Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 7/27/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study Finds Plastics Reduce Environmental Costs by Nearly 4 Times Compared to Alternatives
Jul 26, 2016 | Power Engineering
By Jennifer Killinger
A new study by Trucost finds the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. -
(ACC Mentioned) Advocacy Begins for First Substance Reviews Under New TSCA
Jul 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Stakeholders have begun to weigh in on which substances should be the first to undergo risk evaluation under the newly reformed TSCA, and say they will be an early test of the EPA’s new authorities. -
Achieving Regulatory Reform and Improving Chemical Safety Laws
Jul 27, 2016 | The Daily Republic
By Sen. Mike Rounds
In South Dakota, we understand that over-regulation and too much bureaucracy hinder economic growth and productivity. -
Golf Courses and Chemical Companies Target Environmental Laws
Jul 27, 2016 | Lohud
By David Robinson
Chemical companies and golf-course superintendents have spent millions of dollars on lobbying against reforms targeting pesticides. -
Bound to Silence by Politics, State Regulators Plan Quietly
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Meetings of state electricity regulators have for years been dominated by conversations about how to cut greenhouse gas levels under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Study Finds 'Relatively Inexpensive' State Compliance Costs
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
The nationwide cost to states for compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will be "relatively inexpensive, with cost increases of 0.1% to 1.0%," according to new modeling released today by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. -
Hot-Button Bakken Project Advances
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
The Army Corps of Engineers laid the groundwork yesterday for a $3.8 billion pipeline from the Bakken Shale play that has drawn a mixture of enthusiastic support and furious opposition from landowners and businesses along its path. -
Republicans Push Back on Interior Methane Leak Plan
Jul 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House Republicans want the Interior Department to drop plans to regulate methane emissions on federal lands. -
Personal Injury Complaint Filed in N.Y. Over Teflon Chemical
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
A Hoosick Falls, N.Y., resident has filed the first personal injury complaint related to drinking water contamination in the Northeastern village. -
Oil Trains Fade Out Amid Crude Slump, Pipeline Expansion
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Energywire
The oil train boom is waning. The demand for the haulers started falling quickly after oil prices were crushed two years ago and may not pick up again. -
Climate Change Comes to the DNC
Jul 27, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
Climate change will move to center stage at the Democrat National Convention tonight in the form of a 5-1/2 minute movie directed by James Cameron and Maria Wilhelm, narrated by Sigourney Weaver (who will present the film at the convention), and featuring at least a few Hollywood stars, including Don Cheadle, Jack Black, and America Ferrara. -
Utilities Outline Legal Attacks On EPA MACT Cost Review
Jul 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
Power companies are outlining their legal attacks on EPA's final supplemental cost review that the agency says justifies its prior decision that it was necessary to issue its utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule, arguing that the finding is flawed because EPA failed to consider several major factors.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Jul 26, 2016 | Power Engineering
By Jennifer Killinger
A new study by Trucost finds the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. The study is based on natural capital accounting methods, which measure and value environmental impacts -- such as consumption of water and emissions to air, land and water -- which are not typically factored into traditional financial accounting.
Previous reports, such as "Valuing Plastics" (2014) by Trucost and "The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics" (2016) by the World Economic Forum, only examined the environmental costs of using plastics.
Trucost's latest study, "Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement," builds on earlier research by comparing the environmental costs of using plastics to alternative materials and identifying opportunities to help lower the environmental costs of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging.
These significant results disrupt a common misperception around plastics. Trucost found that replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with a mix of alternative materials that provide the same function would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to $533 billion annually. That's because strong, lightweight plastics help us do more with less material, which provides environmental benefits throughout the lifecycle of plastic products and packaging.
The study also concluded that the environmental costs of alternative materials can be lower per ton of production but are greater in aggregate due to the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfill the same purposes as plastics.
In addition, the report's authors recommend steps to help further reduce plastics' overall environmental costs, such as by increasing the use of lower-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transport modes, developing even more efficient plastic packaging, and increasing recycling and energy conversion of post-use plastics to help curb ocean litter and conserve resources.
"We are very excited to present 'Plastics and Sustainability,' the largest natural capital study ever conducted for the plastics manufacturing sector," said Libby Bernick, senior vice president North America for Trucost. "This report provides the clearest picture to date of the relative costs and benefits of plastics compared to alternative materials as well as important opportunities to enhance the environmental performance of using plastics in consumer goods."
"We now have a fuller picture of the environmental benefits of using plastics," said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, which commissioned the study. "From lighter, more fuel-efficient cars to smart packaging that helps our favorite foods last longer, our industry is committed to ongoing innovations that will advance sustainability across major market sectors and the globe."
"Now is an exciting time for plastics and for sustainability. Emerging economies around the world are creating opportunities for more people to have access to health and hygiene products, good nutrition and the things that help us get more out of life. Making smart choices about what we produce and how we produce it will benefit people and the planet," Russell said.
"By leading in innovation and performance, the world's plastics industry has demonstrated its ongoing commitment to help create a more sustainable future," said Jeff Wooster, global sustainability director for Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics and chair of ACC's Packaging Team. "This report provides a new tool to explore opportunities to further enhance plastics' environmental performance with brand owners, shippers, recyclers and other value chain partners."
http://www.americanchemistry.com
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make people's lives better, healthier and safer. ACC is committed to improved environmental, health and safety performance through Responsible Care®, common sense advocacy designed to address major public policy issues, and health and environmental research and product testing. The business of chemistry is a $797 billion enterprise and a key element of the nation's economy. It is the nation's largest exporter, accounting for fourteen percent of all U.S. exports. Chemistry companies are among the largest investors in research and development. Safety and security have always been primary concerns of ACC members, and they have intensified their efforts, working closely with government agencies to improve security and to defend against any threat to the nation's critical infrastructure.
http://www.power-eng.com/marketwired/2016/07/26/study-finds-plastics-reduce-environmental-costs-by-nearly-4-times-compared-to-alternatives.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Advocacy Begins for First Substance Reviews Under New TSCA
Jul 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Stakeholders have begun to weigh in on which substances should be the first to undergo risk evaluation under the newly reformed TSCA, and say they will be an early test of the EPA’s new authorities.
Under the recently modernised law, the agency must identify ten substances from its existing list of workplan chemicals and formally initiate a risk evaluation of these, within 180 days of enactment – that is, by 22 December. The scope of those risk evaluations must then be set out, within the following six months.
The EPA has told Chemical Watch it has not yet identified any of the initial ten chemicals, and welcomes input from stakeholders in the substances’ selection and in their subsequent scoping, once identified.
Mike Belliveau, executive director of the NGO Environmental Health Strategy Centre (EHSC), said the EPA says the first five will probably be selected by September. So advocates should now begin to reach out to the agency about which chemicals they believe should be prioritised.
First ten substances?
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says “workplan substances, for which EPA has had significant work underway, are logical candidates for the first ten substances under review.” And Bonni Kaufman, an attorney at Holland & Knight, said, in a recent webinar, that the EPA will “definitely” be selecting such substances.
Last year, the EPA released initial assessments for flame retardant clusters, centered around three workplan flame retardants:
tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), within the brominated bisphenol A cluster;
ethanol, 2-chloro-, phosphate (3:1) (TCEP), in the chlorinated phosphate esters cluster; and
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), as part of the cyclic aliphatic bromides cluster.
These chemicals could be in the first group, said EHSC's Mr Belliveau. And it is “likely” that 1,4-dioxaneand 1-bromopropane (1-BP) will be included, he said, as the EPA has also started risk assessment on those.
Factors for prioritisation
NGO, the Environmental Working Group, recently published a list of substances it hopes to see in the EPA’s top ten. In addition to the flame retardants and 1-BP, it includes:
asbestos;
perchloroethylene (also known as tetrachloroethylene);
phthalates;
bisphenol A; and
DEHA.
EWG legislative attorney, Melanie Benesh, said the fact that the first ten will be exempt from “pause preemption” – which would otherwise block a state from regulating any use of the substance that falls within the scope of its risk evaluation, until the EPA completes its review – was a factor in determining which substances to prioritise.
“Because it could take a decade for regulations to be implemented on any one of these chemicals, many of which can be found in consumer products, it is important that states have additional time to pass their own regulations, before being preempted,” she said.
She added that the NGO skipped nine persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (PBTs) from its top picks, because these will be subject to expedited review under a separate section of the new law.
Potential health risk, number of Americans exposed, risk exposure and use in consumer products were also factored into EWG's prioritisation.
‘Early test’
Whichever substances the agency chooses, said Mr Belliveau, they “will be an early test of how good a job EPA does in risk assessment”.
Regarding whether the named ten substances might precipitate the development of safer alternatives, he said that he hopes it sends “a signal to the marketplace to move quickly away from these chemicals and not wait for final EPA action.”
But he adds that because the new law is a risk-based statute, the "inherent flaws of risk assessment are fully exposed”.
“EPA is only going to be make determinations and restrict chemical use, where there are robust data on chemical hazards and exposures, and we know that’s not true for most chemicals and most chemical uses.”
But “within that constraint, hopefully signals are sent that everyone who has a stake should be looking for safer approaches,” he said.
Ms Benesh added that “all 1,000 chemicals EPA has testified need to be reviewed should be evaluated and regulated as quickly as possible, and that these ten chemicals are merely a first step.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/48825/advocacy-begins-for-first-substance-reviews-under-new-tsca
-
Achieving Regulatory Reform and Improving Chemical Safety Laws
Jul 27, 2016 | The Daily Republic
By Sen. Mike Rounds
In South Dakota, we understand that over-regulation and too much bureaucracy hinder economic growth and productivity. We work best when government gets out of the way, and we have low unemployment and a strong economy to show for it. Unfortunately, this tried-and-true principle has seemingly been lost at the federal level: we have more than 1 million federal regulations on the books today and are writing new ones at the rate of 3,500 per year. I have spent a good part of my time in the Senate seeking to reform the regulatory environment and reduce the regulatory burden placed on Americans today.
While many efforts have been road blocked by a regulation-hungry president and his Democrat counterparts in Congress, there is at least one regulatory reform success story. After years of hard work, this summer the House and Senate passed — and President Obama signed into law — the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The Lautenberg Act is the first major reform of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) since it was enacted 40 years ago. TSCA is the law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to review and regulate chemicals in commerce. I applaud Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Chairman Jim Inhofe, Senator David Vitter, Senator Tom Udall and the entire committee for their diligence in seeing this law enacted.
The Lautenberg Act will help make sure South Dakota families are protected from harmful toxic chemicals by creating safeguards and oversight requirements. Over the last 40 years, the shortcomings of the well-intended but broken TSCA law have made it difficult for the EPA to monitor the safety of chemicals found in products American families use every day.
It will also support millions of jobs and spur economic growth by providing regulatory certainty for American businesses. For too long, job creators and manufacturers have suffered from inconsistent guidance of what chemicals can be used in their products. Now, they will have the certainty they need to safely invest in new manufacturing endeavors.
When working on the Lautenberg Act, the Senate EPW Committee, of which I am a member, took into account the oversight that we have been regularly conducting over the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and addressed problems we found in these laws in order to make TSCA a smarter, more conservative regulatory agent that won the support of all principal stakeholders. As a result, the Lautenberg Act will require that the EPA's regulatory decisions be based on the best available science and require the agency to show their work to the public and Congress.
Further, no longer can chemical regulations that are the result of cherry-picked data justify a politically-motivated regulatory outcome that is forced on job creators at the state or federal level. Instead, the EPA will need to justify its decisions by a substantial evidence standard and by using transparent scientific information while also taking into account costs when proposing any potential regulation.
The Lautenberg Act both protects public health and strengthens our economy, including the $8 billion chemical industry that impacts more than 7 million related American jobs and is the catalyst for almost all U.S. manufacturing. It is proof that regulatory reform is possible, even under the current political environment. I will continue working with my colleagues to achieve similar reforms in other areas of government.
http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/opinion/columns/4082385-achieving-regulatory-reform-and-improving-chemical-safety-laws
-
Golf Courses and Chemical Companies Target Environmental Laws
Jul 27, 2016 | Lohud
By David Robinson
Chemical companies and golf-course superintendents have spent millions of dollars on lobbying against reforms targeting pesticides.
Federal lobbyists have been paid $46.5 million by select trade groups and associations linked to pesticides since 1999, The Journal News/lohud has found.
The Journal News/lohud.com reviewed hundreds of pages of federal lobbying reports of golfing groups and a trade association and revealed a behind-the-scenes look at the massive network of special interests leaning on lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
CropLife America, a trade association for manufacturers and sellers of crop protection and pest-control products, spent $45 million on lobbying, federal records show. It sought to influence political debate over food safety, public health and environmental laws.
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, and other similar golfing groups, spent $1.5 million on lobbying, federal records show. They sought to influence a range of bills, though a majority of the money went to debate over water rights, pesticide permitting and environmental issues.
“Trade associations that have alliances with the chemical industry tend to want to protect them and the status quo, and they tend to lag behind the new science,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, an anti-pesticide group.
Feldman contended that golfing associations and pesticide trade groups have affected local and national debates over pesticides.
“We see this at community hearings where cities are considering phasing out cosmetic use of pesticides and banning agricultural use of pesticides,” he said. “They tend to be among the first groups to stand up and say, ‘We need these chemicals to manage our golf course.’ ”
Lobbyists for the golf-course superintendents group and CropLife America didn’t respond to interview requests.
Water pollution concerns
Battles over water pollution fueled much of the spending, though it is difficult to give exact figures because disclosures don’t fully itemize lobbying dollars.
One of the biggest fights involved the Waters of the United States rule. Adopted in 2014, it expanded which waters are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CropLife America and the golf-course superintendents joined other major industry groups seeking to kill the rule.
Lobbyists for pesticides, construction and manufacturing pushed bills and resolutions that culminated in President Obama issuing the ninth veto of his presidency to uphold the rule.
The sponsor of one such resolution, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said she would continue to look for ways to undermine the rule, USA TODAY Network reported.
“We all want clean water," Ernst said. "This rule is not about clean water. Rather, it is about how much authority the federal government and un-elected bureaucrats should have to regulate what is done on private land."
Obama addressed the rule’s purpose in a veto message to Congress.
"Too many of our waters have been left vulnerable," Obama said. "Pollution from upstream sources ends up in the rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and coastal waters near which most Americans live and on which they depend for their drinking water, recreation, and economic development."
The lobbying reports provided a glimpse of the strategy for blocking reforms affecting pesticides, along with other less controversial golf-related issues.
One golf-course superintendents’ report, for instance, disclosed details of $30,000 in lobbying activity in 2014.
Some of the money went toward supporting a bill trying to block the Waters of the United States rule. Other lobbying dollars backed a bill seeking amendments to immigration laws to allow more temporary non-agricultural workers, such as those on golf courses.
On the same report, lobbyists pushed a bill to honor iconic golfer Jack Nicklaus with the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of his contributions to the nation. He received the medal in 2015.
Toxic Substances Control Act
Environmentalists have long criticized the Toxic Substances Control Act as a toothless law responsible for rampant pollution and illness since its enactment in 1976. They’ve also blamed chemical companies and lobbyists for protecting it from challenges.
CropLife America, for example, was among a collection of industry groups that disclosed lobbying spending linked to the toxic substances law, which essentially affects every product, from cars to chemicals, sold nationally.
Much of the lobbying dollars flowed from CropLife and more than 250 other groups after 2013, when lawmakers introduced the Safe Chemicals Act, a more restrictive attempt at reforming the toxic substances law, according to data reported by the Center for Responsive politics, a nonprofit research group.
The Journal News/lohud review found CropLife’s highest lobbying spending per year came in 2013, at nearly $3.9 million. That is compared to the average annual lobbying of $2.6 million.
Last month, after decades of political wrangling and lobbying spending, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was signed into law. It was the first update to the 1976 toxic substances law.
Meanwhile, golf-course superintendents nearly tripled its lobbying spending after President Obama was elected in 2008, resulting in a series of environmental reforms under his administration.
The group averaged $140,000 per year under the Obama administration, spending $1.12 million total from 2008 to 2015. That is compared to a $47,500 average per year, and $380,000 total from 2000 to 2007.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/investigations/2016/07/27/golf-courses-and-chemical-companies-target-environmental-laws/87400716/
-
Bound to Silence by Politics, State Regulators Plan Quietly
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Meetings of state electricity regulators have for years been dominated by conversations about how to cut greenhouse gas levels under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
But at a conference here of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners this week, mentions of the federal climate change rule were few and far between.
More than five months since the Supreme Court halted implementation of the rule, a majority of states are no longer actively talking through compliance options. And regulators from those states don't want to disrespect the wishes of their political leaders by speaking about the Clean Power Plan publicly, several commissioners noted.
"There's a split within NARUC, within the states," said Philip Jones, a member of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. "Some states can talk. Some states cannot talk openly."
Jones said that as a result, broad discussions have gone from "about 50 or 60 miles per hour to 5 miles per hour."
That means multi-state talks that could decide the direction of the power industry are on hold.
But at the same time, electric and air officials are still looking at modeling and taking meetings with utilities and advocates, according to multiple industry insiders who spoke on and off the record. They're just doing it quietly.
"You don't want to get cross-wise with the elected officials in your state," said Joe Nipper, senior vice president of the American Public Power Association. "But as a matter of prudency, if it is sustained, we should be using this time to some extent to do some planning."
Talks came 'screeching to a halt'
The Supreme Court issued its stay of the rule in February, just days before the last NARUC meeting.
"We all had spent the previous NARUC talking about the Clean Power Plan," said Nancy Lange, a Minnesota regulator who moderated the only panel on the rule at this week's meeting. "That all kind of came screeching to a halt both within our national conversations as regulators and certainly within some of our states."
Some state regulators say the slowdown is for the best. They note that a Donald Trump presidential administration could try to take the Clean Power Plan apart or the courts could order EPA to make big changes to the rule. They would rather wait and see how that turns out.
But others worry that they're wasting valuable time. If not for the stay, they say, states now would be laying out their initial plans and setting a foundation for concrete compliance talks.
A main way utilities expect to meet the Clean Power Plan goals is to use a carbon trading system -- where companies that have not cut emissions enough can buy allowances from companies that are ahead of the game.
In that system, some states like Washington would have extra allowances. But states with utilities that need to buy allowances are no longer at the table.
"We really need to be talking to Montana and Utah ... and other states around the country," Jones said.
Those states, however, can't talk. "That's the political atmosphere in their states, either through the governor or the legislature," Jones said.
So green states instead are putting their resources toward their own plans to cut carbon.
"We're focused on the strategies of decarbonizing our economy and not on speculating what the D.C. Circuit and ultimately what the Supreme Court's going to do," said Joshua Epel, chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
In Washington state, officials are working out a plan to cap and reduce carbon levels.
"Our states are going to do this anyway," Jones said. "I'm not thinking about whether or not I'm going to get credit for this with EPA in a rule published in 2018."
A case of 'CPP fatigue'
Travis Kavulla, NARUC president and a Montana regulator, said details of how states might comply with the Clean Power Plan are "not really worth a full, daylong explanation" at this point.
"Frankly, the more consequential questions really are acts of political discretion," Kavulla said. "I don't expect those to resume until the stay is lifted."
There's also a certain amount of "CPP fatigue," according to Scott Rupp, a member of the Missouri Public Service Commission.
"We don't want to talk about it anymore," Rupp said, responding to a Twitter post.
Regulators largely didn't have to this week, although they did spend time trying to resolve daunting questions about the future of a lower-carbon power industry.
They debated the merits of net metering -- a policy that was meant to incentivize rooftop solar power but has some utilities complaining it undermines their business model (EnergyWire, July 27).
They heard from Exelon Corp. CEO Chris Crane, who said nuclear power needs a carbon price to compete with natural gas, solar and wind and continue offering its environmental benefits to the grid (ClimateWire, July 26).
And they listened to the usual presentations calling for more funding for research into carbon capture and sequestration, as some states still hope for a way forward for their coal industries.
In their everyday jobs, though, state regulators cannot avoid the specter of the Clean Power Plan.
Even with it on hold, utilities in many states are filing their long-term plans for how much they will invest in renewable power versus fossil fuels. Those plans come in sweeping, regularly updated documents called integrated resource plans (IRPs).
Appalachian Power Co. included thoughts on the Clean Power Plan in its recent IRP draft for Virginia regulators, said Scott Weaver, manager of strategic policy analysis for the utility's parent company, American Electric Power Co. Inc.
Two Indiana utilities that have touched on the rule in their recent IRP presentations assume that a national carbon policy will go into effect in 2023 or 2024, depending on how much extra time they expect states to get if the courts uphold the rule.
Power companies don't have the luxury of assuming that the Clean Power Plan or a similar regulation won't move forward, Nipper noted. He said the municipal utilities his group works with are "taking advantage of the break to do more assessment."
He said they're also counting on the time for the economics of shifting from coal to greener power to improve.
For example, the single panel at NARUC on the Clean Power Plan highlighted recent modeling that showed the country is increasingly on track to meet the rule's carbon requirements, although some states aren't as well-positioned as others.
The Bipartisan Policy Center presented data showing that because of lower-than-expected natural gas prices, lower renewable power costs and extended federal tax credits for renewable power, the country as a whole is set to meet the early goals of the rule. A study released today by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions has similar findings (EnergyWire, July 27).
"While regulatory decisions to go forward and to stop have been made, the world spins on," Lange said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/07/27/stories/1060040843
-
Study Finds 'Relatively Inexpensive' State Compliance Costs
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
The nationwide cost to states for compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will be "relatively inexpensive, with cost increases of 0.1% to 1.0%," according to new modeling released today by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.
That modest increase in costs to consumers is attributed to the "electricity industry's already-underway shift from coal-fired generation to natural gas and renewables generation," said Martin Ross, senior research economist and the lead author of the 73-page report.
But the report, "Ongoing Evolution of the Electricity Industry: Effects of Market Conditions and the Clean Power Plan on States," cautions that costs could be highly variable from state to state depending on policy choices made on compliance and whether those choices would complement or conflict with neighboring states.
"The devil is in the details or rather in how many states choose the same details for their Clean Power Plan compliance," Ross said.
A "patchwork" of state policies could evolve that reflects "how states, acting in their own best interests, may choose policy options that are either comparable to, or dissimilar from, their neighbors' options," and while the options may "allow states to achieve local benefits, they may increase the total costs of supplying electricity to the grid," Ross said.
The report looks at how the utility sector may respond to ongoing trends with or without the Clean Power Plan.
One such trend is the shift on generation from a majority coal-based mix in 2000 to inexpensive and plentiful natural-gas-fired power.
"Low gas prices could lead to significant declines in emissions, compared with today's levels, over the next decade and could even reduce emissions below the CPP mass goals for a number of years," the report said.
But even with the shift to gas and renewables, coal-fired power plants in 2030 will be providing 34 percent of the nation's electricity, Ross said, "not much higher than that today."
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that coal will account for 30.2 percent of electricity generation in 2016.
Ross' team used a model of its own design, the Dynamic Integrated Economy/Energy/Emissions Model, which includes a detailed electricity dispatch model of U.S. wholesale electricity markets that looks at intermediate to long-run decisions on generation, transmission and capacity planning.
The model analyzes several compliance scenarios. Like other studies on the subject, it found that a mass-based approach that would cap the total tons of carbon the power sector in a state could emit each year would raise costs to consumers the least, approximately 0.5 percent.
"The exact sort of split of who actually ends up bearing the costs will depend on the regulatory structure" in a state, Ross said.
"The answer is not the same for everyone in terms of what's going to be the least-cost way for a particular state to approach this policy. Nationally, it would make the most sense to have a broadly coordinated policy where you can take advantage of the usual economic [tools] to spread the cost reductions around and pick up the most cost-effective sources for reducing emissions," Ross said.
For some states, it's fairly clear what their best option is, but "for other states there is not necessarily a single answer in terms of what they should do because they'll have to take a look at what their neighbors are doing and figure out the best way to coordinate to get the lowest-cost regional result," Ross said.
Next up for the Nicholas Institute could be a revision of today's report if EPA offers "revised guidance on the model rules or federal plan that changes any of these targets," Ross said.
More broadly, the nonpartisan organization might move on to looking more broadly at options for carbon taxes, he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/27/stories/1060040834
-
Hot-Button Bakken Project Advances
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
The Army Corps of Engineers laid the groundwork yesterday for a $3.8 billion pipeline from the Bakken Shale play that has drawn a mixture of enthusiastic support and furious opposition from landowners and businesses along its path.
In a letter to the Iowa Utilities Board this week, the corps set three dozen conditions under which the Dakota Access pipeline, which is about 1,170 miles long, may proceed.
Among the agency's goals are protections for the Indiana bat, an endangered species, and wetlands along the pipeline route.
The 30-inch pipeline would ship crude from the Three Forks production region in North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to a oil market hub near Patoka, Ill.
Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners already has permits from the Iowa Utilities Board and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Activists who fought the Keystone XL pipeline are now fighting the Dakota project. They faulted President Obama for not stopping the pipeline.
"I'm disappointed in the corps but even more disappointed in President Obama, who has the power to stop this pipeline yet has done nothing," Bold Iowa Director Ed Fallon said in a statement. "When the president sees hundreds of us getting arrested, standing side-by-side with our landowner and tribal allies as we block construction of the pipeline, then maybe he'll do something."
Bold Iowa joined Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI) to fight the pipeline. Cherie Mortice, CCI's board president, said the decision wasn't a surprise. "It has been 'business as usual' for Iowa and federal regulators -- putting corporate interests ahead of the common good and our land," she said in a statement.
The groups said they plan to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at stopping construction of the project.
But the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now -- businesses, labor unions and agricultural interests in Iowa -- welcomed the corps' letter.
"As a local farmer, I have long supported construction of this project and am pleased that today it becomes a reality," said Ed Wiederstein, the chairman of the MAIN coalition. "The agriculture industry, in particular, relies on affordable, easy-to-access energy, and the Dakota Access project will provide value for decades to come for the thousands of farmers across our region."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/07/27/stories/1060040866
-
Republicans Push Back on Interior Methane Leak Plan
Jul 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House Republicans want the Interior Department to drop plans to regulate methane emissions on federal lands.
In a Wednesday letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, Republicans said the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lacks the power to regulate emissions from oil and gas drilling wells, and that it should instead work to more quickly approve transmission lines to get natural gas on the market.
“This rule adds another layer of duplicative federal regulation on top of already existing federal and state regulations,” said the letter, led by Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
“The rule oversteps BLM’s regulatory jurisdiction and completely fails to address crucial failures by the BLM to capture methane emissions through common sense methods such as timely right-of-way permitting. For these reasons, we urge the agency to withdraw this misguided effort.”
The Interior Department released new methane standards for oil and natural gas drilling on federal land in January, looking to restrict accidental or deliberate methane leaks at sites and restricting the burning, or flaring, of gas that isn’t captured there.
The rule is part of a government-wide effort to restrict leaks of methane, the main component of natural gas and a powerful greenhouse gas.
Opponents of the effort, including Republicans and the drilling industry, say drillers have done a good job of restricting emissions on their own, and that they have a financial incentive to capture as much methane as they can by delivering natural gas to market. Republicans’ call for quicker permitting of transmission lines is a component of that argument.
“BLM should continue to work collaboratively to drive more innovative technologies that build upon existing methane emissions decreases, while also promulgating common sense reforms to address the ongoing delays that plague the current right-of-way permitting process,” the Republicans wrote.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/289439-republicans-push-back-on-interior-methane-leak-plan
-
Personal Injury Complaint Filed in N.Y. Over Teflon Chemical
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
A Hoosick Falls, N.Y., resident has filed the first personal injury complaint related to drinking water contamination in the Northeastern village.
James Donavan is suing two manufacturers of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), claiming the contamination of the Hoosick Falls aquifer with the chemical triggered his ulcerative colitis, a potential precursor to colon cancer.
Donavan, who says his health took a turn for the worse in 2011, is asking for $2.5 million in relief to compensate for medical costs, the decrease in property value, and pain and suffering associated with his illness.
The companies' failure to properly manage the waste "amounts to an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation to prevent harm to others," according to the complaint.
A New York judge also issued the briefing schedule today for a separate class action lawsuit by Hoosick Falls residents against the companies.
The link to ulcerative colitis is based on peer-reviewed studies from the C8 Science Panel, a group of scientists studying the health effects of PFOA exposure in communities around the Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, W.Va. The plant is owned by chemical giant Dupont.
The complaint is being brought against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and Honeywell International Inc., manufacturers of the chemical to make Teflon, the nonstick substance used to coat pans and clothing.
There's no legal standard limiting PFOA in drinking water, but the chemical has been linked to health problems -- organ damage, cancer and birth defects -- in laboratory animals.
U.S. EPA issued a health advisory in May to guide water systems in limiting concentrations of PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in drinking water to 70 parts per trillion.
Hoosick Falls, population 3,500, is just one of several towns in the Northeast battling a legacy of contamination. EPA sent a letter to the Hoosick Falls mayor in November 2015 recommending that the village switch to an alternative drinking water source. But state and county officials knew about the contamination as early as August 2014, according to recent letters from the House Oversight Committee.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/07/27/stories/1060040875
-
Oil Trains Fade Out Amid Crude Slump, Pipeline Expansion
Jul 27, 2016 | E&E Energywire
The oil train boom is waning. The demand for the haulers started falling quickly after oil prices were crushed two years ago and may not pick up again. The oil and rail industry says some of the decline came from a drop in U.S. oil production, but more is from the rise of pipelines.
Safety concerns also contributed to the decline. The derailment in Lac Mégantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people in 2013, had prompted regulators to mandate new safer tank cars to replace the old ones, adding to costs of transporting oil by train.
Many oil companies have opted to add pipelines, a cheaper way to move oil from shale region to market. Some companies even say their pipeline capacity is coming online to replace all of the current volume of oil production.
The recently announced partnership between oil company Phillips 66 Co. and pipeline firm Energy Transfer Partners LP is estimated to bring enough space to carry all Bakken oil through pipelines.
Oil trains are also competing against tanker ships carrying foreign crude after the United States lifted the export ban on oil. Analysts say rail deliveries are likely to fall even further in the coming months.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/27/stories/1060040828
-
Climate Change Comes to the DNC
Jul 27, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
DNC TO BRING STAR POWER TO CLIMATE CHANGE: Climate change will move to center stage at the Democrat National Convention tonight in the form of a 5-1/2 minute movie directed by James Cameron and Maria Wilhelm, narrated by Sigourney Weaver (who will present the film at the convention), and featuring at least a few Hollywood stars, including Don Cheadle, Jack Black, and America Ferrara. The film highlights the threats from the changing climate, citing the impacts from super storm Sandy and Midwestern drought. It also takes aim at Trump's disdain for the science of climate change, and, of course, contrasting it with Clinton's calls for action.
Mr. Hillary Clinton takes the podium: Former President Bill Clinton anchored last night's events, and he delivered a few references to climate change. He highlighted Hillary's efforts at the U.N. conference in Copenhagen in 2009 to hammer out an agreement, saying, "She put climate change at the center of our foreign policy." Then later he tried to make an appeal to West Virginia coal miners (and Pennsylvania and Ohio coal miners, by proxy) and walk back Hillary's ill-fated "put coal companies out of business" remarks during the primary by arguing that she's looking out for their future. "She sent me in this primary to West Virginia, where she knew we were going to lose, to look those coal miners in the eye and say, ‘I’m down here because Hillary sent me to tell you that if you really think you can get the economy back you had 50 years ago, have at it, vote for whoever you want to," he said. "'But if she wins, she is coming back for you to take you along for a ride to America’s future.’”
Dems in green: The party’s climate change stalwarts came out in force for an afternoon cocktails-and-canapés event hosted by the League of Conservation Voters, Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate, the Sierra Club, the NRDC Action Fund and Environment and Clean Tech for Hillary. Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta spoke, as did Katie McGinty, who is trying to unseat Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, and former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who's hoping to beat Sen. Rob Portman. In his remarks, Strickland bragged that he was being targeted by oil magnates David and Charles Koch, saying they had spent $34 million against him. Among the lawmakers working the room were Sens. Ben Cardin, Ed Markey, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, and Richard Blumenthal, as well as Reps. Frank Pallone, Peter Welch, Jan Schakowsky, and Jim Langevin.
Keeping up with the climate hawks: ME spotted EPA chief Gina McCarthy, who politely declined questions, and former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who’s now challenging Republican Rep. David Jolly in one of the year’s hardest-fought House contests. When ME asked if the GOP could come to the table and start negotiating with Democrats on emissions cuts in coming years, Crist was optimistic — in a way. “One can only hope,” he said. “I don’t know is the honest answer. ... Lord only knows what the Republican party is going to look like after this election.”
SIERRA CLUB WALKS WITH A KAINE: Hillary Clinton's selection of Sen. Tim Kaine as a running mate was greeted warmly by many environmentalists, although at least a few — Climate Hawks Vote comes to mind – were unenthused. But in a Q&A with Pro’s Elana Schor, Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, tried to reassure those with a lukewarm reaction, saying, "Tim Kaine is a smart and principled man," and praising his early opposition to Keystone XL pipeline and his work in Virginia. Brune is also optimistic that a Clinton presidency would provide opportunities to achieve more greenhouse gas emissions cuts than she's currently outlined. "The reality of climate change is that we need continuing, escalating ambition from all elected officials" he said. "We do expect that two years, three years, four years into a Clinton presidency, we would see opportunities for accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy that may not be visible now."
CARBON TAX? DID SOMEONE SAY CARBON TAX? If Hillary Clinton wins the election, she might be open to a carbon tax if Congress were to send her a bill, Clinton campaign chair Podesta said Wednesday. As Elana reports from Philly, Podesta said that Clinton thinks she can make deep cuts to carbon emissions using existing authority, but a carbon tax might be of interest. The comment could be a nod to recalcitrant supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has called for a price on carbon. "Right now we've not proposed a carbon tax," Podesta told reporters. "We believe we can get the job done. But if Congress wants to come forward with one, we'll take a look at it."
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/07/climate-change-comes-to-the-dnc-215551
-
Utilities Outline Legal Attacks On EPA MACT Cost Review
Jul 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
Power companies are outlining their legal attacks on EPA's final supplemental cost review that the agency says justifies its prior decision that it was necessary to issue its utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule, arguing that the finding is flawed because EPA failed to consider several major factors.
Murray Energy and ARIPPA -- a group of electric generating plants -- filed July 25 non-binding statements of issuesoutlining the claims they intend to raise in pending consolidated litigation filed by several utilities over the agency's supplemental cost review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The final cost review released April 15 says “a consideration of cost does not cause us to change our determination” that the utility MACT -- also known as the mercury and air toxics standards -- is “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act. EPA justified the costs of the regulation first with its qualitative approach that touts the benefits of cutting air pollution without assigning values to those reductions.
The finding also includes a quantitative cost-benefit rationale for the “appropriate and necessary” conclusion that touts the dollar values of health benefits associated with reducing air pollution -- including co-benefits of cutting pollutants not covered by the rule that were in EPA's regulatory impact analysis for the rule.
However, utilities in their statements of issues say that the cost assessment is arbitrary and capricious -- the standard for seeking D.C. Circuit vacatur of a rule -- because it ignored several important factors.
For example, Murray Energy in its statement says the finding is “nothing more than a cursory examination of a limited amount of data” that does not satisfy the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling from last year in Michigan v. EPA that faulted the agency for not considering costs when it first decided to craft the utility MACT. The court remanded litigation over the rule to the D.C. Circuit, and EPA then developed the cost finding in response.
Murray Energy says the agency failed to consider a host of factors that should have influenced the review, including: Available alternatives to regulating emissions from power plants with a MACT, cost-effectiveness of using the air law's section 112 MACT program to regulate power plant emissions, the “significant” cost imposed on states and local governments by the rule, downstream economic impacts, and several other factors.
Similarly, ARIPPA in its statement says EPA's cost review is flawed because it ignored various important data including by failing to distinguish between coal refuse-fired circulating fluidized bed boilers and traditional coal- and oil-fired units when assessing the costs of compliance with the rule.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested