ACC PM 3/10/16

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

1. Washington State Legislature Passes Flame Retardant Bill

   Mar 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   The Washington state House of Representatives has concurred with the Senate’s amendments to a bill to ban five flame retardants (HB 2545).
2. How Fisk Johnson Works to Keep the Shine on Family Business

   Mar 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

   By Ellen Byron
   
   
   H. Fisk Johnson, the fifth-generation family member to run S. C. Johnson & Son Inc., isn’t known for flash. But lately, the chairman and chief executive has chased the spotlight as an agitator of the household-staples industry, pushing for more disclosure of products’ ingredients.
3. Looking For Healthier Cosmetics? Shop EWG VERIFIED™!

   Mar 10, 2016 | Environmental Working Group

   By Violet Batcha
   
   
   The shampoo you buy at your local drug store must be free of toxic chemicals and safe to use, right? Wrong. The fact is, the personal care product industry is largely unregulated. No health studies or pre-market testing are required for these products.
4. Rep. Pallone Seeks Answers On Alleged Hair Loss By Users Of WEN Cleansing Conditioner

   Mar 10, 2016 | Environmental Working Group

   By Christine M. Hill
   
   
   Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., of New Jersey, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is seeking answers for why more than 17,000 Americans have complained of hair loss and other health problems after using WEN Cleansing Conditioner by Chaz Dean.
5. Echa and Industry Seek to Identify ‘Orphan’ Substances

   Mar 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Leigh Stringer
   
   
   Echa says it is encouraging industry to identify low volume substances where registrants could be absent – known as orphan substances - in the run up to the 2018 REACH deadline.

Energy News

6. Former Mass. DEP Head Cash Says 'No Stopping' Momentum on Emissions Caps, Despite Power Plan Uncertainty

   Mar 10, 2016 | E&E TV

   By OnPoint
   
   
   Are states that are stopping their Clean Power Plan planning putting themselves at a disadvantage to those that continue to work on the plan by potentially losing out on economic and business opportunities available in the clean energy sector? During today's OnPoint, David Cash, dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and the former commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, explains why he believes the Supreme Court's stay of the power plan will not have a long-lasting effect on efforts to cap carbon.
7. Grid Operators Assess Low-Carbon Future, Regardless of Stay

   Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire

   By Emily Holden
   
   
   Two of the nation's grid organizations are continuing to analyze U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, despite a Supreme Court stay of the rule that has many of the states they operate in suspending official planning work.
8. Ark. Becomes 19th State to Stop Planning for Climate Rule

   Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire

   By Elizabeth Harball and Edward Klump
   
   
   The director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality confirmed yesterday that her state is pausing preparations for U.S. EPA's rule limiting carbon emissions from power plants.
9. U.S. Targets Oil, Gas Wells to Cut Methane Emissions

   Mar 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

   By Amy Harder
   
   
   The Obama administration on Thursday announced its first step toward regulating methane emissions from hundreds of thousands of oil and natural-gas wells across the U.S., drawing pushback from an industry battered by cheap oil and cheers from environmentalists.
10. API Warns Of Quick EPA Methane Proposal For Existing Oil & Gas Sources

    Mar 10, 2016 | Inside EPA

    By Lee Logan
    
    
    The oil sector is warning that EPA could issue a proposal by the end of the year to regulate emissions of the greenhouse gas methane from existing oil and gas facilities, while also suggesting the agency has discretion under the Clean Air Act to defend against any expected environmentalist lawsuit if it ultimately decides not to pursue a rule.
11. Power Generation is Fuel's Most Climate-Friendly Use -- Study

    Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire

    By Pamela King
    
    
    Natural gas would be more effectively used in the replacement of coal-burning power plants than as a fuel for cars and buses, according to a new study from Houston's Rice University.
12. Oil Industry Aims to Declaw Bipartisan Pipeline Safety Bill

    Mar 10, 2016 | Politico Pro

    By Elana Schor and Andrew Restuccia
    
    
    Oil industry lobbyists are urging House Republicans to significantly water down bipartisan pipeline safety legislation that is advancing in Congress.
13. BLM Fracking Rule Lambasted by Industry, States

    Mar 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec
    
    
    Several western states and industry groups are hammering away at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hydraulic fracturing (fracking) rule to prevent the federal agency from governing leasehold activity on public and tribal lands.

Chemical Security News

14. Agency Lags on Cybersecurity Fixes -- IG

    Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Kevin Bogardus
    
    
    U.S. EPA is not ensuring fixes meant to bolster cybersecurity have been implemented, according to its own internal watchdog.
15. Porter Ranch Residents Return Home to Oily Residue

    Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    Authorities closed the gates to a park in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles after they found an oily residue on playground equipment -- the latest event to jar an area trying to return to normal after a monthslong methane leak.

Transportation News

16. Perspective: From M2M to Rail IoT and Big Data Analytics

    Mar 10, 2016 | Progressive Railroading

    By Robyn Kline
    
    
    Machine to machine (M2M) technology isn't new to the rail industry, but it has now broadened into the Internet of Things (IoT) and Big Data analytics. Railroads and their customers are benefitting today, and there is still room for growth and the realization of new benefits.

Environment News

17. D.C. Circuit Wants Final Briefs for Ozone Case in September

    Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Sean Reilly
    
    
    Final briefs are due this September in the rival legal challenges to U.S. EPA's recently adopted ozone standard, under a schedule issued yesterday by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

1. Washington State Legislature Passes Flame Retardant Bill

   Mar 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   The Washington state House of Representatives has concurred with the Senate’s amendments to a bill to ban five flame retardants (HB 2545).

   If the legislature’s approved bill is signed into law by the governor, Washington will become the first state in the US to ban TBBPA in children’s products and residential upholstered furniture, according to the NGO Washington Toxics Coalition.

   Other substances that would be banned from these products, in concentrations above 1,000ppm, are:

   TDCPP (tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate);

   TCEP (tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate);

   decaBDE (decabromodiphenyl ether); and

   HBCD (hexabromocyclododecane).

   The ban would take effect from 1 July 2017.

   The House voted unanimously to approve the Senate’s version of the bill. The measure now heads to the governor, where it could be signed into law, allowed to become law without being signed, or vetoed.

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. How Fisk Johnson Works to Keep the Shine on Family Business

   Mar 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

   By Ellen Byron

   H. Fisk Johnson, the fifth-generation family member to run S. C. Johnson & Son Inc., isn’t known for flash. But lately, the chairman and chief executive has chased the spotlight as an agitator of the household-staples industry, pushing for more disclosure of products’ ingredients.

   ​Under his leadership since 2000, the company has lobbied for stricter chemical regulation and more transparency from manufacturers. Since 2009, S. C. Johnson has released ingredient information for most of its products, including its latest collection of Glade air fresheners, which list 100% of its fragrance ingredients—a move intended to nudge competitors such as Procter & Gamble Co., which in recent years has disclosed fragrance ingredients and last month released a list of chemicals it excludes from scents.

   Mr. Johnson says consumers mistakenly perceive natural products as always good for them. “Some of the most toxic, most carcinogenic​materials out there are natural,” he notes.

   S. C. Johnson, founded 130 years ago, is the​privately held maker of Windex cleaner, Pledge polish, Ziploc bags and Raid insecticide, and garners an estimated $10 billion in annual sales. With 13,000 employees and operations in more than 70 countries, the company remains in​the Johnson family’s control in their hometown of Racine, Wis.

   In an interview, Mr. Johnson, who is 58 years old, discussed the dynamics of family business and the advantages of keeping the company privately held. The following are edited excerpts:

   WSJ: Why do you believe it is important to disclose product ingredients?

   FJ: There’s an incredible amount of misinformation about the ingredients that go into household products, their safety and environmental profile. As a result, trust in the safety of household products has been declining. In the absence of information, people think the worst. For decades we’ve constantly looked at the ingredients that go into our products and screened out things that we aren’t comfortable with. We’re also lobbying for changes in chemical regulation. In the U.S., it is 30 years old and needs to be updated.Advertisement

   WSJ: Will that risk revealing sensitive recipes?

   FJ: In my view, it won’t. With the analytical methods available today, you can, in a matter of minutes, analyze components and detect them down to a very low level. There are certain things in fragrances that are probably at levels below the detectable limit. How big a difference that makes in the olfactory sensation you get is open to debate​because they are at such a low level. We need to disclose.

   WSJ: What freedom does being privately held give you as a company?

   FJ: It’s a huge advantage because we don’t have to worry about next quarter’s earnings or what Wall Street analysts are going to say. We can really plan for the long term. We don’t have to worry about an activist buying a stake in our company and saying we have to merge or split. We don’t do quarterly reports. We do budgets that are a year out. I can’t imagine what a public company does to hit quarterly earnings the way they want.

   WSJ: Several of your competitors have tried to get smaller lately. A lot of brands are on the block. Are you happy with the size of your company?

   FJ: While it’s important in some respects to be focused, we have the capacity to get significantly larger. You have to do it in a way where you maintain your nimbleness and your innovation.

   WSJ: The documentary “Carnauba: A Son’s Memoir,” that you made with your father as he retraced his father’s 1935 journey to Brazil to find a sustainable wax source, is an extraordinary example of executive image-building. In this film, your father speaks openly about his struggle with alcoholism. Did that shape the way you want to communicate as a leader?​ ​

   FJ: I don’t think about image-building for myself. I’m not trying to craft or project an image other than what is me. The making of the movie was one of the most impactful things in my life, an incredible bonding experience with my father.

   I have a stack of emotional, moving letters that my father received about the movie and how it changed people’s lives. People who sought to reconcile their relationship with their parents after watching the movie, people who sought treatment for their drug addiction​or alcoholism. It’s helped people who work in the company feel they are a bigger part of the family.

   WSJ: At family gatherings, any ground rules about when business can’t be discussed?

   FJ: I always like to say that the family and the business go hand in hand, you can’t separate the two. That’s both a great advantage and it​can be a little challenging at times. One of my key objectives is to ensure the family is proud of the company and feels a part of it. The moment the company​becomes more of a financial investment for the family, we may as well go public, honestly. The family never sees the value of the equity because that​gets passed on. We see ourselves simply as a steward of that equity as it moves from one generation to the next.

   WSJ: How did you get your job, and who will succeed you?

   FJ: My father made it very clear that no family member could work for another family member in the same generation. We all [he and his three siblings] joined the company under the assumption that most of us were going to leave and do something else. What ended up happening was that my father spun off a number of business units into separate enterprises. Each of us ended up in our own separate family enterprise. There was some planning and some serendipity.

   No one in the next generation is working in the company yet because of their ages, but we spend a lot of time talking about succession. We​want them to get a few years of working outside the company and we want them to​get an M.B.A.

   WSJ: How are you preparing your 16-year-old daughter?

   FJ: I really try to take her out and around, as do my siblings with their children. I brought her to our Mexican subsidiary so she can see what the company has done​to help the community there. I bring her through our manufacturing facility in Wisconsin quite frequently. A lot of it, like it was for me, is seeing and listening to the dinner-table conversations. You live and breathe the company as you grow up.

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. Looking For Healthier Cosmetics? Shop EWG VERIFIED™!

   Mar 10, 2016 | Environmental Working Group

   By Violet Batcha

   The shampoo you buy at your local drug store must be free of toxic chemicals and safe to use, right?

   Wrong.

   The fact is, the personal care product industry is largely unregulated. No health studies or pre-market testing are required for these products. With few exceptions, companies can use any ingredient and even avoid disclosing all the chemicals that go into “fragrance.” The European Union has banned or restricted more than a thousand chemicals in cosmetics; the Food and Drug Administration has taken action on only 11.

   If that comes as a shock to you, you’re not alone. According to a poll released last week, 87 percent of likely voters in the U.S. want stricter regulation of personal care products. And that’s what the Personal Care Products Safety Act recently introduced in Congress by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins’ (R-Maine) would do – finally require companies to prove that their products are safe before they go on store shelves.

   Until stricter regulation passes, how can you protect yourself and your family from potentially hazardous chemicals in your skin care products and makeup?

   The answer is: Shop with EWG’s new personal care product verification program, EWG VERIFIED™! The EWG VERIFIED™ mark can help you quickly and easily identify products that meet our strictest health and transparency standards – keeping you in the know about what’s really in your products.

   EWG VERIFIED™ items must be free of substances that EWG has put on its“unacceptable” list and meet limits for chemicals  on EWG’s “restricted” list. Ingredients on these lists have been banned or restricted by U.S. or international government agencies or other authoritative public health bodies, such as the World Health Organization. Companies must also fully disclose their products’ ingredients – including the specific ingredients that make their fragrance mixtures – and follow good manufacturing practices.

   There are several ways to find out which products are EWG VERIFIED™:Look for the label on the package. The EWG VERIFIED™ mark will soon be visible to shoppers making their way down store aisles or searching for products online.
    Check company websites. Companies with EWG VERIFIED™ products will have information on their websites to show which of their products meet EWG’s health and transparency standards.
    Search our Skin Deep® database. Each EWG VERIFIED™ product will be flagged in the Skin Deep® search page, with the mark appearing next to the Skin Deep® score. It will also appear at the top of all EWG VERIFIED™ product pages.

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Rep. Pallone Seeks Answers On Alleged Hair Loss By Users Of WEN Cleansing Conditioner

   Mar 10, 2016 | Environmental Working Group

   By Christine M. Hill

   Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., of New Jersey, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is seeking answers for why more than 17,000 Americans have complained of hair loss and other health problems after using WEN Cleansing Conditioner by Chaz Dean.

   On Tuesday (March 9), Pallone wrote U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf and Georg Richter, president and CEO of Guthy-Renker LLC, makers of the product branded and promoted by Hollywood celebrity hair stylist Dean. Pallone said thousands of complaints detail “significant hair loss, visible bald spots, hair breakage, scalp irritation, rash, and burning of the scalps and eyes” after using the product.

   In his letter to Richter, Pallone requested a briefing from company officials to discuss the complaints, and asked for all relevant internal documents, including safety tests and customer complaints the company holds but has not yet made public. In his letter to Califf, Pallone asked FDA to provide further information about what the agency has done to address any safety issues.

   In a news release, Pallone said:

   Consumers deserve to know that they are making safe choices when they purchase cosmetics. Unfortunately, since popular cosmetics and personal care products are largely unregulated before they reach the marketplace, these products can contain harmful chemicals that have the potential to put consumers at risk. We must reform our nation’s outdated cosmetics law and ensure that FDA has the resources necessary to review the chemicals used in household products when they are sold to consumers.

   The letters come on the heels of a nationwide survey released last week by the Mellman Group and American Viewpoint showing that voters overwhelmingly support stricter regulation of the chemicals in personal care products. The poll showed that almost two-thirds of likely voters want their cosmetics to be safe. And 94 percent of likely voters believe companies should be required to notify the government when their products injure consumers.

   The thousands of complaints about WEN Cleaning Conditioner by Chaz Dean underscore the urgent need to update the nation’s archaic laws on safety of personal care products. Pallone has pledged to work on bipartisan legislation in the House that would ensure everyday personal care products are not harmful to consumers.

   On the Senate side, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have introduced bipartisan legislation, the Personal Care Products Safety Act that would set common-sense safety standards for an industry that has operated for decades with virtually no oversight from federal agencies.

   The bill would strengthen federal regulations that have remained largely unchanged since the late 1930s. It would require companies to ensure their products are safe before putting them on the market and give FDA the tools it needs to protect the public. In particular, the legislation would require FDA to review five potentially harmful cosmetics ingredients a year and give the agency authority to ban or restrict ingredients based on these assessments.

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Echa and Industry Seek to Identify ‘Orphan’ Substances

   Mar 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Leigh Stringer

   Echa says it is encouraging industry to identify low volume substances where registrants could be absent – known as orphan substances - in the run up to the 2018 REACH deadline.

   Speaking to Chemical Watch, Echa’s executive director, Geert Dancet, said the agency is aware of certain sectors where there is more risk of substances not being registered. For example, it has been working with the essential oils for perfumes and flavours sector to identify orphan substances.

   “The bigger companies need [these substances] but there is no one from the producers clearly saying that they will register them,” he said.

   “The sector, however, is trying to stimulate the suppliers or even some of the downstream users to take over responsibility for registering them so they don’t disappear from the market,” he added.

   Speaking at Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit last month, Bert Handels, REACH programme manager at resins producer Aliancys, said there have been occasions where the company has stepped in as lead registrant for an ‘orphan’ substance, if it makes sense economically.

   Also speaking, Andreas Teuschen, director of global regulation at printing and packaging firm, Flint Group, said one concern for companies is a "weakness" in REACH that enables businesses to avoid registering substances if they split the business into several legal entities.

   To address this, Flint has developed a “readiness check” process to ask its suppliers what stage they have got to with their 2018 registrations. Mr Tuschen said that trade associations have also started to recommend this approach.

   Echa says many of the 25,000 substances, expected to be registered under the final deadline, will have small substance information exchange fora (Siefs), consisting of one or just a few companies. Echa is urging registrants to organise their Siefs well ahead of 2018.

   Many of the substances to be registered by the 2018 deadline will be speciality or “niche” chemicals, it says.

   Echa’s director of registration, Christel Musset, told Chemical Watch that because the last registration deadline applies to substances produced or imported in small volumes (1 to 10 tonnes), “a company using or producing these type of chemicals will have to make a business decision on whether there is enough market for them to go through the registration process.”

   However, Ms Musset said that it is still too early to tell which, and how many, substances could be at risk of not being registered. To address this, the agency is considering carrying out a survey in 2017. 

   Echa is contacting sectors, and in particular SMEs within those, which may be struggling to develop registration dossiers for complex substances, such as essential oils.   

   It is doing this by working with member states and the 2018 communicators network that it established to raise awareness of the last deadline.

   This, said Ms Musset, is a challenge for the agency because some of the SMEs are not necessarily reachable through “our traditional communication channels”, such as trade associations Cefic and the Downstream Users of Chemicals Co-ordination group (Ducc).

   Echa developed the 2018 registration roadmap, published in 2014, to address the communication barrier, she said. “We are raising awareness, through communication campaigns with chambers of commerce and member states, so that we can reach the ‘unreachable’ because many are not a part of traditional trade associations.”

   But this is not only an issue for SMEs, she said: “This is the most challenging deadline for large companies too because it covers their large portfolios of substances at small tonnages."

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

6. Former Mass. DEP Head Cash Says 'No Stopping' Momentum on Emissions Caps, Despite Power Plan Uncertainty

   Mar 10, 2016 | E&E TV

   By OnPoint

   Are states that are stopping their Clean Power Plan planning putting themselves at a disadvantage to those that continue to work on the plan by potentially losing out on economic and business opportunities available in the clean energy sector? During today's OnPoint, David Cash, dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and the former commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, explains why he believes the Supreme Court's stay of the power plan will not have a long-lasting effect on efforts to cap carbon.

   Transcript

   Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is David Cash, dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies at the University at Massachusetts, Boston. David is the former commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. David, it's so nice to have you back on the show.

   David Cash: It's great to be back here. Thanks so much.

   Monica Trauzzi: So, David, just about all states have now given some kind of indication as to whether they will continue to plan for the Clean Power Plan following the Supreme Court stay of the rule. Is the stay a temporary roadblock or do you think this is the beginning of the derailment of the plan?

   David Cash: I think it's a temporary roadblock, and there's no question it's a setback to the movement forward. I think EPA had done a fantastic job in the development of the rule, engaging stakeholders in so many different ways all over the country, so for this roadblock to be put in place, there's no question it will slow things down, but I don't think it will have a long-lasting effect because there's so much momentum moving forward in this area. Whether it's the states that are going to continue to move forward with their planning, if it's the states like California, Oregon and Washington and the Northeast states that are in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is about 25 percent of the country already moving forward with their own cap-and-trade program, I don't think there's any stopping. There's this huge momentum here, and I know we may talk a little bit about the Paris agreement, but there's no question now there's momentum on the global stage as well.

   Monica Trauzzi: I interviewed NARUC President Travis Kavulla recently, and he indicated that it would be wasteful for regulators to spend time right now on the power plan because of the stay. Are there certain states where it just makes more sense to stop?

   David Cash: So I can't speak for what's going on in the other states, and I will say I enjoyed debating with Travis when I was a commissioner of our Department of Public Utilities as well, and certainly some states will think it doesn't make sense. My perspective is why, in this environment in which there's no question the world is moving to a clean energy future, where there's no question there are huge economic opportunities waiting to be seized, why would a state want to not explore what some of the opportunities for innovation, for job growth, for research and development, for cost savings? That's something that I don't understand.

   Monica Trauzzi: But from a purely economic standpoint, a state whose economy relies very heavily on coal production and exports, why would they take steps to essentially turn things upside down if it's not mandated?

   David Cash: Well, we know already that purely economic reasons, both coal and in some places natural gas are going to have some problems moving forward. If I were the leadership of a state in that position, certainly I would fight to continue using coal as long as I could, but I would also start the process for building the economic opportunities for this alternative future. Whether that's going to happen in five years, 10 years or 30 years, that would be something. Again, why would I cede economic opportunity to other states or to even other countries when this was a path that there's some real potential economic growth?

   Monica Trauzzi: Massachusetts is, of course, continuing its planning on the power plan. You mentioned RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. How vulnerable is RGGI right now? I mean, RGGI had been having conversations with other states looking to expand the market. So where does the stay put those types of conversations and this forward movement that was happening on growing the market?

   David Cash: Again, I think the RGGI states -- and again, I'm not involved with RGGI internally, but the RGGI states have been moving forward with their cap-and-trade program regardless of what was happening at the federal level. That's always been the case. In fact, that was one of the reasons that it was started. It was to drive, as a model, potential federal and then global climate policy. So I actually don't see -- again, I don't know if they've slowed down conversations on expansion, but the time is right to start thinking about those kinds of things, and I think we can look to California and other places that have a more broad-based, economywide cap-and-trade program because, again, the wider the reach of the cap-and-trade program, the more potential benefits and least cost efforts there can be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And many of those RGGI states, if not all of them, are involved with cross-sectoral programs also, electric vehicle programs, for example. So why wouldn't they want to start thinking about expanding beyond?

   Monica Trauzzi: Entergy announced late last year it will be shutting down Massachusetts' only nuclear power plant in 2019. Can the state meet its goals -- emission reduction goals without that plant?

   David Cash: So there are analyses that show that it can, depending on what the expansion of energy efficiency is. We are still harvesting low-hanging fruit on energy efficiency, and one of the analytical examples of that is that we're still getting return on investment of 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 in the most recent programs, which means there's still a lot out there. So energy efficiency still continues to be something that can be tapped more as solar programs continue to grow, and I know the Massachusetts Legislature is looking at a variety of legislation now that would provide a tailwind for both hydro from Canada and far offshore wind right off the coast of Massachusetts, which in the long run is going to be one of the keys. Just the federal leases right now is in the order of 30,000 megawatts, which is the entire demand of New England.

   Monica Trauzzi: You mentioned the Paris negotiations earlier and that there's this global momentum. How difficult will it be for the United States to meet its Paris pledge if the power plan is not in place?

   David Cash: Yeah, that's a really good question, and it's going to be more difficult, clearly, but again, I think that there's so much movement in states throughout the country and in cities, and that was one of the extraordinary pieces of Paris was that there was a huge driving force from both subnational actors and from the business sector. So I think there was something like 900 mayors in Paris. This is the first global agreement that even mentions subnationals. It mentions it six times in the Paris agreement. So there's clearly a reliance on what's going to be happening on the subnational level. And so, again, this -- with the Clean Power Plan, I think it was obvious that we were going to reach the targets. It's going to be more difficult if there isn't a Clean Power Plan, but I think like many, I think that ultimately the courts will support EPA's authority to regulate.

   Monica Trauzzi: Climate change and energy issues more broadly, they just don't seem to be sticking this year in the presidential elections. We're not hearing much about them. These issues are increasingly important economically and from a national security standpoint. Why don't you think they're resonating with the public?

   David Cash: I think that those of us who are in this field continue to struggle with how to make these kinds of issues understandable to regular people who have jobs and are getting their kids to school and are -- or maybe don't have jobs. And I think it's incumbent on us to figure out how to do that better. And there are examples throughout the states where this has happened, where people have a good understanding of how energy efficiency will help their bottom line, how being part of a solar program, whether it's on their own residence or on a community residence, can help lower their taxes, for example. And I think that kind of communication needs to happen more and more and more.

   Monica Trauzzi: So we all know you from your work in state government. You've now moved on and you're in the academic world. Talk about the types of projects that you're working on now.

   David Cash: So I'm at UMass Boston, and I'm at the McCormack School, which is a policy school whose vision and mandate has been to leverage as best it can to academically search to solve real-world problems. On the campus itself, we've just started this interdisciplinary program called the Sustainable Solutions Lab. Our idea is to have an agile, research-driven but action-based kind of interdisciplinary group that really engages communities around Boston and even globally on some of these issues. And it's a really exciting place to be right now.

   Monica Trauzzi: Great. Congratulations on the new job. We'll end it there.

   David Cash: Thank you.

   Monica Trauzzi: Thank you for coming on the show.

   David Cash: You're welcome. Thank you.

   Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Grid Operators Assess Low-Carbon Future, Regardless of Stay

   Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire

   By Emily Holden

   Two of the nation's grid organizations are continuing to analyze U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, despite a Supreme Court stay of the rule that has many of the states they operate in suspending official planning work.

   Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) -- which spread across the middle section of the United States -- said during a joint meeting yesterday that they would keep up their individual number-crunching. They also will work together to send the same message to states looking to ensure against power outages and price hikes as they shift away from coal and toward lower-carbon electricity sources under the rule.

   Most states within SPP's operating area are vehemently opposing the federal climate change plan that mandates that states cut carbon emissions from existing power plants 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Under the rule, states must develop plans for how they intend to comply with their individual targets.

   Before the Supreme Court decision to delay the rule, the grid operator predicted it would be costly -- but still argued for states to write their own plans rather than follow campaigns by critics to "just say no" (ClimateWire, Nov, 2, 2015). Yesterday, it reiterated that message.

   "In our mind, it was a lot better for a state to have something they developed instead of allowing a federal plan to be imposed on them," said Lanny Nickell, SPP's vice president of engineering.

   After the Supreme Court stay, "some states are prevented legally from even talking about the Clean Power Plan," Nickell said. "So we know that we can't do anything about that, but as much as they can, if they can continue to think about it and be prepared for whatever future materializes, the better off they will be."

   Nickell noted that while some states have said they will halt planning work, it appears from E&E Publishing's reporting that many will at least partake in regional discussions.

   He said SPP has tried to stay out of the specifics of state decisions, opting not to take a side on whether states should cap emissions or aim for an average carbon rate for the power fleet, for example.

   Nickell argued, however, that states might want to stay in discussions since some decisions -- including on what power lines might be needed to transport less coal and more natural gas and renewable power -- require years of planning.

   Nickell said it's unclear whether EPA's timeline for states to submit plans in 2018 and start making carbon cuts in 2022 will change.

   Planning for a changing future

   Jordan Bakke, senior policy studies engineer at MISO, said the organization is transitioning from understanding what the Clean Power Plan means to incorporating it into the planning process and transmission development.

   "Right now, we are looking at potential coal retirements out of the Clean Power Plan, how things on the renewable side would be changing and how those can be implemented into our regional processes," Bakke said.

   MISO's next planning study will look at scenarios with and without the rule in place. The grid operator has said previously that it is used to modeling for many different outcomes (EnergyWire, Feb. 18).

   "That's because the primary thing that MISO's seen is this trend toward less carbon generation going on into the future," Bakke said. "Whether that means the Clean Power Plan or something else, our transmission development is designed to take that broad range of futures in and not simply plan toward the Clean Power Plan itself but plan for a future that is changing."

   "We're seeing very large resource changes on the system, and it is incumbent upon us to plan for that," he added.

   Meeting attendees yesterday stressed that regional grid organizations will need to prepare for a changing electricity grid no matter what happens with the Clean Power Plan.

   "Regardless of what happens with the states in the next 12 months or longer, regardless of what happens with the concept of the Clean Power Plan after the stay is addressed and the court has had their say on it, in the interim period, things are happening and utilities are making decisions and the generation is changing," said Steve Gaw, SPP policy director with the Wind Coalition.

   Coordinating a 'common message'

   Gaw said grid organizations may need to assess that shift regardless of whether the Clean Power Plan survives legal challenges.

   "I continue to believe we need to have that assessment for the sake of understanding the impact out there on consumers and what the most cost-effective way is to address the changes that we're seeing occur," Gaw said.

   Richard Seide with Apex Clean Energy added that "irrespective of what occurs with the stay, there is clearly a need to look at futures that involve carbon mitigation."

   SPP and MISO, as well as the PJM Interconnection in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic, have all found that allowing interstate carbon trading -- whereby a coal generator could pay to take credit for a carbon reduction made by another company -- would keep costs down.

   SPP predicts that regional compliance plans would be 40 percent less expensive than single-state compliance plans.

   "We've all observed the same thing," Nickell said. "A regional approach to compliance is much more cost-effective than a state-by-state approach."

   The majority of coal plant retirements that EPA expects under the regulation would happen near SPP's border with MISO, Nickell said, meaning there may be "opportunity for inter-regional solutions."

   "Regardless of what happens going forward, in areas where you have significant capacity retirements, you're going to have to find a way to address the reliability results of that," Nickell said.

   SPP and MISO are also working on a "recipe for success" for states submitting information to grid organizations to get help evaluating potential reliability concerns before they file plans to EPA, Nickell said.

   "We need to coordinate and make sure we have a common message we can tell the states," Nickell said.

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Ark. Becomes 19th State to Stop Planning for Climate Rule

   Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire

   By Elizabeth Harball and Edward Klump

   The director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality confirmed yesterday that her state is pausing preparations for U.S. EPA's rule limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

   "We want to continue to follow what's being done, but we will not be taking steps to be doing any implementation of a rule that the courts have found to be put in a position of a stay," Director Becky Keogh said after a Senate hearing yesterday in Washington, D.C.

   Arkansas becomes the 19th state to halt writing an emissions reduction strategy as a result of the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Clean Power Plan.

   On Tuesday, the Arkansas DEQ and Public Service Commission released a statement announcing that a public meeting on the rule has been canceled. It said the "meeting is no longer necessary" because EPA can't require states to submit initial plans this September following the stay.

   "I guess you could argue we are suspending" work on the Clean Power Plan, Keogh said, but she clarified that her state will continue looking at private-sector modeling on the rule. The statement issued Tuesday said the Arkansas PSC and DEQ will still hold "a technical session on energy sector modeling later this year."

   "We think that is useful information for us and will help us in implementation of other environmental rules that affect the energy sector in Arkansas," Keogh said.

   She added, "In terms of canceling the meeting, we felt like it was conserving resources from ourselves and stakeholders since it was all focused on a specific requirement."

   No 'balanced seat at the table'

   Under the final Clean Power Plan, EPA required Arkansas to make a 37.8 percent emissions rate reduction from 2012 levels by 2030.

   Keogh spoke critically about EPA regulations in general at the hearing yesterday with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

   She said in her testimony that in past years, "both the EPA and the states had a relatively balanced seat at the table."

   Now, the state is "forced to eat what is served," she said.

   The Arkansas regulator said after the hearing that following through with the Clean Power Plan requires "a number of resources just in the first year of implementation," and that was a concern given the state's position on the rule's legality.

   Environmentalists in Arkansas object to the state's decision to halt work on the climate rule. Glen Hooks, director of the Sierra Club in Arkansas, said by email that planning is important for the state.

   "Arkansas leaders and stakeholders should absolutely continue working on a strong plan to clean up our state's air," Hooks said. "The temporary stay does not mean we are required to stop planning -- we should keep moving ahead and be ready when the Clean Power Plan is upheld in the courts."

   He said the Sierra Club has engaged proactively with the DEQ and PSC on the Clean Power Plan and started discussions before the plan was in a draft form.

   "That's the kind of forward-thinking leadership that transcends partisanship and puts Arkansas first," he said. "Stopping that process now is a mistake that I hope our state leaders will reconsider."

   Not 'completely shutting down'?

   Regulators in states that support the Clean Power Plan also contend that halting planning might put states at a disadvantage should the rule ultimately be upheld.

   "My understanding is that states who are challenging the CPP are still concerned that they not be left in the lurch in the event that the [Clean Power Plan] is upheld in the courts," Deborah Markowitz, secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, said after testifying at the Senate hearing. "And many states learned a lesson with Obamacare, that they banked on a successful challenge to the law. Then they lost that challenge and didn't give themselves enough time to build in the compliance that this required."

   Some clean energy advocates in Arkansas don't view the DEQ's decision as the state's last word on EPA's climate rule.

   Steve Patterson, executive director of the Arkansas Advanced Energy Association, said the situation in Arkansas could be worse, citing the state's intention to continue studying modeling efforts. He believes the process will likely be preserved in some form.

   "Our disappointment lies mainly with the stay order that was issued by the Supreme Court," Patterson said, adding that "unlike some states, it doesn't appear that we're completely shutting down."

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. U.S. Targets Oil, Gas Wells to Cut Methane Emissions

   Mar 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

   By Amy Harder

   The Obama administration on Thursday announced its first step toward regulating methane emissions from hundreds of thousands of oil and natural-gas wells across the U.S., drawing pushback from an industry battered by cheap oil and cheers from environmentalists.

   The administration made the announcement in coordination with Canada, which is taking similar actions. Canada’s new prime minister, Justin Trudeau, is visiting the White House for the first time since taking office in November.

   The U.S. and Canada will commit to cut methane emissions from oil and gas by between 40% and 45% below 2012 levels by 2025, a commitment the Obama administration has previously made.

   The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, already working on rules cutting methane emissions from oil and gas wells not yet drilled, will begin devising regulations for existing wells and aims to release in April draft requirements for companies to provide information about equipment, emissions and control technologies from a broad range of oil and gas activities, including production, transmission, processing and storage, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Thursday.

   The step, being taken under the Clean Air Act, indicates the agency is preparing to write a regulation that is likely to affect hundreds of thousands of existing wells across the U.S.

   The Canadian government’s environmental regulator also intends to regulate methane emissions from new and existing oil and natural gas sources, publishing initial proposed rules by early 2017.

   Canada, under previous Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, never introduced rules limiting emissions from the energy sector, earning rebukes from environmental groups. In contrast, the Liberal government under Mr. Trudeau has pivoted on climate change policy, setting out aggressive goals to reduce carbon emissions.

   “Our countries are stepping up to the challenge of methane emissions, and driving forward the regulatory measures necessary to curb methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources,” said Brian Deese, senior adviser to President Barack Obama.

   The EPA is unlikely to complete a regulation before Mr. Obama leaves office at the end of 2016. Any proposal the EPA issues would likely stay on track if a Democrat wins the White House, while a Republican administration would likely withdraw it. Ms. McCarthy wouldn’t say Thursday whether the EPA would propose a rule before Mr. Obama leaves office.

   Thursday’s announcement is the latest step in a broader effort to clamp down on domestic greenhouse-gas emissions and show the U.S. is moving to address a global deal on climate change that roughly 200 nations agreed to late last year.

   The EPA is planning to issue in the coming months its final rule affecting future oil and gas wells. The Interior Department also proposed in January rules to cut methane emissions from existing oil and natural-gas operations on federal lands, which account for a small portion of domestic drilling.

   Over the past year, the Obama administration has focused increasingly on methane emissions, which the EPA says have a warming effect on the planet at least 25 times that of carbon dioxide. Methane is the primary component of natural gas.

   The EPA says the oil and gas sector’s methane emissions account for almost 30% of all U.S. methane emissions, second to agricultural sources, which account for roughly 36%.

   Methane emissions from oil and natural gas production have dropped roughly 15% from 2005 through 2012, according to administration data, despite the increase in production. The U.S. government estimates these emissions will rise 25% over the next decade if steps aren’t taken to reduce them.

   With the onset of the energy boom over the past decade, some companies have practiced flaring, the burning off of excess gas as carbon dioxide, or venting, the emission of methane straight into the atmosphere, if pipelines or other infrastructure aren’t immediately available to transport and process it.

   Environmentalists and some Democratic lawmakers have been urging the administration to regulate existing oil and gas wells across the U.S., on federal, private and state lands alike, and will likely support the EPA’s latest move in that direction.

   “The historic agreement addresses one of the most serious aspects of our climate crisis—methane emissions from the oil and gas industry,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental organization that works with companies to cut emissions.

   The oil and natural gas industry has grown increasingly critical of the Obama administration over the past two years as government agencies have rolled out emissions reduction proposals.

   Arguing that the federal government is overreaching its executive authority across a range of energy issues, industry executives say new methane rules are unnecessary because companies are cutting emissions voluntarily.

   “Even as oil and natural gas production has risen dramatically, methane emissions have fallen, thanks to industry leadership and investment in new technologies,” said Kyle Isakower, a vice president at the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s biggest trade organization. “These industry-led efforts are a proven way to reduce methane emissions from existing sources, and they are clearly working.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. API Warns Of Quick EPA Methane Proposal For Existing Oil & Gas Sources

    Mar 10, 2016 | Inside EPA

    By Lee Logan

    The oil sector is warning that EPA could issue a proposal by the end of the year to regulate emissions of the greenhouse gas methane from existing oil and gas facilities, while also suggesting the agency has discretion under the Clean Air Act to defend against any expected environmentalist lawsuit if it ultimately decides not to pursue a rule.

    Officials with the American Petroleum Institute (API) during a March 10 press call said EPA's just-announced strategy to issue an information collection request (ICR) regarding the sector's emissions could ultimately lead to a rule that will be economically harmful and reduce broader efforts to lower GHGs. While extensive data collection could delay a proposal, API fears the agency could still release a draft rule in 2016.

    Although the ICR “extends the timeline somewhat” for the overall regulatory process, API's Kyle Isakower said the agency could take a more substantive step before President Obama leaves office. “In theory, if they were to move the ICR quickly, they could potentially get a proposal out the door before this administration leaves office,” he said.

    But echoing earlier remarks from industry sources, Isakower said it would be “very difficult” for the Obama EPA to issue a final existing source rule under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

    EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy during a March 10 White House press call downplayed the notion that the agency would take further regulatory steps on the issue during this administration, likely leaving the decision about whether to issue a proposed rule to the next president in 2017.

    “We’re not at this point taking any tools off the table in terms of what else we might do this year, but we have no further announcement at this point,” McCarthy said.

    Nevertheless, Isakower noted that EPA indicated the ICR is the “first step” in regulation. “That certainly is a concern to us. [It's a concern] that they're moving ahead at any speed, quite frankly.”

    EPA this spring plans to finalize first-time methane limits for new oil and gas operations, known as a new source performance standards (NSPS) rule under air act section 111(b). But the agency has until now punted questions over a similar existing source rule, instead saying its focus is on finalizing the NSPS.

    Environmentalists have argued that the Clean Air Act says that once an NSPS is finalized, EPA “shall prescribe regulations” requiring states to craft plans for meeting standards for existing sources under 111(d). Advocates have engaged in a months-long campaign to persuade the agency to take that step, arguing the rule would be necessary to meet Obama's goal of curbing the sector's methane emissions by 40-45 percent by 2025.

    But on the press call, API's Howard Feldman argued that EPA is not required to issue a 111(d) rule, even after it finalizes an NSPS.

    “Does EPA have to do this? The answer is no,” Feldman said. If the agency finalized a 111(b) methane rule, “they would need to consider whether they would need to do a 111(d) regulation.”

    But he argued that there have been “cases where they would not go forward with additional controls” based on available technology and the sources at issue.

    EPA Discretion

    McCarthy has in the past stressed the agency's broad discretion regarding when EPA must issue the rule. The air act includes no statutory deadlines under section 111(d). But it is not clear whether the agency believes it has discretion on whether to eventually issue such a rule following a finalized NSPS, as Feldman argues.

    Even so, top EPA air office attorney Joe Goffman in September underscored the agency's flexibility, noting that “history has supported a wide range of outcomes,” including a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling rejecting environmentalists' bid for regulating GHG emissions from the coal mining sector under section 111.

    The court said EPA has wide latitude to prioritize such rules depending on its resources.

    API's argument on the agency's threshold discretion likely would face intense opposition from environmentalists. “It is very clear we're going to need regulation of existing sources,” Mark Brownstein of the Environmental Defense Fund said shortly before the proposed NSPS was issued in August.

    Further, the group Clean Air Task Force in January issued a report saying there is a huge gap between proposed methane policies and the president's 2025 goal to cut the sector's emissions. “In order to close the gap, existing source rules will need to require the use of a few proven technologies that, unfortunately, EPA’s current and proposed standards do not require,” the report says.

    As a practical matter for reducing emissions from oil and gas operations, Feldman said EPA should rely solely on an existing NSPS governing volatile organic compounds at new wells -- a rule that the agency has touted as having the co-benefit of curbing methane.

    “The wells turn over with time,” he said. “The sources don't last forever. We have a lot of new sources that are already regulated. We do not need new regulation on existing sources.”

    Legal Basis

    Asked whether EPA is on solid legal footing with its plans for either the NSPS or a planned existing source rule, Feldman declined to offer a detailed legal critique of the agency's methane program.

    “We have said quite emphatically and publicly that we do not think those rules [for new sources] are necessary or appropriate,” he said. “We think that is a mistake. Whether we will challenge that at some point in court is something we will come back to.”

    Isakower later added that it is “far too early to say” whether the group would file suit over either the NSPS or an existing source rule. “We are going to leave all of our options on the table.”

    The industry officials also charged that any new regulations for the sector could imperil broader efforts to reduce GHG emissions, by lowering the amount of natural gas that is available to displace coal in the power sector.

    “Anytime you're adding costs to an industry, that's going to mean more compliance costs and less money to invest in new production,” Isakower warned.

    He added that he could not “quantify the size of the impact,” but there “certainly will be an impact on production. . . . It's going to reduce the amount of natural gas that we have available to reduce GHG emissions.”

    While the officials played up the rule's potential economic harms -- and associated effects on consumers -- Isakower said the group doesn't “have a dollar figure” for such impacts. “You can just imagine the thousands of wells we're talking about now regulating. . . . The economic impacts of regulating existing wells is going to be massive.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Power Generation is Fuel's Most Climate-Friendly Use -- Study

    Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire

    By Pamela King

    Natural gas would be more effectively used in the replacement of coal-burning power plants than as a fuel for cars and buses, according to a new study from Houston's Rice University.

    The paper, written by environmental engineer Daniel Cohan and alumnus Shayak Sengupta and published in the International Journal of Global Warming, found that the fuel cycle for compressed natural gas has more steps, and thus more leak points, than a gas-fired power plant. Gas-powered vehicles replace oil-based fuels that provide comparatively greater efficiency, while power plants are replacing dirtier, less-efficient coal, the study said.

    "We have to think about how natural gas is used before deciding if it's good for climate," Cohan said.

    Cohan and Sengupta studied emissions through the fuel cycle, production and transport. They compared impacts of gas-fueled power plants, furnaces, buses and cars, as well as exports for electricity generation.

    In their "well-to-wire" analysis, the authors found that, compared with coal power, new natural gas plants emit less than half as much greenhouse gas per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. Converting to natural-gas-burning furnaces and shipping the fuel overseas would also have a net environmental benefit, Sengupta and Cohan found.

    "This study is the latest in a long line of independent reports that show that natural gas can deliver substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. ... By exporting its surplus natural gas, the U.S. has the opportunity to deliver meaningful reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions," Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, wrote in an emailed statement.

    But the Rice study's "well-to-wheel" calculations concluded that natural-gas- and gasoline-fueled vehicles have nearly identical emissions impacts.

    "Natural-gas vehicles yield the least savings and require building out infrastructure that doesn't transition into new renewable options," Cohan said.

    But recent shifts in the affordability of solar and wind power have Cohan rethinking the study's findings, he said in an interview with EnergyWire. If renewables are cheap enough, power producers could skip gas as a bridge fuel altogether, he said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Oil Industry Aims to Declaw Bipartisan Pipeline Safety Bill

    Mar 10, 2016 | Politico Pro

    By Elana Schor and Andrew Restuccia

    Oil industry lobbyists are urging House Republicans to significantly water down bipartisan pipeline safety legislation that is advancing in Congress.

    The Senate earlier this month passed a bill to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, sending it to the House — where Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has a personal stake in the often-obscure issue thanks to a 2010 oil spill that hit his district and is drafting his own legislation. Oil and gas companies are lobbying hard to shape the final package, aiming to pare back provisions that could open the door to activists' lawsuits, expand PHMSA's emergency authority and give lawmakers access to sensitive emergency response plans.

    Pipeline safety remains one of Congress' last remaining areas where the two parties can collaborate, thanks in large part to Upton's engagement, so the industry has reason to fear that its outsized influence could fall on deaf ears. A series of pipeline disasters over the past six years has awakened lawmakers to funding and cultural problems that have plagued PHMSA since its creation, but the predictable tide of oil-and-gas lobbying against a stronger regulator is showing signs of weakening the House's efforts.

    "It’s really kind of bad in a bunch of different ways," GOP lobbyist Mike McKenna said of the bill-writing thus far. He described the Energy and Commerce panel as “in full-on, ‘I want to pass something that gets signed by the president’ mode.”

    The Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to pass its pipeline safety bill before the Easter congressional recess. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which also has jurisdiction over PHMSA, is expected to act on its own reauthorization bill later this month, with a floor vote on a combined bill anticipated before August. Differences between the House and Senate bills then would need to be resolved before the end of the year to avoid a lapse in the agency's authorization.

    Oil and gas companies are fighting hardest against language floated in a draft House bill that would allow citizens to file lawsuits to force PHMSA to implement regulations. The "mandamus" provision responds to last year's appellate court rejection of San Francisco's suit against PHMSA for signing off on a state-based regulator that was in charge when a gas pipeline explosion killed eight people in 2010.

    Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee who inserted the mandamus language, said the court was "just plain wrong" when it ruled that PHMSA cannot face citizen lawsuits.

    Democrats say that the 2002 pipeline safety law was intended to allow mandamus lawsuits. “We’re just restoring what we thought was there” before the court weighed in, one aide said.

    But oil lobbyists and some Republicans say Pallone's proposal would open the door to "sue and settle" strategies that activists use to grease the skids for overly strict rules from agencies like EPA.

    While PHMSA's safety-focused mission is narrower than EPA's mandate to protect public health, industry lobbyists warn that environmental groups could still predetermine the outcome of lawsuits against the agency with the administration's tacit cooperation.

    "Public participation is circumvented because it’s not a transparent process," said John Stoody, spokesman for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, noting that "negotiations between the agency and the people that are suing are private between the two parties."

    Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) echoed those concerns at a recent hearing, saying "sue and settle at EPA has been pretty disastrous."

    PHMSA declined to comment on the provision.

    Some industry officials said privately that they suspect Democrats included the mandamus language in hopes of using it as trade bait for another liberal priority: empowering PHMSA to impose emergency rules following a disaster.

    The agency can issue emergency orders to require an individual company to change its operations or shut down a pipeline in situations that are "hazardous to life, property or the environment." But existing law does not allow it to order immediate changes to the nation's entire federally regulated pipeline system if it discovers a widespread vulnerability after an accident.

    PHMSA has asked Congress to expand its emergency order authority, and Democrats are expected to push language that would bring its authority in line with other agencies within the Transportation Department that can already issue industry-wide orders.

    “It’s pretty hard for industry to argue that the regulator shouldn’t be able to issue industry-wide regulations, that they should have to go company by company," a Democratic aide said. They’re a weak enough regulator as it is.”

    Industry groups are worried that PHMSA could abuse the authority if it isn't narrowly defined, but some have signaled openness to finding a middle ground.

    "I think there’s a real possibility for compromise there," said one industry official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. The official added that industry groups are conducting their own internal analysis to determine possible options.

    American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers President Chet Thompson said that "we are working to better understand the interplay between the various authorities DOT has," adding that "we are always concerned about providing unfettered authority to any agency."

    Democrats are not without weapons in their struggle to shape the pipeline safety bill. Upton added language to the House's draft that would require annual inspections of two aging underwater pipelines that ship oil through the Great Lakes, giving members and aides on the other side of the aisle an opening to argue that he supports stronger safety measures when they impact his backyard.

    An Energy and Commerce aide acknowledged that a hearing on the bill last week "revealed that some of our members have concerns with the draft, which we are working to resolve in a bipartisan fashion."

    Meanwhile, lawmakers still must grapple with language added to the Senate's PHMSA bill by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that permits members of relevant House and Senate committees to view oil spill response plans without letting pipeline companies redact sensitive information.

    Republicans and industry lobbyists warned that giving lawmakers that level of access would threaten national security because of the risk that unredacted plans become public. Negotiations over how to tweak the language to ensure the plans don't leak briefly stalled the bill's progress, but the Senate eventually punted on the issue until conference with the House, which isn't expected to green-light similar language.

    The industry opposition to Markey's provision infuriated safety advocates, who have long argued that the public should be able to view unredacted response plans so they can better understand the risks of nearby pipelines. Some states, like Washington, already make unredacted versions of the plans available to the public.

    "It seems really ludicrous that you wouldn’t allow members of Congress who probably have security clearances to view these plans," said Carl Weimer, the executive director of the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust.

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. BLM Fracking Rule Lambasted by Industry, States

    Mar 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec

    Several western states and industry groups are hammering away at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hydraulic fracturing (fracking) rule to prevent the federal agency from governing leasehold activity on public and tribal lands.

    The plaintiffs asked a district court in Wyoming to overturn the fracking standards released a year ago (see Shale Daily, March 20, 2015). Last Friday’s filings argue against the rule in the same court where the regulation was stayed last year pending legal challenges (see Shale Daily, Sept. 30, 2015).

    Last September, U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl in Wyoming approved a preliminary injunction (PI) against the fracking regulation and said "petitioners had presented credible evidence that the imposition of the rule would result in irreparable harm to oil and gas operators on federal lands, and that existing federal and state rules were sufficient to protect against environmental harm..." (see Shale Daily, May 19, 2015).

    Attorneys for the Western Energy Alliance (WEA) and North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah lawyers said in the latest briefs that the rule exceeds BLM’s authority, duplicates existing laws and violates the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, among other things.

    “In promulgating the BLM rule, the [federal agency] insists, for the first time, that it has the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands,” North Dakota stated in its brief. It noted that Congress specifically prohibited the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating fracking in 2005 and intended the prohibition to include all federal agencies.

    “Absent a specific grant, the BLM cannot demonstrate congressional intent to alter the more specific provisions of the [laws] or the longstanding balance of power under which North Dakota has primary responsibility over land and water use,” the state said. North Dakota lawyers accused the BLM of attempting "an end-run around Congress’ clear intent."

    The groups picked apart the BLM rule’s key components, which require operators to validate the integrity of cement barriers when well bores pass through aquifers; the public disclosure of chemicals used; and the handling of wastewater.

    WEA's brief pointed out that the BLM requirements for wellbore construction chemicals and water disposal are already "the subject of comprehensive regulations under existing federal and state law."

    It further argued that the rules violate the existing mineral leasing law that authorizes the Interior secretary "to foster and encourage private enterprise in the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources." The rules don't balance environmental needs with "fostering and encouraging" private enterprise.

    The industry briefs pointed out that during the past 30 years drilling on federal and tribal lands has fallen off significantly. In 2010, they said, 23% of all U.S. gas production was done on federal land; today that percentage is down to 13%. Natural gas production has dropped by 1.6 Tcf annually.

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

14. Agency Lags on Cybersecurity Fixes -- IG

    Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Kevin Bogardus

    U.S. EPA is not ensuring fixes meant to bolster cybersecurity have been implemented, according to its own internal watchdog.

    In a report released today, the EPA inspector general raises questions over how well the agency is following through and recording corrective actions designed to improve EPA's information security. The report, signed off on by IG Arthur Elkins, found that EPA had not always implemented recommended fixes even though they were recorded as completed.

    The agency watchdog warned that EPA was leaving itself vulnerable to cyber threats.

    "As a result, the EPA's financial and environmental systems that rely upon the agency's network infrastructure for security are susceptible to attacks that could undermine the integrity of processed data needed for measuring environmental outcomes and decision-making," said the report.

    In addition, the agency needs to do a better job accurately recording its work when improving its cyberdefenses.

    The IG warned that without accurate data, "stakeholders cannot rely on [corrective action data] to assess the progress being made to correct cyber security weaknesses that place the EPA's systems and data at risk."

    In response to the report, Ann Dunkin, EPA's chief information officer, said her office was "disappointed" that many of its comments were not addressed by the IG.

    "Although we agree with the report recommendations, we feel that the draft report does not entirely reflect improvements made to audit follow-up oversight since the initiation of this audit over a year ago," said Dunkin in a response included with the IG's report.

    Cybersecurity has become a big concern for the EPA inspector general.

    The agency watchdog already launched its annual information security probe earlier this month (E&ENews PM, March 8). In addition, EPA and many other agencies were affected in last year's massive data breach at the Office of Personnel Management that compromised the personal information of millions of federal employees.

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Porter Ranch Residents Return Home to Oily Residue

    Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    Authorities closed the gates to a park in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles after they found an oily residue on playground equipment -- the latest event to jar an area trying to return to normal after a monthslong methane leak.

    Southern California Gas Co. crews were called in to scrub the residue off equipment, three weeks after the company plugged the leaking natural gas well.

    Though thousands of residents have since returned to their homes, some are finding small drops of oil on their homes and cars, possibly linked to the leak. Crews installed screens near the well in January to contain the mist, but it may have been too late by then.

    More than 300 residents have reported health complaints to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health even though the well is no longer leaking. The complaints have prompted more monitoring efforts.

    Gillian Wright, the vice president of customer service for Southern California Gas, said the company is "committed to helping communities affected by the leak return to normal as fast as possible".

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

16. Perspective: From M2M to Rail IoT and Big Data Analytics

    Mar 10, 2016 | Progressive Railroading

    By Robyn Kline

    Machine to machine (M2M) technology isn't new to the rail industry, but it has now broadened into the Internet of Things (IoT) and Big Data analytics. Railroads and their customers are benefitting today, and there is still room for growth and the realization of new benefits.

    Railroads are benefitting because, with the rise of IoT, we've actually seen a decrease in safety incidents. The train accident rate in 2014 was the lowest ever, down 79 percent from 1980, and 43 percent from 2000. With the implementation of things like positive train control (PTC) and closer monitoring of driver fatigue, we hope to see this trend continue.
    
    Another advantage IoT provides for railroads is related to the heightened visibility IoT provides: Railroads no long bear sole responsibility for lost, delayed or damaged shipments. A railroad can now share accountability with shippers and equipment manufacturers, given the range of tracking and reporting systems that not only can trace a problem, but also enable prevention. 
    
    IoT also is being used to drastically bring down the costs of operations with, for example, new technology such as mesh networks for tracking and monitoring railcars. By using less hardware and data to elicit valuable information — information such as rapid acceleration, impact detection, and hatch-openings on each individual car — railroads can secure and optimize their operations at steeply reduced costs. Being one of the primary modes of transportation within the country, this helps railroads optimize their efficiencies and increase their output at a better profit margin.
    
    For railroad customers, optimized efficiencies bring down the cost of goods transferred. In the end everyone is happy.

    How M2M has evolved

    The natural progression of M2M communications was to create an even smarter machine-to-machine relationship, with information coming back again, generating a conditional environment. So instead of a machine simply reporting to another machine, they each can understand adjustable criteria and use it to modify their interaction. Lat-Lon, a BSM Technologies Company, is undergoing this transformation with its systems so that each machine is adaptive to each other's activities, creating a symmetrical relationship. For example, once a shipment leaves the railyard on a truck, both the railyard system and the truck report more frequently. 
    
    The heightened visibility mentioned earlier is afforded by global positioning system (GPS) tracking devices. Since 1999, Lat-Lon has been accumulating a broad range of success stories on how this type of M2M communication delivers safety, efficiency and fiscal results to Class 1s, short lines and shippers. In 2014, Lat-Lon was acquired by global asset tracking leader, BSM Technologies. The combined product array completes offerings for all tracking and monitoring needs in the rail industry.  
    
    As technology has evolved, so have the BSM Technologies products, providing a host of sensors that offer relevance to events with GPS data. Applications include the detecting of damaging impacts, identifying "Man Down" equipment, flat wheel sensors, truck hunting input and more. 

    Specific IoT applications

    One major chemical shipper used Lat-Lon GPS with Impacts Data to determine algorithm issues specific to a particular track in an automated yard. This customer was able to determine that a decimal point had been misplaced in an automated sorting yard application, after discovering consistent large impacts on one track.
    
    A short-line railroad is saving more than $1,750 per week in idling fuel per locomotive during winter months with the Lat-Lon Automatic Engine Start Stop application. Lat-Lon AESS lets updates to engine start/stop parameters be made over-the-air, so this railroad can make adjustments quickly and easily when business needs dictate. 
    
    A Class 1 railroad wanted to reduce their claims for spoiled produce. Through 24/7 temperature monitoring, this customer was able to prove that their refer cars had been functioning correctly; one particular destination was incorrectly claiming spoilage.
    
    Most recently, an existing Lat-Lon customer wanted to concisely improve visibility and efficiency without eroding safety. They conceptualized a two-screen system to display all moving and stationary assets within their yard, but on a budget. The customer reached out to Lat-Lon and the Connected Rail Yard was born. The connecting of all rail assets in a yard — from crew to moving equipment to fixed assets — is the epitome of IoT.
    
    For this connected railyard, Lat-Lon harnessed Mesh technology to create a scalable and reliable network with high-frequency transmission capabilities. Sensors installed on switches and derails within the customer's yard pass data along like a bucket brigade, creating a network with multiple paths to each access point. The Solar-Powered Access Point (AP) unit contains a modem that uploads the data to secure servers and train dispatcher screens. That means this customer has fewer modems deployed throughout their yard, while gathering all required data.
    
    In this railyard, moving assets were equipped with a self-contained Solar-Powered Tracking Unit or Locomotive Monitoring Unit. The Connected Rail Yard data is collected on secure servers, and data analytics creates displays on two large, high-definition monitors in the dispatch office. One monitor shows a real-time satellite image with all moving assets as icons. The second monitor shows a custom schematic Rail Yard Control screen (Tracks) with all stationary sensor icons. Each icon is a relay from MeshRF sensors or standalone units deployed within the yard. The dispatch office screen indicates when a switch in the normal, diverting position, or unknown status.  
    
    With Lat-Lon and BSM together, the customer can monitor all assets within the yard. The Connected Rail Yard application is an efficient, at-a-glance tool for this customer to resolve bottlenecks, improve throughput and maximize resources. 

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

17. D.C. Circuit Wants Final Briefs for Ozone Case in September

    Mar 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Sean Reilly

    Final briefs are due this September in the rival legal challenges to U.S. EPA's recently adopted ozone standard, under a schedule issued yesterday by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    Starting with a lawsuit filed in October by Murray Energy Corp., the Ohio-based coal giant, about 20 states and business groups are challenging the new benchmark of 70 parts per billion, adopted by EPA in October, on the grounds that it is too stringent.

    On the other side, the Sierra Club and several other environmental and public health groups say the standard should have been lowered to 60 ppb. All of the lawsuits have been consolidated.

    Opening briefs from both camps are due April 22, followed by reply briefs this summer and final briefs on Sept. 12, the court said, adding that a date for oral arguments will be set later.

    Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, can irritate lung passageways and worsen asthma and other disease. The previous ambient air quality standard for ozone, set in 2008, had been 75 ppb.

    Hearing the appeals will be Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Brett Kavanaugh and Patricia Millett.

    Return to headline | Return to top