencies”.
There have been dramatic reductions in PFOS and PFOA emissions as a result of voluntary usage phase-outs. However, their persistence and bioaccumulation has resulted in detectable levels in the US population. They are therefore “of potential human health relevance”, says a Federal Register notice.
Both substances have been “used extensively” over the past half century in such applications as:
water-resistant coatings;
lubricants;
food packaging; and
fire-retarding foams.
PFOA and PFOS are also the subject of evaluation by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha). It is preparing hazard identification materials that will be used to determine whether the substances should be listed under Proposition 65.
Public comments will be accepted on the draft until 5 July. A hearing will take place on 19 July.
-
Microplastics Found in Treatment-Plant Discharges
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
Wastewater treatment plants are inadvertently dumping flecks of plastic into rivers, potentially affecting drinking water supplies, according to new research.
Researchers have found that water downstream from plants have a higher concentration of so-called microplastics that can then travel long distances and remain in the ecosystem. These plastic bits -- less than 5 millimeters wide -- originate from face washes, cleaning solutions, clothing and numerous other products.
Until recently, most research has focused on the threat microplastics pose to oceans. But Timothy Hoellein, an assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago, is looking at rivers, which transport plastics to oceans and provide drinking water.
"It maybe even presents the opportunity that management could be more effective," Hoellein said in an interview this week at the 2016 Ocean Sciences Meeting here. "It's hard to come up with a solution for a problem that's spread all over the ocean. But if we know a good deal of it is coming from the rivers and maybe identify some of those sources, I think we're just a step closer to practical solutions."
Hoellein presented new research on 10 urban rivers in Illinois. In eight of those rivers, he and fellow researchers found that wastewater treatment plants were a source of microplastics.
That's because plant's filters are not designed to handle microplastics, a relatively newly recognized pollutant. Between 15,000 and 4.5 million microplastic particles were released daily into rivers by each plant. Those particles also harbored bacteria that may be harmful to the river ecosystem.
The research has not yet been published, but it follows in the vein of a previous study from Hoellein that found that water downstream from a wastewater treatment plant had a higher concentration of microplastics.
-
Senate Reignites GMO Labeling Debate
Feb 26, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry Committee is expected to vote as early as this week on legislation that would prohibit states from requiring labels on genetically modified foods. A draft version of the bill, released earlier this month by the committee’s chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), has rekindled debate over labeling GMO foods.
The measure has garnered broad support from the food and agriculture industry, which is pushing for a national approach to labeling GMO foods. In the absence of federal action, several states have passed their own laws that would require labels on such foods. The first of these state laws will go into effect in July in Vermont—unless Congress stops it.
In a Feb. 23 letter to Roberts, hundreds of farmers, food manufacturers, and other industry representatives urged lawmakers to quickly pass the bill, which has yet to be formally introduced. They claim that a patchwork of state food labeling laws will harm producers and lead to higher food prices.
Food safety and consumer groups, however, are strongly opposed to Roberts’s bill, saying it would deny consumers the right to know what is in their food.
Some Democrats are also speaking out against the bill, including presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), who claims that the majority of Americans favor labeling of GMO foods. “We cannot allow the interests of Monsanto and other multinational food industry corporations to prevail,” Sanders says.
The House of Representatives passed a similar bill (H.R. 1599) last year that would also prohibit states from requiring the labeling of GMO foods.
-
Feb 26, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Will consumers use their smartphones to figure whether the food they’re buying contains genetically engineered ingredients, or GMOs?
Opponents of GMO labeling are urging Congress to block state laws that require such labeling and are instead offering the voluntary “SmartLabel” initiative as an alternative.
The problem with that is, new analysis by the digital marketing agency HZDGsuggests that most consumers have not used QR – for “Quick Response” – codes and aren’t likely to use them any time soon.
What’s more, new polling by the Mellman Group also shows that the number of shoppers who scan QR codes to get information about products is low – and not growing.
The Mellman poll shows that few Americans have ever scanned a QR code and that nine of every 10 want a GMO label right on the package – not a high tech alternative.
Another reason codes are no substitute for simple labels is that many people still don’t have smart phones. Roughly one third of Americans – especially low income, less educated and elderly people – don’t have phones that can scan QR codes. The HZDG analysis suggests installing scanners in every supermarket aisle, but that would be costly for retailers and inconvenient for shoppers.
One problem identified by HZDG is that many consumers wouldn’t know that scanning a QR code would provide them with more information. Even if food companies put QR codes on the package, there would be no prompt – such as “scan here for GMO” – on the box, so shoppers wouldn’t know that the code would tell them more about their food.
Another problem identified by HZDG is that scanners won’t work if the codes are too small or supermarkets are poorly lit. Codes on bags – for instance, bags of potato chips – are very difficult to scan because they are not on a flat surface.
But the biggest problem with the industry’s proposal is that it’s completely voluntary. Food companies could include a code on their packages – or not. And they could drop out of the program at any time.
-
U.S. Alert Confirms Grid Hack in Ukraine
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has broken its silence about suspicious power outages in western Ukraine late last year.
The verdict? Dec. 23 blackouts affecting nearly a quarter of a million customers were caused by "external cyber-attackers," according to an alert posted yesterday by DHS's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT).
"While power has been restored, all the impacted [power distributors] continue to run under constrained operations," ICS-CERT said. "In addition, three other organizations, some from other critical infrastructure sectors, were also intruded upon but did not experience operational impacts."
While cybersecurity experts expected the conclusion, they were surprised that it took a full two months for U.S. officials to confirm an event with potentially major geopolitical and security implications.
"When dealing with international incidents that set dangerous precedents, such as a clearly coordinated and intentional cyber attack against civilian infrastructure, there must be a more coordinated effort with messaging to a variety of audiences," said Robert M. Lee, former Air Force cyber warfare operations officer and an instructor at the SANS Institute, in a blog postyesterday.
The SANS industrial control systems team had members on the ground in Ukraine looking at technical data and interviewing experts in the wake of the attacks on three power distributors there, according to Lee. They joined a long list of U.S. government investigators and utility industry representatives who made the trip to Eastern Europe for a firsthand look at the mysterious incident.
A large number of people were likely involved in the planning and execution of the attack itself, based on ICS-CERT's alert and input from private cybersecurity analysts. Regional power utilities had been infected with the complex BlackEnergy suite of malware months before the blackouts, perhaps allowing hackers to learn login credentials that they later used to break into industrial control networks (EnergyWire, Feb. 1). While the attackers flipped power breakers across Ukraine to turn off the lights Dec. 23, others simultaneously called into utilities' support lines, slowing recovery by preventing real customers from reporting outages.
The hackers were also able to "corrupt" key devices that translate data from far-flung substations into communications that modern computers can understand and interact with, according to ICS-CERT.
Electric utilities in the United States often use the same serial-to-Ethernet converters at their own substations to remotely monitor equipment, according to Chris Sistrunk, senior industrial control system security consultant at Mandiant, a FireEye Inc. company.
"Distribution utilities all over the world should be paying attention to this, because they could be vulnerable if they don't have mitigations in place," Sistrunk told EnergyWire.
That includes smaller utilities in the United States that do not fall under the critical infrastructure protection regulations set through the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC), he added. Those rules apply only to utilities on the bulk electric power grid.
NERC has said there is no evidence that the BlackEnergy malware leveraged in the Ukraine attack leaked its way into U.S. systems. Spokeswoman Kimberly Mielcarek said the organization's information sharing and analysis center issued a confidential alert Feb. 9 with recommendations to its members. She said NERC agrees with the on-site team's assessment that the event was a bona fide cyberattack, but declined to share additional details.
Representatives from NERC were part of the interagency team that visited Ukraine to learn more about the attack, joining the FBI, DHS, the Department of Energy and private-sector analysts.
The government of Ukraine was also closely involved, although Ukrainian authorities have gone a step further than their U.S. counterparts in attributing the cyberattack to Russia. Ukraine and Russia have been locked in a bloody conflict dating back to Moscow's March 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.
A persistent threat
While the Obama administration has stopped short of pinning the Dec. 23 grid hack on Russia, senior intelligence officials have sounded the alarm about that country's advanced cyber capabilities in recent years.
"Russia is assuming a more assertive cyber posture based on its willingness to target critical infrastructure systems and conduct espionage operations even when detected and under increased public scrutiny," warned James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, in astatement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence earlier this month.
At a hearing yesterday on emerging cyberthreats and vulnerabilities, House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) warned that Chinese and Russian hackers "might be sitting in our [grid] systems at a point where they can turn it off" should the need arise.
Speakers at the same hearing didn't mince words when discussing the cyberthreat to critical infrastructure systems across the world.
Frank Cilluffo, director of the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University, briefly laid out the "disturbing" details of the Ukraine grid cyberattack for members of the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies Subcommittee.
"If anyone thought this was a glitch, think again," he said, describing how attackers methodically overwhelmed utility call centers to hamper the response.
"U.S. critical infrastructure -- notably lifeline sectors such as energy and electricity, telecommunications, transportation, water and financial services ... are in the crosshairs and are primary targets for cyberattacks and cyber crimes," he said.
-
Report: Rail Hazmat Safety Violations Should Be Prosecuted
Feb 26, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Joan Lowy
Federal regulators are failing to refer serious safety violations involving freight rail shipments of crude oil and other hazardous cargo for criminal prosecution, according to a report Friday by a government watchdog.
The Federal Railroad Administration routinely applies moderate penalties no more how serious the safety violation in order to avoid litigation, said the report by the Department of Transportation's inspector general. A random sample of safety violations over five years found 17 cases that agency should have referred for criminal investigation, the report said.
The agency also doesn't have a complete understanding of the risks of rail shipments of hazardous cargo, including more than 400,000 tank cars of oil shipped across the country annually, the watchdog found. That's because agency only looks narrowly at operations in specific regions, not the nation as a whole, the report said.
The regional evaluations also don't include an assessment of the risks of transporting highly volatile and hazardous materials like crude oil near cities and major population centers, the report said.
There has been a series of fiery oil train explosions in the U.S. and Canada in recent years, including one just across the border in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people.
The inspector general also faulted the agency's complex records system, saying it makes difficult for inspectors to access safety information on rail operations outside their region. As a result, the railroad administration and a sister agency, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, don't share critical and up-to-date information with safety inspectors and investigators in different regions throughout the country.
The report confirms "that the federal government has failed to provide the necessary oversight to protect communities across the country from serious accidents involving the rail transportation of hazardous materials," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.
Matt Lehner, an FRA spokesman, said most of the inspector general's recommendations are being implemented. He noted that the agency collected $15 million in fines for violations in the 2015 federal budget year, a 12 percent increase over the previous year and the most in the agency's history.
-
Bid for Mercury Stay Tests Justices' Zeal for Curbing EPA
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
When the Supreme Court took the unusual step this month to freeze U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, many wondered whether it would be bombarded with bids to block environmental rules.
Sure enough, just two weeks later, another request has landed at the court.
This time, a 20-state coalition is asking Chief Justice John Roberts to halt another major rule meant to crack down on power plants' mercury emissions. The request is unusual, given that a lower court just refused to freeze that regulation, but foes of the Obama administration appear to be testing the justices' willingness to grant such requests.
"Everyone's closely watching this," said Tom Lorenzen, a former Justice Department attorney who represents industry clients at Crowell & Moring. "Obviously, anything the Supreme Court does is going to be read closely and viewed as tea leaves for the reading."
Agreeing to block the rule against the wishes of a federal appeals court and the Obama administration would send a signal that the court is willing to step in to smack down environmental regulations, and could open the floodgates for even more requests to intervene. But a rejection could suggest that the court's unprecedented decision to stay the Clean Power Plan was unique and that the justices won't be broadly willing to meddle with other rules.
On Tuesday, Michigan's attorney general, Bill Schuette (R), led the group of states urging the high court to step in and block EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) (E&E Daily, Feb. 24).
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last year that the mercury regulation was illegal because EPA hadn't properly considered costs, and sent the case back to a federal appeals court for further action. But the justices didn't obliterate the rule then, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later agreed to keep the rule in place while EPA tweaked its rule to justify the costs (Greenwire, June 29, 2015).
After the Clean Power Plan stay, the states saw an opening. "This request closely follows behind the Court's decision this month to stay President Obama and the EPA's Clean Power Plan, another example of EPA legal overreach," Schuette said in a statement earlier this week.
A stay is "even more warranted here, after this Court has reviewed EPA's finding authorizing the Mercury Rule and has found it to be unlawful and in excess of EPA's authority under that same Act," the states said.
The states' lawyers contend that a stay of the mercury rule is needed to preserve the Supreme Court's authority to toss out the rule after EPA tweaks its cost considerations, which the agency has said it plans to do by mid-April. The states asked the justices to halt the rule until EPA issues that new cost finding or until the court resolves a future request to quash the rule entirely.
Roberts -- who handles stay applications for D.C. Circuit actions -- asked for the Obama administration to respond to the states' request by next Wednesday. Roberts could have rejected the petition without asking for EPA's input, so the fact that he has asked for a response could signal that he's receptive to weighing the states' arguments.
But Scott Fulton, a former EPA general counsel and president of the Environmental Law Institute, said he doesn't "read anything particular" into Roberts' request for an agency response. "It simply means that they're trying to make sure that their process is a fair one."
Roberts' move
After EPA makes its case to the court, Roberts could do one of two things: act on the request alone or confer with his colleagues, which he did in the case of the Clean Power Plan. The 5-4 decision to stay the Clean Power Plan was opposed by the court's four liberals.
Should Roberts act alone to stay the rule, the administration could appeal to the other justices, but it's unclear whether the four liberals could find a fifth vote to override Roberts' decision. If Roberts refers the application to the full court, however, it could split 4-4 along ideological lines, since Justice Antonin Scalia's death has left the court with just eight members.
Roberts acting on his own "would be very unusual, given his interest in the institution of the court and its reputation," Lorenzen said. If the full court makes the decision, "I don't know who that five-justice majority would be at this point without Scalia," he added, noting that securing a stay here is "really an uphill battle."
There are some big distinctions between the lawsuits over the Clean Power Plan and the mercury rule.
"There are a lot of unique factors involved in the MATS litigation," said Bob Sussman, a former senior EPA official in the Obama and Clinton administrations. Notably, he said, "the Supreme Court has in fact issued a decision [in the mercury case], whereas they're a long way off from deciding the merits of the Clean Power Plan, so there are critical differences here."
Fulton said the mercury case is unusual, and a decision on a stay could be viewed as the "court really trying to effectuate or clarify its earlier ruling." It could send a "very narrow message" and shouldn't be viewed as "a harbinger of things to come."
However, Fulton said, "unless and until the court denies one of these in a fairly decisive way, it at a minimum ensures that we're going to see these kinds of stay requests coming forward."
As it did with its Clean Power Plan decision, the court could issue an opaque short order giving little information about why it acted the way it did. Alternatively, the justices could use the opportunity to offer more guidance about future requests.
"It'll be interesting to see whether the court in addressing this expresses itself in some way," said Fulton. "They could try to stem the flow, and there may be some value to doing that if they are not interested in opening up a spigot."
Greenwire's Bravender discusses mercury stay request on E&ETV's The Cutting Edge
All eyes are on the Supreme Court this week as President Obama weighs options for his pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. As the debate over a nominee continues, SCOTUS is considering several major energy and environment cases. On today's The Cutting Edge, Greenwire reporter Robin Bravender discusses the future of these cases, including the request to stay EPA's mercury and air toxics rule.
Click here to watch E&ETV's The Cutting Edge.
-
Greenwire's Bravender Discusses Mercury Stay Request, Obama Nominee Discord
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E TV
All eyes are on the Supreme Court this week as President Obama weighs options for his pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. As the debate over a nominee continues, SCOTUS is considering several major energy and environment cases. On today's The Cutting Edge, Greenwire reporter Robin Bravender discusses the future of these cases, including the request to stay U.S. EPA's mercury and air toxics rule.
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to The Cutting Edge. All eyes on the Supreme Court this week as President Obama weighs options for his pick to replace Justice Scalia. Greenwire's Robin Bravender is here with all the latest details on the president's short list and the court's current action on energy and environment cases. Robin, news yesterday that Nevada's Republican Governor Sandoval is bowing out of consideration for a position on the high court. He was thought to be a more centrist choice. How does this change the already divisive dynamic that exists between Congress and the president over this pick?
Robin Bravender: Sandoval dropped out of the nomination process about 24 hours after it was reported that he was being vetted for the job. So that goes to show that the White House might have a really hard job finding anyone to be their nominee. President Obama has said he wants someone who's eminently qualified. He's looking at prime candidates, but it might be hard to find someone who wants to undergo this sort of political controversy. The White House is trying to move forward on this this week or next week. President Obama has said he's inviting top Senate leaders to come and talk about this. But Republicans have indicated they have no plans of budging, so it's unclear how they'll move forward.
Monica Trauzzi: Who else do we think is on the president's list?
Robin Bravender: The White House is keeping their short list pretty close to the vest at this point. A number of federal judges and Democratic politicians have been speculated to be in the running; however, as we saw with Sandoval, they might be looking for someone who's a little bit outside the box to try to get through this Republican impasse in the Senate. A number of the judges that are under consideration or rumored to be under consideration are Sri Srinivasan at the D.C. Circuit, also Merrick Garland and Patricia Millett from the D.C. Circuit. Then over at the 9th Circuit there's Paul Watford, Jacqueline Nguyen, Jane Kelly on the 8th Circuit. And some of the Democratic politicians are Attorney General Loretta Lynch and then Kamala Harris from California, but it's unclear if the White House will nominate someone from that list or someone else entirely.
Monica Trauzzi: So energy and environment issues playing big this week with the court. This week states requested the Supreme Court stay EPA's mercury and air toxics rule, and Chief Justice Roberts has asked EPA to respond to the stay request. How much of a surprise was this request on the heels of the Supreme Court granting a stay on the Clean Power Plan, and does this signal that the Clean Power Plan stay has in fact changed the game?
Robin Bravender: Not entirely a surprise. A number of people thought after the Clean Power Plan stay that challengers would be asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on any major EPA rule that was controversial just because they'd signaled that they had an appetite to do so, so in that sense not surprising. However, it is a pretty extraordinary request for the Supreme Court to step in and block a regulation that the D.C. Circuit has said they wouldn't step in to block. So we'll see what the Supreme Court does. Chief Justice Roberts could decide to block that rule on his own. If he does that, it would be hard for the liberal wing of the court to stop that from happening given that they don't have five votes on the court. They would need a majority. He could consult with his colleagues, in which case there might be a four-four split and the rule would stay in place. So we'll see what happens there. EPA is supposed to weigh in next week.
Monica Trauzzi: The court heard a major energy case as well this week, and you reported that the justices seemed skeptical about Maryland's program that gives incentives for specific power generation. What was argued in that case and sort of what signals did you see from the judges?
Robin Bravender: It's a big energy case. We're seeing Maryland is arguing that their state power incentive plan is needed to ensure that they've got the appropriate mix of power. They're backed by other states. And then on the other side is a power generator backed by the Obama administration saying that the program improperly impedes on federal regulators' turf. So the arguments were interesting there. At one point we saw Justice Sonia Sotomayor asking the challenger who's challenging the rules say, "If I'm writing this opinion knocking down this program, how exactly should I write it?" which was a pretty strong signal that the justices won't allow this program to move forward. They might -- they appeared to be looking for some ways to allow state power incentives to move forward in some ways, so they might try to find a narrow way to do that. But we'll see when they issue their opinion sometime before June.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, a lot going on. Thanks, Robin.
Robin Bravender: Thanks, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: More Cutting Edge coming next Friday. We'll see you then.
-
EPA Seeks States' Help on 'Background' Ozone Concerns Cited by Critics
Feb 26, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking state air regulators and others to help resolve concerns about naturally occurring “background” ozone air pollution including research gaps and tools states could use to calculate background levels, which the agency's critics have said EPA is underestimating and will make it impossible for some areas to attain federal ozone limits.
In a white paper and subsequent Feb. 24-25 workshop on background ozone held in Phoenix, AZ, EPA officials reiterated their claim that although levels of the pollution are a concern they are unlikely to hinder states' ability to meet the 70 parts per billion (ppb) ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) the agency issued Oct. 1. However, EPA is seeking input on various technical and regulatory questions about natural ozone.
But EPA's critics continue to argue that the agency is underestimating the extent of the background ozone problem, and GOP lawmakers are also faulting what they saw as limited access to this week's workshop. The first day of the two-day event was closed to the public, consisting of private talks between EPA and state, tribal and local air regulators.
In a statement, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said, “It’s encouraging that EPA has agreed to come to Phoenix to hear firsthand how -- without commonsense changes -- its proposed ozone rule could devastate Arizona’s economy, but I share stakeholders' concerns that that some of the most important discussions are set to take place behind closed doors.”
Background ozone is a major concern for some states because it is uncontrollable, and so if a state would attain the NAAQS but for background ozone there is nothing they could do to come into attainment. That would put areas out of attainment with the standard, which triggers a requirement to impose costly emissions reduction mandates on industrial sources of ozone-forming pollutants. EPA's critics say this harms economies in such areas.
In the white paper released last year ahead of the workshop, EPA defines U.S. background (USB) as any ozone formed from sources or processes other than U.S. man-made emissions of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, methane, and carbon monoxide. The agency recognizes that others may define background differently, however. EPA also said background levels are slowly rising domestically and globally.
However, the paper downplayed concerns from GOP lawmakers, some states, industry organizations, and others that background ozone could prevent some areas attaining the 70 ppb NAAQS.
Because local regulators cannot control background ozone, this raises fears that when background levels approach the level of the NAAQS, violations of the standard may be unavoidable. EPA has touted several mechanisms to help states faced with high background ozone, including the agency's revamped “exceptional events” policy that provides regulatory exemptions for periods of pollution driven by events such as wildfires.
Background Ozone
In a workshop presentation, EPA staff reiterated the findings of their December white paper, which found that while overall ozone levels continue to fall across the United States, “mid-tropospheric [ozone] concentrations in remote areas, within the U.S. and globally, may have been increasing over the past two decades at a rate of approximately 0.4 ppb/year within an overall uncertainty range of 0.1 to 0.7 ppb/year.”
“Whether this trend continues is largely dependent upon global changes in emissions of methane, as well as changes in other manmade [ozone] precursor emissions outside of the U.S., which are highly uncertain,” EPA says.
Nonetheless, “U.S. manmade emission sources are generally the dominant contributor to the modeled exceedances of the 2015 [ozone] NAAQS, nationally and within individual regions across the country."
While there can be “infrequent” events where ozone concentrations approach or exceed 70 ppb “largely due to the influence of [USB] sources like a wildfire or stratospheric intrusion,” EPA says, “There is no indication that USB [ozone] concentrations alone will prevent attainment” of the NAAQS. Stratospheric intrusions are events where high-level ozone reaches into the lower atmosphere.
EPA in its presentation asks for workshop participants' help in answering key questions regarding USB, such as whether there are alternate definitions of background ozone that also concern stakeholders, or what improvements would might help better characterize background ozone levels across the United States.
EPA asks if it has identified all of the Clean Air Act mechanisms available to address background ozone, and what other approaches could be considered. The agency also asks if its has made sufficient tools, data and guidance available to use the mechanisms it has put forward, such as the exceptional events rule, and whether states want extra help.
Other mechanisms EPA has suggested states use to meet the NAAQS in areas with high background ozone include regulatory exemptions for rural areas with essentially no industries to imposed pollution controls on, and also exemptions for pollution of international origin.
Critics' Concerns
EPA's critics, however, question whether any of the regulatory exemptions offered will be adequate in practice to avoid ozone nonattainment designations for the 70 ppb standard, which will trigger the need to install potentially costly pollution controls on industry or limit industrial growth in order to reduce ozone.
The Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS), a free-market group, issued a report Feb. 25 entitled “A Natural Disadvantage: Punishing Arizona for Ozone Levels Beyond Its Control,” in which the group warns that background ozone will undermine the state's efforts to comply with the 70 ppb ozone NAAQS.
In a statement advertising the document's release, CRS says that “elevated amounts of background ozone could make complying with the EPA's stringent new ozone standard nearly impossible."
This could throw counties that include most of the state's population and economy into nonattainment, the report finds. Both the state's GOP governor, Douglas Ducey, and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) are on record as opposing the tougher ozone NAAQS, CRS notes.
CRS also issued formal comments on EPA's white paper, claiming the agency underestimated the extent of the background ozone problem, used inconsistent definitions of background, and did not examine the full range of scientific evidence available on the topic, among other failings.
Meanwhile, former EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Chairman Roger McClellan is echoing Flake's concerns about the first day of the workshop being private. CASAC is an independent panel that advises EPA on how to set NAAQS, including last year's decision to tighten the 2008 NAAQS of 75 ppb down to 70 ppb.
On a Feb. 23 conference call with reporters, McClellan said the entire event should have been open to the public. McClellan asked Janet McCabe, EPA's acting air policy chief, to open the event to all stakeholders or at least broadcast the proceedings to the public, but McCabe declined, he told reporters.
-
Western Regulators Rap EPA's Stance on Background Ozone
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
States in the Mountain West could face challenges meeting U.S. EPA's new ozone standard thanks to background levels of the gas, agency officials acknowledged at a workshop here this week, as federal and local officials rallied against the lower standard over concerns their states will be unable to comply.
During a two-day workshop here, EPA officials met with state, tribal and local air officials -- in a closed session limited to those people -- as well as with business interests, researchers and local elected leaders in a public session.
The sessions addressed the role of background ozone -- typically defined as coming from sources outside of local control, like stratospheric intrusions and wildfires -- as states look to begin the compliance process for a new 70-parts-per-billion ambient air quality standard set in October.
The standard is a reduction from the previous 75 ppb threshold set by the George W. Bush administration in 2008.
"If this wasn't challenging, we wouldn't be here," acknowledged Chet Wayland, director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Air Quality Assessment Division.
Similarly, Pat Dolwick, who heads the OAQPS Air Quality Modeling Group, acknowledged the Intermountain West is the "most problematic" region when addressing background ozone -- pointing to Flagstaff, Ariz.; Las Vegas; and the Great Basin region, which cuts across multiple states.
"These are sort of the places, the locations, where we expect background ozone to be most important to resolve in obtaining the standard," said Dolwick, who emphasized, however, that background ozone levels should not prevent those areas from meeting the attainment standard.
"This is a very complicated puzzle to untangle as we get into how to obtain the 70 ppb standard," Dolwick said.
His remarks echoed a white paper release by EPA in December -- which has drawn criticism from the Center for Regulatory Solutions, an offshoot of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, which asserts the document failed to include "relevant studies" (Greenwire, Feb. 23) -- although that document suggested Denver would be unlikely to meet the new standard.
During the public session here this week, researchers and industry representatives did raise concerns about models used to predict background ozone levels, noting inconsistencies between projections and recorded data, as well as the need to distinguish between the sources of background ozone -- whether from natural causes or from pollution carried across the Pacific Ocean from Asia to North America.
"There are no high-quality routine observations that can tell you day in and day out how much ozone is coming in and impacting the U.S.," said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researcher Owen Cooper, who called for more observation points along the West Coast.
Western States Air Resources Council Air Quality Program Manager Tom Moore similarly urged increased data collection.
"We're at a watershed moment in the western U.S., where we probably have to have more modeling and more careful evaluation of modeling and more data collection because we're going to be faced with a real challenge now that the standard is down quite a bit lower," Moore said.
Industry representatives and researchers likewise urged EPA to consider creating a more streamlined approach for states addressing spikes in ozone levels from forest fires or other incidents known as exceptional events.
Roger McClellan, a former chairman of the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, criticized EPA for pursuing the standard that could be difficult for Arizona and other states to achieve.
"Science does not make decisions. Certainly in the biological sciences, science does not make the decision. It's important that it be integrated, synthesized and then used to inform public policy," McClellan told EPA officials. "I'm concerned that EPA is really at the edge of the science, maybe out in front of the science."
Looking to Nov. for relief
The loudest objections to the new ambient air quality standard came from local officials, including Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem, a Republican whose district includes Tucson, Arizona City and Maricopa.
"We're compelled to ask, when will the Environmental Protection Agency recognize a commonly understood economic and scientific principle, which is the law of diminishing returns?" Finchem said.
He later added: "We suggest that the EPA should go back to a clean sheet of paper and construct a reasonable, scientifically justified ozone rule that does not do damage to the economic condition of our state and those around us so as to push it to the point of serious economic impairment."
Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation Chairman Jason Walker, who attended both days of the EPA workshop, similarly raised concerns that the new ozone standard could stall future development at the northern Utah reservation.
"We monitor for ozone on our reservation, and we don't have any development on our current reservation, yet we are seeing levels with the new standard ... we could be getting close to the threshold of being in nonattainment, and that could hinder future development," Walker said. "It's a big concern in our valley."
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) did not attend the meeting, but did slam the ozone standard in a statement released yesterday.
"It is laughable that the EPA admits it does not have a clear plan for dealing with background ozone generated by factors outside the state's control," Gosar wrote. "This means the EPA is literally attempting to punish Arizona for ozone pollution that is created in California, Mexico and even China. This out-of-control agency, under the leadership of President Obama, continues its lawless, ideological attack on energy producers in order to further its own control over the lives of every American."
Ray Keating, the chief economist for the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, argued that implementation of the standard would place undue costs on local businesses in Western states.
While the ozone standard is under assault in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- business groups argue the benchmark should have remained at 75 ppb, while environmentalists contend it should have been lowered to 60 ppb -- Keating suggested the regulation could be addressed elsewhere.
"Like so many other things, this will be decided in November," Keating said, referring to the looming presidential election.
-
Alternative to Clean Power Plan Not Catching On
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Last month, a group of law school professors claimed Paris had armed U.S. EPA with an unprecedented tool that would allow it to achieve something like President Obama's first-term goal of a national carbon program. But so far, the agency doesn't appear to be interested.
The January paper by university-based environmental law experts argued that the global climate deal would ensure that EPA met the criteria to finally use Section 115 of the Clean Air Act, which they say grants it the authority to compel states to amend their state implementation plans (SIPs) to cut carbon across their economies.
The joint report by Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law; UCLA School of Law's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment; and New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity got press attention. And its authors say they've been fielding inquires ever since.
"Behind the scenes, there are people who realize something has to give," said Michael Gerrard, a law professor at Columbia University and lead co-author. "That carbon has to be addressed in some fashion, and 115 may be a pathway to a market-based approach that is more flexible and broader than the Clean Power Plan."
The idea doesn't seem to be gaining traction with EPA and environmental groups, even as they gird for battle to defend the Clean Power Plan after the Supreme Court's move to delay its implementation. An agency spokeswoman earlier this week refused to answer questions about EPA's position on the international provision, asserting instead that "EPA firmly believes the Clean Power Plan will be upheld when the courts address its merits."
And Scott Fulton, the agency's former top lawyer, said earlier this week that he didn't expect EPA to divert any attention away from defending its flagship carbon rule while Obama is in office.
"My guess is that we will not see EPA moving in this direction at least in the near term, probably not until the other side of the Clean Power Plan litigation," said Fulton, now president of the Environmental Law Institute (E&ENews PM, Feb. 24).
To others, Section 115 seems like an awkward dance partner.
"It's not the most opportune time to suggest that maybe another approach would be better if you're at EPA or the Justice Department and you're defending your rule," said Dina Kruger, an environmental consultant and former director of EPA's climate division. "And I think they're pretty confident it will prevail."
'More solid' than CPP
Kruger, who while at EPA oversaw the crafting of EPA's finding that man-made carbon emissions endanger human health, said that a different approach to carbon regulation would be seen to compete with the Clean Power Plan at a time when its fate is the subject of litigation. A new approach would only be of interest, she said, if the courts found that the Clean Power Plan was irreparably flawed and forced the agency to find an entirely new regulatory approach.
And the states are likely to object if EPA changes the game on them at this stage, Kruger said. After the Supreme Court issued its stay on Feb. 9, at least 18 states stopped preparing plans to implement the rule. Others are either going forward with state plans or weighing their options (ClimateWire, Feb. 22).
"I'm not sure what kind of reaction you could expect from the states if all of a sudden you're getting off one horse and getting on another in the middle of the process," said Kruger.
But Section 115's proponents say it would complement rather than compete with the Clean Power Plan. There is nothing in the statute that would bar EPA from moving forward with both, they say. And while most believe EPA's current rule will survive the legal challenges, having a backstop in place wouldn't hurt, they say.
"I really don't see what the downside would be to proposing another rule at this point, from EPA's perspective," said Brian Potts, a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP.
Potts published a separate op-ed in Politico a few weeks after the law schools released their report, also arguing for a post-Paris 115 rule.
"I personally think it's on a lot more solid legal ground than the Clean Power Plan," he said in an interview with ClimateWire. "I think they should have used this in the first place."
The section in question is fairly straightforward. It requires EPA to meet two conditions before asking states to revise their SIPs. The first requires a finding that U.S. output of a pollutant endangers public health or welfare in a foreign country. The second is open to legal interpretation. But proponents read it in a way that says the condition is met if other countries work just as hard as the United States to lower their own emissions.
Finding that emissions from the United States affect other nations would be pretty easy. There's scientific evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other bodies that human-caused emissions are driving global warming, and the United States is the largest historic emitter.
Proponents of a Section 115 rule say EPA might have been able to make the case that reciprocity existed even before Paris. The agreement cinched it. EPA can now show that other countries are giving the same assurances to the United States about cutting emissions that America gives to them.
"Indeed, the Paris Agreement provides for both an 'enhanced transparency framework,' through which the U.S. can comment on other countries' climate action, and the submission of [reduction pledges], which include significant pledges to mitigate GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions," the report states.
Section 115 cuts more carbon
With those conditions met, EPA could call on states to revise their SIPs -- which now address conventional air pollutants -- to make a set rate of reduction in carbon dioxide emissions across the board. States could decide where those cuts would come from, but sources include utilities, refining, manufacturing and transportation.
States could take credit for reductions from rules that already exist, the law professors' report suggests, passing on those allowances to sources that complied.
Going this route would allow EPA to deliver substantial reductions without promulgating sector-by-sector rulemakings that would be subject to challenge and delay, the reports' authors argue. And the regulation would be implemented under a section of the Clean Air Act that explicitly allows for trading.
There's another advantage that Section 115 would offer that regulations so far haven't, its proponents argue: That's deeper cuts to carbon. Section 115, they argue, would help the United States reach its Paris pledge to slash emissions up to 28 percent by 2025, more so than current regulations.
"The Clean Power Plan won't get us there alone, which is why EPA is going to look at other polluters, other sectors of the economy," said Jason Schwartz of the Institute for Policy Integrity, another lead author. "We'll likely need to set additional standards for power plants and mobile sources. And we think 115 is a very straightforward way of meeting our international obligations."
The White House says the United States is well-positioned to deliver on its promises, but a State Department report submitted to the United Nations on New Year's Eve showed that current policies would only supply up to 16 percent of those reductions by 2025 -- or less, depending on land-use factors.
And a report released last month by the Rhodium Group states that current policies, market forces and technological advances combined will place the United States on a path to cut emissions by between 9 and 20 percent compared with last year.
It's not a new idea
EPA could simply mandate that all states cut their overall emissions between 26 and 28 percent by 2025 and give credit for reductions already in the pipeline, thereby meeting the Paris target.
But that still wouldn't address the U.S. contribution to Paris' long-term goal of keeping warming well below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
"We're overshooting," said Michael Burger, also of Columbia's Sabin Center and the report's coordinating lead author.
Future U.S. reduction commitments, which come due in five-year increments after 2025, could also be satisfied by introducing Section 115 regulations, he said. Unlike other sections of the Clean Air Act, the section lets EPA tie its rule to international commitments creating an "on-ramp" to future mitigation pledges, Burger said.
While some of his co-authors said the Obama administration could begin the rulemaking this year, Burger said he doesn't expect that.
The report's purpose, he said, was to draw attention to Section 115 as a tool in the hope "that further on down the road [it] could become a groundswell and could become a regulatory force."
But Kruger said the section is not the panacea its proponents envision. EPA did consider using the provision back in the first years of the Obama administration, she said.
"What we concluded back then was that 115 could be a somewhat risky proposition just because it is so broad," she said.
There are also political problems with justifying regulations that cut emissions explicitly for their effect on people in other countries, rather than helping Americans, she said.
"I kind of have a feeling that it's an easier case to make to people when ... the regulation is going to help you," she said.
That's not the only problem with the provision, said Thomas Lorenzen, of Crowell & Moring, a former Justice Department lawyer representing power cooperatives.
A rule written under Section 115 would be "subject to a rigorous challenge" in court, he said, because it is not clear that the Paris accord's nonbinding emissions commitments satisfy the condition that other countries provide the U.S. reciprocal "rights" by limiting emissions.
Lorenzen, who believes the Clean Power Plan is not on firm legal footing, either, said he did not expect EPA to float any new ideas for regulating carbon while it's defending that rule.
"They would not want to present any kind of a public message that buys into those doubts," he said.
At least one former proponent of using Section 115 to combat climate change is now a lead litigant against the Clean Power Plan. Roger Martella of Sidley Austin LLP co-authored a report in 2009 arguing that Section 115 would be the most effective way to tackle emissions linked to warming. But he said the administration had since chosen a sectoral approach instead, and that choice was "binary."
"EPA made the decision to proceed under other provisions, and the current greenhouse gas regulatory regime it is pursuing does not leave any room for a now-superfluous regulatory regime under Section 115," said Martella, who is resenting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against the Clean Power Plan.
Major environmental groups digging in to support the utility rule also show little enthusiasm for the academics' proposal. The Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund declined to comment, while Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger said only that Section 115 is "important," and that NRDC will oppose efforts to do away with it.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced a bill earlier this month that would repeal Section 115. It currently has no co-sponsors.
Ann Weeks, an attorney for the Clean Air Task Force, said in an email that she has had little time to think about new regulatory options between challenges to the Clean Power Plan and a landmark mercury rule.
"So I haven't been in this other than to note that [it's] out there and that someday when I am finished beating back the industry with my slingshot I might have a chance to think about it," she said.
-
Sanders Shouldn't Hit 'Reset' on Clean Power Plan
Feb 26, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Richard Revesz
The Clean Power Plan is the most significant effort to date to control U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. By 2030, it will reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of existing power plants by 32 percent relative to a 2005 baseline. And it will play an instrumental role in helping the United States meet its commitment from the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris.
Those concerned about climate change should want this plan to move forward as quickly as possible. It is therefore troubling that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) has been reported as advocating changing the Clean Power Plan to also regulate methane emissions that result from fossil fuel extraction. The Clean Power Plan cannot be changed at the stroke of the pen. Just as the Republican presidential candidates could not accomplish their stated goal of repealing various regulations on their first day in office, neither can such regulations be strengthened instantaneously.
Instead, under settled principles of administrative law, a new regulation would need to be proposed and the basis for such a regulation would need to be explained in detail. These efforts take time to prepare: The preamble to the Clean Power Plan is roughly 1,600 pages long. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would then need to provide for a comment period and respond to relevant comments. (The proposed rule for the Clean Power Plan generated around 4 million comments.) This process would take years and give rise to great uncertainty in the interim. It would certainly delay the compliance dates and therefore make the Paris commitment more difficult to reach.
Stopping the Clean Power Plan in its tracks simply to expand its focus on methane emissions is also not necessary. While controlling methane pollution is essential in order to meet our national climate goals, the Obama administration is already working to regulate these emissions directly, rather than using an appendage to the power plant rule. This approach is clearly preferable given the structure of the Clean Air Act. Indeed, the EPA has proposed a rule on methane emissions and is currently considering the comments that it received. And, more recently, the Bureau of Land Management has proposed a rule that applies to resource extraction on federal lands.
That is not to say, of course, that the current proposed rules are perfect. (I am advocating changes in the proposed EPA rule.) But there is a mechanism for affecting that outcome through the comment process that does not involve returning everything — both the Clean Power Plan and the regulation of upstream methane emissions — back to square one.
Moreover, the Clean Power Plan is not the last word in greenhouse gas regulation. Despite its importance, additional measures will also be needed to meet our Paris commitment. The Obama administration's ongoing efforts to regulate methane are a good next step, and we should also focus on other strategies. But the best way to move this process forward it to defend the legal validity of the Clean Power Plan in the ongoing litigation, not to stop the train and cause great delay.
Revesz is dean emeritus and Lawrence King Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. He is the co-author of the new book "Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the 'War on Coal.'"
-
Ore. 'Reassessing Landscape' After Stay
Feb 26, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Oregon is continuing to pursue greenhouse gas emissions reductions from its power sector, but its timeline for coming up with a plan to meet federal climate change regulations is up in the air.
Gov. Kate Brown (D) issued a statement in support of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan after the Supreme Court this month slammed the brakes on the effort to cut overall power sector emissions by 32 percent by 2030.
"Even though the Clean Power Plan is going through a battle in the courts, Oregon has been and continues to be committed to national efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector," she said. "Oregon is well-positioned to comply with the EPA targets because there have already been early actions in Oregon through investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy development, and moving away from coal."
But now that the deadline for turning in a plan has been disrupted, Oregon policymakers aren't sure how they will proceed.
"We have been working on it, certainly," said Colin McConnaha, senior climate change policy adviser in the Department of Environmental Quality. "There is now no deadline in front of us to turn something in, so the timeline is a big question mark."
Oregon is considered likely to meet its Clean Power Plan target of a 20 percent reduction in its power plants' emissions rate. The state got nearly three-quarters of its electricity from hydropower and other renewables in 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and its only coal-fired power plant, Boardman, is scheduled to close by the end of 2020.
But it gets a significant amount of its power from out-of-state coal plants in Montana, Utah and Wyoming -- states that have been more hostile to the Clean Power Plan. Oregon officials have been holding talks with them, as well as in-state utilities and power plant owners, to figure out the best approach but aren't sure how things will go in a post-stay environment.
"How that work continues in light of the stay is unclear because those states are affected differently by the rule than we are and see it differently," McConnaha said. "It's not totally within our control, as much as we might like it to be. We have to be sure that our stakeholders and other states we've been working with still want to proceed.
"We've been very keen to work with partners," he said. "We plan to continue to do that to the extent we're able to. We are simply reassessing the landscape."
Key energy bill at play
Oregon's dependence on other states is also affecting negotiations over a major energy bill currently in the state Legislature. H.B. 4036, put forth by the state's two largest utilities and a cadre of environmental groups, would instruct the utilities -- Pacific Power and Portland General Electric -- to exit their out-of-state coal contracts by 2030. It would also raise the state's renewable portfolio standard to 50 percent by 2040.
State utility regulators have pushed back, arguing the bill is too prescriptive and could raise costs for electric customers. They also say that without cooperation from neighboring states that are home to the coal plants, utilities won't be able to reduce carbon emissions by exiting their contracts.
"These coal plants are located in Montana and Wyoming and Utah, and these are coal-producing states," said Public Utility Commission Chairwoman Susan Ackerman at a Monday hearing of the state Senate Business and Transportation Committee. "It is unlikely, in my opinion, that those coal-producing states are going to take action like this to shut down those coal plants."
Ackerman also said the bill could forestall broader policies like cap and trade or a carbon tax, while acknowledging those policies are unpopular with many Oregon lawmakers.
"If you take a policy that is this huge, it'll be years before we can get to another policy that will actually maybe do this in a better way," Ackerman said. "The cap and trade or carbon tax program would be more effective at reducing carbon in the least-cost fashion, rather than a technology mandate."
While the bill's relevance to the Clean Power Plan is limited, given that the CPP's final target is in 2030, EPA's rule came up several times in the hearing. Ackerman said the federal rule could supplant the need for the state bill. "In the absence of the bill, the Clean Power Plan will hopefully at some point get actually implemented and it will influence those plants," she said.
A ratepayer advocate who backs the bill said that it would lower customers' costs no matter what policies end up prevailing.
"In the long term, we know there's going to be costs associated with carbon regulation, whether that be state-based, federal-based or wherever it is," said Bob Jenks, executive director of the Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon. "The best way we can protect customers from those high costs is to start to phase out coal plants."
-
Bid for 6th Circuit CWA Lawsuit Review Could Help Overturn Permit Ruling
Feb 26, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
An expected petition for the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to reconsider a panel ruling giving the court power to hear suits over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule could be a vehicle for overturning a separate and much-criticized 6th Circuit ruling that allowed circuit review of certain CWA policies, sources say.
In a divided Feb. 22 ruling, the court said that it had jurisdiction over consolidated challenges to the CWA rule both as an “other limitation” under section 509(b)(1)(e) and a permit governance under section 509(b)(1)(f). Judge David McKeague, writing the lead opinion in Murray Energy v. EPA, said that although the water law is unclear on where suits over the rule should start, the effects of the rule qualify for 6th Circuit rule under either section.
Another judge reluctantly concurred citing a mandate to follow the earlier ruling, while the third dissented, which could be “read as a disagreement over how to apply precedent,” one industry source says. Such disagreement could inform the anticipated push for en banc review by the full court of the ruling, the source adds.
McKeague relied in part on the 6th Circuit's 2009 ruling in National Cotton Council of America v. EPA that said section 509(b)(1)(f) authorizes direct circuit court review beyond agency actions issuing or denying particular permits. National Cotton also said the 6th Circuit has direct power to review regulations governing the issuance of permits under the CWA's section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program.
The judge said the National Cotton ruling is broad, and its “construction is consistent with congressional purpose,” and, while noting that the 11th Circuit in Friends of the Everglades v. EPA, declined to follow National Cotton, says “no other court has held that National Cotton was wrongly decided.” Moreover, “if we believedNational Cotton was not distinguishable and was wrongly decided, we would still not be free to reject its holding,” he wrote.
The court's logic is seen as vulnerable to a petition for en banc rehearing by the full 6th Circuit, and it is unclear whether courts outside of the circuit's states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee will acknowledge the ruling -- although a federal district court in Oklahoma has dismissed a CWA rule case since the ruling.
Judge Richard Allen Griffin concurred with the court's power, but did so reluctantly because he was bound by prior 6th Circuit precedent. Griffin wrote, “In my view, it is illogical and unreasonable to read the text of either subsection (E) or (F) as creating jurisdiction in the courts of appeals for these issues,” but because National Cotton held otherwise with respect to section (F), he sided with McKeague on the finding of jurisdiction only.
Griffin also faulted the court's decision in National Cotton as being wrongly decided. “I disagree that it was correctly decided,” he wrote, adding that the earlier ruling is a “broad authorization to the courts of appeals to review anything relating to permitting notwithstanding the statutory language to the contrary.”
Judge's Dissent
In a strongly worded dissent, Senior Judge Damon J. Keith disagreed with Griffin's interpretation of National Cotton, finding that the ruling expanded subsection (F) to cover rules that “regulate[] the permitting procedures,” but not to rules “relating to” permitting procedures, such as the CWA jurisdiction rule that “merely defines the scope of the term 'waters of the United States'” rather than directly regulating issuance of CWA permits.
The industry sources notes the division among the judges on both the merits of the decision and the National Cotton ruling. “That's the kind of uniformity problem the court could be interested in,” the source says, saying anen banc re-hearing could lead the court to “overturn or limit” the National Cotton ruling, which many have argued was wrongly decided and confers sweeping jurisdiction for circuit courts not intended by Congress.
By the interpretation supported by the majority in the ruling in Murray Energy, “it's really hard to imagine any challenge that wouldn't have to be held in circuit court,” the source argues.
A second industry source says they believe there is a “very strong chance” the industry petitioners in Murray Energy will seek en banc rehearing because, “A majority of the panel believe that the text of the Act is against circuit court jurisdiction, and that the National Cotton decision is problematic.”
At press time no groups had filed for en banc review of the Murray Energy decision, while EPA is urging federal district court cases with pending suits over the CWA rule to heed the appellate ruling
-
Time to Cut Natural Gas Waste on Federal Lands
Feb 26, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bob Abbey and Mike Dombeck
Each year on federal lands across the country, millions of dollars of revenue is literally released up into the air, robbing taxpayers of income generated by oil and gas royalties on public lands and from tribal governments on tribal lands.
Because methane (the primary component of natural gas) is wasted through venting and flaring and from leaky equipment at oil and gas operations, Americans are losing a valuable public resource. That’s irresponsible development.
It’s time we address these wasteful practices and work to ensure oil and gas operators act responsibly when developing energy resources on America’s public lands. Fortunately, the Bureau of Land Management is proposing new guidelines to prevent this unnecessary waste of our public resource.
ICF International estimates that over $330 million in taxpayer revenue was lost through venting, flaring, and leaks in 2013 alone. This wasted methane could power 1.5 million homes. These valuable dollars from oil and gas development on federal lands could be used towards education, infrastructure, or countless other ways that could have benefitted the average citizen.
Not only are the fiscal effects of this waste obvious, but the health and environmental effects are increasingly alarming. In 2014, NASA found a methane plume the size of Delaware hovering over the Four Corners region of the southwestern United States. Furthermore, several basins across the country, such as the San Juan in New Mexico and the Upper Green River in Wyoming face similar air pollution problems to major cities such as Los Angeles due in large part to drilling on public and tribal lands.
And at 80 times more harmful than carbon dioxide, methane’s damaging effects to our climate are simply too big to ignore.
To address this misuse of our natural resources, we applaud the White House and the BLM for moving forward a proposed methane waste rule for public and tribal lands. This rule should be strong to reduce wasteful practices such as venting and flaring of methane, along with requiring quarterly inspections and repair of leaks for production equipment.
There’s overwhelming support for the BLM to take action. A bipartisan January 2016 poll by Colorado College found that 80 percent of westerners support tough action to cut methane waste on public lands, including residents in energy-producing states.
Opponents to efforts to curb methane waste suggest the economic impacts of implementing methane-reduction measures might be too high. However, ICF International found that by reducing methane waste by 40 percent, oil and gas companies would pay less than a penny per thousand cubic feet of natural gas produced. And in many instances, companies will actually make money by ensuring natural gas is brought to market that would otherwise be wasted.
What’s made these reductions possible is good, old-fashioned American innovation and ingenuity. Start-up companies across the nation have stepped up to identify methane waste and help the oil and gas industry become more efficient.
These entrepreneurs are creating good-paying, American jobs. The economic benefits of methane emission reduction are catching the attention of states throughout the West. Colorado became the first state in the nation to adopt rules to cut methane waste and is now a model of success. After the new Colorado rules to reduce methane waste were adopted, natural gas production actuallyincreased. Other states are taking notice, with Wyoming and North Dakota taking steps to reduce waste and pollution. However, there are many states throughout the country who are not taking the appropriate measures to cut methane emissions and waste.
As stewards for the American taxpayer, the BLM has the obligation and authority, given to it by Congress, to ensure a fair return for publicly owned oil and gas minerals. The BLM should also help create a level playing field for oil and gas operators that sets a strong and achievable standard for cutting methane waste.
States have proven that cutting methane waste is achievable. Now the federal government is right to step forward with standards that protect our lands, our health, and tax dollars.
Abbey was the director of the BLM from 2009 to 2012. Dombeck was the director of the BLM from 1994 to 1996 and chief of the U.S. Forest Service from 1996 to 2001.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested