Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 5/16/2016
-
Justices Reject Exxon Appeal in $236M Water Contamination Case
May 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The Supreme Court today refused to hear Exxon Mobil Corp.'s appeal in a historic case over contaminated groundwater in New Hampshire. -
West Coast Cities Sue Monsanto to Pay for Chemical Cleanup
May 16, 2016 | High Country News
By Sarah Gilman
Portland, Oregon’s Willamette is no wilderness river. But on a spring day, downstream of downtown, wildness peeks through. Thick forest rises beyond a tank farm on the west bank. A sea lion thrashes to the surface, wrestling a salmon. -
NIOSH Forgoes Novel Limit For Nanosilver Citing Insufficient Risk Data
May 16, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is declining to issue a novel limit to protect workers from exposure to nanosilver, citing insufficient data, though health advocates are urging the institute to strengthen its language on the issue... -
An Example Of Innovation 2.0
May 16, 2016 | Forbes
By Steven Savage
I like to write about examples of innovation because such stories are behind many of the things we enjoy in modern life. The pace of innovation today is extraordinary, but it is definitely not unique to our era. It has been central to human civilization from the start. -
EPA Trying to Work Around Stay -- House Republicans
May 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans accused U.S. EPA today of "taking steps to circumvent" the Supreme Court's stay on the Clean Power Plan. -
U.S. Energy Chief: Texas Should Develop Clean Power Plan
May 13, 2016 | Texas Tribune (In Real Clear Energy)
By Jim Malewitz
When Ernest Moniz looks at Texas, he sees groundbreaking energy research and innovation — and not only related to oil and gas: wind, solar and battery technology that could bolster the reliability of those renewable resources, too. -
Let's End Arctic and Atlantic Offshore Leasing Forever, Not 5 Years at a Time
May 16, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Frances Beinecke
In the coming months, President Obama will decide whether to open U.S. Arctic waters for new oil and gas leases over the next 5 years. -
U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Use Fall
May 16, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Energy-related U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide fell 12% from 2005 to 2015, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). -
Utilities Seek Workaround to Broaden CO2 Trading Options
May 16, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Elizabeth Harball and Emily Holden
The Electric Power Research Institute is doing preliminary modeling on how states that pick different kinds of carbon-trading systems under the Clean Power Plan might be able to link those systems. -
Protesters Seek Switch to Renewable Energy Sources
May 16, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Christin Nance Lazerus
Lorrell Kilpatrick remembers growing up in the New Addition neighborhood of East Chicago and how off-putting it was for visitors to see BP oil tanks nearby. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical ISAC Poised to Expand Amid Push by All Sectors for More Info-Sharing
May 16, 2016 | Inside Cybersecurity
By Rick Weber
The chemical industry's information-sharing and analysis center, or ISAC, is seeking input from potential contractors on plans to expand beyond a current pilot project that has been operating for about a year, according to industry officials. The chemical industry ISAC, led by the American Chemistry Council... -
Big Oil Means Big Liability
May 15, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Editorial Board
A bill to hold oil interests liable for rail and terminal accidents is pending in the state Senate. What's the priority, public safety or an industry's profits? -
52 Climate Activists Arrested in Washington Railroad Protest
May 15, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)
Authorities cleared the railroad tracks of protesters and arrested 52 climate activists Sunday morning in Washington state, after a two-day shutdown. -
Court Clashes Put Obama's Enviro Legacy in Limbo
May 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
When President Obama moves out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. next January, his environmental legacy won't be entirely clear. -
Why Even People Who are Very Alarmed About Climate Change Often Take Little Action
May 16, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
When it comes to encouraging action against climate change, getting the public to care about the issue — or just believe it exists — is a primary preoccupation for scientists and activists. But it turns out that even people who are the most worried about the problem...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Justices Reject Exxon Appeal in $236M Water Contamination Case
May 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The Supreme Court today refused to hear Exxon Mobil Corp.'s appeal in a historic case over contaminated groundwater in New Hampshire.
Exxon had asked the high court to reconsider after the state's Supreme Court upheld a jury's $236 million verdict against the oil company for its role in contaminating the state's groundwater with the gasoline additive MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether).
The chemical, which has been labeled a potential carcinogen by U.S. EPA, was widely used by oil companies after 1990 clean air rules mandated additives to raise the oxygen content of gasoline to reduce tailpipe emissions. MTBE was one of the most common additives and has since been blamed for water contamination problems in several places around the country.
Exxon and its attorneys in January urged the high court to hear the case involving the largest jury verdict ever rendered in New Hampshire. "This unprecedented and unjust judgment cannot stand," the company said.
The jury's "astronomical verdict," Exxon added in its petition to the justices, "was the result of litigation brought by New Hampshire itself seeking damages on behalf of every private and public well owner in the state for alleged contamination of wells that were never identified and, in many cases, do not even exist."
Despite "the inherently individualized nature of well contamination, the New Hampshire courts nevertheless permitted New Hampshire to prove its case on a statewide basis using aggregate statistical evidence, thereby obliterating Exxon's ability to defend itself and notwithstanding Exxon's compliance with federal and state law at every step of the way," the petition said.
But the Supreme Court's customary short order today declining to hear the case leaves in place the lower court's decision. The votes of four justices are required to hear an appeal.
The justices similarly rejected an appeal in 2014 in a judgment against Exxon over contaminated water in New York City.
In that case, the city sued Exxon over MTBE from gasoline that leaked into a system of already polluted water wells in Queens. A federal court upheld a nearly $105 million judgment against Exxon in that case, and the Supreme Court declined to review that opinion (Greenwire, April 21, 2014).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/16/stories/1060037313
-
West Coast Cities Sue Monsanto to Pay for Chemical Cleanup
May 16, 2016 | High Country News
By Sarah Gilman
Portland, Oregon’s Willamette is no wilderness river. But on a spring day, downstream of downtown, wildness peeks through. Thick forest rises beyond a tank farm on the west bank. A sea lion thrashes to the surface, wrestling a salmon. And as Travis Williams, executive director of the nonprofit Willamette Riverkeeper, steers our canoe under a train bridge — dodging debris tossed by jackhammering workers — ospreys wing into view.
The 10-mile reach, known as Portland Harbor, became a Superfund Site in 2000. Over the last century, ships were built and decommissioned here, chemicals and pesticides manufactured, petroleum spilled, and sewage and slaughterhouse waste allowed to flow. Pollution has decreased, but toxic chemicals linger in sediments. Resident fish like bass and carp are so contaminated that riverside signs warn people against eating them, though some do. And osprey can’t read warnings, so they accumulate chemicals, which can thin eggshells and harm chicks.
Among the worst are polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Used in electrical transformers, coolants, caulk, paints and other products, these probable carcinogens were banned in 1979 for their toxicity, persistence and the ease with which they escaped into the environment. Even so, they continued entering waterways through storm drains here and elsewhere.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s remediation plan for Portland Harbor’s PCBs and other pollutants, expected in May, will cost between $790 million and $2.5 billion. The city of Portland, one of 150 “potentially responsible parties” on the hook for a percentage, has already spent $62 million on studies and reports. So on March 16, the city council decided to join six other West Coast cities in suing agribusiness giant Monsanto to recoup some past and future cleanup costs. San Diego filed in 2015, and San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, Spokane and Seattle -followed.
Monsanto is best known for GMO crops and Roundup, but before it split from its chemical and pharmaceutical branches (also named in the suits), it was the sole U.S. PCB manufacturer from the 1930s to the late 1970s. “Monsanto knew that if you used (these products) for their intended purpose, PCBs would leach into the environment,” says Portland City Attorney Tracy Reeve, but it sold the chemicals anyway. “We believe that polluters, not the public, should pay.”
A victory would not only inspire more PCB lawsuits, it could suggest a pathway to help fill gaps in U.S. chemical regulation, says University of Richmond School of Law professor Noah Sachs, who specializes in toxics and hazardous waste. The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, inspired in part by PCBs, has a weak review process and generally doesn’t require health and safety testing of chemicals before manufacturers can sell them. And the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act — CERCLA, the Superfund law — is concerned with who spilled or arranged to dispose of chemicals at a site, not who made them. “What we see here is testing a new legal theory,” Sachs says. “I hope companies that know their hazardous products are escaping into the environment are held accountable for the damage they’re doing.”
The cases’ novelty arises from their application of state public nuisance laws. Each seeks to prove that Monsanto compromised public use and enjoyment of waterways by marketing and selling this class of chemicals while well aware of its dangers. The Seattle complaint, for example, cites internal memos from the ’60s in which company officials discuss PCBs as “an uncontrollable pollutant,” noting their global spread and harm to people and wildlife. There is “no practical course of action that can so effectively police the uses of these products as to prevent environmental contamination,” a Monsanto committee wrote in 1969. “There are, however a number of actions which must be undertaken to prolong the manufacture, sale and use of these particular Aroclors” — the company’s trademarked name for certain PCB compounds.
The cases follow on a stunning 2014 victory in the Superior Court of California. There, a judge found three companies had created a public nuisance by marketing and selling lead-based paint while knowing its health hazards, and ruled they should pay $1.15 billion into an abatement fund to remove it from homes. The Monsanto cases likely have a stronger public nuisance claim, says University of California Davis environmental law professor Albert Lin, because, unlike residences, “waterways are clearly public resources.” Monsanto’s role as sole manufacturer also simplifies efforts to connect the company to contaminated areas.
Nonetheless, “the plaintiffs face an uphill climb,” says Peter Hsiao, an environmental attorney for international law firm Morrison & Foerster. The lead paint case is being appealed, he notes, and similar lead paint lawsuits failed in six other states. Attempts to use public nuisance law to address climate change, with California going after automakers, for example, have also foundered. Still, he worries a win could have an unintended chilling effect on innovation, “depriving society of the enormous benefit that comes from the safe and effective use of chemicals.”
First, though, the lawsuits must reach trial. Monsanto has been filing motions to dismiss each case — arguing that it never had a manufacturing presence on the West Coast and never discharged anything there. The first motion, against San Diego, will be heard in court May 25. “The allegations … are without merit,” Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord wrote in an email. If “companies or other third parties improperly disposed of (PCB) products and created the need for the cleanup of any waterways, then they bear responsibility for the costs.”
https://www.hcn.org/issues/48.8/west-coast-cities-sue-monsanto-to-pay-for-chemical-cleanup
-
NIOSH Forgoes Novel Limit For Nanosilver Citing Insufficient Risk Data
May 16, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is declining to issue a novel limit to protect workers from exposure to nanosilver, citing insufficient data, though health advocates are urging the institute to strengthen its language on the issue, saying it could prompt EPA and other regulatory agencies to require data that would eventually inform a future standard.
NIOSH sought public input through April 22 on its draft document review of the "Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Silver Nanomaterials," that finds insufficient data to support a novel recommended exposure limit (REL) for nanosilver. "NIOSH considers the currently available data to be too limited to develop a REL for silver that is specific to particle size," the draft document says.
Despite lacking data to set a unique nanosilver standard, NIOSH nevertheless recommends that companies take steps to limit worker exposures to the substance, including relying on standards for conventional silver particles. NIOSH recommends that "effective risk management control practices be implemented so that worker exposures to silver nanomaterials do not exceed" the current REL for conventional silver.
Federal regulators have been struggling for years to assess whether novel properties that allow nanoscale materials to advance technology, such as in textiles and medical technologies, also bring new risks to human health and the environment.
Advocacy groups have specifically targeted nanosilver for stronger federal oversight, though EPA last year largely rebuffed calls for regulation of all products containing the substance under federal pesticide law.
NIOSH in December 2012 announced it would review the scientific data on nanoscale silver and issue findings on potential health risks. The agency's Jan. 21 draft review found no human studies reporting adverse health effects in workers exposed to nanosilver, but notes that experimental animal studies have found risks to the lung and liver.
Currently, NIOSH has a broad REL for silver metal dust, fume, and soluble compounds of 10 micrograms per cubic meter measured as a total airborne mass concentration averaged over an 8-hour work day. NIOSH developed the REL to protect against argyria and argyrosis, a bluish-gray pigmentation to the skin and eyes.
In the draft review, called an intelligence bulletin, NIOSH acknowledges significant uncertainties in existing research, such as whether workers exposed to nanosilver above the REL face different risks than workers exposed to similar levels of conventional-scale silver, and whether various forms of silver are absorbed differently in the body.
While forgoing a new REL, NIOSH recommends that companies implement a variety of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate worker exposures to nanomaterials, ranging from identifying jobs where exposures occur and assessing the risks, to substituting less hazardous substances for nanosilver.
Conflicting Comments
NIOSH's draft review is spurring conflicting comments from various stakeholder groups.
For example, one industry group contends a nanosilver-specific REL is unnecessary. The Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG), a project of the Silver Institute whose members include a host of mining and metals companies, in April 18 comments, is backing NIOSH's decision to forgo an REL for nanosilver, saying nanoscale silver is not significantly different from conventional silver, and that nanosilver has a long record of safe use and regulatory oversight.
The group also backs NIOSH's call for risk management practices to ensure worker exposures do not exceed the current REL for all forms of silver. SNWG agrees that skin discoloration is the endpoint of concern for silver exposure.
While acknowledging that animal toxicology studies raise uncertainties, the group says, "These uncertainties are being evaluated in ongoing research and as data become available, NIOSH will assess the results and determine whether additional recommendations are warranted."
But public health advocates are urging NIOSH to strengthen language in the document, saying it could prompt EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require companies to submit data to eventually inform a REL for nanosilver.
A source with the Center for Food Safety (CFS), in an interview, backed NIOSH's call for companies to implement controls to mitigate exposures, especially using less hazardous substances, but said stronger language is needed.
By strengthening calls for companies to use the strongest controls, such as eliminating exposure to nanosilver, the source argues, NIOSH would help workers obtain protections on the job, and potentially spur EPA and FDA to require companies to submit data on risks to workers before allowing products containing nanosilver on the market.
NIOSH should "push other federal agencies to generate this safety data that they say they don't have," the source says. EPA and FDA "should be demanding that these companies do good toxicity" research and provide data on risks to workers. The source says NIOSH could also push EPA and FDA to impose new data requirements through the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a federal research group in which the three agencies participate.
Data Requirements
CFS has long pressed EPA to bolster data requirements on companies using nanoscale materials. EPA in a March 2015 response to an advocates' petition, agreed that nanosilver may pose different human health or environmental risks than conventional silver but rejected calls to regulate all products containing nanosilver under federal pesticide law.
Additionally, researchers, including Elaine Faustman, of the University of Washington, who has served on federal scientific advisory panels, are urging NIOSH to reconsider a REL for nanosilver to protect workers from potential liver and lung effects until new data becomes available.
In March 21 comments, Faustman and Brittany Weldon challenge the NIOSH assertion that the human data show no adverse effects to liver and lung, suggesting confounding factors may mask less specific effects, and that women may be more sensitive to nanosilver exposure than men who are the focus of most occupational studies.
"Many of the occupational studies cited by NIOSH are oriented around male workers," the researchers say. "Additionally, potential reproductive endpoints have been supported by the literature that are not considered in these studies but may be of concern for female workers of childbearing age."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/niosh-forgoes-novel-limit-nanosilver-citing-insufficient-risk-data
-
May 16, 2016 | Forbes
By Steven Savage
I like to write about examples of innovation because such stories are behind many of the things we enjoy in modern life. The pace of innovation today is extraordinary, but it is definitely not unique to our era. It has been central to human civilization from the start. I recently learned about an example of a bio-materials innovation in England 100 years ago. It had to do with a strategic need for certain chemicals during WWI. Today there is a new company called Green Biologics which is employing the latest tools of biotechnology to engineer an improved means of producing those same bio-based chemicals. It is a great example of Innovation 2.0.
The products in question here have the very chemical-sounding names of n-butanol and acetone, but these are compounds that occur widely in nature. Acetone is produced by most plants and animals including humans. You might be most familiar with it as a solvent used in nail polish remover. n-Butanol is less familiar but a simple derivative (butyl-acetate) is an important flavor in many fruits such as apples (it is particularly prevalent in the Red Delicious apple) and is a common added flavorant in food ingredients.
More importantly, both n-butanol and acetone are important starting materials to make more complex materials like plastics, coatings, paints, inks, adhesives, safety glass, orthopedic and cosmetic implants (for some specific examples see the end of the post).
For decades, acetone and n-butanol have been made almost exclusively from petrochemicals because that was the cheapest source. However, the way these chemicals were first made in the early 1900s was biologically from renewable carbon sources. The driving need was to have acetone to turn into “cordite” for use as “smokeless gun powder.” In the trench warfare of World War I, it was very important to make it hard for the enemy to spot the sources of rifle and cannon fire.
Unfortunately, the Allies lacked access to a sufficient supply of acetone at that time. A Russian immigrant named Chaim Weizman, who was a chemist and lecturer at the University of Manchester, developed the “ABE process” in 1916. It was a fermentation of the bacterium Clostridium acetobutylicum yielding acetone, n-butanol and ethanol (US Patent 1,315,585). The process came to represent a major contribution to the allied cause. That very same Chaim Weizman later went on to become the founder of theWeizman Institute and the first president of Israel.
Now, 100+ years after Weizman’s innovation, Green Biologics has further innovated the system for producing bio-based acetone and n-butanol. This is desirable for downstream customers wanting to claim the use of “green” materials, but the bio-sourced versions often have other advantages in terms of the purity. They are also becoming cost-competitive with oil-based sources. For its part, Green Biologics has used modern genetic engineering methods to optimize their Clostridium strains including the use of their own version of the powerful CRISPR gene-editing tool which Green Biologics calls CLEAVE™. They have also developed a “modified batch system” of fermentation that strips out the butanol rich broth from the fermenter and extends the productivity to over 4 times that of standard batch reactions. The end result is longer, more efficient, and more cost competitive production runs.
reen Biologics’ first commercial scale plant is going to be in an existing 21MGPY corn ethanol facility in Little Falls, Minnesota. The plant was originally built with farmer investment in the bioethanol business. With the current, competitive nature of the ethanol market, and the under sized capacity of the plant, the cooperative decided to sell the plant to Green Biologics in 2013 in a creative financing deal that closed in December 2014. Around 35% of the farmers rolled their investment into the new n-butanol plant with Green Biologics.
As I’ve written before, the farming community has a legitimate interest in diversifying end-use options for their crop, and green-chemistry like this is an even more attractive option than bioethanol. Ultimately, if the market for Green Biologics’ products grow, they will have the option of tapping into other bio-based feed-stocks such as woody biomass, bagasse, palm waste etc.
The ABE process which Weismann innovated 100 years ago certainly has an interesting history. It is now entering a chapter 2.0. (some specific examples are on the next page)
Additional Information: Some Specific Bio-Based Materials That Can Come From The GreenBiologics System
Butyl acrylate, for example, is a common and major derivative of n-butanol, an ester of n-butanol and acrylic acid. Acrylates are backbone monomers used in paints and coatings, pressure sensitive adhesives, plastics, and other polymer applications. Butyl glycol ethers are another large market, and are used in household and industrial cleaning products (like surface cleaners), water based paint where it’s a coalescing solvent that helps the components of the paint mix together, and even higher performance applications like aircraft brake fluids and solar panel heat transfer fluids. Acetone is common in cosmetics and paints, but is also used to make various polymers and monomers used in automotive and aircraft interiors, medical equipment and other applications.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2016/05/16/an-example-of-innovation-2-0/#7323f6b259dd
-
EPA Trying to Work Around Stay -- House Republicans
May 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans accused U.S. EPA today of "taking steps to circumvent" the Supreme Court's stay on the Clean Power Plan.
In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and other Republican committee leaders questioned EPA's decision to continue helping states that want to implement the program.
Republicans also took issue with the agency moving forward on related regulatory activity, including the Clean Energy Incentive Program, which awards states that move early to promote renewable energy and efficiency. EPA recently sent the program to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.
"The agency's decision to move forward with a shadow regulatory structure to implement the Clean Power Plan presents several obvious concerns," wrote Upton, Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), and Oversight and Investigations Chairman Tim Murphy (R-Pa.).
In a 5-4 decision less than a week before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court froze EPA's program for addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants until massive litigation is resolved. While EPA cannot legally enforce the Clean Power Plan, experts and EPA say the agency has some leeway to continue at least some implementation activities (Greenwire, Feb. 18).
This is not the first time Republicans have questioned EPA's work related to the Clean Power Plan since the stay. In March, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) wrote he had similar concerns about the agency's activity (E&E Daily, March 11).
In their letter today, the Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans asked EPA to respond to six questions by May 27 that cover EPA's legal basis for proceeding with the Clean Energy Incentive Program and resources that EPA has expended on related rulemakings and guidance for states since the stay.
"From the very first weeks following the order," they wrote, "EPA has been taking steps that circumvent the Court's stay and potentially undermine the relief provided by the stay in the first place."
EPA spokeswoman Laura Allen said the agency would review and respond to the letter. She also said sending the agency's Clean Energy Incentive Program to OMB was a "routine step."
"Many states and tribes have indicated that they plan to move forward voluntarily to work to cut carbon pollution from power plants," Allen said in an email, "and have asked the agency to continue providing support and developing tools that may support those efforts, including the CEIP."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/05/13/stories/1060037255
-
U.S. Energy Chief: Texas Should Develop Clean Power Plan
May 13, 2016 | Texas Tribune (In Real Clear Energy)
By Jim Malewitz
When Ernest Moniz looks at Texas, he sees groundbreaking energy research and innovation — and not only related to oil and gas: wind, solar and battery technology that could bolster the reliability of those renewable resources, too.
“The kind of innovation shown here is certainly very important for the whole country,” the U.S. energy secretary said this week at the University of Texas at Austin. “I know Houston claims to be the energy capital of the world, but I think Texas has a broader role.”
Moniz, a nuclear physicist who has overseen the Department of Energy since 2013, was speaking at a Quadrennial Energy Review gathering, his administration's periodic deep-diveinto pressing issues concerning the nation’s power sector.
With its know-how, Moniz suggested, Texas can play a major role in shrinking the country’s carbon dioxide footprint and addressing climate change. If it chooses to.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Texas Tribune, the energy secretary discussed Texas officials’ resistance to the federal Clean Power Plan, which the U.S. Supreme Court has blocked as a legal challenge winds through court.
He also chatted about a West Texas company’s effort to store high-level radioactive waste currently sitting at nuclear power plants and what — if anything — can be done to protect the grid against an out-of-this world threat that some Texas lawmakers fear: electromagnetic pulse.
The following is an edited and condensed transcript of the interview.
TT: We’ve been closely following the legal saga of the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s state-by-state effort to address climate change by curbing carbon dioxide — the greenhouse gas. Last year, you accompanied the delegation that negotiated the international climate accord in Paris, and the Clean Power Plan is considered a major part of our country’s commitment to curb emissions. Texas’ Republican leadership maintains that the regulations, if they do survive in court, would cost billions of dollars to implement and threaten reliability on the electric grid. Would the standards be as difficult to meet as they suggest?
Moniz: We are very confident about the Clean Power Plan’s legal foundations. Many states — not all states, clearly — are continuing to develop implementation plans. I want to emphasize the extraordinary flexibility that the EPA has built into the system. We have a lot of confidence in letting the states use the flexibility to have both reliability and cost reduction. And the expectation is for considerable energy efficiency gains that could end up helping households ultimately save on energy costs. States, in our view, should get on with the planning.
TT: Texas officials have adamantly said they won’t prepare a plan for if they lose in court. They say it would be silly for Texas to expend the resources in constructing a plan, in case it gets struck down. Do you think that’s foolish?
Moniz: I’m not going to characterize it in those terms, but such planning, in my view, is a good investment. In the Paris results, you have every country in the world basically saying we’re going to lower carbon dioxide emissions. And Texas is part of a much bigger national and international phenomenon of rapidly growing a clean energy technology marketplace. The Paris accord is going to give that another big jump globally. We’re talking about trillions of dollars in a clean energy marketplace. That’s a reality, and I think there’s a lot of prudence in trying to get one's self well-positioned in that marketplace.
TT: If the justices do strike down the Clean Power Plan, would that deliver a heavy blow to the U.S. position on international climate policy? What if we’re saying we want other countries to lower their emissions, and our own effort falls apart?
Moniz: I’m not going to get into a hypothetical about something I don’t expect. But I will note that the Clean Power Plan is one of many important elements of the White House’s Climate Action Plan. One Department of Energy program that gets a lot less attention, but is enormous, is our role in setting efficiency standards for appliances and equipment — electric motors, heating and cooling systems and the like. We have picked up the pace pretty significantly. Take the efficiency rules that have been put in place and those we project to be put in place in the next nine months. By 2030, their cumulative impact would be north of $500 billion in consumer energy cost savings, and they would help us to cut carbon dioxide emissions by about 3 gigatons. It’s a big number, and it’s got nothing to do with the Clean Power Plan.
TT: Waste Control Specialists recently applied for a license to store spent nuclear reactor fuel at its facility in West Texas — pitching it as a temporary solution to the problem of finding a final resting place for the highly radioactive waste. Do you see on the horizon any permanent solution for that waste, and might Texas play a role?
Moniz: The key, we believe, is that success comes only through a consent-based process. And that’s a problem. As part of an overall waste management system, the dry casks entering consolidated storage [as would happen under the Waste Control Specialists proposal] should be part of the solution. Ultimately, we need a geologic repository for commercial spent fuel, but even with that, consolidated above ground storage is a sensible part of a plan. Waste Control Specialists came forward, and we think the idea of doing it through a privatively funded facility is extremely interesting. And I’m encouraged by their application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In Congress, there are some very strong supporters, and not only from Texas.
TT: If the commission grants the company a permit, would Congress still need to act to make the project a reality?
Moniz: Clearly, there needs to be some congressional action. For example, how’s it going to be paid for?
TT: Texas Sen. Bob Hall, R-Edgewood, recently held a two-day summit on some unconventional threats: electromagnetic pulse attacks — the frying of our electric grid by detonating a nuclear bomb above our atmosphere — and solar storms that could inflict similar damage naturally. Describing various doomsday scenarios, speakers at the conference suggested that officials weren’t doing enough to protect the grid against these threats, and that we should be spending more money on them. Do you see these sorts of phenomena as major threats?
Moniz: Well, there’s a spectrum here, right? From geomagnetic storms, for example, to nuclear weapons detonated at an altitude — these are quite a spectrum of electromagnetic phenomena. We are working on these. The fundamental issue we’re focused on right now is the protection of transformers. We have a set of sensors we’ve supported here in Texas that deal with these kinds of geomagnetic phenomena. And historically, there have been examples of interference from this. So it’s a real phenomenon. In terms of something like nuclear blasts, lets just say this is a very low probability, very high consequence event. It doesn’t occupy a large portion of our agency’s time, but we are looking at what can be done.
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/13/moniz-despite-court-stay-texas-should-develop-clea/?utm_source=texastribune.org&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=Tribune%20Feed:%20Jim%20Malewitz
-
Let's End Arctic and Atlantic Offshore Leasing Forever, Not 5 Years at a Time
May 16, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Frances Beinecke
In the coming months, President Obama will decide whether to open U.S. Arctic waters for new oil and gas leases over the next 5 years.
He should not. In fact, he should protect our Arctic and Atlantic waters for all time.
The Arctic is one of the planet’s most pristine places. Along the Chukchi and Beaufort seas lies a profusion of marine life—walruses, polar bears, migratory birds, beluga whales and abundant fisheries—all indicators of its rich and productive ecosystem. Opening this unique place to drilling is not worth harming our climate or risking a major spill.
I have witnessed moments in the course of the environmental movement when one single action can radically change what is possible.
The movement was born at such a moment—when Rachel Carson’s 1962 manifesto, Silent Spring, set the chemical industry back on its heels with claims about the harms of DDT. President Kennedy ordered an investigation. That led to a ban on the powerful pesticide. It transformed perceptions about the need to regulate industry.
This is one of those times.
Two months ago, in a bold reversal, the Interior Department excluded the Atlantic Ocean—wholesale—from its proposed 5-year leasing program.
But the plan still proposes drilling in the Arctic.
And without permanent protection, the administration’s plan won’t preserve these two areas into the future.
This is a moment when the President can define our national priorities for a clean energy future:
What energy sources will America tap, knowing everything we know about the threats to our climate and coastal communities? Should we jeopardize sensitive coastal waters—held in the public trust—to the risks of new offshore oil and gas operations?
President Obama and his administration have an unprecedented record of leading on climate:
Last August, the Environmental Protection Agency set the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants.
In November, President Obama rejected the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project.
In Paris last December, the U.S. joined a 195-nation accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In January, the administration halted coal leasing on federal lands.
These are groundbreaking moves.
But if we heed climate science, here’s the reality:
We have to do more, and we have to do it fast.
Alaska is warming twice as fast as the rest of the country. In less than 30 years, the Arctic may be stripped of its protective summer ice. Its native communities suffer as permafrost melts beneath their homes. The Arctic as we know it will change irreversibly in the decades ahead. We need to act now to protect its fragility, not magnify the risks.
The United States is already experiencing sea-level rise and extreme weather. We are resettling “climate refugees” from the Louisiana coast. Climate change poses global threats of mass migrations, food and water shortages and other national security risks.
If we approved Arctic drilling today, it would take nearly 30 years to bring that oil to market. That’s reckless and self-defeating: We will need to have transitioned away from fossil fuels long before then. Sinking infrastructure into drilling would “lock in” carbon pollution far into the future.
The U.S. must signal its full commitment to clean energy now, instead of expanding our investment of citizen-owned waters in the fossil fuels that drive climate change. If we make the right choices, we can wean ourselves off dirty energy, and embrace sources that won’t heat the planet and threaten human well-being across the globe.
And we can do it: Today, wind and sun comprise roughly 70% of all new electric generating capacity built in the U.S.
Those sources have lower risks than fossil fuels. Arctic drilling is dangerous, and oil companies are no match for the risks of a spill there. Atlantic drilling, likewise, would bring unacceptable threats to endangered whales, fish and shellfish—along with the habitats that support them. Local communities oppose industrializing their coast and putting their tourism and fishing economies at risk of a major spill.
President Obama can end these threats on his watch.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act empowers him to “withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf”—for any reason, for all time.
Presidents from Eisenhower to Clinton used this tool to withdraw areas off of Florida, California, and the Atlantic coast, among other places. President Obama used it to protect Bristol Bay in Alaska. And he should use it again.
Great leaders, faced with hard choices, can change history.
The next logical step—in leaving a truly historic legacy on climate—is for President Obama to withdraw the Arctic and Atlantic from drilling, forever.
Frances Beinecke is a director of the Prospect Hill Foundation and a guest lecturer at Yale. She served as president of the Natural Resources Defense Council from 2006 to 2015.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/279889-lets-end-arctic-and-atlantic-offshore-leasing-forever
-
U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Use Fall
May 16, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Energy-related U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide fell 12% from 2005 to 2015, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Nearly 70% of these reductions were driven by electricity-generating plants shifting from coal to natural gas, which releases about half as much CO2 as coal when burned.
The rest of the decline was a result of energy efficiency in homes, industry, and transportation; growing use of renewable energy; and milder weather, says EIA’s Paul Holtberg. Overall, energy-related activities were responsible for more than 80% of U.S. CO2 emissions.
The drop in energy sector CO2 emissions came despite a 15% growth in the U.S. economy over the same period, EIA reports. In fact, U.S. CO2 emissions fell by 23% per unit of gross domestic product, says Holtberg, who credits transportation and home appliance efficiency as well as a general shift to less energy-intensive industrial production.
Holtberg predicts, however, that energy-related CO2 emissions are likely to stabilize in the near term, along with natural gas prices, which are expected to flatten. The country’s trend away from coal matches global trends, but EIA’s report shows a greater U.S. CO2 decline.
CO2 emissions may rise for the U.S. chemical industry as it increases output to take advantage of cheap, abundant natural gas, Holtberg says. However, new U.S. chemical plants are likely to be more efficient than and draw production from older, less efficient facilities in other parts of the world. The result, he says, could be greater U.S. CO2 emissions but lower global CO2 emissions.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i20/US-carbon-dioxide-emissions-energy.html
-
Utilities Seek Workaround to Broaden CO2 Trading Options
May 16, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Elizabeth Harball and Emily Holden
The Electric Power Research Institute is doing preliminary modeling on how states that pick different kinds of carbon-trading systems under the Clean Power Plan might be able to link those systems.
EPRI is looking at whether states that cap emissions could trade with states that aim for an average rate of emissions while still achieving U.S. EPA's carbon-reduction goals.
EPA has said it will prohibit states that pick a mass-based target from trading with states that pick a rate-based target, but many utilities hope the agency could revise that stance.
In a presentation at the ENV-VISION conference last week in Washington, D.C., Vic Niemeyer, a senior technical executive with EPRI, said a number of utilities, including Oglethorpe Power Corp. and Southern Co., would like EPA to consider developing a way for the two types of trading systems to mesh.
"The people who are proposing this are not trying to make a buck," Niemeyer said. "They're worried about being boxed in."
Based on early modeling, EPRI concluded this could make it cheaper for utilities that want to enter into cross-state carbon-trading systems to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
"After spending three months thinking about this, simulating this ... this seems to be a viable thing to consider," Niemeyer said.
At the EPRI conference, some expressed concerns that allowing trading between rate- and mass-based states would mean fewer total emissions reductions -- this is why EPA instituted the restriction in the first place.
Niemeyer acknowledged allowing rate- and mass-based states to trade with each other "does have an impact on total CO2," but he argued it was a modest increase under the models EPRI has run so far.
Today in San Francisco, the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law and the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at Berkeley Law host a discussion on legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan.
Tomorrow, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will hold a webinar on modeling on Clean Power Plan options, from the Bipartisan Policy Center and the American Wind Energy Association. MPCA will hold an in-person meeting on May 24.
On Wednesday, the North Carolina Energy Policy Council will meet in Raleigh. E4 Carolinas President David Doctor will speak about a clean energy stakeholder engagement process.
On Thursday, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy will hold a webinar on energy savings possibilities for the industrial sector. The Regulatory Assistance Project will host a webinar on designing and managing carbon markets.
In case you missed it:
· The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce is pushing for efficiency and clean energy investments, despite Utah's lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan (OnPoint, May 10).
· Kansas is barring state agencies from moving forward on the rule (ClimateWire, May 10).
· Ahead of next month's showdown, lawyers previewed their courtroom arguments in a Chicago classroom (Greenwire, May 9).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060037282
-
Protesters Seek Switch to Renewable Energy Sources
May 16, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Christin Nance Lazerus
Lorrell Kilpatrick remembers growing up in the New Addition neighborhood of East Chicago and how off-putting it was for visitors to see BP oil tanks nearby.
"A row of oil tanks was right outside the living room window of our house," Kilpatrick told several hundred people at the Break Free Midwest environmental protest Sunday afternoon in Whiting Lakefront Park. "My aunt used to say people would come to visit her and they would be so nervous … that one visitor would run to the window and constantly look out the window because he just could not believe that people would live with dozens of oil tanks right in their backyards.
"But that's life for people right here in Northwest Indiana."
Kilpatrick, a leader with Black Lives Matter Northwest Indiana, and others spoke of the health and environmental challenges for those who live among heavy industry in Northwest Indiana and elsewhere in the Midwest during a protest aimed at BP Whiting Refinery and other fossil fuel producers. They also spoke about the need to fight projects in their own backyards — from pipelines to fracking to petcoke dumping.\
The Break Free Midwest event is one of several organized across the world to urge energy companies to make the switch to more renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar. Beyond Northwest Indiana, attendees hailed from Louisville, Ky., Michigan and Illinois.
Olga Bautista, who is coordinator for the Chicago Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke, said individuals may feel powerless when going up against multibillion dollar companies when trying to protect their families and communities from the effects of pollution, but her experience shows that you can fight and win.
"It all starts with the rank and file," Bautista said. "The best commodity we have is ourselves."
Peoria, Ill., resident Joyce Harant wanted to attend the event since she is active with a southern Illinois anti-fracking group and in attempts to shut down a coal-fired power plant.
"It's always energizing to go to events like these," Harant said. "You see all of these faces and get a sense that you're not alone in these fights. There's a kinship of brotherhood and sisterhood. We all face the same battles; there are just different faces."
Since finishing a $4 billion upgrade, BP Whiting Refinery has shifted most of its refining from light, sweet crude to heavy oil sands from Alberta, Canada. It is the largest processor of tar sands oil in the United States. A processing error in March 2014 dumped as much as 1,600 gallons of oil into Lake Michigan.
The rally was followed by a large march toward the BP Whiting Refinery. Some protesters held parts of a pipeline, while others held were held signs reading "Wind and Solar" and "A Carbon Free Future."
Police were visible near the entrances to the park, and they blocked off vehicle traffic on Indianapolis Boulevard between Schrage Avenue and 129th Street in anticipation of the protesters' march route.
Protest spokesman Thomas Frank, of East Chicago, said 41 people were arrested and charged with misdemeanor criminal trespassing at the end of the demonstration. Frank, who himself was arrested himself, said about two-thirds of those arrested were released by Sunday night.
Whiting Police Chief Steve Miller said several protesters were arrested for staging a sit-in just past the refinery's main entrance on 129th Street. Miller could not provide an exact number of arrests, but said four police wagons two Lake County and two East Chicago Police Department wagons were deployed at his department's request. The protesters were booked and held in the East Chicago City Jail because of space constraints. They have since have been released and will be tried in Whiting City Court, he said.
"We talked to (the protesters) beforehand and told them to stay off the property," Miller said. "They were peaceful, though, and didn't cause further trouble."
The event was organized by 350.org, Citizens Climate Lobby, the Sierra Club's Chicago and Indiana chapters, Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands, National Nurses United, Southeast Environmental Task Force, and other groups.
Freelance reporter Michelle L. Quinn contributed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-bp-protest-march-st-0516-20160516-story.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical ISAC Poised to Expand Amid Push by All Sectors for More Info-Sharing
May 16, 2016 | Inside Cybersecurity
By Rick Weber
The chemical industry's information-sharing and analysis center, or ISAC, is seeking input from potential contractors on plans to expand beyond a current pilot project that has been operating for about a year, according to industry officials. The chemical industry ISAC, led by the American Chemistry Council, is expecting to hear back by the end the month on a “request for proposals” to expand the group's info-sharing operations beyond the six companies participating in the pilot, according to the officials. The request is the next step in a process that will eventually open up the info-sharing group to all ACC members.
The chem-ISAC is seeking input from “outside providers to other ISACs” to “use their expertise” in expanding info-sharing of cyber threats for a broader segment of the industry, according to an official with ACC, which is the national association for chemical companies. The chemical industry's efforts to establish and expand its ISAC operations is part of a national trend among critical industries with diverse sectors including aviation and legal services having recently created their own ISACs. The push for more sector-based ISACs comes as the Obama administration is encouraging the development of information-sharing and analysis organizations, or ISAOs, under an executive order issued early last year to address cyber threats that transcend specific industry sectors.
The proliferation of ISACs and an emerging ISAO process are creating some concern and confusion among industry officials who wonder how all this information sharing will be coordinated. “I guess we'll know pretty soon how all of this is supposed to work,” said one industry official, referring to a meeting this week in Anaheim, CA, by an ISAO standards-writing group. The ISAO standards body is operating under a grant by the Department of Homeland Security to develop guidelines for creating and operating info-sharing groups under an Obama order issued in February 2015.
“There's already a lot of coordinating going on among the sector ISACs,” said an industry source when asked about the possibility of cross-sector standards, or protocols, for sharing cyber threat indicators. The source said the ISAC has been following the “traffic light” protocol – established by the Financial Services ISAC – to determine what information to share with outside groups and how to share it.
The chemical industry ISAC is looking to “scale up” to include all 36 member companies of ACC's Chemical Information Technology Center. That expansion is expected to happen “within a year,” according to an ACC official. Membership in the chemical industry ISAC is expected to be opened up to all ACC companies – about 150 – within two years, according to industry officials.
https://insidecybersecurity.com/daily-briefs/chemical-isac-poised-expand-amid-push-all-sectors-more-info-sharing
-
May 15, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Editorial Board
A bill to hold oil interests liable for rail and terminal accidents is pending in the state Senate.
What's the priority, public safety or an industry's profits?
An ordinary mid-sized car weighs an average one-and-a-half tons and holds about 15 gallons of gasoline.
A DOT-111 rail tank car can weigh some 130 tons and hold, depending on design, upwards of 34,500 gallons of crude oil.
It doesn't take a physicist to recognize the huge difference in the destructive power of an automobile and a train of oil tank cars. But the truly astounding difference is this: You must have insurance to legally drive a car, but an oil train requires none.
For the third year in a row, Assembly member Patricia Fahy, D-Albany, is proposing legislation to require companies that ship or store crude oil to put up financial guarantees that they'll cover the damage caused by an accident such as a spill or a fire.
That tab could be in the millions or billions, depending on the nature of the accident and where it happens. Consider the cost of a 2013 disaster in Lac Megantic, Quebec, which has about one-sixteenth the population of Albany. A runaway train carrying Bakken crude derailed and exploded, killing 47 and destroying the village center. Local officials have estimated the total cost to rebuild at $2.7 billion.
Those who are reaping the profits of rail oil transport aren't keen on Ms. Fahy's bill.
We've seen this clash between public safety and energy interests before. When companies first proposed bringing high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing to New York in order to tap the natural gas-rich Marcellus Shale, they initially eyed land within New York City's upstate watershed. We asked industry representatives if companies would be willing to put up a bond to cover the estimated $10 billion cost of a water filtration system for New York City should the aquifers or reservoirs become contaminated with fracking fluid. Their answer was, essentially, no way.
Even before New York rejected fracking altogether in the state, New York City's watershed went off the table, and rightly so. The industry has fought mightily to deny responsibility elsewhere for water contamination and earthquakes.
The same underlying question applies to oil trains: Will an industry looking to make a fortune in New York assure the public that it will clean up any mess it makes, or pay for any damage it might cause?
This is not a theoretical question. Train derailments (oil trains or otherwise) have been rising for years, reaching 1,321 nationwide in 2015. As Ms. Fahy points out, traffic into Albany would likely increase if the twin Pilgrim pipelines from here to New Jersey are allowed, especially now that a federal ban on petroleum exports has been lifted.
Canada recognized the risk. It now requires railroads carrying crude oil to have up to $1 billion in insurance, and imposed a tax that would go to an accident emergency fund.
Though the state Assembly has passed Ms. Fahy's bill, the Senate — where it died the last two years — has yet to act. Senators should take a lead from Canada, and put people before profits.
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Editorial-Big-oil-means-big-liability-7469978.php
-
52 Climate Activists Arrested in Washington Railroad Protest
May 15, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)
Authorities cleared the railroad tracks of protesters and arrested 52 climate activists Sunday morning in Washington state, after a two-day shutdown.
About 150 people spent the night in tents and sleeping bags on the tracks near two refineries in northwest Washington, according to BNSF Railway spokesman Gus Melonas.
They were asked to leave at about 5 a.m. and most gathered their belongings and left the area near Anacortes, Melonas said.
"It was peaceful," he said. "Eighty percent removed their belongings and cleared out."
The 52 people arrested were cited for trespassing, according to the Skagit County Department of Emergency Management. One person was also cited for resisting arrest.
Skagit County Sheriff Will Reichardt said that before anyone was arrested, officers advised protesters that they could move to another designated location and demonstrate.
A spokeswoman for the protesters said she expected everyone arrested would be processed and released from police custody.
Emily Johnston said protests would continue around Anacortes on Sunday, but she didn't expect people to return to the railroad tracks.
Johnston, who had participated in a blockade of the Seattle harbor to protest Shell Oil's plans to drill for oil in the Arctic, said the success of protests like the one in Anacortes can mostly be seen in the way they inspire people to speak out about climate change.
"People power matters," Johnston said.
She also spoke about the contrast between arresting people for protesting about saving the planet and the lack of government action against the fossil fuel industry.
"We really need to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable," Johnston said.
The rail line has been closed since Friday because of the protests, and trains will begin running again Sunday afternoon after a cleanup and safety sweep of the tracks, he said.
Protesters in kayaks, canoes, on bikes and on foot also took place in demonstrations near Anacortes, about 70 miles north of Seattle, to demand action on climate and an equitable transition away from fossil fuels such as oil and coal.
Hundreds marched to the refineries Saturday and a smaller group blocked the railroad, all demanding energy policy changes. The railroad knew about the protest in advance and rerouted rail traffic to avoid the area.
The railroad spur provides rail transportation for the nearby Shell and Tesoro oil refineries, as well as animal feed and other products.
The protests are part of a series of global actions calling on people to "break free" from dependence on fossil fuels. Similar demonstrations were held around the country during the weekend.
In upstate New York, climate activists gathered Saturday at a crude-oil shipment hub on the Hudson River in an action targeting crude-by-rail trains and oil barges at the Port of Albany. A group of activists sat on tracks used by crude oil trains headed to the port. Albany is a key hub for crude-by-rail shipments from North Dakota's Bakken Shale region.
In Washington state, organizers targeted two refineries that are among the top sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Tesoro has started shipping Bakken crude oil to its refinery, and Shell is proposing an expansion project that would similarly bring in Bakken crude oil by train.
Officials with Shell and Tesoro said in earlier statements that they respect the right of people to demonstrate peacefully, and that safety is their highest priority.
Crowd estimates of Saturday's march ranged from several hundred to about 1,000 people, Skagit County spokeswoman Bronlea Mishler said.
Bud Ullman, 67, who lives on Guemes Island, participated in the march, which he described as good-spirited, peaceful.
"The scientists are right. We have to get away from our dependence on fossil fuels, and it has to be done in a way that takes into serious consideration the impact on workers, families and communities," he said.
Many of the nearly 40 groups involved in organizing the event also participated in large on-water kayak protests against Shell's Arctic oil drilling rig when it parked last year at a Seattle port.
AP reporter Phuong Le contributed to this report.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/05/15/us/ap-us-anti-oil-protests.html?ref=aponline&_r=0
-
Court Clashes Put Obama's Enviro Legacy in Limbo
May 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
When President Obama moves out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. next January, his environmental legacy won't be entirely clear.
As his administration winds down, some of its blockbuster air and water regulations remain mired in court fights that are unlikely to end until well after the Obama team has packed up. That means the fate of some of the president's biggest rules -- ranging from limiting greenhouse gases from power plants to a major water rule and national smog limits -- could be determined by judges or the next occupant of the White House.
It's typical for presidents to leave office with outstanding regulatory business before the courts. But the Obama administration ushered in hefty environmental rules that quickly fueled major court battles. Some of those rules have been frozen by federal judges, adding to the uncertainty.
"I would be very surprised if there's ever been this many major rules pending in court" at the end of an administration, said Jeff Holmstead, an industry attorney at Bracewell who served as U.S. EPA's top air regulator during the George W. Bush administration.
"I don't think we'll really know what the bottom line is on this for a couple of years," said Bob Sussman, a former top EPA official in both the Obama and Clinton administrations. "We have all of this stuff up in the air."
Obama and his top environmental staffers will watch from the sidelines as it all plays out.
"Obviously there's some frustration there, because when you leave, you want to feel that you've finished the job," Sussman said. "If there are these unresolved pieces, then you can't completely say that."
Government employees -- particularly career staffers who have worked through multiple administrations -- "understand that this is a fact of life," Sussman said. As for Obama's political staffers, they're "certainly going to be interested in what happens after they're gone," he added.
Some of the highest-profile rules still in limbo: the Clean Power Plan and Clean Water Rule, aimed -- respectively -- at slashing power plants' greenhouse gas emissions and defining which waters are subject to Clean Water Act permitting.
Both rules drew heavy fire from states and industry groups and are expected to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court after Obama leaves office. And both have been stalled by judges while the litigation plays out. Freezing rules often signals that judges think challengers are likely to prevail, but the government and its allies insist they're on firm legal footing in both cases.
There is much at stake with both stalled policies. EPA pegs the cost of the Clean Power Plan at about $8 billion annually in 2030, when the rule would be fully in place. The agency also estimates that the benefits of the rule -- based in part on reductions of soot- and smog-forming pollutants -- will be worth between $34 billion and $54 billion per year in 2030.
The administration has touted the water rule from EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers as a major step toward offering regulatory certainty while protecting drinking water and waterways. A wide range of industries, meanwhile, contend that the regulation will cause massive economic harm and does little to clear up widespread confusion about water permitting.
The Clean Power Plan case is now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with oral arguments slated for next month and a decision likely later this year. That decision could then face appeals in the D.C. Circuit before likely being appealed to the Supreme Court. A ruling from the high court isn't expected until 2017 or possibly even 2018.
Federal courts haven't yet tackled the merits of the challenges against the water rule, as courts across the country have been grappling with where those cases belong. Litigation over that rule is also seen as a likely contender for Supreme Court review, although it could take a year or more before that case has worked its way through the legal system, with a possible decision from the high court in 2017 or 2018.
Those rules aren't alone in awaiting court action.
EPA's ozone standard, which was finalized last fall, is being challenged by industry and environmentalists alike in the D.C. Circuit. That rule's estimated price tag is $1.4 billion per year nationwide in 2025 in all states except California, according to the agency. EPA estimates the benefits will be between $2.9 billion and $5.9 billion per year by 2025.
States, industries and environmental and public health groups have been ordered to submit their final legal arguments to the D.C. Circuit by September in that case, which may be among those still pending when Obama leaves office.
The Bureau of Land Management is also defending its rule for hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands in court against challenges from states, industry and the Ute Tribe. Lawsuits over that rule are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, as is a related battle at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the government is trying to reverse the district court's decision to freeze the rule during litigation. The district court's decision questioned whether BLM has any authority over fracking on public lands (EnergyWire, April 20).
Also looming is a likely legal fight over new EPA rules aimed at curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas operations (Greenwire, May 12).
The final methane rules were announced last week and -- like most major environmental rules -- will likely be challenged in court by critics with lawsuits still pending when the administration departs.
Those are just some of the many environmental rules still subject to court battles that could drag into the next administration, according to legal experts.
'Key rules could be undone'
For administration officials who have toiled over those rules, "it's very frustrating" to leave while they're still in legal limbo, Holmstead said.
"I'm sure that [EPA Administrator] Gina McCarthy and everyone else is very aware that some of their key rules could be undone if there's a Republican administration," he added. "That's especially true if they're still pending in court."
A Democrat who wins the presidency in November would likely support the pending environmental rules and continue to play defense in court. If Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, wins, he could reverse course and stop defending the regulations in court.
The Obama administration took advantage of pending legal fights over major Bush administration environmental rules.
Take, for example, a case over a contentious Bush-era rule to limit toxic air pollution from power plants.
The D.C. Circuit invalidated the Clean Air Mercury Rule in 2008 after critics argued it wasn't stringent enough. The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling in October 2008, just a few months before leaving office.
In the early weeks of the Obama administration -- in February 2009 -- government attorneys asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the request from the Bush EPA and utilities to hear the appeal. Obama attorneys said EPA planned to change course, requiring tougher plant-specific pollution limits instead of the more flexible cap-and-trade approach used by the Bush administration.
Later that month, the high court denied industry's request to reconsider the lower court's move to toss out the rule.
Even if the D.C. Circuit had upheld the mercury rule and it was being challenged by environmentalists before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration could have simply said, "We're not going to defend this rule," Holmstead said. "If the rule is still pending, it's easier for them to just undo it."
"Each administration -- whether they're Republican or Democratic -- is keenly aware of the clock and the possibility of having their legacy reversed more easily if it is still pending in either the courts or the Federal Register office," said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"There are opportunities to reverse course in pending court cases that stakeholders on all sides are very mindful of," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/16/stories/1060037310
-
Why Even People Who are Very Alarmed About Climate Change Often Take Little Action
May 16, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
When it comes to encouraging action against climate change, getting the public to care about the issue — or just believe it exists — is a primary preoccupation for scientists and activists. But it turns out that even people who are the most worried about the problem are often not taking much public action about it.
And that includes mega-climate-worriers in Vermont, the home state of both Bernie Sanders and climate campaigner Bill McKibben.
A new study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that even members of the public who are “alarmed” about a warming planet show relatively low levels of public-sphere action, such as volunteering or protesting. The paper then sought to get to the bottom of why that is, investigating “what drives public actions of the certain segment of the population that’s already really concerned about climate change,” said Kathryn Doherty, a research associate at the Social and Environmental Research Institute (SERI) in Massachusetts and lead author of the paper.
She and co-author Thomas Webler, also of SERI, concluded that a person’s sense of how active people around them are being about climate change — as well as how effective they think their own actions are — are some of the most important drivers. In other words, people may be alarmed, but they could also be isolated or feeling despair — and if they don’t think they have the power to do anything, or aren’t in a social network that empowers them, then they simply won’t do something.
The research takes, as its starting point, a 2009 report published by a group of Yale researchers, which divided the American public into six segments based on levels of concern about the threat of climate change. These range from the least concerned, “dismissive” segment to the most concerned, “alarmed” segment.
The new study focuses specifically on the “alarmed” segment. The problem with this group, the researchers explain, is that while they might engage in high levels of private or household activities aimed at combating global warming — things like conserving energy and reducing household carbon footprints — they don’t do much publicly, such as lobbying or advocating.
Citing previous research, the study notes that “during a 12-month period, only a third of the alarmed group donated money to organizations working to reduce climate change, and a mere 29 percent contacted government officials about climate change.”
This has important implications for the future of climate policy, Doherty noted. “Without a concerted national policy effort, private individual behavior can only go so far,” she said in a follow-up email to The Washington Post. “Governments possess greater leverage for mitigation because they can implement policies that restructure choices available to millions of people and organizations, but it is unlikely that the U.S. will adopt future ambitious climate policies without public demand.”
So what’s the problem here? To investigate what factors drive public action, the researchers developed a behavior model that incorporated ideas from several different social theories, including the well-established “value-belief norm theory.” This idea suggests that people’s behavior tends to be driven by values, worldviews and what they perceive to be the consequences of problems like climate change, as well as their feelings of responsibility for these problems.
Building on this theory, the researchers accounted for several additional social and psychological factors in their model. These included people’s beliefs about their capability of taking action and the ability of their actions to effect change — what’s known as “efficacy beliefs” — and their perceptions of what kinds of actions are being taken by the people around them.
To test the model, the researchers plugged in data from a survey including more than 700 “alarmed” participants, all living in Vermont, an area chosen specifically for its generally high levels of civic engagement. They divided survey respondents into two categories: “more active,” or people who had contacted government officials in the past 12 months, and “less active.” The more active segment was generally more likely to take public action of any type across the board — for instance, 57 percent of them volunteered with climate organizations, as opposed to 27 percent of the less active group.
It turns out the biggest predictor for climate action involved — that’s right — other people. Significantly more people in the active group reported that their friends and family members were willing to take part in public-sphere climate action. On the other hand, more people in the less active group reported that people who weren’t close to them — groups described as “most Americans,” for instance — were willing to engage in these kinds of actions, but not anyone they actually knew.
In other words, “individuals who are geographically closer and more similar to the respondents were stronger social influences than those who were unfamiliar or distant,” Doherty said. It’s not totally clear why this is the case, but Doherty theorized that the less active group could be suffering from a kind of free-rider effect — “it’s almost like they thought someone else will take care of it,” she said.
On the other hand, the finding suggests that climate action may be infectious, in a way, if it involves people that an individual knows or relates to. If a person knows that friends and neighbors are participating, they may be more likely to do so as well.
Beliefs about “self-efficacy,” or the effectiveness of taking action, were also important, the researchers found. The active group had higher levels of belief in their own capability of taking action, as well as the impact or effectiveness of their individual actions or the actions of groups they were a part of.
Based on these results, Doherty said, “the communication efforts targeting alarmed individuals and their public action need to include strategies that foster these beliefs.” Highlighting positive experiences from similar people could be useful for targeting a given population, for instance, as well as demonstrating ways in which individual or collective efforts helped achieve concrete goals. That said, more research will need to be done to test the actual effectiveness of new communication strategies, Doherty cautioned.
nd she added that other factors not examined in this study may also play a role in motivating public action — such as emotions and personal experiences, or even an individual’s perceptions about the current political climate in the country.
As for the other segments of the population — those less concerned about climate change — efforts to motivate behavior may need to focus first on upping their level of alarm about global warming, a separate challenge altogether. But even these communication efforts could do with some caution, Doherty said.
“An overwhelming amount of concern, without feeling they can do anything about it, is not useful and does not drive behavior,” she said. “One of the important things is that you have to really target your audience and figure out what motivates them, what they need to act, and then come up with messages or experiences designed for that particular segment of the population.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/16/why-even-people-who-are-very-alarmed-about-climate-change-often-take-little-action/
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested