Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 5/9/2016
-
(ACC Blog) Nanotechnology – A Small Part of Big Solutions
May 9, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Jay West
Researchers are constantly looking for ways to combat disease, whether it is a familiar one like the flu or something never seen before like the Zika virus. Nanotechnology may offer hope to develop treatments for both. Dr. Tom Webster, chair of Northeastern University’s... -
(ACC Mentioned) Green Up Day Collects Over 50,000 Bags of Trash
May 9, 2016 | Vermont Business Magazine
As the hills across Vermont turn a brilliant spring green, volunteers across the state once again spent the first Saturday in May helping to clean Vermont roadsides of trash as part of the Green Up Day annual tradition. -
Analysis: Sharp Increase in US-Origin Styrene Monomer Weighs on Asian Prices
May 9, 2016 | Platts
By Michelle Kim
An increase in supply of styrene monomer from the US -- where the shale gas revolution has lowered production costs significantly -- has weighed down prices of SM in Asia since March. -
(ACC Mentioned) Time Expires on Connecticut Flame Retardant Bill
May 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Connecticut legislature has failed to approve a bill banning several brominated and chlorinated flame retardants from children’s products and toys. -
Energy Bill Could Be Victim of its Own Success
May 9, 2016 | Washington Examiner
By Kyle Feldsche
While the House and Senate each passed its own comprehensive energy bill, the same measures that got those bills through their respective chambers could end up killing a compromise measure. -
Texas Cooperative Sees Rate Redesign Aiding Compliance
May 9, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
John Hewa, chief executive officer of Pedernales Electric Cooperative, believes that implementing time-of-use rates for his members could help compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Inside Hillary Clinton's Climate and Energy Plans
May 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, if elected president, likely wouldn't prioritize a sweeping rule on climate, her campaign chairman, John Podesta, said Friday. -
Feds: Energy Sector Carbon Emissions Dipped in 2015
May 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Energy sector carbon dioxide emissions fell in 2015, federal officials reported on Monday, pushing emissions 12 percent below the critical benchmark year of 2005. -
Senate Leader Promises 'Concerted Push' to Cement GHG Target
May 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California lawmakers hope to enshrine greenhouse gas policies through 2030, as renewed anxieties surface about the state's legal footing. -
Resilient U.S. Drillers Squeezing Out More Oil Than Expected, Goldman Says
May 9, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
The nation’s oil production is set to drop less than expected this year as drillers in West Texas and Oklahoma find ways to pump crude faster, and for less money, Goldman Sachs says. -
Torrance Refinery Unit to Restart After Major Explosion; Start-Up to Temporarily Increase Emissions
May 9, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By Veronica Rocha
A poortion of the Exxon Mobil refinery in Torrance is scheduled to reopen Monday night, more than a year after a large explosion at the facility injured four workers and damaged equipment. -
Dakota Access Looks to Start Construction Before Full Approval
May 9, 2016 | Des Moines Registrer (In E&E Energywire)
By William Petroski
The company behind a 1,170-mile, North Dakota-to-Illinois pipeline project is urging Iowa regulators to allow construction "without delay," even before federal regulatory approval. -
Tesoro Bakken Crude Rail Shipments to West Can Compete with Pipes to Gulf, CEO Says
May 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Although the low price commodity environment is causing delays in some of its major capital investment projects, Tesoro Corp. likes the economics for its crude by rail option for shipping Bakken Shale supplies to its West Coast refineries, CEO Greg Goff said... -
Conservative Groups Urge Congress to Delay Ozone Standard
May 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Led by Americans for Prosperity, 60 conservative groups are urging Congress to delay implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard and undertake a broader overhaul of the agency's long-standing process for updating air quality benchmarks for ozone and five other... -
EPA Says States' High Court Suit Against Utility Air Toxics Rule is 'Moot'
May 9, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is echoing environmentalists, public health groups and several states in arguing that other states' push for the Supreme Court to again review litigation over agency's utility air toxics rule is moot, with EPA arguing that its recent cost review for the rule satisfies a high court mandate... -
Appeals Court Moving to Consolidate Challenges
May 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
A federal appeals court is moving forward to hear the merits of the Obama administration's hot-button Clean Water Rule, according to a court filing today. -
Why This Could Finally Be the Election Where Climate Change Matters
May 9, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has said that “I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.” Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is a strong proponent of climate change action, and a supporter of continuing President Obama’s policies... -
New York Plans to Make Fighting Climate Change Good Business
May 9, 2016 | New York Times
By Justin Gillis
A governor wants to lead on green energy. The state’s utilities are nervously falling in line. Young entrepreneurs are buzzing, determined to be part of the generation that finally solves climate change.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Nanotechnology – A Small Part of Big Solutions
May 9, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Jay West
Researchers are constantly looking for ways to combat disease, whether it is a familiar one like the flu or something never seen before like the Zika virus. Nanotechnology may offer hope to develop treatments for both. Dr. Tom Webster, chair of Northeastern University’s chemical engineering department and the president of the Society of Biomaterials, is working with nanoparticles to find a delivery system that will target the nano-structures of such viruses.
With the world’s focus on the spread of the Zika virus, Webster’s current project has gained significant attention. Using nanoparticles created in his lab, he attaches them to the viruses , which prevents them from entering healthy cells and replicating. Webster believes this emerging technology could be ready for clinical trials within the next five years. He believes that this form of treatment could also be ideal to fight diseases like the flu which mutate frequently and outpace the development of new vaccines.
Webster has partnered with Colombia’s University of Antioquia, known for its expertise in tropical plants and their medicinal properties, to further two separate projects utilizing nanoparticles and the proteins from the plants. The first is aimed at changing the fluorescence of viruses by attaching nanoparticles with fluorescent proteins, making it easier to detect whether surfaces like desks and phones are contaminated. Webster’s other project looks to circulate synthetic immune cells through the bloodstream and attach to viruses and clear them from the body. This project could target almost any disease and give those fighting chronic diseases a chance to overcome the illness.
While years of research lie ahead for Webster, nanotechnology is poised to play a part in the fight against viruses like Zika. To learn more specifics of Webster’s project click here.
The American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel promotes the responsible development of nanotechnology by advancing good product stewardship practices among nanomaterial producers and users. Panel members have the opportunity to help shape the industry’s positions on nanotechnology regulation, research, and stewardship practices and build relationships with other leaders in the field.
Reach out to me at Jay_West@americanchemistry.com to learn more about the Panel and how its activities can benefit you and your company.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/05/nanotechnology-a-small-part-of-big-solutions/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Green Up Day Collects Over 50,000 Bags of Trash
May 9, 2016 | Vermont Business Magazine
As the hills across Vermont turn a brilliant spring green, volunteers across the state once again spent the first Saturday in May helping to clean Vermont roadsides of trash as part of the Green Up Day annual tradition. Green Up Vermont extends its gratitude to its generous sponsors, including Green Mountain Power as it concludes its third and final year as the signature partner.
Green Mountain Power has supported this effort as signature corporate partner of Green Up Vermont for three years now, helping to sustain the organization and its activities during difficult financial times.
Mary Powell, President and CEO of Green Mountain Power said, “We are so honored to support Green Up Vermont once again as we all pitch in and do our part to clean up and green up the Green Mountain State. It’s heartwarming to see Vermonters young and old join together out of love for this special place.”
“Green Up Vermont is the most important rite of spring in our state and we are very pleased with this year’s effort,” said Green Up Vermont President Melinda Vieux. “This event would not be possible without the generous contributions of our sponsors, in particular Green Mountain Power who stepped up when we really needed them to help us keep this event going strong. And of course we couldn’t do without the thousands of generous Vermonters who helped us collect tens of thousands of bags of garbage, tires, and other debris from our roadways and natural and public spaces.”
During this annual tradition, first started by Governor Deane C Davis in 1970, Green Up Day volunteers help clean up about 13,100 miles of roads, collecting over 50,000 bags of trash. In addition to the volunteer teams, the Vermont Agency of Transportation sends out crews to clear debris from about 2,700 miles of state highways and interstates.
“Congratulations to Green Up Vermont on another successful day. Between the sponsors, area businesses, community groups, Scouts and others, thousands of our friends and neighbors participated and we want to say thank you,” Powell concluded.
Green Up Vermont would like to recognize the following Green Up Day Partners for their generosity this year: Subaru of New England, Casella Waste Systems, SerVermont, Co-operative Insurance Companies, National Life Group, OMYA, WCAX, 802 Creative, American Chemistry Council, Cabot Creamery Cooperative, GW Plastics, Skinny Pancake, VAST, and VELCO.
Vermonters can help Green Up Vermont in many ways, including volunteering on Green Up Day, organizing community teams, and making donations to ensure this great tradition continues. Donations can be sent to Green Up Vermont, P.O. Box 1191, Montpelier, VT 05601-1191, or made securely online at greenupvermont.org.
http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/may/green-day-collects-over-50000-bags-trash
-
Analysis: Sharp Increase in US-Origin Styrene Monomer Weighs on Asian Prices
May 9, 2016 | Platts
By Michelle Kim
An increase in supply of styrene monomer from the US -- where the shale gas revolution has lowered production costs significantly -- has weighed down prices of SM in Asia since March.
US exports to South Korea in March jumped more than sixfold year on year to 63,209 mt, while exports to China were also up by more than fourfold to 42,852 mt, according to data from the US Department of Commerce's International Trade Commission.
The surge in exports came despite the ongoing turnaround season in the US that started in the first quarter of 2016, which has shut the US-Asia arbitrage window on paper amid lower supply in the US.
Still, SM output remained relatively high in the US, as ample supply of cheaper shale gas has reduced production costs -- to about 20% below than that of Asian producers -- prompting US producers to ramp up operations.The increase in US supply to Asia has since weighed on Asian SM prices, with the Platts CFR China SM marker on a downtrend since March 7, when it peaked at an all-year high of $1,153/mt. It was last assessed at $1,069/mt CFR China on May 6.
US SM OFFSETS LOWER SUPPLY FROM JAPANOne of the reasons behind the barrage of US-origin SM supply into Asia is the scrapping of Japanese SM plants, which tightened overall volume in the region, leading US cargoes to fill the supply gap, market sources said.
In Japan, Asahi Kasei has shuttered its 320,000 mt/year SM plant at Mizushima in mid-February this year, while Nihone Oxirane's 425,000 mt/year plant in Chiba has been permanently shut in May 2015.
This has subsequently narrowed Japan's surplus SM supply by 52% year on year to 404,000 mt in 2016, according to data from the country's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
The cut in Japan's SM production capacity has also sharply tightened supply of SM from South Korea, as South Korea imports a significant volume of SM from Japan and re-exports a large amount to China.
Last year, Japan accounted for 74% of South Korea's import volume of 779,451 mt. China in turn, imported 1,243,447 mt of SM from South Korea in 2015, representing 33% of its total imports.
WEAKER EUROPE SM MARKET
A weaker European SM market this year has also divert US cargoes away from Europe to Asia.
The arbitrage window from the US to Europe has been shut on paper throughout most of Q1, because of lackluster SM demand in Europe.
Looking forward, more US-origin SM can head to Asia once the turnaround season in the US ends in June, a market source said.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/singapore/analysis-sharp-increase-in-us-origin-styrene-27555763
-
(ACC Mentioned) Time Expires on Connecticut Flame Retardant Bill
May 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Connecticut legislature has failed to approve a bill banning several brominated and chlorinated flame retardants from children’s products and toys.
The measure (HB 5299) cleared the House by a 111 to 29 margin. But the Senate failed to bring the measure to the floor for a vote before the close of the state's legislative calendar on 4 May.
As passed by the House, the bill would have prohibited the manufacture or sale of covered products with more than 0.01% by weight of:
· decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE);
· hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD or HBCDD);
· tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP or TDCP); or
· tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP).
The prohibition was slated to take effect on the manufacture of such products from 1 July 2018, with a sales prohibition to begin 1 July 2019. Children’s products – including clothing, toys not covered under the standard ASTM F963, bedding materials, and strollers – were covered under the measure.
Previous versions of the bill had also proposed to ban TCPP, and to cover upholstered furniture. Those provisions were removed from the version passed by the House.
Anne Hulick, Connecticut state director for bill proponent Clean Water Action, said the NGO was "extremely disappointed" that time ran out before the bill could be considered.
According to Ms Hulick, Senator Rob Kane, who she said has chemical manufacturer Chemtura in his district, "was the primary reason that the bill didn't get called, despite the fact that we had wide bipartisan support in the Senate, and the Senate Majority Leader was pushing for the bill".
Senator Kane could not be reached by this article's deadline. Chemtura declined to comment.
Although the House bill is now dead, Clean Water Action plans to advocate the issue again in 2017. "We'll be back next year with an even broader bill and bigger momentum to make sure we get [it] passed," said Ms Hulick.
Earlier this year, the American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance (Nafra) testified against a previous draft of bill, saying that flame retardants slow the spread of fire and have not been proven to be harmful, according to a committee report.
Testimony in support of the bill was offered by a variety of NGOs, health provider groups and private citizens.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47166/time-expires-on-connecticut-flame-retardant-bill
-
Energy Bill Could Be Victim of its Own Success
May 9, 2016 | Washington Examiner
By Kyle Feldsche
While the House and Senate each passed its own comprehensive energy bill, the same measures that got those bills through their respective chambers could end up killing a compromise measure.
For the first time since 2007, both chambers of Congress passed comprehensive energy reform packages that many say are necessary in the wake of the resurgence of U.S. energy production in the last decade. Now, the next step is for the House and Senate to negotiate a final bill to send to President Obama.
However, energy experts are concerned that the biggest obstacles to getting a bill passed and signed into law are the very things that allowed each bill to get out of its chamber.
After months of talking about a bipartisan energy bill that would pass the House, Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton eventually came out with legislation that Democrats and environmentalists say places too much emphasis on Republican priorities.
Meanwhile, the Senate bill, a massive bipartisan deal that includes priorities for environmentalists and the energy industry alike, could be torpedoed by opposition from conservative groups such as Heritage Action that hold immense clout with Tea Party lawmakers in the House. The groups see the bill allowing more government interference in the energy markets through unnecessary taxpayer subsidies.
Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she knows the two bills have some dramatic differences.
Still, she's hopeful a conference between House and Senate members will lead to a deal similar to the one she reached with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., on the Senate bill.
"If we can walk people through what it is that we have done, I think some of the issues that are viewed now as obstacles and roadblocks are alleviated," she said after the bill passed the Senate.
There is no timetable set on when a conference between the two chambers, which will be headed by Murkowski, will begin and which lawmakers will be on it. A spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who sets the Senate timeline, has not made any announcements about the conference.
The White House signaled it would veto the House version when it went to the full chamber late last year, but in February said it could work with the Senate bill.
While the administration has concerns about certain provisions, such as those weakening Department of Energy programs to improve energy efficency at factories and the department's ability to negotiate energy-saving contracts, it also was enthused by the renewal of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and addressing the maintenance backlog at national parks.
Getting a final comprehensive energy reform bill through a conference committee could be the same battle fought so many times in Congress during recent years: The bill must appeal to conservative lawmakers in the House and Democrats in the Senate.
Sierra Club federal policy representative Radha Adhar said the House bill in particular threatens the legislation.
Upton and New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, spent months trying to work on a bipartisan comprehensive energy package, Adhar said. At the last minute, Upton replaced many of the proposals with Republican priorities that caused the bill to go through committee and the House on party lines.
If that bill is the starting point for House negotiators, it's going to be tough sledding, Adhar said.
"The real question we have to ask ourselves is this: Can Upton and [House Speaker Paul] Ryan write a sensible bill that they can sell to the most extreme part of their party that passes the Senate?" she said.
Some key Republicans in the House, such as House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, of Utah, have signaled that they are willing to block some of the key provisions in the Senate bill that allowed Democrats to vote for the package.
Perhaps the most important of these priorities is the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which uses oil and gas royalties to pay for conservation projects on public lands. For environmentalists such as Adhar, renewing the fund, which was allowed to expire last year, is a top priority. And Democrats are going to want that to be in the final package.
"That's the heart and soul of what so many environmental policy priorities [are] and why so many Democratic members voted for the bill," she said.
However, some places of agreement already are built into the Senate bill.
Six pieces of legislation that have passed the House are included in the Senate package, and many of them are major Republican priorities. Among them are expediting the process for exporting liquefied natural gas and exempting certain lighting and ceiling fan technology from Department of Energy regulations.
Louis Finkel, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, said the final agreement must improve the oil industry's ability to build oil and natural gas pipelines and change the Department of Energy's process for approving liquefied natural gas export terminals.
Those provisions would allow more of the natural gas being produced to be moved to customers, and could open up new markets in the United States and abroad. For example, residents of New England and other parts of the Northeast pay more for their electricity because natural gas power isn't accessible there, Finkel said.
While Democrats might fight proposals that make it easier for fossil fuels to be used, Finkel said the selling point in negotiations should be that natural gas burns cleaner than many fuels. That means fewer carbon emissions, which is something Democrats say they want, he said.
"For anybody that's really serious about reducing carbon emissions, it is strikingly ironic to me that they would oppose a [liquefied natural gas] terminal," he said.
Murkowski hopes the common starting ground will be enough.
After her bill passed the Senate, Murkowski said her biggest concern was not ideological differences between the two bills, but the amount of time left in the legislative year. Congress has eight legislative weeks in May and June and eight days in July before lawmakers adjourn for much of the summer and for fall campaigning, severely limiting the time for negotiations, she said.
"The fact is that in order to have a conference, the House and the Senate have to be in town at the same time," she said. "We look at the calendar going forward, and we've got some work to do."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/energy-bill-could-be-victim-of-its-own-success/article/2590493
-
Texas Cooperative Sees Rate Redesign Aiding Compliance
May 9, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
John Hewa, chief executive officer of Pedernales Electric Cooperative, believes that implementing time-of-use rates for his members could help compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Over time, as customers respond to redesigned rates and shift the times they use power, co-ops will see lower peak power needs and reduce their emissions.
Pedernales is the largest distribution co-op in the nation, serving 280,000 meters over a sprawling territory in the Texas Hill Country that is the size of Connecticut.
"We need to offer very granular rates that align back to the realities of the power market, align with the realities of the time value of electricity, and we need to offer those rates to our membership so that they can make a very secure or predictable decision on investing their dollars in [distributed generation] technologies," he said in an interview last week.
"It's the right thing to do regardless of any regulatory framework" for utilities to offer "a rate that maps back to the realities of transmission cost and the realities of wholesale power supply, production and delivery," he said.
Giving his members "the best price signals they can get" helps the co-op optimize its assets, he said.
And that is why on Oct. 1 the co-op will launch its time-of-use rates scheme featuring five tiers.
"We are very hopeful that our members will take that signal and invest in technologies that will allow them to work within the peak and the supereconomy [tier], giving them the ability to invest in energy storage, demand response and any number of technologies," Hewa said.
Events this week
Tomorrow, the Electric Power Research Institute begins a two-day conference in Washington, D.C., on environmental vision. EPA air chief Janet McCabe will speak that morning. The rest of the day will feature three panels on the Clean Power Plan.
The first will focus on state-level perspectives and feature electric executives from Oglethorpe Power Corp., DTE Energy Co. and American Electric Power Co. Inc. The second will look at emissions leakage effects on state-level electric rates. The third will discuss carbon trading as a compliance tool.
Southeastern state officials will gather in Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday to continue a workshop series on the changing power sector hosted by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
Jonas Monast, director of the group's climate and energy program, said the workshops began before the Clean Power Plan was finalized and explore the transition toward cleaner power sources, the impact of various environmental regulations, and concerns about nuclear power plant relicensing and future electricity demand.
"Our workshops are designed to help [states] have good objective information for the questions they're grappling with," Monast said. "Some of the states have clearly indicated they're not working on Clean Power Plan plans. Until we know how the litigation is resolved, our workshops will be framed around the needs of the states."
Monast added, "There's many other factors that are creating challenges in the electricity sector. Until we know where the court case comes down, we're focusing more on a broader suite" of issues.
Nicholas Institute meetings generally operate under "Chatham House" rules, meaning attendees cannot attribute any information shared to other attendees. Monast did not provide an agenda for the meeting or disclose which states will participate.
The Nicholas Institute also has been working on power-sector modeling related to the Clean Power Plan, since before the Supreme Court halted implementation of the rule.
Monast said the group would release that modeling -- which wraps up other trends in the electricity sector -- in the coming weeks.In case you missed it
· Michael Dowd of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is the state's "point guy" on the Clean Power Plan. Read the first in the occasional series "On the Front Lines: Key actors in the battle over the Clean Power Plan" (ClimateWire, May 6).
· EPA air chief Janet McCabe says the agency will move forward this summer with model rules for carbon trading (ClimateWire, May 6).
· The Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University released a modeling tool for 12 Western states considering how they might meet power-sector carbon reduction goals under the Clean Power Plan (ClimateWire, May 5).
· The Clean Power Plan, which many consider the most far-reaching climate regulation ever set forth by the U.S. government, has barely registered in the minds of most American voters; a new national poll found 7 in 10 voters have heard "just a little or nothing at all" about EPA's regulation (ClimateWire, May 5).
· West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman are rival generals in the legal war over the Obama administration's signature climate change rule (Greenwire, May 4).
· John Giordano, assistant commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, told an environment advisory board gathered to discuss a federal climate change regulation that the state has no plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan (ClimateWire, May 2).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060036893
-
Inside Hillary Clinton's Climate and Energy Plans
May 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, if elected president, likely wouldn't prioritize a sweeping rule on climate, her campaign chairman, John Podesta, said Friday.
The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination would want to work with Congress on climate action, Podesta said. But she'd probably focus on smaller legislative actions and employ executive powers, given Republican opposition to many global warming measures.
"I'd like to see a price on carbon, but I'm more optimistic about persuading Congress to support more investment in clean energy, more investment in energy efficiency, more investment in research and development," Podesta said. "These are things that can create jobs and economic opportunity" and therefore could gain support.
They also achieve carbon emissions cuts "in the real world right away," he added.
Podesta spoke during a daylong conference at Stanford University in California on "Setting the Climate Agenda for the Next U.S. President." Others at the event included the Obama administration's former Department of Energy secretary, Steven Chu, and James Connaughton, who chaired the Council on Environmental Quality for President George W. Bush.
The event was framed as examining the climate agenda for the next president, "regardless of who wins the election in November." Many of those who spoke, however, talked about what Clinton would do or should do on warming, or when they referred to the next president, talked about "she."
Those who mentioned probable Republican nominee Donald Trump said that it's unlikely he'd take action to combat climate change.
Trump has said he would abolish U.S. EPA, that he would revoke all of President Obama's executive actions and "that he reserves the right to change his mind," said Bruce Cain, political science professor at Stanford.
"I'm not sure how you would organize for President Trump" on the climate issue, Cain said.
But Cain cautioned against too much Democratic optimism.
"While the odds are very high that Clinton will win the election, I will say as a political scientist it's not going to be as easy as it seems," Cain said.
Price on carbon 'not that simple'
Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, who worked in the Reagan administration, early in the day during the event called for a price on carbon.
"I have long advocated a revenue-neutral carbon tax," Shultz said. "It's just there to level the playing field. Because you want sources of energy to compete equally and to bear the costs of what they produce."
Podesta said he respects Shultz but that "it's just not that simple."
Even if Democrats win the White House, and potentially gain control of the Senate, they're unlikely to take over leadership in the House. Given that, Podesta said, agreement on major climate action is improbable.
"If lightning strikes, and there's the possibility of maybe forging an agreement with Congress, I'd certainly try and take it," Podesta said. "But I would think I would concentrate on the Hill with more what can we get done, where we can find some common ground, on the investment side, on the clean energy side, etc., and not go for a grand attack on an economywide program."
Another area where the next president could work with Congress to combat climate change is eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, Podesta said. He didn't specify which ones, but said that "you have to be as ambitious as you can to make that possible. To do that, you have to be able to persuade Congress that it's in their interest to play ball."
Podesta formerly advised the Obama administration on climate and environmental issues. He said Clinton also would look at executive actions.
"The experience of the Obama administration shows that a successful climate agenda requires a senior, serious point person in the White House to drive the agencies to do all that they can," Podesta said.
That includes using federal budgets and "the regulatory levers to drive change," reaching out to the private sector and working with the federal science agencies. It needs to be developed during the transition to the new presidency and in the earliest days, he said.
A 'map room' in the White House
In terms of Obama's Clean Power Plan, even though there is a Supreme Court stay on that proceeding. the next president could "encourage states like California to front-load deployment." The next president also should push states "to be more ambitious in their plans and to go as early as possible," Podesta said.
Also, he said, the government needs to do more on methane emissions, both those from oil and gas wells and throughout the distribution system. There could also be actions "to reform fossil fuel leasing" on public lands, including "land-use changes and changes in how we manage our oceans," Podesta said.
Clinton would want to look at adaptation issues, he said. She's talked about creating a climate map room in the White House "to be able to see where effects are taking place" and to help in developing strategies, Podesta said.
There would also need to be international diplomatic efforts to hold India and China to commitments they made at the U.N. climate conference in Paris last year, he said.
Speaking on a different panel, former DOE Secretary Chu also talked about China and India.
More work needs to be done on carbon capture, Chu said. That process would be used on oil refining, steel and cement manufacturing, "you name it," he said. Chu added that "if it's not acceptable to India and China, it's not going to work."
Carbon capture currently is not economically viable, said Chu, who is a professor of physics and molecular and cellular physiology at Stanford.
"There's a great deal of research that can be done," Chu said. "There's great opportunity."
Keeping research alive to drive down costs of the latest advancements is important, Chu said.
For example, Tesla Motors Inc.'s upcoming mainstream Model 3 is projected to start at $35,000, though Chu said it probably will be closer to $45,000 but that over time the price will fall.
"When it gets to $25,000, then it's going to be mass market," Chu said. "It's not even going to be a debate anymore."
But there will need to be a new generation of batteries, he said.
Let the free market decide
Republican Connaughton, now president and CEO of Nautilus Data Technologies, offered suggestions for the next president in the form of a briefing to "President Ryan." He referred to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who some hope will be picked over Trump as the Republican nominee, though Ryan has said he isn't interested.
Connaughton said the president "can and must get the government out of what it does badly" and should focus the government "on what it must and does do very well."
Since 1998, Connaughton said, more than 100 federal and state mandates have been put in place dealing with greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. Those include market-based ones like cap and trade in California.
It involves $150 billion in incentives, he said, but "when you incentive everything, it seems to me you incentivize nothing." You're transferring money away from the tax revenue side with "everybody benefitting," but nothing additional is accomplished.
Connaughton said that the political divide on climate won't be addressed until there's a legislative debate and vote "on how far we want to go on greenhouse gas abatement." He added that "as a market-driven guy, what I care about most is the number going down."
There are so many mandates, "almost all of them overlap," and some compete with each other, Connaughton said. There needs to be pre-emption of all overlapping mandates, he said, and that will "unleash innovation."
"Let the market figure out how to get the lowest emissions," Connaughton said. He added that a sustainable long-term solution to climate change must include expanded nuclear power.
If the $150 billion in tax incentive money he referred to earlier is freed up, Connaughton said, "take half of that, and quintuple the federal R&D [research and development] budget, and take the other half and pay down the debt."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/05/09/stories/1060036891
-
Feds: Energy Sector Carbon Emissions Dipped in 2015
May 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Energy sector carbon dioxide emissions fell in 2015, federal officials reported on Monday, pushing emissions 12 percent below the critical benchmark year of 2005.
Emissions from the energy sector have declined primarily due to the decreased use of coal for electricity generation, a trend made possible by low-priced natural gas, the Energy Information Administration reported.
The emissions decrease in 2015 coincided with an expansion of the American economy, meaning economic growth and electricity generation emissions again weren’t linked last year.
The economy is 15 percent larger than it was in 2015, but the United States used 15 percent less energy per unit of gross domestic product and produces 23 percent fewer emissions by that same measure, the EIA said.
2015 was the first time power sector emissions have declined since 2012, the EIA noted. Beyond a continued shift away from coal, the EIA said milder weather contributed to a lower demand for heating, which meant less energy generation and emissions.
Measuring carbon emissions against 2005 levels is critical for the U.S.’s contribution to international climate change work. The Obama administration has said it will look to cut all American emissions — from electricity generation and elsewhere — by 26 to 28 percent, from 2005 levels, by 2025 as part of the United Nations climate deal reached in Paris last year.
The Clean Power Plan, an Environmental Protection Agency regulation to cut energy sector pollution, aims to reduce electricity generation emissions by 32 percent, from 2005 levels, by 2030. The plan is currently on hold pending litigation.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279207-feds-energy-sector-carbon-emissions-dipped-in-2015
-
Senate Leader Promises 'Concerted Push' to Cement GHG Target
May 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California lawmakers hope to enshrine greenhouse gas policies through 2030, as renewed anxieties surface about the state's legal footing.
The head of the state Senate said last week that he would resume efforts to pass S.B. 32, a bill by state Sen. Fran Pavley (D) setting 2030 emissions targets that floundered at the end of last year on opposition from members of the State Assembly.
"There will be a concerted push," Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D) told reporters on the sidelines of a carbon markets conference here. "We need all hands on deck to make sure this comes to fruition."
The bill is intended to make permanent an executive order that Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed last year that set a target of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030. Pavley's bill originally set a target through 2050, in line with an order from former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), but she scaled it back last year to include just the 2030 goal (ClimateWire, Sept. 11, 2015).
State regulators have been moving swiftly to implement Brown's order, writing regulations to achieve the 2030 goal by extending their current suite of programs, including an economywide cap-and-trade system. They are also embarking on a new effort to limit methane, black carbon and other short-lived climate-changing emissions from oil and gas operations, dairies and other sources (ClimateWire, April 13).
But their course is not free of obstacles. Republican lawmakers commissioned an opinionfrom legislative counsel last month that found Brown's order may not be legally binding under the terms of the original target-setting law, 2006's A.B. 32 (ClimateWire, April 25).
Carbon traders worried
Another looming issue is whether the cap-and-trade auctions violate the state law Proposition 13, which requires a two-thirds legislative majority to approve taxes. A 2013 lawsuit from the California Chamber of Commerce arguing that the auctions are a tax has been on appeal since 2014 in the California Courts of Appeal.
The case received a shot of adrenaline last month when the court granted CalChamber and the National Association of Manufacturers' request to speed up the proceedings. The court also asked parties to answer a number of pointed questions, including how closely the auction revenue spending has to be linked to greenhouse gas reductions, whether participating in the auctions is truly voluntary, and what the remedy should be if the court decides the auctions are an illegal tax. Responses are due by May 23.
The movement of the case, coupled with the Supreme Court's stay in February of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, is worrying participants in California's carbon market.
"We saw the calamity of the Clean Power Plan being stayed, and so that sent a nervous shock through the industry," said Sean Penrith, executive director of the Climate Trust, which finances carbon offset projects. "Now anything's possible."
De León said he was still thinking about whether to try for a two-thirds vote on extending the targets, which would insulate the cap-and-trade program from legal challenges under Proposition 13, as well as 2010's Proposition 26, which extended the supermajority requirement to fees as well as taxes.
"I'm currently exploring the best tactical options," he said. "We have to be one voice when we decide what that best option is."
He said he thought it would be possible to get a two-thirds vote, but that it might cost too much in concessions. Currently, the auction proceeds have to go to projects that reduce greenhouse gases, and at least 25 percent has to be spent on projects that benefit disadvantaged communities.
Presumably, those allocations would have to change in order to attract a wider swath of support. A two-thirds vote would qualify the program as a full-fledged tax and allow any program to vie for the cap-and-trade proceeds, which total $4 billion through the most recent auction in February. Nearly $1.6 billion has been handed out so far to high-speed rail, energy efficiency upgrades, housing near public transit and other projects that have a connection to reducing emissions.
"I think anyone can get a two-thirds vote. The question is, what do you give up?" de León asked. Brown has proposed spending $100 million in cap-and-trade proceeds this year on "low-carbon roads," and lawmakers are also pushing several bills to use the revenue for highway improvements. "It could be filling the potholes with cap-and-trade dollars."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/05/09/stories/1060036892
-
Resilient U.S. Drillers Squeezing Out More Oil Than Expected, Goldman Says
May 9, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
The nation’s oil production is set to drop less than expected this year as drillers in West Texas and Oklahoma find ways to pump crude faster, and for less money, Goldman Sachs says.
U.S. crude output should fall by 650,000 barrels a day this year, the investment bank said Monday, revising its previous forecast from a decline of 725,000 barrels a day after two weeks of earnings reports by oil and gas explorers.
It’s not a large adjustment, and it doesn’t change Goldman’s mind that falling domestic crude production will, over the next few months, help lift energy prices by realigning oil supply and demand after a two-year glut.
But it’s a sign U.S. drillers are still pushing back against the sharp natural declines across shale plays in Texas and elsewhere, and that they could get an assist from the recent rally in crude prices.
And the fact that oil prices are rising in the face of resilient shale output and higher-than-expected production out of Iran shows global demand is stronger than many believe, and production is falling off elsewhere, Goldman said.
“Signs the world will need a restart of the shale machine remains a potential positive catalyst for oil (companies) despite the recent rally,” Goldman analysts wrote.
One place crude production is falling is Canada, which has suffered an output loss of 1 million barrels a day as wildfires continue to rage across the country.
If Canadian oil sands producers are able to begin pumping oil again by the end of the week, Goldman said, an average 650,000 barrels a day of oil production could be lost over three weeks as facilities are ramped back up.
That’s about 14 million barrels, Goldman estimates, and while that’s a big number, it wouldn’t disrupt North American crude inventories much, as U.S. storage tanks have some 543 million barrels of oil sloshing around, near record levels.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/05/09/resilient-u-s-drillers-squeezing-out-more-oil-than-expected-goldman-says/
-
Torrance Refinery Unit to Restart After Major Explosion; Start-Up to Temporarily Increase Emissions
May 9, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By Veronica Rocha
A poortion of the Exxon Mobil refinery in Torrance is scheduled to reopen Monday night, more than a year after a large explosion at the facility injured four workers and damaged equipment.
The refinery is set to restart operations in the fluid catalytic cracker unit between 7 p.m. Monday and 7 a.m. Tuesday. Torrance city officials said they expect that process will temporarily increase emissions, but that they are not expected to exceed state and national air quality standards.
“It is anticipated that the restart will result in higher particulate matter for about six hours,” the city said in statement to residents.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District said the refinery will need to shut down a pollution control device as a safety precaution, which could result in up to 600 pounds of particulate emissions.
The district said it analyzed the short-term excess of emissions and didn’t expect it to have negative effect on residents.
Before restarting production operations, the refinery was required to notify 11,000 homes in the surrounding area and place door hangers on homes within about a mile of the refinery, according to the district. The refinery had planned to restart the unit Saturday, but the operation was delayed.
“We want to ensure that residents have adequate and proper notice of the rescheduled refinery restart,” said Wayne Nastri, the district’s acting executive officer. “Meanwhile, we will be monitoring air quality before, during and after the start-up to assess any potential air pollution impacts in the community.”
Investigators concluded that the Feb. 18, 2015, explosion was the result of a hydrocarbon release from the fluid catalytic cracker unit into the electrostatic precipitator -- a filtration device that removes fine particulates and controls air pollution. The hydrocarbon release caused the electrostatic precipitator to explode.
Eight workers had to be decontaminated, and four suffered minor injuries and were sent to hospitals.
After the blast, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health ordered Exxon Mobil to shut down the unit until it could demonstrate safe operation.
In August, Cal/OSHA issued 19 citations, most of which were classified as serious, for workplace safety and health violations at the refinery. Exxon Mobil was fined $566,600 in penalties in connection with the explosion.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-emissions-torrance-refinery-restarts-20160509-story.html
-
Dakota Access Looks to Start Construction Before Full Approval
May 9, 2016 | Des Moines Registrer (In E&E Energywire)
By William Petroski
The company behind a 1,170-mile, North Dakota-to-Illinois pipeline project is urging Iowa regulators to allow construction "without delay," even before federal regulatory approval.
Dakota Access LLC filed a motion Thursday asking the Iowa Utilities Board to overlook earlier rules, which stipulated construction couldn't move forward without the Army Corps of Engineers' blessing. Dakota Access said any more delay could stretch the oil line's construction into two growing seasons, which it said would "directly and substantially harm landowners."
The Army Corps must approve many areas of the line crossing bodies of water or streams, but those areas account for only about 3 percent of the total line.
Ed Fallon, leader of environmental group Bold Iowa, said Thursday that Dakota Access is "trying to bully the Iowa Utilities Board," adding that "they're hoping for an end-run around the Army Corps of Engineers -- the entity rightfully charged with a full, objective analysis of the wide range of potential impacts of this pipeline."
Wallace Taylor, a lawyer for Iowa's Sierra Club chapter, suggested that Dakota Access could hold back all construction until 2017 to avoid two growing seasons but noted that the motion didn't include affidavits from any Iowa farmers claiming an extended construction would affect them.
Some union groups stand behind the decision to start construction now, providing immediate employment.
Army Corps officials said extensive reviews of the line are still underway and will take some time to complete (William Petroski, Des Moines Register, May 5).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/09/stories/1060036854
-
Tesoro Bakken Crude Rail Shipments to West Can Compete with Pipes to Gulf, CEO Says
May 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Although the low price commodity environment is causing delays in some of its major capital investment projects, Tesoro Corp. likes the economics for its crude by rail option for shipping Bakken Shale supplies to its West Coast refineries, CEO Greg Goff said Thursday on an earnings conference call.
Goff's comments come at a time when the percentage of Bakken crude being shipped by pipeline has eclipsed rail shipments and is continuing to rise (see Shale Daily, Jan. 19).
When Bakken crude is cleared it goes to the refining centers, so "you need to look at what it costs to move supplies out of the area," Goff said. "We have to be able to compete with the pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico coast.
The prospects of the new Energy Transfer Partners' (ETP) Dakota Access oil pipeline (see Shale Daily, May 2) to the Gulf Coast makes it tougher to compete, but he is confident that Tesoro Logistics (TPPL) is going to reduce its supply chain costs enough to compete against the pipeline-to-the-Gulf option. Even with today's low commodity prices, Tesoro's refining margin on Bakken crude has stayed in the $3-5/bbl range, he said.
Tesoro's master limited partnership (MLP), TPPL expects to expand its Mandan crude processing facility in the Bakken by the end of the year and acquire two other projects (drop-downs) from the parent company that could add $70-100 million of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization annually as a result, according to TPPL President Phillip Anderson, speaking on a separate conference call Thursday.
"We continue to see strong demand for refined products in our western market which translates into significant growth opportunities for our terminaling and transportation business," Goff said during the TPPL call. "This market represents about 50% of TPPL's revenues today.
Tesoro and TPPL remain ultimately focused on the West Coast, and in response to an analyst's question about recent U.S. oil exports to Asia, Goff said he was unaware of any other than usual amounts going to Mexico, Chile and Peru.
For 1Q2016, Tesoro reported net earnings of $58 million (48 cents/share), compared to $145 million ($1.15) for the same period last year, noting refining recorded a $100 million loss for the quarter that was more than made up by $227 million in net earnings from marketing operations, compared to $133 million of marketing profits in 1Q2015. For TPPL, net earnings for the quarter were $92 million (64 cents), compared to $70 million (63 cents) for the same period last year.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106350-tesoro-bakken-crude-rail-shipments-to-west-can-compete-with-pipes-to-gulf-ceo-says
-
Conservative Groups Urge Congress to Delay Ozone Standard
May 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Led by Americans for Prosperity, 60 conservative groups are urging Congress to delay implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard and undertake a broader overhaul of the agency's long-standing process for updating air quality benchmarks for ozone and five other "criteria" pollutants.
"Without changes to the ozone regulation and reform of the rulemaking process, economic activity could be brought to a standstill in many areas across the country," Brent Gardner, vice president of government affairs for the influential Koch brothers-backed organization, said in aletter today to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). Other signers includes leaders of the American Energy Alliance, Tea Party Nation and Americans for Tax Reform.
They ask lawmakers to take up H.R. 4775 and S. 2882, companion bills that would roll back implementation of the new 70-parts-per-billion ozone standard by some eight years and also stretch out the Clean Air Act's basic timetable for revisiting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards from once every five years to once every decade.
H.R. 4775, introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) in March, got a hearing last month from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power but hasn't been scheduled yet for a markup. S. 2882, dropped late last month by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), is awaiting action by the EPW panel. In what could be a harbinger of a White House veto threat if either bill advances, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe has panned Olson's bill as unneeded (E&E Daily, April 15).
Ground-level ozone, the prime ingredient in smog, can irritate lungs, help trigger asthma attacks and worsen emphysema symptoms.
In response to a court-ordered deadline, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy lowered the primary ground-level ozone standard last October from 75 ppb to 70 ppb. EPA had last changed the standard in 2008; in again pushing it downward, McCarthy cited added scientific evidence on ozone's health effects (E&ENews PM, Oct. 1, 2015).
Outside of California, which is expected to need more time to comply, EPA regulators forecast that almost all of the United States will be in attainment by 2025. Meeting the new standard will cost $1.4 billion annually -- again excluding California -- but yield up to $5.9 billion in health care savings in the form of fewer premature deaths and other benefits by that point, according to the agency.
In today's letter, however, Gardner and other signers accuse EPA of relying on "questionable co-benefits" to justify the 70 ppb threshold because of the "tremendous reductions in ozone" achieved since 1980. Many states are still striving to implement the previous 75 ppb benchmark, the letter adds. "By making the ozone standard stricter, the EPA had made it significantly harder for these counties to be in compliance and ignores their hard work at meeting the prior standard," it continues.
The letter follows a separate appeal last month from the National Association of Manufacturers and more than 200 other business groups similarly seeking an implementation delay (E&ENews PM, April 18).
The 70 ppb standard is also under attack in lawsuits before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, both from business organizations who say it is too strict and from public health and environmental groups who believe EPA should have lowered it further to 60 ppb.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/09/stories/1060036919
-
EPA Says States' High Court Suit Against Utility Air Toxics Rule is 'Moot'
May 9, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is echoing environmentalists, public health groups and several states in arguing that other states' push for the Supreme Court to again review litigation over agency's utility air toxics rule is moot, with EPA arguing that its recent cost review for the rule satisfies a high court mandate and resolves the issues the states are suing over.
States opposed to the rule are asking the justices to review whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred when it rejected their calls to vacate the utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule. The states said the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling from June in Michigan v. EPA invalidated the rule, because the court said the agency erred by not considering costs in its initial determination that the rule was required.
The high court remanded litigation over the MACT to the D.C. Circuit, where EPA successfully convinced the court to remand the rule to the agency -- but not vacate it -- while it worked on a supplemental cost assessment. States opposed to the rule are asking the Supreme Court to review this decision, saying it is a flawed approach.
“When an agency promulgates a rule without any statutory authority, may a reviewing court leave the unlawful rule in place?” asks the March 18 petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the state coalition, which includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on EPA's behalf counters in a May 6 reply brief that EPA's cost assessment satisfies the high court's mandate to review costs as part of the agency's determination that the MACT was “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act, and that issuance of the review moots the cert petition.
DOJ argues that the question facing the court is different from the one the states raised, saying the issue is whether the D.C. Circuit had authority under the air law “to decline to vacate” the utility MACT, “so as to allow the agency to expeditiously cure the defect identified by this Court.”
The department claims that remand of the rule to EPA was the correct path to take so that the agency could quickly craft the missing cost review for the rule and comply with the Michigan decision.
The brief echoes claims made by environmentalists, public health groups and states supporting EPA inseparate May 6 filings that oppose further high court review of the rule.
'Moot' Case
DOJ in its reply brief says, “Even if the D.C. Circuit’s remand-without-vacatur order had caused petitioners some cognizable injury, that order has no continuing legal effect now that EPA has issued its supplemental finding. This case is therefore moot.”
DOJ argues that the petitioning states have not, in fact, showed any such “cognizable injury,” and they therefore also lack standing to sue.
The states say they will suffer adverse regulatory burdens from having to comply with the MACT. However, “allegations concerning regulatory complications were entirely speculative, and in any event, the Rule on balance is more likely to ease regulatory burdens on States. For example, various States are currently relying on the emission reductions obtained by the Rule for regulatory planning under a number of EPA programs,” DOJ says.
DOJ also rejects the states' attempt to claim injury via the costs of the rule on in-state businesses and residents. This “second set of harms alleged by petitioners -- involving costs borne by petitioners’ in-state businesses and citizens -- is simply irrelevant in this context. States do not have standing to raise claims of injury as parens patriae on behalf of their businesses or citizens in actions against the federal government,” DOJ says.
DOJ also argues that petitioners' assertion of an exemption to the mootness principle on the grounds that the action at issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review” is incorrect.
Courts can allow this exemption where there is is insufficient time to litigate an issue before the grounds for it are removed, but “there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again,” according to high court precedent from its 2008 ruling in Davis v. Federal Election Commission.
“Petitioners cannot meet those requirements here. It is entirely speculative whether petitioners will ever again be subject to an analogous remand-without-vacatur order in a future challenge to an EPA rulemaking. And there is no reason to believe that any such future order will be in effect for so short a period of time that it would necessarily evade review,” DOJ says.
Court's Discretion
DOJ then argues that under the Clean Air Act, courts “may” scrap rules entirely where they are found unlawful, giving the D.C. Circuit discretion on the issue.
The Administrative Procedure Act uses stronger language, saying courts “shall” vacate unlawful rules, but EPA and its supporters say the air law governs in the utility MACT fight.
Even so, “The D.C. Circuit and other courts of appeals have long recognized that the word 'shall' in this context does not require vacatur in every case where agency action is found to be deficient,” DOJ says.
The D.C. Circuit therefore acted within its discretion by not vacating the MACT, and further did not contradict the high court's earlier order, as petitioners assert, because, “The Michigan Court neither decided whether vacatur was required nor expressed any view as to the proper resolution of that issue,” DOJ says.
DOJ also disputes that there is any split between circuit courts of appeals on the practice of remand without vacatur of litigated rules that would warrant the high court's intervention.
DOJ argues that different courts have simply opted to exercise their discretion on the issue. No circuit court has held that scrapping a rule outright is always required, despite some cases where courts have decided that is the appropriate outcome of a given case, DOJ says. The brief says “there is broad agreement among the circuits that remand without vacatur can be a valid remedy in appropriate circumstances.”
Meanwhile, opponents of the MACT rule are already challenging EPA's revised appropriate and necessary finding as unlawful in the D.C. Circuit, in Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, and that case is expected to offer fresh opportunities to try to stop the rule, even though it is largely implemented already, legal observers say.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-says-states-high-court-suit-against-utility-air-toxics-rule-moot
-
Appeals Court Moving to Consolidate Challenges
May 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
A federal appeals court is moving forward to hear the merits of the Obama administration's hot-button Clean Water Rule, according to a court filing today.
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order today to consolidate all challenges within that circuit in one case, Murray Energy Corp. v. U.S. EPA.
The court directed petitioners to choose three attorneys to serve as a liaison for the different parties involved. One attorney will represent states and state agencies; the second will be for "business petitioners," including the national and state chambers of commerce and companies; the third attorney will back "associational petitioners," including environmental organizations that challenged the rule.
The three liaisons will not serve as legal representatives but will "facilitate efficient communication in relation to this and future case management matters," the circuit judges said in the order.
The move comes after months of debate over a narrow question of which courts -- appellate or local district courts -- have jurisdiction to hear the multiple challenges to the EPA-Army Corps of Engineers rule known as the Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS.
A three-judge panel on the 6th Circuit issued a divided opinion in February to keep the challenges in the appeals court. Industry groups asked the court to reconsider the decision before the full panel of active judges, a bid that was rejected late last month (Greenwire, April 21).
The rule finalized last year would change the definition for waterways and wetlands that automatically receive federal protections under the Clean Water Act. Many states and industry groups sued the agencies, claiming the rule would infringe on state and private property rights. Environmental interests also challenged the regulation, saying it was not protective enough.
In total, there are 22 petitions for review in the circuit, in which more than 150 parties have appeared as petitioners. Many more have intervened on behalf of the challengers.
Questions remain on what this will mean for the lawsuits filed in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau believes the 11th Circuit will likely defer to the 6th Circuit, rather than proceed on its challenges.
If the 11th Circuit asserted jurisdiction over the lawsuits in its court, "that certainly would create conflict where conflict isn't necessary," Parenteau said.
The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota is also proceeding with the challenges at the district level, despite the 6th Circuit's opinion that it has jurisdiction over the case.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/09/stories/1060036915
-
Why This Could Finally Be the Election Where Climate Change Matters
May 9, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has said that “I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.” Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is a strong proponent of climate change action, and a supporter of continuing President Obama’s policies on the matter, which include joining and honoring the Paris climate agreement and instituting the Clean Power Plan, which would shift domestic electricity generation onto a less carbon-intensive path.
Now that the race appears to have narrowed to these two, it sets up a situation that many environmentalists have long hoped for — one in which a sharp contrast on climate change between the two candidates means that it might not only come up prominently in an election, but moreover, actually make a difference. (And if Bernie Sanders somehow racks up hard-to-imagine delegate totals in coming races or achieves some kind of convention upset, that contrast would only be heightened further.)
That would be pretty different from other recent elections. In 2012, President Obama and the media alike were widely faulted for rarely talking about climate change. In the 2014 midterms, meanwhile, billionaire Tom Steyer’s super PAC NextGen Climate Action spent $ 74 million, but saw candidates it was opposing win nonetheless in key Senate races.
However, the issue appears to have grown in public salience since then, and new polling data, in combination with the very clear difference between Trump and Clinton on the issue, suggests at least a chance that things might actually be different this time around.
“It is an important issue on which to sharpen the contrast in the general election, particularly with young voters,” says Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters. Karpinski points out not only that Clinton already talks about climate change on the stump regularly (and that it has been a constant theme in Democratic debates) but that her campaign manager, Robby Mook, formerly headed the campaign of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who hit his opponent — Ken Cuccinelli — hard on the issue of climate change.
“In my view, rarely does any one issue decide a Presidential election, but being a climate denier hurts Trump,” adds Democratic pollster and strategist Mark Mellman. “Trump’s position sends a wider signal about being anti-science and anti-environment which will make it very difficult for him to appeal to moderates.”
Granted, there remain plenty of grounds for skepticism — and also ways in which the polling data itself continues to raise doubts. As has perennially been the case, climate change still does not rank among the top priorities of most voters, although it does for a minority, particularly in the liberal Democratic camp. And so far, while it has come up mainly in Democratic debates, it has not been a particularly resonant theme in what has been a pretty off-script and tumultuous election.
“It’s an economically oriented discourse, and it’s very personal, which is why you’re seeing a lot of disruption in the political process at this point, and that’s the focus,” says Republican strategist and pollster David Winston, who said he doesn’t think climate change will compete with this narrative.
Nonetheless, other recent polling data reinforces the idea that if there were ever a year in which climate change could matter, it’s this one — both because of how different Clinton and Trump are, and because of the rising profile of the issue.
A March Gallup poll, for instance, found more Americans worried either a “great deal” or a “fair amount” about global warming than at any time since 2008 — at 64 percent. It also found that a record 65 percent believe that rising temperatures are being caused by humans, and that all three major political groups in the U.S. show an upswing in concern. 84 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of Independents, and 40 percent of Republicans told Gallup that they “worry a great deal or fair amount” about the issue.
“Americans are now expressing record- or near-record-high belief that global warming is happening, as well as concern about the issue,” the group concluded.
Other types of analysis also suggest the issue has some potential. “Climate change is the issue that is the most starkly different between Clinton supporters and Trump supporters,” adds Anthony Leiserowitz, who heads the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, which has conducted a number of surveys on the subject. “Among that set of voters that say that global warming will be one of the key issues on which they base their vote, she has a huge lead over him.”
Here’s a chart showing what Leiserowitz – who collaborates with researchers at George Mason University – means. They found that registered “issue voters” who rate climate change as “very important” to them favor Clinton over Trump more than any other kind of issue voter:
o who are these climate issue voters? They are predominantly Democrats (62 percent), to be sure, but 19 percent are also Independents, and 38 percent identify as moderate, according to Leiserowitz’s data. Among Independents who are climate issue voters, 67 percent said the would vote for Clinton, and 12 percent for Trump, Leiserowitz said.
“The Clinton campaign sees polling showing profound political vulnerability on climate for the Republicans generally and Trump specifically, so the Clinton camp intends to push climate themes aggressively, ” adds Paul Bledsoe, who worked on climate issues in the former Clinton White House and is now an independent energy consultant. “They see GOP climate denial fitting into a larger narrative of Trump and the Republicans being willing to deny factual information injurious to the American public just because it doesn’t fit into Tea Party ideology. That will be a meta-theme of the campaign, and climate fits into it.”
Bledsoe says he would expect the Clinton campaign to focus on climate change in “key swing states that are vulnerable to climate impacts, like Florida, Colorado, Arizona and even Virginia.”
Leiserowitz’s take is that Clinton may have an incentive to make a lot of hay out of the topic (though Trump will not) because it will consolidate her support among liberal Democrats, who now rank climate change, clean energy and broad environmental protections as three of their top eight campaign issues, according to his data. Those who care about it most of all are supporters of Bernie Sanders — whom Clinton certainly needs to rally in the general election.
“She has incentive to talk more about climate change, and because we see that it’s such a stark difference between her and Trump, there may be political advantage there as well,” says Leiserowitz.
Climate change is now a top issue that is “uniting the progressive Democratic donor base,” adds Betsy Taylor of Breakthrough Strategies & Solutions, which focuses on the climate issue.
It’s not just Leiserowitz’s research: A new survey from the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, for instance, questioned over 4,000 registered voters about climate change policies. Before asking voters for their opinion, the questioners first showed them a carefully researched presentation of the pros and cons of several aspects of the debate, such as the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate agreement.
It found that 70 percent of the public overall considers it either a very high or at least a somewhat high priority to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, and even on the contentious Clean Power Plan, similar numbers were supportive after reading through the pro-con briefing on the issue.
“Most people, even people who are supporters of Trump, they do not have a view that this is not an issue, not a problem, and nothing should be done about it,” says Steven Kull, who led the research. “Most have the sense, ‘Well, maybe there’s some problem, maybe we should take some steps, it’s probably worth it, the cost is not that high.’ And another argument that’s very popular is, this is where the world economy is going, in this green direction, we should really be ahead of the curve on this.”
Kull says that especially when you merge climate related concerns with air quality concerns, people are supportive of taking action. And he notes that even among Republicans and especially Independents, there are significant numbers of voters who care a lot about the issue.
“For Republicans, those saying that reducing greenhouse gases is a very high priority is 12 percent, while those saying it not a priority at all is 17 percent,” says Kull. “But for independents very high priority is 26 percent, while not at all a priority is 10 percent. Nationally very high is 34 percent and not at all is 9 percent.”
Granted, all of this remains hypothetical, because we don’t yet know how Clinton might pursue her attack — although it may have already begun. On CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, Clinton said of Trump, “When he says climate change is a Chinese hoax, what does that mean? Has he ever talked to a scientist, or is he just again assuming a slogan?”
The biggest uncertainty of all, though, is how Trump will respond. Unlike other candidates who might consult the polling numbers above and play defense on the issue, he may be more inclined to keep on saying what he actually thinks.
Based on these numbers, that could play to Clinton’s advantage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/09/why-this-could-finally-be-the-election-when-climate-change-matters/
-
New York Plans to Make Fighting Climate Change Good Business
May 9, 2016 | New York Times
By Justin Gillis
A governor wants to lead on green energy. The state’s utilities are nervously falling in line. Young entrepreneurs are buzzing, determined to be part of the generation that finally solves climate change.
To most ears, that might sound like California, where all those things and more are happening. But it also describes New York.
New York?
The state may not leap to mind as being in the vanguard of the green economy. But under Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the most populous state in the Northeast is in a close race with its counterpart in the West in setting ambitious climate goals. And in some ways, New York may be on the verge of pulling ahead of California.
Without much fanfare, Mr. Cuomo has started a big effort to retool his state’s utilities for the modern age, trying to apply market forces to transform the way electricity is produced, transmitted and consumed.
Critical rules are due in coming weeks from a state agency, the Public Service Commission. Depending on the details, Mr. Cuomo’s program could prove to be the most ambitious effort in the country, and possibly in the world, to enlist the profit motive as an ally in the fight against global warming.
Mr. Cuomo has been vocal on the issue of climate change since the state suffered through the trauma of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The governor toured the remains of century-old homes reduced to splinters by that storm. Scientists said the damage had been worsened by sea-level rise induced by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
“In the case of climate change, denial is not a survival strategy,” Mr. Cuomosaid at Columbia University in October. “Climate change is a reality, and not to address it is gross negligence by government and irresponsible as citizens.”Continue reading the main story
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
New York starts with advantages. It receives about 26 percent of its power from renewable sources already. Much of that comes from upstate dams, but wind farms have been popping up around the state, and solar power is up 575 percent in four years. Transport emissions are among the lowest in the country because of New York City’s huge transit system.
The state has largely shut down its coal-burning power plants, and Mr. Cuomo intends to close the rest of them by 2020. He has set a goal of getting 50 percent of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
Mr. Cuomo hopes to shutter the Indian Point nuclear plant north of New York City for safety reasons, but he recently offered plans to save upstate nuclear power plants. Those are at risk of closing because of low electricity prices driven by cheap natural gas, but he argues that losing the plants would take the state backward on emissions. Mr. Cuomo has drawn someopposition on this from environmental groups, who are otherwise largely supporting his approach.
The heart of Mr. Cuomo’s policy is his intention to enlist market forces in shaking up the utility industry. That plan has a name: Reforming the Energy Vision. Yes, it does sound like something dreamed up by hippies at their commune in the mountains.
In fact, Mr. Cuomo is among the most business-friendly of the nation’s Democratic governors, and his plan is being led by a former partner at Goldman Sachs, Richard L. Kauffman.
Mr. Kauffman argues that the utilities distributing electrical power are among the most hidebound, least innovative businesses in the nation. Historically, they were monopolies that made their money by selling more electricity, building whatever power plants were necessary to produce it, and collecting the money to pay for those plants and other equipment in a sort of cost-plus business model. Some of the plants tended to sit idle, waiting to be turned on to meet peak demand a few hours a year — an enormous waste of money.
New York State has been trying to get away from this system for years, adopting rules that reduced the incentive for utilities to try to sell more and more power. It successfully introduced competition in the wholesale power market. But substantial inefficiencies remain. And now, the falling costs of renewable power, the invention of devices like intelligent thermostats and electric meters, and other developments have created the possibility of sweeping change.
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
“We need to open up the electricity system to innovation,” Mr. Kauffman said in an interview.
How, exactly, does the state intend to do that?
The precise details are still under wraps at the Public Service Commission. But some of the possibilities have been outlined in reports and discussed extensively in public meetings.
The state is likely to shift the rules of how utilities are paid. New York may set targets — for instance, telling the utilities to cut the average power consumption per household, or to cut their peak demand on the hottest days — and then allow them to earn more money by meeting or exceeding those targets.
The key to this system is giving the utilities a profit motive to cooperate with smaller companies that are bringing innovations to the electric grid. Take, for instance, the companies driving the national boom in the installation of solar panels.
Across much of the country, they are seen as a threat to utility profits, and the utilities are fighting them aggressively. In New York, the two sides have made a tentative peace deal, hoping to influence the details of the state plan so their interests wind up being aligned long term.
Other small companies want to help people manage their electrical demand in real time, installing water heaters or dishwashers that can turn themselves on or off to match the intermittent supply of electricity coming from wind farms and solar panels. Still others want to earn money by fixing up drafty houses that waste huge amounts of energy, just as millions of houses, with their leaky windows and barely insulated attics, do across the country.
“When I drive down the street and I look at houses, all I see is money coming out of people’s attics,” said Andy Frank, the president of a small company called Sealed on Long Island. Sealed is fixing leaky homes already, and guaranteeing that customers will save on their energy bills. But he sees the potential for a far larger business if the state’s utilities are given a stronger incentive to cut deals with companies like his.
New York’s public service commissioners, as they put the final touches on the plan, are no doubt torn between the desire to move quickly and the fear of messing with an electrical grid that, whatever its flaws, does work. They may well choose to start with small tweaks to the rules, meaning it could take years to know if the plan is going to succeed.
But if it does, Mr. Cuomo might well be able to turn New York, the state where Thomas Edison invented the electrical grid in the 19th century, into a global powerhouse of innovation for the 21st. Mr. Kauffman believes the entire energy system could become far more efficient, so customer bills go down, greenhouse emissions fall — and, if the utilities are sufficiently creative, their profits go up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/science/new-york-plans-to-make-fighting-climate-change-good-business.html?_r=0
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested