Preview Newsletter
acc- dry run
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Agency Examining Impacts of TSCA-Reform Bill
Jun 17, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Carolyn Whetzel
A California agency is examining potential impacts the newly passed Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill may have on the state's landmark Safer Consumer Products program. -
(ACC Mentioned) Is Chlorine Safe For Babies? You May Need To Keep Them From The Pool
Jun 16, 2016 | Romper
By Lindsay Mack
Introducing your baby to new experiences is one of the most rewarding aspects of parenting, and swimming is definitely up there on the list of fun things to try with your little one. -
ECOS Plans Focus On TSCA Reform's Implementation
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), representing most state environmental agencies, plans to focus on how EPA will implement the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) overhaul, saying that the potential impacts to states from the various new programs under the law is an issue ECOS needs to closely track. -
Federal bill updates chemical regulations in everyday products
Jun 16, 2016 | C&G Newspapers
By Cari DeLamielleure-Scott
Modernizing a 40-year-old law would allow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to obtain more information about thousands of chemicals found in everyday products — furniture, clothing, toys — before approving whether or not they can be used. -
Editorial: Congress Passes a Not-Very-Good Toxic Chemical Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | St. Louis Louis Post-Dispatch
By The Editorial Board
Just when you're fed up with the United States Congress (approval rating: 11 percent) comes word that it has passed and sent to the president an overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Chemicals and Substances Act, generally regarded as the weakest environmental law on the books. -
Chemical Regulation Bill Clears Congress, But Will It Protect The Public?
Jun 16, 2016 | Chron
By Noah M. Sachs
In a major overhaul of U.S. regulation of toxic chemicals, Congress last week passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the largest piece of environmental legislation passed in the United States since 1990. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly. -
Senate Democrats Cite EPA Policy Riders In Vow To Block FY17 Appropriations Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Senate Democrats are vowing to block a floor vote on EPA's fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill after the upper chamber's Appropriations Committee approved the measure in a June 16 party-line vote, with Democrats saying the bill's language blocking EPA rules are among the “poison pills” that will ensure the bill never clears the Senate. -
Senate Panel Clears EPA Spending Bill, Blocking Rules
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an Interior Department and environment spending bill on Thursday, but Democrats have already vowed to block it on the floor. -
Senate Panel Approves Divisive EPA Funding Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Brian Dabbs
Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved rider-laden legislation to fund the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department at a June 16 markup. -
Dems skeptical of Interior-EPA bill ever reaching Senate floor
| E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Against a backdrop of stark partisan division, Senate appropriators yesterday approved a $32.7 billion bill to fund U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and the Forest Service through the next fiscal year. -
Rigonomics
Jun 17, 2016 | The Economist
By The Editors
IN THE wilds of western Texas, a flicker of life has returned to the fracking, or hydraulic-fracturing, industry. -
U.S. Offshore Leasing Legacy: A Chance to Secure U.S. Energy Security
Jun 16, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Richard Kauzlarich
In March, the Obama Administration released the long-awaited proposed plan that will manage the next chapter of U.S. offshore leasing. -
Generals Vs. Scientists On Offshore Drilling
Jun 16, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem
Scientists and generals are squaring off in a fight over offshore drilling. -
Reed: Bid to attach energy tax provisions to FAA bill may fail
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico
By Brian Faler
A bid to renew some energy tax provisions as part of a pending aviation bill may fall short, a Republican tax writer said today. -
Stop Oil By Rail In Our State, Oregon Asks U.S. Regulator
Jun 16, 2016 | Reuters
By Krishna Kumar And Luc Cohen
Oregon has called for federal regulators to ban trains carrying oil in the state, ramping up pressure for more stringent safety checks weeks after an oil train derailed near Portland, the first major oil-by-rail accident in a year. -
Election May Be Pivotal For Energy Projects
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
...As the fight over energy policy in the upcoming presidential election heats up, one issue has emerged as a lightning rod among conservatives, liberals, industry and environmentalists: pipelines. -
The FRA Clapped Back on Wednesday Night
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico
By Martine Powers and Jennifer Scholtes
"If the railroad industry is looking for ways to innovate, it can start by implementing PTC as quickly as possible and upgrading the brake system technology on crude oil trains that dates back to the Civil War era,” -
EPA Proposes Climate Rule Incentives Despite Court Hold
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is moving ahead with an incentive program for its contentious climate change rule, despite the Supreme Court’s action halting the regulation. -
Udall Fights To Protect Important Conservation And Environment Funding
Jun 16, 2016 | KRWG
By Senator Tom Udall
Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall, lead Democrat on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, stood up against poison pill provisions (riders) that would permanently weaken core environmental laws that protect our air, water, health and endangered species. -
House Panel to Hold Contempt Vote for Shelanski June 23
Jun 16, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Anthony Adragna
Members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will vote June 23 on whether to hold the Obama administration's top regulatory gatekeeper in contempt of Congress over an incomplete response to a subpoena, a committee aide told Bloomberg BNA June 16. -
Chaffetz Ready To Hold Obama Official In Contempt
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico
By Eric Wolff
The battle over the Obama administration's controversial water regulation intensified Wednesday night when House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz moved to hold a White House official in contempt, Annie Snider reports. -
Chaffetz Seeks To Hold Obama Official In Contempt Over Water Rule
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) wants to hold a high-ranking Obama administration official in contempt of Congress over his response to an investigation into a contentious water pollution rule. -
Chaffetz Eyes Contempt Charge Over CWA Rule Documents
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-CA) moved June 15 to hold Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator (OIRA) Howard Shelanski in contempt over documents related to the administration's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, according to press reports. -
Greens blast riders in Interior-EPA spending bill
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly, Scott Streater and Tiffany Stecker
A Senate spending bill that won committee approval earlier today could exempt the burning of wood and other biomass in some places from regulation as a carbon source.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Agency Examining Impacts of TSCA-Reform Bill
Jun 17, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Carolyn Whetzel
June 16 — A California agency is examining potential impacts the newly passed Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill may have on the state's landmark Safer Consumer Products program.“We are currently reviewing the bill, and plan to have [the analysis] completed in the next two weeks,” Jim Marxen, a spokesman for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), told Bloomberg BNA in a June 14 e-mail.Of concern is how federal preemption provisions in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576) may affect future rulemakings under the program DTSC is tasked with implementing.After the president signs H.R. 2576 into law, which the White House has said it will do soon, the updated federal chemicals law could preempt or alter regulations the Safer Consumer Products program would issue, but a lot depends on which chemicals the Environmental Protection Agency and California focus on and how they craft their regulations, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA.Mandated by state legislation enacted in 2008 to eliminate harmful chemicals in consumer products, the program captured national attention, because it aimed to move California away from single chemical ban legislation to a science-based approach that encourages manufacturers to use safer alternatives. The Safer Consumer Products program is the cornerstone of the state's Green Chemistry Initiative.Slow Implementation of California's ProgramThe only rules adopted, so far, established the process for identifying priority products, or product-chemical combinations, that pose a substantial threat to public health or the environment; alternative analysis requirements; and possible regulatory responses, such as banning the sale of products.Individual regulations would be required to officially identify each individual priority product-chemical combination.While the DTSC has proposed three priority-products, it has yet to launch any official rulemaking.“Nothing happens fast with chemicals,” Bill Allayaud of the Environmental Working Group told Bloomberg BNA June 14. “You need good science. It's likely that California's program would be a stronger program than what we've seen of the federal program. Therefore the preemption provisions are concerning.“We hope that the state pushes ahead as fast as it can,” he said.Attorney PerspectivesBloomberg BNA spoke with five attorneys about effects the TSCA-reform legislation could have on California's Safer Consumer Products program.They all agreed that TSCA, as amended, wouldn't preempt California's program on a wholesale basis.Specific chemical regulations the EPA issues, however, could affect the scope of or preempt future Safer Consumer Products regulations, they said.“For the most part, TSCA reform is not going to affect the Safer Consumer Products program,” Maureen Gorsen, an attorney at Alston & Bird LLP, told Bloomberg BNA in a June 14 e-mail.“California will still be able to require sellers of priority products to provide data and disclosures on the lifecycle of its manufacturing process in an exhaustive analysis,” said Gorsen, who served as the DTSC director during the agency's first attempt to develop the program.Carte Blanche AuthorityAs long as the EPA hasn't taken any regulatory action on a priority product, “then California has carte blanche,” she said.“If EPA has taken action, and California, on the basis of that analysis, wants to regulate that product or chemical therein in a stricter or different way, it may if it seeks and obtains a waiver from EPA,” she said. “Given the history of California's success in obtaining waivers from the EPA to regulate more strictly under the Clean Air Act, this should be achievable” under H.R. 2576.Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, said federal preemption would apply only to certain actions, such as restrictions.It wouldn't extend to state laws that require reporting or monitoring.“That said, TSCA preemption would appear to have its most potentially consequential impact on the Safer Consumer Products regulations,” Bergeson said. “This is not to say that impact will be extensive, but it would be consequential.”Some Paint Strippers Being ExaminedFor example, the Safer Consumer Products program is looking at paint strippers containing methylene chloride as part of its “initial priority products” effort, meaning it could regulate them down the road, Bergeson said.The EPA also is considering rules restricting or banning methylene chloride's use in paint strippers.If both the DTSC and the EPA ultimately regulate the use of methylene chloride, contingent on the scope of each rule, the EPA's rule would preempt California's, she said.The DTSC has waiver options, but the preemptive effect would apply, Bergeson said.Preemption on ‘Chemical by Chemical Basis.'Judah Prero, an attorney with Sidley Austin LLP who formerly worked with the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail: “Preemption occurs on a chemical by chemical basis, so for each chemical, one will have to see the regulatory landscape at the time.“From a government efficiency standpoint, the question California residents should ask is why California would want to spend taxpayer money to establish new regulations for a chemical that EPA is likely to assess and regulate in the immediate future—on a national basis? That question is one that will probably need to be asked more often than in the past,” Prero said.Peter Hsiao at Morrison & Foerster LLP and Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Daniel Rosenberg told Bloomberg BNA they are still analyzing how the federal preemption provisions would apply to the Safer Consumer Products program.“It's something we'll be watching closely,” Rosenberg said in a June 15 e-mail.With the assistance from Pat Rizzuto in Washington. -
(ACC Mentioned) Is Chlorine Safe For Babies? You May Need To Keep Them From The Pool
Jun 16, 2016 | Romper
By Lindsay Mack
Introducing your baby to new experiences is one of the most rewarding aspects of parenting, and swimming is definitely up there on the list of fun things to try with your little one. After all, most babies love splashing around in the water. But it’s also normal for you to have some reservations about pool safety and have a few questions along the way. For instance, is chlorine safe for babies?
First, it is helpful to understand the role of chlorine in pool sanitization. According to the American Chemistry Council, routine chlorination kills harmful microorganisms that could lead to many health problems, including ear infections, stomach problems, and even athlete’s foot. Just imagine: without proper treatment and circulation, a swimming pool would basically turn into a stagnant pond. So in this light, proper pool sanitization is healthy and necessary.
Although a chlorinated pool may help keep adults and older children safe from sickness, is it safe for your baby? Possibly not. As explained by the Mayo Clinic,infants who are exposed to chlorinated water at a very young age may be at an increased risk of developing lower respiratory tract infections or asthma. Although more research is still required, chlorine byproducts may irritate your baby’s developing lungs, as further noted by the Mayo Clinic. And a 2006 study in Archives of Disease in Childhood found some correlation between infant swimming programs in indoor chlorinated pools and an increase in the babies’ disposition to asthma and recurrent bronchitis. Again, more research is needed to conclusively correlate these findings. But as a parent, it is understandable if you want to err on the side of caution.GIPHY
Fortunately, there are ways to make your baby’s exposure to chlorinated water safer. If you do opt to use an indoor chlorinated pool, try to find a facility that is well-ventilated by the Centers for Disease Control’s standards. A constant inflow of outside air can help dissipate the potentially harmful chlorine byproducts. In addition, you can check in with your doctor or other trusted child care providers to recommend a baby-friendly pool facility in your area. If you would rather avoid chlorinated pools altogether, then you can take a tip from Parenting and try to find a pool that uses an ozone filter, which can sanitize water without producing chlorinated by-products. In general, there are many ways to safely introduce your baby to the joys of swimming.
https://www.romper.com/p/is-chlorine-safe-for-babies-you-may-need-to-keep-them-from-the-pool-12463
-
ECOS Plans Focus On TSCA Reform's Implementation
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), representing most state environmental agencies, plans to focus on how EPA will implement the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) overhaul, saying that the potential impacts to states from the various new programs under the law is an issue ECOS needs to closely track.
“Much of the challenge that lies before us now is in the implementation of this law,” ECOS vice president, John Linc Stine, commissioner of Minnseota Pollution Control Agency, said in a June 16 press release on the TSCA deal, which awaits President Obama's signature.
Linc Stine said the group will seek a “collaborative dialogue” with EPA and “all stakeholders to ensure that this legislation reaches its full potential to make a difference.”
ECOS Executive Director Alexandra Dunn said that going forward ECOS plans to share information on the new law with its members and “to document how it works in practice as it is implemented, so that state learning is advanced.”
The group also plans to hold a July briefing for its member states and a plenary session at its fall meeting Sept. 25-27 in West Virginia to discuss the agreement, which Congress approved this month.
“States had many issues of concern to them, which we expressed continually throughout the nearly decade long negotiations,” Martha Rudolph, ECOS president, said in the press release.
She commended lawmakers that “worked hard to ensure that states' rights to protect their citizens while EPA conducts risk assessments remains,” and to preserve existing state chemicals laws.
The bill, which cleared the Senate June 7, would overhaul the 1976 toxics law by giving EPA significant new powers to regulate new and existing chemicals, but would also include precedent-setting preemption provisions barring states from issuing new rules during various points in the EPA risk evaluation process. President Obama is expected to soon sign the measure.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
Federal bill updates chemical regulations in everyday products
Jun 16, 2016 | C&G Newspapers
By Cari DeLamielleure-Scott
METRO DETROIT — Modernizing a 40-year-old law would allow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to obtain more information about thousands of chemicals found in everyday products — furniture, clothing, toys — before approving whether or not they can be used.
Congress has passed legislation that would reform federal chemical control laws.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, or HR 2576 and SR 697, modernizes the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which many have argued to be ineffective at keeping up to date with the expanding production and use of chemicals. The Natural Resource Defense Council, for example, has reported that over 80,000 chemicals are used today in the United States, but not all have been adequately tested.
The bill was presented to President Barack Obama June 14 for his signature. At press time, it had not yet been signed into law.
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 “authorizes the EPA to screen existing and new chemicals used in manufacturing and commerce to identify potentially dangerous products or uses that should be subject to federal control.”
Natural and synthetic chemicals are subject to the act, with the exception of chemicals that are regulated under other federal laws concerning food, drugs, cosmetics, firearms, ammunition, pesticides, tobacco and mixtures.
“Americans are exposed to thousands of chemicals every day that have been linked to cancer, infertility, diabetes, Parkinson’s and other illnesses, but the main law protecting Americans from dangerous chemicals is 40 years old,” U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, said in an emailed statement. “I was proud to co-sponsor and help pass bipartisan legislation with the support of environmental groups and the business community to update the Toxic Substances Control Act so we can better protect our public health and our environment from chemicals we know are unsafe.”
The EPA would be required to review the safety of all new and existing chemicals, and the agency would have strict deadlines to determine regulatory action.
“Today’s overhaul of this outdated law will protect families and provide certainty to businesses in Michigan and across the country. As one of the earliest supporters of efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, I have been working hard to get this vital update across the finish line. This overhaul is an important step forward that will help keep families safe,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, said in a statement after the Senate vote June 7.
After the House approved the bill May 24, NRDC President Rhea Suh released a statement that the bill was “Congress first major rewrite of a fundamental environmental statute in two decades.”
“The bill will give (the) EPA a clear and enforceable mandate to review chemicals, and will require (the) EPA to evaluate chemicals based on their impact on human health. … It will be some years before we know for sure how successful the bill will be at protecting the public.”
“BASF strongly supported passage of the TSCA reform bill — through direct advocacy, testifying before Congress and working alongside key stakeholders from the chemical and downstream industries, and the (nongovernmental organization) community — to promote a modern, stronger federal chemical regulation statute. Once signed by the president and implemented by (the) EPA, the bill will provide greater transparency, promote innovation and help create a more sustainable future,” Donna Jakubowski, corporate media relations of BASF Corp., said in an emailed statement. BASF Corp. is the second-largest producer and marketer of chemicals and related products in North America.
Kara Hamilton-McGraw, maternal and child health director for the March of Dimes Michigan Chapter, said the bill is a win for pregnant women and children.
Transparency is important, she said, “so that women who are being very health conscious and making sure they’re giving their babies the best chance at health are aware of what they’re ingesting or what is in their home.”
Though the bill does improve the TSCA, some have argued that it still falls short of protecting against chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health problems.
“No one in the public health community asked for a toxics bill that is ‘better than current law,’ because that law is so feeble it failed under industry challenge to ban a substance as deadly as asbestos. What we need is a law that aggressively protects people, especially children, on an urgent basis from thousands of toxic chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, nervous system disorders and other problems. This law simply will not accomplish that common-sense goal,” Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a released statement.
http://www.candgnews.com/news/federal-bill-updates-chemical-regulations-everyday-products-93767
-
Editorial: Congress Passes a Not-Very-Good Toxic Chemical Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | St. Louis Louis Post-Dispatch
By The Editorial Board
Just when you're fed up with the United States Congress (approval rating: 11 percent) comes word that it has passed and sent to the president an overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Chemicals and Substances Act, generally regarded as the weakest environmental law on the books.
And it only took 10 years. The Environmental Protection Agency is now free to begin testing 64,000 household chemicals to determine how dangerous some of them are. But lest the EPA get carried away with its new powers, the new law restricts the agency to testing only 20 chemicals at a time, with a maximum testing period of seven years.
If each test took only one year, EPA would need 3,200 years to get through the backlog. For purposes of comparison, the Trojan Wars took place 3,200 years ago.
And yet this entirely inadequate bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 403-12 in the House and by a simple voice vote in the Senate. President Barack Obama is expected to sign it.
This is what bipartisanship looks like: Republicans swallowed hard and allowed some new regulations for industry. Democrats swallowed hard and voted for environmental legislation that's only marginally better than the sorry law it replaces.
How bad was the 1976 law? It allowed the use of cancer-causing asbestos long after it was determined that asbestos contributes to 15,000 deaths a year. Civil lawsuits, not the EPA, halted the widespread use of asbestos.
The good parts of the new law will allow EPA to determine whether a new chemical is likely to meet safety standards before it enters the market. The agency can ban those new chemicals found to build up in the human body and those that imperil water supplies.
A bad part — other than the very long timeline for existing chemicals — is that the chemical industry doesn't have to pay for testing. If Congress doesn't boost EPA's budget — not likely under Republican control — the agency will be handcuffed.
Another bad part: Certain states, most notably California, have stricter laws than the feds. The new bill preempts state laws, posing a problem for conservative “Tenthers,” who argue that the 10th Amendment requires the federal government to defer to state governments on any powers not enumerated in the Constitution. Say for example, regulating health care.
Check your kitchen or bathroom. Read the ingredients in, say, toilet bowl cleaners or dishwasher soap. Some ingredients, ammonia for example, you know aren't good for you. Others — 5-demethyldantoin and phenon, for example — you take on faith.
That's a mistake. How bad a mistake it may take the EPA another three millennia to determine. We'd argue that the president should veto this bill except it's better than nothing. This is a lousy standard for consumer protection.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-congress-passes-a-not-very-good-toxic-chemical-bill/article_80e83baf-f99f-5c21-921a-4a581fb9bf5b.html
-
Chemical Regulation Bill Clears Congress, But Will It Protect The Public?
Jun 16, 2016 | Chron
By Noah M. Sachs
In a major overhaul of U.S. regulation of toxic chemicals, Congress last week passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the largest piece of environmental legislation passed in the United States since 1990. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly.
The bill amends the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has been called the “lapdog” of American environmental law because of its weak controls on hazardous chemicals. The new bill, named after the late New Jersey senator who championed the legislation, passed on a bipartisan basis with support from the chemical industry. The bill divided the environmental and public health communities.
While the new bill clearly gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more authority to test and restrict hazardous chemicals, it may not actually protect the public more effectively than current law. Because the legislation contains no new appropriations for EPA, allows chemical testing to proceed very slowly, and in some cases preempts states from enacting their own chemical restrictions, it could perpetuate toxic risks rather than reducing them.
TSCA, passed in the Ford administration, is widely seen as one of the weakest U.S. environmental laws. TSCA gave EPA the power to order testing of chemicals, ban chemicals from the marketplace, restrict certain uses or require labeling. But the law created so many procedural hurdles for regulation that EPA was rarely able to exercise its authority.
More than 80,000 chemicals have been introduced into commerce in the United States, but EPA has issued testing orders for fewer than 300 in the past 40 years, and it has enacted restrictions on only six. When EPA has attempted to regulate chemicals under TSCA, manufacturers have frequently challenged the agency in court.
In 1991 a federal appeals court struck down EPA’s attempt to ban most uses of asbestos after the agency had spent years documenting the link between asbestos exposure and cancer and lung disease. Most experts believe that this court decision dealt a crippling blow to TSCA by making it nearly impossible to remove hazardous chemicals from the market.
Because of TSCA’s weaknesses, Americans are widely exposed to chemicals in the workplace, in food, and in consumer products for which there is little or no toxicity information. Dozens of chemicals that are known or probable carcinogens, as determined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, continue to be sold in the United States. We don’t even know how many chemicals are currently in widespread use in the United States because TSCA does not require comprehensive reporting.
Because of inadequate resources at EPA and TSCA’s hurdles for obtaining toxicity data, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government’s in-house auditor, has included EPA’s chemicals programs on its list of “high risk” government programs since 2009. GAO lists programs as high risk when it considers them to be vulnerable to failure or ineffectiveness.
Despite TSCA’s well-known problems, Congress did not make serious efforts to reform the law until the Obama administration. By 2009, public health surveys had documented that numerous industrial chemicals were found in the blood and urine of Americans, and in 2010, the President’s Cancer Panel concluded that the “the true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated.”
In response to rising public concern, states began enacting their own chemical regulations. As Senator Lautenberg and other legislators began to consider new federal legislation, the chemical industry quickly got behind the idea of TSCA reform because manufacturers feared having to comply with a patchwork of state chemical laws.
The new legislation makes several improvements to TSCA and gives the EPA much-needed new authority. For example, the law:
But the real test of the bill is not whether it makes incremental improvements to TSCA; it is whether the bill actually protects Americans from chemical risks. Measured by that standard, the new bill does not go far enough and is likely to get bogged down in court just like the existing law.
For example, when EPA conducts safety reviews of chemicals, the bill requires the agency to determine whether a chemical poses an “unreasonable risk” to public health or the environment before it enacts any restrictions. But the legislation does not define this key term, and it is likely to take years of litigation to sort out what risks are “reasonable” and what risks are “unreasonable.”
Moreover, while the bill makes clear that EPA should not consider costs to industry in evaluating the risks of chemicals, it does force EPA to conduct a complicated cost-benefit analysis if it chooses to restrict a chemical. Manufacturers will inevitably challenge each step of this process in court.
Another major source of contention is whether this new federal law will supersede state laws. The chemical industry strongly supported federalizing chemical regulation to achieve uniformity. But many states have spent a decade or more developing their own chemical regulatory systems. California, Washington, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota have been leaders in this field, and their Congressional delegations opposed broad preemption of state law.
The resulting compromise undercuts states' ability to regulate chemicals on their own initiative. Under the bill, if EPA decides that a chemical meets a safety standard of no “unreasonable risk,” states are largely prevented from regulating that chemical. In addition, the new bill forecloses states from regulating a chemical as soon as EPA begins its safety review, even though safety reviews typically take several years.
The slow pace of chemical reviews is the bill’s greatest weakness. We lack safety data for tens of thousands of chemicals that are currently on the market, but the bill requires EPA to review only 20 chemicals in the first five years after it becomes law. At that pace, it will take the rest of this century to assess risks from the most commonly used chemicals in the United States. And the bill provides no new appropriations to speed up the pace of safety reviews.
What will happen once the bill becomes law? Over the next year or so, EPA will begin ordering tests of a series of “Work Plan” chemicals that it has already flagged for attention. Work Plan chemicals that might be subject to testing include benzene, carbon tetrachloride, creosote, ethylene dibromide and nickel compounds. Manufacturers will perform the actual safety tests, and EPA is unlikely to propose restricting any chemicals under the new legislation for several years.
In the long run, the new law could identify severe public health risks from chemicals that are commonly used today. It could lead to changes in the composition of products ranging from cleaning supplies and plastics to furniture and medical devices. It also will require manufacturers to understand toxicity risks better before they bring new chemicals to market and introduce them into products.
But most of the so-called “existing” chemicals that have been in use for decades will be tested at a glacial pace. In a worst-case scenario, chemical manufacturers could hold up sensible protective regulations with years of litigation.
In sum, while the Lautenberg Act has some promising provisions, it simply does not go far enough to overcome the problems that have obstructed toxic chemical regulation in the United States for 40 years.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Chemical-regulation-bill-clears-Congress-but-8275607.php
-
Senate Democrats Cite EPA Policy Riders In Vow To Block FY17 Appropriations Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Senate Democrats are vowing to block a floor vote on EPA's fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill after the upper chamber's Appropriations Committee approved the measure in a June 16 party-line vote, with Democrats saying the bill's language blocking EPA rules are among the “poison pills” that will ensure the bill never clears the Senate.
The full committee approved its FY17 interior and environment spending bill at the June 16 markup by a 16-14 party-line vote, while rejecting Democratic amendments that would have removed policy riders aimed at EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, Superfund financial assurance rule for hard-rock mining, and ongoing review of whether burning forest biomass for energy is carbon-neutral.
Some GOP senators also hinted that they will try to add further policy restrictions if the bill reaches the Senate floor, including a proposal floated at the markup -- but subsequently withdrawn -- from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) to block EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants and related guidance.
At the markup, Sen. Ton Udall (D-NM), ranking member on the panel's interior and environment subcommittee, said the bill is uniquely flawed as the only FY17 bill so far to include several significant controversial policy mandates. "I'm not sure how many times we have to go through this process before it sinks in that adding controversial riders does not help pass an appropriations bill,” he said.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate Minority Whip -- the chamber's second-ranking Democrat -- warned that if Republicans refuse to withdraw the riders it could lead to Congress crafting a continuing resolution (CR) or omnibus spending legislation instead of moving individual bills. That is the end result of prior years' efforts to move spending bills that have failed to clear Congress due to policy riders.
"We may have reached a tipping point here. . . . I believe it's quite likely that this bill will never be considered on the floor because of these riders," Durbin said during the markup. "It's likely that your bill will end up becoming part of a CR at some point, maybe an omnibus before the end of the year," rather than passing as stand-alone legislation, he continued.
However, Senate appropriations panel interior subcommittee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) defended the bill's policy provisions, arguing that "what constitutes a poison pill is in the eye of the beholder” and singling out the CWA rule as a “show-stopper” she believes must be halted.
An amendment offered by Udall to remove many of the bill's riders failed, also on a 16-14 party-line vote.
EPA Funding
The FY17 bill would cut EPA's current $8.14 billion budget down to approximately $8.1 billion, including what Democrats have said would be 10 percent cuts to policy areas such as water, air and climate.
However, it would boost the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds (SRFs) by a total of $113 million, including a $157 million boost to the drinking water SRF, up to $1.02 billion, while the clean water SRF would be cut from $1.39 billion to $1.35 billion.
The House counterpart EPA funding bill would set the agency's budget at $7.98 billion in FY17, which is $164 million less than its current funding level. Both the House and Senate funding bills would be lower than the $8.27 billion that President Obama has requested for EPA in FY17.
The Senate bill includes far fewer policy provisions than its House counterpart, which in addition to the CWA and Superfund rules would block a host of other EPA policies including the Clean Power Plan regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants; controls on methane releases from oil and gas extraction operations; and the 2015 rule tightening the national ambient air quality standard for ozone.
Democrats at a June 14 Senate subcommittee markup raised objections to the CWA and Superfund riders, but did not address the biomass rider -- a long-standing proposal by Republicans and some Democrats that would assert that burning forest biomass is a "carbon-neutral" energy source for purposes of clean energy policies. Such an assertion could force EPA to cut short its investigation of lifecycle GHG emissions from burning wood and other forest biomass.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) defended the measure during debate on Udall's amendment, arguing that EPA has taken too long to assess biomass' GHG emissions and that the process is undermining certainty for states and industry.
"The fact is that biomass energy is a sustainable, responsible and economically renewable energy source. . . . States are very concerned about the unclear signals from federal regulators that have not provided the policy clarity that is needed," she said.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said that without a finding from EPA "We don't have . . . a science-based framework that industry can use to figure out how to account for carbon."
Withdrawn Amendments
On the Clean Power Plan, Capito raised but then withdrew an amendment that would have blocked EPA from spending funds on the overall rule or related guidance while it has been stayed by the Supreme Court.
She noted that it was among the provisions deemed "too controversial" to include in the bill by Murkowski -- but did not rule out introducing similar language on the Senate floor.
Capito spoke in favor of blocking the GHG rule before withdrawing her amendment, noting that 29 states have halted work on implementing the plan during the stay, and seven others have slowed their efforts considerably. "I think we should take a similar prudent approach here when it comes to taxpayers' dollars. I think EPA should put their pencils down when it comes to the Clean Power Plan," she said.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) offered an amendment that would block the Interior Department from issuing new rules governing offshore oil and gas operations' air emissions until it completes a study of those releases' effect on mainland air quality -- mirroring a provision in the House FY17 bill -- but withdrew it after debate, saying it lacked the votes to pass.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/senate-democrats-cite-epa-policy-riders-vow-block-fy17-appropriations-bill
-
Senate Panel Clears EPA Spending Bill, Blocking Rules
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an Interior Department and environment spending bill on Thursday, but Democrats have already vowed to block it on the floor.
The bill would provide $32 billion to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department programs, about $1 billion less than President Obama requested in his budget and slightly below House Republicans' target.
Democrats oppose the lower spending levels, but particularly the policy changes within the measure.
“These poison pill riders and some of these deep cuts to the environment mean I cannot support" the bill, ranking member Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), said.
The legislation blocks the EPA’s Clean Water Rule — previously called the "waters of the United States" rule — and some mining and endangered species regulations.
The committee voted down a Democratic amendment to get rid of those riders, with Republican members saying the measures are necessary to stop Obama administration policies they oppose.
“This bill cuts areas of the EPA’s regulatory budget where the EPA has overstepped its boundaries,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said on Thursday.
“What constitutes a ‘poison pill rider’ is probably in the eyes of the beholder,” she added.
Democrats vowed to work on the measure with Republicans as the bill makes its way to the floor. But senior Democrats said the riders mean the bill likely won’t make it that far.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of his party's leadership, said Democrats won’t put up the votes necessary to bring the legislation to the floor without changes.
“I believe you have reached a tipping point with these riders,” he said to Murkowski. “I believe it is quite likely this bill will never be considered on the floor.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283755-senate-panel-clears-epa-spending-bill-blocking-rules
-
Senate Panel Approves Divisive EPA Funding Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Brian Dabbs
Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved rider-laden legislation to fund the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department at a June 16 markup.Democrats criticized the set of controversial riders in the legislation, echoing aggressive criticisms made during a subcommittee markup June 14.The legislation would prohibit funding for Superfund financial assurance rulemaking and delay implementation of the currently stayed Clean Water Rule for one year, among other policy riders.“Unfortunately, the bill includes poison pill riders and significant funding cuts,” Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) ranking Democrat on the committee, said. “Therefore, I will not be able to support the bill.”The $32 billion Interior, Environment and Related Agencies legislation, which may surface publicly the night of June 16, would fund the EPA at $8.1 billion, $31.2 million below enacted levels.Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the Republican point-person for the bill, said the measure cuts back on EPA funding for programs that administer rules currently blocked by the courts, an implicit reference to the Clean Water Rule and the Clean Power Plan,Floor TimeFollowing committee approval, the legislation is eligible for Senate floor action, but Sen. Dick Durbin(D-Ill.), the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, said that prospect is doubtful.The riders mark a “tipping point,” Durbin said at the markup.“It's quite likely this bill will never be considered on the floor because of these riders,” Durbin told colleagues. “It's unlikely that you'll have cloture on a motion to proceed on this bill because of [the riders], and it's sad because there are many parts of the bill which are very good.”A spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg BNA that Republican leadership hasn't yet scheduled the legislation for floor consideration.Senate appropriators have largely avoided controversial riders so far this appropriations process, in contrast to House counterparts.The Interior-EPA funding bill was the 10th of 12 appropriations bills to move through committee, and the 11th bill, the financial services measure, sailed through committee with Democratic support following the Interior-EPA funding bill markup.Mikulski called the Interior-EPA bill the “most contentious” of the 12.Amendments ApprovedThe committee approved a manager's amendment package with bipartisan support, modifying the legislation to require a Fish and Wildlife Service report on wildlife trafficking and an EPA report on lead-contaminated dust and soil, among other changes.Democrats and Republicans also rallied together to approve a measure, sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), to boost funding for wildfire suppression.The amendment would increase firefighting funds for the U.S. Forest Service by $490 million and the Interior Department by $171 million.That brings total wildfire funding to $2.3 billion, the amount the Obama administration requested in its budget, Udall's office said after the markup.Murkowski said the funding is a valuable stopgap but added a permanent solution for increased wildfire funding is needed.“Fire borrowing, the practice that we have been engaged in, just doesn't work because in our effort to cover the costs of suppression, which can be considerable and can be uncertain from year to year, we raid the other accounts,” Murkowski said, referring to wildlife prevention funds and Forest Service recreational funds. “I think we're going to get to that place where we have a permanent fix that allows for the fire cap adjustment.”Climate Change Link: TesterPrior to the adoption of the amendment, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) criticized the committee for falling short on wildfire funding, saying that the rise in wildfires is linked to climate change.“We will continue to spend more and more money on fire and other natural disasters because the season is getting longer, it's getting more severe, and we're not doing one thing, as a body, to help solve this problem,” Tester said. “The impacts of this long term are not good for humanity, and that is not an overstatement.”The committee approved another amendment, authored by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), to require the Interior Department to extend lease expiration dates for oil, gas and sulfur operations on the Outer Continental Shelf from six months to one year.Lawmakers also approved an amendment, authored by Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), to force the Interior Department to reestablish the Royalty Policy Committee, a body that advises the department on management of federal and Indian mineral revenues and leases.Effort Fails on Stripping Out RidersUdall failed to advance a measure to strip from the bill 12 controversial riders, including bans on threatened or endangered labeling for the lesser prairie chicken and the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.That amendment failed 14-16 strictly along partisan lines. The full funding measure failed with the same vote tally.
http://news.bna.com/deln/display/split_display.adp?fedfid=92041989&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92041989&jd=92041989&split=1
-
Dems skeptical of Interior-EPA bill ever reaching Senate floor
| E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Against a backdrop of stark partisan division, Senate appropriators yesterday approved a $32.7 billion bill to fund U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and the Forest Service through the next fiscal year.
The question now is whether the measure has a prayer of going any further.
No, predicted Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee. It has been years since an Interior-Environment appropriations bill has made it to the full Senate. This round will probably be no different, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said during yesterday's markup (Greenwire, June 16).
"It's quite likely that this bill will never be considered on the floor because of the riders," Durbin said in reference to provisions that would block key Obama administration environmental regulations, give special treatment to biomass as a carbon source and allow construction of a contested gravel road through a national wildlife refuge in Alaska.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee, staunchly defended the policy add-ons, saying that some had bipartisan support and that the labeling of others as "poison-pill" was "probably in the eye of the beholder."
In an interview afterward, Murkowski said leaders had not given an indication of when they may want to bring the bill up for consideration. How Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) "is going to queue them up has always been his call," she said.
But Murkowski acknowledged that the partisan vibe surrounding the bill -- which cleared the committee on a 16-14 vote -- isn't a plus. "It doesn't make it impossible, but it does make it more difficult," she said.
The Senate measure is notably more restrained that its House counterpart in its use of riders. It does not attempt, for example, to block or delay the administration's Clean Power Plan, newly issued methane regulations on the oil and industry, or a recently adopted air quality standard for ozone.
But its recommended spending levels reflect lawmakers' continuing struggle to live within budget caps that remain tight by historical standards.
While Murkowski touted a proposed 18 percent increase in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund -- which helps pay for water projects -- she noted that increases in some programs have to be offset with cuts in others.
One such area is the core of EPA's budget. Under the bill, spending on clean air and climate programs would drop 10 percent from $273.1 million to $245.8 million, according the report accompanying the measure. The agency's enforcement budget would face a similar percentage reduction to $216.6 million.
By way of explanation, Murkowski said the bill targeted EPA initiatives that are responsible for generating regulations like the Clean Power Plan that are now tied up in court.
"What we did is we provided funding that focuses the agency specifically to clean up the environment," she said.
Not persuaded was Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, the Appropriation Committee's top Democrat, who cited the proposed cuts and the riders in explaining her decision to oppose the bill.
Bottom-line pressures show up in other areas. The bill would fund the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative at $300 million, or $50 million above the White House's request. The program is a priority for Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who is running for re-election this year and is widely considered the Senate's most endangered incumbent.
Like its House counterpart, the Senate version zeros out a "multipurpose" grant program kick-started last year with a $21 million infusion to help states implement environmental programs they deem a priority. Because EPA opted to implement the program "in a manner that was not flexible," the report says, the appropriations committee chose not to keep the money flowing.
There was one major exception to the bill's parsimonious approach: the committee's bipartisan decision yesterday to add $661 million to federal wildfire management programs. But that extra money is designated as "emergency" funding, meaning that the budget caps don't apply (see related story).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/17/stories/1060038977
-
Jun 17, 2016 | The Economist
By The Editors
Is $50 a barrel enough to revive global oil production?
IN THE wilds of western Texas, a flicker of life has returned to the fracking, or hydraulic-fracturing, industry. In the past four weeks nine idled oil rigs have been put back to work in the Permian basin, the richest of America’s shale-oil provinces. That is only a tiny fraction of the 429 that had been taken out of service over the previous 18 months as the oil price plunged, at one point hitting a low of under $30 a barrel. But it is the first four-week rise in a year.
In recent weeks the oil price has recovered to around $50 a barrel (see chart). Scott Sheffield, boss of Pioneer Natural Resources, one of the top producers in the Permian, points out that futures prices for delivery in a year’s time have also risen above $50 a barrel, which allows him to lock in a decent profit on any new wells he can bring into production by then. Hence he may soon raise the number of rigs his firm has drilling in the Permian from 12 to at least 17 and perhaps as many as 22. “The Permian has bottomed out,” he says.
In addition to drilling more wells, some firms are planning to frack mothballed ones—wells that have been drilled but not yet pumped full of sand, water and chemicals to open up fissures allowing oil trapped in shale to flow out. Others are simply pushing their pumps harder, which uses more energy but may be worth it at $50 a barrel.
All this supports the claim that fracking has brought a new dynamic to global oil markets: the ability to flex output up and down more quickly than conventional oil drilling, rather like factories responding to changes in demand. Conventional oilfields take years to develop and then produce oil for decades, leaving oil output relatively unresponsive to short-term price movements. Shale wells, in contrast, take just a few weeks to drill and frack, and have a lifespan of only a few years, so production quickly falls if drilling abates.
Shale-oil supply did indeed prove more elastic than the conventional sort when prices were falling, albeit with a delay. When the rout started in 2014, it took the shale-oil industry months to accept the fact that it was more than a temporary decline. But the number of rigs, and hence production, eventually plummeted, helping to bring the market closer to balance.
Shale-oil seems to be moderating prices on the way back up, too. On June 10th, the day Baker Hughes, an American oil-services provider, reported that for a second week in a row there had been a tiny uptick in drilling in America, West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the American crude-oil benchmark, fell back below $50 a barrel. If shale-oil is indeed acting like the valve on a pressure cooker, regulating the market when it gets too hot or cold, the result should be a less volatile oil price.
But the valve may not function perfectly. One question is the sustainability of the recent price rise. Shale-oil executives remember with chagrin the false rally of early 2015, which led them to maintain output longer than they should have. They note that the oil industry is still producing almost 1m barrels a day (b/d) more than the world is consuming. The International Energy Agency, an industry forecaster, said on June 14th that demand will not match supply until next year. “You don’t want to add rigs and then bring them back down again,” says Mr Sheffield.
Another concern is how quickly supply can really be ramped up. Rigs have been idled for so long that it may take months of maintenance before they can be brought back into service. Workers may also have found new jobs, making it hard to entice them back. Financial strains are considerable, too: about 70 shale-related firms have gone bust in America since the start of last year, and those on financial life support will focus more on paying down debt than on investing in more production.
If production does start to race ahead, the recent decline in shale-oil firms’ costs may reverse. Per Magnus Nysveen of Rystad Energy, a consultancy, says producers have become so much more efficient and drilling contractors so much cheaper that American shale firms can, on average, make a healthy 10% return with WTI at $39 a barrel, down from $82 in 2013. But he reckons there is little room left to squeeze out additional costs. What’s more, shale-oil firms’ service contracts are of short duration, so if rigs or workers become scarce, prices can rise very quickly. For every $1 increase in the oil price, Mr Nysveen expects a $1 increase in costs.
Mr Sheffield disputes this. He says the number of unused rigs is so high that the industry will be able to restart several hundred before costs start to rise. But he agrees that $50 is not enough to boost output significantly. R.T. Dukes of Wood Mackenzie, a consultancy, says that if the price stays at $50 until the end of the year, investment in shale production will remain “flat to down”. If it is between $50-60, investment will be “flat to up”. Only above $60 a barrel will it be “up across the board”, he says. “We don’t expect supply to turn on a dime, but we do think declines will slow down.”
Even if America’s oil industry does revive, it is still only about 1m b/d below its peak last June, meaning higher production could be dwarfed by cutbacks elsewhere in the 95m b/d global oil industry. Wood Mackenzie calculates that oil and gas producers have promised to cut at least $1 trillion from their planned investment in exploration and production in 2015-20, reducing projected output by the equivalent of a whopping 7 billion b/d.
Industry bulls, including top executives among the biggest producers, believe that in focusing on smaller shale firms as potential swing producers, the markets are missing a longer-term supply drought caused by the evaporation of investment in conventional wells. This, they add, may be exacerbated by a recent upswing in demand in America, China and elsewhere, fuelled by lower prices. This could cause a sudden surge in prices, to as much as $80 a barrel.
Yet not everyone has discounted the possibility that oil prices will plummet again. A lot depends on whether Saudi Arabia has the capacity to raise production substantially, as its deputy crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, has indicated it will. Some argue that ahead of the planned initial public offering of Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, it would make sense for the kingdom to pump more oil to increase the company’s value. What is more, with copious reserves still in the ground, the Saudis may see logic in stepping up production in order to extract as much value as they can before technology and climate change dampen the world’s appetite for oil. A price of $50 a barrel may well be sustainable, but the battle of the sheikhs and the shalemen is not over yet.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21700649-50-barrel-enough-revive-global-oil-production-rigonomics
-
U.S. Offshore Leasing Legacy: A Chance to Secure U.S. Energy Security
Jun 16, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Richard Kauzlarich
In March, the Obama Administration released the long-awaited proposed plan that will manage the next chapter of U.S. offshore leasing. Environmental and community activists already engaged in an intense campaign to block hydrocarbon extraction on federal land and offshore immediately urged the White House to reconsider oil and gas production activities in the Gulf Coast and Arctic regions.
Last month, a group of mostly Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell requesting a stop to any activity in Arctic citing the same argument that environmentalists have been pushing regarding oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf -- that activity in the Arctic would worsen climate change. Following suit, eleven Democratic Senators also sent a letter to Secretary Jewell recently, echoing similar environmental concerns.
Addressing climate change realities while maintaining US energy security will require global cooperation and strong US leadership. But limiting the United States’ energy portfolio, as the environmental community suggests, would necessarily undermine the United States’ ability to spearhead these global efforts. Pragmatism in US energy policy is required.
Under President Obama the United States has significantly expanded the mix in its energy portfolio. The cost of solar electricity has fallen 50 percent, and by 2030 wind is expected to power as many as 4.5 million homes. In fact last week the Department of Energy announced $25 million in available funding to help software developers, solar companies, and utilities accelerate the integration of solar energy into the grid. Market forces, technological developments, and government policies have worked together to achieve climate change goals within a robust energy security posture.
Ignoring the role of traditional energy sources – especially natural gas -- in competing with renewables is a mistake. Alternative energies would not have been possible without oil and natural gas production – and nuclear power -- to meet domestic energy demands. Further this enabled economic growth to recover and generate the financial resources necessary to develop renewable and conventional energy alternatives.
Likewise, gas and oil production has transformed the United States from a position of reliance on foreign suppliers into a leader helping to meet global demand. Today, the United States is the largest producer of oil and natural gas, outperforming juggernauts like Russia and Saudi Arabia. Domestic supplies have alleviated fluctuations in the international markets, protecting consumers against price volatility and increased the competitiveness of American industries(like Chemicals) that rely on hydrocarbon based inputs.
All of this has geopolitical implications. The United States is not acting alone. We can’t afford an isolationist energy policy any more than an isolationist foreign policy. Bad actors like Russia and Iran are actively expanding their global influence through aggressive oil and natural gas policies. Russia, which flexed its muscle last year in confrontations with Ukraine, launchedexplorations in the high Arctic last month. Don’t forget China’s One Belt, One Road strategy has a strong energy component that also challenges US energy interests.
The longer the United States dawdles, the greater opportunity other countries to assert their geopolitical and energy security interests. . The Obama Administration’s policy reversal in March on leases in the Atlantic -- before even allowing exploration to determine the resources base and its potential-- sends a clear message to our competitors and allies abroad: the United States limits its capacity to serve as a global energy leader by limiting energy options at home.
At home it creates uncertainty for communities whose livelihoods already depend on offshore production. Unlike the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico region’s infrastructure and job base have relied on energy development and exploration for many years. In the 2014 fiscal year, the Gulf of Mexico which included approximately 18 percent of the U.S.’s oil production and 5 percent of gas production, and provided a major portion of the $13.5 billion in U.S. total energy revenue.
This 2017-2022 leasing plan will secure our nation’s long term energy future. On May 19 at a hearing held by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, experts and members alike underlined the need to look beyond today’s low oil prices and seemingly secure industry. The fact is less than two years ago prices for crude oil were over $100 a barrel and these investments in American offshore exploration could be a huge game changer if the market should once again spike.
Certainly the United States shares a responsibility to address climate change. Few would argue that. But America can’t go it alone or see climate change as unrelated to overall US energy security. As President Obama has, our next President must keep this in mind when making decisions that could affect future energy investments. Inheriting a robust energy strategy that keeps options open, whoever holds the nation’s highest office next will be better positioned to cultivate the seeds of change that have been planted over the past eight years.
President Obama will leave behind a legacy hallmarked by bold climate-change action. To cement that admirable page in history, he should resist pressures from those who will be appeased only by the unattainable goal of exorcising fossil fuels entirely. Our competitors and allies overseas will be watching closely to see how this administration sets the energy security (including climate change) table for those who follow.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/06/16/us_offshore_leasing_legacy_a_chance_to_secure_us_energy_security_109171.html
-
Generals Vs. Scientists On Offshore Drilling
Jun 16, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem
Scientists and generals are squaring off in a fight over offshore drilling. The clash came yesterday, as 16 former military leaders filed comments insisting that if President Obama’s Interior Department yanks two proposed Arctic lease sales from the program, it “would signal retreat,” weakening the United States’ soft power at the top of the globe. Meanwhile, nearly 400 scientists fired off their own missive, arguing in a letter to the president that proposed sales should be spiked “to ensure the resilience of the Arctic marine ecosystem and sustain the people who use its living resources to thrive.” Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee, introduced a bill yesterday that he said would encourage the Interior Dept “to advance its plan to sell two leases for energy development in the Arctic.”Get your comments in by midnight tonight to meet the deadline on the proposed 2017-2022 leasing program. And see Jennifer A. Dlouhy’s full story in the ‘Regulations’ section below.
http://about.bgov.com/blog/generals-vs-scientists-offshore-drilling/
-
Reed: Bid to attach energy tax provisions to FAA bill may fail
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico
By Brian Faler
A bid to renew some energy tax provisions as part of a pending aviation bill may fall short, a Republican tax writer said today.
Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), who met with Speaker Paul Ryan to discuss the issue, said that while he still hopes to add the provisions, that will be a “difficult needle to thread.”
Reed said he fears a repeat of an April blowup when lawmakers’ attempts to attach unrelated tax breaks to a previous FAA bill became a free-for-all, prompting party leaders to kill all of the provisions and pass a clean version of the aviation measure.
“We saw what happened last time when the extension got loaded up, and there was some overreach by many members in the House and Senate and we didn’t get anywhere,” he said. “My fear is that we’re going down that same path."
“We’re going to have to see,” said Reed, who is pushing to extend an energy investment tax credit for several technologies. “We’ve been talking to the speaker and others to let them know where we stand on the ITC.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Stop Oil By Rail In Our State, Oregon Asks U.S. Regulator
Jun 16, 2016 | Reuters
By Krishna Kumar And Luc Cohen
Oregon has called for federal regulators to ban trains carrying oil in the state, ramping up pressure for more stringent safety checks weeks after an oil train derailed near Portland, the first major oil-by-rail accident in a year.
In a letter to the Federal Railroad Administration dated June 8, the Oregon Department of Transportation said preliminary findings of an investigation suggested inspectors might not be able to determine the cause.
In the accident, a Union Pacific train carrying crude oil derailed, burst into flames and spilled crude along Oregon's scenic Columbia River gorge. Nobody was injured.
A preliminary investigation suggested a failure with a bolt that fastened the rail to the railroad ties.
A spokesman for the FRA said the agency will respond to the letter.
Oregon is the first U.S. state to request such a move, although environmental lobbyists have called for years for a moratorium on oil trains after a series of explosive accidents.
Lac Megantic, in Canada's Quebec province, issued a moratorium on crude-by-rail in the town after a disastrous accident killed 47 people in 2013.
Washington State Governor Jay Inslee on Thursday renewed calls in a letter to the Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx for the government to lower speed limits for oil trains, speed up the switch to newer tank cars and introduce electronic brakes.
Experts said it was unlikely federal authorities would enforce ban such as Oregon requested.
"The states could do it on their own. I don't know that the FRA necessarily would," said Tom Williamson, who owns Transportation Consultants.
"We move a lot of products in this country that are a lot more hazardous than crude oil."
Washington State does not believe it has the authority to call a moratorium on oil trains, a spokeswoman for Inslee said. The state passed a law last year requiring operators to notify first responders when a train was entering the state.
QUEBEC TO OREGON
Oregon does not have any refineries, but its railroads carry crude from major U.S. producing hubs like North Dakota to feed refineries in Washington to the north. Five refineries with combined capacity 800,000 barrels per day operate there.
"If there’s a successful ban on crude-by-rail, it's going to be displaced, and we will get crude over the water," Marcia Nielsen, a spokeswoman for U.S. Oil & Refining Co, which operates a refinery in Tacoma, Washington.
Rail shipments have dipped from more than 1 million barrels per day in 2014 as a result of the lengthy slump in oil prices, but this month's crash reignited calls for tighter safety regulations even as train operators prepare for new laws, which come into effect in 2018.
TRAIN CAUTION
BNSF [BNISF.UL] railroad urged caution against a blanket ban that would impede interstate commerce.
"It is important to remember that hazardous materials are an essential part of providing for public safety and health, and for driving our economy," a spokeswoman for the company, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, said in a statement.
"Preventing these trains from getting to their destinations could have a negative impact on Washington’s ability to provide reliable fuel that drives the state's economy."
The company said it has also been developing predictive analytics to discover potential issues before they arise.
Justin Jacobs, a spokesman for Union Pacific, said the company would continue to transport crude oil safely and according to federal law.
"We absolutely understand the concerns out there. We take them very seriously. Safety is a top priority," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oregon-oil-rail-idUSKCN0Z22TB
-
Election May Be Pivotal For Energy Projects
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
When presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's senior policy adviser Stephen Miller took the stage in Georgia this week to welcome the billionaire mogul, he quickly pivoted to energy.
"[Hillary Clinton] will put our unions out of work," Miller said to a shouting sea of supporters at the Fox Theatre in downtown Atlanta. "She wants to shut down the coal mines, she wants to shut down fossil fuels, she wants to put millions of union workers out of work."
As the fight over energy policy in the upcoming presidential election heats up, one issue has emerged as a lightning rod among conservatives, liberals, industry and environmentalists: pipelines.
Developers of oil and gas projects have complained in recent months of growing opposition in the environmental community, triggering longer environmental reviews. That slowdown is also affecting union workers seeking to capitalize on the country's newfound shale plays.
But activists energized by the demise of the Keystone XL pipeline and the administration's increasingly public skepticism of fossil fuels, say their fight is just beginning.
"I cannot imagine in an industry who is more at risk than the pipeline guys," said Mike McKenna, a Republican political strategist on energy issues. "I think it's probably the most unwritten story of this election cycle. I think energy in general but really specifically pipelines."
Activists opposed to the proliferation of gas and oil infrastructure agree. Many of them are backing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has shifted to the left on energy issues in recent months in an effort to defeat Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.
"We are at a fork in the road, and if Secretary Clinton is elected, I think you'll see a major shift to massive clean energy build out," said Jane Kleeb, founder of Bold Nebraska and a prominent voice opposed to the KXL pipeline.
"If Donald Trump is elected," she said, "our communities will continue to be sacrifice zones and our farmland will continue to be taken away for fossil fuel corporations."
KXL has for years been a favorite election year talking point, particularly for Republicans. But this time around, the debate involves a whole range of projects. And the candidates' comments on the issue stand in stark contrast.
Clinton has criticized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for failing to fully weigh concerns about climate change and the impacts of energy development on communities, a move environmentalists praised (Greenwire, Oct. 21, 2015).
At a stop in New Hampshire earlier this year, greens applauded the way Clinton was "echoing" their concerns when she criticized federal pipeline reviews for failing to give enough weight to public opinion in areas along the route of proposed gas pipelines.
But, an industry source pointed out, Clinton continues to support natural gas as a bridge fuel cleaner than coal and a way for the country to meet its 2025 international climate commitment. She may also move a tad more to the center during the general election.
What's more, Clinton faces a delicate balance in attempting to appease both environmental groups and unions. In the latest skirmish of a long simmering disagreement, a number of building trade unions blasted the AFL-CIO for partnering with billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer (Greenwire, June 8).
The building unions -- including the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) and the International Union of Operating Engineers -- accuse Steyer of threatening union jobs through his staunch opposition to fossil fuels and projects like KXL (E&E Daily, May 17).
LIUNA was particularly vocal in supporting the pipeline from Canada, which Steyer opposed. But the group is supporting Clinton, even though she also spoke out against the project.
"It's a difficult issue for Democrats, there's no doubt," said Brian Obach, a professor of sociology at the State University of New York. "The instances are rare and in the vast majority of cases, there's clear, common ground between unions and environmentalists in terms of generating jobs and protecting the environment."
Democrats, Obach said, can stave off some of that potential contradiction by staying on the message of job creation through environmental initiatives and clean energy, something that Clinton has focused on.Focus on eminent domain
When it comes to pro-development Republicans, McKenna said Trump "scrambles the egg in many different ways."
The Republican standard-bearer supports the use of eminent domain for projects and has publicly said he leans toward approving a surge of proposed oil and gas pipelines that are cropping up across the United States.
"My basic bias would be to approve" pipelines, Trump said during a rally in North Dakota last month before unveiling his energy policy menu (E&E Daily, May 27). And even though union leaders have denied it, the mogul says his point of view will lead workers to defect to his camp.
Some analysts say the next president will have little sway over the existing pipeline permitting regime. At the same time industry sources, many of whom are hesitant to talk about Trump in public, pointed out the White House can influence regulation by appointing a new chairman at FERC or pushing legislative changes.
Kleeb said activists are taking the fight to both the state and national stage. On the local level, her group is mobilizing a national network of pipeline fighters with directors in Nebraska, Iowa, Louisiana and Oklahoma.
Nationally, Kleeb and other activists are using the issue of eminent domain as a weapon to turn people against fossil fuel infrastructure and attract conservative landowners.
Ultimately, Kleeb said she'd like to see legislation to end the use of eminent domain, especially in states like Virginia, West Virginia and North Dakota where landowner fights are taking root. Industry sources, however, said that's not likely to happen.
"It's obviously my goal that eminent domain become a issue in the presidential campaign and I definitely think it can," Kleeb said. "There's real potential of making this a big campaign issue, expressly in a swing state like Virginia, especially if Clinton picks [Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine] as her [vice president]."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/17/stories/1060038977
-
The FRA Clapped Back on Wednesday Night
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico
By Martine Powers and Jennifer Scholtes
The FRA clapped back on Wednesday night with comment to POLITICO: "If the railroad industry is looking for ways to innovate, it can start by implementing PTC as quickly as possible and upgrading the brake system technology on crude oil trains that dates back to the Civil War era,” FRA spokesman Matthew Lehner said.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-transportation/2016/06/mccaul-eyes-july-15-deadline-for-homeland-security-measures-214851
-
EPA Proposes Climate Rule Incentives Despite Court Hold
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is moving ahead with an incentive program for its contentious climate change rule, despite the Supreme Court’s action halting the regulation.
Under the program, known as the Clean Energy Incentive Program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would give states compliance credits for renewable energy and efficiency projects that are undertaken earlier than the Clean Power Plan would require them.
It’s meant to be a carrot to the stick of the Clean Power Plan and to try to get some significant deployment of renewables and efficiency projects before the regulation kicks in in 2022.
“Taking these steps will help cut carbon pollution by encouraging investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which will help give our kids and grandkids a healthier and safer future,” Janet McCabe, head of the EPA’s air pollution office, said in a Thursday statement.
The basic details of the incentive program were outlined when the climate rule was made final last August, but Thursday’s announcement formally proposes more details about it.
The climate rule itself, which seeks a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon emissions, is under a judicial stay from the Supreme Court’s February 2016 order.
But the EPA believes that actions like the incentive program and helping states voluntarily comply with the regulation are permissible under the court stay — an opinion Republicans and the rule’s opponents disagree with.
“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,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said at a hearing last week about the issue.
Following formal publication of the Thursday proposal in the Federal Register, the EPA will take comments from the public for 60 days before considering them and making the program final.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283776-epa-proposes-climate-rule-incentives-despite-court-hold
-
Udall Fights To Protect Important Conservation And Environment Funding
Jun 16, 2016 | KRWG
By Senator Tom Udall
Commentary: Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall, lead Democrat on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, stood up against poison pill provisions (riders) that would permanently weaken core environmental laws that protect our air, water, health and endangered species. During a markup of the appropriations bill that funds critical Interior and environment programs -- including many New Mexico priorities -- Udall also successfully secured a bipartisan agreement to boost wildland firefighting for fiscal year 2017 by over $600 million.CREDIT SENATOR TOM UDALL (D-NM)
The Interior and environment funding bill includes a measure Udall has long supported to reform the way the government funds wildfire suppression, allowing the most dangerous fires to be funded as "disasters," like hurricanes. But the reform won’t take effect immediately. Udall's amendment would boost funding to provide additional money this year: $661 million, including $490 million for the U.S. Forest Service and $171 million for the U.S. Department of the Interior, bringing the total for wildfire suppression to $2.304 billion, which is the amount requested by the administration. He offered his amendment as firefighters battle several blazes across New Mexico and the Southwest, including the over 12,000-acre Dog Head Fire in the Manzano Mountains south of Albuquerque. Fueled by dry conditions and high winds, the Dog Head Fire has consumed homes and other structures and forced evacuations in several towns.
Udall's amendment means that the government won't have to "borrow" from other accounts and programs if the cost of fighting fires in FY '17 exceeds historical budget estimates, as has been the case over the last several years.
"In New Mexico right now, we can see the devastating toll wildfires take — they are just as dangerous and damaging as hurricanes are on the East and Gulf coasts, and we should treat them that way. And this bill — with my amendment — finally allows us to do that," Udall said after the markup. "We're finally putting the emphasis in the right place — on protecting people and homes, giving our firefighters the resources they need, and providing certainty for land managers and everyone who depends on our forests."
Unfortunately, Udall said, the bill also inadequately funds other important conservation programs -- and even worse — includes a number of dangerous poison pill riders that weaken clean water and clean air laws, gut protections for threatened and endangered species, and would leave taxpayers on the hook for more contaminated mines like the Gold King Mine, which spilled toxic wastewater into the Animas and San Juan rivers in New Mexico and Colorado.
The riders would make significant policy chances that should be carefully considered by authorizing committees, not sneaked into must-pass funding bills, Udall said before offering an amendment to strike all of the riders. Udall's amendment to pass a "clean" bill failed, however, and as a result, Udall and all of the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee opposed the bill. The bill went on to be approved 16-14 and now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
"This bill funds critically important priorities in New Mexico -- including my amendment to keep our communities safe from wildfires -- so I'm extremely disappointed that I was unable to support the full bill," Udall said. "But no matter how important this funding is for New Mexico and our nation, I can't sit by and accept a bill with riders that would gut bedrock environmental laws that have protected our air, water, and natural environment for decades. I believe we can work out an agreement on this bill before the full Senate. I will continue to work with Democrats and Republicans for a funding bill that is free of dangerous riders and that includes the level of funding our communities need to support our water and other infrastructure needs, uphold our trust responsibilities, maintain our national parks and treasured public lands, and protect our families and communities from dangerous chemicals."
Riders included in the bill would block the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency's (EPA) rule on Waters of the United States and block the Stream Protection Rule, which protects water quality from the impacts of surface mining. Other provisions prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from making determinations about the status of threatened or endangered species, and take aim at the Endangered Species Act and other key protections for species and their habitats. The bill also includes forestry provisions that change long-established environmental review processes and prevent the Forest Service from taking steps to prevent logging in old-growth forests in Alaska, generating tremendous concerns from environmental and conservation groups.
The following are Udall's opening remarks as prepared for delivery at the markup:
Let me begin my remarks this morning on a positive note.
I’d like to thank my chairman, Senator Murkowski, and her excellent staff for working so closely with me on this bill.
As everyone here knows, we regularly have to face significant policy differences on the Interior Subcommittee. In fact, we’re about to talk about some of those differences this morning.
But I do appreciate the subcommittee’s ability to work together where we can, and to disagree in a cordial and constructive manner when we can’t. And I think that is a testament to Senator Murkowski’s leadership.
I also want to give the chairman credit for doing a number of good things with this bill despite a very tight allocation.
The bill honors our commitment to American Indians and Alaska Natives by providing substantial increases for Tribal health care and education.
The bill boosts funding for water infrastructure projects — investments that are badly needed in our communities.
I especially appreciate that the bill includes a more than $150 million increase for drinking water infrastructure.
More needs to be done to improve water quality and prevent tragedies, like lead poisoning in Flint, but this bill takes a step in the right direction.
This bill also provides new funding to help address the maintenance backlog at our national parks.
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program is fully funded so that counties have the resources they need to fund schools, public safety and roads.
The bill helps the Environmental Protection Agency begin its historic overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act to protect our families and communities from dangerous chemicals.
And it provides important funding for my home state of New Mexico, including crucial increases to fund our most treasured public lands.
These are very good things, and I want to vote for a bill that includes them.
But, unfortunately, in this case, I can’t.
This bill breaks from the precedent set by all the other subcommittees that have marked up this year and includes damaging poison pill riders.
As I mentioned during our subcommittee markup, the list of provisions included in this bill is like "déjà vu all over again." Riders to roll back Clean Water Act protections, weaken the Endangered Species Act, target the federal Superfund Law and plenty of others.
I’m not sure how many times that we have to go through this process before it sinks in that adding controversial language doesn’t help get spending bills passed into law.
We’re going to talk about many of these controversial policy riders at length when I offer an amendment to strike them, so I won’t go into detail now.
I’ll simply say: we have reported other equally controversial bills on a bipartisan basis.
If Labor-HHS can do it, why can’t we? If Financial Services can do it, why can’t we? Surely we can do better.
I think we should be focusing on passing 12 clean spending bills — not singling out one particular bill and loading it up with policy riders.
We should also be providing more balanced funding and not targeting certain programs or agencies for partisan attacks. I also take issue with the deep cuts this bill makes to programs that address climate change, enforce environmental laws and protect endangered species.
It’s unfortunate that the bill scales back investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is a program with tremendous bipartisan support and it does such good things in our home states.
Finally, we need to do more to do more to address firefighting needs. I’m deeply appreciative that the majority has included legislation to authorize a new disaster cap to pay for wildland firefighting as part of this bill. That’s the long-term solution to this problem. But we can’t access any disaster funding until the cap adjustment becomes law, so we need to find another way to provide more funding — an opportunity that my amendment will present.
That’s why I’m concerned that the bill fails to fully fund firefighting needs for the Forest Service and Interior Department in advance of the fiscal year 2017 fire season.
Last year, this subcommittee recognized that simply funding the 10-year average isn’t enough to cover actual firefighting costs. So we worked on a bipartisan basis to pass an omnibus that gave federal firefighters the funding that they actually need up front to put an end to fire borrowing.
I want to make sure that we take the same approach this year.
We simply must find a way to address these issues in a more bipartisan manner. I stand ready to work with Senator Murkowski, but until these issues are resolved, I must oppose this bill.
http://krwg.org/post/udall-fights-protect-important-conservation-and-environment-funding
-
House Panel to Hold Contempt Vote for Shelanski June 23
Jun 16, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Anthony Adragna
Members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will vote June 23 on whether to hold the Obama administration's top regulatory gatekeeper in contempt of Congress over an incomplete response to a subpoena, a committee aide told Bloomberg BNA June 16.At issue is the response of Howard Shelanski, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, to a July 2015 subpoena seeking records related to the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' controversial Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule.“Mr. Shelanski and his staff are withholding key documents from the committee—the volume of which is unknown except to OIRA, because Mr. Shelanski and his staff refused to provide basic information about the universe of responsive documents,” a report released late June 15 said.If the vote carries, Shelanski would become the third Obama administration official held in contempt of Congress, after then-Attorney General Eric Holder in June 2012 and former Internal Revenue Service employee Lois Lerner in May 2014.‘No Basis' for ContemptA spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget told Bloomberg BNA there was “no basis” to hold Shelanski in contempt of Congress and said the office was working diligently to fulfill the terms of the subpoena.“We are surprised both by the timing and the substance of the Committee's report,” the spokeswoman said. “OMB has worked in good faith to respond to the Committee's incredibly broad subpoena that spans a more than nine-year period... OMB has also consistently advised the Committee that it was cooperating and would provide the Committee with the information it was seeking.”According to the spokeswoman, OMB has provided at least 33,000 pages of records to the committee to date and told it June 15 that it would complete its review for responsive documents by June 22.Different from Republican FindingsThose figures vary sharply from the claims in the Republican report, which said Shelanski has “failed to provide even a meaningful subset of responsive documents” and “demonstrate a modicum of good faith” in the process.The report said the committee has received just 18,896 pages of responsive documents to date, of which 78 percent were duplicates.Committee Republicans first requested the documents related to the office's review of the Clean Water Act jurisdictional regulation in March 2015 and issued a subpoena for the records in July 2015 after they said Shelanski failed to voluntarily comply with their requests. -
Chaffetz Ready To Hold Obama Official In Contempt
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico
By Eric Wolff
WOTUS, THERE PARTNER: HOUSE OVERSIGHT READY TO HOLD OBAMA OFFICIAL IN CONTEMPT: The battle over the Obama administration's controversial water regulation intensified Wednesday night when House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz moved to hold a White House official in contempt, Annie Sniderreports. Oversight Republicans say Howard Shelanski, who runs OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has failed to provide the documents the committee subpoened nearly a year ago on deliberations between the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers when they were writing the Waters of the U.S. rule. "They should be embarrassed. It should never have come to this," Chaffetz said.
Story Continued Below
Still waters run deep, but rapids sink canoes: Hoping to head off legal action, OIRA turned over 13,000 pages of records Wednesday, on top of 19,000 pages of WOTUS documents it previously gave to the committee, which it has been investigating the rulemaking since July. The agency promised to turn over the remainder of the documents within a week. Oversight Republicans complained the first batch of documents contained many duplicates and was missing key documents, a charge the administration disputes. "OMB has worked in good faith to respond to the Committee's subpoena regarding the review of the Clean Water Rule," an OMB spokeswoman said in an email, calling the subpoena "incredibly broad."
It’s more than politics: The Clean Water Rule is being challenged in court by dozens of interest groups and more than 30 states. The courts will scrutinize the rulemaking process, and federal agencies — EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in this case — aren't required to include deliberative documents like internal memos or emails in the administrative record for the court case. But anything that Congress digs up is fair game in that legal process.
Third time's the charm: Chaffetz plans to bring the resolution before his committee a week from today, and he says leadership is interested in getting it onto the floor quickly. If it passes the full House, Shelanski would become the third Obama official held in contempt by Congress, along with former IRS chief Lois Lerner and former Attorney General Eric Holder.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/06/chaffetz-ready-to-hold-obama-official-in-contempt-214855
-
Chaffetz Seeks To Hold Obama Official In Contempt Over Water Rule
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) wants to hold a high-ranking Obama administration official in contempt of Congress over his response to an investigation into a contentious water pollution rule.
He is accusing Howard Shelanski, head of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), of withholding documents related to OIRA’s involvement in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Rule.
Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, subpoenaed Shelanski in July 2015 for a wide range of documents regarding the rule, four months after Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) first formally requested the information at a subcommittee hearing.
While Shelanski has produced thousands of pages of requested documents, he still hasn’t handed over everything Chaffetz has sought.
A video the committee released Wednesday charges that “eleven months later, OIRA has failed to produce all of the requested documents.”
In a resolution introduced Wednesday night, Chaffetz said Shelanski’s “unwillingness and inability to work in good faith to comply with the subpoena interfered with the committee’s investigation” into the regulation issued last year, and he and his staff “are withholding key documents from the committee — the volume of which is unknown except to OIRA, because Mr. Shelanski and his staff refused to provide basic information about the universe of responsive documents.”
The contempt motion is the latest in a string of attempts by Republicans to punish executive branch officials for not cooperating.
The GOP-led House voted to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt in 2012, and did the same for former IRS official Lois Lerner in 2014. Chaffetz’ committee voted Wednesday to censure IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
If the House approves the Shelanski resolution, it would trigger a request to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Channing Phillips, that Shelanski be prosecuted. Neither Holder nor Lerner was punished as a result of their contempt votes.
The Oversight Committee has long been investigating the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) development of the water rule, also known as “waters of the United States.” It was finalized last year, asserting federal control over small waterways like wetlands and headwaters for pollution control purposes.
Republicans charge that the rule is overly broad and gives the federal government power over too much state and private property. The EPA and Democrats have pushed back, saying it is necessary to protect important waterways that provide drinking water, recreation and other major uses.
The regulation is currently on hold and the EPA cannot enforce it while the federal courts consider a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn it.
The committee will vote on the contempt proposal June 23 and vote on whether to send it to the full House.
-
Chaffetz Eyes Contempt Charge Over CWA Rule Documents
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-CA) moved June 15 to hold Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator (OIRA) Howard Shelanski in contempt over documents related to the administration's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, according to press reports.
Chaffetz had previously on June 14, 2015, issued a subpoena to Shelanski soliciting the documents, saying at the time that the move was necessary following repeated efforts to obtain the documents.
According to Politico, OIRA turned over 13,000 pages of records June 15, following a submission of nearly 20,000 pages of documents over the past year, and says it would turn over the remaining documents within the next week.
Shelanski during an April 19 oversight panel hearing countered Chaffetz' claim that OIRA had redacted many of the documents previously submitted to the panel, saying only personal information was redacted and that OIRA has provided all documents “that are responsive” to the committee's request for all documents and information related to the rule, which the agency issued last June.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
Greens blast riders in Interior-EPA spending bill
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly, Scott Streater and Tiffany Stecker
A Senate spending bill that won committee approval earlier today could exempt the burning of wood and other biomass in some places from regulation as a carbon source.
The rider's inclusion in a fiscal 2017 appropriations measure for U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and the Forest Service won immediate praise from the forest products industry and criticism from environmentalists.
The provision would bar EPA from regulating a plant that burns "forest biomass" if the Agriculture Department finds that regional timberland carbon stocks "are stable or increasing."
In a statement, Donna Harman, head of the American Forest & Paper Association, credited Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and said the provision would "ensure federal regulations recognize the atmospheric carbon-reducing benefits of biomass-based energy."
But environmental groups, which question whether biomass is carbon-neutral, fear that such provisions could undercut the Obama administration's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants.
The provision "would exempt biomass in certain regions from being regulated under the Clean Power Plan," Ben Schreiber, climate and energy program director at Friends of the Earth, said in an interview.
The rider was one of a dozen that Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee unsuccessfully sought to strike today before the bill received committee approval on a 16-14 party-line vote (Greenwire, June 16).
As part of an overall $32.7 billion spending package, the measure would set aside a combined $2.37 billion for EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving funds, money that funds state loan programs for water infrastructure repairs. This is a 15 percent increase over the House's allocation for the programs and $113 million more than current spending levels. It also tops President Obama's $2 billion request for the programs.
The Clean Water SRF would receive $1.35 billion to upgrade sewage treatment plants and stormwater systems, slightly lower than the $1.39 billion in current spending but a generous 38 percent over the president's request. The House bill set aside $1 billion.
The Drinking Water SRF, which was thrust into the spotlight with the ongoing drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., would get $1.02 billion in the Senate spending plan, slightly less than in the House appropriation. This is an 18 percent jump from current spending amounts and level with the president's budget request.
The bill also would provide $30 million for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program to leverage Treasury bonds for large, expensive water infrastructure projects. This is $10 million over the president's request but $20 million below the House's allocation. This would be the first time the program would be fully funded since its 2014 enactment.
The bill would also reinstate $98.5 million for water quality testing at the nation's beaches. The last five federal budget requests have proposed to eliminate the program.
On a voice vote, the committee also approved an amendment by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that would extend the "continuous operations requirement" for offshore oil and gas operators to one year, or twice the current maximum of 180 days.
In a news release, Cassidy said the Interior Department currently requires companies to conduct drilling and other operations within 180 days or the lease term expires. But as the time needed to drill wells has increased, Cassidy said that his amendment "allows operators adequate time to safely bring offshore wells into production."Sage grouse
Another rider unsuccessfully challenged by Democrats takes aim at greater sage grouse regulations.
The rider would forbid the Interior secretary from using any funds appropriated to the agency in fiscal 2017 to "write or issue" under the Endangered Species Act "a proposed rule for greater sage-grouse."
It would also forbid "a proposed rule for the Columbia Basin distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse." The Fish and Wildlife Service last year determined the birds in Washington state's Columbia River Basin were not a separate species listable for federal protection.
Specifically, it would block Fish and Wildlife from altering its determination last September that the greater sage grouse and Columbia Basin grouse do not warrant being listed for protection under ESA.
The rider is the latest effort by GOP leaders to undermine federal plans to protect grouse that Western congressional leaders and some governors say impose unnecessary restrictions that inhibit energy development and other uses on federal lands.
The service cited as a key reason not to list the grouse the strong federal plans that amend 98 Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land-use plans in 10 Western states to incorporate strong grouse protections. The federal plans also propose withdrawing 10 million acres of the most critical grouse habitat from new mining claims.
FWS officials said today that the language in the Senate rider, if enacted, would not impede the service's ability to implement the federal plans, which are the focus of numerous lawsuits from several states, local governments, the oil and gas and mining industries, and conservation groups.
But it would prevent the service from taking action if ongoing analysis of the grouse's condition were to change and FWS were to determine that the grouse should be listed for ESA protection.
The provision was not an issue of debate during the nearly two-hour markup, though Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee's ranking member, mentioned it as one of the 12 "poison pill riders" in the bill that he tried unsuccessfully to remove and that he said prevent him from supporting the bill.
And it was blasted today by environmental groups that warned that if approved, the rider would push the greater sage grouse closer to extinction.
Ingrid Seggerman, the government relations legislative analyst with Defenders of Wildlife, said "any legislative attempts to meddle with scientific listing decisions made by experts" at Fish and Wildlife "undermine the integrity" of the Endangered Species Act.
"A few in Congress are now considering throwing out all of the work accomplished by Westerners to create a collaborative and common-sense solution on this issue," added Nada Culver, senior director for agency policy and planning at the Wilderness Society. "Congress should give the sage grouse plans sufficient time to work, rather than try to dismantle them."
The Senate rider follows an amendment approved yesterday by the House Appropriations Committee, and included in its Interior funding bill, that would forbid the agency during fiscal 2017 from implementing the federal sage grouse management plans in states that already have a management plan approved by the governor.
The amendment, proposed by Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), also would forbid withdrawing the 10 million acres from new mining claims.
And, like the Senate rider, it would prevent Fish and Wildlife in fiscal 2017 from altering its decision last fall not to list the bird for federal protection.
Amodei's amendment is similar to language in the House defense authorization bill approved last month that would prevent Interior from listing the grouse as endangered for 10 years. The bill would also empower states to block the federal management plans for the bird.
"The Senate rider seeks to block Endangered Species Act protections from being adopted, while the House rider gets rid of federal sage grouse plans entirely," said Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist with WildEarth Guardians. "If these riders pass, the imperiled sage grouse will be left with no protections at all."Other directives
The committee sent more directives to agencies in an accompanying bill report. The report's provisions are not legally binding, but they are nonetheless meant to send a message about congressional concerns.
Unlike its House counterpart, for example, the Senate bill does not seek to delay implementation of EPA's ambient air quality standard for ozone adopted in October.
But in the report, the Senate panel voices concerns that some states could have to pursue the new 70-parts-per-billion standard while still working on attainment of the previous 75 ppb benchmark, which dates back to 2008.
Once the spending bill is signed into law, the report says, EPA would have 90 days to draft a report exploring options to let states enter into cooperative agreements "that provide regulatory relief and meaningfully clean up the air."
The report also expressed concern about Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement efforts to make sure companies reclaim mines to their approximate original contour. It asked for more information about OSMRE activities.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/16/stories/1060038962
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested