Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/6
-
Implications of the Supreme Court Stay of the Clean Power Plan
Jun 9, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen / 9:30 AM -
Meeting to Discuss Ozone Legislation, Carbon and Oil Tax Resolutions
Jun 7, 2016 | The House Rules Committee
Location: H-313 Capitol / 5:00 PM -
Hearing on EPA Unfunded Mandates
Jun 7, 2016 | Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight
Location: 406 Dirksen / 2:30 PM -
Talks Continue on Path Forward for TSCA Vote
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Lawmakers this week are continuing negotiations on a strategy for bringing chemical law reform legislation to the Senate floor for a vote. -
Week Ahead: Ozone Rule, Chemical Safety Top Agenda
Jun 6, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House is likely to take up a trio of bills to fight Democratic environmental priorities, and the Senate could vote on a chemical safety bill overhaul as lawmakers return from a weeklong recess. -
Udall, Moms, Kids Discuss Importance Of Chemical Safety Reform To Keep Children Safe
Jun 3, 2016 | KRWF TV/FM
Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall hosted moms, kids, and children’s health and safety advocates at an organic children’s clothing store to illustrate how important it is for Congress to pass Udall’s landmark bipartisan chemical safety reform bill. -
Senate Panel to Hear Testimony on Rule Freeze
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Senate opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will air their grievances Thursday in the Environment and Public Works Committee. -
Pathway Uncertain for First Conference in a Decade
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Congress is close to having the first energy bill conference in more than a decade, but when or whether the Senate will join the House in formally launching negotiations remains up in the air. -
House Expected to Approve Bill Delaying Ozone Standard
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
First, there was a bill to delay compliance with new air pollution standards for brick kilns; then another to relax emissions limits for a small niche of the power generating industry. -
EPA Sued Over ‘Corrections' to Power Plant Mercury Rule
Jun 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
An Environmental Protection Agency rule that the agency said made “technical corrections” to its mercury and air toxics standards for power plants is being challenged in federal appeals court by both industry and environmental organizations. -
Connecticut Seeks EPA Order to Cut Out-of-State Emissions
Jun 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martha W. Kessler
Connecticut environmental officials have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to order a Pennsylvania coal-fired power plant to reduce its emissions, charging that those emissions are preventing Connecticut from being able to come into compliance with federal air standards. -
Emails Show Carbon Rule Stay Stunned EPA
Jun 3, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
EPA officials were shell-shocked by the Supreme Court's surprise decision in February to put the agency’s landmark power plant carbon rule on hold, according to a trove of emails released under a FOIA request from POLITICO. -
Odds Against Congress Approving Any Spending Bills
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) insists the surprise defeat of the House energy and water spending bill, H.R. 5055, on the floor two weeks ago is not a sign the appropriations process has gone off the rails. -
Chemical Safety Board Official Nears Full Year on Paid Leave
Jun 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A key Chemical Safety Board official who worked closely with the board's former chairman remains in limbo nearly a year after being placed on administrative leave. -
Oregon Derailment Likely to Reignite Oil-by-Rail Safety Concerns
Jun 6, 2016 | Reuters
By Eric M. Johnson
A Union Pacific train carrying crude oil derailed and burst into flames along Oregon's scenic Columbia River gorge on Friday in the first major rail accident involving crude in a year. -
Oil Train Derails in Oregon
Jun 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Multiple tanker cars of an oil train derailed Friday in Oregon, causing a fire and a large plume of black smoke. -
Unfunded Mandates Hearing Likely to Eye Ozone, WOTUS Regs
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Tiffany Stecker and Sean Reilly
A Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee this week will take a broad look at regulations and rules that can pose an economic burden on communities. -
Lawmakers to Take Up GOP Carbon, Oil Tax Resolutions
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly and Ariel Wittenberg,
The House this week will take up two resolutions aimed at potential climate change policies that GOP critics have argued would drive up energy prices and hurt consumers. -
How Obama Is ‘Trump-Proofing’ His Climate Pact
Jun 6, 2016 | Politico Magazine
By Anne Usher
In a roomful of oil and gas executives in North Dakota late last month, Donald Trump reiterated his threat to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement, insisting the way to “make America great again” is to resurrect the coal industry and drill our way to prosperity.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Congressional Hearings
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Implications of the Supreme Court Stay of the Clean Power Plan
Jun 9, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
-
Meeting to Discuss Ozone Legislation, Carbon and Oil Tax Resolutions
Jun 7, 2016 | The House Rules Committee
-
Hearing on EPA Unfunded Mandates
Jun 7, 2016 | Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight
-
Talks Continue on Path Forward for TSCA Vote
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Lawmakers this week are continuing negotiations on a strategy for bringing chemical law reform legislation to the Senate floor for a vote.
The bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, H.R. 2576, cleared the House last month, and many senators thought they could get unanimous support for the measure in their chamber.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said quick passage of the bill under unanimous consent was likely, but that expectation was thwarted when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) objected (E&E Daily, May 27).
As of last week, Paul was refusing to back down from his objection. He said he was concerned about parts of the bill setting criminal violations for individuals who use banned chemicals and establishing a stronger federal regulatory structure that would usurp states' ability to choose less regulation.
Paul spent the recess reading through the bill and gathering information, according to an aide. His camp expects that a decision on how to proceed will be reached this week.
While it's unclear whether members will move forward with unanimous consent or regular procedure, the bill has the votes to pass.
"At this point, it's a matter of when, not if," said Environmental Defense Fund spokesman Jack Pratt.
While members are currently negotiating with leadership, the Senate is unlikely to bring up the bipartisan reform legislation for a vote before the chamber wraps up ongoing debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, according to a spokeswoman for Inhofe.
Members remain in discussion about the process for bringing the TSCA bill to a floor vote, but there were no new announcements as of late Friday, according to a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/06/stories/1060038314
-
Week Ahead: Ozone Rule, Chemical Safety Top Agenda
Jun 6, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House is likely to take up a trio of bills to fight Democratic environmental priorities, and the Senate could vote on a chemical safety bill overhaul as lawmakers return from a weeklong recess.
The House agenda includes the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and others, to delay the Environmental Protection Agency's ozone pollution rule from last year and make significant changes to the way the EPA writes pollution limits in the future.
The bill has wide support among conservative and business groups, who see it as a key tool in their fight against the regulation that Republicans estimate is the most expensive in the country's history.
Democrats are accusing the GOP of gutting the Clean Air Act with the bill, particularly due to the fact that the EPA would be allowed to consider the costs of new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the first time, instead of setting them solely on the basis of health considerations.
The House is also likely to consider two non-binding resolutions.
One, sponsored by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), would put the House on record opposing a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
Many Democrats and some Republicans see a carbon tax as a straightforward way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The resolution would concludes that "it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States."
The other resolution under consideration is in opposition to the $10.25 per barrel tax on crude oil that President Obama proposed earlier this year as part of his annual budget.
The plan, which is meant to fund new, clean transportation systems, hasn't gotten much traction in Congress. The resolution lists the major economic, employment and other impacts the GOP believes would accompany such a tax and concludes that "a new tax should not be placed on oil.
The ozone bill and the resolutions are both on the Rules Committee's calendar, so its likely they will be considered, although House leaders have not yet committed to holding votes.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, the Senate may vote on the bipartisan, bicameral compromise bill to overhaul chemical safety standards and update the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The House passed the bill May 24 with all but 12 votes in favor, and its sponsors expected that its strong support would lead to Senate passage days later.
But Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) objected to quick consideration, saying he needed time to read the bill and understand the new authority it would give the EPA. Without Paul dropping his hold, passage would take longer.
Meanwhile, the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee will hold hearings to criticize Obama administration policies.
On Tuesday, the environment committee's oversight subpanel will discuss the EPA's "unfunded mandates" and their impacts on state, local and tribal governments.
On Thursday, the panel has scheduled a hearing about the implications of the Supreme Court's stay on the EPA's Clean Power Plan. The committee has repeatedly criticized the EPA for taking measures that it says violate the stay, like helping states plan for complying with the rule.
In the House on Wednesday, the Science Committee's environment subcommittee will hear from private and university weather prediction officials about the products and technologies that the private weather sector uses.
Later in the week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's panel on energy and power is due to meet Friday for a hearing on the Energy Department's extensive efficiency standards for household appliances.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282161-week-ahead-ozone-rule-chemical-safety-top-agenda
-
Udall, Moms, Kids Discuss Importance Of Chemical Safety Reform To Keep Children Safe
Jun 3, 2016 | KRWF TV/FM
Commentary: Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall hosted moms, kids, and children’s health and safety advocates at an organic children’s clothing store to illustrate how important it is for Congress to pass Udall’s landmark bipartisan chemical safety reform bill. The legislation would overhaul the current broken law and finally protect the most vulnerable members of our society — especially pregnant women and infants. Udall held the event, titled “Toys, Tots and TSCA,” at Indigo Baby, a shop for organic and natural products for pregnancy, infancy and childhood.
Udall was joined by Santa Fe Mayor Javier M. Gonzales, who delivered a proclamation declaring June 3 “Toxic Substance Safety Day.” Udall’s “leadership and willingness to take on this difficult issue has led to a bill that will give the Environmental Protection Agency real utility and power in regulating some of the most dangerous and commonly used chemicals … and make children and families in Santa Fe safer every single day,” the proclamation reads. A copy is available on Twitter here.
Udall thanked Mayor Gonzales for the city's support. “Moms shouldn’t have to wonder whether the furniture, bedding, toys, clothing and household products around us are putting them at risk. Parents are busy with families and work, they don’t have time to do complicated research to make sure the things they buy for their kids are safe,” Udall said. “Our existing law is so broken, the EPA hasn’t even been able to regulate asbestos. That’s why I’m working hard to overhaul the law and put a cop on the beat to restrict the use of hazardous chemicals if they pose a risk. We’re just steps away from enacting this bipartisan bill so we can finally ensure our children are safe."
Most Americans believe that when they buy products at the hardware store or the grocery store, the government has tested them and determined that they're safe. But that has never been the case because our 1976 chemical safety law — the Toxic Substances Control Act — has been broken from the start and was further gutted by a 1991 court decision. In 40 years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been able to regulate just a handful of the 85,000 chemicals in commerce, even though some have been linked to cancer, infertility, birth defects, Parkinson's disease and other illnesses. Udall's bill would ensure that for the first time, the EPA will have the authority and the resources to evaluate for safety the hundreds of new chemicals made each year before they go to market. And it would require the EPA to evaluate the tens of thousands of chemicals already in use, starting with the most hazardous, such as formaldehyde, flame retardants, and BPA. These chemicals are found in sofas and other furniture, non-iron shirts, pressed wood floors, credit card receipts, and many common household items.
Udall wrote the bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, with U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-La.). Named for the late U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a champion for public health and safety, a final agreement on the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week by a vote of 403-12. It is expected to pass the Senate soon, and the White House has indicated that the president will sign it into law.
Today’s event was Udall’s second this week to highlight the importance of TSCA reform for New Mexico families. On Tuesday, he held an event focused on household products and safety at Albuquerque's Southwest Green Home Center, a business devoted to selling home and building products free of hazardous chemicals. He was joined by representatives from the building trades, the March of Dimes, Bernalillo County Commissioner Maggie Hart Stebbins, moms and experts on health and safety, including Dr. Cheryl Willman of the University of New Mexico Cancer Center, and Caroline Scruggs of UNM’s School of Architecture and Planning.
http://krwg.org/post/udall-moms-kids-discuss-importance-chemical-safety-reform-keep-children-safe
-
Senate Panel to Hear Testimony on Rule Freeze
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Senate opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will air their grievances Thursday in the Environment and Public Works Committee.
At issue is the Supreme Court's February decision to freeze the program, which requires states to develop plans for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The committee will hear from a lawyer for utilities that oppose the plan, the sponsor of Missouri state legislation to halt planning activities and the CEO of a rural electric cooperative who has cheered the high court's action.
A New York University legal expert who supports the Clean Power Plan and the chairwoman of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a carbon-trading regime in the Northeast, round out the witness list.
"The purpose of the hearing," the EPW majority said Friday, "is to hear from states, legal professionals, and related stakeholders regarding the Supreme Court's February 9th stay of the Clean Power Plan and associated impacts for states and stakeholders."
In an unprecedented 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court in February granted opponents' request for a stay of the Clean Power Plan until litigation over the program is resolved. Twenty-seven states and more than 100 industry groups, utilities, labor groups and other opponents are challenging the rule.
EPA officials, however, have said they would continue to work with states that want to continue their planning processes. The agency is also moving forward on a related renewable energy incentive program and on model trading rules to guide states.
"Many states and tribes have indicated that they plan to move forward voluntarily to work to cut carbon pollution from power plants," EPA said in a recent statement, "and have asked the agency to continue providing support and developing tools that may support those efforts."
Congressional Republicans, including Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), have questioned EPA's activities during the stay.
In a March letter, Inhofe said he worried that EPA might be "attempting to intimidate" states into continuing their planning while the rule was frozen by the high court.
"The agency's public response [to the stay] has ranged between muddled reticence and outright defiance," Inhofe wrote.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, June 9, at 9:30 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Allison Wood, partner at Hunton & Williams; Micheal McInnes, CEO of Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc., on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Missouri state Rep. Jack Bondon (R); Richard Revesz, professor of law and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law; and Katie Dykes, chairwoman of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and deputy commissioner for energy at the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/06/stories/1060038316
-
Pathway Uncertain for First Conference in a Decade
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Congress is close to having the first energy bill conference in more than a decade, but when or whether the Senate will join the House in formally launching negotiations remains up in the air.
Before leaving for the Memorial Day recess, House leaders named conferees to reconcile the chamber's revised energy bill with the Senate's own package, S. 2012 (Greenwire, May 26).
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has been angling to launch conference talks since her committee's bill passed the chamber in April, but she indicated before the recess that it was unclear when that might happen.
"I think [Majority] Leader [Mitch] McConnell understands that in order for us to do the work that's going to be required in a real conference, we're going to need time," Murkowski said in an interview. "So I think we're going to push to have the Senate act on this sooner rather than later."
The delay is partly related to a packed congressional agenda that includes appropriations bills and the fiscal 2017 defense authorization act, which will consume much of the Senate's attention this week.
While a vote to go to conference could take just a few hours, it would require the consent of all senators to allow such a detour to happen during the defense authorization debate.
Asked about the timing of a Senate move to join the House in conference, a McConnell spokesman on Friday was succinct. "Working on it," he wrote in an email.Democrats concerned
Democrats on both sides of the Capitol are less than enthused about the revised House bill. Leaders added numerous provisions in an effort to match the much broader Senate version.
Only eight House Democrats voted last month for the revised legislation, which Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee who will be a key negotiator in conference, referred to as "an 800-page monstrosity" (E&E Daily, May 26).
On the other side of the Capitol, Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) has repeatedly criticized the House for adding multiple bills into the mix that the White House has threatened to veto (E&E Daily, May 25).
Murkowski acknowledged the problem but, as expected chairwoman of the conference, expressed confidence that a sound process could allay Democrats' concerns.
"Is there a path that we can agree to that will, I guess, just make it a little easier for people to say, 'OK, let's sit down and put all this stuff out on the table and start working it'?" she asked. "That's what we're going to be working on."
She also noted there's substantial bipartisan buy-in for the Senate bill.
"What I keep hearing from folks is, 'Look, there's just so much good in this; let's figure out how we can get going,'" Murkowski said.Offshore drilling votes?
The delay in launching conference talks may boost a bid by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to expand the sharing of federal offshore drilling revenues with coastal states.
Opposition from longtime drilling foe Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) thwarted Cassidy's earlier bid to see a vote on his proposal during the energy bill debate. Cassidy is now hoping to slide the issue into the energy conference (E&E Daily, April 28).
Speaking before the recess, Cassidy said his language could come to the floor this month and, once the House passes a similar measure, could find its way into the conference talks.
"That's our hope, one of several sort of avenues we're attempting to do," he told E&E Daily.
While agreeing that his push faces tough odds in the current political environment, Cassidy said he was nonetheless ready to seize an opportunity to raise awareness of an issue that has long been a top priority for his state, which is rapidly losing coastal wetlands that serve as a barrier to devastating storms such as Hurricane Katrina.
"We could potentially have another, and more likely to have another if we don't rebuild that coastline," he said. "If we rebuild that coastline, it is nature's way of protecting the rest of the country, the rest of the state. The more we draw attention to that, the better. It's a long-term issue."
Cassidy said he was pressing the point with lawmakers, portraying the long-running revenue-sharing debate as one of basic fairness.
"We just have to rebuild the Louisiana coastline," he said. "It's going to cost billions. And the rest of the country has benefited from this exploration off our coastline, but our state has suffered.
"And we don't really think it's that much of a stretch to say, 'Wait a second, because of all this work the rest of the country has benefited, the Mississippi River has been dammed by levees, so it doesn't feed our marshes, but in the meantime, inland commerce has greatly benefited. Our state has suffered; you have benefited. Can't we have a little reciprocity?'"
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/06/stories/1060038321
-
House Expected to Approve Bill Delaying Ozone Standard
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
First, there was a bill to delay compliance with new air pollution standards for brick kilns; then another to relax emissions limits for a small niche of the power generating industry.
Now, the House is poised to pass one of its most ambitious efforts yet to stymie new U.S. EPA air quality regulations: H.R. 4775, which would delay full implementation of the agency's new ozone standard by eight years. Adding to the alarm of congressional Democrats and environmentalists, the measure would also make broader changes to the Clean Air Act: extending, for example, EPA's timetable for reviewing -- and potentially updating -- the standards for ozone and five other "criteria" pollutants from once every five years to once every decade.
The House Rules Committee is scheduled to take up the bill tomorrow, with approval by the full chamber virtually certain to follow Wednesday. Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe has already raised objections, meaning that a White House veto threat is likely.
Supporters are undeterred. The bill "simply provides additional time and flexibility" to meet the ozone standard "in a manner that avoids unnecessary costs or restrictions on economic and job growth," Republican staffers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote in a recently released bill report that touts the support of more than 250 business and advocacy groups.
The measure's lead sponsor, Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), and other backers argue that EPA already regularly misses the five-year deadline. As a rationale for postponing implementation of the new ozone standard, set eight months ago, they note that EPA only last year released final guidance on implementation of the previous 75 ppb limit dating back to 2008.
Democrats respond that stretching out the review timetable would hinder the agency's ability to keep pace with the latest scientific research on the health effects of the six criteria pollutants. They similarly object to a provision that would permit the agency to take technological feasibility into account as a secondary factor in deciding whether to tighten pollution thresholds.
The bill "is an irresponsible compilation of attacks" striking at the heart of the Clean Air Act, Democratic staffers wrote in a dissent included in the committee report. "It would cause irreparable harm to public health and the environment."
In March, most House Democrats also lined up against H.R. 4557, introduced by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), which would effectively freeze compliance with the brick kiln standards until all legal challenges are settled, and H.R. 3979, by Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.), to weaken part of EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants that burn coal refuse. Although both bills won House approval, neither has since advanced in the Senate.
Ground-level ozone is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. Besides helping to trigger asthma attacks, it can irritate lung passageways and worsen emphysema symptoms.
The Energy and Commerce Committee approved Olson's bill last month on a 30-23 party-line vote after agreeing to amendments that could effectively undercut the new ozone regulation further (Greenwire, May 18). Like Olson, who represents a suburban Houston district, some of the bill's 43 co-sponsors come from areas that are already grappling with air pollution problems and thus may have a tougher time meeting the new benchmark.
Tomorrow's Rules Committee hearing will set the terms of Wednesday's floor debate and also decide which amendments get a vote by the full House.
As of late Friday, only two amendments had been filed for consideration: one by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) specifying that no additional money be authorized to implement the bill if signed into law; and another by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) that would in part require EPA to add hydrogen sulfide to its list of hazardous air pollutants.
Schedule: The hearing will be Tuesday, June 7, at 5 p.m. in H-313, the Capitol.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/06/stories/1060038307
-
EPA Sued Over ‘Corrections' to Power Plant Mercury Rule
Jun 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
An Environmental Protection Agency rule that the agency said made “technical corrections” to its mercury and air toxics standards for power plants is being challenged in federal appeals court by both industry and environmental organizations (ARIPPA v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1168, 6/3/16; Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1169, 6/3/16).
ARIPPA, a trade association representing coal refuse power plants, and a coalition of environmental organizations led by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network filed separate lawsuits June 3 seeking review of the rule by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The rule (RIN:2060-AS41) made several changes to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, including removing language that shielded utilities that suffered unavoidable equipment malfunctions from civil penalties under the Clean Air Act. The technical corrections rule also included language intended to clarify that major and area source combustion turbines, except for integrated gasification combined cycle units, are not subject to emissions limits on mercury, filterable particulate matter and hydrogen chloride (66 DEN A-1, 4/6/16).
ARIPPA's petition for review did not include the organization's rationale for filing a lawsuit. However, the organization objected in comments on the EPA's proposal to revise the definition of the term “coal refuse” under the standards, a proposal the agency kept in the final technical corrections rule.
The utility association argued the EPA's revised definition couldn't be properly implemented as a “clarification or correction” but must instead be considered a substantive regulatory change that warrants a reevaluation of emissions limits under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards to determine if those limits would apply to additional sources that combust coal refuse.
The environmental petitioners, which also include the Environmental Integrity Project and the Sierra Club, objected in comments to a range of proposed technical corrections, including provisions concerning equipment startup that made it in the final rule.
“Many of the rest of the EPA's proposed changes are arbitrary and capricious or do not otherwise comply with the Clean Air Act,” the environmental groups said. “Further, although EPA labels all of its proposed changes other than removal of the affirmative defense as ‘technical corrections,' many of these changes are major changes that should not be presented under the guise of ‘technical corrections.'”
ARIPPA is represented by Bart Cassidy and Katherine Vaccaro, both partners with Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox LLP. The environmental petitioners are represented by Patton Dycus and Eric Schaeffer with the Environmental Integrity Project, as well as Earthjustice attorneys James Pew and Neil Gormley.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90937402&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90937402&jd=90937402
-
Connecticut Seeks EPA Order to Cut Out-of-State Emissions
Jun 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martha W. Kessler
Connecticut environmental officials have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to order a Pennsylvania coal-fired power plant to reduce its emissions, charging that those emissions are preventing Connecticut from being able to come into compliance with federal air standards.
Connecticut is seeking this order under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act, which allows a state to petition the EPA to impose new air pollution controls on a facility like a power plant in another state if it can demonstrate that emissions from that facility directly impairs its ability to meet federal air quality standards.
In its petition, Connecticut is asking the EPA to abate emissions from the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station owned by Talen Energy and located in York County, Pa.
The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) says that emissions from the facility, which is located approximately 175 miles from the Connecticut border, “significantly contributes” to ozone levels that exceed the 2008 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at six out of 12 ozone monitors in Connecticut and “therefore interfere with both attainment and maintenance” of this standard.
DEEP says that information contained in its petition clearly demonstrates that “emissions from Brunner Island are linked to downwind nonattainment and maintenance ozone receptor sites in Connecticut at contribution levels one percent or greater of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.” Further, the state says, “these emissions can be reduced at reasonable cost and Brunner Island has readily available control options to do so.”
DEEP Commissioner Robert J. Klee said in a June 1 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that the while the state has taken numerous steps to reduce regional emissions, its efforts have come up short. “Connecticut still fails to meet the 2008 NAAQS,” Klee said. And furthermore, “because Connecticut failed to attain this standard on time, EPA reclassified the entire state to moderate nonattainment effective June 3, 2016.”
Klee said this means that Connecticut will be subject to additional administrative planning and regulatory costs over and above existing economic and health impact costs due to nonattainment. As a result, he said, the state reluctantly filed the petition seeking a finding by EPA that emissions from the Brunner Island facililty are significantly contributing to the nonattainment of, and maintenance of, the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Connecticut.
A spokesman for Talen told Bloomberg BNA June 3 that the company would be unable to comment on a letter it has not seen.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90937391&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90937391&jd=90937391
-
Emails Show Carbon Rule Stay Stunned EPA
Jun 3, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
EPA officials were shell-shocked by the Supreme Court's surprise decision in February to put the agency’s landmark power plant carbon rule on hold, according to a trove of emails released under a FOIA request from POLITICO.
"This is very obviously disappointing, and we are all absorbing it this evening," acting air chief Janet McCabe said in a Feb. 9 email to key staffers.
"There is no sugar-coating it," wrote the agency's top lawyer, Avi Garbow.
But the agency's top brass spent little time wallowing in the defeat, pivoting almost immediately to try to rally the troops both at EPA and among the states.
“We will get over this CPP speed bump and move closer and closer down the road towards a low carbon future,” Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote in a staff-wide note the day after the stay was imposed. “For many of us it's been a long and winding road to get to where we are today, so one more speed bump will not deter us. EPA knows how to overcome challenges and we know how to defend our actions when they are tested.”
Behind the scenes, McCarthy, McCabe and others began formulating plans to assure sympathetic states and the agency’s allies that the rule was not in any greater danger than before the stay was issued.
EPA held a conference call with states a week after the stay “to answer the questions that we can as far as we can, but also to gather questions that we'll need to answer soon enough,” McCabe wrote in a Feb. 13 note to her office.
Her note also described the flurry of meetings and phone calls with outside groups, including advocacy and business organizations as well as utilities and a regional transmission operator.
Publicly, McCarthy used an appearance at a gathering of state regulators and energy officials just two days after the stay was issued to rally the troops — and she received a standing ovation.
That appearance before regulators “provided just the lift in spirits everyone needed,” McCabe wrote. Indeed, EPA transportation director Christopher Grundler emailed McCabe that the ovation was “way cool and has lifted me out of my post SCOTUS funk.”
Heather Zichal, a former Obama energy adviser who helped lay the groundwork for the rule and left the administration in 2013, emailed McCabe to tell her that for "political folks," the day the stay was issued ended in chaos and uncertainty, but that outreach the next day proved "we are in exactly the same place that we were before the ruling."
"That is EXACTLY right!" McCabe replied. She added: "We're making gallons of lemonade."
McCarthy also enjoyed a flurry of support from supporters both within and outside the agency.
Two days after the stay, Joseph Goffman, a top air adviser and one of the architects of the rule, emailed McCarthy a link to a Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers song: "I Won't Back Down." (“Love it,” McCarthy replied at 1:22 a.m.)
FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, like McCarthy a former Boston resident, emailed the administrator the day after the stay.
"Thinking of you today — hang in there," LaFleur wrote, attaching her formal statement that she was “disappointed” with the stay. McCarthy wrote back, thanking the regulator for her "very thoughtful statement.”
Union of Concerned Scientists President Ken Kimmell emailed to say that his group "will do everything we can to keep progress moving while the litigation is pending, and to influence the outcome of the ruling on the merits." McCarthy responded by asking Kimmell to "keep the faith, stay active and good things will happen."
Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Jim Jones wrote to McCarthy to praise her rallying note to staff, saying that she "managed to make numerous powerful points in a positive and inspiring manner."
Early news that several states would continue with their implementation planning despite the stay earned cheers from McCarthy. "Very cool," she wrote in response to a statement from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, and she reacted to a note that Delaware would proceed with "Good for them!"
But things weren’t as upbeat for every state. EPA's Region 8 Administrator Sean McGrath said that after meeting with the energy aide to Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat, it looked like "it would be very difficult for [Montana] to continue on the CPP in light of the stay.
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia — just days after the stay was issued — sent another shock wave through the agency on Feb. 13, a Saturday.
Cynthia Giles, EPA's enforcement chief, emailed McCarthy and McCabe shortly after the news broke that evening. Her email read simply, "Justice scalia died."
Later that night, another EPA employee offered more shocked responses to the surprising death.
"Just an incredible week," wrote Lori Stewart.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/06/shocked-at-rules-stay-mccarthy-moved-forward-with-help-from-tom-petty-117901
-
Odds Against Congress Approving Any Spending Bills
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) insists the surprise defeat of the House energy and water spending bill, H.R. 5055, on the floor two weeks ago is not a sign the appropriations process has gone off the rails.
The Fiscal 2017 Budget & Appropriations Report is a one-stop resource for tracking the fiscal 2017 spending process for environmental and energy accounts. Click here to view the report.
But the setback over a Democratic amendment on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights bears similarities to a Confederate flag flap that upended spending action in the House last year.
Ryan insists this year's appropriations process will not be "sabotaged" and expects to meet with the GOP this week to find a path forward.
His most likely option would be to, for the first time since Republicans took back the House in 2010, start restricting amendments to spending bills rather than allowing any member to offer one.
The plan would limit controversial Democratic proposals, like the LGBT one, but it could also wind up blocking GOP provisions not backed by leaders.
If House Republican leaders restrict too many of their members' proposals, they could start chipping away at backing for the bill.
With Democrats united against spending levels and most policy riders, it only would take a few dozen unhappy Republicans to defeat a spending bill.
And even if contentious provisions survive the House, Senate Republican leaders warn attaching them to Senate bills would invite a Democratic filibuster.
That could make it hard, if not impossible, to reconcile spending bills between the Senate, controlled by the GOP with only a narrow margin, and the more aggressive House Republican majority.Tight calendar
Congress will be in session for most of the next six weeks, but then will take one of its longest breaks in recent history for party political conventions and the traditional August break.
The recess will stretch from July 15 to Sept. 6. Senate Democrats say this year will mark the fewest days the chamber plans to be in session since 1956.
Once Congress returns in September, both chambers will likely be focused on passing a stopgap funding measure to avoid any chance of a politically toxic shutdown when the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.
The time required to move that bill between the chambers will leave almost no room for work on other spending legislation.
Lawmakers are then away from Capitol Hill again for much of the fall to campaign for re-election. When members return for a lame-duck session in mid-November, they'll have only a few weeks to resolve final funding issues.
Congress will have no time for passing bills in regular order; instead, lawmakers will probably try rolling them into a year-end omnibus.
If that package does not come together, lawmakers may simply pass a resolution keeping agencies funded at current levels and leaving it to the new post-election Congress to set fiscal 2017 spending.Zika
Congress will likely focus on settling a dispute over emergency funding to fight the Zika virus in coming weeks rather than spending the energy hashing out fiscal 2017 spending bills.
Amid concerns of a burgeoning public health crisis, the House and Senate both have backed aid packages to fight the spread of Zika.
But the chambers take far different approaches. The Senate is seeking $1.1 billion that would not require spending offsets. The House has passed a far narrower $622 million plan that would require offsets.
Appropriators and congressional leaders will likely spend the next several weeks trying to find common ground rather than risk seeming unprepared if there is a significant Zika outbreak in the United States.
"We're not going to stop talking about it until we get some money," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said at a press conference in Nevada last week.Divided House
Many House Republicans shrugged earlier this spring when the chamber missed its deadline for adopting a nonbinding budget resolution, once a priority for GOP leaders and many rank-and-file members.
The failure exposed GOP fissures on spending that threaten to crack open as the more contentious annual funding bills move to the floor.
Simply put, House conservatives are not willing to get behind an overall $1.07 trillion limit for discretionary spending set by last fall's bipartisan fiscal accord.
Instead, they want to cut $30 billion or more to avoid charges of an election-year spending hike after years of reductions.
House appropriators have been writing spending bills at the higher level, and most of those measures have easily moved through committee.
But the real test will come on the floor where the most conservative lawmakers, including members of the Freedom Caucus, have not ruled out voting against domestic spending bills if they remain at the higher level.
Chamber leaders will have to weigh their support for the higher level against the possibility that conservatives could join with Democrats to reject appropriations measures.
So far, the House has only backed the military construction and veterans affairs bill. Republicans did not object to more spending going toward the troops.This week
The House this week is set to consider its $3.5 billion legislative branch spending bill, a largely noncontroversial measure that would freeze lawmakers' salary for the eighth year and provide a slight boost in funding for staff pay.
The legislation will move under a closed rule, meaning no amendments will be allowed, a long-standing bipartisan practice to limit proposals to slash congressional accounts.
The House Appropriations Committee has not scheduled any new markups.
The chamber's contentious Interior and environment spending bill has cleared subcommittee before recess, but full committee action will likely wait until next week because of tomorrow's California primary, where subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R) faces challengers.
The Senate, meanwhile, does not have any spending bills on the floor this week as it weighs its annual defense authorization bill.
But Senate appropriators will unveil and vote on the largest of the annual domestic spending bills, which funds the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
Schedule: The subcommittee markup is Tuesday, June 7, at 10:30 a.m. in 138 Dirksen.
Schedule: The full committee markup is Thursday, June 9, at 10:30 a.m. in 106 Dirksen.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/06/stories/1060038317
-
Chemical Safety Board Official Nears Full Year on Paid Leave
Jun 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A key Chemical Safety Board official who worked closely with the board's former chairman remains in limbo nearly a year after being placed on administrative leave.
Daniel Horowitz, the board's managing director, received a notice of proposed removal last year from Board Member Kristen Kulinowski, but the action was never finalized by the board. As a result, Horowitz remains unable to formally dispute the personnel action or move on with his career, said Jeff Ruch, the director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which is representing Horowitz.
“I think what is most troublesome is the uncertainty,” Ruch said. “If somebody said, ‘You have a year off, take a sabbatical,' that would be great, but if you're told to go sit in the corner with a Sword of Damocles hanging over your professional head, that's not so great.”
Horowitz didn't respond to a request for comment by Bloomberg BNA.
Ruch told Bloomberg BNA he delivered an oral presentation to Board Chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland Dec. 10 on Horowitz's behalf and filed a written response to the notice of proposed removal.
However, because Sutherland didn't finalized the action, Horowitz cannot dispute it, Ruch said.
Board spokeswoman Hillary Cohen told Bloomberg BNA June 3 in an e-mail the agency could not discuss confidential personnel matters.
“Chairperson Sutherland continues to actively work towards a resolution,” Cohen said. “When you are dealing with complex employment matters it can take much longer than expected.”
Long Saga for CSB
Horowitz was placed on leave by then-Acting Board Chairman Rick Engler in June 2015 (118 DEN A-17, 6/19/15).
Another official, then-General Counsel Richard Loeb, was placed on leave the same day. Loeb retired from the board in December.
Both officials were accused of creating a toxic work environment and retaliating against whistle-blowers during Moure-Eraso's leadership. The White House requested Moure-Eraso's resignation in March 2015 after complaints from members of Congress about his conduct.
In November, Kulinowski issued a notice of proposed removal to Horowitz. The notice included 10 charges of misconduct, including allegedly retaliating against then-Human Resources Director John Lau.
Lau has since left CSB and his name is no longer listed on the agency's website.
Horowitz earned a salary of $158,700 during fiscal year 2015, according to a database of federal employee salaries, while Loeb took home $183,300. Their combined pay was more than 3 percent of the small agency's budget.
The departures threaten to hamstring the board's effectiveness, observers say.
Ruch said the agency's decision not to deploy to new incident sites since early 2015 shows that, “There doesn't appear to be a heck of a lot of activity at the CSB.”
But other stakeholders defended the agency's new approach.
“It's not OK,” Michael Wright, the health and safety director at the United Steelworkers union, told Bloomberg BNA, “but it's not the CSB's fault.”
Wright added it was appropriate to keep Horowitz off the job given the accusations against him.
“I'd rather have him collect a salary and not do work than collect a salary and do work for the CSB,” Wright said.
Congress Weighs Curbing Leave Length
The board is not the only agency to see staff on paid leave for long periods of time.
The Environmental Protection Agency found in 2014 eight workers had racked up almost 21,000 hours of administrative leave, costing more than $1 million. And the Government Accountability Office has found more than 57,000 federal employees have taken more than one month of administrative leave during fiscal years 2011 to 2013.
The House in April approved the Administrative Leave Reform Act (H.R. 4359) to limit the use of administrative leave.
That bill would cap administrative leave to no more than 14 days unless extraordinary circumstances exist. It would let agencies extend administrative leave for employees deemed “a threat to safety, the agency mission, or Government property.”
Agencies turn to administrative leave “far too often,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said on the House floor April 26, and the practice has no statutory definition.
The Senate also is considering a related proposal, the Administrative Leave Act (S. 2450).
Jason Briefel, the interim director of the Senior Executives Association, said these situations harm agencies, taxpayers and employees.
“This is an issue that needs to be addressed,” Briefel said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90937396&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90937396&jd=90937396
-
Oregon Derailment Likely to Reignite Oil-by-Rail Safety Concerns
Jun 6, 2016 | Reuters
By Eric M. Johnson
A Union Pacific train carrying crude oil derailed and burst into flames along Oregon's scenic Columbia River gorge on Friday in the first major rail accident involving crude in a year.
While no injuries were reported, the train remained engulfed in flames six hours after the derailment, officials said. The accident has already renewed calls for stronger regulation to guard communities against crude-by-rail accidents.
Union Pacific Corp, owner of the line, said 11 rail cars from a 96-car train carrying crude oil derailed about 70 miles (110 km) east of Portland, near the tiny town of Mosier.
Oil spilled from one car, but multiple cars of Bakken crude caught fire, said Oregon Department of Transportation spokesman Tom Fuller. Firefighters were still fighting the flames several hours later.
The crude was bought by TrailStone Inc's U.S. Oil & Refining Co and bound for its refinery in Tacoma, Washington, some 200 miles (322 km) northwest of the derailment, the company said.
Television footage showed smoke and flames along with overturned black tanker cars snaking across the tracks, which weave through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
"I looked outside and there was black and white smoke blowing across the sky, and I could hear the flames," said Mosier resident Dan Hoffman, 32, whose house is about 100 meters (328 ft) from the derailment. "A sheriff's official in an SUV told me to get the hell out."
While rail shipments have dipped from more than 1 million barrels per day in 2014 as a result of the lengthy slump in oil prices, the first such crash in a year will likely reignite the debate over safety concerns surrounding transporting crude by rail.
"Seeing our beautiful Columbia River Gorge on fire today should be a wake-up call for federal and state agencies – underscoring the need to complete comprehensive environmental reviews of oil-by-rail in the Pacific Northwest," said U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon.
Ecology officials from Washington state said there was no sign of oil in the Columbia River or Rock Creek.
SAFETY MEASURES DELAYED
Since 2008, there have been at least 10 major oil-train derailments across the United States and Canada, including a disaster that killed 47 people in a Quebec town in July 2013.
The incident comes eight months after lawmakers extended a deadline until the end of 2018 for rail operators to implement advanced safety technology, known as positive train control, or PTC, which safety experts say can avoid derailments and other major accidents.
The measures included phasing out older tank cars, adding electronic braking systems and imposing speed limits, all meant to reduce the frequency and severity of oil train crashes.
The tank cars involved in Friday's crash were CPC-1232 models, which elected officials have raised concerns about in the past even though they are an upgrade from older models considered less safe. On Friday, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon repeated his call from last year for federal officials to look into whether the newer cars were safe enough.
"It's clear with this crash - as it has been for years - that more must be done to protect our communities," Wyden said.
Rail operators such as Union Pacific are required under federal law to disclose crude rail movements to state officials to help prepare for emergencies. The rule was put in place after a string of fiery derailments.
EVACUATIONS
Union Pacific hazardous materials workers responded to the scene along with contractors packing firefighting foam and a boom for oil spill containment.
In its latest disclosure with the state, Union Pacific said it moved light volumes of Bakken crude oil along its state network, which includes the Oregon line. In March, it transported six unit trains, which generally carry about 75,000 barrels each.
As emergency responders descended on the crash site, Interstate 84 was closed and residents were ordered to leave the area.
Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of the Columbia Riverkeeper advocacy group, said the crash should raise concerns about Tesoro Corp's proposed 360,000 barrels-per-day railport in Vancouver, Washington, which would be the country's largest.
"We are very concerned about additional oil trains passing through our community because of their safety record, the risk of fires, of explosions, the risks of spills," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-derailment-oregon-idUSKCN0YP2H0
-
Jun 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Multiple tanker cars of an oil train derailed Friday in Oregon, causing a fire and a large plume of black smoke.
The derailment happened near Mosier, Ore., in the Columbia River Gorge, an important natural area where protesters say oil trains shouldn't be allowed, the Oregonian reported.
The incident is the latest in a string of high-profile oil train derailments and fires.
Spurred by an explosion that killed 47 people in Quebec in July 2013, among other disasters, regulators in the United States and Canada have tried to improve oil train safety.
The amount of oil being moved by rail has grown dramatically in recent years, due mainly to a large increase in domestic oil production in both countries.
A federal regulation made final last year set new standards for tank car design and operation, but old cars will remain in service for years, to the chagrin of environmental and safety advocates.
In the Friday derailment, eight cars on a train operated by Union Pacific left the tracks,according to Oregon TV station KOIN, and at least one caught fire. The smoke plume was visible from miles away.
A nearby school was evacuated, along with residents in a half-mile radius, and roads were shut down as nearby and federal authorities responded.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282176-oil-train-derails-in-oregon
-
Unfunded Mandates Hearing Likely to Eye Ozone, WOTUS Regs
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Tiffany Stecker and Sean Reilly
A Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee this week will take a broad look at regulations and rules that can pose an economic burden on communities.
Known as "unfunded mandates," these decrees require state and local governments to invest money in efforts to clean the air, water or toxic substances from the environment, with no financial support from the government.
The Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight will hear testimony from witnesses from city, county, tribal and state agencies speaking on behalf of trade associations that represent these governments, as well as an environmental law professor.
Committee spokeswoman Kristina Baum said the hearing would likely touch on U.S. EPA's hot-button regulations, including the lowered ozone standard and the Clean Water Rule to extend federal protections on waterways and wetlands.
Bills in both the House and Senate seek to tack new conditions onto the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which requires analysis of bills that could impose significant new spending demands on state and local governments.
Robert Glicksman, an environmental law professor at George Washington University who will testify at the hearing, will delve into the potential impact of the bills.
North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx's H.R. 50 would require agencies to conduct retrospective analyses for existing regulations at the bidding of the chairman or ranking member of any standing House or Senate committee. The legislation passed the House early last year despite objections from Democrats and a veto threat from the Obama administration (E&E Daily, Feb. 5, 2015). The measure has since languished in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Also awaiting action by the same committee is S. 2570, introduced in February by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). Like Foxx's bill, the Senate measure would open the door to more legal challenges to agency rules. It would require agencies to consider "the least burdensome alternative" to a proposed regulation.
The Senate committee and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held hearings on unfunded mandates in February (E&E Daily, Feb. 25).
Also at the witness table tomorrow will be a representative of the National Association of Counties who will focus on the impact of EPA's relatively new 70 parts per billion ozone standard, as well as the Waters of the U.S. rule, according to Brian Namey, a spokesman for the organization.
The ambient ozone standard, adopted last October, could force more counties into nonattainment, Namey said. Like critics in Congress and the business community, the association also notes that EPA only last year released final guidance on implementation of the previous 75 ppb benchmark set in 2008. Earlier this year, the group urged members to lobby lawmakers for a delay in the new standard until the 2008 version is fully in place.
George Hawkins, the general manager for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, will discuss the effects of EPA regulations on water utilities, said a spokesman. Hawkins will likely bring up the district's $2.6 billion mandate to upgrade its pipes, mains and wastewater treatment plant to prevent sewer and stormwater pollution from flowing into rivers and creeks.
Last year, DC Water and EPA agreed to modify that 2005 consent decree to allow more time for the city to build green infrastructure -- permeable pavement, rooftop gardens and other features that absorb runoff into the ground. These efforts would reduce the city's reliance on planned and costly underground tunnels to shuttle stormwater to the Blue Plains water treatment plant (Greenwire, May 20, 2015).
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, June 7, at 2:30 p.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Tennessee state Sen. Mark Norris (R); Berks County, Pa., Commissioner Christian Leinbach; Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma Chairman John Berrey; George Hawkins, CEO and general manager of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority; and Robert Glicksman, professor of environmental law at George Washington University.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/06/stories/1060038308
-
Lawmakers to Take Up GOP Carbon, Oil Tax Resolutions
Jun 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly and Ariel Wittenberg,
The House this week will take up two resolutions aimed at potential climate change policies that GOP critics have argued would drive up energy prices and hurt consumers.
One of the resolutions would express a sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be "detrimental" to the U.S. economy. Another opposes President Obama's budget proposal to add a tax on barrels of oil.
"We must send a clear message to the American public that we stand opposed to policies that will senselessly drive up energy prices for American families and businesses, harm our economy, and drive American jobs overseas," a group of 55 Republican lawmakers said of the two resolutions in an April letter to House GOP leaders.
The House Rules Committee tomorrow is scheduled to hold a meeting on both resolutions and a separate measure aimed at stymying the Obama administration's new standard for ground-level ozone (see related story).
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) introduced the carbon tax resolution, H. Con. Res. 89, in October.
The three-page resolution states that a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would disproportionately affect the poor, as well as send jobs and businesses overseas.
As of Friday, the resolution had 82 Republican co-sponsors. Among the group are several of the most conservative members of the House and members of the House Freedom Caucus (E&E Daily, April 20).
The resolution counts among its supporters the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity, the American Energy Alliance, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, the Heartland Institute and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) introduced a similar resolution in the Senate last month.
While the United States does not have a carbon tax, Obama has said a price on carbon is a better way of addressing climate change than regulations. Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is in favor of a carbon tax, but her advisers have acknowledged it would be difficult to get through Congress (E&E Daily, May 9).
Economists also generally view a carbon tax as an effective means of reducing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. A tax on carbon has the potential to raise government revenue that could help reduce other types of personal and business taxes.
Some Republican climate change activists, including former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, have endorsed a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
The libertarian group Niskanen Center has also been pushing conservatives to embrace a carbon tax, arguing that Republicans should support it in exchange for an easing of regulatory restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.
Also on the House agenda is a resolution slamming Obama's proposed $10-per-barrel oil tax.
The tax was included in the president's fiscal 2017 budget request and would fund a "21st Century Clean Transportation System" to simultaneously improve the nation's infrastructure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.
Republican lawmakers decried the proposal as "dead on arrival" this winter, something that Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) now wants on the congressional record (E&E Daily, Feb. 5).
His resolution outlines the contributions the oil industry makes to the nation's economy, as well as its current financial struggles, before resolving that "any new tax placed on the struggling oil and gas industry will further prevent growth and development throughout the sector and encourage additional layoffs."
"It is the sense of Congress that a new tax should not be placed on oil, and in considering future policy, Congress should carefully review the detrimental impacts of placing any new taxes on any industry that has seen a slash in jobs, revenue and production," concludes the measure, H. Con. Res. 112.
The resolution comes as appropriators in both chambers of Congress have been ignoring Obama's oil tax proposal. Neither the transportation spending bill that passed the Senate at the end of May nor the House version that recently passed the Appropriations Committee mentions the oil tax.
The White House has threatened to veto the Senate spending bill, in part because it does not include any funding for the clean transportation system (E&ENews PM, May 16).
Schedule: The Rules meeting is Tuesday, June 7, at 5 p.m. in H-313 Capitol.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/06/stories/1060038306
-
How Obama Is ‘Trump-Proofing’ His Climate Pact
Jun 6, 2016 | Politico Magazine
By Anne Usher
In a roomful of oil and gas executives in North Dakota late last month, Donald Trump reiterated his threat to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement, insisting the way to “make America great again” is to resurrect the coal industry and drill our way to prosperity.
But even if Trump is elected, taking down Paris is going to be a lot harder than he thinks. That’s certainly the view of Jonathan Pershing, President Obama’s new climate envoy, who’s rushing to Trump-proof America’s commitment to the pact—minimizing ways in which a President Trump could obstruct the global carbon reduction plan.
“We’re all in. We’re moving down this road,” says Pershing, who is seated on a couch in his office at the State Department, surrounded by relics of past climate negotiations. Pershing picks one up—the original United Nations document that launched them, back in 1990—as if to emphasize just how long people like him have been working to save the planet before Trump came along. The veteran diplomat, a distant relative of Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing of World War I fame, has been in the room for many of these talks and it’s clearly a point of pride with him. Pershing took the mantle from Todd Stern in early April and is now part of a small team of senior administration officials who are trying to cement durable regulations on climate that will survive after Obama leaves office, no matter who succeeds him.
Pershing is now trying to lock in the U.S. side of the accord, which requires all nations to develop public plans detailing how they would cut carbon emissions through at least 2025. Oddly enough, Trump’s own hand-picked new energy czar, Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, agrees that his boss can do only so much damage. Cramer, in an interview with me in late May, was notably noncommittal when I asked him if Trump would simply renege on the Paris accord. He noted that Trump has said at a minimum that he’d “renegotiate” it, and he made the point that this is how Trump has approached past business negotiations, starting from an extreme position.
“I think you might see him pivot away” from his hard-line stance on scrapping the agreement altogether, Cramer told POLITICO.
Even Trump himself appears to be conceding some ground on the pact, saying at a minimum he will “rein it in as much as possible.” It all feels rather made-up-as-he-goes-along: Cramer, known as an energy hawk who wants to cut “punitive” fees on oil—but also wants to see more of a federal role for selling power across state lines—says he had spoken to Trump only twice before the campaign tapped him. One was on a radio talk show in early April, Cramer says, and then again a couple weeks later when Trump came to Washington to deliver a foreign policy speech.
In an era in which denial of global warming is still the official platform of the GOP, and the party’s newly anointed leader has repeatedly called it a “hoax,” the fate of the Paris accord under a potential Republican president may well be crucial to the future of the earth’s climate. Formally speaking, Trump can’t just wave a wand and pull the United States out of the Paris treaty; to leave it officially would require the United States to first wait three years, and then give a one-year notice—effectively putting a withdrawal beyond the next presidential election. Nor could Trump hope to renegotiate the international climate accord, which was reached by more than 170 countries after nearly 25 years’ worth of backroom meetings and formal negotiations. A President Trump would not be able to herd all those diplomats back to the table.
What Trump could do, however, is obstruct compliance at home by holding up key appointments, squeezing key agencies’ budgets or taking other executive actions that would have the cumulative effect of slowing down the international momentum Obama has built on climate. Just as Obama is trying to rush through new rules with executive decisions, a President Trump would have the latitude to reverse course on clean energy. This includes possibly approving construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, although the company hoping to build it, TransCanada Corp., has said projects like this are not usually structured for the U.S. government to get “a piece of the profits,” as Trump said he wants.
It’s not remotely likely that Trump could succeed in “eliminating” the Environmental Protection Agency, as he says he will do. But he would have a lot of Republican support for sharply cutting its budget. A much steeper hurdle would be to block it from carrying out the authority that Congress has already given it under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollution—which the EPA now says includes emissions from coal-fired plants. This is the heart of Obama’s Clean Power Plan—the biggest tool the administration has to cut carbon emissions. Under the plan, the Obama administration labeled carbon emissions as a pollutant and then sent through the EPA a rule for states to collectively cut heat-trapping carbon emissions from large coal-fired or natural gas power plants by about a third by 2030. A case testing this authority is now in the courts and if the EPA is defeated, it would have a damaging effect on the commitment the U.S. just made in Paris.
“The real risk is not that Trump would pull out of the treaty—but that he would not take the measures to meet the target that Obama committed us to,” says Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “There is no fear that he could derail Paris. This is unstoppable. … It’s a question of pace and whether we do it fast enough to head off the worst impacts of climate change.”
Thus, in the end, Trump could indeed delay the U.S. commitment by taking actions on the domestic side that would make it harder to rein in our carbon emissions, including expanding oil drilling. This is especially true if the court were to rule against the EPA and the U.S. under his leadership loosened restrictions it’s just set on coal plants.
Such a reversal on climate change has happened before. George W. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto treaty in 2001 shortly after EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman pledged to the G8 that the United States was committed to doing its part to meet its aims. That set back climate negotiations for years. But Meyer and others argue that this is a very different era, not least because even developing countries recognize now that it’s in their self-interest to contain climate change lest their economies are harmed by it; U.S. business is on board for the most part in developing green technology; and even climate-change-denying Republicans in Congress are backing renewable energy plans—as they did late last year in extending tax credits for clean energy.
In his North Dakota speech, Trump said he would drop subsidies for clean energy if elected, saying the government “should not pick winners and losers.” But his own party is now backing that approach. “Republicans supported [the subsidy legislation]. Are those same lawmakers going to let him scrap it?” says Meyer.
***
John Pershing is doing whatever he can to ensure that Paris never becomes Kyoto. He has just returned from two days in Bonn, Germany, where he had marathon meetings with officials to develop guidelines to prove countries are making the emissions cuts they have agreed to—including big emitters like China and India. This included determining to what extent American taxpayers will foot the bill to help countries meet these targets.
Pershing, who has had more than 20 years’ worth experience in climate negotiations, insists that the odds are virtually nonexistent that any president—including Trump—could abandon the Paris agreement because he would be going up against a tide of opinion and well-advanced negotiation that includes not just governments but major U.S. companies. Example: Google wants to know where it can source renewable power. Apple is heavily involved after pledging to cut its own carbon emissions—some 38.4 million metric tons worth last year from its global operations. They are among 81 companies that have signed a White House pledge to cut their emissions and use more clean energy. The commitments are not just about addressing global warming. They are responding to consumer demand, drops in solar and other green technologies, concerns over resource sustainability—and wanting to be on the front edge of where the global economy is moving.
“These are major American players. Will this stop given a different administration?” says Pershing. “The world is headed to low-carbon future. How would our guys compete?”
Obama administration officials are also quick to point out that China is now surging ahead in the renewable energy market—and its businesses are reaping the benefits. Global clean energy investment hit a record $329 billion last year and China represented a third of this, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Much of this growth has been on the back of direct support by the Chinese government—at the same time that it is shutting down coal plants. These subsidies were a key part of the accord, along with cutting carbon emissions. Obama joined 19 other countries in promising to double spending on clean energy in the next five years and, in Japan last week, he and other G7 leaders followed this with a commitment to end most fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.
What Paris represents “is the future of energy,” says Dan Utech, the president’s deputy assistant for energy and climate change. He noted recent sharp drops in solar and wind power prices, representing 67 percent of all new power capacity in the U.S. the past year. “Economically, trillions in new innovations will be made in the decades ahead.” Americans, he says, “clearly” care about being in a position to compete effectively, to become leaders in what is ‘an inevitable transformation.’”
This week, Obama will host Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whom the president credits for helping to seal the Paris agreement. The U.S. government, in return, is helping India–the world’s third biggest carbon emitter—to meet a target to expand its solar capacity by five times in the next six years. Alden Meyer, who worked alongside Pershing in Bonn, says this also represents a big opportunity for American business. India’s energy minister told him the price of LED light bulbs there has dropped from $5 to $1—in just 18 months. “So India is planning to replace all the light bulbs on its streets,” he says. “Who’s going to supply them?”
If Trump is elected, could he succeed in increasing fossil fuel production to the point where the United States would fail to meet the targets to which it agreed in Paris—cutting U.S. emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2020? Yes, to a degree. Electricity production counts for the biggest share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 67 percent of that comes from coal, natural gas and petroleum—which is why Obama made the sector a priority. But stiffer government regulations are only part of the reason why companies like Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal mining business, have filed for bankruptcy. Market dynamics—and consumer choices—are also at play—and they are much harder for presidents to roll back. Coal has been losing out to natural gas, which produces fewer emissions and is cheaper and more abundant.
“It’s not policy—ultimately it’s about markets,” says Ethan Zindler, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. He argues that the United States will achieve the target even without Obama’s Clean Power Plan because gas is cheap and is expected to stay that way, because renewables have gotten much cheaper—and will continue to drop in price—and the renewable energy tax credits that Congress just passed are now on the books for the next five years.
“The contradictory part of Trump’s energy speech was the idea of expanding drilling but also helping coal. Gas is eating coal’s lunch. If you pledge to make gas bigger, you will hurt coal even more.” Zindler ultimately sees the Clean Power Plan as a backstop for an unlikely scenario: that gas prices suddenly rise and coal becomes more competitive again. “If that happens, and we start emitting more CO2, then we would need [the plan] to achieve the Paris goals. But this is not what we think will happen.” So U.S. carbon emissions, he and other analysts say, will continue to drop. It’s just a question of how fast and how aggressively the next president moves to influence that trajectory. Zindler also says that Obama’s earlier regulations, such as one that set a tougher standard for mercury, have already hit the coal industry to a degree that any future regulations can’t unwind.
As early as this fall, at least 55 countries are expected to ratify or otherwise join the historic Paris agreement. And the administration is working hard to flood hundreds of other environmental rules—many aimed at Paris-targeted carbon emissions—through the regulatory pipeline, from chemicals to phasing out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Pershing told POLITICO the White House expects to see through to fruition an update to the little-known “Montreal Protocol,” which would set tougher limits on these pollutants. The Department of Energy is also planning to finalize more than a dozen energy efficiency rules on buildings and appliances this year. Businesses are rushing to conform.
Ultimately, it is the courts, not Trump, that will likely play the biggest role in determining whether Paris is the fait accompli that Pershing makes it out to be. Obama’s Clean Power Plan has been hit with lawsuits from 29 states and coal companies that challenged the EPA’s authority, and the Supreme Court issued a stay in February, temporarily blocking the administration from implementing the rule. Industry groups argued the EPA didn’t give enough consideration to the costs they would bear if the Clean Air Act is enforced. Supporters say the court has already ruled in favor of the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases as “air pollutants” under the act, in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear arguments in September in the case. Eighteen states and six cities opposed the stay, citing climate change, and many of those—like California—are expected to take their own steps to cut emissions, regardless of who next takes office. Before the stay, 20 states were discussing using carbon trading to meet the EPA guidelines. “California will not slow down our drive for clean air, renewable energy, and the good jobs that come from investing in green technologies,” Air Resources Board Chair Mary D. Nichols said at the time.
Utech argues that the rules will withstand legal challenges because the mandates fall under the Clean Air Act. “We strongly believe it’s on sound technical footing and we’re looking forward to our day in court,” he said. “We think we’re going to prevail and that it will be implemented.”
Congress itself gave the EPA the power to set standards when it passed the Clean Air Act back in 1970. And here too, if a President Trump wanted to roll things back, it would be an uphill battle in Congress to try to overturn the act itself—which has had durable bipartisan support since it was enacted. True, Senate Republicans are trying to pass measures to hurt the EPA’s ability to set and enforce pollution standards. With Trump’s support, they could hamstring its budget and slow walk appointments. But the agency would still have to carry out regulations under existing laws.
The White House—aware that it has only six months left— is once again trying to get new regulations through quickly, ahead of a 60-day period that would allow opponents in Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn them. Obama’s next big move will be to set higher gas mileage requirements for semi-trucks and large pickup trucks and vans, a goal it put off after doubling fuel economy standards for cars during his first term. Observers say it could be in for tough industry negotiations. The administration will also be pushing by September to get American airlines to agree to a “net zero” carbon emissions standard through a global program. These are areas where a President Trump could try to roll back much of what Obama is doing. The hurdle is that once these regulations become law, undoing them requires an extensive rule-making process—or a vote in Congress to eliminate the original power it gave an agency to set standards.
Much more controversial is a limit it set this month on methane emissions from new oil and gas operations. Emitted from power plants, automobile tailpipes and factories, it accounts for nearly 11 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA will also be collecting more data from oil and gas producers, with an eye on tougher standards.
It also plans to define by the end of the year “how a federal coal program might be run differently,” Utech said. It has already set a pause button on new coal leases and is creating a federal database to track carbon emitted from extraction on federal land.
Trump seized on these moves in his North Dakota speech, calling the Obama climate rules “death by a 1,000 cuts over regulations.”
“I’m going to free up the coal,” he said, aiming his remarks at Hillary Clinton, who said early on in the campaign that the industry was as good as buried. She has now walked back those comments and has toured West Virginia towns where coal plants have closed.
At a minimum, Trump would have to get a win in the courts against the administration’s Clean Power Plan to dismantle the coal plant regulations. And to eliminate funds for clean energy, as he professes to want, would require a reversal from Congress. In line with the Paris agreement, it just passed five years’ worth of incentives for solar with key votes from Republicans like Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, whose state has big wind power potential. Overturning them would require votes from Democrats. “It’s not going to happen,” Utech says.
After being criticized by environmentalists for not doing enough on climate in his first term, Utech stresses that it’s an issue Obama sees as a top priority for defining his time in office. And he has public opinion firmly behind him, with 64 percent of U.S. adults telling Gallup in March they are worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about global warming.
“We’re going to continue to make progress on this issue. That’s what the American people expect,” says Utech. “Coming out of Paris, it’s also what the rest of the world expects.”
Whether Trump ultimately conforms to those expectations—or continues to resist them—remains to be seen. But if he succeeds Obama, he’ll have a lot of work to do to dismantle the edifice that Pershing, Utech and others are building.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/06/politico-magazine-how-obama-is-trump-proofing-his-climate-pact-118091
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Congressional Hearings
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested