Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 10/21/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Probes NIH Backing Of Cancer Agency
Oct 21, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The US House of Representatives’ oversight and government reform committee will soon convene a briefing to question officials from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about its grants to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the trade group for US chemical companies, welcomes the inquiry and agrees that IARC warrants greater public scrutiny. -
US EPA Extends Consultation On New Chemicals Proposal
Oct 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has further extended the comment period on its proposed rule to make changes to existing regulations governing significant new uses of chemical substances under TSCA. -
Industry Braces For Rough Transition Under New Chemical Law
Oct 21, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Regulators, analysts and industry officials warned this week that chemical companies should be prepared for a lengthy adjustment period as the U.S. implements new chemical laws. -
Watchdog Unveils Goals, Shrugs Off Email Concerns
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board released a strategic plan for 2017-2021 yesterday, overhauling its mission statement and unveiling new goals. -
EDC Criteria Must Not Bypass Council, Say Three Member States
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A delegation from Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden has asked the European Council to discuss the Commission's proposed criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). -
Coming Soon to a Lawbook Near You – New Cosmetic Requirements
Oct 21, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Joanne S. Hawana
Witnesses in favor of the Personal Care Products Safety Act stated that the FDA has not done enough to ban endocrine-disrupting chemicals in cosmetic products and that industry-financed review programs should not substitute government regulatory programs in collecting chemical toxicity data. -
(ACC Mentioned) 20 Groups Slam Obama Administration Over Dakota Access
Oct 21, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Anthony Adragna
Some of the country’s most influential industry groups are slamming the Obama administration for effectively halting work on a disputed section of the Dakota Access pipeline. -
Trade Groups Press Obama Admin To Drop Pipeline Review
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
A consortium of industry groups called on the Obama administration to drop its review of the Dakota Access pipeline, saying it set a bad precedent for other infrastructure projects around the country. -
Energy Groups Slam Obama Administration Pipeline Review
Oct 21, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of energy and manufacturing groups is criticizing an Obama administration review of permitting decisions for a controversial pipeline project in North Dakota. -
Chamber Faults Clinton On Fossil Fuels, Has No Quarrel With Trump
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump may be slipping in polls and raising eyebrows over his statements on the campaign trail, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is still with him on energy policy. -
House Dems Weigh In On EPA Fracking Study
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
A group of House Democrats is urging U.S. EPA to heed the concerns that the agency's science advisers raised about its study of hydraulic fracturing risks. -
Enviros Criticize 'All Of The Above' Energy Plan
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) yesterday updated the state's energy plan to promote an "all of the above" strategy that includes fossil fuels, drawing fire from environmental groups wary of more natural gas use. -
Chemical Spill In Kansas Town Spurs Call For Residents To Stay Indoors
Oct 21, 2016 | Reuters
By Timothy Mclaughlin and Ben Klayman
City and county officials advised residents in the town of Atchison, Kansas, on Friday to stay indoors after an unknown chemical was spilled at a facility in the town. -
Grid Companies Try Out A Mutual Cyber Support Plan
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The script for Sept. 28 that Kurt Hoffmann wrote for his company, MidAmerican Energy Co., was a horror story with an unexpected happy ending. -
EPA Issues Guidelines on Oil/NatGas VOC Emissions For Smoggy States
Oct 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday issued finalized recommendations to smog-afflicted states for controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from oil/natural gas equipment. The guidelines -- not rules -- would apply to more wells than an earlier draft. -
The Carbon Tax That Clinton Decided Not To Use: $42
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Hannah Hess and Evan Lehmann
Hillary Clinton was examining an aggressive carbon tax as a central pillar of her campaign's climate agenda, according to internal emails leaked yesterday that show closely held details about her thinking at the outset of the presidential race. -
Trump Economic Adviser Says No To A Price On Carbon
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
An economic adviser to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said yesterday that reforming the country's energy industry would be a priority if Trump is elected, but said taxing greenhouse gases won't help the U.S. economy. -
EPA Rethinks Smog Exemptions For Small Producers
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is rethinking plans to exempt tens of thousands of low-producing oil and gas wells from a key part of newly issued recommendations aimed at cutting releases of smog-forming emissions. -
Tweaks To City Plans Could Trigger Major Reductions — Study
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Tweaks to six common city policies could reduce national carbon emissions by as much as 7 percent annually, according to a new study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Probes NIH Backing Of Cancer Agency
Oct 21, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The US House of Representatives’ oversight and government reform committee will soon convene a briefing to question officials from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about its grants to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the trade group for US chemical companies, welcomes the inquiry and agrees that IARC warrants greater public scrutiny.
The congressional committee’s chairman, Republican Jason Chaffetz, sent a letter to the director of the NIH, Francis Collins, last month in which he described IARC as having ‘a record of controversy, retractions, and inconsistencies’, and asked why the NIH continues to fund the agency. NIH’s grant databases indicate that it has given IARC several millions of dollars since 1992, including over $1.2 million (£985,000) so far this year, according to Chaffetz.
The congressman also argued that IARC’s standards and determinations for classifying substances as carcinogenic appear inconsistent with other scientific research and have generated alarm. For example, he noted that IARC concluded that the herbicide glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’ in March 2015, which contrasts with the findings of other organisations like the European Food Safety Authority and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
On 18 October, the ACC’s President and CEO, Cal Dooley, wrote to Chaffetz expressing ‘serious concerns about the lack of transparency, rigor and relevance’ of IARC’s monograph programme. He said the agency’s monographs ‘do not consider the full weight of the scientific evidence and frequently conclusions are based on studies of poor quality’.
Dooley stated that IARC assesses the hazard of a particular substance or behaviour, evaluating whether a substance could cause cancer in humans under any circumstances, including at exposure levels beyond what is typical. He concluded that the agency’s findings ‘frequently lead to alarming headlines’, as well as ‘unnecessary public concern’ and regulatory action such as California’s Proposition 65 listing and warning programme.
But IARC’s director, Chris Wild, defended his agency in a letter to NIH’s Collins on 5 October. He said that for more than four decades this specialised cancer agency of the WHO has published monographs that are ‘widely respected for their scientific rigour, standardised and transparent process and for freedom from conflicts of interest’.
Wild also pointed out the IARC’s monographs only evaluate agents for which there is evidence of human exposure and an existing body of scientific literature indicating a degree of carcinogenic hazard to humans. ‘The non-random selection of agents explains why the evaluations extremely rarely find there is “evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity”’, he said.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/congress-probes-nih-backing-of-cancer-agency/1017582.article
-
US EPA Extends Consultation On New Chemicals Proposal
Oct 21, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has further extended the comment period on its proposed rule to make changes to existing regulations governing significant new uses of chemical substances under TSCA.
Among other changes, the rule seeks to make 'minor changes' to reporting requirements for pre-manufacture (PMNs) and other TSCA section 5 notices. It also seeks to address issues identified by the EPA and the public regarding significant new use rules (Snurs).
But concerns have been raised that the rule is more complicated, and has broader implications, than the EPA's notice suggests.
The agency issued the proposal in July and extended the comment period earlier this autumn. The latest extension allows commenting until 21 November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50480/us-epa-extends-consultation-on-new-chemicals-proposal
-
Industry Braces For Rough Transition Under New Chemical Law
Oct 21, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Regulators, analysts and industry officials warned this week that chemical companies should be prepared for a lengthy adjustment period as the U.S. implements new chemical laws.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which was signed by President Obama in June, establishes new procedures for the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate chemicals used in commerce.
The law also requires the EPA to make affirmative safety determinations for new chemicals. Analysts previously predicted that companies would need to exhaustively prepare their applications for new chemical approvals — known as pre-manufacture notices — and Chemical Watch noted last week that a backlog of those filings is already accruing.
Shannon Gainey, a products manager for specialty chemical maker Evonik, told the ChemCon the Americas event in Toronto that companies would need to "weather the storm" of the EPA's adjustment period — potentially for a couple of years, according to CW.
Gainey stressed that new chemical filings will prompt the EPA to identify some form of risk — absent almost no exposure to the chemical — and that its risk models "will predict a very conservative number in terms of how toxic something is."
Jeffrey Morris, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, told the conference that although relatively small amount of companies filing pre-manufacture notices were restricted under the old Toxic Substances Control Act, "that’s going to change now."
He added that EPA officials will need to determine how to address chemicals that cannot be cleared due to "insufficient information," including testing methods and the use of similar compounds.
"We're going to have to look at what we've done and realize maybe we should have done this a different way and make adjustments," Morris said, according to CW. "That's just going to be the nature of implementing a significant change to the law."
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/10/industry-braces-rough-transition-under-new-chemical-law
-
Watchdog Unveils Goals, Shrugs Off Email Concerns
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board released a strategic plan for 2017-2021 yesterday, overhauling its mission statement and unveiling new goals.
The board's new mission is "to drive chemical safety change to protect people and the environment," according to the strategic plan.
Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland hailed the board for finalizing all the investigations of pre-2014 chemical accidents.
"[T]hat's a Herculean effort for those who are familiar with the CSB," she said.
A report published Wednesday on the Williams Cos. Inc. explosion in Louisiana in 2013 wrapped up the board's pre-2014 probes (Greenwire, Oct. 20).
CSB is examining oil refineries in Delaware and one in California run by PBF Energy; the DuPont Co. leak at a pesticide plant in La Porte, Texas, that killed four workers in 2014; and a flash fire in August at a Sunoco oil storage facility in Nederland, Texas.
Also being investigated: a fire earlier this year at an Enterprise Products Partners LP natural gas plant in Pascagoula, Miss., and an accident at an Airgas Inc. facility in Florida that killed one worker.
Sutherland said the board is working on boosting its image. "Our efforts to build trust internally and externally ... will serve as a foundation for our successful execution of the strategic plan," she said.
CSB has been rocked in recent weeks by allegations that board member Rick Engler may have engaged in "improper" email correspondence with United Steelworkers (Greenwire, Sept. 21).
Sutherland yesterday shrugged off concerns about the allegations that she previously said would be probed by the U.S. EPA inspector general.
"I can certainly speak for the agency or the board that we take all compliance very seriously but did not feel that at this point there was something to be overly concerned about," she said.
Engler himself then addressed the matter.
"As the focal point of some of these stories, I am not aware of any actual investigation" by the IG, he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044635
-
EDC Criteria Must Not Bypass Council, Say Three Member States
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A delegation from Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden has asked the European Council to discuss the Commission's proposed criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
While it does not negotiate or adopt EU laws, the Council defines the region's overall political direction and priorities. It sets the EU's policy agenda, traditionally by adopting 'conclusions' during Council meetings that identify issues of concern and actions needed.
Draft Commission regulations follow comitology procedures and are not discussed by the Council.
However, the topic of EDCs, the delegation says, is "at the heart of public and political interest and therefore merits attention at Council level".
The delegation, supported by Luxembourg, sent an information note to the Council. It says that during discussions at the Council's June meeting, questions were raised as to whether the criteria meet the objectives of the biocides (BPR) and pesticides (PPPR) legislation. And whether they are within the legal mandate of the Commission.
The BPR and PPPR refer to substances that are considered as having endocrine disrupting properties that may cause adverse effects in humans. Whereas the Commission's criteria refers to substances "known to cause an adverse affect".
The delegation joins other member states, Echa and NGOs in saying the criteria must be consistent with the legal text in the BPR and PPPR. And they must match the globally accepted approach to identifying hazardous substances according to the GHS and the CLP Regulation.
"Furthermore, the criteria should be in line with the Commission's better regulation initiative (REFIT) that aims for consistency and coherency across legislation," the delegation says.
The information note was listed under any other business on the agenda of a 17 October Environment Council meeting. A release issued afterwards said the Council took note of the delegation’s request. It is not yet known whether EDCs will appear on the agenda of the next meeting on 19 December.
Meanwhile the Commission is understood to be redrafting its proposed criteria.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50428/edc-criteria-must-not-bypass-council-say-three-member-states
-
Coming Soon to a Lawbook Near You – New Cosmetic Requirements
Oct 21, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Joanne S. Hawana
Back in April 2015, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act (S.1014). More recently, on September 22, 2016, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee received testimony from Senators Feinstein and Collins in support of this bipartisan legislation. The HELP Committee also heard from experts in the cosmetics industry about product developments and health standards.
Witnesses in favor of the Personal Care Products Safety Act stated that the FDA has not done enough to ban endocrine-disrupting chemicals in cosmetic products and that industry-financed review programs should not substitute government regulatory programs in collecting chemical toxicity data. They contrasted FDA’s inability to ban products unless they are “adulterated” with the more expansive authorities of similar regulatory agencies in Canada, Japan, and the European Union.
Witnesses against the proposed legislation described chemical toxicity testing procedures already place, such as the Human Repeat Insult Patch Test (HRIPT). They also noted the proposed legislation would have a disproportionate impact on smaller companies, as stricter national standards for the entire industry are expected to increase the costs of producing and distributing all kinds of personal care and cosmetic products.
As we described last year when the bill was first introduced, the Personal Care Products Safety Act would introduce significant changes to the current U.S. regulatory system for cosmetics. Among other provisions, the bill would require cosmetic manufacturers to register with FDA annually and submit ingredient information to the agency, and for larger firms registration would be accompanied by a user fee. Such a registration and user fee system would be similar to what is currently mandated for drug and device manufacturers. Registered cosmetic firms would also be required to comply with Good Manufacturing Practices for their products, analogous to what drug and device companies must comply with today; such “cosmetic GMPs” would need to be developed by FDA through notice-and-comment rulemaking so that industry and other stakeholders have an opportunity to provide feedback before the rules are finalized. In addition, S. 1014 would give FDA mandatory recall authority over cosmetics (an authority that the agency only recently obtained for food products under the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011), and cosmetic firms would be required to report serious adverse events to FDA within 15 business days of becoming aware of the event.
Despite some opposition, congressional aides say the proposed legislation is likely to see movement next year. FDA, too, welcomes the opportunity to increase its regulatory power over the cosmetics and personal care products. Citing recent adverse event reports about WEN hair products, the Agency has stressed the need to do away with voluntary reporting for adverse events so that companies are required to report serious adverse events as they become aware of them. FDA also has raised concerns about studies done by the industry self-regulatory process called Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), claiming they are summaries of voluntary data rather than analyses of raw data from clinical trials. Overall, therefore, FDA is supportive of the Senate’s effort to expand the agency’s cosmetic oversight power. Many industry members also support the bipartisan compromise legislation, as do consumer protection groups who view some strengthening of the U.S. regulatory system as “better than nothing.”
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/coming-soon-to-lawbook-near-you-new-cosmetic-requirements
-
(ACC Mentioned) 20 Groups Slam Obama Administration Over Dakota Access
Oct 21, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Anthony Adragna
Some of the country’s most influential industry groups are slamming the Obama administration for effectively halting work on a disputed section of the Dakota Access pipeline. “When your agencies upend or modify the results of a full and fair regulatory process for an infrastructure project, these actions do not merely impact a single company,” they wrote to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Army chief Eric Fanning. “The industries that manufacture and develop the infrastructure, the labor that builds it, and the American consumers that depend on it all suffer.” Among those signing on are the American Chemistry Council, Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Association of Manufacturers and Edison Electric Institute.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/10/energy-lessons-from-podestas-inbox-216993 -
Trade Groups Press Obama Admin To Drop Pipeline Review
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
A consortium of industry groups called on the Obama administration to drop its review of the Dakota Access pipeline, saying it set a bad precedent for other infrastructure projects around the country.
The pipeline, being built by Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, would carry oil from the Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota to refineries and other pipeline connections in Illinois. It has drawn protests from landowners and Native American groups who say it will damage the environment and cultural sites.
The Obama administration last month temporarily halted construction of the pipeline on federal property near the Missouri River in North Dakota, saying the Army Corps of Engineers may need to reconsider its process for consulting native tribes who are affected by pipeline construction (E&ENews PM, Sept. 9).
That decision amounted to changing the rules of the game not just for pipelines but for roads, bridges and electric lines, the trade associations said in a letter to Army Secretary Eric Fanning, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
"The previous decisions now being 'reconsidered' were properly considered and made through a fair and thorough process on which the company and others are entitled to rely," the letter says. "When your agencies upend or modify the results of a full and fair regulatory process for an infrastructure project, these actions do not merely impact a single company. The industries that manufacture and develop the infrastructure, the labor that builds it, and the American consumers that depend on it all suffer."
The letter was signed by 21 organizations representing the oil and gas, electric utility, construction and manufacturing industries.
"We urge you to abide by the well-established process and the law and help us build an infrastructure system suitable to the demands of the 21st century," the letter says.
Separately, several labor unions representing construction workers have come out in favor of the project, while other unions outside the building industry have opposed it (EnergyWire, Oct. 19).
Construction on the 1,172-mile pipeline is continuing outside of the federal property near the Missouri River. A protest by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has drawn thousands of demonstrators, who have vowed to block the line's completion. Dozens of people have been arrested in North Dakota, and Energy Transfer Partners offered a $100,000 reward this week after vandals set fire to construction equipment in Iowa.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044634
-
Energy Groups Slam Obama Administration Pipeline Review
Oct 21, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of energy and manufacturing groups is criticizing an Obama administration review of permitting decisions for a controversial pipeline project in North Dakota.
In a letter to three administration officials on Thursday, the groups hit back at the Army Corps of Engineers and the Departments of Justice and Interior, which are reviewing whether the Army Corps followed proper procedure when it approved the Dakota Access Pipeline over the summer.
While the three agencies review the decision, they are withholding an easement that would allow construction of the $3.7 billion pipeline on a stretch of federal land in North Dakota.
That decision, the group said, is improper and “effectively ignore[s] the rule of law in an attempt to halt infrastructure development.”
“When your agencies upend or modify the results of a full and fair regulatory process for an infrastructure project, these actions do not merely impact a single company,” wrote the groups, a collection that includes the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and 17 others.
“The industries that manufacture and develop the infrastructure, the labor that builds it, and the American consumers that depend on it all suffer.”
A federal judge approved the permitting process for the Dakota Access Pipeline last month. Even so, a North Dakota tribe has sued against the project, saying it threatens cultural heritage sites and drinking water supplies in the region.
The dispute over the pipeline — like those that came before it — has galvanized both green groups in opposition and the energy and manufacturing sectors in support. Administration officials have said a final decision on the withheld easement, for a section of federal land spanning the Missouri River, will come within weeks.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302169-energy-groups-slam-obama-administration-pipeline-review
-
Chamber Faults Clinton On Fossil Fuels, Has No Quarrel With Trump
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump may be slipping in polls and raising eyebrows over his statements on the campaign trail, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is still with him on energy policy.
"The chamber has had plenty to say about Trump on other issues, including trade," spokesman Matt Letourneau said, "[but] we haven't had the policy disagreements with Trump [on energy], and he hasn't had a record of saying things we disagree with."
The chamber parted ways with the TV personality and real estate mogul when he called for a "piece of the action" in exchange for approving the Keystone XL pipeline while reiterating his desire to see the project built. And the chamber was also concerned when Trump told a Denver television station he supports hydraulic fracturing but believes states should be able to decide whether they want to ban it, Letourneau said.
But Trump has appeared to walk back those comments while taking a pro-business message to oil and gas production hubs, calling for widespread production on federal lands and easing of regulations and costs on industry.
While the chamber only wades into congressional races and refrains from making presidential endorsements, the group isn't shy about airing its concerns — as could be seen in a report today with references to the energy policies of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
As part of its "Energy Accountability Series," the chamber report offers a grim outlook for electricity affordability should Democrats push through what the business group calls European-style energy policies. The report is the third in a series examining energy policy ahead of the November election.
The report quotes independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the runner-up in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, as saying on Oct. 13, 2015, "I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished."
In the report, the chamber said Clinton "has vowed to 'stop fossil fuels' from being produced on federal lands, and her party's platform supports a federal renewable electricity mandate of 50 percent by 2027."
"This goes well beyond anything proposed by the current administration, and even exceeds the E.U.'s renewable energy target of 27 percent by 2030," the report said.
Letourneau pointed to a video posted online by 350 Action in February in which Clinton says she would support a moratorium on oil and gas leases on federal land.
But Clinton's campaign has taken issue with the chamber's characterization of her comments. Hillary for America senior energy adviser Trevor Houser told the Wyoming Business Report in August that Clinton never called for such a ban but instead supports leasing reform.
Clinton "has not called for a ban on all fossil fuel extraction on public lands as the Chamber claims," Houser is quoted saying in the Aug. 25 article.
"Instead, her plan calls for reforming fossil fuel leasing to ensure taxpayers get a fair deal and for significantly expanding renewable energy production on public lands, including by tapping Wyoming's enormous wind energy potential."
Clinton, notably, has supported President Obama's decision to put a hold on new coal leases while the program is under review and has called for reforming onshore leasing programs to close loopholes. She's also said she opposes offshore drilling in both the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean.
"We do look at their policy platforms, and when we see things we don't like, we're not afraid to comment on them," Letourneau said. "This particular report has been more of a Sanders argument ... [but] it's certainly had an effect on Clinton and the [Democratic National Committee] platform."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044666
-
House Dems Weigh In On EPA Fracking Study
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
A group of House Democrats is urging U.S. EPA to heed the concerns that the agency's science advisers raised about its study of hydraulic fracturing risks.
"No matter what industry prefers or what the politics of the moment demand, our environmental standards have to be based on the best available information, and that's all we're asking for today," wrote Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
The letter was signed by 48 other House Democrats.
The letter urges EPA to accept the findings of the agency's Science Advisory Board, which said the "widespread, systemic" assessment was not supported by the research (E&ENews PM, Aug. 11). The board's report, issued last month, said that if EPA leaves in the "widespread, systemic" language, it should provide a "quantitative analysis" to support it in the final draft.
It also asks that the agency issue the final draft of the study by the end of the year.
The EPA study of the effects of fracturing on drinking water was released in June 2015. The oil and gas industry cheered it as a clean bill of health, while environmentalists seethed that the agency was equating a lack of information with a lack of harm.
The request to study hydraulic fracturing and its effects on drinking water came from Congress, which passed legislation calling for it in October 2009.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044624
-
Enviros Criticize 'All Of The Above' Energy Plan
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) yesterday updated the state's energy plan to promote an "all of the above" strategy that includes fossil fuels, drawing fire from environmental groups wary of more natural gas use.
At a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a solar installation at a Virginia high school, McAuliffe praised the state's clean energy sector for being "a central part of our efforts to build a new Virginia economy" and multiplying revenues to $2 billion.
But in a press release from the governor, Secretary of Commerce and Trade Todd Haymore added that "to grow the new Virginia economy, we must take an all of the above approach to energy policy."
"While we have attracted $500 million in capital investment in the clean energy industry, we must also ensure that Virginia consumers and businesses have access to affordable, reliable and diverse energy resources," Haymore said. "The Governor's energy plan update lays out how the administration's success is driving Virginia's energy economy forward."
McAuliffe's plan touts the state's expansion of natural gas infrastructure and calls for more, saying natural gas is a "cleaner burning fuel" that "provides a vital source for industries such as manufacturing that provide good paying jobs."
He notes estimates that the Atlantic Coast pipeline could save Virginia consumers $243 million between 2019 and 2038. Most environmental groups oppose that project and the broader expansion of natural gas infrastructure underway around the country.
Sierra Club Virginia Chapter Director Kate Addleson called McAuliffe's commitment to clean energy "laudable" but said it is "hampered by a heavy emphasis on fracked gas."
"You cannot both reduce carbon pollution and continue to increase the use of gas," Addleson said. "An 'all of the above' approach to energy policy is incompatible with responsible action on climate change."
Addleson called for a 40 percent reduction in carbon emission levels between 2012 and 2030, echoing other environmental groups in the state who want McAuliffe to exceed the goals of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Although Virginia lawmakers have blocked the Department of Environmental Quality from spending money to plan for the rule, McAuliffe has appointed a working group by executive order to explore possible carbon cuts for the power sector.
Environmental advocates have been pushing back on proposals from the state's biggest utility, Dominion Virginia Power, that they say would rely too much on natural gas and not cut emissions enough (ClimateWire, Oct. 17).
"The governor continues to cut ribbons for small solar projects at schools while simultaneously supporting Dominion Power in massively increasing global warming pollution," said Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, citing polling that his group suggests shows voters oppose Dominion's strategy.
Tidwell said McAuliffe's good work on climate change is offset by his policies to promote fossil fuels.
"The governor touts that 400 megawatts of solar are projected to be built in Virginia under his four-year term. That is the pollution-reduction equivalent of taking 100,000 cars off the road," Tidwell said. "But the governor's support of two massive pipelines for fracked gas would effectively trigger greenhouse gas pollution increases equal to nearly doubling the total pollution emitted by the state's existing power plants. Apart from the plan, the governor has previously supported offshore drilling for oil, which could have increased climate pollution equal to adding 24 million cars to Virginia's roads."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044616
-
Chemical Spill In Kansas Town Spurs Call For Residents To Stay Indoors
Oct 21, 2016 | Reuters
By Timothy Mclaughlin and Ben Klayman
City and county officials advised residents in the town of Atchison, Kansas, on Friday to stay indoors after an unknown chemical was spilled at a facility in the town.
"There has been an incident. Until further notice, close all your windows, turn off your air and furnaces, and stay indoors," the city of Atchison said in a statement on social media.
City officials could not be reached for further comment. It was unclear what type of chemical was spilled.
The city's post said the incident occurred at "MGP," without giving further details, but MGP Ingredients, a supplier of distilled spirits and specialty wheat protein and starches, is located in the town, according to the company's website.
The company could not immediately be reached for comment.
The county's emergency management division described the incident as a chemical spill in a separate post.
Susan Myers, superintendent for Atchison Public Schools, which has about 1,800 students and 700 staff members, said in a telephone interview the town's schools were being evacuated.
"They have had us move them to the airport and now they're having us move to a different location," she said of emergency officials' advice about the students.
"Area school districts are sending buses to help us. It's a moment-to-moment situation and we are moving our children to safety."
(Reporting by Timothy Mclaughlin in Chicago and Ben Klayman in Detroit; Editing by Bill Trott and Bernadette Baum)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-chemicalspill-idUSKCN12L1ZG
-
Grid Companies Try Out A Mutual Cyber Support Plan
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
QUEBEC, Canada — The script for Sept. 28 that Kurt Hoffmann wrote for his company, MidAmerican Energy Co., was a horror story with an unexpected happy ending.
On that day, the Iowa-based utility ran into a sophisticated cyberattack that took down a large coal power plant and corrupted plant computer files, the utility's corporate network and other systems in a Stuxnet-scale scenario that was designed to push the utility past the breaking point.
"We wanted the exercise to have such an effect that all of our resources ... were all exhausted to the point where we needed help," Hoffmann told a grid cybersecurity conference here sponsored by the North American Electric Reliability Corp.
The goal of the war games exercise was the first-ever test of a new cyberdefense resource created by the electric power industry — a cyber mutual assistance agreement that would bring expert help from utilities to those knocked down by a sophisticated hacking attack.
Five U.S. utilities among those asked to help answered the call, offering cyber defenders and equipment to help MidAmerican diagnose the attack, a response the utility had not expected, Hoffmann said.
"The first one that came in, we were excited," he said. "By the fifth one, we were dancing on the conference room table."
The exercise exposed issues, as well, he added. "Would MidAmerican easily accept outside help on its most critical and sensitive control systems on a very bad day? Could it actually do more harm than good?" he asked.
Could staff from other utilities be allowed access to systems without stepping over federal cyber rules? Would an FBI criminal investigation interfere with the utility's forensic investigation of the cyberattack?
"Would you send your A team to help another utility, particularly when you may be targeted next?" Hoffmann asked.
But the exercise "showed how willing utilities are in general to work together and help each other out," he said.Ukraine report
The conference also included the first detailed report of how the delayed warnings about the December 2015 cyberattack on Ukraine utilities issued by the Department of Homeland Security affected a U.S. power company.
Mark Binkelman, cybersecurity team leader at American Transmission Co., described the challenges he experienced getting an authoritative account of the tactics used against the three Ukraine distribution utilities.
Like other cyber professionals, he learned of the Ukraine incident from a cyber analyst's Twitter post the day after the Dec. 23, 2015, attack. A week later, there were details in a blog by Michael Assante, a director of the SANS Institute training organization. But the details of the attack that would help U.S. utilities were not available from the U.S. government until February. Several grid experts, interviewed here, say they believe that senior Obama administration officials pushed back against the release of attack details for political reasons, reluctant to acknowledge a major cyber incident as the presidential campaign moved into the climax year.
"The rest of January, it was a mishmash of 'It was BlackEnergy; it took over the grid.' It was just a mess," Binkelman said. Trying to sort out those details was really hard." The BlackEnergy malware was an opening intrusion into the Ukraine system, but not the main agent of the multisided assault. A detailed briefing on the attack was issued by Homeland Security in March.
Binkelman said that in January, he gathered 180 company field representatives together for a briefing and began by asking how many of them knew about the Ukraine attack — the first and only successful hacking takedown of electric utilities.
Only three put up their hands, he said. "The information just wasn't getting out there," Binkelman said.
At the beginning of February, NERC issued an alert to power companies belonging to its Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), listing the principal methods employed in the Ukraine attack and asking the U.S. utilities whether they were protected against the tactics.
"We did not make any major changes" as a result of the NERC checklist, he said.
The NERC's Grid Security Conference touched on new cyberdefense strategies, including the cyber mutual assistance program proposed by the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council.
Andy Bochman, senior energy and security strategist at the Idaho National Laboratory, showed off a model of a "fail-safe" device that could be installed between networks and critical electric power infrastructure components, isolating them from potential intrusions. Bochman and colleagues have argued for a profoundly different approach to cyberdefense that simplifies the protection of the most important equipment.
"The villain is complexity itself. We simply can't understand the layers and layers of software," he said. "It's about engineering out cyber risk from the holiest of holy systems."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044633
-
EPA Issues Guidelines on Oil/NatGas VOC Emissions For Smoggy States
Oct 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday issued finalized recommendations to smog-afflicted states for controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from oil/natural gas equipment. The guidelines -- not rules -- would apply to more wells than an earlier draft.
In the finalized Control Technique Guidelines [CTG] for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, wells that produce less than 15 boe per year are now included. Such "low-producing" wells were not included in the earlier guidance. Environmentalists cheered the move while the oil and natural gas industry was critical.
CTGs are not regulations and do not impose legal requirements directly on pollution sources; rather, they provide recommendations for state and local air agencies to consider as they determine what emissions limits to apply to covered sources in their jurisdictions to meet federal requirements, EPA said.
Clean Air Task Force's Conrad Schneider, advocacy director, said, "...low-producing wells can have substantial emissions… It's critical that EPA move forward swiftly to close this loophole and ensure the guidelines provide comprehensive protection for communities across the country."
However, the American Petroleum Institute (API) said EPA and the states "should not pile on additional guidelines and regulations" until the agency completes its Oil and Gas Information Collection Request (ICR) and then analyses the data collected [see Daily GPI, Aug. 3].
"Moving forward with these guidelines without robust data could impose unachievable emission-reduction requirements on the industry..." said API's Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs. "Air quality has already improved dramatically over the past two decades and will continue to improve as the industry continues to deploy innovative technologies and the EPA and states implement existing standards, which are the most stringent ever...
"In light of current and proposed state and federal regulations that address existing sources, it is better to allow completion of the ICR to inform whether CTGs are warranted and avoid the risks that acting on insufficient scientific data and conflicting guidelines could impose on the American public. If the EPA fails to follow the science, we call on Congress to avoid potential barriers to American economic and environmental progress."
The CTG covers certain sources of VOC emissions in onshore production and processing (i.e., pneumatic controllers, pneumatic pumps, compressors, equipment leaks, fugitive emissions) and storage vessel VOC emissions in all segments (except distribution) of the oil and natural gas industry, according to the document. "These sources were selected for RACT [reasonably available control technology] because current information indicates that they are significant sources of VOC emissions."
States to which the guidelines apply are in the "Ozone Transport Region" and are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and the consolidated metropolitan statistical area that includes the District of Columbia.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108181-epa-issues-guidelines-on-oilnatgas-voc-emissions-for-smoggy-states
-
The Carbon Tax That Clinton Decided Not To Use: $42
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Hannah Hess and Evan Lehmann
Hillary Clinton was examining an aggressive carbon tax as a central pillar of her campaign's climate agenda, according to internal emails leaked yesterday that show closely held details about her thinking at the outset of the presidential race.
Clinton asked several advisers to specify how a $42 "GHG pollution fee" applied to every ton of carbon dioxide would affect Americans financially and how the tax would work. They responded in a 12-page memo on Jan. 20, 2015, released yesterday by WikiLeaks in a continuing dump of documents that is increasingly frustrating the Clinton campaign less than 20 days before the election.
The memo outlines how the tax could hike the price of gasoline 40 cents a gallon and raise electricity costs on families, particularly those with lower incomes. Those burdens could be offset by rebating billions of dollars raised by the tax to all but the wealthiest Americans.
Under the tax, described in the documents as a "potential" campaign policy, families with the smallest incomes could have seen energy costs rise $495 a year. But annual rebates of $1,573 would eclipse those losses, giving them more than $1,000 in government funding.
In a separate memo to Clinton in December 2014, her advisers said a carbon tax could be seen as a key part of a broad progressive agenda. But they also had political concerns.
"Making a GHG fee a central element of a climate policy will also inevitably elicit traditional attacks from conservatives and fossil fuel interests, who will call it an energy tax and warn of skyrocketing electricity bills and domestic energy shortages," the memo reads.
Carbon policy is a hot-button issue for Clinton, one that challenged her during the Democratic primary season, when Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont dared her to support a carbon tax. She sidestepped the issue.
The memos from December 2014 to March 2015 show that Clinton was eager to explore a series of options for addressing climate change, including reaching for more emissions reductions under the Clean Power Plan and issuing untested regulations under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act (E&ENews PM, Oct. 20).
David Goldston, director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, said the details are interesting but not surprising. They show Clinton's camp doing its "due diligence," he said, and added that just because the campaign explored various policy options doesn't mean it would pursue them. Republicans likely aren't ready to come to the table for any carbon price talks anytime soon, he said.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, was quick to call the idea of a carbon tax "DOA," or dead on arrival.
"However economists, NGOs or political operatives may spin a carbon tax proposal, it is DOA in Congress," Inhofe said. "Such a policy would increase the price of goods, electricity and undermine our businesses' ability to compete globally, in turn causing the most harm to vulnerable members of our society."
Thomas Pyle, who heads the conservative American Energy Alliance, a think tank that endorsed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, said the issue is "toxic" with voters.
It's unclear if Trump's campaign will use the revelations about Clinton's flirtation with a carbon tax to attack her in the waning days of the race. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
George "David" Banks, a former climate adviser under President George W. Bush, said Trump "might bring it up," but "there's lots more fertile ground," including on trade policy.
"Look, climate didn't even come up in the debate. So I don't know if it plays. I know we, in town, like to think it's really important. But I don't know how potent it is," Banks said.
The documents also include a rare unrestrained acknowledgment that a slew of regulations in the United States won't be enough to meet international climate objectives. That's been no secret, but the Obama administration has avoided noting it outright.
"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," the advisers said in the memo.
If Clinton is elected, she will enter office as climate advocates will likely increase their calls for steeper emissions reductions than the Clean Power Plan offers.
"When those targets were set, they were real but relatively modest targets, and they were mostly a way of codifying and making sure the trend line we were already on stayed that way," said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "We supported those targets at the time, but I think a lot's happened since then."
The last year has seen renewable power technology costs plummet and the electric grid continue to make progress on running reliably with higher amounts of solar and wind, Kimmell said in an interview earlier this month. He said he believes strengthening the Clean Power Plan should be on the table, although that might not be easy "bureaucratically."
Liz Perera, the Sierra Club's climate policy director, echoed those thoughts.
"We have called for a stronger and more just Clean Power Plan from the beginning," Perera said. "When the initial goals came out, we already felt like they were below where we'd like to see them."
Certain states "are moving much faster than the Clean Power Plan," and "there's a ton of headroom they were given," she said.'It all sucks'
Advisers responding in memos directly to questions from Clinton noted that getting a carbon tax through Congress would be an uphill battle. They suggested Republicans might ask for trade-offs, including eliminating the Clean Power Plan. Environmental advocates, however, strongly oppose giving up an existing regulatory authority.
Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, in another email from around the time the memos were prepared, noted that aside from challenges within Congress, public opinion would be tough, too.
"We have done extensive polling on carbon tax. It all sucks," Podesta said. But in recent months, he has kept the possibility open. He told Politico during the Democratic convention that "if Congress wants to come forward with [a carbon tax proposal], we'll take a look at it."
Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, said he believes Clinton "abandoned" the carbon tax idea after polling suggested it would be unpopular and it seemed Republicans would hold control of the House. He thinks the polling was flawed and believes Democrats could win majorities in both chambers.
But Goldston said that even if Democrats take over the Senate, it could be years before "the atmosphere is ripe for legislation" around pricing carbon.
Meanwhile, Pyle of AEA said, the memos offer evidence of "a private and public Hillary apparatus."
He told E&E News he suspects Clinton would try to push the pricing scheme as part of a sweeping tax overhaul on Capitol Hill. Legislatively, the provision could be slipped into a broader tax reform package that both Democrats and Republicans would feel compelled to support.
The hacked document suggests Clinton could build support for the measure by using some share of the revenue for corporate income tax reform or linking it to approval of new oil and gas infrastructure.
"That's why it's so important the people know what are in these things," Pyle said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044632
-
Trump Economic Adviser Says No To A Price On Carbon
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
An economic adviser to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said yesterday that reforming the country's energy industry would be a priority if Trump is elected, but said taxing greenhouse gases won't help the U.S. economy.
"That is not a market-based way to have more energy benefits for the nation from our huge energy resources," David Malpass told reporters when asked if a Trump administration would support a price on carbon emissions.
Asked how a Trump administration would address climate change, Malpass did not answer. "I can't address that one," he said.
During a 90-minute talk yesterday at a Chinese restaurant in downtown Washington, D.C., Malpass said regulations, taxes, trade deals, energy restrictions and the federal government are collectively holding back economic growth.
He said a Trump administration would be an "upheaval or an upending" of government policies and sharply emphasize energy policy.
"It's pretty obvious that energy legislation should be a top priority," Malpass said. "And it should be sweeping."
Malpass is the president of Encima Global LLC, an economic consulting company, and was the chief economist for the Wall Street bank Bear Stearns Cos. Inc. before its collapse and eventual takeover in 2008.
He served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and finished second in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
After Malpass ended his prepared comments, one man in the audience asked how the adviser could support a candidate who makes demonstrably false statements many think are outrageous or offensive.
Malpass replied that from the field of 17 Republican candidates this election cycle, many made dramatic remarks.
"In order to get recognized, people said strong things throughout," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044613
-
EPA Rethinks Smog Exemptions For Small Producers
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is rethinking plans to exempt tens of thousands of low-producing oil and gas wells from a key part of newly issued recommendations aimed at cutting releases of smog-forming emissions.
Agency officials had proposed the "fugitive emissions" exemption for wells with average daily production of no more than 15 barrels of oil equivalent in the draft version of the "control techniques guidelines" (CTGs) released last year.
But after EPA published the final version yesterday, spokeswoman Monica Lee said in an email that the agency is not finalizing that step, "in light of comments undermining" the rationale for it, and is instead seeking further input.
The CTGs, designed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, offer recommendations to state and local agencies to consider in determining what emissions limits to impose on existing oil and gas operations to meet "reasonably available control technology" (RACT) requirements, according to EPA (Greenwire, Oct. 20).
In sunshine, volatile organic compounds react with nitrogen oxides to form ozone, a lung irritant that is the primary ingredient in smog.
In delaying a decision on the exemption for fugitive emissions — a technical term for leaks — the agency cited information received during the public comment period that low-producing wells are not necessarily negligible sources of leak-related emissions.
EPA had already axed a similar exemption from the final version of methane regulations released in May on new and modified oil and gas operations (Greenwire, May 13).
Lee Fuller, executive vice president for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, expressed satisfaction that EPA is still looking for more information on the proposed exemption but added that other parts of the guidelines — such as those intended to curb emissions from storage tanks — could still entail significant expense for marginal operators.
In an interview, Fuller also questioned why federal regulators are proceeding with CTGs when they are already collecting information in preparation for what he expected would be nationwide regulations on existing oil and gas operations to be released by early 2018.
The guidelines, in contrast, currently apply only in parts of the country that are having trouble meeting the 2008 ozone air quality standards, as well as the Ozone Transport Region, which encompasses 11 Northeastern states, the District of Columbia and parts of northern Virginia. EPA has set a January 2021 deadline for states to put emissions controls in place.
The CTGs are "just another one of the actions that the White House is pressing to go after oil and gas operations," Fuller said.
But environmental groups call the CTGs an essential step to addressing ozone pollution that can affect areas far from fossil fuel production hubs.
Conrad Schneider, advocacy director at the Clean Air Task Force, wrote in an email that almost three-quarters of the 133,000 wells in the areas covered by the guidelines would fall under the proposed leak exemption.
"It's critical that EPA move forward swiftly to close this loophole," Schneider said, "and ensure the guidelines provide comprehensive protection for communities across the country."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044665
-
Tweaks To City Plans Could Trigger Major Reductions — Study
Oct 21, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Tweaks to six common city policies could reduce national carbon emissions by as much as 7 percent annually, according to a new study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The analysis is the first from NREL on the ability of cities to reduce carbon nationally. The lab examined six policies in 23,400 cities — which cover two-thirds of the U.S. population — and concluded that "incremental" actions in the six areas could slash emissions by 210 million to 480 million metric tons annually through 2035.
"At the city level, the results suggest the average city could reduce carbon emissions by 7 percent to 19 percent relative to current city-level emissions," the report states.
The six examined policies are improved building codes, new public transit, additional building incentives, smart growth policies, solar photovoltaic deployment and actions to cut greenhouse gases in government facilities.
Researchers assumed that all the cities took additional action in the areas, regardless of their original baseline. For some locations, that might mean starting a public transit program from scratch, for example. In other locations, it might mean modeling the addition of new routes to an existing public transit program, explained Eric O'Shaughnessy, an analyst at NREL and co-author of the report.
The analysis fills a critical data gap, as most city officials lack information on how proposed policies will affect emissions and sustainability plans, the researchers say.
"No national estimate of the carbon abatement potential of city policies has yet been made. We address this research gap by developing methodologies to estimate the carbon abatement potential of actions that cities are already taking to reduce emissions," the report states.
The tool developed by the NREL team breaks potential emission reductions down by policy and reaches different conclusions depending on whether cities pursue a "moderate" or "high" approach to cutting emissions. Improved building codes in cities, for example, could cut national emissions by less than 1 percent or almost 2 percent, depending on how far cities go in requiring stricter standards than what is regulated or pushing for greater compliance.
There are also variations from region to region. Stricter building codes in cold climates could lead to almost double the carbon reductions of regions like the Midwest, according to the model.
"Colder climates are generally associated with more building natural gas use for heating, while warmer climates are associated with more building electricity use for cooling," said O'Shaughnessy.
Similarly, smart growth policies generally are more effective on the East Coast, which has large urban populations and sprawl challenges.
There are limitations to the analysis. For one thing, it's difficult to analyze how policies interact with each other, as would be the case in a real-world environment. Most existing analysis of carbon reductions also is at the state and national level.
NREL assumed that all cities fully implement new policies in the six areas by 2035.
"This assumption may not be practical or efficient," the report says.
The paper fits into a larger body of research from the national labs about the climate impact of state and city policies. This week, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory released data concluding that updated building codes over a 30-year period alone could slash carbon emissions by the annual output of 245 coal plants (Greenwire, Oct. 19).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/21/stories/1060044662
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested