Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/10
-
(ACC Mentioned) Whoa! Congress Agrees on Chemical Safety
Jun 10, 2016 | Courier-Journal
By James Bruggers
It seemed like a good idea back in 1976 - passing a Toxic Substances Control Act to safeguard Americans from chemicals that can cause cancer or other illnesses. -
Senate Democrats Seek To Clarify Major Provisions Of TSCA Reform Bill
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Several Senate Democrats in a new legislative analysis are clarifying how they think EPA -- and potentially federal courts -- should interpret major provisions of the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill, including contentious issues such as preemption of state chemicals programs and how to establish fees on industry. -
Chemicals In Food And Cosmetics Linked To Preterm Births And Low Birth Weight
Jun 10, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Erin Green
A study of pregnant Brooklyn women led by the SUNY Downstate Medical Center links triclosan, an antibacterial agent common in personal care products, with preterm births and smaller newborns. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell's Next Wave
Jun 9, 2016 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
A major highlight at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Annual Meeting was Shell’s announcement that it made a final investment decision (FID) to build a world-scale integrated polyethylene (PE) complex in Pennsylvania. -
(ACC Mentioned) BASF Drops Major Expansion Project in Texas
Jun 9, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
The world’s biggest chemical company has backed off plans to build a massive plant at its Freeport, Texas complex. -
Democrats to Meet on Energy Bill Conference Strategy
Jun 10, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said June 9 she plans to meet next week on the minority party's path forward on energy bill conference negotiations. -
Lawmakers to Advance Interior-EPA Bills
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
A promise by senators to stick to budget caps and avoid partisan riders coupled with a move by House leaders to limit amendments should ease the path for the Interior Department and environment spending bill in both chambers. -
House Panel to Mark Up EPA Spending Bill June 14
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The House Appropriations Committee June 14 will mark up legislation to fund the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department and related agencies for fiscal year 2017, committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing told Bloomberg BNA June 9. -
EPA Accused of ‘Scare Tactic’ on Clean Power Plan Stay
Jun 10, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Suggestions that the Environmental Protection Agency might not extend the deadlines in its Clean Power Plan, should the rule ultimately be upheld following a lengthy judicial stay, are a “scare tactic” to force states to continue their preparations, opponents of the rule testified June 9. -
GOP, Some States Press EPA for Answers on Implementation Plans
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Senators yesterday took up the question of whether U.S. EPA can work on guidelines related to the Clean Power Plan while the program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is frozen by the Supreme Court. -
Environmentalists, Utility Groups Sue EPA Over Revisions To MACT Rule
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and utility industry groups are suing EPA over its April 6 rule making “technical” revisions to its utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule limiting air toxics from power plants, the latest in a long-running series of challenges to revisions to the rule the agency has made since first issuing it in 2011. -
Manufacturers Take Aim at Energy Efficiency Law
Jun 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
President Barack Obama is leaning heavily on energy efficiency to reach his climate change goals, but the companies whose products have to meet stricter standards think the underlying law needs a makeover. -
House Message: No Carbon Tax Under Clinton
Jun 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor and Andrew Restuccia
As Donald Trump and the GOP limp through a harsh week, House Republicans are making a play for party unity Friday with an assault on an idea Hillary Clinton has yet to even endorse: a tax on carbon pollution from fossil fuels. -
Pipeline Safety Bill on the Road to Enactment
Jun 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
A nod from the Senate is all that's needed to send bipartisan pipeline legislation to the president's desk now that the House has passed the measure. -
Senate Leaders Seeking to Move Pipeline Bill by Consent
Jun 10, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate leaders were seeking to move a House-passed pipeline safety bill by unanimous consent, with hopes of passing the measure as early as June 9. -
EPA Sued Over Delayed Air Toxics Reviews
Jun 10, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A coalition of environmental organizations want a federal district court to set deadlines for the Environmental Protection Agency to complete overdue reviews of national air standards covering certain industrial sectors (Cmty. In-Power and Dev. Ass'n Inc. v. McCarthy, D.D.C., No.1:16-cv-1074, 6/8/16).
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Whoa! Congress Agrees on Chemical Safety
Jun 10, 2016 | Courier-Journal
By James Bruggers
It seemed like a good idea back in 1976 - passing a Toxic Substances Control Act to safeguard Americans from chemicals that can cause cancer or other illnesses.
But it didn't work very well - in fact, it wasn't strong enough to even stand up to a ban on asbestos, a known carcinogen.
This week, there's a new chemical safety bill that President Obama is expected to sign, and believe it or not, it was a product of Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as environmental and industry groups.
Stop the presses.
My Society of Environmental Journalists' colleague Cheryl Hogue explained it this way for Scientific American, in an article originally from Chemical & Engineering News:
"In a move that will mandate required federal safety assessments of chemicals found in everyday products from laundry detergent to toys, a June 7 U.S. Senate vote sends legislation to President Barack Obama for signature. The measure...marks Congress’s first major overhaul of a federal pollution control statute in a decade.
"The legislation will fundamentally change U.S. regulation of the products of the chemical industry, from commodity substances that have been in use for decades to novel commercial compounds discovered and developed by research chemists."
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a medical doctor, was among the final holdouts, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. Paul boomed: “If California inappropriately regulates your chemicals, charge them more and by all means move! We'd love to have your business in Kentucky.”
As Hogue, who knows chemical safety as well as any journalist, wrote, EPA will need to determine the safety of chemicals in commerce. The federal agency gets some additional power to compel testing by companies. She notes that now, the agency has to document risks before demanding companies conduct safety testing.
Tens of thousands of chemicals have been brought into society without, critics have said, adequate safety checks.
When's the last time you heard a leader of an environmental group say something like this about new legislation?
"While not perfect, the Lautenberg Act fixes the biggest problems with our current law - by requiring safety reviews for chemicals in use today, mandating greater scrutiny of new chemicals before they can be sold, removing the barriers that prevented EPA from banning asbestos and other harmful chemicals, enhancing transparency, and much more," said Dr. Richard Denison, Environmental Defense Fund's lead senior scientist. "We look forward to seeing the president sign this landmark reform, so we can begin the process of restoring confidence in our chemical safety system.”
And this, from the industry's American Chemistry Council's President, Cal Dooley, who called passage of the bill "truly historic. This legislation is significant not only because it is the first major environmental law passed since 1990, but because TSCA reform will have lasting and meaningful benefits for all American manufacturers, all American families and for our nation’s standing as the world’s leading innovator."
Not everyone is happy.
"For 15 years, community-based organizations in Kentucky, including Louisville-based environmental justice groups like REACT and the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, have been promoting a chemical industry reform agenda that holds the industry accountable for the harm it has already created, and promotes safe chemical solutions that are good for our health, the environment and economies," Elizabeth Crowe told me an in email.
She used to be with KEF and how is with something called the Coming Clean collaborative, with a mission of moving the nation's "fossil fuel-based chemical and energy economy toward a new era of economic sustainability and community wellness based on innovations and new applications of green chemistry and clean energy."
There's a Louisville connection. The coalition has rallied around something called theLouisville Charter as a measuring stick for proposed policies. That charter arose out of meetings between environmental groups in Louisville more than a decade ago, surrounding western Louisville residents' struggles with Rubbertown chemical companies.
The Lautenberg bill "does offer some improvements," Crowe acknowledged, but "it doesn't measure up to the Charter when it comes to immediate action to protect people being contaminated right now, or to clean up legacy chemical contamination."
She said it also restricts the power of states and, "unfortunately, these and other disincentives and loopholes make the new law a pretty good win for the chemical industry; less so for families and communities who want to protect our health."
In the end, there was compromise, as Denison told NPR:
"I would say the thing that brought it about is first the fact that the public and consumers were demanding change, second - that the industry itself began to recognize it needed a stronger federal system to restore confidence and third - there really was a commitment to do this on a bipartisan basis in Congress."
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/watchdog-earth/2016/06/09/whoa-congress-agrees-chemical-safety/85656652/
-
Senate Democrats Seek To Clarify Major Provisions Of TSCA Reform Bill
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Several Senate Democrats in a new legislative analysis are clarifying how they think EPA -- and potentially federal courts -- should interpret major provisions of the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill, including contentious issues such as preemption of state chemicals programs and how to establish fees on industry.
The analysis, submitted to the Congressional Record June 7 as part of Senate floor debate on the then-pending legislation, is signed by Senate Environment & Public Works Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and fellow Senate Democrats Edward Markey (MA), Tom Udall (NM), and Jeff Merkley (OR). Udall's backing is significant because he was an original lead author with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) of the Senate TSCA reform bill.
The final bill is the result of compromise talks to reconcile the Senate bill, S. 697, with the narrower House bill, H.R. 2576. In interviews with Inside EPA, Vitter touted a final agreement on preemption of state chemicals programs, and Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) has said the bill will provide regulatory certainty.
However, the four Democrats' analysis signals that they want to influence how EPA implements the bill's various provisions. Their statements could also potentially be cited in future litigation over implementation of the legislation, because it could be a factor in any disputes over Congress' intent when crafting the bill.
The legislation is known as the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in honor of the late Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) who for years unsuccessfully tried to advance TSCA reform in the Senate.
The House approved the TSCA compromise bill in a 403-13 vote on May 24 and the Senate then approved it by voice vote June 7, sending it to President Obama who has said he will sign it into law.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in June 8 press gaggle that the bill is a “rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress,” and the administration is pleased EPA will get additional authority to regulate toxic chemicals. “The President will sign it, and we'll let you know when he has,” he said.
The bill will give EPA major new powers to address both existing and new chemicals of concern, new authority to compel health and safety data from industry about substances on which there is insufficient information, and remove legal hurdles in current TSCA that have hindered previous EPA action on chemicals deemed unsafe.
Preemption Provisions
Boxer had stymied prior attempts at TSCA reform due to concerns about language she said would too broadly preempt state chemicals programs such as California's efforts to regulate substances. The senator has said that the final TSCA bill provides a compromise that will ensure states can act in some circumstances.
In the Democratic senators' analysis, the lawmakers attempt to further define how EPA, states and others should read the preemption provisions. The text of the legislation would create some restrictions on a “pause” that would effectively halt all new state chemical requirements. The pause would begin when EPA defines and publishes a scope of the safety assessment and end when the agency finalizes a safety determination for a chemical under section 6 of TSCA or misses a three-and-a-half year deadline for issuing the determination.
In the analysis, the Democrats say that the bill “fully preserves”states' ability to impose “information obligation” requirements on manufacturers for chemicals, such as reporting and monitoring requirements. “These may include, but are not limited to, state requirements related to information, such as companies obligations to disclose use information, to provide warnings or to label products or chemicals with certain information regarding risks and recommended actions to reduce exposure or environmental release,” the analysis says. The senators also point to language in the bill they say provides for both discretionary and mandatory waivers from preemption.
But Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) -- who has called for reforming TSCA in the past -- in her June 7 floor remarks said that she intended to vote against the bill because, she said, it would “significantly limit the rights of individual states to set their own chemical safety standards from this day forward.”
The senator also said the waiver process, which would be states' “only recourse” would be overly burdensome and fail to guarantee that a state will be able to obtain a waiver.
Legal Analysis
The Democrats' analysis includes a lengthy legal review of some of the language in the current TSCA faulted as hindering EPA's efforts to ban asbestos, cited in the 1991 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruling in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA that overturned the agency's proposed ban on the substances.
The court in part overturned the ban on asbestos, the Democrats say in the analysis, because it believed that in evaluating the current TSCA safety standard, “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” EPA was required to consider the costs of carrying out any proposed actions on chemicals.
The analysis also points to a D.C. Circuit ruling in a 1977 ruling in Forester v. CPSC, which found that similar risk language in the Federal Hazardous Substances Act involves a balancing test like that familiar in tort law where the risk of injury must be severe enough to offset the potential harm of the rule to the regulated community.
The final reform bill, the Democrats say, “clearly rejects that approach,” though it retains the “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” because it adds new language directing EPA to consider such risks absent any analysis of cost or other non-risk factors. “In this manner, Congress has ensured that when EPA evaluates a chemical to determine whether it poses an unreasonable risk to health or the environment and regulates the chemical if it does, the Agency may not apply the sort of 'balancing test'” described in the analysis, they say.
Instead, under the bill, EPA would be required to consider “cost effectiveness” of a proposed regulatory action for a chemical after it has already determined whether or not the substance meets the safety standard, and review other factors including the effects of the substances on health and the magnitude of exposure. In the analysis, the Democrats note that EPA should not be required to perform a second risk evaluation at this stage, rather, the the agency can satisfy the requirements based on the initial safety review, and should not require new information collection.
Cost Considerations
On the subject of the cost considerations for the agency's review of chemicals, the Democrats say that EPA's consideration is “limited to the requirements of the rule itself and the '1 or more primary alternatives it considered,' not every possible alternative.” In Corrosion Proof Fittings, the court held that EPA had not properly considered the “least burdensome alternative, but the TSCA bill eliminates the “least burdensome” language.
The Democrats say the language in the bill makes clear that EPA is not required to “demonstrate benefits outweigh costs, to definitely determine or select the least-cost alternative, or to select an option that is demonstrably cost-effective or it is the least burdensome adequately protective option.”
Instead, the analysis says the provision should only require that EPA take into account the cost-effectiveness, among other considerations, in deciding what type of restrictions to impose, which must be sufficient to ensure that the chemical substance no longer presents unreasonable risk.
Industry Fees
The analysis also examines how the bill would establish an industry fee structure, which would fund 25 percent of EPA's overall costs to carry out the testing and chemical safety reviews for new and existing chemicals, up to a $25 million cap, which can be adjusted to inflation.
Udall recently said that EPA should not expect to get a funding boost to implement TSCA reform, citing as adequate the agency's existing funding plus the industry fee plan under the bill.
In the analysis, Udall and the other Democrats say that some have raised the possibility that the language on the fee structure could be read to exclude the cost or risk evaluations other than those on chemicals nominated by industry for review. “This was not the intent and is not consistent with the statutory language,” they say, citing language they argue demonstrates that the intent of the bill is that costs of EPA-initiated risk evaluations be defrayed at the 25 percent level.
The analysis also specifies that the bill mandates that the industry-submitted chemicals that EPA should review should make up 25 to 50 percent of the total reviews per fiscal year, and that the agency should establish a system to ensure those percentages are not exceeded. “An informal effort that simply takes requests as they come in and hopes that the percentages will work out does not meet the requirement that the Administrator 'ensure' that the percentages be met.”
-
Chemicals In Food And Cosmetics Linked To Preterm Births And Low Birth Weight
Jun 10, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Erin Green
A study of pregnant Brooklyn women led by the SUNY Downstate Medical Center links triclosan, an antibacterial agent common in personal care products, with preterm births and smaller newborns.
The SUNY study also linked those medical problems to long-chain parabens, which are chemicals often used as preservatives in food, cosmetics and personal care products.
This research expands upon the growing body of scientific evidence that supports the view that triclosan and long-chain parabens disrupt the endocrine system and harm the reproductive system and infant development.
“While small-scale changes in birth size may not be of clinical relevance or cause for concern in individual cases, subtle shifts in birth size or timing at the population-level would have major impacts on the risk for adverse birth outcomes,” said lead study author Laura Geer, associate professor at SUNY’s School of Public Health
Geer and her team tested the urine of 185 mothers in their third trimester and umbilical cord blood of 34 participants for parabens, triclosan and triclocarban. These ingredients are common in antimicrobial soaps, lotions and creams.
According to EWG’s Skin Deep cosmetics database, propylparaben is used in 7,352 personal care products; butylparaben, in 2,285 products; triclosan, in 147 products; and triclocarban, in21 products.
People are exposed to these chemicals when they eat certain foods, use certain cosmetics and clean with some antimicrobial household products . Babies may consume them in breast milk. In fact, in an earlier study, the SUNY research team detected elevated levels of these compounds in a group of mothers and infants
According to a survey conducted last March by the Mellman Group and American Viewpoint, Americans likely to vote overwhelmingly support stricter regulation of chemicals in personal care products. The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, which was supposed to guarantee the safety of cosmetics, is nearly 80 years old and falls far short of ensuring that personal care products are safe.
Until stronger regulations bans or restricts these potentially harmful chemicals from everyday products, use EWG’s Food Scores database and Skin Deep to identify healthier choices for yourself and your home.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/06/chemicals-food-and-cosmetics-linked-preterm-births-and-low-birth-weight
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shell's Next Wave
Jun 9, 2016 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
A major highlight at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Annual Meeting was Shell’s announcement that it made a final investment decision (FID) to build a world-scale integrated polyethylene (PE) complex in Pennsylvania. The announcement, which surprised the many doubters on this project, underlined the continuing US shale gas advantage.
Yet projects are not without challenges, evidenced by BASF’s decision to postpone the FID on its methane-to-propylene complex in Texas and Sasol’s cost overruns and delays at its Louisiana cracker project.
Anglo Dutch energy and chemicals producer Shell’s project will be in the second wave of US crackers based on shale gas feedstock as it will start up beyond 2020. It also marks a sharper pivot towards chemicals.
The chemical sector, including PE, will be a growth priority for Shell, said the head of its chemical business. “We are pleased with the performance of the chemicals business in the last five years, generating around 15% return on capital,” said Graham van’t Hoff, executive vice president at Shell Chemicals, who spoke at a press conference at the ACC Annual Meeting.
“Philosophically, to get rewarded, you need competitive advantage which comes from feedstocks as well as a first class footprint in terms of scale.”
Shell’s new cracker in Pennsylvania will use what it calls the cheapest gas in North America coming from the Marcellus shale. Construction on the 1.5m tonne/yearethane cracker, along with three PE units totalling 1.6m tonnes/year of capacity in Monaca, Pennsylvania, is slated to start in 18 months, with start-up targeted in the early 2020s
“It was a strategic objective of Shell’s for several years to re-enter the PE business somewhere in the world but with a particular emphasis on North America. PE is around 65% of global ethylene consumption and we could not see ourselves continuing to grow ethylene without PE,” said van’t Hoff.
Dubbed “Project Franklin”, Shell’s cracker will be the first built in the Northeast US.
Such a massive complex will spur additional investment in the region in downstream and related businesses, bringing revitalisation to a region hard hit by the decline ofcoal.
Clearly the opportunities are still there to harness the advantage of US shale gas, but major projects are likely to take longer to plan, and to build.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/06/09/10006763/shell-s-next-wave/
-
(ACC Mentioned) BASF Drops Major Expansion Project in Texas
Jun 9, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
The world’s biggest chemical company has backed off plans to build a massive plant at its Freeport, Texas complex.
The $1.4 billion project was announced about two years ago. But since then, BASF says shifting market conditions have made the project less attractive. In particular, the company cited shrinking profit margins in the industry due to a glut in petrochemicals and increased global competition.
BASF’s new plant was expected to annually crank out 475,000 metric tons of propylene, a common building block in plastics. It would have been the first methanol-to-propylene plant in the U.S.
According to Houston Chronicle, new production in China and elsewhere has contributed to the supply glut and recent dive in propylene prices.
The report said diminishing returns from the shale boom have also played a part in U.S. chemical manufacturing losing its competitive edge. When natural gas prices plunged, profit margins for U.S. chemical facilities that use it as a feedstock soared compared to overseas companies that use oil instead. But now that oil prices have fallen and stayed low, new chemical production in the U.S. has become less lucrative.
Other companies have also been pulling out of planned chemical projects as well.
G2X, a Houston-based company, recently stalled a $1.6 billion methanol plant that was slated for Louisiana. Total, a French company, has yet to give the final green light to a proposed $2 billion ethylene plant in Texas. And Ascend Performance Materials announced in May that it is delaying plans for a $1.2 billion propylene project that was also planned for Texas.
According to Plastics News, a total of 12 propylene projects that had been destined for Texas have now been moved into a holding pattern.
Yet, the overall picture for the chemicals industry shows that the number of plants in the U.S. is likely to expand greatly over the next few years. The American Chemistry Council has counted 265 projects in the works between now and 2023. Around 100 projects are planned for Texas alone at a value of about $50 billion.
BASF is still planning to open an ammonia plant with Norwegian company Yara International next year.
The company also indicated that it will continue monitoring the propylene market and revisit plans for the new plant if conditions improve.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/06/basf-drops-major-expansion-project-texas
-
Democrats to Meet on Energy Bill Conference Strategy
Jun 10, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said June 9 she plans to meet next week on the minority party's path forward on energy bill conference negotiations.
However, it remains to be seen whether Democrats will support a vote to hold a formal conference.
The reservation of Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and other Democrats follows the House's decision to add a number of contentious measures opposed by the White House at the last minute before sending the bill to the Senate.
“It's a bunch of junk they sent us,” Cantwell told Bloomberg BNA. “It's taking us forever to work through it.”
Democratic support would be needed to reach the 60-vote threshold required to pass a motion to go to conference. Asked if the minority party would withhold support for moving forward, Cantwell said, “I think we have to wait and see where we are next week.”
“It's a bunch of junk they sent us.”
—Sen. Maria Cantwell, top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Some Similar Provisions
Both the House and the Senate versions of the legislation include measures to expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, streamline the approval process for electric transmission lines, increase cybersecurity protections for the electricity grid and expedite licensing for hydropower projects.
But a number of provisions the House added to the bill before sending it the Senate, such as language streamlining the permitting process for mines and a provision that would require expedited consideration of natural gas and pipeline siting applications by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, are giving Democrats pause.
Still, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told Bloomberg BNA she is optimistic the Senate will hold a vote on going to conference soon.
“I'm still trying to remind people about all the great things that are in it and why it's important to go to conference,” Murkowski said. “I had hoped that possibly we might be able to get to it this week, [but] Thursdays around here get skinny.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91410002&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91410002&jd=91410002
-
Lawmakers to Advance Interior-EPA Bills
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
A promise by senators to stick to budget caps and avoid partisan riders coupled with a move by House leaders to limit amendments should ease the path for the Interior Department and environment spending bill in both chambers.
Both the House and Senate Appropriations committees are on track to advance their fiscal 2017 versions of the bill next week. And leaders in both chambers would like to see them on their respective floors before Congress leaves for an extended recess in mid-July.
Last year neither chamber passed the bill, which funds U.S. EPA and Interior. The legislation has become increasingly challenging to pass, having become a flashpoint for partisan fights over environmental policies.CONTINUING COVERAGE
The Fiscal 2017 Budget & Appropriations continuing coverage is a one-stop resource for tracking the fiscal 2017 spending process for environmental and energy accounts. Click here to view E&E's continuing coverage.
The Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up its version of the bill next week, and unlike last year, the measure will be free of controversial policy riders, a key senator said yesterday.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), ranking member of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said he was unaware of any riders in the base bill.
"Not that I know of right now, no," Udall told E&E Daily when asked whether any contentious riders were in the measure.
The absence of riders would stand in marked contrast to last year's bill, which included multiple provisions targeting U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing regulations and others (E&E Daily, June 17, 2015).
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who joined the subcommittee last year, later claimed credit for the inclusion of the smorgasbord of riders.
However, as in past years, Democrats managed to weed out the most controversial riders from the final omnibus spending bill that passed last year.
That omnibus came after Senate Democrats blocked appropriations bills from reaching the Senate floor -- a tactic that successfully promoted a budget deal raising overall spending limits for two years.
After the omnibus negotiations, Senate leaders agreed to a truce in which Democrats would not block spending bills from reaching the floor if Republicans left riders out of the measures and did not violate budget caps.
The Senate opted to stick with that deal yesterday, rejecting a Democratic plan to raise domestic spending by $18 billion on a procedural vote tied to defense policy legislation. The GOP side then withdrew a proposal to make a similar increase for defense programs.
Senate appropriators yesterday approved the fiscal 2017 Labor Department and Health and Human Services spending bill, which like the Interior-environment legislation, is among the more contentious appropriations bills.
Udall said the Labor bill's passage in committee was a positive sign for the environment measure, which hasn't seen the Senate floor in years.
"Right now, [appropriators] have set a pattern in both the subcommittee and full committee of no poisonous riders, no poison pills," he said. "I think we've set a good pattern and I hope we continue."
Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was less than definitive when asked yesterday about riders in this year's bill.
"We have been working very hard to build a bill that represents the priorities from members all around the country and really both sides of the aisle," she said in an interview.
Murkowski added that she was unsure whether contentious issues would arise during next week's markups. "We're still kind of probing on that to find out what we might be expecting, so we'll see," she said.House debacle unlikely
House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) confirmed yesterday that the full committee would mark up its spending bill next week. The subcommittee approved it last month.
Calvert added that he expects Democrats will try to alter it in committee but said it should face less resistance than last year on the floor.
The measure would trim EPA's fiscal 2017 spending by about 2 percent from this year's $8.1 billion total. Accompanying riders would block the agency both from limiting methane emissions from the oil and gas industry and from implementing the Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut carbon dioxide releases from coal-fired power plants.
The subcommittee's top Democrat, Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota, told E&E Daily that it would be "impossible" for Democrats to support the measure with the current riders intact.
But McCollum said she would try to get them removed at the markup and said she was pleased with the bill's funding for national parks.
McCollum said she was also opposed the bill's deep cuts in EPA spending that she believes would put the health and safety of Americans at risk.
"The Flint water crisis has once again demonstrated the importance of the EPA, and while this bill grants some debt relief to communities with lead in their drinking water, it does not go far enough to help Flint's children," McCollum said.
While House Democrats may fight the riders in committee, they will have fewer options on the floor, after GOP leaders announced this week they would begin restricting amendments on spending bills to avoid surprise "poison pill" proposals.
Republicans want to avoid a repeat of the last month's surprise defeat of the fiscal 2017 energy and water spending bill over a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights provision.
They also say they are eager to skip a floor fight over the confederate flag that brought down last year's Interior bill and ended all House work on appropriations measures.
"Leadership is trying to do what's good for the team and trying to preserve the process," senior appropriator Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said of the move to limit add-ons.
In a first test of those new limitations, the House is set to approve its legislative branch spending bill today after considering 13 amendments.
Nearly 30 other amendments, including controversial measures on LGBT rights and immigration, were blocked from floor consideration by the Rules Committee.
Democrats have been critical of the decision to limit amendments, saying Republicans want to stifle any dissent on spending measures.
"The fact that they are now closing down that option is a sign of fear and cowardice on their part. They're afraid of the debate," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday.
Even with improved prospects that spending bills could pass in the House and Senate, the chances of them all reaching the president's desk remains a long shot -- given differences over funding levels and the House's likely insistence on riders.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/10/stories/1060038597
-
House Panel to Mark Up EPA Spending Bill June 14
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The House Appropriations Committee June 14 will mark up legislation to fund the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department and related agencies for fiscal year 2017, committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing told Bloomberg BNA June 9.
The Interior-Environment Subcommittee approved the legislation, which is still in draft form, on May 25, despite a range of riders that would halt the Obama administration's environmental agenda.
The bill would bar the EPA from using appropriated funds for the Clean Power Plan, currently stayed and awaiting Sept. 27 oral argument at the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the waters of the U.S. plan, among other spending prohibitions.
The $32.1 billion appropriations measure would provide the EPA with nearly $8 billion. That EPA budget line undercuts President Barack Obama's request by $300 million.
Appropriations ranking member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) criticized the EPA allocation. “EPA needs to be funded sufficiently to meet all of its critical responsibilities,” Lowey told Bloomberg BNA June 8. “Taken as a whole, this Interior bill fails that test.”
Following the subcommittee markup, Lowey assailed the riders in comments to Bloomberg BNA.
Still, Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) is intent on approving the legislation with the riders in place, Hing said June 9.
Other riders in the legislation would prohibit EPA spending on the Superfund financial assurance rulemaking, livestock methane regulations and changes to the “fill material” definition under the Clean Water Act.
Rider-Free Tack in Senate
Senate appropriators are set to mark up their counterpart legislation in subcommittee on the same day, followed by a full committee markup June 16.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Interior-Environment Subcommittee, has said that bill, which has yet to be unveiled, won't contain similarly controversial riders.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91410001&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91410001&jd=91410001
-
EPA Accused of ‘Scare Tactic’ on Clean Power Plan Stay
Jun 10, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Suggestions that the Environmental Protection Agency might not extend the deadlines in its Clean Power Plan, should the rule ultimately be upheld following a lengthy judicial stay, are a “scare tactic” to force states to continue their preparations, opponents of the rule testified June 9.
The EPA's insistence on moving forward with model trading rules to guide state implementation of the carbon dioxide standards for power plants (RIN:2060-AR33), which has been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and an incentive program for early investment in renewable generation and energy efficiency effectively force states to continue their compliance planning, Allison Wood, a partner at Hunton & Williams LLP who represents the power industry, told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
States will still be forced to review the proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program and offer comments on the proposal or forgo their right to challenge the rule later, she said. “This fear effectively negates the relief provided by the stay,” Wood testified at the hearing.
The Supreme Court has already stayed the Clean Power Plan even though the rule will not be argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit until September (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, 5/16/16).
EPA Abiding by Precedent
Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, which is supporting the EPA in litigation over the Clean Power Plan, told the committee there is “ample precedent” for the EPA to continue its work despite the court's stay. Moreover, he said courts don't make decisions on tolling deadlines at the start of a lawsuit but only once it's concluded.
“Tolling decisions are made when a stay is lifted, not when a stay is put in place,” Revesz said.
But those tolling decisions often extended the compliance dates longer than the rules themselves were stayed, Wood said, citing the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which was stayed for nearly two and a half years before it was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. When the deadlines were eventually tolled, they were extended by nearly three years—longer than the litigation took—in order to coincide with the new calendar year, she said.
“You didn't shorten it, you lengthened it,” she said.
Some States Moving Forward
Despite the stay, a handful of states are voluntarily making plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan should it be upheld and have sought assistance from the EPA as they prepare. Fourteen states have asked the EPA for additional guidance on the upcoming model trading rules as well as the soon-to-be-proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program, a voluntary matching fund for wind and solar power generation and demand-side energy efficiency measures in low-income communities in states that take early action toward meeting the Clean Power Plan targets.
That early planning will place those states on a better footing to meet their Clean Power Plan targets should the rule go into effect, said Katie Dykes, deputy commissioner for energy at the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and chairwoman of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
“Connecticut and the other RGGI states have some of the most aggressive Clean Power Plan targets in the country, but we're well-placed to meet them because we've taken proactive action,” she testified.
However, the extraordinary nature of the Supreme Court's stay should give states a warning that several justices think that the rule is in significant legal jeopardy, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the committee chairman, said.
“While a stay is not the final decision, it makes clear that the highest court in this country has serious reservations on the legal soundness of the rule,” Inhofe said.
Following the hearing, Inhofe sent a letter to the EPA asking whether it would abide by any tolling requirements should the Clean Power Plan ultimately be upheld.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91410000&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91410000&jd=91410000
-
GOP, Some States Press EPA for Answers on Implementation Plans
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
Senators yesterday took up the question of whether U.S. EPA can work on guidelines related to the Clean Power Plan while the program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is frozen by the Supreme Court.
In the last few months, EPA has continued to work on an incentive program to credit states for early action on renewable energy and efficiency. The agency has also indicated it would release model rules to guide states on shaping emissions trading programs.
During a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, Republicans and their witnesses charged that EPA was attempting to bypass the high court stay.
"There's a belief by some environmental advocates and the EPA that the Supreme Court stay of the Clean Power Plan doesn't include all the aspects of the so-called Clean Power Plan," said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). "The advocates and the EPA seem to believe that the court somehow meant to allow EPA to continue working on aspects of the rule."
After the hearing, EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) released aletter to EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe demanding answers on the agency's lack of conclusive statements on how it would handle the Clean Power Plan's compliance deadline if the courts were to uphold the rule.
The uncertainty has been a thorn on the side of EPA and its defenders. Inhofe asked for answers to a series of questions on EPA's activities during the stay by a June 21 deadline.
"EPA is attempting to downplay the significance of the stay and argue against clear legal precedence as a last-ditch effort to scare states into spending scarce resources complying with a rule that could very well be overturned," Inhofe said at the hearing.
The EPW Committee's Democrats yesterday presented a united front in support of the Clean Power Plan and broader action to address climate change.
As usually occurs with congressional hearings related to climate change, emotions ran high at times.
After Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called the Republican Party the "de-facto political wing of the fossil fuel industry," Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) shot back that the comment was "beneath my friend."
"It is insulting for a member of this Senate," Wicker said, "to come in here and to suggest that this hearing ... somehow demonstrates that members of the Congress are owned by the fossil fuel industry."
Finalized last August, the Clean Power Plan is the centerpiece of the Obama administration's domestic climate agenda and requires states to develop plans to lower power plant carbon dioxide emissions. In a 5-4 decision in February, the Supreme Court unexpectedly stayed the program until complex litigation was resolved.
EPA has said it would help states that voluntarily want to continue planning efforts, along with continuing to work on related rulemakings. In April, a group of 14 states asked EPA for more information and technical assistance on the Clean Power Plan.
"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."'So many variables'
At yesterday's hearing, Republican witness Allison Wood, partner at the firm Hunton & Williams LLP, charged that EPA's work on the related Clean Energy Incentive Program and model trading rules would compel states to take action that violates the spirit of the stay.
EPA will likely open up a public comment period on its proposed CEIP. States -- even those like West Virginia that have decided to halt work on the Clean Power Plan -- would have to expend resources on commenting or litigating those other rules, Wood argued.
"The problem is, they're trying to provide additional tools to the states that want to continue to work -- EPA ends up forcing states and regulated entities that do not want to work during the stay to do so," she said.
Another majority witness, Michael McInnes, CEO of Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc., a rural electric cooperative, urged states to halt all planning activities under the Clean Power Plan. Tri-State was among the many rule critics that requested a court stay of the program.
But McInnes told lawmakers that two of the five states in which Tri-State operates have decided to continue developing plans.
"We feel it is wasteful to spend taxpayer and ratepayer money developing a plan for an unknown target," he said.
"There are so many variables that could change -- a new rule, a modified rule, a new president withdraws the rule or proposes a new one, markets could change, new technology could be developed -- so any plan developed today will likely have to be redone," he said.'Without merit'
Environmentalists yesterday defended EPA's activities during the stay.
"The attacks raised today by Senate Republicans are, as usual, without merit," said Alejandra Nunez, staff attorney with the Sierra Club's environmental law program.
"Despite the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, it is entirely appropriate for the EPA to continue working on implementation of the rule in order to assist states, many of which have asked the agency to continue working with them on their planning," she said.
Richard Revesz, a witness for the Democrats, told lawmakers it was both "legal and appropriate" for EPA to continue working on regulatory matters related to the Clean Power Plan such as the model trading rules.
Revesz, who directs New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, argued that those related activities don't create enforceable obligations for states.
In previous administrations, EPA has continued working on implementation activities for Clean Air Act rules that had been stayed by courts, he said.
The agency, for example, issued regulations related to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule during a stay issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"Rather than coercing states into compliance," Revesz said, "EPA's continued implementation work will simply provide [states] with useful resources."
Along with questioning EPA's activities during the stay, Inhofe repeated criticisms of the broader Clean Power Plan.
He asked witnesses to respond to a recent statement by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that there was not "one single bit of evidence that we have destroyed an industry or significantly impacted jobs other than in a positive way" (ClimateWire, April 14).
Republican Missouri state Rep. Jack Bondon, who has sponsored legislation to halt state planning activities during the stay, said that he would "take exception to that," citing the recent bankruptcy announcements by Peabody Energy Corp. and Arch Coal Inc., both of which are headquartered in Missouri.
"There are certainly a number of reasons why a company does that," Bondon said. "But the uncertainty created by the Clean Power Plan and the future of moving away from coal will impact their employees."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) complained that the coal industry had rejected an offer of billions of dollars for carbon capture and storage technology via the 2009 cap-and-trade bill. He argued that the bill, which ultimately was unsuccessful, was an attempt to help coal companies stay alive in a way that works "for all the interests."
"I just don't want to hear the crocodile tears from Peabody Coal, Arch Coal," Markey said. "We were trying to give them a bridge to the future. Do you think they wish they could go back to 2009 and grab that money?"
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/10/stories/1060038605
-
Environmentalists, Utility Groups Sue EPA Over Revisions To MACT Rule
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and utility industry groups are suing EPA over its April 6 rule making “technical” revisions to its utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule limiting air toxics from power plants, the latest in a long-running series of challenges to revisions to the rule the agency has made since first issuing it in 2011.
In a lawsuit filed June 3 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project ask the court to review the rule published April 6 in the Federal Register. In addition to technical revisions, the rule also scrapped “affirmative defense” provisions that shielded utilities from liability for emissions limit violations due to certain malfunctions.
Separately, several states opposed to the MACT are awaiting the outcome of a Supreme Court June 9 conference where the justices were poised to consider whether to grant a case asking them to again review the rule, following their 2015 decision that faulted EPA for not considering costs in deciding to craft the MACT for power plants.
The environmentalists' new D.C. Circuit suit focuses on revisions to the MACT, not the underlying rule. While the advocates' new filing gives no reasons for the suit, in public comments submitted on the proposed version of the rule, the groups welcomed the rule's removal of affirmative defenses but criticized other measures.
For example, the groups in April 3, 2015, comments said that measures in the technical revisions designed to ease compliance with the MACT -- also known as the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) -- went too far.
The groups in their comments claimed that, “many of the rest of EPA’s proposed changes are arbitrary and capricious or do not otherwise comply with the Clean Air Act. 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.'”
Advocates' Concerns
For example, the groups said, EPA in the proposed version of the rule asked if “certain facilities should be allowed an exemption from compliance on those days with less than 18 hours of emissions data. EPA, however, has not provided adequate rationale for this exemption, and the exemption does not otherwise comply with the Clean Air Act because, among other reasons, it precludes continuous emission reductions.”
The advocates also criticized EPA's proposal to relax requirements for “work practices” that apply instead of numerical emission limits for electrical generating units (EGUs) that “choose the alternate definition of startup (which includes an exemption from the Rule’s numerical standards during the first four hours after generation of electricity) so that, during startup, these EGUs are only required to use clean fuels 'to the maximum extent practicable, taking into account considerations such as boiler or control device integrity.' EPA’s proposal to use work practices at all for startup is improper because EPA has not met threshold requirements under the Clean Air Act regarding the situations in which work practices can be used,” according to the written comments.
EPA in the final version of the rule issued in April retained the 18-hour limit, but changed the term “practicable” to “possible,” which it says is more “enforceable.”
Industry Litigation
The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing the power generation sector, also filed suit with the D.C. Circuit June 6 over the technical corrections but similarly without detailing the reasons for the suit.
But in its April 3, 2015, comments on the proposal, UARG faulted a host of provisions, such as “the lack of clarity in the rule language regarding the applicability of the new work practice monitoring requirements.”
Meanwhile, ARIPPA -- the Pennsylvania utility using coal-waste as fuel -- filed suit June 3 in the D.C. Circuit over the revisions rule. The group, which along with UARG and the same environmental groups, is already suing EPA over prior utility MACT rule revisions, has previously argued that EPA has failed to take into account the unique circumstances of its business, which it says is environmentally beneficial because it disposes of waste coal.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-utility-groups-sue-epa-over-revisions-mact-rule
-
Manufacturers Take Aim at Energy Efficiency Law
Jun 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
President Barack Obama is leaning heavily on energy efficiency to reach his climate change goals, but the companies whose products have to meet stricter standards think the underlying law needs a makeover.
A quartet of trade associations that represent the makers of everything from air conditioners to washing machines are aggressively pressing members of Congress to alter how the decades-old law handles periodic update for rules, and how much of DOE's cost-benefit balancing act the industry is allowed to see.
“There have been so many tweaks and changes to the law over the last forty or so years since it was passed it’s kinda like Frankenstein’s monster,” said Robert McArver, who directs policy and government relations for the Association for Home Appliance Manufacturers.
Changes to the Energy Policy Conservation Act, or EPCA, in recent years have typically dealt with only a couple of specific products at a time. But now AHAM, along with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, and the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, want lawmakers to make sweeping revisions to the Energy Department’s regulatory structure, affecting dozens of appliances, as well as commercial and industrial equipment.
“EPCA’s almost 40 years old,” AHRI president Steve Yurek said. “There’ve been modifications, additions, add-ons over the years, but generally the entire structure and how everything was setup is almost 40 years old and a lot of products and technology have changed. The economy has changed.”
Forty years ago, the law was designed to address energy consumption, he said. Climate change and carbon emissions weren’t on the radar.
“We think it’s time that we take a step back and say, ‘OK, is this the best way to go about reaching the objective or goal of reducing energy use and environmental impact?’” Yurek said.
The law may not have been designed to tackle climate change, but the Obama administration has leveraged it to try to shave electricity consumption — and greenhouse gas emissions that come from the power sector. And Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has said DOE has “picked up the pace” on issuing efficiency regulations, several of which have statutory deadlines.
Obama's 2013 Climate Action Plan relies on DOE efficiency standards to deliver half of the 6 billion tons of carbon emissions it seeks to cut by 2030. The more than 40 rules finalized under Obama, which are projected to deliver emissions savings equivalent to taking every vehicle off American roads for two years, won’t be affected by the changes the manufacturers are seeking, but they would curb the rollout of new ones.
And manufacturers are eyeing a long list of revisions. At the top of the queue is a change that would limit a 2007 provision requiring that DOE revisit an existing efficiency standard every six years — and possibly make it more stringent — to only a subset of products that haven't yet seen multiple regulatory updates.
The groups want more transparency around the models DOE and its consultants use to calculate the costs and savings from efficiency rules, and they are asking for better coordination between DOE and other federal regulators, like EPA, as well as procedural changes related to notice and comment process.
Many of the organizations are sending representatives to a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing Friday morning to publicly kickoff their push to overhaul EPCA, an effort they admit will likely take years, although some are hoping draft legislation could emerge this year.
“It’s easy for us at some level going into a congressional office because everybody we talk to has our products in their homes,” AHAM’s McArver said.
And Republicans are all ears.
“I think the Department of Energy is being way too aggressive on efficiency issues,” said Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who is retiring next year. “I understand that Big Business is a bad word and you’re not supposed to do anything to help Big Business, but we’re talking about consumers, too."
Democrats are highly skeptical of reopening the law, though some lawmakers don't thinkreviewing it should be dismissed out of hand.
“Any regulatory laws or statutory laws ought to be reviewed periodically to make sure they still make sense,” said Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), a member of the House energy committee who has been a vocal supporter of the DOE’s efficiency programs. “There should be economic constraints. If the law of diminishing returns applies so that increasing the standards by 5 percent cost double, than it’s not worth it.”
But, he said, “if there’s anything to do, it’s to make them a lot stronger, not to make them weaker.”
Still, manufacturers will have to tread carefully, particularly with Republicans who have been critical of the DOE program, since the industry still heavily favors federal authority over the states' programs.
“There are some members of Congress more interested in free-market principles ... but we emphasize to them that we’re not trying to eliminate the program,” McArver said. “Federal preemption is a big deal in this space. ... It’s far better to have a national standard that you build to rather than having to cater to the individual vagaries of one state or another.”
Meanwhile, efficiency advocates, while aware of the industry’s grievances and legislative efforts, warn that manufacturers are jumping the gun for major reform.
“We have an enormously successful program here, saving more energy than any other policy in the U.S. aside from [vehicle efficiency] standards. Don’t fix what’s not broken,” said Andrew deLaski, the executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
“The notion that we should freeze the program in place and, by the way, leave state preemption in place ... is one that’s a nonstarter from my point of view," he said.
DeLaski said he’s not opposed to future tweaks to DOE’s program — there have been several since its inception — but that he thinks critics are overstating the issue. In particular, the provision to conduct regular six-year reevaluations of efficiency rules has barely had time to work since it was added in 2007, and the reviews don't require those standards to be tightened if it can't be economically justified or doesn't appear to be technologically feasible.
"[Manufacturers] kinda lay this out by saying this law’s 40 years old and we need to redo it, we need to rethink it. That’s a false premise,” he said. “The argument is that we’re at the end of innovation. And that’s a false argument.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/06/manufacturers-gear-up-for-efficiency-law-reform-push-118963
-
House Message: No Carbon Tax Under Clinton
Jun 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor and Andrew Restuccia
As Donald Trump and the GOP limp through a harsh week, House Republicans are making a play for party unity Friday with an assault on an idea Hillary Clinton has yet to even endorse: a tax on carbon pollution from fossil fuels.
While a carbon tax would face long political odds, fear is growing in conservative circles that Republicans will begin to embrace the proposal next year in a bid to reform the tax code and get relief from President Barack Obama's climate regulations — especially if Clinton wins in November. So the House is staging a vote Friday to express symbolic disapproval of such a tax, in hopes of keeping the idea off the table no matter who occupies the White House.
Clinton has never said whether she would support a carbon tax, a levy that many liberal activists and a handful of conservative think tanks consider the most effective and straightforward response to the climate threat. She dodged the question during an April debate with Democratic rival Bernie Sanders.
But New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is set to succeed Harry Reid as Democratic leader, said in a brief interview Thursday that he sees the "potential for a bipartisan carbon tax, if both parties step forward" under a Clinton administration.
That type of grand bargain, he added, is "possible, but hard."
Conservative opponents are taking no chances. "A carbon tax would make energy more expensive and in turn raise the costs of consumer products and services on which people depend," wrote Koch Industries' top lobbyist, Philip Ellender, in a Thursday letter asking House members to back the nonbinding resolution by Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).
Friday's vote couldn’t come at a better time for a GOP that’s eager to change the subject from racially charged remarks by its presidential nominee-in-waiting. Republicans want to talk policy and pick fights they can win, making Clinton’s hypothetical flirtation with stronger climate change policy an easy target.
Just as importantly, opponents of a carbon tax — including the Koch brothers-backed groups Americans for Prosperity and the American Energy Alliance — are aiming to solidify Republican resistance to the idea. Some industry groups had been sharpening their knives against any future deal even before Schumer remarked last year that a carbon tax could have a future if Clinton wins the White House.
Scalise's resolution is intended to get lawmakers on the record so it’s harder for them to cave next year, said Mike McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who opposes the tax.
“This thing is a legitimate risk,” McKenna said. He added: “When you’re trying to make a particular policy toxic, you make people vote on it. And over time, they start thinking, maybe I don’t want to go to war.”
The resolution is expected to win the support of most Republicans. When the House voted on asimilar anti-carbon tax resolution in 2013, no Republicans voted against the measure and only 12 Democrats voted for it.
Clinton has been harder to pin down. When Sanders needled her on the issue during an April debate, promoting himself as the only pro-carbon tax candidate in the presidential race, she responded with a vaguer pledge to build on Obama's climate agenda.
"I don't take a back seat to your legislation that you've introduced that you haven't been able to get passed," she told Sanders. "I want to do what we can do to actually make progress in dealing with the [climate] crisis."
Her campaign did not return a request for comment on whether she would consider putting a price on carbon if elected.
Among some GOP lobbyists, vocal opposition to a carbon tax has become a litmus test for devotion to the Republican Party — and the tension between the pro- and anti-carbon tax crowds has become palpable. One GOP lobbyist who opposes the tax told POLITICO that he's even been accused of secretly supporting the policy because he associates with a group that is seen as friendly to the proposal.
Intra-GOP acrimony over a carbon tax dates back to at least 2012, when the American Enterprise Institute came under fire from some on the right for holding closed-door briefings with liberal groups about the policy. Anti-tax groups still worry that the proposal could find its way into law in some 11th-hour legislative deal-making, perhaps as part of a sweeping tax reform measure championed by House Speaker Paul Ryan.
Ryan, however, rapped a carbon tax as "the wrong way to go" in an interview with a home-state newspaper last year.
“The sheer potential for taxes for the federal government will make it something that is always lingering out there,” American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle said in an interview. “At the end of the day, there are large, large bills that are put together in this town and a few people write them behind closed doors and they get thrown on the floor, and you never know if that’s going to happen in a big spending bill or a big tax reform bill.”
Most right-leaning carbon tax supporters insist that the levy should be put in place only in exchange for overturning EPA regulations. But it’s unlikely that Obama or a Democratic successor would unravel climate regulations in exchange for a carbon tax without some serious deal-making. Most Republicans agree that overlaying a carbon tax on top of existing regulations is a non-starter.
"We’ve received very little interest from the White House in reining in their regulatory agenda at all,” said Chrissy Harbin, the director of federal affairs and strategic initiatives at Americans for Prosperity. "I think that would be a huge lift."
The Republicans' carbon tax trap has grown more perilous as a small but influential group of economists and analysts on the right promote the idea as the most reasonable conservative climate change remedy — as long as the money it raises does not go into government coffers. (The government instead could funnel the money back to taxpayers, while still accomplishing the environmental goal of putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution.)
Jerry Taylor, president of the libertarian think tank the Niskanen Center and a vocal carbon tax backer, said he has talked to Republican lawmakers who have privately expressed interest in the policy. "There are some Republicans, more than you might think, who are deeply uncomfortable with the party’s position on climate change," he said.
Eli Lehrer, the president of the free-market think tank the R Street Institute, agreed. “In the long run, a carbon tax or something like it is probably close to inevitable," he said, arguing that a carbon tax is the best alternative to regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.
Both Lehrer and Taylor said they think it's likely that a Republican will introduce carbon tax legislation in the House or Senate next year.
In that context, tax supporters consider Friday's vote less than helpful, even if some argued that the resolution is an indication that the issue is gaining more prominence.
“It is worrying to me that the House would consider legislation to oppose a common-sense approach to addressing climate change," said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar at AEI. "Instead of relying on dozens of federal and state regulations that themselves are costly, a carbon tax would be transparent and cost-effective."
Even one of the Senate's biggest opponents of action on climate change declined to fully rule out a deal that exchanged a carbon tax for canceling EPA climate rules. "I'd have to see what the trade-off is" before rejecting the idea outright, Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Thursday in a brief interview.
But Inhofe said a carbon tax would be economically perilous if enacted on its own. "I don't want to put the United States of America in a non-competitive relationship with the rest of the world," he said.
Climate hawk Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) slammed House Republicans for calling up Scalise's proposal. Last year, Whitehouse visited AEI to unveil a bill that would use carbon tax money to cut the corporate tax rate and give rebates to individual taxpayers.
"Every single Republican who’s looked at climate change for a solution has come up with a revenue-neutral carbon fee," he said in an interview. "Even if we come to them on a carbon fee that is their own recommended solution, they will still tell us no. I think all they're really saying to the American people is, 'We are totally in the pocket of the fossil-fuel industry.'"
The House vote also adds a new wrinkle to ExxonMobil's deepening public relations troublesover its handling of climate change research, already the subject of investigations by attorneys general in three states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The company has tried to pacify its critics over the years by touting its support for the concept of a carbon tax, but Democrats have accused Exxon of using the idea as a fig leaf to mask its opposition to actual climate proposals. Other oil companies have also said they support the proposal in theory.
Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers declined to comment on whether the company supports Scalise's anti-carbon-tax language. "We have supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax as the best policy approach for governments to consider since 2009," he said.
Industry lobbying groups that Exxon belongs to, however, are condemning the idea.
"We've had a long history opposing carbon taxes," American Petroleum Institute spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel said when asked for the group's position on Scalise's proposal. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents refiners, first endorsed the symbolic anti-carbon tax resolution in November.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/06/house-message-no-carbon-tax-under-clinton-118674
-
Pipeline Safety Bill on the Road to Enactment
Jun 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
HOUSE VOTE TEES UP FINAL SENATE ACTION ON PIPELINE SAFETY: A nod from the Senate is all that's needed to send bipartisan pipeline legislation to the president's desk now that the House has passed the measure. As Pro's Elana Schor reports, the compromise package to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's work reflects behind-the-scenes negotiating with the Senate that's expected to avert the need for a formal conference by merging both chambers' bills. While a Senate GOP aide is "hopeful" for upper-chamber action as soon as next week, it remains unclear how long it will take to get it to President Barack Obama.
Story Continued Below
CLOSING RULES MAY OPEN DOOR TO APPROPRIATIONS: If rolling back the open amendments process for spending bills can move the energy and water appropriations measure, then so be it, Rep. Mike Simpson told reporters off the floor yesterday. The appropriations subcommittee chairman has no idea when the bill might (ever) come back, but he backs Speaker Paul Ryan’s suggestion that leadership might narrow the process. “I agree with him,” Simpson said. “If that’s what we gotta do to get them done, that’s okay. I don’t have a problem with that but I don’t know where it’s going yet.” The Idaho Republican also said that any effort to resurrect his spending bill would need to go through the subcommittee and full appropriations committee again.
WELCOME TO THURSDAY! I'm your host Eric Wolff, and Congress sure did step on the gas pedal: Pipeline safety last night, TSCA the night before. What will they pass tonight without warning? Do tell, by sending your tips, quips, and comments to ewolff@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @ericwolff, @Morning_Energy, and @POLITICOPro.
ME-a culpa: Wednesday's coverage of the PHMSA vote incorrectly described the package as a House-only deal, rather than the product of talks with the Senate. ME regrets the error.
BARRASSO GIVES MILITARY BILL A CLIMATE TWIST: The National Defense Authorization Act may be what's taking up the Senate's time today, but Sen. John Barrasso and 16 fellow Republicans want the chamber to think a little about climate by way of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Barrasso and his colleagues introduced an amendment that reiterates Congress' opposition to any attempt to recognize the State of Palestine. The amendment would reaffirm another law that says that the U.S. cannot send money to any U.N. body that recognizes Palestine.
In March, the United Nations Framework for Convention on Climate Change admitted Palestine as a member, a de facto recognition in the eyes of the GOP. If that legal interpretation is correct, the U.S.' ability to implement and participate in future climate programs through the UNFCC — which oversees the Paris climate agreement — will be hamstrung. “The law is absolutely clear — U.S. funding for U.N. organizations that recognize a ‘State of Palestine’ is expressly prohibited. Our amendment is a clear reminder for the Obama administration that if it sends a single penny of taxpayer funds to any of these groups, it will be breaking the law,” Barrasso said in a statement.
WRDA BACKERS WANT FLOOR TIME BEFORE 'CRAZY TIME': Sens. Jim Inhofe and Barbar Boxer are trying to rally supporters of the Water Resources Development Act to put some heat on Senate leadership. As Pro's Annie Snider reports, the pair wants the bill to reach the floor before the summer recess. Boxer worries that compromises in the bill won’t hold if the bill has to wait until the fall. "Once we go to the conventions, it's crazy time," she said.
'NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE WORLD' FOR INHOFE TO SERVE AS TRUMP'S EPA CHIEF: Notwithstanding his confidence that a Donald Trump administration’s EPA would implement the chemical safety law he worked so hard to pass, Inhofe says he has no interest in joining the administration to help see it through. While Inhofe hasn’t spoken to Trump or his presidential campaign, ME was curious if he would be interested in taking over as EPA administrator if the businessman wins in November. “No, oh my gosh, are you kidding?” he told us yesterday. “I wouldn’t do that — there’s not enough money in the world for me to do that.”
OZONE BILL IS A G-OZONE: Republican Sens. Shelley Moore Capito and Jeff Flake applauded the House's Wednesday passage of the Ozone Standard Implementation Act, H.R. 4775. Capito has her own version of the bill in the Senate, which would delay the EPA's ozone standard and slow reviews of key pollutants under the Clean Air Act, but it has not yet been taken up by the Environment and Public Works Committee. Still, Flake and Capito were cheered by the House's action. “I am glad that the House passed this commonsense legislation that will create a more certain regulatory environment and protect jobs. Today’s vote is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to a legislative hearing in the Senate soon,” Capito said in a statement.
EVERYTHING'S UP TO RFS IN KANSAS CITY: The nation’s biofuel backers, and some critics, are headed to Kansas City today for EPA’s public hearing on its 2017 Renewable Fuel Standard proposal (and hopefully some great barbecue). While the oil industry certainly has its complaints, the speaking slots are filled largely with pro-biofuel folks irked at the agency’s use of a waiver to set the overall goal — and the corn ethanol level — below what Congress envisioned. The speakers list includes executives from Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Biodiesel Board and the Renewable Fuels Association, as well as a number of state groups and companies. On the other side are speakers from the American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Valero and the American Council for Capital Formation.
HOUSE JUDICIARY DONE WITH DEFERENCE: The House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would eliminate "Chevron" deference, in which the court defers to agency interpretations of the law. As Pro's Alex Guillénreports, under the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, H.R. 4768, judges would have to take each challenge without giving the agency credit for technical knowledge or expertise. Republicans have been frustrated with a long run of EPA legal wins often justified by Chevron doctrine.
BEFORE TRUMP WAS AGAINST CLIMATE ACTION, HE WAS FOR IT: Donald Trump may be dismissing climate change and the Paris climate accord now, but in 2009, he signed an open letter published in the New York Times calling for urgent climate action, Grist reports. "If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet,” the letter said. On the campaign trail, Trump has mocked the idea that climate change is a real problem, and at one time he called it a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Still, this is not the first time he's been caught in contradictory positions on the issue. As POLITICO reported, last month, he is trying to build a sea wall at an Irish golf course he owns to protect it from global warming-fueled storms.
LCV DINNER DRAWS DEMS IN DROVES: A passel of Democrats and environmentalists rubbed elbows Wednesday night at the League of Conservation Voters' annual dinner. Among the featured speakers were Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nominee Katie McGinty, who vowed to ensure that Sen. Pat Toomey's (R-Pa.) seat would "flip from climate denier to climate champion" in November.
Also on hand for the dinner were EPA chief Gina McCarthy, senior White House climate and energy adviser Brian Deese, White House Council on Environmental Quality Managing Director Christy Goldfuss, and more than a dozen other House and Senate Democrats.
John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign who also helped craft Obama's climate strategy in his second term, delivered a takedown of Trump and a promise to follow through on the Democratic nominee-in-waiting's climate promises. "She won't make promises she can't keep" on the environment, the founder of the liberal Center for American Progress said of Clinton.
PUTTING NAMES TO DOE CLEANUP REORG FACES: Head honchos at the Energy Department plan to pull in staff from the department's leadership ranks and Hanford nuclear cleanup site as part of their effort to reorganize the agency’s Environmental Management office. In an email to EM staff, DOE assistant secretary Monica Regalbuto and her lieutenant, Mark Whitney, said Candice Trummell, Stacy Charboneau and Frank Marcinowski would head the three offices directly under them (the official titles get a bit long: associate principal deputy assistant secretary). Trummell, a deputy chief of staff for Deputy Energy Secretary Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall and former commissioner for Nye County, Nev., was tapped to run the Corporate Services office under the reorganization plan. Meanwhile, Charboneau, the manager for operations at Hanford, would take over Field Operations, and Marcinowski is slated to run Regulatory and Policy Affairs.
NO PROBE INTO INDIAN POINT AS NRC DENIES GILLIBRAND: The NRC rejected Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's request to keep Indian Point shut down over a problem with degraded and missing bolts. AS POLITICO New York's Scott Waldman reports, the senator from New York asked the NRC last month to leave Indian Point shut down while it conducts an investigation into the old bolt problem. In a letter dated June 3, NRC chairman Stephen Burns wrote, "Based on our independent assessment of this issue, the NRC does not have an immediate safety concern at this time that would lead us to shut down any U.S. nuclear power plant or prevent the restart of any plant from an outage."
CHAFFETZ BLASTS EPA OVER STAFFER ARRESTED FOR CHILD PORN: Rep. Jason Chaffetz linked a staffer arrested Monday for possession of child pornography to broader problems in EPA's Region 5, which covers the upper Midwest. “If true, the level of misconduct within Region 5 is truly staggering. Child pornography is as disgusting and as vile as it gets. Yet, astoundingly, this is not even the first EPA Region 5 employee to face similar charges," he said in a statement. According to Patch.com, a federal search warrant has been issued to the Office of the Inspector general.
FERC GIVES ITSELF AN EXTENSION ON JERSEY GAS PROJECT: FERC granted itself a little more time to assess appeals related to a compressor station in Bordentown, N.J. As POLITICO New Jersey's David Giambussoreports, the station, which has drawn criticism from locals and environmentalists, is part of a larger pipeline expansion project. FERC must consider whether it granted an approval despite the project's lack of a key water permit.
SUN UP ON UTILITY SOLAR: Utility-scale installations dominated the growth of the U.S. solar market in the first quarter of this year, comprising almost three-fourths of the 1,655 megawatts of new projects, GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association say in a new quarterly report today. Growth in residential solar slowed, largely due to the seasonal winter dip, but overall solar additions are forecast to bring more than 14,500 megawatts of capacity to the grid this year — a 94 percent jump from 2015. Much of that will come in the fourth quarter, when 4,500 megawatts of utility-scale solar are slated to be nearly or fully finished.
EUROPE READY FOR U.S. GAS: The International Energy Agency expects Europe to buy a lot more U.S. and Australian natural gas between now and 2021, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said while presenting the agency’s medium-term gas market report at a Brussels conference Wednesday. U.S. LNG will provide Europe with a new competitively priced source of fuel. The U.S. and Australia will be responsible for the majority of the world’s gas production growth in the next five years, which marks a shift from Russia- and Qatar-dominated past five years. “It will have implications for everyone, including Europe,” Birol said. “There will be lots of gas, especially in terms of LNG, and from triple A market economies.”
Of course, you need pipelines, said Dominique Ristori, the European Commission’s director general for energy. Referring to the EU-U.S. energy bilateral in Washington last month, he said: “It was clear that the amount of LNG for export will increase significantly from the U.S. to Europe. ... But we are being confronted with a scenario where there is no physical infrastructure.” Ristori said he has met suppliers who charge their clients different prices depending where they are. “It is not acceptable, in the context of our democracy.”
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/06/pipeline-safety-bill-on-the-road-to-enactment-214730
-
Senate Leaders Seeking to Move Pipeline Bill by Consent
Jun 10, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate leaders were seeking to move a House-passed pipeline safety bill by unanimous consent, with hopes of passing the measure as early as June 9.
The SAFE PIPES Act would reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration through fiscal year 2019, as well as give the Transportation Department agency authority to issue emergency orders in the event of a spill or other accident.
The bill, which was pre-negotiated between the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction, passed the House by voice vote June 8 with the support of groups representing companies such as Spectra Energy, the Williams Co. and Kinder Morgan Inc.
“It would be nice if we could get it cleared,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told Bloomberg BNA. “The House has cleared it, so we are just going to run the traps, and I don't know that we can do it today, but if we are here tomorrow, maybe tomorrow and if not, certainly next week.”
The legislation, which combines provisions from two separate reauthorization bills (H.R. 5050, H.R. 4937), sets new federal minimum safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities, increases inspection requirements for certain underwater oil pipelines and ensures that the agency completes unfinished rulemakings required in the 2011 reauthorization legislation, according to asummary of the bill.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Designated
The legislation also explicitly designates coastal areas, marine coastal waters and the Great Lakes as “unusually environmentally sensitive” areas subject to greater protections, according to the summary.
While the legislation retains a provision giving PHMSA emergency authority, it didn't include a measure that was in the Senate-passed version of the bill (S. 2276) that would require the agency to share unredacted oil-spill response plans with select members of Congress.
That provision was championed by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), prompting concern from Thune and others that he may place a hold on the bill preventing it from moving by unanimous consent.
However, Giselle Barry, a Markey spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA in an email that Markey had no intention of blocking the bill.
With assistance from Catherine Traywick
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91410009&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91410009&jd=91410009
-
EPA Sued Over Delayed Air Toxics Reviews
Jun 10, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A coalition of environmental organizations want a federal district court to set deadlines for the Environmental Protection Agency to complete overdue reviews of national air standards covering certain industrial sectors (Cmty. In-Power and Dev. Ass'n Inc. v. McCarthy, D.D.C., No.1:16-cv-1074, 6/8/16).
The organizations, led by the Community In-Power and Development Association, alleged in a June 8 lawsuit that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has missed statutory deadlines to complete reviews of nine separate national hazardous air pollutant standards, including regulations covering copper smelters and manufacturers of spandex.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review, and revise as necessary, hazardous air pollutant standards within eight years of promulgation to take into account technological developments and any remaining risks to human health or the environment. The complaint alleged that the EPA has missed the deadlines for reviewing standards covering the following industries:
• primary copper smelting, issued in June 2002;
• carbon black production, issued in July 2002;
• cyanide chemicals manufacturing, issued in July 2002;
• spandex production, issued in July 2002;
• flexible polyurethane foam fabrication operations, issued in April 2003;
• refractory products manufacturing, issued in April 2003;
• semiconductor manufacturing, issued in May 2003;
• primary magnesium refining, issued in October 2003; and
• mercury emissions from mercury cell chlor-alkali plans, issued in December 2003.
The environmental plaintiffs asked the court to set “expeditious deadlines” for the EPA to complete those reviews and to retain jurisdiction over the issue to ensure that the agency complies with those deadlines.
The plaintiffs, which also include Sierra Club and the Hoosier Environmental Council, are represented by Earthjustice attorneys Nicholas Morales, Emma Cheuse and James Pew.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91410014&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91410014&jd=91410014
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested