Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/18/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Partners with ACC to Improve Diversion of All Plastics
Nov 18, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and American Chemistry Council (ACC) have announced a new partnership to focus on improving the diversion of plastics through a sustainable materials management approach. -
(ACC Mentioned) America Recycles Day: Interview with Allyson Wilson
Nov 18, 2016 | The Celebrity Cafe
By Michelle Tompkins
November 15 is America Recycles Day. While many people are diligent about recycling aluminum cans, paper and plastic bottles, some forget that there are a multitude of other plastic products that can be recycled. -
Industry 'Hopeful' Trump Administration Will Drop TSCA Section 6 Rules
Nov 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
An industry source is "hopeful" that the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump will not finalize a trio of once-rare Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6(a) rules to ban or further restrict use of industrial solvents trichloroethylene (TCE) and paint stripping chemicals methylene chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP). -
EPA Aims to Finish Climate Rules; Decisions Fall to Trump
Nov 17, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Andrew Childers
The Obama administration aims to cement its greenhouse gas regulations in the time remaining, but some of the largest greenhouse gas decisions will slide to President-elect Donald Trump, according to the updated federal regulatory agenda. -
New Jersey Challenges Illustrate Hurdles States Face With PFC Cleanups
Nov 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A lack of clear federal regulatory authority, funding and remediation standards are among the obstacles New Jersey is facing in pursuing potentially responsible party (PRP) cleanups of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), one state official explained recently, illustrating the hurdles other states that are just becoming aware of such pollution may face. -
EPA Proposes Restrictions on Some Solvents
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA proposed new restrictions yesterday on certain chemical solvents that the agency has linked to risks for pregnant women. -
Industry Lawyer: Trump Won't Wait for Courts to Kill Rule
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A lawyer for a trade group challenging U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan said he believes President-elect Donald Trump is more likely to unravel the electric-sector climate regulation with rulemaking, rather than waiting for the courts to decide its fate. -
API Report Supports EPA Frack Study Finding
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board has urged the agency to provide more data to back up its conclusion that hydraulic fracturing doesn't cause "widespread, systemic" problems for groundwater. -
Trump's Mysterious Pledge to Lift an Industry That's Already Winning
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
When Donald Trump settles into the White House and contemplates how to follow through on his promise to unleash American oil and gas production, it might be more difficult than it sounded on the campaign trail. -
Keep It In The Ground Movement Continues to Deny Science
Nov 18, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Seth Whitehead
Some “really remarkable” news broke on the clime front this week, just as world leaders wrap up their meetings at the Marrakesh Climate Change Conference. -
House Said to Balk at LNG Exports, Other Key Reforms
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
House negotiators have signaled they want to punt on a host of popular provisions on the energy conference's table, including language to speed natural gas exports that is a top priority for Republicans in both chambers. -
America's Rural Voters are Ready for Renewable Energy Too
Nov 18, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Lloyd Ritter
By now everyone knows Clinton lost much of her husband’s famed “Bubba vote.” Rural Americans, including a lot of Democrats and Independents, voted in large numbers for Trump. -
(ACC Mentioned) Rail Group Chief Urges STB to Freeze Regulations Until Trump Appoints Full Slate of Members
Nov 17, 2016 | DC Velocity
By Mark B. Solomon
The Surface Transportation Board (STB), the federal agency that regulates U.S. railroads, should defer a cluster of regulatory proposals until the U.S. Senate confirms the full slate of five board members appointed by President-elect Donald J. Trump, the head of the nation's leading freight rail group said last night. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Don't Stop Now, STB
Nov 18, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Transportation
By Brianna Gurciullo
As we mentioned in Thursday’s MT, the Association of American Railroads is calling on the Surface Transportation Board to hold off on big rulemakings until the new administration begins and all the seats on the board are filled. -
Fiery Crashes Not Enough to Spur Safety Rule Reform, GAO Finds
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Despite steps toward transparency and improved training, firefighters may not always get the data they need to respond to an oil train disaster, according to a report issued yesterday by a government watchdog. -
Blumenthal Urges FRA to Fast-Track Safety Measures
Nov 18, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) earlier this week called on Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg to fast-track several rail safety initiatives over the final months of President Barack Obama's administration. -
Schumer: USDOT Advances Proposal to Make Crude Oil Less Volatile
Nov 18, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced yesterday that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has taken its first major step toward requiring oil companies to stabilize highly flammable crude oil before shipment by rail. -
EPA Commits to Decision on N.C. Ozone Petition Settlement
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA would make a final decision by next October on adding North Carolina to a regional ozone reduction program under the terms of a tentative lawsuit settlement. -
China Steps Reluctantly Into Spotlight as U.S. Heads for Exit
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States has the world holding out for a climate hero, and parties here are determined that it be China. -
A Warning for Donald Trump: Gutting the EPA Would be Harder – and More Perilous – Than You Think
Nov 18, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
Donald Trump has been clear about his plans for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He wants to dismantle it.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Partners with ACC to Improve Diversion of All Plastics
Nov 18, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Dive Brief:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and American Chemistry Council (ACC) have announced a new partnership to focus on improving the diversion of plastics through a sustainable materials management approach.
Areas of focus will include source reduction, recycling, reuse and prevention; reducing the environmental effects of plastics through their lifecycles; and raising the per capita amount of plastics recovered for recycling.
The EPA will also join the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP), which aims to increase recycling opportunities for plastic bags and film via drop-off programs.
Dive Insight:
This partnership is a notable step in the EPA's efforts to promote sustainable materials management and comes as the agency's most recent national data shows plastics account for an estimated 18% of material being sent to landfills. A study commissioned by the ACC this year found that the environmental costs of using plastic were on average four times less than other material, which both the organization and others in the field found surprising.
Bringing the EPA into WRAP is also a big step as the majority of partners are from brands and the plastics industry at this point. So far the state governments of North Carolina and Connecticut, as well as the city of Vancouver, have also signed on. In addition to thousands of drop-off locations, multiple companies are also working on ways to enhance the recycling markets for plastic film. The Closed Loop Fund recently awarded $300,000 in grant money to two companies working on this.
Environmental groups show no sign of letting up in their efforts to reduce the amount of plastic being manufactured, particularly for single-use applications. Encouraged by the success of California's Proposition 67 — which upheld a 2014 statewide bag ban — advocates are moving forward with plans to ban or limit the use of plastic products in multiple states.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/epa-partners-with-acc-to-improve-diversion-of-all-plastics/430767/
-
(ACC Mentioned) America Recycles Day: Interview with Allyson Wilson
Nov 18, 2016 | The Celebrity Cafe
By Michelle Tompkins
November 15 is America Recycles Day. While many people are diligent about recycling aluminum cans, paper and plastic bottles, some forget that there are a multitude of other plastic products that can be recycled.
According to EPA, recycling helps conserve natural resources, reduces waste, prevents pollution, saves energy, creates jobs—and sustains the environment for future generations.
Recycling is also good economically. An example, Americans generated an estimated $730 million in recycled plastic bottles in 2014!
Allyson Wilson is the director of the American Chemistry Council’s plastics division, and she leads the charge to help people reduce waste, recycle more and implement easy energy efficiency measures in their daily lives.
Wilson speaks with TheCelebrityCafe.com, and demonstrates how recycled products can be transformed into other useful, and sometimes beautiful items. She offers tips on how to recycle and educates on other items that may be recycled. Celebrate America Recycles Day today and everyday.
http://thecelebritycafe.com/2016/11/america-recycles-day-interview-allyson-wilson/
-
Industry 'Hopeful' Trump Administration Will Drop TSCA Section 6 Rules
Nov 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
An industry source is "hopeful" that the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump will not finalize a trio of once-rare Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6(a) rules to ban or further restrict use of industrial solvents trichloroethylene (TCE) and paint stripping chemicals methylene chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
EPA in recent months has sent three proposed rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, most recently the proposed rule on methylene chloride and NMP, which went to OMB Oct. 24.
Prior to that, EPA sent to OMB review two separate draft rules to ban or restrict specified uses of TCE, one when used as a spotting agent in dry cleaning and in consumer aerosol spray degreasers and a second rule for TCE used as a vapor degreasing agent. EPA sent the first TCE rule to OMB for pre-publication review in July and the second one to OMB in September. All three remain under review, according to OMB's website. OMB reviews generally take 90 days but can also exceed that.
The rules represent EPA's first efforts to regulate an existing chemical -- one that was on the market when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976 -- under TSCA section 6 authority since its failed attempt to restrict asbestos in 1985. A federal appeals court struck the asbestos rule down, hampering attempts to limit other substances with the section 6 authority.
But after Trump's electoral win, the industry source is "hopeful we will have a more receptive audience" to industry calls to quash the proposed rules. "But," the source adds, "I am not taking anything for granted."
One reason for that caution is Trump's limited discussion of environmental policy during the election. "They've given indications they don't believe in climate change, but I haven't seen any kind of comments around toxics," the source says.
Industry representatives met with OMB staff Oct. 31 to urge them not to clear the second of the two proposed TCE rules, the one on uses as a vapor degreasing agent. Industry presentations at the meeting focused among other things, on language added to TSCA section 26 as part of Congress' overhaul of the law enacted last June.
An industry source points to section 26(l)(4), which says that for those chemicals included in EPA's 2014 TSCA work plan for risk assessments with completed assessments, like TCE, "the Administrator may publish proposed and final rules under Section 6(a) that are consistent with the scope of the completed risk assessment for the chemical substance and consistent with other applicable requirements of section 6."
EPA's risk assessment underlying the vapor degreasing rule "clearly states it's limited to small degreasers, but doesn't define [what those are]," the source says. The source questions how EPA can do a risk assessment without knowing which facilities are involved, and who would be exposed.
TSCA Language
Industry representatives also raised the concern that more new language in TSCA Section 26(i), requires that "The Administrator shall make decisions under sections 4, 5, and 6 based on the weight of scientific evidence," while EPA's TCE risk assessment concludes that TCE is a human carcinogen based on the 2011 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment. That assessment is based on a strength of the evidence approach, the source says, as is the International Agency for Research on Cancer's 2014 classification of TCE, also as a human carcinogen.
"Precedent is that IARC Monograph preambles themselves have historically referred to using 'strength of the evidence' approach; this should provide a benchmark against which a court can weigh whether what EPA is doing is truly 'weight of the evidence,'" the source says.
EPA's IRIS conclusion that TCE is a human carcinogen and IARC's similar conclusion were followed Nov. 3 by the same conclusion from the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences' most recent Report on Carcinogens (RoC). TCE had been listed as "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen" in the RoC since 2000, but was upgraded to full human carcinogen status in the latest RoC.
The industry source suggests that the new RoC listing will have little effect on the draft rules, given EPA and IARC had already classified TCE as such. Any labeling changes to TCE products occurred after IARC's decision, the source adds, because under the relatively new international Globally Harmonised System, chemicals that are classified by IARC as human carcinogens must meet certain labeling criteria.
By contrast, Linda Birnbaum, director of NIEHS which oversees the NTP, told the Mountain View (CA) Voice that the new classification could be the basis for new regulations on TCE, pointing to EPA's draft rules and also updates for data sheets intended to provide safety information for employees handling toxic materials.
Industry's Concerns
Industry representatives raised several other concerns with EPA's TCE risk assessment at the OMB meeting, the source says, including the document's lack of discussion of the 2007 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) on TCE. The risk assessment bases some calculations on an emissions limit from a Clean Air Act maximum achievable control technology rule issued in the 1990s, rather than the newer and more restrictive NEHSAP, the industry source says. And, "all of the information they're looking for [to complete the assessment] is reported annually to EPA, per the NESHAP," the source says. "They've got all the information that would allow them to produce very definitive estimates."
Industry also during the meeting with OMB repeated long-running concerns about EPA's use of a study that found evidence of fetal heart defects in lab rodents, and was the driving information in EPA's IRIS assessment of TCE. EPA's toxics office included the information from the so-called Johnson study from the IRIS assessment in its TSCA risk assessment, which is now the basis for the draft rule. But industry, which has long questioned the study, is funding an effort to attempt to replicate it. The work is underway at a contract lab, and preliminary results are expected in January, the source says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-hopeful-trump-administration-will-drop-tsca-section-6-rules
-
EPA Aims to Finish Climate Rules; Decisions Fall to Trump
Nov 17, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Andrew Childers
The Obama administration aims to cement its greenhouse gas regulations in the time remaining, but some of the largest greenhouse gas decisions will slide to President-elect Donald Trump, according to the updated federal regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to complete a rule for approving states’ plans (RIN:2060-AT23) to implement the Clean Power Plan, which sets carbon dioxide limits on power plants—a rule Trump has pledged to pullback.
Also on the EPA’s agenda for the next two months will be updating its mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program (RIN:2060-AS60), setting leak detection requirements for oil and gas wells (RIN:2060-AS73) and establishing limits on the use of hydrofluorocarbons (RIN :2060-AS80), which are potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing and fire suppression. All of those rules would be open to repeal under the Congressional Review Act.
Trump has vowed to undo President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, which calls for limiting carbon dioxide from power plants and taking steps to curb emissions of short-lived but potent greenhouse gases such as methane and HFCs.
Outstanding Decisions Left to Trump
Now outstanding decisions on the future of some of the Obama EPA’s signature climate rules will be made by Trump appointees, including an ongoing review of the combined fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions limits for passenger vehicles through 2025.
According to the agenda, there is no timeline for that review, which would see the standards for model years 2022 through 2025 revised from the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon currently projected. The Trump administration also will complete revisions to the EPA’s greenhouse gas permitting program for stationary emissions sources after the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provisions only apply to sources required to obtain permits for emissions of conventional air pollutants.
The Obama EPA has proposed exempting facilities that emit less than 75,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually from the permitting requirements, but the regulatory agenda has no deadline for that rulemaking to be completed.
The EPA also has no schedule for completing a rule to aid states in implementation of the new, more stringent ozone standards set in 2015, according to the regulatory agenda.
EPA Implements Revised Toxics Law
The EPA also will continue its work to implement updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act, according to the agenda.
The regulatory agenda includes six new chemical rulemakings triggered by this past summer’s Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul. The rules would implement diverse provisions of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended TSCA on June 22.
The rules would:
• establish procedures to update the TSCA inventory of chemicals;
• describe how the EPA would determine which chemicals are high or low priorities for risk evaluation;
• establish the procedures the agency would use to evaluate chemical risks;
• set fees industry would pay to help defray the cost of EPA’s chemicals oversight;
• lay out the process chemical manufacturers or processors would use to substantiate confidential business information claims for specific chemical identities; and
• describe reporting requirements that will apply to any company that manufactures mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process.
The mercury reporting regulation would apply to pharmaceutical and other manufacturers even if they aren’t typically covered by TSCA.
Water Rules Coming in Final Months
The EPA also expects to complete some of its pending water regulations in the time remaining for the Obama administration.
The EPA also is expected to propose a rule (RIN:2040-AF67) in December setting out public notification requirements in the Great Lakes for contaminated discharges from combined sewer overflows.
A final general permit (RIN:2040-AF57) to regulate discharges from small municipal storm sewer systems is scheduled for release this month. Also expected any day is the fourth update (RIN:2040-AF49) to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
In addition to specifying monitoring requirements, it will identify new contaminants to be tracked. Proposed in December 2015 and sent for White House review in August, the rule identifies some 30 new contaminants with a focus on blue-green algae, such as the type that polluted the water supply in Toledo, Ohio, in 2014.
Updates Planned to Lead, Copper Rule
The agency also is expected to propose in mid-2017 updates (RIN:2040-AF15) to its lead and copper rule setting technology-based standards to limit concentrations of the metals in drinking water. The drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., caused by high levels of lead that leached into residents’ tap water, has added urgency to the updates, and some members of Congress have recommended that the agency propose a rule sooner.
The final rule is due in early 2018, according to the agenda. During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump called the Flint crisis a “horror show” that wouldn’t have happened on his watch. He has made infrastructure improvements a key priority.
In an interview with The Detroit News, Trump said: “I think it’s a horror show that it was allowed to happen and to be honest with you it should have never, ever been allowed to happen. That was really the problem. This is a situation that would have never happened if I were president.”
Pesticides Rule Expected
The EPA is on track to finalize, potentially within days, a set of regulations that would boost standards on pesticide applicator licensing. The fall regulatory agenda stated that these regulations (RIN:2070-AJ20) would be made final before the end of this month.
The agency also included details of its economic analysis for these regulations. They would impose costs on pesticide applicators and on states of almost $50 million a year but would also induce cost savings of more than $80 million, mostly from the prevention of pesticide-related injuries.
This fall’s regulatory agenda also contained two significant items related to the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory, a database of industrial pollution from across the country.
The EPA is still on track to formally propose regulations (RIN:2070-AK16) by January that would add a sector of the oil and gas industry to its list of industries that must report pollution data to the TRI. These regulations would only apply to natural gas processing facilities, not to the broader drilling industry.
In addition, the EPA said it would make a decision by April on a petition it received from an environmental group asking it to require TRI reporting for 25 new chemicals (RIN:2070-AK26).
Radioactive Waste Disposal Rule Slides
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it won’t issue a final rule for its low-level radioactive waste disposal until March 2017. In the spring regulatory agenda, the NRC had said it would publish the final rule by November 2016.
The final rule will amend the agency’s regulations on the disposal facilities to require new site-specific technical analyses and criteria for low-level radioactive waste acceptance.
A new addition to the NRC list is a pre-rule stage of rulemaking on emergency preparedness of small modular reactors, with NuScale Power LLC’s first small modular reactor application expected to be submitted for NRC review by December. The NRC plans to issue its regulatory basis for such SMR rulemaking in March 2017.
Also, the Energy Department has had to re-evaluate its proposed rule to make more stringent energy efficiency standards for gas residential furnaces after strong opposition from industry. The agency issued a supplemental notice to its proposed rule in September and has comments now due on Nov. 22.
Superfund Vapor Intrusion
The agency plans to finalize a rule in January that considers contaminated vapor that enters buildings from the ground as criteria for Superfund site listings and cleanups. The rule (RIN:2050-AG67) will allow EPA to directly consider human exposure to contaminants that enter building structures through the subsurface environment.
http://www.bna.com/epa-aims-finish-n57982082934/
-
New Jersey Challenges Illustrate Hurdles States Face With PFC Cleanups
Nov 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A lack of clear federal regulatory authority, funding and remediation standards are among the obstacles New Jersey is facing in pursuing potentially responsible party (PRP) cleanups of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), one state official explained recently, illustrating the hurdles other states that are just becoming aware of such pollution may face.
PFCs are emerging contaminants that are gaining attention among regulators as a drinking water pollutant, particularly in the aftermath of drinking water health advisories on two PFCs that EPA issued in May. The advisories for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) significantly lowered the concentration which the agency says are safe levels of the chemicals. Specifically, it set lifetime exposure health advisory levels at 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for each chemical, and also recommended that the combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS, if found together in drinking water, not exceed 70 ppt.
But those advisories are not enforceable by EPA or states, something Ken Kloo, the director of the Division of Remediation Management with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), highlighted in a presentation at the Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials' (ASTSWMO) recent annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
New Jersey has a higher incidence of PFOA in its drinking water than the nation as a whole, and appears to be at the forefront among states in exploring potential regulation of PFCs.
"Perhaps, the two biggest issues that we're currently dealing with is the absence of any clear regulatory authority to compel responsible parties to deal with these compounds, which also creates funding issues both for states and the feds," Kloo said during an ASTSWMO session on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also often referred to as PFCs. In a follow-up email, Kloo clarified that he was referring to an absence of any clear federal regulatory authority.
In addition, he said the absence of any remediation standards "really makes it difficult when you are trying to negotiate with PRPs, giving them a target to either investigate to, or to remediate to."
Another hurdle New Jersey faces is determining an inventory of potential sources of PFCs, according to Kloo. The chemicals were used in a slew of consumer and industrial applications and in fire fighting foam, contaminating fire-fighting training sites across the country. They have been linked to adverse health effects, such as particular cancers.
While the state is familiar with PFCs' use in firefighting foams, where it was often used in training at military bases, there is no real inventory of other facilities that may have used the compounds, he said.
New Jersey has launched an effort to try to identify potential PFC sources, recently sending out 53 information request letters to facilities that regulators suspect manufactured or used these substances, according to Kloo.
Kloo also noted unknowns about the fate and transport of PFCs. "There's very little information on migration pathways, and also how these compounds behave in the environment and how quickly they move in the environment."
Expanded Authority
New Jersey is taking several steps to expand its regulatory authority for PFCs. These include the state's effort to promulgate a formal groundwater quality standard for perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), after the state set an interim standard of 10 ppt, according to Kloo.
In addition, an advisory board to NJDEP in September recommended setting an enforceable state drinking water standard for PFOA of 14 ppt. The standard, if adopted, would be the first-in-the-nation enforceable drinking water standard for PFOA.
One of the state's "best tools in our toolbox" is making PFCs eligible for the state's Spill Fund, New Jersey's equivalent to Superfund, he said. That would grant the state "the regulatory authority we need to consider these spill act discharges, something we don't have right now," he said. That would also give the state the ability to draw from its Spill Fund in order to respond to PFC releases, he said.
The uncertainties Kloo cited over cleanups of PFCs come not long after state drinking water program representatives raised concerns in the aftermath of EPA's drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS, with states questioning the advisories' protectiveness and potential implementation obstacle such as limits on testing water contaminant levels.
New Jersey is also exploring a collaborative effort with the EPA Office of Research & Development's National Exposure Research Lab on a research project related to PFCs, according to Kloo. One effort being explored is for NJDEP to collect a number of surface water, groundwater, soil and sediment samples to evaluate impacts from air deposition, particularly for PFNA, he said, noting that much of that data is unavailable.
"The other service they may be able to assist us with is some advanced analytics that provides a source signature analysis, essentially a fingerprint," he said. Under this effort, the lab would analyze for a larger group of perfluorinated compounds -- which are typically found together, he said. "We almost never see just PFOS, just PFOA, or just PFNA."
By conducting this advanced analytics, the department would expect to be in a better position to attribute contaminants to facilities, he added. The work would also give regulators some identification of replacement compounds being used by facilities. Shorter chain compounds are being substituted for the now discontinued longer-chain compounds. Regulators lack environmental or health-related information on the shorter-chain compounds though, he said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-jersey-challenges-illustrate-hurdles-states-face-pfc-cleanups
-
EPA Proposes Restrictions on Some Solvents
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA proposed new restrictions yesterday on certain chemical solvents that the agency has linked to risks for pregnant women.
The draft Significant New Use Rule would require manufacturers to notify the agency before developing a new use for two alkylpyrrolidone compounds, N-ethylpyrrolidone (NEP) and N-isopropylpyrrolidone (NiPP). The chemicals are often used as solvents and chemical reactants.
If finalized, the guidance "will provide EPA the opportunity to review the new use and make a determination regarding potential risk," the agency said in a statement.
NEP and other alkylpyrrolidones are commonly found in paint removers as well as silicone seal removers, coatings, paint primers, adhesives and other products.
But the agency stated it is "not aware of current uses of NiPP."
A 2015 study of N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), another alkylpyrrolidone, linked the compound to low birth weight in infants as well as developmental impairments and fetal death. EPA says NMP's chemical structure resembles that of NEP and NiPP.
While current industrial uses of NEP would be grandfathered in, the new rule would "require notification of any use of NiPP."
The comment period ends Jan. 13.
The fate of the rule may rest in the hands of the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, who has vowed to cut regulations and gut EPA.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/18/stories/1060046001
-
Industry Lawyer: Trump Won't Wait for Courts to Kill Rule
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A lawyer for a trade group challenging U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan said he believes President-elect Donald Trump is more likely to unravel the electric-sector climate regulation with rulemaking, rather than waiting for the courts to decide its fate.
Trump's administration has several options for lines of attack. They include launching a complex and lengthy regulatory process to roll back the Clean Power Plan, encouraging legislation from a Republican-controlled Congress or hoping the Supreme Court overturns the standards.
The regulatory route would be complicated but also could put the rule in limbo for years, during which time the power plant carbon standards for states would be on hold.
Thomas Lorenzen, outside counsel on the rule to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, said that although "legal certainty is always a wonderful thing ... one can never guarantee the outcome of a legal proceeding."
The co-op trade group has talked with Trump's transition team, but not specifically about the Clean Power Plan, NRECA CEO Jim Matheson noted. NRECA, along with 27 states and a number of coal and business groups opposed to the rule, laid out its arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit at the end of September. That court is expected to make a decision this winter, possibly not until after Trump takes office Jan. 20.
If Trump intends to rescind the rule, the judges could put their decision on hold, Lorenzen noted.
Courts are typically reluctant to issue advisory opinions that "don't really have a real enforceable impact because the administration may change course," Lorenzen said.
"If they believe that the new administration wants to revisit particularly a controversial issue like regulating carbon dioxide emissions under [Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act], they would often wait for the administration to work that out itself," Lorenzen said.
Choosing between controversial and uncertain
Whitney & Dorsey LLP lawyer Jim Rubin said he mostly agrees the regulatory route would be the better way for Trump to attack the rule.
The rulemaking process would take time and be "very controversial," Rubin noted. On the other hand, he said, waiting for the court to rule is "risky in that the outcome is unknown now and can add even further delay."
"Waiting for the court may ultimately take even more time than initiating a new rulemaking, but may save considerable political and legal capital and resources if the court strikes all or some of the rule down," Rubin explained. "But it does take the matter out of the administration's hands at the outset when the Trump EPA may want to appear to be acting more boldly and decisively."
Experts at the firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC have suggested different possibilities. If the D.C. Circuit requires changes to the rule, Trump's administration could take years to revise it and ultimately weaken the standards. If the court upholds the rule and challengers appeal, Trump's Department of Justice could mount a feeble defense. If the rule goes into effect, Trump could greenlight ineffective state implementation plans.
If the D.C. Circuit makes a decision before Trump enters office, the losing side is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If EPA loses, environmental groups would likely lead the appeal without EPA.
Trump will get to nominate a justice to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and his pick could be the deciding vote on whether the Clean Power Plan is legal. Before conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died, the Supreme Court in February voted 5-4 to halt the regulation. Opponents have said that might mean the bench would split 4-4 over whether to overturn the rule, and Trump's nominee could break the tie.
Opening up the rule by regulatory means could take years, especially because it is so complex, Lorenzen said. During that time, states would not have to implement carbon-cutting plans. Even if Trump doesn't succeed in eliminating the rule, he could slow-walk the process and then eventually loosely enforce state standards.
"Typically, the courts grant the federal agencies a great deal of leeway undertaking such complex rulemakings," Lorenzen said. "My anticipation is that they would do so here while maintaining the right to sort of supervise and make sure things are proceeding."
EPA is legally bound under an endangerment finding to take action to limit carbon emissions from power plants. If Trump's EPA rescinds and does not replace the Clean Power Plan with substantive standards, the agency will face lawsuits from environmental and citizens groups.
Lorenzen said the Department of Justice "always stands ready to defend in those suits and will usually win because the new administration is given a great deal of deference in ordering its priorities, except where the statute says there's a specific deadline for action." He said there is no such deadline for carbon limits.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/18/stories/1060045972
-
API Report Supports EPA Frack Study Finding
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board has urged the agency to provide more data to back up its conclusion that hydraulic fracturing doesn't cause "widespread, systemic" problems for groundwater.
The oil industry's main trade group yesterday offered its own compilation of data to support that conclusion.
"It is clear that fracking is safe," said Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, introducing the study his organization had commissioned.
The study was done by Catalyst Environmental Solutions, a Santa Monica, Calif.-based consulting firm. It found that EPA's conclusion is "corroborated by a large, credible body of case studies and scientific literature."
EPA is expected to release a final version of the study by the end of the year. The draft study with the conclusion about a lack of "widespread, systemic" harms to groundwater 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 agency's Science Advisory Board issued a report in August saying the the "widespread, systemic" assessment was not supported by the research (E&ENews PM, Aug. 11). The board's report said that if EPA leaves in the "widespread, systemic" language, it should provide a "quantitative analysis" to support it in the final draft.
Environmentalists and congressional Democrats have been urging EPA to heed the science advisers' concerns about the findings.
Milito said the 30-member panel's report was fueled by "emotion" from testimony of people who said they had been harmed by drilling activity. But he lauded a minority report from four members with industry ties that said the EPA conclusion was supported by the research.
Milito said he would like the study to inform the debate in areas where officials are still trying to decide whether to allow shale drilling and fracturing.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/18/stories/1060045991
-
Trump's Mysterious Pledge to Lift an Industry That's Already Winning
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
When Donald Trump settles into the White House and contemplates how to follow through on his promise to unleash American oil and gas production, it might be more difficult than it sounded on the campaign trail.
In the past five years, U.S. oil and gas production rose to levels that hadn't been seen since the 1970s. And while low oil prices have crimped the oil industry since 2014, it could be hard to boost production in the short term, analysts, state regulators and others said in interviews.
About two-thirds of the roughly 8.7 million barrels a day that the United States produces comes from five states — Texas, North Dakota, California, Alaska and Oklahoma, according to datafrom the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Republicans have controlled four of them since before the fracking boom started.
Likewise, according to EIA's statistics, two-thirds of U.S. natural gas production comes from Texas, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Louisiana. Pennsylvania and Louisiana have had both Democratic and Republican governors in the last eight years; the other three have been reliably Republican.
Oil output tripled in Texas during the Obama years, more than doubled in Oklahoma and grew fourfold in North Dakota. Pennsylvania's gas production grew almost eightfold. There may not be much more to unleash.
And while the states and the oil industry have said for years that Obama's environmental regulations were threatening their output, the reality is, they were winning. Even before Trump promised to roll back Obama's regulations, the states had already tied up most of them up in court.
"The truth of the matter is, the states worked together to block, at least temporarily, almost all of those rules," said Lynn Helms, the top oil regulator in North Dakota, during a conference call with reporters.
'Your treasure'
Trump's clearest statement on energy policy came during a speech in Bismarck, N.D., in May at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference (E&E Daily, May 27).
"The federal government should get out of the way," he said.
Federal regulations, he asserted, "have denied millions of Americans access to the energy wealth sitting right underneath our feet."
"This is your treasure. And you, the American people, are entitled to share in the riches," Trump said.
In August, he followed up by saying he would "unleash an energy revolution," in part by opening all federal land and waters to drilling, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (E&ENews PM, Aug. 8).
But it takes years, sometimes decades, for offshore oil projects to come online, said Robert Clarke and Clay Lightfoot, energy analysts at the consulting firm Wood MacKenzie. And some offshore areas, like the Gulf of Mexico near Florida, have remained closed to drilling even under previous Republican presidents out of respect for local environmental concerns.
"It can open up some opportunities," Lightfoot said of Trump's leasing proposal. "But that doesn't necessarily translate into commercial activity."
Trump has already indicated he will push for faster approval of major interstate pipeline projects, like the Dakota Access project and the Keystone XL. It remains to be seen if his campaign rhetoric turns into presidential action. Faster approval of pipelines could be a general positive for the industry, Lightfoot and Clarke said.
Remember states' rights?
Trump's administration won't eliminate all regulations on the industry.
Colorado imposed its own rules limiting how much natural gas can be emitted from oil and gas well sites in 2013, years ahead of the Obama administration's proposal for a national cap on emissions. Ohio and Wyoming adopted similar rules, and Pennsylvania is considering its own version (EnergyWire, Jan. 20).
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf's administration doesn't plan to change its approach to regulation, Neil Shader, a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Protection, wrote in an email.
"DEP will continue to formulate new policies that help protect the environment while encouraging safe development of these resources and eliminating waste," Shader wrote. "If there are any changes at the federal level that would affect Pennsylvania environmental policies in the future, they will addressed at that time."
In more extreme cases, the Maryland Legislature passed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas last year, and New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration unilaterally banned fracking in 2014 (EnergyWire, June 1, 2015; Greenwire, Dec. 17, 2014).
Even conservative states stepped in with regulatory action to solve specific local issues. Oklahoma has shut down dozens of disposal sites that handle oil and gas waste in response to a string of earthquakes that have plagued the state for several years. In North Dakota, the state Industrial Commission is considering tougher rules for pipelines to prevent the spills that have plagued the industry.
Still, Trump's pro-energy stance could help the industry, said Ryan Sitton, one of three elected commissioners of the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees energy regulation in Texas. Even the few Obama administration rules that have taken effect can have a cumulative impact on production, he said.
"Those things add up," he said. "The true cost of good regulation should be zero."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/18/stories/1060045987
-
Keep It In The Ground Movement Continues to Deny Science
Nov 18, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Seth Whitehead
Some “really remarkable” news broke on the clime front this week, just as world leaders wrap up their meetings at the Marrakesh Climate Change Conference.
A study by the Global Carbon Project found global carbon emissions did not grow at all for a third year in a row in 2015. And what’s responsible for this “stunningly good news for the planet,” as the Washington Post described it? It’s due in large part to the United States’ increased use of natural gas, brought about by fracking.
The report finds U.S. CO2 emissions declined 2.6 percent from 2014 to 2015, even as Americans used more oil and gas last year. The report also projects U.S. emissions will decline another 1.7 percent in 2016. This data are part of a decades-long trend in which we’ve seen our emissions drop a whopping 11.5 percent from 2005 levels, giving us the distinction of being the only country in the world to see dramatic CO2 reductions during that time span.
What’s even more remarkable is that we’ve achieved this feat without ratifying the Kyoto Protocol or adopting cap-and-trade legislation. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) put it well when he explained, “We’ve been improving our emissions in this county without agreeing to the Kyoto accords, without Congressional action because of innovation from the natural gas area.” And, as the new report explains, we’ve done this while growing our economy at the same time.
The new report bolsters the statements of a wide range of energy and environmental experts — including President Obama, and officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and International Energy Agency (IEA) — who have said natural gas use significantly lowers CO2 emissions. The Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank, has noted that CO2 reductions attributable to natural gas far have far outpaced reductions attributable to renewable energy.
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said, “the rapid deployment of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies, which has increased and diversified the gas supply… is an important reason for a reduction of GHG emissions in the United States.”
Keep It In The Ground activists have been using the Marrakesh conference as a rallying cry after the election for their efforts to end all fossil fuel development across the county. But what has been lost in all these conversations is that, thanks to fracking, our emissions will continue to fall as we continue to ramp up our use of natural gas — regardless of the political landscape.
And there’s plenty of natural gas at hand. EIA projects we currently have 84-year supply of natural gas. This has not only allowed the U.S. to become net exporter of the fuel, but has enabled our trade partners to enjoy similar climate progress going forward at the same time we reduce our trade deficit.
So why are groups like the Sierra Club, which recently launched a $5 million campaign to block fracking, continuing to oppose the very fuel that is actually reducing emissions?
The inconvenient truth is that those involved in the “Keep It The Ground” movement are the real science deniers.
While they insist the IPCC is “gold standard” for climate science, they refuse to acknowledge what these scientists have determined about natural gas’ climate benefits. For these groups, the facts and the science take a back seat to their overall ideology of eliminating all fossil fuels — an ideology that Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta has called “completely impractical.”
So as the Marrakesh climate talks come to a close, it’s important to acknowledge just how much progress has and will continue to be made, thanks to fracking and natural gas.
Seth Whitehead is a spokesman for Energy In Depth, an education and research program sponsored by the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/306728-keep-it-in-the-ground-movement-continues-to-deny
-
House Said to Balk at LNG Exports, Other Key Reforms
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
House negotiators have signaled they want to punt on a host of popular provisions on the energy conference's table, including language to speed natural gas exports that is a top priority for Republicans in both chambers.
Top conferees huddled yesterday behind closed doors in the Capitol to assess the state of the first formal energy conference in more than a decade, as the clock ticks on what is expected to be a relatively short lame-duck session.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters afterward that she is waiting to receive a counteroffer from the House after the Senate last month sent a "quite considerable" proposal across the Capitol.
"We're waiting to get back a proposal, also something more concrete than just words," Murkowski said. "Because in fairness, some of the communications back, at least at the staff level at the beginning of the week, was not as positive as we would have liked in the sense that it would have removed from consideration some priorities, like the LNG provision that we had in our piece."
Other items the House has signaled they want dropped include energy efficiency and innovation provisions, critical minerals, pipeline permitting reforms included in the Senate bill, reforms to the Energy Department's loan guarantee program, hydropower provisions popular with members of both parties, a sportsmen's package, as well as language commemorating the National Park Centennial.
Murkowski said she expected a counterproposal from the House today and signaled talks will continue over the Thanksgiving break.
"My hope is that the same good faith negotiations that have gone on will put us in a position so that when we return after Thanksgiving, we will be able to move forward," she said.
But the House's apparent willingness to punt on much of the scope of the conference talks threatens to upend nearly two years of work on the reform push to break a decadelong stalemate over major energy legislation.
Staff have spent the past two-and-a-half months in dozens of extended meetings trying to bridge the gap between the chambers' competing bills.
Those talks culminated in the October submission to the House of a draft conference report that Murkowski said was hundreds of pages long and contained numerous changes to address issues raised by the House.
Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said that proposal included reforms to the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund that the Senate passed but was a sticking point in the House. "It had a very long, long period of time, let's just say," Cantwell said of the authorized period that was sent to the House.
A senior Senate aide was "baffled" by House signals that LNG exports should be left off the table, saying "we have no idea why."
Top Republicans have repeatedly cited the LNG export provision as a key reason for finishing the energy bill, a point reiterated by Senate Republican Policy Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) earlier this week (Greenwire, Nov. 15).
Major industry groups strongly support the provision, which was included in both the House and Senate bills, although the chambers' respective provisions differ only by a 15-day difference on the shot clock imposed on DOE. Industry also wants to see permitting reforms for pipelines.
A spokesman for Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) did not respond to a request for comment last night.
The turmoil also threatens to scuttle one unexpected breakthrough that has eluded lawmakers for years — tackling Western drought.
"We're optimistic on water, on California water," said Murkowski. California lawmakers, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and several House Republicans have sought to pass legislation to tweak the operations of the Golden State's massive water projects to allow more water to farms and cities. By law, the agencies managing the systems must save a portion of the water to maintain habitat for threatened species, like the tiny delta smelt. California's multiyear drought has intensified the competition between users.
Lawmakers hope to pass some solution in the lame duck, before the state's rainy winter season creates what they see as another missed opportunity to divert water for human uses.
"Pressure can create motivation to get some things done," said Murkowski.
The lawmakers are also making progress on a broader, Westwide water package with provisions on the Yakima River Basin in Washington state, the Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California, the Fontenelle Reservoir in Wyoming and Equus Beds in Kansas.
Election fallout
Yesterday's meeting follows a week of mixed signals from lawmakers over the conference process, which was thrown for a loop by the surprise election of Donald Trump as the next president and GOP retention of Senate control in the next Congress.
House lawmakers all week have acknowledged that the GOP sweep has blunted the chamber's appetite for negotiating in the lame duck.
But Murkowski and Cantwell noted that the math for passing legislation in the Senate will be harder for Republicans in the 115th Congress.
"If you're sitting in the House, you've got an alignment that seemingly makes things easy — that you can just start afresh next year and kick some things out," Murkowski said. "If you're here in the Senate, our reality is that with the election, on the Republican side, it brought about two less seats. So when you're trying to get something moved through the Senate any more, the magic number is not 51, it's 60. And so our reality is that the election in many ways is going to make things more challenging to advance things through the Senate."
Key House conferees have sent mixed signals on the conference process all week.
Upton earlier in the week signaled the conference was likely to punt until next year, but he changed his tone yesterday, telling reporters his earlier remarks were "wrong."
"I got more information," he said. "There are some things that we can do, and we're not willing to throw in the towel at this point."
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who along with Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) is a leading contender to replace Upton as the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman next year, said he and other conferees are "not hearing a lot of vested interest from the outside saying finish this."
"So that quiet forces people to prioritize certain ways," he told E&E News.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) has sounded more optimistic about the talks this week, following what he described as a positive meeting with Cantwell in his home state last week.
Yesterday he called the sportsman's package "essential." A Bishop spokeswoman today said work continues "on a bipartisan, bicameral package."
Bishop told reporters as he left that the meeting was "pleasant" and "cordial" but sounded less positive.
"I think there are some things that can be done that are almost consensus right now," he said. "But, like I said, with every day from Monday, my optimism kind of fades."
Cantwell, who was reluctant to enter conference talks after House Republicans added a host of controversies to their bill, expressed frustration that two years of work may end up without a result.
"We would hate to see the culmination of that be important national policy priorities left unresolved — basically, not finish the job. And we would hate to see people just leave here without finishing that work and then thinking that they could just start over in another year, which would again be a very elongated process," she said. "We wouldn't be back to these issues for a long time. ... So we're encouraging our colleagues to look at those priorities and get their job done, as it relates to these House and Senate priorities. And let's see if we can't use this window to finish our work before we just go home."
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045979
-
America's Rural Voters are Ready for Renewable Energy Too
Nov 18, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Lloyd Ritter
By now everyone knows Clinton lost much of her husband’s famed “Bubba vote.” Rural Americans, including a lot of Democrats and Independents, voted in large numbers for Trump.
Why? Jobs and economics were certainly primary factors. Despite recent national economic growth, much of rural America is still suffering and more needs to be done. Interestingly, there is an opportunity that might not initially seem a natural focus for the president-elect: rural renewable energy development.
Agriculture and rural groups have long supported rural energy; rural citizens in the Rust Belt, Midwest, New England, West and the South of all political persuasions do too.
Why do they care? Simple economics and patriotism. Rural energy’s potential is strong. Farmers, ranchers, farm coops and businesses want to minimize costs or generate new income through energy. They can do this by investing in biofuels, putting up solar arrays or wind turbines, using geothermal technology, etc.
It makes sense. And making those efforts is indeed patriotic. Folks want to contribute to national goals like energy production and security.
The president-elect espouses an “all of the above” strategy, with emphasis on fossil fuels. But to get jobs going for more rural Bubba voters, he has to put real focus on “new energy” jobs and domestic manufacturing as well.
The U.S. has stunningly large biomass resources across the country, and we haven’t even scratched the surface in the development of new energy crops that can be harvested sustainably.
Advanced biofuels will happen. And more and more farmers, businesses and biofuels developers are turning to non-fuel bioenergy like power, bioproducts and renewable chemicals production.
Biogas energy from feedlots and dairies has plenty of room for growth as well. Estimates suggest as many as 1.53 million direct jobs already and $393 billion in economic growth in many of these new energy production processes.
Solar is clearly on the move and can be deployed throughout rural America from farm fields to homes and business rooftops. And the Distributed Wind Energy Association estimates that creating more than 100,000 rural jobs over the next decade is entirely achievable. That’s a lot, with gigawatt potential comparable to seabed based offshore wind.
Here are three things (outside of tax policy) the incoming Trump administration should do to capitalize on this untapped potential:
First, support ag energy programs that work. We have a farm bill coming up, which provides an opportunity to renew important bi-partisan energy title programs. There are several programs such as REAP, the Biorefinery Assistance Program and BCAP — each with fairly unique attributes and goals — that deserve to continue and flourish. There may be new ideas to modestly expand programs and initiatives that should be given serious consideration.
For example, an “Energy Innovation Grant” program, similar to Conservation Innovation grants, could provide greater flexibility to USDA to fill in “energy gaps,” innovate in cutting-edge rural renewable technologies, and grow jobs and factories.
Second, keep Department of Energy renewable energy programs going and properly funded. DOE has a role to play in wind, biomass, and other “rural renewable” technologies. Funding ought to be kept stable and greater emphasis paid to rural energy opportunities like distributed wind.
Third, keep the existing White House Rural Council or create a new one. Such a White House-led rural advisory team would continue coordinating rural development goals across the Federal government, ideally with special emphasis on jobs and energy creation.
So let’s hope the incoming Trump administration zeroes in on rural energy. Congress ought to be on board as well — it’s what rural Chambers of Commerce, farm groups, many rural electric utilities support to produce energy and/or help their members; and it helps small businesses, the lifeblood of American job creation.
If the new administration heads in this direction, working with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, everybody wins – Bubba voters, rural communities, small businesses and homegrown domestic manufacturing alike.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/306660-americas-rural-voters-are-ready-for-renewable-energy
-
Nov 17, 2016 | DC Velocity
By Mark B. Solomon
The Surface Transportation Board (STB), the federal agency that regulates U.S. railroads, should defer a cluster of regulatory proposals until the U.S. Senate confirms the full slate of five board members appointed by President-elect Donald J. Trump, the head of the nation's leading freight rail group said last night.
Speaking at a conference in New York, Edward R. Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, said the board should freeze all action on pending regulations until the President-elect fulfills the intent of Congress, which in 2015 re-authorized the STB with a five-member board instead of the traditional three members. The board is still comprised of three members. President-elect Trump will nominate three new members next year, each of whom is subject to Senate confirmation.
Hamberger said efforts to layer economic regulation on an industry that's been deregulated since 1980 "have no business advancing without a full complement of board members" to analyze and vote on any such proposals. In particular, Hamberger cited an STB proposal that would make it easier for shippers to prove the need for "reciprocal switching," where one railroad, for a fee, switches carloads to a rival carrier to give shippers access to facilities they might not otherwise reach with the original carrier.
The board's proposal, issued in July, was a rare victory for shipper interests, which have sought changes in switching rules for five years, and which rarely prevail in legislative or regulatory battles with the railroads.
Shippers have said the STB's action represents commonsense reform that will require railroads to compete with one another and free companies currently "captive" to the railroads, or even one railroad, for those services. Businesses that ship bulk commodities such as coal, grain, iron ore, and chemicals historically have no modal alternatives.
The railroads argued that the proposed switching changes represent a step back toward reregulation because it mandates that railroads make their private equipment and infrastructure available for the benefit of competitors. Some rail users are concerned that the proposal could negatively impact service levels. UPS Inc., one of the largest railroad users, warned late last month that it might have to pull traffic off the railroads if mandated switching results in service problems that impact its customers.
"Our industry has made it clear that rules should protect a true free market, and that no agency can spur 'competition' through regulation," Hamberger said. "The current economic regulatory structure enables freight railroads to earn the revenues necessary to invest so we can deliver the rail service our customers expect and deserve."
The American Chemistry Council, which represents large chemical manufacturers and which supports the STB switching proposal, said in a statement that the nation's "outdated freight rail regulations can no longer be allowed to shield the rail industry from the free market at the expense of the families that depend on manufacturing, farming, and energy production for their livelihood." The Council added that the election was "clear proof that Americans want change, and they expect the federal government to act on reforms that will remove regulatory barriers to growing our economy."
http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20161117-rail-group-chief-urges-stb-to-freeze-regulations-until-trump-appoints-full-slate-of-members/
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Don't Stop Now, STB
Nov 18, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Transportation
By Brianna Gurciullo
As we mentioned in Thursday’s MT, the Association of American Railroads is calling on the Surface Transportation Board to hold off on big rulemakings until the new administration begins and all the seats on the board are filled. The American Chemistry Council responded later Thursday by telling MT there’s “no good reason for the STB to wait any longer to update our nation’s antiquated freight rail policies.” The group argues that current regulations are “shielding the rail industry from the free market.”
AAR and ACC are at odds over STB’s proposed “reciprocal switching” rule. ACC claims the rule would “promote greater competition amongst rail carriers,” while freight railroads prefer the status quo. “Last week’s election was clear proof that Americans want change, and the STB needs to act sooner rather than later on removing regulatory barriers to growing our economy,” ACC said.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-transportation/2016/11/proposed-rule-on-airborne-cellphone-calls-coming-217489
-
Fiery Crashes Not Enough to Spur Safety Rule Reform, GAO Finds
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Despite steps toward transparency and improved training, firefighters may not always get the data they need to respond to an oil train disaster, according to a report issued yesterday by a government watchdog.
Two federal agencies in charge of rail safety oversight "have not taken steps to understand whether the shipment information railroads are required to share with states is consistently disseminated to local emergency planners," the Government Accountability Office said.
GAO credited recent efforts by the U.S. government and major railroads to spread information about the movements of mile-long trains hauling hazardous materials, such as crude from North Dakota's Bakken oil fields. But despite getting generally "useful" intelligence, GAO found that local emergency planners from some of the 17 states surveyed weren't seeing details that could help in the face of a catastrophic accident.
GAO conducted its review in response to congressional interest brought on by an uptick in crude-by-rail train traffic and a series of explosive derailments. A June 2016 derailment and fire near Mosier, Ore., hurt no one but prompted evacuations and leaked nearly 50,000 gallons of crude. Three years earlier, a 72-car train laden with Bakken crude jumped the tracks and exploded in the center of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people.
Two agencies within the U.S. Department of Transportation — the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration — have together passed a series of regulations aimed at improving the safety of crude-by-rail transport. One emergency order, first issued in May 2014, required state emergency planning agencies to notify local first responders about any big shipments of Bakken crude passing through their towns.
But GAO found that, barring additional oversight, "the extent to which DOT's information-sharing requirements have the potential to improve local preparedness for rail accidents involving hazardous materials is unclear."
The watchdog recommended that DOT gather data from state emergency planners to see whether and how they get the word out on crude-by-rail risks.
"Without a process for understanding whether [state emergency response commissions] are providing the information to local planning entities, DOT cannot be assured that the information will ultimately reach the communities where it is needed or would be useful in preparing local responders for rail accidents involving selected hazardous materials," GAO said.
The agency concurred with GAO's findings. DOT has proposed a rule to codify the 2014 emergency order and expand its scope to include large quantities of ethanol and other flammable liquids moved by rail, rather than just Bakken crude.
Oil-by-rail shipments have dropped precipitously from their 2014 highs. For the week ending Nov. 12, the Association of American Railroads reported just 11,146 carloads of petroleum and petroleum products moved throughout the United States, down nearly 30 percent from the same week two years ago.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/18/stories/1060045974
-
Blumenthal Urges FRA to Fast-Track Safety Measures
Nov 18, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) earlier this week called on Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg to fast-track several rail safety initiatives over the final months of President Barack Obama's administration.
In a Nov. 15 letter, Blumenthal urged Feinberg to ensure that railroads have concrete plans in place to complete the implementation of positive train control (PTC) by 2018.
He also asked Feinberg to take immediate action on remaining safety provisions in the FAST Act, such as improving inspection practices on commuter railroads and requiring inward- and outward-facing cameras on all passenger trains.
Moreover, there are mandates in the 2008 rail safety law that have yet to be finalized, Blumenthal noted. Those include requiring railroads to have plans to address worker fatigue.
The senator also called on Feinberg to advance the use of close-call reporting systems and finalize a "sensible rule" requiring two-person crews. The latter measure has been opposed by rail industry associations.
"There is tremendous opportunity for action in the time you have left, so I urge you to take all steps possible to keep our rail system from reverting to the dangerous, deadly network of days past," Blumenthal wrote.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/safety/news/Blumenthal-urges-FRA-to-fast-track-safety-measures--50091
-
Schumer: USDOT Advances Proposal to Make Crude Oil Less Volatile
Nov 18, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced yesterday that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has taken its first major step toward requiring oil companies to stabilize highly flammable crude oil before shipment by rail.
Schumer said the USDOT yesterday issued a report on its rulemaking for the remainder of the year, and it includes a proposal related to a vapor pressure standard for rail shipments of crude oil, and a proposed process for testing hazardous materials like crude oil.
The USDOT will begin a formal process to request comments from stakeholders on whether there should be a vapor pressure standard for the shipment of crude oil by rail. In addition, the department will begin a process to establish best practices for how to test crude oil and other hazardous materials for things like vapor pressure, according to a press release issued by Schumer's office.
Those two steps are the first part of a regulatory process to establish scientifically supported federal standards regarding the safety of crude oil prior to shipment by rail, he said.
"The damage that volatile, highly dangerous crude oil tankers can cause in New York communities is tremendous, so I am pleased the USDOT has finally heeded our call and taken its first significant steps toward lowering the risk of a damaging explosion by exploring standards that will make crude oil less volatile before it's transported through our neighborhoods," said Schumer.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Schumer-USDOT-advances-proposal-to-make-crude-oil-less-volatile--50090
-
EPA Commits to Decision on N.C. Ozone Petition Settlement
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA would make a final decision by next October on adding North Carolina to a regional ozone reduction program under the terms of a tentative lawsuit settlement.
EPA is set to open a 30-day public comment period Monday on the proposed consent decree, according to a notice set for publication in Monday's Federal Register. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality had filed the suit in March, with the goal of forcing EPA to make a decision on a petition brought by eight Northeastern governors in late 2013 on making North Carolina — along with eight other states — part of the Ozone Transport Region.
The consent decree, lodged earlier this month in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, calls for EPA to propose approval or disapproval of the petition as it affects North Carolina by Jan. 18, with a final decision by Oct. 27, 2017.
The Ozone Transport Region, created by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, currently encompasses the District of Columbia and all or part of a dozen states, including Maine, New York and Maryland. As members of the Ozone Transport Commission, based in Washington, they are supposed to strive to reduce the movement of ozone and the chemicals that create it across state lines.
If added to the program, North Carolina and the other eight states named in the petition would have to come up with plans for further cutting emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, the two classes of chemicals that react in sunshine to form ozone, the main ingredient in smog.
The coalition of Northeastern states that brought the 2013 petition argued that those upwind emissions were hurting their ability to meet EPA's 2008 ambient air quality standard for ozone. Last month, New York and five other states behind the petition also brought suit to compel an EPA decision. That suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is pending.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/18/stories/1060046025
-
China Steps Reluctantly Into Spotlight as U.S. Heads for Exit
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States has the world holding out for a climate hero, and parties here are determined that it be China.
The world's largest greenhouse gas emitter and second-largest economy is not backing away from the challenge — or the Paris Agreement, as Trump has vowed to do.
Xie Zhenhua, China's top special envoy, reiterated yesterday that his country's stance on the climate deal will "remain the same and unchanged," no matter what the world's other economic superpower chooses to do.
"China will fulfill and honor its commitments to the Paris Agreement," he said.
That's been the Chinese message throughout the U.N. conference that concludes today in this imperial desert town. Participants here, still reeling from last week's news that the United States has elected a president who plans to cancel or renegotiate Paris, have warned that China's steadfastness will place America at a competitive advantage economically and politically if Trump doesn't recant.
"One of the risks that I think the Trump administration needs to consider is the risk that China will become a global leader in this new technology, which is market-driven, and the Americans will be left behind," said Leon Charles, a former veteran negotiator from Grenada.
"I can't imagine a scenario where U.S. companies are not in that game," echoed U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing. The U.S. delegation has taken to answering all questions about Trump's Paris stance by presenting climate action as an economic boon.
Some say a pullout will undermine U.S. influence
A look at China's recent progress on climate and energy shows that China has indeed made strides in both — policies its officials here say are in the country's own national interest.
Data from the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) show China bringing renewable energy and energy efficiency equipment online at record speed, a fact IEA energy head Dave Turk said has helped to "move the needle" on global deployment of these technologies.
IEA's "World Energy Investment" report shows that China was the largest destination of renewable-based power capacity investment in the world last year, reaching more than $90 billion, or over 60 percent of its total investment in generation.
China also appears likely to deliver on its Paris pledges of peaking emissions and drawing 20 percent of non-fossil-fuel sources by 2030 several years early. Add to that the boom in Chinese renewable energy and next year's debut of an economywide cap-and-trade program, and China has become a much-needed good-news story here.
By contrast, Trump's presidency casts serious doubt on the United States' ability to meet its own commitment to cut emissions between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 — though the U.S. delegation has promised foreign colleagues here that America's private sector can deliver without federal support.
Observers here say a voluntary U.S. exodus from the Paris Agreement just as its rulebook is beginning to take shape would obliterate U.S. influence over this process. Issues that it has championed in the past — like greater transparency in monitoring, reporting and verification processes — may be watered down.
David Sandalow, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Energy, said that if China is perceived by other countries to be the stalwart defender of climate action, it could gain the upper hand over a laggard United States on other issues, like the South China Sea or intellectual property rights.
"The United States and China agree on some issues and disagree on others," noted Sandalow, who now heads Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. "And we have tensions on some issues where we are seeking to enlist the aid of other countries to support us. If the United States were to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and China gains credibility as a result, China would have more credibility with other countries across a whole range of issues."
Jane Nakano, a senior fellow and China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., said China would indeed gain leverage for itself and other developing countries if it remains within Paris while the United States exits.
"If the U.S. pulls out and China delivers on its commitment in both the qualitative and quantitative terms, China will have a much stronger case in its effort to have a global energy governance system that is much more multi-polar in nature and has greater voice from [developing] countries," she said in an email to E&E News. "The extent to which this may spill into other areas is a much harder question."
If Trump's Paris exit is perceived by other countries as a symptom of a broader U.S. decline vis-à-vis China, that will weaken the United States' position in Asia-Pacific politics, she said.
Back in Washington, D.C., Republicans who support Trump say they're not worried about seeing China filling America's void on climate diplomacy.
"That would be great, since they're one of the world's leading polluters," said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R).
"I just don't have a lot of confidence that the Paris Agreement will lead to any meaningful outcome," Rubio said. "The largest carbon emitters and the ones who are emitting the most in the future aren't even committed to doing anything meaningful for two decades or longer."
U.S. should brace for 'reputational costs'
China's role as a potential climate hero is new. Vanquished Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton frequently recounted how she and President Obama crashed a meeting led by the Chinese at the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, to insist that China come back to the negotiating table.
And for years, China insisted that as a developing nation, its responsibilities to cut emissions were much less than those of rich countries like the United States. But that long-held position was effectively demolished in 2014 when President Obama and China's President Xi Jinping jointly announced their Paris pledges. It included China's first-ever promise to cap greenhouse gas emissions and injected new life into the flagging U.N. climate process.
Obama and Xi have now reached four leader-level agreements on climate change. And whatever advantages China sees following from its continued commitment to the Paris deal, Chinese officials have said here all week that they want the United States to honor all of its commitments.
"The participation of the U.S. is very important to China because these are the two most important economies in the world," said Lingling Mu, general manager of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Network on Green Supply Chain. "We borrowed the concept of carbon trading from the U.S., and we participated with the U.S. in other developing countries in fighting climate change."
Li Shuo of Greenpeace China noted that Obama and Xi set up several bilateral working groups and processes under the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue that are now in question. He said he expected Xi to continue to insist that Trump make good on the promises Obama made, not only to the world but to China.
"I would expect this to be raised in the most important bilateral relationship in the world," he said. "I would expect it to be raised from the Chinese side."
If Trump reneges, he said, "reputational costs will be very significant."
Climate change, which has been a bright spot in an otherwise complicated U.S.-China relationship, could become an area of particular tension between the world's two superpowers if China perceives it has been jilted, Li said.
Seeking other partnerships
Meanwhile, China has expressed some trepidation about becoming the world's climate "leader," especially when it comes to providing finance.
China's top special envoy Xie yesterday noted China's willingness to partner with other countries or alliances, including the European Union. The feeling appears to be mutual. E.U. Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete said yesterday that the bloc will seek ways to partner with China in the wake of the U.S. election.
Li noted that the uncertainty around what Trump might do has elevated Chinese participation with other countries higher on the agenda.
"If we lose one of the most important engines in this process, all the other engines need to work harder," he said.
But while many painted a rosy picture of Chinese commitment, Harvard University's Robert Stavins said a U.S. departure could still signal the unravelling of the Paris accord as other countries become reluctant to take on commitments.
"Think about the fact that the U.S. and China together were pulling along an unwilling and uninterested India, think about all the other countries, think also about within China the opposition that exists within the government to taking on targets and taking on costs and hurting your international competitiveness," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/18/stories/1060045997
-
A Warning for Donald Trump: Gutting the EPA Would be Harder – and More Perilous – Than You Think
Nov 18, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
Donald Trump has been clear about his plans for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He wants to dismantle it.
“We’re going to have little tidbits left but we’re going to get most of it out,” he said at one point.
“Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace,” he said at another. Asked who would protect our air and water, he replied, “We’ll be fine with the environment. We can leave a little bit …”
Now the president-elect has begun making good on his promise by appointing as chief of his environmental transition team a Washington lobbyist named Myron Ebell, who for decades has made his living by opposing pretty much everything the EPA does.
So I take our new president at his word.
We’ve seen this movie before and it doesn’t go well
Now, I don’t claim to be a disinterested observer. I worked at the EPA for 19 years, at one point running the office charged with protecting America’s clean water. I advised Republican and Democratic presidents.
Today, I work for a major environmental organization. To me, it’s obvious that a cleaner environment and a safer climate aren’t part of a radical left-wing agenda, but rather are a core American value, shared by a huge majority of citizens.
Every major piece of environmental legislation, from the Clean Air Act to the toxic chemicals protection bill signed in June by President Barack Obama, has been passed by bringing together ideas from Republicans and Democrats – ultimately earning overwhelming support from both sides.
So I have a message for the President-elect. I don’t know anyone who wants to go back to the way it was before Richard Nixon established the EPA.
We’ve seen this movie before and it doesn’t go well. Not for the environment, not for American business – but especially not for any administration that tries to reverse our environmental progress.
Gingrich’s dirty water bill: A political disaster
In 1995, I was at the EPA when the new speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, pushed a ‘dirty water’ bill that would have allowed factories and sewage treatment plants to spew more pollution into our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, eviscerating the Clean Water Act.
The attack became a political disaster for Republicans, even those who had earned reputations as leaders on the environment. The message the public heard was that their leaders in Congress opposed core American values and wanted to sweep away basic protections.
The proposal went nowhere in the Senate, leaving only distrust in its wake. The lesson, however, didn’t seem to sink in.
George W. Bush miscalculated on arsenic
Shortly after George W. Bush became President in 2001, he withdrew a rule I had been working on to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water. It was terrible for public health and terrible politics.
The reaction was swift, fierce and angry. Turns out that Americans don’t want more arsenic in their drinking water. Bush couldn’t back away fast enough, and admitted he’d completely miscalculated.
So Trump should be forewarned. The anger we have seen against past attempts to roll back bedrock environmental protections will pale in comparison to the fury that will be unleashed if the Trump administration carries out its campaign promises.
This time, the opposition won’t just come from environmentalists and the majority of the American people, but also from prominent U.S. businesses, and, if Trump reneges on our international climate commitments, from virtually the entire world as well.
A smart businessman won’t renege on a deal
America led the way to a global climate accord, forged last year in Paris, in which the nations of the world unanimously agreedfor the first time ever– to reduce the carbon pollution that is destabilizing our climate.By influencing corporate investment decisions, the Paris
Agreement is accelerating our clean energy economy, creating such huge opportunities for business that its supporters include a who’s who of American companies, from Walmart and Microsoft to electric utilities like PG&E, and yes, even ExxonMobil.
As a smart businessman, Donald Trump should think twice before renouncing a major treaty obligation, an action that would hurt America’s standing in the world and hurt American business.
Finally, the Trump team may not yet realize that gutting environmental rules is a long, arduous process. Regulations cannot be issued or rescinded without an extensive effort to gather and respond to detailed comments from stakeholders on all sides.
Remember: It takes years to undo rules
For example, if Obama’s groundbreaking Clean Power Plan, which requires states to cut power plant carbon emissions, is upheld in the D.C. Circuit court, the regulations can be undone only by proposing an entirely new rule with a legally convincing argument for why the change is necessary.
Such formal rulemaking takes years and would be challenged in court every step of the way. The same is true for Obama’s new curbs on emissions of methane from oil and gas drilling and operations, and a host of other rules. Even officially withdrawing from the Paris Agreement requires four years notice.
A Trump Administration is likely to lose the political battle long before it ends up losing the legal war.
West Oakland and Appalachia: On the losing end
Like so many others, I have been disturbed by Trump’s divisive rhetoric. I also know that his plans to gut our environmental protections would hit minority and poor communities from West Oakland to Appalachia the hardest.
If President Trump does act on those plans, a broad coalition of Americans who care about the health of their children will fight tooth and nail, using everything at our disposal. Past history strongly suggests that we will win.
But I don’t want that fight. I would much rather return to the historical cooperation that has brought us so much environmental progress, so many new clean energy jobs, and so many prospects for a better, stronger future.
Trump family: Climate action create jobs
My hope mirrors an open letter that a group of business leaders ran in the New York Times in 2009. The letter strongly supported President Obama’s efforts to protect the environment and fight climate change, saying: “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”
Moreover, the letter added, such action “will spur economic growth” and “create new energy jobs.” That letter was signed by Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump.
They were right then. My fervent hope now is that they quickly reverse the wrong turn they’ve made.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/11/18/warning-donald-trump-gutting-epa-would-be-harder-and-more-perilous-you-think
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested