Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/12/18
-
Formaldehyde Rule Court Date Postponed
Jan 11, 2018 | Woodworking Network
By Karen M. Koenig
The federal district court hearing on motions challenging EPA's authority to extend the Formaldehyde Rule compliance deadlines has been postponed until Jan. 26. -
A Federal Court Gets Opportunity to Weigh In on Prop 65 With a Little Help from Some Friends
Jan 12, 2018 | Lexology
By Daniel J. Herling
Much of the recent discussion regarding Prop 65 has been focused on the regulatory changes going into effect in August of 2018. -
EU to Strictly Limit, but Still Allow, Bisphenol A in Food Cans
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union in September is expected to reduce by more than 90 percent the allowable amount of the synthetic compound bisphenol A (BPA) in can linings and other food-contact coatings, but lawmakers voted Jan. 11 to reject a bid to ban the substance outright. -
U.K. Releases Post-Brexit Chemical Plan
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The U.K.'s new 25-year environmental plan includes a strategy to make sure that chemicals are used safely. -
UK Promises Post-Brexit Chemicals Strategy That Reflects Future Relations With EU
Jan 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The UK says it will publish an "overarching" chemicals strategy to tackle "chemicals of national concern" for when the country leaves the EU in March 2019. -
Plastics Trade Groups Call For Mutual Acceptance Of REACH After Brexit
Jan 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Two European and UK plastics industry associations have called on the EU and British government to ensure the mutual acceptance of REACH after Britain leaves the EU in 2019. -
A New Era of Batteries Spells Trouble for Natural Gas
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak
California, the state that helped birth the global boom in battery-toting electric vehicles, is trying to spark a similar transformation for utilities. And that spells trouble for power plants all across the U.S. that run on natural gas. -
Bill Would Ban Development Off New England
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
Most of the New England congressional delegation introduced legislation yesterday to bar offshore drilling along their region's coastline. -
House Dems Want Answers On BLM Fracking Rule Rollback
Jan 11, 2018 | E&E Grenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Two House Democrats want answers on the Trump administration's decision to ax Obama-era hydraulic fracturing standards. -
CITGO on Losing End of Louisiana Toxic Spill Appeal
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
CITGO Petroleum Corp. is on the hook for damages caused to 22 plaintiffs injured by a flood-related oil and wastewater spill, a Louisiana appeals court ruled Jan. 10. -
House Dems Introduce Train Safety Bill After Deadly Amtrak Crash
Jan 11, 2018 | The Hill
By Mallory Shelbourne
House Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation meant to accelerate the implementation of a key train safety feature, a move that follows December’s deadly Amtrak derailment in Washington state. -
Port Ends Lease on Tesoro-Savage Crude-by-Rail Terminal
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
The clock is ticking toward the likely demise of the Tesoro-Savage joint venture to build an oil terminal on the Columbia River after the Port of Vancouver, Wash., commission voted unanimously to terminate the lease for the site unless all necessary permits are in hand by the end of March. -
100 Lawmakers Ask Trump To Reconsider Security Strategy
Jan 11, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
A bipartisan group of more than 100 House lawmakers yesterday asked President Trump to reconsider omitting climate change from the list of security threats in his first National Security Strategy. -
EPA Air Chief Leaves Door Open To Uncertain Rule Review Outcomes
Jan 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Newly confirmed EPA air chief Bill Wehrum is outlining an ambitious 2018 agenda, including completing reviews of six high-profile Obama-era rules and policies that the Trump administration is seeking to roll back. But in an interview with Inside EPA, he emphasized the agency is still weighing a host of options, leaving open the possibility that the reviews could result in uncertain outcomes and upend expectations for where the agency may land. -
Ewire: Maryland's GOP Governor Takes On Trump's Climate Rollback
Jan 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
Maryland's Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who is running for re-election in one of the country's most Democratic states, is emerging as one of the most high-profile GOP opponents of Trump administration efforts to roll back Obama-era climate policies -- and his climate stances appear to be bolstering his political prospects, for now. -
3rd Circuit Sets March Argument For Interstate Air Petition Suit
Jan 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has set a March 6 date to hear oral argument in Delaware's challenge to EPA's delay in responding to the state's petition seeking direct regulation of a Pennsylvania power plant, as the First State presses several such petitions to address out-of-state air pollution. -
Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Answer Coal Boss’ Wish List
Jan 11, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
This week, federal regulators rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to require the use of electricity from failing coal and nuclear plants, even when cheaper sources are available.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Formaldehyde Rule Court Date Postponed
Jan 11, 2018 | Woodworking Network
By Karen M. Koenig
WASHINGTON, DC - The federal district court hearing on motions challenging EPA's authority to extend the Formaldehyde Rule compliance deadlines has been postponed until Jan. 26. Originally scheduled for Jan. 12, the postponement is due to scheduling conflicts for the government’s counsel.
The lawsuit, filed Oct. 31, 2017, by the Sierra Club and A Community Voice-Louisiana, which is represented by Earthjustice, claims EPA acted "arbitrarily, capriciously" and without authority when it granted panel producers a one-year extension for compliance to TSCA Title VI, also known as the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products. The original compliance date was Dec. 12, 2017.
As it currently stands, panel producers of particleboard, MDF and hardwood plywood have until Dec. 12, 2018, for compliance with emissions standards, recordkeeping and labeling requirements. Fabricators of finished products, such as cabinetry, furniture and casegoods, also must source TSCA Title VI compliant composite wood and meet all recordkeeping and finished goods labeling requirements by that same date.
Click here to read "What the EPA Formaldehyde Rule means to you." a quick reference guide produced by the Composite Panel Association (CPA).
In EPA's reply to the plaintiff's (Sierra Club and Earthjustice) opposition to its cross-motion for summary judgment, EPA noted the groups failed to "present any argument in support of their allegation that the rulemaking is arbitrary and capricious," and that plaintiffs waived their right to challenge EPA's authority by their failure to comment on the proposal to extend the compliance dates.
Various industry associations have also submitted briefs in support of EPA's deadline extension, with the Composite Panel Association noting "the devastating impacts that would result if the court were to vacate the Environmental Protection Agency’s one-year extension of the Formaldehyde Rule’s compliance deadline." Papers filed on behalf of the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association, International Wood Products Association and National Association of Home Builders also note "this lawsuit risks disrupting a global supply chain that provides cabinets, floors, furniture, homes and other necessities to millions of Americans."
Lawyers representing the associations are expected to be in attendance. The federal district court in Oakland, California is scheduled to hear the motions.
On its website, compositepanel.org, the CPA also has provided some frequently asked questions and answers on the topic.
https://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/formaldehyde-rule-court-date-postponed
-
A Federal Court Gets Opportunity to Weigh In on Prop 65 With a Little Help from Some Friends
Jan 12, 2018 | Lexology
By Daniel J. Herling
Much of the recent discussion regarding Prop 65 has been focused on the regulatory changes going into effect in August of 2018. And that makes sense since there will be significant changes to the warnings, responsibility, and labeling obligations on product websites. There is, however, other activity that may result in a more profound change as to which chemicals require Prop 65 warnings. As we have discussed in the past (see prior post here), there has been litigation in California state court addressing the appropriateness of adding the pesticide ingredient Glyphosate to the Prop 65 list.
Specifically, a CA Superior Court in Fresno rejected Monsanto’s claim that Glyphosate had no business being on the list because the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) as well as the U.S. EPA and other regulators had determined that Glyphosate had not been found to increase the risk of cancer. Despite this development, OEHHA decided to list the chemical and supported this decision on the grounds that in 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that Glyphosate is a “probable” carcinogen. Monsanto has appealed the Superior Court ruling, but meanwhile the California Supreme Court refused to stay the obligation of Glyphosate manufacturers to warn under Prop 65 and so those warnings were required as of July 7, 2017.
While the-above summarized State court action appeal is pending, a Federal action (Nat’l Ass’n of Wheat Growers, et al. v. Zeise, et al., No. 2:17-cv-02401WBS) was commenced in the Eastern District of California in November 2017. Plaintiffs, a self-described national coalition of farming interests, food producers, Glyphosate manufacturers, and others (e.g., the Missouri Chamber of Commerce) came together to claim that California, through its mandate of requiring Prop 65 warnings on products that contain listed chemicals – despite as argued in the Monsanto case, that the required warning is factually wrong – has violated and continues to violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Plaintiffs argue (1) that the First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling individuals or entities to engage in speech; and (2) that the Supremacy Clause requires State laws that conflict with Federal laws to be preempted. Because Glyphosate is a herbicide, its labeling is governed by certain Federal regulations implemented and enforced by the EPA. They have requested that the Federal court declare OEHHA’s action to be improper and enjoin OEHHA from continuing to list Glyphosate as a chemical that requires a Prop 65 warning.
Senior Judge William B. Shubb has ordered the parties appear for a hearing on February 20, 2018 to argue the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Judge Shubb also granted a petition of 11 State Attorneys General (representing Missouri, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin – and it should be noted that all but the Iowa Attorney General are Republications, but Iowa is a major producer of corn) to file a friend of the court brief in the case. In that amicus brief, the Attorneys General, led by Missouri, pointed out that California’s Prop 65 mandated warnings impede the duty of States to protect their own citizen-consumers as well as States’ economic freedoms to stimulate growth as local policymakers see fit.
It has long been the complaint of businesses not directly selling into California that the Prop 65 warning requirement on their products is fundamentally unfair. The Attorneys General amicus brief also supports these business concerns by explaining:
“The mandate [Prop 65 warnings] undermines consumer-protection laws passed by other States because it requires nonresident businesses to label products with false, misleading information, contrary to the consumer-protection policies of other States. The requirement encroaches on the equal sovereignty of other States and threatens to inflate food prices for all Americans, especially the neediest, without any plausible justification.
The First Amendment injuries identified by Plaintiffs are heightened because they adversely impact the sovereign interests of other States in at least two ways. First, by requiring false or misleading statements about glyphosate products, California’s speech mandate imposes confusing and potentially inconsistent obligations on nonresident businesses that are bound by other States’ consumer-protection laws not to make false and misleading statements about their own products. Second, the speech mandate impairs consumer-protection efforts of the States that require sensible health-and-safety disclosures by contributing to the well-known phenomenon of disclosure fatigue.”
Proposition 65, routinely criticized for its overbreadth, is the quintessential example of a regulation that causes disclosure fatigue.
The Attorneys General further assert that studies have confirmed what common sense dictates: the more ubiquitous disclosures become, the less effective they are.
Because many businesses cannot readily separate California-bound products from other products, the Prop 65 warning mandate encourages those businesses that do not withdraw entirely from California markets to place the required disclosure on all merchandise, regardless of the ultimate destination. That torrent of additional disclosures in States outside California decreases the efficacy of disclosures already required by those States. When disclosures become the rule, not the exception, consumers tend to ignore them. An otherwise useful tool becomes transformed into nothing more than irritating ambient noise. By providing a strong incentive to print misleading, unnecessary disclosures on products sold in other States, California’s regulation dilutes the effectiveness of other States’ mandated disclosures and undermines consumer-protection efforts in those States.
The amicus brief also argues that by creating a regulation with such a broad adverse economic reach, California has twisted the effect of the consumer-protection laws of other States. The Prop 65 regulation deprives those States of their powers to promote the general welfare of their citizens and therefore encroaches on their sovereignty.
Not all Prop 65 chemicals have the same issues that exist with Glyphosate and the axiom that “bad facts make bad law” may come into play here, such that any ruling by the Federal court may be narrow and will certainly be appealed. Notwithstanding that likelihood, the trial court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction motion will be important and perhaps a first step in getting both the California courts and legislature to take a hard look at where Prop 65 has serious flaws and requires a major overall.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=27c37fc1-db5b-4f9c-9423-4b61f8f60d33
-
EU to Strictly Limit, but Still Allow, Bisphenol A in Food Cans
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union in September is expected to reduce by more than 90 percent the allowable amount of the synthetic compound bisphenol A (BPA) in can linings and other food-contact coatings, but lawmakers voted Jan. 11 to reject a bid to ban the substance outright.
The European Parliament's environment committee voted 47 to 17, with one abstention, against an objection to the plan to amend a 7-year-old law setting new limits for BPA in can linings and other materials that come into contact with food.
The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, proposed the measure last August.
The regulation will cut the “specific migration limit,”—or maximum permitted amount of BPA that can leach into food—to 0.05 milligrams per kilogram of food. A 2011 EU law on food contact materials now allows a BPA migration limit of 0.6 mg/kg.
Failed Bid to Ban BPA
A regulatory committee of EU member country representatives approved the draft regulation in September 2017, but a group of European Parliament lawmakers from across the political spectrum sought to block the regulation on the grounds that BPA should be banned from all food packaging.
According to the lawmakers’ draft European Parliament resolution—which the environment committee rejected Jan. 11—BPA can disrupt the human hormone system and damage “the reproductive function, mammary gland development, cognitive function and metabolism.”
France has banned BPA in all food contact materials since 2015.
The EU already places limits on the use of BPA, including a ban on the substance in polycarbonate infant feeding bottles. The substance is manufactured in, or imported into, the EU in volumes of up to 10 million metric tons per year, mainly for the production of polycarbonate plastics, according to European Chemicals Agency data.
By allowing continued use of BPA in food contact materials, lawmakers were “failing in their responsibility to protect people's health,” said Natacha Cingotti, chemicals policy officer with campaign group the Health and Environment Alliance.
BPA “should already have been banned from all consumer products a long time ago” because it causes adverse health effects even at very low doses, she said.
The draft regulation on BPA is expected to be formally adopted in February and take effect in September, European Commission spokeswoman Anca Paduraru told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 11.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126726304&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126726304&jd=126726304
-
U.K. Releases Post-Brexit Chemical Plan
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The U.K.'s new 25-year environmental plan includes a strategy to make sure that chemicals are used safely.
Released on Jan. 11, “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment”also spells out a sweeping plan to, among other things, eliminate plastic waste, increase woodlands and meadows, and reduce water pollution.
“It's a national plan of action, with international ambitions,” Prime Minister Theresa May said in a speech.
The plan provides a basic outline to tackle “chemicals of national concern” and specifies the need for a cost-effective and common-sense approach to minimizing the risk of chemical contamination in water.
“The Plan looks forward to delivering a Green Brexit—seizing this once-in-a-lifetime chance to reform our agriculture and fisheries management, how we restore nature, and how we care for our land, our rivers and our seas,” the executive summary said.
Chemical Regulation Goals and Targets
This new strategy calls for publishing a chemicals strategy that sets priorities, as well as actions and details on how to achieve goals.
This includes collaborative work on a human biomonitoring program, including an “early-warning system” for identifying emerging chemical issues and improving the way chemicals are tracked across supply chains.
Specifically, the government also sets a timetable for the elimination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by 2025, in line with commitments under the Stockholm Convention.
PCBs were banned in the U.K. in 1986 amid fears about their toxicity. But while industry has stopped using PCBs, millions of tons remain in circulation, leaking from things like old electrical devices and hazardous waste sites.
The plan also specifies reducing land-based emissions of mercury to air and water by 50 percent by 2030. It calls for substantially increasing the amount of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) material destroyed by 2030 “to make sure there are negligible emissions to the environment.”
International Frameworks
The report says the U.K. is committed to protection for consumers, workers, and the environment in future trade agreements.
This would involve “playing a leading role” in developing goals for international chemical management beyond 2020. This could be achieved, the plan states, by using international frameworks such as the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), a voluntary stakeholder network for managing chemicals sustainably.
The government calls for supporting international efforts to develop effective chemical and waste management regimes “and thus facilitate existing and future trade whilst minimising the risk of adverse effects from harmful chemicals and wastes.”
Another objective is to develop methods to identify substances of concern.
“We will use existing multilateral environment agreements, such as the Stockholm and Basel Conventions to ban and restrict chemicals of global adverse impact and develop guidelines to support safe movement of hazardous waste internationally,” the report said.
Concerns From Environmental, Trade Groups
Environmental groups criticized the plan for failing to deliver enforcement legislation and for the lengthy timescales for implementation.
“Encouraging more water fountains, extending charges on plastic bags and funding for innovation can all be part of the solution, but the overall plastics plan lacks urgency, detail and bite,” said Louise Edge, senior oceans campaigner at Greenpeace U.K.
Two plastics industry trade associations have called on the EU and the British government to ensure the mutual recognition of the EU's REACH regulations for chemicals after Britain leaves the EU in 2019.
In a joint statement, the British Plastics Federation and the European Plastics Converters said that the risks of an uncontrolled “hard Brexit” would be bad for business on both sides of the channel, possibly including the specter of new customs duties and other non-tariff obstacles, such as regulatory barriers or custom checks.
“Any of those barriers would have negative impacts on the highly integrated plastics converting industry,” the statement said.
Therefore, it said, a temporary or permanent agreement should include the confirmation of duty-free trade between the EU countries and the U.K., efficient customs procedures, and “mutual recognition of regulatory procedures and standards, especially REACH regulation.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126726308&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126726308&jd=126726308
-
UK Promises Post-Brexit Chemicals Strategy That Reflects Future Relations With EU
Jan 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The UK says it will publish an "overarching" chemicals strategy to tackle "chemicals of national concern" for when the country leaves the EU in March 2019.
The promise is included in a 150-page document, A green future: our 25 year plan to improve the environment, which sets the government’s long-term environment goals.
The UK environment ministry told Chemical Watch the timetable for the chemicals strategy will be developed "in light of the progress of negotiations with the EU", so that the strategy "can incorporate priorities for our domestic regulation and reflect our future relationship with the EU".
Many of the document's objectives for chemicals relate tackling pollution and to the UK's obligations under UN treaties. Any information about how the government intends to interact with EU chemicals legislation – the elephant in the room – is noticeably absent.
The environment plan, launched by prime minister Theresa May (pictured) at London's Wetland Centre, says the UK will look into options to consolidate human biomonitoring and horizon-scanning work to develop an "early warning system for identifying emerging chemical issues". Whitehall will also assess how to address tracking of chemicals in products to "reduce barriers" to recycling and reuse while preventing risk from harmful chemicals.
The government intends to tackle risks from chemical contaminants in English waters, including groundwater, and make sure that levels entering fresh water bodies (which may be transported to coasts and seas) do not increase or generate pollution.
It will work with stakeholders, including water companies, to develop a roadmap for individual chemicals, or groups thereof, that takes account of planning timelines for chemical regulation and river basin management.
The UK says its approach of restricting of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in home products, has led to a decline in emissions.
"We plan to carry on enforcing source control restrictions on harmful products and requiring water companies to monitor trends in their treated effluents," it says. The government will encourage stakeholders to "take ownership of problems" – a possible tilt towards deregulation – and expects them to take an active role in seeking and adopting solutions to contamination by chemicals of emerging concern.Global collaboration
The report says the UK will seek to maintain a high standard of protection for consumers, workers and the environment in its future trade agreements by helping develop goals for international chemical management beyond 2020 – working under international frameworks such as the Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management (Saicm) to set long-term goals.
It will also, it says, support countries to develop effective chemical and waste management regimes "and thus facilitate existing and future trade while minimising the risk of adverse effects from harmful chemicals and wastes".
Another objective is to develop methods to identify substances of concern. Existing multilateral agreements, such as the UN Stockholm and Basel Conventions, will be used to ban and restrict chemicals of global adverse impact and develop guidelines to support the safe global movement of hazardous waste.
And, the government says it will establish international partnerships on the sustainable use and production of chemicals to make it easier to share data, skills and fresh approaches to risk assessment and management.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63037/uk-promises-post-brexit-chemicals-strategy-that-reflects-future-relations-with-eu
-
Plastics Trade Groups Call For Mutual Acceptance Of REACH After Brexit
Jan 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Two European and UK plastics industry associations have called on the EU and British government to ensure the mutual acceptance of REACH after Britain leaves the EU in 2019.
In a joint statement, trade bodies the European Plastics Converters and the British Plastics Federation, said an uncontrolled or hard Brexit is the worst case scenario for the European plastics converting industry on both sides of the English Channel.
They said many aspects of the plastics industry are subject to European legislation and that the UK and its partner plastics industries in the EU have "long been champions of a single market" in plastics products.
This, they said, is clear from their support for legislation, such as the waste directive and the REACH regulation. The issues that these address "do not respect national frontiers," they said.
"Pollution is mobile whether it is on land, in the sea or in the air. Waste is also mobile and is traded internationally and globally. The EU's flagship programme to create a circular economy can only be addressed in conjunction with the UK as a partner with the EU."
UK government ministers say that REACH will be incorporated into UK law. But the government has failed to explain how this would be achieved or whether it would be a temporary or long-term fix.
And last month, during a House of Commons debate on the EU Withdrawal Bill, Brexit junior minister Steve Baker dismissed as unnecessary a Labour party proposal for a new clause, designed to ensure the UK participates in REACH after Brexit.Avoid uncertainty
The two trade bodies said that to escape barriers to international trade and investments, legal uncertainties should be avoided through an early arrangement on the future legal relationship between the UK and the EU.
The statement highlights the importance of the UK and EU’s relationship in regards to trade. "Plastics is an international business and the UK is the most important trade partner of the EU27 for manufactured plastic articles," it said.
In 2016, the EU27 exported goods with a trade value over €6.6bn to the UK, while EU exports from the UK amounted to over €4.5bn, which is 68% of the latter’s total plastic products exports, it said.UK environment plan
Providing some answers today on the UK’s long-term strategy to tackle hazardous chemicals and plastic pollution, the government released its 25 year environment plan. However, the plan does not clarify if REACH will be written into UK law post-Brexit.
The plan states: "we will make sure that chemicals are safely used and managed, and that the levels of harmful chemicals entering the environment (including through agriculture) are significantly reduced". It will also aim to eliminate avoidable – which it classifies as "technically, environmentally and economically practicable" – plastic waste by the end of 2042.
In a speech in London today announcing the plan, British prime minister Theresa May said on the issue of plastic in the environment: "We must reduce the demand for plastic, reduce the number of plastics in circulation and improve our recycling rates."
She said that the government will take action at every stage of production and consumption of plastic.
"As it is produced, we will encourage manufacturers to take responsibility for the impacts of their products and rationalise the number of different types of plastics they use."
https://chemicalwatch.com/63034/plastics-trade-groups-call-for-mutual-acceptance-of-reach-after-brexit
-
A New Era of Batteries Spells Trouble for Natural Gas
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak
California, the state that helped birth the global boom in battery-toting electric vehicles, is trying to spark a similar transformation for utilities. And that spells trouble for power plants all across the U.S. that run on natural gas.
The California Public Utilities Commission is set to approve an order Jan. 11 that would require PG&E Corp., the state's biggest utility, to change the way it supplies power when demand peaks. Instead of relying on electricity from three gas-fired plants run by Calpine Corp., PG&E would have to use batteries or other non-fossil fuel resources to keep the lights on in the most-populated U.S. state.
The shift is possible in California partly because there's a surplus of solar power, after a surge of rooftop panels and large-scale gathering systems helped double the renewable energy it used over the past decade. Batteries can charge up in daylight and dispense electricity later. With improved technology and lower costs, storage systems are becoming more viable for utilities, especially in a state hoping to get half its power from wind and solar by 2030 and targeting major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
“California is going to create a blueprint for the coming years,” said Michael Ferguson, the director of U.S. energy infrastructure at S&P Global Ratings in New York. “Renewables proliferated where there was supportive regulation, and that caused the costs to decline. I would expect to see the same thing to happen with battery storage.”
While natural gas became the biggest source of power in the U.S. two years ago—it burns cleaner and more cheaply than coal—regulators are looking to reduce carbon emissions to combat global warming and climate change. Gas now accounts for about a third of the country's electricity, but renewables like solar and wind are expanding faster, doubling their share of the market over the past decade to a projected 17 percent last year, government data show.
Skipping Gas
“There is a big push, especially on the West Coast,” to move to cleaner fuels, said Marta Stoepker, a spokeswoman for the Oakland-based environmental group Sierra Club. “If we are getting off of coal, let's also skip over gas.”
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
The shift away from fossil fuels in power generation has been pronounced in California, where tougher standards for cleaner air and fuel have become a model for the rest of the country and the world. Gas use dropped to 36 percent of the state's electricity supply in 2016 from 42 percent a decade earlier, while renewables jumped to 25 percent from 11 percent over the same period, state data show.
Renewables are dumping so much power onto the state's grid—on some days it can be more than half of all supply—some generators are losing money because of weak wholesale electricity prices.
Sitting Idle
That's a problem for companies whose plants only generate power during periods of peak demand, like some of those run by Calpine. Last year, the Houston-based firm told California's grid operator that it would have to retire plants because of low prices. The operator determined the market needed the plants for reliability and allowed Calpine to sign profitable, must-run contracts for 2018.
“These gas plants typically sit idle for much of the year, whereas a battery could be used for a range of other services, such as helping integrate renewables,” said Logan Goldie-Scot, an energy storage analyst for Bloomberg New Energy Finance in San Francisco.
California's utility commission wants San Francisco-based PG&E to find power storage or a clean energy alternative to those Calpine contracts. The utility said it supports the agency's order and asked that power-line upgrades be considered as part of the plan.
Houston-based Calpine opposes the order. In a Dec. 29 letter to the commission, the company said the move imposes “unreasonable costs and risks on customers” and departs from a “considered, thoughtful approach to grid reliability.”
It won't be the first time the state's come down on gas. In 2017, regulators moved to reject a permit for a proposed gas plant in Southern California, noting that clean energy resources including batteries could be used to fill the need. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has put on hold gas plant projects to explore alternatives.
And the shift extends beyond California. Last year, a proposed gas project was pulled in Oregon after opposition from local environmental advocates, and in Connecticut, a plant was rejected by a state panel. Plans for another gas unit in North Carolina were killed in 2016. New gas-fired generators have faced challenges in other states, including Louisiana and Michigan.
General Electric Co., the world's largest maker of gas turbines, said last month that it would cut 12,000 jobs in its power business, part of a plan to get leaner as customers turn away from fossil-fuel energy sources.
Batteries may be everywhere in today's appliances, but the scale of electricity distribution on vast utility networks still makes using power storage costly. That's changing with the development of bigger, more efficient units that can carry a charge longer, especially in the kinds of electric vehicles manufactured by the likes of Tesla Inc.
Since 2010, Bloomberg New Energy Finance data show, the price of lithium-ion battery packs have fallen 79 percent.
Storing “considerable amounts of electricity for future use has the potential to significantly alter the economics of the power sector,” Paul Patterson, a utilities analyst for Glenrock Associates, said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126726320&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126726320&jd=126726320
-
Bill Would Ban Development Off New England
Jan 12, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
Most of the New England congressional delegation introduced legislation yesterday to bar offshore drilling along their region's coastline.
The move is the latest legislative response to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's five-year proposal to open more than 90 percent of the outer continental shelf for potential oil and gas drilling.
On Tuesday, Zinke announced Florida waters would be exempt from the 2019-2024 plan, igniting a fierce bipartisan backlash from other states off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts that oppose offshore drilling and also want to opt out of the administration's proposal (E&E Daily, Jan. 11).
The "New England Coastal Protection Act" boasts the support of senators from the region's coastal states: Rhode Island Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed; Massachusetts Democrats Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren; New Hampshire Democrats Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan; Connecticut Democrats Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal; and Maine's Susan Collins (R) and Angus King (I).
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) introduced companion legislation in the House.
Tourism, fishing and recreation are among the coastal industries generating more than $17.5 billion a year in New England, according to the Conservation Law Foundation.
"This drilling plan is all risk with no reward for some of the most beautiful coastline in the world, and I will fight it every step of the way," said Markey.
Zinke's draft plan, which the department is now soliciting public feedback on, would open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to offshore drilling and expand existing leasing programs in parts of the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico.
It's essentially the opposite of the 2017-2022 plan the Obama administration crafted, which prohibited offshore drilling in more than 90 percent of federal waters.
Currently, there is a moratorium on drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida until 2022. Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (D) yesterday introduced legislation to permanently ban drilling off all of the state's coasts (E&E News PM, Jan. 10).
Zinke pledged to meet or talk with any governor who wants to discuss offshore drilling. There was no shortage of interest from chief executives of states like California and North Carolina, who strongly oppose development off their coasts.
"I look forward to speaking with you to share just how damaging your proposal would be to North Carolina and our nation's coastlines," North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) wrote to Zinke yesterday.
The New England coalition to legislatively block any effort at offshore drilling could be emulated by other regional congressional delegations. There haven't been any oil and gas leasing sales along the Atlantic seaboard since 1983. The waters off the Pacific coast have been similarly off-limits to drilling for decades.
"Connecticut residents are outraged," said Murphy. "New England depends on healthy, protected shorelines, and the Trump administration just put it all at risk. Trump's priorities are completely backward — he's putting the interests of the oil and gas industries ahead of my constituents, and I will do everything I can to reverse this policy."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/01/12/stories/1060070841
-
House Dems Want Answers On BLM Fracking Rule Rollback
Jan 11, 2018 | E&E Grenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Two House Democrats want answers on the Trump administration's decision to ax Obama-era hydraulic fracturing standards.
Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, and California Rep. Alan Lowenthal sent a letter to the Interior Department this morning questioning the agency's rationale for rescinding the years-in-the-making fracking rule.
Interior's Bureau of Land Management finalized the rollback two weeks ago, concluding that added safety and environmental standards for fracked wells on public and tribal lands were unnecessary in light of existing state and federal regulations for oil and gas development. The agency said the rescission was in line with President Trump's "energy independence" executive order prioritizing domestic fossil fuel development (Energywire, Jan. 2).
"Neither of these explanations justify rescinding a regulation that would provide significant environmental benefits while adding at most two-tenths of one percent to the cost of drilling a well," the Democrats wrote in a letter to Joe Balash, Interior's assistant secretary for lands and minerals management.
Grijalva and Lowenthal also highlighted Interior's statement in last month's rollback documents that the rescission was not expected to increase the number of fracking operations on public lands. That acknowledgement, they say, makes it clear that the rescission is intended to "reduce accountability and lower costs for oil and gas companies, not increase energy production or create additional jobs."
Industry supporters have argued that the fracking rule would stifle development by creating heaps of additional, duplicative paperwork and permitting delays.
The Democratic lawmakers want more details on how the decision to scrap the rule entirely was made. They're asking Interior to hand over correspondence within the agency and BLM regarding the review of the rule, plus correspondence with other agencies, states and the oil and gas industry.
BLM's fracking rule was in the works for more than four years before its formal unveiling in March 2015. But the rule never took effect, immediately sidelined by litigation. Environmental groups are now planning a lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration's rollback.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/11/stories/1060070795
-
CITGO on Losing End of Louisiana Toxic Spill Appeal
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
CITGO Petroleum Corp. is on the hook for damages caused to 22 plaintiffs injured by a flood-related oil and wastewater spill, a Louisiana appeals court ruled Jan. 10.
The decision is the latest in a series of cases brought over the spill from CITGO's Calcasieu Parish Refinery that fouled more than 100 miles of coastline and released toxic fumes after a catastrophic flood.
CITGO argued in the consolidated litigation that Emma Bradford and other plaintiffs didn't prove their illnesses were caused the release of four million gallons of oil and 17 million gallons of wastewater into the Calcasieu River in 2006.
The Louisiana Appeals Court, Third Circuit, disagreed, finding that expert testimony about the spill and medical testimony about the plaintiffs’ symptoms supported pain and suffering awards ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 each.
CITGO also contended there was insufficient evidence that some plaintiffs, even based on their own medical experts, suffered symptoms as long as they alleged.
The three-judge panel declined to disturb the trial court's discretion in weighing the evidence, finding no “manifest error” in the rulings.
Chief Judge Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Sylvia R. Cooks and Shannon J. Gremillion.
Baggett, McCall, Burgess, Watson & Gaughan represented Bradford.
The Simien Law Firm represented CITGO.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126726325&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126726325&jd=126726325
-
House Dems Introduce Train Safety Bill After Deadly Amtrak Crash
Jan 11, 2018 | The Hill
By Mallory Shelbourne
House Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation meant to accelerate the implementation of a key train safety feature, a move that follows December’s deadly Amtrak derailment in Washington state.
The bill, titled the Positive Train Control Implementation and Financing Act, would give railroads until the end of the year to enact Positive Train Control (PTC), which automatically decreases the speed of a train traveling over the limit. It would also prevent the Department of Transportation from allotting extensions to railroads seeking to delay meeting the implementation deadline.
“No more delays, no more extensions, no more excuses from railroads who have had 10 years to implement PTC technology,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.), the ranking Democratic member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
"Since Congress first passed legislation to mandate PTC implementation in 2008, some railroads have been diligent in implementing PTC while others have clearly been dragging their feet,” DeFazio said.
Every member of the Washington State Democratic delegation co-sponsored the legislation, a reaction to last month’s crash south of Seattle that left three dead when a speeding train derailed as it traveled across an overpass. The National Transportation Safety Board found in a preliminary report, released last week, that PTC would have slowed down the train, which had been traveling 78 mph in a 30 mph zone.
The legislation would provide $2.5 billion worth of grants so commuter railroads and intercity railways are able to execute PTC.
Amtrak, according to the bill, must provide updates about its headway enacting PTC in its required reports.
"Positive Train Control will significantly improve passenger safety and full implementation must be made a priority. This legislation will ensure that PTC is done as quickly as possible and makes resources available to help certain railroads meet this obligation," said Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), who serves as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials.
The new legislation comes as the Trump administration’s long-awaited infrastructure plan may not come to fruition until next month. But a bipartisan group of lawmakers this week unveiled a report detailing suggestions for a future infrastructure plan.
The White House said Wednesday it was “encouraged” by the report, which proposes solutions for modernizing U.S. infrastructure while upholding environmental protections and reinforcing national security.
“We are encouraged to see the Problem Solvers Caucus echo the president’s priorities of increasing infrastructure investment, streamlining the permitting process, making government more efficient, enhancing American competitiveness, and focusing on the needs of rural communities,” said White House deputy press secretary Lindsay Walters. “We hope to continue to work through any potential differences in order to achieve our shared goal of rebuilding our country’s crumbling infrastructure.”
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/railroads/368530-house-dems-introduce-train-safety-bill-after-deadly
-
Port Ends Lease on Tesoro-Savage Crude-by-Rail Terminal
Jan 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
The clock is ticking toward the likely demise of the Tesoro-Savage joint venture to build an oil terminal on the Columbia River after the Port of Vancouver, Wash., commission voted unanimously to terminate the lease for the site unless all necessary permits are in hand by the end of March.
The vote on Jan. 9 is the second blow in recent weeks to the 360,000-barrel-per-day proposal to receive crude hauled by Berkshire Hathaway's BNSF Railway and ship it out to refineries on the West Coast. Washington's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council voted unanimously Nov. 28 to recommend that Gov. Jay Inslee (D), the final arbiter, not approve the project because of risks such as a major oil spill caused by an earthquake.Inslee has been an outspoken advocate for taking action to halt climate change since the 1990s when he served in Congress. He proposed a carbon tax in his state-of-the-state address Jan. 9. Inslee has until the last week of February to take action on the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council's recommendation.
The terminal would be the largest rail-to-maritime crude oil terminal in the U.S. and also would be in a position to become an export facility to Asia.
Next Steps
“We are disappointed in the outcome of the port commission vote,” spokeman Jeff Hymas for Vancouver Energy—the joint venture between Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co. LLC and Savage Cos.—told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 11. “All parties have invested substantial time and resources to ensure the terminal can be built and operated safely.”
Asked if the entity is considering litigation, Hymas said: “We are evaluating our next steps at this point and awaiting Gov. Inslee's decision.”
Although Tesoro changed its name to Andeavor, there has been no change in the name of the joint venture, Hymas said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126726307&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126726307&jd=126726307
-
100 Lawmakers Ask Trump To Reconsider Security Strategy
Jan 11, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
A bipartisan group of more than 100 House lawmakers yesterday asked President Trump to reconsider omitting climate change from the list of security threats in his first National Security Strategy.
The strategy — released last month — marked a major, if unsurprising, departure from the Obama administration on climate policy in the national security space (Greenwire, Dec. 18, 2017).
In a letter to Trump, the group of lawmakers — led by Reps. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) — called leaving climate out "a significant step backwards."
"We have heard from scientists, military leaders, and civilian personnel who believe that climate change is indeed a direct threat to America's national security and to the stability of the world at large," they wrote.
"As global temperatures become more volatile, sea levels rise, and landscapes change, our military installations and our communities are increasingly at risk of devastation," they said. "It is imperative that the United States addresses this growing geopolitical threat."
Langevin told E&E News yesterday the lawmakers are planning to send a copy of the letter to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, with hopes that climate will be included in the National Defense Strategy, the Pentagon's more specific planning outline slated for release Jan. 19.
The move to exclude climate change from the NSS was panned almost unanimously by environmental groups and by some in the defense community, who said it ignored the will of top military officials, including Mattis.
The document primarily focuses on the economic and security importance of developing the U.S. energy sector, though it does briefly note that "climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system."
In contrast, the effects on warming were a focal point of President Obama's security policy. Climate change was mentioned 13 times in the previous administration's last NSS, produced in 2015.
The strategy is also at odds with legislation passed through the Republican-controlled Congress. During debate on the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, Langevin tacked on an amendment in committee calling climate change "a direct threat to the national security of the U.S."
On the House floor in July, nearly 50 Republicans joined Democrats in voting down an amendment from Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) that would have stripped the provision from the bill (E&E Daily, July 14, 2017). Trump signed it into law, climate language intact, last month.
Stefanik pledged to rally colleagues on the issue.
"As a Member of the Climate Solutions Caucus and the author of the House Republican Climate Resolution, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure the threats posed by climate change are being addressed at the federal level," she said in a statement.
But on the whole, the Republican caucus remains opposed to climate action, even in the context of favorite issues like national security.
Just a handful of Republicans — including Climate Solutions Caucus Co-chairman Carlos Curbelo of Florida — signed onto the letter. And a majority of GOP members voted to slash Langevin's amendment from the defense authorization bill in July.
At the Department of Defense, however, the issue is nonpartisan. Mattis in his confirmation hearing acknowledged climate change, and under his leadership, DOD has quietly decided to stay the course on the issue and largely keep in place climate policies initiated during the Obama administration (Greenwire, Nov. 16, 2017).
Langevin said he hopes his amendment, which requires DOD to assess the bases and installations that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, can be a boon for that effort.
"Even if we can't fight Mother Nature and we're not going to be able to totally reverse the effects of climate change, there are things that we can do to mitigate those effects and lessen the impacts," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/01/12/stories/1060070849
-
EPA Air Chief Leaves Door Open To Uncertain Rule Review Outcomes
Jan 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Newly confirmed EPA air chief Bill Wehrum is outlining an ambitious 2018 agenda, including completing reviews of six high-profile Obama-era rules and policies that the Trump administration is seeking to roll back. But in an interview with Inside EPA, he emphasized the agency is still weighing a host of options, leaving open the possibility that the reviews could result in uncertain outcomes and upend expectations for where the agency may land.
Among other things, Wehrum, during a Jan. 11 interview, suggested EPA may decide not to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP) despite releasing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) detailing possible replacement options.
Similarly, he suggested that even if the agency advances a CPP replacement, a parallel review the agency is conducting of climate science could eventually undercut the obligation for any replacement rule.
And, he acknowledged that the agency's review of Obama-era vehicle greenhouse gas standards could result in California adopting different requirements than what the Trump administration may eventually adopt, causing a patchwork of standards that the auto industry stridently opposes.
While broad consideration of such options is often required as the agency craft rules, they nevertheless underscore industry concerns that despite Pruitt's and the administration's focus on deregulation, their efforts are creating significant uncertainty for some sectors seeking to invest in cleaner technologies.
Wehrum served previously as the acting assistant administrator in EPA's Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) during the George W. Bush administration from 2005 to 2007 but he was never confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate. He then left the agency and worked at Hunton & Williams during the end of the Bush years and through the entire Obama administration before returning to EPA in December after winning Senate confirmation.
In the interview with Inside EPA, Wehrum identified reviews of six Obama-era rules and policies he hopes to complete in 2018, including GHG limits for power plants, cars and trucks, methane limits for new oil and gas infrastructure, the Mercury & Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for utilities; the 2015 tightening of the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone; and new source review (NSR) reform.
But Wehrum downplayed suggestions that he is seeking an aggressive rollback. “My general philosophy is, I'm looking ahead. I'm not looking backwards. I don't think my job is to come in and dismantle a bunch of stuff. My job is to come in and implement our programs as best we can. . . . And what I think is best is different from what the prior administration thought was best, and there will be some changes. But it's not because I am trying to come in and unwind everything. It's because I want to put the best program in place.”
Review of the CPP rule to cut power sector GHGs tops his list, though Wehrum stressed they are not sorted by priority. “I have no favorite children here. They're all a top priority."
And he said most of the items on the list are rules the Obama administration took action on, “but they're not on the list because my job is to unwind all that. They're on the list because I want to look ahead and figure out what's the best thing to be done.”
CPP Repeal & Replace
EPA has already proposed a CPP repeal and issued an ANPR on a possible replacement, while simultaneously planning to revisit the climate science underlying the Obama EPA's finding that GHGs endanger public health and welfare, which was the trigger for all of the agency's GHG rules.
Most recently, EPA Jan. 11 announced three additional public listening sessions on the proposed repeal: in Kansas City, MO; San Francisco; and Gillette, WY; with the previously planned public comment deadline on Jan. 16 to be extended until April 26. However, a spokesman says that because of filing requirements with the Federal Register, the docket will likely be officially closed on Jan. 16 and then formally reopened.
Wehrum says despite the deadline extension, it is possible to take final action in 2018 on both the CPP repeal and replacement, should the ANPR lead to a decision to do a replacement rule. Wehrum called it “possible if not likely” that a proposed replacement would have to be issued by mid-year.
The deadline to comment on the ANPR is Feb. 26.
He downplayed recent press statements by Pruitt that the CPP would be replaced. Wehrum continued to caution even if EPA proposes a replacement, “that doesn't make a final decision because we'll have a proposed rescission and a proposed replacement out there. And then, you know, as the year progresses the administration and the administrator have to make a decision about what they want to do.”
He said Pruitt “proposed rescission because he meant it. But we also have put the ANPR out on replacement because we mean that, so we can create a range of possible options, one of which is a replacement rule that looks different and probably more limited than what's in place now in the current CPP. But we'll look at the possibility of rescinding and doing nothing more.”
Wehrum also distinguished the agency's work on the CPP -- which he added encompasses reconsidering the new source rule, including its finding that partial carbon capture and sequestration is available and required for any new coal plant -- with a climate science debate on the endangerment finding.
When Pruitt thinks about the endangerment issue and the CPP, “he thinks about them on two separate tracks,” Wehrum said. “The administrator also firmly believes the science underlying the endangerment finding -- the process that EPA used to make the determination that's reflected in the endangerment finding -- he believes that process was flawed” because it discounted contrary views. “The administrator firmly believes that at a minimum he would like to provide an opportunity for those who did not feel they had a voice in the prior process to have a voice.”
That could mean, hypothetically, that EPA could move forward with CPP replacement and endangerment finding repeal, though Wehrum noted, “So far we haven't said repeal in the conversations about endangerment finding. So far I've talked about process.”
However, EPA is under significant pressure from Trump's base, including coal magnate Robert Murray, to repeal the finding.
Wehrum said the two issues can move forward on separate but concurrent tracks, and “you only get to a connection if, as a result of” the climate science review “we are convinced that a different conclusions should be reached” than the existing endangerment finding.
“That's when you need to think about what does that mean in the context of rules that depend on the endangerment finding, and the CPP is one of those rules. So we're a long way from being there and we're not talking about that now. To the degree we're talking about endangerment, we're talking about to the degree we need to create a process to allow for this more fulsome review.”
Vehicle Rule
On passenger vehicle GHG rules, the Trump administration is reconsidering Obama-era GHG and fuel economy standards governing model year 2022-2025 despite California's opposition to any rule change.While Wehrum said it is a priority to maintain the federal and state standards that are currently aligned, he left the door open to different standards, even though it is not the preferred outcome. “We can live in a world, you know, a two-car world, but that's not ideal.”
He said EPA has had many meetings with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and a few with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), “and we want them to be very frank conversations, so we've all agreed we're not going to share our deliberations. . . . But the purpose of that conversation is to stay together and if we can I'd very much like to stay together.
Nevertheless, he acknowledged that may not be possible. “You have asked if we decide the standards need to be revised . . . do I think California could go along with that? And my answer is I hope they would because if that's our decision it is a decision that has to be grounded in solid technical analysis.”
He added that when “we are all comfortable internally in the federal family with the analysis we're doing” EPA will share that with CARB. “And if we think there is a solid case to make an adjustment, then I would certainly hope they would share our view. . . . So I think it's a distinct possibility, and we're going to do our best to make a good decision in the first sense and do our best to try to keep the program together.”
Wehrum also downplayed concerns that some automakers are worried the Obama-era mid-term review the Trump administration is now reviewing will seek to go too far and blow up the historic national agreement, and that they would like EPA to pull back.
“Nobody's unleashed anything. We're all talking,” he said, adding he would be happy to talk with environmentalists and other outside groups if they request a meeting with him on the issue, which he said they have not.
Another priority, taking a hard look at the 2015 ozone NAAQS, is moving quickly, with Wehrum trying to “get my arms around the science so I can advise the administrator on my recommendation to what I think we should do,” which could range from retaining the standard, to revising or rescinding it.
However, in the meantime he noted that states must continue planning to meet the NAAQS, which is currently in place. EPA is moving forward on designations and “the implementation process continues.”
On MATS, Wehrum notes that there are two different considerations: one is to determine whether to keep the “appropriate and necessary” determination that the Obama administration finalized underlying the rule, and if EPA stays the course on that, then he would “like to think about doing” a residual risk and technology review to make any future changes. Additionally, there are “narrow but important” issues to address, including how the rule applies to the coal refuse industry.
Finally, Wehrum notes that he has had a change of heart on how to approach NSR reform from his prior tenure, and he wants to focus on “narrower, more district issues” that are easier to deal with individually. He is hopeful that a series of targeted changes over time will lead to big improvements. And he says that he is trying to find a better balance between locking in NSR reform through time-consuming but more-certain rules and faster but less certain guidance.
Also, Wehrum says he will release his ethics agreement, in which he recuses himself from ongoing cases over EPA rules but not the administrative work, and that he will also release his public schedule.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-air-chief-leaves-door-open-uncertain-rule-review-outcomes
-
Ewire: Maryland's GOP Governor Takes On Trump's Climate Rollback
Jan 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
Maryland's Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who is running for re-election in one of the country's most Democratic states, is emerging as one of the most high-profile GOP opponents of Trump administration efforts to roll back Obama-era climate policies -- and his climate stances appear to be bolstering his political prospects, for now.
According to the Washington Post and other outlets, Hogan announced Jan. 10 that the state will join the U.S. Climate Alliance, the coalition of mostly Democratic-led states that are pledging to maintain U.S. Commitments to the Paris climate accord.
His decision, detailed in a letter to the alliance, was panned by Hogan's Democratic rivals, who charge that Hogan's timing was politically motivated to ensure the announcement occurred closer to the November election, rather than months ago when many were urging Hogan to join.
“This is a political calculation, pure and simple,” state Sen. Richard Madaleno Jr. (D), who is one of several Democrats running to replace Hogan. “If it was genuine, he could have jumped on board earlier like several other Republican governors.”
The Baltimore Sun reports that when asked about the alliance last summer, Hogan said he was unsure “what the intention of the group is,” and suggested it was unnecessary for Maryland to join because the state had “already accomplished what most of them need to try to shoot for.”
But he told alliance organizers in his letter that Maryland would participate, “as long as the U.S. Climate Alliance adds value, shows true bipartisanship, and avoids Washington, D.C.’s politics-as-usual, corrosive tactics and distractions.”
The announcement comes one day after Hogan and his environment secretary, Ben Grumbles, formally opposedTrump administration plans to roll back the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.
Regardless of any political motivations, Hogan's climate stances appear to be paying off. According to the Sun, a new poll shows he enjoys a double-digit lead over three of his prospective Democratic rivals though he still falls short of the 50 percent mark.
According to the Sun, the Gonzales Maryland Poll released Jan. 11 shows Hogan’s performance is viewed favorably by 71 percent of Marylanders. His approval numbers are “a sky-high” 86 percent among Republicans and 78 percent of independents, but he is also viewed favorably by 61 percent of Democrats.
However, he still falls short of an absolute majority in his matchups against three contenders for the Democratic nomination -- the top finishers in a previous Gonzales poll of the Democratic primary -- suggesting Hogan may still have a tough re-election if Democrats unite behind their nominee.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-marylands-gop-governor-takes-trumps-climate-rollback
-
3rd Circuit Sets March Argument For Interstate Air Petition Suit
Jan 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has set a March 6 date to hear oral argument in Delaware's challenge to EPA's delay in responding to the state's petition seeking direct regulation of a Pennsylvania power plant, as the First State presses several such petitions to address out-of-state air pollution.
The court notes in its Jan. 3 scheduling order that the date for argument in Delaware Department of Natural Resources v. EPA is tentative and it “may become necessary for the panel to move this case to another day within the week of March 5, 2018.”
In the case, Delaware is contesting EPA's right to extend by another six months its 60-day Clean Air Act deadline to respond to state petitions filed under air law section 126, which allows states to seek direct federal pollution controls on sources they claim are contributing “significantly” to problems attaining or maintaining federal air quality standards.
The petition at issue is for regulation of the Conemaugh Generating Station, located in New Florence, PA. Delaware says the plant is compromising its ability to meet national ambient air quality standards for ozone.
EPA claims the case is moot, because the six-month extension expired last year. However, the agency still has not responded to Delaware's petition, and has further missed air law deadlines to respond to Delaware's other section 126 petitions pertaining to the Homer City and Brunner Island power plants in Pennsylvania, and the Harrison Power Station near Hayward, WV.
The state in Jan. 2 letters to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt gave 60 days' notice -- until March 2 -- of its intent to file suit in federal district court to compel EPA responses to all its outstanding section 126 petitions.
Delaware Gov. John Carney (D) said in a Jan. 2 statement, “The Clean Air Act entitles Delaware to relief from upwind pollution and the remedy we are seeking is reasonable and within EPA’s authority and responsibility to grant.” He added, “We are simply asking that the EPA require these power plants that pollute Delaware’s air to run their existing pollution control equipment when the plants are in operation.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/3rd-circuit-sets-march-argument-interstate-air-petition-suit
-
Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Answer Coal Boss’ Wish List
Jan 11, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
This week, federal regulators rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to require the use of electricity from failing coal and nuclear plants, even when cheaper sources are available. The scheme was widely seen as the idea of Robert E. Murray, CEO of one of the nation’s largest coal mining companies, who gave $300,000 to President Trump’s campaign. But that wasn’t the only item on Murray’s wish list, and the coal baron has gotten much of what he wanted.
The New York Times reports that in March, Murray sent a memo to Vice President Mike Pence outlining an “Action Plan” for more than a dozen environmental rollbacks he urged the administration to implement, “which will help in getting America’s coal miners back to work.”
“The White House and federal agencies have completed or are on track to fulfill most of the 14 detailed requests,” in Trump’s first year, according to the Times.
The requested rollbacks would save money for the coal industry, but pose a significant threat to public health and national security. Items on Murray’s wish list the administration has acted on include:
· Repealing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan to limit emissions of carbon dioxide;
· Withdrawing from the Paris climate accord;
· Loosening Clean Water Act standards that reduce toxic water discharges from coal plants;
· Loosening rules on the discharge and disposal of toxic coal ash;
· Relaxing rules under the Clean Air Act for existing coal plants that increase their air emissions through upgrades;
· Lifting a freeze on coal leases on federal lands;
· Ending a ban on coal mines’ dumping of mountaintop removal waste into streams; and
· Relaxing mercury air emission standards for coal plants .
Murray is also getting his cronies placed in key government positions. His attorney may end up as second in command at the Environmental Protection Agency, and a former coal mine company president has assumed a post as the top mine safety and health regulator.
To dive deeper into this swamp of crony capitalism, EWG and American Oversighthave petitioned the Department of Energy to release all communications between Energy Secretary Rick Perry or other DOE officials and coal and utility companies that supported the rejected plan to bail out the coal industry.
The DOE has yet to comply. But the documents we requested under the Freedom of Information Act should shed more light on the corrupt influence of the coal industry on the Trump administration. Stay tuned.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/01/trump-s-environmental-rollbacks-answer-coal-boss-wish-list#.WliI6XaWYdU
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested