ACC PM

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Reshoring May be Hampered by Environmental Standards

   Feb 9, 2015 | Strategic Sourceror

   The subject of reshoring is one that U.S. manufacturing procurement officers observe with a realistic eye. While there are numerous challenges associated with establishing domestic production operations, such as establishing the ability to reduce supply chain risk, quickly adjust output in response to variable demand and decrease market delivery lead times, sourcing from U.S. mines is notoriously difficult.
2. Report Urges Bipartisan Bid to Revitalize U.S. Innovation

   Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Katherine Ling
   
   
   The United States needs a bipartisan, long-term innovation strategy including a significant boost in spending and tax incentives if it is to compete on the global stage, according to a new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

Chemical Management News

3. (ACC Mentioned) US on Track to Phase Out Most Perfluorinated Chemicals This Year

   Feb 9, 2015 | Chemistry World

   By Rebecca Trager
   
   
   The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that the major chemical companies it has partnered with are on track to phase out production of perfluorinated chemicals (PFC) in America by the end of 2015.
4. (ACC Mentioned) Pink Is Not Green: Companies That Support Fighting Cancer Should Not Use Chemicals That Cause It

   Feb 9, 2015 | EcoWatch

   By Annie Sartor
   
   
   Everyone remembers the Komen vs Planned Parenthood scandal from a couple years ago, right?
5. (ACC Mentioned) Agency Taps Acting Director to Lead Chemical Safety Program -- Memo

   Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Sam Pearson
   
   
   The U.S. EPA program that evaluates scientific studies to determine the safety of chemicals will keep its acting director after officials reportedly considered replacing him with another candidate.
6. EPA Seeks NAS Advice On Using, Validating New Toxicity Testing Methods

   Feb 9, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad
   
   
   EPA is seeking advice from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on how best to use information gleaned from the myriad new toxicity testing methodologies becoming available, and is also seeking recommendations on how to validate these new technologies for regulatory use, an EPA official told NAS committee members recently.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

7. GOP Avoids Showdown Over EPA Climate Change Rules

   Feb 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro

   By Elana Schor
   
   
   Republicans’ aggressive energy agenda has so far conspicuously sidestepped one of their biggest campaign-trail targets: the climate change rules from President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency.
8. In Kan., FERC's Clark Urges Care in Drafting Clean Power Plan Response

   Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

   By Jeffrey Tomich
   
   
   Few states have pushed back as hard as Kansas in response to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
9. A New Report Just Shot Down a Key Argument Against President Obama’s Climate Plans

   Feb 9, 2015 | The Washington Post

   By Chris Mooney
   
   
   For a while now, those decrying the Obama administration’s plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants — under EPA’s Clean Power Plan — have levied a pretty serious practical criticism.
10. States Intensify Call for Court to Throw Out EPA Cross-State Pollution Program

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jeremy P. Jacobs
    
    
    Several states challenging U.S. EPA's regime for controlling air pollution that drifts across state lines renewed their call Friday for federal judges to throw it out.
11. House Republicans Set to Flesh Out Sweeping Energy Plan

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Nick Juliano and Hannah Northey
    
    
    Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton this week will take the first significant step on the long road toward a new comprehensive energy bill, which would be the most ambitious overhaul to policies affecting pipelines, transmission and energy efficiency in more than eight years.
12. House GOP to Unveil Energy Policy Agenda

    Feb 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee will unveil an energy policy outline Monday, crafted to better align policies with the current energy market.
13. Fracking Opponents Take Aim at Governor's Climate Credentials

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Debra Kahn
    
    
    As Gov. Jerry Brown (D) doubles down on California's climate change policies, opponents of hydraulic fracturing in the state are getting louder.
14. Research Shows Strong Correlation Between Quakes, Oil Activity

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Mike Soraghan
    
    
    New research is zeroing in on a significant correlation between oil and gas waste disposal and earthquakes in a two-county area in northern Oklahoma.
15. Obama Prepares for Divisive Veto

    Feb 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Laura Barron-Lopez
    
    
    President Obama is just days away from issuing the biggest veto of his tenure, with Republicans poised to send him legislation that would authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
16. Pentagon Has ‘No Objection’ to Keystone

    Feb 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    The Defense Department has reportedly told the State Department that it does not have a problem with approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline project.
17. Oil Industry Slams ‘Restrictive’ Offshore Drilling Plan

    Feb 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    The oil industry is criticizing the Obama administration’s offshore oil and gas drilling plan for closing off about 87 percent of the potential drilling areas.
18. Lawmakers Take Step Toward Fulfilling State Climate Change Goals

    Feb 7, 2015 | Los Angeles Times

    By Chris Megerian
    
    
    State lawmakers are preparing a sweeping package of bills that would fulfill several of Gov. Jerry Brown's climate change objectives by increasing California's reliance on renewable energy and alternative transportation fuels.
19. High Marks -- Mostly -- for Holder on Environmental Cases

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jeremy P. Jacobs
    
    
    As Attorney General Eric Holder prepares to leave the Obama administration after five years on the job, environmental attorneys are sizing up his record and generally applauding his efforts to protect public health and natural resources.
20. Climate Change Is of Growing Personal Concern to U.S. Hispanics, Poll Finds

    Feb 9, 2015 | The New York Times

    By Coral Davenport
    
    
    Alfredo Padilla grew up in Texas as a migrant farmworker who followed the harvest with his parents to pick sugar beets in Minnesota each summer.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Reshoring May be Hampered by Environmental Standards

   Feb 9, 2015 | Strategic Sourceror

   The subject of reshoring is one that U.S. manufacturing procurement officers observe with a realistic eye. While there are numerous challenges associated with establishing domestic production operations, such as establishing the ability to reduce supply chain risk, quickly adjust output in response to variable demand and decrease market delivery lead times, sourcing from U.S. mines is notoriously difficult. 

   Now, another issue has entered the picture: the impact new manufacturing operations will have on the North American ecosystem. Health, environmental and industry proponents are locking horns in a contest that may ultimately decide the future of U.S. production.

   A legislative battle 
   
   According to Manufacturing Business Technology, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed a nationwide reduction of the threshold of ground-level ozone, or smog, from 75 parts per billion to between 65 PPB and 70 PPB. Currently, certain regions of California are contending with smog levels well above this limit - Greater Los Angeles areas average 107 PPB, while the San Joaquin Valley stands at 94 PPB. 

   Ground-level ozone is quite harmful to humans, and is connected to health problems such as asthma, respiratory failure and even premature death, according to Dr. Robert Haley of the Dallas County Medical Society and the Texas Medical Association. However, MBT Magazine noted that Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Air Quality Director David Brymer maintained no connection between smog and public health.

   Lorraine Gershman of the American Chemistry Council asserted that current ozone thresholds are already stringent, and many communities are struggling to meet those levels. Another ACC representative, Lindsay Stovall​, maintained that reducing the limitation to between 65 PPB and 70 PPB would cause manufacturing growth to either "slow or stop." 

   Manufacturing with green energy? 
   
   Smog is caused by various chemical processes involved in many manufacturing operations. Output and the type of the gases released into the atmosphere largely depend on the products certain companies are producing. However, power plants and the energy used to fuel factories contribute to the smog creation, which presents an interesting question: Is it economically viable for manufacturers to use alternative energy to support operations? 

   The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) released a study in the summer of 2014 that discussed the issueand analyzed how the global manufacturing sector can achieve a larger green energy portfolio from 2010 to 2030. After completing its research, IRENA discovered 400 "realizable" opportunities for companies across 26 countries to feasibly integrate green energy into their portfolios. Apparently, 74 of those opportunities were in the manufacturing sector. 

   As of now, IRENA found that production firms are set to increase green energy usage by a mere 1 percent over the next 15 years. However, if IRENA's renewable energy options are put into action, and assuming the costs associated with biomass sources and solar energy decrease, manufacturers could derive 27 percent of their energy from green energy. 

   Solar potential 
   
   Largely, manufacturing processes require heat in order to turn raw materials into finished products. Generating a high level of heat typically involves using coke ovens, kilns, blast furnaces and other sources. In fact, IRENA noted that only 20 percent of final energy use in conventional manufacturing processes consists of electricity. 

   So, solar appears to be the attractive option in regard to heat generation. Yet regarding solar as an economically viable alternative isn't necessarily practical, although advances appear promising. Researchers at the University of California San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering recently created a nanoparticle-based material that can absorb and convert more than 90 percent of the sunlight it captures into heat. Furthermore, it can can sustain temperatures greater than 700 degrees Celsius - a huge step above today's conventional solar panels. 

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. Report Urges Bipartisan Bid to Revitalize U.S. Innovation

   Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Katherine Ling

   The United States needs a bipartisan, long-term innovation strategy including a significant boost in spending and tax incentives if it is to compete on the global stage, according to a new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

   Lawmakers and other leaders are ignoring the erosion of U.S. education, patents and investment -- instead maintaining the conventional wisdom that the United States remains "vastly superior" in innovation, the report says.

   The United States ranks 12th in the number of young adults with a college degree; the nation does not even appear in the top 20 countries for student performance in math, science or reading, according to the report.

   The number of U.S. patents seeking protection in the three strongest markets -- the United States, the European Union and Japan -- is lagging and is now behind Japan. The nation has fallen to 31 percent of global research and development investments, while Asian R&D investments make up about 40 percent, the report said. U.S. business and academia investment in R&D is also on the decline, although U.S. venture capital firms still make up three-fourths of global venture capital investment, the report notes.

   "Despite signals from global innovation indicators and the relative decline in U.S. innovation performance, there is not yet a sense of crisis in Washington," the report says. "Past and current U.S. advantages in the innovation ecosystem, such as a risk-taking business culture, strong venture capital, and a large domestic market no longer are enough to ensure global leadership."

   The United States should develop a new medium- to long-term innovation strategy that strengthens its policies on open market access and foreign direct investment, new firm entry, effective intellectual property rights, high-skill immigration, science R&D and digital issues, according to the report.

   While there have been previous comprehensive bills on boosting innovation, including the 2007 and 2010 COMPETES legislation, they have failed to have the enduring "solid bipartisan support" that would ensure any significant impact, the report says. While COMPETES had bipartisan support, it was not widespread enough to ensure that the program authorizations received the appropriations the strategy called for.

   Authorized budget levels have become a sticking point between Democrats and Republicans as lawmakers struggle to reauthorize the legislation for the third time after it expired in 2013 (E&E Daily, Nov. 18, 2014).

   The report echoes a growing concern about U.S. leadership in science research and development and future economic competitiveness shared by members of both parties and voiced as well by President Obama, yet the issue still has not become a priority on the level of health care, defense or even energy production.

   Norman Augustine, former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., similarly warned lawmakers last month to focus on science R&D investment to ensure future U.S. economic competitiveness (Greenwire, Jan. 28).

   "Without a doubt, we will be hurt economically, seriously," without stronger R&D investment and policy support, Augustine told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

   Obama proposed a 6 percent increase over current funding for total federal R&D levels to $146 billion in his fiscal 2016 budget request. He also renewed his call to make the research and experimentation tax credit permanent. Science research including Energy Department programs and the National Science Foundation received a $700 million boost to $13.8 billion under the White House proposal.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

3. (ACC Mentioned) US on Track to Phase Out Most Perfluorinated Chemicals This Year

   Feb 9, 2015 | Chemistry World

   By Rebecca Trager

   The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that the major chemical companies it has partnered with are on track to phase out production of perfluorinated chemicals (PFC) in America by the end of 2015. These eight firms alone are responsible for the vast majority of all the PFCs produced globally and, to date, they have developed over 150 alternatives. The agency has alsoproposed measures to ensure that PFCs that have been phased out do not re-enter the country’s marketplace without a review.

   ‘Through our environmental stewardship programme, eight companies have helped us make real progress to reduce these chemicals,’ said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. ‘We will continue that progress now that all importers and other domestic manufacturers will be required to give EPA an opportunity to review and restrict uses of these perfluorinated chemicals.’

   Since 2006, the EPA has worked with DuPont, 3M, Arkema, Asahi, BASF, Clariant, Daikin and Solvay Solexis to eliminate PFCs by the end of 2015. Now the agency is proposing a significant new use rule for long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate chemicals in anticipation of that deadline.

   This would mean any firm intending to import these PFCs, or produce or process them in the US for any new use, will have to submit a notification to the EPA at least 90 days ahead of time. This will allow the EPA to evaluate the new use and, if necessary, take action to prohibit or limit the activity.Useful but questionable

   PFCs can give materials many useful properties, such as fire and stain resistance, which means that they have been in demand in manufacturing and industrial applications. However, PFCs are known to bioaccumulate and persist in the environment, and lab tests show that they are toxic, affecting reproduction and development. Although these chemicals have shown no significant health effects in humans, their long half-life in humans makes it likely that continued exposure could cause ill health, according to EPA.

   Industry representatives suggest that the EPA is trying to extend a PFC phase out to all companies worldwide. These observers believe the EPA is targeting companies in China and other parts of Asia. They suggest that the agency doesn’t want lower-cost firms in Asia to manufacture and then ship such materials to the US.

   Meanwhile, exposure to these chemicals in the US appears to be diminishing over time. The EPA points to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing a 41% reduction of long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylates in humans.

   The FluoroCouncil, a global trade association administered by the American Chemistry Council, expresses hope that the EPA’s forthcoming regulation will help to eliminate the production and use of long-chain fluorochemicals by companies outside the stewardship programme. To maintain the gains of the stewardship programme against these chemicals re-entering the marketplace, the FluoroCouncil’s executive director, Jessica Bowman, said ‘broad regulation’ by the EPA is also required.

   According to the FluoroCouncil, the phase out of long-chain fluorochemistries has resulted in a transition to alternatives like short-chain fluorochemicals that offer the same high performance benefits as their predecessors, but don’t degrade into PFOA. These short-chain materials and products also have improved environmental and human health profiles, the group says.Environment concerns

   In the US, 3M had been a major manufacturer of perfluorinated chemicals for decades. The company tellsChemistry World that it recognised in the late 1990s that trace amounts of certain perfluorinated chemicals, such as PFOA, were detected in the blood of the general population. ‘At that time, 3M correctly believed that these compounds are not hazardous to human health at levels they are typically found in the environment,’ states 3M spokesperson Fanna Haile-Selassie. She says 3M began phasing out these chemicals in 2000, and the company does not have any interest in re-introducing chemistries that it has discontinued.

   Nevertheless, Haile-Selassie says that hundreds of studies have failed to demonstrate a causal connection between exposure to perfluorinated chemicals and any adverse health effects to humans.

   DuPont also supports the EPA proposal. Spokesperson Janet Smith says the company has developed and commercialised alternative chemistries and no longer makes, uses or buys PFOA. In addition, she notes that DuPont’s PFC alternatives cannot break down into PFOA.

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. (ACC Mentioned) Pink Is Not Green: Companies That Support Fighting Cancer Should Not Use Chemicals That Cause It

   Feb 9, 2015 | EcoWatch

   By Annie Sartor

   Everyone remembers the Komen vs Planned Parenthood scandal from a couple years ago, right? To recap: Susan G. Komen for the Cure defunded Planned Parenthood because, in addition to providing breast health services, they also offer—gasp—contraception and abortions. While Komen eventually caved to public pressure and reversed their decision, the damage was done. The scandal outed Komen as a right-wing institution.

   So it should be no surprise that Komen’s conservative culture extends beyond reproductive rights, that they also take positions that fly in the face of common-sense environmental sensibilities. A women’s health charity opposing access to reproductive health care is shocking, and the same charity taking anti-environment positions given that breast cancer increasingly linked to environmental causes is plain wrong.

   Komen sells and endorses toxic pink ribbon products.

   We are all exposed to a slew of toxic or hazardous chemicals in our daily lives. Companies regularly sell products that contain toxic or hazardous ingredients that can impact the health of consumers. While we’d all love to avoid products that have problem ingredients, the kind of attention and painstaking ingredient-list reading is not possible for most of us, which means that we are exposed to numerous harmful chemicals without our consent or knowledge. And pink ribbon products are no exception. Breast Cancer Action calls this practice pinkwashing.

   Komen’s long list of corporate sponsors includes several companies that are selling a product which contains breast cancer causing ingredients, including Ford and American Airlines whose emissions are linked toincreased risk of the disease, and Alhambra Water, which sells plastic water bottles emblazoned with pink ribbons—and that contain BPA, a hormone-disrupting chemical linked to breast cancer.

   To be fair, Komen is not alone in their pinkwashing. Frustratingly, there are seemingly endless examples of this hypocritical practice, made possible by multi-million breast cancer charities happy to loan their name and pink ribbon stamp of approval to hazardous products.

   Komen endorses fracking.

   Fracking, the very controversial practice of using a mix of toxic and hazardous chemicals to extract oil and gas from deep underground can count Komen as a fan and supporter. Even though fracking fluid containschemicals linked to increased risk for breast cancer.

   In 2012, Komen partnered with Chesapeake Energy’s subsidiary, Nomac Drilling, for a pink ribbon-wrapped fracking rig in rural Ohio. And in 2013 and 2014, Komen again made a truly astounding partnership decision, this time with fracking company Baker Hughes, which was publicized with, I kid you not, pink drill bits “for the cure.”

   When it comes to toxic chemical safety, Komen stays silent and rakes in the money.

   It sounds wonky, but the legislative effort to pass chemical safety reform is the most promising, and potentially comprehensive effort to reduce the public’s exposure to toxic, cancer-causing chemicals. Of course, Komen is not only conspicuously absent, but has ties to chemical industry lobbyists who are standing in the way.

   Some background for the non-wonks among us: Environmental and public health organizations have worked for years to update the ancient Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—tasked with enforcing it—acknowledges is woefully inadequate to address the seemingly endless list of toxic and harmful chemicals that we encounter with every day—from BPA in cans to flame retardants in furniture and phthalates in plastics.

   Rather than lend their tremendous weight to pass chemical safety legislation, which just as easily could be called “cancer prevention” legislation, Komen counts as partners and sponsors organizations that are members of the American Chemistry Council. The ACC is a lobbying firm intent on undermining and derailing these efforts to ensure that toxic chemicals that can cause breast cancer remain under-regulated.

   3M, which makes pink ribbon post-it notes, and Merck, a pharmaceutical company which does breast cancer research, are ACC member companies, and are also among Komen’s corporate sponsors. What’s worse is that the ACC and the industrial chemical industry has, so far, succeeded—as of early 2015, it appears that the conservative effort to quash meaningful TSCA reform is a success.

   Komen’s smiling, cheerful brand, synonymous with the pink ribbon and “breast cancer awareness,” essentially serves as the mechanism for this deep environmental hypocrisy to play out. Nobody who cares about clean air, clean water or non-toxic consumer products should be giving Komen their time or money. Instead, there are plenty of great organizations that put women’s health first, and work to reduce our exposure to cancer causing chemicals—lets support them instead.

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. (ACC Mentioned) Agency Taps Acting Director to Lead Chemical Safety Program -- Memo

   Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Sam Pearson

   The U.S. EPA program that evaluates scientific studies to determine the safety of chemicals will keep its acting director after officials reportedly considered replacing him with another candidate.

   Vincent Cogliano, who has served as acting division director of the Integrated Risk Information System program since 2010, was chosen to lead the program, according to a memo sent to staff late last week by Kenneth Olden, the head of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment. Cogliano previously directed the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs at the World Health Organization before joining EPA in 2010.

   In the memo, Olden cited Cogliano's "extensive experience developing and applying innovative methods in risk assessment including implementation of systematic review methods."

   Cogliano was a finalist for the position along with another candidate, Michael Dourson, the director of a nonprofit consulting group, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment.

   Because Dourson's firm has consulted for industry groups like the American Chemistry Council and the American Petroleum Institute and maintains a database that lists the safe doses of some chemicals at lower levels than EPA, some public health researchers feared Dourson would shift the program to favor the chemical industry. The firm has also been a favored contractor for pro-industry states like Texas, though Dourson has said his firm is impartial and does not favor industry (Greenwire, Dec. 19, 2014).

   The IRIS program has struggled to complete chemical assessments in a timely manner and has backlogs of assessments on key chemicals such as arsenic, formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium (Greenwire, Dec. 9, 2014).

   Though the agency once said it needed to complete 50 chemical assessments per year to fulfill its mission, the program completed just one assessment last year in the face of new mandates on the format of its assessments and additional opportunities for public comment by outside groups that critics say have further delayed the process (Greenwire, Jan. 23).

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. EPA Seeks NAS Advice On Using, Validating New Toxicity Testing Methods

   Feb 9, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad

   EPA is seeking advice from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on how best to use information gleaned from the myriad new toxicity testing methodologies becoming available, and is also seeking recommendations on how to validate these new technologies for regulatory use, an EPA official told NAS committee members recently.

   Bob Kavlock, EPA's deputy assistant administrator for science in the agency's research office, describes EPA's request to NAS as "an extension of the Tox21 report," referring to the 2007 NAS report of the vision outlined in the 2007 report, "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy." That report launched EPA's and other agencies' research efforts to transition from traditional animal toxicology testing to developing new computational and cellular-based and other types of in vitro toxicity testing approaches.

   "We have made progress and are getting closer and closer to regulatory [use] and we want input at this critical junction," Kavlock told committee members at their kickoff meeting in Washington, DC, Jan. 26. He added that the Tox21 report was published eight years ago, and at the time, the authors predicted that their vision would take 20 or more years to complete.

   Kavlock said that the interagency agreement between EPA, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration has allowed the effort to advance more quickly than anticipated. He also pointed to the decision to use "off the shelf" existing assays, often crafted by the pharmaceutical industry, to develop the Tox21 research program. "We're beyond what the authors of that report could imagine, which is why we are coming back to you."

   The new NAS committee follows the 2007 report as well as a 2012 companion report, "Exposure Science in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy." The newest NAS committee will be asked to review the recommendations in the two earlier reports and "then propose how best to integrate and use the emerging results in evaluating chemical risk and identify how traditional human-health risk assessment can incorporate the new science," according to a proposal outlining the new project.

   EPA has also asked the committee to address a number of key hurdles to use of the new types of toxicity data in its risk assessments. Some are longstanding issues, such as how to validate these testing types, since they produce different information than traditional toxicology tests performed with lab animals, how to make validation of the newer methodologies more efficient, and how to understand and use the new types of information in risk assessment.

   The proposal indicates the committee is charged with addressing these hurdles and others, including, "whether a new paradigm is needed for data validation (or acceptance), how to integrate the divergent data streams, how uncertainty might need to be characterized (or how characterization of uncertainty might need to change), and how best to communicate the new approaches so that they are understandable to various stakeholders."

   Validation System

   Kavlock indicated that the current validation system has been a hindrance to the advancement of the new toxicity testing methods the agencies are developing, and he urged the committee to recommend alternatives that would be better suited to the new technologies.

   "Historically, validation is the bane of new technology," he said, before urging the committee to "think about what a new framework might be that would" be better suited to validating new testing methods. In response to a member's question, Kavlock added, "We just have to come up with a way -- how will the scientific community and the public be convinced these technologies are doing what we think they are without doing round robin blind testing in 10 labs?"

   Kavlock also reminded the committee of the impetus for developing the new testing methodologies. "The current testing paradigm can't keep pace with" the thousands of chemicals on the market, with new chemicals added each year, Kavlock told the committee, adding, "there are real word consequences." He pointed to two "glaring" examples: the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and last year's leak of coal washing chemicals into the Elk River in West Virginia.

   "As we gain confidence in science and technology, we need to really think" about applications for the new testing methods, Kavlock said. He added that the researchers have "been focused on human health, but EPA protects humans and wildlife, so we need to think about cross-species" approaches that could be used.

   One benefit of the new testing methods for human health risk assessment is that they are based on human cells and human biology, reducing some of the uncertainties created by animal toxicology testing, usually in laboratory rats or mice. But it will need to be reconsidered for ecological risk assessment, a practice also undertaken at EPA for regulatory decisionmaking.

   One of the panelists, Ivan Rusyn, a toxicology professor at Texas A&M University, asked Kavlock to "help us understand the decision context," in which the new technologies will be used at EPA. Rusyn also noted that the charge to the committee appeared to be "growing in different directions." He asked Kavlock to provide these changes in writing, which Kavlock agreed to do.

   Kavlock also indicated that the committee has received advice from its Scientific Advisory Panel on screening approaches that it can use the new technology methods for, such as the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, intended to be the first regulatory program to implement the new testing methods. Kavlock suggested that it is the "more complicated" instances in which the agency is seeking help from the NAS committee. He added as one example cumulative risk assessment, a longtime challenge to toxicologists generally, saying, "these technologies offer a window" on those issues. 

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

7. GOP Avoids Showdown Over EPA Climate Change Rules

   Feb 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro

   By Elana Schor

   Republicans’ aggressive energy agenda has so far conspicuously sidestepped one of their biggest campaign-trail targets: the climate change rules from President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency.

   The House GOP plans to steer clear of a showdown over the greenhouse gas rules in a broad energy package that it will unveil this week, raising questions about whether Republicans are grasping for a workable plan to stop the carbon dioxide regulations that EPA will issue later this year.

   In the Senate, GOP leaders avoided a fight over Obama’s climate change rules during January’s long debate over Keystone XL pipeline.

   And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), whose panel is in charge of EPA funding, has vowed to push a new energy bill that’s “not a messaging” exercise, a comment that suggests she won’t pick a political fight over climate change just yet — though she also has additional leverage over EPA given her leading role in writing the agency’s spending bill.

   One GOP source with knowledge of the party’s strategy said there is “an obvious lack of enthusiasm among Republican staff, and maybe members, too, to do something on” the power-plant emissions rules that EPA is set to finalize this summer. “There’s not a lot of ‘yay, I’m superexcited’ on this.”

   In public, however, Republicans vow that they’re committed to fighting what they have long savaged as Obama’s “war on coal.”

   A spokeswoman for House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan, who left the emissions rules out of his massive new bill, wrote via email that “in addition to this energy package, we plan to move forward with an aggressive agenda to address EPA’s overreach.”

   The new EPA rules would set carbon dioxide targets for states, requiring them to submit plans to trim emissions of the gas blamed for changing the planet’s climate. And they would set tight limits on pollution from new power plants that could prevent any new coal-fired generation from being built.

   EPA’s timing for releasing their rules may be the biggest reason for Republicans’ go-slow approach.

   Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma have cited the Congressional Review Act — which successfully stopped one executive-branch regulation in 2001 — as a viable method for undercutting EPA. But an attack using CRA would have to wait until the emissions rules are final later this year.

   Whether through stand-alone legislation or the CRA, any congressional challenge to EPA is likely to draw a presidential veto. While Republicans have also warned they would use the government funding process to cripple the Obama climate rule, that could trigger a showdown with the White House over who would take the blame for shutting down the agency.

   And the current impasse over Department of Homeland Security funding that is tied to conservative anger over Obama’s immigration policy holds a lesson for the GOP: Even Senate Democrats who may share their desire to defang EPA and its climate agenda can’t be counted on to support a funding bill that would force policy changes on the president.

   “No matter the issue, if the Republicans threaten to shut down all or part of the government unless they get their way, Democrats and, more importantly, the American people overwhelmingly reject it,” one Senate Democratic leadership aide said.

   “Trying to put us in a box only strengthens the resolve of our members, no matter if it’s on Obamacare, immigration, the EPA or anything else. If they try it again on EPA, they’ll find out that the third time isn’t the charm,” the aide added.

   What’s more, Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, doesn’t appear to be enthusiastic about challenging the EPA power plant rules in her broad energy bill that will address issues from opening new areas to oil and gas exploration to strengthening the nation’s power grid.

   The Alaskan, who is also the top appropriator for EPA and the Interior Department, predicted she would spend “a lot of time” this year trying to navigate attempts “to load this particular bill with a lot of clever ideas.”

   “We are going to be working aggressively every step of the way to put together a bill that’s responsive and is something we can gain support for passage [of] — not a messaging bill, but support for passage,” Murkowski told reporters on Thursday. The newest member of her EPA spending panel is McConnell, who cruised to reelection in November with a promise to defend the coal industry from the tighter regulations proposed by the Obama administration.

   Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon said the Alaskan would work with McConnell and others on a bill that meaningfully reins in what Republicans slam as across-the-board regulatory overreach by EPA and the Interior Department. “Her goal is not to wind up with a presidential veto, however, as that would only perpetuate the status quo and allow their actions to stand uncontested,” Dillon said by email. “She is already working to put together a bill that the president will have no choice but to sign — because enough members of the Senate are convinced of its merits.”

   But rhetoric aside, the path for opponents to challenge the EPA rules is far from clear.

   “I don’t believe the Hill has settled in on a strategy,” said Tom Pyle, president of the industry-backed American Energy Alliance. After EPA finishes its rule, he added, “I’m sure Sen. McConnell will want to move on the CRA, and, notwithstanding Sen. Murkowski’s comments, there is going to be an attempt” to use spending bills to try to halt the power-plant regulations.

   The GOP source with knowledge of the party’s EPA strategy agreed with Pyle on one thing: “I don’t think anybody’s got the right answer yet” on the best way to undercut the EPA regulations.

   At the moment, the source added, House Republicans are “skittering away from anything controversial because they want to get Democrats.”

   Aside from the DHS funding fight, Republicans’ struggle to unify behind an idea to fulfill the second half of their “repeal and replace” mantra on Obamacare also signals the party’s challenge in taking on EPA.

   One troubling omen for the GOP: Several Republicans voted for measures backing climate change science during last month’s Keystone XL debate, and five agreed with Democrats that humans “significantly” affect the climate.

   Those votes chipped away at the party’s rhetorical wall on the issue, and gave greens hope they can challenge the GOP on industrial pollution.

   Republicans are realizing “that just being against something starts wearing very thin, but actually figuring out what to do” is another, bigger challenge, Natural Resources Defense Council government affairs director David Goldston said.

   “If you’re going to have an alternative, you have to have unity to do it,” Goldston added. “They’ve got too many hard-liners who don’t want to do anything.”

   Although Goldston said he had “a feeling that [Republicans] are on the ropes, both procedurally and substantively,” neither he nor fellow environmentalist Tiernan Sittenfeld expect Republicans to end their quest to block Obama’s emissions rules for power plants.

   “I’d like to think the Republican leadership has finally gotten the message that blocking the EPA’s common-sense proposal to protect public health by cutting carbon pollution from coal-burning power plants is widely out of step with what their constituents want,” said Sittenfeld, senior vice president at the League of Conservation Voters. “But if past is prologue, it’s probably just a matter of time before they try again.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. In Kan., FERC's Clark Urges Care in Drafting Clean Power Plan Response

   Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

   By Jeffrey Tomich

   Few states have pushed back as hard as Kansas in response to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.

   A federal energy regulator's advice to a legislative committee Friday is unlikely to weaken that resolve.

   Tony Clark, a Republican member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, advised the Kansas House Energy and Environment Committee to remain engaged with the proposed rule to slash greenhouse gas emissions. But, he added, the committee shouldn't commit to a compliance strategy until EPA releases its federal implementation plan later this year.

   "I don't know that I'd pick up a pencil until I knew what the federal implementation plan looks like," he said. "It may look so horrible that you decide, 'We can't live with it.'"

   Until the federal plan is available, Clark said, "you're kind of negotiating against yourself."

   States are evaluating strategies to comply with the proposal due to be finalized this summer -- strategies that in some cases will require legislation. Under EPA's current timetable, implementation plans would be due about a year later.

   Those states that fail to submit approvable plans by the deadline would be subject to a federal model rule.

   Over the past couple of weeks, the Kansas legislative committee has heard testimony from the state utility commission, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and regional grid operator Southwest Power Pool. The SPP has already warned that the rule, as drafted, would raise electric rates as much as 30 percent (EnergyWire, Oct. 10, 2014).

   Kansas alone would pay $8.5 billion to comply, according to testimony from Jeff McClanahan, director of the utilities division at the Kansas Corporation Commission, before the Senate Utilities Committee earlier this month.Health care similarities

   Clark's testimony came a day after the committee introduced H.B. 2233, the Kansas electric ratepayer protection act. The bill would enable the state environmental regulator to establish carbon dioxide emissions standards for a coal- or natural gas-fired unit only after considering all costs.

   The measure would also prohibit the agency from implementing a carbon-trading emissions program without specific statutory authority.

   A former North Dakota legislator and utility regulator, Clark said whatever decisions are made by Kansas in response to the Clean Power Plan will have long-lasting ramifications.

   "It's a huge decision to make," he said. "It's a little bit like the Affordable Care Act decision that states had to make early on. Play ball, and potentially get caught up in it in a way that you may regret later on, or you just let the feds handle it, but then you lose some flexibility."

   While the proposal gives states unprecedented flexibility to choose a compliance strategy, including renewable or energy efficiency standards, they forever cede some authority over energy policy to EPA, Clark said.

   "You don't want in a position where your hands are tied," he said. "You're going to enter a 'Mother, may I?' relationship with the EPA that's never existed before in energy policy."

   Once EPA has approved a compliance plan, "whenever you want to make changes in the future of that, it's no longer going to be just the prerogative of the state," he said.

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. A New Report Just Shot Down a Key Argument Against President Obama’s Climate Plans

   Feb 9, 2015 | The Washington Post

   By Chris Mooney

   For a while now, those decrying the Obama administration’s plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants — under EPA’s  Clean Power Plan — have levied a pretty serious practical criticism. Natural gas, they suggest, isn’t necessarily ready to step up and fill the gap in our electricity-generating infrastructure, which is currently occupied by coal.

   In a report released late last year, for instance, the Republican-majority staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee questioned the idea that under the new regulations, states will be able to power their electricity needs with a greater reliance on natural gas (as EPA envisions). Among other arguments, the document wondered whether there would be enough reliable natural gas pipelines and infrastructure, just as Republican Rep. Pete Olson of Texas did at an earlier hearing, remarking, “EPA’s second pillar of the carbon rules calls for a massive increase in power from natural gas, but they don’t seem to realize that coordinating natural gas and electric power is a very delicate balance.”

   One key critic cited by Republicans has been Federal Energy Regulatory Commission commissioner Philip Moeller, who testified before Congress last year on his concern about “whether there will be sufficient pipeline capacity to support this increase in natural gas generation.”

   It’s a very legitimate question to ask. But according to a new report from the Department of Energy examining the nation’s natural gas infrastructure — conducted by Deloitte MarketPoint — it may not be that much of a problem.  The report found that in two scenarios in which a “simple, illustrative national carbon policy applied to the electric power sector” was considered, the nation’s natural gas infrastructure would only require “modest incremental additions” of pipeline capacity.

   “I think this report is extremely timely and provides an important new insight,” says Susan Tierney, a former energy department official who served as a peer reviewer on the report. “The U.S. system requirements for natural gas seem quite manageable going forward.”

   Natural gas, when burned, contributes considerably less carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than coal does. And thanks to the fracking revolution, the United States has become the world leader in producing natural gas. So it makes great sense that as we shift away from coal, natural gas would take its place.

   The problem, though, is that while coal can sit in a pile near a plant ready to burn, natural gas has to be transported to go through pipelines. So it’s  legitimate to wonder whether current pipelines — 217,000 miles worth of them — have the capacity to service a growing need for natural gas to generate electricity in the future.
   Source: Department of Energy, “Natural Gas Infrastructure Implications of Increased Demand from the Electric Power Sector.”

   The new report notes that pipeline infrastructure has been expanding greatly to keep up with the shale gas revolution. But its central feature is  a model that examines how natural gas would flow into the electric power arena under different demand scenarios, including two scenarios in which coal-fired power plants retire because of a national carbon policy, like EPA’s.

   The result was that even in a case where there is presumed to be a high demand for natural gas (because there are a lot of coal plant retirements), we still wouldn’t have to build natural gas pipeline capacity at a faster rate during the 15-year period from 2015 to 2030 than we did from 1998 through 2013. The reason, says the report, is the “wide geographic distribution of both natural gas production and demand and the ability to increase utilization of some existing pipelines.”

   To be specific: From 1998 and 2013, the nation added nearly 127 billion cubic feet per day’s worth of pipeline capacity. From 2015 to 2030, says the report, the additional capacity would only be about 38 billion to 42 billion cubic feet per day.

   “This analysis shows that the amount of new natural gas infrastructure that would be needed to accommodate the increased demand for gas coming from carbon policy would be modest relative to the amount of gas infrastructure that we’ve built in recent years,” says Jason Bordoff, an energy policy expert at Columbia University who formerly served on the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the National Security Council.

   In the coming year, there will be a battery of arguments against the EPA’s plans to regulate carbon emissions from coal plants. But this research suggests that the idea that natural gas infrastructure can’t step up to the plate shouldn’t be one of them.

   At the same time, let’s not forget that many environmental groups have concerns about natural gas, and especially  fracking. They certainly want the president’s climate plans to succeed — but the means of success may be bittersweet.

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. States Intensify Call for Court to Throw Out EPA Cross-State Pollution Program

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jeremy P. Jacobs

    Several states challenging U.S. EPA's regime for controlling air pollution that drifts across state lines renewed their call Friday for federal judges to throw it out.

    More than a dozen states, led by Texas, say EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR, is unlawful, despite the fact that the Supreme Court upheld major parts of the regulations last year.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is grappling with remaining issues, including charges that CSAPR "overcontrols" upwind states by forcing them to cut emissions by more than they contribute to their downwind neighbors.

    Moreover, the states contend that EPA acted unlawfully when it disapproved state implementation plans (SIPs) that were part of CSAPR's predecessor, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR, even though that program was vacated by the D.C. Circuit in 2008.

    "EPA had no authority to impose Transport Rule [federal implementation plans] for the 22 states whose CAIR SIPs EPA has previously approved," the states wrote in court documents. "That decision would have invalidated only CAIR" federal implementation plans.

    Last April, the Supreme Court in a 6-2 ruling upheld EPA's decision to consider cost in assigning who must make emissions reductions in CSAPR, a program for 28 eastern states (Greenwire, April 29, 2014).

    The court remanded various remaining issues to the D.C. Circuit, which will hear arguments on them Feb. 25. The court has lifted a stay on the program, allowing it to go in effect at the beginning of this year.

    CSAPR establishes a two-step process. First, EPA determines whether a state contributes more than 1 percent to a downwind state exceeding an air standard. If it does, EPA then calculates how much an upwind state can reduce those emissions using complex modeling and gives states a budget for emissions cuts in a federal implementation plan.

    The states remaining in the lawsuit have raised numerous concerns. Texas, in particular, is challenging whether it should have been added to CSAPR at all. Ohio, Kansas and Georgia are also challenging EPA's implementation plans.

    In a separate brief, utility and energy companies reiterated the "overcontrol" point.

    "EPA does not dispute our central showing," they wrote. "The Transport Rule requires numerous individual upwind States to cut emissions far more than necessary for the downwind locations to which they are linked to attain and maintain air-quality standards."

    Click here for the states' brief.

    Click here for the industry brief.

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. House Republicans Set to Flesh Out Sweeping Energy Plan

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Nick Juliano and Hannah Northey

    Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton this week will take the first significant step on the long road toward a new comprehensive energy bill, which would be the most ambitious overhaul to policies affecting pipelines, transmission and energy efficiency in more than eight years.

    Details of the framework being crafted by the Michigan Republican and other committee members remained largely under wraps ahead of the formal announcement, which is expected as soon as today. But Upton said the United States needs to update outdated policies that make it more difficult to take advantage of newly discovered oil and natural gas reserves and other recent developments.

    "We have gone from bust to boom in energy but now Jimmy Carter-era policies threaten our ability to reap the benefits," Upton said in a statement.

    Pointing to the "Architecture of Abundance" plan he offered last year, Upton said he and other committee members would build on that effort with "a framework to modernize infrastructure, prepare our workforce, take advantage of our energy as a force for good in the world, and boost efficiency and accountability."

    The committee, an aide said, this week plans to outline additional details of the framework, which is being divided into four main headings: infrastructure, workforce development, energy diplomacy, and efficiency and accountability. Stakeholders were briefed on the broad outlines of the framework last week (E&E Daily, Feb. 6).

    Perhaps as notable as what will go into the framework is what will be omitted. Sources briefed on the plan say it is unlikely to call for a repeal of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan or other major rules in order to prevent an immediate revolt from Democrats or the White House. However, it likely would propose at least some regulatory changes, so environmentalists are withholding judgment for now.

    "It is certainly notable -- if true -- that Republican Leadership recognizes stopping the EPA from cleaning up carbon pollution is as much a poison pill for legislation as it is for the planet," Franz Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council said in an email Friday. "That said, there appear to be a lot of wolves hiding in this sheep's clothing, so the details will matter."

    Sources expect the framework to be a mix of new ideas and previously proposed legislation and to come with bipartisan support. For example, lobbyists briefed on the bill said they expected the workforce provision to be modeled on legislation proposed last year by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) to expand education and training programs for energy-related jobs, with an emphasis on increasing the number of women and minorities in such roles. Rush is the top Democrat on the E&C Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

    Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), two of the lower chamber's leading champions of energy efficiency policies, also have been working with Upton in hopes of seeing some of their proposals included in the package, a source familiar with the discussions said.

    The pair last year won House passage of H.R. 2126, a narrow efficiency bill that would have established a voluntary Tennant Star program to make buildings more efficient and encouraged federal agencies to reduce their energy use. McKinley and Welch also teamed up to introduce several other efficiency bills, most notably the "Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act," a companion to legislation championed by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio). It remains to be seen whether those proposals would be included in the Upton framework.

    The House is also slated to focus on accelerating the construction of natural gas pipelines, a somewhat thorny issue that's already triggered partisan debates and a White House veto threat earlier this year.

    Martin Edwards, vice president of legislative affairs for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, said he believes the House strategy could align but somewhat differ from Rep. Mike Pompeo's (R-Kan.) "Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act,"H.R. 161, which the House approved last month on a 253-169 vote.

    The bill, which split Democratic supporters from those who said it was unnecessary and could spike power prices, would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a year to approve or deny a pipeline and other agencies three or four months beyond that to complete their work on any additional permits, licenses or approvals that would be needed.

    "My guess is it'll be slightly different, but I think the intent will be similar," he said.

    The House, with the industry's blessing, is moving to ensure the permitting process for gas transmission lines is more orderly, timely and predictable, Edwards said. Debates over the Pompeo bill, he added, missed the larger point that there are a multitude of federal and state agencies that must sign off on proposed projects -- even if FERC approves construction certificates, proposed pipelines can still hit snags with other state and federal agencies.

    "That's where the majority of delays happen," Edwards said. "It's not really about FERC's deadlines, it's about other agencies' deadlines, or lack thereof."

    Some Democrats from energy-hungry states like New Jersey and Massachusetts argued that Pompeo's bill would turn FERC into a "super permitting agency" forced to make decisions on complex pipelines crossing multiple states and intersecting vulnerable wildlife areas. And the White House said the measure would create statutory and regulatory conflict, limit public comment, and impose "unworkable" timelines, and argued that FERC already approves most projects within a year (E&ENews PM, Jan. 20).

    But Edwards said those arguments miss the point. "I think the industry response is generally that a timely 'no' is better than an indefinite 'maybe,'" Edwards said. "A timely no can be challenged in court."

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. House GOP to Unveil Energy Policy Agenda

    Feb 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee will unveil an energy policy outline Monday, crafted to better align policies with the current energy market.

    The plan will include provisions to modernize energy infrastructure like pipelines and transmission lines and to better prepare the workforce for modern energy jobs, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the committee’s chairman, said in a statement.

    “We have gone from bust to boom in energy, but now Jimmy Carter-era policies threaten our ability to reap the benefits,” Upton said.

    The plan will follow last year’s “Architecture of Abundance” agenda for the committee, which focused on issues like energy security and affordability.

    “That conversation continues this new Congress as we are finalizing a framework to modernize infrastructure, prepare our workforce, take advantage of our energy as a force for good in the world, and boost efficiency and accountability,” Upton said.

    Last year’s “abundance” plan focused in five areas: modernizing infrastructure, diverse electricity generation, permitting for manufacturing facilities, efficiency and energy diplomacy.

    That was informed chiefly by the oil and gas boom of recent years, which Upton said should push policymakers to change policies that were focused on energy scarcity.

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Fracking Opponents Take Aim at Governor's Climate Credentials

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Debra Kahn

    As Gov. Jerry Brown (D) doubles down on California's climate change policies, opponents of hydraulic fracturing in the state are getting louder.

    Climate and environmental activists in Oakland on Saturday sought to challenge the notion that Brown -- who has signed agreements with China and Mexico to collaborate on climate policies and who last month in his inaugural speech proposed cutting petroleum use in half by 2030 -- is a climate hawk.

    Armed with banners, a bevy of environmental groups convened outside City Hall, where Brown served as mayor from 1999 to 2006. Some had catchy slogans like "Respect existence or expect resistance," while others relied on sheer volume of information. One banner, listing approximately 80 chemicals used in fracking fluids, stretched almost an entire city block.

    Environmentalists offered pointed criticism of Brown. "We believe we have a different definition of what actually makes a climate leader," said Linda Capato Jr., fracking campaign coordinator with the group 350.org. "Saying you're a climate leader ... is like saying you're trying to save money while inside a Louis Vuitton."

    The loquacious governor -- known for his willingness to engage with reporters at press conferences -- has been relatively silent on fracking.Concerns about emissions leakage

    On Friday, Brown gave his most extensive comments yet on the technique when asked about it at a press conference on the state's drought -- another reason environmentalists oppose fracking's copious water use. Citing his climate-friendly policies, Brown said that the state isn't giving up petroleum anytime soon and should at least seek to cut dependence on foreign oil.

    "As long as these cars are moving -- and as we speak, protesters and nonprotesters are burning up gasoline that is being shipped from Iraq, from Russia, from Venezuela and all sorts of other places and coming in on trains," he said. "So whatever we don't do here, we're just going to get from someone else.

    "I would say that California has the most imaginative and aggressive and integrated strategy to deal with climate change of any political jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere," he said, citing his proposals to increase the state's share of renewable energy to 50 percent, double the efficiency of existing buildings and reduce use of petroleum in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent below today's levels by 2030 (E&ENews PM, Jan. 5).

    "Now, that doesn't mean we're doing everything. But I would say that as long as Californians are going to drive 332 billion miles a year and consume 14 billion gallons of gasoline and 4 billion gallons of diesel, we're going to have to have a plan that is comprehensive, that is stuck to, and implemented consistently over time, and that deals with all the issues and not just a subset."

    A community advocate said she wasn't convinced by Brown's arguments.

    "He's the governor of California, not Venezuela or the whole world," said Madeline Stano, staff attorney at the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. "His responsibility is to take care of our communities and the climate."

    Additionally, some of the petroleum may be making its way out of the state, increasing out-of-state emissions that aren't accounted for under state policies like the cap-and-trade system that covers refiners and fuel suppliers, Stano said.

    "We don't have a lot of information on where it's going," Stano said. "We have heard earlier reports that it is being exported, but it's not something we have concrete data on. The overarching theme for all of this is, we don't know."State set to release permanent rules this summer

    In California, about one-fifth of oil production over the last decade has come from fracked wells, according to a state study released last month. During the same period, companies "fractured about 125 to 175 wells" out of the roughly 300 wells installed every month in the state.

    About 95 percent of wells producing oil via hydraulic fracturing were in the San Joaquin Valley, with the bulk in four oil fields in Kern County.

    California has imposed interim regulations on fracking and other forms of unconventional drilling and is preparing permanent rules to take effect in July, under a 2013 law, S.B. 4. Environmentalists say the rules are too permissive and procedurally flawed, with environmental impact reports coming out after the rules themselves have been released (EnergyWire, Jan. 15).

    The groups want Brown to impose a moratorium on fracking and other stimulation techniques via executive order, Capato said. There have been legislative attempts to ban fracking in previous years, but they would have faced a veto from Brown, she said. "He is the leader, and folks are following him," she said.

    Brown was the explicit target at Saturday's rally, which featured a Brown impersonator in a papier-mache head and another who stood in a dunk tank and allowed people to throw balls at him.

    The march drew groups from all around the state, representing labor unions, university groups and environmental groups including 350.org; Food and Water Watch; the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment; and Communities for a Better Environment.

    The post-march estimate of attendance at the event, which had been billed as a gathering of 10,000 activists, was 8,000, although a city police officer estimated it at 1,500 to 2,000. After the rally at City Hall, activists marched through downtown Oakland and congregated again at the city's Lake Merritt for another rally. Local officials, including Oakland Council members Dan Kalb and Rebecca Kaplan, were in attendance, Capato said, although neither addressed the crowd.

    Without a statewide moratorium, environmentalists have been engaging in ground battles with companies like Occidental Petroleum Corp., which withdrew last month from a 2011 proposal to drill 200 wells in Carson, south of Los Angeles (EnergyWire, Jan. 28).

    "Oil prices dropped; they threw up the white flag," said Dianne Thomas, an activist from Carson. "We beat Oxy."

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Research Shows Strong Correlation Between Quakes, Oil Activity

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Mike Soraghan

    New research is zeroing in on a significant correlation between oil and gas waste disposal and earthquakes in a two-county area in northern Oklahoma.

    In the past year, earthquakes have become common in Alfalfa and Grant counties along the Kansas border. The frequent shaking comes on the heels of a 500 percent increase in the amount of waste fluid being injected under the two rural counties.

    "Anybody can see that they are correlated," said Kyle Murray, a hydrogeologist with the Oklahoma Geological Survey who compiled the state waste disposal data. "I think the data kind of speaks for itself."

    That correlation, he noted, doesn't prove that the fluid disposal is causing the earthquakes. But he said it does provide valuable information.

    "There's numerous other factors that play into this," Murray said.

    Seismologists with the U.S. Geological Survey have found similar correlations in the area.

    Alfalfa and Grant counties are in the middle of the Mississippi Lime, an oil play where wells produce as much as 10 barrels of wastewater for every barrel of oil.

    In 2011, there were no earthquakes in either county. Last year, there were at least 177. The earthquakes in the area are also getting stronger.

    Six of the more than 50 earthquakes there since the beginning of the year have been magnitude 4 or greater, the level at which seismologists expect to see damage to buildings. Last year, there were only two quakes that big.

    Last week, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which regulates oil and gas in the state, ordered a SandRidge Energy Inc. disposal well in Alfalfa County to stop operations after a magnitude-4.1 earthquake.

    SandRidge is the dominant oil producer in the area, and inexpensive disposal is key to the company's strategy in the Mississippi Lime. The company has more than 186 disposal wells with a capacity of 2.5 million barrels (105 million gallons) a day in the area. In 2013, then-CEO Tom Ward said the company had worked to triple the capacity of its wells to lower costs.

    Alfalfa and Grant counties in Oklahoma. Map courtesy of Wikipedia.

    "The company has diligently built one of the world's largest saltwater disposal and electrical systems over the last three years to create a play that has very high rates of return," Ward said in a conference call with analysts.

    SandRidge owns 1.85 million acres of leaseholds in the play, according to the company website, with more than 11,000 potential horizontal drilling locations identified.

    SandRidge officials did not respond to multiple messages asking about the correlation between disposal operations and earthquakes.Disposal wells multiply in Alfalfa

    Amid the Mississippi Lime buildup, Alfalfa County has become the biggest in the state for underground disposal of waste fluid.

    In 2010, Alfalfa County disposal wells took in 19 million barrels of waste fluid, according to Murray's analysis of state data. That didn't even put it in among the top five in the state.

    In 2013, companies injected 225 million barrels of waste under the county. That is not only the most of any county in Oklahoma. It is 2 ½ times the amount injected in the next-highest county, Seminole.

    USGS scientists have also noticed the spike in earthquakes paired with oil and gas activity in the area. USGS geophysicist Andrea Llenos has looked at the rise of earthquakes along with the increase of both production and disposal wells in this part of the Mississippi Lime.

    "That's probably the most direct correlation," Llenos said.

    But she said there was a lag between when many of the wells were drilled, in 2011 and 2012, and when the earthquake rate sped up in 2013. Murray's report showed that the biggest jump in disposal volumes didn't come until 2013.

    The Mississippi Lime play extends across the straight-line border with Kansas, where earthquakes started occurring in September 2013. Llenos' USGS colleague Justin Rubinstein has studied oil production activities and earthquakes in the area. From mid-June to late July last year, he and his fellow researchers recorded more than 200 earthquakes in the area, ranging from magnitude 0.5 to 3.5.

    "We're seeing expansion of the field, followed by an increase in seismic activity," Rubinstein said.'Salt water' surge

    Often referred to as "salt water" within the industry, the wastewater from oil wells is many times saltier than ocean water. It can include fluid from hydraulic fracturing, oil byproducts and other toxic substances from the formation.

    Scientists have known for decades that injecting waste fluid in deep disposal wells -- from oil and gas or other industrial activities -- can cause earthquakes in rare cases.

    * One barrel is 42 gallons. Data courtesy of Oklahoma Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey.

    The central United States, particularly Oklahoma, has seen a surge in earthquakes in the past few years.

    From 1975 to 2008, the whole state of Oklahoma averaged one to three quakes of magnitude 3 or greater a year, according to USGS. The number then rose abruptly. In 2009, it had 20 such quakes. In 2012, the number went over 100; last year it had more than 560 (EnergyWire, Jan. 5).

    Academic researchers and USGS have linked much of this increase to oil and gas activity, particularly waste fluid disposal.

    The link between earthquakes and drilling in Oklahoma has been actively discussed since at least November 2011, when the state was hit by its largest recorded quake.

    Many researchers have linked the magnitude-5.7 quake, which injured two people and damaged more than 200 homes and businesses, to disposal activities near the quake's epicenter. Industry and state officials have said those findings are premature.

    The Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which oversees oil and gas in the state, last year adopted what it calls the "traffic light" approach as it deals with the widespread shaking.

    Disposal wells in a swarm area within 6 miles of the center of a quake of magnitude 4 or greater are put in "yellow light" status. They get special scrutiny. The commission has temporarily shut down at least six disposal wells so they can be brought back into compliance.

    But Dana Murphy, one of the three elected commissioners who oversee the agency, has said the state might need to change course.

    "I get concerned about the piecemeal basis that we've been looking at it with," Murphy said during a public session last week. "Maybe we need to look at a broader scope."

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Obama Prepares for Divisive Veto

    Feb 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Laura Barron-Lopez

    President Obama is just days away from issuing the biggest veto of his tenure, with Republicans poised to send him legislation that would authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
    

    
    Obama’s veto — just the third of his presidency and the first since 2010 — is expected to come with little fanfare, with even opponents of the pipeline arguing the White House should avoid further angering Democrats and unions who want Keystone to be built.
    
    "We just want to see it get it rejected. Our work doesn't end with the veto, we need to make sure votes are there to sustain that veto," said Melinda Pierce, Sierra Club's legislative director.
    
    Republicans are eagerly awaiting Obama’s stroke of the pen, believing every veto he makes will help them make the case that job-creating legislation is being blocked by a president of “no.”

    "This is the first piece of legislation on his desk . . . and he will have to choose between hard working Americans and taxpayers or environmental extremists,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a staunch Keystone supporter.

    "We will keep our word to the American people, and we are going to keep sending bills to his desk," he added.

    Republicans made Keystone their priority No. 1 after winning control of Congress in November, charging out of the gates with legislation that would override the administration’s review process and approve the $8 billion project.

    Work on the Keystone bill took nearly a month in the Senate, ending last week with a 62-36 vote that drew the support of nine Democrats.

    The House is poised to approve the bill this week and ship it to 1800 Pennsylvania Ave., where it is likely to meet a swift demise.

    "The president has been pretty clear that he does not think circumventing a well-established process for evaluating these projects is the right thing for Congress," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said last month.

    The rejection of the Keystone bill will mark the beginning of veto wars between Obama and the GOP, with both sides hoping to rally public support as showdowns over the debt ceiling and the budget approach later this year.

    The White House has touted Obama’s power to block legislation repeatedly since Republicans won the House and Senate, issuing eight veto threats in January alone — the most ever for the start of a new Congress.

    “He is playing the strong hand here,” said Jim Manley a Democratic strategist, and former aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

    Vetoing Keystone, Manley said, “is a matter of relevance and to show he has influence in the process.”

    For Obama, shooting down Republican legislation serves multiple goals, allowing him to project strength, rally the liberal base and draw contrasts that could help Democrats in the 2016 elections.

    "I do think he wants to put his flag in the ground and demonstrate that his veto pen has a bunch of ink in it, and he will use it," Pierce said.

    Still, if Obama vetoes too many bills, especially ones with Democratic support, Republicans could have success portraying him as partisan and unwilling to negotiate.

    “One veto doesn’t make him obstructionist,” said James Thurber, a professor of government at American University “Now maybe after 3, 4, 5 vetoes, then they could start painting him that way.”

    One question facing the White House is how to carry out the vetoes for maximum political advantage.

    While the Keystone refusal is likely to happen behind closed doors, the White House may choose to cast aside other Republican bills in the spotlight’s glare.

    If Obama wants to make his vetoes a media event, he could employ the playbook of former President Bill Clinton, who used them to great effect when he was facing a Republican Congress in his second term.

    In 1999, Clinton brought in a brass band for a jovial Rose Garden ceremony where he vetoed a Republican bill that would have provided a $792 billion tax cut.

    Former President George W. Bush also had a memorable veto moment in 2006, when Democrats sent him legislation that would have eased restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research.

    In a ceremony in the East Room, Bush stood in front of so-called "snowflake" families that had adopted embryos that would have otherwise been discarded by fertility clinics, and then used them to have children. After delivering his remarks, Bush posed for pictures with the families.

    But not all vetoes have been performed so publicly.

    When Clinton vetoed the legislation banning partial birth abortions, he did so in a private ceremony in the Oval Office. He met with women who had undergone the procedure on the advice of their doctors because their health was in danger.

    Often presidents have vetoed bills simply by issuing a written statement outlining their objections.

    That’s the route Obama is likely to take on Keystone, given how deeply the legislation divides his own party.

    Once Obama’s veto comes down, it’s unclear whether Republicans will try to override him, given that they are short of the two-thirds majorities that would be needed.

    Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), one of the authors of the Senate Keystone bill, said he’s confident that Obama’s move will only help Republicans build their case for the oil sands project.

    "He's going the wrong direction. The American people made it very clear in the election that they want the administration to work with Congress,” Hoeven said.

    For Keystone opponents, the focus isn't on Obama’s veto — it's on what comes next.

    The activist group 350.org has been staging protests to pressure Obama into rejecting the project once when the results of an interagency review process, now in the hands of Secretary of State John Kerry, reach the White House.

    “For us the veto isn't the end all. It is step one. What we are far more interested in is, moving past that, and getting him to the place where he is moving toward a rejection," said Karthik Ganapathy, communications director for 350.

    Green groups said they are planning to send more letters to the White House, complete with signatures from high-profile figures, to ensure that Obama thinks hard about how approving Keystone could affect his climate change legacy.

    "We aren't just going to go quietly into the night," Ganapathy said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Pentagon Has ‘No Objection’ to Keystone

    Feb 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    The Defense Department has reportedly told the State Department that it does not have a problem with approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline project.

    Michael Bruhn, executive secretary to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, told State that the Pentagon’s position hasn’t changed since last March, when it also had no opposition to Keystone.

    “The Department is not aware of any substantive changes in the intervening period and it continues to have no objection to the granting of the subject permit to TransCanada,” Bruhn wrote in a letter obtained Monday.

    The Pentagon is one of eight agencies that were asked to weigh in on whether approving the pipeline from Canada’s oil sands to the United States Gulf Coast would be in the country’s national interest, since it crosses an international border. It is the first agency to release its comments, which were due Feb. 2.

    The input is meant to help Secretary of State John Kerry develop a recommendation to President Obama whether or not to approve the pipeline.

    The Environmental Protection Agency released its letter on State’s separate environmental impact assessment, asking State to reconsider the potential impact Keystone would have on climate change.

    The Pentagon told State that if it needed any Defense Department land, the agencies would have to establish a real estate agreement. Bloomberg Business first reported the Pentagon’s comments Friday.

    Leaders at the departments of Interior, Energy, Justice, Commerce, Homeland Security and Transportation were also asked to submit comments on State’s national interest determination. Interior and Energy said they commented, but did not release their comments.

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Oil Industry Slams ‘Restrictive’ Offshore Drilling Plan

    Feb 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    The oil industry is criticizing the Obama administration’s offshore oil and gas drilling plan for closing off about 87 percent of the potential drilling areas.

    While the main oil lobbying groups are glad that the Interior Department is planning to lease drilling rights on the southern Atlantic coast, they’re disappointed that the entire Pacific coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and much of the water around Alaska is still off-limits.

    “Studies show we could create 840,000 new jobs and raise more than $200 billion for the government if oil and natural gas development is allowed in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico,” Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told reporters Monday.

    “By ignoring the latter two areas, the administration has already turned its back on most of those jobs.”

    Interior’s planning for the 2017-2022 offshore leasing plan has the potential to make the United States an energy leader for years to come, Gerard said.

    “But the opportunity could slip through our fingers if the government keeps 87 percent of offshore waters closed to oil and natural gas leasing,” he said.

    Gerard’s statements came the same day Interior is kicking off a series of public forums to gather input on the plan, starting in Anchorage, Alaska, and Washington, D.C.

    Gerard and other oil industry leaders said they were concerned that, while Interior’s plan is just a draft, the agency will not consider lease sales that are not in the draft.

    The plan “slams the door on industry and new jobs, increased economic activity, added revenue and strengthened energy security that exploration and development of other new offshore areas would provide for America,” said Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, which represents offshore drillers.

    Barry Russell, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said closing off significant portions of the outer continental shelf means that the industry will never know the potential oil and gas that could be recovered there.

    “Opening these areas for exploration would provide us with much-needed knowledge,” he said. “Today, we don’t know the extent of what resources lie beneath those waters, and as Americans, all of us own those resources and deserve the right to know and to use sound science to make sure that we know the full potential of our offshore oil and gas reserves.”

    The associations said they would continue to push Interior to open more areas for exploration, even though they were excluded from the draft plan.

    The industry groups, among others, asked Interior in August to consider all areas for drilling and not prematurely exclude any area from the plan without knowing its potential.

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Lawmakers Take Step Toward Fulfilling State Climate Change Goals

    Feb 7, 2015 | Los Angeles Times

    By Chris Megerian

    State lawmakers are preparing a sweeping package of bills that would fulfill several of Gov. Jerry Brown's climate change objectives by increasing California's reliance on renewable energy and alternative transportation fuels.

    The proposals would also require state pension funds, the two largest public systems in the country, to divest from coal companies. And they would create an advisory committee aimed at turning energy policies into new jobs.

    The introduction of the bills on Tuesday will kick-start months of contentious negotiations among lawmakers, oil companies, utilities, environmental advocates and the governor. If the measures pass, California will embark on a 15-year mission to spur investment in clean technology, slash the amount of gasoline used on state roads and boost energy efficiency in thousands of aging buildings.

    Overall, the legislative package largely reflects environmental targets detailed by Brown in his inaugural address last month.

    "We want the same goal," said state Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), who is preparing the bills with members of his caucus. "We're on the same page."

    In a statement, Brown said he and De León "share a strong commitment to dealing with climate change in an aggressive and imaginative way. I look forward to working with the Legislature to hammer out the details."

    With their proposals, the senators want to signal that California will continue fostering a growing market for renewable energy and alternative fuels — part of their bid to portray environmental regulations as good for the state's economy rather than a burden.

    "If we're creating the markets here in California, we want those businesses located here," said Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills).

    Some lawmakers, even some Democrats, have sought to limit California's fight against climate change.

    "There's a lot of people who want to see the governor meet his goals for climate change, who share his goals," Assemblyman Henry Perea (D-Fresno) said last month, "but who also worry about the economy."

    By focusing on economic development, supporters hope they can win enough votes to pass the bills.

    "Our bet on green energy is paying off," De León said. "If you're skeptical, and you're in an area with high unemployment, the bottom line is: Will jobs be created?"

    The Senate proposals follow regulations already on the books, notably a 2006 law that requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. One of the new bills, by Pavley, would require an additional 80% reduction by 2050, a target set by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in an executive order.

    Like previous climate change policies in California, the legislation is being sketched broadly, providing multiple options for state agencies and businesses to reach the goals.

    For example, a measure by De León and Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) sets a series of targets for 2030, including a 50% reduction in the use of gasoline for transportation. The goal could be achieved with a mix of alternative fuels, improved engine efficiency and cutting the number of miles driven by Californians by promoting public transit.

    Oil companies oppose the proposal and question whether it's achievable with so much of the state's transportation fuel — 92% — based on petroleum.

    "Legislative mandates designed to constrain the availability of conventional energy supplies are not a smart or effective way to encourage development of available or affordable alternatives," said a statement from Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Assn.

    Her organization spent nearly $9 million lobbying in Sacramento in 2014, almost double the previous year and the most of any group.

    De León said concerns from oil companies should be taken with "a grain of salt" because "they have to protect their current business model."

    Under the De León-Leno bill, California would need to get 50% of its energy from renewable sources such as solar and wind, up from the 33% goal currently on the books for 2020.

    Utility companies also have been skeptical, emphasizing a need for "flexibility" in meeting energy targets.

    David Modisette, executive director of the California Municipal Utilities Assn., said those businesses would rather be judged on reducing carbon emissions than on increasing renewable energy. That would allow them credit for such acts as installing recharging stations for electric vehicles.

    "It should be a more holistic approach," Modisette said.

    Southern California Edison and other large utilities have floated a similar idea, saying it "will help the state reach its goals and do so at a lower cost for customers."

    The senators' bill would also require a 50% increase in energy efficiency in existing buildings, which have not been subjected to the same standards as new structures.

    All of these policies, supporters say, would be geared toward creating new jobs. A bill from Sen. Ben Hueso (D-San Diego) would create a committee of experts, appointed by the governor and lawmakers, to advise state agencies on ways to boost economic development.

    Another bill by De León would require California's two largest pension systems — the California Public Employees' Retirement System and California State Teachers' Retirement System — to divest from coal companies. Less than .06% of the $296.1 billion managed by CalPERS is invested in coal operations, according to pension officials.

    When De León first mentioned this proposal in December, pension officials balked, saying divestment would reduce the funds' ability to influence the marketplace.

    De León said he welcomes debate on the legislation.

    "This is not some unilateral edict," he said. "It is the beginning of a dialogue."

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. High Marks -- Mostly -- for Holder on Environmental Cases

    Feb 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jeremy P. Jacobs

    As Attorney General Eric Holder prepares to leave the Obama administration after five years on the job, environmental attorneys are sizing up his record and generally applauding his efforts to protect public health and natural resources.

    Holder's Department of Justice successfully defended U.S. EPA's first climate rules at the Supreme Court and produced major Clean Air Act victories in federal appeals courts. He has also secured record-setting settlements stemming from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Holder has also rededicated DOJ and other agencies to environmental justice.

    But criminal environmental enforcement prosecutions have lagged, critics say, and how much action the department has taken to support Holder's lofty environmental justice rhetoric remains open to interpretation.

    "The Department of Justice in general has fared pretty well during Holder's term," said Thomas Lorenzen, a former DOJ environmental attorney now at Dorsey & Whitney. "If we look at EPA's rulemakings, the majority of those were upheld either at federal circuit courts or the Supreme Court."

    One of the longest-serving members of President Obama's Cabinet and considered a close confidant of the president's, Holder announced his resignation last September but said he would continue serving until his successor is confirmed. Obama's nominee -- Loretta Lynch, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York -- recently appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it's unclear when the Senate will act on her nomination.

    Holder had some record-setting environmental accomplishments. On his watch, DOJ reached a $4 billion settlement with BP PLC following the Deepwater Horizon spill to resolve criminal charges facing the company for the deaths of 11 rig workers (Greenwire, Nov. 15, 2012). The department continues to press for the maximum Clean Water Act penalties against BP in ongoing litigation, and a federal district judge in New Orleans has found that the oil giant was "grossly negligent." BP is now facing up to $13.7 billion in fines in the final stage of the trial (Greenwire, Jan. 16).

    Attorney General Eric Holder speaking at a press conference following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Photo courtesy of the Department of Justice.

    Holder's DOJ also reached a $5.15 billion settlement with Kerr-McGee Corp. and its parent company, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., to resolve a legacy of nationwide environmental contamination. Of that, $4.4 billion will be funneled to hundreds of cleanups around the country -- such as a former chemical manufacturing site in Nevada contaminating Lake Mead and radioactive waste across the Navajo Nation in the West.

    The department is on a winning streak in court for its defense of EPA's Clean Air Act regulations, including its climate change agenda. DOJ attorneys have won at least a dozen cases either before the Supreme Court or federal courts of appeals challenging EPA rules.

    The Supreme Court, for example, backed EPA's program last April for air pollution that crosses state lines (Greenwire, April 29, 2014). Further, in what was considered largely a victory for the agency, the court denied reviewing most aspects of EPA's first round of climate change regulations after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld them.

    And in the part of the climate regime that was reviewed, the justices last June upheld EPA's ability to regulate 83 percent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. EPA had sought to regulate 86 percent (Greenwire, June 23, 2014).

    Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor who wrote some of those early climate rules as White House counselor for energy and climate change from 2009 to 2010, said that ruling was critical to the Obama administration's global warming efforts.

    "This is a particularly important time," Freeman said. "For climate change, this is the beginning of the process. So if the department wasn't on its game defending these rules, they would run into serious problems implementing [the president's] climate agency.

    "We're going to see more of it," she added, referring to litigation challenging Obama's Clean Power Plan and proposed greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants.

    DOJ also successfully defended EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants at the D.C. Circuit. That case is now before the Supreme Court and will be argued next month.

    Robert Percival, a environmental law professor at the University of Maryland, said DOJ has been successful because there appears to be more coordination between agencies and the department to ensure regulations are legally bulletproof.

    "The quality of the legal analysis has improved," he said.Enforcement problems

    But DOJ has frequently struggled to prosecute alleged environmental offenders.

    Most notably, the Supreme Court in March 2012 unanimously ruled against EPA in Sackett v. EPA, a case stemming from a Clean Water Act enforcement action in Idaho. The court held that the Sacketts had a right to challenge in court EPA's order that they may not fill a supposed wetland on their property. The ruling called into question EPA's practice of issuing compliance orders to enforce its policies (Greenwire, March 21, 2012).

    EPA also lost an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case involving the agency's interpretation of wastewater treatment rules (E&ENews PM, March 27, 2013). And DOJ failed to secure a win in a case concerning EPA's ability to aggregate emitters of air pollution into one source under the Clean Air Act (Greenwire, May 30, 2014).

    "Where the department has had less success is in the enforcement context," said Lorenzen, the former DOJ attorney. "Consistently across the circuits we've seen curtailment of EPA's ability to enforce things like the Clean Air Act."

    Others have raised concerns about DOJ's prosecutorial discretion in pursuing enforcement cases. An in-depth review by The Crime Report last July concluded that EPA and DOJ largely decline to bring criminal charges against those violating environmental laws.

    The publication identified more than 64,000 facilities in agency databases known to be running afoul of environmental rules. But in most years, EPA and DOJ have criminally investigated fewer than 1 percent of them.

    It also found that the total number of criminal investigations launched by EPA and DOJ has consistently decreased since 2001.

    EPA has repeatedly said tight budgets have forced it to focus on investigating the biggest offenders, but those statistics mean violators can typically avoid criminal prosecutions in favor of civil penalties, settlements or both.

    DOJ has been quick to highlight many of those, including agreements with more than 50 municipalities across the country to upgrade water and sewage systems.Environmental justice

    Holder wins near-universal praise from environmentalists for rededicating DOJ -- and other agencies -- to environmental justice.

    In September 2010, Holder led the administration in committing to the principles laid out 20 years earlier in an executive order signed by President Clinton.

    The policy, which aims to protect low-income and minority populations from disproportionate impacts of environmental pollution, had largely gone dormant during George W. Bush's administration.

    Holder was instrumental in bringing it back, tying it to the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr.

    "Despite all that's been achieved, research shows that low-income families and families of color are still more likely than other American families to find themselves living in communities with contaminated water and polluted soil," Holder said at an event marking the 20-year aniversary of the order last February. "Their neighborhoods are still more likely to be close to industrial waste sites and more vulnerable to the placement of landfills nearby."

    DOJ highlights several settlements as a sign of its dedication to environmental justice, including those sewer and water system upgrades that historically affect low-income and minority communities the most. For example, Chattanooga, Tenn., in 2013 agreed to spend $250 million to eliminate overflows of untreated raw sewage that were found largely in at-risk neighborhoods.

    Holder's emphasis on environmental justice is applauded even among critics.

    Gerald Yamada worked in EPA's Office of General Counsel for 18 years, including when Clinton signed the order in 1994. He characterized Holder's record generally as "good" but added, "I don't think there is anything that really stands out and is exemplary or puts him down as one of the best [attorneys general] in the environmental area.

    "With one exception," Yamada added, "and that's the environmental justice area."

    Holder, Yamada said, has a "personal commitment" to the issue, and DOJ has done a lot of public outreach and training to raise awareness.

    But Yamada, who now works as a consultant, added that DOJ has not initiated any prosecution specifically because of environmental justice reasons. To do so, the department would need to bring charges under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits any discrimination by those receiving federal assistance. That would include, Yamada said, facilities in disadvantaged neighborhoods that have received federal permits for, say, air emissions.

    But DOJ has shied away from any such cases, he said, even where such a prosecution may fit.

    "I am not aware of a single Civil Rights Act case that has been brought under the guise of environmental justice," he said.Praise for environmental division chief

    Still, Yamada, as well as other environmental attorneys, appeared optimistic about the direction of DOJ. In large part, that's because of John Cruden's recent confirmation to lead its environmental division.

    Cruden, 68, worked in DOJ for 20 years, during which time he supervised litigation after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. He most recently served as president of the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute.

    Yamada knew Cruden when they both worked in the government. Cruden's appointment, Yamada said, may be one of the "high points" of Holder's tenure.

    "That's an excellent selection," Yamada said. "John will bring a lot of leadership to the environmental division."

    Holder highlighted the ongoing challenges facing the country in his remarks on environmental justice.

    "All Americans can be proud of, and encouraged by, the progress that has been made in recent years," he said. "But there's no denying that a great deal of work remains before us."

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Climate Change Is of Growing Personal Concern to U.S. Hispanics, Poll Finds

    Feb 9, 2015 | The New York Times

    By Coral Davenport

     Alfredo Padilla grew up in Texas as a migrant farmworker who followed the harvest with his parents to pick sugar beets in Minnesota each summer. He has not forgotten the aches of labor or how much the weather — too little rain, or too much — affected the family livelihood.

    Now an insurance lawyer in Carrizo Springs, Tex., he said he was concerned about global warming.

    “It’s obviously happening, the flooding, the record droughts,” said Mr. Padilla, who agrees with the science that human activities are the leading cause of climate change. “And all this affects poor people harder. The jobs are more based on weather. And when there are hurricanes, when there is flooding, who gets hit the worst? The people on the poor side of town.”

    Mr. Padilla’s concern is echoed by other Hispanics across the country, according to a poll conducted last month by The New York Times,Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research groupResources for the Future. The survey, in which Mr. Padilla was a respondent, found that Hispanics are far more likely than whites to view global warming as a problem that affects them personally. It also found that they are far more likely to support policies, such as taxes and regulations on greenhouse gas pollution, aimed at curbing it.PhotoA garlic field in Cantua Creek, Calif. A record drought in 2014 threatened hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in the Central Valley. CreditMatt Black for The New York Times

    The findings in the poll could have significant implications for the 2016 presidential campaign as both parties seek to win votes from Hispanics, the fastest-growing segment of the population, particularly in states like Florida and Colorado that will be influential in determining the outcome of the election. The poll also shows the challenge for the potential Republican presidential candidates — including two Hispanics — many of whom question or deny the science of human-caused climate change.

    Among Hispanic respondents to the poll, 54 percent rated global warming as extremely or very important to them personally, compared with 37 percent of whites. Sixty-seven percent of Hispanics said they would be hurt personally to some degree if nothing was done to reduce global warming, compared with half of whites.

    And 63 percent of Hispanics said the federal government should act broadly to address global warming, compared with 49 percent of whites.

    To be sure, more Hispanics than whites identify as Democrats, and Democrats are more likely than Republicans and independents to say that the government should fight climate change. In the poll, 48 percent of Hispanics identified as Democrats, 31 percent as independents and 15 percent as Republicans. Among whites, 23 percent identified as Democrats, 41 percent as independents and 27 percent as Republicans.

    Over all, the findings of the poll run contrary to a longstanding view in politics that the environment is largely a concern of affluent, white liberals. Experts say that climate change is growing rapidly as a concern for Hispanics, who are likely to be more physically and economically vulnerable to the effects of global warming, such as more extreme droughts and floods, lower crop yields, and hotter temperatures.

    “There’s a stereotype that Latinos are not aware of or concerned about these issues,” said Gabriel Sanchez, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico and director of research at Latino Decisions, a survey firm focused on the Hispanic population. “But Latinos are actually among the most concerned about the environment, particularly global warming.”

    One reason, Mr. Sanchez and others said, is that Hispanics often live in areas where they are directly exposed to pollution, such as neighborhoods near highways and power plants.

    Hispanics typically rate immigration, education and employment in the top tier of the policy issues on which they vote, but the poll is the latest in a growing body of data showing that Hispanics also care intensely about environmental issues.

    A 2013 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 76 percent of Hispanics agreed that the earth had been warming, and 59 percent attributed that warming to human activity. By comparison, 62 percent of whites agreed that the earth had been warming, and 41 percent attributed that to human activity.

    A 2014 study in the scientific journal PLOS One found that nationally, nonwhite minorities were exposed to concentrations of the toxic pollutant nitrogen dioxide that were 38 percent higher than what whites faced. Nitrogen dioxide is linked to respiratory illness and, like planet-warming carbon dioxide, is spewed from vehicle tailpipes and power plant smokestacks. While it is not directly linked to global warming, populations that experience high levels of exposure to it are likely to be more supportive of pollution regulation in general, Mr. Sanchez said.

    The poll on global warming by The Times, Stanford and Resources for the Future is based on telephone interviews conducted Jan. 7 to 22.

    Tony Vazquez of San Jose, Calif., a poll respondent and a former truck driver who now makes nickel plates for car parts, said in a follow-up interview that he would support policies such as national taxes on greenhouse gas pollution, even if that raised the cost of gasoline and electricity from fossil fuels.

    “Where I live, you don’t know what you’re breathing — smog and pollution from refineries, ships, diesel trucks,” Mr. Vazquez said. “You’re breathing it all. They need to do something about air pollution.”

    Hispanics are also more likely to be concerned about the impact of global warming outside the United States, Latino researchers say, particularly in Latin America, Mexico and the Caribbean. Stronger droughts and storms there can lead to flooding or shortages of food and water, but people and governments may not be equipped to handle that.

    President Obama has proposed spending $3 billion on a global Green Climate Fund intended to help poor countries adapt to the effects of climate change, but Republicans in Congress have been sharply critical of that plan. In contrast, two-thirds of Hispanics in the poll said the United States government should give money to poor countries to help them reduce the damage caused by global warming. Two-thirds of whites said the United States should not provide the money.

    The result, Mr. Sanchez and other researchers said, is that politicians should be wary of dismissing the issue of climate change. “The most important thing is that candidates have to think about the Latino population as complex,” Mr. Sanchez said. Although immigration remains the most critical issue, “to ignore the environment is to ignore something that a large section of the Latino population sees as important.”

    Republican political strategists were skeptical.

    “The real issue here is whether a dollar spent fighting climate change is better than a dollar spent improving school, health care or national security,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. “Most Republicans are going to find greater political advantage in promoting credible plans to strengthen the economy, improve education and make progress on a host of other issues, including immigration, rather than climate change.”

    In Florida, a state that will be crucial to the success of presidential candidates, Nicole Hernandez Hammer, a sea-level rise researcher of Cuban-Guatemalan descent, is working to raise awareness of climate change among Hispanic voters. Last month, she was invited to sit in the first lady’s box during Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address.

    Of Hispanics’ growing interest in climate change issues, Ms. Hammer said: “We're not at rallies. Latinos in immigrant communities are more concerned about putting food on the table.”

    But, she said, “We know that our communities are disproportionately more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, so when it comes time to vote, we make our voices heard on the issue.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time