Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/13/2017
-
A Toxic Scavenger Hunt: Finding the First 10 Lautenberg Act Chemicals
Feb 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
Recently, EPA identified the first 10 chemicals for evaluation under our country’s newly reformed chemical safety law. That motivated me to see how easy it would be to find these chemicals in consumer products. -
Senate Weighs CRA on Methane; More Reforms on Tap
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Congress will return its attention this week to killing off Obama-era rules and pushing through regulatory reform measures. -
Oil Industry Lobbies Hard in State — and Wins
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
California has some of the United States' toughest environmental regulations and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. But the oil industry also wields tremendous influence on state policy. -
Standing Rock Joins Easement Challenge
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is joining the latest flurry of legal action against the Dakota Access pipeline. -
Veresen Revives Jordan Cove LNG Export Project at FERC
Feb 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Left in the ditch last year by FERC, Calgary, Alberta-based Veresen Inc. on Friday revived its efforts to build the first U.S. West Coast liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project along the south-central coast of Oregon. -
OPEC: Oil Supply Drops as Agreement Takes Effect
Feb 13, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Sara Stefanini
Global oil production dropped by 1.29 million barrels per day between December and January thanks to cuts by both OPEC members and countries outside the cartel, the oil producers’ grouping said today. -
Hill Republicans Should Look to Cabinet, States for Proven Clean Energy Solutions
Feb 13, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Heather Reams
November’s elections offered a clear mandate from voters that they want big changes in how government operates that leads to a better quality of life for them and their families – whether that is through a stronger economy, a safer homeland, or better paying jobs – and they want it under Republican leadership. -
Calif. Regulators Weigh Ban on Lethal Gas After 2015 Explosion
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
After a 2015 explosion at Exxon Mobil Corp.'s refinery near Los Angeles nearly caused the release of highly toxic hydrofluoric acid, regulators are considering a ban on the lethal gas. -
Phillips 66 Names Louisiana Worker Believed Dead from Pipeline Explosion
Feb 13, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Phillips 66 said employee Josh Helms is believed dead from a pipeline explosion last week in Louisiana. -
Former EPA Official Perciasepe Talks Agency Cuts, Climate Compromises and Paris Prospects
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
What avenues exist for engaging with the Trump White House on climate policy? During today's OnPoint, Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and the former deputy administrator at U.S. EPA during the Obama administration, discusses the outlook for climate policy as the new administration takes shape. He also weighs in on the future of EPA and how staff should handle the transition. -
Fearing Worse, Oil Industry Fights to Save Cap and Trade
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
In the battle over whether to preserve California's landmark climate change program, an unlikely defender has emerged: an influential trade group for the oil industry. -
61 Percent of Americans Support Current Ozone Standard — Poll
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
More than three-fifths of Americans back U.S. EPA's current air quality standard for ozone, according to the results of an American Lung Association poll released today.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
A Toxic Scavenger Hunt: Finding the First 10 Lautenberg Act Chemicals
Feb 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
Recently, EPA identified the first 10 chemicals for evaluation under our country’s newly reformed chemical safety law. That motivated me to see how easy it would be to find these chemicals in consumer products. The answer: very easy. In fact, while you’ve probably not heard of many of these chemicals, the products that contain them are likely all too familiar.
For decades our main chemical safety law offered little protection against toxic chemicals. Badly outmoded and outdated, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 could not even restrict a known carcinogen like asbestos. Fortunately, last year, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed legislation to reform the law. Included in that new law, the Lautenberg Act, was a requirement that EPA identify the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluations. EPA released that list in late November, and included chemicals ranging from household names like asbestos to less well-known ones like Pigment Violet 29. All 10 chemicals had already been designated by EPA as chemicals in need of additional scrutiny.
To begin my toxic scavenger hunt, I had to first figure out which products use these chemicals. That is harder than it might sound. Companies are not required to include most ingredients on product labels (you can see that for yourself right now, if you have a cleaning product within sight). Nor are there comprehensive databases listing where chemicals are used—even chemicals that pose serious health and environmental concerns, like these 10 chemicals.
To figure out which products use these chemicals, I had to resort to some advanced Googling. I found some products by searching online for Safety Data Sheets containing the chemicals—these sheets of product information are required by OSHA for potentially harmful substances used in the workplace. Other products and product categories can be found by searching EPA’s CPCat: Chemical and Product Categories database and the National Institute of Health (NIH) Household Products Database. The databases are not exhaustive and are further limited because product formulations change often, so all of these sources had to be confirmed using other information.
Many product categories have no ingredient disclosure whatsoever. For instance, a flame retardant on the list (HBCD) is used in electronics, textiles and elsewhere, but little or no disclosure is required for such products. Even so, product testing has turned up some specific uses—as an example, the Ecology Center tested children’s car seats and found the flame retardant HBCD in certain models. Still, there’s just no way to know for sure where else that chemical might be found in our homes or workplaces.
Where products using these chemicals were identified, however, finding out how I could obtain the products was a cinch (see my list).
Amazon is my go-to vendor for everything from diapers to razors—and it turns out it can also supply me with products containing PERC, 1-Bromopropane, TCE and many more.
I also found that purchasers’ reviews provided interesting insights. Lectra Clean Degreaser uses PERC. One Amazon reviewer gives the product 5 out of 5 stars, noting “I always keep a couple cans of this handy. It's also an amazing bug killer. It will kill any fly, wasp or nuisance bug almost instantly upon contact. Put the small red tube in and you've got about 8 feet of accurate Armageddon for our insect friends.” Now there’s a reasonably foreseen use the product manufacturer perhaps didn’t intend!
The labels on these products are also of interest. At my local hardware store, I picked up a NMP-based paint stripper. That product is sold under the brand “Back to Nature” and includes a logo that urges browsers to “Go Green.” That’s pretty upbeat language for a suspected reproductive toxicant.
Generally, hardware stores are great places to find the chemicals on the first-10 list. Paint strippers using NMPand Methylene Chloride are readily available. Carbon Tetrachloride can be found in adhesives. Craft and hobby stores are good places to find others, like Pigment Violet 29 (used in some permanent violet paints) and 1-Bromopropane in certain adhesives.
Nothing can beat an auto supply provider, however. There you can find TCE, PERC and 1-Bromopropane products for degreasing. It’s also where I located the coup de grace in the toxic chemical hunt: asbestos brake pads. Despite EPA’s inability to ban asbestos under the old chemical law, asbestos use has been curtailed by lawsuits, thanks to a clear link to mesothelioma. Still, both the state of California and domestic brake manufacturers indicate that asbestos remains in use in certain imported brake pads, as well as in some stockpiles of after-market brake pads for older-model cars. An online auto supply vendorshipped me asbestos brake pads, loose and unwrapped, rattling around in a flimsy cardboard box that includes a small warning label “contains asbestos fibers, avoid breathing dust.”
We can chuckle a bit at how casual a company was in shipping a product containing a deadly carcinogen, but this is serious stuff. The men and women who work with asbestos brake pads can get deathly sick, and so can their families when the fibers come home on clothing. Paint strippers containing methylene chloride are responsible for numerous deaths—people killed at work or at home.
Mechanics using brake cleaners in auto shops, janitors using stain removers, and dry cleaners using spot cleaning products are likely putting their health at risk every day at work. Pregnant women using these products, say, to prepare a nursery, might inadvertently be harming their developing fetus.
Tuesday, EPA will take the next step on these 10 chemicals, holding a public meeting to discuss and get input on what the scope of their risk evaluations should be (see their use dossiers on each of the 10 chemicals here). We should all watch closely and participate where we can to ensure that workers, kids, pregnant woman, and everyone else get the protection they deserve. And if you know of any other products containing these chemicals, please let me know. I still have some room on my desk.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/02/13/a-toxic-scavenger-hunt-finding-the-first-10-lautenberg-act-chemicals/
-
Senate Weighs CRA on Methane; More Reforms on Tap
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Congress will return its attention this week to killing off Obama-era rules and pushing through regulatory reform measures.
The Senate — after a strained week of Cabinet confirmations — may take up a House-passed resolution of disapproval to nix an Interior Department regulation limiting oil and gas methane emissions.
House lawmakers used the Congressional Review Act this month to scrap the Bureau of Land Management regulation that seeks to limit natural gas flaring, venting and leakage on public and tribal lands (Greenwire, Feb. 3).
While industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute have urged the Senate to follow the House's lead, environmentalists and other opponents argue repealing the rule would waste taxpayer resources and threaten to exacerbate climate change.
The League of Conservation Voters last week sent a letter to members voicing its opposition.
"The BLM's Methane Rule updates outdated standards for oil and gas production on public and tribal lands by requiring companies to deploy readily available, cost-effective measures to reduce methane lost through venting, flaring, and leaks," the group wrote.
"This commonsense approach will begin to decrease the over $300 million in natural gas that is wasted each year from our public and tribal lands, reducing the loss of a valuable natural resource and providing up to $800 million in royalty revenues to states, tribes, and federal taxpayers over the next decade."
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters she hopes the Senate will also take up a resolution to trash a BLM rule updating the agency's process for designing land use plans.
The House voted to kill the rule last week by a 234-184 vote, mostly along party lines. Four Democrats voted in favor and four Republicans against (E&E Daily, Feb. 8).
Still, Senate Republicans have limited time to consider resolutions while also trying to confirm President Trump's Cabinet nominees, a large number of whom are still waiting (see related story).
House lawmakers may also take up a new resolution, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska). H.J. Res. 69 aims to trash an Interior rule that amends regulations for all National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. The rule prevents so-called predator control on these refuges unless necessary to meet certain standards.
Young has also introduced a new resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 70, which seeks to undo an Interior rule requiring tougher safety measures for oil and gas drilling in the U.S. section of the Arctic.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is expected tomorrow to mark up a number of regulatory reform bills, including the "Federal Intern Protection Act of 2017" (H.R. 653).
The measure, introduced by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), would extend federal employee protections to unpaid interns.
The panel is also expected to mark up the "Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act of 2017," the "Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017," and the "OIRA (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) Insight, Reform and Accountability Act."
The "SCRUB Act," which passed the House last year, would establish a nine-member body and authorize an appropriation of up to $30 million to independently assess which regulations are outdated or unnecessarily burdensome.
The "Regulatory Integrity Act," which also passed the House last year, would require agencies to disclose actions about their pending rules along with their public communications about those rules. It would also prohibit agencies from using those communications to lobby the public for support of their rules.
House lawmakers additionally continue to introduce reform measures. Most recently, Reps. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) introduced legislation that would aid in regulatory review, long a bipartisan effort.
Sinema's measure, H.R. 978, would establish an independent advisory committee to review rules. The proposal of an advisory committee is something lawmakers and scholars have toyed with for years (E&E Daily, Feb. 7).
Smith's bill, H.R. 998, would also establish a process for the review of regulations and sets of rules.
Schedule: The Oversight and Government Reform Committee markup is Tuesday, Feb. 14, at 10 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060049926
-
Oil Industry Lobbies Hard in State — and Wins
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
California has some of the United States' toughest environmental regulations and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. But the oil industry also wields tremendous influence on state policy.
The industry has spent more than $122 million over the past six years on campaign contributions and lobbying, building ties to the state's moderate Democrats and progressive Gov. Jerry Brown (D). California is the nation's third largest oil producer.
Brown has eased drilling restrictions in recent years, drawing criticism from environmental groups.
"'Hypocrite' is almost too nice of a word. It's more of a con," said Adam Scow, state director of Food & Water Watch. "Once you start to look at the real policies and the real problems and the fact that we are still the nation's third largest oil-producing state, things are not all so rosy here."
A U.S. EPA review of state regulators found thousands of approved wells drilled into protected aquifers and millions in uncollected fines. After a strong lobbying push by the Western States Petroleum Association, an influential lobbying group, Brown sided with industry, firing two regulators opposed by WSPA (Michael Mishak, Center for Public Integrity, Feb. 13).
A spate of emails obtained by the Center for Public Integrity suggest a tight relationship between Brown's appointees and industry.
State officials at the Department of Conservation and the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources alerted companies of upcoming inquiries, coordinated responses to media and at public meetings, and forwarded internal documents to trade groups.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/13/stories/1060049954
-
Standing Rock Joins Easement Challenge
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is joining the latest flurry of legal action against the Dakota Access pipeline.
The tribe, whose reservation sits a half-mile south of where the pipeline would cross the Missouri River, on Friday filed an updated legal complaint challenging the Trump administration's decision last week to issue final federal approval for the project.
The Army Corps of Engineers also last week scrapped an in-depth environmental impact statement promised by the Obama administration. The agency's decision instead relies on a less detailed environmental assessment completed last year, which found no significant impact from the project.
According to the Standing Rock Sioux, the agency failed to justify its latest decision. While the corps pointed to several agency documents compiled last year, including an October technical and legal analysis, it did not fully address a December legal opinion prepared by the Interior Department's solicitor general, which found that the pipeline could interfere with tribal treaty rights.
"The Corps' decision to reverse course fails to offer a reasoned explanation for dismissing the Solicitor's formal legal opinion which supported the prior decision not to grant the easement without first preparing an EIS and fully assessing its impacts on Treaty rights," the new complaint says.
The complaint also includes religious freedom claims similar to those raised by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe last week (Energywire, Feb. 10).
The tribes, which have both been involved in litigation against the project since last summer, say the pipeline would desecrate water that tribal members depend on for religious ceremonies. They say the pipeline approval amounts to a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which limits the federal government's ability to "substantially burden" religious practices.
"An inability to engage in sacred ceremonies would devastate the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and its people, substantially burden the exercise of religion, and cause irreparable harm to the Tribe and its people," the complaint says.
The tribe has asked to join in the Cheyenne River Sioux's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction blocking construction. A hearing on the restraining order is set for 2 p.m. EST today.
New players in the courtroom
The Trump administration's approval of the final easement for the oil pipeline has also triggered a wave of interest from new parties in the courtroom.
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Steve Vance, of the Cheyenne River Sioux, on Friday moved to intervene in the lawsuit on the tribes' side. As a "sincere practitioner of the traditional Lakota faith," Vance says he will be personally affected by construction of the pipeline across Lake Oahe, a portion of the Missouri River.
"Mr. Vance believes that the siting of the Dakota Access Pipeline under Lake Oahe will desecrate the waters such that they will be rendered unsuitable for use in the sacraments required by his religious faith," lawyers for Vance told the court.
A group of tribal chairmen, meanwhile, weighed in with a "friend of the court" brief supporting the Sioux tribes. The Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association characterized the Dakota Access approval as "the latest in a long line of harms inflicted upon the Indian tribes of the Great Plains contributing to historical trauma and psychological distress."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/13/stories/1060049914
-
Veresen Revives Jordan Cove LNG Export Project at FERC
Feb 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Left in the ditch last year by FERC, Calgary, Alberta-based Veresen Inc. on Friday revived its efforts to build the first U.S. West Coast liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project along the south-central coast of Oregon. Despite past setbacks, the sponsors remain confident of getting a final go-ahead on the project.
Jordan Cove LNG's pre-filing application was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, reopening the way for the $7.5 billion-plus project to work its way through the federal permitting process, something its backers thought they had accomplished until FERC rejected their application last March. FERC nixed a rehearing request last fall.
Still included in the more than decade-old plans is the sometimes problematic 232-mile Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline that would run northwest from interstate pipeline connections at Malin, OR, to the Jordan Cove LNG facility in the deep water international port at Coos Bay, OR.
"We have invested more than a decade in optimizing the engineering design and minimizing our environmental footprint through scientific analysis and community feedback," said Betsy Spomer, CEO of Jordan Cove LNG. "We are confident Jordan Cove will receive regulatory approval and contribute significant direct and indirect benefits to southern Oregon."
Spomer and her colleagues at Veresen continue to stress the project's scope and potential economic impact. They reiterate that it would be the largest single private investment in the history of southern Oregon, generating hundreds of million of dollars in payments and tax revenue for Coos, Douglas, Jackson and Klamath counties throughout construction and operation.
"In addition, the Jordan Cove project will create thousands of family-sustaining local construction jobs and create hundreds of high paying permanent positions," a project spokesperson said.
The natural gas pipeline will provide new gas supply access for southern Oregon residents who currently lack access to a natural gas network that serves more populated parts of the state. These communities currently rely on burning wood and more expensive forms of energy, the spokesperson said.
Jordan Cove indicated it is working with FERC to schedule open houses, which will provide the public the opportunity to learn more about the project, ask questions, and meet Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector personnel.
The project has received strong support from Colorado natural gas producers and prospective Asian energy buyers who last year urged FERC to grant the rehearing. Japan's electric utility joint venture and a major national energy buying force, JERA Co. Inc., and the West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association (WSCOGA) urged FERC last October to move the stalled project forward, only to get a second rejection.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has shied away from taking a position on the project, which was originally proposed 12 years ago as an LNG import project.
WSCOGA Executive Director David Ludlam said the denial last year was politically motivated and "ignored" the project's economic benefits to other western states, such as Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. This time around, a coalition of gas producing states will be more active at FERC in support of Jordan Cove, Ludlam said.
"We'll work with our U.S. senators to ensure the streamlined and technologically enhanced project application gets an approval quickly," he said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109398-veresen-revives-jordan-cove-lng-export-project-at-ferc
-
OPEC: Oil Supply Drops as Agreement Takes Effect
Feb 13, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Sara Stefanini
Global oil production dropped by 1.29 million barrels per day between December and January thanks to cuts by both OPEC members and countries outside the cartel, the oil producers’ grouping said today.
OPEC’s 14 members lowered their output by 890,000 barrels per day to an average 32.14 million in the first month of their six-month production cut agreement, according to OPEC’s monthly oil market report. Saudi Arabia, its largest producer, accounted for 44 percent of that reduction.
The data supports analysts’ estimates that OPEC has so far stuck to around 90 percent of its agreement to reduce its supply by about 1.2 million barrels per day between January and June — although many warn the cartel’s track record suggests its compliance could still dissipate.
While global oil supply also fell in January, to an average 95.75 million barrels per day, OPEC estimated that production from outside the cartel increased in 2016 and will continue to do so this year. The anticipated increase from outside OPEC, expected to be 120,000 barrels per day in 2017, is largely driven by a pickup in drilling and investment in the U.S., it said.
OPEC also expected to see global oil and gas companies boost their spending on exploration and production in 2017, for the first time in three years. That will further stimulate production in North America, potentially bringing more oil supply online later this year.
As supply rises, so does oil demand. OPEC hiked its estimate for demand growth in 2016 to 1.32 million barrels per day, following higher-than-expected consumption in OECD countries. This year, its expects demand to rise by 1.19 million.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Hill Republicans Should Look to Cabinet, States for Proven Clean Energy Solutions
Feb 13, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Heather Reams
November’s elections offered a clear mandate from voters that they want big changes in how government operates that leads to a better quality of life for them and their families – whether that is through a stronger economy, a safer homeland, or better paying jobs – and they want it under Republican leadership.
The party of Lincoln now has the opportunity of a lifetime to bring their ideas that create jobs and inspire the ingenuity of a nation. It’s an extraordinary time to think outside of the box – or rather to look beyond the Beltway – for innovative ideas that fellow Republicans have embraced, such as the promise of clean energy solutions, that have had real results for everyday Americans.
Notably, the president’s Cabinet includes two former governors with histories of strong support of clean energy. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, our new Secretary of Energy, consistently supported market-based, renewable energy technology that increased abundant, affordable, and clean energy production for millions of families across his home state. As governor of South Carolina, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley was an outspoken advocate of solar energy development, expansion and regulatory reform that stimulated the growth of an advanced energy economy, bring new high-paying jobs to the Palmetto State.
Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner expanded clean energy production and saved thousands of local jobs by improving the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. His reforms are expected to lead to billions of dollars in private investment in clean renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.
Nevada has also witnessed an increased investment in renewable energy, thanks in large part to Gov. Brian Sandoval and his decisive action to form the “Governor’s Accord for a New Energy Future,” an initiative to revitalize our country’s electrical grid with a bipartisan group of 17 governors. Sandoval also signed an executive order that reactivated a task force to help promote and distribute renewable energy resources, advocate for the development and integration of clean energy sources into Nevada’s energy sector, and build modern and cost-effective infrastructure.
Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts signed a bipartisan solar energy bill to create a long-term plan for sustainable solar development, expand the Commonwealth’s solar industry, and make progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Baker has also supported legislation that requires utilities to solicit long-term contracts from offshore wind farm developers to bring at least 1,600 megawatts of wind energy to Massachusetts in the next 10 years into law.
In Maryland, Gov. Larry Hogan put forward a budget that included key provisions to strengthen the state’s economy and upheld his commitment to voters that he would fight to preserve environmental quality and address climate change. For the second consecutive year, Hogan fully funded efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, and also established a grant program aimed at aiding coastal communities who are forced to endure the potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change and extreme weather.
Newly elected Republican governors have also moved quickly to proactively work with their state legislatures to advance clean energy reforms. In Vermont, Republican Gov. Phil Scott has pledged to abide by his Democratic predecessor's long-term goal of getting 90 percent of the energy needed in the state from renewable sources by the year 2050. And in New Hampshire, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu reserved time in his inaugural address to focus on bringing down the cost of local-sourced, renewable energy, calling for “sensible, long-term planning” on policy. He also said the Granite State has an opportunity to be a “shining example” of renewable energy.
Republicans believe in strengthening states’ rights because it’s the states that so often get it right when comes to serving as laboratories for effective policy. Clean energy is part of the advanced economy that voters want to contribute to a better quality of life. The Trump administration and leaders in Congress would be wise to apply those lessons learned in states across the country to commonsense policymaking that benefits all Americans.
Heather Reams is the managing director of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, a non-profit organization advocating for comprehensive and responsible solutions to our nation’s energy issues.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/319172-hill-republicans-should-look-to-cabinet-states-for
-
Calif. Regulators Weigh Ban on Lethal Gas After 2015 Explosion
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
After a 2015 explosion at Exxon Mobil Corp.'s refinery near Los Angeles nearly caused the release of highly toxic hydrofluoric acid, regulators are considering a ban on the lethal gas.
In February 2015, pent-up gases at the Torrance refinery triggered a massive explosion, spewing industrial ash over a mile away.
The debris narrowly avoided piercing a tank containing tens of thousands of pounds of hydrofluoric acid.
Commonly known as HF, the chemical is used to make high-octane gasoline at about a third of U.S. oil refineries. When the gas is released, it forms a cloud that can cause lasting lung damage, severe burns or death.
In the wake of the incident, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board joined environmentalists and union leaders in calling for a ban on HF.
Nearly two years after the accident, this local activism has spurred Southern California regulators to revive a 27-year-old effort to ban the chemical.
"Let's see if we can phase this out to provide an extra level of protection for the public," said Philip Fine, deputy executive director of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/13/stories/1060049902
-
Phillips 66 Names Louisiana Worker Believed Dead from Pipeline Explosion
Feb 13, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Phillips 66 said employee Josh Helms is believed dead from a pipeline explosion last week in Louisiana.
Workers were conducting maintenance at Phillips 66 Paradis pipeline station southwest of New Orleans when an explosion at the natural gas liquids pipeline started a fire that continues to burn, but is now considered under control at a reduced size.
Two other workers were injured and one of them remains hospitalized. However, only Helms, of Thibodaux, La., is presumed dead. Helms had worked on pipelines for eight years, only joining Phillips 66 in November.
Once the fire is fully extinguished, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources will lead the investigation into whether protocols were followed and whether the employees were properly trained.
Houston-based Phillips 66 said ongoing air monitoring of the area indicates no health impacts to the surrounding community. An evacuation order was lifted last week after less than 24 hours.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/02/13/phillips-66-names-louisiana-worker-believed-dead-from-pipeline-explosion/
-
Former EPA Official Perciasepe Talks Agency Cuts, Climate Compromises and Paris Prospects
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
What avenues exist for engaging with the Trump White House on climate policy? During today's OnPoint, Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and the former deputy administrator at U.S. EPA during the Obama administration, discusses the outlook for climate policy as the new administration takes shape. He also weighs in on the future of EPA and how staff should handle the transition.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today is Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and former deputy administrator at U.S. EPA during the Obama administration. Bob, it's great to have you back on the show.
Bob Perciasepe: It's nice to be here with you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: So Bob, a lot has changed since the last time you were on the show. At that time, we were speaking about the implementation strategy for the Clean Power Plan, and now the political climate is dramatically different. What avenues do you believe exist for engaging the Trump White House on climate policy?
Bob Perciasepe: Like everyone else, I'm going to have to say that that's still an open question, as we've heard all the noise during the campaign. We've heard some of the noise during the confirmation hearings. But I still have some degree of optimism that we'll be able to engage the administration in some good ideas, because we have a foundation that's pretty strong already, that — in terms of emission reductions that are already underway.
Monica Trauzzi: A foundation — part of that was/is the Clean Power Plan?
Bob Perciasepe: Sure. Sure.
Monica Trauzzi: We're expecting that that's going to be on its way out. Do you believe that this administration will replace the Clean Power Plan with something else?
Bob Perciasepe: I think that they'll have to, by law. So, if they withdraw the Clean Power Plan, there will undoubtedly be legal actions taken to force some other replacement activity reductions. But it's important to look at the power sector now and what's happening to it, and people are continuing to plan as if they're going to have to continue to do reductions.
So, Bloomberg New Energy Finance came out with their projections for 2016 yesterday, and it showed that the power industry reduced its greenhouse emissions just last year 5 percent. They're already at 24 percent below the 2005 levels, so they're 75 percent of the way to the 19 of the 2030 goals of the clean power plants. So, those economic trends — those market trends — are out there, and they're pushing the continuation of reduced emissions.
Monica Trauzzi: Are you encouraged by the recent meeting at the White House on the possibility of a revenue-neutral carbon tax? Is that something that your organization would back?
Bob Perciasepe: We back using the marketplace to really put us over the threshold that we need to get to, for deep reduction in carbons by the middle of the century, and we think using the market and the forces of the market are the best way to go. There's a lot of different approaches — carbon tax is one of them. We certainly can get behind the carbon tax if it's constructed properly. Here we have a set of very influential Republicans saying, "Let's look at this carbon tax." Last year in the Congress, we had Senator Whitehouse have a bill that said, "Let's do a carbon tax." So, we have a foundation for bipartisan conversation, which I think is overdue on this.
Monica Trauzzi: You spent a lot of time at U.S. EPA. What do you think a Scott Pruitt EPA will look like?
Bob Perciasepe: Well, it'll be different than a Gina McCarthy EPA, and I think what we see is, I think, within some range of the tumult that usually happens in transition. But Mr. Pruitt has been a dissident against some of the things that EPA has done, but that's when he was the attorney general of Oklahoma. Now he's going to be the EPA administrator if he's confirmed, and he'll have these laws to implement.
There are over 20 laws that EPA is required to implement. Congress just passed a new one called "The Toxic Substance Control Act Reform" last year, with the same congressional leadership we currently have. That has a suite of things that have to be done on a pretty quick schedule. So, he's going to have to focus on implementing the existing laws that are in front of him.
Monica Trauzzi: I imagine that you are still in touch with some of your former colleagues at EPA. What kinds of conversations are you having?
Bob Perciasepe: My advice has been pretty straightforward. The career leadership at EPA is a very dedicated and smart group, and they will do their best to try to bring the facts forward, bring the legal requirements forward, and help the new EPA management figure out how they proceed in that arena. They will probably, undoubtedly, want to do things differently than were done in the past, but they're still going to have to do them. If they don't implement the law, and as I said, there are over 20 laws, then there'll be litigation to force those actions. And I don't anybody is really looking to do things that way.
Monica Trauzzi: And law aside, we've heard some speculation and certainly Myron Ebell, who was leading the EPA transition, has suggested that there be dramatic cuts in staff numbers at EPA.
Bob Perciasepe: Mm-hmm.
Monica Trauzzi: What impact do you believe that would have on the whole?
Bob Perciasepe: Yeah, I think EPA's size, judged by the number of people working there, has declined over the years. It used to be close to 20,000; now it's closer to 15,000, maybe a little bit under 15,000. The thing that anybody who's running EPA or doing a transition plan for EPA has to realize is all the different things that EPA has to do, not just what they do on climate change, which is very important.
But they are responsible for emergency responses. They're responsible for Superfund sites. They are responsible for the Toxic Substances Control Act now, and regulating all the pesticides in the country. There are quite a few requirements that EPA has, and how that dynamic works with even fewer people will just inevitably lead to delays. And I sound like I'm repeating myself here, but it could also lead to additional litigation, as companies as well as public health interests want to see these laws implemented.
Monica Trauzzi: So, if you were able to walk into the White House today with a plan, a climate plan in place, what would that look like? What's the next-generation plan?
Bob Perciasepe: Well, I do believe that a market-based approach is the way to go. I do believe that while there's much we can do with the existing laws like the Clean Air Act, in the long haul, if we really want to get to deeper decarbonization by the middle of the century, we're going to need another approach or a complementary approach. And so, how to phase into that longer-term approach? While we are phasing out a regulatory approach or a sector-based approach, perhaps, is what I would advocate. What is that long-term plan?
Monica Trauzzi: In the background of all of this, we have the international community that's watching very closely. What options does the international community have for potentially putting pressure on the Trump administration to stay in Paris and also meet the commitments that the Obama administration agreed to?
Bob Perciasepe: Yeah. Well, going back to that same data projection that I mentioned earlier from the Bloomberg New Energy Finance, they are looking at we are about a 12 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from 2005. It's about halfway to our 2025 goal. And I believe that the market forces are at play with lower-cost renewables; lower-cost natural gas; that we're going to continue to see those trends. We may need policy to make that accelerated, and that's what the Clean Power Plan was and some of the other things. But on Paris, the only data point we have is the president saying he wants to have an open mind, and Rex Tillerson saying he thinks the United States should keep a seat at the table.
Monica Trauzzi: Right.
Bob Perciasepe: I think those are both good things. I think the United States has an interest in making sure that that treaty gets implemented in a way that's compatible with the country; the treaty upholds the sovereignty of the United States. It doesn't interfere with that at all. The United States can decide how it meets those goals. So, having a seat at the table is an important thing. I think you have to be in the agreement to have a seat at the table, and I'm guessing, but I don't have this for sure, that the administration's hearing this from other countries when they have conversations with them.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. Very interesting.
Bob Perciasepe: They're probably hearing it from — they're hearing it from businesses, as well.
Monica Trauzzi: For sure. All right. We will end it right there. Thank you. Nice to see you. Thanks for coming on the show.
Bob Perciasepe: Thanks, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2200/transcript
-
Fearing Worse, Oil Industry Fights to Save Cap and Trade
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
In the battle over whether to preserve California's landmark climate change program, an unlikely defender has emerged: an influential trade group for the oil industry.
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) doesn't think the state-mandated cap-and-trade system is perfect and is urging changes to it. But the coalition also sees a bigger threat on the horizon.
Groups representing low-income communities and people who live near sources of air pollution want the state to force carbon cuts at those sites. WSPA, casting a nervous eye toward new and more costly regulations, argues that shouldn't happen.
"One of our biggest challenges ... is how do we make sure we don't abandon the cap-and-trade program, which is absolutely necessary to deal with California's climate change program and greenhouse gas reductions, while we are dealing with the concerns that are being raised by the environmental justice community," Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of WSPA, said recently at the VerdeXchange conference in Los Angeles.
As the state talks about extending cap and trade beyond 2020, she said, "we have to also deal with community exposure," so that environmental justice groups don't seek only "source-specific measures."
Parin Shah, senior strategist at the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, or APEN, said mandatory emissions cuts at facilities would shrink both atmospheric and local pollutants. APEN has members who live near the Chevron Corp. refinery in Richmond, Calif., east of San Francisco.
"We would get more direct reductions from that," he said, "and that would cost more. So [oil companies] would of course not be very supportive of that."
It's a tension that soon will confront California lawmakers and air regulators, who will decide whether to continue cap and trade, impose other climate rules, or do both.
California's Air Resources Board (ARB) originally approved cap and trade to meet the mandates of the state's 2006 climate law, which set a greenhouse gas limit for 2020. Some environmental justice groups and others argue ARB lacks authority to extend the system beyond that time frame.
S.B. 32, passed last year, upped California's required emissions cut to 40 percent by 2030. A.B. 197, a companion measure, ordered ARB when it adopts rules for meeting the target to prioritize those that result in pollution cuts at "large stationary sources" of emissions.
"The fear of God was put in WSPA the minute that law passed," said ARB member Daniel Sperling, referring to A.B. 197.
Picking from options to hit emissions mandate
Cap and trade has many fans, as it's become a revenue source for California. Auction proceeds fund state programs that include a high-speed rail line under development, affordable housing near transit and local rail upgrades. So far, more than $3.4 billion has been doled out.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) wants the state Legislature this session to pass a measure extending cap and trade past 2020 and hopes to do it with a two-thirds margin. A pending lawsuit from the California Chamber of Commerce and others contends the program constitutes a tax that needed a two-thirds vote under state law.
A.B. 378, a measure that would allow ARB to continue using "a carbon-pricing market mechanism" in order to hit California's 2030 greenhouse gas goals, was offered last week. However, it didn't specify cap and trade or any other method.
The bill also would require ARB "to consider and account for the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions particularly for communities who are disproportionately impacted," according to a statement from Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia (D), who along with two colleagues brought the measure. He was the sponsor of A.B. 197 last year.
As the Legislature begins consideration of A.B. 378, ARB is slated to pick methods for meeting the 2030 target. Its "scoping plan" options include cap and trade and direct regulations. The board could take action as early as April.
WSPA will work to exert influence on both ARB and the Legislature. In the last two years, the trade group doled out $18.7 million to lobbying firms.
Kathryn Phillips, director of the Sierra Club's California chapter, said WSPA might endorse cap and trade publicly, but "they've spent at least five years doing everything they can to tear down cap and trade behind the scenes."
"What they say in public and what they say in private are two different things," Phillips said. "They've been hit with the reality of what would happen to them if we went back to all regulations."
Sperling said WSPA has accepted cap and trade as a policy it has to deal with, at least since the defeat of Proposition 23 in 2010. That ballot measure would have stymied enforcement of the initial climate law. It was largely funded by two oil companies.
Since then, cap and trade has been "a negotiating issue for them," with respect to other regulations that WSPA wants changed, Sperling said. The trade group previously offered to support an extension of cap and trade, he said, if the state killed its low-carbon fuel standard, which requires a drop in the carbon content of fuels. That proposed deal didn't succeed.
Revisiting A.B. 197?
WSPA is seeking changes to cap and trade even as it endorses the program. The trade group wants ARB to look at allowing companies to submit more offsets as part of their compliance. Investments in projects to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, offsets are restricted to 8 percent of the total package a business submits. The trade group also advocates ARB giving more free allowances.
A.B. 197 needs to be revisited, said one oil industry person who asked not to be identified to speak openly. Extension of cap and trade and A.B. 197 are in conflict, he said, as the new law tells the state to focus on direct regulations.
"That language isn't something you can ignore," he said. "There is no way that you can in California say we're going to extend cap and trade, we're going to rely on cap and trade, we're going to send signals to the rest of our market partners, and not deal with the [A.B.] 197 language."
Increasing offsets and free allowances would hurt the program because companies pay less and "don't have incentive to reduce their emissions and invest in technologies that reduce their emissions," said Ethan Elkind, a climate research fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.
He said it sounds like a negotiating position from the oil industry as Brown seeks a two-thirds vote for cap-and-trade extension. The trade group might offer to support a bill if it got those changes, he said.
The problem, Elkind said, is that the environmental justice community already dislikes cap and trade. If it sees it as watered down by the oil industry, it would be unlikely to support the measure.
"Then the two-thirds supermajority becomes illusive," Elkind said.
Gary Hughes, senior California advocacy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, called WSPA "a very powerful industry. They're going to play hardball for sure." At the same time, he said, the environmental justice community has gained power in the state.
"It's really a force to be reckoned with," he said. "That's why WSPA and the fossil fuel industry is kind of doubling down."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/13/stories/1060049916
-
61 Percent of Americans Support Current Ozone Standard — Poll
Feb 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
More than three-fifths of Americans back U.S. EPA's current air quality standard for ozone, according to the results of an American Lung Association poll released today.
The poll, taken last month, found that 61 percent of adult respondents supported leaving the current threshold in place, compared with 27 percent who thought it should be rolled back. The level of support remained unchanged even when the pollster mentioned concerns that the standard could harm the economy. While self-identified Democrats were especially inclined to be favorable, a plurality of Republicans also backed the standard, by a 49-40 percent margin.
The survey of 1,003 adults — including 858 registered voters — was taken by the Global Strategy Group from Jan. 12-15. The findings for registered voters had a 3.4-point margin of error.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is created by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight; it can help trigger asthma attacks and aggravate emphysema symptoms.
EPA had adopted the 70 parts per billion standard in October 2015, citing the need to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Since the survey was taken, bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate to delay implementation by eight years (E&E Daily, Feb. 2).
"We're seeing a steady drumbeat of efforts to roll back these standards, so we wanted to get the word out that the public actually opposes these efforts and supports clean air," Paul Billings, the lung association's senior vice president for advocacy, said in an interview this morning when asked why the advocacy group was releasing the results now.
The lead sponsor of the House version of the bill, H.R. 806, is Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas); the measure "is designed to address legitimate concerns from state regulators and job creators as they work to clean up the air in a feasible and practical way," spokeswoman Melissa Kelly said in an email today.
"The air in this country is getting cleaner, and Rep. Olson wants that trend to continue," she added.
Olson had introduced a similar bill last year; after passing the House, it died in the Senate following an Obama administration veto threat.
The lung association, which believes the latest research warrants tightening the ozone standard to 60 ppb, will reach out to the Trump administration but also holds out hope of again blocking the bill in the Senate, Billings said.
Olson's bill has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A companion measure, S. 263, introduced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) is awaiting action by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. As of this morning, neither panel had scheduled a hearing or markup.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/13/stories/1060049966
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested