Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 10/21/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Markets Rise Again
Oct 21, 2016 | Powder Bulk Solids
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), showed that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.3 percent in September. -
IQs Plummet And Healthcare Costs Surge From Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals
Oct 20, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Hormone-disrupting chemicals take a staggering toll on U.S. health care costs and reduce American brain power, according to a shocking new study by a team of leading environmental health scientists. -
(ACC Mentioned) Litigation Tracker: The Clean Power Plan Waiting Game Begins
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The most significant legal development in air and climate law is going on behind closed doors: 10 federal appellate judges are weighing the fate of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. -
U.S. Boosts LNG Exports, Mostly to or Through Latin America
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen Malik
Sometime in 2017, for the first time in 60 years, the U.S. will likely sell more natural gas to the world than it buys. Next year, capacity to export liquefied natural gas from the lower 48 states, chilled to –260F so it can be shipped by tanker, will more than double, to 3.2 billion cubic feet per day. -
Clinton Memos Reveal In-Depth Study of Carbon Tax
Oct 20, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Emily Holden and Hannah Hess
Hillary Clinton's advisers have been looking closely at a carbon tax since at least late 2014, according to detailed internal memos from hacked emails released by WikiLeaks. -
Final EPA Oil & Gas Ozone Guide Highlights Division on Existing Sources
Oct 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has finalized its voluntary emissions control guidelines for existing oil and gas operations in areas violating the federal ozone standard, prompting praise from advocates who say it will cut pollution pending an air rule for existing sources but a call... -
Washington to Vote on Nation's First Carbon Tax
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington's electorate will vote Nov. 8 on whether to impose a carbon emission tax on fossil fuels while simultaneously reducing both sales and business and occupation (B&O) taxes. -
Vote for Clean Energy
Oct 20, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Tom Matzzie
Election Day 2016 is coming up fast and the stakes couldn’t be higher for clean energy and the planet. -
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Releases Strategic Plan for 2017-2021
Oct 20, 2016 | National Law Review
By Kevin D. Collins and Matt Paulson
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (“CSB”) released its Strategic Plan for 2017-2021 today. The Strategic Plan is the result of 18 months of staff and stakeholder development and review. -
Sen. Schumer Stumps for $33M PTC Grant Along Hudson Line
Oct 20, 2016 | Railway Track & Structures
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) hosted Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Administrator Sarah Feinberg in Schenectady Oct. 19 to tour tracks and make the case for a $33-million grant for Positive Train Control (PTC). -
EPA Readying Response on Ozone Transport Region Expansion
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is actively working on a proposal that would address a request to add nine states to the Ozone Transport Region. -
IPCC Agrees on Outline for Report on Impacts of Warming
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Oct. 20 approved the outline for a special report on the impacts of allowing global warming to surpass 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial levels. -
Global Climate Pact May Bump into Senate Roadblock
Oct 21, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
An ambitious global pact among almost 200 nations to cut greenhouse gases may stall in the Senate, where members are likely to be skeptical of supporting an international climate change treaty. -
Four Climate Lessons From the Clinton Campaign's Hacked Emails
Oct 21, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The WikiLeaks emails have yet to produce any disclosures big enough to shake up the presidential race, but they are revealing the remarkable extent to which Hillary Clinton’s advisers focused on addressing climate change... -
House T&I Democrats Criticize GOP over CWA Policies
Oct 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T&I) Democrats are using the 44th anniversary of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to tout their new report criticizing Republicans in the lower chamber for both cutting funding to major water programs and pushing bills since 2014...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Markets Rise Again
Oct 21, 2016 | Powder Bulk Solids
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), showed that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.3 percent in September. This follows a revised 0.1 percent gain in August and 0.3 percent gain in July. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments we monitor, 21 expanded in September, four were stable and the remaining three markets experienced decline. During September, large gains (1.0 percent and over) were noted in adhesives and sealants and in mining chemicals.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was off 1.5 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis. The index stood at 104.6 percent of its average 2012 levels. This is equivalent to 7.21 billion pounds (3.27 million metric tons). During 2014, Y/Y comparisons were generally in the 4.0 percent to 6.8 percent range but since February 2015, they have fallen well below that range as the downturn in the oil and gas sector affected headline volumes. Weakness spread to other segments as well and year-earlier comparisons have been negative since 2nd quarter 2015. Lately, the year-earlier declines have been moderating. On a Y/Y basis, there were gains among market and functional specialty chemical segments.
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates.
This data is the only timely source of market trends for twenty-eight market and functional specialty chemical segments. Chemistry directly touches over ninety-six percent of all manufactured goods, and trends in these specialty chemical segments provide a detailed view of trends in manufacturing. The data also sheds light on how various consumer end-use markets are performing compared to others in the marketplace.http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/U-S-Specialty-Chemicals-Markets-Rise-Again-10-20-2016
-
IQs Plummet And Healthcare Costs Surge From Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals
Oct 20, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Hormone-disrupting chemicals take a staggering toll on U.S. health care costs and reduce American brain power, according to a shocking new study by a team of leading environmental health scientists.
And because of weak chemical regulations, the price tag in the U.S. is roughly twice as high as that in Europe.
The researchers found that the U.S. spends more than $340 billion each year on health care related to exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals, such as flame retardants and pesticides, and that exposure causes the loss of almost 13 million IQ points. Even though the population of the European Union is more than twice that of the U.S., the researchers estimated the EU's health care costs from hormone-disrupting chemicals is $217 billion a year, with fewer than a million IQ points lost.
To put those figures into perspective, this year's budget for the Pentagon was $605 billion, while the Medicare budget was $583 billion.
It’s hard to escape exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals. They’re found in food packaging, toys, personal care and cleaning products, flame retardants called PDBEs in furniture and electronics, and agricultural pesticides. Exposure to these chemicals can play tricks on our bodies by increasing the production or certain hormones while decreasing the production of others, which can lead to lower IQs and behavioral problems in children, endometriosis in adult women, and diabetes and infertility.
The worst culprits in the U.S. are flame retardant chemicals known as PBDEs, which the scientists said were responsible each year for $268 billion in health care spending and the loss of 11 million IQ points. Because PBDEs are not widely used in Europe, the annual cost from PBDEs in the EU was estimated to be $12.6 billion. Pesticides were the second major source of illness in the U.S., resulting in an estimated annual health care price tag of nearly $45 billion, 1.8 million lost IQ points and 7,500 more “intellectual disability” cases each year.
The researchers also estimated that U.S. exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals causes about 4,400 cases of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, and about 1,500 cases of autism a year. They estimated that hormone-disrupting phthalates cause about 86,000 annual cases of endometriosis in women.
If you’re concerned about your family’s exposure to these hazardous chemicals, check out EWG's Dirty Dozen Guide to Endocrine Disruptors, highlighting some of the worst and most common offenders alongside tips for avoiding them, and fill out our survey.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/10/iqs-plummet-and-healthcare-costs-surge-endocrine-disrupting-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) Litigation Tracker: The Clean Power Plan Waiting Game Begins
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The most significant legal development in air and climate law is going on behind closed doors: 10 federal appellate judges are weighing the fate of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Sept. 27 heard nearly seven hours of oral arguments over the climate rule, which sets state-specific carbon dioxide emissions limits on the power sector. The court took the rare step of bypassing consideration by a three-judge panel and jumping straight to en banc consideration, meaning the case was heard by every active D.C. Circuit judge except for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, who has recused himself from all pending litigation.
The Clean Power Plan is the centerpiece of the Obama administration's effort to combat climate change domestically and meet U.S. commitments under the 2015 Paris climate deal. States and power sector organizations are challenging the rule using a variety of statutory, constitutional, procedural and technical issues, including whether the agency even has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Chief among the arguments against the rule is that the EPA cannot regulate carbon dioxide from power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act given that those units are already subject to hazardous air pollutant standards under Section 112 of the act.
While there is no firm date by which the court has to issue its decision, a decision could come in early 2017, according to attorneys tracking the case.
Several other significant Clean Air Act cases are currently in a holding pattern: briefing in litigation over the 2015 ozone standards of 70 parts per billion is complete, but the D.C. Circuit has not yet scheduled oral arguments. In addition, lawsuits have been filed over the Obama administration's first-ever methane standards for new and modified oil and gas wells and the EPA's supplemental finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, but briefing in those cases has not yet begun.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99222133&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99222133&jd=99222133
-
U.S. Boosts LNG Exports, Mostly to or Through Latin America
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen Malik
Sometime in 2017, for the first time in 60 years, the U.S. will likely sell more natural gas to the world than it buys. Next year, capacity to export liquefied natural gas from the lower 48 states, chilled to –260F so it can be shipped by tanker, will more than double, to 3.2 billion cubic feet per day. That will add to huge increases in the volume of gas already being piped to Mexico and could boost exports to foreign countries to about 9 percent of total U.S. gas production.
A lot of those new exports will go to Latin America. Since the first LNG tanker left the Louisiana coast in February 2016, 34 cargoes have departed through early October, with two-thirds of them going to Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico. Colombia will be a new buyer in 2017; the country is on track to begin importing LNG from a new floating regasification vessel by the end of this year. Shipments to Asia also are set to rise as India increases LNG imports amid low prices.
Europe could be in play, too, with the U.S. trying to compete with Russia, which supplies 40 percent of the European Union's gas imports. Turkey, Russia's third-biggest buyer, took its first LNG cargo from the U.S. in late September. “The fact that the U.S. is actually exporting, and particularly LNG to places where Russia has almost monopolistic power, is a huge development,” says Majed Limam, a senior consultant for LNG and natural gas at the ship brokerage Poten & Partners.
Since it opened in June, the newly expanded Panama Canal is now wide enough for most LNG tankers. China-bound ships may save as much as $3.2 million per round trip by going through Panama instead of the Suez Canal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A voyage from the U.S. to Japan will be reduced from as much as 34 days to only 20. Instead of needing almost three weeks to go all the way around the southern tip of South America, U.S. LNG tankers headed to Chile can cut through the Panama Canal and get there in about a week, saving more than $2 million per trip.
By becoming a net exporter of natural gas next year, the U.S. will take a big step toward achieving its own energy independence. The EIA sees total energy exports being balanced with imports sometime between 2020 and 2030. A decade ago, the U.S. was facing a shortage. In 2005 the EIA estimated that LNG imports would reach 12 billion cubic feet a day in 2015. Instead, as exports ramp up, total natural gas imports are down 36 percent this year, to 1.76 trillion cubic feet, from record levels set in 2007.
So far, all the LNG exports are leaving from the Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana owned by Houston-based Cheniere Energy. The company opened two liquefaction plants in 2016 and plans to add two more next year in Louisiana, making it among the biggest buyers of natural gas in the U.S.
Dominion Resources also is scheduled to start its Cove Point plant in Maryland in 2017. Together these plants will be able to liquefy 3.2 billion cubic feet a day, almost as much gas as New York state used per day in 2015. That extra demand could push up prices in 2017, which would make producers happy. Since 2008, natural gas prices have plunged 75 percent and hit a 17-year low this March. Even with big spending cuts and drilling activity at record lows, the U.S. is swimming in gas.
Though output is expected to decline slightly this year, the EIA expects it to rebound next year to a record 81 billion cubic feet a day as prices go higher. That means there will be plenty of U.S. supply to fuel the world's growing demand.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99222139&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99222139&jd=99222139
-
Clinton Memos Reveal In-Depth Study of Carbon Tax
Oct 20, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Emily Holden and Hannah Hess
Hillary Clinton's advisers have been looking closely at a carbon tax since at least late 2014, according to detailed internal memos from hacked emails released by WikiLeaks.
Although the Democratic presidential nominee consistently avoided engaging on the subject despite prods from her primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her inner circle of climate strategists had already been conducting studies on behalf of the campaign to explore the cost and political impacts of various proposals.
In addition to looking at enacting a $42-per-ton, energy-sector carbon tax through legislation, advisers widened their research to consider incentivizing overcompliance with the Clean Power Plan or using Section 115 of the Clean Air Act to write economywide cap-and-trade regulations.
In a memo dated March 11, 2015, three advisers noted a Clinton administration would have to find additional ways to cut carbon emissions in order to meet international agreements.
"The significant steps that the Obama administration is taking to accelerate clean energy deployment and reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions is putting us on track to achieve our 2020 climate target of a 17% reduction below 2005 levels," they said. "But, as you well know, additional action will be required to reach our 2025 target of 26-28%, and in particular the deeper reductions required by 2030 to remain on track to meet our long-term climate objectives."
They also acknowledged political obstacles.
"While a GHG fee would clearly face stiff opposition from Republicans and some Democrats, one could potentially attempt to build support for it by using some share of the revenue for corporate income tax reform, and/or link it to a lifting of the crude oil export ban or approval of new oil and gas infrastructure," they said. "Republicans would also likely push for some level of pre-emption of EPA and/or state GHG regulations, so proper sequencing with 111d would be critical so as not to undermine the Clean Power Plan."
Center for American Progress senior fellow Pete Ogden sent the memo to Clinton's current campaign coordinator John Podesta and offered to share it with Jake Sullivan, a senior policy adviser to Clinton, and speechwriter Dan Schwerin.
"Jake and Dan sent us an email yesterday saying they were interested in hearing more about non-carbon tax elements of a climate plan (based, I think, on conversations with you) so we can also share this with them," Ogden wrote.
The March memo expanded on an earlier analysis from January 2015 that focused solely on a carbon tax and an initial "Climate Change Framing Paper" the campaign received in December 2014.
Neither Podesta nor the Clinton campaign has verified the authenticity of the emails. Citing intelligence sources, they have blamed Russia for hacks meant to disrupt the election.Rising energy costs
The documents refer to the carbon tax as a "GHG pollution fee" that unlike a cap-and-trade program could be applied "upstream," when fossil fuels are extracted. They studied setting it at $42 per ton, based on the federal government's estimate of the social cost of carbon. That level would "ensure polluters are paying the damage to the climate their emissions cause and would create a powerful incentive for clean energy deployment and energy efficiency improvements," they wrote.
"We were asked to develop a proposal for a GHG pollution fee," the memo said. "In brief, our proposal called for a tax (pollution fee) on CO2 emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas combustion, as well as some major sources of other GHG emissions. The revenue would be directly returned to households, with the exception of a relatively small share dedicated to transition assistance for coal miners and communities."
The memos include detailed analysis of how much households would pay for energy with and without a carbon tax. Household energy costs would rise compared with a business-as-usual scenario but remain below recent levels, the writers found.
They noted that average household energy costs would increase by roughly $480 per year, or 10 percent relative to current costs, and gasoline prices could go up 40 cents per gallon on average between 2020 and 2030.
But they said "the increase in energy costs would be more than offset by the pollution rebate for all households."
The documents explore programs to assist coal communities with the sector's decline, noting there were 78,000 coal miners in the country, half of whom were located in West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Alabama, Illinois, Ohio and Wyoming are also home to large coal mining employers. They also looked at retraining opportunities and pension redevelopment.
The Clinton advisers noted clean energy subsidies, like the production tax credit and investment tax credit, are "becoming increasingly expensive and less effective" in the face of the Clean Power Plan, state renewable portfolio standards and general technological development. They suggested the tax credits could be phased out, with savings reinvested in a clean energy competition.
The advisers also laid out possibilities for regulating methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.
"We are assuming the Obama administration will issue rules to control methane emissions from new oil and gas wells, but there will be an opportunity for her to take the next important step by supporting controlling methane from existing wells and distribution system," they said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/20/stories/1060044610
-
Final EPA Oil & Gas Ozone Guide Highlights Division on Existing Sources
Oct 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has finalized its voluntary emissions control guidelines for existing oil and gas operations in areas violating the federal ozone standard, prompting praise from advocates who say it will cut pollution pending an air rule for existing sources but a call from industry to delay use of the guidelines until EPA gathers more data on such a rule.
The control techniques guidelines (CTGs) released Oct. 20 detail strategies that nonattainment areas could use to reduce ozone-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from drilling operations by about 80,000 tons per year (tpy) if fully implemented by all affected areas. But EPA adds that many of the emissions controls would have a co-benefit of also reducing emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane by 200,000 tpy.
Such a reduction would be “the equivalent of reducing more than 4.5 millions tons of carbon dioxide, or the greenhouse gas emissions of nearly a million passenger vehicles driven for one year,” EPA says in a fact sheet.
Felice Stadler, director of campaigns for the Environmental Defense Fund's U.S. Climate & Political Affairs program, in an Oct. 20 blog post said that the guidelines “will bring urgently needed health protections to citizens living adjacent to or downwind of oil and gas operations” by reducing VOCs and methane.
However, she echoed environmentalists' long-running call for EPA to impose first-time direct methane limits on existing sources. The agency is currently pursuing an information collection request (ICR) seeking data from oil and gas operations to inform a potential existing source rule. Stadler said that EDF's goal is for “final, comprehensive standards that address both new and existing sources of pollution, without exceptions.”
Oil and gas groups, in contrast, say states should hold off on adopting the CTGs until EPA has completed the ICR process and gathered data on whether an existing source rule would be necessary.
“Moving forward with these guidelines without robust data could impose unachievable emission reduction requirements on the industry, while adding potentially significant costs to the American economy, jobs, consumers and the environment,” Howard Feldman, the American Petroleum Institute's (API) senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs, said in an Oct. 20 statement, adding EPA and states should “not pile on additional guidelines and regulations.”
Industry sources previously told Inside EPA that they doubted the need for EPA to issue the CTGs, given its apparent plan to eventually regulate methane from existing sector sources after the ICR.
The agency sent its final version of the ICR to the White House Office of Management & Budget on Sept. 29, the last major regulatory step before EPA can distribute the ICR to operators, a process the agency says will help in developing an ESPS for the sector under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Emissions Guidelines
The CTGs are aimed at offering states in nonattainment with the ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) strategies for curbing ozone-forming pollution from the industry, in order to attain EPA's ozone national ambient air quality standards.
The CTGs would not directly impose binding regulations for VOC sources, instead providing recommendations for states to consider in determining reasonable available control technology (RACT) to cut VOCs from certain existing sources. States would be allowed to use different technologies or approaches than are outlined in the CTGs, but RACT is subject to EPA approval and a state must show its approach will achieve the required pollution cuts.
The CTGs cover a range of equipment used in oil and natural gas production, including storage tanks, centrifugal and reciprocating compressors, pneumatic controllers, pumps and leaks from natural gas processing facilities.
The guidelines also include RACT recommendations “for reducing VOC leaks (also called fugitive emissions) at production gathering and boosting stations, and at oil and natural gas well sites,” the fact sheet says.
Environmentalists are already praising the CTGs, particularly because the guideline drops a draft proposal to exempt “low-producing” wells, or those that produce less than 15 barrels of oil equivalent per year.
EPA says that while it is not finalizing a RACT recommendation for fugitive emissions at this time for such sites, it is not suggesting any restrictions in state development of controls for low-producing wells, and establishes requirements for other equipment, such as storage tanks, located at those sites.
The draft exemption would have covered over 70 percent of wells in the affected area, Clean Air Task Force advocacy director Conrad Schneider says in an Oct. 20 statement. “What’s more, we know that low- producing wells can have substantial emissions,” Although EPA opted to not finalize the exemption and instead is soliciting more information about those types of well sites, Schneider says, is crucial for the agency to “move forward swiftly to close this loophole and ensure the guidelines provide comprehensive protection for communities across the country,” especially as the administration moves toward proposing national ESPS rules for the sector.
Earthworks' policy director Lauren Pagel praised in an Oct. 20 statement praised the CTGs but said EPA “has not yet applied these guidelines to 70 percent of wells in affected areas: low producing wells. Although EPA is still soliciting input on whether to include low producers, with the climate change crisis happening now there’s no time for waffling.”
Industry's Concerns
But the oil and gas sector says the CTGs should be put on hold until EPA completes the ICR and subsequent analysis. One industry official previously told Inside EPA, "What I find most troubling is why EPA would continue with the CTGs now that it is moving on a nationwide existing source rule.”
API's Feldman echoed the idea to delay implementation of the guidelines until after the ICR process is complete, in order to avoid states and EPA imposing unnecessary new air rule son the sector.
Instead, EPA should allow completion of the ICR process to inform whether CTGs are necessary, the statement says, adding, “If the EPA fails to follow the science, we call on Congress to avoid potential barriers to American economic and environmental progress,” Feldman said, suggesting that API and other groups could urge lawmakers to try and block the CTGs or other measures that they believe are not necessary.
API has cautiously supported the ICR process so that any future rulemaking would be well-informed as to actual emissions and cost impacts for existing sources and also says EPA should ensure ample time for states and industry to comply with the ozone NAAQS, most recently set at 70 parts per billion in October 2015.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/final-epa-oil-gas-ozone-guide-highlights-division-existing-sources
-
Washington to Vote on Nation's First Carbon Tax
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington's electorate will vote Nov. 8 on whether to impose a carbon emission tax on fossil fuels while simultaneously reducing both sales and business and occupation (B&O) taxes.
While other regimes exist to put a price on carbon, such as California's cap and trade program, if Initiative 732 passes, it would be the first direct tax on carbon in the U.S. It's intended to be revenue neutral, not only to make it palatable to business and the electorate, but also to avoid falling into the political morass over whether it would expand or contract government.
I-732 would slash the B&O tax on manufacturing almost to zero, and it would phase in a one percentage point cut in the state sales tax and implement a partial sales tax exemption for low-income families to address inherent regressivity—all paid for by a phased-in tax on carbon emissions.
The tax would be levied on the carbon content of fossil fuels sold or used in the state and on the carbon content of electricity consumed in Washington, including power imported into the state. The tax rate would begin July 1, 2017, at $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide; jump to $25 per metric ton on July 1, 2018; and increase annually by 3.5 percent plus inflation with a cap of $100 per metric ton in 2016 dollars.
Like ‘War and Peace.’
The initiative would cut the sales tax from 6.5 percent to 6 percent on July 1, 2017, and to 5.5 percent on July 1, 2018. It also would cut the B&O tax—which is a gross receipts tax— on a wide spectrum of manufacturing from starting points of .484 percent to .138 percent, depending on the industry, to .001 percent.
Carbon tax on fuel used for agriculture, public transportation, the state ferry system and school buses would have an extended phase-in period, not reaching 100 percent of the full tax rate until 2055.
I-732 was inspired by the revenue neutral carbon tax in neighboring British Columbia, economist Yoram Bauman—founder and co-chair of the campaign to pass the carbon tax—told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 19. In addition to reducing emissions, the B.C. carbon tax has caused “per capita gasoline consumption to drop by seven percent and the fuel economy of the vehicle fleet to go up by four percent,” Bauman said, citing a recent paper by two University of British Columbia professors.
Asked why he chose to follow in British Columbia's footsteps rather than California's, Bauman said: “California's cap and trade system is a little bit like War and Peace, which doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. ‘War and Peace’ is generally recognized as one of the best novels ever written—it is just complicated. The B.C. carbon tax took five months to implement. California's cap and trade took something like six years.”
‘Haven't Made Me Whole.’
Even though I-732 would provide a cut in B&O tax, it has met with opposition from the state's business community, which complains that many manufacturers already have tax preferences giving them low B&O tax rates. That means the B&O rate reduction provided by I-732 wouldn't offset the higher prices for gasoline, natural gas and electricity that the carbon tax would bring.
“While we certainly agree with the need to reform Washington tax code, the way they went about this isn't taking into consideration the ongoing discussions we've already had in Olympia,” Brandon Housekeeper, government affairs director for environmental issues at the Association of Washington Business, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 18. “Manufacturers have gone in and made their case that in order to stay competitive as energy-intensive, trade-exposed companies, they needed assistance with the B&O rates. So many manufacturers across the state—food processors, pulp and paper industry, aerospace and others—have already received B&O preferences.
“So while there are some minimal gains for manufacturers from that B&O reduction, the claim that it is going to balance or offset an increase in energy prices, it just simply isn't true,” Housekeeper continued. “Industry is saying: ‘I get what you're trying to do, but you haven't helped me; you haven't made me whole. You've just increased my costs,’ because B&O rates are already low for several manufacturers because they have been to Olympia and made their case that they needed relief.”
Housekeeper also points out the regressive nature of a tax that will raise the price of gasoline and electricity. “This is an energy tax increase not just to businesses, but to citizens of the state,” he said. “People will feel it at the pump, when they turn on their heat, when they turn on their lights at home.”
‘Not the Corner Grocery Store.’
Bauman says Housekeeper is simply ignoring the one percentage point drop in the sales tax rate along with the low-income family tax exemption that beginning in 2018 would refund the greater of $100 or 25 percent of the federal earned income tax credit to eligible taxpayers.
“This is a carbon tax where we are cutting the sales tax, which is an even more regressive tax,” Bauman said. “And we're funding an income tax credit benefit for low-income households. We provide a billion dollars in the first six years to the working families rebate. This is a terrific, progressive policy.”
Bauman dismisses as a “red herring” the most frequently cited criticism of I-732: that rather than being revenue neutral, the carbon tax would mean a $797 million decrease in state general fund revenue over the first six fiscal years. That's according to a fiscal impact statement produced by the state Office of Financial Management and the Department of Revenue. Bauman asserts that the OFM fiscal analysis is wrong and that I-732 is slightly revenue positive. The state model failed to include carbon tax revenue from exported electricity, applied the wrong tax rate to the spot power market and double counted the working families rebate, he said.
“The bottom line is that all of the analyses are well within the margin of error for these types of revenue forecasts—all within plus or minus one percent of state tax revenue,” Bauman said. “State tax revenue over six years is about $120 billion. We're talking about a fraction of one percent. These are large numbers, and, as a percentage, this issue is a red herring.”
“The state takes in roughly $2 billion a month. It's not the corner grocery store we're talking about here,” said Bauman, who despite having a PhD in economic from the University of Washington, makes his living as a stand-up comedian riffing on the economy for corporate and collegiate audiences.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99222140&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99222140&jd=99222140
-
Oct 20, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Tom Matzzie
Election Day 2016 is coming up fast and the stakes couldn’t be higher for clean energy and the planet.
The presidential election has attracted non-stop attention and the choice between the two presidential candidates couldn’t be more glaring, especially when it comes to their stances on the issues of climate change and clean energy development.
As the CEO of a renewable energy company that is working to address catastrophic climate change, I can’t let the election season pass without comment.
As we just saw with Hurricane Matthew, the impacts of climate change are real. Matthew was upgraded from a Tropical Storm to a Category 5 Hurricane in only 36 hours — something almost unprecedented and caused by the very high sea surface temperatures intensified by global warming. Already, Hurricane Matthew has taken hundreds of lives and decimated the clean water supply in Haiti, threatening to worsen the cholera outbreak in the country. Scientists are already telling us that climate change will lead to more frequent and more deadly weather events. We need a president that understands this threat of climate change and our responsibility to act.
On the issue of climate change, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton basically agree on nothing except maybe how to spell the words.
Donald Trump denies the existence of climate change. No, let me go farther on that. He believes that climate change is a conspiracy invented by the Chinese. I’m not joking. He actually said that in, of course, a tweet.
The denial of climate change science is deeply irresponsible and downright terrifying when coming from somebody seeking to become our next president. Until Trump, we’ve never had a president or presidential nominee of a major party who denied climate change.
Trump takes it a step further with his attacks on solar and wind. He accused the wind power industry of killing birds despite the Audubon Society—the pre-eminent bird conservation organization—calling for more responsible wind development in order to save birds from air pollution, water pollution and the threat of climate change.
And Donald Trump derides solar energy — using outdated cost projections from the early days of solar to bolster his arguments.
In contrast, Hillary Clinton is a champion for clean energy and climate solutions. Clinton is calling for enough renewable energy to power 100 percent of American homes by 2027—even more ambitious than the Obama Administration’s current plan.
To get there Hillary Clinton wants to install 500 million solar panels during her first term—this would be a 700 percent increase from current levels. Of course, much more can be done, but this is a big step forward.
That’s not all. The EPA’s new Clean Power Plan has the potential to dramatically reduce carbon pollution. Donald Trump wants to repeal it and abandon the groundbreaking Paris agreement — an international consensus to reduce carbon pollution. Hillary Clinton supports the Clean Power Plan and wants to build on the Paris agreement. With Hillary Clinton’s support, the EPA will be empowered to protect Americans from harmful air pollution saving thousands of lives annually.
The choice couldn’t be more clear this election. We need to vote for clean energy and vote for climate solutions. Please take a moment to commit to vote for a better planet this election day.
Tom Matzzie, Founder, President and CEO of Ethical Electric
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/302047-vote-for-clean-energy
-
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Releases Strategic Plan for 2017-2021
Oct 20, 2016 | National Law Review
By Kevin D. Collins and Matt Paulson
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (“CSB”) released its Strategic Plan for 2017-2021 today. The Strategic Plan is the result of 18 months of staff and stakeholder development and review. The plan serves as a blueprint for the CSB’s investigative priorities over the next five years. Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland described the Board’s mission as “driving chemical safety change through independent investigations to protect people and the environment.” The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to help the Board advance its mission.
The three goals listed in the Strategic Plan are to: (1) prevent recurrence of significant chemical incidents through independent investigations; (2) advocate safety and achieve change through recommendations, outreach, and education; and (3) create and maintain an engaged, high-performing workforce.
Individual board members were very pleased with the Strategic Plan and the Board’s goals. Dr. Kristen Kulinowski, PhD commended the team for its focused effort and stated that she “loves our new mission, it is very crisp, and I can remember it. It epitomizes for me why we are all here.” Board Member Manny Ehrlich agreed. “This plan has established really solid foundational underpinnings for the period for which it is going to be in effect.”
For industry, the CSB’s goals are consistent with the Board’s current decision-making on deployment decisions. The CSB is a small government agency tasked with investigating significant chemical incidents and hazards. Chairperson Sutherland noted that approximately 5 to 15 incidents occur every day, and historically the CSB has investigated about 2 to 4 incidents per year. The Strategic Plan makes clear that the Board will likely investigate incidents that provide the Board with the opportunity to offer the broadest range of recommendations. In my experience, when the Board can draft a recommendation that goes beyond the four corners of the plant’s facility, the Board is more likely to investigate an incident. It is through its post-incident recommendations that the Board attempts to meet is vision of keeping the nation safe from chemical disasters.
Historically, the CSB has investigated 148 incidents and made 784 safety recommendations. As of September 2016, approximately 76% of the CSB’s recommendations have been closed satisfactorily from the Board’s perspective.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-chemical-safety-and-hazard-investigation-board-releases-strategic-plan-2017-2021
-
Sen. Schumer Stumps for $33M PTC Grant Along Hudson Line
Oct 20, 2016 | Railway Track & Structures
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) hosted Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Administrator Sarah Feinberg in Schenectady Oct. 19 to tour tracks and make the case for a $33-million grant for Positive Train Control (PTC).
During a visit to the Capital Region, Sen. Schumer told Administrator Feinberg the federal investment would allow New York State (NYS) to implement PTC on the tracks that it leases between Poughkeepsie and Amsterdam.
"Simply put, Positive Train Control is a life saver. Once put into action, PTC can help prevent fatal crashes and derailments – and so it's of the utmost importance that all of our rail lines have this life-saving technology installed as soon as possible. I helped establish a federal grant fund to help pay the cost of PTC implementation in cases where governments and taxpayers would have to bear the brunt of the expense," said Sen. Schumer. "This section that NYS leases from CSX, is exactly what we had in mind when we created the fund and that's why I'm pushing the FRA to immediately approve the major, $30 million federal investment that is needed to make sure Capital Region residents are neither passed over in this major safety overhaul nor left holding the bag for these desperately needed improvements."
Amtrak's Hudson Line runs from New York City, up through the Hudson Valley and into the Capital Region, where it then turns west and proceeds on to Buffalo, N.Y. and beyond. Metro-North, which operates the New York City to Poughkeepsie section of track, has already set up its own plan and timeline for implementing PTC. In addition, CSX, which operates the section of track that runs from the city of Amsterdam in Montgomery County on to Western New York, has also put in place its plans to implement the life-saving technology.
However, the portion of track from Poughkeepsie to the area between Schenectady and Amsterdam (called "Hoffmans") is leased by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) from CSX, since it is primarily used for Amtrak passenger service rather than CSX freight service. Sen. Schumer explained that this means taxpayers would be forced to shoulder the cost of PTC implementation if NYSDOT were to simply undertake the project the way a private company would. Sen. Schumer also noted that installing PTC on this line is even more critical given that it was one of the federally-designated high-speed rail corridors where trains travel at speeds of up to 110 mph.
Amtrak trains carried more than two million passengers through New York State this past fiscal year. In Fiscal Year 2015, the Albany/Rensselaer station was ranked as the 9th highest (out of 500 stations) in the nation when it comes to ridership. According to Amtrak, it sees a ridership of roughly 825,353 people per year. The Schenectady station was ranked 131st and sees an annual ridership of 58,551 people.
FRA has provided more than $716 million to railroads to implement PTC and also awarded a nearly $1 billion loan to MTA's Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road for the technology.
http://www.rtands.com/index.php/cs/sen-schumer-stumps-for-dol33m-ptc-grant-along-hudson-line.html
-
EPA Readying Response on Ozone Transport Region Expansion
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is actively working on a proposal that would address a request to add nine states to the Ozone Transport Region.
States within the Ozone Transport Region, which runs down the eastern seaboard from Maine to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, are required to submit a state pollution control plan and require the installation of a certain level of pollution controls, even if they fully meet the national ozone standards. In 2013 several mid-Atlantic and Northeastern statespetitioned the EPA to expand the Ozone Transport Region to include Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia.
The agency in August started working on a proposed response to the petition, according to the agency's monthly Action Initiation List, a record of rules and other actions that the EPA launched. The EPA anticipates issuing a proposal within one year, according to an updated list posted online Oct. 14.
Several states, including North Carolina, sued the EPA for the agency's failure to respond to the petition within 18 months, as required under the Clean Air Act. North Carolina's lawsuit is currently being held in abeyance until Nov. 16 to allow for settlement discussions, which could lead in a court-enforceable deadline for the EPA to issue its response (van der Vaart v. McCarthy, E.D.N.C., No. 5:16-cv-138, 10/12/16).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99222134&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99222134&jd=99222134
-
IPCC Agrees on Outline for Report on Impacts of Warming
Oct 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Oct. 20 approved the outline for a special report on the impacts of allowing global warming to surpass 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial levels.
United Nations officials said this could be a key tool in pushing countries to “strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change.”
IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee said the report will be released by 2018, in enough time to be ready for a global review of national plans to confront climate change that was mandated by last year's Paris Agreement. In a briefing, Lee said countries would have to take on more ambitious targets to reduce emissions.
With the Paris Agreement—the world's first global climate pact—set to enter into force next month, the 2018 review will be the next major milestone in the international UN climate negotiation process.
More Action Needed
“What is clear is that the initial commitments from countries are not nearly enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees [Celsius] or 2.0 degrees [Celsius; 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit] by themselves,” a ranking IPCC official told Bloomberg BNA, referring to the two temperature goals that appear in the Paris Agreement. “This new report will explore the impacts that passing the 1.5-degree target would entail.”
The IPCC is a scientific and intergovernmental body that works under the auspices of the United Nations.
So far, average global temperatures have risen around 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial levels.
The fact that the 2018 report will focus on the 1.5-degree target is significant, since the original mandate from the Paris Agreement was to look into the impacts for both 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees.
Accord Urges Effort to Limit Temperature Rise
The Paris Agreement includes the formal target of limiting warming to 2 degrees but calls on countries to “pursue efforts” to keep warming to no more than 1.5 degrees.
The 2018 report is in addition to the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report, due out in 2021 or 2022. The Fifth Assessment Report, which was finalized two years ago, is so far the most comprehensive review of the science of climate change.
The 2018 report will be “succinct and objective,” according to IPCC Vice-Chair Thelma Krug, adding that the report's purpose is to “provide policymakers with the guidance needed to act.”
The outline for the report was the centerpiece of four days of IPCC talks in Bangkok.
Report's Contents Outlined
The outline states that the report, which is estimated to be up to 225 pages long, will include a 10-page summary for policymakers and five additional chapters:
• Framing and context,
• Mitigation and pathways compatible with 1.5 degrees in the context of sustainable development,
• Impacts of 1.5 degrees global warming on natural and human systems,
• Strengthening and implementing the global response to the threat of climate change, and
• Sustainable development, poverty eradication and reducing inequalities.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99222156&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99222156&jd=99222156
-
Global Climate Pact May Bump into Senate Roadblock
Oct 21, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
An ambitious global pact among almost 200 nations to cut greenhouse gases may stall in the Senate, where members are likely to be skeptical of supporting an international climate change treaty.
The agreement to phase out the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gases commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioning, was struck on Oct. 15 in Rwanda with the goal of averting a half-degree Celsius of warming this century.
While the Obama administration has celebrated the amendment to the existing Montreal Protocol treaty as a major victory in the fight against climate change, U.S. officials have not yet determined whether they will submit the pact for Senate ratification as a treaty — which requires a two-thirds vote — or assert that it does not need legislative review.
“It’s really undecided yet whether it needs to go,” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headGina McCarthy, who led the United States delegation to Rwanda, told Mashable on Tuesday.
“We’ll take a look at it, but that’s going to be up to the legal experts as to whether or not it needs to have that type of ratification process.”
“We will need to examine the content and the form of the agreed amendment, as well as relevant practice, in order to determine the appropriate approval process,” State Department spokeswoman Julia Mason added in a statement.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), whose panel is responsible for reviewing treaties, said the committee is doing its own analysis to determine whether the pact needs Senate ratification.
"We are taking a close look at the Kigali amendment recognizing that all previous amendments to the Montreal Protocol required Senate advice and consent," he said in a statement.
The deal has broad support among environmentalists and the industries affected by it, which supporters hope would help with a potential Senate vote.
HFCs are around 10,000 more powerful than carbon dioxide, but stay in the atmosphere for a much shorter time.
The Obama administration got harsh criticism from congressional Republicans when it concluded that last year’s Paris climate agreement would not need ratification.
President Obama made it a priority in the latest negotiations that the emissions reductions for each country would not be binding, thus avoiding the need for Senate approval.
But experts warn that without the Senate, the HFC agreement would likely have no legal force behind it domestically.
“Under the Vienna Convention — the treaty about treaties — when you amend a treaty, you need to treat the amendment just like you would treat a new treaty,” said Mike Wara, an environmental law professor at Stanford University’s law school.
“So you’ve got the ratify the amendment,” he added.
Although the EPA may already have the authority to mandate HFC cuts, Wara said, the Montreal Protocol — originally struck to reduce ozone-depleting pollutants — requires that richer nations pay to help poorer nations comply.
“Unless they have a novel theory about why this doesn’t have to be ratified, and how they’re going to pay for it in the absence of ratification and Senate support, it’s potentially a risky move,” Wara said.
Julian Ku, an international law professor at Hofstra University, noted that if the Obama administration does not submit the HFC deal for ratification, it would not be binding.
“The administration can make the agreement without going to the Senate, but if it wants to have domestic effect to change U.S. law, you’d have to have Senate ratification, or you’d have to get a whole new statute,” Ku said.
That means a future president would not have to abide by the terms of the pact.
John Setear, an international law professor at the University of Virginia, said the agreement needs a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which will be very difficult to get, even if Republican lose the Senate majority in November’s elections.
“Since the Senate detests actions to prevent climate change, that implies that the Senate might well refuse to provide that two-thirds vote, and thus that the U.S. could not join the amendment internationally,” he said.
Obama might argue because the HFC deal is an amendment to a treaty the Senate previously approved, it does not need separate ratification.
But Wara said that historically, such amendments have gone through Senate review.
“The past practice has been to ratify amendments to the Montreal Protocol,” Wara said.
Setear agreed, saying tradition is nearly uniformly in favor of Senate ratification.
“If the president skipped the Senate with this amendment, then he wouldn’t clearly be violating the Constitution, but he would clearly be violating the general tradition with respect to environmental agreements and the specific tradition with respect to the Montreal Protocol,” he said.
Supporters of the HFC pact are staying out of the discussion for now, choosing instead to defer to the Obama administration.
“We’re waiting for the State Department’s assessment of what’s needed here,” said David Doniger, climate director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Doniger represented the NRDC in a 2006 court case that concluded that a small tweak to the Montreal Protocol — an international body’s decision to exempt some uses of a chemical from restrictions — could not be enforced domestically without ratification.
But such a specific finding probably won’t mean much for the HFC deal, Doniger said.
“It doesn’t really answer this question,” he said.
The industry is also taking a wait-and-see approach.
“That’s pretty much a call that they would have to make as to whether they would submit it to the Senate for ratification,” said Francis Dietz, spokesman for the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute.
But Dietz is hopeful that if the Senate does have a say, industry support for the measure would trump opposition to climate policies.
“The fact that everyone is united on this, industry’s not opposed, the environmental advocates are in favor of it, I think that has to count for something,” he said.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302103-global-climate-pact-may-bump-into-senate-roadblock
-
Four Climate Lessons From the Clinton Campaign's Hacked Emails
Oct 21, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The WikiLeaks emails have yet to produce any disclosures big enough to shake up the presidential race, but they are revealing the remarkable extent to which Hillary Clinton’s advisers focused on addressing climate change as an urgent problem without promising too much.
John Podesta’s hacked inbox offers a veritable roadmap to the energy policy that Clinton would execute if she wins the White House — as well as clear lessons to the environmental and industry groups that are getting ready to lobby her administration.
Climate change and related issues feature prominently in the more than 23,400 messages WikiLeaks has released so far from Podesta’s account, which covers periods before and after he became Clinton's campaign chairman. The emails show Clinton’s team to be as driven by policy details and the power of pragmatic messaging as the candidate herself. “Climate change” is discussed in more than 1,200 of the emails that had been released as of Thursday, or more than Obamacare and ISIL combined, and several threads detail aides’ choreography before Clinton revealed long-planned public opposition to Keystone XL.
A campaign where grandiose promises are more popular than realistic policy proposals has left Clinton’s advisers dealing with a host of inherent contradictions: Taxing carbon polls horribly, but politicians will need to get behind some plan to drastically reduce it. Natural gas has been a boon to the economy and provides a bridge to clean energy, but its methane emissions threaten a stable climate if left unregulated. Calls to end oil drilling immediately are unrealistic, but so is the idea that the current boom should continue indefinitely.
Clinton’s proposals have produced fewer easy sound bites than Bernie Sanders’ call to ban fracking or Donald Trump’s promises to put coal miners back to work. But the hacked emails revealed the months of work that her team put into shaping them, aiming for ideas that could deliver tangible benefits but still stood a chance of success in a gridlocked Washington.
POLITICO identified four key themes from the WikiLeaks release that promise to shape Clinton’s energy record for years to come, should she defeat Trump next month.
1. Like Obama, Clinton wants the left to push
President Barack Obama accepted his nomination for reelection in 2012 with a call for “shared responsibility,” effectively reminding liberals dissatisfied with his record so far that it was up to them to lobby him in their direction. Green activists listened and kept pushing. They cheered as Obama sloughed off the “all-of-the-above” rhetoric of his first term and spent significant political capital on global warming, from EPA regulations to the recently ratified Paris climate deal.
The Clinton team whose private discussions WikiLeaks is dragging into public view appears in the mold of Obama, wary of unrealistic proposals from the left but ready to engage with critics who want more.
The presidential front-runner’s private quip that anti-fossil fuel activists should “get a life,” seen in context, reads like more of a rejoinder to remove their heads from the clouds than a personal slam.
The heat of the Democratic primary produced its share of clashes within the front-runner’s campaign.
On the one hand, Clinton aides teed off on Bernie Sanders’ proposed fracking ban as “extreme, unfeasible,” and disconnected from the economic benefits of increased U.S. natural gas production. On the other hand, they responded when forced to reckon with a data-driven case from the environmental left. When Clinton aide Josh Schwerin suggested hitting Martin O’Malley for a call to end all fossil-fuel use by 2050, Podesta overruled him with the admonition that a “close to a zero carbon energy sector” is needed to make good on plans for massive carbon emissions cuts.
The emails also show there was at least some communication between the environmental left and the Clinton campaign.
Lucy Waletzky, a Clinton donor, physician and member of the Rockefeller family, in February sought “more commitments” from the campaign to address the health effects of fracking. And a few exchanges show Podesta sought to use green mega-donor Tom Steyer to reach out to Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org who has emerged as a leader of the climate protest movement. After onetime Obama mentor Laurence Tribe harshly criticized the Clean Power Plan, Podesta wrote to Steyer asking to “get your pall McKibben to organize Harvard student protests against him.”
Waletzky told POLITICO she has “a lot of confidence” that Clinton would be able to rein in fracking, even though “she can’t do all of what any one person might want.” And she acknowledged that overturning the Safe Drinking Water Act exemption for injection wells — the so-called Halliburton loophole that Clinton often pledges to end on the campaign trail — is “not going to happen” given its breadth of industry and GOP support.
McKibben argues that the emails contain no surprises and should motivate green activists to keep up the fight after Election Day. “The honeymoon won’t last 10 minutes; on November 9 we’ll be organizing for science and human rights and against the timid incrementalism that marks her approach,” he wrote in The Nationthis week.
2. Timing is everything
The emails also shed light on Clinton’s cautious approach to issues that carry special weight with key constituencies or split public opinion, which her team of pollsters painstakingly tracks.
Even as the campaign treads carefully around issues without clear public support, it works to avoid getting pinned down in areas where a future deal could be cut.
Consider the ethanol mandate, a sacrosanct policy in farm states like Iowa that Clinton has vowed to protect amid increasing criticism from both the oil industry and environmentalists.
Interest in shaping Clinton’s stance on the Renewable Fuel Standard is so keen that one summertime report of her campaign meeting with a critic of the policy rattled its defenders. But on two separate occasions, the emails show the campaign working hard to keep its options open.
After then-White House climate adviser Dan Utech advised Clinton’s aides in April 2015 to refer to “making the RFS more effective,” Podesta dubbed that careful phrase “the reform graph.”
Another Clinton aide, Dan Schwerin, proposed another tweak to the language to leave “maximum flexibility down the road.”
The following month, Schwerin forwarded a news report on “Clinton’s Mend-It-Don’t-End-It” ethanol strategy and added: “I’d say we successfully ‘threaded the needle’ yet again!”
A similar cautiousness on a carbon tax is evident from the emails. Clinton’s pollsters found last year that the policy is especially susceptible to attack, even as a majority of voters say they want immediate action on climate change. Support for a carbon tax whose revenue would be rebated to offset higher energy costs started with 58 percent support, compared to 35 percent opposition in a March 2015 poll conducted for Clinton’s campaign. But after pollsters tested arguments for and against the proposal, the margin of support fell to just 1 percentage point.
“[W]e have done extensive polling on carbon tax,” Podesta told Clinton policy director Jake Sullivan before the poll was conducted. “It all sucks.”
Policy advisers included a greenhouse gas fee among the options they outlined for Clinton to build on Obama’s climate agenda in a detailed March 2015 memo, but they were forthright about its limitations and offered a more modest approach that the candidate ultimately embraced to reward states and cities that pursue ambitious emissions cuts.
On two other, more niche environmental issues, the WikiLeaks emails show Podesta keeping abreast of how best to promote climate-hawkish policies.
In March 2015, veteran environmental lawyer Richard Ayres sent Podesta a summary of an legal battle green groups were waging to temporarily suspend the federal coal leasing program in order to subject it to a new, full-scale environmental review. It would take another 10 months for the Obama administration to embracethat review on its own, and Clinton was ready by then to stand behind a decision that infuriated a coal industry whose workers she has struggled to woo.
Later on that year, Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp thanked Podesta “for reaching out” on methane and passed along messaging as well as policy advice on regulating the oil and gas industry’s emissions of the potent greenhouse gas.
3. Get ready for more 2015-style deals
When congressional Republicans escalated their push to repeal the ban on crude oil exports during last year’s government funding talks, environmentalists howled that the policy amounted to little more than a bailout for the industry.
But Clinton publicly stayed open to allowing exports if an agreement could “strike the right balance,” and in the emails she barely adjusted that stance even after Congress and the White House cut a deal that lifted the ban and included a five-year extension and phaseout of renewable energy tax credits.
A debate handbook from December, released by WikiLeaks, recommended that Clinton praise the emerging/just-cinched year-end exports deal if it came up, while also lamenting that she “would have liked to see real concessions from the oil and gas industry.”
Coupled with Clinton’s predilection for pragmatism and her past support for the geopolitical benefits of gas exports during corporate speeches, her canny messaging on the exports-for-tax-credits deal suggests that she’d be looking to cut more in that vein if she’s elected. And when she hints she’d seek to wring more from the industry, she may not torpedo a sellable agreement if she doesn’t get everything she wants (see points 1 and 2).
While Clinton may have mocked environmentalists in private remarks to union members, newly public excerpts from her other previously private speeches show that she frequently caveats her support for new infrastructure with a recognition of the environmental consequences of fossil fuel development.
“I'm not crazy about the consequences of natural gas with the release of methane but it is replacing coal,” she says in an excerpt from a February 2014 speech at the University of Miami.
“Now, that is a tremendous opportunity, as long as we are smart about it,” Clinton told a San Diego law firm in September 2014. “And we have to start by being smart about making sure we extract oil and gas in ways that don't destroy water tables, leak methane into the air, undermine the quality of life for people who live near the wells.”
4. Pipelines are problematic
Perhaps the least shocking development outlined in the hacked emails is the campaign’s struggles to prevent rebellion among building trade unions that supported Keystone. Yet that dynamic has only intensified this year as Clinton stays out of the fray on the Dakota Access pipeline, whose fate has become an even bigger worry for the oil industry than Keystone’s was.
Nikki Budzinski, Clinton’s labor outreach director, asked colleagues in February if the candidate could craft a pipeline policy that would let her avoid falling prey to the project-by-project grassroots lobbying strategy that green groups have used against fossil fuel infrastructure.
“She has privately told the building trades that she does not oppose pipelines,” Budzinski wrote. “Can we outline instances where a pipeline would have her support?”
Clinton never released such a blanket statement on pipelines at the time, but she has called for repair and replacement of aging fossil-fuel infrastructure. If she wins the White House, that won’t be enough to mollify emboldened environmentalists, a frustrated oil and gas industry, or concerned labor unions.
The emails show little sign of engagement between the campaign and the oil industry, however. The American Petroleum Institute makes a brief cameo when Podesta cites its “very negative reaction” to the May 2015 release of three years’ worth of ethanol blending targets.
Podesta also flagged a group of “really problematic” oil and gas advisers, who carried largely establishment ties, in April 2015.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/10/four-climate-lessons-from-the-clinton-campaigns-hacked-emails-134635
-
House T&I Democrats Criticize GOP over CWA Policies
Oct 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T&I) Democrats are using the 44th anniversary of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to tout their new report criticizing Republicans in the lower chamber for both cutting funding to major water programs and pushing bills since 2014 that Democrats warn would weaken the water law.
The Oct. 18 report, titled “The 'Party of Pollution': An Analysis of the Republican Majority’s Failure to Protect Clean Water,” takes aim at Republicans' funding legislation for EPA's water funds, as well as a series of bills to undo water permit requirements and the agency's CWA jurisdiction rule.
“Unfortunately, the Republican Majority in Congress has done all it can to slow the progress in cleaning up the Nation’s waters, and has taken aggressive steps to undermine the successes already achieved -- to virtually eliminate any Federal 'safety-net' in protecting the Nation’s water-related environment,” the report says.
A statement on the T&I minority's website says the report was timed to mark the 44th anniversary of the CWA, enacted in 1972, but it also comes in the midst of a heated presidential election campaign where GOP nominee Donald Trump has pledged to cut back EPA regulations or even eliminate the agency altogether.
In their report, the Democrats say that if they take control of the chamber in the upcoming elections, they will boost water infrastructure spending, pass new measures to aid communities struggling with water quality concerns, and consider amending the CWA to strengthen its protections.
“A comprehensive review of the [CWA] to make further progress toward its goals of fishable and swimmable waters is a high-priority for a Democratic-led Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,” the report says.
The report attacks Republicans for supporting spending bills that would cut EPA's budget dramatically. In particular it notes that while the most severe cuts have failed to pass the Senate, enacted appropriations bills have still cut funding for the agency's CWA state revolving funds, which support water infrastructure projects.
“[U]nderinvestment and complacency in Congress have allowed [water] systems to fall into disrepair over time, creating a massive backlog of projects and threatening the long-term reliability of our infrastructure. . . . The Republican Majority fails to recognize the need for increased Federal investment in water infrastructure,” the report says. It points to a drop in clean water SRF spending from $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $1.45 billion in FY15.
While the House and Senate are proposing different funding levels in FY17 appropriations bills, both would cut the clean water SRF while boosting the drinking water fund, though by a smaller amount than the clean water fund would drop -- meaning overall spending on the SRF would decrease. Democrats in the report say they would push SRF reauthorization, with boosted funding levels, if they gain control of the House.
Beyond budgetary issues, the T&I report attacks Republicans for opposing the Obama administration's rule to define which waters are protected by the CWA -- which the GOP has said breaks with the water law's text and would vastly expand EPA's jurisdiction.
“[T]he Republican Majority has quixotically pursued legislation to undermine efforts by the administration to provide additional clarity on the scope of the Clean Water Act -- despite multiple calls for such clarity by both the regulated AND conservation communities,” it says.
The Democrats also criticize bills to cut back EPA's regulatory authority, most prominently in legislation to restrict CWA permitting for pesticide sprayers, ostensibly to bolster Zika fighting efforts though the legislation originated years before outbreaks of the mosquito-borne disease.
“No matter the name, this bill would simply roll back critical EPA regulations that protect our Nation’s waters from pesticides,” the report says.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/house-ti-democrats-criticize-gop-over-cwa-policies
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested