Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 8/5/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Strong First Half for PVC, HDPE
Aug 5, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
U.S./Canadian PVC resin sales soared in the first half of 2016, with regional sales of high density polyethylene seeing solid growth as well. -
RFA Offering Online Version of Ethanol Emergency Response Course
Aug 4, 2016 | Ethanol Producer Magazine
By Renewable Fuels Association
...The two-hour training course, offered in partnership with the International Association of Fire Chiefs and TRANSCAER, covers content from the “Training Guide to Ethanol Emergency Response,” which has recently been updated... -
Environmentalists Support TRI Reporting For HBCD With Lower Threshold
Aug 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are backing EPA's proposal to add the flame retardant chemical hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) to its list of chemicals for which companies must report releases under the agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), but the advocates are urging EPA... -
California Lists 1-BP as Carcinogen Under Prop 65
Aug 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed 1-bromopropane (1-BP) on Proposition 65 as a substance known to the state to cause cancer. -
Hoeven Unveils Bill to Cack Down on Loophole Allowing Sale of Synthetic Drugs
Aug 4, 2016 | Ripon Advance
.... Chemicals that have legitimate commercial purposes and are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act would be exempt from the classification... -
Petchems a Bright Spot in an Otherwise Arduous Earnings Season
Aug 5, 2016 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
Petrochemicals are offering growth as energy companies struggle with lingering low crude prices, though some face project delays and others are proceeding with caution, the latest quarterly earnings season shows. -
Cutting Carbon in Poor Areas is Hard Sell for EPA
Aug 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
There's only one thing all sides seem to agree on about U.S. EPA's Clean Energy Incentive Program: It's not quite ready for prime time. -
Obama Has Done More to Save Energy Than Any Other President
Aug 5, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
It’s an understatement to say that the Obama administration has been dedicated to fighting climate change — with its biggest achievements including introducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan and negotiating the Paris climate agreement. -
Protect the West From a Black-Gold Rush
Aug 5, 2016 | New York Times
By Mark Udall
In northeastern Utah, just across the border from my home state, Colorado, the Estonian-owned company Enefit American Oil is trying to make good on a promise that the federal government and private industry have been making in the American West for almost a century... -
Do Oil Companies Really Need $4 Billion Per Year of Taxpayers’ Money?
Aug 5, 2016 | New York Times
By Eduardo Porter
What would happen if the federal government ended its subsidies to companies that drill for oil and gas? The American oil and gas industry has argued that such a move would leave the United States more dependent on foreign energy. -
CEQ Quidance Adds New Twist to Legal Battles
Aug 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Council on Environmental Quality's climate change guidance released this week adds a new element to battles that are largely playing out in courts over the scope of federal agencies' environmental reviews of projects. -
Global Climate Pact Expected to Take Force This Year
Aug 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
...If it takes effect, it will be difficult for Republican Donald Trump to undo if he becomes president... -
Brown: Extending CO2 Targets May Slip to 2018, Move to Ballot
Aug 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn and Anne C. Mulkern
A legislative effort to extend California's climate change policies past 2020 is proving more difficult than policymakers had bargained for. -
States, Industry Fight EPA Proposal to Bar Some 'Continued' CWA Permits
Aug 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
States, water utilities and other industry groups are attacking EPA's proposal to allow agency officials to block states from allowing facilities to continue using expired Clean Water Act (CWA) permits in some circumstances, saying that the plan is unjustified...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Strong First Half for PVC, HDPE
Aug 5, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
U.S./Canadian PVC resin sales soared in the first half of 2016, with regional sales of high density polyethylene seeing solid growth as well.
PVC sales in the region grew 7.4 percent in the six-month period, reaching more than 7.8 billion pounds, according to the American Chemistry Council. Sales of PVC into export markets were up almost 14 percent in the first half, which helped boost domestic sales growth of almost 5 percent.
The domestic PVC market benefited from a rebounding U.S. housing market. That market is on track to record around 1.2 million housing starts this year, which would be up almost 10 percent from 2015. More than 60 percent of domestic PVC sales went into construction markets in the first half.
Sales of PVC into rigid pipe and tubing were up more than 7 percent in the first half, while sales of the material into extruded windows and doors jumped almost 20 percent.
U.S./Canadian HDPE sales bumped up 3.5 percent to almost 9.7 billion pounds for the half, according to ACC, as export sales growth of 21 percent magnified domestic sales growth of around 1 percent. Among large domestic end markets, sales of HDPE into sheet were up more than 4 percent, while sales of the material into injection molded pails were up more than 6 percent.
“We generally expected domestic growth to be in line with U.S. GDP growth, which was 1 percent,” an executive with one HDPE maker said of first-half results. “Organic growth clearly has been conservative, but our customers seem healthy, especially in the packaging space.”
First-half sales for other commodity resins weren’t as rosy. Regional sales of polypropylene and low density PE were up less than 1 percent, while linear low density PE sales were flat and sales of solid PS in the region slid 1.5 percent.
For PP — including Mexico — domestic sales growth of 1 percent was weakened by a drop of almost 11 percent in export sales. Domestic PP sales were boosted by gains of almost 6 percent in sheet and of almost 5 percent in injection molded caps and closures.
LDPE sales grew almost 2 percent in the domestic market, but that rate was weakened by a 2.5 percent drop in export sales. LDPE sales into shrink film in the domestic market grew just over 3 percent for the half.
In the LLDPE market, sales into both the domestic and export sectors essentially were flat in the first half. Domestic LLDPE sales into food packaging film and shrink/stretch film showed signs of strength, growing 4 percent and almost 5 percent, respectively.
The 1.5 percent dip in solid PS sales — including Mexico — took place even as sales into food packaging/food service grew more than 1 percent and sales into the electrical/electronic market grew almost 6 percent.
Food packaging/food service accounted for almost 65 percent of regional solid PS sales for the first half, with electrical/electronic bringing in a market share of more than 9 percent.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160805/NEWS/160809873/strong-first-half-for-pvc-hdpe
-
RFA Offering Online Version of Ethanol Emergency Response Course
Aug 4, 2016 | Ethanol Producer Magazine
By Renewable Fuels Association
The Renewable Fuels Association is now offering an online version of its Ethanol Emergency Response course for first responders.
The two-hour training course, offered in partnership with the International Association of Fire Chiefs and TRANSCAER, covers content from the “Training Guide to Ethanol Emergency Response,” which has recently been updated.
This new online training is targeted towards emergency responders, but is open to anyone with interest in ethanol emergency response. Upon completion of the course, participants will have knowledge related to ethanol and ethanol-blended fuels, including the use, chemical and physical characteristics, transportation modes, transfer operations, basics of foam, suggested responder tactics and strategies and environmental issues.
“The International Association of Fire Chiefs is very proud and pleased to continue our partnership with the Ethanol Emergency Response Coalition and their online Ethanol Emergency Response Training program,” said Bob Royall, chair of the IAFC Hazardous Materials Committee. “This valuable program provides excellent ethanol training. Topics include vital information about ethanol and ethanol-blended fuels, including chemical and physical fuels, storage and transportation, and health and safety considerations. The site is also a great place to find resources such as training videos, DVD extras, and a training toolkit all aimed at helping keep America’s first responders safe,” he added.
“Safety remains one of RFA’s top priorities,” said RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen. “Since 2010, we have hosted more than 170 ethanol safety seminars in 29 states, training emergency responders how to proper respond to ethanol incidences. However, there is still a need to reach a broader audience for ethanol emergency response training, which is why we are offering this online training course. It is important that those responsible for the safety of their communities are well prepared and trained to respond to ethanol-related emergencies.”
The training course is being co-funded under an Assistance for Local Emergency Response Training (ALERT) grant received by RFA and IAFC.
The training can be found on IAFC Academy websitehttps://learn.iafcacademy.org/#/courses/course/3e219760-d80a-4e41-b29c-fc67d9d9f813. For more information on the EERC and the training being offered go to www.EthanolResponse.com.
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/13594/rfa-offering-online-version-of-ethanol-emergency-response-course
-
Environmentalists Support TRI Reporting For HBCD With Lower Threshold
Aug 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are backing EPA's proposal to add the flame retardant chemical hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) to its list of chemicals for which companies must report releases under the agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), but the advocates are urging EPA to impose a lower threshold for triggering the requirement.
TRI tracks the management of toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to human health and the environment, and typically sets a 10,000 pound per year threshold for companies to report their releases of the substance above that limit. EPA qualifies a release as an emission to the air or water, or placement in some type of land disposal.
HBCD is a flame retardant chemical used in multiple applications, including polystyrene insulation foams, electrical appliances, upholstered furniture, draperies and other textiles. EPA has long had concerns about the risks of the substance, pursuing assessments of the chemical in addition to the potential TRI listing.
However, EPA in its May proposal to add HBCD to the TRI suggested placing the chemical in a “special concern” category with a lower reporting threshold, because of its persistent, bioaccumulative -- meaning it accumulates in the body faster than can be excreted or metabolized -- and toxic (PBT) properties. As a result, the agency floated a 100 pound per year threshold for reporting of annual releases to the TRI.
In Aug. 1 comments, a coalition of advocacy groups says that while it backs the HBCD listing and agrees on the chemical's PBT risks, the threshold should be tightened to 10 pounds per year.
“While EPA has made a strong presentation that HBCD meets the criteria for TRI listing, we believe there is additional information that demonstrates that HBCD meets the TRI listing criteria. In particular: In 2013, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants listed HBCD for global elimination (Annex A) and concluded that the chemical is persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic and undergoes long-range transport, leading to global contamination,” say the comments filed by groups including Earthjustice, Environmental Working Group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the International Association of Firefighters and Greenpeace, among others.
Further underscoring fears about the chemical, they note that “EPA recently announced that HBCD is one of eight chemicals of greatest concern for Great Lakes water quality, a designation made jointly between the U.S. and Canada which further adds to the evidence of a serious threat to the environment.”
TRI Thresholds
EPA has authority under the TRI -- created by section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) -- to lower the 10,000 pounds per year threshold for some substances.
EPA's May TRI listing proposal said that data on the PBT nature of HBCD “support classifying the HBCD category as a PBT chemical category with a 100-pound reporting threshold.”
The proposal cited a October 1999 Register notice in which EPA set criteria for chemicals to be added to this category receiving heightened scrutiny. “For purposes of EPCRA section 313 reporting, EPA established persistence half-life criteria for PBT chemicals of 2 months in water/sediment and soil and 2 days in air, and established bioaccumulation criteria for PBT chemicals as a bioconcentration factor (BCF) or bioaccumulation factor (BAF) of 1,000 or higher. Chemicals meeting the PBT criteria were assigned 100-pound reporting thresholds. With regards to setting the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds, EPA set lower reporting thresholds (10 pounds) for those PBT chemicals with persistence half-lives of 6 months or more in water/sediment or soil and with BCF or BAF values of 5,000 or higher, these chemicals were considered highly PBT chemicals,” according to the 1999 notice.
The environmentalists, however, argue that HBCD meets the criteria for having an even lower, 10-pound threshold. They point to EPA's PBT classification criteria for the reduced thresholds, noting that chemicals with half-lives of 60 days and a BAF of 1,000 or more meet the 100-pound threshold criteria, while chemicals with half-lives longer than 180 days and BAF of 5,000 or more meet the criteria for a 10-pound threshold.
They note that HBCD is made up of mixtures of HBCD isomers, and say EPA “should establish a reporting limit based on the most persistent and most bioaccumulative isomer,” and that at least one isomer had a BAF of 5,000.
“While half-life data is limited, several studies estimate the half-life in sediment and soil to be greater than 120 days, while one study estimates a half-life of 190 days in abiotic sediment. HBCD therefore satisfies EPA’s criteria for high persistence and high bioaccumulation, and should be given a 10-pound reporting threshold.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-support-tri-reporting-hbcd-lower-threshold
-
California Lists 1-BP as Carcinogen Under Prop 65
Aug 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed 1-bromopropane (1-BP) on Proposition 65 as a substance known to the state to cause cancer.
1-bromopropane is used as a solvent cleaner in degreasing operations, and in dry cleaning, asphalt products, and spray adhesives. Among other uses it is also an intermediate in the synthesis of fragrances and flavours.
The substance has been listed on Prop 65 as a male and female reproductive toxicant since 2004.
Oehha proposed to list 1-BP as a carcinogen in July 2015, via the authoritative bodies listing mechanism. This was based on a report from the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) 2014 Report on Carcinogens, which showed evidence of its carcinogenicity in animal testing.
The chemicals company Albemarle submitted the only public comments. It said that data developed since the NTP's report suggest that its designation – that 1-BP is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" – might be overly robust.
Oehha responded that the NTP's conclusions satisfy the criteria for listing under the authoritative bodies mechanism, and that the substance will therefore be added to Prop 65.
The listing takes effect 5 August 2016.
1-BP is a TSCA work plan chemical. The US EPA issued a draft risk assessment regarding the substance's use in spray adhesive, dry cleaning and degreasing applications earlier this year.
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has initiated a consultation on criteria for worker exposure to 1-BP. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has also released a draft toxicological profile of the substance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49016/california-lists-1-bp-as-carcinogen-under-prop-65
-
Hoeven Unveils Bill to Cack Down on Loophole Allowing Sale of Synthetic Drugs
Aug 4, 2016 | Ripon Advance
U.S. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) unveiled legislation on Tuesday to prevent the sale of synthetic drugs during a roundtable discussion in Mandan, N.D., with local, state and federal law enforcers.
The Illegal Synthetic Drug Safety Act, S. 3262, which Hoeven recently introduced with U.S. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), would close a loophole in federal law that allows companies to legally sell synthetic variations of drugs by printing “not for human consumption” on product labels.
“Communities and families across the nation, and in my home state of North Dakota, are being hit hard by the growing drug epidemic,” Hoeven said. “This legislation is part of our efforts to combat this problem and keep harmful opioids and synthetic drugs off the street. The bill closes a loophole and makes synthetic variations of harmful drugs, like fentanyl, illegal.”
Laboratories located in China and elsewhere around the world are altering the molecular structure of fentanyl and other controlled drugs to create “analogues” that are technically different but have the same effects of illegal drugs.
Under the Analogue Enforcement Act, controlled substance analogues that are “intended for human consumption” are considered prohibited Schedule I substances. Companies that print “not for human consumption” on product labels are able to sidestep the law.
The Illegal Synthetic Drug Safety would remove the phrase “intended for human consumption” from the Analogue Enforcement Act. Chemicals that have legitimate commercial purposes and are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act would be exempt from the classification.
https://riponadvance.com/stories/hoeven-unveils-bill-crack-loophole-allowing-sale-synthetic-drugs/
-
Petchems a Bright Spot in an Otherwise Arduous Earnings Season
Aug 5, 2016 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
Petrochemicals are offering growth as energy companies struggle with lingering low crude prices, though some face project delays and others are proceeding with caution, the latest quarterly earnings season shows.
Here’s a round up of some of the highlights from the most recent round of earnings reports and calls.
Exxon Mobil Corp and longtime partner Sabic last week announced they may build a 1.8 million mt/year ethylene plant in Texas or Louisiana, marking the Saudi Arabian chemical maker’s entrance into the North American market. Exxon already is building a new 1.5 million mt/year cracker at the chemical complex at its Baytown, Texas refinery, but Jeff Woodbury, vice president of investor relations and secretary, told analysts last week that the company expects global chemical demand to grow 1% above gross domestic product through 2040, and ethylene demand will grow about 4% per year. “That translates into capacity additions about 6 million to 7 million tons per annum of additional capacity,” he said.
LyondellBasell Industries said the company will move forward on a new 1.1 billion pounds (500,000 mt)-per-year high density polyethylene plant in La Porte, Texas, to start up in 2019 that will increase the company’s US polyethylene capacity by 18%. An ethylene capacity expansion at its Corpus Christi, Texas, complex also is expected to be finished by the end of the third quarter. However, Lyondell indefinitely delayed the 550 million pounds (250,000 mt)-per-year ethylene expansion at its Channelview, Texas facility that had been planned for 2017 for economic reasons, Chief Executive Bob Patel said. He also said Lyondell can take debottlenecking steps during a turnaround at Channelview in 2018 and 2019. In the near term, Lyondell will focus on the HDPE plant and a potential new propylene oxide/tertiary butyl alcohol plant in the Houston area. The company expects to decide in the first half of 2017 whether to move ahead with the PO/TBA plant, and “it looks good so far,” Patel said.
Enterprise Products Partners Chief Executive Jim Teague said last week the company expected the first ship at the company’s new ethane export facility at the Houston Ship Channel on Monday, but the vessel had not yet been called in while the terminal makes final preparations this week. By year-end, the 200,000 b/d facility should be exporting roughly 1.9 million barrels per month. The company also is considering an ethylene export facility. Lyondell CEO Patel said on his company’s call that ethylene exports would benefit the US as “kind of a relief valve” for US ethylene producers with Asian ethylene selling for higher prices.
Enterprise customers canceled three LPG cargo loadings in July and expected more to be canceled this month as weak crude prices squeeze NGL spreads and siphon arbitrage between the US Gulf Coast and Northwest Europe and even southeast Asia, executives said. However, Enterprise more than offset that decline by loading nine cargoes of polymer grade propylene (PGP) in July after adding propylene export capability. The company’s new 1.65 billion pounds (750,000 mt)-per-year propane dehydrogenation plant in Mont Belvieu, Texas is slated to come online in the second quarter of 2017, delayed from the end of 2016 with narrow PGP margins amid low oil prices. Teague said the company’s propylene strategy is evolving with ongoing supply talks with international customers.
Phillips 66 executives said Chevron Phillips Chemical’s US Gulf Coast petrochemicals project is 80% complete with expected startup in the second half of 2017, delayed from mid-2017. Two polyethylene plants with a combined capacity of 500,000 mt/year at Phillips’ Sweeny, Texas refinery and chemical complex will be finished before the second half of 2017, but the startup of its new 1.5 million mt/year ethane cracker at the Cedar Bayou, Texas facility was delayed several months to the second half of 2017.
Royal Dutch Shell delayed final go-aheads on liquefied natural gas projects in Canada and Lake Charles, Louisiana, while greenlighting a 1.5 million mt/year ethane cracker in Pennsylvania and a new ethylene cracker with derivative units with CNOOC in China that will more than double current capacity. Chief Executive Ben van Beurden said Shell’s appetite for new projects shrank upon repositioning integrated gas from being a growth business to a cash engine upon its $50 billion acquisition of gas giant BG Group.
Dow Chemical President and Chief Operating Officer Jim Fitterling said the multi-feed cracker at its $20 billion, 26-unit Sadara chemical complex with Saudi Aramco in Jubail is “in a rampant startup activity right now” with commercial operations expected in the third quarter. All construction should be finished by year-end with commissioning thereafter. The company’s Freeport, Texas cracker is more than 70% finished and remains on track to start up by mid-2017. The company expects incremental delays and postponements of ethylene projects, keeping global ethylene and polyethylene rates high.
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/08/05/petchems-bright-spot-earnings-season/
-
Cutting Carbon in Poor Areas is Hard Sell for EPA
Aug 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
There's only one thing all sides seem to agree on about U.S. EPA's Clean Energy Incentive Program: It's not quite ready for prime time.
A year since the agency rolled out the program as an addition to its power-sector climate rule, the CEIP is still drawing constructive criticism from states, businesses, green advocates and environmental justice groups.
Their suggestions diverge, but most say that while they agree with the effort, the CEIP as written might not achieve its main purpose of easing the Clean Power Plan's impact on the poor.
Even strong allies like the Natural Resources Defense Council, a major supporter of the rule, are offering suggestions for improvement.
"While we appreciate the work EPA put into the [proposal], we believe the CEIP can be improved to better match the program's intent, which we support, and better direct investment to the people and communities who need it most," said Michelle DiMuzio, a program assistant for NRDC's Midwest office, in a prepared statement for a public hearing in Chicago earlier this week.
The CEIP would give states extra credit for voluntarily cutting carbon emissions before 2022, with low-income energy efficiency and solar projects and other renewable power development.
Comments are due Sept. 2 on EPA's second draft of the program, but testimony from this week suggests it will be hard to appease everyone.
Speakers on Wednesday worried that the CEIP may compensate projects that would have happened anyway. Many argued that EPA's definition of "low income" may be too broad to be effective or too narrow to draw states into the program. Environmental justice advocates said they think the CEIP is too tied to carbon trading — which they worry means coal plants are more likely to stay online in vulnerable communities.
And on top of all of that, key groups said the incentives may not be strong enough to encourage state participation.
For energy efficiency especially, "states look at the cost-benefit analysis of 'Do I have to take on additional work to do this program?'" said Matt Stanberry, vice president of market development for the business group Advanced Energy Economy. "Some of them have been concerned that the cost-benefit there isn't worth it."
'Starting from scratch' on efficiency
The Clean Power Plan allows states to use carbon trading to reach EPA's emissions goals. Each power company can emit a certain amount of carbon. If a power company goes over that amount, it must buy allowances from another company that has already met its carbon goal.
States that volunteer for the CEIP would set aside a portion of their allowances that could be doled out to eligible projects. For energy efficiency in low-income communities, EPA would provide a 2-to-1 match. For early renewable power, EPA would provide a 1-to-1 match.
But states with tight carbon budgets aren't sure they want to take any of their own allowances away from power generators.
They say the program is unattractive in several ways.
For one, low-income energy efficiency projects are expensive. Some studies suggest they cost seven times more than other projects. They also come with an administrative burden, especially for states with less experience with energy efficiency.
"Oftentimes, you're dealing with a housing stock, for example, that's in pretty bad shape," Stanberry said. Imagine starting from scratch to make a home with almost no insulation efficient.
With that in mind, even states with less-strict carbon budgets are wondering whether a 2-to-1 match is enough.
"The big question we're wondering is whether the low-income community project pool should be awarded at a higher rate," said Melissa Kuskie, air policy planner at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
And while the energy-saving benefits of the projects could last for decades, the CEIP only gives states credit for two years.
Kuskie said because the projects take a while to get up and running, states probably need a longer timeline to receive credit.
Other states are contemplating whether extended federal tax incentives that promote renewables and new national programs that encourage energy efficiency will already be enough to push those efforts ahead.
Why spend resources setting up plans for the CEIP if the work will get done anyway, they ask?
That thinking has some environmental justice groups calling for EPA to make the program mandatory, which could be a legally difficult proposition for the agency.
Who is 'low income,' anyway?
The CEIP is also raising questions about who is "low income." EPA is considering accepting a variety of state and federal definitions of the term.
The Natural Resources Defense Council says EPA should simplify that definition and focus on households that are eligible for an existing benefit, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Under what is currently accepted, states might choose a utility-based definition that determines how much of a customer's total expenditures go toward power. But that would overlook poor people in commercial buildings where landlords include electricity costs in the rent, said Khalil Shahyd, project manager for NRDC's Urban Solutions program.
Vien Truong, director of Green for All, said her group wants to "make sure the definition for low-income was defined by the stakeholders narrowly enough that it really does target the poorest people."
As an example of how the CEIP could go wrong, she pointed to a lawsuit in which she once saw a Whole Foods grocery store parking lot considered low-income.
Truong's group said it's important to make sure that as CEIP projects raise property values, poor people don't get pushed out by higher rents.
Other organizations say poor people should also get the jobs created by the CEIP projects.
The Rev. Tony Pierce, board president for Illinois People's Action, said his group wants EPA's definition to "include the communities that have suffered the most economically by the system that's in place."
Some say that might expand eligibility to consider race, in addition to income.
Suspicious of carbon credits
While environmental justice groups say the CEIP has a lot of potential, they disagree with the foundation of the program.
The CEIP is based on carbon trading under the Clean Power Plan. Environmental justice advocates believe such trading programs would allow coal plants to stay online in vulnerable communities.
"We see the CEIP as a good thing, but it's tied to the trading program, and we think that's a problem," said Cecil Corbin-Mark, director of policy initiatives for the group WE ACT. "What we are concerned about is the fact that you have communities that could not benefit from emissions reductions because [companies] could opt to buy credits and trade."
Shahyd said the CEIP is a conundrum for environmental justice groups: "On one side, of course they want to support something like that; however, supporting the CEIP puts them in a position where they have to then give a silent nod to carbon trading."
During a roundtable panel discussion with environmental justice groups Tuesday in Chicago, Shahyd said he was surprised that most of the conversation about the CEIP focused on the dangers of carbon trading.
"It's odd that we got this far and we go to the session and none of us realized that they would take the conversation in that direction," Shahyd said.
Juliana Pino, policy director for the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, said carbon trading is still a "pretty topline issue."
Environmental justice groups have asked EPA to conduct an analysis of how trading might affect poor and minority communities, but the agency never has, Pino said.
Little Village is a community of 95,000 residents of mostly Mexican heritage on the southwest side of Chicago, Pino said. Advocates there campaigned for two coal plant closures four years ago, but they worry that plants in nearby communities may stay online under the Clean Power Plan.
Pino said she is also concerned that biomass plants may be located in Little Village and may argue that they are offsetting carbon emissions to make money under the Clean Power Plan.
But while Pino and others disagree with carbon trading, they say they will work with state policymakers to make sure vulnerable communities are protected if the trading programs proceed.
Environmental justice groups have suggested several ways to limit the allowances power plant owners can buy if their coal units are in certain areas or are out of compliance with other clean air rules.
"It's not enough for states to formulate the way they're going to comply and then ask what we think," Pino said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/08/05/stories/1060041246
-
Obama Has Done More to Save Energy Than Any Other President
Aug 5, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
It’s an understatement to say that the Obama administration has been dedicated to fighting climate change — with its biggest achievements including introducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan and negotiating the Paris climate agreement. This is surely the most that any U.S. president has done to try to change the course of energy heating the planet.
But it’s much less widely known that at the same time, Obama could also be dubbed the “energy efficiency president”– the U.S. leader who has done more than any other to help us use less energy, and pay less for it, as we go about our daily lives. Which, of course, also helps fight climate change.
The story does not command nearly as much attention as the Paris talks or the Clean Power Plan, but the facts are tough to dispute: Obama’s Energy Department has finalized more new standards for energy efficient appliances and products than any past administration, a new report finds.
The Energy Department has also been touting its major progress in this area, but the new report, by two outside expert groups monitoring this space, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, validates the claim.
“If you compare that to what prior administrations have completed, it’s far and away the most any president has been able to achieve through the administrative process,” says Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the report’s lead author.
The net consequence of the work has been to push improvements to 45 separate types of energy-consuming products so far — ranging from refrigerators to light bulbs.
The findings are no surprise to industry groups, which have not always been happy with the results. While corporate groups have participated in these regulatory processes andpraised some of them, the overall effect has been burdensome, according to Stephen Yurek, president and chief executive of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.
“There are very real consequences from this rush to regulate,” Yurek said in a statement. “Yes, complying with these rules costs my member companies millions and millions of dollars, but what is far more important is that American jobs are being lost and consumers, who are already feeling financial squeezed, are being forced to pay more for products they rely on in their everyday lives, from comfort cooling and heating to refrigeration to hot water.”
Of all of these regulations, the most enormous, in terms of energy consequences, is a rule governing large scale, commercial air conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces, which heat and cool enormous buildings. This regulation, alone, is projected to cut close to a billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The Energy Department has called it the “largest energy-saving standard in history” — another way in which Obama’s administration has stood out from prior ones in this sphere.
Overall, the administration’s regulations are set to save Americans an estimated $ 540 billion in electric and other bill expenditures through the year 2030. Naturally, these changes also are projected to cut greenhouse gas emissions — by about 210 million tons annually for the period.
The study finds the closest runner up to the Obama administration’s activism is George W. Bush, who was at the helm for 27 energy-saving initiatives. But 23 of those were achieved by signing energy bills into law, rather than by using administrative action. Moreover, deLaski says, the Obama administration could still complete about 10 more standards before leaving office.
“They’ve been working at a pace of about 10 new standards per year,” he says.
“Taking into account standards enacted by law and those set by DOE, the Obama administration has completed 18 more standards than any prior administration,” the report finds. “Accounting only for standards set by DOE rulemaking, the Obama administration has completed seven times more standards than any previous administration.”
Much of the rulemaking is part of a program that dates back to the 1987 National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, since expanded by further legislation in 1992, 2005, and 2007. The result is that over 55 different types of energy consuming products sold in the U.S. are covered by a program that sets initial energy efficiency requirements, and then, in general, calls for re-evaluating those standards every six years, improving them as necessary.
When it came to setting mandatory appliance standards, past administrations had fallen behind — leaving the incoming Obama administration with a great deal of work to do. The administration not only caught up on past missed deadlines, explains deLaski, but then stayed on schedule, meaning that over the total eight years of Obama’s term, it is more or less set to review and possibly update standards for most covered products.
“By the time Obama took office, [the Department of Energy] had missed 22 legal deadlines for updating standards,” said deLaski. “So all those missed deadlines have been caught up during the Obama administration, and then they also have met new deadlines established in the 2007 and 2005 energy laws.”
Indeed, when the president announced his climate action plan in 2013, one key component was cutting 3 billion total tons of carbon dioxide pollution by the year 2030 through new energy efficiency standards.
The overall effect of improved U.S. energy efficiency over the past several decades has in fact been so great that it appears to be contributing to a major trend in the utility sphere — flat levels of electricity demand. If you take all the improvements that have been set in motion since around 1990, a recent report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy found, then we’re using 12 percent less electricity than we would be otherwise, as of 2014.
Most people, opening fridges and turning on light switches and setting thermostats likely are not aware of how those efficiency gains came about.
“It’s a pretty quiet policy, in terms of people understanding that it’s out there, affecting products,” says deLaski.
It’s pretty clear the Obama administration will keep on going with energy efficiency improvements through January of next year — but the question then becomes whether the next administration will continue to build on these gains.
If it does, the new report estimates that another 200 million tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions could be avoided per year by 2050 — and $ 65 billion in annual expenditures on electricity bills.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/05/obama-has-done-more-to-save-energy-than-any-other-president/?utm_term=.4713c556b68b
-
Protect the West From a Black-Gold Rush
Aug 5, 2016 | New York Times
By Mark Udall
In northeastern Utah, just across the border from my home state, Colorado, the Estonian-owned company Enefit American Oil is trying to make good on a promise that the federal government and private industry have been making in the American West for almost a century: squeezing oil from a stone.
Oil shale is sedimentary rock containing bituminous minerals that can be mined and processed to release petroleum products. Not to be confused with shale gas, which is a major American industry, oil shalehas never been successfully commercially exploited in the United States, even though over half of the world’s known oil shale deposits are in the Colorado River Basin.
Oil shale mining does, however, have a track record in Estonia. Unfortunately, that record includes high carbon emissions, contaminated water, dirty air, poisoned farmland and heaps of mining waste so large they’ve been nicknamed the Estonian Alps.
The potential consequences of oil shale mining in the Colorado River Basin — a region where water, not oil, is our most precious resource — are similarly huge. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, oil shale also has a carbon footprint that is 23 percent to 73 percent greater than conventionally extracted crude oil.
For now, the decision about whether to allow commercial-scale oil shale mining in the American West rests in the hands of the Bureau of Land Management. In Utah, Enefit proposes strip mining over 9,000 acres and developing an oil shale processing operation intended to yield 50,000 barrels a day.
It’s asking the bureau to let it run three pipelines and a power line across federal land. If the agency says yes, Enefit could break ground on the first serious commercial-scale oil shale project in the United States as early as next year. That would open the door to oil shale mining nationally.
It seems that Enefit’s ultimate goal is to expand its extraction and processing operations onto federal lands. And if that happens, the company will be operating in a regulatory void.
In the early years of the Obama administration, the government wisely reined in the Bush-era fast-tracking of oil shale development. I was proud to work with the administration to reduce the amount of federal land available for oil shale development. Elected representatives and government officials devised a research-first program for companies and began drafting leasing regulations to define the rules of the game for oil shale mining in the West.
This sensible approach would allow federal agencies to determine the impacts of oil shale development on Western lands and waters beforeapproving any operation. The leasing rules would define the industry’s environmental reporting requirements, establish royalty rates to guarantee a fair return to American taxpayers and ensure that environmental cleanup costs are considered. A major consideration is that oil shale development should avoid, rather than encourage, boom-and-bust cycles.
Such rules take time, and these regulations have not yet been finalized. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management is on the brink of permitting a utility corridor for Enefit’s oil shale project without seeing a sufficiently detailed plan from the company on how it expects to develop mining.
In the absence of more information from Enefit, the agency cannot analyze the effects of the company’s oil shale operation. This would include fully accounting for everything from increased carbon emissions to the harm to endangered fish in the nearby Green and White Rivers to the withdrawal of water from the Colorado River Basin,water that is already over-allocated.
Without details like these, it is impossible for the bureau to determine whether the project is in the public interest. And there are still no revised commercial leasing regulations in place to guide Enefit’s future expansion on federal public lands.
These problems with Enefit’s Utah project also present an opportunity. There are reasonable steps that could bring the Obama administration’s wise approach to oil shale to fruition.
First, the Bureau of Land Management should delay its decision on Enefit’s pipelines until the company has provided a full development plan for its strip-mining and power-plant operation; this should include detailing the sources and quantity of water the project requires and the project’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, the administration must finalize commercial oil shale-leasing regulations so that companies like Enefit, the regulators and the American public know the rules of the game. These steps should be taken now, before a rise in oil prices prompts renewed interest in oil shale and makes speculative developments real and immediate threats.
These Western lands, the waters of the Colorado River Basin and our communities are the legacy that we who live in the West must safeguard. The Obama administration has been a climate leader; now the administration has a chance to cement that leadership on oil shale development. Decisively shaping oil shale regulation can be a key part of the president’s climate legacy.
Mark Udall represented Colorado in the United States Senate from 2009 to 2015 and in the House of Representatives from 1999 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/protect-the-west-from-a-black-gold-rush.html?_r=0
-
Do Oil Companies Really Need $4 Billion Per Year of Taxpayers’ Money?
Aug 5, 2016 | New York Times
By Eduardo Porter
What would happen if the federal government ended its subsidies to companies that drill for oil and gas?
The American oil and gas industry has argued that such a move would leave the United States more dependent on foreign energy.
Many environmental activists counter that ending subsidies could move the United States toward a future free of fossil fuels — helping it curtail its emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Chances are, it wouldn’t do much of either.
In a new report for the Council on Foreign Relations, Gilbert Metcalf, a professor of economics at Tufts University, concluded that eliminating the three major federal subsidies for the production of oil and gas would have a very limited impact on the production and consumption of these fossil fuels.
Mr. Metcalf’s analysis is the most sophisticated yet on the impact of government supports, worth roughly $4 billion a year. Extrapolating from the observed reaction of energy companies to fluctuations in the price of oil and gas, he models how a loss of subsidies might curtail drilling and thus affect production, prices and consumer demand.
Cutting oil drilling subsidies might reduce domestic oil production by 5 percent in the year 2030.
As a result, he thinks, the worldwide price of oil would inch up by only 1 percent. He assumes it will hardly be affected because other countries would increase production as the flow of American crude slowed. Demand would hardly budge, as the price of gasoline at the pump would rise by at most 2 cents a gallon.
Natural gas is a slightly different story. It is not as much a global commodity. A decline of 3 to 4 percent in American production would raise prices by as much as 10 percent. In response, demand for natural gas would most likely fall 3 to 4 percent. At most, the average household’s monthly electricity bill would rise by $7.
In terms of carbon emissions, nothing much would happen at all, he concludes. An earlier study concluded that eliminating subsidies would have reduced CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2009 by less than 1 percent. Mr. Metcalf argues that this “overstates the emissions reduction potential of tax reform.”
And still, these modest findings could give some political muscle to those fighting climate change. They may not mobilize Republican politicians to join in the battle. But they help to undermine the case made by energy companies that drilling for fossil fuels merits federal support.
One study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, for instance, suggested that cutting some federal subsidies would reduce domestic production of oil and gas by 15 percent in 2023. Almost a quarter of a million jobs would be lost by 2019, the study said, and the United States would be at the mercy of foreign oil.
Mr. Metcalf’s conclusions suggest subsidies could be eliminated without causing much pain. And if the United States cuts its supports, it will have better standing to demand the same from the many countries that provide big consumer subsidies encouraging the consumption of fossil fuels.
The United States’ subsidies “impair its ability to coax major developing countries to roll back fossil fuel consumption policies,” Mr. Metcalf writes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/upshot/do-oil-companies-really-need-4-billion-per-year-of-taxpayers-money.html?_r=0
-
CEQ Quidance Adds New Twist to Legal Battles
Aug 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Council on Environmental Quality's climate change guidance released this week adds a new element to battles that are largely playing out in courts over the scope of federal agencies' environmental reviews of projects.
At issue is the extent to which agencies must consider greenhouse gas emissions that occur upstream and downstream from energy projects. Environmental advocates argue those emissions fall squarely under the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act.
According to a recent report, more than a dozen lawsuits in the past five years have challenged federal reviews of fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure projects because of failure to consider upstream and downstream emissions (E&ENews PM, April 5).
CEQ's final guidance document on how agencies should consider climate change in project reviews adds to that debate by formally guiding agencies to consider "indirect" climate effects of major federal actions (Greenwire, Aug. 2).
It specifically cites the expected combustion of coal from a federal lease sale as an example of an indirect effect that is reasonably foreseeable.
"Upstream-downstream boundary drawings are a hot issue, and it's made even more hot by the virtue of the climate change issue," said Michael Drysdale, an attorney at Dorsey & Whitney. "The guidance pretty clearly says you need to at least think about that stuff."
But the CEQ document, while it lays out the White House office's interpretation of its NEPA regulations, is merely guidance for agencies to follow. It does not carry the same weight in courts as agency regulations.
Still, some observers said this week that federal agencies will likely have to provide an explanation to courts if they choose not to align with the guidelines of CEQ, which is responsible for NEPA implementation regulations.
"A court will give a greater degree of deference to a regulation that has gone through notice-and-comment rulemaking," said Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "They'll defer to [the guidance] to the extent they think it's a reasonable interpretation. They'll give it less weight — but they'll give it some weight."
The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to define three types of environmental impacts in analyses of projects: direct effects, indirect effects and cumulative effects.
"The final guidance makes that abundantly clear from the White House's perspective: Both indirect and direct emissions should be taken into account, and there's case law that's very much in line with that position," said Jayni Hein, policy director at the New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity.
It's "fairly well-established," Burger of Columbia said, that those indirect effects include downstream greenhouse gas emissions. Courts have ruled as such in several cases involving the extraction of coal, according to a working paper released earlier this year by the Sabin Center.
In 2003, the report details, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Surface Transportation Board failed to consider the combustion of coal that would be transported as a result of rail lines to service coal mines in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
In another notable case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in 2014 faulted environmental impact statements prepared by the Forest Service in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management for road construction for coal-related activities and adding newly opened lands to existing coal leases.
The court found that the agencies wrongly did not take into account emissions from future mining operations and coal combustion.
"In the coal context, there's been a lot of argument and litigation about whether federal agencies need to consider the effects of combustion when they're leasing or permitting a coal operation," Drysdale said. "Combustion is a classic downstream effect."
There's less existing case law around upstream emissions and projects involving transmission lines and oil and gas export facilities, Burger said.
"It's a trickier type of calculation," he said. "What we don't want to have happen, what NEPA doesn't contemplate, is that every actor along the line, from extraction through combustion, has to look up and down the life cycle and do its own assessments of what its emissions are."
Drysdale said he expects the CEQ document, now that it's finalized, to be cited by agencies and parties in comments and litigation over NEPA reviews.
The guidance could be a tool for opponents of fossil fuel projects.
"If a project opponent wants to come forward and say, 'Look, I recognize that there's not a tremendous amount of carbon emissions, but it's something you have to address. See the guidance,' that's how it's going to come into play," Drysdale said.
"Where an agency could get into trouble," he said, "is if it does something different than in the guidance without providing a reasoned explanation."
But critics of expanding the scope of NEPA reviews will have little recourse to challenge CEQ's guidelines, Drysdale predicted.
"If you have these tools that are developed, but not developed through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that means they have less formal effect," Drysdale said. "But it also means they are harder to get at in terms of if you want to challenge the agency's reasoning."
Impact on LNG cases?
The guidelines in CEQ's document are similar to arguments that the Sierra Club has been making in federal court cases over approvals for liquefied natural gas terminals, said Nathan Matthews, an attorney at the environmental group.
The group has argued in court cases that the federal government's environmental impact statements for the projects did not adequately examine emissions from the increased domestic production of natural gas that was likely to occur if LNG were exported from the terminals.
Environmentalists aren't going to file a bunch of new lawsuits now that the guidance is out, Matthews said. But the guidance "does demonstrate that the interpretation of the regulation that we've been putting forward in our litigation is largely shared by CEQ," Matthews said, "and CEQ is the federal agency that has expertise."
The Sierra Club, however, has so far suffered a string of losses in its litigation against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over LNG terminals, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit finding that the environmental group has targeted the wrong agency. The D.C. Circuit has told the Sierra Club that the Department of Energy, not FERC, is the correct foe.
The Sierra Club has four pending lawsuits against DOE approvals of LNG terminals, none of which have yet been argued.
Matthews said that DOE's environmental impact statements analyzing terminals would not meet the guidelines set forth this week by CEQ.
"The single essential issue that CEQ identified is you have to quantify that tonnage change in greenhouse gases," Matthews said. "DOE provided a general analysis of how use of LNG provided by the United States compares to other fossil fuels in some export markets, but DOE has never provided any straightforward quantification of how much greenhouse gas emissions will increase in response to a particular export's approvals."
A group of industry attorneys at Sidley Austin LLP, however, recently argued that D.C. Circuit rulings against the Sierra Club suggested that courts would not read NEPA to apply as broadly as CEQ states in its guidance.
The Sabin Center, however, countered that the D.C. Circuit said nothing about whether the scope of the environmental impact statements for the LNG terminals would satisfy NEPA — just that FERC was the wrong agency to target.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/05/stories/1060041260
-
Global Climate Pact Expected to Take Force This Year
Aug 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Paris climate agreement reached last year is likely to take effect by the end of 2016, a report from the government of the Marshall Islands has concluded.
A tally by the Pacific island nation found that countries representing 54 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions are planning to ratify the pact this year, including the United States, China and Peru.
That’s just barely below the pact's threshold. The deal mandates that it take effect 30 days after emitters of 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gas sign on.
If it takes effect, it will be difficult for Republican Donald Trump to undo if he becomes president.
“What we agreed in Paris at the end of last year will likely now have the force of the law by the end of this year,” Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine wrote in a statement about the report from her foreign ministry.
“This is a big recognition of the urgency with which we must now get on with the job.”
The other requirement for ratification is that at least 55 nations ratify it, a threshold that the Marshall Islands expects to be exceeded.
The agreement, reached in December, includes emissions cuts or limits that each country determined on its own, such as the United States’s pledge to reduce emissions 26 percent to 28 percent.
But the emissions cuts are not binding on the countries that sign onto the pact, so it is up their individual governments and international pressure to meet the goals.
Trump has pledged to pull the United States out of the Paris pact and to undo President Obama’s sweeping climate-change agenda, which was Obama’s plan for meeting the emissions cuts he promised.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290548-global-climate-pact-expected-to-take-force-this-year
-
Brown: Extending CO2 Targets May Slip to 2018, Move to Ballot
Aug 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn and Anne C. Mulkern
A legislative effort to extend California's climate change policies past 2020 is proving more difficult than policymakers had bargained for.
A top aide to Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said yesterday that he is committed to cementing the state's climate goals in law or by voter approval but that it might not happen until 2018.
"Let's be clear: We are going to extend our climate goals and cap-and-trade program — one way or another," Nancy McFadden, Brown's executive secretary, said in a statement on Twitter. "The governor will continue working with the Legislature to get this done this year, next year or on the ballot in 2018."
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D) sought Tuesday to back away from expectations that lawmakers would pass 2030 emissions targets this year in the waning days of the state's legislative session. Negotiations over S.B. 32 also floundered last year; the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Fran Pavley (D), is termed out this year (ClimateWire, Aug. 4).
McFadden referenced negotiations with oil companies as a reason to avoid rushing into a legislative compromise. The state's low-carbon fuel standard, which requires producers to reduce the carbon content of their fuels by 10 percent by 2020, has reportedly been a bargaining chip.
"[W]e can't buy into the fallacy that a vote on any single measure over the next 27 days will make or break our climate agenda," she said. "We will not play into the hands of oil companies by telegraphing our strategy or settle for measures that weaken, undermine or diminish our world-leading climate programs."
Representatives of the state's main oil industry organization, the Western States Petroleum Association, did not immediately return emails seeking comment.
State regulators have been arguing that Brown's executive order setting a 2030 emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels provides enough authority for them to keep writing regulations for the post-2020 period. But McFadden's statement seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that more is needed.
The California Air Resources Board released a draft blueprint Tuesday for meeting federal greenhouse gas standards through 2031 under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan that envisions using cap and trade as the main tool (ClimateWire, Aug. 3).
McFadden stressed commitment to the state's cap-and-trade system, which is suffering from low demand amid worries that it might not continue past 2020. Legal uncertainty surrounds the program. Lawmakers have balked at the idea of including explicit authorization for cap and trade in S.B. 32 or obtaining a two-thirds majority vote, which would insulate the program from court challenges under Proposition 26. The 2010 ballot initiative requires a supermajority approval to raise taxes or fees, and a case challenging the current program for being an illegal tax is still awaiting judgment.
Nichols: 'Bet on 2030'
Also yesterday, Brown registered a ballot measure finance committee, "Californians for a Clean Environment," with the California secretary of state.
A ballot campaign would circumvent the need to go through the Legislature, which appears more resistant to greenhouse gas regulations than the public. A poll released last week by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 68 percent of respondents said they supported extending the state's emissions targets to 2030, while 69 percent said they backed A.B. 32, the 2006 law that set an initial target of 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2020 (ClimateWire, July 28).
ARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols also weighed in with a vote of confidence for continuing existing programs.
"Bet on 2030," she said on Twitter. "It's certain: low carbon fuels, ZEVs [zero-emission vehicles], renewable electricity, cap and trade are all in CA's future."
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D) yesterday echoed de León's comments. "The world needs California's continued leadership to advance the fight against climate change, so it is vital that the solutions we put forward are as strong and as solid as possible," he said.
"As Senate President pro Tem de León noted yesterday and the governor's office reiterated today," Rendon said, "we are committed to extending California's emission targets beyond 2020, and we will keep working on this until it's right."
Low-income coalition makes bid for cap-and-trade dollars
Meanwhile, a group representing low-income residents in California yesterday petitioned utility regulators to set aside $1 billion from cap-and-trade revenues to fund solar projects that would benefit those people.
A coalition that includes the California Housing Partnership, California Environmental Justice Alliance, Brightline Defense Project, Natural Resources Defense Council and National Housing Law Project asked the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to consider the request.
A.B. 693 last year authorized the use of some of the cap-and-trade auction revenues that go back to utilities to fund solar energy systems on affordable multifamily rental properties in California.
The proposal requests that the CPUC adopt an energy strategy combining energy efficiency, solar photovoltaics and energy storage "to reduce energy use, peak load demands, and costs, and advance utility efforts to transition to a smarter energy grid." It further asks for special efforts to target installations in disadvantaged communities and to provide job opportunities in low-income and disadvantaged communities.
"This is our opportunity to make clean energy a reality for all Californians," said Matt Schwartz, president and CEO of the California Housing Partnership, in a statement. "This plan will ensure low-income renters — which comprise a huge percentage of California's population — are able to enjoy the benefits of improved energy efficiency and solar energy."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/08/05/stories/1060041243
-
States, Industry Fight EPA Proposal to Bar Some 'Continued' CWA Permits
Aug 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
States, water utilities and other industry groups are attacking EPA's proposal to allow agency officials to block states from allowing facilities to continue using expired Clean Water Act (CWA) permits in some circumstances, saying that the plan is unjustified and would be an onerous expansion of federal oversight of state-issued permits.
The plan is part of EPA's proposal to update the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements in order to harmonize them with policy changes. The agency says many of the changes will have only minor practical effects on regulated entities because they are largely designed to reflect existing policies and statutory mandates enacted since the last NPDES update, or to reconcile contradictions between provisions.
EPA sought public comment on the proposal through Aug. 2, and recently filed comments from states and industry groups fault the provision that would tighten its oversight of states' CWA permitting by allowing regional offices to block states from administratively continuing facilities' expired discharge permits in some circumstances.
They argue that the provision is impractical, conflicts with the water law, and that EPA already has authority to force action on expired permits.
"The proposed modification would fundamentally change what it means for a State to have an approved NPDES program. In states such as Florida, electric utilities and other industries apply for and receive NPDES permits from the State in accordance with State law. . . . EPA lacks the authority to micromanage the incremental, interim steps of an individual permitting process. Consistent with Congressional directives, the States -- not EPA -- have primacy," saysJuly 19 comments by the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group of power utilities.
Under the CWA each NPDES permit is limited to a five-year term, and when it expires state permit authorities or EPA must craft an updated permit with revised terms in order to take into account changing conditions and new scientific information as necessary.
But state and federal regulators alike have increasingly struggled to finish new permits within that deadline, leading to a growing backlog often addressed by continuing existing permits -- sometimes for years.
EPA in its May 18 proposal suggests adding new controls on those continuances through the "proposed permit" designation. If finalized, the provision would allow EPA regions to exercise against continued permits their power to "object" to a proposed permit -- which forces the state to either update the contested permit to address the agency's objection within 180 days, or allow EPA to craft new permit terms instead.
Along with the provisions on expired permits, the NPDES rule would update a host of policies in the NPDES regime to harmonize them with changes to the Clean Water Act and implementing rules.
Proposed Revisions
States and environmentalists are generally backing most of the revisions in the proposal, though states' comments say EPA's proposal for anti-backsliding rules does not match its existing policy and should be reworked. The anti-backsliding rules are intended to ensure that states do not allow their permit mandates to become less stringent over time.
The commenters say that even if the permit backlog is serious enough to address through a new rule, EPA's plan is both unlawful and unworkable.
For instance, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection says in July 27 comments that EPA itself has a permit backlog, in at least one case extending an agency-crafted permit for eight years before finally issuing a renewal.
"What is the recourse when EPA does not meet the 180-day requirement? This begs the question that, if EPA cannot issue permits in a timely manner in states where they are the permitting authority, how will EPA be able to issue permits in a timely manner in states where they are not the permitting authority?" Maine asks.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection in its July 29 comments notes that delays in permit renewal are often thanks to "very complex technical and legal issues that would not disappear simply due to EPA intervention."
The Wet Weather Partnership (WWP), an association of local water, sewer and stormwater utilities, says the new proposal is unneeded because EPA already has the power to designate an expired permit as a "priority permit," which requires state regulators to target the designated permit for renewal. It says the agency can also add stringent renewal targets to NPDES delegation agreements.
WWP and other commenters also argue that enacting the agency's proposal could create serious side effects by subjecting expired permits to other CWA requirements for proposed permits beyond regions' objection authority -- such as public notice and comment mandates, or even cancelling facilities' permission to discharge entirely.
For instance, the engineering firm CH2M says in comments that courts could decide that a facility whose permit is designated "proposed" no longer has an effective discharge permit, since only "final" permits are formally binding. Thus, such facilities could be barred from discharging pollutants to protected waters.
"It is our position that by designating an expired permit as a proposed permit, that prohibits the affected facility from discharging to waters of the United States as stipulated in Sections 301 and 402 of the Act. Quite simply, without an approved permit or an administratively continued permit, an entity cannot legally comply with the requirements of the NPDES Program," it says.
WWP questions whether designating an expired permit as proposed "makes any legal or practical sense," since rather than reflecting regulators' ideas on how to proceed in the future the "proposed permit" would be outdated and likely inadequate. "What benefit is there in asking the public to review 'proposed permits' that EPA doesn't intend to issue and which are not ready for prime time? This will confuse and frustrate stakeholders who take the time to participate in the permit review process," the firm writes.
Environmentalists' Support
However, environmental groups are backing the proposal as needed to address the permit backlog. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, in July 18 comments, says the plan "will provide EPA with an important mechanism to carry out their authorities under the CWA to ensure progress toward pollution reduction goals is sustained."
Despite that support, no further environmental groups joined the Center for Biological Diversity's request, outlined in early July 12 comments, for EPA to undertake Endangered Species Act consultation on the proposed rule to gauge its potential effects on listed species.
Instead, they urge EPA to adopt a version of the rule that allows designating a continued permit as "proposed" two years after expiration rather than five, the other option floated by the agency. States that weighed in on that question, rather than simply urging the proposal to be withdrawn altogether, backed a five-year limit.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-industry-fight-epa-proposal-bar-some-continued-cwa-permits
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested