Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 8/4/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Connecticut NWRA Chapter Shares Concerns About State's Waste Reduction Plan
Aug 4, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
The Connecticut chapter of the National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA) has offered comment on the state's new Comprehensive Materials Management Strategy to increase diversion rates. -
(ACC Blog) Our Tiny House Hits the Road with a Big Message on Energy Efficiency
Aug 4, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
Last year our Plastics Make it Possible® campaign built a tiny house to demonstrate the role plastic building materials play in increasing energy efficiency. -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Work Plan Methodology to Inform Prioritisation Rule
Aug 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The process by which the US EPA identified work plan chemicals will inform its new prioritisation rule under a modernised TSCA. But industry groups and NGOs are already saying they want changes made in the early rulemaking. -
TSCA Law Will Require EPA To Revise Draft Reviews For Some Chemicals
Aug 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law grants EPA flexibility to pursue regulatory action on several chemicals for which it has completed a risk assessment under its 2014 Work Plan, but chemicals for which the risk assessment is not finalized would have to conform to the new scope of the updated law, officials say.] -
Chemical Industry Vows To Scrutinize Future EPA TSCA Rule For CBI Claims
Aug 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The chemical industry will be closely watching as EPA begins implementing the lengthy confidential business information (CBI) provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law, including a planned rule for reviewing and substantiating CBI claims made by companies, to see what type of criteria the agency will apply and other factors. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Praise PSM Interpretation Document
Aug 4, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sam Pearson
Changes to an interpretation document that will remove broad language on what concentrations of a chemical trigger inclusion under the Process Safety Management program will result in greater regulatory certainty for chemical producers and distributors, industry groups said. -
As Obama's Climate Rule Turns 1, Markets and Politics Diverge
Aug 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
In the year since U.S. EPA unveiled its Clean Power Plan, the American electricity sector has outpaced all expectations about how quickly it can shift away from coal. -
California Releases Draft Carbon Rule Compliance Plan
Aug 3, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Alex Guillen
California on Tuesday became the first state to release a proposal to comply with the Clean Power Plan, saying in a lengthy document that the Golden State’s existing cap-and-trade program would largely cover the requirements. -
Why We Must Move from Cyber Response to Cyber Prevention
Aug 4, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Orion Hindawi
The presidential directive on cyber security the White House released last week officially codified a unified cyber incident response plan which mimics what those inside the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have been doing ad hoc over many years. -
Making the Switch to a More Competitive Freight Rail Industry
Aug 4, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jennifer Hedrick
Both Democrats and Republicans underscored the importance of a strong national transportation network when they rolled out their political platforms. -
EPA Sends Ozone Enforcement Plan to OMB
Aug 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A U.S. EPA blueprint for implementing ozone standards the agency adopted in October is now under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget, according to the online federal regulatory clearinghouse Reginfo.gov. -
EPA Launches Suite Of 'Residual Risk' Air Rulemakings
Aug 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is pursuing a suite of rulemakings to asses the “residual risk” of various industrial air toxics sources years after the implementation of air toxics standards for the sectors, planning in the coming months to issue proposed residual risk rules for industries, including ethylene production and iron and steel manufacturing.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Connecticut NWRA Chapter Shares Concerns About State's Waste Reduction Plan
Aug 4, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
UPDATE: The Connecticut chapter of the National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA) has offered comment on the state's new Comprehensive Materials Management Strategy to increase diversion rates. While the chapter supports DEEP's goals to develop new recycling technologies, increase waste-to-energy efforts, and improve diversion programs and awareness across the board, it still has concerns. The chapter worries "the assumption of cost savings or cost avoidance by increasing recycling as outlined in the plan places achieving those goals at risk," as written in a statement.
Mike Paine, NWRA Connecticut Chapter chairman, wrote: "Our industry statewide is on the front lines of helping customers reduce the amount of waste they dispose through source reduction, recycling and other efforts, however, based on our real-world experience in the market, the annual savings will be substantially below the $25 million the DEEP is suggesting ... The DEEP's savings projections do not adequately factor in the cost of collecting, processing, and managing the new amounts of recyclables and food scraps and other types of organic waste."
Paine asks that officials understand the "true economics" of recycling markets and suggests that the DEEP look to the NWRA chapter for financial insight and guidance on such environmental goals.
Dive Brief:
Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has released a new Comprehensive Materials Management Strategy to help meet its existing goal of 60% diversion by 2024. The state's diversion rate is currently around 35%. According to DEEP, if residents continue to generate an average 3.5 pounds of waste per day then disposal costs could rise by $25 million per year. Proposed solutions include increased enforcement of municipal waste ordinances, more emphasis on waste reduction, extended producer responsibility requirements, and more recycling of construction and demolition waste.
Dive Insight:
Since the state set its 60% diversion goal in 2014, the path forward has proven more challenging than expected. A 2015 waste characterization study found that food waste tonnage had increased since 2010 despite previous legislation encouraging organics diversion. DEEP estimates that 40% of the state's waste is organic material and this presents a major area for improvement.
On a positive note, Connecticut claims to have the lowest landfill rate of any state, which it achieves by using waste-to-energy facilities for 87% of refuse. The amount of paper, metal, and plastic also decreased since 2015. DEEP also recently announced a partnership with the American Chemistry Council's Flexible Film Recycling Group to boost plastic film recycling which will help tackle the 44% of materials in the waste stream that aren't currently recoverable through traditional systems.
As seen recently in California, where the diversion rate has dipped, even the most ambitious programs can still be affected by outside factors. By outlining new strategies for change and calling for new investment in infrastructure, Connecticut is moving in the right direction, but it will still be tough to see the desired jump in diversion rates if recycling markets don't improve.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/update-connecticut-nwra-chapter-shares-concerns-about-states-waste-reduct/423406/
-
(ACC Blog) Our Tiny House Hits the Road with a Big Message on Energy Efficiency
Aug 4, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
Last year our Plastics Make it Possible® campaign built a tiny house to demonstrate the role plastic building materials play in increasing energy efficiency. We unveiled the house at the California Science Center in LA, where more than 25,000 visitors saw it firsthand. This year, we decided to take a road trip and took the tiny house to the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh, PA.
In the few months it’s been at the Carnegie Science Center, the house has been a big hit. Visitors are impressed and who wouldn’t be? The tiny house features a wide range of plastic building materials that help make the house so energy efficient, including:
Spray polyurethane foam insulation, which expands to seal corners and cracks in walls and attics.
Extruded polystyrene foam, which provides additional insulation beneath the tiny house’s floor.
Water-resistant plastic caulking and sealants, which helps fill gaps around pipes, air ducts, and other places where outside air can enter a house.
Solar power shingles, which use the sun to generate energy for the house.
Vinyl siding and trim, which provide an additional barrier between indoors and out.
All these materials work together to create a “building envelope” that creates a continuous barrier between the house and outside elements, including heat, cold, air, water, light, and noise.
Another great thing about these plastic building materials? They can help reduce energy consumption in any size house – you don’t need to live in a 200-square-foot house to reap the energy efficiency benefits of plastics.
The house is on display at the Carnegie Science Center through September 11. Where is the tiny house going next? We’re not sure yet, but we do know that no matter the terrain or climate of the house’s next stop, the house will be able to efficiently weather the elements…all thanks to building products made possible by plastics.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/08/our-tiny-house-hits-the-road-with-a-big-message-on-energy-efficiency/
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Work Plan Methodology to Inform Prioritisation Rule
Aug 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The process by which the US EPA identified work plan chemicals will inform its new prioritisation rule under a modernised TSCA. But industry groups and NGOs are already saying they want changes made in the early rulemaking.
Under the recently adopted Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA), the EPA is required to develop several framework actions within the law's first year. These include a rule for how the agency will prioritise substances for the purpose of risk evaluations.
The EPA told Chemical Watch that the current TSCA Work Plan process "will certainly inform the prioritisation rule".
The agency intends to propose a rule by mid-December 2016. It says it is open to feedback prior to that, including at a 10 August public meeting on the rulemaking.
Steering the rule
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) told Chemical Watch that prioritisation of chemicals for risk evaluations is "a critical element" of modernising the US chemical regulatory system. And, it says it supports the new law's establishment of a "transparent, risk-based screening process to identify chemicals that are most in need of a thorough risk evaluation".
But in recent months – prior to the adoption of the LCSA – the ACC and other groups raised concerns about how the EPA developed its work plan chemicals list.
The ACC recognises that the work plan chemicals prioritisation methodology will inform the agency's development of a prioritisation process under the new law. Consequently, it says some important modifications will be needed to reflect the new law's requirements. These, it says should include:incorporation of updated, best available scientific information;increased transparency;early engagement by stakeholders on the EPA's proposed priorities; andopportunities for public review and comment.
NGOs will also take part in the rulemaking process. Speaking in a recent webinar, Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, says "there already are, and will be, many opportunities for independent scientists and others to engage with EPA and other stakeholders to interpret [the law]" and influence the decisions that get made.
"There're too many examples in the past where interested parties … have turned their back on implementation after passage of the law", he says.
"And oftentimes the gains at the policy level in the legislation are significantly undermined during the implementation process".
Not starting from scratch
Steve Owens, a principal at law firm Squire Patton Boggs and a former assistant administrator of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, told Chemical Watch that the "EPA has benefited from already having gone through the effort to develop the work plan chemicals list".
The agency won't be starting from scratch, he said, as it has already given lots of thought to criteria for prioritisation, how to gather the necessary data, and other considerations.
"They have a good idea of what they need and what they will want to have in front of them when they start," he said.
Josh Bloom, a principal at law firm Meyers Nave, says the Lautenberg Act is "a little more prescribed" than some other major environmental legislation, such as the Clean Air Act. But while more prescriptive, "that's not to say that there won’t be difference in interpretation".
The law, he says, gives the EPA "parameters of what they have to consider and include when they're putting the rule together". But it could beg such questions as how the agency considered those items, and why certain considerations did or did not end up in a rule, he adds.
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to complete the rulemaking by 22 June 2017 – one year following its adoption.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48975/tsca-work-plan-methodology-to-inform-prioritisation-rule
-
TSCA Law Will Require EPA To Revise Draft Reviews For Some Chemicals
Aug 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law grants EPA flexibility to pursue regulatory action on several chemicals for which it has completed a risk assessment under its 2014 Work Plan, but chemicals for which the risk assessment is not finalized would have to conform to the new scope of the updated law, officials say.]
Section 26(p) in the new law grants EPA flexibility to proceed to section 6 risk management actions for chemicals for which it has completed a risk evaluation without having to revise the analysis to fit the parameters of the new law.
TSCA officials announced during a June 30 webinar to discuss the law, which took effect June 22, that EPA "anticipates" launching rulemakings under section 6(a) of the new law to restrict or prohibit manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use or disposal for two chemicals listed in its 2014 TSCA work plan. The two chemicals are methylene chloride in paint stripper and the controversial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in spot cleaners and degreasing agents.
Under the new TSCA law, EPA's first 10 chemicals to undergo risk review must be drawn from the work plan, and those chemicals must be listed within 180 days of the law's June 22 effective date. EPA must as well within three and a half years of enactment slate at least 20 chemicals for assessment, with half of those stemming from the Work Plan issued in 2014.
TCE was once commonly used, but is facing increasing phaseouts and regulatory actions after the agency linked it to fetal cardiac birth defects in a 2011 risk assessment. EPA in April published a rule limiting some uses of TCE in consumer products, and is developing a separate action to restrict the chemical in spray degreasing activities.
EPA plans to issue the TCE and methylene chloride proposed rules by the end of this year and final rules in late 2017, according to its first-year implementation plan, released June 29.
Under the new law, EPA evaluates whether a chemical "presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use."
With chemicals for which EPA has completed a risk assessment prior to the law's effective date, "the narrowness of the risk evaluation doesn't preclude" EPA from advancing to a section 6 rulemaking, EPA toxics chief Jim Jones toldInside EPA on the sidelines of a June 14 Environmental Law Institute panel on TSCA reform.
But for chemicals where the risk assessment is ongoing or still in draft form, such as 1-bromopropane, 1-,4-dioxane, and other substances, EPA would likely have to initiate a risk evaluation under the language in section 6 of the revised law to accommodate the changes, such as assessing risks to susceptible subpopulations and evaluating conditions of use.
"If we haven't finalized [the risk assessment] those chemicals are to go through all the bells and whistles with section 6" under the new law, Jones said. On prior-initiated evaluations, the law says, nothing in the law prevents EPA from initiating, continuing, or completing a risk evaluation prior to the effective date of the policies, procedures, and guidance that will be developed under the law.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/tsca-law-will-require-epa-revise-draft-reviews-some-chemicals
-
Chemical Industry Vows To Scrutinize Future EPA TSCA Rule For CBI Claims
Aug 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The chemical industry will be closely watching as EPA begins implementing the lengthy confidential business information (CBI) provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law, including a planned rule for reviewing and substantiating CBI claims made by companies, to see what type of criteria the agency will apply and other factors.
EPA is planning to issue a final rule for reviewing and substantiating CBI claims under the new law one year after its planned inventory reset of active chemicals reported to TSCA under section 8, and has in its June 29 implementation plan outlined steps for immediately implementing the new provisions, including reviewing all new CBI claims within 90 days for chemical identities and review of at least 25 percent of new claims for other types of information. The agency expects to issue an approach for routine reviews by mid-July.
The 66-page law, which took effect June 22, includes roughly 11 pages detailing changes to how EPA manages CBI, much of which is aimed at protecting information that would automatically be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, amended after the 1976 TSCA law was passed.
The new language largely retains old TSCA's section 14(b) to clarify that EPA is not prohibited from disclosing health and safety studies but that some information, such as chemical identifies, i.e. names, formulas and structures, should be protected from disclosure if they reveal process information.
Additionally, the new law would require EPA to substantiate CBI claims upon assertion, and set a time frame of 10 years for when such claims would expire unless the agency specifically re-substantiates them. EPA has in recent years more actively reviewed CBI claims under TSCA, but was not statutorily mandated to do so under the old law, and those claims were not subject to time limits.
The statutory language on how EPA must substantiate claims is "somewhat prescriptive," one industry source says, adding that the "provision has a lot of detail" including that EPA must have a "reasonable basis to believe that the information does not qualify for protection from disclosure" and that a rulemaking would likely adhere closely to the statute. "I don't think it will be overly burdensome for industry to meet," that source adds.
CBI Claims
A GOP congressional aide says that EPA historically has not substantiated claims, but rather would protect information routinely when industry submitted a CBI claims, thought the agency's policy has been to not allow masking of health and safety information as part of CBI.
The revisions are significant, although they do not require a change to the standard companies must meet, Sara Beth Watson, of Steptoe & Johnson said during a July 12 webinar hosted by the law firm on "What Does TSCA Reform Mean to You?" "The standard has not changed, it's the process, having to come forward and re-substantiate" with information to verify that the company has kept the data confidential and that it properly qualifies as a trade secret, she said.
"EPA has been looking at CBI [more closely] for awhile now but this would really require a wholesale review" by the agency of all existing CBI claims from companies, Watson added.
A second industry source says, "Some of the issues we'll likely be focused on with regard to the proposed rule are how much time does the proposal give regulated parties to substantiate prior claims, and what criteria will EPA apply in reviewing CBI claims," That source adds that the statute is pretty specific on CBI, but that it will be important to see if the agency "attempts to impose any new definitions or procedural requirements" on parties making CBI claims.
In a June 7 statement of legislative intent signed by Senate Democrats, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Edward Markey (MA), Tom Udall (NM), and Jeff Merkley (OR) say that because current EPA practice is to "promptly make public information that is no longer protected against disclosure, we see no difference or distinction in meaning between the language in" the new law and the earlier version, and "expect EPA to continue its current practice of affirmatively making public information that is not or no longer protected from disclosure as expeditiously as possible."
In a June 7 Republican analysis, Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and James Inhofe (R-OK), say that the changes to section 14(b) are "not limiting" and intended to clarify that any other information that would reveal trade secret processes is similarly protected. In other cases involving confidential chemical identities, EPA should continue to strike an appropriate balance between protection of proprietary CBI or trade secrets, and ensuring public access to health and safety information.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/chemical-industry-vows-scrutinize-future-epa-tsca-rule-cbi-claims
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Praise PSM Interpretation Document
Aug 4, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sam Pearson
Changes to an interpretation document that will remove broad language on what concentrations of a chemical trigger inclusion under the Process Safety Management program will result in greater regulatory certainty for chemical producers and distributors, industry groups said.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration posted a revised interpretation document July 22. The document was signed July 18.
The changes came under a settlement in a lawsuit filed over the interpretation memo (Am. Chemistry Council v. OSHA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-01252,8/3/15).
Industry groups criticized the document, “Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals and Covered Concentrations of Listed Appendix A Chemicals,” as burdensome and overly broad.
The previous memo would have overturned “all prior policy documents, letters of interpretation, and memoranda” related to the former policy. In comparison, the new memo leaves in place existing PSM exemptions for hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride in aqueous solutions or aqueous mixtures.
That means that widely used chemicals such as anhydrous ammonia, hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid will not be covered under PSM when used in these solutions or mixtures.
The earlier proposal would have been disruptive to industry, Jennifer Gibson, the vice president of regulatory affairs at the National Association of Chemical Distributors, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 3.
“Our members were very alarmed about this,” Gibson said. She added the change presented a “huge burden with no corresponding benefit in safety.”
Concern Over ‘Prescriptive' Regs
A related enforcement memo, “RAGAGEP in Process Safety Management Enforcement,” also contained overbroad language, Michele Schoeppe, the assistant general counsel at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 3.
The memo defined OSHA's interpretation of enforcement of recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices under the PSM program.
Schoeppe pointed to wording that would have required documenting the inspection and testing of “covered process equipment and equipment whose operation could affect that process equipment.”
OSHA removed the language in a revision issued in May in response to a different industry suit (Am. Petroleum Insti. v. DOL, D.C. Cir., No. 15-01253, 8/13/15).
That wording was “so broad,” Schoeppe said, and prompted questions from member firms.
In addition, OSHA agreed not to cite employers for violating the chemical concentration memo until March 31, 2017. After that, employers will receive compliance assistance and will not be cited if they are making a good faith effort to comply until March 31, 2018.
The groups plan to file public comments discouraging OSHA from including similar changes in the ongoing Process Safety Management rulemaking (RIN: 1218-AC82), said ACC spokesman Scott Jensen.
http://news.bna.com/osln/OSLNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95087894&vname=oshnotallissues&fn=95087894&split=0#95087894
-
As Obama's Climate Rule Turns 1, Markets and Politics Diverge
Aug 4, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
In the year since U.S. EPA unveiled its Clean Power Plan, the American electricity sector has outpaced all expectations about how quickly it can shift away from coal.
Utilities, especially those that are investor-owned, have moved rapidly, driven by a combination of lower gas and renewable power prices, state mandates, federal tax incentives, customer demands and their own corporate efforts to address climate change (EnergyWire, Feb. 11).
A new market reality has emerged — one that is starkly different from when President Obama announced his landmark climate effort on Aug. 3, 2015.
"The trend toward investment in renewables and energy efficiency is unfolding all around us," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a blog post yesterday celebrating the rule's birthday. It's no accident, she said, that the Clean Power Plan mirrors those private-sector changes.
But while market realities have shifted, political realities have not. Clean power progress is not equal across the board, and, to be sure, some states and companies would have a much harder time meeting EPA's goals than others.
Opposition from coal-reliant companies, Republican-led states and mining interests is as strong as ever.
Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, yesterday hammered the rule for its promise of "higher electric prices and lost jobs." National Mining Association President and CEO Hal Quinn predicted that "in year two of the CPP, more states will appreciate that its costs greatly outweigh any conceivable benefit it provides to the country."
The Clean Power Plan has also not emerged unscathed from court battles. Most states have greatly slowed their planning after a historic Supreme Court order halting the regulation.
Still, dozens of headlines from the past six months suggest EPA and environmental advocates could get a lot of what they want anyway.
"It simply got the ball rolling and focused the regulatory community," said Matt Stanberry, vice president of market development at Advanced Energy Economy. "It made it very clear EPA had authority to regulate carbon and plans to regulate carbon ... it just made it real."
Optimism 'in the face ... of uncertainty'
The Clean Power Plan, although frozen, is on an accelerated path to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral arguments on Sept. 27. The court will skip a step — with all participating judges weighing in rather than a smaller panel of three judges that had been slated to hear the case first in early June.
Ultimately, the fate of the rule could depend on a single tie-breaking Supreme Court justice, who will probably be appointed by the next president.
Meanwhile, the stay has greatly altered the early timeline of the rule. Without it, states would be finalizing their initial plans to submit to EPA in just under a month.
Melissa Kuskie, air policy planner at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, said the stay brought pros and cons.
Minnesota has continued to prepare for the Clean Power Plan, holding regular public meetings about how carbon trading systems might work.
"The negative side of how things have change in the past year, of course, is that things have become more uncertain because of the stay: interstate communications have become more challenging, getting guidance/advice from EPA is a bit harder, trying to plan out rule/plan development schedules and milestones obviously harder," Kuskie said in an email.
"The positive side is that we've [been] given a bit of time to be more thoughtful and deliberative on all of the potential plan elements, and consider more information (modeling, stakeholder input, growth of renewables in the market, etc.) which could have been a bit more challenging if we were all sprinting toward the plan submittal deadline."
Kuskie added that most of that information suggests national compliance with the rule is "much more feasible than some people had worried about just a year ago ... so perhaps there's more optimism, even in the face of all the uncertainty."
At least 20 states have publicly disclosed that they are continuing planning anyway. That includes the nine states that will use the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to comply and California, which yesterday became the first state to release a compliance plan for using its cap-and-trade system to meet EPA's goals (ClimateWire, Aug. 3).
Leaders in about 19 states have said they aren't officially planning, although their power companies say they continue to contemplate strategies to achieve EPA's standards.
Another handful of states are in limbo. Nevada, for example, took a "step back" from compliance preparation, and a task force there is taking a broad look at the state's energy policy.
"There are a set of states continuing to work on this that aren't RGGI or California," Stanberry said, "some of them in formal processes, some of them just staff continuing to work."
Stanberry said that if the stay is lifted, "there should be some interesting models out there."
Pennsylvania and Virginia, for example, are looking at carbon reduction plans. Virginia's Legislature has prohibited the state Department of Environmental Quality from spending money to prepare for the Clean Power Plan, but Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order to develop a state plan to reduce power-sector emissions.
"It's not a CPP plan, but would it help you develop a CPP plan? Yes, absolutely," Stanberry said. It's unlikely either of those states would have undertaken that level of planning without the rule, Stanberry argued.
CPP still centerpiece of U.S. pledge
Even if the country is largely on track to meet the goals of the Clean Power Plan with or without the rule, it still serves as the showpiece of U.S. pledges to the international community. And environmental advocates say it is needed as a foundation for future carbon cuts.
McCarthy spent the second week of last year's climate summit in Paris briefing foreign counterparts on the rule and smoothing fears that a new administration might easily roll it back.
"This rule is going to stand the test of time," McCarthy told ClimateWire in an interview during the conference. She noted that states at the time — even those actively opposing the rule — were preparing to implement it (Greenwire, Dec. 7, 2015).
The United States promised the world in Paris that it would cut greenhouse gas emissions between 26 and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025. The utility-sector rules were offered as the main way the world's largest historic emitter would meet that commitment.
Conference attendees were assured that a future administration would have to pursue a long and arduous process to roll back the rule, while states and the industry would already have taken steps to comply.
When the stay was issued two months after the Paris conference, it threw both the rule and its timeline into doubt. The White House and EPA then shifted tactics, arguing that the United States could meet its Paris pledge through other means, including increased renewable power. Congress unexpectedly passed an extension of renewable energy tax credits in the waning days of last year, giving the renewable energy sector a boost (ClimateWire, Feb. 11).
Regardless of the rule's importance to international negotiations, it remains divisive in American politics even while it is in limbo.
"Like everything else about this rule — its alleged legality, cost-effectiveness, flexibility — the anniversary is bogus," said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"The Supreme Court put a stay on the power on Feb. 9. That means the 'terrible infant' stopped growing in its sixth month and never actually made it to its first birthday," he said.
Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, meanwhile, used the occasion to blast GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and other Republicans for vowing "to end the Clean Power Plan" and prioritizing profits for corporate polluters over protecting American families.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/04/stories/1060041185
-
California Releases Draft Carbon Rule Compliance Plan
Aug 3, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Alex Guillen
California on Tuesday became the first state to release a proposal to comply with the Clean Power Plan, saying in a lengthy document that the Golden State’s existing cap-and-trade program would largely cover the requirements.
The state’s cap-and-trade program, also known as A.B. 32, requires statewide greenhouse gas emissions to return to 1990 levels by 2020. Other state policies, including a renewable portfolio standard and energy efficiency standards, also contribute, CARB said.
That means power plants that are part of the cap-and-trade program would have federally enforceable compliance requirements, if the Clean Power Plan survives in court. Other facilities — such as industrial plants and fuel distributors — will continue to face state enforcement. CARB says it also plans to take up regulatory amendments to extend the state program through at least 2030 in order to comply with the CPP's timeframe.
“As California continues to seek greenhouse gas reductions from the electric power sector, these complementary state programs will help ensure that the State meets and exceeds CPP targets,” CARB wrote.
Though the CPP was stayed by the Supreme Court in February, states are free to work on compliance plans, though they would not be able to submit it to EPA unless the rule is upheld and the stay is lifted, which could take years.
CARB will take public comment through Sept. 19, with a public hearing on Sept. 22, and plans to give final approval to the plan in spring 2017. It was developed alongside the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy#ixzz4GO7KPMMb
-
Why We Must Move from Cyber Response to Cyber Prevention
Aug 4, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Orion Hindawi
The presidential directive on cyber security the White House released last week officially codified a unified cyber incident response plan which mimics what those inside the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have been doing ad hoc over many years. By doing so publicly, the U.S. government is finally acknowledging to the American people that cyber attacks have become so prolific and so destructive to the fabric of the U.S. economy and national security that a formalized response plan is warranted. The DNC hack is just the latest major incident in the headlines.
Now with the directive, for the first time, the private sector and other organizations will have a “number” to call for assistance when under attack: the FBI for investigating a cyber incident, and DHS’ National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center for helping to mitigate impact to an organization and its critical assets.
However, this leap by the government is one act of momentum within a much bigger journey to best secure the nation’s most sensitive data. We need to build on this policy and work with a renewed urgency toward an environment in which preventative cyber hygiene and proactive threat detection supersedes the need to ever have to use a reactive government response plan like this directive outlines.
One Team, One Fight
At its heart, the directive makes clear that when it comes to cyber incidents, the mantra has to be “one team, one fight.” Government agencies and the teams within them, including Security, IT Management, Compliance, Law Enforcement, and other technology stakeholders, must row in the same direction towards a shared goal. Informally, the government has been operating this way for years. The directive simply, but importantly, formalizes this as the official government position.
Just 10 years ago, the U.S. government did not have formally trained cyber incident responders able to respond to the massive data breaches that we have seen today. Now that these incident response teams exists across agencies and disciplines, we need to transition away from a response posture alone to a holistic national cybersecurity approach that considers prevention as a viable strategy and a baseline standard for securing internal and external systems.
As a partner to many government agencies and more than half of the Fortune 100, my team and I spend a lot of time helping companies transition their technology, and their strategies, to take on the cybersecurity realities of today. Anyone who has worked in government cybersecurity knows that a response-only strategy is no longer good enough – not in today’s world when 5.5 million new devices get connected to the Internet every day and easy-to-package ransomware has crippled even the best IT environments.
What we need is a serious conversation about preventing these attacks in the first place and identify ways to build it into our growing cyber initiative. We need to accurately assess the threat landscape attacking our national interests and develop a proactive plan to address the chinks in our cybersecurity armor. Tanium has been working to drive this conversation since our earliest days and are helping our partners think differently about detection, response, remediation, and, most importantly, proactive hygiene. We are ready to bring this conversation to the center stage.
To us, “hygiene” is the basics: knowing how many machines you have on a network and then ensuring all of their patches are up-to-date and are running the appropriate software. Paradoxically, the more critical the system, the more likely it’s not being patched and updated, perhaps because it seems too central to business to risk the perceived negative impact of patching and updating. The truth is that once that a critical system is hacked, the negative impact to business is worst by at least an order of magnitude.
We need a fundamental paradigm shift. Networks will only get more complex and more integral to society. The incentive to hack a network will get higher, and the fallout more devastating. As a result, government agencies need cybersecurity architecture that is intentional, embedded, scalable, and persistent. Proactive prevention can’t be an afterthought or an add-on. We need an IT infrastructure based on a distributed backbone of secure, reliable, and resilient networks.
For now, Congress’ immediate task will be to make sure that the Administration can fully implement this directive and its dependencies. Agencies need adequate resources so they can respond to cyber incidents at the scale and speed required when they come. The directive’s intent will only go so far without proper funding. Cybersecurity is an issue that transcends political parties – and we hope it can remain bipartisan. Given the growing threats from sophisticated hacking groups, nation-states, and failing infrastructure, inspiring the spirit of “one team, one fight” will only become more necessary over time. If we are successful in making prevention our priority, we can get to a point where this new presidential directive is rarely if ever used.
Orion Hindawi is co-founder and CEO of Tanium, a cybersecurity firm serving government agencies and more than half of the Fortune 100.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/290328-why-we-must-move-from-cyber-response-to-cyber-prevention
-
Making the Switch to a More Competitive Freight Rail Industry
Aug 4, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jennifer Hedrick
Both Democrats and Republicans underscored the importance of a strong national transportation network when they rolled out their political platforms. And it’s clear both parties recognize changes are needed to transport our nation’s economy into the future. Last year Congress took a big step when it unanimously passed the Surface Transportation Board (STB) Reauthorization Act of 2015, legislation introduced by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). The STB, a small and largely unknown agency, has made a solid start in carrying out the will of Congress by proposing innovative policies that will help provide American businesses with greater access to competitive freight rail service. Large and small freight rail customers across the United States were encouraged by the Board’s landmark decision, but true to form the nation’s railroads have reacted with a litany of false claims.
The STB oversees the nation’s freight rail industry, balancing the needs of railroads and shippers. The mergers and acquisitions that followed the Staggers Act (which deregulated the rail industry in 1980) left the nation with only four very large railroads. They are strong and financially sound, and they control more than 90 percent of the country’s rail traffic. No one questions their importance to American industry and their critical role in the economy, least of all their customers. But many rail customers have only one railroad serving their farm or factory. They are “captive” shippers. Captive shippers confront the realities of textbook monopoly power: no choice of rail carrier frequently means very high rates and unreliable service with minimal incentive for the railroad to work with their customers.
The National Industrial Transportation League, the nation’s premiere freight shippers’ association, asked the STB to overturn its old rules that prevent genuine rail-to-rail competition and to allow for “competitive switching”. Competitive switching would give qualified captive shippers that are paying very high rates the opportunity to seek a competitive bid from a second railroad in the vicinity of the shipper’s sole-served facility.
The Rail Customer Coalition, which represents the largest users of freight rail service and a broad cross section of manufacturing, agricultural, and energy industries, strongly supported our proposal. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture has said that “Competitive switching offers a market based solution to balance the needs of the railroads and shippers and is in keeping with the goals of the Staggers Act.”
In a decision last week, the Board struck down its outdated and ineffective reciprocal switching rules and proposed a new, pro-competition policy which, if adopted, will open up opportunities for more competition between railroads for a captive shipper’s business. The Board’s proposal is not everything we asked for, but it holds the promise of facilitating competition between railroads for rail dependent shippers across America who currently have none.
Despite a number of false claims coming from the rail industry, the proposed rule is limited in scope and contains many operational and other safeguards. It would not empower the STB to authorize operations by one railroad over the tracks of another railroad; instead, the new rules would simply facilitate the interchange of traffic between railroads who would continue to operate on their own tracks and networks. The proposed rules would not burden the rail industry with cumbersome regulations, as even the railroads admit they switch thousands of cars between them on a weekly basis. And the Board’s rule is designed to ensure that new competitive switching arrangements would not clog the rail system, lead to operational inefficiencies, or create a regime of “open access”.
The railroads say that today’s industrial rail system already provides shippers with access to competitive switching opportunities based on voluntary agreements between railroads to switch traffic. That’s simply not true. The current rules allow railroads to maintain total control of their captive customer’s transportation needs and block requests for switching traffic by simply refusing to agree to “switch” a shipper’s traffic.
The STB correctly decided that they have the legal authority to authorize such competitive switching arrangements and that no new laws are needed. In fact, their decision complements President Obama’s April 15th Executive Order encouraging competition in the American economy.
Competitive switching arrangements are commonplace and a legal right for captive shippers in Canada. Their experience with switching demonstrates that rail competition and competitive switching work well for both railroads and their customers. Competition will spur railroads to negotiate more competitive rate and service terms. That’s how companies keep their customers, not by relying on outdated government regulations that prevent fair competition.
The STB has affirmed that the driving force of the American economy is competition. They relied on an extensive record of public comment in reaching a decision to promote healthy competition in a markedly non-competitive segment of the freight rail industry. Their proposed rule doesn’t guarantee any outcome; it only gives captive shippers an opportunity to seek the benefits of competition they are now denied. The new rule is not perfect but the STB has taken the right first step.
Jennifer Hedrick is the Executive Director of the National Industrial Transportation League, a trade association that serves as the voice of the shipper on freight transportation issues.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/290250-making-the-switch-to-a-more-competitive-freight-rail-industry
-
EPA Sends Ozone Enforcement Plan to OMB
Aug 4, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A U.S. EPA blueprint for implementing ozone standards the agency adopted in October is now under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget, according to the online federal regulatory clearinghouse Reginfo.gov.
The proposed rule "will address a range of implementation requirements" for the 70-parts-per-billion rule, according to an official summary.
Those include the nonattainment area classification system and the schedule for state implementation plan submissions.
The proposal also outlines "relevant guidance on meeting the Clean Air Act's requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress, reasonably available control measures, nonattainment new source review, and emission inventories," the summary said.
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs received the plan Tuesday, according to Reginfo.gov. EPA hopes to make the proposal, which will also address the potential revocation of the 75 ppb ozone standard set in 2008, public next month.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/04/stories/1060041209
-
EPA Launches Suite Of 'Residual Risk' Air Rulemakings
Aug 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is pursuing a suite of rulemakings to asses the “residual risk” of various industrial air toxics sources years after the implementation of air toxics standards for the sectors, planning in the coming months to issue proposed residual risk rules for industries, including ethylene production and iron and steel manufacturing.
The agency announced the various notices of proposed rulemakings (NPRMs) in its “Action Initiation List” (AIL) of air, water and other regulatory efforts launched in April and May. While the two AILs outline rules launched in those months, EPA only posted the AILs to its website in July.
Under the Clean Air Act, the agency must conduct the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) to determine whether emissions from a sector regulated by an air toxics rule continue to pose a threat to human health, or whether new technologies exist that could further drive down an industry's air pollution. If the answer to either of those reviews is affirmative, EPA must update its air toxics regulation to adopt such findings.
Environmentalists have argued that EPA is years behind in some RTRs and have pursued litigation in a bid to force legally binding deadlines for the agency to conduct a host of the reviews.
According to the April AIL, the agency plans to take “more than 12 months” to issue an NPRM on its residual risk and technology review for stationary combustion turbines. “This RTR is subject to an ongoing deadline suit, but does have established proposal or final rule dates yet,” the agency says.
The same AIL says EPA will also take more than one year to issue its proposed RTR for engine test cells, which is also subject to a deadline suit that does not yet set any rulemaking deadlines.
In the May AIL, the agency similarly intends to take more than 12 months to propose a RTR for ethylene production. EPA notes that the equipment used in the sector -- including process vents and storage vessels -- can emit air toxics such as 1,3-butadiene, hexane, toluene and napthalene.
The same list says that EPA within 12 months or less will issue a NPRM for integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities that can emit pollutants such as mercury and dioxins/furans.
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