Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 9/1/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Reformed TSCA to Reduce Use of 'Unreliable' Animal Testing
Sep 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Provisions to reduce animal testing under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will ensure the collection of better information, say supporters. -
EPA Bans Mercury Compounds Under Reformed Toxic Substances Control Act
Sep 1, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
The EPA is banning exports of five mercury compounds, effective Jan. 1, 2020, under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. -
NSSGA Comments on EPA’s Forthcoming Process on Chemical Risk Assessments
Sep 1, 2016 | Aggregates Manager
By Kerry Clines
The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA) submitted preliminary comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) forthcoming process on chemical risk assessments, such as rock dust, which is due to be revised by June 2017 in accordance with the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
EPA Consults on Draft IRIS Assessment for ETBE
Sep 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has released for consultation a draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological review of ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). -
Want to Know the Leading Cause of Oil & Gas Spills? So Do We.
Sep 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Holly Pearen
When the oil and gas industry spills or leaks harmful fluids – whether toxic oil or chemical-laden wastewater – the damage to local ecosystems can last for decades. -
EPA Proposes To Retain 75,000-Ton GHG Threshold As PSD Permit Trigger
Sep 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA is poised to issue a long-awaited proposed rule to set a de minimis greenhouse gas emissions level to serve as a trigger for when an air permit needs to include greenhouse gas limits, choosing to stick with the same 75,000-ton-per-year (tpy) threshold it has long used as the trigger for when an emissions rate is significant and subject to permitting. -
The Cost of Slashing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Aug 31, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Adam Creighton
President Barack Obama’s pledge to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 2005 levels by 2050 might cost more than $5 trillion over three decades, according to a new analysis. -
Gov. Brown, Lawmakers Strike Deal on Cap-and-Trade Spending
Sep 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California will spend $900 million in revenues raised by its cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions and hold back $462 million for later under a deal reached yesterday by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and Senate and Assembly leaders. -
Obama Sets Stage for One More International Climate Push
Sep 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama is laying the groundwork for one more climate push during a final trip to Asia as president.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
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) Reformed TSCA to Reduce Use of 'Unreliable' Animal Testing
Sep 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Provisions to reduce animal testing under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will ensure the collection of better information, say supporters.
Toxicology expert at NGO Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Kristie Sullivan, said that the animal testing provisions will ensure “strong” protection of human health and the environment. These were broadly supported by NGOs, industry groups and members of Congress alike during development of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA), which amends TSCA.
“We lack information on many chemicals and how they affect a diverse human population, because we [have relied] too heavily on slow, unreliable and expensive animal tests,” added Dr Sullivan. The updated law's approach will allow the EPA “to collect better information more quickly than current tests [under old TSCA] allow.”
Under the reformed TSCA, the EPA is directed to “reduce and replace the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances or mixtures. It must do this to the “extent practicable, scientifically justified and consistent with the policies” of the law.
The LCSA also requires the agency to develop, by June 2018, a strategic plan to reduce animal testing. And it is required to provide a subsequent report to Congress every five years on its progress in implementing this, and on its goals to further reduce the testing.
Daniel Rosenberg, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), says that the LCSA promotes non-vertebrate testing through the “development of a strategic plan”. This includes “factors” that the EPA must consider, but is not required to act on.
The law says the agency should first take into account, as appropriate and to the extent practicable and scientifically justified, any reasonably available data, or other methods that could be used, before animal testing is required, he says.
Validation
But some consumer advocates have concerns about the validation of alternative methods. Mr Rosenberg says that despite the positive aspects of moving away from animal testing, “there’s a lot of concern that the [alternative] methods could be brought into use, before they have been sufficiently validated.”
He adds that using alternative methods could result in chemicals being wrongly concluded as safe – either because of lack of toxicity or insufficient proof of exposure – that “aren’t really borne out by the methods being used”.
Christina Franz, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, says that improvements in tools and alternative methods are “ongoing”. The best of these, she adds, should be integrated as they become available.
This approach “is entirely consistent with the statutory new requirements to use best available science and weight of the evidence in the risk evaluation process”, she says. “Chemical manufacturers and animal rights activists share a desire to reduce testing on animals,” she adds.
Mr Rosenberg acknowledges that the EPA, together with the chemical industry and animal rights groups, have been “very supportive” of efforts to transition to alternate test methods, including high-throughput screening.
But some members of the environmental health community, he says, see both the promise and the need to “go slowly and carefully” in drawing conclusions from these methods. This is because they will have significant consequences for the environment and public health, as well as state authorities.
LCSA requirements
The LCSA requires the EPA to take into consideration toxicity information, computational toxicity and high-throughput screening methods, prior to performing animal tests under TSCA.
The EPA is also directed to minimise animal testing, by “encouraging and facilitating”:
the use of alternative test methods that provide information “of equivalent, or better, scientific quality and relevance”;
the grouping of similar substances into categories to reduce testing volume; and
the formation of industry consortia to do joint testing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49155/reformed-tsca-to-reduce-use-of-unreliable-animal-testing
-
EPA Bans Mercury Compounds Under Reformed Toxic Substances Control Act
Sep 1, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
The EPA is banning exports of five mercury compounds, effective Jan. 1, 2020, under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act.
An EPA notice published in the Federal Register lists the five mercury compounds: mercury (I) chloride or calomel; mercury (II) oxide; mercury (II) sulfate; mercury (II) nitrate; and cinnabar or mercury sulphide.
Mercury (I) chloride, a chemical produced by gold mining air pollution processes, is the most produced of these compounds, with volumes exceeding 25 metric tons per year, the EPA said in a 2009 report to Congress. It’s also the chief mercury compound that is used as a source of elemental mercury — a toxic substance commonly used in thermometers, batteries, lamps, industrial processes, refining, and lubrication oils.
The top 14 facilities that reported disposing or otherwise releasing mercury compounds to the EPA’s 2014 Toxics Release Inventory were all mining companies, Bloomberg reports.
Only one US company produced mercury (I) chloride in 2011, the most recent year for which this chemical production data is available from the EPA. Bethlehem Apparatus, a waste treatment company specializing in mercury recovery and recycling, produced and imported 580,750 pounds of mercury (I) chloride that year, Bloomberg says.
The EPA’s move to ban these mercury compounds is among the actions the agency has taken to implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Signed into law on June 22, the chemical safety rule amends the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and requires new testing and regulation of thousands of commonly used chemicals.
It imposes a number of new responsibilities on the EPA — as well as on manufacturers and potentially any company that uses chemicals in its products — with relatively short deadlines to carry out these actions.
In late June the EPA posted an Implementation Plan that outlines the agency’s first-year plans to implement the new chemical safety rules. It gives chemical companies and others a better idea of what, and when, they can expect in terms of EPA rulemaking and enforcement activities.
The EPA also hosted a series of public meetings in August to obtain feedback from stakeholders on the processes that will be used to establish fees and prioritize and evaluate chemicals under the new law.
Additionally, the agency is establishing the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) to provide independent advice and expert consultation on scientific and technical aspects on risk evaluations, methodologies and pollution prevention measures or approaches.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/09/01/epa-bans-mercury-compounds-under-reformed-toxic-substances-control-act/
-
NSSGA Comments on EPA’s Forthcoming Process on Chemical Risk Assessments
Sep 1, 2016 | Aggregates Manager
By Kerry Clines
The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA) submitted preliminary comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) forthcoming process on chemical risk assessments, such as rock dust, which is due to be revised by June 2017 in accordance with the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The written comments, which were filed on Aug. 24, reflect a consensus that the agency must approach its chemical risk assessments fairly.
The NSSGA emphasized that the chemical substance being assessed in a risk evaluation should be clearly defined early in the process, and that the EPA should provide opportunities for public input. The association wants substances to be defined based on their physical properties, such as the crystal habits of various minerals, which can be relevant in determining if the substance presents an unreasonable risk.
The NSSGA also says the rule should allow the EPA to exclude minimum exposures from risk evaluations, acknowledging that a substance might pose a risk at certain exposures or concentrations, but not at others, and that the unintentional inclusion of a naturally occurring chemical substance in a product should not require the EPA to conduct a risk assessment or to promulgate regulatory requirements regarding any such risk.
Finally, the NSSGA believes that the EPA should conduct risk evaluations fairly using a “weight of the scientific evidence” approach that does not give preference to studies finding positive evidence of health or environmental risks over studies finding no evidence, including formal causal statistical analyses of the exposure response data and not just an examination of associations.
The EPA is expected to publish its proposed rule in mid-December 2016. The NSSGA says it will thoroughly examine the proposal at that time and determine if additional comments are warranted.
http://www.aggman.com/nssga-epa-chemical-risk-assessments/
-
EPA Consults on Draft IRIS Assessment for ETBE
Sep 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has released for consultation a draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological review of ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE).
ETBE is used as a fuel additive for gasoline to increase octane rating, and has been used to meet air pollution reduction goals.
The use of ETBEs in reformulated gasoline "was effectively eliminated" in the US in 2006. However, use and production of these oxygenates has continued, according to its IRIS toxicological page.
The draft will be discussed at the 26 October IRIS public science meeting. Comments will be accepted until 31 October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49385/epa-consults-on-draft-iris-assessment-for-etbe
-
Want to Know the Leading Cause of Oil & Gas Spills? So Do We.
Sep 1, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Holly Pearen
When the oil and gas industry spills or leaks harmful fluids – whether toxic oil or chemical-laden wastewater – the damage to local ecosystems can last for decades.
Understanding the most common causes of accidental releases could help stakeholders take corrective measures to avoid them. Unfortunately, many regulators don’t collect and make transparent critical information about how many accidents are happening, and what causes them.
For other risky activities, regulators gather and publish information about the most common causes of negative events. Take national car accident rates, for example, as illustrated in this infographic from the Washington Post.
This specific information about the leading causes of traffic accidents helps drivers pinpoint exactly which behaviors cause problems, and hopefully that awareness prompts behavior modifications.
Data Lag
Information about the leading cause of leaks and spills from oil and gas activities isn’t available because many regulators don’t require operators to report the real cause of incidents- instead accepting unhelpfully vague descriptions like “equipment failure” or “human error.” In a recent multi-year research effort, the Environmental Protection Agency looked at approximately 12,000 recorded spills potentially related to oil and gas activity. These spills represented only a “subset” of data from just two states- Colorado and Pennsylvania. National data about spills and information from other states was simply unavailable or of such poor quality as to be useless. Even worse, the spill data that was available didn’t contain enough information to allow for meaningful analysis. EPA was only able to determine that the “cause” of the greatest volume of produced water spills was “failure of container integrity,” which is a lot like saying that the cause of the spill was a spill. Nearly a third of hydraulic fracturing fluid spills had an unknown source.
Spill Data at Work
Fortunately, some states have enacted comprehensive incident reporting rules that are improving oil and gas industry performance. The North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) is an excellent example of a state oil and gas regulator collecting, analyzing and responding to issues identified in comprehensive spill and leak reports. In 2014, the NDIC lowered the spill reporting threshold for crude oi and produced water (brine) to one barrel (42 gallons) for all spills, contained and uncontained. This means that the NDIC now collects detailed information about a lot of spills, and although industry initially complained about this, it’s starting to pay off.
For example, the state found the overall spill rate dropped 27% from 2014 to 2015, which is great. But it also uncovered a less desirable trend; the number of contained spills (spills that occur within enclosed areas surrounded by berms or dykes) dropped from about 80% in 2014 to roughly 70% in 2015. The lower containment rate suggests that the current diking requirements may not be sufficient to contain spills. North Dakota regulators said they used this data to put better environmental protections in place that require 6-inch perimeter berms around new and existing well sites. According to the NDIC, the containment rate would have been closer to 98% if those rules had been in place earlier. This relationship between the circumstances on the ground and evolving, targeted regulations is really terrific.
Ohio is another state that making progress. The Ohio Division of Oil and Gas Resource Management recently proposed new reporting rules that are helpful for making sure that the impacts of spills and leaks from oil and gas operations are mitigated efficiently. Reporting requirements that include brine spills, a single hotline or contact to receive incident reports, standardized information collection expectations, and clearly defined triggering events are all helpful to make spill reporting fast and easy for operators or others managing a stressful incident. To make the proposed rules more helpful, the agency could require reporting of root causes and lower their reporting threshold across the board and add reporting requirements for contained spills.
To reduce oil and gas industry spills across the country, we need more comprehensive reporting rules that require operators to identify the root cause of the leak or spill, accurately characterize the amount and contents of substances released, and describe mitigation measures in detail until the impacts are abated. Only this type of spill reporting will provide the information necessary for meaningful analysis and regulation that reflects the real causes of leaks and spills.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/08/31/want-to-know-the-leading-cause-of-oil-gas-spills-so-do-we/
-
EPA Proposes To Retain 75,000-Ton GHG Threshold As PSD Permit Trigger
Sep 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA is poised to issue a long-awaited proposed rule to set a de minimis greenhouse gas emissions level to serve as a trigger for when an air permit needs to include greenhouse gas limits, choosing to stick with the same 75,000-ton-per-year (tpy) threshold it has long used as the trigger for when an emissions rate is significant and subject to permitting.
Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the proposed rule Aug. 26, and the agency posted it on its website late Aug. 29 along with a fact sheet, though the rule has yet to appear in the Federal Register.
When it does, that will formally open a 60-day comment period for a rule the Obama EPA wants to complete before leaving office early next year, though the unified agenda currently sets no deadline for finalizing it.
But the measure is likely to face criticisms, including from the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group, which has previously signaled concerns about the 75,000-ton threshold when it was used in an interim basis.
The proposal says that 75,000 tpy is an appropriate significant emissions rate (SER) for triggering a best available control technology (BACT) review to determine whether or what GHG controls are needed under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit program.
EPA is setting the threshold after the Supreme Court in its 2014 ruling in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA rejected portions of EPA's tailoring rule. The rule had generally sought to craft GHG thresholds above which new and modified stationary sources would be subject to PSD permits, which regulate major sources in areas that meet federal air quality standards.
It did this by tailoring statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 tpy for conventional pollutants to GHGs to prevent regulation of office buildings and other small entities. Step 1 of the rule set a 75,000 tpy trigger for when GHGs were first subject to permitting, rather than the statutory levels that were far too low for GHGs.
While the Supreme Court held EPA had authority to include GHGs in major source PSD and Title V permits for so-called “anyway sources” -- which are those that would otherwise be subject to PSD permit requirements for their conventional pollutants -- it found that GHGs on their own could not trigger the permitting requirements.
The justices also said EPA should set a de minimis threshold for when GHGs trigger BACT reviews for the anyway sources.
EPA says in the proposal that the high court “recognized that the EPA did not justify on de minimis grounds the 75,000 [tpy] threshold that currently determines whether GHG BACT is required for 'anyway sources.' The U.S. Supreme Court also expressly did not address whether 75,000 tpy [GHG] necessarily exceeds a true de minimislevel, holding only that the EPA must justify its selection of such a level on proper grounds.”
'Trivial or No Value'
Shortly after the high court ruling, EPA in July 2014 issued a memo explaining that it would consider whether to promulgate a SER regulation and that in the meantime it would continue applying PSD BACT requirements to GHGs if the source had the potential to emit 75,000 tpy, the same threshold it used to determine the step 1 initial trigger under the agency's original tailoring rule that first set requirements for GHG limits.
EPA says in the proposal that the 75,000-tpy level is an appropriate SER for PSD permitting because it “represents a level of GHGs, below which there is trivial or no value in conducting a BACT analysis for GHGs because we would not expect to obtain meaningful GHG reductions from requiring application of BACT at all such sources. In addition, there does not appear to be a basis to set a GHG SER level above 75,000 tpy [GHG] based on our review of the GHG permitting experience to date and the fundamental principles for establishing a de minimis exception to a statutory requirement.”
However, the proposal adds that EPA is soliciting comments on establishing a GHG SER below 75,000 tpy and at or above 30,000 tpy, though it does “not believe there is any basis for a SER level to be established below 30,000 tpy.”
The agency says in the fact sheet that the proposal includes “a set of common sense changes needed to bring EPA's air permitting regulations in line with” the UARG high court ruling, as well as a related 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, rejecting arguments over why the agency should be barred from permitting GHGs until it finalized an SER.
In addition to setting the de minimis GHG level, the proposal also revises certain PSD definitions and plantwide applicability limitation provisions to ensure that sources that have the potential to emit only GHGs above the SER are no longer required to have a PSD permit, the fact sheet says.
It also includes proposed revisions to some state-specific PSD provisions to ensure the same result, and revises Title V rules to ensure that a stationary source will not be required to obtain that permit based only on its GHGs.
Finally, the rule proposes to remove certain “narrowing” provisions from some already approved Title V programs for specific states, “as we believe those would no longer be needed in light of the other proposed revisions to the Title V regulations,” the fact sheet says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-proposes-retain-75000-ton-ghg-threshold-psd-permit-trigger
-
The Cost of Slashing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Aug 31, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Adam Creighton
President Barack Obama’s pledge to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 2005 levels by 2050 might cost more than $5 trillion over three decades, according to a new analysis.
More than 190 countries announced similarly ambitious targets in Paris in December, but none included estimates of the costs.
For the U.S., they’re huge: up to $176 billion a year, or $5.28 trillion over 30, according toColumbia Business School economist Geoffrey Heal. His new paper breaks down the costs of the most important prerequisite for achieving the target: making electricity generation carbon-free.
The costs aren’t a line item in the federal budget, but would largely be picked up by utilities, which would pass on the capital costs to consumers.
“The short answer is: You and I will be paying,” Mr. Heal said in an interview.
That estimate includes savings from not having to buy as much gas and coal (sunshine and wind are free), or replace existing fossil fuel power stations.
It doesn’t calculate potential environmental benefits, such as avoiding flooding, air pollution or damage to farmland.
Even under Mr. Heal’s most optimistic assumptions about the development of battery technology, the cost of meeting the president’s pledge would be $42 billion a year.
The need to store energy for days when the sun and wind aren’t performing crimps the economic case for renewable energy, making up 70% of the total cost. To store a day’s power output from a single wind turbine, for instance, costs $7.8 million, or more than twice the cost of the turbine.
And one day isn’t enough to ensure a reliable electricity grid. Mr Heal assumes construction of enough storage to cover two. “[But] there is no very solid basis for this number,” he said.
U.S. emissions have already fallen at least 9% from 2005 levels, thanks to sluggish economic growth and more efficient energy use. All new car and light-truck sales would need to be battery-powered from 2035 onward to cut a further 18% of U.S. emissions. Reaching 80% would require households and businesses to switch to electrical power for space and water heating, too.
The benefits of decarbonizing electricity production, which generates 30% of U.S. greenhouse emissions, would flow through to other sectors.
Planes and ships are unlikely candidates for battery power because of their range. But greater use of electric engines in the mainly oil-dependent transportation sector, which contributes 26%, could see further significant reductions in emissions.
Mr. Heal reckons the costs, which amount to about 1% of U.S. GDP a year, are achievable and manageable with “very strong” financial incentives from government, such as a carbon tax.
Building more nuclear power stations, which are costlier than wind and solar farms but don’t require storage, would be one way to reduce the total cost.
Though the presidential candidates have been largely silent on the topic, Democrat Hillary Clinton says she’ll deliver on Obama’s Paris climate pledge. Republican Donald Trump, on the other hand, says he would cancel the agreement.
Mr. Heal would like to see a deeper conversation.
“It’s a sad comment on the political debate. This will affect people’s children and grandchildren,” Mr. Heal said.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/31/the-cost-of-slashing-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
-
Gov. Brown, Lawmakers Strike Deal on Cap-and-Trade Spending
Sep 1, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California will spend $900 million in revenues raised by its cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions and hold back $462 million for later under a deal reached yesterday by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and Senate and Assembly leaders.
Funds will go to local transit and rail; rebates for electric and other clean cars; efforts attacking short-lived climate pollutants; paying for solar, insulation and other energy upgrades on homes of low-income residents; and adding green spaces to low-income neighborhoods.
The amount is $300 million less than the $1.2 billion the Senate sought to spend in a plan unveiled last week. But Brown and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D) wanted to keep more money in reserves.
"California's combatting climate change on all fronts and this plan gets us the most bang for the buck," Brown said in a statement. "It directs hundreds of millions where it's needed most — to help disadvantaged communities, curb dangerous super pollutants and cut petroleum use — while saving some for the future."
The Legislature controls 40 percent of the funds generated by the economywide cap-and-trade program, and Brown spends the other 60 percent through his budgets. That stems from a pact the governor and legislative leaders reached in 2013. Political battles over the money have kept the Legislature's dollars largely unspent until now.
The Golden State's carbon trading system auctions pollution allowances to businesses with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. Those permits went for $12.73 per carbon ton in the latest auction earlier this month. Auctions had reaped nearly $4 billion for California through February, the latest time frame available. That amount doesn't include the portion that is controlled by the California Public Utilities Commission and returned to utility ratepayers.
But there have also been concerns about cap and trade as a future revenue source. There was low bidder interest in the last two auctions for carbon allowances. Some blamed concerns about the program's future stability. A pending lawsuit claims the cap-and-trade program is a tax that needed to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature under state law.
And the 2006 climate law, A.B. 32, which allowed the Air Resources Board (ARB) to set up cap and trade, expires in 2020. The Legislature just passed S.B. 32, which extended carbon cuts to 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030. But the measure does not specifically mention cap and trade.
The mid-August joint cap-and-trade auction with the Canadian province of Quebec saw 37 percent of available allowances sold. It generated $8.4 million for the state, far less than the $564 million a sold-out auction would have produced. So far this year, the state has seen more than $1 billion in unsold allowances (ClimateWire, Aug. 24).
The spending plan announced yesterday is for fiscal 2016-17 and spends proceeds from auctions in earlier years. It's unclear how much cap and trade will generate for fiscal 2017-18.
"So rather than hit a kind of fiscal cliff, they'd like to have at least some for next year, even in the worst-case scenario for the auction," said Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air.
"We always knew that the Senate plan was going to be the high-water mark and that the Assembly and the governor wanted to spend less money," he added. "On the whole, we think it's a very good plan. Obviously, we all wish there were more money, but given the circumstances, this is a very good plan."
Some Republicans and business groups have been critical of spending the funds before the lawsuit on the legality of cap and trade is resolved.
Money for clean vehicles
Under the new agreement, the largest individual amount, $150 million, will go to programs aimed at replacing gas- and diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment. ARB has a few efforts that target that goal, Magavern said. One puts zero-emissions trucks at locations that include ports and freight centers and gives transit agencies battery electric and fuel-cell buses. Those would be deployed mostly in low-income communities, he said.
Roughly half the diesel particulate matter emissions, almost half the nitrogen oxides pollution and about 6 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the state come from the freight sector, Magavern said.
To meet the state's climate and air goals, "we need to clean up the freight sector," he said.
About $140 million of cap-and-trade funds will go for a new program called "transformative climate communities." Neighborhood groups with plans that package housing with renewable energy, green improvements to streets and other actions could apply for the funds. Little Tokyo in Los Angeles, for example, has been working on such a comprehensive program.
The effort would be run by the state's Strategic Growth Council, which already distributes the funds for sustainable housing near transit, given under the 60 percent of the proceeds that Brown controls.
Another $133 million will help fund the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project. It gives residents rebates for buying electric and other zero-emissions vehicles. ARB runs that effort.
The deal allots $135 million for transit and intercity rail, which also receives dollars through the 60 percent of the proceeds that Brown includes in his budgets. Earlier this month, the state Transportation Department announced recipients for $390 million in that category. The money funded improvements allowing for more frequent and faster trains in cities, and in one case a new, zero-emissions streetcar line (ClimateWire, Aug. 17).
An "urban greening" program will get $80 million. It aims to put green spaces in communities where they are lacking. There already is a program funded by cap-and-trade proceeds that puts trees in neighborhoods, but this one would not be limited to trees. There could be "green alleys," where a company would carve out pavement and add green space, advocates said.
Other money designated: $50 million to reduce methane emissions from dairy and livestock operations, $40 million for forestry and fire protection, and $20 million to add solar and other renewable power and for insulation and other upgrades in homes of low-income residents.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/01/stories/1060042245
-
Obama Sets Stage for One More International Climate Push
Sep 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama is laying the groundwork for one more climate push during a final trip to Asia as president.
During a Wednesday night speech in Hawaii, Obama said “climate will be a centerpiece of our agenda” at a Group of 20 Summit in China this week, where he will continue pushing for quick implementation of the international climate deal reached in Paris last year.
“Joint U.S.-Chinese leadership on climate was part of the reason that we were able to get Paris done, and I’m going to push to build on that record as long as I occupy this office and probably even after I leave it,” Obama said.
The Paris climate deal calls for countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by amounts set by their governments. The deal won’t kick in until at least 55 countries, representing 55 percent of global emissions, formally join the deal.
The U.S. and China — which account for more than 40 percent of global emissions combined — have committed to joining the deal together, raising the possibility that they will do so during the G-20 Summit. Chinese media reported last week that they would take that step during the event, but the White House hasn’t confirmed timing on joining the deal.
At Wednesday’s event, a meeting of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Obama said climate change is a personal issue for him, noting its predicted impact on islands like his home state of Hawaii.
As he did in a speech in Lake Tahoe earlier in the day, he highlighted his administration’s work on reducing American emissions and bracing for the brunt of climate change. He also noted his conservation record, including last week’s decision to expand a Hawaiian marine preserve, which he will visit on Thursday.
“I’m very proud of these achievements, but we always have to remind ourselves no nation can do this alone,” he said.
“The biggest emitters, like my country and China, have a special responsibility to act to make sure that countries willing to do their part move past the dirty phase of development to move into a clean energy strategy. That was a key principle in the Paris agreement.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/294074-obama-sets-stage-for-one-more-international-climate-push
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
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