Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 5/12/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) BASF Wins Ohio Chemistry Technology Council Excellence Award
May 12, 2016 | BodyShop Business
By Body Shop Business Staff Writers
BASF employees Karl Schnapp, (second from left) and Elaine Colyer accept the Eagle Award from (left) Dr. Kevin Swift, chief economist for the American Chemistry Council and Rob Paxton, OCTC Board chair. -
(ACC Mentioned) GreenScreen, SciVera Hit Back at ACC on Hazard Assessment Tools
May 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The conclusion drawn by a recent chemical industry study that different chemical assessment tools can produce different hazard characterisations, for the same substance, should not come as a surprise, say the tool developers – and is not an argument for saying they are of little value. -
(ACC Mentioned) EU Would Benefit From EDSP Tests, Says ACC
May 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says the EU would benefit from incorporating validated tests, such as those used in the US EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Programme (EDSP), into its Regulations and guidance. -
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Substance Control Act Under Reform
May 12, 2016 | 3BL Media
The Toxic Substance Control Act (1976) is currently the oldest piece of toxic legislation in the United States. The TSCA covers over 84,000 chemicals that need to be managed by essentially every company producing products with chemicalss. -
Memo to House: Stand Firm on States’ Rights
May 11, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
As you may know, staff from both chambers of Congress have nearly completed work reconciling different versions of chemical safety reform legislation (TSCA reform) that passed last year. (H.R. 2576 and S. 697 respectively.) -
House Committee Questions IRIS Reforms
May 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
In the latest chapter of the ongoing criticism of the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has asked the agency to clarify how it has been reforming the programme. -
Calif. Customers See First BPA Warning Signs at Checkouts
May 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson and Debra Kahn
Businesses across California rolled out signs at checkout stands yesterday warning that certain food and beverage packaging contains harmful chemicals. -
Echa Round-Up
May 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has sent a draft update of chapter R15 of its Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment (IR&CSA) to the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) for consultation. -
EPA Issues Final Rules Cutting Oil, Natural Gas Methane Emissions
May 12, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Erin Ailworth
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday issued the first-ever federal standards aimed at curbing methane emissions from the oil and natural gas industry, the latest in a series of regulations the Obama administration is pursuing in an effort to clamp down... -
Oil Lobby: Methane Rules Could Increase Emissions
May 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration’s new restrictions on methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, the industry says. -
E.P.A. Methane Leak Rules Take Aim at Global Warming
May 12, 2016 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled the first federal regulations to control emissions of potent planet-warming methane gas that could leach from new oil and gas wells, the next step in President Obama’s aggressive effort to combat climate change. -
Oil, Gas Industry Challenges Efforts to Protect Western Bird
May 12, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Brown
The oil and gas industry on Thursday challenged in federal court drilling restrictions imposed by the Obama administration to protect a struggling bird that ranges across 11 Western states. -
EIA Says Fossil Fuels Not Disappearing Anytime Soon
May 12, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Rapid economic growth in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and other emerging countries will drive global energy consumption to nearly double by 2040, according to new projections released yesterday by the Department of Energy. -
Republicans Need to Embrace Renewables — On Their Terms
May 12, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Mark R. Maddox
During the last presidential match-up between Republican nominee Mitt Romney and President Obama, I was asked by a former George W. Bush administration colleague whether it was possible to say anything nice about renewable energy. -
Southern Chief Sownplays Cyber Threats to the Grid
May 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
A Ukraine-style cyberattack on the U.S. electricity supply would be “controllable,” Southern CEO Tom Fanning said this morning, while acknowledging that national reliability standards don't extend to the entire grid. -
Warren Presses Energy Nominee on Probe of FERC
May 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
President Obama's nominee to be the Energy Department's top watchdog has committed to working with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to make sure the public has a say in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's pipeline review process. -
House Panel Votes to Delay New Ozone Rules
May 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House Energy and Commerce Committee panel voted Thursday to delay the Obama administration’s new ozone pollution standards and make future regulations more friendly to industry. -
Ceres' Lubber Discusses Challenges to Exponentially Scaling Investments to Meet Paris Goals
May 12, 2016 | E&E TV
As businesses of all sizes become more focused on clean energy investments, what challenges exist to scaling these investments to meet the goals established in the Paris Agreement? During today's OnPoint, Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, discusses the public- and private-sector...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) BASF Wins Ohio Chemistry Technology Council Excellence Award
May 12, 2016 | BodyShop Business
By Body Shop Business Staff Writers
BASF employees Karl Schnapp, (second from left) and Elaine Colyer accept the Eagle Award from (left) Dr. Kevin Swift, chief economist for the American Chemistry Council and Rob Paxton, OCTC Board chair.
The BASF Whitehouse, Ohio, site has received the Eagle Award for Excellence for its exceptional performance in environmental, health, safety and security from the Ohio Chemistry Technology Council (OCTC) at its 38th annual conference in Columbus, Ohio.
“Safety is a key pillar of BASF,” said Paul Marshall, BASF technical director. “Winning this award validates the commitment BASF has to the safety and health of our employees and community.”
BASF Laboratory Technician Elaine Colyer, who works in the color lab, created a new ergonomic assessment tool for lab employees. Colyer’s dedication to improving ergonomics was a key reason for the award.
In addition to the Whitehouse site receiving an award, long-time BASF employee Karl Schnapp, recently retired manager of Site/Administrative Services, received a special Eagle Award for Distinguished Service honoring his more than 20 years of dedicated service to the OCTC.
“Through Karl’s leadership, OCTC has become the key advocacy group for the chemical industry in Ohio,” said Jennifer Klein, president of OCTC. “He helped shape OCTC into the robust, vibrant organization it is today. We honor him for his dedication to BASF and the chemical industry.”
http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/basf-wins-ohio-chemistry-technology-council-excellence-award/
-
(ACC Mentioned) GreenScreen, SciVera Hit Back at ACC on Hazard Assessment Tools
May 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The conclusion drawn by a recent chemical industry study that different chemical assessment tools can produce different hazard characterisations, for the same substance, should not come as a surprise, say the tool developers – and is not an argument for saying they are of little value.
Such hazard-based assessment tools are increasingly being used by major retailers and product brands, such as Walmart and HP, to help them decide which chemicals to avoid in their products.
But the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which co-authored the study, said such “discrepancies” called into question the extent to which such tools could provide “definitive and actionable information about chemical substances in consumer products”.
Clean Production Action (CPA), which provides GreenScreen, one of the tools assessed, told Chemical Watch there is “nothing surprising” about the assessment’s conclusions.
Mark Rossi, executive director at CPA, said the authors' assumption, that the tools should generate the same outcome, was faulty. “Tools with different logic models, different objectives, different data sets and different data requirements resulted in different outcomes – this is to be expected.”
He also said the assessment had applied the GreenScreen list translator and method incorrectly.
Tools 'differ in important ways'
In a paper, published in the journal Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, the authors explain that the tools perform hazard assessments using different methods and acknowledged that they “differ in important ways”.
But they go on to argue that because the tools inform the selection of safer alternatives, it is “reasonable” to expect similar outcomes.
But Mr Rossi said each tool is designed to meet different objectives. "Even so," he added, they “went ahead and made comparisons anyway”.
Joseph Rinkevich, president of SciVera, the provider of another of the assessed tools, also told Chemical Watch the study “put an unfair emphasis on the limits/inconsistencies of hazard assessment by using very different tools". The study was also, he said, unclear about the reasons for the variance across tools, some of which are “only check lists”, while others “look much deeper into underlying hazard characteristics”.
“List checking,” he said, is “a useful first step but it can miss critical characteristics of concern (or preference) and, as seen in the report, can generate results very different from a full hazard assessment.”
Is confusion the result?
Mr Rossi also criticised the authors’ claim that users of the tools “face a challenging task” in navigating outcomes of different tools and that confusion is inevitable when a chemical or product's hazard classification varies from tool to tool.
He claimed that the authors' intent was to “sow confusion”. A situation where different tools provide different results within an assessment framework is “not unique to hazard assessment”, he said, and also occurs, for example, within lifecycle and risk assessment.
Instead, a “positive approach,” Mr Rossi said, could have been used, such as seeking to determine how results generated using different tools can be “optimised for better hazard characteristic results”.
CPA also points to the comments in the OECD’s substitution and alternatives assessment toolbox that each tool has its benefits and limitations, and users need to understand different tools’ capabilities in order to make informed decisions about conducting alternatives assessments.
Mr Rinkevich said the study “missed an opportunity” to educate users of such tools about their important differences. Examining tool advantages and limitations and using the results of the study as examples, to help decision makers pick the best tool for their purposes, would have served readers better.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47353/greenscreen-scivera-hit-back-at-acc-on-hazard-assessment-tools
-
(ACC Mentioned) EU Would Benefit From EDSP Tests, Says ACC
May 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The comments come in response to a recent consensus statement on EDCs, which was agreed at an expert meeting, organised by Germany's National Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR).
The ACC says the statement “reinforces several key principles that would underpin a risk-based approach to regulating EDCs”, according to a blog on its website.
It highlights certain aspects of the statement, including a paragraph suggesting that criteria for identifying chemicals as EDCs would need to be accompanied by implementation of relevant test systems in EU legislation.
The consensus statement notes that “many relevant OECD guidelines exist, which have not yet been consistently integrated into the regulatory frameworks.” It adds that EU Directives, Regulations and guidance should be updated to incorporate validated and internationally agreed test systems for endocrine disruptors.
The EDSP uses a two-tiered approach to screen chemicals for possible effects on oestrogen, androgen and thyroid hormone systems. The EPA has published 11 test guidelines for tier 1, and three for tier 2, including a two-generation avian toxicity test.
It is also using high-throughput and computational models to evaluate the endocrine bioactivity of environmental chemicals as well as developing new testing approaches. For example, it has developed an oestrogen receptor model and is working on an androgen receptor model, as well as assays for thyroid effects.
“The new high-throughput assays pioneered in the EDSP, which are insufficient for classification, can be used along with exposure information for prioritisation and integrated with toxicity results for weight-of-evidence determinations,” writes the ACC.
Overall, the ACC praised the EDC consensus statement, saying that “risk-based science won the day”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47357/eu-would-benefit-from-edsp-tests-says-acc?q=%22american+chemistry+council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Substance Control Act Under Reform
May 12, 2016 | 3BL Media
The Toxic Substance Control Act (1976) is currently the oldest piece of toxic legislation in the United States. The TSCA covers over 84,000 chemicals that need to be managed by essentially every company producing products with chemicals. This has created very complex and expensive issues within the management of these products against regulations.
However, a new method for analyzing and defining chemical risk is being produced. As stated in this article by Environmental Leader, this could significantly cut costs within chemical management and have provided an outline of a report that led them to this conclusion. The creators of this report have released a study on their findings. Here are the important takeaways as stated by the authors:
1. There are more than 80,000 chemicals in commerce and the environment (as stated above)
2. The researchers are using a quantitative high throughput screening technologies and adverse outcome pathways that will allow regulatory agencies, such as the EPA, to prioritize which of these 80,000 + chemicals should be further evaluated
3. The Toxic Substance Control Act is being reformed in congress and the EPA is required to keep a list of all chemicals manufactured or processed in the U.S
4. The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates and the American Chemistry Council both say that the 80,000 + chemicals is not an accurate representation of the actual number of chemicals that are being produced and used today.
5. The EPA has stated that the actual number of chemicals being used today is closer to 7,500
The TSCA hasn’t faced a reform to chemically prioritize for modern day use. This is of the upmost importance. In doing so now, there have been significant strides taken towards significantly expediting the chemical management process and streamlining this for maximum ease for American businesses.
Source Intelligence provides a dynamic and customizable program in which you can source and manage the chemical substances used in your products. Global product chemical regulations are continuously evolving. As a supplier, you must have the ability to construct your own product chemical compliance program, tailored to you and your clients’ unique needs.
This is where Source Intelligence shines as the most comprehensive and dynamic compliance software on the market. Source Intelligence’s platform is fully customizable. Meaning that if the regulations your company needs help with aren’t already within the platform, you can customize and request the addition of regulations or laws to fit your needs.
http://3blmedia.com/News/Toxic-Substance-Control-Act-Under-Reform
-
Memo to House: Stand Firm on States’ Rights
May 11, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
As you may know, staff from both chambers of Congress have nearly completed work reconciling different versions of chemical safety reform legislation (TSCA reform) that passed last year. (H.R. 2576 and S. 697 respectively.) Reportedly, there is at least one major sticking point remaining: should states be blocked for up to 4 years from taking action against a toxic chemical while EPA studies the chemical?
The House legislation, sponsored by Representatives Upton, Shimkus, Pallone, and Tonko, rejected such a provision after much consideration. Now they are under intense pressure by the Senate to back down and accept it. Here is why they, and you, should instead hold your ground.
While the exact policy language in the Senate bill is hard to follow (see addendum), the bottom lines are these:
a) Millions of people who could otherwise be protected will instead be exposed to toxic chemicals for several years, in states as diverse as Washington, California, and Tennessee.
b) A new and terrible precedent would be set – state and local governments legally prohibited from protecting their citizens, in deference to a federal decision that is years away.
The policy violates both conservative and liberal principles and would have an immediate negative impact.
What is the practical impact? State firefighter unions backed by public health advocates and scientists recently have pursued state policies to prohibit certain toxic chemicals that are used to treat furniture. Though the chemicals were introduced in the name of fire safety, numerous studies have shown that they cause cancer and other health problems. Firefighters are exposed to especially high levels – the chemicals “weep” from smoldering furniture and penetrate safety gear. There are safer alternatives. Washington just passed a law banning five of these toxic flame retardants, but it requires further public process and legislative action on six more. The legislatures in Tennessee, Minnesota, and Massachusetts are considering similar bills. (Read thePulitzer-nominated series on these chemicals for a primer on the science and politics.)
But these laws and implementing rules would be blocked by the Senate provision (and by some of the proposed fixes that have been floated). Literally, thousands of firefighters in these states – already concerned about higher than average cancer rates – will be exposed to these chemicals, pending the four-year EPA review. So will average consumers, since studies show these chemicals break down into household dust and wind up in the breast milk of nursing mothers.
Should firefighters and nursing mothers be exposed to toxic chemicals in the name of reform that is supposed to be about – what was it? – preventing people from being exposed to toxic chemicals?
Another example is Tris, the flame retardant chemical shown to cause cancer and neurological damage. After years of preparation and documentation, California is poised to restrict the chemical in children’s foam sleeping pads in favor of safer alternatives.
Should California’s children instead be exposed to this cancer-causing chemical for four more years because of an act of Congress?
The answer is a clear “no.”
The bipartisan approach of the Energy and Commerce Committee leaders in H.R. 2576, which passed 398 to 1 last June, struck the right balance on this question. The Senate provision would instead break dangerous new ground in the law, setting a terrible precedent.
We urge you to stand firm.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/05/11/memo-to-house-stand-firm-on-states-rights/
-
House Committee Questions IRIS Reforms
May 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
In the latest chapter of the ongoing criticism of the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has asked the agency to clarify how it has been reforming the programme.
A letter from committee chairman, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), to EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, on 10 May says IRIS “appears to suffer from a lack of transparency and an inability to produce work in a timely matter”, and asks her to furnish information about the programme to “assist in the committee’s oversight of this matter”.
The committee received a briefing on IRIS from EPA staff on 27 April. But Mr Smith wrote that while this meeting was “helpful and appreciated”, it did not answer all of its questions. This includes “details relating to some basic operating methods of the programme”.
The EPA could not, for example, identify its policies on the identification and determination of substances to be assessed under the programme, he said.
It was also “unable to confirm which agency official, if any, holds the final decision-making power to determine whether an assessment is necessary”.
Since 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published three reports highlighting concerns with the IRIS programme. According to the letter, 12 of the 17 recommendations made by the investigative group remain unresolved.
The National Academy of Science (NAS) also provided recommendations for the programme in 2011, based on a review of the formaldehyde assessment process. But despite reiteration of these in 2014, not all of the improvements have been implemented, said the letter.
Mr Smith wrote that the committee is “concerned that EPA is not taking the recommendations of GAO and NAS seriously”.
Like a similar letter issued to EPA by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform earlier this year, the committee points out that the agency has failed to develop a handbook to “develop clear and transparent processes” around the IRIS programme, as recommended by NAS.
It says that in the April briefing, the EPA “was unable to provide any clarity on the status or development” of this document.
The letter also pointed out that the EPA’s decision to no longer announce availability of draft IRIS assessments in the Federal Register “appears to directly contradict specific recommendations for more transparency”.
It has until 24 May to respond to the information request.
Politics driving decision making?
In a separate letter, Mr Smith asked Ms McCarthy about the EPA’s apparent retraction of a final Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) report for glyphosate.
According to the letter, the EPA apparently posted a final report indicating that the herbicide glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”, but has since said that the analysis was not final and that the document was posted “inadvertently”.
This “backtracking on the finality of its own science review", Mr Smith wrote, "raises concerns about the agency’s willingness to provide a fair assessment.
“That the EPA would remove a report, which was marked as a ‘final report’ and signed by thirteen scientists, appears to be yet another example of this agency’s attempt to allow politics rather than science drive its decision making,” he added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47366/house-committee-questions-iris-reforms
-
Calif. Customers See First BPA Warning Signs at Checkouts
May 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson and Debra Kahn
Businesses across California rolled out signs at checkout stands yesterday warning that certain food and beverage packaging contains harmful chemicals.
In San Francisco, a local business reported no trouble complying with the new state requirements about bisphenol A (BPA).
The Market, an upscale food court on the ground level of Twitter's headquarters in downtown San Francisco, displayed a small laminated sign on each cash register informing customers that BPA, found in food and beverage cans, lids, and bottle caps, is "known by the State of California to cause harm to the female reproductive system."
The Market's food distributor, United Natural Foods Inc., delivered the signs on Tuesday.
"It was fairly harmless," general manager Zae Perrin said. "I think information is always useful."
It was not clear if all businesses had gotten the memo as promptly.
In Southern California, a supervisor at a Food 4 Less grocery store in Huntington Beach was unaware of the need for signs, Southern California Public Radio reported.
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, part of the California EPA, had determined that sufficient evidence exists to designate BPA as a reproductive hazard.
That triggered broad labeling requirements on products containing the chemical under the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65.
Earlier this year, the agency issued an emergency regulation requiring that businesses post warnings about BPA at checkouts, rather than forcing manufacturers to put labels on individual products, such as cans, that contain BPA (Greenwire, April 20).
The move spurred an outcry from business and chemical industry groups, while environmental organizations are upset the original labeling plan did not go forward.
In proposing its emergency regulation, OEHHA predicted a wave of citizen enforcement suits on the first day the can-labeling proposal took effect.
But Caroline Cox, the research director at the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), said the group was not planning to sue violators at this point.
Kathleen Roberts, the executive director of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, which represents can manufacturers that use BPA, said the group had not heard from state businesses.
The fight is not over. The regulation will be revisited after six months and annually after that.
At that point, OEHHA will decide if it should keep the existing rule in place for another year or change it, such as to require labels on cans.
In an op-ed published in The Sacramento Bee yesterday, California Secretary for Environmental Protection Matthew Rodriquez and OEHHA acting Director Lauren Zeise defended the process as "a powerful incentive for businesses to remove listed chemicals from their products."
The labeling regulation is expected to change, the officials wrote.
"To avoid confusion from inconsistent warnings on supermarket shelves, the state has adopted regulations that allow retailers, for a limited time, to provide the BPA warning near cash registers," Rodriquez and Zeise wrote. "Eventually, businesses will be required to put warnings on either product labels or supermarket shelves."
Charles Margulis, a spokesman for CEH, said the group expects the state to seek to extend the rule for at least a year.
"We're going to do what we can to make Californians aware of what's going on and [that] there's an opportunity six months from now to get them to change their mind," Margulis said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/12/stories/1060037157
-
May 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
GuidanceEcha has sent a draft update of chapter R15 of its Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment (IR&CSA) to the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) for consultation. The chapter deals with consumer exposure assessment.Agency Whit Monday closure
Echa has advised it will be closed on 16 May, so its tools REACH-IT, R4BP 3 and support services are not available that day.
The office reopens at 9am on 17 May.
The Pic submission tool, ePIC, remains available at all times.Translations of tips for users of chemicals in the workplace
The short guide for users of chemicals in the workplace is available in 23 languages. It describes how to get the most from the classification and labelling information received in an easy-to-read style. It is linked to the downstream user web page.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47275/echa-round-up
-
EPA Issues Final Rules Cutting Oil, Natural Gas Methane Emissions
May 12, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Erin Ailworth
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday issued the first-ever federal standards aimed at curbing methane emissions from the oil and natural gas industry, the latest in a series of regulations the Obama administration is pursuing in an effort to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.
The final regulations, which the EPA initially proposed last year, are part of a broader Obama administration goal to cut methane emissions from oil and gas production by as much as 45% from 2012 levels over the next decade.
The rules, which affect new oil and natural gas wells only, will require companies to install technologies that monitor and limit inadvertent emission of methane during the production and transmission process of natural gas, whose primary component is methane, and require new practices, such as regular inspections for leaks.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy called the finalized rules, which cover more wells and include more frequent inspections than initially proposed, common sense.
“The actions we’re announcing today will help combat climate change, it will reduce air pollution that directly harms public health, and it will make sure that the oil and gas industry can continue to operate safely and responsibly as a vital source of energy for Americans across the country,” Ms. McCarthy told reporters.
The EPA estimates the regulations will cost $530 million in 2025, but yield climate-related benefits worth $690 million. Analysts at FBR & Co. said the rules appear consistent with the Obama administration’s middle-of-the-road approach in its efforts to curb climate environmental impacts while allowing for industry growth.
Kyle Isakower, vice president of regulatory and economic policy for the American Petroleum Institute, said the industry is already working to reduce emissions and decried the regulations as burdensome for the shale-energy industry.
He said on a call with reporters that the rules are likely to be much more expensive than the EPA expects. A previous analysis done for the group estimated associated costs at $800 million annually.
“The industry is already leading the way on methane reductions, because it is good for the environment and good for business,” said Mr. Isakower. “Imposing a one-size-fits-all scheme on the industry could actually stifle innovation and discourage investments in new technologies that could serve to further reduce emissions.”
Mr. Isakower said it is too early to say whether API will try to challenge the rule in court, but would keep its options open.
Administration officials said in March the EPA was also in the early stages of pursuing regulations targeting the hundreds of thousands of existing wells across the U.S., a step that would affect the oil and gas industry significantly more than the rules for new sources are expected to. The agency said Thursday it was launching that effort by issuing requirements for companies to provide information that will help shape emission regulations for existing wells.
Ms. McCarthy promised swift action on that front, but her agency doesn’t expect to finish collecting that information until next year, when a new president will be in the White House.
Calls and emails to One Future, a group of natural gas companies and electricity producers working to reduce methane emissions, weren’t immediately returned.
Thursday’s announcement is the latest step in a broader effort to target domestic greenhouse-gas emissions and show the U.S. is following through on a global deal on climate change reached by roughly 200 nations late last year.
In addition to the EPA move on all existing oil and gas wells, the Interior Department is working to complete rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from existing oil and natural-gas operations on federal lands, though these account for a small portion of domestic drilling.
Over the past year, the Obama administration has focused increasingly on methane emissions, which the EPA says have a warming effect on the planet at least 25 times that of carbon dioxide.
Andrew Logan, director of the oil and gas program at the environmental group Ceres, said the federal standards are a good first step, helping natural gas remain a viable bridge fuel as the nation tries to reduce its reliance on more carbon-intensive fossil fuels.
“Without addressing methane, natural gas risks becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution to climate change,” Mr. Logan said. “We are happy to see the administration moving forward with a first attempt at nationwide regulation of methane.”
The EPA released new data in April showing that the oil and natural gas industry is the nation’s top emitter of methane, accounting for about 33% of all U.S. methane emissions and surpassing that of the agricultural sector, which was previously thought to be the top emitter, primarily through cows’ digestive processes.
The updated data reflect an increase in oil and natural gas production over the last several years, more comprehensive data collection by the EPA and a higher initial baseline than previously thought.
Mark Brownstein, a vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund who focuses on the oil and gas industry, said moving toward regulating existing wells is critical.
“The vast majority of methane emissions that are coming from this sector are coming from the wide array of existing systems already out in the field today,” Mr. Brownstein said. “That’s the reason why the next step needs to be a set of regulations to address existing sources.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-issues-final-rules-cutting-oil-natural-gas-methane-emissions-1463067378
-
Oil Lobby: Methane Rules Could Increase Emissions
May 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration’s new restrictions on methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, the industry says.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) argues that by increasing the costs of drilling for natural gas, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making it a less attractive fuel source. That could reduce the incentive to use it instead of more carbon dioxide-intensive fuels like coal.
“Methane regulation under this rule is bad for consumers and not necessarily good for the environment either,” Howard Feldman, senior director for regulatory affairs at API, told reporters Thursday after the EPA unveiled the final version of its regulation.
“It doesn’t make sense that the administration would add unreasonable and overly burdensome regulations when the industry is already leading the way in reducing emissions,” said Kyle Isakower, the group’s vice president of regulatory policy.
“The last thing we need is more duplicative and costly regulations that discourage natural gas production, interrupt our progress reducing emissions and increase the cost of energy for American consumers,” he said.
The EPA’s regulation imposes new standard meant to stop emissions of methane, a potential greenhouse gas that is the main component of natural gas.
The final rule, the EPA predicts, will cut 520,000 short tons of methane in 2025, the equivalent of 11 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Compared with last year’s proposed rule, it is much stronger, with new provisions that remove exemptions for low-producing wells, increase leak monitoring and other changes.
API said it doubts the EPA’s contention that the rule is cost-effective. The group said the proposed rule had costs that were about double the benefits, and while it has not fully analyzed the final version, Feldman and Isakower predicted it would be at least as bad.
“Imposing a one-size-fits-all scheme on the industry could actually stifle innovation and discourage investments in new technologies that could serve to further reduce emissions,” Isakower said. “Natural gas is a proven source of clean, affordable and reliable energy.”
In addition to raising emissions, API predicted that the rule will stifle the natural gas boom of recent years that has been responsible for low energy prices and thousands of jobs.
Isakower said API has not yet decided whether to sue the EPA to have the rule overturned, but it is a possibility the group is considering.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279707-oil-lobby-methane-rules-could-increase-emissions
-
E.P.A. Methane Leak Rules Take Aim at Global Warming
May 12, 2016 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled the first federal regulations to control emissions of potent planet-warming methane gas that could leach from new oil and gas wells, the next step in President Obama’s aggressive effort to combat climate change.
The methane rule is the final version of a draft regulation put forth last year by the Environmental Protection Agency, and would require oil and gas companies to plug and capture leaks of methane from new and modified drilling wells and storage tanks, not older, existing wells.
The E.P.A. estimates that the rules could cost companies around $530 million in 2025, but the agency also estimates that they would yield companies savings from reduced waste of as much as $690 million, a potential net benefit of $160 million. The agency said the regulations would lower methane emissions by 510,000 tons in 2025, the equivalent of 11 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
“These new actions will protect public health and reduce pollution linked to cancer and other serious health effects while allowing industry to continue to grow and provide a vital source of energy for Americans across the country,” said the agency’s administrator, Gina McCarthy.
Oil and gas companies, already reeling from sustained low prices, see only an economic burden and have vowed to fight.
The new methane rules are the latest part of a broader push by Mr. Obama to cut greenhouse gas emissions from industries across the economy. E.P.A. regulations would cut carbon dioxide emissions from cars, trucks and power plants, and new rules are in the works to reduce emissions from airplanes. Many of those regulations could face years of litigation before they can go into force.
The rules governing carbon dioxide emissions from cars and power plants, the two largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, form the centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s climate change agenda. They are at the heart of Mr. Obama’s pledge under last year’s Paris Agreement on climate change that the United States would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions between 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Reducing methane is an important part of the administration’s climate change strategy because the gas is 25 times more effective than carbon dioxide in trapping heat. It does, however, dissipate in the atmosphere far more quickly than carbon. The administration has set a goal of reducing methane emissions by as much as 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025.
Within the United States, seepage from oil and gas wells is the largest source of methane gas in the atmosphere. In April, the E.P.A. released a report that concluded that the amount of the gas leaking from oil and gas wells is much higher than previously reported. The study concluded that methane from oil and gas leaks makes up about a third of total methane emitted in the United States. Earlier reports had suggested that the nation’s largest source of methane emissions may have been cattle and other livestock.
The rule on methane emissions from new oil and gas wells will not be enough to meet Mr. Obama’s methane reduction targets, but the E.P.A. is also expected to move forward with additional rules governing methane leaks from existing wells.
“We will remain steadfast in our efforts urging E.P.A. to move expeditiously on its commitment to address existing sources of this highly potent greenhouse gas — which will continue to be responsible for the vast majority of this pollutant — and is essential in meeting the Paris climate agreement,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement Thursday.
Oil and gas companies call the rules unnecessary and costly, maintaining that they already have an incentive to stop and prevent methane leaks, since methane can be sold. The companies say the rules impose new costs on an industry struggling with sustained low oil and gas prices.
The new methane rules are being closely watched in Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged to work with Mr. Obama on a joint methane reduction strategy. Ottawa is expected to produce a similar set of regulations for a country where oil and gas extraction is a larger part of the economy than in the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/obama-methane-epa.html?_r=0
-
Oil, Gas Industry Challenges Efforts to Protect Western Bird
May 12, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Brown
The oil and gas industry on Thursday challenged in federal court drilling restrictions imposed by the Obama administration to protect a struggling bird that ranges across 11 Western states.
The Western Energy Alliance and North Dakota Petroleum Council said they would ask a U.S. District judge in North Dakota to block sweeping land use plans for the region adopted in September by the Interior Department.
The groups said local and state efforts to prop up populations of greater sage grouse have been effective. Sweeping changes to U.S. Interior Department policies were not needed to ensure the chicken-sized bird’s long-term survival, they said.
It marks the oil industry’s first attempt to undo federal policies that already have drawn opposition from both ends of the debate over the bird. The challenged plans cover about 165 million acres of land in California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Utah.
Interior Department spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw said in response that the new land use plans strike a balance between conservation and economic development. Their adoption was considered key to keeping sage grouse off the endangered species list and avoiding even more severe restrictions on development.
Kershaw declined to directly comment on Thursday’s lawsuit, the latest in a string of lawsuits over grouse.
Some wildlife advocates have said in an Idaho lawsuit that there are too many loopholes in new rules on oil and gas drilling, grazing and other activities blamed for the bird’s long-term decline. Mining companies, ranchers and officials in Utah, Idaho and Nevada have argued the rules impede economic development.
Western Energy Alliance Vice President Kathleen Sgamma said the group has not yet been able to quantify what harm is being done to oil and gas companies.
Instead, Thursday’s lawsuit targets the process by which the government adopted the new rules. Sgamma said officials did not allow for enough public comment before putting them into place.
“That’s where they’re legally vulnerable,” she said. “The oil and gas restrictions in the plans are based on science that overstates the threat” to sage grouse.
The Interior Department’s land-use plans for Wyoming were excluded from Thursday’s lawsuit. Sgamma said that was because the federal government’s plan largely conformed with the state’s own plan.
The grouse population once was estimated at 16 million birds across North America. It’s lost roughly half its habitat to development, livestock grazing and an invasive grass that encourages wildfires in the Great Basin of Nevada and adjoining states. There are now an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 greater sage grouse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/oil-gas-industry-challenges-efforts-to-protect-western-bird/2016/05/12/75fd8184-184f-11e6-971a-dadf9ab18869_story.html
-
EIA Says Fossil Fuels Not Disappearing Anytime Soon
May 12, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Rapid economic growth in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and other emerging countries will drive global energy consumption to nearly double by 2040, according to new projections released yesterday by the Department of Energy.
But the associated rise in carbon emissions will not keep pace with overall energy consumption, thanks to a shifting global energy portfolio that relies less on coal for power generation and more on natural gas and renewable energy resources, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its 2016 International Energy Outlook.
Based on its latest projections, EIA said global carbon dioxide emissions from energy activities will rise from 36 billion metric tons in 2012, the baseline year used for the 2016 outlook, to 43 billion metric tons in 2040.
That's a 34 percent increase in energy-related CO2, compared to a 48 percent increase in overall energy consumption from 2010 to 2040, when EIA says the world will consume a record 815 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of energy.
But some critics of EIA's methodology say the projections on global energy use and CO2 emissions failed to adequately account for major international policy initiatives, including last year's pledge by nearly 190 U.N.-member countries to make sharp reductions in energy-sector greenhouse gas emissions.
In a public rollout of the data at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski said that the agency used more sophisticated modeling tools for the 2016 report than previously available, especially in the transportation sector, and that the world's demand for fossil fuels will continue to grow.
"Even in the aftermath of Paris, I think that our numbers suggest that growth and need for petroleum in transportation and industry is still going to be pretty strong," he said. "Those numbers could come down over time, but it's still really hard to compete with the energy density that's in oil."
Don't count out fossil fuels
Among other things, the new report portends continued rising demand for natural gas, along with sustained growth in wind, solar and nuclear energy production. Renewables, led by wind and hydro power, are projected to be the fastest-growing energy resource over the next two decades, according to EIA, expanding by 2.6 percent annually through 2040.
Nuclear will also see solid growth, at 2.3 percent annually, underscored by China's commitment to add 139 gigawatts of nuclear capacity to its grid by 2040. Natural gas, long the No. 3 source of global energy behind oil and coal, will by 2030 become the world's No. 2 resource as coal consumption plateaus with the onset of new international carbon regulations.
Consumption of oil and other forms of liquid petroleum will fall modestly over the next 24 years, from 33 percent of total marketed energy consumption in 2012 to 30 percent in 2040. Oil will continue to be a primary fuel for the transport sector, as well as a key fuel for industrial uses in emerging countries.
But experts cautioned against the idea that fossil fuels will become 20th-century energy anachronisms by the middle of the 21st century. In fact, fossil fuels will still account for 78 percent of global energy use in 2040, even as the growth in non-fossil fuels exceeds that of oil, coal and gas.
"Abundant natural gas resources and robust production -- including rising supplies of tight gas, shale gas, and coalbed methane -- contribute to the strong competitive position of natural gas," EIA said in the outlook.
While considerably diminished from a decade ago, coal-fired power generation is expected to grow by 0.6 percent annually over the coming years and will account for between 28 and 29 percent of global power generation by 2040, compared to 40 percent in 2012.
Natural gas and renewables, including hydropower, are also expected to claim between 28 and 29 percent of total global power generation by 2040, with the remainder coming from existing and new nuclear plants.
"This is going to happen in many places around the world, and it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a significant amount," Sieminski told energy policy experts and journalists gathered at CSIS's granite-and-glass headquarters on Rhode Island Avenue.
In one of the first high-level analyses of how U.S. carbon regulation will affect global energy markets, EIA projects that U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan would further shave coal consumption by roughly 1 percent after 2020 while driving a comparable increase in renewable energy deployment.
"It changes the global numbers a little bit, it changes the U.S. numbers more, and it particularly changes coal in the U.S. by more," Sieminski said. "You can see coal plateauing."
Critics slam projections
Among the world's three largest coal users -- the United States, China and India -- only India is projected to see an overall increase in coal consumption by 2040. China is expected to begin reducing its use of coal after 2025, while the United States is already seeing a downward trajectory in coal use, one that could grow steeper if the Clean Power Plan is upheld in court.
While U.S. markets and policy will continue to be critical benchmarks for global energy, the United States will not be among the fastest-growing energy markets going forward, EIA found.
In fact, by 2040, nearly two-thirds of all of the world's energy use will be in developing countries outside the 34-member Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Among non-OECD members, Asian countries like China, India and Indonesia will account for 55 percent of all new energy use through 2040, the analysis found.
Increasing oil and liquid fuels consumption for industry and transportation will be particularly strong in countries like China and India, Sieminski said, where rising incomes and a proliferation of privately owned cars and trucks has led to significant increases in vehicles miles traveled (VMT).
But critics like David Turnbull of the climate-focused nonprofit group Oil Change International said EIA should have given stronger consideration to shifting national and international climate policies, especially over the last several years.
"We all know that we're moving in a different direction now," Turnbull said. "The Paris Agreement was a clear indication that the fossil fuel era was ending. To make a projection that ignores some of these major shifts in public opinion, in energy markets, in renewable energy policy, is leaving out a big piece of the picture."
A spokesman for EIA stressed in an email that the agency did not ignore the Paris accord or other international agreements in its analysis.
In fact, the report makes clear that EIA "has tried to incorporate some of the specific details," such as renewable energy goals put forward in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, in its 2016 IEO reference case. "However, a great deal of uncertainty remains with regard to the implementation of policies to meet stated goals."
In his comments at CSIS, Sieminski acknowledged that long-term projections like those in the IEO are imperfect and that policy and technology changes can lead to radically different outcomes than the best analysis can predict.
"There's probably a lot of flex in these numbers," Sieminski said. "Does that mean that we are wasting taxpayer dollars doing it? The answer is no. It's hugely valuable to policymakers, it's hugely valuable to the public."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/05/12/stories/1060037116
-
Republicans Need to Embrace Renewables — On Their Terms
May 12, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Mark R. Maddox
During the last presidential match-up between Republican nominee Mitt Romney and President Obama, I was asked by a former George W. Bush administration colleague whether it was possible to say anything nice about renewable energy. As a regular participant on energy industry calls with the Romney campaign, I dutifully called headquarters for the official position and was told that the campaign supported free-market competition for renewable energy. Fast forward four years. I'm still having a hard time finding a Republican who will embrace any form of renewable energy.
On one hand, I get it. There is heartburn over subsidies, including concerns about federal dollars being used to support a largely private-sector enterprise that the majority of states have mandated. As well, our national debt is $19 trillion and counting. Not the best time to be looking for budget items to fund and defend.
On the other hand, there's the reality of a shift in public opinion and a changing energy landscape. A recent Gallup poll showed that 73 percent of Americans and 51 percent of Republicans support the development of renewable energy. It reasons, then, that Republican candidates who oppose renewables are not only out of step with general election voters, but with their own party. If it's an issue the electorate cares about and supports, Republicans need to recognize it and understand the evolving profile of our 21st-century energy mix. If not, they risk the issue being a factor in November, especially with general-election voters. This is especially important for vulnerable Senate candidates who herald from states that Obama won big in the 2012 election.
Another finding from the same Gallup poll that's worth mentioning is that support for producing oil and gas production has dropped, although, historically, support has closely tracked price. When the price at the pump is high, support for production goes up; when the price is low, support for production diminishes. If nothing else, the poll showcases the public's sensitivity to price.
Where does that leave us?
First, like every other sector in the energy industry, siting and transmission are a major issue. A good example of this is Clean Line Energy Partners' Plains and Eastern project, designed to deliver 4,000 megawatts of clean power from the Oklahoma Panhandle to the mid-South and Southeast. After six years, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a Record of Decision finding the $2.5 billion project "as proposed will serve the public interest by facilitating renewable energy development, stimulating economic development, generating revenues for needed public investment, and doing so while minimizing impacts to landowners and the natural environment." Yet, there is substantial opposition in states along the proposed route, including from some of the Public Utility Commissions (PUCs), state legislators who are proposing measures that would make approval more difficult, and from landowners. It's the classic "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) syndrome. As such, it is critical that a timely, reasonable path forward is identified when building infrastructure projects.
Second, we need to level the financial playing field for renewable energy companies and allow them to be financed through master limited partnerships (MLPs). MLPs allow a company to sell shares, but to pass earnings directly to investors without a corporate tax burden, and leave the partners to pay tax on their income and avoid double taxation. The advantages of MLPs are clear: They can raise capital by selling stock on an IRS-approved exchange and create liquidity from selling shares. The IRS also defines qualifying income to include all manner of activities related to the production, processing and transportation of oil, natural gas and coal — but not renewable energy.
There are many more policies that can be tweaked, but the challenge for Republican candidates and policymakers is elemental. They need to move the renewable energy conversation beyond a discussion about subsidies. Having said that, one need only glance through the various papers written on renewable energy deployment to see that the industry tends to lead with a subsidy request. However, shame on Republicans for letting others define the terms of the debate.
The other issue-framing challenge for Republicans is not to equate support for renewables as an attack on fossil fuels. Too often, Republicans hear "renewable energy" and feel compelled to immediately defend traditional energy sources.
America's energy mix is in constant evolution and that should be acknowledged, embraced and debated.
Several years ago, the GOP coined the phrase "all of the above" when talking about energy sources. We need to return to that. To paraphrase my former colleague, it's okay to say something nice about renewable energy.
Maddox has held several senior positions at the Department of Energy. He is a fellow with the American Action Forum and a consultant to the Livingston Group.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/279681-republicans-need-to-embrace-renewables-on-their-terms
-
Southern Chief Sownplays Cyber Threats to the Grid
May 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
A Ukraine-style cyberattack on the U.S. electricity supply would be “controllable,” Southern CEO Tom Fanning said this morning, while acknowledging that national reliability standards don't extend to the entire grid.
The attack in December, which Ukraine has blamed on Russia, knocked out power for about 225,000 people for several hours by disconnecting 30 substations. It has also stoked fears of hackers being able to craft similar attacks on the U.S.
But while Fanning acknowledged that reliability standards crafted by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. don’t extend to the U.S. distribution level, he said it doesn't cause him much concern. “An attack on the distribution level would not have the same widespread impact as a successful attack on transmission," he said at a cybersecurity event hosted by The Christian Science Monitor. "It is, by its nature, going to be more local. And, by its nature, it is more controllable.”
Fanning also sniped at former FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff — though not by name — and his vocal warnings about physical threats to the grid.
“I can remember there was a former FERC chairman that ran around saying that if you took out nine transformers you’d lose the United States electric grid,” Fanning said. “Just dead wrong.”
At the same event, Deputy Energy Secretary Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall said DOE's Idaho National Laboratory is working to improve security on SCADA systems and is studying potential threats from mobile telecommunications technology.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Warren Presses Energy Nominee on Probe of FERC
May 12, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
President Obama's nominee to be the Energy Department's top watchdog has committed to working with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to make sure the public has a say in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's pipeline review process.
"Several massive new natural gas pipelines have been proposed in New England, and over and over again I've heard from citizens and from elected officials in Massachusetts who are deeply concerned about the impact of these projects on their property and on their communities," Warren said today. "They feel like their voices haven't been heard and their interests haven't been represented."
Susan Beard, the veteran DOE attorney nominated to become the agency's inspector general, told Warren during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting this morning that she would prioritize an ongoing audit of FERC's permitting process if confirmed (E&E Daily, Dec. 3, 2015).
New England lawmakers who opposed Kinder Morgan Inc.'s proposed Northeast Energy Direct pipeline -- a project the company canceled last month -- were frustrated when DOE's Office of Inspector General and FERC failed to provide answers about the need for the project, safety concerns and other issues (E&E Daily, May 9).
Northeast leaders and pipeline opponents have pressed Congress to take a broader look at how major natural gas pipelines affect the nation's energy and climate goals (Greenwire, Nov. 24, 2015).
Warren also noted Spectra Energy Corp.'s Atlantic Bridge and Access Northeast projects. "Believe me, concerns about these pipelines are not going away," she said.
Outside the purview of the inspector general's audit, Warren said it was extremely important to examine whether FERC was making decisions in the best interest of the property owners and communities most directly impacted by new projects.
"I will commit to working with you and your staff regarding FERC following the laws, policies and procedures," Beard answered.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/12/stories/1060037151
-
House Panel Votes to Delay New Ozone Rules
May 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House Energy and Commerce Committee panel voted Thursday to delay the Obama administration’s new ozone pollution standards and make future regulations more friendly to industry.
The committee’s energy and power subcommittee passed the bill along party lines.
The measure would give states up to eight years to comply with last year’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule on ozone, which restricted the allowable amount of ozone in ambient air to 70 parts per billion, from the previous 75 parts per billion.
Future rules for numerous pollutants, including ozone, would only happen every 10 years, expanding from the current five years, and the EPA would for the first time have to consider the costs to businesses in future ozone restrictions.
“We believe this bill creates a path to improve air quality without harming job creation and economic growth,” Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), the main sponsor of the bill, said at the subcommittee meeting.
“It also provides long-overdue reforms to the process by which EPA sets and implements national air pollution standards,” he said. “EPA’s new ozone standards will impose major compliance costs on state and local governments, as well as threaten jobs in my home state and other areas that are not in attainment currently. The 2008 ozone standards are challenging enough, and now EPA has made it worse by waiting seven years to finalize the implementation rules.”
Ozone is a component in smog and is linked to respiratory illnesses like asthma. But since it’s created from various pollutants related to burning fossil fuels, the energy industry and its allies in manufacturing and other business sectors oppose new restrictions, fearing that states would crack down on their pollutants to comply.
“Why should regulators hamper job creators with unnecessary red tape in these areas that are already on track for compliance?” asked Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas).
“States now face the challenge of spending already limited resources on implementing a new second standard of 70 parts per billion.”
Democrats accused the GOP of trying to dismantle the Clean Air Act.
“This bill, HR 4775, is a radical attempt to gut the Clean Air Act. That’s all it is,” said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).
The bill is “an irresponsible attack that strikes at the heart of the Clean Air Act and would undermine decades of progress on cleaning up pollution and protecting public health,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the committee.
The panel rejected along party lines numerous Democratic amendments meant to roll back provisions in the bill they say undermine public health protections.
The Obama administration hasn’t said it formally opposes the bill, but it has problems with numerous parts of it.
In written testimony last month to the committee, Janet McCabe, the top air regulator at the EPA, warned against the delays written into the legislation.
“The delays in this bill would jeopardize progress toward cleaner air and delay health protections for millions of Americans, including children, older adults, and people with asthma,” McCabe wrote.
“The EPA and state, local, and tribal co-regulators share a long history of managing air quality under the Clean Air Act, supported by a wealth of previously issued EPA rules and guidance,” she said, warning that the bill threatens that cooperation.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279683-house-panel-votes-to-delay-ozone-pollution-rules
-
Ceres' Lubber Discusses Challenges to Exponentially Scaling Investments to Meet Paris Goals
May 12, 2016 | E&E TV
As businesses of all sizes become more focused on clean energy investments, what challenges exist to scaling these investments to meet the goals established in the Paris Agreement? During today's OnPoint, Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, discusses the public- and private-sector efforts needed to achieve international targets on emissions reduction.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint, I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres. Mindy, it's nice to have you back on the show.
Mindy Lubber: Great to be here, thanks.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Mindy, as businesses of all sizes become more focused on clean energy investments, your work at Ceres, and in particular through your Investor Network on Climate Risk, is seen as a framework, essentially, for scaling clean energy investments. With all the global momentum there is right now on clean energy, on climate change, what do you identify as the core challenges to advancing global clean energy investments?
Mindy Lubber: Well, the good part is, we came out of Paris where 175 countries from around the world got together, and they didn't just get together, they have days if not years of deliberations. And they agreed to a 35-page framework about what our future should be as it relates to energy, and beyond energy, transportation. That document says that by 2050, to stay at a 2-degree world -- the level of temperature scientists tell us we can't go above and they actually even talked about going below that -- to do that we need to be a fossil-free world.
Now think about what that means. The difference between now and then, how we're going to run our energy systems, our transportation systems, our city, our manufacturing facilities, with different kinds of energy. It is a huge jump. So the good part of the story is we have a framework, and I have 175 heads of states agree to it.
The thing that keeps me up at night is what we have to do to make sure we're able to meet that. The United States can't just wink and all of a sudden we're going to get to a non-fossil-free world. We've got to change our energy systems and our transportation systems, and that's an enormous hurdle, it's a big leap. To do that I think we'll need leadership of companies and investors and consumers, but we're also going to need policy changes. Because, you know, 100 companies could say they commit to 100 percent renewables, or 100 percent electric vehicle fleets, but we've got thousands and tens of thousands of companies that need to do that as well. So we need some policy change.
Monica Trauzzi: We hear the phrase exponential scaling of clean energy investments used, right, "exponential." What exactly does that mean in numbers, and is it actually feasible?
Mindy Lubber: So it is a hard task but it is feasible. We need to get to about a trillion dollars a year. Now, that's a big number, and a lot of zeroes, but a trillion dollars a year by 2030, to be meeting our clean energy goals and to get to where we need to be. Now, one way to think about it is today $350 billion is going into clean energy around the world, not just the United States. So we need to triple that. That's not impossible. Over the last five years we've tripled it, we've grown. We have $350 billion going into renewables, $350 billion -- I think we could get to $500 billion by 2020, and that we could get to a trillion by 2030.
And part of the reason is, $680 billion -- and these are a lot of numbers and then I'm going to stop boring you with numbers -- but $680 billion on average has gone into mining and looking for new fossil fuels every year for the last 10 years. We're starting to see a major change in that. We're seeing tens and hundreds of billions of dollars being pulled out of tar sands in Alberta, being pulled out of drilling in the Arctic. Some of that money is going to go to renewable energy. Those sources of energy are not profitable over the long run, and for some of the new investments they're not even profitable over the short run.
Monica Trauzzi: Do you believe that there is a broad acknowledgement and understanding among all the international players that investments of this scale are going to be necessary?
Mindy Lubber: I think there's unquestionably an acknowledgement that to get to a world where we're not using fossil fuel to run our cars, our homes, our refrigerators, our appliances within our homes and our offices, that we need a massive change. And to power the billions of people in India and Africa who are not presently online getting that power, we will need a massive amount of energy.
I think we understand what's needed; it's just going to take steps and hard work to get there. There are some who believe, well, we'll invest in clean technology in the United States, but we don't know about rural India or rural Africa. Those are the places that need it most. Those are the places that will be hardest hit by climate change, and we've got to put our attention not only to the developed world but to the developing world as well.
Monica Trauzzi: So here in the United States, for example, without a policy like the Clean Power Plan, do you believe that the private sector will continue to move in the direction that it's already moving in, and essentially reach the targets on their own? I mean, do you need a broad policy like the power plan to get to where we need to go?
Mindy Lubber: It would be good to have, and I think it would make it far more realistic. I think doing it without that pricing, that market signal, that law, will be tougher. But I do think we're moving in that direction. We've seen solar and wind tax credits that are certainly helping the equation, although we do have to level the playing field. If we're going to give subsidies to the fossil fuel industry we need to give equivalent subsidies to the renewable energy industry, which we don't. But at the moment we do have wind and energy tax credits and that will help.
I think over time we need a price on carbon. Basically carbon pollution that creates climate change costs us as a society billions and billions of dollars. But in most places we price it at zero, and when something is free, we get more of it. So we have got to at some point stop and put a price on carbon.
Can we move where we need to to fulfill the goals of the Paris Agreement and get to a fossil fuel world? I think we can. I'm hopeful. But the speed and scale would be significantly more if we had a level playing field, a policy that said not only are the leaders be out there doing this, we need to hear from not only the Ikeas and the Unilevers and the Nestles on this and the leading companies on that, but we need to hear from everybody.
But we are seeing it. Citigroup, last year Citi said we're going to put $100 billion into a clean energy future. Bank of America, $125 billion earmarked for the developing world. Some of the largest public pension funds have committed to putting more money into solar and wind energy. So we're starting to see it, more so this year than last year, and it will grow like everything else.
Monica Trauzzi: And you are in Washington this week being honored with the Climate Visionary Award at the Earth Day Network Climate Leadership Gala, what does the next phase of your work look like? You've been involved in this for a long time.
Mindy Lubber: Sure, well, the next phase -- I think one of the most important pieces of our future is to take this life-changing issue out of the debate of politics, out of it's about Republicans versus Democrats, and East Coast versus the middle of the country, and only Berkeley and Brooklyn care about it, and only Democrats from blue states care about it. We are all parents or human beings. We are looking at one of life's greatest challenges and threats that will build a future for our children one way or the other, a future that they can live in with the luxury and grace -- and I don't mean luxury from a financial, but access to resources as we have had the privilege of doing -- or it will be a lot harder. Climatic changes spare nobody. And so this should not be about do the Democrats want it and the Republicans don't -- we have got to change this debate. It is about all religions and all politicians and all politics.
We have a Mack truck driving at an unabated speed towards our children, and any human being would jump in front of that truck to save their kids. We have got to stop this truck called climate change. We're capable of it, we are up to the challenge, but we've got to de-politicize it. This is just not about politics and regulation and Washington, this is about our future.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it right there. Thank you for coming on the show, nice to see you.
Mindy Lubber: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching, we'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2129/transcript
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested