Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/4/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) EU Commission Negotiating TTIP Against People's Will - Borealis CEO
May 4, 2016 | ICIS News
By Jonathan Lopez
The European Commission is negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade deal between the EU and the US against the will of European public opinion, the CEO of Austrian polymers and fertilizers producer Borealis said on Wednesday. -
(ACC Blog) How Do Various Screening Tools Evaluate Different Chemicals?
May 4, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ann Mason
Retailers and product manufacturers are increasingly using a variety of tools, lists and other approaches to determine whether specific chemical ingredients in consumer products may be a concern, or to certify what some call “greener” chemical ingredients. -
(ACC Mentioned) Prop 65 Reforms Under Fire from Industry and Civic Groups
May 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of more than 200 industry trade groups and companies, led by the California Chamber of Commerce, says a revised proposal to reform California Proposition 65 Regulations is “unworkable” and that a new draft needs to be issued. -
Johnson & Johnson to Pay $55m in Second Talc Ruling
May 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A second Missouri jury has found Johnson & Johnson liable for injuries from ovarian cancer linked to the use of its products containing talc, and has ordered the company to pay $55m in damages. -
Summary Paper Published of NexGen Programme
May 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A paper has been published, which summarises the findings of the 2014 final report of the US EPA-led NexGen programme on how chemical risk assessment could be better informed by advances in new scientific approaches, in areas such as molecular, computational and systems biology. -
Cefic Launches AMBIT Toxicology Prediction Tool
May 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Cefic has officially launched its software tool AMBIT, designed to help companies comply with chemicals regulation by using read-across principles. -
Groups Prod RGGI to Take on Tougher CO2 Targets
May 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
Advocacy groups are asking states in a Northeast cap-and-trade program to consider pursuing steeper emissions reductions and surpass the goals of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan starting in 2020. -
Congressional Research Shop Releases Litigation Summary
May 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Congress' in-house research shop has drafted a summary of the complicated legal battle over the Obama administration's climate regulations. -
Texas Co-Op Expands Renewable Portfolio as Power Plan Concerns Linger
May 4, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As many electric cooperatives move toward expanding their portfolios to include a greater percentage of renewables, will co-ops be better equipped to meet the requirements of the Clean Power Plan? During today's OnPoint, John Hewa, CEO of Pedernales Electric Cooperative, explains how his company has shifted its portfolio to include more solar and wind, but says concerns remain over the power plan's impacts on coal-fired power generation. -
Greens Sue EPA Over Fracking Waste
May 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental groups are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to try to compel better regulation of waste fluids from hydraulic fracturing. -
PHMSA Chief Sees Data Reporting Playing Key Safety Role
May 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The federal agency tasked with overseeing 2.6 million miles of oil and gas pipelines and nearly a million daily shipments of hazardous materials has fewer than 600 employees and a reputation for falling behind its heavy workload. But its chief has a solution, and it's not just adding bodies. -
Flame Retardants Leave Toxic Legacy in Mich.
May 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Studies have found 60 percent of Michigan residents have high levels of the flame retardant polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) in their bodies 40 years after it was mixed with animal feed in the region. -
Sprawling Freight System in Calif. Eyed for Carbon Cuts
May 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
California's multimillion-dollar freight system is the latest target of the state's mission to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EU Commission Negotiating TTIP Against People's Will - Borealis CEO
May 4, 2016 | ICIS News
By Jonathan Lopez
The European Commission is negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade deal between the EU and the US against the will of European public opinion, the CEO of Austrian polymers and fertilizers producer Borealis said on Wednesday.
“I just believe that what the EU is doing is essentially against the will of the European people, who are mostly happy with the regulation and have a large degree of scepticism about genetically modified crops,” said Borealis’ CEO Mark Garrett.
Environmentalist group Greenpeace made public documents on 1 May that showed the US’ motivation in bringing some chemicals widely used in that country into the EU. Some products, such as genetically modified crops (GMCs), are widely-used in the US but forbidden at present in the EU.
Trade group European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), to which Borealis belongs, has been astrong supporter of TTIP, but on Wednesday it said it had no comments about the revelations.
However, some European chemical and fertilizers producers have voiced their concern about the TTIP consequences.
In November 2015, Polish producer Grupa Azoty said it was “concerned about the potential consequences of allowing American companies to enter European markets" without having first ensuring a fair and level playing field.
“I don’t understand why governments would act not in the interest of their own people. But then, I live in Switzerland, where the government has to act in the interest of people,” said Garrett.
Trade unions and consumer groups, as well as environmentalist organisations, have complained of a lack of access to the TTIP negotiations while trade groups like Cefic or the American Chemistry Council (ACC) would have reportedly had a seat at the table.
The negotiations have been conducted under maximum secrecy.
While Cefic said it would not comment on the Greenpeace leaked documents, its German peer VCI argued on 2 May that “some demands in trade negotiations are simply unacceptable to the other party [and] bringing forward maximum demands is the usual procedure” in such negotiations, said director general Utz Tillmann.
“The fight is hard in the debate about TTIP. Evidently, some individuals do not stop short at abusing the trust placed in them by publishing confidential documents. This has nothing to do with fair play in politics,” added Tillmann.
Asked whether the revelations over the weekend would put the TTIP negotiations on hold, Borealis’ Garrett said: “No. I’m very cynical, they will find [a way]... Americans are threatening to do something on the imports of automobiles [if TTIP does not go through] which the German wouldn’t be very happy with.”
Garrett added that he disliked the way other industrial participants or consumer groups had not been included in the negotiations.
“But then, it’s very unusual that someone like me [will say this],” he said.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/05/04/9994870/eu-commission-negotiating-ttip-against-people-s-will-borealis-ceo/
-
(ACC Blog) How Do Various Screening Tools Evaluate Different Chemicals?
May 4, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ann Mason
Retailers and product manufacturers are increasingly using a variety of tools, lists and other approaches to determine whether specific chemical ingredients in consumer products may be a concern, or to certify what some call “greener” chemical ingredients.
But what sort of information do these various tools provide? To address this question, a group of researchers undertook a comparative analysis of leading chemical assessment tools. They found that when evaluating the same chemical, individual tools come to different conclusions about the hazard categorization of each chemical (see Table 1 for a list of tools and chemicals evaluated).
The researchers used the tools to analyze seven chemicals, including two natural compounds – caffeineand citric acid; a degradation metabolite – glycolic acid; and four synthetic chemicals: ethylene glycol,dibutyl phthalate, benziothiazolinone (BIT), which is also an antimicrobial, and 1,2,4,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane (HBDC), which is also a chemical designated as persistent and bioaccumulative by the European Union.
The results show a wide variety of hazard categorizations for the same chemical – ranging from little or no hazard/toxicity to very high hazard/toxicity. For example, caffeine was ranked by two of the tools as a “low” hazard, as a “moderate hazard by one tool, as a “high” hazard by three tools, and as a “very high” hazard by two of the tools.
According to the researchers, different results for the same chemicals were due to variations in: 1) the endpoints each tool considered for evaluation; 2) how each tool weighed the relevance of specific endpoints; 3) the sources of information the tools developer used to gather information; and 4) how each tool treated gaps in available data.
Thus, the study found, the outcome of a hazard tool assessment is highly dependent on the tool selected for the screening.
What’s the difference between “hazard” and “exposure”?
The tools analyzed in the study focus on a chemical’s innate “hazard,” meaning they consider whether the inherent properties of a chemical substance could cause harm to humans or the environment, under any circumstance.
But, the inherent hazard of a chemical ingredient is only one aspect to consider when making informed decisions. Hazard-based screening procedures do not consider how a chemical is actually used in a product, how much of the chemical substance exists in those uses, and whether and to what degree there is human or environmental exposure to the chemical substance through such uses. These properties of use, dose and exposure are a key component of regulatory chemical safety assessments conducted by government agencies around the world.
The results affirm what ACC and regulators have known for decades: to judge a product’s safety, a chemical hazard analysis needs to be put into the context of how and who uses a product.
The study authors conclude that there is a need for enhanced transparency and understanding of what each tool was designed to measure, as well as the appropriate conditions for each tool’s use, and suggest possible enhancements to the tools to increase their utility.
ACC is in the process of conducting a follow-up demonstration study that evaluates chemical ingredients in the context of the whole products and its intended use. A paper presenting the results of this subsequent analysis is under development.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/05/how-do-various-screening-tools-evaluate-different-chemicals/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Prop 65 Reforms Under Fire from Industry and Civic Groups
May 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of more than 200 industry trade groups and companies, led by the California Chamber of Commerce, says a revised proposal to reform California Proposition 65 Regulations is “unworkable” and that a new draft needs to be issued.
The coalition's criticism came in response to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (Oehha) revision to a proposal, issued in March, for how “clear and reasonable” warnings should be provided under Prop 65.
It said that although November's proposal had marked an improvement over the original rulemaking, the latest draft “takes several steps backwards, by introducing new, and extraordinarily problematic, concepts that had never been contemplated in previous drafts”.
Specific concerns, raised by the coalition, include that the proposal would:
require businesses to “affirmatively demonstrate” that a warning is needed, by regulating that it name one or more listed substances “for which the person has determined a warning is required”;
increase litigation risk by introducing new “bad warning” lawsuits that do not exist today, where “despite using the precise safe harbour warning content provided by Oehha, businesses would nonetheless be challenged for failing to provide an adequate warning”;
require double warnings for some products, through modifications to requirements for online and catalogue sales; and
infringe on businesses' free speech rights, by blocking companies from providing certain information to supplement a warning.
A coalition of four NGOs, including the Center for Environmental Health and the Environmental Law Foundation, also raised misgivings.
According to the groups, inclusion of the words “such as” before the chemical for which warning is being provided [in the latest text] “introduce[s] ambiguity about whether the product even contains the named chemical”.
They added that industry First Amendment objections “cannot hold water”, and called on the agency to strengthen the provisions regarding supplementary information that may diminish, dilute or contradict a warning statement.
Improving effectiveness
Improving the effectiveness of Prop 65 warnings and diminishing frivolous litigation under the regulatory scheme was named a priority by Governor Jerry Brown in 2013.
But according to the industry coalition: “Notwithstanding Oehha‘s policy objectives, the proposal would result in the very practical and legal outcomes that the Governor sought to avoid when he called for Proposition 65 reform.”
In separate comments, coalition member the American Chemistry Council (ACC) reiterated its position that statutory reforms are needed to fix Prop 65 deficiencies.
Prop 65 “is completely misaligned with the science of warnings and risk communication. The foundation cannot be improved or fixed by regulation; statutory changes would be needed,” said the trade group.
An Oehha spokesperson said it will provide another 15-day notice and public comment period “soon”, to address the issues raised. All comments will be responded to in the agency’s final statement of reason when the final rule goes to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for approval, he added.
The agency expects to receive final approval for the regulation by 27 November – the deadline for its adoption.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47081/prop-65-reforms-under-fire-from-industry-and-civic-groups
-
Johnson & Johnson to Pay $55m in Second Talc Ruling
May 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A second Missouri jury has found Johnson & Johnson liable for injuries from ovarian cancer linked to the use of its products containing talc, and has ordered the company to pay $55m in damages.
The ruling follows a decision in the same class-action suit, earlier this year, which awarded $72m in actual and punitive damages.
Johnson & Johnson has already begun the appeals process for the first ruling. It also plans to appeal the latest verdict.
According to Carol Goodrich, a spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson, “the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world.”
“Multiple scientific and regulatory reviews have determined that talc is safe for use in cosmetic products and the labelling on Johnson’s Baby Powder is appropriate,” she added.
The company says that it has continued to produce Johnson’s Baby Powder with talc because it is “completely confident in its safety”.
But Ted Meadows, an attorney with representing law firm Beasley Allen, says that the jury’s recent finding “affirms that Johnson & Johnson knew that its talcum powder products posed a risk to women’s health, but they did nothing to warn the public”.
Complaints against the company in Missouri, and other states, are expected to be in the thousands, according to Beasley Allen.
FDA stance
In 2008, NGOs the Cancer Prevention Coalition and the New York Center for Constitutional Rightspetitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require talcum powder products to bear a “prominent warning label”, disclosing that frequent application of talc to the female genital area is “responsible for major risks of ovarian cancer”.
The petitioners cited 15 studies named in a similar petition from 1994, as well as 12 scientific publications since that time, that “confirm the causal relation between genital application of talc and ovarian cancer”, as grounds for their request.
The FDA rejected the petition in 2014. “While the growing body of evidence to support a possible association between genital talc exposure and serous ovarian cancer is difficult to dismiss, the evidence is insufficient for FDA to require as definitive a warning as you are seeking,” said the agency in the petition response.
With regard to future action on talc, a spokesperson for the FDA told Chemical Watch that the agency implements the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and that the law does not authorise the agency to require safety data about ingredients or cosmetic products, before they go on the market.
The agency must be able to “prove the product is unsafe before we can take legal action”, she added.
The American Cancer Society says that findings from studies evaluating talcum powder and ovarian cancer have been “mixed”. “For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to be very small,” it says.
According to Johnson & Johnson, “it is natural for trial verdicts to raise questions about the product involved, and it’s also important to distinguish jury verdicts – in the United States – from regulatory rulings or rigorous scientific findings.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/47126/johnson-johnson-to-pay-55m-in-second-talc-ruling
-
Summary Paper Published of NexGen Programme
May 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A paper has been published, which summarises the findings of the 2014 final report of the US EPA-led NexGen programme on how chemical risk assessment could be better informed by advances in new scientific approaches, in areas such as molecular, computational and systems biology.
The paper, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, reviews the programme's eight case studies, or “prototypes”, and suggests new research directions.
The authors conclude that “while considerable uncertainties remain, thoughtful application of new knowledge to risk assessment appears reasonable for augmenting major scope assessments, forming the basis for or augmenting limited scope assessments, and for prioritisation and screening of very data limited chemicals.”
They suggest that future research focus on integrating computational research with strategic laboratory studies, to advance available models and enhance understanding complex chemical and biological interactions.
NexGen brought together a range of government bodies in the US, Canada and Europe. The aim was to identify and evaluate recent advances in biological and computational sciences and explore how data and approaches could be used.
The team ran an expert workshop in 2010 to establish a research framework. They also had a “public dialogue” conference in 2011 to engage the public, share information and provide the EPA with early feedback.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47103/summary-paper-published-of-nexgen-programme
-
Cefic Launches AMBIT Toxicology Prediction Tool
May 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Cefic has officially launched its software tool AMBIT, designed to help companies comply with chemicals regulation by using read-across principles.
Unknown chemical properties can be predicted from those that are known of similar compounds, using a large database and various modules facilitating searching and use of the data.
The quality of AMBIT data is assured and includes more than 450,000 chemical structures and their identifiers, such as Cas, Einecs and Inchi numbers. Users can search and access a wide range of existing information about a chemical, as well as securely upload data generated by their own company.
Cefic says this process makes the tool “unique and powerful, particularly for data-poor small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)”.
AMBIT has been developed by Clariant corporate product stewardship under Cefic’s Long Range Research Initiative (LRI). Echa has given the Cefic LRI project access to the entire non-confidential REACH dataset of 14,570 substances.
The software is available to all via the Cefic website. AMBIT can also be downloaded from the Cefic LRI AMBIT workplace, following registration. Requests can be sent to lri@cefic.be
In January, Cefic LRI organised a training workshop in Brussels. The presentations and downloadable instruction videos are available online.
Further workshops are planned in the US, Japan and South Korea, in June and July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47113/cefic-launches-ambit-toxicology-prediction-tool
-
Groups Prod RGGI to Take on Tougher CO2 Targets
May 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
Advocacy groups are asking states in a Northeast cap-and-trade program to consider pursuing steeper emissions reductions and surpass the goals of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan starting in 2020.
The nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is reviewing its carbon-cutting goals as part of a routine quadrennial assessment. But the states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont -- also want to show they are meeting the requirements of the federal rule.
As part of that process, they are considering whether to aim for more CO2 cuts than the Obama administration mandates, and whether to link with states outside the region.
Although the Supreme Court has halted implementation of the Clean Power Plan and states will not need to submit initial plans in September, RGGI states still want to have information to present in the fall.
The states are reviewing modeling conducted by ICF International that shows they could make minor program changes and meet their combined Clean Power Plan goals.
RGGI's own target through 2019 is to cut emissions 2.5 percent per year. RGGI states are looking at continuing that decline, but they could comply with the Clean Power Plan without accelerating carbon reductions between 2020 and 2030, especially if they reduce the number of extra allowances made available through a "cost containment reserve" that kicks in when prices rise.
But several groups -- including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Entrepreneurs, Environment America, the Acadia Center and Physicians for Social Responsibility -- want RGGI to consider aiming for 5 percent reductions each year.
"Conducting a model run is not an endorsement of a specific policy outcome," said Jackson Morris, a regional energy director for NRDC. "It's merely a way for the states themselves, stakeholders, everybody to take a look at what that more ambitious type of trajectory looks like."
Morris said only modeling 2.5 percent cuts won't provide enough information for decisionmakers, particularly when states are considering economywide reductions that might not be possible without a more stringent RGGI program.
Expanded trading still on the agenda
Josh Berman, a staff attorney with the Sierra Club who is following the process, said the region is reducing emissions about 5 percent per year anyway.
The groups are pointing to research from Synapse Energy Economics that shows cutting emissions 5 percent per year would be the most economical way to achieve state greenhouse gas goals.
Attendees at a RGGI meeting in Boston on Friday also continued an ongoing discussion about whether RGGI should trade carbon allowances with other states (ClimateWire, Feb. 3).
RGGI members are exploring what kind of requirements potential trading partners might have to meet. Comments on that and the rest of the program review are due by May 9.
Most environmental advocates say RGGI should at least ask other states to cap emissions from new power plants, which is optional under the Clean Power Plan. They argue that if states limit emissions only from existing plants, power producers may build new plants to evade the cap.
ICF's modeling assumes RGGI states would trade internally and states outside the region would limit emissions from existing and new sources of power and trade carbon among themselves in one big bloc. That is unlikely because states have already suggested they would use incongruent trading systems.
Some RGGI stakeholders think trading with other states would help those states keep coal plants online and continue to emit carbon, but Morris argued it would actually bring down RGGI allowance prices without negating emissions reductions. That's because RGGI will pursue tougher goals than other states face under the Clean Power Plan, he said.
ICF recently added new figures into its model, taking into account extended federal tax incentives for renewable power, using lower estimates for renewable power costs and incorporating New York's standard to achieve 50 percent clean energy by 2030, Berman said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/04/stories/1060036685
-
Congressional Research Shop Releases Litigation Summary
May 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Congress' in-house research shop has drafted a summary of the complicated legal battle over the Obama administration's climate regulations.
The Congressional Research Service late last month released a backgrounder in the case,West Virginia v. U.S. EPA, where nearly 160 parties are challenging EPA's Clean Power Plan.
That rule has been "one of the more singularly controversial environmental regulations ever promulgated by EPA, and the controversy surrounding the Rule is reflected in the enormous multi-party litigation over the Rule ongoing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit," according to CRS.
The report recaps the major events in the litigation, summarizes the principal legal arguments and lays out a likely timetable of upcoming events. It also includes details on state planning, referencing information from E&E's Power Plan Hub.
The rule is currently on hold after the Supreme Court earlier this year agreed to freeze the regulation. The D.C. Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments early next month.
Current and former members of Congress are weighing in on both sides of the issue. Opponents include 34 current senators and 171 members of the House. Supporting the rule in court, meanwhile, are 44 current and former senators and 164 current and former House members.
The Federation of American Scientists' transparency advocate Steven Aftergood posted the backgrounder online. CRS generally doesn't publicly release its documents to Congress.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/04/stories/1060036721
-
Texas Co-Op Expands Renewable Portfolio as Power Plan Concerns Linger
May 4, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As many electric cooperatives move toward expanding their portfolios to include a greater percentage of renewables, will co-ops be better equipped to meet the requirements of the Clean Power Plan? During today's OnPoint, John Hewa, CEO of Pedernales Electric Cooperative, explains how his company has shifted its portfolio to include more solar and wind, but says concerns remain over the power plan's impacts on coal-fired power generation.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is John Hewa, CEO of Pedernales Electric Cooperative based in Texas. John, thank you for joining me.
John Hewa: Thank you, Monica, glad to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: I almost got it, right? Pronounce it for me correctly.
John Hewa: You said it right, Pedernales Electric Cooperative.
Monica Trauzzi: Pedernales.
John Hewa: We're in central Texas in beautiful Texas Hill Country.
Monica Trauzzi: Wonderful. So, John, we're seeing a trend among electric co-ops shifting towards renewables and cleaner sources of energy, in particular solar energy. Talk about the steps that your co-op is taking on solar and your Empower project.
John Hewa: Absolutely, thank you for asking. We've taken a very balanced formula approach to making sure that we have reliable, affordable electricity for our membership. That includes, and increasingly includes, distributed energy resources. So Texas has been a leader in energy, both production and energy consumption, and a leading state with regard to wind. So in our portfolio today we have all the traditional resources including bulk wind. Today we're moving more towards distributed resources with an emphasis on solar, and we've been very active in that area and working to partner with our member owners.
As an electric cooperative, our members own the assets, so it's our obligation, it's our responsibility to optimize the value of the infrastructure that they've paid for and that we are stewards of. In doing that, we're now deploying 15 megawatts of community and distributed solar, which will be fractured in about 20 or so projects across our large service territory, and we're also working in a very close partnership with our membership and our local installers on an Empower loan program that works to provide on-bill financing, low-interest, convenient, on-bill financing for members that are installing foldable tanks or energy storage systems at their home or business.
Monica Trauzzi: We often think of co-ops as being coal-heavy and being economically reliant on coal. Is that still very much the case?
John Hewa: So we have to take a step back and look nationally, and co-ops do have a balanced portfolio, but nationally we're seeing 30, 35-plus percent of our energy portfolio is provided by coal infrastructure. So it's been and continues to be a very important part of the stability, security and economy of our national energy supply. Today we're seeing very favorable low-cost natural gas, and that's been very beneficial to the state of Texas, to the ERCOT market and to our member consumers, it's helped us lower their cost. But we do have to remember that coal plays a very important part in the dispatchable technology and the dispatchable reliability of our nation's power supply.
Monica Trauzzi: In initial conversations with co-ops after the release of the Clean Power Plan, one of the arguments against the power plan was that co-ops are so reliant on coal and that the plan would be economically destructive. But it sounds like a shift is happening in the market, a natural shift.
John Hewa: Absolutely. So there are a lot of forces at play here, and first of all, let me just say that the electric co-op market aligns brilliantly with where we're heading with distributed resources. As consumers have more options, more capability to self-generate, to adopt technologies, that aligns remarkably with electric co-ops. And we also say that co-ops have been and will continue to be technology leaders. We cover 75 percent of the nation's landmass, we own over 40 percent of the distribution infrastructure in the United States, our grid is becoming more distributed in nature. And co-ops are using technology to overcome a lot of the challenges of low density in very rugged and exposed service territories.
So with that, our model aligns perfectly with where the grid and our energy economy is heading. That being said, today we do have in our portfolio a fairly significant amount of coal. We're working through those transitions, and the Clean Power Plan presents some challenges. For our co-op, we've done so much in the area of renewable energy. We've brought in and are providing very reliable low rates to our membership, but we do have concerns about the Clean Power Plan and the path that it sets us on, and particularly the timing and implications of security related to that.
Monica Trauzzi: So you talked about what your energy portfolio looks like now. What is it going to look like in 2025, 2030?
John Hewa: I think there's a lot of question there. How will Clean Power Plan impact coal, particularly in the state of Texas and across the nation? We're seeing natural gas is at an all-time low, so we've got a couple of factors that are weighing in on coal right now. We've got the uncertainty of federal regulations, including EPA and the Clean Power Plan. We also have remarkably low-cost natural gas, and plentiful. So in combination, that is fairly quickly deteriorating the economics of coal in our state and around the nation.
Now, one of the areas that we've had concern about regarding the Clean Power Plan, as we ponder and as we evaluate a plan that moves the nation towards the elimination really of one of its resources, we are moving away from a resource that is characterized with on-site fuel storage. The EIA, for instance, has tracked 30-, 60-, 90-day burn piles of coal, and that's an onsite resource that is very secure in the way that it can be utilized. We're moving out of that, and because of the timing of the Clean Power Plan, we're moving largely towards a natural gas environment that is very dependent on real-time delivery on a pipeline. It's dependent on pipeline redundancies or limitations, and we've got to be very careful with that as we architect the future.
Monica Trauzzi: But there's no longer an economic case for coal?
John Hewa: So I think the economic case is very challenged right now. We're seeing wind and solar come in very affordably. We're seeing natural gas perform very affordably. But we have to be careful in the migration away from a resource that is readily available and is carrying such a burden of our nation's energy supply, again, over 30 percent.
Monica Trauzzi: Texas, where you're based, has suspended planning on the power plan following the Supreme Court's stay of the rule. It's clear though that discussions on the plan are still occurring behind the scenes. What types of conversations have you been involved in since the stay?
John Hewa: So we filed comments to the court regarding our concerns over the plan, and our concerns really focused on the area of cost and reliability with a greater focus particularly on timing and security. From a timing perspective, and we're seeing our members begin to adopt solar and other technologies fairly rapidly, however, it remains a very, very small fraction of our total energy requirement. And so while solar has matured economically, we need to see it be adopted and propagated at a much more rapid pace before we can truly be comfortable that it's going to work as a bridge technology, and it really needs the complement of energy storage. And that's really where I think a problem lies on timing right now with the Clean Power Plan.
While energy storage, if technically it works, it's not working economically, and there are still very few projects around the nation. We need a deep deployment, a heavy density propagation of solar and storage in combination, along with some other grid technologies such as demand and response, to really bridge what we're talking about here with the CPP. And in the absence of those technologies being mature and propagating in that level, it essentially becomes a natural gas play. That's really what this moves towards without those technologies really ready to go prime time. And that's where our concern on timing relates to security, because we're putting additional pressure on pipelines, on the compressor and the infrastructure-related pipelines, and we're moving away from the redundancy to a very rather singular fuel environment, which is alarming for us.
Monica Trauzzi: Even though that in the final plan we saw a step away from a natural-gas-heavy rule, certainly as compared to the draft rule?
John Hewa: You know, I think there have been some provisions, but we looked at the early work of NERC and tracked what was happening there, and certainly some concerns that were raised early on in the rulemaking, and I think those softened a bit as we got towards the final rulemaking. And I think NERC's final report really just advised utilities how to work with their local state in solving these problems. But at the federal level, I don't think FERC and NERC have really solved the issues of the interdependency between electric and gas. I don't believe we necessarily saw all the issues of potential security matters related to being more singular in our fuel approach. And while we're excited for what's happening in the alignment of the electric co-op model into distributed resources including solar and storage and wind, we need some time as an industry to transition.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we will end it right there. And you're of course in town with 1,500 other electric co-op members having meetings here this week in Washington. Thank you for joining me. Thanks for coming on the show.
John Hewa: Thank you, Monica, thank you so much.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching, we'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2126/transcript
-
Greens Sue EPA Over Fracking Waste
May 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental groups are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to try to compel better regulation of waste fluids from hydraulic fracturing.
The groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Integrity Project, said regulations are about 30 years overdue to protect from groundwater contamination, earthquakes and other problems they associate with discarding fracking waste.
Fracking involves injecting water, sand and chemicals at a high pressure underground to break shale and unlock more oil or natural gas than otherwise would be accessible.
Its use has grown dramatically in recent years, bringing with it the high volumes of fluids that can be used to treat roads, injected underground or stored in tanks.
“Each well now generates millions of gallons of wastewater and hundreds of tons of solid wastes, and yet EPA’s inaction has kept the most basic, inadequate rules in place,” Adam Kron, an attorney at the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement Wednesday.
Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, San Juan Citizens Alliance, West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, are also participating in the lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Washington, D.C.
The EPA is prohibited from regulating fracking, except in a few limited circumstances, under a 2005 law.
The groups specifically want a court-ordered deadline by which the EPA must make final new rules on fracking waste disposal.
“Right now, companies can get rid of their toxic mess in any number of dangerous ways — from spraying it on icy roads, to sending it to landfills with our everyday household trash, to injecting it underground where it can endanger drinking water and trigger earthquakes,” Amy Mall, senior policy adviser at NRDC, said in the statement.
“EPA must step in and protect our communities and drinking water from the carcinogens, radioactive material and other dangerous substances that go hand-in-hand with oil and gas waste.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278688-greens-sue-epa-over-fracking-waste
-
PHMSA Chief Sees Data Reporting Playing Key Safety Role
May 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The federal agency tasked with overseeing 2.6 million miles of oil and gas pipelines and nearly a million daily shipments of hazardous materials has fewer than 600 employees and a reputation for falling behind its heavy workload. But its chief has a solution, and it's not just adding bodies.
"The scope and complexity of our safety mission will outpace our ability to add resources," Marie Therese Dominguez, administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), said yesterday during an address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Meeting that mission will require the agency "to fundamentally rethink how we use data, information and technology to achieve our goals."
PHMSA has moved aggressively to add personnel, growing its workforce 25 percent over the past two years, Dominguez said. But as she looks over the next five years, she said collecting the right data and using them systematically will be a key element of overseeing safety in the growing oil and gas industries, as well as regulating the transportation of an ever-evolving portfolio of potentially hazardous materials.
Dominguez said that as the agency goes through a congressional reauthorization process, she aims to add an office of planning and analytics that would work to more rigorously integrate data into three areas: strategic planning, data and analytics, and economic analysis.
Currently, PHMSA is working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to assess its current data collection program and identify gaps, as well as how it can best use agency data for oversight and regulatory development.
For example, Dominguez pointed to the aviation industry. Faced with a slew of major accidents in the 1990s, aviation regulators, operators and industry, with direction from Congress, established a system for no-fault accident and incident reporting overseen by a third party, she said.
After stripping out certain identifying information, incidents were reported to outside reviewers, she explained, who analyzed what took place to glean insights into unaddressed risk in the system.
Dominguez credited the no-fault review process with reducing the rate of aviation accidents and said PHMSA could look to that model to improve its own oversight and regulation.
"The bottom line is, we're never going to have enough people to actually cover the miles that we need to, so we're going to need to leverage our capabilities and our people in a much more exponential process," Dominguez said.A raft of rulemakings
Oil and gas industry stakeholders are currently watching closely as a handful of rulemaking processes unfold through PHMSA. On Capitol Hill, the House is working on a pipeline safety measure. A key sticking point is emergency authority that would let PHMSA direct companies in response to "imminent hazards" (Greenwire, April 27).
Industry has warned that the companion Senate-passed bill would disclose too much information about pipeline systems that could increase the risk of terrorist attacks (E&E Daily, April 20).
Separately, PHMSA and other stakeholders are working through a multiagency task force on underground natural gas storage in response to last year's Aliso Canyon leak in California, which released a record amount of methane and continues to keep some families from their homes in the affected area (E&ENews PM, April 28).
The task force aims to convert the lessons learned from that accident into a new rulemaking that Dominguez said will be advanced as soon as possible following the conclusion of the group's six-month review.
And last week, PHMSA said it would take public comment on an update to the rules governing liquefied natural gas facilities, encompassing not only massive export terminals but also a proliferation of smaller projects targeting domestic transportation and marine fueling markets (EnergyWire, April 27).
Asked how she plans to juggle the multiple major issues that PHMSA is working on while also reshaping the agency to meet future needs, Dominguez reiterated that reorganizing the agency's planning and regulatory activities to integrate data would drive its work in other areas. "That's really the crux of it, to really look at the policy, the strategic planning and the regulatory picture."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/04/stories/1060036679
-
Flame Retardants Leave Toxic Legacy in Mich.
May 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Studies have found 60 percent of Michigan residents have high levels of the flame retardant polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) in their bodies 40 years after it was mixed with animal feed in the region.
These residents are at a higher risk for reproductive problems, thyroid and liver issues, and low immune system levels, according to Dr. Michele Marcus of the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University.
For resident Jane-Ann Nyerges, a childhood on a family farm led to a series of miscarriages as an adult. She thinks PBB may be to blame (Linda Gittleman, Mount Pleasant [Mich.]Morning Sun, April 29).
Presenters at the Intergenerational Risk From Environmental Contamination Conference at Alma College in Alma, Mich., said residents need to speak up so regulators know the locations of contaminants such as buried cows containing PBB.
"These are people who really do care," said Matthew Tejada, director of U.S. EPA's Office of Environmental Justice, part of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "They want to listen to you".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/04/stories/1060036711
-
Sprawling Freight System in Calif. Eyed for Carbon Cuts
May 4, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
California's multimillion-dollar freight system is the latest target of the state's mission to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A draft plan released yesterday by five state environmental and transportation agencies calls for more zero-emissions vehicles, alternative fuels and operational efficiency across the trucks, railroads and ports that make up the state's freight system. It is the first plan of its kind to address freight as a whole.
The proposal follows Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's request for agencies to work together to tie economic efficiency and climate goals into the freight system. The system accounts for around 6 percent of California's total greenhouse gas emissions, or slightly more than the emissions of eight coal-fired power plants.
It is also a big moneymaker. California's transportation and warehousing sectors raise around $45 billion each year. Overall, freight accounts for about a third of the state's jobs and revenue, according to government figures.
Taking into account both emissions and economic value, the agencies set a target for overall system efficiency. They want to increase the value of goods and services from freight per ton of carbon by 25 percent by 2030.
"The reason we are so interested in efficiency is it helps us to achieve not only those economic benefits but also the environmental benefits so we can make sure the state continues to thrive," said Heather Arias, head of the California Air Resources Board's Freight Transport Branch. "That's a thing that no one else is doing."
One way to increase system efficiency would be to boost the amount of goods carried by one engine, by promoting longer twin trailers or double-tracking containers coming off of ships, suggested Randy Mullett, a senior adviser for the Washington, D.C.-based group Securing America's Future Energy.
"If you can combine that with more efficient engines and new fuels, you almost get a multiplier effect," said Mullett, a former policy executive with freight company Con-way Inc. "I'm pretty excited that they are taking that kind of approach."
"I'm being overly broad, but in the past, the freight community may have been distrustful and thought they were going to have to bear the costs" of the federal government's fuel economy rules for heavy-duty vehicle engines, he said. "This is different."
100,000 zero-emissions vehicles by 2030
Agencies had already been working on reducing emissions in freight individually, but there weren't any big-picture goals.
The California State Transportation Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Agency, Air Resources Board, Department of Transportation, Energy Commission, and Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development came together in the past year, along with representatives from the industry, to put together the proposal.
After a comment period, the agencies will submit a final plan to the governor in July, which could eventually lead to a new rule or legislation.
The proposal sets a target of 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment with zero emissions in operation by 2030. The plan would require agencies to look into, and possibly develop, new technologies -- anything from electric charging for parked trucks to drone delivery to hydrogen fuel.
It meshes California's goals with larger federal and international ambitions, suggesting, for example, that emissions from the aviation and shipping sectors could be included in the state's flagship carbon cap-and-trade program.
The plan also puts forward three pilot projects. One would use dairy biogas to fuel freight vehicles in the San Joaquin Valley. Another would use advanced technologies promoting autonomous and low-emissions driving along major truck corridors. The third would set up smart infrastructure to help smooth truck traffic at the border with Mexico.
Environmentalists said the draft could go even further.
"There's a lot of things missing from the plan," said Morgan Wyenn, who has been following the process for the Natural Resources Defense Council. She called the proposals too vague.
An economic analysis expected as part of the draft document was postponed because it could not be completed for every proposal, according to the plan.
"There's nothing in this report that stops bad projects from moving forward," Wyenn added. For example, the plan doesn't outright ban new railyards relying primarily on fossil fuels for power, she said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/05/04/stories/1060036691
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested