Preview Newsletter
AM- ACC 6/29 - Dry Run
-
(ACC Mentioned) NFIB Nabs Addington
Jun 28, 2016 | Politico Influence
By By Isaac Arnsdorf and Brianna Gurciullo
... Spotted at the luncheon: Carlton Carroll from the National Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Christina Pearson with Microsoft, Kara Ross from UPS, Matt Lavoie at Caterpillar, Anne Kolton with American Chemistry Council, Kristin Gossel with BAE Systems, Katie Laning Niebaum with National Restaurant Association, Ron Bonjean ROKK Solutions, and Dan Whitten with Solar Energy Industry Association. -
(ACC Mentioned) ADAO Applauds Obama’s Signing of the 21st Century Chemical Safety Act
Jun 28, 2016 | Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance
By Jillian Duff
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) celebrated President Obama’s signing of the 21st century Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act on June 22. In a press release, ADAO President Linda Reinstein stated: -
Toxic Substances Control Act: Landmark Amendments to Federal Chemical Safety Law Enacted
Jun 28, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Leah Hurtgen Ziemba Todd E. Palmer
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the Lautenberg Actor the Act) into law. -
Courts Likely To Address TSCA Reform 'Cost-Effectiveness' Requirement
Jun 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Federal courts are likely to weigh in on how to interpret provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law that requires EPA to consider cost when developing risk management rules for a chemical, observers say, as environmentalists and the chemical sector are expected to have opposing views on how to assess costs. -
EPA to Post Chemicals Law Implementation Plan
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will post plans by July 1 for implementing the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, a senior agency official said June 28. -
Inhofe Still Mulling Bid to Nullify EPA's Methane Rules
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Republicans have not ruled out launching a Congressional Review Act (CRA) challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations on methane emissions but lack a time frame for doing so, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee told Bloomberg BNA June 28. -
Shell Exec Offers More Details on Pennsylvania Ethane Cracker
Jun 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A unit of Royal Dutch Shell plc decided to proceed with a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Western Pennsylvania for three primary reasons: cost-advantaged feedstock, market proximity and strong local support, one of the project's leading executives said Tuesday. -
Activist Groups Up Pressure to Oppose Energy Bill Talks
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Environmental groups are increasing pressure on the Senate to reject a motion to go to conference with the House on energy legislation as Democrats consider whether to throw their support behind holding a formal negotiation. -
U.S., Mexico, Canada Pledge 50 Percent Clean Power by 2025
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Angela Greiling Keane
The U.S. and Mexico will commit to joining Canada in boosting their use of wind, solar and other carbon-free sources of electricity, helping North America meet an ambitious goal of generating at least 50 percent of its energy from “clean” sources by 2025. -
Court Rejects Greens’ Challenges to Natural Gas Exports
Jun 28, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court rejected environmentalists’ challenges to two liquefied natural gas export projects. -
Court Deals Setback to Sierra Club’s Opposition of Sabine Pass, Freeport LNG Exports
Jun 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected two cases brought by the Sierra Club in its effort to thwart exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG). However, the door is still open to new and ongoing challenges. -
Two Court Cases Remind Us That Ours Is Not An 'Instant Grassification' Constitution
Jun 28, 2016 | Forbes
By David Davenport
A federal judge in Wyoming ruled that the U.S. Department of the Interior had not been given the power to regulate fracking on federal lands as it had sought to do. -
Enterprise NatGas Plant Explosion in Mississippi Shutters 400 MMcf/d
Jun 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
An investigation is continuing into the cause of an explosion late Monday that has shuttered an Enterprise Products Partners LP natural gas processing complex in Pascagoula, MS. -
Explosions Hit Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Owned by Houston Firm
Jun 28, 2016 | Fuel Fix
Two explosions and a fire rocked a natural gas plant in southern Mississippi on Monday night, but no one was injured and flames continued for hours Tuesday, authorities said. -
Two Trains Collide in Texas Panhandle, Causing Evacuation
Jun 28, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Immani Moise
Three crew members missing after BNSF Railway freight trains meet head on. Two trains traveling in opposite directions collided in Panhandle, Texas Tuesday morning, causing a fiery accident in which one crew member was hospitalized and three left unaccounted for. -
Deference Ruling Doesn't Apply to Boiler Rule Suit: EPA
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the deference federal agencies are due in interpreting statutes has no bearing on litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's emissions standards for boilers, the agencytold a federal court. -
EPA Supporters Fight Industry's 'Regulatory Capture' Seen Delaying Rules
Jun 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Democratic senators and environmentalists supportive of EPA are seeking strategies for overcoming what they say is a successful strategy by various industry groups to force “regulatory capture” delaying various agency rules, such as creating a regulatory “watchdog” to target what they see as bias in the rulemaking process. -
Science Groups Urge Congress to Act on Climate
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A total of 31 science groups, including the American Meteorological Society, urged Congress in a June 28 letter to recognize the serious threats posed by rising global temperatures and what they said is a consensus from a “vast body of peer-reviewed science” that human activities are the “primary driver” of climate change. -
McAuliffe Asks State to Evaluate Carbon Reductions
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A work group will examine and recommend ways for further reducing carbon pollution from Virginia's power plants under an executive order signed June 28 by Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D). -
California Hits the Brakes on High-Speed Rail Fiasco
Jun 28, 2016 | Bloomberg View
By Virginia Postrel
California's high-speed rail project increasingly looks like an expensive social science experiment to test just how long interest groups can keep money flowing to a doomed endeavor before elected officials finally decide to cancel it.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) NFIB Nabs Addington
Jun 28, 2016 | Politico Influence
By By Isaac Arnsdorf and Brianna Gurciullo
ADDINGTON TO NFIB: The National Federation of Independent Business hired David Addington as senior vice president, general counsel, and chief legal officer. He was group vice president for research at The Heritage Foundation. He served as Republican staff director, chief counsel or counsel for four congressional committees; assistant general counsel of the CIA and as special assistant and then deputy assistant to the president for legislative affairs under President Ronald Reagan; special assistant to the secretary of defense, deputy secretary of defense and general counsel in the George H.W. Bush administration; counsel and chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney; president of the Alliance for American Leadership PAC, and a lawyer with Baker Donelson, Holland & Knight and the American Trucking Associations.
Story Continued Below
MORE JOBS:
— Microsoft hired three in its D.C. office. Michelle Patron, former special assistant to President Barack Obama and senior director for energy and climate for the National Security Council, is now director of sustainability policy, a new position. Patron previously worked for PIRA Energy Group, the Department of Energy, Deutsche Bank, the International Energy Agency and the Center for International Environmental Law. She also served as energy attache at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. Recent Georgetown graduate and Sen. Max Baucus intern Adrienne (“Audrey”) Jackson is a Project Coordinator. And so is Conor Magee, most recently a sales analyst for Contemporary Staffing Solutions in Philadelphia.
— Drinker Biddle & Reath hired Bryan Tackett, Sarah Mills and Katie Christophersen as members of the district policy group, the firm’s boutique lobbying, public policy, and advocacy practice. Tackett most recently served as director of government relations for PD Frazer Associates and president of Wexford Strategic Advisors. Mills was an analyst at Potomac Research Group, director of federal affairs and state policy adviser under former Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R), and a legislative aide to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary under Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Christophersen was director of external affairs at the National Review Institute and previously worked with the Manhattan Institute and as a senior legislative assistant for former Rep. MicheleBachmann (R-Minn.).
HAPPY #TOT. Benghazi. Tips to iarnsdorf@politico.com.
TRUMP HIRES: Former Republican National Committee communications staffer Michael Abboud (and nephew of Sheldon Adelson political adviser Andy Abboud) will be communications coordinator ... Alan Cobb, formerly an aide to Kansas Republicans Bob Dole, Pat Roberts and Mike Pompeo, will be director of coalitions ... Jason Miller, a former staffer for Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, will be senior communications adviser.
** A message from the National Collegiate Athletic Association: In the last five years, the lives of college athletes have changed for the better, in some cases dramatically. But we've still got work to do. Find out what our member schools are doing to advance academics, fairness and well-being and the NCAA's commitment to this critical mission at NCAA.org/opportunity. **
NEW BUSINESS:
— Samsung retained Roberti Global to lobby on technology, trade and education. The filing names Izzy Klein (former communications director for Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)), Vincent Roberti and Steven Irizarry (former counsel on the Senate HELP Committee).
— Gregg Rothschild (former chief counsel and deputy chief of staff to the House Energy and Commerce Committee) and Catharine Ransom [former senior climate and environmental adviser to former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)] of the Glover Park Group registered to lobby for Lyft. The Podesta Group also represents the company.
— Gephardt Group Government Affairs subcontracted Prime Policy Group to lobby for Bayer as the German pharmaceutical company looks to acquire Monsanto. Charles Black, Scott Pastrick, Pamela Turner, Gardner Peckham and Paul Brown are representing Bayer, which also has Greenberg Traurig, Raffaniello & Associates and East End Group in its corner. Monsanto’s roster includes American Continental Group, Lincoln Policy Group, Russell Group, Akin Gump, Washington Tax & Public Policy Group and Crawford & Mauro.
AROUND TOWN:
— The Retail Industry Leaders Association has a board meeting today, including the CEOs of Target, Best Buy, Dollar General, Tractor Supply, Petsmart, AutoZone, Foot Locker, Petco, VF, Michaels and Whole Foods. They'll hear from Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker. Tomorrow, RILA will host a meeting of member companies' lobbyists to hear from the DSCC and NRSC. Topics on the agenda include cybersecurity, local restrictive scheduling ordinances, the Durbin Amendment (limiting debit card processing fees) and preparing for a new administration.
— The DC Communicators Group hosted a luncheon today featuring pollsters Keith Frederick, Michael Bloomfield, and Tony Fabrizio. The group, led by API’s Eric Wohlschlegel and NRF’s Katie McBreen, was hosted by Christopher Gindlesperger from the National Confectioners Association. Spotted at the luncheon: Carlton Carroll from the National Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Christina Pearson with Microsoft, Kara Ross from UPS, Matt Lavoie at Caterpillar, Anne Kolton with American Chemistry Council, Kristin Gossel with BAE Systems, Katie Laning Niebaum with National Restaurant Association, Ron Bonjean ROKK Solutions, and Dan Whitten with Solar Energy Industry Association.
— About 100 members of the biodiesel industry, including the National Biodiesel Board, will be on Capitol Hill this afternoon advocating for increases to the Renewable Fuel Standard’s biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel requirements as well as extending the biodiesel tax incentive.
— The Podesta Group is hosting a luncheon for Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) this afternoon. Muftiah McCartin and Jason Pavluchuk are hosting a reception for Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) at the Covington & Burling offices this evening.
FREE ROLEXES? The Supreme Court's unanimous decision to overturn former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell’s corruption conviction may make it harder to prosecute politicians and their allies for trading access for money, reports Josh Gerstein for POLITICO. "There are all kinds of things public officials can do short of casting a vote or making a policy decision that are of enormous benefit to an individual and, in essence, become legalized bribery under this decision," said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21. The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared to bless not only official meetings for donors, but also press secretaries selling interviews with their bosses. The decision could impact other politicians in a similar spotlight including Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J) and former Gov. Rod Blagojevich(D-Ill.)
BURNOUT: Five coal mining companies — Walter Energy, Patriot Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal and Peabody Energy Corp — spent $95 million lobbying lawmakers and more than a half a billion dollars on salaries for executives before filing for bankruptcy, according to the environmental group the Western Values Project, Bloomberg’s Jennifer Dlouhy reports.
NEW PAC REGISTRATIONS:
American Party of South Carolina (Non-Qualified Non-Party, Unauthorized)
Boule' 1904 PAC (Non-Qualified Non-Party, Unauthorized)
Trumpets United (Independent Expenditure – Person or Group, Unauthorized)NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONS:
Arnold & Porter LLP: Appsential, LLC
Cassidy & Associates, Inc.: Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges & Schools
Cassidy & Associates, Inc.: Galena City School District
Mr. Robert Babbage: American Association of Diabetes Educators
National Group, LLP: Fuentes Strategies
National Group, LLP: Hawaii Longline Association
National Group, LLP: InCoStrat LLC
National Group, LLP: Oldmixon Group
Park Strategies, LLC: Newsmax Media, Inc.
Podesta Group, Inc.: Alliance for Shared Values
Roberti Global (formerly known as Roberti White, LLC): Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
The Glover Park Group LLC: Lyft Inc.
The Ingram Group LLC: LeadsMarket.com
Upstream Consulting, Inc.: Natural Products Association
Winning Strategies Washington: Chiasma, Inc.TERMINATIONS — NO ACTIVITY:
Falcon Global Capital, LLC: Falcon Global Capital, LLC** A message from the National Collegiate Athletic Association: Done right, college sports provide extraordinary benefits to college athletes that last a lifetime. And in the last five years, the lives of college athletes have changed for the better, in some cases dramatically. More college athletes are graduating from college than ever before. But we’ve still got work to do. That’s why we’re making sure all college athletes have a fair shot at taking advantage of the opportunities that lay ahead on and off the field. Find out what our more than 1,100 member schools across all three divisions are doing to advance academics, fairness and well-being and the NCAA's commitment to this critical mission at NCAA.org/opportunity. **
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-influence/2016/06/nfib-nabs-addington-215065
-
(ACC Mentioned) ADAO Applauds Obama’s Signing of the 21st Century Chemical Safety Act
Jun 28, 2016 | Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance
By Jillian Duff
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) celebrated President Obama’s signing of the 21st century Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act on June 22. In a press release, ADAO President Linda Reinstein stated:
“Today, a monumental step was taken in the fight against asbestos, a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level of exposure. By signing into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, President Barack Obama ensured the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will have the necessary tools to once and for all ban asbestos in America.”
The act passed the House of Representatives near the end of May and then again in the Senate earlier this month, despite a delay due to objections from Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul.
“Not only will this law help end the man-made asbestos crisis that still to this day takes as many as 15,000 American lives each year, but it will also empower the EPA to finally test and regulate the thousands of chemicals present in our daily lives,” said Reinstein.
The ADAO is an organization that promotes awareness about the dangers of asbestos and that played a critical role in making sure asbestos was one of the substances to be reviewed by the EPA under the new policies and procedures created by the law.
“I was honored to attend the signing ceremony on behalf of the ADAO community. Our staff and volunteers participated in countless hours of negotiations and numerous hearings to ensure that the collective voice of asbestos victims was heard loud and clear by policy makers,” said Reinstein.
In addition to the ADAO being invited to the signing, Bonnie Lautenberg, members of Congress who supported the bill, regulators such as industry reps from the American Chemical Council (ACC) and SC Johnson, and organizations like the March of Dimes and Environmental Defense Fund were in attendance.
“I am so very proud of each and every member of our community, from those who traveled to Washington, DC to share their stories to those who reached out to their elected officials from their homes. Each person played a critical role in this accomplishment and it is a privilege to represent our community at today’s event,” said Reinstein.
At the speech, the President touched on the limitations of previous laws. “The system was so complex, it was so burdensome, that our country hasn’t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos, a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year,” said President Obama. “I think a lot of Americans would be shocked by that.”
Reinstein commented, “But make no mistake, we are not yet at the finish line. There is still much work to be done, and time is of the essence. Under the new law, the EPA may take as long as seven years to assess, regulate, and ban asbestos.
In that time, an estimated 100,000 Americans will lose their lives to asbestos-related diseases and countless more will be needlessly exposed to asbestos. The EPA must limit delay by including asbestos in the list of the first chemicals it evaluates and quickly exercising its authority under this legislation to ban asbestos.”
http://www.mesothelioma.com/news/2016/06/adao-applauds-obamas-signing-of-the-21st-century-chemical-safety-act-.htm#ixzz4CxXyOSWb
-
Toxic Substances Control Act: Landmark Amendments to Federal Chemical Safety Law Enacted
Jun 28, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Leah Hurtgen Ziemba Todd E. Palmer
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the Lautenberg Actor the Act) into law. The legislation is the first comprehensive update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) since Congress first enacted the law in 1976 and is expected to have far-reaching impacts on the U.S. industry.
TSCA is the federal law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate a broadly defined class of chemicals. Because the Act requires EPA to evaluate chemicals currently used in commerce as well as new products, it significantly expands EPA’s authority to regulate widely used industrial chemicals—including those that were grandfathered in by the 1976 law. Accordingly, any business that uses chemicals in its operation should brace for regulatory changes and supply chain impacts. As President Obama noted during the bill signing ceremony last week, “this is a big deal.”
The Act caps off a ten-year effort to reform the TSCA, which was widely considered to be outdated and ineffective. Implementation will occur over the course of several years and will involve numerous rulemaking efforts. Industries impacted should plan now to stay engaged and provide feedback to EPA on how the law should be applied.
The legislation contains a number of key reforms that enhance EPA’s regulatory powers and alter state authority to regulate chemical use. Listed below are several key areas to keep in mind.Preemption of State Regulation
The Lautenberg Act grandfathers in existing state regulation of chemicals, but may limit future state efforts to regulate chemical manufacture and use. State laws and regulations which were in effect before April 2016 and that address a specific chemical will remain in force. Going forward, states will be permitted to restrict specific chemicals until EPA moves to define the scope of its risk evaluation, and then states would be precluded from regulating uses or exposures that are within the scope of EPA’s review.Risk Prioritization
Under the new law, EPA will be required to establish a process for evaluating and prioritizing chemicals for risk assessment within the next year.
One criticism of the original TSCA was that it grandfathered more than 62,000 chemicals into the regulatory framework, making it difficult for EPA to target these chemicals for additional safety measures. Now, EPA will be charged with prioritizing both new and existing chemicals for review and additional regulatory efforts. EPA’s evaluation must consider the hazard and exposure potential for a chemical, including the chemical’s environmental persistence and whether certain populations may be significantly exposed or are particularly vulnerable to exposure.Confidential Business Information (CBI)
The Act makes several changes to when manufacturers of chemicals can keep certain business information confidential. Under the new law, certain proprietary business and production information can be kept confidential without substantiation, but many other classes of information (including chemical identity) and will require manufacturers to substantiate their CBI claims every ten years. Importantly, EPA will be required to review all chemical identity CBI claims (unless the chemical has not been offered for commercial distribution) and at least 25 percent of a representative subset of all other CBI claims, indicating that this review process will likely be a significant hurdle for manufacturers.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/toxic-substances-control-act-landmark-amendments-to-federal-chemical-safety-law
-
Courts Likely To Address TSCA Reform 'Cost-Effectiveness' Requirement
Jun 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Federal courts are likely to weigh in on how to interpret provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law that requires EPA to consider cost when developing risk management rules for a chemical, observers say, as environmentalists and the chemical sector are expected to have opposing views on how to assess costs.
Under the original 1976 TSCA, the agency in deciding to regulate a chemical had to weigh economic factors as well as pursue the "least burdensome" requirements. Those provisions were long considered a major obstacle in EPA's ability to regulate chemicals, following a 1991 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruling in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA that struck down as unreasonable the agency's ban on asbestos, a known carcinogen.
The court held that EPA was required to consider both alternatives to a ban and the costs of any proposed actions and to "carry out this chapter in a reasonable and prudent manner [after considering] the environmental, economic, and social impact of any action." The ruling set such a high bar for cost reviews that President Obama at a June 22 signing ceremony for the TSCA overhaul noted the overly "complex" regulatory system.
The new law gives EPA more ability to regulate new and existing chemicals, expands the agency's powers for testing of substances, and includes other measures aimed at strengthening the agency's TSCA authority. It would also for the first time expressly prohibit EPA from considering cost when assessing a chemical's risk.
Instead, the new law would remove the "least burdensome requirement" provisions from the prior toxics law and set a list of factors based on "reasonably available information" that the agency would have to consider in proposing a risk management rule under section 6 of TSCA, which covers regulation of existing chemicals.
Among those factors are the benefits of the chemical; its effects on health or the environment and magnitude of exposure; costs and benefits and "cost-effectiveness" of the proposed rule and "of one or more alternatives;" reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule; and likely effect of the rule on national economy, small business, technological innovation, health and the environment. The new language requires EPA, in selecting among the prohibitions and other restrictions, to factor in these considerations "to the extent practicable."
The language is generally seen as an improvement over the previous language in TSCA that hindered EPA's attempted ban on asbestos because the cost considerations would be kept distinctly separate from the agency's risk evaluation. Instead, cost considerations would occur later in the process, when EPA determines what type of restriction is adequate -- while still mandating that the chemical must be regulated to guard against unreasonable risk.
'Potential Controversy'
But observers say that the language is still likely to draw a legal challenge once EPA begins implementing the new law and pursues a risk management rule of a chemical under section 6.
"That's one area of potential controversy," one industry source says of the new cost effectiveness provision, pointing out there is likely to be a widely divergent view on the cost impacts of a proposed rule.
A second industry source notes that "one interesting thing about the cost language in TSCA is" that the law specifies at least one primary alternative, but does not require EPA to consider every possible option. "That may be an area where courts chime in" on the extent to which EPA should look at alternatives," the source says.
The language on "cost-effectiveness" is undefined, according to an environmentalists, who says that the new law could therefore "could still tie EPA's hands" from a legal standpoint. "We don't really know what that means," one environmentalist says, and therefore there is "a lot of opportunity for litigation and for it to be settled by the courts."
One former agency source says of the TSCA law that "the language is still clearly an improvement over current TSCA," saying the new law "makes pretty clear when" EPA is required to consider cost.
The new law also "goes a long way toward ensuring the agency makes decisions based on health and safety" and only considers cost when deciding which restriction to impose, the source adds.
The source says that while there is "always a risk" of litigation any time a new law is overlaid atop an existing statute, adding that without a formal conference on the bill, which Congress opted against, EPA faces an increased challenge in trying to interpret various terms like "cost-effective" absent explicit congressional guidance.
"The reality is that the agency always considers cost when considering regulations and imposing restrictions," the source says, adding "I don't see that as being a big roadblock for EPA."
Democrats' Analysis
In a June 7 legislative analysis signed by four Democratic senators, the lawmakers sought to clarify that the cost considerations do not require EPA to conduct "a second risk evaluation-like analysis to identify the specified information," but rather to use already available information rather than develop a new analysis.
The lawmakers also said that the agency's consideration of costs and benefits is "limited to the requirements of the rule itself and the one or more primary alternatives it considered, not every possible alternative," echoing what the second industry source says.
The Democratic analysis says it is "clear that the considerations in the statement" do not require "EPA to demonstrate benefits outweigh costs, to definitively determine or select the least-cost alternative, or to select an option that is demonstrably cost-effective or is the least burdensome adequately protective option."
Rather, EPA is only required to take into account the cost considerations in deciding which restriction to impose, the analysis says, saying the law "clearly rejects the regulatory approach framework that led to the failed asbestos ban and phase-out rule" in the Corrosion Proof Fittings ruling.
The Democrats' analysis is signed by Udall, EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and fellow Senate Democrats Edward Markey (MA) and Jeff Merkley (OR).
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/courts-likely-address-tsca-reform-cost-effectiveness-requirement
-
EPA to Post Chemicals Law Implementation Plan
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will post plans by July 1 for implementing the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, a senior agency official said June 28.
Within a week to 10 days, the agency will release its first decisions about whether certain new chemicals can enter commerce based on the regulatory standards established by the newly amended chemicals law, said Jim Jones, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention. He spoke at an American Bar Association luncheon.
As the EPA reviews new chemicals, it already is requiring chemical manufacturers to substantiate claims they make that would require the agency to keep information confidential, Jones said.
He referred to a provision of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended TSCA and became law on June 22.
Under the confidential business information (CBI) provision of the amended law, chemical manufacturers and processors must justify, or “substantiate,” their business reasons for requiring the EPA to keep chemical identity and certain other information confidential. CBI claims sunset after 10 years although they can be re-substantiated.
EPA Restarted Reviews
Jones was among eight speakers to provide updates on TSCA during a luncheon sponsored by the ABA's Pesticides, Chemical Regulation, and Right-to-Know Committee.
Once the TSCA amendments became law, the agency officially “restarted” its evaluations of all new chemicals it was in the process of reviewing, Jones told Bloomberg BNA.
The intent was to make sure the agency reviewed the premanufacture notices for those new chemicals in accordance with the amended law, he said.
The agency is working to complete those reviews under the same schedule by which they would have been finished before the law was amended, Jones told Bloomberg BNA.
The first decisions will be announced within a week to 10 days, he told the audience.
The release of its implementation plan, new chemical decisions and its requirement for CBI substantiations are the first public actions the agency is taking to carry out its new responsibilities under the amended law, Jones said.
Identifying 10 Chemicals for Risk Evaluation
It also has begun to identify the first 10 chemicals it will evaluate for health and environmental risks, in accordance with the amended law, he said.
No decisions have been made, Jones said, but “serious candidates” include ones such as 1-bromopropane (1-BP) and certain flame retardants that the agency already began to assess under the work plan initiative it announced in 2012.
“We may not need the whole 180 days,” Jones said.
Working on Four Rules
The amended TSCA requires the EPA to issue three final rules within one year. Those rules cover the processes the agency will use to:
• reset the TSCA inventory into two categories; an active list of chemicals in commerce; and an inactive list of chemicals that had been in commerce, but currently are not;
• categorize a chemical as either a high or low priority for further evaluation; and
• evaluate risks of chemicals in commerce.
The EPA will host public meetings soon on the prioritization and risk evaluation processes it will develop, Jones said.
The fourth rule the agency will work on will set fees on chemical manufacturers and processors for services, such as reviewing new chemicals and risk evaluations that the agency provides, he said.
Teeing Up Fees:
The TSCA amendments did not set a deadline for the fee rulemaking, but “we will treat it as if it has a one-year deadline,” Jones said.
Under the updated TSCA, the agency can work with chemical manufacturers and processors to propose fees without having to establish a formal federal advisory committee, he said.
Legislators' idea was that the agency should first work with the parties that would pay the fee and then accept viewpoints from all interested parties during the notice and comment stage of rulemaking, Jones said.
EPA will reach out to small, medium and large manufacturers and processors soon, he said.
Jones, whose politically appointed position would end with the incoming administration, said his role during his remaining time is to “set up a structure in a way that will allow my successors to succeed.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92830360&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92830360&jd=92830360
-
Inhofe Still Mulling Bid to Nullify EPA's Methane Rules
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Republicans have not ruled out launching a Congressional Review Act (CRA) challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations on methane emissions but lack a time frame for doing so, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee told Bloomberg BNA June 28.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)—who said in March he “personally, would want a CRA on each one” of the EPA rules finalized in 2016—said there has been no decision about whether and when to mount a bid to nullify EPA's methane standards for new and modified oil and gas wells.
“We haven't really decided, but that's one resource that's out there that we'll try to do,” Inhofe said. “I have not ruled [a CRA challenge] out, no.”
The Oklahoma Republican has been an outspoken critic of the EPA's regulatory efforts on methane and asked the agency to halt all work to curb emissions of the potent greenhouse gas from the oil and gas sector. Inhofe said the agency doesn't understand the industry and has repeatedly questioned the modeling used as the basis for the rules.
The EPA published regulations June 3 curbing methane emissions from new and modified wells as part of new source performance standards (81 Fed. Reg. 35,824; RIN:2060-AS30).
Better Odds Next Year?
The odds of overturning environmental rules through the seldom-used procedure to force an expedited up-or-down vote may increase in 2017 if Republicans win the White House and hold both chambers of Congress in the November elections.
That is because President Barack Obama repeatedly has vetoed resolutions of disapproval for a host of regulatory initiatives, including efforts on climate change, and Congress has come up well short of the two-thirds of members needed to override them.
A Congressional Research Service report predicted final rules submitted after May 16 could be subject to disapproval actions in 2017.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92830347&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92830347&jd=92830347
-
Shell Exec Offers More Details on Pennsylvania Ethane Cracker
Jun 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A unit of Royal Dutch Shell plc decided to proceed with a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Western Pennsylvania for three primary reasons: cost-advantaged feedstock, market proximity and strong local support, one of the project's leading executives said Tuesday.
"To answer the question, why Pennsylvania, why here? The basic answer is very simple," said Ate Visser, vice president of Appalachia petrochemicals at Shell Chemical LP. "You're sitting here on a world-class resource base at the doorstep of your customer. And this will give us a low-cost, sustainable and competitive advantage."
Visser gathered with other project executives from Shell to address and mingle with a packed crowd on Tuesday for the second day of the Northeast U.S. & Canada Petrochemical Construction Conference in Pittsburgh, one of the region's first shale-related petrochemical conferences. Shell's facility, which is expected to employ 600 permanent employees and another 6,000 during construction, took center stage and drove many of the event’s conversations and presentations.
Visser offered a reason for the excitement. He said -- as others repeated throughout the conference -- that 70% of the polyethylene market is within 700 miles of Western Pennsylvania, "which means that the customers will have shorter supply chains, will have more reliable supply chains, will have good capital savings and lower costs." With Shell's announcement, conference presenters said, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia can now focus on building a robust petrochemicals industry, which will have its start in Pennsylvania (see Shale Daily, June 27).
"We have been given economic development, job creation and investment savings from the state of Pennsylvania," Visser said. "I can tell you, with hand to my heart, that without these incentives, we would not have made this investment decision."
Without the state's Act 2 law, or what's more commonly known as its land recycling program, the cracker would not have been possible, Visser said. Act 2 provides for the revitalization of brownfield sites in the state. Shell announced its final investment decision on June 7, saying it would begin construction in 18 months on the ethane cracker (see Shale Daily, June 7).
The facility would be built on the 400-acre site of a former zinc-smelting plant near the Ohio River in Potter and Center townships in Beaver County, about 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. The facility would have the capacity to produce 1.6 million metric tons/year (mmty) of polyethylene and 1.5 mmty of ethylene, which are key building blocks for plastics. Visser told NGI's Shale Daily that the cracker would also have the capability to consume a little more than 100,000 b/d of ethane, providing one key solution for what has been a challenge for Appalachian exploration and production companies.
Matt Curry, founder of the consultancy Dreadnought Solutions LLC, noted that anywhere from about 55-60% of the typical barrel of natural gas liquids in the Appalachian Basin consists of ethane. With the production gains of recent years and the specifications of crucial interstate pipelines, it has become increasingly important to recover, rather than to reject, ethane.
Visser said 10 natural gas producers have signed 10-20 year agreements to anchor the facility. While he didn't name them all, they include Antero Resources Corp.; Ascent Resources LLC; Consol Energy Inc.; Eclipse Resources Corp., Hilcorp Energy Co.; Noble Energy Inc., and Penn Energy Resources LLC. Some of the producers, Visser added, have committed all of their ethane volumes to the cracker.
"The ethane we will use will be produced in the lowest-cost shale resource in the United States," Visser said of the volumes that will come from both the Utica and Marcellus shales. "We're doing it here instead of having to ship it to the U.S. Gulf Coast, which of course saves us costs."
Visser said the company has already moved 7.2 million cubic yards of dirt at the Beaver County site, completed a heavy long-haul bridge to eliminate traffic in the area and relocated nearby railroads. A load-on and load-off dock on the Ohio River is also nearly complete so the facility can accept barges. Currently, Visser said, 400 people are employed in the site preparation work alone.
As far as the time it will take to begin construction, Visser said, "This is consistent with matching our capital discipline in the current low price environment. But we use this time to complete our engineering, our design work and site preparation, which means that when we start with the main construction, we have all of our ducks in a row."
Production at the facility is slated to begin sometime in the early 2020s. Visser said this aspect is important because development of similar facilities on the "Gulf Coast will come on stream in 2017 and 2018." He added that "we expect the market will have absorbed additional demand when we come on stream, so the timing actually fits the market."
Mike Devanney, a retired petrochemical industry executive that worked in the Appalachian Basin, kicked off the conference on Tuesday by telling attendees that eight petrochemical facilities have either been announced or are under construction in the U.S. Most of those are in Texas and will come online before the Shell facility by 2020. Shell's Pennsylvania cracker would benefit from a second wave of anticipated demand when it comes online early next decade.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106909-shell-exec-offers-more-details-on-pennsylvania-ethane-cracker
-
Activist Groups Up Pressure to Oppose Energy Bill Talks
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Environmental groups are increasing pressure on the Senate to reject a motion to go to conference with the House on energy legislation as Democrats consider whether to throw their support behind holding a formal negotiation.
The League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, and 350.org were among a coalition of 24 groups who wrote the Senate June 28 in opposition to reconciling the two bills, saying in a letter the House bill “is a radical giveaway to polluting fossil fuel industries that would also undermine the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and other bedrock environmental laws.”
“It does not represent a serious starting point for any negotiation that will lead to a positive bill that truly modernizes the energy policy of the United States,” the groups said.
Specifically, the groups said they opposed the House's move to strip out provisions that would boost energy efficiency and clean energy funding and instead add bills opposed by the White House streamlining the mining permitting process and limiting environmental reviews for hydropower and pipeline projects.
Compromise Remains Out of Reach
The letter, the latest from environmental groups opposed to even holding talks to work out the differences between the two chambers, comes as the key architects of the bills have held rounds of talks but have yet to reach a compromise Democrats have said is needed for them to support a Senate conference vote.
“I share their concerns,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a former Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee member told Bloomberg BNA. “I'm very worried about the fact the House is talking about taking out all of the voluntary building codes. They are not mandatory. And that's where most of the savings is, so it is very concerning to me that the House would be taking out those provisions.”
Shaheen is the co-author of long-stalled energy efficiency legislation (S. 720) that was largely incorporated into the Senate's bill. The efficiency bill, which is backed by companies ranging from Dow Chemical Co. and National Grid, includes a section establishing national building codes designed to increase energy efficiency that are opposed by the National Association of Home Builders, among others.
Plums for ‘Big Oil.'
The “House GOP-passed energy bill is ridden with partisan plums for special interests like big oil,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate's No. 3 Democrat said on Twitter June 28, hours before the issue was among those discussed at the Democrats weekly caucus luncheon. “It's simply not a bill we can conference on.”
“We ought to have a bipartisan negotiation because nothing will get done,” Schumer told reporters following the meeting. “You can't get anything done in this Congress if you don't do it in a bipartisan way. That's plain and simple. That's how it works. And if Republicans don't want to do it in a bipartisan way they are just going to tie the place in a knot, whether its energy, Zika or anything else.”
While Senate aides previously said a vote on energy legislation was possible this week, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said she has not received assurances from Democrats they wouldn't block the vote.
Some Still Deciding
“I would like to see that sooner than later, but I'd also like to see a successful vote,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters. “I think what we need to do here in the Senate is figure out how we get to our vote.”
Meanwhile, senators like Angus King (I-Maine), a member of the Energy Committee, told Bloomberg BNA he has yet to make up his mind on whether he would vote in favor of going to conference.
“I'm going to make my decisions on whether its good policy,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “I'm not sure yet.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92830352&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92830352&jd=92830352
-
U.S., Mexico, Canada Pledge 50 Percent Clean Power by 2025
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Angela Greiling Keane
The U.S. and Mexico will commit to joining Canada in boosting their use of wind, solar and other carbon-free sources of electricity, helping North America meet an ambitious goal of generating at least 50 percent of its energy from “clean” sources by 2025.
The pledge is set to be made as part of a trilateral summit of North American leaders June 29 in Ottawa, where the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union is likely to consume much of the agenda. The meeting also will focus on trade and regional security issues.
“We believe this is an aggressive goal but one that is achievable by all three countries,” Brian Deese, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama on environmental and energy matters, said June 27 on a conference call with reporters.
The goal applies across the continent, meaning it's an average for Canada, Mexico and the U.S. together. The objective, which would need to be adhered to by the president who succeeds Obama in January, is “achievable if all three countries respectively make ambitious progress toward executing and in effect exceeding the targets” established in the climate accord reached in Paris last year, Deese said.
Carbon Free
The commitment will apply to any electricity generated without producing carbon dioxide emissions, including nuclear as well as renewable wind, solar and hydro power. Deese said it also could apply to power from plants using carbon-capture technology to siphon off emissions. The goal does not otherwise include natural gas, which burns cleaner than coal but still produces carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change.
The nations also will seek to boost energy efficiency, Deese said.
Environmentalists applauded the announcement, with Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune saying it demonstrates “North American unity behind a consensus for strong global climate action.“
“This agreement means the United States will dramatically increase the amount of clean, renewable energy we get from sources like wind and solar within the next decade,” Brune said.
Nuclear Power
Over the past year, the U.S. derived about a third of its power from carbon-free sources, including nuclear that provided 19.9 percent, according to April data from the Energy Information Administration. Continent-wide, about 37 percent of North America's electricity came from carbon-free sources in 2015, largely because Canada already obtains more than half its energy from clean sources.
Deese declined to speculate on how much of the 50 percent goal would need to be from the U.S.
It's a “doable” goal, said U.S. Energy Information Administration head Adam Sieminski. The agency forecasts growing use of wind and solar electricity even with Obama administration regulations slashing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Policy agreements, such as the goal being announced in Ottawa, can “intensify some of the trends that are already under way,” Sieminski said during an event previewing the EIA's annual energy outlook.
Stronger Pledge
The target represents a stronger pledge for Obama and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. The Obama administration had previously said it aimed for the U.S. to get a fifth of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, as part of a commitment made with Brazil last year. Mexico last year promised to get 35 percent of its electricity from wind, solar and other renewable sources by 2024, up from 3 percent a year ago.
As part of the new partnership, Mexico also will agree to join Canada and the U.S. in throttling emissions of methane, which is pound for pound 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere over a 20 year span.
Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in March committed to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas industry by as much as 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. A new Environmental Protection Agency rule, finished in May, limits methane releases from new oil and gas wells, setting the stage for mandates targeting existing infrastructure too.
Mexico's move on methane is significant because “North America accounts for 15 to 20 percent of global oil and gas methane emissions,” said Mark Brownstein, a vice president in the climate and energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92830345&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92830345&jd=92830345
-
Court Rejects Greens’ Challenges to Natural Gas Exports
Jun 28, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court rejected environmentalists’ challenges to two liquefied natural gas export projects.
The Sierra Club and its allies faulted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) decisions to approve projects in Texas and Louisiana.
They said FERC’s environmental reviews failed to account for the impacts of increased natural gas drilling and the cumulative impacts of multiple natural gas export facilities.
But the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed, saying FERC’s environmental reviews didn’t have to account for those factors.
“The commission’s NEPA analysis did not have to address the indirect effects of the anticipated export of natural gas,” the court wrote in its Tuesday decision regarding the Freeport LNG project in Texas. “That is because the Department of Energy, not the commission, has sole authority to license the export of any natural gas going through the Freeport facilities.”
It used similar reasoning in the case regarding the Sabine Pass facility in Louisiana.
The court’s argument stems from the fact that while FERC is responsible for approving the facilities themselves, the Energy Department has the separate task of considering applications to export natural gas. Therefore, any impacts from exports, like increased gas drilling and increased pollution, are the department's responsibility.
The groups are also suing the Energy Department for its export approvals for the facilities, which the court hinted could turn out differently.
The Sierra Club said the ruling is a big loss for the environment.
“This disappointing decision fails to address the significant environmental harms of increased gas exports, and is not the end of the road in this fight,” said Lena Moffitt, head of the group’s Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign.
“There continues to be a groundswell of grassroots efforts adamant in stopping the extraction, burning and export of gas, and neither their efforts nor our legal efforts to block these dirty, dangerous projects will stop as result of today’s decisions,” she said.
The case is part of a multi-pronged attack from greens on gas exports. The idea of gas exports has picked up steam in recent years as a way to help United States allies while giving a bigger market to the domestic gas industry.
But greens say the Obama administration has been far too lax with its approvals to export, without properly considering the environmental impacts.
Only one gas export facility is currently operating in the contiguous United States. The Sabine Pass terminal, the subject of one of the Sierra Club’s lawsuits, started exporting earlier this year.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/285175-court-rejects-greens-challenges-to-natural-gas-exports
-
Court Deals Setback to Sierra Club’s Opposition of Sabine Pass, Freeport LNG Exports
Jun 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected two cases brought by the Sierra Club in its effort to thwart exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG). However, the door is still open to new and ongoing challenges.
The court found that environmental objections to exporting LNG should be raised in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proceedings that authorize export of natural gas, not in FERC’s permitting of export facilities.
Sierra Club sued the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in D.C. Circuit Court over the Commission's approvals related to Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana [Sierra Club v.s FERC, 14-249] and the Freeport LNG terminal (FLEX facility) in Texas [Sierra Club et al. v. FERC, 14-1275]. The environmental group challenged approval of increased output from the Sabine Pass terminal and the approval of the Freeport terminal (see Daily GPI, Nov. 14, 2014; July 31, 2014).
The court found that Sierra Club had standing to challenge the export project approvals, according to an analysis by ClearView Energy Partners LLC published Tuesday. "However, the court ultimately found that the appeals failed on the merits as to the non-export-related environmental impacts," ClearView said, adding that this was a "limited win" for FERC's authority under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Sierra Club was disappointed.
"This disappointing decision fails to address the significant environmental harms of increased gas exports, and is not the end of the road in this fight," said Sierra Club's Lena Moffitt, director of the group's "beyond dirty fuels" campaign. "There continues to be a groundswell of grassroots efforts adamant in stopping the extraction, burning and export of gas…”
Center for Liquefied Natural Gas Executive Director Charlie Riedl said, "Today's rulings make clear that the existing NEPA process adequately and completely assesses the environmental impacts of LNG exports. The court found that attempts to draw the bounds of environmental analysis for purposes of siting and constructing an LNG facility outside the local impacts of a given facility are not valid.”
For some time now, Sierra Club and like-minded environmental groups have fought authorizations by FERC and DOE that support the export of LNG from the United States. They argue that exports induce increased production of domestic natural gas, leading to environmental and other harms.
In its analysis, ClearView said on Tuesday the court found that environmentalist objections to "the implications of exporting natural gas pursuant to NEPA remains an issue that can only be challenged" during appeal of the multi-year export licenses issued by DOE. "The court rejected the challenges to the FERC's NEPA review of non-export-related environmental impacts only."
That means that Sierra Club and others have a shot at advancing their argument in appeals of DOE non-free trade agreement (FTA) authorizations of LNG exports. An appeal of DOE's non-FTA authorization for the Freeport FLEX facility is pending in the D.C. Circuit with the potential for oral arguments to be heard this fall, ClearView said.
Washington, DC-based ClearView also said environmentalists are "refining their arguments and bringing more detailed challenges to individual project reviews." Export project authorizations will continue under the Natural Gas Act, but environmental reviews will "continue to take longer and be more expensive," ClearView said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106906-court-deals-setback-to-sierra-clubs-opposition-of-sabine-pass-freeport-lng-exports
-
Two Court Cases Remind Us That Ours Is Not An 'Instant Grassification' Constitution
Jun 28, 2016 | Forbes
By David Davenport
As I drove down a California freeway, I saw a truck hauling sod to someone’s new yard. But it was the sign on the truck that really caught my attention: “Instant Grassification.” Although we live in an instant gratification society, that is precisely the opposite of what the founders sought to establish in our Constitution. Instead, they wanted the “cool, deliberate sense of the community” over time (Federalist 37, 51, 63) to be the governing principle. To accomplish this they set up checks and balances and separations of power to be sure no one part of government could rise up and unilaterally assert control.
MIAMI, FL – JUNE 23: Immigrant rights advocates, worker’s unions and allied organizations join with immigrant families on the steps of the Freedom Tower in Miami to show their displeasure with the Supreme Court’s split decision that denies the implementation of President Barack Obama’s immigration relief programs. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Two federal court cases in two different parts of the country reaffirmed last week that the separation of powers doctrine is still alive, if sometimes slow to assert itself. A federal judge in Wyoming ruled that the U.S. Department of the Interior had not been given the power to regulate fracking on federal lands as it had sought to do. And the U.S. Supreme Court, by virtue of a 4-4 tie vote, let stand a decision of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that President Obama does not have the power to unilaterally allow millions of those in the country illegally to remain. In each case, the courts said, only Congress could authorize those actions. Like the wheels of the Gods that grind slowly but fine, the court decisions were a delayed response to earlier action. For example, President Obama’s key executive order on immigration came in 2014.
In our modern society, the separation of powers doctrine is increasingly unpopular and under assault. Some argue that it contributes to our present gridlock in government—indeed, Obama had said that the inability of Congress to move on immigration justified his unilateral action. Sometimes the government is just in too big of a hurry—Obama has used executive orders to kick off new domestic initiatives on gun control, immigration and other hot button issues of the day. Of course the purpose of executive orders is to “execute” legislation passed by the Congress, not to initiate new federal policies. Some even argue for a new constitutional convention to peel away these so-called antiquated protections.
But these essential questions about federalism ought always to be asked before the government acts:Is this a matter for government, as opposed to individual, action?If so, is it a matter for local, state or federal government action?And should it be done by the legislative, executive or judicial branches?
Unfortunately, in an effort to provide instant gratification, increasingly the federal government leaps into action first, with the leadership of the President or some federal executive agency. But that’s not how the system is designed. It is, as Benjamin Franklin famously said, “a republic if you can keep it.” It has lots of moving parts and we wait for them to work together, not on their own.
Fracking is a relatively new phenomenon and Congress has not authorized agencies to begin promulgating rules, even for federal land. On state and private land, we should appreciate the states providing labs of experimentation before we would even consider a federal law. Not a bad idea to have our policy debates and make inevitable mistakes at a lower level. And a change in something as basic as immigration policy that affects millions needs action by Congress, not the unilateral decision of one man, even if he is the president.
With Hillary Clinton favoring a larger federal government doing more things, and Donald Trumpshowing little appreciation for constitutional processes such as checks and balances and separations of power, I’m nervous that our instant gratification society will overtake the cool, deliberate sense of the community. And with an open seat on the Supreme Court, I fear that the corrective we saw in two federal courts last week will be weakened.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2016/06/28/two-court-cases-remind-that-ours-is-not-an-instant-grassification-constitution/#5743ff654280
-
Enterprise NatGas Plant Explosion in Mississippi Shutters 400 MMcf/d
Jun 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
An investigation is continuing into the cause of an explosion late Monday that has shuttered an Enterprise Products Partners LP natural gas processing complex in Pascagoula, MS.
No injuries were reported at the facility, of which Enterprise assumed ownership and operations June 1 from BP plc. The Pascagoula plant is comprised of three trains with nameplate capacity of 1.5 Bcf/d.
"We had been averaging about 400 MMcf/d," Enterprise spokesman Rick Rainey told NGI. The plant is shut-in and "it's premature to speculate" on the restart date. "It's still a response situation. " While the situation was under control, "a couple of small flares" were burning at midday Tuesday caused by residual gas vapor being burned off. Enterprise is working with its customers and third-party operators to reroute supplies, he said. Customers are being apprised of "available options while the Pascagoula plant is out of service."
Two Enterprise employees who were on site were sealed inside an explosion-proof room and reportedly unhurt. No evacuations were ordered nor were there impacts to the surrounding community, Rainey said. The fire was restricted to inside the facility.
Destin, the primary pipeline serving the facility, has connections to other third-parties, and "we're working with our customers to help them meet their needs," Rainey said.
Destin on Tuesday declared a force majeure and said it "has been and continues to be unable to provide gas transportation service from all of its offshore receipt points." The 225-mile pipeline carries Gulf of Mexico gas to the Pascagoula plant and then travels north, where it connects with nine interstate gas pipelines.
Destin was evaluating the possibility of offering shippers an option for an alternate flow from Main Pass 260 to the Viosca Knoll Gathering System, which is a 125-mile, 1 Bcf/d system.
According to Genscape Inc., roughly 550 MMcf/d of Destin's offshore production was shut in by the plant's outage. The Pascagoula straddle plant has "about 135 MMcf/d of shrink, meaning dry gas outlet volumes have been averaging roughly 415 MMcf/d prior to the explosion."
Destin could reroute gas to the Viosca Knoll system, but otherwise, "there do not appear to be any alternative outlets for production gas," Genscape analysts said. "During a force majeure event in July 2013 at the Pascagoula plant, no other offshore pipes appeared to pick up shut-in gas from Destin. That event resolved in two days and nominations resumed."
The High Point System, which runs from the offshore to the Toca Gas Processing Plant in Louisiana, "is nearby, but it does not appear that there is any connectivity between the two pipelines," Genscape said. The Gulf South system is connected to the Pascagoula plant, "though none of Gulf South's offshore production is dependent on Pascagoula" and it has "ample gas processing capacity throughout Louisiana."
Destin onshore gas transportation service was not affected and normal operations were continuing.
Earlier this month, Destin said it was resuming "normal offshore operations" to Pascagoula after planned maintenance at the plant by the operator. The plant had been closed for about a month before restarting two weeks ago.
As to what may have caused the incident, Rainey was unaware of any events that were scheduled before the incident. "As we transition from a response to an investigation mode, then all of that will come to light," he said.
Area residents had described hearing more than one explosion close to midnight, which some said they heard 10 miles away. All of those reports are "only speculation," Rainey said. "We're still trying to piece together what happened, and I would be hesitant to confirm or deny how many explosions."
The incident was under control early Tuesday, and firefighters were allowing a small fire to burn all of the gas out of the plant.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106903-enterprise-natgas-plant-explosion-in-mississippi-shutters-400-mmcfd
-
Explosions Hit Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Owned by Houston Firm
Jun 28, 2016 | Fuel Fix
Two explosions and a fire rocked a natural gas plant in southern Mississippi on Monday night, but no one was injured and flames continued for hours Tuesday, authorities said.
The owner of the plant, Enterprise Products Partners of Houston, said it was investigating the cause of the fire at its processing facility it Pascagoula, Miss. Enterprise said the fire was restricted to the facility. Enterprise, which bought out its partner in the plant, BP, in the first quarter, said it is working with customers to find other options while the plant is out of service.
The Mississippi plant removes the liquid from natural gas and ships it to utilities along the East Coast, local officials said. The liquid is then sent to other plants where propane and butane are produced.
Emergency Management Director Early Etheridge in Jackson County said the first explosion occurred at 11:30 p.m. and was followed by a larger explosion minutes later. Etheridge said the second blast could be felt up to 10 miles away.
“The two workers on duty were in a safe room at the time of the two explosions and were not injured,” Etheridge said. “The explosion and fire which followed has heavily damaged the processing area.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/06/28/explosions-fire-hit-mississippi-natural-gas-plant-owned-by-houston-firm/
-
Two Trains Collide in Texas Panhandle, Causing Evacuation
Jun 28, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Immani Moise
Three crew members missing after BNSF Railway freight trains meet head on
Two trains traveling in opposite directions collided in Panhandle, Texas Tuesday morning, causing a fiery accident in which one crew member was hospitalized and three left unaccounted for.
Both trains belonged to BNSF Railway Co. and were carrying primarily consumer goods, said BSNF spokesman Michael Trevino. Each train was staffed by two crew members. One of the crew members was transported to the hospital shortly after the collision occurred about 27 miles northeast of Amarillo, Texas. Rescue efforts were continuing for the three other employees involved in the crash, Mr. Trevino said.
Nearby residents were evacuated because of smoke, according to a city spokeswoman.
The Federal Railroad Administration and National Transportation Safety Board are conducting independent investigations to assess how the two trains were on the same track at the same time, an FRA spokesman said. Mr. Trevino said he didn’t know what caused the collision.
At this time, the company says it doesn't have an estimate of the losses sustained in the accident. One train, which was carrying 108 carloads, was using five locomotives located on both the front and back of the train to help with braking, while the other train had five locomotives at the front and was hauling 87 carloads. The company is still assessing how many containers were damaged. It is also investigating the accident.
“Our investigation is in the very early stages but based on the limited information we have reviewed, it appears that this is the type of incident that positive train control technology (PTC) is intended to prevent,” Mr. Trevino said in a statement. “This is why we have been aggressively deploying PTC across our network.”
Positive train control, a new computerized collision-avoidance safety system, was mandated by Congress in 2008, and will eventually cover about 60,000 route miles of track. But the nation’s railroads weren’t able to implement it by a 2015 deadline, despite spending about $7 billion by late last year. Congress extended the deadline. BNSF has said it expects to complete its installation of the new technology by 2018.
The new technology was slated to be installed on the section of the track where the collision occurred later this year, Mr. Trevino said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/two-trains-collide-in-texas-panhandle-causing-evacuation-1467138486
-
Deference Ruling Doesn't Apply to Boiler Rule Suit: EPA
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the deference federal agencies are due in interpreting statutes has no bearing on litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's emissions standards for boilers, the agencytold a federal court (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, response filed 6/27/16).
The EPA established maximum achievable control technology standards for toxic pollutants from industrial boilers and incinerators in a manner consistent with its past application of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which means the Supreme Court's recent decision in Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro doesn't apply to lawsuits over the rules, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro, 84 U.S.L.W. 4424, 2016 BL 196078 (2016)).
The Encino case only dealt with instances where an agency has revised its interpretation of a statute without providing an adequate explanation for its new reasoning, the EPA argued.
“Encino has no application to this case because, as explained in our brief (and discussed at oral argument), EPA has not changed its position on what the Clean Air Act requires,” the EPA said in its June 27 letter to the court. “To the contrary, EPA has consistently determined emission standards for existing sources under Clean Air Act section [112] on the basis of the average of the best-performing sources.”
Ruling ‘Directly Relevant' to Litigation
Environmental groups challenging the boiler and incinerator standards (RIN:2060-AQ25; RIN:2060-AR13) had argued in a June 23 letter to the D.C. Circuit that the Encino ruling is “directly relevant” to the litigation over the boiler and incinerator standards.
The Sierra Club, the Environmental Integrity Project and other groups are challenging the EPA's upper prediction limit, a statistical tool that was used to calculate minimum hazardous air pollutant standards for major source boilers and incinerators.
They argue the EPA has revised its interpretation of “average” as part of the Clean Air Act's requirement that the toxic pollutant standards represent the average emissions level achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of sources in the industrial sector.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92830356&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92830356&jd=92830356
-
EPA Supporters Fight Industry's 'Regulatory Capture' Seen Delaying Rules
Jun 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Democratic senators and environmentalists supportive of EPA are seeking strategies for overcoming what they say is a successful strategy by various industry groups to force “regulatory capture” delaying various agency rules, such as creating a regulatory “watchdog” to target what they see as bias in the rulemaking process.
“The current process is loaded with opportunities for powerful industry groups to tilt the playing field in their favor, and corporations take every one of those opportunities,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) at a June 28 event in Washington, D.C., hosted by the advocacy group Public Citizen.
Warren cited what she described as failures in EPA's process of developing Clean Air Act emissions limits for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) -- where the agency has held many more meetings with industry groups than with environmentalists and community advocates -- as a major reason for reforming procedures to boost transparency in rulemakings, add “balance” to the public comment process, and simplify the text of rules.
For instance, she said, the vast majority of substantive comments offered on agency rules come from groups representing various industries, citing a split in the HAP rulemakings where just 4 percent of the total comments EPA received came from advocates, as opposed to 81 percent from industry.
“Severely under-resourced public advocates are just simply outgunned. States have experimented with adding a public advocate into the regulatory process,” Warren said, though she did not elaborate on how a federal version of that framework could work.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) told the event audience that Congress should focus its efforts on combating regulatory capture, where regulated entities are able to exercise control over rulemaking agencies -- a situation he argued legislators have largely ignored.
He called for a law to create a "regulatory watchdog, whether in the form of a regulatory inspector general or some other entity” as well as broader review of how the phenomenon's “symptoms, effects and cures.”
The legislators are pushing back on Republicans' broad regulatory reform agenda that seeks to add new requirements for agencies to implement rules, especially “major” rules with over $100 million in compliance costs. Whitehouse said at the panel that rather than a sincere effort to pare back burdensome rules, the effort is intended to advance long-standing GOP opposition to the Clean Air Act and other environmental and public-health laws, as well as legislation dealing with the financial sector and the insurance industry.
“Every time they roll out that wagon that has the 'burdensome regulation' curtain on it, look behind that curtain -- it's usually the same old Rottweilers,” he said.
Regulatory Costs
Along with the legislators' broad arguments on regulatory reform, other speakers at the event addressed more specific concerns about the state of the rulemaking process, including long delays between proposing and finalizing rules, inconsistent use of cost-benefit analysis and notice-and-comment policies vulnerable to industry pressure. All of those issues have affected EPA rules, they said.
Georgetown law professor Lisa Heinzerling, who headed EPA's policy office from July 2009 to December 2010, said EPA and other agencies have become too reliant on cost-benefit analyses to justify their rules, instead of looking to the requirements set out in statutory language that often does not mention economic factors.
Specifically, she pointed to EPA's mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants and the agency's social cost of carbon -- its controversial monetary value for the harm from carbon emissions -- as including “very strange assumptions.”
Heinzerling said the agency's discounting formula for weighting future effects of climate change is so convoluted that "effectively, the future is trivialized.”
She argued that agencies have expanded their use of cost-benefit analysis, as opposed to justifying rules solely through public health or environmental metrics, based on White House directives rather than new mandates from Congress -- meaning a future administration could potentially roll back the paradigm without a change in the law.
However, the Supreme Court's ruling last June in Michigan v. EPA could hamstring such an effort. The court held 5-4 that the agency erred when it failed to consider the costs of the MATS in its initial determination that the rule was appropriate and necessary under the Clean Air Act. Heinzerling acknowledged that "court rulings have started to do damage” to agencies' discretion on cost evaluations.
University of Texas law professor Wendy Wagner also focused on EPA air toxics rules in her discussion of flaws in the notice-and-comment process, arguing that studies found a “significant correlation” between industry comments on those policies and the agency's modifications to its final rules. For every two comments from regulated entities, EPA 'weakened the rule in one way,” she said.
She argued that industry dominance has led to “thinly financed groups” that represent environmentalists and pro-regulatory advocates “dropping out of the rulemaking process.”
Rule Delays
Multiple speakers noted that the average time it takes agencies to craft and review rules has spiked during the Obama administration.
Public Citizen speakers Amit Narang and Michael Tanglis identified EPA rules as among the most delayed, with the agency taking an average of 3.8 years to craft a rule. However, that figure is far short of the 12.5 years they said the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) takes to craft an average rule.
George Washington University law professor Robert Glicksman noted that EPA was able to quickly advance its greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants despite those delays, and said that rule and the Obama administration's climate agenda in general, shows that “it is possible for agencies to move past some of these delays, but only if the president makes expeditious rulemaking a priority."
Former Congressional Review Service staffer Curtis Copeland said part of the problem comes from prolonged interagency review of pending rules, for which he blamed the White House Office of Interagency and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which must review major regulations and approve them prior to their publication in the Federal Register. The time for that office to review a rule or proposal before promulgation has ballooned far beyond the mandated 90 days, Copeland said, and called for action by Congress to accelerate its work.
"OIRA can control this if it wants to, but it has to have a reason to want to," he said. "The introduction of such legislation would probably make OIRA reform its own current practices, because they know how to do it.”
AFL-CIO Safety and Health Director Peg Seminario focused her talk on OSHA's rule delays, in particular its standards for protecting workers from exposure to silica dust, which the agency finalized March 24 -- almost 40 years after its first proposal.
She argued that the long delay shows industry's improper influence over the regulatory process, especially in the George W. Bush administration. There, she said, OSHA initially listed the long-delayed silica standard as a top priority, but "industry said no, they didn't want a standard" and it was left on the table until President Obama took office.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-supporters-fight-industrys-regulatory-capture-seen-delaying-rules
-
Science Groups Urge Congress to Act on Climate
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A total of 31 science groups, including the American Meteorological Society, urged Congress in a June 28 letter to recognize the serious threats posed by rising global temperatures and what they said is a consensus from a “vast body of peer-reviewed science” that human activities are the “primary driver” of climate change.
The letter comes amid new polling suggesting increasing concern over the climate among voters, although it still appears to resonate less with voters than the need for economic growth and greater attention to national security and terrorism.
Seven out of 10 likely voters believe climate change is real, and 52 percent of them said they are already feeling the effects of rising temperatures and other climate impacts, according to the poll, commissioned by conservative groups, including ConservAmerica, originally founded as Republicans for Environmental Protection.
But Republican voters were essentially split over whether they support government action to cut carbon emissions, according to the poll, conducted by Just Win Strategies and TargetPoint Consulting.
Groups Backing Letter
The science groups backing the June 28 letter to congressional members include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Plant Biologists and the American Public Health Association.
“We, as leaders of major scientific organizations, write to remind you of the consensus scientific view of climate change,” the groups said, adding that there “is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health.”
The letter continued, “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” The letter added that that conclusion is based “on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
Echoes 2009 Letter
The letter echoes an October 2009 letter sent by many of the same science groups to U.S. senators, as that chamber was eyeing broad climate legislation that ultimately failed without getting a vote on the Senate floor.
The U.S. is facing increasing impacts from climate change, according to the letter, including more extreme weather events, sea level rise, increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves and wildfires. The groups called on Congress to take action to “substantially” reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the need to adapt to future climate impacts.
The Just Win Strategies/TargetPoint Consulting poll asked likely voters their views on the current presidential campaign and their top concerns ahead of the November elections; respondents gave presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton a 5 percentage-point lead over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, with 45 percent favoring Clinton, 40 percent favoring Trump and the remainder not sure.
Climate Change Lags Behind Terrorism
Climate change resonated as an important issue with those likely voters, but ranked fourth, well below the top issue—national security and terrorism, the top issue for 31 percent of respondents—followed by jobs and the economy (28 percent) and federal spending and the national debt (14 percent). Twelve percent of voters said protecting the environment and climate change is their top issue of concern.
“This data represents a path forward for Republicans to change the narrative on energy and environmental issues in this country, and move away from arguments over climate and towards solutions that will strengthen our economy and national security,” Rob Sisson, president of ConservAmerica, said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92830349&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92830349&jd=92830349
-
McAuliffe Asks State to Evaluate Carbon Reductions
Jun 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A work group will examine and recommend ways for further reducing carbon pollution from Virginia's power plants under an executive order signed June 28 by Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D).
That work group, led by Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Molly Ward, will develop its recommendations for curbing carbon dioxide by April 30, 2017, and deliver a report on its findings to McAuliffe no later than May 31, 2017.
“It is vital that the Commonwealth continue to facilitate and engage in a dialogue on carbon reduction methods while simultaneously creating a pathway for clean energy initiatives that will grow jobs and help diversify Virginia's economy,” Executive Order No. 57 said.
McAuliffe specifically asked members of the work group to consider the impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), currently stayed pending the outcome of litigation, in preparing their recommendations.
The executive order notes Virginia has already made significant progress in reducing emissions from the electric sector—those emissions decreased 21 percent between 2005 and 2014—but said more can be done.
“It is only by acting together with common purpose that the Commonwealth can effectively adapt and stave off the most severe consequences of climate change,” the executive order said.
Praise Garnered From Environmental Community
Environmental advocates were quick to praise the governor's decision to move ahead with plans to address climate change and additional efforts to expand clean energy production in the commonwealth.
“Nothing stands in the way of Virginia drafting plans to reduce dangerous carbon pollution and expand renewable energy,” Walton Shepherd, a staff attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “[This]’ll put it well on the road to meeting the climate-protecting goals of the Clean Power Plan when it's upheld by the courts. Gov. McAuliffe's continued leadership, at this critical time, can ensure a safe and prosperous future for all Virginians.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92830358&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92830358&jd=92830358
-
California Hits the Brakes on High-Speed Rail Fiasco
Jun 28, 2016 | Bloomberg View
By Virginia Postrel
California's high-speed rail project increasingly looks like an expensive social science experiment to test just how long interest groups can keep money flowing to a doomed endeavor before elected officials finally decide to cancel it. What combination of sweet-sounding scenarios, streamlined mockups, ever-changing and mind-numbing technical detail, and audacious spin will keep the dream alive?
Sold to the public in 2008 as a visionary plan to whisk riders along at 220 miles an hour, making the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles in a little over two and a half hours, the project promised to attract most of the necessary billions from private investors, to operate without ongoing subsidies and to charge fares low enough to make it competitive with cheap flights. With those assurances, 53.7 percent ofvoters said yes to a $9.95 billion bond referendum to get the project started. But the assurances were at best wishful thinking, at worst an elaborate con.
The total construction cost estimate has now more than doubled to $68 billion from the original $33 billion, despite trims in the routes planned. The first, easiest-to-build, segment of the system -- the “train to nowhere” through a relatively empty stretch of the Central Valley -- is running at least four years behind schedule and still hasn’t acquired all the needed land. Predicted ticket prices to travel from LA to the Bay have shot from $50 to more than $80. State funding is running short. Last month’s cap-and-trade auction for greenhouse gases, expected to provide $150 million for the train, yielded a mere $2.5 million. And no investors are lining up to fill the $43 billion construction-budget gap.
Now, courtesy of Los Angeles Times reporter Ralph Vartabedian, comes yet another damning revelation: When the Spanish construction company Ferrovial submitted its winning bid for a 22-mile segment, the proposal included a clear and inconvenient warning: “More than likely, the California high speed rail will require large government subsidies for years to come.” Ferrovial reviewed 111 similar systems around the world and found only three that cover their operating costs.
This research should surprise no one who pays attention. Even advocates acknowledge that almost all high-speed rail systems need ongoing subsidies.
But the California High-Speed Rail Authority steadfastly maintains that its trains will be the exception: “HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN CALIFORNIA WILL NOT REQUIRE OPERATING SUBSIDIES,” a 2013 fact sheet declared, in all caps. The authority has to keep up the charade or admit to breaking the promises that persuaded voters to back the project in the first place.
At an April state assembly hearing, the authority’s chairman asserted that “virtually all” the world’s high-speed rail operations make operating profits. Not true. “It is very easy to falsify a claim like ‘Every HSR system in the world collects revenues that cover their cost,' ”Bent Flyvbjerg, a professor at Oxford’s Saïd Business School who studies infrastructure cost overruns, told Vartabedian.
The truly damning revelation, however, isn’t just that Ferrovial’s research flatly contradicts the California authority. It’s that the company's warning on subsidies disappeared from the version of the bid posted on the state’s website. The Times obtained a copy of the full document on a data disk under a public records act request.
The high-speed rail project is a classic example of how concentrated benefits and diffused costs shape public policy, even when the general public has a direct say. Back in 2008, the bond referendum faced no organized opposition. Voters might have preferred that the money go to schools, parks, roads, social services or even local trains, but those alternatives weren’t on the ballot. It was an up-down vote on whether to let a tiny bit of tax money per person go to fund a really cool train -- and all the companies that would work on building it. Voters looked at the streamlined concept images and thought, Wouldn’t that be great? Whoosh!
But a closer look even back then would have made it clear that, barring a miracle, the rail project wouldn’t keep its promises. To do so, it would have to be the fastest, most popular bullet train in the world, with many more riders per mile and a much greater percentage of seats occupied than the French and Japanese systems -- a highly unlikely prospect. Yet only the most determined wonk would have discovered these comparisons.
Some of those who knew better still succumbed to the glamour of the idea. “There's something undeniably alluring about a bullet train -- the technology is so powerful, the speed so breathtaking, it makes quotidian trips seem exotic,” opined the Times's editorial board in October 2008. Admitting that “it seems close to a lead-pipe cinch that the California High-Speed Rail Authority will ask for many billions more in the coming decades, and the Legislature will have to scrape up many millions of dollars in operating subsidies,” it nonetheless concluded that “we still think voters should give in to the measure's gleaming promise.” Give in they did.
Eight years later, the legislature is getting antsy. Last month, the state assembly unanimously passed a bill requiring that the authority provide clearer statements of route changes and projected expenses, including borrowing costs. The state senate will hold a hearing on the bill Tuesday.
The measure sounds like basic democratic hygiene. But it’s a big deal. "It is the awakening of the magnitude of the issue in front of us,” the bill’s sponsor Jim Patterson, a Republican from Fresno, told the Times. "The project has moved from spotty opposition in the legislature to growing concern.”
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, the first announced candidate for governor in 2018, has said that barring something “really significant,” he can’t see taking the money from other infrastructure projects. The officials who have to make the budget tradeoffs that weren’t on the ballot in 2008 are finally pushing back. The question now is when they’ll have the guts to pull the plug.
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-28/california-hits-the-brakes-on-high-speed-rail-fiasco
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested