Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 8/17/2016
-
Industrial Gas Giants Seek Megamerger
Aug 17, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
The industrial gases behemoths Praxair and Linde say they are in preliminary talks to merge. The combined company would have a global market share of about 40% and annual sales of close to $28 billion, making it by far the world’s largest gases firm. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Urged to Move Beyond 'Binary' Prioritization of Chemicals for Review
Aug 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Industry, academic and environmentalist stakeholders are raising concerns about the revised Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) mandate to classify chemicals for risk assessment as either low or high priority, urging EPA to move beyond a “binary” approach... -
Studies Track Releases of PFAS to Humans Via Drinking Water
Aug 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Two scientific studies have shown that drinking water is a major source of human exposure to perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in the US. Water sources for six million residents exceed the US EPA health advisory limit, they say, and data is lacking... -
(PCIC Quoted) FERC Hears Private Comments on PennEast Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Aug 16, 2016 | The Intelligencer
By Edward Levenson
During the 1980s, Bucks County was the scene of many raucous public meetings on the Point Pleasant Water Diversion Project, or the Pump. -
Turbulent Road Ahead as States Navigate Energy Policy
Aug 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
As federal climate regulations push state leaders to map out blueprints for cutting carbon emissions, the legislators who may be needed to help implement those plans are split on how they should look. -
Clinton’s Salazar Pick Undermines Her Climate Promises, Putting Fracking Industry Before People
Aug 17, 2016 | EcoWatch
By Molly Dorozenski
At a time when Secretary Clinton should be strengthening her progressive policies, it does not make sense to pick an industry insider who supports fracking to lead her transition team. Unfortunately, that's the exact move that Clinton made this week in appointing... -
D.C. Circuit Sides with EPA in Oral Argument Format for ESPS Litigation
Aug 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
The appellate court considering challenges to EPA's greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants has largely sided with the agency on the format of next month's oral argument in the litigation, issuing an order that only slightly expands the total time for argument... -
EIA: Natural Gas to Pass Coal in U.S. Carbon Emissions This Year
Aug 17, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are on track to surpass those from coal this year for the first time since 1972, the Energy Information Administration reported today. -
DOE Picks 12 Projects for Cybersecurity Funds
Aug 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Joe Uchill
The Department of Energy is awaiting congressional approval to fund $34 million in cybersecurity grants to twelve projects as part of its Cybersecurity of Energy Delivery Systems (CEDS) program. -
Metra, Other Railroads Warned: Don't Delay on High-Tech Safety System
Aug 17, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Mary Wisniewski
The federal government on Wednesday warned the nation's railroads, including Chicago's Metra, not to wait until the last minute to install a new high-tech safety system that can prevent crashes and save lives. -
Pipeline Backer Fights Environmental Challenge
Aug 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The gas company backing a contentious pipeline expansion in the Northeast is urging a federal court to reject a lawsuit from environmentalists seeking to block the project. -
Report: Wheel Failure Caused May CSX Train Derailment in Northeast D.C.
Aug 17, 2016 | Washington Post
By Luz Lazo
The derailment on an early Sunday morning kept some residents away from their homes for hours and forced the closure of the Rhode Island Avenue Metro station. -
Business Lobby Slams EPA for Unfunded Mandates
Aug 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
States are on the hook for implementing the majority of federal environmental regulations but receive little federal money to help them do that, according to a new report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. -
Atlanta Court Defers to Other Judges Hearing WOTUS Challenge
Aug 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
An Atlanta-based federal appeals court yesterday declined to proceed on challenges to the Obama administration's contentious Clean Water Rule, punting the issue to another federal appeals court that is already moving forward.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Industrial Gas Giants Seek Megamerger
Aug 17, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
The industrial gases behemoths Praxair and Linde say they are in preliminary talks to merge. The combined company would have a global market share of about 40% and annual sales of close to $28 billion, making it by far the world’s largest gases firm.
The deal would be the second recent consolidation in industrial gases, after Air Liquide’s purchase of Airgas in May. “These discussions are ongoing, and there can be no assurance that they will result in a transaction, or on what terms any transaction may occur,” Praxair says.
Praxair had sales last year of $10.8 billion, earnings of $1.7 billion, and 27,000 employees. Linde had sales of $16.8 billion, $1.4 billion in earnings, and 65,000 staffers. The main business of both firms is separating air into oxygen, nitrogen, and argon for use by industry.
Both companies have a strong presence in North America, South America, and Europe. Regulatory authorities could sink the deal if they required the two firms to shed a substantial share of businesses in these regions.
“Praxair and Linde will have thought about the antitrust issues and will be developing a solution that would be acceptable. So a deal is doable, but it will be a challenge,” says John Raquet, managing director of Spiritus Consulting, an England-based industrial gases consulting firm. “It is highly likely that both firms will already have spoken to regulatory authorities in Europe and the U.S.”
Antitrust authorities closely watch the oligopolistic industrial gas business. The U.S. requiredmajor concessions from Air Liquide in its $13 billion acquisition of Airgas. In 2000, an attempt by Air Liquide and Air Products to acquire and split up BOC was undone by antitrust requirements.
In a note to investors, Jefferies stock analyst Laurence Alexander gives the deal a 20% chance of taking place. “It is not implausible,” he states.
It is not known whether Linde would retain its huge engineering business if it merged with Praxair. In a bid to keep costs low, Praxair outsources construction and engineering projects.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i33/Industrial-gas-giants-seek-megamerger.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Urged to Move Beyond 'Binary' Prioritization of Chemicals for Review
Aug 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Industry, academic and environmentalist stakeholders are raising concerns about the revised Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) mandate to classify chemicals for risk assessment as either low or high priority, urging EPA to move beyond a “binary” approach that simply ranks substances on a prioritization scale for review.
EPA held an Aug. 10 meeting in Washington, D.C., to take input from stakeholders on how to craft a proposed rule under the new law that will establish a risk-based process for prioritizing chemical risk reviews. The agency also held an Aug. 9 meeting on developing a separate proposal for assessing whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, and an Aug. 11 meeting on how to collect industry fees under the law.
Section 6 of TSCA directs EPA to categorize existing chemicals -- those already on the market -- as high or low priority, and then perform risk evaluations of the high priority chemicals. EPA has until June 2017 to develop criteria and its implementing rule outlining how agency staff will prioritize as high priority those chemicals that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," and as low priority those that do not meet that standard.
Stakeholders at the Aug. 10 meeting raised various concerns with this approach, and also with a program EPA instituted in 2012, the work plan program, which prioritized scores of existing chemicals for risk assessment before Congress reformed TSCA. The agency has completed a handful of assessments in this program, with several more assessments, largely of flame retardants, in progress.
While the revised TSCA requires EPA to include some of the work plan information in the first risk evaluations the agency conducts, stakeholders pressed the agency to move beyond the prioritization approach it created for the work plan program.
One commenter even encouraged EPA to expand on the new statute, arguing that a binary ranking of chemicals as high or low priority was insufficient and would not suit many chemicals.
"EPA should consider how to deal with those chemicals that do not currently fall into high priority or low priority," said Tony Schatz of Ashland Inc. "We've heard a few times today about those chemicals that fall in between, where we have some concern or lack of information and really are not truly low priority, but not sufficient to be high priority chemicals. So perhaps a tiered approach or some medium level priority may need to be considered for a number of chemicals."
Prioritizing Chemicals
Amy Kyle, a research scientist at the University of California Berkeley's public health school also questioned the approach Congress took in prioritizing chemicals, while noting that, from a management point of view, some type of prioritization will be necessary. "EPA has some challenges in trying to create a scientifically-based process given the way this is written in the statute," Kyle said. "The statute basically provides almost for a triage . . . Most of the rest [of the chemicals] will end up, as many people have said, in some middle ground. This does not really reflect the kind of data that we have about chemicals . . . we're losing a lot in doing that."
Kyle added that she is also concerned that at the pace of assessment described in the statute, it will take EPA 200 years to evaluate 1,000 chemicals. She urged agency staff to "keep an eye on what's really needed to provide a sound chemicals management system as you do this, because there is an opportunity to report back to Congress and to consider what the targets are and what else needs to be done . . ."
Lorenz Rhomberg, a principal with the consulting firm Gradient, argued that it would "be a mistake" to just adopt EPA's work plan risk assessment program to cover the prioritization process for the new statute. He also suggested "some sort of two-tiered system of evaluation with the ends being different" where it "might be useful" for high and low priority chemicals to undergo more scrutiny than mid-level chemicals.
Rhomberg's concerns about the work plan program were echoed by Christina Franz, of the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council, who argued that before it utilizes any of its preexisting TSCA work plan risk assessment program, EPA needs "to update the work plan criteria to identify chemicals that are high or low priority," as she noted that EPA did in 2014. The program updated the original 2012 prioritization of 83 chemicals with the latest chemical data reporting rule production volumes and related information and also the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program, which collects information on industry releases into the environment.
Franz called on EPA to "refresh" the 2014 TSCA work plan of 90 prioritized chemicals to be updated with data from the 2016 chemical data reporting rule and the latest TRI data, among other sources. Franz also called on EPA to update its criteria in the framework on persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals with information from a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry workshop that Franz said some EPA staff members participated in.
Work Plans
Environmental groups and colleagues also critiqued the TCSA work plan program, with Lindsay McCormick, a research analyst at Environmental Dense Fund, raising the argument that "lack of data [about a chemical's toxicity] cannot be used as a rationale not to prioritize" chemicals for assessment, and urging EPA to "codify its authority to order" companies to provide EPA data, "especially data already provided to other governments."
Kristi Pullen Fedinick, a staff scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, expanded on McCormick's points, arguing that "no chemical with data gaps should be low priority . . ."
She called the new statute's risk basis low, explaining that "The [new] law allow a very low bar of 'may pose unreasonable risk.'" Pullen Fedinick went on to explain that adapting the current methodology from the TSCA work plans "is not sufficiently inclusive," adding that the approach ignores a number of endpoints of concern, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals, reproductive toxicants, immunotoxicants and possible carcinogens.
Another EDF representative, Lead Senior Scientist Richard Denison, sought to point out what he saw as a "contradiction" in industry's requests at the meeting and during negotiations over TSCA reform: "They want EPA to make a decision based on existing information," rather than having to generate new data for the agency, Dension said. "But [they also want data for EPA's consideration to be] of the highest quality before EPA makes a decision. I don't understand how you square that circle."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-urged-move-beyond-binary-prioritization-chemicals-review
-
Studies Track Releases of PFAS to Humans Via Drinking Water
Aug 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Two scientific studies have shown that drinking water is a major source of human exposure to perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in the US. Water sources for six million residents exceed the US EPA health advisory limit, they say, and data is lacking for a third of all the country's supplies.
One of the studies, by a multi-agency team of researchers, correlates the location of potential PFAS sources with the levels of the compounds in drinking water supplies.
There were strong statistical links between elevated levels of PFAS in individual areas and four recognised potential sources:
· industrial sites using PFAS;
· military fire training sites;
· civilian airports where fire training is carried out; and
· sewage treatment works.
The authors were from Harvard University, the EPA, NGOs the Environmental Working Group and the Green Science Policy Institute (GSPI), and other institutions.
And they were critical of the use of highly fluorinated surfactants in aqueous foams used to extinguish fuel fires and during training exercises at military bases and airports.
"During fire-fighting practice drills, large volumes of these toxic chemicals wash into surface and ground waters and can end up in our drinking water,” says Dr Arlene Blum, co-author of the study and executive director of the GSPI.
"Such persistent chemicals should only be used when essential, and never for training. There are non-fluorinated foams that should be considered for use instead."
Findings in detail
he study examined data on levels of six PFAS compounds in more than 36,000 public drinking water samples from the EPA's third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3) database. These were collected between 2013 and 2015.
As the precise location of water abstractions is classified information, the scientists used a system of hydrological unit codes (Hucs) to locate water supplies and correlate them with likely point sources of PFAS.
The authors point out that the UCMR3 database indicates six million people are served by water supplies that have exceeded the EPA health advisory level of 70 nanograms per litre (ng/l) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS) combined.
These figures may be conservative, say the authors, as the minimum reporting levels of the database are between 10-90ng/l, much higher than in other studies.
UCMR3 also did not include small public water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people or private supplies. Lead author of the paper, Cindy Hu from Harvard University, noted: "Government data on PFAS in drinking water is lacking for almost a third of the US population, or about 100 million people."California research
A second study led by Susan Hurley of the Cancer Prevention Institute of California has linked the drinking water levels of PFOA and PFOS with serum concentrations in women in the state.
This study uses UCMR3 data to show that women's median serum concentrations of PFOS and PFOA were respectively 29% and 38% higher where detectable levels of these compounds were present in water supplies.
Both studies were published in Environmental Science and Technology Letters.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49154/studies-track-releases-of-pfas-to-humans-via-drinking-water
-
(PCIC Quoted) FERC Hears Private Comments on PennEast Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Aug 16, 2016 | The Intelligencer
By Edward Levenson
During the 1980s, Bucks County was the scene of many raucous public meetings on the Point Pleasant Water Diversion Project, or the Pump.
While the proposed PennEast pipeline has stirred up passions reminiscent of the Pump, a public meeting on the project Tuesday night in Buckingham was subdued.
That's because the 70 or so people in attendance were not allowed to hear arguments for and against the proposed natural gas pipeline that would extend 115 miles from Luzerne County to Mercer County, New Jersey.
Instead, individuals were taken one by one into a closed room and given three to five minutes to express their opinion to a stenographer who was hired by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to record their comments. The commission issued a 1,174-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement last month in favor of the project.
Neither the public nor the press was permitted to hear the comments.
While several people protested the procedure, an FERC official said the agency's practice is an efficient way to record comments that will be forwarded to the commission in Washington prior to its final decision on the pipeline. The public also may send comments by email or regular mail before Sept. 12.
Similar meetings were held Monday in Bethlehem and Jim Thorpe, Carbon County, and on Tuesday in Clinton, New Jersey. Meetings are scheduled for Wednesday in Wilkes-Barre and Trenton.
Both opponents and supporters of the pipeline attended Tuesday's meeting at the Cock 'n Bull Restaurant in Peddler's Village. Dozens of opponents wore lime-green T-shirts with a slashed circle over the words "The PennEast Pipeline" and "FERC Doesn't Work."
Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum said about 30 opponents would use their time to read a prepared community comment that stated, in part, "The level of harm inflicted by PennEast, if it were built, is immense and unavoidable."
The detrimental effects would include taking of private and public lands through eminent domain, damage to farms and businesses, exacerbating climate change, worsening air and water pollution and threatening public safety with potential accidents and explosions, according to the statement.
Van Rossum said the FERC should have held real public hearings at which citizens could ask questions and hear their neighbors' views. "It helps people to become informed," she said.
Two representatives of industry expressed support for the pipeline, which would cut across Durham in the northeastern corner of Bucks before crossing into Hunterdon County, New Jersey.
"Access to affordable natural gas gives our members a competitive advantage," said Jeff Logan, president of the Pennsylvania Chemical Industry Council, whose members include giant chemical companies such as Dow, Dupont and Sunoco.
He said existing pipelines carry natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico region, but the PennEast pipeline would carry gas produced in Northeastern Pennsylvania at a lower cost, benefiting industrial users and the economy as a whole.
David N. Taylor, president of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association, also stressed the economic benefits of the pipeline.
"This project is going to help manufacturers throughout the region, especially Bucks County," he said. Brownfields, or abandoned industrial sites, would get a "shot at a new life" if the pipeline brings affordable and abundant natural gas to the area.
But Solebury residents Aodan and Linda Peacock, who live near the Delaware River, said they are worried the pipeline could harm the relatively shallow waterway.
"We're very concerned about possible damage to the river," said Aodan Peacock. "It's important to keep the river pollution-free and safe."
About a dozen members of the International Union of Operating Engineers attended the meeting in support of the pipeline.
Their spokesman, Frank Bankard, of Bensalem, said the project would bring jobs operating and maintaining the pipeline, and also in industries using the natural gas.
"It's going to create good-paying jobs, long-term jobs, permanent jobs," he said, while reducing Pennsylvania's dependence on outside energy sources.
Opponent Mike Spille, of West Amwell, New Jersey, said existing pipelines supply sufficient natural gas to the area, and the PennEast pipeline would benefit only a few companies while possibly jeopardizing public safety and water supplies.
"There's no public need for it at all," he said.
http://www.theintell.com/news/local/ferc-hears-private-comments-on-penneast-draft-environmental-impact-statement/article_9187f7e0-631d-11e6-a062-376aa47943ea.html#.V7RFyppAU1Q.email
-
Turbulent Road Ahead as States Navigate Energy Policy
Aug 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
As federal climate regulations push state leaders to map out blueprints for cutting carbon emissions, the legislators who may be needed to help implement those plans are split on how they should look.
Under pressure from voters who often don't understand the complexities of the electricity system as well as powerful corporate and advocacy interests, they divide on how quickly to move to cleaner power and how long to keep coal and natural gas plants online.
While Democrats mostly cite politics for the division, Republicans say they are being pragmatic about what is possible.
"There are some people who see renewables as a zero-sum game," said Gene Wu, a Democratic member of the Texas House of Representatives. "Somehow, if wind energy wins or gets a foot up, then everything else loses. So oil and gas would lose. It's not really true."
Wu said, "It's not about practice or policy — it's about politics."
But Frank Wagner, a Republican member of the Virginia Senate, believes that without battery storage, it's difficult to integrate wind and solar power and plan for peak electricity needs. It boils down to "what number people want to add to their bill to integrate more renewables," he said. He argues the shift requires a "shotgun with a whole lot of pellets in it," including more efficient light bulbs, for example.
"Every one's important," he said.
In interviews with state policymakers at a recent summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures in Chicago, lawmakers said they see continued energy policy battles ahead. Many worry the gulf in opinions will make it hard to chart new paths in their states.
Although U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan has been halted by the courts, expert after expert told lawmakers they still need to proactively work to smooth out the impacts of the major industry transition that is underway (Power Plan Hub, Aug. 15).
Joel Briscoe (D), minority assistant whip in the Utah House of Representatives, said he was disappointed the state's governor is suing the federal government and also stopped planning.
"I'm going to go sit down with our governor's energy adviser when I get back and say, 'So if we're not doing the Clean Power Plan, what are we doing?'" Briscoe said.
Playing politics with power
Regardless of what happens with the rule, state officials around the country are feeling the aftershocks of increasingly politicized energy decisions. In Nevada, regulators have seen pushback for changing how rapidly growing rooftop solar power is compensated. In New York, they took historic steps to subsidize nuclear generation to keep the low-carbon power source online while it struggles to compete against cheap natural gas. Smaller battles play out state to state, sometimes in public and sometimes among lawyers in little-known regulatory processes.
And rhetoric, lawmakers say, holds them back from finding solutions.
In Texas, Wu said, although a large build-out of power lines to move wind energy within the state has been largely successful, lawmakers have introduced bills to thwart similar projects in the future "as a sort of rebuke."
That's despite the fact that wind development and hydraulic fracturing have revitalized cities like Lubbock and Amarillo that were suffering, he said. While some conservative Republicans have been among the most vocal supporters of wind development because of the economic benefits, Wu said, others have been among the most vocal critics.
"A lot of it is just thumbing their nose at Washington, thumbing their nose at a Democratic president. I think some of it is just done out of spite," he said. "If Mitt Romney had been elected and had done the Clean Power Plan, would Texas be fighting it tooth and nail? Of course not."
He said if Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is elected president, that will only continue.
Carl Trujillo, a Democrat in the New Mexico House of Representatives, blames politics for interfering in state energy policy, too, but in a different way.
He believes environmental advocates have pressured the state's elected electricity regulators out of using nuclear power to replace retiring coal units.
Some advocates are "dead set against anything but wind and solar," he said. Not all states' electricity regulators are elected, and Trujillo has introduced legislation to appoint them instead, but the bill didn't go anywhere.
"We need people that are engineers, economists" in those jobs, he said.
The renewables vs. fossil fuel divide
State lawmakers span a huge spectrum in their energy policy views. Some advocate for 100 percent renewable power as soon as possible. Others believe cheap fossil fuels are good for local economic growth, especially if the fossil fuels are produced in state. In the middle, Republican and Democratic legislators with years of energy policy experience say the country needs a diverse fuel mix that is affordable, reliable and as clean as current technologies allow. But they disagree widely about how that should work.
John Kowalko, a Democrat in the Delaware House and a supporter of former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, wants to do away with fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies and rapidly push toward renewable power.
"When we have a dependency on generation capacities that are harmful to the environment, harmful to the economy and also limited, finite, they end up becoming harmful to the national security," he said. "I don't know if people look at it that in-depth."
Tom Sloan, a Republican in the Kansas House of Representatives, falls into the latter category — arguing for what he sees as a balanced grid. He has lamented a lack of unbiased information for policymakers to rely on, saying it keeps them from understanding the needs of the power grid (ClimateWire, Aug. 15).
And there's little willingness among lawmakers to sift through the facts and dive deep into the issues, he said.
"There are very few legislators who want to delve in-depth into the interconnectedness of the energy sector. ... There are very few people in the legislature who will see the full range of issues around any one subset of the questions, much less the larger issue," Sloan said.
Core to the disagreement over how quickly the industry should change is a question of how much renewable power the grid can hold without causing bills to skyrocket.
Pushing influence in receptions, boat cruises
Red states look to California and Hawaii and fear making similar moves and risking higher power prices. Legislators note that even the idea of higher power prices, especially if exaggerated by business groups, might lose them their seats.
While some states' renewable portfolios have soared beyond all expectations, neighboring states say they can't be expected to achieve the same levels. Like Wagner in Virginia, they say they need better storage technologies to develop — to hold wind power when the wind doesn't blow and solar power after the sun goes down.
They cite a need for "baseload power," although trade groups like the American Wind Energy Association contend that some planning creativity and broad markets make it possible to add loads more wind power onto the U.S. grid.
States hesitant to shift quickly say they also want to use their local fossil fuel resources and run their coal plants long enough to recoup investments for customers. Some want to keep mining and use coal plants far into the future and are hoping for technological advancements in carbon capture and storage.
Amid all those difficult discussions, special interests enter the debate, lawmakers say.
At the meeting in Chicago, the companies and trade groups behind the energy debate were plentiful and prominent.
The national wind organization and a solar company both made pitches for their power sources in one scheduled discussion.
Walking into the conference center, 5-foot-high billboards listed dozens of platinum, gold and silver sponsors from various industries. At panel discussions, natural gas lobbyists sat up front. As is common practice, groups as varied as the American Wind Energy Association and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association sponsored receptions. One group of trade associations hosted an evening boat cruise.
At the end of the day, "politics is very much dependent on the wealthier power structure, the influence of the lobbyists," Kowalko said. "That's where policy becomes victim to politics."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/08/17/stories/1060041679
-
Clinton’s Salazar Pick Undermines Her Climate Promises, Putting Fracking Industry Before People
Aug 17, 2016 | EcoWatch
By Molly Dorozenski
At a time when Secretary Clinton should be strengthening her progressive policies, it does not make sense to pick an industry insider who supports fracking to lead her transition team. Unfortunately, that's the exact move that Clinton made this week in appointing former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to that post.
Though not an official lobbyist, Salazar took a job as partner at WilmerHale after leaving the Department of the Interior in 2013, a law and lobbying firm working on energy and environmental issues amongst other things. Salazar's track record has illustrated time and time again that he is on the side of big industry, and not the people. He is pro-Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), pro-fracking and pro-Keystone XL pipeline. If Clinton plans to effectively tackle climate change, the last thing her team needs is a fossil fuel industry friend like Salazar.
A NASA study released this week identified fracking as responsible for a methane "hot spot" in the Four Corners region of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, the largest concentration of the potent greenhouse gas in the country. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, yet Salazar has actually made the statement that "there's not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone." The truth is fracking is devastating his home state of Colorado, yet he has chosen to side with industry.
Most recently, Salazar came out in opposition to ballot initiatives to restrict fracking in Colorado. Communities throughout the state spent months collecting signatures for the ballot measures that would establish setbacks for drilling operations from schools and hospitals and empower communities to vote on fracking. Organizers on the ground were fought tooth and nail by the industry, which spent more $75 million since 2014 on PR firms and front groups intent on defeating the ballot measures. Earlier this month, people power overcame its first major hurdle by gathering enough signatures to submit the ballot measures to the Colorado Secretary of State. The office is now officially counting the signatures for qualification for the ballot in November.
A massive fight remains for Colorado activists in the months leading into November. As more oil and gas money flows into the state to mislead voters on the ballot initiatives, it is more important than ever for Secretary Clinton to pick the side of the people over the industry and its mouthpieces. Clinton has indicated support for local control over fracking, but picking an industry insider like Salazar who is fighting against the people's will sends the wrong message about which side she is truly on.
If Secretary Clinton wants to be the environmental leader that she claims to be in campaign speeches, she has to put the people before industry insiders.
Molly Dorozenski is the campaign director for Greenpeace Democracy.
http://www.ecowatch.com/hillary-clinton-ken-salazar-fracking-1975622123.html
-
D.C. Circuit Sides with EPA in Oral Argument Format for ESPS Litigation
Aug 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
The appellate court considering challenges to EPA's greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants has largely sided with the agency on the format of next month's oral argument in the litigation, issuing an order that only slightly expands the total time for argument from what the agency had proposed.
The Aug. 17 order provides slightly more than three and a half hours of total oral argument, to be split evenly among opponents of the rule and supporters. Argument will also be divided into five broad categories, including premier legal and constitutional challenges as well as more discrete, “record-based” concerns over the power plant existing source performance standards (ESPS).
EPA and groups that intervened on its behalf had called for slightly longer than 3 hours of total argument time, with sources earlier speculating that the agency wanted the Sept. 27 arguments to be as short as possible to limit the challenges that opponents could raise.
Challengers, including a 27-state coalition led by West Virginia and a host of industry groups, had instead pushed for nearly six hours of oral argument over two days, in a bid to more fully air their concerns.
One source earlier said the parties could not reach agreement on a format because there are “too many disparate motivations here.” The Department of Justice is “obviously going to try to keep [the arguments] as short as possible, and I expect the opponents will argue for more time to air all of the issues raised by this rule.”
Oral argument will be heard by the full slate of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with two key exceptions. Chief Judge Merrick Garland has recused himself due to his pending nomination to the Supreme Court, and Judge Nina Pillard has also not participated in the ESPS suit, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al., to date, though her recusal has not been explained.
Without Garland and Pillard, that would leave nine judges considering the litigation, with five appointed by Democratic presidents and four appointed by Republicans.
Attention has been keenly focused on the D.C. Circuit's review of the ESPS, given that the rule is the Obama administration's flagship climate change policy and is a cornerstone of the country's international commitment to reduce GHGs under the Paris Agreement.
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 order Feb. 9 stayed the ESPS until the justices either hear the case and make a decision, or allow the D.C. Circuit ruling to stand. However, the high court dynamics changed just days later, after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia -- a development that both critics and supporters say could bolster the likelihood of the rule being upheld.
Next month's oral argument in West Virginia is also notable because it is likely one of the Obama administration's last chances to defend the ESPS, given that a D.C. Circuit ruling on the merits of the challenges is not likely to come until late in the year or even in early 2017.
Argument Format
Under the recent court order, the bulk of the time -- 70 minutes -- will be spent on the issue of whether EPA can set standards on actions that occur “beyond the fence line” of regulated power plants, as well as “state authority” concerns.
Another 44 minutes will focus on the threshold issue of EPA's authority to craft the rule under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, given that the agency already regulates power plants under section 112 of the law and opponents say such dual regulation is not permitted.
Another 24 minutes will focus on opponents' claims that the rule is unconstitutional because it “commandeers” states to restructure their electricity system or face the threat of a federal plan to do the same thing.
Further, attorneys will spend 20 minutes on whether key changes to the final rule were properly noticed in the proposed version of the rule, and whether the final rule was a “logical outgrowth” of the proposal.
Finally, 60 minutes will be devoted to a host of “record-based issues,” including opponents' claims that EPA has not shown its standards are “achievable,” its cost-benefit review was flawed and it failed to consider limitations of renewable power. That section will also cover claims that the rule imposes particular harms on Wisconsin and Utah.
The court rejected separate proposals from the free-market group Competitive Enterprise Institute, which wanted time to discuss alleged “collusion” between EPA and environmentalists, and a citizen who wanted to argue the underlying science of human-cased climate change.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-sides-epa-oral-argument-format-esps-litigation
-
EIA: Natural Gas to Pass Coal in U.S. Carbon Emissions This Year
Aug 17, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are on track to surpass those from coal this year for the first time since 1972, the Energy Information Administration reported today.
The landmark shift comes after natural gas and coal-related emissions nationwide were about equal last year, despite gas consumption topping coal by 81 percent, according to EIA.
While consumption of oil and gas are on the rise, EIA noted that the recent swoon in coal use coupled with a rise in renewable and other non-fossil energy sources have r
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
DOE Picks 12 Projects for Cybersecurity Funds
Aug 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Joe Uchill
The Department of Energy is awaiting congressional approval to fund $34 million in cybersecurity grants to twelve projects as part of its Cybersecurity of Energy Delivery Systems (CEDS) program.
“The twelve projects will enhance the reliability and resilience of the nation’s energy critical infrastructure through innovative, scalable, and cost-effective research, development and demonstration of cybersecurity solutions,” wrote the DOE in a fact sheet accompanying the announcement of projects it intends on funding.
The 12 projects fit into five different initiatives, including detecting adversaries, integrating alternative energy sources into the national grid, reducing the opportunities for attacks, shoring up supply chains and a fifth catch-all category.
The DOE’s chosen projects include two going to academic institutions – an automated attack surface reducing system from Iowa State and an threat detection system from Texas A&M. ABB Inc. and Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories were the only groups to be nominated for more than one project. Each had two.
On the DOE website, the agency explains the need for the program. “Energy delivery systems are the backbone of the energy sector — a network of processes that produce, transfer, and distribute energy and the interconnected electronic and communication devices that monitor and control those processes,” it says.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/291690-doe-picks-12-projects-for-cybersecurity-funds
-
Metra, Other Railroads Warned: Don't Delay on High-Tech Safety System
Aug 17, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Mary Wisniewski
The federal government on Wednesday warned the nation's railroads, including Chicago's Metra, not to wait until the last minute to install a new high-tech safety system that can prevent crashes and save lives.
The Federal Railroad Administration also urged Congress to provide more funding to help commuter railroads implement the program, known as Positive Train Control. The technology uses GPS, radios, computers and antennas to slow or stop speeding trains, prevent collisions and override human errors.
"Positive Train Control should be installed as quickly as possible," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, in a statement provided by the FRA. "This is lifesaving technology available now, and railroads should continue to aggressively work to beat the deadlines Congress has put in place."
Congress last year extended the deadline for all railroads to meet the requirements for Positive Train Control from December 2015 until December 2018, after railroads complained they would shut down if not given more time. A railroad can get up to a two-year extension under certain conditions.
Wednesday's status update — the first since the deadline was extended — outlined the progress made by railroads on PTC. Of the 38 safety plans the FRA expects to receive, it has so far gotten 7. Another 13 railroads plan to submit a PTC safety plan this year, but most submissions are not expected until 2018.
Metra has said that given its capital budget constraints, it has made PTC and improving its rolling stock its top priorities. Metra has said it will have PTC completed by 2019. (It expects to be able to meet milestones required for a deadline extension.) It will cost the agency about $400 million.
The technology is intended to prevent crashes like the Amtrak derailment in May 2015 that killed eight people in Philadelphia. A preliminary BNSFinvestigation of a freight crash in Texas in June that killed three crew members found that it might have been prevented by PTC.
Federal safety officials said PTC would have prevented a 2005 Metra derailment on the South Side that killed two people.
PTC legislation is an unfunded mandate. The American Public Transportation Association has estimated that commuter and passenger railroads will need to spend about $3.5 billion to implement the program, the FRA said.
FRA said it has approved more than $650 million in grants to passenger railroads for PTC since 2008.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-metra-railroads-warned-dont-delay-positive-train-control-20160817-story.html
-
Pipeline Backer Fights Environmental Challenge
Aug 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The gas company backing a contentious pipeline expansion in the Northeast is urging a federal court to reject a lawsuit from environmentalists seeking to block the project.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC, or Transco, yesterday asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to dismiss a lawsuit from the Delaware Riverkeeper, an environmental group concerned about the pipeline's impact in Pennsylvania.
The group sued the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in March, alleging that the agency rubber-stamped the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project in violation of the Clean Water Act and without proper National Environmental Policy Act review. The project aims to increase capacity of the existing Transco interstate pipeline system, which stretches from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast. The new portion would run through part of the Delaware River Basin watershed.
In a brief to the D.C. Circuit, Transco defended FERC's environmental review process, along with that of state agencies with jurisdiction over the project.
"The Commission carefully analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project and concerns of various interested persons, including Riverkeeper, by conducting a thorough and balanced review of the environmental and economic impacts of the Project that involved the preparation of a 217-page Environmental Assessment," Transco lawyers wrote.
The environmental challenge, they told the court, is merely another in a line of ill-conceived attempts to stymie the expansion.
"Petitioner Delaware Riverkeeper Network has unsuccessfully pursued a number of legal challenges to this Project based on an ever-changing series of invalid arguments," the Transco brief said, adding later: "Riverkeeper has not met its heavy burden of establishing that the Commission acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in issuing the Certificate Order for the Project."
Transco is a subsidiary of Williams Cos. Inc.
The Delaware Riverkeeper told the court in March that FERC's practice of approving projects like the Leidy expansion was "blatantly illegal." FERC fired back earlier this month, saying that it appropriately balanced "the evidence of public benefits against the identified potential adverse effect of the Project" and found no significant environmental impact (EnergyWire, Aug. 10).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/17/stories/1060041699
-
Report: Wheel Failure Caused May CSX Train Derailment in Northeast D.C.
Aug 17, 2016 | Washington Post
By Luz Lazo
A wheel problem may have caused a CSX train derailment in May that spilled chemicals along a busy rail corridor in the District, according to an incident report filed with the Federal Railroad Administration.
A CSX train carrying sodium hydroxide derailed May 1 in Northeast Washington. Fourteen of the train’s 175 cars derailed, with one car leaking more than 700 gallons of sodium hydroxide– a hazardous chemical used in cleaning agents. Another tank car leaked calcium chloride, described as “non-hazardous,” while a third leaked ethanol.
The derailment on an early Sunday morning kept some residents away from their homes for hours and forced the closure of the Rhode Island Avenue Metro station. The wreck also shut down the CSX tracks for three days, disrupting MARC and Amtrak service.
CSX Transportation said in the report to FRA that it determined the cause of the derailment was a failure in the ‘journal’ portion of an axle on the first car that derailed, 70 cars into the train. Rob Doolittle, a spokesman for CSX, said the broken wheel is being analyzed to evaluate what may have caused the axle to break.
“CSX inspects all railcars for mechanical fitness prior to a train being dispatched to its destination, in compliance with company policy and federal safety requirements,” he said. But he said the that part of the railcar axle is not accessible for visual or machine inspection.
The derailment caused nearly $500,0000 in track damage and more than $400,000 in damage to equipment, according to the report. Doolittle said the rail company covered those costs.
The report provides CSX’s assessment of the derailment, but federal investigators have yet to release an official cause. FRA spokesman Matthew Lehner said the agency continues to investigate the incident, but has no update of the investigation at this time.
The train was traveling at 27 miles per hour when it derailed near a rail switch in the vicinity of Rhode Island Avenue and Ninth Street NE. The wreckage visible from the Rhode Island Avenue Metro station prompted fear of chemical exposure and sparked renewed concern about the transportation of hazardous chemicals through the District. Twenty-one cars were carrying hazardous materials, according to the report.
In the hours after the 6:35 a.m. derailment authorities said there was no impact to air or water quality and all of the leaks were contained. As part of the clean-up effort the soil impacted by the sodium hydroxide spill was excavated and replaced with clean fill.
In May, CSX reported that there were no fatalities or injuries but the FRA report notes one person was injured. Doolittle said the derailment itself didn’t cause injuries but one worker in the clean-up effort reported some skin irritation after coming into contact with the contaminated soil.
“Safety is CSX’s highest priority and our goal is to deliver every load of freight safely to its intended destination,” he said. “Any lessons we learn from the investigation of this incident will be applied in our operations going forward, to avoid similar incidents in the future if at all possible.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/08/17/report-wheel-failure-caused-may-csx-train-derailment-in-northeast-d-c/
-
Business Lobby Slams EPA for Unfunded Mandates
Aug 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
States are on the hook for implementing the majority of federal environmental regulations but receive little federal money to help them do that, according to a new report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
In a study released Wednesday, the Chamber found federal grants cover only about 28 percent of the funding states need to implement Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules. The study found grant assistance has declined 29 percent over the course of the decade even as the cost of implementing EPA rules has increased by more than one-third.
The report comes after the Chamber and its allies waged lobbying and legal campaigns against three major EPA rules released last year. Those regulations set limits on carbon pollution at power plants, establish federal control over small waterways and limit surface-level ozone emissions.
The rules, the Chamber, business groups and the energy industry warn, will lead to higher costs for businesses and hinder states by requiring more regulatory oversight.
“Instead of being the system of cooperative federalism that Congress intended, the current relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and the states has become one-sided, with the federal government imposing its will,” William Kovacs, the Chamber’s senior vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs, said in a statement.
An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment on the report. But the agency notes online that it spends $4 billion on grants annually, and it requested $3.3 billion for state and tribal assistance grant funding alone in its 2017 budget.
The Chamber said Congress needs to step in and overhaul federal laws governing unfunded mandates, including redefining the term to mean any rule that requires state funding for compliance and blocking rules unless federal agencies can cover potential state costs.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/291695-chamber-hits-epa-for-unfunded-mandates
-
Atlanta Court Defers to Other Judges Hearing WOTUS Challenge
Aug 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
An Atlanta-based federal appeals court yesterday declined to proceed on challenges to the Obama administration's contentious Clean Water Rule, punting the issue to another federal appeals court that is already moving forward.
The three-judge panel on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that litigating the rule in two separate appeals courts would be "a colossal waste of judicial resources."
"If there were an exhibition hall for prudential restraint on the exercise of judicial authority, this case could be an exemplar in the duplicative litigation wing," they wrote in an order to hold the case in abeyance.
The decision is a small win for the administration. The Justice Department argued that the 11th Circuit should throw out the Clean Water Rule challenges following a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in February. The Cincinnati-based federal court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit (Greenwire, Feb. 22).
"The states are attempting to litigate their challenges to the Clean Water Rule in two federal courts at the same time. ... They cannot do this," the Justice Department said in May (Greenwire, June 8).
At issue is a debate over the proper legal venue for the challenges. Industry groups say that local district courts should consider the lawsuits, while the administration has argued that the Clean Water Act directs the challenges to the appeals court.
The U.S. EPA-Army Corps of Engineers rule, also called the Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS, would redefine which waterways and wetlands receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act. The rule is currently on hold as the 6th Circuit deliberates the merits of the regulation.
The case presented in the 11th Circuit and the case in the 6th Circuit "involve the same parties on each side, the same jurisdictional and merits issues, and the same requested relief," wrote the judges.
Larry Liebesman, a senior adviser with the water resources policy firm Dawson and Associates and former DOJ environmental attorney, agrees that the court made the right decision.
"There's no differential in terms of impact in people covered by the 11th Circuit as it does the 6th Circuit," he said.
Parties in the 6th Circuit recently filed briefs on questions over the agencies' administrative record that was handed to the court (Greenwire, July 25).
Industry attorneys told the 11th Circuit in June that it "makes no difference" that the 6th Circuit asserted jurisdiction over the challenges because the Cincinnati-based appeals court has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee, not the Southeast.
One lawyer representing an industry party in the WOTUS litigation said that the 6th Circuit's decision in February centered on a key decision in that court — 2009's National Cotton Council v. EPA — that does not apply outside that court's jurisdiction.
The 11th Circuit set another precedent the same year in Friends of the Everglades v. South Florida Water Management District that held that the Clean Water Act required the Water Transfer Rule at the center of the challenge be brought in district court.
The 11th Circuit could have relied on the Water Transfer Rule case to move forward, the industry attorney said.
In its decision, the 11th Circuit also ordered that a lower district court stay all further proceedings on the rule. The case in the 11th Circuit is an appeal of the Southern District of Georgia's denial of a preliminary injunction to kill the WOTUS rule.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is mulling a separate challenge to the rule. The circuit court is considering an appeal from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of an Oklahoma district court's dismissal of the challenges (E&ENews PM, July 7).
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) told the court that the challenge should stay in his state, regardless of the 6th Circuit decision.
"The Sixth Circuit's decision does not control the outcome of this case, and the district court erred in holding that it does," Pruitt wrote in July.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/17/stories/1060041738
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested