Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/5/2017
-
Hearing On North American Energy
Jun 7, 2017 | Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere
Location: 2172 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on NRC, EPA Nominees
Jun 6, 2017 | Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing On Energy Technology
Jun 8, 2017 | Energy and Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM. -
Hearing On Transportation Nominee
Jun 8, 2017 | Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Location: 253 Russell / 10:00 AM. -
(ACC Mentioned) Global, Middle East Chemicals Production Rises In April
Jun 5, 2017 | Arabian Oil and Gas
By Martin Menachery
The American Chemistry Council's Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that global chemicals production rose 0.1 percent in April, after a revised flat performance in March, as measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. -
Second Chemicals Rule at White House Keeping EPA on Track
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A final rule describing how the EPA will evaluate chemical risks is being reviewed by a White House office, positioning the agency to show it has done due diligence in trying to meet its statutory deadline. -
EPA Backs Need For 'Consensus' In TSCA Rulemaking
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is reiterating its position that it is not required to pursue a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule limiting reporting on certain substances unless a committee convened to inform the rule reaches a “consensus” recommendation, though the agency is also suggesting there may be some flexibility in how consensus is defined. -
Rules for 37 New Chemicals Aim to Protect Workers, Environment
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will be issuing direct final new use rules for 37 chemicals with workplace controls imposed on at least four, and environmental protection provisions in others. -
Consumer Product Additives Examined
Jun 5, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Consumer products maker SC Johnson and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an advocacy group, have separately undertaken initiatives seeking to limit consumer exposure to potentially harmful additives in consumer products. -
Dow Chemical Can't Shake Dioxin Nuisance Claims
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Dow Chemical can't evade class action claims filed by Michigan property owners stemming from dioxin releases that occurred in the 1980s, a Michigan appeals court ruled (Henry v. Dow Chem. Co., 2017 BL 185577, Mich. Ct. App., 328716, 6/1/17). -
What Our Food & Rocket Fuel Have in Common
Jun 2, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
Why does FDA allow a chemical used in rocket fuel to be used in food packaging? Manufacturers put it in packaging for dry food like baby rice cereal, flour and spices to reduce static. It’s a chemical called "perchlorate"—and it is putting our children in danger. -
4 Energy And Environment Questions As Congress Returns
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
As Congress returns for a monthlong legislative stretch, Cabinet members will make long-awaited appearances, lawmakers and the White House will work to avoid financial crises, tax talks will heat up, and midterm election-watchers will seek clues about who's running. -
Senators To Ponder Trends Affecting Energy Landscape
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E News Daily
By Christa Marshall
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week will examine cost reductions in emerging technologies — an issue in the spotlight after President Trump's announcement to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. -
How New York Is Turning Food Waste Into Compost and Gas
Jun 2, 2017 | The New York TImes
By Emily S. Rueb
New Yorkers already have blue and green bins for recycling glass, metal, paper and plastic. But now brown bins for organic waste are starting to appear all over the city. These plastic totems are part of the city’s multimillion-dollar campaign to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on landfills, and to turn food scraps and yard waste into compost and, soon, clean energy. -
Positive Train Control: Is The US On Track?
Jun 5, 2017 | Railway Thechnology
By Eva Grey
The implementation of Positive Train Control across the US has hit numerous barriers, with rail operators extending their deadlines by three to five years past the initial target. A new report suggests the industry is making progress, but are things moving fast enough? -
USDOT To Provide $197m For PTC Implementation In 13 States
Jun 2, 2017 | Railway Technology
The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) has granted $197m funding for the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) systems in a bid to improve safety before the specified deadline of 31 December 2018. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trudeau Calls Trump To Say Climate Decision A 'Disappointment'
Jun 2, 2017 | Click Lancashire
By Marco Green
"Chemical manufacturers will continue to meet global demand for materials and technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions", the industry group American Chemistry Council said. -
Dems To Hit GOP 'Every Chance We Get' On Trump Exit
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss
Democrats are weighing legislative options for seizing whatever political advantage they can muster over President Trump's decision to exit the landmark Paris climate agreement. -
CEOs, Politicians Unite on Paris Accord, Climate Change
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman and Joe Ryan
Donald Trump's plan to scrap U.S. involvement in the world's broadest deal on global warming may actually have the opposite effect, galvanizing countries, businesses and even U.S. states, to double down on stopping pollution. -
Trump's Plan to Renegotiate Climate Deal Unlikely to Succeed
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman
President Donald Trump's offer to renegotiate the U.S. re-entry into the Paris Agreement or to produce a “new transaction on terms fair to the United States” is probably a non-starter, according to key observers and parties to the Paris deal. -
Paris Rejection Shows Administration's Conflicted Climate Change Stance
Jun 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement is placing administration officials in a politically awkward position of having to explain seemingly conflicting climate policy stances, while refusing to confirm or deny whether officials see climate change as a problem. -
Bill's Failure Doesn't End Effort to Extend California Cap-and-Trade
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Legislation to extend California's cap-and-trade program another 10 years failed in the state Assembly's June 1 session, but efforts to reauthorize the program continue in Sacramento. -
7th Circuit Weighs Dispute On Venue For Suit Over EPA SO2 Designations
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit at recent oral argument weighed whether the court is the correct venue for litigation over EPA's designation for part of Southern Illinois as not attaining the federal sulfur dioxide (SO2) standard, a possible test case for other challenges over the designations process. -
EPA Scraps Appeal Of Air Toxics Review Deadlines Ruling
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is voluntarily scrapping its appeal of deadlines imposed by a federal district court for the agency to complete overdue risk-and-technology (RTR) reviews of 13 air toxics rules for various industrial sectors. -
White House Seen Backing Push To Overhaul 'In-The-Weeds' EPA Policies
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
The White House appears to be supporting states' calls to overhaul smaller “in-the-weeds” EPA rules such as ending a policy permanently subjecting units to air toxics limits and easing paperwork mandates, seeing backing for targeting these less-prominent rules in lieu of calls to undo “big ticket” Obama-era policies, an industry source says.
Congressional Hearings
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
-
Hearing On North American Energy
Jun 7, 2017 | Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, June 7, at 10 a.m. in 2172 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Sarah Ladislaw, director of the Energy and National Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Stephen Comstock, director of tax and accounting policy, American Petroleum Institute; and Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
-
Jun 6, 2017 | Environment and Public Works
Witnesses: Annie Caputo, Kristine Svinicki, David Wright and Susan Bodine.
-
Jun 8, 2017 | Energy and Natural Resources
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week will examine cost reductions in emerging technologies — an issue in the spotlight after President Trump's announcement to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
Witnesses for the hearing were not immediately available Friday evening, although the committee said the focus would be on how recent trends may affect today's energy landscape.
-
Hearing On Transportation Nominee
Jun 8, 2017 | Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, June 8, at 10 a.m. in 253 Russell.
Witness: Derek Kan.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global, Middle East Chemicals Production Rises In April
Jun 5, 2017 | Arabian Oil and Gas
By Martin Menachery
The American Chemistry Council's Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that global chemicals production rose 0.1 percent in April, after a revised flat performance in March, as measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis.
During April, chemical production increased in North America, Western Europe, Africa, and the Middle East but decreased in Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe. Activity was flat in the Asia-Pacific region. The Global CPRI was up 1.8 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis and stood at 109.6 percent of its average 2012 levels in April.
During April, capacity utilisation in the global business of chemistry slipped 0.1 percentage points to 79.9 percent. This is off from 80.7 percent last April and is below the long-term (1987-2016) average of 88.8 percent.
Results were mixed on a product basis during April, with gains in pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals, inorganic chemicals, synthetic rubber, manufactured rubber, coatings, and other specialty chemicals. Considering year-over-year comparisons, growth was strongest in plastic resins followed by coatings and inorganic chemicals.
ACC’s Global CPRI measures the production volume of the business of chemistry for 33 key nations, sub-regions and regions, all aggregated to the world total. The index is comparable to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) production indices and features a similar base year where 2012=100.
This index is developed from government industrial production indices for chemicals from over 65 nations accounting for about 98 percent of the total global business of chemistry. This data are the only timely source of market trends for the global chemical industry and are comparable to the US CPRI data, a timely source of the US regional chemical production.
http://www.arabianoilandgas.com/article-17387-global-middle-east-chemicals-production-rises-in-april/
-
Second Chemicals Rule at White House Keeping EPA on Track
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A final rule describing how the EPA will evaluate chemical risks is being reviewed by a White House office, positioning the agency to show it has done due diligence in trying to meet its statutory deadline.
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted its final rule to the Office of Management and Budget June 1.
The 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments require the EPA to publish the chemical risk evaluation and two other implementation rules by June 22.
OMB has been reviewing a final rule describing the procedures the agency would use to select which chemicals would be high or low priorities for risk assessment since May 23.
The third rule would establish the process by which the EPA and chemical manufacturers would update the TSCA inventory. The amended law requires the agency to update that inventory so it distinguishes between chemicals that are active in commerce and those that used to be.
Keith Matthews, chairman of the American Bar Association's Pesticides, Chemical Regulation, and Right-to-Know Committee, previously told Bloomberg BNA that the EPA's efforts may enable it to meet the law's June 22 deadline or at least allow it to publish the rules so close to the deadline that it could demonstrate it has made a good-faith effort.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113272972&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113272972&jd=113272972
-
EPA Backs Need For 'Consensus' In TSCA Rulemaking
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is reiterating its position that it is not required to pursue a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule limiting reporting on certain substances unless a committee convened to inform the rule reaches a “consensus” recommendation, though the agency is also suggesting there may be some flexibility in how consensus is defined.
Last month, industry members of a panel convened to negotiate a rulemaking that would ease the agency's existing TSCA chemical data reporting rule (CDR) requirements for certain substances argued that the recently-revised TSCA requires EPA to pursue a rule regardless of whether the panel reaches a consensus, though agency staff disagreed.
In a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register June 5, EPA reiterates its stance that its obligation to pursue a rule revising certain chemical reporting requirements is contingent on the panel's achieving consensus. But the agency suggests that the panel could define consensus as something short of unanimous.
“If consensus cannot be reached, and there is no agreement upon which to base a proposal, then there is no further statutory obligation to issue a proposal or a final rule,” EPA says.
But the agency also says that the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996 (NRA) defines consensus as unanimous unless panelists agree otherwise.
“While EPA believes that unanimous concurrence is not an unreasonably high bar, particularly with the assistance of a highly skilled neutral facilitator with expertise in building consensus, the Committee has the power under the NRA to agree to another definition of consensus."
Section 8(a)(6) of the revised TSCA enacted in June directs EPA to convene the negotiated rulemaking committee to address industry concerns about the agency's CDR program, which EPA uses to gather information from the chemical industry about chemical production, sales and uses for risk analyses and other activities.
Past administrations' regulatory updates to the CDR have led to confusion and criticism from the chemical industry, problems that led lawmakers to include the requirement for the rulemaking committee in the updated toxics law.
EPA announced in a Dec. 15 Federal Register notice on the negotiated rulemaking that it is not required to pursue a rule if the committee does not reach a consensus. But during an initial May 9-10 meeting in Washington, D.C., industry members of the panel disagreed and suggested they would seek legal advice to support their view.
While some industry panelists suggested defining consensus as something short of unanimous, such as a large majority, environmentalists, who are outnumbered on the panel, objected to that possibility.
In the new notice, EPA reiterates arguments that the revised TSCA assumes consensus, noting that deadlines for any future rule leave the agency a tight window for weighing public comments. The number of comments would likely be significantly reduced if a panel of interested stakeholders reaches consensus on a proposed recommendation, EPA has said.
Should the agency pursue a burden reduction rule, the notice says EPA must propose the rule by June 22, 2019 and issue a final version by Dec. 22, 2019. The notice also says the panel's five remaining meetings will occur between June and October, and schedules the first two for June 8-9 and Aug. 16-17 in Washington, D.C.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-backs-need-consensus-tsca-rulemaking
-
Rules for 37 New Chemicals Aim to Protect Workers, Environment
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will be issuing direct final new use rules for 37 chemicals with workplace controls imposed on at least four, and environmental protection provisions in others.
The agency posted online an advance copy of the 37 significant new use rules, also called SNURs, with a notice saying they will be published in the Federal Register.
This is the third package of new use rules the agency has published since the Toxic Substances Control Act was amended on June 22, 2016. As in the previous two packages, the agency had completed its reviews of all the chemicals prior to the statute's revision.
The agency issues new use rules for new chemicals it already has determined can enter commerce if manufactured or imported under conditions—workers’ use of respirators, for example—with which the original manufacture agreed to comply. The original manufacturer or importer agreed to those conditions either through its new chemical notice, called a premanufacture notice (PMN), or through its PMN combined with a consent order it signed.
The new use rules impose those same conditions on any other company making or processing the same chemical. Any company wanting to make, import or process the new chemical in a different way must ask the agency whether it can do that at least 90 days before it intends to do so.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113272973&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113272973&jd=113272973
-
Consumer Product Additives Examined
Jun 5, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Consumer products maker SC Johnson and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an advocacy group, have separately undertaken initiatives seeking to limit consumer exposure to potentially harmful additives in consumer products.
SC Johnson, the maker of cleaners such as Fantastik and Scrubbing Bubbles, has disclosed on its website 368 potential skin allergens that may be present in its products. By 2018, the website, WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com, will also list which skin allergens are contained in specific products.
All cleaning products contain potential allergens, the company says. But to reduce the likelihood that sensitive individuals could develop skin redness or a rash, the firm decided to “give families the whole story.”
The list, which an expert panel reviewed, includes both natural and synthetic skin allergens. “In many cases, naturals can have more skin allergens than synthetics,” SC Johnson says. In 2015, the firm revealed fragrances found in its products to allay toxicity fears.
Consumer product firms are being pushed to better disclose ingredients in household and personal care products. Retailers Target and Walmart, for instance, have pressured suppliers on ingredient transparency and insisted that many products be reformulated to remove problematic preservatives such as parabens and formaldehyde donors.
EDF reviewed 16 widely used cosmetic preservatives and concluded that half are skin sensitizers, 11 can cause eye irritation, and 12 are toxic to aquatic organisms. Preservatives it studied include benzyl alcohol, caprylyl glycol, methylisothiazolinone, and propylparaben.
The group’s report, “Smart Innovation: The Opportunity for Safer Preservatives,” calls for the development of preservatives with reduced impact on human health and the environment. “Too few [companies] strive towards innovation that is safer for people and the planet,” the group says.
EDF is also calling for the creation of an independent chemical assessment clearinghouse “that would provide comprehensive, structured, transparent, and comparable health and safety assessments of chemicals in a centralized, web-accessible repository.”
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i23/Consumer-product-additives-examined.html
-
Dow Chemical Can't Shake Dioxin Nuisance Claims
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Dow Chemical can't evade class action claims filed by Michigan property owners stemming from dioxin releases that occurred in the 1980s, a Michigan appeals court ruled (Henry v. Dow Chem. Co., 2017 BL 185577, Mich. Ct. App., 328716, 6/1/17).
The land owners’ negligence and nuisance claims are timely because they were filed within three years of learning that dioxins might have spread to their properties, the court said.
The statute of limitations began running in February 2002 when the environmental department released a notice that there was a possibility of dioxins in the soil of those living in the flood plain, the court said.
Dow argued that the time for filing instead commenced in 1984, when the public became aware of dioxin releases into the Tittabawassee River.
The court also found sufficient evidence of present physical injury for the case to proceed, including the inability of children to play near sites of known or suspected contamination.
The land owners live downstream of Dow's Midland, Michigan operation in the Tittabawassee River flood plain.
Judge Kathleen Jansen wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Michael F. Gadola and Henry William Saad.
Trogan and Trogan P.C. represents the Henrys.
Dickinson Wright PLLC represents Dow.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113272975&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113272975&jd=113272975
-
What Our Food & Rocket Fuel Have in Common
Jun 2, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
Why does FDA allow a chemical used in rocket fuel to be used in food packaging? Manufacturers put it in packaging for dry food like baby rice cereal, flour and spices to reduce static. It’s a chemical called "perchlorate"—and it is putting our children in danger.
It blocks the thyroid from absorbing iodine in the diet needed to make what's known as T4, a crucial hormone that orchestrates brain development. Without the right amount of T4 at the right time, a child's brain simply can't reach its full potential. Public interest groups petitioned the FDA to get this dangerous chemical out of our food—and they refused. So EDF is taking them to what is essentially FDA court, and you have until Monday, June 5th to weight in.
Make your voice heard today: Tell the FDA it is not ok to put the health and safety of America's kids at risk. It's time to get this dangerous chemical out of our food.
https://secure2.edf.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2948
-
4 Energy And Environment Questions As Congress Returns
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
As Congress returns for a monthlong legislative stretch, Cabinet members will make long-awaited appearances, lawmakers and the White House will work to avoid financial crises, tax talks will heat up, and midterm election-watchers will seek clues about who's running.
Here are four questions on energy and the environment:What will Scott Pruitt say?
Congress is certain to hear this month from U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for the first time since their confirmation hearings earlier this year.
All three are due before House and Senate authorizing and appropriations committees to defend President Trump's fiscal 2018 budget. Zinke is already on the agenda for this week (see related story).
Pruitt, a pariah among Democrats for his fierce opposition to the Clean Power Plan, is likely to face bipartisan criticism over a proposal to cut the agency's budget by 31 percent. Both parties have said the plan is dead on arrival.
Pruitt is also likely to get plenty of questions about Trump's decision to exit the Paris climate accord. While Democrats will bash him for his anti-Paris advocacy, conservatives like home-state ally Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) will praise Pruitt.
Zinke will likely face queries, especially from House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), about whether he will recommend the administration revoke or reduce 27 national monuments, including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah.
Zinke will have an ally in Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on a budget proposal to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for energy exploration, but she will likely take issue with other aspects of the spending plan.
Perry, a former Texas governor, has kept a relatively low profile as he has visited DOE sites around the nation hoping to learn about a department he previously admitted to having little knowledge about.
Perry's most pointed questions will come from appropriators over proposals to cut energy research that don't have much political support outside the White House.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member on ENR, will want an update from Perry on nuclear cleanup work at the Hanford Site in her state after a recent leak of radioactive materials there.Is the border adjustment tax dead?
Congressional Republicans and the White House agree they want to move tax reform legislation. But it remains an open question whether a proposal riling the energy community will be a part of the package.
The administration and congressional leaders are likely to accelerate talks over the shape of their tax bill this month as they press toward what seems like a long-shot August deadline.
Lawmakers are sure to note the six-figure digital advertising campaign launched last week by the Koch brothers-backed American for Prosperity that pushes Republicans to move an overhaul without including what's been its most controversial proposal, a border adjustment tax.
The BAT, championed by House GOP leaders, would create a 20 percent tax on imports while exempting exports. Backers argue the policy shift is vital to raising $1 trillion in revenue over the next decade that would allow them to make the deepest cuts in corporate and individual rates since the Reagan years.
Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, however, have suggested the BAT won't fly in their chamber amid concerns it would unfairly hit oil importers and other manufacturers.
Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus have also begun warning that the BAT could sink tax reform. The administration has offered reservations, too.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has signaled some openness in recent weeks to BAT "alternatives," but the man to watch for signs of a deal is House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), who continues to press for the idea.Will Congress skip energy and enviro spending bills?
The White House and Capitol Hill Republicans will be looking for ways over the next several weeks to avoid a politically treacherous fiscal meltdown this fall.
House Republicans are floating the idea of wrapping all 12 fiscal 2018 spending bills into an omnibus package that they would move before August recess.
The decision could help avoid a possible government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. It would also sidestep messy floor fights over attaching riders to individual spending bills, particularly ones covering energy and water and Interior and EPA.
Conservatives could still balk at moving massive spending legislation, and Senate Democrats have the votes to filibuster any omnibus that ignores their funding priorities.
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin surprised many observers recently by suggesting Congress will need to sign off on a clean increase of the nation's borrowing authority, also known as the debt ceiling, before its August recess.
Without an increase, the U.S. would default on billions in loans and risk starting a global financial crisis. But many lawmakers on Capitol Hill thought the increase would not be needed until fall.
Conservatives, including many members of the Freedom Caucus, have come out against Mnuchin's plan, saying they will require at least a framework for future cuts to go along with any debt increase.
Such sentiments echo Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, a former House hard-liner who directly contradicted Mnuchin in comments last week. He also wants spending adjustments.
If the 30 or so members of the Freedom Caucus hold together, they could force leaders to rely on Democrats to pass a debt ceiling increase.
But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that Democrats might not back even a clean raise if the GOP moves ahead with a tax plan that favors the wealthiest Americans.Will Upton run?
Almost six months into 2017, many questions remain about next year's midterm elections.
Former House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) continues to eye a possible challenge to the Great Lakes State's senior Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) next year. It would surely be one of the most competitive and expensive races of the upcoming cycle.
Stabenow is already in campaign mode, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has run pre-emptive online ads against Upton.
The strength of his fundraising numbers for the first half of the year, due on June 30, could offer some hint as to whether he'll pursue the challenge.
So far, no sitting senators have announced they will not seek re-election in 2018, one of the longest stretches in recent history.
The biggest retirement questions surround the future of the longest-serving Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee.
The seven-term senator has danced around the issue, first saying he would retire and then suggesting he was eyeing another run. Hatch, 83, has floated 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as his possible replacement.
Other potential retirees on the Democratic side are: Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, 83; Tom Carper of Delaware, 70; and Bill Nelson of Florida, 74.
All three have said they expect to run and would be favorites to win, but they all have been subject to frequent speculation about those plans changing.
One definite retirement is coming at the end of the month, with House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) leaving Congress.
The House Republican Steering Committee will meet this week to pick his replacement, with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) strongly favored to get the gavel.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/05/stories/1060055487
-
Senators To Ponder Trends Affecting Energy Landscape
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E News Daily
By Christa Marshall
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week will examine cost reductions in emerging technologies — an issue in the spotlight after President Trump's announcement to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
Witnesses for the hearing were not immediately available Friday evening, although the committee said the focus would be on how recent trends may affect today's energy landscape.
Declining costs of emerging energy technologies, whether carbon capture and sequestration or fuel cells, are considered a critical determinant of whether they can break out from being a niche part of the energy sector. The huge jump in light-emitting diodes after 2008, for instance, was helped by a 94 percent plunge in their costs.
In January, the Energy Department concluded in a report that doubling clean energy research could triple greenhouse gas emissions reductions beyond business-as-usual projections.
Current trends are challenging for much of the clean-tech sector. In a report last month, the Brookings Institution reported that U.S. venture capital investments in clean tech declined by nearly 30 percent between 2011 and 2016, and was concentrated in a few industries and large cities.
Additionally, the Trump budget request proposes cutting many of DOE's research programs, including the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy and the Office of Science, which oversees the majority of the national labs. Advocates warn that the U.S. is losing its competitive global edge by allowing federal energy research to collapse since the 1980s (Greenwire, April 5). Many conservatives say that the federal government should shift its focus toward basic energy research.
On Friday, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said that exporting energy technology would be a focus with other countries after Trump's decision on the Paris accord. He did not address the proposed budget cuts.
"We need to export clean coal technology. We need to export the technology in natural gas to those around the globe," Pruitt said at the White House.
Separately, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a field hearing in Alaska on Saturday to examine innovation in microgrids and hybrid energy systems.
Schedule: The emerging technologies hearing is Thursday, June 8, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: TBA.
Schedule: The field hearing is Saturday, June 10, at 10 a.m. in the Cordova Center in Cordova, Alaska.
Witnesses: TBA.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/05/stories/1060055489
-
How New York Is Turning Food Waste Into Compost and Gas
Jun 2, 2017 | The New York TImes
By Emily S. Rueb
City officials hope to divert organic refuse from landfills. Where will it all go?
New Yorkers already have blue and green bins for recycling glass, metal, paper and plastic. But now brown bins for organic waste are starting to appear all over the city. These plastic totems are part of the city’s multimillion-dollar campaign to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on landfills, and to turn food scraps and yard waste into compost and, soon, clean energy.
In the 19th century, the city had a simple method for dealing with organic rubbish: It enlisted scavenging swine to nose through the gutters for leftovers. Now, the city is employing the primal chemistry of decay.
About 14 million tons of waste are thrown out each year. It costs the city almost $400 million annually just to ship what it collects from homes, schools and government buildings (by rail, barge or truck) to incinerators or landfills as far away as South Carolina. (In addition, dozens of private companies put trucks on the road to take away refuse from office buildings and businesses.)
The largest single portion of the trash heap is organics, or things that were once living. That apple core, that untouched macaroni salad, that slice of pizza and the greasy paper plate it was served on are heavy with moisture, which makes shipping expensive. As they decompose, they release methane, a greenhouse gas.Continue reading the main story
Former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg declared food waste the “final recycling frontier” when his administration began its ambitious curbside program in 2013 as the linchpin of the city’s sustainability goals.
That effort has continued under Mayor Bill de Blasio, and the project is on the verge of an expansion that could change how all New Yorkers deal with refuse, and test the city’s ability to manage organic materials on a scale never seen in the United States.
Smaller cities like Portland, Ore.; San Francisco; and Seattle all have mandatory programs. But the population of those three places combined is smaller than Brooklyn or Queens alone.
New York’s residential organics collection program is already the largest in the country: More than a million residents in parts of all five boroughs have curbside service. By the end of next year, officials say, all city residents will have a way to recycle their food scraps and other leaf and yard waste.
On her first day as sanitation commissioner, in 2014, Kathryn Garcia said that she wanted her agency to lead the nation in organics recycling. While businesses are gearing up to use machinery and technologies that will turn food waste into new products, the department has to make sure there are enough facilities (and willing neighbors) to accommodate and sort tens of thousands of tons of putrescible materials.
So how will it work?Picking Up
New York’s dense, vertical landscape makes collection a labyrinthine endeavor. Creating all-new routes just to fetch organics would be expensive and snarl traffic. The city is finding ways to modify existing routes, using trucks with separate compartments for trash and organics.
“Without the citizenry of New York, I don’t think our team could have gotten our program off the ground,” said Ron Gonen, the city’s deputy commissioner of recycling and sustainability during the Bloomberg administration.
To persuade skeptical city officials that New Yorkers would participate, he pointed to the tens of thousands of people already hauling leftovers to collection points in vacant lots, community gardens and farmers’ markets, set up by pioneering composters and groups like the Lower East Side Ecology Center.
In 2013, the city began handing out countertop buckets and large outdoor rolling bins made with thick, chew-resistant plastic and raccoon-proof lids to about 3,000 households on Staten Island.
Last year, about 23,000 tons of orange peels, apple cores and other organic materials were collected from about 300,000 households, 722 schools, agencies and institutions and 80 drop-off points, according to the city. That means about 2 percent of the organic waste collected by the city was diverted from landfills.
The program was adopted in neighborhoods like Park Slope, Brooklyn, with little resistance. But wooing the managers of tall buildings hasn’t been as easy. The trash rooms of large buildings require reorganization and new routines to accommodate organics collection. Porters must carry extra bins to the curb. So far, 774 apartment buildings have signed up, a small fraction of the city’s high-rises.
Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village, the 110-building complex on the East Side of Manhattan that is home to 27,000 people, has signed on. Its management company leveraged the enthusiasm of committed composters and campaigned residents with text messages and emails emphasizing that pest activity would not increase.
Not everyone will have trucks pick up their food scraps or dead leaves at the curbside by the end of next year, especially those in densely populated neighborhoods of Manhattan and the Bronx, unless their building owners apply for the program. To reach those sections, the city is expanding the number of drop-off sites, especially in high-traffic areas near subway stations. It is also experimenting with bin-sharing programs and partnerships with libraries and local businesses willing to adopt containers.Making Compost
The composting process employs billions of microorganisms to break down organics into the essential component of soil called humus. Grass clippings, food scraps and coffee grounds (“greens”) are mixed with dry leaves or branches (“browns”), spread into piles and churned by hand or machine to promote decay. It can take six to nine months for the materials to decompose completely. Compost is known to farmers as “black gold” because it helps plants take root and prevents soil erosion.
The earth has been recycling organics for billions of years. But according to Jean Bonhotal, the director of the Cornell Waste Management Institute, humans have interrupted that circular system by entombing valuable nutrients in landfills and relying on chemical fertilizers.
“Our soils, really, in the whole world, are pretty trashed,” Ms. Bonhotal said.
Paradoxically, for nature to retake its course, human intervention is required. After organics are tossed in the back of a city truck, they are driven to a waste transfer station operated by a private company. (Staten Island’s scraps are taken directly to a composting site in Fresh Kills.) The compostables, which often arrive in plastic bags, are then separated from contaminants before being transported to a composting site or an anaerobic digestion facility, ideally no more than 100 miles away.
Robert Buffolino, the general manager at American Recycling Management, one of six companies paid by the city to manage the bulk of the compostables, has seen all manner of inorganic material come through: pencils, water bottles, phones, even a computer. Schools especially, he said, need to educate their students about what goes in the bin.
“They still have some work to do with that,” he said.
Even utensils and plates marketed as “biodegradable” don’t always break down as advertised. Instead of using fingers and rakes to remove unwanted materials, the city now uses expensive machines to pulverize the material and separate plastics with paddles and centrifuges.
Composting facilities may reject a whole truckload if it isn’t clean enough, sending it to a landfill. There is also the critical question of whether there are enough facilities to process the waste, clean or not.
“There’s definitely enough capacity for what’s collected now,” Ms. Garcia, the sanitation commissioner, said.
“The challenge is moving the program rapidly, but not overwhelming the processing capacity in the region,” she added. “The state does not have unlimited capacity yet.”
The city has only two composting sites that can handle food waste. One is at the jail complex on Rikers Island, and the other is in Fresh Kills, what used to be city’s largest dumping ground.
The majority of the city’s organics will be sent to private facilities in the region. Hauling companies pay composting sites a so-called tipping fee to take in and process materials. For now, about 10 facilities take in the city’s scraps, and the Sanitation Department is meeting with other sites that could assist in the coming year.
Finding enough land far enough from neighbors but close enough to the city is one challenge. And many private composting sites are accustomed to processing farm waste like rotting vegetables, which is somewhat different from handling the Chinese takeout and fettuccine Alfredo that city dwellers toss.
The State Department of Environmental Conservation, which regulates organic recycling facilities, said that by the end of the year, new regulations would allow existing facilities to take in more food scraps.
While the government is counting on private industry to build and operate the processing infrastructure, businesses are reluctant to go into debt without an assured flow of material, said Brian Fleury, a vice president of WeCare Organics, which manages the city’s Staten Island composting site.
“They can’t guarantee a voluntary program,” Mr. Fleury said.
McEnroe Organic Farm in the Hudson Valley, about 100 miles north of the city, is the largest recipient of the city’s feedstock. More than half of the approximately 16,000 cubic yards of finished compost it makes a year is reused on its own crop beds, and the rest is sold for about $48 per cubic yard to farmers and home gardening stores on the East Coast.
The challenges ahead are similar to the ones that recyclers of metals, glass and plastic have confronted over the past three decades: Will residents properly sort their food scraps? Can processors sufficiently clean up what is collected? And will compost be treated as a valuable commodity?Making Biogas
Like the human stomach, anaerobic digestion facilities use microbes to break down organics into biogas, which is primarily methane and carbon dioxide. The same way humans chew to accelerate digestion, machines grind organics into a slurry the consistency of a milkshake, which is fed into a large, airtight tank heated to about 100 degrees, called a digester. What comes out are biogas and a mix of water and solids. The biogas must be refined before it can be put into a utility’s natural gas pipeline, or used as fuel for trucks and buses. It can also be converted to electricity and heat to power homes and businesses.
It might sound like Doc Brown’s harebrained scheme to power his DeLorean time machine in “Back to the Future,” but using leftovers to create energy is now commonplace in Europe. And cities across the United States are following suit, including New York.
Brian Paganini, a vice president of Quantum Biopower, which recently opened a $14 million facility in Southington, Conn., said anaerobic digestion was “the next revolution in recycling.”
Quantum is one of several companies looking at the city’s feedstock.
One upside is that digesters occupy a much smaller footprint than composting fields. But the initial capital costs are much greater. The remaining solids must also be processed or discarded. And like human stomachs, digesters can get upset. It can take several months to calibrate the mix of microorganisms that will break down organics.
“You can’t feed a baby French fries on Day 1,” Mr. Paganini said.
Instead of relying on private developers to build new facilities for the digesters, cities are adapting existing infrastructure: wastewater treatment facilities.
In a testing program that began in 2012, the city is adding commercial food waste to some of the tanks at the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Brooklyn, to generate higher levels of methane gas, a byproduct of wastewater treatment.
Since the pilot began, the plant’s biogas production has increased by as much as 17 percent, according to the city’s Department of Environmental Protection.
For now, most of that biogas is simply burned off, or flared, though some helps heat the plant’s boilers, said Pam Elardo, a deputy commissioner for the department. (While wasteful, excess methane must be flared for safety reasons and to reduce fugitive methane, a greenhouse gas.)
To create usable methane, the utility National Grid plans to build a $30 million system for the plant, which will essentially squeeze out water vapor and carbon dioxide, as well as filter out chemicals and conditioners flushed into the sewer system.
A small group of National Grid customers could be warming their homes with gas made from the plant by the first cold day near the end of next year, the company said.
For now, only a small portion of the city’s food waste is converted into biogas. But there may come a day when sanitation vehicles pick up our leftovers, drive to one of the city’s 14 wastewater treatment plants, process the organics for digestion, then drive a few yards to refuel with compressed gas.
“It would save the city millions of dollars annually,” Mr. Gonen, the former deputy sanitation commissioner, said. “In addition, from a resiliency standpoint, it’s an opportunity to cleanly generate a portion of the city’s fuel and energy needs.”
Mr. Gonen, who now runs an investment fund called Closed Loop Partners, estimates that when the city’s program scales up, anaerobic digestion will cost around $35 to $50 per ton, which is more than composting but about half the average price of burying a ton of city waste in landfills.
What’s Next?
In the year ahead, the department has earmarked $27.7 million to distribute new bins, educate residents and pick up and transport materials.
“Organics processing is not free,” Ms. Garcia said. But when looking at long-term costs to transport and bury trash, she said, “we think this is a much better model.”
One of the most expensive pieces is collection: Each truck must have two workers, no matter how many pounds of organics it carries. Increasing residential participation, which is still relatively low, will be critical to making the overall system more cost-efficient.
One way to do that is to make the program compulsory. The city’s metals, glass and plastic recycling program was mandatory when it was rolled out in 1989. Ms. Garcia intends to keep this program voluntary until more New Yorkers are involved.
The city is also focusing on the commercial sector. So far, about 300 establishments including restaurants, food manufacturers, hotels and stadiums are now required by law to separate organics. More will be added as processing capacity increases.
Other states, like Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont, are phasing in bans on the burial of organics in landfills, beginning with the refuse of large businesses. (Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo proposed similar legislation, which stalled in the New York Legislature.)
In addition to political momentum, social forces could drive the program. Thanks to national campaigns focused on food waste prevention by nonprofits like ReFED and the Natural Resources Defense Council, people today are increasingly conscious about how their food is grown, and where it ends up. About 40 percent of all of food produced in the United States ends up in the garbage, according to a study by ReFED.
“I’m extremely optimistic about where this program is going,” Ms. Garcia said. Still, she said, “We have a lot to learn.”Q. and A.
What Counts as Compostable?
The motto is, “If it grows, it goes.” The Sanitation Department’s guide has a few tips for what to include. Some neighborhood drop-off sites that process food scraps may not take meat or dairy because they don’t break down as readily and can attract rats.
What Do I Do if I Have a Tiny Kitchen?
The city has a small plastic caddy for your countertop, but you can put scraps in any lidded container or bag and store it in the freezer.
When Will I Receive a Brown Bin?
Check the department’s website to find out when your neighborhood will get service. You may not automatically receive a bin if you live in a large building, or above a store. Buildings with 10 or more units, nonprofits and residences along commercial strips can apply for service. To keep bins clean, the city recommends using compostable liners. If stolen or damaged, the city will replace or repair them.
Will I Be Fined if I Do It Wrong?
Not yet. For now, the program is voluntary for residents. “We’re not serving enough of the population to require some and not all New Yorkers do this,” Ms. Garcia said.
Will This Create a Rat Infestation?
The bottom of the bin is actually a few inches off the ground (out of the smell range of rats) and designed to discourage burrowing animals. Because they’re made of thick plastic, it’s more likely that rodents would chew through a trash bag sitting on the curb, said Andrew Hoyles, who manages the city’s outreach teams.
Where Can I Drop Off My Food Scraps?
You can drop off scraps at about 100 sites run by the city, or one of its partner organizations like GrowNYC or The Compost Project. There are more than 200 community operations that will also process food scraps or yard waste locally.
Where Can I Buy Compost?
The city plans to hold several events to give away compost. But you can go to nyc.gov/getcompost to make a request. You can also buy locally produced compost from several community composting groups, like the Lower East Side Ecology Center or Big Reuse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/nyregion/compost-organic-recycling-new-york-city.html
-
Positive Train Control: Is The US On Track?
Jun 5, 2017 | Railway Thechnology
By Eva Grey
The implementation of Positive Train Control across the US has hit numerous barriers, with rail operators extending their deadlines by three to five years past the initial target. A new report suggests the industry is making progress, but are things moving fast enough?
In 2008, a Metrolink commuter train crashed head-on into a freight train in a Los Angeles suburb, leaving 25 passengers dead and more than 130 injured.
The tragedy prompted the US Congress to urgently enact the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which decreed that Positive Train Control (PTC) systems be installed on all main-line tracks before December 2015.
PTC is a safety system that automatically slows down or breaks the train if the engineer misses a signal or goes over the speed limit, thus eliminating the possibility of human error.
Calculated to cost up to $22.5bn during the next 20 years, PTC is the single-largest regulatory expenditure ever imposed on the industry by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR).
A more recent accident in March 2015, which killed eight people and left more than 200 injured, further fuelled the debate on the importance and urgency of implementing PTC across the network.
After an investigation into the incident, the National Transportation Safety Board ruled that the accident was caused by the train's engineer becoming distracted and losing situational awareness – the Amtrak train was running 102mph in a 50mph zone when it derailed. It also said that the tragedy could have been prevented by PTC.
But the initial deadline was missed by a great margin, due to a mix of technological challenges and funding shortages, and has now been pushed to 2018, or even later for some railroad segments across the US.PTC: an expensive, but effective technology
The PTC system is made up of three devices, namely the train's onboard computer, the trackside 'ping' points and the dispatch stations, which all communicate signals between themselves in real-time.
Before heading out on a trip, the train's onboard computer downloads information about the route, so it will know when brakes should be activated and apply them if anything goes amiss.
Although the system cannot prevent all accidents, it drastically increases safety by averting train-to-train collisions, derailments caused by speeding, train movements through misaligned track switches and unauthorised train entry into work zones.
But its implementation proved to be an incredibly complex task.
In a report published just two months ahead of the initial deadline, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned that most railroads did not expect to meet the 2015 deadline, and looked into the most cited challenges with which operators were struggling.
One big hurdle had always been the sheer cost of implementing the technology. ARR estimates that Class I freight railroads will spend more than $9bn implementing PTC on over 60,000 miles and 23,000 locomotives, while commuter railroads will spend in excess of $3.5bn on over 8,300 track miles and 4,700 locomotives and passenger cars.
“Without federal funding available specifically for PTC, rail operators face the prospect of massive costs to meet the implementation deadline in 2015 to the detriment of other necessary capital investments,” stated a whitepaper from the Joint Council on Transit Wireless Communications.
Another critical drawback is the issue of integration: PTC deployment requires various technical components to work together, many of them being ‘first generation technologies’ specifically designed and developed for PTC. The lengthy testing of these components takes time, which slows down delivery. Limitations in radio bandwidth and incomplete radio system requirements also played a big role.
“Interoperability sits upon the foundation of a huge, shared database with information the different railroads need to update and access regularly,” leading PTC expert and ARR consultant Jeff Young, wrote in an editorial.
“This includes information like the precise locations of thousands of railroad switches and wayside signals. This has been an enormous challenge, because rail operators need to keep this information updated even as switch and signal location changes are constantly changing,” he adds.Slow but steady progress
Many railroads, including Amtrak, BNSF and Union Pacific pushed their implementation deadline to 2018, while six of them – Canadian National Railway, Central Florida Rail Corridor, CSX Transportation, Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, Norfolk Southern and Northeast IL Regional Commuter Rail Corp – have pushed it as late as 2020.
Of the 29 selected railroads sampled in GOA’s report in 2015, 20 estimated that they would have PTC fully operational within one to five years after the 2015 deadline, while three stated that they did not have an estimated completion date.
In March this year, FRA released a status update that shows that Class I freight railroads had installed positive train control on 16% of required track as of December 2016. The progress varies significantly between individual carriers, especially since the report takes several aspects into consideration, such as the number of locomotives equipped, radio towers installed, employee training, route miles in PTC operation, and PTC certification.
During the same period passenger lines had made less headway, increasing from 23% of tracks to 24%.
“When railroads realised they would fail to meet the deadline, many threatened to shut down entirely rather than be subject to steep fines and increased liability, prompting lawmakers to extend the deadline in order to avoid a potential shutdown of major cargo and passenger services,” the report reads.
The deadline extension to 2018 also includes a provision under which railroads could petition the FRA for an extra two years to implement the system.
Since 2008, FRA has provided more than $716m in grants for the implementation of PTC systems. For this fiscal year, it announced the availability of $199m in grants to commuter railroads and state and local governments for PTC.
“We continue to closely monitor railroads’ progress implementing Positive Train Control,” said FRA executive director Patrick Warren in a statement, adding, “With less than two years remaining to complete the implementation process, it is imperative that railroads continue to meet implementation milestones.”
http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurepositive-train-control-is-the-us-on-track-5825798/
-
USDOT To Provide $197m For PTC Implementation In 13 States
Jun 2, 2017 | Railway Technology
The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) has granted $197m funding for the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) systems in a bid to improve safety before the specified deadline of 31 December 2018.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have announced the recipients of PTC programme's grant funding, which is authorised under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
FRA and FTA received a total of 27 eligible applications, before ultimately deciding to award the funds to 17 different projects across 13 states.
FRA was responsible for selecting the successful recipients and FTA are now set to award and administer the grants during this fiscal year.
FRA executive director Patrick Warren said: “The number of passengers depending on rail has increased dramatically, which means PTC is needed now more than ever.
“This funding will get us closer to PTC implementation on some of the most significant railroads in the country that transport several million passengers to and from work every day.”
PTC systems have been developed to prevent certain train-to-train collisions, derailments and incursions throughout established work zones.
The solutions are also capable of preventing trains getting routed on the wrong tracks due to mechanical errors.
The allocated grants will be used to install PTC technology comprising back office systems and wayside communications, as well as associated on-board hardware equipment.
FTA executive director Matthew Welbes said: “Millions of people rely on our nation’s commuter railroads and Positive Train Control will help ensure safe and reliable service.
“Today’s announcement means that commuter railroads can move forward with the implementation of an important rail safety feature.”
The programme will see Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) receive $21.68m in order to equip seven Caltrain locomotives with the Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) and Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) PTC solutions.
South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) will be awarded $31.63m to complete the installation of I-ETMS PTC system."This funding will get us closer to PTC implementation on some of the most significant railroads in the country that transport several million passengers every day."
Additionally, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) will receive $18.87m to install I-ETMS PTC systems on two routes for Amtrak, while Regional Transportation Authority (Metra) will get $20.2m for three subprojects on its Commuter Rail Division.
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) will also receive $33.75m to implement the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) PTC system on the Amtrak-controlled section of the Empire Corridor Hudson Line.
Other recipients of the grant include the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Florida Department of Transportation, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Maryland Transit Administration, Missouri Department of Transportation and New Jersey Transit Corporation.
Rio Metro Regional Transit District, Oregon Department of Transportation, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Utah Transit Authority will also receive funding under the PTC initiative.
http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsusdot-to-provide-197m-for-ptc-implementation-in-13-states-5832188
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trudeau Calls Trump To Say Climate Decision A 'Disappointment'
Jun 2, 2017 | Click Lancashire
By Marco Green
He said, "India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries".
He said there are multiple such instances of how the deal favours China and India.
"Very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country, but they'll soon be under renegotiation".
The governors of California, New York and Washington, whose states account for a fifth of USA economic output, pledged to do all they could to stick to their commitments under the deal, the Hill reported.
Why Mr. Trump wants to renegotiate the terms of the Paris Agreement when his views on climate remain murky. "Many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation", Trump told reporters at the Rose Garden of the White House. Nicaragua and Syria never signed the agreement.
But the leaders of France, Germany and Italy said in a joint statement they don't believe renegotiation is possible.
Before he had even finished speaking former US President Barack Obama published a statement urging Americans to "step up and lead the way and help to protect for future generations the one planet we've got".
"The EU deeply regrets the unilateral decision by the Trump administration", he said in a statement. "Chemical manufacturers will continue to meet global demand for materials and technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions", the industry group American Chemistry Council said.
In Rome, Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni said his country should not retreat from its actions on climate. However, Britain responded to the exit call much after the world reacted to it, reported The Guardian.
Google's Indian-American CEO Sundar Pichai said: "Disappointed with today's decision".
John Legend also took aim at Trump for his decision, calling the President "our national embarrassment".
In a statement Thursday, mayors of the world's megacities committed to addressing climate change said that despite the USA move, American cities can continue to play a role in trying to prevent catastrophic global warming. His Canadian counterpart, Justin Trudeau, also expressed his disappointment. "We will also continue to reach out to the USA federal government to discuss this matter of critical importance for all humankind, and to identify areas of shared interest for collaboration, including on emissions reductions". "But abandoning this agreement altogether is a reckless decision that forfeits an opportunity to guarantee a viable future for North Dakota coal, oil and natural gas on the global level". During a 2015 rally, Trump said, "Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and... a lot of it's a hoax".
http://clicklancashire.com/2017/06/02/trudeau-calls-trump-to-say-climate-decision-a-disappointment.html
-
Dems To Hit GOP 'Every Chance We Get' On Trump Exit
Jun 5, 2017 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss
Democrats are weighing legislative options for seizing whatever political advantage they can muster over President Trump's decision to exit the landmark Paris climate agreement.
House Democrats already anticipate at least one resolution related to the Paris deal to be introduced this week as lawmakers return from the weeklong Memorial Day recess, aides said. On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, said last week that he is exploring "legislative workarounds" after Trump's announcement.
Should Republicans manage to produce a budget resolution as promised, it's a safe bet that an assortment of nonbinding amendments and resolutions on Paris will make an appearance. Democrats could also try to force procedural votes in support of the Paris deal to exploit internal divisions within the GOP on the exit.
Democrats and environmentalists say Trump's decision to pull out of Paris reinforces polling that suggests "anti-science" actions by the administration could drive away younger and better-educated independent voters, who may be more alarmed by the administration's dismissal of the widespread scientific consensus around climate change than red-meat conservatives.
"From a politics standpoint, our strongest argument still is 'do you believe in science' and 'do you believe climate change is real,' versus getting to the back and forth of whether or not we stay in Paris," said one senior Democratic aide Friday. "My guess is we'll continue on that tack and just ding them every chance we get on Paris."
However, it's unclear how much staying power the issue may have, given the highly anticipated testimony of former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, and the accelerated pace of the news cycle since Trump became president.
But Democratic staffers said they've been encouraged by the extensive media coverage following Trump's announcement Thursday that he plans to exit the 2015 deal, including endless news reels of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt dodging questions on whether Trump believes climate change is real.
Pruitt yesterday made the rounds of the morning political shows, despite the previous night's terrorist attacks in London, prompting extensive coverage of his repeated refusals to say whether Trump still believes climate change is a hoax.
"I think the president made it clear in that statement that the climate changes," Pruitt told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "And I think what needs to be emphasized here, is that our focus, with respect to the Paris accord, was about the agreement, the efficacy of the agreement as it relates to the environment, how it impacts the economy."
Former Vice President Al Gore, appearing live immediately after Pruitt, noted the EPA administrator "has a difficult job."
"The administration comes off as tongue-tied and confused about the climate crisis because the truth is still inconvenient for the large carbon polluters, and they don't want to stop polluting the atmosphere. It interferes with their business plan," he told Stephanopoulos.
In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," former Secretary of State John Kerry slammed Trump's decision as "an extraordinary abdication of American leadership."
"It is a shameful moment for the United States," he added.
Kerry, who has been active in international climate talks for decades, also derided Trump's claim that he will relaunch negotiations.
"He's going to go out and find a better deal?" Kerry said. "That's like O.J. Simpson saying he's going to go out and find the real killer."
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) appeared to lend credence to Trump's call for a new Paris deal this weekend. "Since it will be four years before the U.S. is officially out, @POTUS could work toward an agreement that could be ratified by the Senate," Corker tweeted. He was spotted leaving the White House in golf attire Sunday.
Democrats aren't taking the call seriously. "It really shows a total lack of awareness of how the agreement is structured and what it actually entails," said one top aide. "It's mind-boggling."'A clear line'
Environmentalists say Trump's decision will boost their efforts to raise the profile of climate change in 2018, including by alienating young, moderate, women and Latino voters.
"Withdrawal from a worldwide climate agreement is an easily understood action that should persuade less politically involved Americans that Trump's agenda is bad for the economy, jobs and public health," said Dan Weiss, a clean energy consultant with longstanding ties to the Washington, D.C., environmental community. "Trump's withdrawal made climate much more salient and draws a clear line between those people who favor action and those who don't."
Environmentalists say that the Paris exit only adds to frustration with other Trump actions, including deep proposed budget cuts to U.S. EPA and the rollback of the Clean Power Plan.
"Looking at our membership and the public writ large, especially since Trump became president, people are just disgusted at what he's doing across the board," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the senior vice president of government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters, last week.
Still, green-minded interests have made similar predictions for years, only to see the House and Senate remain in GOP control. Additionally, Trump vowed to pull out of Paris while on the campaign trail and still won the election.
The responses from GOP leaders showed no signs of any remorse for Trump's Paris exit, which they similarly cast in economic terms.
"The Paris climate agreement was simply a raw deal for America," said House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). "Signed by President Obama without Senate ratification, it would have driven up the cost of energy, hitting middle-class and low-income Americans the hardest."
Trump, said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), "has once again put families and jobs ahead of left-wing ideology and should be commended for his action."
Still, some GOP moderates slammed Trump's decision, including Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a co-founder of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, who called the Paris exit a "strategic mistake that sets us back."
Democrats also highlighted the response to Trump's decision by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who earlier this year was accused of being a climate denier during a town hall meeting (Climatewire, April 17).
Walden's statement sidestepped the substance of Trump's decision and focused instead on the role of technology in lowering emissions.
One Democratic aide called the statement "milquetoast," given that Walden spent the last four years as the head of the House GOP's campaign wing. That fact "is not lost on any of us," he added.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/05/stories/1060055515
-
CEOs, Politicians Unite on Paris Accord, Climate Change
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman and Joe Ryan
Donald Trump's plan to scrap U.S. involvement in the world's broadest deal on global warming may actually have the opposite effect, galvanizing countries, businesses and even U.S. states, to double down on stopping pollution.
The U.S. president June 1 sided with the interests of coal miners, who dig up the dirtiest fossil fuel, as he sought to make good on his election campaign promise to quit the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change.
That put him at odds both with world leaders and chief executive officers of almost every industry on the planet, including oil majors Exxon Mobil Corp. and Total SA; airline owner Sir Richard Branson; and financiers led by BlackRock Inc.’s Laurence D. Fink and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Lloyd Blankfein. With Trump working to boost fossil fuels, the rest said they're determined to keep investing in clean energy regardless of U.S. policies.
“The anger and concern over Trump's withdrawal could soon give way to global resolve,” said Jonathan Pershing, a veteran climate negotiator who served as special envoy for climate change at the U.S. Department of State until Trump's election last November. “The goad of disagreement sometimes can drive coalitions more strongly.”
Even as Trump branded the Paris deal “unfair,” state governors took to social media to confirm their support for the accord. The mayor of Pittsburgh—a Pennsylvania city Trump highlighted as a beneficiary of his decision to turn his back on the global pact—vowed to abide by the Paris Agreement.
California Opposition
California Gov. Jerry Brown departs June 2 for China, where he will urge the world's most populous country and largest car market to take environmental cues from Sacramento instead of Washington. While the Trump administration is seeking to relax fuel-mileage standards for 2022–2025, California is maintaining stricter rules.
“California will resist,” Brown said on a call with reporters. “This is an insane move by this president.”
Even Russia's Energy Minister said he was confident Trump couldn't topple the Paris deal, which seeks to limit global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Russia hasn't yet ratified the Paris Agreement, and many in the government in Moscow view the deal as a threat to their oil and natural gas exports.
“Many countries have confirmed their commitment to the accord,” Alexander Novak, Russia's energy minister, said June 2 at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. “Six G-7 countries maintain the commitment, and so does China. So I think in this case we don't see significant risks of other countries dropping their commitment in a domino effect.”
Solar vs. Coal
While the Paris climate deal was seen as crucial to stopping catastrophic climate change, market forces play a key role in what technologies get new investment. Solar power is already cheaper than coal in some parts of the world. In less than a decade, it's likely to be the lowest cost option almost everywhere, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
European oil majors BP and Total said the transition to lower carbon fuel is inevitable regardless of Trump's decision. Both called for a global carbon price to shift the world away from the dirtiest energy sources and are pursuing more investments in natural gas, which has lower carbon emissions than oil or coal.
“In 20 years, we will not be known as oil and gas companies, but as gas and oil companies,” Total Chief Executive Officer Patrick Pouyanne said at the St. Petersburg forum June 2. “If we want to have the gas, despite the position of president Trump, we need to go to carbon pricing one way or another.“
—With assistance from Jack Farchy, John Lippert, Ryan Beene and Anna Hirtenstein.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113272964&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113272964&jd=113272964
-
Trump's Plan to Renegotiate Climate Deal Unlikely to Succeed
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman
President Donald Trump's offer to renegotiate the U.S. re-entry into the Paris Agreement or to produce a “new transaction on terms fair to the United States” is probably a non-starter, according to key observers and parties to the Paris deal.
Major supporters of the Paris Agreement quickly indicated that they are not open to revisiting the landmark 2015 agreement reached by nearly 200 countries.
In an unusual move, the three largest continental European economies—France, Germany, and Italy—issued a joint statement in the wake of Trump's remarks saying, “We firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies, and economies.”
According to a senior United Nations source, who asked not to be further identified, it makes little sense for the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris deal if its goal was simply to renegotiate U.S. obligations under the agreement.
“Each country's NDC [nationally determined contribution, or pledge for climate action that is part of the Paris Agreement] is established by that country, and a country has the right to adjust its emissions reduction target or its financial commitments,” the U.N. source told Bloomberg BNA. “There is no need to withdraw from the Paris deal and then try to re-enter if that is the goal.”
The source admitted that other countries would have been critical of any party looking to “backslide” on its Paris Agreement targets, “but that is nothing compared to how critical countries are now.”
Formally, the secretariat for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change said it is open to U.S. renegotiations, according to a statement issued following Trump's remarks.
“The secretariat notes the announced intention to renegotiate the modalities for the U.S. participation in the agreement,” it said. “In this regard, it stands ready to engage in dialogue with the United States government regarding the implications of this announcement.”
But as a pact “signed by 194 countries and ratified by 147 countries,” the Paris Agreement “cannot be renegotiated based on the request of a single party,” the UNFCCC said.
Kyoto Comparison
“This idea that the U.S. will renegotiate some kind of alternative is really dead before it gets started,” said Niklas Hohne, a founding partner of the NewClimate Institute, a group that scientifically analyzes climate data. “The Paris Agreement was a culmination of 20 years of negotiation and I doubt countries will be willing to undo that, and even if they did, I don't think Donald Trump is someone who could lead such a charge.”
In 2001, when the U.S. announced that it would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol—the smaller scale predecessor to the Paris Agreement—President George W. Bush also vowed to produce an alternative to the Kyoto document.
That plan never gained traction, and ultimately, it was reduced to a 2002 proposal, which was never implemented, for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per unit of gross domestic product. The U.S. remained the only party to the Kyoto Protocol not to ratify it.
“I think the same thing will happen with the Trump idea of creating a something new or renegotiating the Paris deal,” Hohne said.
The senior U.N. source agreed: “I suspect the talk about renegotiating the Paris deal or creating a new alternative is probably a small concession to the White House figures who had been pushing Trump to stay in” the Paris Agreement, the source said.
Trump's June 1 remarks about renegotiating what he called “a deal that is fair” illustrated that his own commitment to that strategy might be limited. “If we can, that's great,” the president said. “And if we can't, that's fine.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113272959&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113272959&jd=113272959
-
Paris Rejection Shows Administration's Conflicted Climate Change Stance
Jun 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement is placing administration officials in a politically awkward position of having to explain seemingly conflicting climate policy stances, while refusing to confirm or deny whether officials see climate change as a problem.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was asked multiple times at a June 2 White House press briefing where Trump stands on climate change, given his plan to leave the Paris deal, which is considered a landmark effort to prompt coordinated global efforts to address the issue.
“Does the president believe climate change is real and a threat?” one reporter asked. Another queried whether Trump still believes climate change is a “hoax,” a prior statement from Trump that is often repeated by environmentalists to criticize the administration's rollback of Obama climate policies.
Pruitt also hedged about his personal views on climate change, repeating his stance as given during his Senate confirmation process that he questions the precision with which it is possible to measure human impact on the climate.
“That begs the question: What do we do about it? Does it pose an existential threat?” Pruitt said. “People have called me a climate skeptic and denier. I would say there are climate exaggerators.”
He added: “What the American people deserve is a debate, an objective, transparent discussion about this issue.”
But Pruitt sought to avoid discussion of climate science, seeking to pivot to the economic impact of the Paris Agreement, which he said was the primary focus of Trump's decision.
“The discussion that the president and I have had” was about “one key issue: Is Paris good or bad for this country? He determined it was bad for this country” because it “hurt us economically,” Pruitt said. That, he said, is why Trump “made a decision to reject it.”
Even so, Pruitt argued that administration officials would continue “discussions” on global climate efforts. He and other officials also charged that the agreement would yield minimal environmental benefits -- an implicit acknowledgment that reducing greenhouse gases help prevent global warming.
The latter argument focuses on the claim that large developing countries like China and India did not offer sufficiently stringent GHG targets under the Paris deal. Thus, because the agreement would not require meaningful GHG cuts from those countries, it is not worth the cost to meet the United States' tough GHG pledge, opponents of the deal argue.
'Economic Restrictions'
“Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a good deal that punishes the United States, which is what it does,” Trump said during his June 1 announcement in the White House Rose Garden.
Trump and Pruitt both cited a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that they argue finds a 0.2 degree Celsius reduction in global warming if all countries met their national emissions pledges. That's a “tiny, tiny amount,” the president said.
Other MIT researchers have pushed back on Trump's characterization of the report, noting that finding was developed when the Paris deal was still being negotiated and thus did not include all the pledges. An MIT report after the Paris deal was final found the current pledges would result in a reduction of 0.9 degrees C of warming.
Pruitt during the June 2 press conference charged that “even the environmental left” had been critical of the Paris Agreement because it does not yet require enough GHG cuts, “largely because it did not hold nations like China and India accountable.”
However, that argument -- calling for deeper GHG cuts from every country -- runs contrary to domestic efforts to roll back Obama-era climate rules like EPA's Clean Power Plan, and could open up administration officials to charges that they are being hypocritical.
'We Do It Better'
That could also pose a problem for the administration if it seriously attempts negotiations to “re-enter” the Paris Agreement or craft a new global climate deal, as Trump outlined in his speech.
Despite his decision to withdraw, Trump pledged to “immediately work with Democratic leaders to negotiate our way back into Paris under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.”
A White House official told reporters Trump's intent to renegotiate is “sincere.” Trump “wants to figure out: Is there common ground? Is there a place for us to land with our allies and partners [and] with Democratic leadership on these issues?”
Pruitt during his June 2 remarks also suggested the United States would play some role in global climate and energy talks.
“Exiting Paris does not mean disengagement. Paris represented a bad deal for this country, but that doesn't mean we're not going to continue the discussions,” he said.
Pruitt also touted U.S. progress to reduce GHG emissions, saying the country has “taken significant steps to reduce our carbon dioxide footprint.” He attributed the cuts largely to technology and innovation, “the conversion to natural gas.”
Even while touting such “significant steps” to cut CO2 -- with a primary goal to mitigate climate change -- Pruitt refused to say whether human-caused climate change is a concern.
Pruitt also suggested this progress would continue and outlined a role for the United States on the global climate stage where the county can “demonstrate how we do it better here.”
“We need to export clean coal technology, export the technologies of natural gas,” he said, suggesting the United States could help other countries “learn from us.”
“We've led with actions, not words. Paris at its core is a bunch of words committing to minimal environmental benefits that would cost this country a substantial amount of money,” Pruitt added.
However, those statements appear to contradict administration efforts to roll back major climate policies and slash funding for climate science and clean energy research.
Pruitt's claim that the United States would continue “discussions” on climate efforts also suggests that the country would continue to participate in international climate talks and take domestic action to boost low-carbon technologies, even as administration officials refuse to admit whether climate change is a serious issue.
'Learn From Us'
But neither Pruitt nor the White House official appeared concerned that other nations would refuse to engage with the administration in a renegotiation.
“The United States has a seat at the table. After all, we're the United States,” Pruitt said, adding the country still remains a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and is “leading with respect to” CO2 reductions.
“If nations want to seek to learn from us, we're going to share with them,” he added. Those discussions “will occur and should occur.”
And Trump told the Rose Garden audience that the United States would have the “cleanest air,” though he did not say whether clean air efforts would include reducing carbon emissions.
“I will work to ensure that America remains the world's leader on environmental issues. But under a framework that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are equally shared among the many nations all around the world,” Trump said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/paris-rejection-shows-administrations-conflicted-climate-change-stance
-
Bill's Failure Doesn't End Effort to Extend California Cap-and-Trade
Jun 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Legislation to extend California's cap-and-trade program another 10 years failed in the state Assembly's June 1 session, but efforts to reauthorize the program continue in Sacramento.
The 34-39 vote on A.B. 378 demonstrates the challenge Gov. Jerry Brown (D) faces as he pushes lawmakers to reauthorize the carbon trading program through the budget reconciliation process this month. Budget bills require a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate.
Brown wants a bill approved by a super-majority of the Legislature to insulate the program from legal challenges.
“I don't see it happening by the budget deadline,” State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D) said at a May 31 news conference. “It's our hope we can work in concert with the governor and others.” Cap and trade is complex, and “we want to make sure we get it right. Hopefully we can by the end of the year.”
California's moderate Democrats and even the few Republicans who support extension of the cap-and-trade program rejected A.B. 378, largely because the measure sought to link the trading program with measures to control localized air pollution from industrial sources, like oil refineries.
A.B. 378 had broad support from Democrats representing several disadvantaged communities and the environmental community.
The greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program, launched in 2013, is the centerpiece of California's climate policies. Brown considers it a model for other states, jurisdictions and nations that want to tackle climate change. Extending the program would help secure the state's role as a global climate leader, especially as the Trump administration rolls back federal climate policies and steps away from the international Paris Agreement.
Giving up on the cap-and-trade program now would send the wrong message to the world, Brown has said.
California's economywide trading program sets annual caps that decline over time. Industrial facilities including oil refineries, power plants, and distributors of natural gas and transportation fuels comply by either reducing emissions to meet the annual caps or purchasing allowances. Unneeded allowances may be sold in the market.
The informal caucus of moderate Democrats wants a post-2020 cap-and-trade program that preserves the same basic structure of the existing program. Right now the group, known as the New Democrats, is only willing to extend the program through 2025, to ensure continued “legislative oversight and accountability” over cap-and-trade, according to its wishlist for legislation released May 31.
“Over the past several weeks, the New Democrats have had lengthy conversations on components that we believe are fundamental to an all-encompassing, effective response to the threat of climate change,” Assemblymember Adam Gray (D), who organized the informal caucus, said in a statement. “California must continue to lead the world by implementing a strong climate policy that ensures both a healthy environment for future Californians and growth in all sectors of the economy.”
Any bill extending the program must continue to allow the use of carbon offsets and free allowances, the group said. Other must-have provisions on the list call for revenue from allowance auctions to be used to reduce local air pollution and for incentive programs to help upgrade farming equipment and trucks in rural areas.
The group's priorities for extending the trading program align with changes the Western States Petroleum Association, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and other business groups have sought. Like the industry and business groups, the New Democrats want the cap-and-trade program to serve as “the primary method” for meeting the state's ambitious 2030 climate target of greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels.
Extension Needed for 2030 Goal
California's cap-and-trade program is among a suite of climate policies developed under the state's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (A.B. 32). It requires statewide greenhouse gases be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. With that goal in sight, the California Air Resources Board says extending the trading program is crucial to achieving the more ambitious 2030 climate target enacted last year, which requires emissions be cut 40 percent below 1990 levels. The program serves as an important back stop should other climate policies fail to achieve the required emissions reductions, according to the agency.
Business and industry agree cap-and-trade is the most cost-effective strategy to achieve the 2030 target.
The cap-and-trade program “is a fundamentally well-designed program, built on a decade of input from academics, policy experts, industry, environmentalists and the public,” Lynsey Paulo, a Pacific Gas & Electric Co. representative, told Bloomberg BNA in a May 30 email.
PG&E, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., and Southern California Gas Co. are among more than a dozen utilities that want the program extended. “It is an essential and flexible component of the states greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts,” the utilities said in a May 22 letter to the governor and legislative leaders.
CARB's proposed 2030 climate strategy calls for a trading program with cost containment features that permit carbon offsets, the banking of emissions allowances and provide industry assistance, Bill Quinn, vice president of the California Center for Environmental and Economic Balance, told Bloomberg BNA in a May 30 email. These elements “are critical for a successful program” and for one that “won't unduly impact California consumers, ratepayers, and businesses,” Quinn said.
Quinn's organization is a San Francisco-based private, nonprofit coalition of industry, labor and public leaders.
The demise of A.B. 378 shifts attention to S.B. 775, which proposes a major overhaul of cap-and-trade. It seeks to bar the banking of emissions credits, halt the use of credits derived from emissions offset projects to comply with emissions caps, and stop the issuance of free allowances. S.B. 775 also proposes imposing carbon price ceilings, border adjustments from out-of-state competition and using auction revenue to fund infrastructure and return dividends to consumers to offset higher energy costs.And, S.B. 775 is an urgency measure requiring a super-majority vote, as Brown wants.
The bill has garnered strong support from the environmental justice community, but business and industry groups, including PG&E and the California Business Roundtable, oppose the measure as currently drafted.
S.B. 775's proposed reforms even concern longtime supporters of the existing cap-and-trade program including the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, offset project developers, carbon market traders, and several clean energy companies. But other organizations, such as the Coalition for Clean Air and environmental justice groups, back the measure.
The California Business Roundtable, a nonpartisan group of business leaders, is working with other groups, including the Western State Petroleum Association, lobbying for policies to achieve the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals that are “based on strong legislative oversight and accountability.” Climate policies need to balance the state's need to grow jobs and its economy, the organization said May 30.
“California is at a tipping point in terms of striking the right balance with climate change policy and the impact that new laws and regulations are already having on energy costs, which directly affects our cost of living and contributes to California's highest-in-the-nation poverty rate,” Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable (CBRT), told Bloomberg BNA in a prepared statement. “As the conversation over cap-and-trade and other climate policies continue, CBRT will work with other business leaders to provide a rigorous and transparent assessment of the costs, risks and trade-offs of current and proposed state policies that could impeded the efficient, affordable delivery of energy.”
S.B. 775 Proposals Risky
S.B. 775 contains provisions that “erode much of the stability and flexibility currently built into the state's cap-and-trade system,” Ann Carlson, a professor at the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, University of California, Los Angeles, said in a blog post. “It undermines investments that allowances purchasers have made in the current system, and may well decimate the revenue that should be generated from cap-and-trade over the next several years as a result. And it embraces an approach to regulating carbon emissions that shuts out relationships with other states, provinces and countries at a time when global cooperation and relationships should be first and foremost.”
The environmental community, businesses, industrial emitters and offset project developers are meeting with legislators and their staff about S.B. 775, Craig Ebert, president of the Climate Action Reserve, told Bloomberg BNA May 23. “Preserving the way California has designed the program is critical to sending a strong market signal in the state and to the world.”’
The Climate Action Reserve operates a nonprofit registry that verifies carbon emissions reductions of offset projects.
“It's critical that California moves forward with a two-thirds vote on extending on cap-and-trade to meet our 2030 targets,” S.B. 775 author state Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D), chairman of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, told Bloomberg BNA in a May 25 email. “These ambitious targets will be more difficult to achieve, but if we add a carbon price ceiling, climate dividends to protect consumers, and reduce pollution in disadvantaged communities, we can put together a coalition to reach our 2030 goals and S.B. 775 can play a pivotal role in getting us there.”
Local Air Quality Key Concern
A.B. 378's focus on industrial emissions of harmful air pollutants will be part of the negotiations to extend cap-and-trade, Alex Jackson, legal director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's California climate program, told Bloomberg BNA June 2.
It's a two-year bill, so it's dead for this year but can be reconsidered next year,” Teala Schaff, spokeswoman for A.B. 378 author Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D), told Bloomberg BNA June 2.
“Garcia is committed to advancing California's leadership on climate and rectifying decades of neglected in underserved communities, like hers. You will most definitely see it again,” Schaff said of the bill.
Failure Means Direct Regulations
Absent legislation reauthorizing cap-and-trade or even its demise through other legislation, the program could be allowed to expire at the end of 2020. All allowances and offsets emitters hold would have no value, Jon Costantino of Tradesmen Advisors Inc. told Bloomberg BNA in a May 24 email.
“As for other policy paths forward, the 2030 goal is now law,” Costantino said. “So CARB would have to draft a new Scoping Plan to achieve the target. Probably means lots of direct regulations, incentives, other policies, etc. Or a tax. But big changes no matter what if the current cap-and-trade system is scrapped.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113272970&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113272970&jd=113272970
-
7th Circuit Weighs Dispute On Venue For Suit Over EPA SO2 Designations
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit at recent oral argument weighed whether the court is the correct venue for litigation over EPA's designation for part of Southern Illinois as not attaining the federal sulfur dioxide (SO2) standard, a possible test case for other challenges over the designations process.
At argument May 30 in Southern Illinois Power Cooperative v. EPA, et al., the judges heard the dispute over EPA's motion to dismiss the case or transfer it to the D.C. Circuit. EPA argues that the rule at issue, establishing attainment designations for dozens of areas in 20 states, is “nationally applicable” and must be heard in the D.C. Circuit. But Judges William Bauer, Kenneth Ripple and Diane Sykes gave little indication of how they would rule.
Electric utility Southern Illinois Power is challenging a Jan. 18 Obama EPA decision to reject its petition for reconsideration of the July 12, 2016, nonattainment designation for Williamson County, IL. The area surrounds the company's Marion, IL, power plant. The company contests EPA's finding that the plant's emissions cause a violation of the 2010 SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb).
Should the court decide it has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case, that step alone risks a fragmentation of the methods by which different areas are labeled attainment or nonattainment across the country, creating an uneven playing field, EPA argues. Areas designated nonattainment must impose potentially costly pollution control requirements on industry, and as the ultimate sanction can face withholding of federal highway funds for non-compliance.
Department of Justice attorney Dustin Maghamfar, representing EPA, said during the 7th Circuit argument that “the D.C. Circuit is the exclusive forum” for challenges to EPA's SO2 designations rule, which the agency determined to be nationally applicable because it set designations for many states. “There is real practical harm and consequences to having different rules apply to different parts of the country for how you determine their nonattainment,” he said.
If it is easier or harder to be designated attainment in one part of the country versus another, then “that is problematic,” Maghamfar said. Should the court reverse EPA's designation, the method by which it makes that decision would apply “at a minimum” throughout the 7th Circuit -- which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin -- but not elsewhere, potentially creating a patchwork of uneven approaches to designation.
Attorney Michael Showalter, representing Southern Illinois Power, said the case turns on a fact-specific determination concerning a single area of the country, and that “it is not a national thing.” EPA, in effect, grouped 61 different rulemakings on 61 different areas together and labeled them a single national rule, when “there is no findings that demonstrate the factual rationale for why this should be put together."
Maghamfar countered that “EPA begins with a national analytical framework” that is “consistently applied across the country.”
Court's Jurisdiction
The case will test the 7th Circuit's interpretation of its own 1993 ruling in Madison Gas and Electric Co. v. EPA. In that case, the court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a Clean Air Act rulemaking that implemented source-specific determinations under the national Acid Rain program.
Southern Illinois Power says that the case shows why its suit belongs in a regional circuit court of appeals, and Madison gas is “indistinguishable” from its SO2 attainment challenge.
However, DOJ in a May 15 brief said, “This Court viewed the merits dispute in Madison Gas as being limited to the correct facility-specific facts to plug into an established formula for determining the allocation of emission credits. The overall allocation formula itself was not contested in Madison Gas, and the Court did not believe its ultimate decision would affect any issue that could have national implications other than the total amount of emission allowances allocated nationwide.”
But, “In this case, by contrast, while some aspects of the Cooperative’s challenge undoubtedly involve facility-specific facts, the larger and more significant aspect of the Cooperative’s challenge involves the legal and technical framework that EPA used to make air quality designations nationwide. For these reasons and others, Madison Gas is distinguishable,” the brief said.
The judges at oral argument quizzed both sides on the meaning of Madison Gas, and also the Clean Air Act's language making the D.C. Circuit the exclusive venue for rules that are either nationally applicable or which have “nationwide scope of effect.”
One judge, who could not be identified from an audio recording of the argument, noted that “the statute puts the focus on the regulation,” and whether that is nationally applicable, rather than the specifics of the petitioners' complaint, which challenges only the particulars of a local nonattainment designation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/7th-circuit-weighs-dispute-venue-suit-over-epa-so2-designations
-
EPA Scraps Appeal Of Air Toxics Review Deadlines Ruling
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is voluntarily scrapping its appeal of deadlines imposed by a federal district court for the agency to complete overdue risk-and-technology (RTR) reviews of 13 air toxics rules for various industrial sectors.
In a June 2 motion to dismiss filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, et al, v. Scott Pruitt, EPA without explanation drops its recently filed appeal of the March 22 order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia setting a deadline of June 30, 2020, for EPA to complete the 13 overdue RTR rules.
It is unclear what prompted the agency to seek voluntary dismissal of the case. Environmentalists involved in the suit did not return calls for comment by press time, and an EPA spokeswoman said only that, “EPA does not comment on ongoing litigation.”
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the agency to review its existing air toxics rules for individual sectors eight years after their implementation to assess whether threats to human health remain from a sector's emissions, or whether new air toxics control technology exists that can further cut emissions. EPA can either leave the rules in place or, if it decides the answer to either question is affirmative, it can revise the air toxics standards.
The district court's ruling came just days after it issued a similar order in California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT), et al. v. EPA. In that order, the court set deadlines for issuance of 20 RTR rules, which combined with the Blue Ridge decision brings to 33 the number of such rules EPA must now issue on a court-ordered schedule that in several instances will be faster than EPA otherwise suggested.
The 13 industry sectors for which EPA must conduct RTRs under the March 22 order are: printing, coating, and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles; surface coating of metal furniture; surface coating of large appliances; leather finishing operations; surface coating of wood building products; friction materials manufacturing facilities; rubber tire manufacturing; wet-formed fiberglass mat production; taconite iron ore processing; lime manufacturing plants; iron and steel foundries; plywood and composite wood products; and miscellaneous coating manufacturing.
The 20 air toxics rules covered by the CCAT court order are: solvent extraction for vegetable oil; boat manufacturing; surface coating of metal coil; cellulose products manufacturing; ethylene production; paper and other web coating; municipal solid waste landfills; hydrochloric acid production; reinforced plastic composites production; asphalt processing & roofing manufacturing; integrated iron & steel manufacturing; engine test cells/stands; site remediation; miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing; surface coating of metal cans; surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products; organic liquids distribution; stationary combustion turbines; and surface coating of plastic parts and products; surface coating of automobiles & light-duty trucks.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-scraps-appeal-air-toxics-review-deadlines-ruling
-
White House Seen Backing Push To Overhaul 'In-The-Weeds' EPA Policies
Jun 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
The White House appears to be supporting states' calls to overhaul smaller “in-the-weeds” EPA rules such as ending a policy permanently subjecting units to air toxics limits and easing paperwork mandates, seeing backing for targeting these less-prominent rules in lieu of calls to undo “big ticket” Obama-era policies, an industry source says.
While much attention on comments in response to President Donald Trump's deregulatory executive orders (EO) has focused on challenges to landmark rules such as the Clean Power Plan greenhouse gas standards for power plants and Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, the source suggests lesser-known rules could be more viable targets for the regulatory reform push -- particularly a slew of administrative and other regulations that states have identified.
The industry source says that stakeholders who heard from administration officials were surprised they were interested in hearing state and local concerns beyond “some of the high profile/big ticket items” and “wanted to hear from co-regulators on more technical, in-the-weeds examples of burdensome regulations.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt established a regulatory reform task force to assess potential regulations that could be subject to Trump's EO 13777, which calls for agencies to establish regulatory reform task forces to review existing rules to “repeal, replace or modify”; and EO 13771, better known as the “two-for-one” order that requires agencies to repeal two existing rules for every one new rule and meet a $0 net regulatory cost target.
The agency's air, water, toxics and other divisions held a series of meetings to seek input on rules that could be subject to the regulatory reform effort, and also took written comment through May 15.
In comments, groups such as the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) -- representing many state environmental agencies -- identified rules and policies across the spectrum of EPA authority for overhaul and, in most cases, eliminating entirely, due to overlapping state requirements.
ECOS and others, in their comments, addressed a wide range of major rules and less-prominent policies, including the Clean Water Act (CWA)'s sewage overflow requirements, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits and the CWA jurisdiction rule, to the Clean Air Act's “Once in, Always in” air toxics policy and its maintenance area monitoring requirements, to a host of Superfund rules and regulations.
The industry source says Pruitt and his task force “were very interested in hearing from state, local, and tribal agencies on their priorities for regulatory reform,” and said some of the interest was likely due to Pruitt's “interest in animating cooperative federalism,” which he has called a priority during his tenure.
Cooperative federalism in this context refers to the balance between EPA and state authority over environmental regulation, and Pruitt has said he wants to return more of that power to states.
'In-The-Weeds' Rules
The administration might now look to the “in-the-weeds” rules identified by states as a priority under the reform push, the industry source says. “We have heard directly from the Regulatory Reform Task Force and the White House on their interest in hearing/addressing some of the key regulations identified by state, local, and tribal governments, so we are hopeful that some of the weedier suggestions may be considered,” the source says.
The source says states and industry groups concur with the administration that addressing environmental rules through EO 13777 is a “key opportunity to weigh in at the intersection of several interagency processes,” particularly after the Department of Commerce received what the source called “relatively limited responses” to its request for comments on the impact of federal permitting requirements on domestic manufacturing.
The “technical regulatory actions” that the source says states identified and would likely be “welcome suggestions” to the administrative officials -- and more easily addressed under the EO -- include the Clean Air Act's “Once In, Always In” policy as well as general “paperwork, reporting or permitting requirements.”
The “Once In, Always In” policy currently requires sources subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) thresholds to always be subject to the same MACT standard, regardless of whether they reduce their emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). States say this policy fails to encourage additional air toxics reductions if facilities know they can never avoid MACT regulation even if they cut their emissions.
The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, for example, said in comments that reconsidering this policy would “reduce administrative and reporting burdens,” but says it must be “contingent upon the pollution prevention measures being permanent and enforceable through permit conditions.”
The Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies echoed this request, arguing that the current policy “can unfairly limit the abilities of subject sources to make modifications or operate in a competitive market.”
As part of the regulatory reform push, the industry source says the administration also welcomes technical suggestions that target repeal of “paperwork, reporting and permitting” requirements.
ECOS in its comments mentioned requirements, such as the Superfund program's cooperative Agreements for Superfund Response Actions in state contracts, arguing in part that state staffs already do much of the work on these grants and agreements, and detailed reports are “burdensome.”
The Western Governors' Association, in addition to recommendations to “clarify key enabling statutes” -- CWA, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund -- asked in its comments that EPA “recognize states' exclusive authority” over a variety of permitting programs, such as state water quality standards and setting Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), avoiding duplication of state programs, and publish “timely guidance” for states, particularly in implementing the stricter 2015 ozone ambient air standard.
States' Suggestions
Other state environmental agencies, such as South Carolina and Ohio, asked EPA to reexamine its Title V operating permit program for emissions. The Ohio EPA, in its comments, pointed out that EPA has yet to respond to a 2006 task force report in which stakeholders gave input on the program and identified “much-needed improvement” to the permit system. Both states also asked EPA to examine how it expects states to “demonstrate compliance” with its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program standards for nitrogen oxides.
“It is an unreasonable burden and complete waste of resources to continue to demonstrate compliance with requirements that no longer have a real impact on air quality, as they have been effectively superseded by more stringent rules,” the Ohio EPA writes in its May 15 comments.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/white-house-seen-backing-push-overhaul-weeds-epa-policies
Congressional Hearings
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