Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/26/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. CPRI Edges Higher in March, ACC Says
Apr 25, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index (U.S. CPRI) edged higher by 0.3% in March, following a 0.1% gain in February, and a 0.4% gain in January, according to the latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report from the American Chemistry Council... -
(ACC Mentioned) The Week Ahead -- April 25, 2016
Apr 26, 2016 | InsideEPA
...The Congressional Chemistry Caucus, a new group of legislators headed by Reps. John Moolenaar (R-MI) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), is holding a launch event with officials from the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Chemical Distributors... -
(ACC Mentioned) Is There Plastic in Your Hamburger?
Apr 25, 2016 | CNN Health (In WWLP 22 News)
By Andy Rose
The CDC found people who eat a lot of fast food have higher levels of hormone disruptors in their system. It’s because some of the chemicals used in packaging and food processing can leach into what you’re eating. -
(ACC Mentioned) Consumers Can be Confident in the Safety of Polystyrene Food Packaging
Apr 25, 2016 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, DC) offered up a science lesson in a press release late last week assuring consumers that they can be confident that their food packaging is safe. -
(ACC Mentioned) FDA to Review Phthalates Safety Following NGO Petition
Apr 26, 2016 | Food Quality News
By Joe Whitworth
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to review the regulatory clearances for 30 ortho-phthalates used in food packaging. -
Concern Grows Over Tainted Drinking Water
Apr 25, 2016 |
By Cameron McWhirter and Jon Camp
Officials in Vermont, New Hampshire and New York are expanding their efforts to find out how much of a potentially toxic chemical ended up in drinking water, from private wells to public water systems. -
Note to Feds: Start Regulating Toxics or Let Us Do It
Apr 26, 2016 | AP (In the Rutland Herald)
By Dave Gram
In a state where a potentially cancer-causing chemical has turned up in both private and public drinking water supplies, Vermont lawmakers have a message for the federal government: Step up regulation of these substances or let them do it. -
ECHA to Issue REACH Dossier Information
Apr 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said April 25 that it will start to publish in late June a wider range of information about the behavior and risks of substances from registration dossiers filed under the European Union's REACH law... -
Walmart Makes Progress on Its Sustainable Chemistry Policy
Apr 26, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Boma Brown-West and Jennifer McPartland
It’s been two and a half years since Walmart first committed to adopting a sustainable chemistry policy. Since then, consumers, companies and advocates have been watching the retailer with interest. Today, Walmart released its ninth annual Global Responsibility Report (GRR)... -
McConnell Moves to Wrap Up Energy Appropriations Bill
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is moving the Senate toward wrapping up its first appropriations bill of the year. -
Finish Line Remains Distant for Reform Legislation
Apr 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Christa Marshall
House and Senate lawmakers may have already defied expectations by passing comprehensive energy reform bills in their respective chambers, but they still have miles to go in reconciling competing versions and winning President Obama's signature in an election year. -
Outgoing Obama Administration Pushing 'Unprecedented' List of New Oil/Gas Regulations
Apr 25, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Analysts and oil and gas experts agree that the waning days of the Obama administration will be challenging ones for the industry, as an "unprecedented" list of proposed regulations that could impact the industry for years to come slowly advance through the rulemaking process. -
U.S. Energy Milestone from the Shale Revolution
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mark J. Perry
Thanks to the shale revolution, the United States is now on its way to becoming a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). In February, two LNG cargoes left Cheniere’s Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana for Brazil and India. -
How Fracking Saved California Politicians From Themselves
Apr 26, 2016 | Forbes
By Chuck DeVore
Napoleon Bonaparte said, “I’d rather have lucky generals than good ones.” This maxim holds true for much of life, including, to a certain extent, politics. In 2006, I was a member of the California legislature when Gov. Schwarzenegger and a majority of lawmakers set out... -
Criminal Penalties Sought for Reckless Conduct on Pipelines
Apr 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
A criminal penalty would be established for “recklessly” damaging or destroying certain pipeline facilities under legislation introduced by two members of California's congressional delegation. -
Company Pledges to Fight for N.Y. Pipeline
Apr 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The four companies that own Constitution Pipeline Co. LLC may challenge New York's decision to deny a permit for the gas pipeline project, pledging April 25 to “pursue all available options” to fight the state decision. -
Bomb Trains: The Scariest Thing You Didn't Know About
Apr 25, 2016 | Chicago Magazine
By Ted C. Fishman
They’re explosive. Pervasive. And their movements are cloaked in secrecy. Their nickname? Bomb trains. And they roll through the heart of Chicago. -
Why States and Cities Must Lead the Way on Climate Change
Apr 26, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Bill Ritter
Much was made a few months ago about the historic climate agreement in Paris. Much is being made now about the race for the U.S. presidency. The two intersect on the question of whether the next president will build on President Obama’s climate plans or backslide... -
Obama Envoy: World Leaders Worried About US on Climate
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama’s new United Nations climate envoy says he has fielded questions from international allies on the fate of U.S. climate change commitments if a Republican wins this fall’s presidential election. -
Ozone Standards Challenged as Unachievable, Inadequate
Apr 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency will have to defend its 2015 ozone rule from disparate arguments that the standards are unachievable and inadequate to protect public health (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, briefs filed 4/22/16). -
Researchers Eye 'Dynamic' Approach to Ozone, SO2 Emissions Mitigation
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Researchers funded by EPA grants are exploring alternative "dynamic" methods for industry and states to control ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution by requiring pollution cuts over short time periods, including a hybrid approach that would "layer"...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. CPRI Edges Higher in March, ACC Says
Apr 25, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index (U.S. CPRI) edged higher by 0.3% in March, following a 0.1% gain in February, and a 0.4% gain in January, according to the latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report from the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). All regions posted growth in March.
Chemical production was mixed over the first quarter of the year. On a three-month-moving-average basis, there were production gains in adhesives, fertilizers, coatings, pesticides, organic chemicals and consumer products, the ACC report says. These gains were offset by declines in the output trend in inorganic chemicals, synthetic rubber, manufactured fibers and industrial gases, the report adds.
“Compared to March 2015, U.S. chemical production was ahead by 1.5% on a Y/Y basis, a moderatin trend,” the report says. Chemical production remained ahead of year ago levels in all regions.
http://www.chemengonline.com/u-s-cpri-edges-higher-in-march-acc-says/
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Week Ahead -- April 25, 2016
Apr 26, 2016 | InsideEPA
...Chemistry Caucus
The Congressional Chemistry Caucus, a new group of legislators headed by Reps. John Moolenaar (R-MI) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), is holding a launch event with officials from the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Chemical Distributors on April 27 in Washington, D.C. The caucus' announcement says it will “help inform members of Congress, their staffs and the public about chemistry's benefits for society and the economy.”
http://insideepa.com/week-ahead/week-ahead-april-25-2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Is There Plastic in Your Hamburger?
Apr 25, 2016 | CNN Health (In WWLP 22 News)
By Andy Rose
The CDC found people who eat a lot of fast food have higher levels of hormone disruptors in their system. It’s because some of the chemicals used in packaging and food processing can leach into what you’re eating.
The hormone disrupter can cause infertility, it’s been linked to reduce IQ and behavioral problems in children exposed in the womb, and it can also raise the risk of diabetes in women and children.
The National Restaurant Association and the American Chemistry Council are working together to review the study. They say the chemical levels found are “well below” the levels the environmental protection agency deem likely to increase health risk.
CDC researchers argue the EPA’s set limit is outdated.
http://wwlp.com/2016/04/25/is-there-plastic-in-your-hamburger/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Consumers Can be Confident in the Safety of Polystyrene Food Packaging
Apr 25, 2016 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, DC) offered up a science lesson in a press release late last week assuring consumers that they can be confident that their food packaging is safe. Styrene is not to be confused with polystyrene, stressed the ACC. “Styrene is a liquid substance used to make polystyrene, an inert plastic used to make many consumer products,” wrote the ACC. “There should be no confusion between styrene and polystyrene; these are two different materials.”
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has added styrene to its Proposition 65 list, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. In response, the ACC’s Senior Director for Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group, Mike Levy, issued a statement highlighting the differences between these two materials and the safety of polystyrene foodservice packaging.
“Consumers can be confident that California’s Proposition 65 action on styrene does not affect the decades-long safety assessments of polystyrene packaging used for foodservice. For more than 50 years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that polystyrene is safe for use in foodservice packaging, and regulatory bodies around the world agree, including the European Commission/European Food Safety Authority,” said Levy.
“There are important and obvious differences between styrene and polystyrene. They are fundamentally unalike and display distinctly different properties. Styrene is a raw material used to create high-performance plastics, car tires, carpet backing and reinforced fiberglass composites, such as those used in bathtubs, automobile body panels and wind turbines. Once these products are manufactured they are inert.
“Officials in California said their decision to add styrene to the Prop 65 list was based on styrene’s listing in the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) 12th Report on Carcinogens in 2011. California officials determined that NTP’s listing merits a Prop 65 listing. NTP does not question the safety of polystyrene food service packaging. As the NTP director was widely quoted: ‘In finished products, certainly styrene is not an issue.’”
While science lessons from the plastics industry aren’t typically given much credence—and certainly not much media attention—it’s at least an attempt to differentiate science from hype. It’s good to see the ACC stepping up to the plate with scientific information from which consumers can benefit . . . if they take the time to read it.
Levy continued by stating: “Polystyrene is an FDA-approved and hygienic material of choice for foodservice packaging to serve foods in schools, hospitals, restaurants, food carts and sports stadiums. Its inherent insulation properties maintain food temperatures and help keep food fresh, hot or cold and ready-to-eat. Polystyrene is also used in a variety of other everyday consumer products such as cushioning for shipping delicate electronics, energy-saving insulation, kitchen appliances, smoke detectors and toys.”
Most consumers are not even aware of the many benefits that plastic provides in the thousands of products we use every day. Recently, I was talking to some plastics people at a meeting about this topic, and one person said whenever people start bashing plastics around him, he tells them that the next time they have to go the hospital they should request that nothing containing plastics should be used on them. (On a related note, PlasticsToday posted a video recently produced by the PVC Med Alliance that answers the question, “Why is there so much plastic in the hospital room?”) We in the industry need to be proactive in promoting the benefits of plastic materials and help improve the industry’s image.
http://www.plasticstoday.com/consumers-can-be-confident-safety-polystyrene-food-packaging/172266991724535
-
(ACC Mentioned) FDA to Review Phthalates Safety Following NGO Petition
Apr 26, 2016 | Food Quality News
By Joe Whitworth
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to review the regulatory clearances for 30 orthophthalates used in food packaging.
The move follows a food additive petition filed by 10 nongovernmental organisations.
FDA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the petition is under review within the next two weeks and has up to 180 days from this date to consider it and make a formal decision.
Orthophthalates are used as plasticizers, binders, coating agents, defoamers, gasket closures, and slimicide agents in cellophane, paper and paperboard, and plastics in contact with food.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the move is not an indication that the petition has merit, or that the agency will revise the regulations it is an administrative step required by federal regulations.
“FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) evaluates food contact materials for safety before they are approved for use. The most widely used commercial phthalates belong to one of the most extensively studied families of chemicals in commerce.
“They have been reviewed and studied by numerous government scientific agencies and regulatory bodies worldwide. Their conclusions have been essentially the same each time: that the phthalates in the marketplace today do not pose a risk to human health at typical real-life exposure levels.”
‘A serious threat’
Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), one of the organisations behind the petition , described the chemicals as a ‘serious threat’ to pregnant woman, their developing fetuses and children.
“But, manufacturers continue to use orthophthalates – from farm to fork – even though there are alternatives.”
EDF, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Improving Kids’ Environment, and Learning Disabilities Association of America are the organisations behind the petition.
They said there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm for the food-contact use of the 30 Orthophthalates and gave reasons for this statement, including: “Absence of data specific to 57% of orthophthalates in the class to address reproductive, developmental and endocrine
toxicity.
“Absence of adequate migration data to determine dietary exposure to the great majority of chemicals in the class from their food-contact use [and] available data indicating current exposures are above the estimated tolerance for the class.”
Lisa Lefferts, CSPI senior scientist, said although not directly added to foods, orthophthalates are found in many, including meat, dairy products, infant foods, oils, and spices.
“It doesn’t make sense to ban some orthophthalates from children’s toys, and phase them out of vinyl flooring, but still approve them for contacting food,” she said.
“Many orthophthalates lack adequate safety studies, but all that have been tested for developmental and reproductive effects show a risk. None should be permitted for contact with food.”
Filing of citizens petition
The petition also requested the removal of five orthophthalates as prior sanctioned substances in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 181.27 and the banning of eight orthophthalates by issuing a new regulation in 21 CFR Part 189.
FDA said these requests fall outside the scope of a food additive petition and would not be considered.
The groups said they would use another regulatory process – a citizens petition – to request action on these.
“We’ve known these food packaging chemicals are dangerous for a while, but the food processing industry has not acted. They are not protecting the public from these toxins, so now it’s time for FDA to do so,” said Peter Lehner, Senior Attorney for the Sustainable Food and
Agriculture Program at Earthjustice.
The news follows six public health and environmental organizations filing a lawsuit in March against the FDA concerning the restriction of perchlorate in food packaging.
A petition was submitted to FDA in December 2014 but the agency missed the June 2015 deadline.
Earlier this year, the FDA banned three perfluoroalkyl ethyl containing food-contact substances (FCSs) that industry says are no longer manufactured anyway.
http://www.foodqualitynews.com/Regulation-and-safety/Phthalate-petition-review-is-a-process-requirement-ACC
-
Concern Grows Over Tainted Drinking Water
Apr 25, 2016 |
By Cameron McWhirter and Jon Camp
Officials in Vermont, New Hampshire and New York are expanding their efforts to find out how much of a potentially toxic chemical ended up in drinking water, from private wells to public water systems.
Factories for decades used the chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, as a plastic coating and to make consumer products such as Teflon nonstick pans, waterproof jackets and pizza boxes.
Former large manufacturers or users of PFOA, including 3M Co. and DuPont Co., agreed in 2006 to phase out PFOA production and use by December 2015.
Public concern over PFOA has spread through upstate New York and New England since August 2014, when a resident of Hoosick Falls, N.Y., near the Vermont border, tested his drinking water and found high levels of the acid. The man was concerned because his father, a former employee of the town’s plastics plant that used PFOA, died of cancer.
Earlier this month, roughly 200 people crowded into a high school auditorium in Litchfield, N.H., to hear from New Hampshire environmental officials. Attendees voiced concerns about PFOA’s possible effects on children, pets and garden produce.
The worry stems from a Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. plant in neighboring Merrimack, which New Hampshire officials are investigating as a possible source of PFOA contamination. The state in March sampled PFOA levels up to 620 parts per trillion in private Litchfield wells, well above the 100-parts-per-trillion level at which New Hampshire officials start to consider the amount unsafe. Tests in Merrimack measured as high as 1,600 parts per trillion.
Shawn Dalton, a retired 64-year-old, told the group that the drinking water from his home well tested positive for PFOA in March. “To me, the biggest problem is that nobody knows anything, and in a way we’re going to be the guinea pigs,” he said.
Nina Taliaferro said samples of water from her well showed PFOA contamination at 100 parts per trillion. The 32-year-old said she worries about possible exposure by her 8 1/2-month-old daughter.
New Hampshire officials have expanded testing of water samples near the plant, and announced that this week they plan to test soil at nearby sites like schools and playgrounds.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t declared PFOA harmful to humans, but it has raised concerns about the safety of the chemical in drinking water.
On Monday, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group that assesses chemicals in consumer products and the environment, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy urging the agency to set an enforceable drinking water standard for the chemical, and to force former manufacturers to disclose all sites in the U.S. where they used, made or dumped PFOA.
The nonprofit group said the findings of PFOA contamination have “gone from a regional problem to a national public health crisis that continues to widen, with no apparent end in sight.” The group, which has a history of battling with industry on environmental issues, has been raising health concerns about PFOA since 2002.
PFOA can be harmful to animals in high doses, causing tumors in the liver and other parts of the body, according to several scientific studies.
David Savitz, a vice president for research at Brown University, said his studies have found the chemical might cause “modest increases in disease” in humans, such as testicular cancer and hypertension in pregnant women. “We’re not talking about something that is an established, documented health hazard,” he said.
A multiyear medical study in the 2000s of 70,000 people near a DuPont plant in West Virginia that made PFOA, found “some suggestions” of “probable links” between high exposure to the chemical and some illnesses. The study was funded by a settlement between DuPont and plaintiffs suing the company over PFOA exposure, and both the plaintiffs and DuPont had to approve the study’s findings, said Mr. Savitz, who served on the study panel.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, a subsidiary of Saint-Gobain SA of France, operates the plants in Merrimack and Hoosick Falls, N.Y., and used to operate the plant in North Bennington, Vt. Since last year, state investigators have found PFOA contamination near all three sites, and they cited the plants as potential sources.
“Saint-Gobain is participating in several ongoing investigations—in all three states—to determine which party or parties may be responsible for the PFOA,” said spokeswomanDina Pokedoff in an email.
New York state in February committed at least $10 million to clean up PFOA from drinking water in Hoosick Falls. Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration in January declared PFOA a “hazardous substance,” and New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation began conducting a statewide investigation to see if contamination extends beyond Hoosick Falls.
PFOA, which is highly resistant to water, solvents and acids, was invented in the 1940s. EPA officials assume its use in manufacturing has been widespread, and traces of the chemical have been found throughout most of the country and in many people’s blood.
Researchers have found high concentrations in drinking water near factories in states that include West Virginia.
Write to Cameron McWhirter at cameron.mcwhirter@wsj.com
Meantime, Vermont officials are testing water around the state after finding problems in two communities.
Vermont authorities have set a maximum drinking water limit of 20 parts per trillion, a standard that Saint-Gobain is challenging in court. The EPA plans to issue permanent health advisory limit sometime this spring, according to a spokeswoman.
“We’re confident we’re going to find how far-reaching the problem is and deal with it,” Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin said.
Meantime, American Financial Group Inc. unit APU, whose former subsidiary once owned a wire plant located near PFOA-contaminated water in Pownal, Vt., agreed to cover costs for water sampling, bottled water and filtration, Vermont officials said last week. Filtration systems for entire homes can cost several thousand dollars.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/concern-grows-over-tainted-drinking-water-1461606220
-
Note to Feds: Start Regulating Toxics or Let Us Do It
Apr 26, 2016 | AP (In the Rutland Herald)
By Dave Gram
In a state where a potentially cancer-causing chemical has turned up in both private and public drinking water supplies, Vermont lawmakers have a message for the federal government: Step up regulation of these substances or let them do it.
The Vermont Senate was expected this week to approve a House-passed resolution calling for the federal government to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act or give states more authority to regulate these chemicals.
About 84,000 largely unregulated chemicals are in circulation, with more than 1,000 new ones being added each year, the resolution says. In the past 40 years, just 200 of those chemicals have been fully tested, it says.
Congress currently is working on resolving differences in proposed updates to the law but at least agrees that states should be restricted in some way from entering the regulatory field.
The resolution comes since the chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has been found in more than 100 private wells in North Bennington and a public water supply in Pownal. The properties are near closed factories that previously used the chemical.
The same chemical has been found in drinking water systems serving 7 million people in 27 states, according to the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, which says it based its figures on federal government data.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency said in an emailed statement that it is evaluating Vermont’s resolution. The agency noted that when the law was originally passed, “the statute did not provide adequate authority for the EPA to reevaluate these existing chemicals as new concerns arose or science was updated. The law also failed to grant the EPA effective tools to compel companies to generate and provide toxicity data.”
Sen. Brian Campion, D-Bennington, is to present the resolution to his Senate colleagues, possibly by Tuesday.
“It’s heartbreaking,” Campion told The Associated Press. “To have your friends and neighbors, who’ve been told their water is contaminated, the water they’ve been drinking. And the potential impact on housing prices, economic development.”
Vermont has been checking other areas where PFOA or related chemicals are believed to have been used. Last week, officials announced none had been found on or around the grounds of the state fire academy in Pittsford, where firefighting foam that is believed to have contained PFOA or a similar substance had been used.
Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy last week to complain that the agency was dragging its feet in cracking down on the chemical and had insufficient data on where it might still be found.
“It is reasonable to suspect that further contamination is lurking in other communities’ water nationwide, but without complete and reliable information about the locations of all facilities that made, used or disposed of PFOA, state and local authorities do not know where they should conduct additional testing,” Cook wrote.http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20160426/NEWS03/160429596/0/SPORTS2018
-
ECHA to Issue REACH Dossier Information
Apr 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said April 25 that it will start to publish in late June a wider range of information about the behavior and risks of substances from registration dossiers filed under the European Union's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals). ECHA said it will start to publish summaries of the results of tests on chemicals, alongside “exposure scenarios, including the conditions for safe use.” The chemicals agency also said it will publish details, where available, on the nanoforms of substances and on the justifications offered by REACH registrants when providing reduced sets of information on low-volume substances. The newly published information will be available, starting June 21, and initially will be taken only from new or newly updated registration dossiers submitted under REACH, the agency said. The information from REACH dossiers that ECHA currently makes public, unless registrants claim confidentiality, includes substance identity data, information on registrants, results of hazard assessments, information on substance properties and safe-handling advice. The ECHA information on chemicals website is http://src.bna.com/enP.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88129406&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88129406&jd=88129406
-
Walmart Makes Progress on Its Sustainable Chemistry Policy
Apr 26, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Boma Brown-West and Jennifer McPartland
It’s been two and a half years since Walmart first committed to adopting a sustainable chemistry policy. Since then, consumers, companies and advocates have been watching the retailer with interest. Today, Walmart released its ninth annual Global Responsibility Report (GRR), which outlines its environmental and social activities for the past year. For the first time, this report includes information about the progress it has made against its Sustainable Chemistry Policy adopted in 2013, which aimed for more transparency of product ingredients and safer formulations of products.
According to Walmart, it has reduced the usage (by weight) of its designated high priority chemicals by 95 percent, a pretty sizeable number. Walmart has said that it will post more specifics in the coming weeks on its Sustainability Hub, including quantitative results on all aspects of the policy’s implementation guide and details about how they achieved the substantial reduction
While this is a promising step in the right direction, the GRR doesn’t identify the high priority chemicals that have been reduced. It is difficult to fully appreciate Walmart’s accomplishments without knowing the names of these chemical targets. We expect that the names of the high priority chemicals will be revealed on the Sustainability Hub.
Walmart’s announcement marks the first time a major retailer has publicly measured and shared the progress it has made against its commitment on chemicals. This is especially important to EDF because we know through research and experience that shared stories about progress can prompt others to follow, to the benefit of public and environmental health.
We believe there are three key factors that have made Walmart's progress possible: 1) the existence and use of a 3rd party-managed chemicals database that can generate quantitative, aggregate information about the chemicals on Walmart’s shelves, 2) a policy that prioritizes specific chemical targets, and 3) a time-bound business commitment to track and share progress publicly (in Walmart’s policy they committed to start sharing progress in 2016). We look forward to the day these practices reflect the business norm rather than the exception.
Market leadership will always have an important role to play alongside policy in driving safer chemicals and products into commerce. EDF looks forward to the additional details forthcoming on Walmart’s Sustainability Hub.
This blog is a cross-post from Behind the Label
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/04/25/walmart-makes-progress-on-its-sustainable-chemistry-policy/#more-5187
-
McConnell Moves to Wrap Up Energy Appropriations Bill
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is moving the Senate toward wrapping up its first appropriations bill of the year.
The Senate Republican leader filed cloture Monday on the energy funding bill and a key substitute amendment. The move sets up an initial procedural vote for Wednesday, unless lawmakers can get a deal to speed up their work.
Leadership is hoping to clear the energy and water appropriations bill through the upper chamber this week.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said on Monday evening that senators are making "good progress" on the legislation.
"We hope to continue to do that and wrap the bill up soon," added Alexander, who has been managing the appropriations bill for Republicans.
Senators approved an amendment from Sen.Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on Monday evening and are currently scheduled to vote on three additional amendments Tuesday morning.
Alexander and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also cleared eight amendments by voice vote Monday.
While the funding bill has managed to avoid partisan landmines in the Senate, it's garnered a veto threat from the White House.
"The bill underfunds critical energy research and development activities and fails to put us on an achievable path toward doubling clean energy research and development by FY 2021," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.
The Senate's fiscal 2017 bill increases funding by $355 million over 2016 levels. That includes a $1.163 billion increase for the Department of Energy's defense-related programs but an $808 million decrease for the nondefense portions of the bill.
Democrats, however, have given no indication they're willing to oppose the legislation because of the White House's concerns.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), referring to the bipartisan support for the bill, said that with "continued cooperation we’ll have an opportunity to pass the first of these bills on the floor this week."
The Senate Republican leader has repeatedly said his top goal for 2016 is to pass the 12 appropriations bills.
If the Senate passes the legislation it will still need to be merged with a House-version of the bill. House lawmakers can't take up spending bills until May 15 unless they first pass a budget.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/277598-mcconnell-moves-to-wrap-up-energy-appropriations-bill
-
Finish Line Remains Distant for Reform Legislation
Apr 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Christa Marshall
House and Senate lawmakers may have already defied expectations by passing comprehensive energy reform bills in their respective chambers, but they still have miles to go in reconciling competing versions and winning President Obama's signature in an election year.
Cognizant of the political constraints of legislating on a hot-button issue like energy with a Republican-led Congress and a Democratic president, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) tried to eschew the most controversial issues when writing their bills.
Both versions also generally track the other thematically, with heavy emphasis on boosting energy efficiency, speeding natural gas exports, and streamlining permitting for pipelines and other projects. And both versions borrow heavily from the administration's first Quadrennial Energy Review in sections to strengthen energy infrastructure.
But the Senate's S. 2012 is much broader than the House's more narrowly tailored H.R. 8. Murkowski's bill also includes a reform to federal mineral laws and a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a move with an abundance of skeptics among House conservatives (E&E Daily, April 21).
"It's just fair to acknowledge that there are some big differences just in terms of approach that we took between the House version and the Senate version," Murkowski said in an interview last week.
"I think issues can be resolved," she said. "We just need to be sitting down with one another and figure out not only what the priorities are but what is possible."
Murkowski said steps were already underway to set up meetings ahead of a formal House-Senate conference committee, but she was not certain about the timing for Senate leaders to appoint conferees.
A spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) did not respond to a request for comment on when that chamber will move to go to conference.
An 'interesting exercise'
Following last week's overwhelming 85-12 Senate vote to pass S. 2012, the biggest challenge for the conference will be assembling a compromise that's capable of passing the House and earning the White House's support (Greenwire, April 20).
"This is going to be an interesting exercise," Murkowski said. She added: "What I'm trying to do is get a conference report that the president will sign."
ClearView Energy Partners LLC, in an analysis released following the vote, said that if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wanted to "demonstrate competent GOP governance" by passing a bill that will likely become law, "we would suggest the final text will probably need to look more like the Senate version."
The House also easily approved its version of energy reform with a 249-174 vote last December. All but three Republicans supported the measure (Greenwire, Dec. 3, 2015).
But just nine Democrats voted for the bill. The minority deserted the legislation en masse on the floor after helping write it at the committee level.
Energy and Commerce ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone said last week that he would press for the legislation to include funding to upgrade the electric grid and pipelines -- long a sticking point for the New Jersey Democrat (E&E Daily, April 21).
One provision that helped secure Republican support in the House was the inclusion of an amendment to lift the decades-old ban on crude oil exports -- a top priority of industry and its congressional allies. That issue soon became moot after lawmakers repealed the ban in a compromise spending bill weeks later.
Still, both the House and Senate energy bills contain language setting a 30-day deadline for the Department of Energy to make final decisions on exporting liquefied natural gas to non-trade partners, a provision that also has strong support from companies and lawmakers in both parties.
Ken Irvin, who helps lead Sidley Austin LLP's energy practice, said last week that the provision, along with language intended to expedite the permitting process for infrastructure projects, would help provide companies with regulatory certainty.
"Anything that helps streamline those regulatory approvals I think is a net positive," he said.
Irvine noted that both the House and Senate bills were constrained because of the tough political conditions their authors had to contend with.
"Energy is important, it's important for all facets of what the country is about and our life, and even if it's just modest incremental improvements, we should do those," he said, applauding lawmakers for their efforts.
Even though the LNG provisions may win support from fossil fuel backers, they are also among the many objections environmentalists had with the House bill, outlined in a letter last December.
The White House did not mention LNG exports in its Statement of Administration Policyissued before the House vote. Still, the administration found enough problems to threaten a veto. The Senate version did not elicit the same reproach.
Efficiency disputes
The House bill veto threat echoed many of environmentalists' chief concerns, including controversial provisions related to energy efficiency, despite it being an area of general bipartisan agreement in recent years.
One sticking point is a proposal that the White House says would weaken Section 433 of a 2007 energy law, which requires new and significantly renovated federal buildings to meet benchmarks in reducing fossil fuel use (Greenwire, Jan. 29).
Another chief concern for efficiency advocates and environmentalists is language in the House bill sponsored by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) that would impose procedural requirements on DOE for setting building efficiency codes.
Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, said last week that the provision would upend three decades of DOE's work in setting building codes.
The Senate's version, which includes the remainder of the efficiency package championed for years by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), would "strengthen" DOE's hand, she said.
The House went "in the exact opposite direction," Callahan said, noting that the alliance opposed H.R. 8 over the disagreement.
Callahan is looking to the conference committee to resolve the issue, noting that a number of the alliance's honorary board members are sitting members of Congress who will likely end up on the panel.
There's also a major gulf between the two bills on a pending efficiency rule for residential gas furnaces that has divided industry groups and environmentalists (Greenwire, July 14, 2015).
Efficiency groups prefer the language in the House bill, which would allow a limited negotiation period but does not delay the rulemaking timeline. Advocates note that a 2011 legal settlement called for a final rule this spring.
The Senate language, on the other hand, would make action on a final rule contingent on an advisory group convened by the secretary of Energy. That could delay the rule indefinitely, analysts say.
"It sets a bad precedent," said Dan Bresette, director of government relations for the alliance.
Another provision in the Senate bill would provide an alternative to U.S. EPA's Energy Star third-party certification requirement for some consumer technology manufacturers.
"For an industry built on lightning-fast innovation and facing constantly-evolving markets, third-party certification is an unnecessary obstacle," the Consumer Technology Association said in praising the language.
Coal, biomass
After the Senate bill's passage, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) praised numerous coal provisions, including language that would amend the Energy Policy Act to list carbon capture, use and storage as a specific objective for DOE's Fossil Energy Office.
The legislation would also require DOE to study the effectiveness of recommended changes to its loan program, including $8 billion in untapped funds for fossil fuel projects. Environmentalists have pointed to sluggish interest in the money.
Greens are also slamming Senate language to establish a new program at DOE to support converting coal to other products like transportation fuel.
In a letter this month, groups ranging from American Rivers to Physicians for Social Responsibility wrote in a letter that the coal language was "incompatible with climate protection."
The House language on carbon capture is less broad and calls for the administration to conduct an annual evaluation of projects and recommend whether funding for them should continue.
Another key sticking point in the negotiations is language in the Senate bill -- adopted as an amendment on the floor -- that would instruct federal agencies to craft policies that reflect "the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy."
Environmentalists strongly contest the suggestion that biomass is renewable and warned senators last week that they opposed the Senate bill over the provision, which is not in the House version (E&E Daily, April 21).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/26/stories/1060036229
-
Outgoing Obama Administration Pushing 'Unprecedented' List of New Oil/Gas Regulations
Apr 25, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Analysts and oil and gas experts agree that the waning days of the Obama administration will be challenging ones for the industry, as an "unprecedented" list of proposed regulations that could impact the industry for years to come slowly advance through the rulemaking process.
Earlier this year, as February transitioned to March, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) hosted a Congressional Call-Up meeting in Washington, DC. There, they presented attendees with a list of more than 40 regulations proposed by the federal government that the IPAA said it was tracking.
More than half of the proposed rules being tracked by the IPAA are from the Department of Interior (DOI) and its agencies, but the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are also in the mix.
According to the IPAA, the most critical issue to the industry is a proposal by the DOI's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to govern hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands (seeShale Daily, March 20, 2015). Attorneys representing the IPAA, the Western Energy Alliance, four states -- Colorado, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming -- and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation have challenged the rule in court (see Shale Daily, March 22).
"Obviously the fracking rule is our key priority right now," IPAA spokesman Neal Kirby told NGI. "That's still going forward in the courts right now. A number of the other rules could potentially impact our businesses. For the smaller independents -- which average 12-15 employees in their offices -- these rules compounding on top of each other is just going to make it even more difficult for them to stay in business."
Dan Naatz, IPAA's senior vice president for government relations and political affairs, concurred. He said the court fight over the aforementioned BLM rule represents "the future of fracking. We all view it as really important, because the federal government is trying to put in a one-size-fits-all rule that we just don't think makes any sense, and could have ramifications for a lot of non-federal land."
According to Naatz, a close second in order of regulatory importance would be the EPA's proposed rule governing methane emissions (see Daily GPI, Aug. 18, 2015; Jan. 14, 2015). The proposal would require the industry to find and repair methane leaks and limit emissions from both new and modified sources, including pumps and compressor stations.
"The narrative that you're getting out of there is this push on methane," Naatz said. "First of all, we believe we have a very good answer for this, which is that the industry is working hard on it. But secondly, in a lot of areas, the BLM needs to expedite pipelines and work to get additional rights-of-way and capacity approved. Keep in mind that our producers don't want to vent or flare, either.
"We understand how important the return to the taxpayer is, and we think there are other solutions to this issue, but I think it all points to the [environmentalist] narrative of 'keeping it in the ground.' That's what we're seeing from this administration, and it shows itself most clearly in the methane rules that are coming from the EPA, the BLM and now also the offshore agencies."
An 'Unfortunate' Battle
It's a far cry from President Obama's State of the Union speech in January 2014, when he praised the emergence of oil and gas development in the United States as supporting national security, and touted natural gas as a "bridge fuel" to the future (see Daily GPI, Jan. 29, 2014).
"Climate change has always been an issue the president has talked about," Naatz said. "If you remember all the way back to when he won the presidency, he said 'we're going to heal the planet.' They had to stop the climate change agenda early in the administration because they had to choose between either Obamacare or climate change. But the folks in the administration never gave up on climate change. Once they were able to set aside the politics in a lot of states, and the jobs and economics, they came back to this.
"This is not only a 'bridge fuel' question, but if you look at the renaissance that's happened it's been great for the United States not only with energy security, but we have also reduced our emissions. It's a great achievement, and we think we can do more. We think if you increase pipeline capacity and did some other things you would get even greater reductions. We have always argued that we're part of the solution. We're not the only answer, but we're certainly an important part of the discussion.
"The administration seems to have gone in a completely different direction. That's unfortunate, and that's the battle we see shaping up" before Obama's term ends in January 2017.
Naatz added that the administration's shift in thinking could also be tied to Obama looking to cement a legacy of having cared about environmental issues. "Every president, both Republican and Democrat, worries about their legacy," he said. "They want to be able to say 'this is what I said was going to happen, and this what happened.' Certainly for this president, climate change and the environment have been at the top of his list the whole time."
Administration Has 'Taken Off The Gloves'
Although every lame duck presidential administration tries to usher in new regulations before leaving office, Gary Slagel, government relations coordinator for the law firm Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, called the current list "unprecedented, in terms of the number of efforts that they've undertaken here and what the intent seems to be.
"I think among the industry we've all been scratching our heads, wondering how we can have a positive energy policy moving forward in this country -- one that recognizes the benefits associated with greater utilization of natural gas -- and at the same time be doing so many of these things that clearly are going to frustrate efforts to further develop and/or use the resource," Slagel said.
Although Slagel conceded that he is primarily focused on issues in the onshore Appalachian Basin, he called the EPA's proposals covering air and water issues the most damaging to the industry, including changes to the federal Clean Power Plan (CPP) and the Clean Water Act (see Daily GPI,Aug. 3, 2015;Shale Daily, May 27, 2015). Also troubling: PHMSA's proposal to add thousands of miles of gathering lines to its purview (see Daily GPI, March 21).
"What PHMSA is doing with regard to Class 1 lines will likely impact the conventional industry, but it will even affect the unconventional guys who've been putting lines in the ground for 10 years here in the Appalachian Basin," Slagel said. "Depending on how that rule is worded, there could be some retroactive applications attached to this rulemaking that would be very problematic for even the unconventional producers."
Slagel added that he didn't want to downplay proposals by the DOI's Fish and Wildlife Service. "They all have a significant impact on making decisions as it relates to the siting and location of pipelines and drill sites," he said. "Those could have a very significant impact moving forward on some of those statements. The critical habitat rule and some of the other things going forward could still be problematic for the industry."
Naatz said it is typical for government agencies or their secretaries to pursue some level of regulatory action in the closing months of an administration, and secretaries sometimes have some level of discretion. But through its channels to the various agencies, the IPAA has learned that this time around is different.
"We're seeing more and more that the White House is telling the agencies -- EPA, BLM, the offshore agencies -- certainly on methane, 'get this done,'" Naatz said. "Whether they can achieve that or not, I don't know.
"This is also why we've been talking to Congress. It's not to be obstructive; it's to ask some serious questions: What are you doing? What will be the impact on the economy? What will the impact be on jobs? What will all of this entail? Because the president will have you believe that you can go to a renewable economy overnight. And it's just not going to happen, and so that's one of our frustrations."
Naatz said he didn't have the data to back up Slagel's claim that the number of rules that could impact the industry in the waning days of the Obama administration was "unprecedented," but a gut feeling from 25 years of working on the issues reinforces that sentiment.
"I've talked to people who are either downtown or have been at the agencies a lot longer [than 25 years], and they have all said that this is as bad they've seen it," Naatz said. "I'm not saying any administration winds down, but they start to focus on a few things. In this one, the White House seems to be expanding it. They're throwing more things out there. Whether they think they can get them all done, I don't know.
"There is a real sense that this administration is being aggressive on energy issues. They have really taken off the gloves, and I don't think that is just a function of my imagination."
S&P: EPA Continues to Add to Work Load
Judging by the title of a nine-page report released last Wednesday by Standard & Poor's (S&P) Ratings Services -- "Even As The Obama Era Nears Its End, The EPA Isn't Likely To Ease Back" -- analysts seem to share that sentiment as well.
"During the Obama administration's final year, it's clear that the president's opportunities to cement his legacy on environmental issues are becoming fewer, and the court system that once largely supported his rules has taken a turn against them," wrote S&P analysts Michael Ferguson, Mike Llanos and Geoffrey Mrema. "Still, despite ongoing gridlock in Washington, the EPA continues to take on new tasks, and while the recent Supreme Court ruling may limit the agency's focus on the CPP during the next year, its other efforts will go on."
In a bit of good news, the analysts said they do not believe the EPA's proposed methane regulations will affect the midstream sector's credit quality.
"In our view, the EPA has been transparent in its efforts to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution from the oil and gas sector," S&P said. "Thus, we believe a minimum level of investment has already occurred as companies have been proactive in managing the level of greenhouse gases they capture over the past few years. We believe most natural gas and natural gas liquid [NGL] gatherers would prefer for methane to stay in the gas stream, and in effect the pipeline, because they would receive an additional return on that product.
"On the other hand, if the underlying entity is an oil producer, the associated gases such as methane are an unwanted byproduct that would require a further investment to capture it when released. While the cost is uncertain at this point, we would expect companies to focus more on controls and monitoring their asset bases due to these regulations. We also believe these regulations may lead to opportunities for gathering companies to build additional infrastructure, though dependent on the potential return."
The analysts added that despite oil and gas companies significantly cutting the capital programs over the last 12-18 months, they expect the sector to continue spending money on maintenance programs to reduce embarrassing risks associated with incidents such as the recent Aliso Canyon storage leaks in California (see Daily GPI, Nov. 12, 2015).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106176-outgoing-obama-administration-pushing-unprecedented-list-of-new-oilgas-regulations
-
U.S. Energy Milestone from the Shale Revolution
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mark J. Perry
Thanks to the shale revolution, the United States is now on its way to becoming a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). In February, two LNG cargoes left Cheniere’s Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana for Brazil and India.
And these are just the first LNG shipments. With five U.S. LNG terminals under construction with a combined export capacity of roughly 10 billion cubic feet per day, many more LNG shipments are on the horizon. After all the export facilities become operational, the United States will become the third largest liquefaction capacity holder in the world after Australia and Qatar.
No matter how you view a new era of LNG exports -- whether looked at from its impact on the U.S. economy, our commitment to free trade, the energy security of our allies, or the potential for a significant reduction in carbon emissions as gas replaces coal in electricity production -- the results will be positive and beneficial.
How times have changed. Less than a decade ago, energy analysts thought the U.S. was destined to become one of the world’s largest LNG importers. At the time, domestic gas production couldn’t keep up with demand.
The shale revolution, however, has been a game-changer. To be sure, there are those who have yet to grasp the consequences of this change. Studies from the U.S. Department of Energy as well as various think tanks show LNG exports as economically beneficial to the nation, not only providing thousands of construction jobs, but incentives for increased domestic gas production. All of this promises to be a boon to gas producers, rig hands, royalty owners and energy-rich states like Pennsylvania and Texas. Meanwhile, the notion that the price of natural gas might spiral upward as exports grow has been debunked.
Despite already growing demand for natural gas – gas now accounts for the largest fuel share of our electric power generation – the inflation-adjusted price of gas is at a 25-year low. The resources unlocked in shale are vast – 2,200 trillion cubic, roughly a 90-year supply. It’s time to put the ghosts of our energy past to bed. We should fully embrace the economic, environmental and geopolitical benefits that will come from the export of natural gas.
For one thing, any increase in global competition for LNG sales will benefit consumers worldwide. While the old dominant gas exporters -- think of Qatar, Malaysia, Russia and Iran – must adjust to the new reality, gas-importing countries, many of which are our political allies, are rejoicing. Natural gas prices in much of the world have been pegged to oil prices and, consequently, have been very high.Just two years ago, LNG prices in Asia were four or five times what they were in the U.S. The introduction of U.S. gas exports will help soften global gas prices in the long-term and likely stimulate demand. A more robust LNG market might lure some buyers away from cheaper but much dirtier coal.
China, in particular, seems to realize the danger to public health from its heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation. In December, Beijing issued its first red alert over air pollution, shutting down schools and requiring drivers to only use their cars on alternate days. Although China is building dozens of emission-free nuclear plants and investing heavily in wind and solar power, backing off of coal is a gargantuan task. China singlehandedly consumes as much coal as the rest of the world combined.American innovation and energy technology will be critical to helping the world start to kick its coal habit but so too will be imports of cleaner fuel from the United States. China would be wise to emulate the U.S. Thanks to the shale revolution, the level of carbon emissions from electricity generation is at a 22-year low and falling. Fuel switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation is the key driver. If U.S. LNG exports help create a more competitive marketplace for LNG, and encourage greater use of natural gas in China, India and other Asian nations, the entire world will gain from a reduction in carbon emissions.
LNG exports also have potentially far-reaching geopolitical implications, especially for the energy security of many of our allies, notably those in Europe. Growing reliance on Russian natural gas prevented many of our European allies from responding more forcefully to Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and Syria. The opportunity to purchase U.S. LNG provides European buyers with an alternative source of natural gas. Even if they should choose not to buy U.S. gas, increased competition for gas in the world market has already reduced Russia’s bargaining power and its export revenue.
In short, US LNG exports matter. While several other LNG export facilities have gotten the go-ahead, the Obama administration, or the next administration, should move quickly to approve the remaining applications. A muscular U.S. energy policy that promotes free trade and a more competitive international marketplace for LNG is clearly in the national interest.
Perry is a professor of economics at the Flint campus of The University of Michigan and a scholar at The American Enterprise Institute.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/277471-us-energy-milestone-from-the-shale-revolution
-
How Fracking Saved California Politicians From Themselves
Apr 26, 2016 | Forbes
By Chuck DeVore
Napoleon Bonaparte said, “I’d rather have lucky generals than good ones.”
This maxim holds true for much of life, including, to a certain extent, politics. In 2006, I was a member of the California legislature when Gov. Schwarzenegger and a majority of lawmakers set out to “green” California’s energy landscape.
In addition to fighting global warming, another argument used to promote renewable energy at the time was that a looming natural gas supply crunch would lead to higher prices and shortages for home heating and electricity generation in California. Natural gas has traditionally played an outsized role in the Golden State’s energy mix.
Bolstering the green case was the fact that by 2004 American natural gas production had plateaued for the past 40 years. That year, the U.S. Department of Energyprojected that American natural gas production would increase by a modest 10% over a decade, leaving the U.S. far more dependent on imports. The California Energy Commission noted that California imported 87% of its natural gas and that “The U.S. long term supply/demand balance outlook is pessimistic.”
To supply the natural gas California needed in a tightening domestic market, eight liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals costing about $5 billion were proposed at sites ranging from the coast of Northern California 840 miles south to Mexico. These facilities would import natural gas from such far-flung places as Algeria, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Qatar.
Then fracking happened.
New hydraulic fracturing techniques supercharged U.S. oil and gas production. Domestic natural gas supplies started to ramp up in 2006. Last year, America produced 41% more natural gas than it did in 2005. As a result, the price of natural gas plummeted 70% from 2005 to 2015. That 2004 Department of Energy forecast? It underestimated 2015 U.S. natural gas production by 34% while vastly overestimating needed imports by seven-fold.
None of the proposed West Coast LNG terminals were built—they weren’t needed (winning political permitting approval even if they were needed would have been another matter).
On the cusp of this remarkable energy revolution, liberal California politicians were vying with each other to phase out fossil fuels while mandating more renewable energy. In 2006, the California Legislature passed, and Gov. Schwarzenegger signed, AB 32, theCalifornia Global Warming Solutions Act, which aimed to make steep reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. The same year, SB 1368, a bill which prohibited the renewal of electric generation contracts from coal-fired power plants, was signed into law. These laws, and other initiatives, would fundamentally change how California generated its electricity.
At the time, supporters claimed that phasing out coal power and switching to renewables would come at no cost to the consumer. Even one of the state’s largest publicly-regulated utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), supported the anti-coal bill. Buried in SB 1368’s language was a provision allowing California’s publicly-regulated utilities to double their profit with renewable energy projects—a classic example of crony corporatism.
A decade later, supporters of California’s green energy push might be forgiven for claiming victory: The Golden State’s electricity costs were some 44% above the national average in 2006 and, relative to the nation, rose only slightly to 45% above the U.S. average in 2014 all while almost doubling the amount of power generation from more expensive renewables from 10.9% to 20.1%.
The irony is that California’s apparent success in remaking its electrical market is entirely owed to fracking, a technology that most of the liberal authors of California’s ongoing decarbonization experiment oppose.
In truth, California’s policymakers dodged the bullet of public disapproval. Had natural gas costs increased the expected 20%, instead of plunging 70%, today’s electric rates in California would be some 26% higher—with Californians likely paying more for their electricity than the residents in all other states but Hawaii. For an average Californian not living on the temperate coast, a 26% boost to electric rates would mean a $150 per month increase in summer cooling costs.
A similar cost equation has played out across the nation. Electric rates have only risen in line with inflation since 2006 and have done so while inexpensive coal slipped from providing about half of U.S. electric generation needs to 32% this year.
To be clear, fracking has cushioned the blow of shifting to higher cost and more intermittent sources of renewable energy.
But, California’s electric rate holiday may soon come to an end. Policymakers, not satisfied with the state’s doubling of renewable electric generation from 10 to 20% over the past decade with a mandate to hit 33% by 2020, upped the ante to 50% by 2030 with SB 350’s passage last year.
A 2014 study by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. found that pushing California’s mandate for renewable energy to 50% could increase average retail electricity rates by as much as 70%. Further, the additional money needed to build solar arrays, wind turbines, energy storage and new power lines could hit $104 billion—about $11,000 for a family of four; a little more than California’s High Speed Rail project which will likely never be completed.
California’s energy policy actions mirror the rationale of the U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan, stayed from moving forward by the U.S. Supreme Court in February. The Clean Power Plan, if eventually implemented, would, in effect, force every state to conform to California’s energy policies at great cost to average Americans.
A comparison of the two most-populous states shows how costly the Clean Power Plan’s emulation of California could be for American families. Just as California lawmakers pushed more regulation to force renewable energy on ratepayers, Texas went the other direction, with the final phase of an electric market deregulation reaching some 85% of Texans in 2007. Initially panned by anti-free market liberals, Texas’ electric rates moved from being 16% above the national average in 2006 to 14% below the national average in 2014—all while the Texas economy boomed and electricity demand grew 9.2% from 2006 to 2014 vs. 0.7% in California. Lest critics say the lower demand growth in California was due entirely to conservation, California’s nonfarm employment grew by an anemic 3.8% from January 2006 to December 2014 compared to 18.4% job growth in Texas.
Lastly, while energy mix and climate certainly play a big role in determining electric rates, for instance, Washington State benefits mightily from the Grand Coulee Dam, a Depression-era project that generates plentiful and cheap hydroelectric power, politics and land-use policy are even greater determinants. Analyzing the 48 contiguous states, there are two factors which reliably predict retail electric costs: a state legislature’sAmerican Conservative Union rankings and the land-use freedom index from the Mercatus Institute. Reliance on expensive renewable power or inexpensive hydro, temperature, and urbanization all lack statistical significance.
The 48-state statistical analysis is clear. If you want affordable power, move to a conservative state.
Want costly power? Californiaize the national grid by implementing the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
Chuck DeVore is Vice President of National Initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He was a California Assemblyman and is a Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army Retired Reserve.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/04/25/how-fracking-saved-california-politicians-from-themselves/#5028506d73b2
-
Criminal Penalties Sought for Reckless Conduct on Pipelines
Apr 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
A criminal penalty would be established for “recklessly” damaging or destroying certain pipeline facilities under legislation introduced by two members of California's congressional delegation.
The Prosecuting Irresponsible Pipeline Explosions (PIPE) Act of 2016 (H.R. 4971), sponsored by Reps. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Janice Hahn (D-Calif.), would amend 49 U.S.C. 60123 by inserting “recklessly” after “knowingly and willfully” and would define recklessly as “when a person displays a deliberate indifference or conscious disregard to the consequences of that person's conduct.”
According to a news release from Speier, the bill seeks to hold operators and others accountable in cases of deadly pipeline explosions.
The Transportation Department inspector general in a March 8 letter to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials suggested the amendment to make prosecutions easier because the “willful” standard is unusual in criminal statutes, and the availability of a “reckless” standard would allow for more success in prosecuting pipeline safety cases.
“For pipeline operators, the safe operation of pipelines is an integral part of their operations and they have frequent contact with regulators,” the letter said. “We note that this would not result in criminal liability for companies that are making good-faith efforts to comply with pipeline safety regulations.”
The bill, introduced April 15, was referred to the House Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy and Commerce committees.
Legislation Follows Explosions, Spills
Speier's district includes San Bruno, Calif., the site of a deadly pipeline explosion and fire in September 2010, and Hahn's district includes Wilmington, Calif., where a pipeline thought to be empty contained thousands of gallons of oil that led to a 2014 spill.
The PIPE Act comes as Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is preparing for a criminal trial on its indictment in the San Bruno explosion. The trial was scheduled to begin April 26, but a federal judge has postponed the start date so PG&E can review 110,000 pages of government investigatory documents (United States v. PG&E Corp., N.D. Cal., No. 3:14-cr-00175, motion granted4/21/16).
In an April 21 minute order, Judge Thelton Henderson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted PG&E's request to delay the start, setting an April 28 status conference.
The trial on the superseding indictment for Pipeline Safety Act and obstruction charges is expected to last about six weeks, including four weeks for the government's case. PG&E could be hit with up to $600 million in fines for 12 felony violations and a single charge of obstructing the National Transportation Safety Board in its investigation of the pipeline rupture and fire (77 DEN A-15, 4/21/16).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88129408&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88129408&jd=88129408
-
Company Pledges to Fight for N.Y. Pipeline
Apr 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The four companies that own Constitution Pipeline Co. LLC may challenge New York's decision to deny a permit for the gas pipeline project, pledging April 25 to “pursue all available options” to fight the state decision.
The challenge may include an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Christopher L. Stockton, a spokesman for the company, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation denied a water quality certification permit for the project April 22, saying the project would have an adverse impact on some 251 streams and would disturb wetlands. It also said the project application was incomplete and failed to address a number of concerns (79 DEN A-14, 4/25/16).
The state decision is being viewed in the context of its 2015 ban on fracking of natural gas. Supporters of the pipeline said the decision was political, while environmental groups and opponents applauded it for helping to move the state away from its dependence on fossil fuels.
Options
Constitution has a number of options if it wants to move forward with the project, including litigation. It may also re-submit an application or request a hearing with the DEC within 30 days to discuss the permit denial.
The 125-mile pipeline is being proposed by Williams Partners LP., Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., Piedmont Natural Gas Co. and WGL Holdings Inc. It would connect natural gas production in northeastern Pennsylvania with northeastern markets, including the southern tier of New York.
The project, which received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in December 2014, needs a number of permits from New York, including water quality certification under the Clean Water Act.
DEC, in denying certification, said the project could have a “profound” impact, including “loss of available water body habitat, changes in thermal conditions, increased erosion and creation of stream instability and turbidity.”
It said, despite the fact that the application was updated numerous times, Constitution “has not supplied sufficient information for the Department to be reasonably assured that the State's water quality standards would be met during construction and operation of the proposed pipeline.”
“As a result, the Department cannot be assured that the aforementioned adverse impacts to water quality and associated resources will be avoided or adequately minimized and mitigated so as not to materially interfere with or jeopardize the best usages of affected water bodies,” DEC said.
Company Refutes Decision
Constitution vigorously refuted the state's reasons for denial in a statement, saying it worked closely with the state for three years and voluntarily agreed to the state's requests to incorporate re-routes, adopt trenchless construction methodologies and to conduct trout stream restoration. It also agreed to provide funding for $18 million in wetland mitigation.
“We believe NYSDEC's stated rationale for the denial includes flagrant misstatements and inaccurate allegations, and appears to be driven more by New York State politics than by environmental science,” the project sponsors said in a joint statement. “We worked in good faith with the NYSDEC for years, so this decision comes as a surprise and is contrary to our dialogue and collaborative effort to address concerns.”
The state decision was applauded by environmentalists and opposed by the Business Council of New York State, the American Petroleum Institute and the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York, a group that supported fracking in the Southern Tier region of the state.
The coalition said the project would support 2,400 jobs, generate $130 million in income and provide $13 million in local tax revenue.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88129402&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88129402&jd=88129402
-
Bomb Trains: The Scariest Thing You Didn't Know About
Apr 25, 2016 | Chicago Magazine
By Ted C. Fishman
They’re explosive. Pervasive. And their movements are cloaked in secrecy. Their nickname? Bomb trains. And they roll through the heart of Chicago.
They could not look more ominous. The long coal-black tubes announce themselves by their distinctive shape and color, their markings too small to read from the street. The 30,000-gallon tank cars roll, sometimes 100 at a time, in trains of up to one mile in length. Their cargo? Crude oil—as much as three million gallons per train. Nearly all of it is light sweet Bakken crude, a type that is particularly explosive. In whole, these trains constitute likely the biggest, heaviest, and longest combustibles to ever traverse America, and they do so routinely. More pass through Chicago than any other big metro area. Their blast potential has earned them a terrifying nickname: bomb trains.
tand long enough at 18th and Wentworth, on the traffic bridge that separates the newer sections of Chinatown from the largely residential South Loop, and you will spot the tank cars wending their way across neighborhoods on the Near South and West Sides, past playgrounds, schoolyards, and row after row of houses. An estimated 40 of these trains cut through the metro area weekly. There’s no public information on exact routes or timetables; revealing their paths, the logic goes, might aid potential saboteurs, a real risk in an age of terrorism.
Until recently, crude on the rails was relatively rare. But since 2008, when Bakken oil began rolling out of newly active fields in the United States—North Dakota is the biggest producer—and toward Eastern refineries, the number of oil tank car shipments has grown 50-fold. That’s pushed the number of accidents up, too. According to U.S. government data, from 1975 to 2012, an average of 25 crude oil spills from tank cars occurred on the rails each year. In 2014, that number rose to 141. Most incidents are minor, such as small leaks. But in cases of a major derailment, the result can be catastrophic, even fatal (see “Terrifying Incidents,” below).
Chicago found that in the last three years there were 17 derailments of crude oil trains in North America significant enough to generate news coverage. In eight of them, the tank cars blew, sending fireballs hundreds of feet into the air, filling the sky with black mushroom clouds. In the most severe cases, the flames produced are so hot that firefighters almost inevitably choose to let them burn out, which can take days, rather than extinguish them. (The Wall Street Journalcalculated that a single tank car of sweet crude carries the energy equivalent of two million sticks of dynamite.) Even when there are no explosions, the spills can wreak havoc on the environment: five of the 17 accidents resulted in the pollution of major waterways, affecting thousands of people across the continent.
Chicago is particularly vulnerable. As the Western Hemisphere’s busiest freight hub, the city has become a center for crude oil traffic, too. High volumes, combined with a densely populated urban setting, have watchdogs such as the Natural Resources Defense Council alarmed. Henry Henderson, the NRDC’s Midwest program director, sums up the threat this way: “Trains with highly explosive materials are traveling through the city on aging tracks in cars that are easily punctured, which can result in devastating explosions.”
Many of these trains cut through what were once industrial rail yards in the city and suburbs. Over the last 35 years, however, much of that property has turned into residential and commercial clusters. “You should assume that if you live in the Chicago area, near a railroad track, that there are trains carrying Bakken crude oil,” says Jim Healy, a member of the DuPage County Board.
Though Chicago has so far been spared a crude oil train crash, the potential of one presents a horrifying picture. One particular nightmare is emblazoned in the minds of first responders, and regulators. On July 6, 2013, a runaway crude oil train, which had been left unattended, sped through the center of the small Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic. Sixty-three cars derailed. Forty-seven people were killed, some literally incinerated while they drank at a bar.
Emergency responders in the Chicago area say they are confident any derailment here could be managed before it reached neighborhood-destroying levels. “Crude is not the threat that everyone says it is,” says Gene Ryan, chief of planning for Cook County’s Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Ryan and a group of first responders looked closely at 29 major accidents across North America and found that “even though the crude is full of all kinds of volatile materials, the cars did not completely blow apart and hit homes,” he says.
But in a city as dense as Chicago, it takes only one freak incident to have a titanic effect on the urban landscape. Just last year, on March 5, on a stretch of track near Galena, Illinois, 21 BNSF Railway train cars carrying 630,000 gallons of Bakken crude derailed and tumbled down an embankment. Five of them burned for three days. At the time, James Joseph, director of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, told the Chicago Tribune: “We’re fortunate this occurred where it did, in a remote area, and there were no homes around it.”
Experts believe the train was likely headed for Chicago, 160 miles to the east.
Historically, oil in America moved from south (think Texas and Louisiana) to north mostly through pipelines, the safest conduits for it. When newly deployed technologies such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing—or fracking—opened access to sources of oil in North Dakota and elsewhere in the West, few pipelines were in place to move the crude to the refineries back east that could handle it. (A proposed pipeline for Bakken crude running from Stanley, North Dakota, to Patoka, Illinois, has faced political and jurisdictional challenges.) With limited alternatives, oil producers and refiners turned to railroads. In 2014, trains carried 11 percent of the nation’s crude oil.
So what paths do these tank cars take? The exact routes are state secrets. But assuming 40 trains, carrying three million gallons of crude oil each, pass through the Chicago area weekly, that means more than 17 million gallons roll through the city daily. It’s an inexact count, and the NRDC has continued to push to get accurate information. “A lot of people don’t know their residences are adjacent to hazardous cargo,” says Henderson. “The issue should be subject to public discussion, but the public has been cut off from it.”
Using freight maps and firsthand reporting, the West Coast environmental advocacy group Stand has assembled a national map of the most common crude oil train routes and created an interactive website that allows users to determine how far any U.S. location is from these routes. For example, according to the site, half of Chicago’s Bridgeport neighborhood, home to 32,000 people and U.S. Cellular Field, falls squarely within a half-mile “evacuation zone,” established by the U.S. Department of Transportation for areas vulnerable to crude oil train explosions. Stretch that to the one-mile “impact zone” and you include the Illinois Institute of Technology, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Cook County Juvenile Court.
It’s not just Chicago proper that sees traffic from crude oil trains. They cut through Joliet, Naperville, Barrington, Aurora, and dozens of other suburbs. “I can look outside my office and see them passing through downtown,” says Tom Weisner, Aurora’s mayor. “About 120,000 tanker cars a year now come through our city.”
Last April, the U.S. Department of Transportation ordered a maximum speed for crude oil trains of 40 miles an hour in populous areas. The majority of railroads run them 10 miles slower than that, an acknowledgment, in effect, that the trains aren’t invulnerable. Most often, it is a flawed track, wheel, or axle that leads to a derailment, which can then cause tank cars to rupture.
Bakken crude was first shipped using tank cars designed for nonhazardous materials and ill suited to its volatility. (Most tank cars are owned not by the railroads but by the oil producers and refiners, such as Valero Energy and Phillips 66, that ship crude.) Those first-generation tank cars, called DOT-111s, have almost all been subjected to new protections, including having their shells reinforced with steel a sixteenth of an inch thicker than used in earlier models. Federal regulations passed in 2015 mandate that by 2025 haulers must replace all cars with new models featuring even thicker steel shells and other safety measures.
Railroads know the dangers. In addition to the human and environmental costs, one terrible accident could put a railroad company out of business. Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, which ran the train that devastated Lac-Mégantic, could only cover a fraction of its hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities and went bankrupt.
The big railroads hauling crude in the United States and Canada have spent heavily on new technology to make their lines safer, including an Association of American Rails app called AskRail, which identifies the contents and location of rail cars carrying hazardous materials. What railroad companies cannot yet do is reroute trains away from the populous areas whose growth their lines once spurred. There simply isn’t the infrastructure in place to do so.
And while the American Association of Railroads reports that rail companies have spent $600 billion since 1980 improving their current routes, even well-maintained tracks remain vulnerable. Department of Transportation accident data shows that broken rails were the main cause of freight derailments from 2001 to 2010. What’s more, the Federal Rail Administration, the agency charged with overseeing the integrity of America’s tracks, says it can only monitor less than 1 percent of the federally regulated rail system annually due to a shortage of manpower.
“There’s a lackadaisical attitude among people, including officials, about infrastructure that is not up to the threats against it, even as the threats are manifesting,” says Henderson. “You saw that in Flint, Michigan, and in other places with drinking water. And now with crude oil trains, which deal with very serious materials moving [on a system] not adequate to protect people from mistakes.”
This article appears in the May 2016 issue of Chicago magazine.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2016/Bomb-Trains/
-
Why States and Cities Must Lead the Way on Climate Change
Apr 26, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Bill Ritter
Much was made a few months ago about the historic climate agreement in Paris. Much is being made now about the race for the U.S. presidency. The two intersect on the question of whether the next president will build on President Obama’s climate plans or backslide on the progress Mr. Obama has managed against global climate change.
But while the spotlight is on this year’s extraordinary race to the White House, America’s ability to keep its commitments in the Paris agreement and to build a 21st century energy economy depends largely on states and communities far beyond the beltway.
The truth is that despite the large-scale, global impact of climate change, it is the states and cities, not Washington D.C., that have most of the legal powers to prevent global warming by helping the United States transition to cleaner energy.
States create energy building codes; localities enforce them. Cities establish the zoning that governs sprawl. They make mobility investments that can simultaneously save adults from traffic jams and children from asthma. State commissions regulate investor-owned electric utilities and the policies that either reward or punish customers who want to produce their own power. Legislatures decide whether to establish goals for energy efficiency and renewable energy. In fact, the renewable energy standards put into effect by nearly 30 states in recent years deserve much of the credit for the rapid growth of solar and wind power in America.
Cities also can do small things that can have big collective impacts on greenhouse-gas emissions. Urban forestry, green spaces, rooftop gardens, permeable parking lots and natural drainage swales not only bring nature back into the lives of urban residents; they also sequester carbon, help reduce flooding, mitigate urban heat islands, clean the air, recharge groundwater and reduce the amount of energy necessary to move and treat water, typically the largest item on community energy bills.
Whatever the results are of this year’s presidential and congressional elections, America’s future depends to a very large degree on our next mayors, city council members, county supervisors, state legislators, utility commissioners and governors. They and their constituents can be the muscle behind climate action and the champions of the clean-energy transition. That’s why most of the battles against renewable energy standards and net metering policies are being fought today not in Washington D.C., but in states and localities.
And that’s why every voter this year should check the box not only for president, but also for every candidate down to the bottom of the ballot.
Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. is director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University, and the author of the forthcoming book, “Powering Forward: What Everyone Should Know About America’s Energy Revolution.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2016/04/26/why-states-and-cities-must-lead-the-way-on-climate-change/
-
Obama Envoy: World Leaders Worried About US on Climate
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama’s new United Nations climate envoy says he has fielded questions from international allies on the fate of U.S. climate change commitments if a Republican wins this fall’s presidential election.
“There is some concern globally about where we’re headed,” Jonathan Pershing, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, told reporters Monday. Pershing and others attended meetings at the UN over the weekend to mark the signing of the Paris climate deal.
Despite the concerns, Pershing said, “I think we were able to really address it with a couple of really telling points that were persuasive for folks.”
That included highlighting bipartisan congressional support for wind and solar tax credits — measures included a year-end spending deal reached after the Paris deal — as well as business sector commitments to clean energy.
He also said the U.S. will inevitably participate in a global clean energy market regardless of who is president, even if it’s a Republican dismissive of climate change, as leading candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are.
“The US is a global player and nobody really thinks that when the world market of $1 trillion or more dollars on an annual basis is out there on these new technologies, that the U.S. won’t be an active part of that, and probably a leader in that,” Pershing said.
“While people raised this, it was more to be reassured, and they were not just reassured, they were quite confident, was my take,” he added.
Administration officials have long warned the GOP not to let Obama’s climate commitments lapse if a Republican take office. Pershing’s predecessor, Todd Stern, said in February there would be“diplomatic consequences” if the next president pulls out of the climate deal, which was signed in New York on Friday.
The U.S. and other nations met over the weekend to discuss next steps on the climate accord. The deal kicks in when 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of worldwide carbon emissions “join” the deal, and the signatures affixed to the deal Friday were simply the prelude to that step.
More than a dozen countries joined the deal on Friday and UN officials said at least 34 countries representing 49 percent of emissions have signaled their intention to join this year, a faster timeline than many expected.
Senior White House adviser Brian Deese said such an accelerated timeline will give negotiators a chance to eventually expand their climate change commitments, a necessary step to have any chance at meeting the accord’s goal of keeping warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
“The earlier that the Paris agreement enters into force and the earlier that key issues are resolved, the greater the momentum toward action will be both in terms of encouraging individual countries to act … but also in sending a signal to the private sector about the durability of the transition to low-carbon technologies.” Deese said.
“I think that overall we saw real progress coming out of the weekend on that front.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/277551-obama-envoy-some-concern-globally-about-a-gop-presidents-climate
-
Ozone Standards Challenged as Unachievable, Inadequate
Apr 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency will have to defend its 2015 ozone rule from disparate arguments that the standards are unachievable and inadequate to protect public health (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, briefs filed 4/22/16).
The national ambient air quality standards of 70 parts per billion are being challenged by states, industry organizations and environmental groups, all of which filed opening briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 22.
While the state and industry petitioners asked the court to vacate the standards, the environmental organizations want the 2015 ozone rule to be remanded to the EPA with a firm deadline to reissue more protective standards.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in October signed a final rule (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the 2008 ozone standards of 75 ppb, set under former President George W. Bush, to a level of 70 ppb. McCarthy said her decision on the revised standards, which the agency projected to cost as much as $1.4 billion in 2025, was based on a review of more than 1,000 new studies, more than 400,000 public comments and advice from EPA staff and independent science advisers (191 DEN A-1, 10/2/15).
Litigation Predicted in 2015
Attorneys told Bloomberg BNA in advance of release of the rule in October 2015 that setting the standards at 70 ppb would likely lead to litigation focusing on the health effects and attainability of the new standards (187 DEN A-1, 9/28/15).
The EPA's response to the opening briefs is due to the court by Aug. 10.
The state coalition, led by Arizona, and the industry petitioners, which include Murray Energy Corp., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, both argued in their briefs that the EPA's ozone rule should be vacated because the agency failed to adequately address background ozone.
The agency's alleged failure to appropriately account for the influence of naturally occurring ozone and emissions from uncontrollable natural events and from international sources of pollution resulted in standards that are not achievable, which constitutes a violation of the Clean Air Act, the state and industry petitioners said.
EPA Plays Down Background Difficulties
While many states raised concerns about background levels of ozone in comments on the EPA's 2014 proposal to set the standards somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, the EPA said in the final rule that “only a few” areas in the West are expected to have trouble attaining the 70 ppb standards due to elevated background concentrations.
The EPA, in a December 2015 white paper, said that existing modeling indicated that man-made emissions from within the U.S. are typically “the dominant contributor” to measured violations of the ozone standards.
The agency identified several “regulatory relief mechanisms” to avoid official violations of the standards that result from high background levels, including obtaining an exceptional event designation that would allow for the exclusion of air monitoring data for the purposes of measuring compliance, the EPA's ability to designate rural transport areas and international transportation provisions under Section 179B of the Clean Air Act (246 DEN A-3, 12/23/15).
State Concerns on Peak Days
However, the state petitioners said the administrative record developed during promulgation of the standards “unambiguously demonstrates” that peak levels of ozone resulting from stratospheric intrusions and other uncontrollable sources of pollution will make it difficult for states to meet the 70 ppb standards on peak ozone days. The states were critical of the EPA's focus on the average air quality effects of uncontrollable sources, given that compliance with the ozone standards is based on a three-year average of the fourth-highest eight-hour average recorded each year.
“The issue is not the average effect of uncontrollable sources of ozone on either average- or high-ozone days. Rather, the problem is peak effects of uncontrollable sources on peak ozone days,” the states said. “Given how NAAQS compliance is measured, these events are sufficiently common to make it difficult, or even impossible, for states to fulfill their “responsibility” for ensuring the new 70 ppb standards “will be achieved and maintained.”
Level of Standards Called Unlawful
While the industry and state petitioners argued the 70 ppb standards are not attainable, the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association and other health organizations argued in theirbrief that the standards are not adequately protective of public health and the environment.
The environmental and public health groups asserted that the 70 ppb ozone rule is illegal under the Clean Air Act because the regulation labels communities as attaining the standards even if they suffer many days of ozone levels that cause adverse effects. The organizations cited an EPA study that linked exposure to 72 ppb of ozone to adverse health effects, including decreased lung function, in healthy young adults.
“By setting the standard's level at [70 ppb] and its form as the average, over three years, of the annual fourth-highest maximum daily eight-hour average ozone level, EPA allows ozone levels to exceed—multiple times in any year–levels that EPA itself agrees cause adverse health effects,” the environmental petitioners said. “The standard is unlawful and arbitrary because it allows areas to continue to have air quality that EPA acknowledges is harmful to health.”
Groups Say Science Advice Ignored
The environmental and public health petitioners also alleged the EPA unlawfully and arbitrarily failed to explain the administrator's decision to depart from the advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), a panel of independent science advisers. That panel in 2014 formally recommended that the EPA consider a range of 60 ppb to 70 ppb, although the committee cautioned of “substantial evidence” of adverse health effects at 70 ppb.
The D.C. Circuit in 2013, in a ruling on the legality of the 2008 ozone standards, dismissed arguments from environmental and public health groups that the EPA is required to follow the advice of CASAC (Mississippi v. EPA, 723 F.3d 246, 2013 BL 194344 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).
Earthjustice attorney David Baron told Bloomberg BNA in September 2015 that the EPA can only reject advice from its independent science advisers if it provides a “strong scientific basis” for that decision. The environmental and public health organizations alleged in their brief that the EPA did not adequately address the committee's conclusion that there is evidence of adverse health effects at 70 ppb.
“Rather than specifically address CASAC's scientific finding...EPA incorrectly asserted that its decision was ‘consistent with CASAC's advice, based on the scientific evidence,' ” the groups said. “This assertion is irreconcilable with the plain text of CASAC's letter.”
Other Arguments to Be Made
The opening briefs outlined several additional arguments on the 2015 ozone standards, including an argument from the states and industry petitioners that the EPA failed to conduct a required contextual analysis that encompassed adverse economic, social and energy effects.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 ruled that the Clean Air Act prohibits the EPA from considering compliance costs in its consideration of where to set national ambient air quality standards (Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 51 ERC 2089 (2001)).
The industry petitioners argued the Whitman ruling “does not absolve” the EPA from considering the economic, social and energy effects of its decisions on national ambient air quality standards. The petitioners said the need to consider those effects is supported by language in Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to review national air standards on a periodic basis and make revisions “as may be appropriate.”
Any evaluation of the “appropriateness” of revising a national ambient air quality standard must take into account the adverse socioeconomic and energy effects of that decision, the industry petitioners said. The brief cited a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that held that the EPA's decision to not consider cost did not adhere to the Clean Air Act's instruction to determine if it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 2015 BL 207163, 80 ERC 1577 (2015)).
The other arguments outlined in the opening briefs include:
• a state argument that the EPA arbitrarily relied on a single clinical study to justify its decision to tighten the ozone standards;
• an industry argument that the EPA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for changing its 2008 conclusion to adopt 75 ppb ozone standards;
• an environmental and public health argument that the EPA's secondary standard, which was also set at 70 ppb, is inadequate to provide requisite protection for public welfare, including damage to trees and plants; and
• an environmental and public health challenge to a “grandfathering exemption” established by the EPA that allows facilities with pending permit applications as of Oct. 1, 2015, to comply with the previous 75 ppb standards.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88129411&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88129411&jd=88129411
-
Researchers Eye 'Dynamic' Approach to Ozone, SO2 Emissions Mitigation
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Researchers funded by EPA grants are exploring alternative "dynamic" methods for industry and states to control ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution by requiring pollution cuts over short time periods, including a hybrid approach that would "layer" such short-term controls with existing EPA emissions trading programs.
Air regulators in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states at an April 12 meeting of the group in Washington, D.C., noted the problem of some power plants not operating their emissions controls and instead purchasing compliance credits for agency trading programs such as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which is designed to reduce SO2 and ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx).
The research by the scientists -- who used grant funding under EPA's Science To Achieve Results (STAR) program -- could therefore spur regulators to weigh the merits of crafting new short-term pollution limits.
On a March 31 EPA-sponsored webinar, the scientists argued that "dynamic" emissions control, involving swift, short-term measures to limit emissions, could provide a cost-effective way to curb episodes of high air pollution. Sources say this to some extent echoes an ongoing focus by states within the OTC on short-term reductions.
During the webinar, two research teams presented their findings. Researchers Elena McDonald-Buller, David T. Allen and Mort D. Webster, from the University of Texas at Austin and also the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said their studies show that "time-differentiated" trading of NOx and also SO2, which leads to particulate matter formation, is a cost-effective way to meet increasingly tough federal ambient air standards.
Under time-differentiated trading, power plants are "dispatched," or run, according to when and where they can run with the lowest pollution impacts. The researchers looked at this theory for the Texas power grid, known as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) grid.
They found that imposing a high price on emissions under a trading program, for a short periods of time, could cost-effectively reduce pollution. Raising prices on high ozone days, for example, would effectively mitigate ozone-forming emissions, they argued. However, the best overall solution would a "layered," or "hybrid" approach that would combine this short-term approach focusing on peak emissions output with an existing emissions trading program based on whole years or ozone seasons, such as CSAPR.
CSAPR established an emissions trading program among power plants in 28 states in the eastern half of the country for SO2 and NOx, in order to help states meet the agency's 1997 national ambient quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
EPA proposed an update to the CSAPR rule last year, so that it would address the stricter 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), compared to the 1997 limit expressed as 84 ppb. EPA on Oct. 1 further tightened the ozone NAAQS to 70 ppb, but has yet to propose any interstate emissions rule to achieve that standard.
Layered Approach
The STAR-funded researchers found that a layered approach that imposed a $5,000 per ton NOx price on high ozone days in ERCOT would achieve additional NOx reductions of 10 to 15 percent, while in PJM the same NOx price would achieve 20 to 25 percent additional NOx benefits. Differentiating across space, rather than just time, risks shifting generation to dirtier units in other locations, the speakers said.
The researchers suggested that states have the air quality monitoring and forecasting capability to make such a system work. They also suggested the methodology they used is transferable to other power grid systems.
A second team of researchers, consisting of Jason West, Seth Blumsack and William Vizuete, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Pennsylvania State University, studied options for a system to avoid high ozone episodes in the eastern United States. The system would use "dynamic management" of emissions sources, such as power plants, to avoid running those plants that cause high ozone downwind.
The team analyzed a particular air pollution episode in Pittsburgh, and found that turning off enough power generation within the Mid-Atlantic to stop that episode "could threaten the reliability of the regional power grid," according to conclusions posted to EPA's website. However, "If the dynamic air quality management system was expanded to include the entire eastern United States, then ozone exceedances in Pittsburgh could feasibly be addressed through controlling coal-fired power plant output. The most critical units to control, our simulations found, were actually outside of the Mid-Atlantic region," the researchers said.
Reducing Emissions
The research coincides with continued debate in the 12 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states in the OTC about how to limit SO2 and especially NOx emissions on high electric demand days (HEDD), which tend to occur on hot summer days that are already conducive to ozone formation.
At the OTC meeting, state air regulators again noted that specific power plants equipped with pollution controls appear not to be running them, contributing to the HEDD problem. This practice is legal under CSAPR if plants can rely on emissions credits they buy in order to comply with the rule. Also contributing to HEDD issues is "behind the meter" generation by diesel generators operating as part of demand-response programs, and small "peaking" power plants that operate only during periods of peak demand, air regulators said.
OTC has previously indicated it would like to explore ways to ensure that power plants with controls run them, with the most obvious being modifications to CSAPR that would increase emissions allowance prices to provide an incentive to run controls.
Episodic Controls
One OTC-area regulator says that episodic emissions controls, which could include the "dynamic" and "layered' systems explored by the STAR grant-funded researchers, could be viable. Indeed, states have previously experimented with "ozone action days" and encouraged such voluntary actions as carpooling and emissions testing of generators.
However, the regulator says, forecasting HEDD has actually become harder as NOx emissions and ozone levels have declined. A particular weather pattern is no longer a guarantee of high ozone as in the past, and HEDD may also not occur everywhere at the same time, making prevention of upwind emissions from different states difficult.
Attorney Gene Trisko, speaking on behalf of the American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity, said that OTC's focus on individual problem power plants is misplaced, in the light of an overall major drop in NOx emissions from coal-fired plants in recent years. "This suggests unit level focus is basically irrelevant and misses the point," Trisko said. He advocated instead a focus on distributed generation by diesel generators that lack controls.
Attorney Skipp Kropp, representing the Midwest Ozone Group (MOG) coalition of power generators, warned that EPA's air emissions modeling for its proposed CSAPR update rule is "fatally flawed." An analysis prepared for the group by consultancy Alpine Geophysics shows that EPA wrongly used outdated assumptions about NOx emissions when preparing the CSAPR update, resulting in an overestimate of NOx emissions of some 93,000 tons - "a reduction larger than the 83,000 ton reduction per ozone season to be achieved by the proposed rule itself."
MOG argues that power plants are a very small contributor to the ozone problems, including HEDD issues, experienced by OTC-area states, Kropp said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/researchers-eye-dynamic-approach-ozone-so2-emissions-mitigation
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested