Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/11/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Reveals National Enforcement Initiatives Ahead of 2016 Election
Mar 11, 2016 | AG Professional
By Delmar Ehrich, Julian Harrel, and H. Max Kelln
If you thought you had to wait until after the 2016 election to learn about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) next iteration of National Enforcement Initiatives—think again. The EPA has announced that, as of Oct. 1, 2016... -
(ACC Mentioned) New Software Expected to Help Chemical Safety Reviews
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
An updated chemical data access and management system the European Chemical Industry Council expects to release within days will make it easier for companies to comply with regulations governing commercial chemicals... -
Tackling Toxics
Mar 11, 2016 | Science
By Arlene Blum
Most Americans believe that if a chemical is in their cosmetics, their coat, or their couch, someone is making sure it's safe for their health. -
3 Governors Ask EPA for Review After Chemical Found in Water
Mar 11, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The governors of New Hampshire, New York and Vermont are urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review and issue new safe drinking water guidelines regarding an emerging contaminant that’s shown up... -
Military to Check for Water Contamination at 664 Sites
Mar 11, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jennifer McDermott
The military is checking whether chemicals from firefighting foam might have contaminated groundwater at hundreds of sites nationwide and potentially tainted drinking water, the Defense Department said. -
Laundry Detergent From Jessica Alba’s Honest Co. Contains Ingredient It Pledged to Avoid
Mar 11, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Serena Ng
In less than four years, the Honest Company Inc. surged to a $1.7 billion private valuation thanks to its marketing of cleaning supplies, diapers and other consumer products that it says are safer and... -
Obama and Canada’s Justin Trudeau Promote Ties and Climate Plan
Mar 11, 2016 | New York Times
By Julie Herschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear
President Obama on Thursday said the United States and Canada were more closely aligned than ever, using a meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to announce joint efforts to curb emissions of planet-warming gases... -
U.S.-Canada Deal Draws Mixed Reactions on Hill
Mar 10, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
Members of the House and Senate today reacted largely along party lines as the Obama administration rolled out a new climate agreement with Canada that in part calls for U.S. EPA to regulate methane emissions... -
The Obama-Trudeau Climate Pledge Contains Overdue Steps to Fix Natural Gas Leaks
Mar 11, 2016 | New York Times
By Andrew C. Revkin
Today’s “Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership” by President Obama and Canada’s new prime minister, Justin Trudeau, contained lots of welcome environmental commitments, particularly on curbing emissions... -
Inhofe Questions EPA Actions Since Supreme Court Halted Rule
Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
The top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday demanded information from U.S. EPA on agency activities related to the Clean Power Plan. -
Clean Power Plan Opponents Turn Ginsburg's Words on EPA
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan are turning the words of a U.S. Supreme Court justice widely viewed as sympathetic to the Environmental Protection Agency into another weapon to attack the carbon dioxide standards... -
EPA Clean Power Grab Threatens Consumers
Mar 11, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Joe Colangelo
This is National Consumer Protection Week, when the federal government partners with state agencies, corporations, and interest groups to help “consumers nationwide to take full advantage of their consumer rights..." -
Jury Awards $4.24M in Fracking Pollution Case
Mar 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal jury awarded landowners $4.24 million Thursday in a closely watched case on allegations that hydraulic fracturing contaminated well water. -
Are Emissions-Free Fossil Fuel Power Plants Too Good to be True?
Mar 11, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
A fossil-fuel power plant that will produce low-cost electricity with zero emissions? It sounds too good to be true. And it is for the forseeable future. -
Audit Finds Improved EPA Oversight of Inspector Training
Mar 11, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA has taken steps to boost training for risk management program inspectors, the agency's inspector general said in a report released today. -
Iowa Regulators Approve Bakken Pipeline Permit
Mar 11, 2016 | AP (In FuelFix)
The last state permit needed for a pipeline that will carry a half-million barrels of crude oil daily from North Dakota to Illinois was approved Thursday by Iowa utilities regulators, who also gave the Texas-based company authority... -
New York Gas Line Delayed Pending Environmental Permits
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan Crawford
The opening of Williams Partners LP's proposed $925-million Constitution natural gas pipeline will be delayed to the second half of 2017 as the developer awaits a permit to clear trees in New York and other environmental approvals. -
Obama and Trudeau Should Establish a U.S.–Canada Carbon Market
Mar 11, 2016 | TIME
By Glen Murray
As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visits Washington D.C. to discuss a North American climate strategy with President Barack Obama, I urge both leaders to think big on how to leverage our close relationship and propel us... -
Briefing in Ozone Litigation to Begin in April
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Briefing on the legality of the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 national ozone standards of 70 parts per billion will begin in April and conclude in September, according to court documents... -
Los Angeles Area Emissions Trading Plan Challenged
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Southern California air quality officials violated state law in approving industry-backed changes to a regional emissions trading program, environmental advocates said in a lawsuit filed late March 9...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Reveals National Enforcement Initiatives Ahead of 2016 Election
Mar 11, 2016 | AG Professional
By Delmar Ehrich, Julian Harrel, and H. Max Kelln
If you thought you had to wait until after the 2016 election to learn about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) next iteration of National Enforcement Initiatives—think again. The EPA has announced that, as of Oct. 1, 2016, it will focus on two new enforcement initiatives (and expand one existing initiative) during the next three years. The agency also announced the continuation of four prior enforcement initiatives and the conclusion of its initiative for reducing pollution from mineral processing operations.
Collectively, the new initiatives span four major environmental categories: air, energy extraction, hazardous chemicals and water. Focused enforcement in these areas may not stop with the EPA; they also mirror the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) emphasis on preventing catastrophic workplace accidents. All affected industries—including energy, mining, chemical, manufacturing, food processing and agriculture—should give special attention to these enforcement initiatives.
The EPA’s New and Expanded Enforcement Initiatives for Fiscal Years 2017 – 2019Reducing Risks of Accidental Releases at Industrial and Chemical Facilities: The most significant part of the EPA’s announcement is its heightened focus on accidents at facilities that make, use or store extremely hazardous substances. Citing environmental justice concerns, the EPA is also looking to increase enforcement at facilities in low income or minority communities. Facilities that are required to have risk management plans (RMPs) under the Clean Air Act can expect increased scrutiny, particularly given the draft revisions that were recently proposed by the EPA.
This initiative also follows OSHA’s Nov. 29, 2011 National Emphasis Program to reduce or eliminate catastrophic workplace hazards involving highly hazardous chemicals. Many in the chemical industry, including the American Chemistry Council, are concerned that this initiative foreshadows more aggressive enforcement under the Clean Air Act’s “General Duty Clause” as a “catch-all” for industrial accidents, as is increasingly common under OSHA.
Water
Hazardous ChemicalsKeeping Industrial Pollutants Out of the Nation’s Waters: The EPA has identified certain industrial sectors as “disproportionate contributors” to the pollution and sediment that affects numerous bodies of water, especially those that threaten to contaminate drinking water sources. Mining, chemical, manufacturing, food processing and primary metals manufacturing entities should expect more enforcement activity, particularly those that operate in more than one state.
AirCutting Toxic Air Pollutants: The EPA will continue to focus on limiting leaks, flares and excess emissions from refineries and chemical plants. Facilities with large liquid storage tanks, including refineries, chemical plants and other bulk storage facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas and fence line communities will likely be targeted as well. Moving forward, the EPA has expanded its focus to emission control requirements stipulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) and large quantity generators (LQGs) are likely targets for this new enforcement initiative.
In addition, the EPA plans to continue four prior initiatives: (1) reducing air pollution from the largest sources; (2) ensuring energy extraction activities comply with environmental law; (3) keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater out of our nation’s water supply; and (4) preventing animal waste from contaminating surface and ground water. For the most part, the extension of these initiatives is designed to monitor the progress of existing settlement agreements.
The EPA’s New Weapon: Next Generation Enforcement
Regulated industries and entities should also anticipate the EPA’s plan to incorporate Next Generation Enforcement into all enforcement priorities. The agency specifically highlighted its intention to utilize the latest monitoring technologies, data analytics and other measures to increase transparency, many of which go far beyond regulatory requirements. This broad definition suggests a potentially sweeping approach to identifying enforcement targets and underscores the importance of taking proactive measures to minimize potential exposure.
What’s Next?
Although the EPA solicited public comment while these initiatives were being developed, it was under no legal requirement to do so. As a result, the statistics upon which the EPA bases these initiatives are not subject to the same level of scrutiny, leaving many to question their validity. Nonetheless, these initiatives reflect the EPA’s continuing strategy of initiating fewer new enforcement actions in favor of rigorously pursuing larger cases—an approach the agency has demonstrated for the past five years. This targeted enforcement strategy has resulted in increased fines per action, which means that the EPA has been less willing to negotiate penalties with alleged violators.
The focus on larger cases is expected to continue, with the EPA stating that it will specifically target facilities that operate in multiple states to support “a consistent national strategy.” In response, some states have complained about an ongoing lack of collaboration from the EPA and an overly heavy emphasis on enforcement rather than compliance assistance.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the 2016 election, regulated industries and entities can formulate a working understanding of the EPA’s enforcement priorities for the next three fiscal years. Major industrial, energy, and food and agricultural businesses should proactively assess areas of exposure and take steps to preemptively address possible issues to avoid being caught in the EPA’s cross-hairs.
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Software Expected to Help Chemical Safety Reviews
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
An updated chemical data access and management system the European Chemical Industry Council expects to release within days will make it easier for companies to comply with regulations governing commercial chemicals, cosmetics and other types of compounds around the world, according to speakers and a participant at a recent “read-across” workshop.
Read-across methods apply information about one chemical, for example its tendency to bind to fat, to another chemical that is considered to be similar based on its molecular structure, biological activity or other properties. Past approaches to comparing compounds were limited to chemical structure so that the addition of biological activity and other information allows users of read-across techniques to generate more robust assessments.
Read-across also is used to group chemicals into categories for joint evaluation and to fill in gaps of information required for regulatory purposes.
Another data access and chemical comparison tool developed by the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), which is expected to be available later this year, will offer a complementary approach to identifying similar chemicals and available toxicity data for them, Rick Becker, a senior toxicologist at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), told Bloomberg BNA March 9. Becker also attended the read-across workshop.
Software Release Mid-March
The European Chemical Industry Council, or CEFIC, expects to release by mid-March an updated version of Ambit, which is software that searches for and manages chemical information, said Mark Cronin, a professor of predictive toxicology at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) in Liverpool, England.
He spoke at a March 1 workshop CAAT organized to discuss good read-across practice and guidance.
The updated version of Ambit will help companies identify information to make chemical categories based on read-across and find chemicals with needed data that are similar to those lacking required information, Cronin said.
Esther Agyeman-Budu, communication and emerging science policy manager at CEFIC, told Bloomberg BNA March 3 that the council will release the new version of Ambit by mid-March.
The European Chemicals Agency announced in February that it would allow CEFIC access to chemical data the agency manages for Ambit.
“The aim of the tool is to avoid unnecessary testing on animals when filling information gaps on chemicals. ECHA supports this industry initiative by giving CEFIC access to carefully-selected parts of the non-confidential registration data, to protect the rights of the data owners,” the agency said.
ECHA Data on 14,570 Chemicals
Ambit's updated software will allow users to easily and systematically search a wide variety of existing information about a chemical as well as data a company has generated, said Becker.
Ambit is being updated to search all non-confidential information submitted to the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) as of Jan. 12 for 14,570 chemicals, Cronin said. Chemical manufacturers submitted the data to comply with the EU's REACH, or registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals, regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006.
Cronin said the vast amount of data that will be available will help companies develop clearer scientific justifications for their use of read-across.
That may help address a frustration companies have experienced as they've tried to use read-across to satisfy some of REACH's data requirements, he said.
Theoretically, read-across methods should be simple to execute, cheap and easy to understood, Cronin said.
“That's not the reality,” however, he said. Instead, regulatory agencies are requiring chemical manufacturers to provide extensive justifications of the companies' proposed use of data collected from read-across methods, Cronin said.
Becker said the updated Ambit software will generate a report that the company would fill out.
The report will help the company explain to regulators the scientific rationale it used to apply information from one chemical to a similar chemical, he said.
ToxTrack Data Access, Comparison Tool Coming
CAAT Director Thomas Hartung and Tom Luechtefeld, a research associate at the alternatives to animal testing center, described data access and comparison software their center has developed called ToxTrack.
ToxTrack also draws on the vast amount of safety data submitted to the European Chemicals Agency over the last 10 years.
Because the ECHA database only can be searched one chemical at a time, the CAAT team developed software that extracts non-confidential information. The software then converts the information into a searchable database that, Hartung said, offers even more functionality than Ambit.
Hartung said he expected to release ToxTrack earlier this year, but has been delayed by a well-publicized legal ownership concern raised by ECHA.
The chemicals agency said it provides, but does not own, the information in its database, Hartung said.
ECHA emailed Bloomberg BNA a statement March 2.
“The Johns Hopkins initiative is very welcome in the sense that it also aims to use data to make chemical use safer and to avoid testing on animals,” ECHA said.
Before going ahead with its project, however, the CAAT team should have asked permission to use the entire data set, the agency said.
“This need for permission is outlined in the legal notice that you have to accept before starting your search for information on substances. This is not a bureaucratic requirement—it simply reflects that the data is the property of thousands of organizations around Europe, who have rights,” ECHA said.
Legal Access Issues Being Worked Out
“We have contacted John Hopkins and offered them access to a carefully selected and limited set of the data—in order to protect the rights of the data owners. Johns Hopkins has agreed to this approach,” ECHA said.
Hartung said CAAT and the agency have agreed in principle, but CAAT is waiting to see the how much data the agency would allow ToxTrack to access and the terms and conditions placed on that access.
The center and chemicals agency both have the same goal of improving chemical safety assessments and reducing the use of experimental animals, Hartung said.
He and Cronin said companies, regulators and researchers using read-across will serve many purposes.
Read-across can be used to meet regulatory requirements in new and updated chemical legislation around the world, Hartung said. He cited Korea REACH as just one example.
Read-across also can help different types of companies comply with different types of chemical regulations including pharmaceutical and cosmetic rules, he said.
Draize Tests ‘Not Much Better Than a Lottery.’
More importantly, Hartung said, improved software that searches through the growing number of chemical databases and identifies compounds that may affect people or the environment in similar ways can improve safety assessments and reduce the use of animal-based toxicity tests, which are not as predictive as traditionally thought.
CAAT analyzed the data in ECHA's database to determine the extent to which companies used the Draize eye test where compounds are used on rabbits.
The Draize test is an acute toxicity measure involving leaving the compound in the eye and then observing the eye for ulcerations, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, blindness or other problems.
CAAT's analysis found that the safety information generated by Draize test results are “not much better than a lottery,” Hartung said.
The growing volume of in vitro data combined with computer-based chemical toxicity tests are better predictors of toxic potential than animal tests, he said.
Companies Change Safety Assessment Approach
Becker, from ACC, said the updated version of Ambit and ToxTrack illustrate a fundamental change to chemical safety assessments.
Years ago, when chemical manufacturers needed toxicity data, they generated new information.
Now “we look for information first, and then we say, do we have sufficient confidence in this information that we can use it?” Becker said.
“Now, more than ever, we have information about how chemicals interact with biological systems and these [read-across] tools allow us to harness it,” Becker said.
The tools save time and money, but more important, he said, they provide better scientific knowledge to underpin safety assessments.
-
Mar 11, 2016 | Science
By Arlene Blum
Most Americans believe that if a chemical is in their cosmetics, their coat, or their couch, someone is making sure it's safe for their health. In reality, little toxicity information or regulation is required for 80,000 industrial chemicals used in commerce in the United States. To address this, legislation to update the ineffective 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) is currently moving through Congress. The hope is that it will lead to improved regulation of chemicals, but the extent and timeliness of the reform are not certain. In the meantime, the widespread use of harmful chemicals continues to pose a threat to our health and environment.
In 1977, Bruce Ames and I published a report that a flame retardant in children's pajamas called “brominated Tris” was a mutagen and potential carcinogen. Three months later, it was banned from children's pajamas, only to be replaced by “chlorinated Tris.” We determined that this too was a mutagen, and it was removed from pajamas. Such regrettable substitution of a harmful chemical with a less-studied cousin is like “a game of whack-a-mole,” according to Donald Kennedy (former editor-in-chief of Scienceand former commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration).* Unfortunately, highly fluorinated chemicals are now getting the regrettable substitution treatment. These chemicals provide stain and water repellency in outdoor clothing, nonstick cookware, furniture, carpet, cosmetics, and food contact paper. However, they are highly mobile, have no known degradation pathways in the environment, and can persist indefinitely.
Perfluorooctanoic acid, commonly called C8, has an estimated half-life of 2.3 years or more in humans and is associated with cancer, elevated serum cholesterol levels, and other health problems. C8 was phased out of consumer products in the United States last year, a half-century after toxicologists first revealed its potential for harm. It was replaced with numerous perfluorohexanoic acid (C6) compounds that are more rapidly excreted by humans but also show extreme environmental persistence. Are these replacements safe? There is limited research thus far on the toxicity of the C6 alternatives. However, they are increasing in the environment and in human blood, and they share the potential toxicity of their C8 relatives.
One solution to the regrettable substitution problem is to address entire families or classes containing toxic chemicals rather than tackling them one at a time. For example, the Green Science Policy Institute, an organization of scientists that promotes the responsible use of chemicals, has called for a 50% reduction over the next 5 years in the use of six families of chemicals in consumer products, whose studied members have been found to be harmful: highly fluorinated chemicals, antimicrobials, flame retardants, bisphenols and phthalates, organic solvents, and certain metals.† Before using such substances in products, we should ask “Do we need this chemical, given the potential for harm?”
The good news is that companies are starting to act: Kaiser Permanente, IKEA, Levi Strauss & Co., and Crate and Barrel are phasing out highly fluorinated and other chemical classes of concern from the products they buy, produce, and/or sell.
Scientists can contribute by evaluating health and environmental impacts across a chemical's life cycle and looking for safer alternatives. They can make policy recommendations and collaborate on consensus documents. In 2015, 230 scientists from 40 countries signed the Madrid Statement,‡ expressing concern regarding the persistence and toxicity of both the highly fluorinated C8 chemicals and the C6 alternatives. Scientists can catalyze dialogue and action among manufacturers, retailers, and large purchasers and have an immediate impact in reducing the use of harmful chemicals.
Such actions by the scientific community can, along with meaningful TSCA reform, improve the health of the population and the environment. Most important of all, it will make our planet healthier and safer for future generations.
-
3 Governors Ask EPA for Review After Chemical Found in Water
Mar 11, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The governors of New Hampshire, New York and Vermont are urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review and issue new safe drinking water guidelines regarding an emerging contaminant that’s shown up in water systems and in private wells.
They wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Thursday asking for a review of the best available science regarding PFOA. It’s part of a family of chemicals used to make nonstick cookware and stain-resistant carpeting.
Last month, Honeywell International and Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics were sued in New York. Regulators identified them as potentially responsible for chemical contamination in Hoosick Falls’ water.
Saint-Gobain last owned the now-closed ChemFab plant in southwestern Vermont. It’s been providing bottled water to residents since PFOA was found in North Bennington. It also found PFOA in samples in Merrimack, New Hampshire.
-
Military to Check for Water Contamination at 664 Sites
Mar 11, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jennifer McDermott
The military is checking whether chemicals from firefighting foam might have contaminated groundwater at hundreds of sites nationwide and potentially tainted drinking water, the Defense Department said.
The checks will be carried out at 664 sites where the military has conducted fire or crash training, the department said this week.
So far, 28 naval sites have been tested, with one site in Virginia and one in New Jersey showing chemicals in water at levels above the EPA’s guidance, the Navy said. Tests at 26 other naval sites, most of them in coastal areas, have either come up under federally acceptable levels or are pending.
The Navy is giving bottled water to its personnel at a naval landing field in Virginia and is testing wells in a nearby rural area after the discovery of perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water, which the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says may be associated with prostate, kidney and testicular cancer, along with other health issues.
The Navy found perfluorinated chemicals in the groundwater monitoring wells at Naval Weapons Station Earle in Colts Neck, N.J., but not in the drinking water supply. Test results from off-base drinking water wells are expected this month.
And several congressmen are raising concern about the safety of drinking water near two former Navy bases in suburban Philadelphia. The lawmakers say firefighting foams might be the source of chemicals found in nearly 100 public and private wells near the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove and the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster.
The Navy began sampling water at bases in December.
The foam is used at locations where potentially catastrophic fuel fires can occur, such as in a plane crash, because it can rapidly extinguish them. It contains perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOS and PFOA, both considered emerging contaminants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The Defense Department said that until foam without perfluorinated chemicals can be certified for military use, it is removing stocks of it in some places and also trying to prevent any uncontrolled releases during training exercises.
The military is beginning to assess the risk to groundwater at the training sites not only to determine the extent of contamination, but also to identify any action the Defense Department needs to take, said Lt. Col. Eric D. Badger, a department spokesman.PauseCurrent Time0:00/Duration Time0:00Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00Fullscreen00:00Unmute
California has the most, with 85, followed by Texas, with 57, Florida, with 38, and Alaska and South Carolina, each with 26, according to a list provided to the AP. Each state has at least one site.
The EPA in 2009 advised on the threshold of contamination by the chemicals at which action should be taken to reduce exposure. The advisory is considered a guideline, and not anything that can be legally enforced.
The EPA said then that it was assessing the potential risk from short-term exposure through drinking water. It later began studying the health effects from a lifetime of exposure. Those studies remain in progress.
The Navy started handing out bottled water in January to about 50 people who work at the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress in Chesapeake, Va., and it worked with the city to set up a water station for concerned property owners after it found perfluorinated chemicals in on-base drinking water wells above the concentrations in the EPA advisory.
The Navy is testing private wells of nearby property owners; those results are due next week.
Chris Evans, of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, credited the Navy with being proactive but said he was concerned any time there was a potential threat to human health and the environment.
Some states have established their own drinking water and groundwater guidelines for the maximum allowable concentrations of the chemicals; Virginia uses the EPA’s.
“We’ll follow EPA’s lead as this develops,” said Evans, the director of the office of remediation programs.
There’s a lot of evolving science around perfluorinated chemicals, said Lawrence Hajna, a spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
“The more that we hear, the more that we realize that this is a very important health concern,” he said.
-
Laundry Detergent From Jessica Alba’s Honest Co. Contains Ingredient It Pledged to Avoid
Mar 11, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Serena Ng
In less than four years, the Honest Company Inc. surged to a $1.7 billion private valuation thanks to its marketing of cleaning supplies, diapers and other consumer products that it says are safer and more ecologically friendly than other brands.
The company, co-founded by actress Jessica Alba, is challenging giants such as Procter & Gamble Co. and Clorox Co. with a guarantee that its offerings don’t contain what it says are harsh chemicals found in many mainstream products. One of the primary ingredients Honest tells consumers to avoid is a cleaning agent called sodium lauryl sulfate, or SLS, which can be found in everyday household items from Colgate toothpaste to Tide detergent and Honest says can irritate skin. The company lists SLS first in the “Honestly free of” label of verboten ingredients it puts on bottles of its laundry detergent, one of Honest’s first and most popular products.
But two independent lab tests commissioned by The Wall Street Journal determined Honest’s liquid laundry detergent contains SLS.
“Our findings support that there is a significant amount of sodium lauryl sulfate” in Honest’s detergent, said Barbara Pavan, a chemist at one of the labs, Impact Analytical. Another lab, Chemir, a division of EAG Inc., said its test for SLS found about the same concentration as Tide, which is made by P&G. “It was not a trace amount,” said Matthew Hynes, a chemist at Chemir who conducted the test.
Honest disputes the labs’ findings and says its own testing found no SLS in its products.
“We do not make our products with sodium lauryl sulfate,” said Kevin Ewell, the company’s research and development manager.
Honest’s business goes well beyond the detergent, which is the only product the Journal examined. The company, which has raised more than $200 million from private investors, sells more than 100 varieties of products. It has developed a loyal following among its customers, and its line of diapers and other baby-focused products have been particularly popular with young mothers. It sells products online, but also enjoys shelf space at Target Corp. and Costco Wholesale Corp.
Honest said its manufacturing partners and suppliers have provided assurances that its products don’t contain SLS beyond possible trace amounts. Honest provided the Journal with a document it said was from its detergent manufacturer, Earth Friendly Products LLC, that stated there was zero “SLS content” in the product. Earth Friendly in turn said the document came from its own chemical supplier, a company called Trichromatic West Inc., which it relied on to test and certify that there was no SLS.
-
Obama and Canada’s Justin Trudeau Promote Ties and Climate Plan
Mar 11, 2016 | New York Times
By Julie Herschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear
President Obama on Thursday said the United States and Canada were more closely aligned than ever, using a meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to announce joint efforts to curb emissions of planet-warming gases and to promote his personal rapport with the leader of a pivotal neighbor.
Mr. Obama played the older, more experienced host to Mr. Trudeau’s fresh-faced newcomer during the visit, the first official one by a Canadian leader in 19 years, as the two announced that they were teaming up to reduce the release of methane, a chemical contained in natural gas.
“He campaigned on a message of hope and of change; his positive and optimistic vision is inspiring young people,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference in the White House Rose Garden, drawing unmistakable parallels between Mr. Trudeau’s rise to power and his own. “On the world stage, his country is leading on climate change and cares deeply about development, so from my perspective, what’s not to like?”
Mr. Obama, 54, welcomed Mr. Trudeau, 44, with a formal arrival ceremony on the South Lawn featuring a 21-gun salute, color guards and military bands. Mr. Trudeau was greeted by cheering onlookers waving miniature American and Canadian flags, reflecting the same brand of rock-star adulation that characterized many of Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign appearances.
The official visit unfolded against the backdrop of an increasingly intense campaign to succeed Mr. Obama. Mr. Trudeau, who has joked about welcoming Americans to his country if they are afraid of a Donald J. Trump presidency, diplomatically declined to criticize the Republican presidential front-runner during the news conference.
“I have tremendous confidence in the American people and look forward to working with whomever they choose to send to this White House later this year,” Mr. Trudeau said, answering a question about the stakes for his country and its relationship with the United States should Mr. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, win the White House.
A somewhat amused Mr. Obama rejected the idea that his own tenure had helped to fuel Mr. Trump’s rise, arguing that the “Republican political elites” and news media were responsible for setting a divisive tone and elevating an us-versus-them mentality — including questions about the president’s birthplace — that created an atmosphere in which Mr. Trump thrived.
“I have been blamed by Republicans for a lot of things, but being blamed for their primaries and who they’re selecting for their party is,” Mr. Obama said with a long pause and a grin, “novel.”
“What I’m not going to do is to validate some notion that the Republican crackup that’s been taking place is a consequence of actions that I’ve taken,” he added.
On policy, Mr. Obama and Mr. Trudeau promised that their two countries would “play a leadership role internationally in the low-carbon global economy over the coming decades.” As part of the announcement, United States officials said they would immediately begin a new push to regulate methane emissions from existing oil and gas facilities, though finishing that process before the end of Mr. Obama’s tenure is unlikely.
The Obama administration wants to cut methane emissions from the oiland gas sector by 40 percent to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. The Interior Department has proposed a number of regulations on methane leaks, but it has yet to write a regulation governing such leaks from current oil and gas drilling on public land.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Trudeau also pledged to cooperate in preserving the Arctic, and to move more quickly to carry out agreements made in climate talks in Paris last year.
“The president and I agree on many things, including, of paramount importance, the direction we want to take our countries in to ensure a clean and prosperous future,” Mr. Trudeau said, thanking the president, whom he addressed as Barack, for his leadership on climate change. “Canada and the U.S. will stand side by side to confront the pressing needs that face not only our two countries, but the entire planet.”
The official visit was to conclude with a state dinner in the East Room of the White House.
The arrival of Mr. Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau — accompanied by their three young children — has prompted comparisons to a similar visit in 1977 by Pierre Trudeau, then the prime minister and the current leader’s father. That visit made headlines when Margaret Trudeau, his wife, wore an above-the-knee dress to the White House state dinner.
Does the President think he can get anything done on methane leaks with all those rubes in Congress?
While Canada and the United States have long been close allies, Mr. Obama’s efforts to confront global warming was a major point of contention with Mr. Trudeau’s predecessor, Stephen Harper, who sought to aggressively expand Canada’s oil industry.
As Mr. Obama became more determined to leave behind a lasting environmental legacy, he delayed and eventually rejected construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported nearly a million barrels a day of heavily polluting petroleum from the Alberta oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
Mr. Obama’s rejection of the pipeline severely strained relations with Mr. Harper, but Mr. Trudeau’s election last year signaled a shift in policy that was welcomed by the White House. Mr. Trudeau did not criticize Mr. Obama’s stance on the pipeline, and he has pledged to pursue an ambitious environmental agenda dovetailing with Mr. Obama’s policies.
In December, Canadian officials helped to push through a historic global climate agreement in Paris.
In their Oval Office meeting on Thursday, the leaders also discussed military cooperation, efforts to combat terrorism, improvements in trade and environmental concerns.
They agreed to push forward on an agreement allowing travelers from each country to be pre-cleared through immigration and customs, aiding tourism and commerce. The two leaders also struck a deal to share more information — including on no-fly lists and border crossings — in an effort to prevent foreign fighters from traveling freely between Canada and the United States.
They parted with some issues unresolved, most prominently a decades-old dispute over softwood lumber. American officials say lumber from Canada is unfairly subsidized by the government there, an assertion that Canadian officials reject. Both leaders said they were optimistic about resolving their differences on the matter in the coming months.
“It’s been a longstanding bilateral irritant, but it hardly defines the nature of the U.S.-Canadian relationship,” Mr. Obama said, adding that while each side would likely be dissatisfied with the outcome, officials would ultimately find a middle ground on the issue. “People will complain and grumble,” Mr. Obama said. “But it will be fine.”
-
U.S.-Canada Deal Draws Mixed Reactions on Hill
Mar 10, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
Members of the House and Senate today reacted largely along party lines as the Obama administration rolled out a new climate agreement with Canada that in part calls for U.S. EPA to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.
Democrats were quick to praise the agreement, characterizing the regulation of methane from oil and gas sources as the remaining piece to cement President Obama's climate legacy.
Republicans called the move unwarranted and warned that it would be costly and undercut U.S. shale production.
"It is just another unnecessary move in a long line of punitive actions aimed at punishing the oil and gas industry," said Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). "This is the same industry that has been one of the few sources of light driving the president's anemic economic recovery despite his attempt to extinguish it."
The Obama administration this morning announced the agreement at the start of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's first visit to the White House. Along with committing both nations to address oil and gas methane emissions, the deal also calls for the United States and Canada to take several steps to address climate change impacts in the Arctic (Greenwire, March 10).
Led by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), 75 House Democrats today sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy saying they were "pleased" with the administration's announcement and look forward to working with EPA to finalize a suite of methane regulations.
"Reducing methane emissions from this industry is a cost-effective way to combat climate change, improve public health and reduce the waste of natural gas," the lawmakers wrote.
McCarthy told reporters today that the agency will roll out a request for information on emissions and sources in the coming weeks to kick off the rulemaking process, but it's unclear whether the effort will be completed before the Obama administration leaves office.
In a brief interview, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) welcomed the agreement and said the "methane leakage question has been the big unknown" in the broader climate change problem in the United States.
He said, however, that he worried the effort had come too late to remediate the effects of climate change.
"Time will tell on that," he said.
Inhofe, however, said it appeared the administration was "grasping at straws" in an attempt to make up for a gap between its pledge to the international community to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and where emission levels will actually end up by that year.
Top House Republican energy leaders also released a joint statement today criticizing the Obama administration for a "fanatical pursuit of regulations."
"It is not fair for America's working families to be collateral damage in the administration's effort to meet commitments for a Paris climate deal that is not legally binding," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Reps. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.).
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said that methane emissions have steadily dropped in the oil and gas industry and that the agreement amounted to a giveaway to OPEC and Russia.
"We should be erecting the international support to defeat ISIL," Bishop said in a statement, "rather than new barriers to energy development that play directly into enemies' hands."
While the methane crackdown has so far been the most controversial part of the agreement, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) showedE&ENews PM her printout of the agreement on which she had highlighted and underlined other components she felt were concerning.
Among those provisions: The United States and Canada reaffirmed a goal to protect at least 17 percent of land areas and 10 percent of marine areas in the Arctic by 2020.
"I'm looking at this and saying, 'OK, so what does this really mean?'" Murkowski said. "If the president is going to move forward with marine protected areas or monument designation unilaterally without any consultation with Congress or certainly the delegations, I've got real problems with that."
-
The Obama-Trudeau Climate Pledge Contains Overdue Steps to Fix Natural Gas Leaks
Mar 11, 2016 | New York Times
By Andrew C. Revkin
Today’s “Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership” by President Obama and Canada’s new prime minister, Justin Trudeau, contained lots of welcome environmental commitments, particularly on curbing emissions of methane leaking from existing oil and gas infrastructure. They pledged to cut such emissions 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector.
Methane is the main constituent in natural gas and a valuable fuel if kept in pipelines and burned efficiently. But it’s a potent greenhouse gas if it leaks into the air, which happens far too routinely at tens of thousands of wells, compressors, pipelines and other pieces of North America’s vast energy infrastructure.
It’s great to see these steps being announced, and will be even better to see them carried out. But much of this could have been done years ago.
Click back to our front-page 2009 report in The Times and thisrelated Dot Earth post to see how clear the problem, and solutions, were even then.
Years of additional monitoring and analysis have been done since, as Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a related blog post today:
The new data show that methane emissions are substantially higher than we previously understood. So, it’s time to take a closer look at regulating existing sources of methane emissions.
And, today, President Obama committed to doing just that. E.P.A. will begin developing regulations for methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources. We will start this work immediately to address methane from existing sources. We intend to work swiftly, and will involve stakeholders in meaningful ways, as we have been doing all along.
The problem, of course, is that — at least in the United States — action could have come much sooner. (Trudeau can point to the woeful environmental record of his predecessor, Stephen Harper, to explain any lag in Canada.)
McCarthy’s assertion that the leakage issue only became clear enough to act now is hard to swallow, particularly given Obama’s longstanding “all of the above” push on energy, which I supported, but only if it came with extra attention to oversight.
But better late than never.
Jonas Kron, of Trillium Asset Management, an investment firm focused on profitable but responsible ventures, hailed the move, noting that his firm and other investors have been pressing for industry to cut such emissions. “Now is not the time for industry and its trade associations to fight this initiative,” he said. “Now is the time for them to become part of the solution.”
But Mark Brownstein, who leads analysis of the oil and gas sector at the Environmental Defense Fund, warned that such commitments are only as good as the actions that follow. “Obviously there are many miles to go before Canada and the U.S. make good on the joint commitment today,” he told me. “But this clearly puts the issue of oil-and-gas methane on a whole new level. With two of the world’s largest oil and gas producing countries moving ahead toward a 45-percent reduction, it sets a mark for other oil and gas nations to meet.”
Here are the details from the White House website:
Building on a history of working together to reduce air emissions, Canada and the U.S., commit to take action to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the world’s largest industrial methane source, in support of achieving our respective international climate change commitments. To set us on an ambitious and achievable path, the leaders commit to reduce methane emissions by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector, and explore new opportunities for additional methane reductions. The leaders also invite other countries to join the target or develop their own methane reduction goal. To achieve this target, both countries commit to:
Regulate existing sources of methane emissions in the oil and gas sector:
– The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will begin developing regulations for methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources immediately and will move as expeditiously as possible to complete this process. Next month, EPA will start a formal process to require companies operating existing methane emissions sources to provide information to assist in development of comprehensive standards to decrease methane emissions.
– Environment and Climate Change Canada will also regulate methane emissions from new and existing oil and gas sources. Environment and Climate Change Canada will move, as expeditiously as possible, to put in place national regulations in collaboration with provinces/territories, Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders. Environment and Climate Change Canada intends to publish an initial phase of proposed regulations by early 2017.
-
Inhofe Questions EPA Actions Since Supreme Court Halted Rule
Mar 11, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
The top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday demanded information from U.S. EPA on agency activities related to the Clean Power Plan.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said he was concerned that EPA may be "attempting to intimidate" states into continuing their planning for the program despite the Supreme Court's decision last month to freeze the rule.
In a letter yesterday to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Inhofe asked EPA to describe "clearly and in detail" all agency work on the Clean Power Plan during the stay, including on related model trading rules and a federal plan.
"Since February 9, 2016, when the Supreme Court issued the stay order, the agency's public response has ranged between muddled reticence and outright defiance," Inhofe wrote, "leaving impacted stakeholders and resource-strapped states confused and in limbo."
Since the stay, EPA officials -- McCarthy included -- have stated that the agency would continue working with states that want to keep drafting plans to comply with the program.
Legal experts and former agency officials say that EPA has leeway to continue at least some implementation activities, though they've warned that the agency would face a perception problem (Greenwire, Feb. 18).
Inhofe has long opposed the Clean Power Plan and the Obama administration's broader climate agenda.
He suggested in his letter that the Obama administration was continuing its planning efforts for the Clean Power Plan because of worries by the international community that the United States would not uphold its pledge to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Inhofe also took issue with indications by EPA officials that the agency would not need to bump back all future compliance deadlines should the rule ultimately survive.
Along with information on planning efforts, the chairman's letter requested a definitive response by March 31 to how EPA would handle future deadlines under the program. Inhofe also wants EPA to provide how much funding it's currently allocating to Clean Power Plan activities.
"Whatever legal and policy differences we have on this rule," Inhofe said, "I hope we can agree that states deserve clarity from EPA on its plans and expectations following the stay."
-
Clean Power Plan Opponents Turn Ginsburg's Words on EPA
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan are turning the words of a U.S. Supreme Court justice widely viewed as sympathetic to the Environmental Protection Agency into another weapon to attack the carbon dioxide standards for power plants.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the Supreme Court's unanimous 2011 opinion finding the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act—including its power under Section 111(d), the basis of the Clean Power Plan—displaced states' ability to bring common law nuisance claims against power plants and other emissions sources (Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2011 BL 161239, 72 ERC 1609 (2011)).
The opinion is being cited by both supporters and opponents in the legal battle over the rule. While it isn't expected to be pivotal to the Clean Power Plan's fate, it has provided opponents of the EPA's rule with a rhetorical cudgel to blast the Clean Power Plan.
“It will be cited strongly by both sides,” James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP, who isn't involved in the Clean Power Plan litigation, told Bloomberg BNA. “The EPA has taken a position that that decision establishes clearly its authority to regulate greenhouse gases.”
Oral Argument Set for June 2
The Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) is being challenged by 27 states as well as several utility and industry groups. The case is scheduled for oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 2 (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, opposition filed 2/25/16).
Ginsburg is seen as generally supportive of EPA regulations. She was in the majority in the 2007 decision affirming the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and her opinion in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut is viewed as an affirmation of agency authority. She also opposed the Supreme Court's recent decision to stay the EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Opponents Point to Footnote
Although Ginsburg specifically cited the EPA's Section 111(d) authority as one of the factors displacing common law claims in the Supreme Court's decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, she also included a footnote that appears to bolster arguments by opponents of the Clean Power Plan.
It says the agency is barred from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under Section 111(d), because those units already are subject to toxic air pollutant standards under Section 112.
“Footnote 7 obviously is a mystery in how it's going to factor into this litigation,” Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, told Bloomberg BNA. “Does it indicate the court carefully considered the relationship between 111(d) and 112?”
Burger represents cities and mayors who support the EPA in the litigation.
When the Clean Air Act was last amended in 1990, conflicting amendments to Section 111(d) were adopted. The language offered by the Senate would prevent the EPA from regulating the same pollutants under both Sections 111(d) and 112.
However, the House language goes farther, barring the agency from regulating industrial sources under Section 111(d) if they already are subject to toxic pollutant standards under Section 112, as are power plants. Only the House language appears in the U.S. Code, while both provisions are reflected in the statutes at large.
Section 112 Exclusion Principle
Ginsburg's footnote in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut appeared to endorse the so-called Section 112 Exclusion principle.
“There is an exception: EPA may not employ [Section 111(d)] if existing stationary sources of the pollutant in question are regulated under the national ambient air quality standard program ... or the ‘hazardous air pollutants' program, [Section 112],” she wrote in the footnote.
Clean Power Plan proponents dispute the footnote has any force, given the issue of Section 111(d) versus Section 112 standards wasn't before the court, and the matter wasn't briefed at the time.
“It's not even a holding in the case. It's not even dicta,” Burger said.
“There's no doubt that the petitioners make note of Footnote 7, but the simple fact is that a footnote from the previous Supreme Court decision does not constitute a holding or the court's decision on the matter, and it doesn't even indicate that the court looked at that issue that closely,” he said.
EPA Endorsed ‘Literal' Reading
States and industries opposed to the Clean Power Plan argue the EPA itself had acknowledged that exclusion in previous rules issued under Section 111(d).
“EPA has repeatedly agreed that this prohibition against regulating under Section 111(d) any existing ‘source category … regulated under section [1]12' means what it says,” they said in a Feb. 19 brief. “In five analyses spanning three different administrations—in 1995, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2014—the agency consistently concluded that this text means that ‘a standard of performance under [Clean Air Act] Section 111(d) cannot be established for any air pollutant … emitted from a source category regulated under section 112,' repeatedly describing this as the text's ‘literal' meaning.”
Ginsburg's footnote was also the backbone of the argument offered by 200 members of Congress opposed to the carbon dioxide standards (36 DEN A-1, 2/24/16).
Full Court's Considered Reasoning?
Although the footnote would appear to endorse opponents' arguments, it may not represent the full court's considered reasoning, Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell LLP representing the American Coalition of Clean Coal Electricity, told Bloomberg BNA.
“I think it helps my side of the debate, but I don't think it's dispositive,” he said.
The EPA refined its interpretation of the conflicting Section 111(d) amendments when states and utilities challenged the proposed Clean Power Plan. The agency had argued the House language cited by opponents is ambiguous and open to varying interpretations, including a reading that would allow the regulation of carbon dioxide (59 DEN B-1, 3/27/15).
However, the members of Congress said even that interpretation runs afoul of Ginsburg's opinion, once again citing her footnote on the conflict between Section 112 and Section 111(d).
“In addition to contradicting the statute's plain language, EPA's new interpretation of Section 111(d) also differs from the Supreme Court's own explanation of Section 111(d) in AEP,” they said. “There, the court articulated the Section 112 Exclusion in the context of a CO2-specific case without limiting its application to the same pollutants.”
Ginsburg Affirmed EPA's Fundamental Authority
Beyond Ginsburg's footnote on the apparent conflict between Sections 112 and 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan proponents said the Supreme Court's decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut broadly supports the EPA's authority.
“The body of the text said Congress in 111(d) spoke directly to EPA's authority to curb CO2 from existing power plants and because of that there is this displacement of this federal common law,” David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and clean air program, told Bloomberg BNA. “If the footnote took that away, then the whole logic of the displacement would be gone.”
While the Supreme Court's decision specifically cited Section 111(d) as an option for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, it also identified the EPA as the body best equipped to determine how to address climate change, Doniger said.
EPA Designated as ‘Expert.'
“It is altogether fitting that Congress designated an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions,” Ginsburg wrote. “The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions. Federal judges lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.”
Although American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut may speak to the EPA's fundamental authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, Dorsey & Whitney's Rubin said Ginsburg's decision may be less helpful when the court examines how the agency applied Section 111(d) in the Clean Power Plan.
“That doesn't get you to where the Clean Power Plan is,” he said. “Have you used that authority in a way that's lawful?”
-
EPA Clean Power Grab Threatens Consumers
Mar 11, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Joe Colangelo
This is National Consumer Protection Week, when the federal government partners with state agencies, corporations, and interest groups to help “consumers nationwide to take full advantage of their consumer rights and make better-informed decisions.”
The irony is that while the federal government claims to be looking out for consumers, it also poses a great danger to them. Look no further than the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan.
Finalized last summer, the Clean Power Plan force utilities to choose between providing reliable and affordable energy to their customers or reducing their output to serve special interests. It does so by imposing different criteria on each state—that is, the federal agency determined how much carbon each individual state can emit.
Consumers’ Research, the organization I direct, has joined Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the new rules. With Nevada on board, there are now 29 states challenging the rules in federal court.
There are major constitutional and legal reasons to distrust the regulations. For one thing, the EPA lacks statutory authority to impose the standards; for another, the regulations infringe upon the regulatory authority of individual states and the voice of the citizens in those states. The regulations are so onerous, and the EPA’s authority to impose them so dubious, that last month the Supreme Court took the unusual move of granting a stay against them; that means the plan is on hold as the legal challenges against it work their way through courts.
My greatest concern, however, is the damage that these regulations would inflict on the average American consumer.
In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle back in 2009, President Obama explained that “under [his] plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket….Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money onto consumers.” While it’s nice to hear the president acknowledge the fundamentals of capitalism, his lack of concern—empathy, you might say—for the financial situation of the average American is alarming.
How much money will companies pass onto consumers? The consulting firm National Economic Research Associates (NERA) estimates that customers would pay between $220-$292 billion total in the years 2022 to 2033 with an average annual increase of $29 and $39 billion (in 2015 dollars). NERA also estimates that the “average annual U.S. retail electricity rate” would increase between 11% to 14%, and that “losses to U.S. consumers [would] range from $64 billion to $79 billion.”
Consumers would also suffer from less reliable electrical service—even as they pay more for it. Remember, the entire purpose of the new regulations is to promote unproven technologies above time-tested coal and natural gas powered plants. Wind and solar is simply more expensive than fossil fuels, as well as less consistent and reliable.
When EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2014, she appealed to the benefits consumers would receive from the new regulations, claiming that “the great thing about this proposal is it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control. . . . It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units.” It will, she said, “position the United States to continue to grow economically in every state, based on their own design.”
At least she’s keeping the American consumer in mind; unfortunately, her agency’s regulations would do the opposite of what she claims.
During National Consumer Protection Week, it’s worth remembering that, as the EPA’s Clean Power Plan illustrates, sometimes consumers need protection from the government itself.
Mr. Colangelo is Executive Director of Consumers’ Research, the nation’s oldest consumer organization.
-
Jury Awards $4.24M in Fracking Pollution Case
Mar 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal jury awarded landowners $4.24 million Thursday in a closely watched case on allegations that hydraulic fracturing contaminated well water.
The Pennsylvania jury concluded that Cabot Oil and Gas Co. was negligent in drilling wells near two families’ properties, the Scranton Times-Tribune reports.
Scott Ely and Monica Marta-Ely and Ray and Victoria Hubert sued Cabot in 2009, saying that the methane in their well water was due to Cabot’s fracking for natural gas.
The case, originating in Dimock, Pa., has been closely watched around the country.
To environmentalists, it’s a concrete example that fracking, which has increased substantially over the last decade, can harm wastewater supplies and pollute drinking water. Dimock was featured prominently in the 2010 documentary "Gasland" about allegations of environmental harms from fracking.
The decision is a major loss for Cabot, which maintains that its well was properly constructed and operated and that it did not cause any pollution. Cabot is planning to appeal the decision and is accusing the plaintiff’s lawyer of bringing in excluded evidence that biased the jury.
“Cabot is surprised at the jury's verdict given the lack of evidence provided by plaintiffs in support of their nuisance claim,” Cabot said in a statement. “The verdict disregards overwhelming scientific and factual evidence that Cabot acted as a prudent operator in conducting its operations.”
It’s also a loss for the gas industry, which has pushed back for years against claims that fracking is harmful.
“It’s very important that when a company like Cabot harms Pennsylvania families … that the courts are a sanctuary for people to seek justice,” the families’ attorney, Leslie Lewis, said in closing arguments Wednesday, according to the Times-Tribune.
The jury had deliberated for more than eight hours before reaching its verdict.
-
Are Emissions-Free Fossil Fuel Power Plants Too Good to be True?
Mar 11, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
A fossil-fuel power plant that will produce low-cost electricity with zero emissions? It sounds too good to be true. And it is for the forseeable future.
Carbon capture and storage technology, which can bury up to 90 percent of the power plant emissions, according to the EPA shows promise but still has huge hurdles to overcome. The technology is expensive and unproven — the captured carbon must remain permanently trapped underground — and in requires massive public subsidies. All of the US-based projects, which are still in the demonstration phase, are publicly-financed in part.
However, Net Power thinks it is on the road to success. “You’re definitely not the first person to say that,” admits Walker Dimmig, a spokesman for Net Power, when asked if the company’s technology is too good to be true. Earlier this week the company said it is building a zero-emissions plant in Texas, which it says is a “first-of-a-kind.”
“Every piece of equipment except for the turbine is already in operation today,” Dimmig told Environmental Leader. “We’ve done thousands of thermodynamic models, and others have done the same. We’ve even tested the novel combustor that the turbine needs. Everything indicates this works the way we believe it does. And now we’re building the demo to confirm it. I guess you could say the only downside is that it doesn’t exist yet and we’re having to go prove it. We have a great deal of commercial interest, but since it’s a brand new technology, everyone wants to see if it will work.”
Dimmig says the company says it expects its future utility-scale power plants using Net Power technology will be able to sell electricity at a comparable cost natural gas power plants.
Net Power is a collaboration between Exelon Generation, CB&I, and 8 Rivers Capital. Almost two years ago the company announced it had secured funding for the $140 million project. This week it broke ground on the 50-megawatt demonstration plant in in La Porte, Texas.
The power plant uses Net Power’s power generation technology with inherent carbon capture, which means it doesn’t require expensive, efficiency-reducing carbon capture equipment.
“Traditional carbon capture approaches begin by assuming today’s best methods of power generation, such as natural gas combined cycle, are also the best starting point for developing a carbon capture system,” Dimmig explains. “So they design additive systems that bolt onto traditional plants to capture, cleanup and then compress their emissions streams. By their very nature, these systems will always be cost-additive to existing technologies: if you add a bunch of equipment, complexity, and processes that require energy, these systems will by necessity lower the efficiency and increase the capital cost of current plants. The only question is can we get those increased costs to an acceptable level; so far, it hasn’t worked out.”
Net Power, on the other hand, produces a high-pressure, high-quality CO2 stream that can be removed via a pipeline and sequestered or used in various industrial processes, including enhanced oil recovery.
The company says this works because:
It uses CO2 (instead of steam) as the working fluid to drive a turbine. “So, when we go to remove part of that working fluid, it’s already in the condition needed to put it in a pipeline,” Dimmig says.
The power plant uses an oxy-combustion system, which means it burns fuel with pure oxygen instead of air. This produces combustion products of CO2 and water, while eliminating NOx and other impurities. The system then removes water from this working fluid.
It recycles the majority of the CO2 working fluid back into the front of the combustor, rather than using that hot CO2 to boil water and drive a steam turbine. “Because most of what we put into our combustor is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,” Dimmig says.
The demonstration plant will generate power that will be fed to the grid. Net Power expects commissioning to begin in late 2016 and be completed in 2017. The company says the 50MW plant will also provide the validation to begin constructing the first 295MWe, commercial-scale Net Power plants.
Lux Research analyst Daniel Choi says the major advantage of Net Power’s technology is that the emissions-free aspect. The company’s primary competition comes from companies developing carbon capture utilization and sequestration technologies; “however, because Net Power has a bottom-up approach to cleaner power generation — whereas CCU/CCS is fitted to traditionally designed plants — it is a promising long-term solution for new projects,” Choi says.
The downsides to Net Power’s technology involve cost — because the process requires an extremely pure oxygen stream, it needs to also build a cryogenic air separation unit, which is very capital intensive — and future finding, Choi says. Most of the $140 million Net Power raised in 2014 will be spent on the demonstration project, which means it will need to raise more money to build the 295 MW commercial plants.
“Overall, the company is well positioned to capitalize on the overall trend toward lowering carbon emissions,” Choi says. “The management team has a solid technical background, and the company is supported by major players. If the demonstration and planned commercial project are successful, NetPower may be able to fully take advantage of the shift from coal to natural gas power not only in the US, but possibly in other countries as well.”
-
Audit Finds Improved EPA Oversight of Inspector Training
Mar 11, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA has taken steps to boost training for risk management program inspectors, the agency's inspector general said in a report released today.
The report says EPA has fixed inconsistent training requirements for inspectors who check high-risk chemical facilities in a program established under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The program requires facilities to file risk management plans that lay out worst-case scenarios for chemical releases and outline measures being taken to prevent them.
Failing to complete a plan or filing one that does not fully account for conditions at a plant can be grounds for EPA fines. But the agency can afford to inspect just a small fraction of plants each year.
In 2013, the IG found EPA had failed to ensure that risk inspectors and their supervisors had met training requirements. That audit found 15 of 45 inspectors were certified to perform inspections without documentation showing they had met minimum training requirements. Six of 12 supervisors didn't meet the minimum training requirements.
In addition, the office found then that EPA "did not have a process to monitor the quality of inspections."
The IG now says EPA has taken steps to correct the problems by revising the training curriculum for inspectors, developing new guidance documents and making other changes.
The fixes "should help to ensure that RMP inspectors and first-line supervisors are properly trained to conduct quality inspections that prevent chemical releases into the air," the report says.
-
Iowa Regulators Approve Bakken Pipeline Permit
Mar 11, 2016 | AP (In FuelFix)
The last state permit needed for a pipeline that will carry a half-million barrels of crude oil daily from North Dakota to Illinois was approved Thursday by Iowa utilities regulators, who also gave the Texas-based company authority to use eminent domain for land that property owners are unwilling to voluntarily provide.
The Iowa Utilities Board voted unanimously to approve a hazardous pipeline permit for the Dakota Access pipeline, called Bakken pipeline because it will stretch 346 miles from Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois, crossing through 18 Iowa counties and 1,300 parcels of land.
“Together we weighed all the issues presented by the parties and found the issues of safety, economic benefits, environmental factors and landowners’ rights to merit the most significant weight in reaching our decision,” board member Elizabeth Jacobs said.
The board decided that the pipeline met the requirements of Iowa law requiring it to “promote the public convenience and necessity.”
After the vote, about a dozen people in the audience stood one by one and stated, “I am an Iowan and I vote no.” Board members quickly left the room. Outside of the building, opponents held a rally.
“That pipeline will be a legacy that we will live to regret if we do not stop it. It is going to poison the land,” said Rodlynn Harrington, a Des Moines woman who was crying.
An appeal is likely from individual landowners, farmers and a coalition of environmental and property rights groups who have voiced concerns about spills that could harm farmland, rivers and streams.“While the ruling is certainly a setback and disappointing landowners will assess how to move forward on appeal and they are going through that process,” said John Murray, a Storm Lake attorney who represents the Northwest Iowa Landowners Association.
Lawsuits also are expected to challenge whether the board has the authority to grant eminent domain to a company building a pipeline for profit. Such authority is frequently given to publicly owned utilities, but not often to for-profit companies, like Dakota Access, which is owned by publicly traded companies Phillips 66 and Energy Transfer Partners.
Owners of 296 parcels of land have refused to sign easements allowing the pipeline to go through their property, and may fight land condemnation proceedings at the county level and appeal their individual cases to district court.
The pipeline has been in the works since 2014, after North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple urged industry and government officials to build more pipelines to keep pace with North Dakota’s rapid oil production and reduce truck and oil train traffic. North Dakota is the nation’s No. 2 oil producer behind Texas.
The project was first proposed when oil prices had slipped to about $80 a barrel. They’re now closer to $40 a barrel.
“This is fantastic and certainly a big step in getting Bakken barrels to quality markets and further displacing foreign barrels,” said Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, which represents hundreds of companies working in the state’s oil patch.
Energy Transfer Partners, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday, had set a completion date for the pipeline late this year. It already has begun stockpiling steel pipe in anticipation of getting the needed permits.
Iowa’s permit requires Dakota Access to file with the board proof of a $25 million general liability insurance policy that must be in effect for the life of the pipeline, as well as irrevocable guarantees that parent companies will be liable for any leaks or spills. It also must provide the board a timeline of construction and quarterly status reports beginning July 1.
Dakota Access says the construction in Iowa will create $1 billion in economic benefit, including creating thousands of jobs.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources also approved a permit Thursday after finding no long-term environmental impact where the pipeline crosses public land, including the Big Sioux, Des Moines and Mississippi rivers. The project must still receive approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. -
New York Gas Line Delayed Pending Environmental Permits
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan Crawford
The opening of Williams Partners LP's proposed $925-million Constitution natural gas pipeline will be delayed to the second half of 2017 as the developer awaits a permit to clear trees in New York and other environmental approvals.
The in-service date has been pushed back from the fourth quarter of 2016, Williams said in a statement Thursday. Once the permits are granted, the Oklahoma City-based company anticipates the start of construction in the summer.
The developer is seeking a water permit from New York state and approval to clear trees. The project also requires approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a final go-ahead from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency overseeing the review. The commission gave initial approval to build and operate the project in December 2014. Tree-felling is almost complete in Pennsylvania.
The 124-mile line will bring gas from the Marcellus shale region in Northeast Pennsylvania to New England and New York. Williams, the largest stakeholder at 41 percent, is developing the pipeline with Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc., and WGL Holdings Inc.
Gas producers in the Marcellus, including Cabot, are counting on the Constitution project to relieve pipeline bottlenecks that have led to a supply glut, depressing prices and leading drillers to shut-in wells and curb output.
-
Obama and Trudeau Should Establish a U.S.–Canada Carbon Market
Mar 11, 2016 | TIME
By Glen Murray
As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visits Washington D.C. to discuss a North American climate strategy with President Barack Obama, I urge both leaders to think big on how to leverage our close relationship and propel us forward in the race against climate change.
For more than two centuries, the United States and Canada have worked together to manage natural resources and protect the environment. From the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909, to the 1991 Air Quality Agreement to fight acid rain, to the 2015 Iqaluit Declaration combating Arctic climate change and supporting indigenous communities, our countries have risen time and again to address environmental challenges together.
No challenge demands more urgency from our countries’ leaders than climate change.
Canada’s recent actions on climate change show just how seriously we are tackling this challenge. In the days immediately following his election, Trudeau turned around Canada’s fossil-fuel dominated climate policy, setting a new course that gained global attention and helped pave the way for a meaningful global climate agreement in Paris. Leading up to the first U.S.-Canada state dinner in nearly 20 years, Trudeau and premiers from coast to coast developed the beginnings of a pan-Canadian plan to put a price on carbon, which could make Canada the first North American country with an economy-wide price on carbon pollution.
In the nine northeastern American states currently participating in aregional cap-and-trade system, carbon pollution from power plants fell by 40% from 2005 to 2013 while the region’s economy grew significantly. Even in a vacuum of federal leadership on climate that existed for almost a decade, our countries found ways to work together at the state and province level, breaking new ground when Quebec joined California’s carbon market. The trans-border cooperation expanded in 2015 to include my own province of Ontario. Last year Ontario hosted the Climate Summit of the Americas, drawing U.S. governors to Toronto for climate talks.
We’re making progress, but we’re not moving quickly enough. We need to capitalize on good results, existing regional actions and relationships. Given the success and acceptance of carbon markets in North America to date, Canada and the U.S. should work together with a goal of establishing a broad North American carbon market as the most effective tool to fight climate change.
For Ontario, a price on carbon is baked into Ontario’s 2016 budget—so our fiscal planning reflects the climate reality that our citizens are already facing. We have eliminated coal-fired power plants from our energy mix, the single largest reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in North America. We’re committing $325 million to projects that will help homeowners use less energy, support more electric vehicle charging stations across Ontario, retrofit social housing developments, help businesses reduce emissions, and help fund local environmental organizations. We are introducing one of the world’s most ambitious electric vehicles incentive programs. And starting in the 2017 calendar year, Ontario’s carbon price will come into effect—every penny from our cap-and-trade program will be reinvested in initiatives to help Ontario families and businesses reduce their emissions to help offset the carbon price.
Ontario’s north is an example of how significantly climate change is impacting our world. It’s a region whose infrastructure, economy and food system depend on ice roads. These regions are warming the fastest, and climate change is outpacing our government’s ability to adapt to it. The impacts in Ontario will be extraordinarily difficult to absorb, but they will pale in comparison to diminishing the livability of our planet.
In the near future, the cost of climate change on Canadian infrastructure alone will stretch into the tens of billions. The U.S. could lose up to $100 billion of coastal property in the next 35 years because of sea level rise.
We are taking aggressive action because we value our culture, our land and our way of life. To meet the climate change challenge, our two countries have to work together. When countries, provinces and states become trading partners to promote clean energy, all jurisdictions realize the economic benefits.
President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau have an opportunity to accelerate North America’s fight against climate change. The economic benefits and opportunities for industrial modernization, clean energy and clean technology are estimated in the trillions. Let’s hope that Canada and the United States take the needed bold steps together to make sure our communities realize the benefits.
Glen Murray is Ontario’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
-
Briefing in Ozone Litigation to Begin in April
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Briefing on the legality of the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 national ozone standards of 70 parts per billion will begin in April and conclude in September, according to court documents (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, 3/9/15).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a March 9order, called for petitioners who are challenging the ozone rule to file their opening briefs by April 22. The court will allow three briefs to be filed: one by states, one by industry organizations and one by environmental advocacy groups.
The EPA in October issued a final rule (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the 2008 ozone standards of 75 ppb, set under President George W. Bush, to a level of 70 ppb. That decision was criticized by various states and industry groups that wanted the 75 ppb standards retained and by environmental groups that thought the available scientific evidence required even more stringent ozone standards.
The state coalition, led by Arizona, and coal giant Murray Energy Corp., the lead industry petitioner, are expected to argue in their briefs that the EPA's decision to set the ozone standards at a level of 70 ppb represents a violation of the Clean Air Act because the standards are not attainable in certain areas of the country.
Opponents of the more stringent ozone standards have argued that 70 ppb is at or below background levels in some areas, particularly in the West (231 DEN A-15, 12/2/15).
The environmental and public health petitioners, which include the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, are expected to argue in their briefs that the EPA failed to offer an adequate explanation for its decision that 70 ppb ozone standards are sufficient to protect public health and welfare. Those groups have previously cited scientific evidence of adverse health effects at lower exposure levels and a recommendation by the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee that cautioned of “substantial evidence” of adverse health effects at 70 ppb (19 DEN A-3, 1/29/16).
The D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have typically granted the EPA significant deference on questions of science, including on setting national ambient air quality standards. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters in October that she made her decision that 70 ppb is protective of human health with an adequate margin of safety, the legal standard for setting a primary national air quality standard, after reviewing more than 1,000 new studies and weighing the advice of science advisers and hundreds of thousands of public comments.
The EPA's response brief in the ozone litigation is due July 22. Petitioner response briefs will be due Aug. 29 and briefing will conclude with the filing of final briefs by Sept. 12, according to the court order.
The D.C. Circuit order said it will inform all parties of the date of oral argument and makeup of the three judge merits panel at a later date.
-
Los Angeles Area Emissions Trading Plan Challenged
Mar 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Southern California air quality officials violated state law in approving industry-backed changes to a regional emissions trading program, environmental advocates said in a lawsuit filed late March 9 (Cmtys. for a Better Env't v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., Cal. Super. Ct., No. BS161399, 3/9/16).
The complaint targets the latest update to the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market, called RECLAIM, a cap-and-trade program the South Coast Air Quality Management District launched in 1993 to curb emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides from oil refineries and other major stationary sources.
At issue is the air district's governing board decision Dec. 4 rejecting staff-proposed changes to RECLAIM. Instead, the board approved an alternative proposal from the Western States Petroleum Association delaying the emissions reductions needed in the Los Angeles air basin to meet state and federal standards, the complaint said. Plaintiffs want the California Superior Court in Los Angeles County to set aside the air district's approval.
“We are reviewing the lawsuit and do not have comment at this time,” air district spokeswoman Tina Cox told Bloomberg BNA in a March 10 e-mail.
The adopted amendments fail to meet California's minimum requirements for the emissions trading program, according to the complaint filed on behalf of the Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council. Under state law, the trading program must be as effective and efficient at reducing emissions as traditional, command-and-control regulations, plaintiffs said in the complaint.
“This lawsuit is a warning to the air board that Californians won't stand by when vital emissions rules are weakened to benefit polluters,” NRDC senior attorney David Pettit said in a March 8 written statement. “If board members continue to water down regulations that should protect our air, they can expect a fight every step of the way.”
Staff Proposal a Three-Year Effort
Proposed revisions to RECLAIM that the air district staff brought to the board in December grew out of a three-year rulemaking effort to satisfy an emissions reduction commitment in the region's 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Part of the rulemaking involved an updated analysis of emissions reductions that could have been achieved through installing best available control technology (BARCT) on certain types of equipment at RECLAIM facilities. The assessment was conducted to ensure RECLAIM facilities achieve the same emissions reductions that would occur under command-and-control regulations.
The Dec. 4 staff proposal called for reducing the cap on nitrogen oxide emissions from the current 26.5 tons a day to 14.5 tons daily over the next seven years. Another element of the proposal called for retiring emissions credits that result from facility and equipment shutdowns to curb the number of excess credits in the market which facilities purchase rather than install controls.
Members of the governing board, however, opted to adopt the industry's alternative establishing 12.5 tons per day, with most of the reductions coming in the latter years. The board also rejected the recommendation to retire credits that stem from shutdowns.
Currently, there are 276 facilities in the RECLAIM program. Only 56 of the facilities, including nine large oil refineries, are affected by the amendments, the air district said.
Staff Said Proposal Was Cost-Effective
Air district staff had estimated its recommended proposal would be cost-effective. The estimate assumed installation of BARCT by 2023 at the nine refineries and 11 non-refinery facilities would cost from $728 million to $1.1 billion.
“Instead of adopting the staff proposal which was supported by significant evidence before it, the Governing Board that morning introduced a new alternative developed by industry interests,” the plaintiff's complaint said. “The evidence presented to the Governing Board failed to support the industry proposal. The industry alternative ensured that it would remain cheaper for certain large companies to buy pollution credits rather than install life-saving pollution controls over the next seven years.”
Plaintiffs alleged the governing board violated the California Health and Safety Code by adopting a RECLAIM program not equivalent to BARCT emissions levels, including RECLAIM credits for emissions that no longer exist, and approving a program that doesn't achieve emissions reductions needed to bring the region into compliance with federal and state air quality standards.
Arbitrary and Capricious
The complaint also alleged the board's action was arbitrary and capricious and procedurally unfair “because after a three-year rulemaking process, the public only became aware of this proposal during the hearing.”
“This is a dangerous decision will make it that much harder for the air district to adopt a credible plan later this year to meet federal smog standards,” Adrian Martinez of Earthjustice, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
Filed in California Superior Court in Los Angeles County, the complaint comes just days after the South Coast air district board rejected a request from the State Senate Environmental Quality Committee to reconsider the RECLAIM amendments. At the March 4 meeting, the governing board also dismissed long-time Executive Officer Barry Wallerstein, who in December had cautioned against adoption of the industry proposal.
Both the RECLAIM amendments and Wallerstein's dismissal come amid claims by environmental groups and even members of the state legislature that newly installed Republican members of the governing board want to make air quality regulations more business friendly.
State Regulators Concerned
In January, the California Air Resources Board also voiced concern about the RECLAIM amendments.
In a Jan. 7 letter to Wallerstein, CARB Executive Officer Richard Corey said his staff's preliminary review of the revisions “would result in an air quality management plan (AQMP) we cannot approve.”
Like the plaintiffs, Corey said state law allows implementation of a market-based program only as long as the “program results in aggregate emission reductions that are equivalent to application of command and control programs, including BARCT.”
The South Coast air basin “needs every ton of achievable reductions to attain healthy air,” Corey said in the letter.
Classified as an extreme ozone nonattainment area, the air basin has yet to achieve any of the federal ozone standards, Earthjustice's Martinez told Bloomberg BNA on March 4.
The district oversees air quality in portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested