Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 9/15/2016
-
US EPA Committee Gives Nod to 1-BP Risk Assessment
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA’s Chemical Safety Advisory Committee has found that the EPA developed “a good risk assessment document” for 1-bromopropane (1-BP), and encouraged the agency to complete its assessment of the substance. -
Minnesota Updates Chemicals of High Concern List
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Minnesota's Department of Health (MDH) has added 66 substances to its chemicals of high concern list, and removed 28 of them. The list now totals 1,769 substances. -
BPA Put Forward for Candidate List
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The French authorities have submitted a proposal for adding bisphenol A to the REACH candidate list of SVHCs. -
Echa Updates List of Substances Potentially Subject to Checks
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has updated the list of substances that might be chosen for compliance checks. -
Furniture Trade Bodies Back Call to Reduce Flame Retardant Use
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
European trade bodies, representing the furniture, bedding, building and woodworking industries, have called for action against the use of flame retardants in furniture. -
Dust is More Than Just Dirt
Sep 15, 2016 | Newsweek
By Sandy Ong
If you need another reason to bust out the vacuum cleaner, this might be it: The dust in your house is likely to harbor harmful chemicals that, if present at high enough levels, may damage your health. -
U.S. EPA Requires PCB Cleanup at Coachella Valley Substations
Sep 15, 2016 | Calexico Chronicle Imperial Valley Weekly
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a settlement with Imperial Irrigation District after the utility company expended nearly $1.25 million to address its improper disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at electricity substations in Indio and Coachella, Calif. -
US Department 'Lacks Expertise' to Advise on Conflict Minerals Audits
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The US Department of Commerce "lacks the knowledge, skills and expertise" to assess company audits or recommend best practices for responding to the conflict minerals reporting rule, the Dodd Frank Act 1502. -
Methane Capture Tested by SoCalGas on Pipeline Replacement Project
Sep 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
With the four-month-long natural gas storage well leak at Aliso Canyon still roiling, Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) engineers said they have successfully tested a methane capture system on a 2.5-mile distribution pipeline replacement project. -
Bill Seeks Emissions Data from Energy Projects on U.S. Lands
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
A bipartisan coalition of House lawmakers today plans to introduce legislation calling for the online posting of information about energy projects on federal lands and the planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions associated with them. -
Oil Companies Go Big for Natural Gas
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
The world's biggest oil companies are betting bigger on natural gas. -
Americans Want Natural Gas
Sep 15, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Former Rep. Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.)
As a former member of Congress and political moderate, I thought I’d seen most of the propaganda tactics employed by the political extremes to sway public opinion and achieve political outcomes. However, I am amazed and disappointed at the level of demagoguery employed by the environmental left to twist the facts to suit their narrative of our energy future. -
Exotic Shipping Routes Emerge as New Nations Seek Exports
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
New oil trading routes have emerged as more traditional oil-producing nations are starting to experiment shipping crude oil to unusual destinations. -
Dakota Access Faces Millions in Losses if Pipeline Stalls — Lawyers
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Dakota Access backers will face $430 million in losses and innumerable other harms if the contentious pipeline is paused, lawyers for the company said yesterday. -
McCabe Says Power Sector Trends May Mean Tighter ESPS From Next EPA
Sep 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA's top air quality official is acknowledging that power sector trends toward lower-carbon generation, which are making it easier than expected to comply with the agency's greenhouse gas rules for existing power plants, could lead a future presidential administration to strengthen the rule's targets. -
Obama's Legacy — From A to F
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Obama and his team stormed into office almost eight years ago with big ambitions for environment and energy policy.
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
-
US EPA Committee Gives Nod to 1-BP Risk Assessment
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA’s Chemical Safety Advisory Committee has found that the EPA developed “a good risk assessment document” for 1-bromopropane (1-BP), and encouraged the agency to complete its assessment of the substance.
The report follows the May public meeting of the CSAC, where the committee was charged with considering and reviewing scientific issues associated with the draft TSCA workplan chemical risk assessment of 1-BP. This focuses on uses in commercial applications (vapour degreasing, spray adhesives and dry cleaning) and consumer applications (aerosol solvent cleaners and spray adhesives).
The CSAC provided a number of recommendations on how to “improve the clarity and transparency of the scientific analyses” presented in the document. These include:adopting “systematic review practices” to describe how studies were selected and evaluated, including explicitly stating criteria for determining if data are of adequate and acceptable quality;referencing studies that were evaluated but determined not to meet criteria to inform exposure estimates; andclarifying the intended audience of the document, and ensuring the level of explanation provided on each topic is more consistent.
But ultimately the committee expressed the view that the agency “should not delay completing the risk assessment, because the occupational and consumer use scenarios already evaluated indicate high risks of adverse effects.”
Further, it says that some of its members commented that the risks “might have been under- rather than over-estimated”.
The committee’s finding runs counter to concerns raised by industry stakeholders, who said the draft assessment used the highest exposure values and was likely to represent an overestimate of workplace human cancer risk, beyond the precautionary principle.
The review of 1-BP is the first risk assessment review conducted by the committee, since it was formed last year.
The EPA has said that it will look to the CSAC’s membership to fill appointments to its new Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (Sacc). Establishment of the 14-member committee is required under the new TSCA, as amended by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA).
https://chemicalwatch.com/49672/us-epa-committee-gives-nod-to-1-bp-risk-assessment
-
Minnesota Updates Chemicals of High Concern List
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Minnesota's Department of Health (MDH) has added 66 substances to its chemicals of high concern list, and removed 28 of them. The list now totals 1,769 substances.
Under the Toxic Free Kids Act, updates are required at least once every three years. The law was passed in 2009.
The list is intended to identify chemicals that could be harmful to human or environmental health because they are known or suspected:
carcinogens;
reproductive or developmental toxicants;
systemic toxicants;
endocrine disruptors;
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances; or
are very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB).
Of the 66 new substances, 53 are substances of very high concern (SVHCs) under REACH. Other authoritative listings reviewed for possible inclusion on the list were:
California Proposition 65;
the International Agency for Research on Cancer's lists of category 1, 2A or 2B carcinogens;
the National Toxicology Program’s report on carcinogens; and
Washington state's list of chemicals of high concern to children.
The 66 new substances include a number of chromates, the phthalate DINP, multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), the common solvent methyl ethyl ketone and the antifreeze ingredient, ethylene glycol.
In identifying substances to be removed, the department focused on substances with primary uses or applications not covered by the statute: namely, food and pharmaceuticals. This resulted in 28 being removed.
The last update, in 2013, involved removing 57 chemicals and adding 32. This reduced the number of substances that appeared on the first list, published in 2010, from 1,756 to 1,731.
Priority chemicals
Minnesota also maintains a priority chemical list that currently includes nine substances. That list has not changed since established, and consists of:
bisphenol A (BPA);
butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP);
dibutyl phthalate (DBP);
di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP);
decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE);
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD);
lead;
cadmium; and
formaldehyde.The Department of Health says that it is developing a prioritisation framework to “provide consistency and transparency” in naming new priority substances.The flame retardant tris(1, 3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP), and the chemical group nonylphenol and its ethoxylates, remain candidates for the list.
According to the MDH website, there are currently no requirements related to either the chemicals of high concern or the priority chemical lists in Minnesota. In other states, where similar lists have been required by statute, such as Maine and Washington, manufacturers or importers of chemicals may be required to report to the state government if the chemicals are within particular consumer products.
Interagency team
Earlier this year, the Department of Health partnered with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Minnesota Department of Commerce to formally establish the Chemicals in Products Interagency Team (CPIT).
The goal of the CPIT is “to reduce the amount of chemical hazards in products, their dispersion into Minnesota’s environment, and their presence in the bodies of Minnesota citizens, especially our most vulnerable communities.”
According to the MDH 2016 update report, the three agencies will work in partnership to:
monitor chemicals present in products, humans and the environment;
educate consumers, vulnerable populations and businesses about chemical hazards and ways to avoid them; and
accelerate the development and use of safer alternatives.
The MDH also continues to track chemical legislation in other states, including in Washington, Maine and Vermont.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49657/minnesota-updates-chemicals-of-high-concern-list
-
BPA Put Forward for Candidate List
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The French authorities have submitted a proposal for adding bisphenol A to the REACH candidate list of SVHCs.
Organisations wishing to submit comments on the proposal have until 21 October.
France's proposal comes as little surprise as it previously submitted a proposal for classifying BPA as a category 1B substance toxic for reproduction. EU member states and the European Commission approved this and it comes into force in March 2018.
The proposal – or Annex XV report – says that uses of BPA listed in registration dossiers which fall under the scope of the authorisation procedure include:
industrial and professional repacking and formulation;
its use a laboratory reagent;
use as an antioxidant for processing PVC; and
it use in the blending of polycarbonate and the manufacture of goods made of polycarbonate.
Other uses, not listed in the dossiers, include:
in the making of TBBA and other flame retardants;
as an antioxidant in brake fluids;
in the composition of heat transfer fluids and lubricants; and
use in paint hardeners.
It also has many uses as an intermediate, such as in the manufacture of epoxy resins – but these fall outside the scope of authorisation.
The proposal says the endocrine disruption properties of BPA in relation to its reproductive toxicity and other toxic effects will be addressed in a separate Annex XV dossier. This will be submitted early next year.
BPA is already regulated under EU legislation on workplace health and safety, toys and on food contact materials.
The REACH Committee approved a proposed restriction on the use of BPA in thermal paper in July. Its formal adoption is expected shortly.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49662/bpa-put-forward-for-candidate-list?q=endocrin
-
Echa Updates List of Substances Potentially Subject to Checks
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has updated the list of substances that might be chosen for compliance checks. The following 14 substances have been added:
N,N'-di-sec-butyl-p-phenylenediamine;
methyl acetoacetate;
2-methylpentane-2,4-diol;
2,6-dimethylheptan-4-one;
benzyl salicylate;
pentane-2,4-dione;
bis(2-ethylhexyl) fumarate;
subtilisin;
hexaboron dizinc undecaoxide;
zinc bis[bis(dodecylphenyl)] bis(dithiophosphate);
amines, C16-18 and C18-unsatd. alkyl;
2-benzyl-2-dimethylamino-4'-morpholinobutyrophenone;
benzyl-C12-14-alkyldimethylammonium chlorides; and
reaction mass of 1-(3-((C12-18-(even numbered))-alkylamino)propyl)guanidine acetate salt and 1-(C12-18-(even numbered))-alkyl-1-(3-guanidinopropyl)guanidine acetate salt and 1-(C12-18-(even numbered))-alkyltetrahydropyrimidin-2(1H)-imine acetate salt.
The agency advises registrants to check the list and, if necessary, update their dossiers by 14 November.
Echa has been publishing a list of substances that are probably facing a compliance check since January 2015. The idea is to give registrants the chance to update their dossiers before the check starts.
The agency stresses the list is indicative and non-exhaustive.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49674/echa-updates-list-of-substances-potentially-subject-to-checks
-
Furniture Trade Bodies Back Call to Reduce Flame Retardant Use
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
European trade bodies, representing the furniture, bedding, building and woodworking industries, have called for action against the use of flame retardants in furniture.
A policy paper, published by the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and endorsed by three trade bodies – the European Furniture Industries Confederation (Efic), European Federation of Building and Woodworkers (EFBWW) and the European Bedding Industries’ Association (EBIA) – expresses concern about the dangers flame retardants pose to human health, the environment and in the recycling of furniture.
The document states that: "The signatories of this paper share and stress the same concerns about the implications from the presence of harmful flame retardant chemicals (FRs) in furniture products. More effective and less harmful ways to achieve fire safety exist and need to be evaluated."
It calls for harmonised standards of fire safety in the EU, which do not require the addition of flame retardants in order to be met.
Efic President Markus Wiesner said: “Finding a standard that better suits the current risk profile of upholstered furniture is important to avoid long-term exposure to potentially harmful chemicals and effectively excluding furniture from fully entering the circular economy.”
The UK and Ireland are the only EU countries to have national regulations requiring an open flame test, which effectively necessitates the use of flame retardants. Furniture for use in offices and public places is subject to varying requirements, set by localities and individual businesses.
Mr Wiesner said the lack of harmonisation at the EU level “creates a system which is difficult and highly costly to comply with and creates an obstacle to trade in the EU internal market.”
The paper calls for “more effective and less harmful” ways than flame retardants to achieve fire safety, including use of sprinklers, smoke detectors, self-extinguishing cigarettes and better material combinations in furniture.
Alternative substances?
EFBWW political secretary for safety and health, Rolf Gehring, told Chemical Watch in a statement: “Our two main reasons for backing the paper are clients' exposure and exposure during the working process.”
He added that the federation was having internal meetings with its chemists to discuss possible alternatives. “We see the possibility of replacing used (hazardous) flame retardants with less harmful substances,” said the statement.
But senior policy officer for chemicals and health, Lisette van Vliet, said HEAL did not advocate the use of chemical flame retardants.
“There are many examples of industry moving from one dangerous chemical to another,” she said. “This regrettable substitution has been going on for decades.”
Other signatories to the HEAL paper include Cancer Prevention, the European Environmental Bureau, ChemTrust, Zero Waste Europe, Ecos and the European Fire Fighters Union Alliance.
The US furniture industry has called for a similar national standard, after California removed its open flame test in 2013. Prior to then, California’s Technical Bulletin (TB) 117 had served as the de facto national standard, which effectively required the use of flame retardants.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49678/furniture-trade-bodies-back-call-to-reduce-flame-retardant-use
-
Sep 15, 2016 | Newsweek
By Sandy Ong
If you need another reason to bust out the vacuum cleaner, this might be it: The dust in your house is likely to harbor harmful chemicals that, if present at high enough levels, may damage your health.
Products we use every day—things like electrical appliances, hair shampoo and food packaging—contain chemicals that end up in the air we breathe. High exposure to chemicals like phenols and phthalates has been linked to asthma, cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive problems and developmental delays in children, among other complications. The chemicals eventually settle as dust on floors and other surfaces in our homes. Given that Americans spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors, there’s a decent chance we may inhale these chemicals, absorb them through skin, or accidentally eat them (Mom was right to insist on hand washing before mealtimes).
“Most people think of dust as dirt, but it’s more than that,” says Ami Zota from George Washington University. She’s the lead author of a new study on indoor dust, published September 14 in Environmental Science & Technology. “These chemicals pose potential threats, especially to children’s health.”
Researchers have known for a while now that household dust contains more than just dead skin, animal dander and dirt tracked in from outside. But the presence of consumer product chemicals in dust hadn’t been comprehensively studied—until now. Zota’s study marks the first time so many chemicals have been studied at the same time, and in so many places.
One type of chemical—phthalates—appears to pose the biggest risk; the study found it was present in the nearly 500 dust samples Zota and her team surveyed. Phthalates are added to plastics to make them softer and more flexible. They can be found in vinyl flooring, toys and even cosmetics. Their presence in dust is of concern because they have been linked to multiple health issues, such as disrupting hormones, and causing breathing difficulties and mental retardation in children.
In addition to phthalates, Zota and her colleagues identified four other chemical classes in the dust samples they surveyed—45 chemicals in total. Of these, 10 were present in 90 percent of the dust samples surveyed. These include fragrances, flame retardants (in furniture and electronics), phenols (in beauty products and reusable water bottles), and phthalates (in food packaging and vinyl flooring).
To obtain the data, Zota and her colleagues combed through 26 studies from the past 15 years. They analyzed dust samples collected from indoor environments such as homes, schools and offices from 14 U.S. states on the East and West Coasts. Only chemicals that were measured in three or more studies were included in the analysis.
While the ubiquity of toxic compounds present in household dust might sound alarming, the real issue of concern is how much of the stuff is actually entering our bodies. “The potential effect [of these chemicals] depends on our exposure to it,” says Gediminas Mainelis, an environmental scientist from Rutgers University. “It depends on people’s daily activities—are they walking in the dust or dancing in it?”
Young children are particularly vulnerable. “They’re climbing around, crawling on the floor, putting their hands in their mouth,” says Zota. They’re also at a stage at which their brains and bodies are still developing.
So even though potentially harmful chemicals can almost always be found in household dust, it’s how much you’re exposed to them that really matters—something that can’t be gleaned from this study. Yet, there are ways to minimize your exposure to these chemicals, says Zota. She and her co-authors suggest frequent hand washing, as well as regular dusting, mopping and vacuuming. Hard surface flooring, instead of carpets, can help keep a home dust-free too.
Federal health officials are also well aware of the risks associated with these chemicals. “There’s a big change in the authorization of these chemicals,” says Mainelis. Previously, chemical companies were free to put new products on the market without having to first demonstrate their safety. All that changed this June when Congress passed the Lautenberg Act, requiring safety testing for both new and existing chemicals.
Because so many products are already commercially available and testing all of them would be impossible, the Environmental Protection Agency is drawing up a priority list for its safety assessment. “One of the goals of our study was to help both regulators and scientists to identify chemicals to prioritize,” Zota says, “for testing and for the development of safer alternatives.”
http://europe.newsweek.com/toxic-dust-chemicals-health-hazards-epa-498556
-
U.S. EPA Requires PCB Cleanup at Coachella Valley Substations
Sep 15, 2016 | Calexico Chronicle Imperial Valley Weekly
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a settlement with Imperial Irrigation District after the utility company expended nearly $1.25 million to address its improper disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at electricity substations in Indio and Coachella, Calif. This action is a result of nine environmental audits the company conducted as part of a Toxic Substances Control Act settlement with EPA in February, 2015.In compliance with the prior settlement, IID discovered that two of the nine inactive substations audited had PCB contamination in violation of TSCA. The company spent $685,000 to clean up its former Indio substation, including the removal of 1,863 tons of soils and debris. At its former Coachella substation, the company spent $368,000 to conduct a cleanup that included the disposal of 31 tons of soil and debris. The utility spent $190,000 for an independent auditor to perform evaluations at the nine substations in Indio, Mecca, Brawley, El Centro and Calexico.“The cleanups performed by Imperial Irrigation District have reduced the impacts of legacy PCB contamination in Coachella Valley,” said Alexis Strauss, EPA’s Acting Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “EPA’s goal is to protect public health and the environment from the risks of PCBs.”As the February 12, 2015 enforcement action required IID to pay a $379,000 civil penalty and perform the audits, no additional monetary penalties were imposed by today’s settlement. Pursuant to the prior action, IID replaced 16 regulators, one transformer and three oil circuit breakers with non-PCB containing equipment at active facilities in its service area. The company removed 78,530 pounds of PCBs from the environment as a result of completing this supplemental environmental project.IID is the sixth largest utility in California, providing electric power to over 145,000 customers in the Imperial Valley and parts of Riverside County. Its former substation in Indio, which operated from 1943 to1990, is located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and King Street; the Riverside County Courthouse, a middle school, and numerous businesses are located within a half-mile radius. IID’s former substation in Coachella, which operated from 1948 to 1989, is at the northeast corner of Ninth Street and Vine Avenue; it is also located in a densely populated area with an elementary school, a middle school, and residences located within a half-mile.PCBs are man-made organic chemicals used in paints, industrial equipment, plastics, and cooling oil for electrical transformers. More than 1.5 billion pounds of PCBs were manufactured in the United States before the EPA banned the production of this chemical class in 1978. Acute PCB exposure can adversely affect the nervous, immune, and endocrine systems as well as liver function. Concerns about human health and the extensive presence and lengthy persistence of PCBs in the environment led Congress to enact the TSCA in 1976.
http://tribwekchron.com/2016/09/u-s-epa-requires-pcb-cleanup-at-coachella-valley-substations/
-
US Department 'Lacks Expertise' to Advise on Conflict Minerals Audits
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The US Department of Commerce "lacks the knowledge, skills and expertise" to assess company audits or recommend best practices for responding to the conflict minerals reporting rule, the Dodd Frank Act 1502.
These are the findings of a report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Filing is required by the Act, which aims to prevent mining revenue going to militia groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and surrounding regions.
Under this, companies wanting to declare their products and supply chains 'DRC conflict-free' must carry out independent private sector audits (Ipsas). The GAO report notes that 29 companies filed Ipsas between 2014 and 2016.
The Department of Commerce is required to assess, and submit an annual report on, the accuracy of Ipsas and company due diligence processes.
Reports were supposed to be submitted from 2013, the first year companies were required to file conflict minerals reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
However, because the department is ill-equipped to carry out the assessment it has still not submitted a report, according to the GAO. Until the department fulfils these requirements, SEC-filing companies may face "additional challenges," it says.
The GAO says it found that because of the uncertainty about Ipsa requirements and best practices, some consulting firms were misrepresenting the scope of services needed for compliance, in order to justify excessive fees for SEC-filing companies.
The report recommends the Department of Commerce submit a plan to the appropriate congressional committees. This would outline the steps it will take, with associated time frames, to:
assess the accuracy of filed Ipsas and other due diligence processes;
develop recommendations for the process used to carry out such audits. These would include ways to improve their accuracy and establish standards of best practices; and
acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry out these responsibilities.
In March, department officials said they had established a team to manage its responsibilities related to Ipsas.
And in July, they said that they had conducted an "outreach effort to identify best practices in the audit community relevant to their conflict minerals requirements and to enlist the collaboration of agencies with knowledge and expertise in this area".
In a letter responding to the GAO's recommendations, the deputy secretary of the Department of Commerce, Bruce H Andrews says the department concurs with the recommendations and is "working to complete a plan as described."
Challenges
The report also outlines the difficulties companies already face determining whether the source of gold, titanium, tungsten and tin (3TG) is conflict-free.
It says that the supply chains face multiple tiers of suppliers and processing facilities rely on paper documentation from miners and processors. These can be susceptible to fraud and error.
Due diligence efforts are further complicated because processing companies may purchase products from multiple suppliers and commingle them, making it difficult to identify the location of origin.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49571/us-department-lacks-expertise-to-advise-on-conflict-minerals-audits
-
Methane Capture Tested by SoCalGas on Pipeline Replacement Project
Sep 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
With the four-month-long natural gas storage well leak at Aliso Canyon still roiling, Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) engineers said they have successfully tested a methane capture system on a 2.5-mile distribution pipeline replacement project.
Using compressed natural gas (CNG), the capture and reuse test was accomplished as part of the Sempra Energy utility’s multi-billion-dollar, multi-year Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan (PSEP) mandated five years ago by state regulators after the San Bruno, CA, transmission pipeline explosion.
The work was completed last month in Atascadero in San Luis Obispo County. The utility crews captured gas emptied from a recently abandoned pipeline and saved the gas for later use, which SoCalGas said eliminated the noise and methane emissions that normally occur in traditional pipeline venting.
Crews had earlier decommissioned a 2.5-mile section of the 10-inch diameter pipe, which was recently replaced by a new pipeline in a new location. The old pipeline had to be completely emptied of about 150 Mcf.
"SoCalGas compressed most of it, and then pumped it into three large tanks so it could be put back into the system and used by customers," a spokesperson said.
Nationwide, emissions from gas utility distribution systems collectively represent less than 1% of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, but California's climate change policies call for drastic reductions in these emissions, and methane is at the top of the list for needing greater controls. The aftermath of the Aliso Canyon underground storage well leak has heightened those concerns (see Daily GPI, June 1).
As part of the PSEP program, for which SoCalGas expects to spend nearly $1.2 billion this year, the methane capture technique has satisfied engineers that it is something that can cut emissions and save gas supplies. Many more thousands of miles of pipeline may need to undergo pressure testing and/or replacement.
Calling the testing a "groundbreaking" innovation, Rick Phillips, senior director of the SoCalGas PSEP activities, said capturing methane that traditionally has been vented not only reduces noise and smells that can affect the general public, but "it also minimizes impacts to the environment. We will continue testing this new innovation in hopes of expanding its use for whenever its application may be suitable."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107758-methane-capture-tested-by-socalgas-on-pipeline-replacement-project
-
Bill Seeks Emissions Data from Energy Projects on U.S. Lands
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
A bipartisan coalition of House lawmakers today plans to introduce legislation calling for the online posting of information about energy projects on federal lands and the planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions associated with them.
The "Transparency in Energy Production Act" is from Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. It will be co-sponsored by Reps. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) and Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.), as well as Florida Reps. Ted Deutch, a Democrat, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Carlos Curbelo, both of whom are Republicans in tight re-election races.
The bill would require the Interior Department to freely and publicly publish at least annually the total amount of fossil fuels produced by type and state on federal lands, the portion of those fuels that was lost to venting, flaring or fugitive releases, and information on the agency's fossil fuel leases and potential leases.
Interior would also need to post online data detailing solar, wind and geothermal projects on federal lands. Greenhouse gases produced by oil, gas and coal extraction and emissions offset by renewable energy projects would be published as well.
Furthermore, the legislation calls for biennial reports to Congress on how Interior is reducing greenhouse gas emissions from federal lands and waters.
Such reductions are a top priority for the Obama administration. Last year, the president ordered all federal agencies to cut their emissions 40 percent from 2008 levels by 2025 (Greenwire, March 19, 2015).
The Wilderness Society, which helped craft the legislation, applauded the sponsors for their leadership on addressing climate change with better information.
"This legislation is sorely needed because the federal government has never tracked how much carbon pollution comes from fossil fuels pulled out of public lands," said Josh Mantell, the conservation group's carbon management campaign manager. "Bipartisan efforts such as this are essential to coming up with solutions to reduce the threat of global climate change."
But with little chance of passing the Republican-controlled Congress — especially so late in the legislative session — congressional observers are likely to count the bill's bipartisan support as its most significant achievement.
The legislation is also one of the first to emerge from the Climate Solutions Caucus, a climate change-focused group whose membership — like the bill's sponsor list — is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. All of the backers aside from Tsongas are members of the group, which has been dubbed the "Noah's Ark Caucus" for its one-by-one approach to adding Republican and Democratic members (E&E Daily, Feb. 9).
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060042864
-
Oil Companies Go Big for Natural Gas
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
The world's biggest oil companies are betting bigger on natural gas.
In the expectation that gas will be the world's fastest-growing fossil fuel over the next two decades, international companies like Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, Total SA and Eni SpA are boosting their natural gas production capacity, competing for market share.
Natural gas now accounts for about half of their production and is expected to dominate new output in the coming years. But after all these massive bets, the outlook for growth is grim. Seeing low prices and a global supply glut, the companies are switching their focus from producing natural gas to developing new markets for gas.
"They have to get more imaginative to create demand," said Neil Beveridge, a senior analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. "In an oversupplied world, the winners are the ones with a market position already."
The oil companies are seeking to expand their markets creatively. Shell, the largest independent producer and marketer of liquefied natural gas, has been making an effort to increase its presence in emerging markets. The company recently helped Jordan build new LNG importing facilities and then became a major supplier.
Shell is also targeting the shipping market, as well as the market for LNG as transportation fuel. The company has started operating LNG truck fueling stations but had to shut down two fueling stations in Canada this year due to weaker-than-expected demand.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/15/stories/1060042876
-
Sep 15, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Former Rep. Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.)
As a former member of Congress and political moderate, I thought I’d seen most of the propaganda tactics employed by the political extremes to sway public opinion and achieve political outcomes. However, I am amazed and disappointed at the level of demagoguery employed by the environmental left to twist the facts to suit their narrative of our energy future. As someone who believes climate change is real and a long-time champion of renewables, I think the latest efforts to denigrate natural gas and drive policy through scare tactics are deplorable. I could not stand by and witness their efforts to use loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response. This conversation and our nation, deserves a fact-based dialogue and a common sense approach.
Natural gas remains a foundation fuel for the U.S. energy economy and has been the key to unlocking the most substantial greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the nation’s history. Policymakers at every level are trying to figure out how to use more natural gas to meet our economic and environmental needs.
Most recently, the propaganda surrounded some expected data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas are expected to surpass those from coal for the first time since 1972. In fact, this is a welcome development that shows how the increased use of natural gas is consistent with, and supports, a lower carbon future.
Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas are likely to surpass coal this year as fuel use patterns change. This is not cause for alarm. Natural gas emissions growth is only half of coal’s decline. The result is total carbon dioxide emissions have fallen below 5.2 billion metric tons - the lowest level since 1992.
A massive change is underway in the U.S. electric power sector. Substantial amounts of coal-to-gas switching has taken place alongside the growth in renewable electricity. Between 2007 and 2015, the amount of electricity generated at coal-fired power plants declined more than 30 percent. Natural gas and renewables have filled that gap, with natural gas providing about two-thirds of the electricity to plug the hole left by coal; renewables made up the other third.
It’s the evolution away from coal and towards natural gas and renewables that has propelled the U.S. to the lowest annual carbon dioxide emissions in decades.
Methane, another important greenhouse gas and the primary component of natural gas, has also been on the decline. Industry-wide natural gas system methane emissions are down 15 percent over the past two and a half decades and natural gas utilities in particular have been a leading force contributing to this decline. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, methane emissions from gas utility systems dropped 74 percent since 1990, even as natural gas utility companies expanded the system to serve 18 million more customers. No small feat, this exceptional record is a result of decades of gas utility investments to improve safety and upgrade infrastructure through risk-based integrity management programs. Furthermore, best practices constantly being implemented and research and development underway will continue to drive down methane emissions.
The potential for U.S. natural gas as an important tool in the suite of greenhouse gas emissions reduction options is reflected in the Obama Administration’s policies. Natural gas is the foundation of the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Natural gas use will increase as states move to further reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electric power generation. Natural gas has repositioned the U.S. as a credible leader in global efforts to reduce emissions. U.S. commitments submitted to the international climate negotiations last December in Paris include Administration policies, like the CPP, that rely on natural gas to achieve emissions reductions. Natural gas is necessary for the United States to make progress toward the ambitious emissions reduction target set in Paris. Thinking about it a different way: if it weren’t for natural gas, the scope and cost of the Administration’s efforts would be far less ambitious.
But there is something more that the detractors of natural gas do not seem to grasp - Americans want natural gas to heat their homes, warm their water and cook their food. More homes and businesses use natural gas today than ever before as affordable and stable prices drive the economic case for its comfort and reliability.
The popularity and environmental benefits of using natural gas for these applications is separate and apart from the incredible progress being made in lowering emissions from the generation of electricity. Households with natural gas versus all-electric appliances produce 37 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, they save an average of $840 per year on their bills. If you include the lower cost of goods from cheaper fuel, low-priced natural gas put $1,337 back in the pocket of the average American family.
From local economic development boards to the halls of Congress, the discussion about our energy future must include ways to extend the benefits of natural gas to unserved and underserved homes and businesses. It provides incredible advantages to American consumers. There are cynical ideologues that would lead you to believe that our energy choices are all or nothing. They push a view that there is a war between natural gas and other energy sources. The opposite is true. Greater use of natural gas is reducing emissions and enabling the growth of renewable energy, and new technologies that will power a cleaner and more prosperous future.
Dave McCurdy is the president and CEO the American Gas Association (AGA) which represents more than 200 local energy utility companies that deliver natural gas to 177 million Americans nationwide. He served for 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives as the Member from the 4th District of Oklahoma.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/295957-americans-want-natural-gas
-
Exotic Shipping Routes Emerge as New Nations Seek Exports
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
New oil trading routes have emerged as more traditional oil-producing nations are starting to experiment shipping crude oil to unusual destinations.
The United States has recently shipped oil to Curacao, France and Israel after it lifted its export ban last year. The trend has extended even away from the United States, with Algerian oil being shipped to Australia, Saudi Arabia shipping oil to Poland, the United Arab Emirates exporting oil to Romania, and many more.
Battling a glut in supply, the oil exporters are encouraged by low oil prices and cheap shipping rates to tap into these new markets, reshaping the global oil market.
"These flows have only been made possible due to two strongly reinforcing trends: extremely low freight rates and accommodative inter-regional crude spreads," analysts at Vienna-based JBC Energy GmbH wrote in a note published last week.
The new routes could bring an opportunity to refineries as they are able to pick cheaper supplies from various exporters and could benefit oil traders that profit from price differences.
"These are simple economic calculations that have significantly widened refiners' crude procurement options," the analysts said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/15/stories/1060042871
-
Dakota Access Faces Millions in Losses if Pipeline Stalls — Lawyers
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Dakota Access backers will face $430 million in losses and innumerable other harms if the contentious pipeline is paused, lawyers for the company said yesterday.
With a legal brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Dakota Access LLC used the opportunity to list all the calamities it would encounter if project opponents succeed in blocking construction.
Chief among them: immediate financial harm, loss of customers, potential loss of work for 8,000 people, and various ripple effects in the oil and gas industry and broader economy. And that's even if work on the pipeline is stalled only temporarily, the company claimed.
"Even a temporary or limited injunction would have devastating long- and short-term impacts to the DAPL project," the brief said. "Construction is in the final phases, and flexibility no longer remains to work around short segments of off-limit portions of the pipeline, and as such, any injunction would jeopardize the project itself by causing deviations and delays to the now-critical path construction schedule."
The company is currently barred from working beneath and on the shoreline of Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River, while the Army Corps of Engineers considers whether to grant an easement there. Per a court order, it also cannot start construction on a 2-mile section west of the lake. The same court order also blocks construction 20 miles east of the lake, but that portion of the pipeline corridor is virtually complete.
Now tribal opponents are asking the D.C. Circuit to extend the 2-mile construction freeze west of the lake another 18 miles to protect potential burial grounds there (E&ENews PM, Sept. 12).
Dakota Access' response to that request laid out a catalog of potential harms from such an injunction, adding that it has already incurred "countless dollars in damages that cannot be recovered" from the thousands of protesters gathered near the pipeline's route in North Dakota.
According to yesterday's brief, a delay in construction is expected to push the pipeline's start date beyond its January 2017 target. That means a loss of customer contracts, and "the families of upwards of approximately 8,000 workers will be negatively affected."
Such a hit would amount to more than $430 million, the company said, noting that demobilization alone would cost $200 million, and each month of delay would block in more than $83 million in losses. After a year of delays and related losses — capital expenses, loan renewal fees, lost revenue, penalty payments — the company would be down $1.4 billion, it said.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has countered that continued grading of the land and other construction activities would cause irreparable harm to historical and cultural sites, many of which likely remain undiscovered. The tribe is expected to reply to Dakota Access today.
The Obama administration has urged the company to voluntarily hold off on construction within 20 miles of Lake Oahe while the Army Corps considers an easement needed for the water crossing.
Dakota Access lawyers cited the company's extensive efforts to avoid cultural sites by consulting archaeologists, navigating around sensitive areas, overlaying the pipeline with existing infrastructure as much as possible and training construction workers in an "Unanticipated Discoveries Plan" for any unknown artifacts encountered along the way.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/15/stories/1060042869
-
McCabe Says Power Sector Trends May Mean Tighter ESPS From Next EPA
Sep 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA's top air quality official is acknowledging that power sector trends toward lower-carbon generation, which are making it easier than expected to comply with the agency's greenhouse gas rules for existing power plants, could lead a future presidential administration to strengthen the rule's targets.
“What we are hearing, kind of far and wide, is that for some states those [emissions] budgets may not be difficult to meet or in fact not difficult at all to meet, because that is the way the system is already going,” acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe said during a Sept. 13 forum co-hosted by Duke University's Nicholas Institute, the Great Plains Institute, and the Bipartisan Policy Center.
“That is a good thing . . . because it means that carbon is going down for whatever reason,” McCabe added. “And people in future years can figure out what that means.”
Her comments, however, stop well short of committing the agency to a stronger rule. Instead she couched her remarks as one potential outcome consistent with decades of history under the Clean Air Act that would be up to the next administration.
McCabe's remarks came in response to a query from a Minnesota utility regulator asking whether new projections of power sector GHG emissions are prompting the agency to rethink its power plant existing source performance standards (ESPS) rule. That question followed prior discussion at the forum of the latest projections of business-as-usual power sector trends expected to drive lower GHG emissions even in the absence of the ESPS.
In her response, McCabe drew a parallel between the ESPS and the agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for addressing pollution transport -- a rule that proved easier to meet than first expected when it was issued in July 2011. Implicit in that comparison is the fact that litigation over an earlier version of the transport regulation delayed emissions cuts but ultimately allowed the EPA to take another look at achievable reductions from evolving technology.
Duke University's Tim Profeta further pressed McCabe on the issue of how lower-GHG trends are affecting the rule, asking about the possibility that even a partial remand of the ESPS in court could provide EPA an opportunity to factor such trends into any rule fix.
“I can't speak to what a future administration might do given a court opinion that we have not seen yet,” McCabe replied, offering a standard agency answer declining to speculate on pending litigation.
The exchange comes just two weeks before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is scheduled to hold high-profile oral arguments Sept. 27 in consolidated litigation challenging the ESPS.
Despite declining to opine on the pending suit, McCabe pivoted to refer to broad Clean Air Act history that has repeatedly strengthened emissions controls over time, acknowledging the potential for ever-tighter GHG controls from future administrations.
“I think we can look back over 40 years of Clean Air Act practice. . . . It has always been an iterative process,” McCabe said. “It has always moved forward in a pretty step-wise manner. . . . It has always relied on . . . what technology is available at any period of time,” she added.
“The process takes a while but the success is demonstrable over time. I will leave that to the next [EPA] crew . . . to figure out how to handle whatever the court hands them,” McCabe said.
'Engines Of Change'
Several earlier speakers at the forum discussed how utility trends since the August 2015 issuance of the final ESPS -- including the renewal of renewable energy tax credits and continued low natural gas prices -- are expected to further drive the sector's GHG emissions down.
For example, Analysis Group's Sue Tierney said the next president should not weaken the ESPS, citing power industry developments that are in many respects moving to overtake the rule's targets. “In some sense I believe the [ESPS] is about optics and symbols, but the engines of change are already happening in the marketplace,” she said.
Despite the aid from market trends, McCabe acknowledged that EPA still faces complex discussions with states on ESPS implementation should it survive court challenges, including over issues that have been deferred while the Supreme Court's stay of the rule remains in place.
“There are certain kinds of questions we are not having conversations about and probably won't until the Clean Power Plan is no longer stayed,” McCabe said, in response to an audience query suggesting that EPA has not offered enough guidance on how multiple states can work together to reduce emissions or how states and EPA can navigate complex jurisdictional boundaries related to the power sector.
McCabe also cited two of the most “contentious and complicated issues” the agency faces in developing its model trading rules for the ESPS. Those issues, according to formal comments on the proposal, are how prescriptive EPA should be on allowance allocations and how to address potential emissions leakage.
In addition, McCabe also responded to a utility official query on the possibility of emissions trading between mass- and rate- based systems under the ESPS, referencing prior agency concerns this could be unworkable and indicating this has not changed. “At this point, we are still pretty focused on rate-based, one system, and mass-based, another system,” she said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/mccabe-says-power-sector-trends-may-mean-tighter-esps-next-epa
-
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Obama and his team stormed into office almost eight years ago with big ambitions for environment and energy policy.
What the president couldn't accomplish through legislation, he attempted to push through with beefed-up regulations — including efforts to crack down on greenhouse gases after climate legislation failed and tougher rules for offshore drilling in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Today, Obama is announcing that he's using his executive power to unilaterally create the first national monument in the Atlantic Ocean.
For some, his agenda was welcome and overdue. The president's supporters praise him as one of the strongest environmental champions to inhabit 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
But his detractors say Obama's tenure has been rife with overreach and policies that have put environmental protection ahead of economic health.
Greenwire recently asked energy and environment experts from across the political spectrum — including former government officials, industry representatives, environmentalists and politicians — to weigh in on the environmental successes and failures of the Obama administration. Their responses varied dramatically, with grades ranging from A's to a "resounding F."
As the Obama administration prepares its exit, here's what a dozen insiders said in email responses when asked to give his administration an overall letter grade on its environmental and energy policies and to point to the administration's biggest accomplishments and biggest disappointments on that front.
Heather Zichal, former deputy assistant to Obama for energy and climate change
Grade: A. How could you not? For a man that has made historic progress in reducing climate pollution not only at home but securing an international commitment to do so ... that's an easy one. And just for added measure he has protected more land and waters than any other sitting president. I think it's fair to say he is the most consequential environmental president in recent times and future generations will look back and continue to thank him for his dedication.
Biggest accomplishment: Tough call — on international side it is their work with China. It wasn't long ago that the No. 1 and No. 2 carbon polluters in the world were sitting on the sidelines watching the planet heat up. Today, they are leading the charge to be part of the solution, as we saw over the weekend. Domestically — it would be supporting renewables. The price has gone down and deployment has gone up. Tax policy is part of it but the important work that Obama got off the ground by funding ARPA-E in ARRA (which includes R&D for new energy technologies) is only going to continue to pay off.
Biggest disappointment: In term one, there was no reason for the administration to punt on the ozone standard. Thankfully ... it's gotten back on track but if there was one thing to change it would be that. As an aside, I would also say if Bears Ears — America's most significant unprotected cultural landscape — is not permanently protected before the president leaves office that would also be a major disappointment.
Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp.
Grade: We would give the Obama administration a resounding F.
Biggest accomplishment: There are no "accomplishments" of this administration, as President Obama has been the greatest destroyer that America has ever seen. This is particularly so regarding the cost and reliability of electricity for all Americans, including our poorest families.
Biggest disappointment: The poorest 25 million families in the United States now pay out $0.22, of every $1.00 they earn, for energy. Mr. Obama promised that electricity rates would "skyrocket" in 2008, and since. These poorest families are now paying the brunt of these destructive energy policies.
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club
Grade: B+, with room for improvement.
Biggest accomplishment: The aggressive willingness with which President Obama ultimately put tackling the climate crisis at the top of his agenda. There are a lot of things that fit under the umbrella of that achievement, from making a difference globally in the lead up to Paris and beyond by prioritizing climate in discussions with other heads of state to rejecting Keystone XL. Fuel economy standards, clean energy investments in the stimulus, modernizing the broken coal leasing program, more protected acreage and national monuments than any other president in history — these actions and more made a difference not just in making progress to curb emissions and protect our planet, but in showing the rest of the world that the U.S. was finally ready to lead globally. Paris would not have been possible without that.
Biggest disappointment: Part of the reason the president's second term has been so exciting was because his first term was disappointing. And it's true that some of the trends from the first term have unfortunately carried over. We'd like to have seen significantly more progress curbing methane pollution from existing sources. That's a place where only baby steps have been taken. At the same time, we'd like to see a legitimate, comprehensive strategy developed to keep dirty fuels in the ground outside of a few key areas where there has been action. But, then again, he still has a few months to go.
Christine Todd Whitman, U.S. EPA administrator during the George W. Bush administration
Grade: C+
Biggest accomplishment: Setting aside protected land.
Biggest disappointment: Not elevating the discussion on climate change.
Nancy Sutley, former Obama administration chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality
Grade: I think the Obama administration has overall done incredibly well in its energy and environmental policies and has really moved the needle on climate, clean energy and conservation. From the president to his appointees, it has been about getting things done and every part of the federal government has played a part in tackling the climate challenge and embracing clean energy and sustainability. Real, tangible climate policies, advances in clean energy technology and deployment and new national monuments and many accomplishments that haven't gotten as much public attention will be lasting legacies of this administration and this president.
Biggest accomplishment: Confronting climate change head on domestically and internationally. The Climate Action Plan laid out a road map that is being carried out and added to, including the Clean Power Plan, the agreements with China, and the Paris Agreement.
Biggest disappointment: Not being able to get climate legislation and the general failure of Congress to engage constructively on climate change.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee
Grade: Some of the folks in the administration are smart, but the president only really listens to the White House staff. Very narrow-minded and insular. I would give the administration an incomplete, but it's not their fault.
Biggest accomplishment: Trying to take credit for energy advancements that took place in spite of their policies.
Biggest disappointment: This president taking domestic energy production for granted. The emissions reductions, they came from unconventional shale. He's not readily admitting or promoting this fact. In reality it's the only path forward. Additionally, they have no grasp on the length of time and effort it takes private industry to get through the permitting process to develop, let alone with all the new layers that have been added by this president.
Henry Waxman, former California Democratic congressman
Grade: I would give President Obama an A grade.
Biggest accomplishment: Among his other environmental accomplishments, his investment in renewable energies, tighter mileage standards, methane gas and CFC controls, the Power Plant rule, and international efforts with China and at the Paris Conference to get international cooperation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Biggest disappointment: Congress' lack of will to pass a cap and trade or carbon tax, all the while denying the science and threat of climate change.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee
Grade: F, for false advertising and not being honest or forthcoming with the American people.
Biggest accomplishment: Imposing costly and burdensome and often unnecessary regulations on the American people.
Biggest disappointment: President Obama's empty promises.
The president recently agreed to the Paris climate deal, the cornerstone of which is the EPA's Clean Power Plan. Even if all 178 countries that agreed to the climate deal meet their promised reductions of carbon emissions for the next 85 years, that will reduce temperatures by only 1/6 of one degree Celsius! And it will cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs. EPA's own data shows that the Clean Power Plan would reduce sea level rise by only 1/100th of an inch, the thickness of three sheets of paper. Why punish the American people for no significant impact on climate change?
The administration's regulations effectively pick winners and losers by favoring one type of energy over another. This administration also controls American lives through burdensome regulations that have little benefit, while harming hardworking Americans. Many of this administration's most expensive and burdensome regulations, such as its proposed ozone rules and the Clean Power Plan, are based on data that not even the EPA has seen. The administration opposes letting the American people see that data that supposedly justifies its regulations. That's why I sponsored, and last year the House passed, The Secret Science Reform Act, which requires the release of underlying data before a regulation can be implemented. The Obama administration opposes letting the people see the data. What are they trying to hide?
Throughout our nation's history technology has always solved our problems and that is true now. We should let sound science, R&D and technological breakthroughs, not a political agenda, address climate change.
Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and former Obama EPA deputy administrator
Grade: While I was at the EPA, I can tell you we were aiming for an A every day. In the two years since I've left, the administration has continued to put a high priority on responding to climate change using all the tools at the executive branch's disposal, including laws that have already been passed by Congress like the Clean Air Act. We didn't see a comprehensive national approach to evolving our energy system, but thanks to action on issues ranging from appliance efficiency to renewable energy tax credits to fuel efficiency standards, plus action by cities, states and businesses to expand clean energy, we're moving in the right direction.
Biggest accomplishment: The biggest accomplishment has to be the leadership that led to the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change. U.S. leadership was essential to delivering the deal by showing through action at home that the U.S. was prepared to do its part and by the president's personal engagement in diplomacy that helped persuade China and others to do their part, too. No one agreement solves a global challenge as complex as climate change, but Paris has the tools to hold countries accountable and build ambition over time.
Another big accomplishment was working with the auto and trucking industry to set new rules that will dramatically increase the fuel economy, and decrease the greenhouse gas emissions, of cars and trucks for decades. With transportation now the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, action in this area is one of the most significant steps the administration took that will pay dividends for the next decade.
The Clean Power Plan was also a major accomplishment. EPA consulted extensively with states and industry. As with most programs under the Clean Air Act, EPA set emissions targets, then let states determine how to reach them, including using market-based approaches. As it works its way through the courts, which was inevitable, we're already seeing states talking and thinking about how to develop implementation plans. A cleaner energy system has both environmental and economic benefits, so it wouldn't make sense to stop that progress.
Biggest disappointment: A major disappointment was the failure of the Waxman-Markey bill that would have taken a comprehensive, market-based approach to climate change. Giving business the tools to find the most efficient and effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have been a huge win. Instead we have a state-by-state approach, with 10 states successfully deploying cap-and-trade policies to reduce emissions, but that doesn't deliver the full economic efficiency that we could get with a comprehensive carbon pricing program at the national level.
Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Republican attorney general
Grade: President Obama's administration deserves a failing grade on two counts. To start, the Obama EPA has promulgated some of the most far-reaching and unlawful regulations. This is borne out in the Supreme Court repeatedly rejecting several significant regulations, including its unprecedented stay of the EPA's Power Plan. These unlawful regulatory actions have harmed working families and negatively impacted some of our nation's most vulnerable populations.
Biggest accomplishment: No answer.
Biggest disappointment: It's clear the Obama EPA does not care about the working families who rely on the most reliable and affordable energy sources that our nation has to offer. Its radical agenda of using any means necessary to end the use of fossil-fuel energy is not only an affront to the rule of law, it ignores the interests of the people who work in or rely on good paying jobs in those industries.
Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters
Grade: President Obama is on track to be the greenest president, but there's still a lot more work to do.
Biggest accomplishment: Thanks to the leadership of President Obama and his administration, we have made historic progress protecting our children and future generations from the devastating impacts of climate change. From the landmark fuel economy standards to the Clean Power Plan to the rejection of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline to the Paris Agreement, President Obama has demonstrated a strong commitment to this urgent and defining challenge of our time. He has also worked tirelessly to safeguard the air we breathe and the water we drink. He has wisely used his authority to protect more land and water than any president in history and has selected places that help showcase the diversity that makes America so strong. We are excited about the continued progress to be made over the next few months as President Obama continues to build on his environmental legacy. Our nation must elect a president who will continue this critical work of protecting our environment, tackling climate change, and ensuring all communities have access to clean air and safe drinking water.
Biggest disappointment: It's been disappointing that we haven't been able to legislate more, but that's due to too many pro-polluter extremists in Congress.
Jeff Holmstead, industry lobbyist and former U.S. EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration
Grade: An A for effort but a D overall.
I'm sure they've issued more major environmental rules than any prior administration, so you'd have to give them an A for effort, but many have been ill-advised. Of course there are big examples of regulatory overreach — the CPP, WOTUS, and the MATs rule — but there are others that haven't received as much attention. From a policy perspective, for example, there was no reason to add 1-hour SO2 and NO2 national ambient air quality standards because there is no evidence that any susceptible individuals are exposed to the type of short term concentrations that EPA purports to be addressing. Yet implementing the standards has been difficult and cumbersome for states and industries — all without any benefit in the real world. These new standards seemed mostly about satisfying the environmental community — not good public policy.
Biggest accomplishment: Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, they've pushed a large number of major regulations through the regulatory process. No one could ever accuse Gina McCarthy and her associates of being lazy. Except where the courts have stepped in to stop them, they have largely accomplished the goals that they had when they took office.
Biggest disappointment: They never made the effort needed to pass climate change legislation. Sure, the President said he wanted Congress to pass such legislation, and the administration supported the Waxman-Markey bill, but they never made the kind of effort that has always been necessary to actually get such legislation through Congress. Think about the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. The first Bush administration drafted a very comprehensive legislative proposal, submitted it to Congress, and then worked for over a year with Democrats, Republicans, environmental groups, and industry to get the bill passed. There were 4 or 5 senior White House officials who spent time almost every day working on the legislative effort — working out the difficult compromises that are always necessary to pass controversial legislation. When they thought their own supporters in industry were being unreasonable, they pushed back on them. If the Obama administration had followed a similar path, we would have a sensible climate change statute today, and EPA wouldn't be trying to torture the current Clean Air Act to claim regulatory authority that simply isn't there.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/15/stories/1060042885
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