Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/17/16
-
Harmful Chemicals Are Everywhere — But What Does That Mean?
Jun 17, 2016 | Kaiser Health News
By Zhai Yun Tan
Everything from our plastic water bottles and cosmetics to our non-stick frying pans contains chemicals that accumulate in our bodies. But it is unclear what effects these chemicals might have on human health and well-being. -
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. -
New Resource Reveals Widespread Use Of Toxic BPA
Jun 17, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
EWG has uncovered new information about a toxic chemical many of us are buying at the grocery store – and how common it really is. -
Senate Spending Bill Wouldn't Block Clean Power Plan -- Yet
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
Republican-controlled committees in the House and Senate advanced spending bills this week that would slash programs to curb climate change. But while the House measure would block spending on the Clean Power Plan, the Senate measure would not. -
EPA Moves to Spur Early Action in States
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
U.S. EPA gave its stamp of approval yesterday to solar installations in low-income communities as part of an optional, early-action program under the Clean Power Plan. The proposal would also allow geothermal energy and hydropower. -
Pa. Bill Overseeing Climate Compliance Heads to Governor's Desk
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
A bill to give Pennsylvania's Republican-led Legislature a tighter grip on the state's Clean Power Plan compliance strategy is headed to the governor's desk. -
Lifeline for Korean Shipyards Could Keep U.S. Project Afloat
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
An early-stage proposal to float a liquefied natural gas export terminal off the Louisiana coastline is on track to get major financing despite an industrywide slowdown. -
More NatGas, Pipeline Access, Price Transparency Bound For Mexico
Jun 17, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Construction is slated to begin next month on the Texas-to-Mexico Nueva Era Pipeline, and the contract for another major Texas-Mexico connection was recently awarded. Mexico's natural gas market is progressing toward increased supply, liquidity and price transparency. -
Workers Hospitalized After Solution Spills at Willy Wonka Candy Plant in Itasca
Jun 17, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Chicago Tribune staff and WGN-TV
Nestle's Willy Wonka candy manufacturing plant in Itasca was evacuated and about a dozen people were hospitalized early Friday hours after a chemical solution used to control humidity burst from a pipe, officials said. -
Groups Can Sue Over Leaking Mont. Power Plant -- Judge
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Roughly 380 gallons of contaminated water from a Montana power plant is leaking every minute out of its storage ponds despite a 2012 agreement to stop the contamination. -
New EPA Rule Keeps Oil & Gas Wastewater out of Local Treatment Plants
Jun 17, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Holly Pearen
If you like clean water, we’ve got good news. This week the EPA finalized an important Clean Water Act rule that cements commonsense protections for water resources. -
Midwest Utilities Claim Legal Bar To Further Ozone Transport Reductions
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Midwest utilities are warning the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) -- the group of Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states -- that its call for further national requirements to curb the transport of ozone-forming air pollution from upwind states might be unlawful unless the group's members first take all possible steps to reduce local emissions. -
New ESPS Incentive Plan Limits Renewable Eligibility To Offset Tax Credits
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA is proposing to limit the number of renewable energy projects eligible to receive credits under its revised early action incentive program for its signature power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rule, signaling the agency shares advocates' concern that recently extended wind and solar tax credits would limit the program's ability to spur projects beyond what would already occur. -
Sen. Hatch Pressures Feds for Answers on Stimulus Program for Green Energy
Jun 17, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By David Williams
Remember Solyndra? That was the Silicon Valley-based, taxpayer-funded, green energy boondoggle that even President Obama won’t defend in public.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Harmful Chemicals Are Everywhere — But What Does That Mean?
Jun 17, 2016 | Kaiser Health News
By Zhai Yun Tan
Everything from our plastic water bottles and cosmetics to our non-stick frying pans contains chemicals that accumulate in our bodies. But it is unclear what effects these chemicals might have on human health and well-being.
A report released this week by the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., attempts to inform part of this discussion by quantifying the extent these chemicals are found in Americans.
“It’s hard to make the connection between being exposed to something and getting the disease because the disease is going to develop five, 10, 20 years later,” said Curt DellaValle, author of the report and a senior scientist with the group. “I hope something like this raises some awareness that these exposures are out there, there are some dangers generally … and we should work to try and reduce those exposures.”
The group analyzed biomonitoring data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which provides a representational snapshot of the U.S. population.
According to their findings, as many as 420 natural and man-made chemicals known to or likely to cause cancer were detected in blood, urine, hair and other human samples that were taken as part of the survey. Arsenic, lead, nitrate, a breakdown product of the insecticide DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) and chloroform were found in nearly every person participating in the survey. Benzene, which is widely used to manufacture plastics, synthetic fibers and lubricants, was found in more than a half.
PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl), which is no longer produced in the U.S. but may still be found in old electrical equipment and products such as fluorescent light ballasts and plastics, was detected in between less than 5 percent to 100 percent of the people tested depending on the form of the chemical.
According to the report, nine of the chemicals were estimated to be at toxicity levels that exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety standards.
Exposure to the chemicals can come from flame retardants in furniture, waterproof clothing, cookware, fragrance ingredients, pesticides or contaminated air, soil or food. Evidence suggests that some of the chemicals may cause cancer while for others the link is weaker.
The study’s author stresses that the mere presence of these toxic chemicals has not been shown to increase cancer risks. The real matter for concern, according to the author, is the lack of understanding about how these chemicals will interact with each other when they accumulate in the body.
Junfeng Zhang, a professor of global and environmental health at Duke University, said it’s a tough job trying to figure out if environmental exposure to chemicals leads to cancer. Proving toxicity of a chemical — such as tobacco — is easy, but finding out the level of exposure that might cause cancer is difficult. It’s a factor that is overshadowed by the recent advances in highlighting the disease’s genetic causes. The report, Zhang says, is useful for people to understand their health risks even if it doesn’t guarantee that cancer will result. Zhang was not involved in the report.
“We introduce lots of chemicals, we have to tell people what sort of risk they have,” he said. “A carcinogen is a carcinogen, at high enough doses it will cause cancer … The number is just an indicator of risk.”
The study comes a week after Congress passed the first reform in 40 years to the Toxic Substances Control Act, which gives the Environmental Protection Agency regulatory authority over thousands of such chemicals, and as the European Commission began consideration of increasing the regulation of endocrine disruptors — chemicals that affect the endocrine system, including PCBs, pesticides and BPA (bisphenol A).
http://khn.org/news/harmful-chemicals-are-everywhere-but-what-does-that-mean/
-
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.
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
-
New Resource Reveals Widespread Use Of Toxic BPA
Jun 17, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
EWG has uncovered new information about a toxic chemical many of us are buying at the grocery store – and how common it really is.
Last year California officially listed bisphenol A, or BPA, on its Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or harm to the reproductive system. The proposition requires businesses to warn Californians when they may be exposed these chemicals.
BPA seeps into our food from packaging materials, such as the lining of metal food cans or lids of glass jars. In an effort to comply with Prop 65, food manufacturers released a treasure trove of information about BPA in food and beverage containers – but they didn’t try very hard to publicize it, and it’s hardly user-friendly.
So EWG created the first easy-to-use and searchable product list of more than 16,000 products from 926 brands that may contain BPA. The list shows the toxic chemical is much more widespread than previously known: it’s in the lids of glass baby food jars, spray cans for whipped toppings, bottles of cooking oil and even beer and soda cans.Read the report to learn more about what EWG discovered and how the new product list was compiled.
BPA is a synthetic estrogen that disrupts hormones and affects our brain development, metabolism and reproductive systems. What’s more, evidence suggests that the developing fetus and young child are most at risk. In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. A year later, the agency prohibited it in infant formula packaging.
Yet canned foods remain a major source of BPA in the American diet. Citing health concerns and consumer demand, some food manufacturers have already begun using BPA-free packaging, but change in the marketplace is far from complete. In 2014 EWG surveyed more than 250 food brands produced by nearly 120 companies. More than 75 brands still used BPA to line all their metal food cans. Read the full report.
Although BPA’s addition to the Prop 65 list officially kicked in last month, California issued a temporary delay that gives manufacturers more time to reformulate their products or change their labels. The state has allowed businesses to warn customers about BPA through signs at grocery store checkout counters, rather than on products labels or shelf tags – a move that, for now, insufficiently informs and protects customers.
EWG urges California not to extend the deadline further, and both Congress and the FDA to take action to limit our exposure to BPA. Still, we anticipate that Prop 65 will prompt a change in how food and beverages goods are packaged in this country. California boasts the biggest economy in the United States and the eighth largest in the world. What happens in the state often signals similar change elsewhere.
Until that happens, here are some helpful tips for avoiding BPA:
Search for your family’s favorite foods and beverages in EWG’s new BPA product list. If they are packaged in containers made with BPA, look for alternative products in EWG’s Food Scores. Tip: use the BPA-free filter function when searching.
Buy packaged foods from companies that do not use BPA in their products. Visit EWG’s Best Players or Better Players lists for BPA-free brands and companies.
Limit how many packaged foods you eat.
If you can’t avoid packaged foods with BPA lining, rinse the food in water before eating. This may help lower the amount of BPA on items such as beans, vegetables or fruit. Bonus: rinsing cuts back on other additives too, such as sodium on beans or sweet syrup on fruit.
Don’t heat your food in the can. Transfer it to a stainless steel pot or pan for stovetop cooking, or microwave in glass – not plastic.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/06/new-resource-reveals-widespread-use-toxic-bpa
-
Senate Spending Bill Wouldn't Block Clean Power Plan -- Yet
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
Republican-controlled committees in the House and Senate advanced spending bills this week that would slash programs to curb climate change. But while the House measure would block spending on the Clean Power Plan, the Senate measure would not.
In a Senate Appropriations Committee markup yesterday, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) withdrew an amendment that would have prevented U.S. EPA from spending money to implement the electricity-sector greenhouse gas limits unless a Supreme Court stay on the rule is lifted.
Capito noted that the bill would reduce spending for EPA air programs that fund Clean Power Plan work anyway. And Capito's spokeswoman said she also plans to raise the amendment again if the spending bill reaches the Senate floor.
The bill the Senate Appropriations Committee approved yesterday in a party-line vote of 16-14 would keep EPA spending at about $8.1 billion but cut the agency's main air and water programs by about 10 percent, according to lawmakers.
The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday approved its spending bill 31-18, also along party lines. Under that measure, EPA would receive $7.98 billion, well below President Obama's request of $8.26 billion (E&ENews PM, June 15).
Both bills include riders to prohibit spending on various climate and environment programs. They target the Waters of the U.S. rule and Endangered Species Act, for example. But so far, only the House version would block Clean Power Plan work.
Capito said EPA is downplaying the significance of the stay on the Clean Power Plan as a "last-ditch effort" to get states to spend "precious" resources to write carbon-cutting plans for a rule that may not move forward.
EPA has continued to provide guidance to states that are planning voluntarily and to finalize portions of its rule, arguing it is perfectly legal to do so. The agency yesterday released a final portion of the rule meant to encourage early renewable power development and energy efficiency in low-income communities (see related story).
With or without restrictions on the Clean Power Plan, the spending bill may not clear procedural hurdles in the Senate because it includes contentious riders, noted Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the chamber.
The measure probably won't earn the 60 votes necessary for the full Senate to take up the bill, Durbin said, meaning the spending levels will likely pass only in a continuing resolution or omnibus bill.
Appropriators in the Senate have been able to come to consensus on other spending bills, including unanimously approving the financial services package yesterday. But on the Interior and environment bill, Democrats in both committees called the spending levels inadequate and opposed restrictions against implementing certain regulations, calling them "poison pills."
Democrats introduced amendments to remove the riders, but Republicans shot them down.
"Adding controversial language only makes it harder to do our job," said Sen. Tom Udall, the New Mexico Democrat who is the ranking member on the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. "Removing these riders is a good starting place for a conversation on how we can get a bill both sides can support and be proud of."
But Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the subcommittee, said, "What some would consider to be a poison pill others have made clear to me it is a priority for them in their states."
Long-standing debate on biomass
The Senate spending bill includes policy language asserting that forest biomass burned for energy is carbon neutral, according to Udall. The American Forest and Paper Association and National Association of Forest Owners quickly applauded the provision.
"The Senate language appropriately embraces the fundamental principle that biomass energy from forests where we continue to grow more wood than we harvest is a carbon solution," said a statement from NAFO.
But forty-eight green groups voiced opposition to the provision ahead of the markup, saying any policy on biomass should consider the whole carbon footprint of burning it for power (E&E Daily, June 16).
They argue the carbon footprint of biomass depends on whether trees are cut down specifically to be burned for energy and how quickly they are replanted and begin to grow and absorb carbon.
Many studies have found biomass is a renewable energy source only if it comes from residual tree trimmings and other waste scraps (ClimateWire, June 14).
Udall said ongoing research is promising and both parties worked together on the biomass issue during debate on the Senate energy bill.
"I think we can agree that the EPA and the White House need to re-engage to make progress on biomass, including with members of this committee," Udall said. "But it's a complicated issue that needs to be addressed by the authorizing committee."
Udall said "none of these provisions have any place in the appropriations process."
Republicans struck down his amendment that would have removed the biomass language and 11 other riders, saying states need certainty on whether biomass is a renewable power source and whether it can be used to comply with the Clean Power Plan. EPA has said burning more biomass to displace fossil fuels may or may not count under the rule.
"We don't have a framework, a science-based framework, that industry can use to determine how to account for carbon," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) argued biomass is sustainable, responsible and renewable and noted many states count on it to meet their renewable energy goals. She said states need clarity from EPA.
"There are many of us who are in states where the forest products industry is such an important part of the economy," Collins said.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat who voted for the amendment to remove the riders, said she agreed with Merkley and Collins that it's "unacceptable EPA has not provided firm direction for those people who are dealing with our timber industry and want to produce biomass as a clean source of energy."
Agreement to boost wildland fire spending
The Senate Appropriations Committee did find at least one area of agreement.
In a bipartisan voice vote, lawmakers added $661 million in emergency funding -- enough to meet the Obama administration's request -- to the $3.79 billion that the wildland fire management program run by the Interior Department and the Forest Service would receive.
Udall said he hopes Congress will make the increased funding permanent, as firefighting programs are spending more and more.
Murkowski agreed, saying that "the practice that we have been engaging in just doesn't work" and that it's not fair to raid other accounts when firefighting money runs out.
"I think we are going to get to a place where we have a permanent fix," she said.
Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester noted that until climate change is addressed, "we will continue to spend more and more money on fire and other natural disasters."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/17/stories/1060038975
-
EPA Moves to Spur Early Action in States
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
U.S. EPA gave its stamp of approval yesterday to solar installations in low-income communities as part of an optional, early-action program under the Clean Power Plan. The proposal would also allow geothermal energy and hydropower.
The Obama administration yesterday rolled out more details on its proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) . The optional program would give states early credit for certain actions to reduce emissions before the Clean Power Plan would take effect, like installing wind farms or energy efficiency projects in low-income communities.
"For nearly a year we have collaborated with communities and other stakeholders, listening closely to ideas about how to design a range of elements of the CEIP. Today's proposal keeps that conversation moving forward," Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, said in a statement.
The plan includes changes from earlier an version, which was outlined in the agency's Federal Plan released last year. EPA yesterday proposed that in addition to wind, solar, and energy efficiency projects in low-income communities, geothermal energy, hydropower and solar installations in low-income communities may also be eligible for early credit in the form of carbon allowances or credits.
EPA would set aside 300 million short tons of CO2 emissions for this purpose, intended for use in a larger carbon-trading program.
Also in the proposal, EPA defended its decision to continue releasing information on how states can comply with the Clean Power Plan under the Supreme Court stay.
"The EPA has not been enjoined by any court from continuing to work with state partners in the development of frameworks to reduce CO2 emissions from affected [electricity-generating units]," it stated.
The proposal also shows that EPA is not ready to say the deadlines around the Clean Power Plan's implementation will shift because of the high court's decision.
"The Supreme Court's orders granting the stay did not discuss the parties' differing views of whether and how the stay would affect the Clean Power Plan's deadlines, and did not expressly resolve that issue," the proposal stated. "In this context, the legal effect of the stay on the Clean Power Plan's deadlines is ambiguous, and the question of whether and to what extent tolling is appropriate will need to be resolved once the validity of the Clean Power Plan is finally adjudicated."
'Stay means stay,' says W.Va. AG
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), an opponent of EPA's climate rule, released a statement yesterday calling for states to ignore the CEIP, calling it a "last-ditch effort to save the president's legacy carbon mandates."
"The agency has no respect for the rule of law or decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States and would rather progress a political priority at the expense of American taxpayers," Inhofe said. "The highest court in the land has already ruled that EPA's activities are on legally vulnerable ground and states heeding the court's direction should not fear penalty."
EPA's critics have blasted the agency's continued work on the Clean Power Plan and its unwillingness to say whether the climate rule's deadlines will change. Opponents have also called on states to "put their pencils down" and stop the planning that would be necessary to comply with the rule.
"Stay means stay. EPA's continued work on its unlawful Power Plan amounts to wasted effort and money," West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is leading a multistate lawsuit challenging the rule, said in a statement.
Morrisey added his office "will closely review the proposal and take appropriate action."
Attorneys general from states challenging the Clean Power Plan in court, including Morrisey, have indicated they will not pursue a separate legal action against EPA for moving forward on proposals like the CEIP (ClimateWire, May 24).
The Clean Power Plan's supporters praised the proposal's release. They noted that states in support of the rule have asked EPA for additional information on the climate rule, including more information on the Clean Energy Incentive Program.
"By moving ahead with this proposal, EPA is providing valuable information and guidance for companies and state policymakers that want to harness this voluntary opportunity to reduce pollution and catalyze investment in clean energy solutions," Pam Kiely, senior director of regulatory strategy for the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.
Matt Stanberry, vice president of market development for Advanced Energy Economy, said, "Our view on this is that we are happy to see EPA move forward on the Clean Energy Incentive Program.
"I think it wasn't necessarily a guarantee that they would," he added.
Geothermal, hydropower advocates celebrate
The American Wind Energy Association also offered early praise for the proposal, although the group said it was still reviewing the details.
"The program will result in additional environmental benefits -- through carbon reductions before state emission obligations kick in -- and, in turn, provide states the opportunity to meet their ultimate emission targets on a smoother glide path," Rob Gramlich, a senior vice president, said in a statement.
The addition of geothermal and hydropower to the CEIP proposal is a significant change. EPA previously hinted it was not likely to allow other forms of renewable technologies to qualify under the program (ClimateWire, Nov. 12, 2015). The announcement was cheered by advocates for those technologies.
"We applaud the EPA for proposing to include geothermal power in its Clean Energy Incentive Program under the Clean Power Plan," stated Geothermal Energy Association Executive Director Karl Gawell.
LeRoy Coleman, a spokesman for the National Hydropower Association, also said his organization was pleased with the change.
"States are searching for clean energy solutions to meet their goals, and CEIP will help to lower the barrier to greater investment in hydropower," Coleman said.
Solar projects in low-income communities will also be eligible for early credit, marking another change.
Additionally, the proposal states renewable energy projects will be eligible for early credit when they begin operating, rather than when construction begins as EPA had initially floated. The agency set Jan. 1, 2020, as the date when renewable energy projects will be eligible for credit.
The proposal delineates that half of the pool of allowances or credits will be available to low-income projects and the other half will be for renewable energy projects. It also restricts states' ability to use allowances or credits that are not used by other states.
EPA will take comments on the CEIP proposal for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The agency will also hold a public hearing on the proposal in Chicago on Aug. 3.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/17/stories/1060038992
-
Pa. Bill Overseeing Climate Compliance Heads to Governor's Desk
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
A bill to give Pennsylvania's Republican-led Legislature a tighter grip on the state's Clean Power Plan compliance strategy is headed to the governor's desk.
Democrats and environmental groups decried the passage of S.B. 1195 on Wednesday, which could delay the state's submittal of a compliance strategy to U.S. EPA under the federal rule to reduce carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector (ClimateWire, June 10).
Environmental advocacy group PennFuture issued a statement calling it "a significant step backward in Pennsylvania's fight against climate change," adding the bill "is aimed at weakening executive power and shifting it to special interests as well as short circuiting the commonwealth's regulatory process."
The bill is an update to a law enacted in 2014 that requires approval by the General Assembly before the state's Clean Power Plan compliance strategy can be submitted to EPA. However, that law was passed before the Clean Power Plan was finalized, and it includes dates that no longer apply to EPA's final rule.
State Sen. Don White (R), who introduced the bill, described it as a compromise between the governor and the Legislature. The bill would allow the state to submit a compliance strategy to EPA by the deadline if the General Assembly is not able to approve it on time, thus avoiding EPA imposing a more restrictive federal plan on the state.
"I am pleased that the Governor and the Legislature were able to find common ground on this measure to safeguard Pennsylvania's energy-producing industries and the thousands of workers they employ and protect them from overreaching regulations that could come with Pennsylvania's compliance with the federal Clean Power Plan," White said in a statement.
Democratic state Rep. Greg Vitali called for the bill to be vetoed.
"Every day we delay makes this task harder," Vitali said in a statement. "Climate change is too serious a problem to delay."
Jeffrey Sheridan, press secretary for Gov. Tom Wolf (D), would not comment on whether the governor's office has any concerns about the bill.
"The bill has not arrived at the governor's desk, and he will review it once it does," Sheridan said in an email.
In an earlier statement, Sheridan said the governor remains "committed to addressing climate change, and his administration has been working to craft a Clean Power Plan that is tailored to fit Pennsylvania's unique economic and energy needs."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/17/stories/1060038974
-
Lifeline for Korean Shipyards Could Keep U.S. Project Afloat
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
An early-stage proposal to float a liquefied natural gas export terminal off the Louisiana coastline is on track to get major financing despite an industrywide slowdown.
Early this week, news reports surfaced that Delfin LNG, a project proposing to operate a state-of-the-art floating gas liquefaction unit in the Gulf of Mexico, had secured a $1.5 billion loan. The lender was reported to be the Korea Development Bank (KDB), a state-owned investor that supports Korean industries and interests.
Such a strong show of financial support would be big news for a project that aims to deploy an unproven technology during uncertain times for a troubled industry. Natural gas prices that hovered above $15 per million British thermal units (Btu) for spot cargoes to Korea just two years ago are now selling below $5 per million Btu. The oil price collapse, a surge of new U.S. and Australian LNG supply, and a dramatic slowdown in the Chinese economic growth engine have conspired to dramatically cut prices (EnergyWire, April 27, 2015).
On Wednesday, a New York-based official with Korea's KDB said a loan had not been provided, but she confirmed that the bank has signed on as a financial adviser in a step that could lead to lending. "The Seoul headquarters was appointed as financial advisory bank. That's all I can tell you right now," said Sehee Hwang, KDB's vice president of New York project finance, adding that, "At some point the bank will provide a loan."
The Delfin project is being developed by a subsidiary of Fairwood Peninsula Energy Corp., a venture made up of the Fairwood Group, which is based in India and Singapore, and the Texas-based Peninsula Group, which invests in land development, construction and oil and gas projects.
The proposal would construct an offshore floating LNG terminal (FLNG) served by an existing pipeline along the Louisiana coast in Cameron Parish to a point about 50 miles offshore. The pipeline was originally built to bring imported natural gas into the U.S. pipeline grid. Delfin has bought that pipeline and would reverse it, adding gas compression facilities at a brownfield site onshore and a semipermanent mooring offshore to accept up to four specialized tankers with equipment on-board to supercool and liquefy the gas ready for shipping.
LNG would be transferred from the floating terminal to arriving transport tankers, with a total capacity of up to 13 million metric tons per year.
Up until about a year ago, the project's website reflected an active online presence with frequent updates and announcements. But those updates ended in August 2015, not long after it became clear that times were changing for the LNG industry, and calls and emails to the company's contacts went unanswered.
Still, there are signs of life for the project. Regular communications between developers and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is supporting the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration in considering the facility, show progress on the extensive data collection required for environmental permitting.
If the company is nearing finalization of a hefty loan, that too could move things forward.
Delfin's website does not highlight an estimated cost for the project, but the news story trumpeting the loan -- though disputed by KDB officials in New York -- describes it as a $1.5 billion slug toward a total project cost of $2.1 billion.Floating flexibility
An open question about floating liquefaction technology is whether it will reduce project costs for developers.
Corresponding technology for floating gasification of LNG -- a far simpler procedure that involves accepting the liquid in a super-cooled state and bringing it to ambient temperatures for injection into a pipeline -- has been a success at numerous sites where the float-in gasification vessels have provided market flexibility and quick startup for LNG customers.
The liquefaction counterpart is more complicated but has drawn strong interest around the world for its promise to limit cost overruns by allowing construction to take place at a shipyard. It also holds the promise to unmoor a terminal and move it to another location if market conditions shift, extending the useful life of the equipment.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC is building the world's first floating liquefaction project in Australia, called Prelude FLNG, which is slated to start processing gas later this year. In the United States, Excelerate Energy's Lavaca Bay LNG venture briefly took aim at the title of first domestic FLNG project before suspending operations in late 2014 over poor market conditions.
Since then, conditions have only gotten worse for LNG exporters as prices have continued to sag and global economic indicators have suggested that weak demand may persist for several years. The latest projections from the International Energy Agency suggest that a fight for market share in Europe or a delay of planned natural gas infrastructure build-out in China could extend the low-price environment into the mid-2020s (EnergyWire, June 9).
If the doldrums for LNG look bad for U.S. exporters, though, they're far from the only corners of the industry struggling to stay afloat. LNG shippers have seen a plunge in rates to hire vessels, as tankers built to accommodate the surge in new global LNG supply have been met with slack demand.
The shipyards where modern LNG vessels are constructed are in Korea and Japan, and they too are struggling. Samsung Heavy Industries, which built the bulk of Shell's Prelude FLNG vessel, this week announced it could cut as much as 40 percent of its workforce and expects revenues to shrink by half over the next decade, reflecting a drop-off across the ship-building industry.
It was not immediately clear which shipyard is being considered for the Delfin project, and the Korea Development Bank's New York office declined to confirm whether a Korean company is expected to build the liquefaction vessels. But Korean press reports have recently taken the bank to task for extending risky loans to shipbuilders facing insolvency. Financing U.S. companies with plans to place massive orders through Korean shipyards is another means of boosting their businesses and a frequent tactic for state-run banks like KDB.
For Delfin, then, tough times among Korean shipbuilders could translate to an unlikely improvement in its financial outlook. Chalk that up as another possible plus for the floating technology.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/17/stories/1060038990
-
More NatGas, Pipeline Access, Price Transparency Bound For Mexico
Jun 17, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Construction is slated to begin next month on the Texas-to-Mexico Nueva Era Pipeline, and the contract for another major Texas-Mexico connection was recently awarded. Mexico's natural gas market is progressing toward increased supply, liquidity and price transparency.
Nueva Era is a project of Howard Midstream Energy Partners LLC and Mexico's Grupo Clisa. Mexico's Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE) is the anchor shipper (see Daily GPI, Aug. 12, 2015), and there is still capacity available for others, Howard Energy Mexico President Brandon Seale told NGI.
"We signed the anchor contract with CFE in October of last year," Seale said. “Since then we've been engaged in permitting and right-of-way acquisition; we have 28 people in the field today doing that and the preliminary work necessary to start construction.
"We made the pipe order back in March. We were able to use 100% Mexican steel and 100% Mexican pipe. It's all going to be rolled right there in Monterrey by a company called Tubacero. They've already started rolling that, and a fair chunk is already complete and will be delivered to the right-of-way starting in September." In-service on the project is expected in June 2017.
Separately in recent days, CFE awarded the contract for the Sur de Texas-Tuxpan undersea pipeline from Texas to Mexico to a joint venture of TransCanada Corp. and Sempra Energy (see Daily GPI, June 13). The contract for the Texas intrastate upstream portion of the project went to Spectra Energy Corp. (see Daily GPI, June 14).
About four years ago, Mexico was importing roughly 1 Bcf/d of U.S. natural gas. That number is up to about 3 Bcf/d now, Seale said. Imports are expected to climb further as Mexico's domestic gas production is expected to remain in decline until the country can ramp up its own shale gas production, which is years down the road.
According to Genscape Inc., between January 2017 and April 2020 about 6.7 Bcf/d of expansions in pipeline capacity from the United States to Mexico are slated to come online.
"I've seen it could go up as high as 6 or 7 Bcf/d," Seale said of Mexican imports of U.S. gas. "We think there's a huge latent demand for natural gas in Mexico."
In recent years, demand for natural gas in Mexico has been artificially suppressed due to, among other things, lack of reliability of supply, Seale said. Artificial pricing formulas also inhibited natural gas consumption, he said, as did subsidies for competing fuels, such as fuel oil.
It's not just more U.S. gas that is needed to make a competitive market in Mexico. The country's energy secretary recently released its plan for the development of a competitive natural gas market. The features of what is envisioned are very similar to what exists north of the border, and Seale said it should look familiar to anyone operating in the U.S. gas market. How quickly it all unfolds in Mexico remains to be seen.
A foundation of the market will be pipeline open access. Pipeline capacity will no longer be controlled by Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex). The national pipeline system will be controlled by Centro Nacional de Control del Gas Natural, which will make capacity available on an open access basis.
"...[I]t is clear that Mexico is taking many of its cues in the planned restructuring of its natural gas industry from the U.S. experience," law firm King & Spalding (K&S) said in a June 6 client note on the energy secretary's implementation plan.
There will be open seasons for pipeline capacity, but Pemex and CFE will have the right to reserve some capacity for their own needs. "It is, unfortunately, unclear how much pipeline capacity will be reserved in this manner for use by Pemex and CFE, and therefore unclear how truly 'open' the newly granted access to the national pipeline grid will be, at least initially," K&S said. "Over time, a program through which Pemex will gradually cede its contracts will, in theory, encourage the entrance of new market participants."
Nueva Era and other privately developed pipelines are a different matter. "Ours was a private project that we initiated that CFE responded to," Seale said. "We actually have capacity still available that we do sell directly to third parties. The CFE is not in a monopolistic situation or the only source of capacity on our pipeline. They're our anchor shipper..."
Also included in the energy secretary's recently released plan is an outline for the creation of a bulletin board system for transportation capacity as well as the development and publication of price indexes for hubs in the natural gas system, K&S said in its client note.
"The Implementation Plan envisions that, by sometime in 2018, Mexico's natural gas market will be fully competitive, such that natural gas pricing will be left entirely to market forces; Pemex will have ceded its market-dominant role; liquid pricing points will have been established at various points on the national gas transmission grid; and a secondary market in pipeline capacity will have been established," K&S said.
"All of this, of course, assumes that over the course of the next 24-30 months the number of participants in Mexico's natural gas market will increase dramatically, and that these new participants will succeed in quickly gaining market share. This has proven to be challenging in other emerging natural gas markets (such as those in the Canadian Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia)."
The market in Mexico's northeastern region will be opened first. Natural gas buy-sell transactions will be logged and everyone will be able to see them, Seale said.
"Very quickly you'll develop very standardized hub-based pricing based on South Texas hubs, or you may even see the development of some hubs in Mexico, like in Monterrey or Reynosa or something like that," Seale said. "The main takeaway is that all these transactions will be uploaded onto the database where people can see them for the next year, which will really help develop that free market for natural gas in the northern part of the country and then in 2018 that will all extend throughout the entire country."
Opening the northeastern area first makes sense, Seale said. "That's what I think is elegant about this rollout strategy that they've come up with," he said. "They'll have this first year of 2017 where the market will be open; it will still effectively be South Texas-based kind of pricing because that's the way deals are currently done. But after a year of all these public transactions, enough trends will develop that the marketers -- and that's really who should drive this and, I think, will drive this -- eventually someone will pick a point and say, 'we're going to start basing gas prices off of this point.' ...[T]here's nothing sacred about a hub; a hub is just where enough pipelines cross and enough transactions occur that there's liquidity to talk about pricing gas at.
"So I would think that by the start of 2018 you'll see some sort of Mexican hub-based pricing."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106793-more-natgas-pipeline-access-price-transparency-bound-for-mexico
-
Workers Hospitalized After Solution Spills at Willy Wonka Candy Plant in Itasca
Jun 17, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Chicago Tribune staff and WGN-TV
Nestle's Willy Wonka candy manufacturing plant in Itasca was evacuated and about a dozen people were hospitalized early Friday hours after a chemical solution used to control humidity burst from a pipe, officials said.
The Itasca Fire Protection District responded to a call from the factory at 1:24 a.m., and when responders arrived, the facility had been evacuated, according to Deputy Fire Chief John Radzinski. Paramedics evaluated 17 people with respiratory issues, he said.
Radzinski said 11 people were transported to two hospitals. Roz O'Hearn, corporate and brand affairs director for Nestle, said in an email that 10 employees "experiencing nausea and other symptoms," were treated at hospitals and released.
The spill occurred about 9:30 p.m. Thursday when a pipe burst, O'Hearn said. The spill was contained, but hours later employees began having health issues, officials said.
Radzinski said the main component of the solution was lithium chloride. About five gallons of the solution spilled, he said. O'Hearn said humidity control is important in the production of pressed sugar candy, but the solution has no contact with the candy itself.
Radzinski said there were about 40-50 people in the factory at the time of the incident. After 4 a.m. the situation was secured and employees were allowed back into the building.
But O'Hearn said that because of the disruption, the first shift of operations on Friday was suspended. Normal operations would resume with the second shift, O'Hearn said.
Radzinski said that the DuPage County Health Department was investigating the incident.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-11-workers-hospitalized-itasca-willy-wonka-plant-20160617-story.html
-
Groups Can Sue Over Leaking Mont. Power Plant -- Judge
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Roughly 380 gallons of contaminated water from a Montana power plant is leaking every minute out of its storage ponds despite a 2012 agreement to stop the contamination.
A state judge said this persistent problem was "alarming" and rejected arguments made by Montana Department of Environmental Quality officials saying they were appropriately handling the contamination.
Now, environmental groups can file a lawsuit that challenges the 2012 agreement. The agreement was made after the power plant, Colstrip Steam Electric Station, paid Colstrip residents $25 million to settle contaminated water issues.
"What is a reasonable amount of time in which the [state] should act versus conduct further study, given there has already been 30 years of seepage and the [administrative order] itself was seven years in the making?" District Judge Robert Deschamps wrote in the Wednesday ruling.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/17/stories/1060039006
-
New EPA Rule Keeps Oil & Gas Wastewater out of Local Treatment Plants
Jun 17, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Holly Pearen
If you like clean water, we’ve got good news. This week the EPA finalized an important Clean Water Act rule that cements commonsense protections for water resources. EPA’s new technology-based categorical pretreatment standard prevents unconventional oil and gas operators from delivering salty, toxic wastewater to publicly owned water treatment facilities — also known as POTWs. These facilities are designed to handle residential sewage, not industrial waste, and often are unable to treat the types of pollutants common in unconventional oil and gas wastewater.
Since 1979, the Clean Water Act has prohibited onshore oil and gas operators in the eastern U.S. from directly discharging oil and gas wastewater to surface waters, like streams and lakes. But until now, there were no rules that applied to the wastewater that is disposed of at separate treatment facilities, or “indirect discharges.”
The final POTW pretreatment rule is consistent with current industry practice, but this wasn’t always the case. Prior to 2011, oil and gas operators in Pennsylvania delivered wastewater to POTWs for treatment and disposal with terrible results. These POTWs struggled to treat unconventional oil and gas wastewater due to elevated levels of halides, heavy metals, organic compounds, radionuclides and salts. High and fluctuating TDS (salt) levels in wastewater interfered with the biological treatment processes reducing treatment efficiency. Bromides that went through POTW disinfection processes were transformed into toxic disinfection by-products and released into receiving waters.
In April, 2011, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection asked operators to voluntarily stop wastewater deliveries to POTWs, and shortly after, EPA began gathering information about the indirect discharge to make this voluntary action mandatory. Research conducted during and after the period confirms that POTWs and unconventional oil and gas wastewater aren’t a good match.
While this rule is certainly a big step in the right direction, it doesn’t protect communities from other potentially harmful wastewater discharges.
Wastewater from conventional and coalbed methane oil and gas drilling isn’t covered by this rule, even though operators use similar chemicals to develop and maintain those wells.
Wastewater generated from onshore oil and gas operations in the western U.S. can still be released at the surface if regulators decide that the water is of “good enough” quality to be used for wildlife or livestock watering or other agricultural uses.
Wastewater can still be indirectly discharged to privately owned or centralized wastewater treatment facilities (CWTs).
Onshore oil and gas operations generate about 800 billion gallons of water each year, creating an ongoing management and disposal challenge. With POTWs rightly out of the picture, unconventional oil and gas operators are increasingly turning to CWTs and other management and disposal strategies. Whether these CWTs and alternatives are equipped to handle the pollutants in oil and gas wastewater will have a big impact on water quality and public health.
EPA is currently evaluating whether CWTs are able to safely treat and manage unconventional oil and gas wastewater. As we learned with POTWs in Pennsylvania, even treated wastewater from oil and gas operations might not be truly “clean.” The right treatment method, robust testing monitoring and testing, and a complete understanding of the pollutants in wastewater to begin with are critical to ensuring we don’t repeat the POTW experience.
Unfortunately when it comes to oil and gas wastewater, data about its pollutants, the success of treatment practices, and the potential toxicity of its constituents is non-existent at worst and shaky at best. EDF is working with other researchers across the country to begin narrowing these data gaps to ensure we stay vigilant in protecting one of our planet’s most precious resources.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/06/17/new-epa-rule-keeps-oil-gas-wastewater-out-of-local-treatment-plants/
-
Midwest Utilities Claim Legal Bar To Further Ozone Transport Reductions
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Midwest utilities are warning the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) -- the group of Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states -- that its call for further national requirements to curb the transport of ozone-forming air pollution from upwind states might be unlawful unless the group's members first take all possible steps to reduce local emissions.
The Midwest Ozone Group (MOG), representing the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, American Electric Power Company and others, said at a June 3 OTC meeting here that the precondition for the coastal states to act before upwind states appears to stem from the Supreme Court's April 2014 ruling that largely upheld EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program to curb air pollution from power plants in 28 states.
MOG argues that the high court's 6-2 decision EPA v. EME Homer City Generation and the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provision -- which requires states to cut air pollution that hinders neighboring states from attaining federal air standards -- require downwind states to impose all possible emissions reduction mandates locally before EPA can compel national action to reduce emissions.
If upwind states are targeted first, MOG argues, this could lead to "over-control" of upwind states' air pollution which it says would conflict with the EME Homer City ruling.
However, one environmental attorney discounts the claim as "rubbish," saying that nothing in the high court's decision sets a precondition for downwind states to first exhaust their regulatory options.
The debate could arise in potential litigation over EPA's CSAPR update, which the agency intends to finalize this summer, or in future updates to the rule or other efforts to address the ozone transport problem.
The original 2011 CSAPR rule was designed to help states meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS expressed as 84 parts per billion (ppb), and also the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
EPA on Dec. 3 proposed to update CSAPR to address the 2008 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) which is set at a stricter limit of 75 ppb. The update, which EPA intends to finalize by late summer or early fall, applies only to ozone standards and does not affect the PM2.5 provisions in the original CSAPR.
'Partial Remedy'
OTC, representing 12 states and the District of Columbia, approved a resolution at the meeting here saying the update proposal is not sufficient and is only a "partial remedy" to the air transport problem. "EPA has therefore not fully met its obligation to provide a sufficient federal backstop to the 'good neighbor' provision and it has not indicated when, or if, it will fully address transported ozone for the 2008 ozone NAAQS," OTC says.
Further, EPA adopted an even stricter ozone NAAQS Oct. 1 of 70 ppb, for which states must submit emissions reduction plans to EPA no later than Oct. 1, 2018, to address the good neighbor provision. OTC says this will require more emissions cuts in ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) from sources outside the OTC region. OTC argues that EPA should expand the scope of CSAPR beyond just the power plants it currently regulates.
Therefore, "OTC respectfully requests that EPA propose a subsequent update to the CSAPR program and other regulatory mechanisms by June 2017 to provide a full remedy for transport of ozone pollution pursuant to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This update should ensure the equitable treatment of NOx emissions across states and include NOx control of significant source categories in addition to power plants," OTC concludes.
Several OTC states, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, already have ozone monitoring data that suggests they will have areas designated in "nonattainment" with the 70 ppb standard, including the New York City area and parts of Connecticut -- some of the same areas also struggling to attain the 75 ppb limit, according to new data presented at the meeting by New Hampshire air regulator Jeff Underhill.
Local Emissions
However, attorney Skipp Kropp, representing MOG, in public testimony said that coastal states such as Connecticut have not exhausted all their options to curb local emissions of ozone precursors such as nitrogen oxides (NOx). Until they do, Kropp argued, the high court ruling says OTC and EPA cannot ask upwind states for more reductions in NOx from upwind states to the west and south of the OTC region (OTR).
The testimony says that, "recent source apportionment modeling has increasingly shown that the vast majority of sources contributing to the remaining nonattaining monitors in the OTR, primarily in Connecticut along the I-95 corridor, are, in reality, local sources" of ozone-forming pollutants that OTR states must regulate.
The group "believes that attention must now turn to Connecticut and other nonattainment areas in the Northeast that are under a legal obligation to address their contribution to their nonattainment status by revising their own air quality programs, including RACT requirements, by no later than the start of the 2017 ozone season." Reasonably available control technology, or RACT, is a level of emissions control required within the OTR.
"MOG believes that nonattainment areas in the Northeast must implement legally mandated local controls before additional controls are imposed on upwind sources," according to the testimony. The group "urges that the OTC assess and estimate the NOx reductions that will result from legally mandated control such as the Connecticut RACT requirements and incorporate those reductions into any future attainment modeling efforts."
OTC states in another resolution adopted June 3 asked EPA to update its guidance on setting RACT. Pennsylvania recently strengthened its RACT requirements, which MOG welcomes as a "very timely development" that will result in significant local cuts in NOx and in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), another class of chemicals that form ozone. The cuts will "significantly improve air quality in downwind areas," MOG says.
But the utility group in its testimony warns that without "carefully evaluating these local, and in some cases virtually uncontrolled sources" of ozone-forming pollution first, "there is a very real risk that imposing emission reductions on upwind sources would result in the over-control of other sources that is prohibited" by the CSAPR ruling.
CSAPR Ruling
The high court's ruling overturned the earlier 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that vacated CSAPR. While the high court found the rule lawful, it accepted, to a degree, the D.C. Circuit's concept of over-control -- the idea that upwind states can, in certain circumstances, be unlawfully asked to reduce their emissions by more than is required for downwind areas to meet or maintain the NAAQS.
The court said in the opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that "EPA cannot require a State to reduce its output of pollution by more than is necessary to achieve attainment in every downwind State or at odds with the one-percent threshold the Agency has set. If EPA requires an upwind State to reduce emissions by more than the amount necessary to achieve attainment in every downwind State to which it is linked, the Agency will have overstepped its authority, under the Good Neighbor Provision, to eliminate those 'amounts [that] contribute . . . to nonattainment.'"
EPA set a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS as the level of contribution from a source that is considered "significant," and which therefore must be mitigated under the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provision.
But the environmental attorney says MOG's argument "is rubbish. The Supreme Court did not make any degree of reductions or any other actions by downwind states a precondition before upwind states may be required to reduce emissions under the Good Neighbor Provision."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/midwest-utilities-claim-legal-bar-further-ozone-transport-reductions
-
New ESPS Incentive Plan Limits Renewable Eligibility To Offset Tax Credits
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA is proposing to limit the number of renewable energy projects eligible to receive credits under its revised early action incentive program for its signature power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rule, signaling the agency shares advocates' concern that recently extended wind and solar tax credits would limit the program's ability to spur projects beyond what would already occur.
The agency in its June 16 proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) -- a measure tied to its power plant existing source performance standards (ESPS) -- shortens by at least two years the window in which projects could “commence commercial operation” to be eligible to receive early incentive credits.
In addition, EPA notes it will take comment on a number of issues regarding the impact of the tax credit extensions on the incentive program, including whether projects receiving support from the tax credits should even be eligible to receive CEIP credits.
Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe, speaking on a June 16 stakeholder call, noted that the change to the eligibility date for renewable projects reflects the “basic principle” of the CEIP. The incentive program, she said, “is intended to incentivize projects that wouldn't otherwise be happening,” though she noted it is “challenging” to design the program “specific enough” to do just that.
The change -- which would make renewables projects that “commence commercial operation” on or after Jan. 1, 2020, eligible for credits -- is what the agency “thought made the best sense,” McCabe said, adding that she looks forward to feedback on that issue.
That date is at least two years later than the original plan's eligibility date, which EPA had established as either the date a state submits its final compliance plan or Sept. 6, 2018, for states subject to a federal plan. Renewable groups had urged the agency to broaden the eligibility period -- not restrict it.
The new date aligns with when the overall CEIP will begin awarding credits, which effectively means that only renewable energy projects that begin producing power at the start of, and during the two-year CEIP period, would be eligible to receive credits.
Among the other changes to the proposal allows hydropower and geothermal energy to receive credits and allows solar projects in low-income areas to receive two credits per megawatt hour (MWh) generated. That is similar to energy efficiency projects in those areas, as opposed to the one credit per MWh for renewable energy projects.
EPA also details how it will divide the 300 million allowance pool among states and between the two broad categories of projects. In addition, the agency clarifies how “low-income community” would be defined, giving states significant flexibility to define the term.
Supreme Court Stay
In issuing the formal proposal, EPA is brushing aside critics' concerns that the agency's work on the measure violates a Supreme Court stay on the ESPS and that the agency lacks authority to develop the rule.
EPA notes the newly proposed action is “wholly consistent with the EPA's statutory authorities . . . and is consistent with and unaffected by” the high court stay, rejecting criticism from congressional Republicans including Senate environment committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK).
The agency adds: “A state may participate in the CEIP only after the EPA approves a required state plan or the EPA promulgates a federal plan for that state that includes the CEIP. These actions will not occur until sometime after the judicial stay has been lifted. Thus, this action is consistent with, and the EPA’s authority to proceed with this action is unaffected by, the stay.”
But the change to projects' eligibility date is likely one of the most controversial substantive elements, as environmentalists and the renewable sector had already clashed over the issue prior to the CEIP proposal's release.
Soon after the wind and solar tax credits were extended by Congress in an omnibus spending deal late last year, environmentalists raised concern that the incentive program as structured would now not encourage new renewable growth beyond a business-as-usual scenario -- a factor that would ultimately weaken the ESPS rule.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in Jan. 21 comments on EPA's proposed federal plan encouraged the agency to “implement safeguards to prevent business as usual (BAU) projects from undermining the incentives for additional (beyond BAU) renewables and low-income energy efficiency.”
The tax credit extensions, NRDC argued, “heighten the potential for the CEIP to reward renewables projects that would have occurred anyway without the CEIP in place. As noted, if the CEIP simply rewards compliance value to business-as-usual projects, it will increase cumulative emissions over the 2020-2030 time period."
NRDC's concerns were likely bolstered by several analyses of the ESPS and tax credit extensions showing a substantial deployment of wind and solar energy when projects would likely receive CEIP credits -- including several years before the rule's 2022 compliance start date and the early years of the compliance period itself.
EPA in its CEIP proposal cites analysis from the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory that finds an addition of roughly 100 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity by the end of 2021 with the tax credit extensions, noting that third-party analyses find similar results.
“Therefore, the EPA seeks comment on whether it is appropriate, in light of the tax credit extensions, to include in the CEIP a mechanism that would limit the number of early action and matching allowances or [emission reduction credits (ERCs)] that may be available to wind and solar projects that may not require additional incentives for deployment, and on how to design such a mechanism,” the agency writes.
Several Potential Approaches
EPA includes several potential approaches in the new proposal, including an apportionment of less than half of the available 300 million ton matching pool to eligible renewable energy projects.
Under the program, each renewable energy project receives one allowance per MWh generated -- with half of the credit coming from the state and half coming from an EPA matching pool. Under the new plan, efficiency and solar projects in low-income areas receive two credits -- with one credit from the state and one from EPA's matching pool.
EPA adds that some stakeholders have suggested excluding projects that receive tax credit benefits, adding that it requests comment on “whether and how to implement limitations on CEIP participation” for projects that receive tax credits.
“For example, a state could request, as part of a wind or solar project's CEIP eligibility application that it submit a certification that it is not benefiting from the [tax credits]. Further, the EPA seeks comment on whether the project should still be allowed to receive CEIP awards if it only receives a partial tax credit,” EPA writes.
In EPA's new proposal, it suggests dividing the 300 million allowance pool equally between the renewable and low-income project reserves, though it also requests comment on an “alternative apportionment” of those reserves.
As part of its discussion of the tax credit issue, the agency seeks comment on an approach that “would set a 'floor' on the portion of the matching pool that would be available for [renewable energy] projects and low-income community projects and leave a portion of the matching pool available to be apportioned at the states' discretion.”
EPA explains: “For example, 40 percent of every state's pro rata share could be reserved for [renewable energy] projects and 40 percent could be reserved for low-income community projects, with the remaining 20 percent to be awarded at the state's discretion to any CEIP-eligible project type.”
The agency also requests comment on several other structural decisions, including its equal division of the 300 million allowance pool between the two reserves.
EPA chose to distribute the allowance pool to states on a pro-rata basis, where each state's share is based on the amount of reductions from 2012 levels that the state must achieve relative to other CEIP-participating states. The agency calculated these values on the assumption every state chose to participate in the CEIP, including the results in a technical support document accompanying the proposal's release.
Several states have previously raised issue with this method, however, because states with relatively less stringent ESPS targets would thus receive a significantly smaller portion of CEIP allowances than other states.
EPA also settles the much-discussed issue of how to define a “low-income community,” giving states the flexibility to choose a definition from an existing state or federal program rather than creating a new definition solely for the CEIP. The agency notes this approach is favorable due to the short-term nature of the CEIP and the experience of existing program providers to implement efficiency and renewables projects in low-income areas.
“Finally, the Agency recognizes the variability in state economic and demographic conditions, and the range of experiences that state and federal agencies have in administering low-income programs, including low-income energy programs,” EPA writes.
In addition, while it only proposes to expand the CEIP to include hydropower and geothermal energy, EPA seeks comment on whether “there are additional renewable technologies that are zero-emitting and essential to longer term climate strategies” that require investment incentives like that which the CEIP could provide.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-esps-incentive-plan-limits-renewable-eligibility-offset-tax-credits
-
Sen. Hatch Pressures Feds for Answers on Stimulus Program for Green Energy
Jun 17, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By David Williams
Remember Solyndra?
That was the Silicon Valley-based, taxpayer-funded, green energy boondoggle that even President Obama won’t defend in public. The solar panel manufacturer received a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Energy Department under Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package. But less than two years later in the summer of 2011, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy leaving U.S. taxpayers on the hook. In a press conference, Obama sought to explain away Solyndra as the result of bipartisan policy efforts that predated his presidency.
Let’s all agree that neither party is pristine on the question of taxpayer protection and sound energy policy, but let’s look at the facts. There are two loan guarantee programs that benefit renewable energy companies. The first was folded withinSection 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 under President Bush. The second was created as part of Obama’s stimulus bill officially titled: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Obama’s bill amended the 2005 energy bill to create section 1705 for “commercially viable technologies.” While Solyndra initially applied for loans under Section 1703, taxpayer funding for the now defunct solar panel manufacturer came from the stimulus package, which liberalized and loosened lending standards.
But let’s assume Obama is correct to say both parties are culpable. The question then becomes who is standing up now in the aftermath of Solyndra to scrutinize ongoing green energy schemes that still receive taxpayer funding while holding government agencies accountable. The answer is Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah).
Earlier this month, Sen. Hatch did his due diligence as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee by applying all the right pressure points against federal officials who are charged with safeguarding the public interest.
Hatch sent letters to Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) that asked several probing questions. The Utah Republican also set a firm deadline of June 30 to receive substantive answers from those agencies. That’s how you have to play it with recalcitrant federal bureaucrats.
Specifically, Hatch asked for the agencies to provide information detailing the use and administration of cash grants and energy tax credits connected with Section 1603 of the stimulus package, which has awarded about $25 million in cash grants. Hatch is no Johnny-come-lately when it comes to asking hard questions about the use of stimulus funds. Back in March, he called upon both the Treasury Department and the IRS to come clean on the safeguards and coordination strategies the agencies had put in place to review and award Section 1603 grants.
“Congress has an obligation to conduct rigorous oversight of how the Executive Branch spends taxpayer dollars,” Hatch said in a press release. “These programs have directed billions of dollars toward green energy projects, and taxpayers deserve nothing less than full transparency and accountability from the Administration. I expect full cooperation from the agencies involved in administering this multibillion dollar grant program as we seek answers into how the funds were awarded.”
Hatch opens his letters to the Treasury and the IRS officials by reminding them of his previous correspondence in March and then asks them to spell out what measures they have taken to protect taxpayer interests.
In his letter to Treasury, Hatch references an October 2010 memorandum addressed to Obama and other administration figures that expresses concern over “double-dipping” and a certain lack of “skin in the game” on the part of recipients of overlapping renewable energy subsidies, including the Section 1603 program and Department of Energy administered Sections 1703 and 1705 energy loan guarantee programs.
Hatch then rolls out a series of questions for Treasury that leave little wiggle room in anticipation of the June 30 deadline. They are in part as follows:
“What actions, if any, does the Department take to authenticate claims on Section 1603 program participant annual performance reports?”
“Please provide a list of the 177 Section 1603 grant recipients who have not submitted annual reports for 981 projects as of the end of March of this year. Please include the company name, property or facility name, award amount, award date, and status of collection proceedings at a minimum.”
“Is the Department taking any actions to monitor the financial stability of energy companies who receive taxpayer assistance through programs such as the Section 1603 grant program?”
In his letter to the IRS, Hatch asks the tax agency what verification process it uses for tax returns claiming the energy tax credit. He also asks for IRS officials to provide his committee with a briefing based on the questions raised in his letter. Since the IRS declined to create “an indicator on taxpayer accounts receiving Section 1603 cash grants” consistent with an earlier TIGTA recommendation, Hatch asks the Inspector General to intensify his oversight efforts.
One suggestion Hatch has for TIGTA is for it to:
“Examine the methods of property valuation used by taxpayers claiming the Section 1603 cash grant, including methods of measuring the cost basis of the property, the role of tax equity investors, and the use of independent accountants for properties with a cost basis of more than $500,000.”
While Hatch does a laudable job of probing into the cost overruns and multiple failures of green energy initiatives, there is one question handing behind all the letters that needs to be asked:
Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing unworkable green energy projects in the first place. The opportunity here is to reject the very premise of Solyndra-type government programs that can’t stand on their own two feet in the marketplace.
Williams serves as president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a non-profit non-partisan organization which educates the public on the government’s impact on the economy.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/283747-sen-hatch-pressures-feds-for-answers-on-stimulus
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested