ACC PM

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

1. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Assessment Program Stays on High-Risk List as GAO Cites Slow Progress

   Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Sam Pearson
   
   
   A biennial ritual, the Government Accountability Office's list of high-risk programs was a chance for lawmakers to take agencies to task for putting taxpayer funds at risk of waste, fraud and abuse. For chemical safety advocates, the report also shows that U.S. EPA is still falling short in its duty to protect the public from toxic chemicals.
2. EPA Endocrine Program Misses FY14 Target For Determining Further Tests

   Feb 12, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad
   
   
   EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) failed to meet its fiscal year 2014 target to decide whether 59 pesticide chemicals screened in the first tier of the program must undergo additional testing in its second phase, in part because the agency has struggled to complete weight-of-evidence (WoE) determinations for the chemicals.

Chemical Security News

3. Chemical Safety Board Halts Investigations Amid Alleged Mismanagement

   Feb 12, 2015 | The Center for Public Integrity

   By Maryam Jameel
   
   
   Despite coming under intense scrutiny in recent years, the federal agency charged with investigating the nation’s most serious chemical accidents remains dogged by allegations of severe mismanagement, illegal conduct, and unfinished investigations.
4. CSB Closes 3 Old Probes as Alleged Management Issues Mount

   Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   The U.S. Chemical Safety Board has decided to close three investigations as it grapples with management challenges and a report that could shed light on dysfunction at the agency.
5. OMB Official: New Cyber Unit Won't Play 'Gotcha'

   Feb 12, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity

   By Elise Viebeck
   
   
   A new White House team overseeing federal agencies' cyber defenses will not play "gotcha" when it discovers a vulnerability, a federal cybersecurity adviser said.

Energy and Environment News

6. Oil Sector Must Take Lead in Climate Debate: Shell CEO

   Feb 12, 2015 | Reuters

   By Ron Bousso
   
   
   The oil industry needs to take a leading role in the fight against climate change to introduce "realism and practicality" into the debate, the head of Royal Dutch Shell will say on Thursday.
7. Oil Firms Should Abandon 'Low Profile' in Combatting Warming -- Shell Chief

   Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   The oil industry has a role to play fighting climate change in order to instill "realism and practicality," Royal Dutch Shell PLC's chief executive will say today.
8. Shell CEO Wants Oil Industry to Join Climate Fight

   Feb 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Laura Barron-Lopez
   
   
   Royal Dutch Shell wants to push other oil companies to get on board with the fight against climate change.
9. Murkowski Names Senate Energy Subcommittee Members

   Feb 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

   By Erica Martinson
   
   
   Sen. Lisa Murkowski announced the lineups for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s four subcommittees today.
10. Commerce Dems Round Out Subcommittee Assignments

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Sean Reilly
    
    
    Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, this morning filled out the rosters of the panel's half-dozen subcommittees.
11. EPA Assailed for Leaving Coal Country Off Climate Hearing Tour

    Feb 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    Republicans are condemning an Environmental Protection Agency official’s comment that it only held hearings on its climate rule in places where people would be “comfortable.”
12. EPA Hints it May Change Carbon Rule's Time Frame

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Scott Detrow
    
    
    Acting Assistant U.S. EPA Administrator Janet McCabe didn't make any specific promises during her testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday morning.
13. EPA Permit Response Further Limits Advocates' Push To Curb Emissions

    Feb 12, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    EPA has rejected environmentalists' petition urging it to reject permits for Texas power plants as being too weak, which advocates say further limits their options to cut air pollution from the many major emissions sources in Texas, following federal court rulings last year seen as restricting Clean Air Act citizen suit enforcement in the state.
14. Energy Group Pushes Back on NERC's Clean Power Plan Concerns

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Peter Behr
    
    
    A coalition of renewable energy, smart grid and energy technology companies today challenged a warning by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. that the Obama administration's proposed Clean Power Plan may threaten electric grid reliability.
15. Bipartisanship Possible After KXL Battle if GOP Doesn't 'Go Too Far Over the Edge' -- Upton

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Nick Juliano
    
    
    House Republicans are unlikely to make approval of the Keystone XL pipeline a prerequisite for a broader energy bill later this year -- in part to avoid provoking an immediate veto threat that could stop comprehensive legislation in its tracks, a key GOP chairman said yesterday.
16. House Passes Keystone Bill Despite Obama’s Opposition

    Feb 12, 2015 | The New York TImes

    By Coral Davenport
    
    
    The House on Wednesday passed a bill approving construction of the Keystone XL oilpipeline, setting up a confrontation with President Obama, who has vowed to veto the measure.
17. Undisturbed for Decades, Family Forest Finds Itself in Pipeline’s Path

    Feb 12, 2015 | The New York Times

    By Corey Kilgannon
    
    
    With snowshoes strapped to his feet and a fedora perched atop his head, Dev Kernan tramped deep into the snowy woods and finally stopped to admire a majestic red oak.
18. Watchdog Group Critiques Industry's Case for Fracking

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Pamela King
    
    
    Industry is presenting a skewed view on hydraulic fracturing science, according to a new report from a nonprofit research group.
19. In Climate Change, What’s in a Name?

    Feb 12, 2015 | The New York TImes

    By Justin Gillis
    
    
    The words are hurled around like epithets.

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

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

1. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Assessment Program Stays on High-Risk List as GAO Cites Slow Progress

   Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Sam Pearson

   A biennial ritual, the Government Accountability Office's list of high-risk programs was a chance for lawmakers to take agencies to task for putting taxpayer funds at risk of waste, fraud and abuse. For chemical safety advocates, the report also shows that U.S. EPA is still falling short in its duty to protect the public from toxic chemicals.

   EPA's chemical programs remained on GAO's newest high-risk list, which was released yesterday. And critics say little has changed since GAO first put them there in 2009, in the early days of the Obama administration -- even though EPA has pushed a series of procedural changes since they were last listed as high-risk in 2013.

   The GAO report warned that EPA's delayed chemical assessments at the Integrated Risk Information System program threaten its "ability to effectively implement its mission of protecting public health and the environment" under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

   The program needs to complete the assessments, which gather existing research into a single document, to provide the legal basis for future EPA restrictions of potentially hazardous chemicals. The IRIS database is also used as evidence by attorneys seeking damages on behalf of people exposed to toxic chemicals.

   The report said that while EPA leaders have "publicly stated their focus on improving the IRIS program and implementing TSCA as it currently exists," the agency "may not have the adequate capacity to resolve this high-risk area" because it has not analyzed what resources IRIS needs to perform its mission. This is needed so EPA can ask Congress for adequate funding for IRIS to function effectively, the GAO report said.

   A 2003 evaluation found IRIS would need to complete 50 chemical assessments per year to complete a backlog of assessments, but GAO said it couldn't determine how that figure was calculated. Regardless, IRIS' production has fallen far short of that, with only one assessment completed last year.

   EPA "has made significant progress in implementing recommendations provided by GAO," the agency said in a statement. It noted that GAO recognized that the National Academies found last year that IRIS had implemented some of the recommendations of a 2011 National Academies report that suggested procedural changes (Greenwire, May 6, 2014).

   IRIS program officials -- led by Kenneth Olden, director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment, and IRIS Program Director Vincent Cogliano -- will release "a multiyear workplan to help communicate to its internal partners and external stakeholders the Program's plan for current and future assessment development," the agency said. "These steps, plus the continued attention on advancing assessments currently in the IRIS Process, demonstrates EPA's commitment to improving the IRIS Program and addressing the remaining recommendations GAO has provided in this report."

   The GAO report noted this plan "has repeatedly been delayed" and was previously promised at several points last year.

   GAO requires agencies to meet five benchmarks for a program's high-risk status to be removed: leadership commitment, capacity, developing an action plan, monitoring the program and demonstrating progress.Still working on turnaround plans

   Since the last high-risk report two years ago, the IRIS program has seen a series of turnaround plans and has started to implement new recommendations from a National Academies study pushed by Republicans in Congress that recommended procedural changes. Some of the changes require EPA scientists to follow prescribed processes for incorporating research into chemical assessments, including more clearly documenting the rationale for including specific studies. The National Research Council review, completed in 2011, also recommended providing more opportunities for public review of IRIS assessments, which critics say allows more chances for well-funded industry groups to influence or delay the proceedings (Greenwire, April 8, 2011).

   The American Chemistry Council has described the changes as akin to "building codes" used to guide contractors to produce sound structures. The changes fit the group's goal of "putting objective scientific analysis and transparency at the core of how the federal government evaluates the safety of chemicals," ACC Director of Regulatory Science Policy Nancy Beck wrote in a blog post last year.

   A spokesman for the trade group couldn't be reached for comment today.

   The IRIS program's struggles are symptomatic of an EPA that operates "sort of like a fifth-grade soccer team where everyone chases the ball, so they only have the energy to focus on one thing at the top," said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and president of the Center for Progressive Reform.

   Steinzor argued EPA's increased focus on climate change -- which President Obama has said he views as crucial to his presidential legacy -- has left an opening for industry groups to obstruct more obscure programs, like those centered on chemical management. Steinzor said producing additional reports on how IRIS will finish more chemical assessments only left fewer resources for the agency to actually do so.

   In a blog post, Steinzor called IRIS's close relationship with the chemical industry the "clearest case of old-fashioned regulatory capture since senior executives at the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior partied drunkenly into the night with the very same oil company executives the Department was assigned to regulate."

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. EPA Endocrine Program Misses FY14 Target For Determining Further Tests

   Feb 12, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad

   EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) failed to meet its fiscal year 2014 target to decide whether 59 pesticide chemicals screened in the first tier of the program must undergo additional testing in its second phase, in part because the agency has struggled to complete weight-of-evidence (WoE) determinations for the chemicals.

   Additionally, industry has been urging EPA to finalize the tier 2 battery of assays before making tier 1 decisions, which could also be a factor in missing the FY14 target, according to Christopher Borgert, a consultant who works with industry clients on EDSP issues.

   EPA completed just three of its planned 59 decisions in FY14, and those three were chemicals that EPA found to be exempt from endocrine screening requirements, according to the congressional justification document for EPA's proposed FY16 budget.

   The agency's failure to meet its FY14 decision goal is similar to its experience in FY13, when EPA had a target of completing 20 decisions and completed none. The congressional justification document indicates that staff completed four decisions in FY11 and FY12.

   The justification explains that the target of 59 chemical decisions was developed in anticipation of completing WoE determinations for the first list of chemicals, but "WoE determinations have proven to be more complex than originally anticipated and are now targeted for completion in FY2015."

   EDSP consists of two tiers of screening. Tier 1, containing 11 assays, screens chemicals the agency believes may interact with human androgen, estrogen or thyroid hormones. If a chemical is flagged in tier 1 assays, additional, more expensive testing would be required under tier 2 of the program, which is intended to provide dose-response data for risk assessment and possible regulation.

   Over the past three years, EPA has received the results of the tier 1 testing it required for the first group of chemicals, all of which were pesticides. These are the chemicals and data that agency staff is now processing to make the WoE determinations of whether the chemicals should undergo further screening in tier 2 of the program.

   EPA issued the tier 1 test orders for the first group of EDSP chemicals in 2009, years after Congress mandated the testing in 1996. But the latest delay in the program may not be a concern to industry groups whose chemicals are under assessment.

   "There's timing in all of this," Borgert says, adding that if EPA "releases these [determinations] before you have tier 2 set and in place, you put people in a bind because you raise questions [about chemicals] without a means to answer them; it raises havoc in the market."

   No chemicals have been screened in EDSP tier 2, as the agency is still finalizing the assays to be used in the second tier.

   Draft Guidelines

   EPA Jan. 30 announced that it has produced draft test guidelines for three of the tier 2 tests, those utilizing non-mammalian species tests, including a "Japanese quail 2-generation reproduction test; [a] Medaka extended 1-generation reproduction test[] and [a] Larval amphibian growth and development assay . . ." The agency set a March 31 comment deadline.

   The agency explains that the test guidelines' release follows a June 2013 Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting where the advisors "reviewed draft protocols and supporting data for the four non-mammalian Tier 2 tests," including the three above and a fourth additional test known as the "mysid 2-generation toxicity test." This fourth test is not yet ready for public comment, the agency adds.

   "Although the mysid 2-generation toxicity test was generally supported by the ... SAP, the data were not considered fully reliable across all endpoints and the results were not repeatable across laboratories without recommended improvements," EPA explains in a Jan. 30 Federal Register notice. "The . . . SAP and public commenters also stated that endpoints in the mysid 2-generation toxicity test are also provided to a large extent by the current mysid chronic life cycle test, a test used effectively to assess the risk of chemical substances that may disrupt invertebrate growth, development, and reproduction. . . . Based on all of these factors, the Agency intends to consider and potentially incorporate, as appropriate, test design features from the mysid 2-generation toxicity test when updating and finalizing the existing draft mysid chronic life cycle test guideline assessing development, growth, reproductive, and toxicity endpoints."

   Ellen Mihaich, the scientific coordinator for the Endocrine Policy Forum, a group of chemical manufacturers who have or expect to receive EDSP test orders, says the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is also in the process of finalizing validated test guidelines for two of the three assays on which EPA is seeking comment. The fish and frog assays "have just completed OECD review," Mihaich says, adding that the assays' guidelines are anticipated to be approved by the National Coordinators in April.

   Mihaich describes the 2-generation bird study as having had "much less scrutiny" than the fish and frog assays since it was not part of the recent OECD activities. She anticipates that EPA will receive more extensive comments on the bird assay draft guidelines than the other two assays.

   Mihaich does not believe that the fourth test, the mysid 2-gen assay, is currently needed in the tier 2 battery. "We already have a 1 generation mysid study that is a valid EPA guideline and information from that is perfectly fine for risk assessment if there is a concern for invertebrates," she says.

   Chemicals Testing

   In addition to the delays with determining which of the so-called list 1 chemicals should undergo additional screening, EPA continues to struggle to finalize a second list of chemicals to undergo tier 1 testing.

   The agency proposed a list of some 134 drinking water contaminants in 2010 after congressional prodding, and indicated in its February 2014 management plan update that it intended to publish some of these test orders in FY14. The agency had initially planned to issue list 2 test orders in FY13, but said in the management plan's last update that it would issue those test orders "incrementally over three years" beginning in FY14. This so-called list 2 appears to pose challenges to the agency for completion, because it is more difficult to identify parties responsible for testing ubiquitous water contaminants than pesticide chemicals EPA registers for use.

   EPA's management plan indicated that the agency intended a productive FY14, with plans to complete all of the determinations of the list 1 chemicals, issue tier 2 test orders for those chemicals deemed necessary, complete tier 2 test validation and guidance and issue list 2 tier 1 test orders, among other projects.

   EDSP staff with counterparts in the agency's research office were productive in their efforts to advance the use of new, non-animal cellular and computational testing methods in the program. The justification indicates the program validated eight of eight target high throughput (htp) screening assays or Quantitative Structure Activity Analysis models for EDSP chemical prioritization and screening. The justification notes that EPA convened a series of meetings in 2013 and 2014 for its SAP to review htp assays from EPA's research office, adding that another SAP "meeting is tentatively planned for September 2015."

   The justification indicates a loss of $3.3 million from ESDP's budget in the FY16 budget compared to FY15 enacted funding levels, saying the "change reflects a reduction to the [EDSP] as a result of the deployment of the computational toxicology [htp] model that reduces the workload in developing new assays."

   Elsewhere, the budget justification indicates that EPA's research office, which is developing the new toxicity testing methods is receiving a $10.9 million increase, and some additional 12.7 full-time equivalent employees, "to expand the breadth of the ... CompTox research program to include more assays that can cover the biology of interest (including thyroid), more emphasis on estimating relevant exposures to individual and multiple chemicals, and better integration of human and ecological risk evaluations. This is critical to enhancing and accelerating our understanding of chemicals risks and exposure. Overall, this increase will significantly enhance the predictive capacity of the computational models and data both for evaluating the impact of existing chemicals as well as for selection of safer alternates."

   The three decisions EDSP staff completed in FY14 "were to exempt [from EDSP] Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate (DSS), Undecyclenic Acid (UDA), and Polybutene Resins."

   The justification explains that EPA determined that these pesticide chemicals met exemption requirements under the section 4 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which authorizes EPA to exempt from EDSP screening "a biologic substance or other substance if the Administrator determines the substance is anticipated not to produce any effects in humans similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen."

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

3. Chemical Safety Board Halts Investigations Amid Alleged Mismanagement

   Feb 12, 2015 | The Center for Public Integrity

   By Maryam Jameel

   Despite coming under intense scrutiny in recent years, the federal agency charged with investigating the nation’s most serious chemical accidents remains dogged by allegations of severe mismanagement, illegal conduct, and unfinished investigations.

   Now, the White House says it is going to take a look at the embattled Chemical Safety Board.

   The board is supposed to investigate industrial chemical accidents to help avoid future tragedies. But as the Center for Public Integrity reported in 2013, the number of findings and safety bulletins from CSB has fallen precipitously since 2006. That has left families of workers involved in accidents with unanswered questions.

   At the board’s last public hearing, it terminated three investigations that had been open for at least five years. New board member Manny Ehrlic said there was “no realistic opportunity to issue a CSB report” for the cases. The three investigations were for the following accidents:a flash fire in January 2009 – seriously injuring four people -- and a hydrogen explosion in November 2009 — damaging nearby homes — at the Silver Eagle Refinery in Woods Cross, Utah;a release of toxic hydrofluoric acid that left a worker critcally injured at the Citgo refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas in July 2009;a fire that killed two workers at the Horsehead Holding Company zinc refineryin Monaca, Pa. in July 2010.

   A former CSB employee said that the decision to drop these cases points to deeper issues plaguing the board.

   “The underlying cause is not workload or the age of the cases, but rather gross mismanagement of the investigations by the chairman and managing director,” said the former employee, who asked not to be identified. “This is really a disservice to workers in refineries and communities living near refineries.”

   CSB Managing Director Daniel Horowitz said that discontinuing the investigations was necessary given the agency’s lack of resources.

   “You have to focus on cases where you think you can have the biggest positive impact for workers. You can’t do everything. That’s always been a fact of life here.”

   CSB has approximately 40 employees and a $11 million budget.

   Horowitz added that despite closing the cases, the agency issued recommendationsafter the Citgo refinery accident as well as a preliminary report on the Silver Eagle Refinery accident.

   Toxicologist Gerald Poje, who served on the board during the Clinton administration, said he’s hopeful the White House will “sweep clean the agency,” replacing its current leadership.

   “It is a system that is terribly, terribly riddled with loss of accountability,” he said.

   In addition to closing the investigations, the board gave more authority to the Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso.

   Board member Ehrlich said the changes were long overdue. “I see it as letting the chairman take care of what he’s supposed to take care of and letting the board take care of what it’s supposed to take care of.”

   Yet, former board members blame Moure-Eraso for much of the controversy surrounding the agency’s performance.

   The Environmental Protection Agency’s Inspector General has been investigating the board officials’ use of personal e-mail accounts to conduct agency business, a violation of the Federal Records Act. He voiced his frustrations at getting information from CSB in a recent statement and in his unreleased report to the White House. Eraso’s five-year term ends this June.

   CSB ties for last place among federal agencies in having contented employees, according to the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. A former staff member cited the low morale as factor in the agency’s inefficiency. “Many of the most experienced investigators have left to go work at other federal agencies. The ability to get these cases completed has been greatly impaired,” he said. 

   Managing Director Horowitz defended the board’s performance, saying it managed to issue eight reports in the last eight months.

   Former board member Poje said major changes will be needed to restore CSB’s credibility, however. “The CSB investigates management failures involving high hazard industries. Well, for the last five years, they’ve been undergoing management failures in their own agency.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. CSB Closes 3 Old Probes as Alleged Management Issues Mount

   Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   The U.S. Chemical Safety Board has decided to close three investigations as it grapples with management challenges and a report that could shed light on dysfunction at the agency.

   Board member Manuel Ehrlich introduced a motion at a meeting last month to terminate three investigations, some of which were more than 5 years old. The motion -- agreed upon by Ehrlich and CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso -- closed investigations into a January 2009 flash fire and hydrogen explosion at the Silver Eagle Refinery in Woods Cross, Utah; a hydrofluoric acid release at the Citgo refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, in July 2009; and a fire that killed two workers at the Horsehead Holding Corp. zinc refinery in Monaca, Pa., in July 2010.

   The motion also consolidated additional authorities with Moure-Eraso, who was called on to resign last year. The agency may face new controversy as the White House reviews an unreleased report by the U.S. EPA inspector general concerning CSB's improper use of personal emails.

   CSB Managing Director Daniel Horowitz said the agency needed to close the cases to prioritize its limited resources.

   "You can't do everything," Horowitz said. "That's always been a fact of life here" (Maryam Jameel, Center for Public Integrity, Feb. 12). -- SP

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. OMB Official: New Cyber Unit Won't Play 'Gotcha'

   Feb 12, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity

   By Elise Viebeck

   A new White House team overseeing federal agencies' cyber defenses will not play "gotcha" when it discovers a vulnerability, a federal cybersecurity adviser said. 
   
   Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official Grant Schneider sought to reassure federal agencies that the administration's new E-Gov Cyber and National Security Unit would work collaboratively across the government. 
   
   

   "The intent ... is to get at what we need to do to enhance their cybersecurity. We are not there to play 'gotcha.' "We are there to actually help them enhance their security posture and really be able to better defend their systems and networks, and make sure we both — the agency and OMB — have a clear understanding of where they are at," Schneider said in an interview with Federal News Radio posted Thursday. 
   
   The new E-Gov Cyber unit, announced Feb. 3, will issue security protocols and work with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to respond to data breaches at federal agencies. 
   
   The unit was created by legislation passed late last Congress that gave the OMB the role of planning cyber defense measures for the federal government. While the implementation of those measures will be carried out by the DHS, the new Cyber unit will return a measure of strategic power to the OMB, where the team is housed. 
   
   "We have to institutionalize the way we do our cybersecurity oversight of the federal space," Schneider said in the interview. 
   
   "The National Security staff has some distinctive roles from a national and international, and private sector work, and OMB really owns that federal government oversight. We are clarifying some of the delineation. We are making sure all of this cyber oversight is going to be able to be institutionalized into the day-to-day way we do oversight because we don't want it to be a one-off. We want it to be a continual and steeped in policy and processes." 
   
   The White House requested nearly $103 million for the Cyber unit in its most recent budget.
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

6. Oil Sector Must Take Lead in Climate Debate: Shell CEO

   Feb 12, 2015 | Reuters

   By Ron Bousso

   The oil industry needs to take a leading role in the fight against climate change to introduce "realism and practicality" into the debate, the head of Royal Dutch Shell will say on Thursday.
   

   In excerpts of a keynote speech due to be given at the International Petroleum Week dinner in London on Thursday evening, Shell Chief Executive Ben van Beurden also accuses governments of taking at times counterproductive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

   "What can we as an industry do to help clear the way for a more informed debate? In the past we thought it was better to keep a low profile on the issue. I understand that tactic, but in the end it's not a good tactic," the CEO is expected to say.

   Environmental organizations have accused the oil industry of not doing enough to reduce emissions and increase the use of renewable fuels.

   "The debate about the future of energy is not always very balanced, partly because we keep such a low profile and there’s so little dialogue within our sector," he will say.

   "You cannot talk credibly about lowering emissions globally if, for example, you are slow to acknowledge climate change; if you undermine calls for an effective carbon price; and if you always descend into the 'jobs versus environment' argument in the public debate."

   Shell backed a resolution last month proposed by activist investors to force the company to recognize climate change risks by improving its transparency.

   Van Beurden also criticizes "inefficient or even counterproductive measures" taken by governments.

   He says Germany, while increasing the use of renewable energy sources, saw a rise in CO2 emissions in 2012 and 2013 as a result of the increased use of coal-powered plants.

   "I'm well aware that the industry's credibility is an issue. Stereotypes that fail to see the benefits our industry brings to the world are short-sighted. But we must also take a critical look at ourselves."

   "Our industry should be less aloof, more assertive. We have to make sure that our voice is heard," the Shell boss will say.

   "Together, we can offer some realism and practicality to the debate."

   Oil and gas companies have come under increasing pressure from investors to take more action in the fight to lower carbon emissions.

   In December, the Church of England filed a shareholder resolution on climate change at Shell and BP.

   Last year, the European Union set a 40 percent goal for cuts in emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, below 1990 levels by 2030.

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Oil Firms Should Abandon 'Low Profile' in Combatting Warming -- Shell Chief

   Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   The oil industry has a role to play fighting climate change in order to instill "realism and practicality," Royal Dutch Shell PLC's chief executive will say today.

   Shell CEO Ben van Beurden is delivering a keynote speech at the International Petroleum Week dinner in London. Van Beurden planned to say, according to prepared remarks, that governments have sometimes taken counterproductive steps to fight greenhouse gas emissions.

   "What can we as an industry do to help clear the way for a more informed debate? In the past, we thought it was better to keep a low profile on the issue. I understand that tactic, but in the end it's not a good tactic," van Beurden will say.

   His planned speech adds, "The debate about the future of energy is not always very balanced, partly because we keep such a low profile and there's so little dialogue within our sector. ... You cannot talk credibly about lowering emissions globally if, for example, you are slow to acknowledge climate change, if you undermine calls for an effective carbon price, and if you always descend into the 'jobs versus environment' argument in the public debate" (Ron Bousso, Reuters, Feb. 12). -- SP

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Shell CEO Wants Oil Industry to Join Climate Fight

   Feb 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Laura Barron-Lopez

   Royal Dutch Shell wants to push other oil companies to get on board with the fight against climate change.  

   In early excerpts of a speech obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Shell CEO Ben van Beurden criticizes his industry's approach to the debate on climate policies.

   Van Beurden plans to tell oil executives during a conference Thursday night in London that they should endorse policies aimed at mitigating climate change, including a price on carbon and a "shift from coal to natural gas."

   He will also tell the industry to stop having "a low profile on the issue."

   "I understand the tactic," he will say according to the speech. "But in the end it's not a good tactic."

   Van Beurden will say oil companies can not remain in hiding and expect to maintain credibility. 

   “You cannot talk credibly about lowering emissions globally if, for example, you are slow to acknowledge climate change; if you undermine calls for an effective carbon price; and if you always descend into the ‘jobs versus environment’ argument in the public debate,” van Beurden is expected to say.

   It's a line that could strike home with the industry and Republicans, who overwhelmingly remain skeptical of the science behind climate change. 

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Murkowski Names Senate Energy Subcommittee Members

   Feb 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

   By Erica Martinson

   Sen. Lisa Murkowski announced the lineups for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s four subcommittees today.
   
   Republican Sen. James Risch will chair the Energy Subcommittee. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin is ranking member of the subcommittee, replacing former Democratic chair Sen. Al Franken.
   
   Sen. John Barrasso will chair the Public Lands, Forests & Mining Subcommittee, with Sen. Ron Wyden as ranking member. Barrasso was ranking member of the subcommittee, and Wyden was second in line behind the former subcommittee chair, Manchin.
   
   Sen. Bill Cassidy will chair the National Parks Subcommittee and Sen. Martin Heinrich will be ranking member. Former Sen. Mark Udall had chaired the subcommittee under Democratic leadership, and Sen. Rob Portman was ranking member.
   
   Sen. Mike Lee will chair the Water & Power Subcommittee, and Sen. Mazie Hirono has been named ranking member, taking over for former Democratic subcommittee chairman Sen. Brian Schatz.
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Commerce Dems Round Out Subcommittee Assignments

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Sean Reilly

    Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, this morning filled out the rosters of the panel's half-dozen subcommittees. Nelson yesterday named the ranking members for each subpanel; today's announcement means both parties have their subpanel lineups in place for the 114th Congress.

    The ranking members include several senators in their first terms. Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan was the only new Democrat elected to the Senate in the November elections; as ranking member of the subpanel on oceans and fisheries, he plans to focus on maritime commerce that is important to Michigan's economy, as well as reauthorization legislation for the Coast Guard, which plays a "critical" role in the Great Lakes, a spokeswoman said via email. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, who won a full term in November after winning a special election earlier in the year, will be the top Democrat on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, which has responsibility for Amtrak and other rail programs. Amtrak was also a top priority of his predecessor, the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).

    The new assignments incorporate the decision by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the committee's new chairman, to abolish a seventh subcommittee on tourism, competitiveness and innovation and redistribute its responsibilities. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), appointed in late 2012 to fill out the term of the late Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), headed that subpanel last year; he now becomes the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet. He also won a full first term in November.

    The Democratic lineups for the six subcommittees:

    Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and SecurityMaria Cantwell of Washington, ranking memberAmy Klobuchar of MinnesotaRichard Blumenthal of ConnecticutBrian Schatz of HawaiiEd Markey of MassachusettsCory Booker of New JerseyTom Udall of New MexicoJoe Manchin of West VirginiaGary Peters of Michigan

    Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the InternetBrian Schatz of Hawaii, ranking memberMaria Cantwell of WashingtonClaire McCaskill of MissouriAmy Klobuchar of MinnesotaRichard Blumenthal of ConnecticutEd Markey of MassachusettsCory Booker of New JerseyTom Udall of New MexicoJoe Manchin of West VirginiaGary Peters of Michigan

    Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance and Data SecurityRichard Blumenthal of Connecticut, ranking memberClaire McCaskill of MissouriAmy Klobuchar of MinnesotaEd Markey of MassachusettsCory Booker of New JerseyTom Udall of New Mexico

    Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast GuardGary Peters of Michigan, ranking memberMaria Cantwell of WashingtonRichard Blumenthal of ConnecticutEd Markey of MassachusettsBrian Schatz of Hawaii

    Subcommittee on Space, Science and CompetitivenessTom Udall of New Mexico, ranking memberEd Markey of MassachusettsCory Booker of New JerseyGary Peters of MichiganBrian Schatz of Hawaii

    Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and SecurityCory Booker of New Jersey, ranking memberMaria Cantwell of WashingtonClaire McCaskill of MissouriAmy Klobuchar of MinnesotaRichard Blumenthal of ConnecticutBrian Schatz of HawaiiEd Markey of MassachusettsTom Udall of New Mexico

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. EPA Assailed for Leaving Coal Country Off Climate Hearing Tour

    Feb 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    Republicans are condemning an Environmental Protection Agency official’s comment that it only held hearings on its climate rule in places where people would be “comfortable.”

    Janet McCabe, who heads the EPA’s air pollution efforts, made the comment at a Wednesday hearing, when Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) pressed her to say why the agency did not schedule any listening sessions on its landmark carbon rule for power plants in West Virginia or other places in Appalachian coal country.

    “We did have a lot of meetings around the country,” McCabe responded at the hearing of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

    “When we were scheduling national level meetings, we wanted to have those in locations where people were comfortable coming,” she continued.

    Capito said she wasn’t pleased with the answer.

    “You can get to West Virginia; we’re not that isolated,” she said. “But this heavily impacts, heavily impacts, the economics of our state, our ability to compete.”

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), another strong critic of the EPA rule, joined Capito Thursday in her criticism.

    McConnell repeatedly asked the EPA to hold a hearing in coal country to gather input on the rule’s impact on coal-producing states. Instead, the agency stuck to its original plan of holding hearings in Denver, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C.

    “We knew this administration had no interest in visiting coal country, and now we know why — because it makes them uncomfortable to look Kentucky coal miners and their families in the eye and tell them what they plan to do to their communities,” McConnell said in a statement.

    The EPA estimates that the rule would take a large bite out of coal’s market share for electricity generation, reducing it to 31 percent by 2030 from the current 39 percent.

    “As this administration continues to take steps to destroy the coal industry and the livelihoods of thousands of Kentuckians, I will continue the fight against these job-destroying regulations and make sure the administration is forced to face the reality of what they’re doing to those in coal country,” McConnell said.

    EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said it chose hearing locations based on accessibility and available space.

    “We chose locations in different regions, as well as the nation’s capital, because they were easily accessible that had space available during the timeframe we needed,” she said.

    She also disagreed with the idea that the EPA avoided coal-producing states, since Pennsylvania ranks No. 5 in the nation for coal production, and numerous miners came to the Pittsburgh hearing.

    Additionally, top EPA officials have met on the proposal with government and business leaders in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and other major coal states.

    Purchia said the EPA outreach was “unprecedented” and included taking in more than 3.6 million comments, 11 listening sessions before the proposal, four hearings after and a 120-day comment period.

    Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said his panel will hold its own hearing in West Virginia on the climate rule.

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. EPA Hints it May Change Carbon Rule's Time Frame

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Scott Detrow

    Acting Assistant U.S. EPA Administrator Janet McCabe didn't make any specific promises during her testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday morning.

    But between the lines of her answers, the agency's top air quality official delivered a clear signal to the state officials charged with implementing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan: There's a strong chance EPA will back away from the interim 2020 goals many states have decried as unreasonable, rushed and too expensive to comply with.

    "We are looking very, very closely" at changing those requirements, McCabe told lawmakers at several points during the two-hour hearing.

    The Clean Power Plan aims to lower the domestic power sector's greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030. But the draft regulation released last summer would require states to meet interim reduction goals a decade earlier.

    Keep up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go toE&E's Power Plan Hub.

    Missouri Public Service Commission Chairman Robert Kenney expressed the views of many state regulators when he spoke on a Washington, D.C., panel earlier this month. "About 80 percent of our 21 percent reduction will be required by 2020," he said. "That interim goal presents a logistical virtual impossibility, frankly, because of all the different moving parts that need to be addressed" (ClimateWire, Jan. 30).

    While McCabe mostly stuck to general answers when lawmakers broached specific complaints about EPA's draft regulations during yesterday's hearing, she steered multiple conversations back to the 2020 goals. "One of the issues we've hear from many people, that is right in this area, is the interim goal that the proposed rule set in 2020," she told Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). "A lot of the anxiety is about meeting an interim goal in that time period. That is something that we're looking very, very closely at."Big question that's soon to get a hearing

    More than a dozen states have expressed serious concerns about the interim goals in the comments they submitted to EPA. (Summaries of those comments, as well as specifics about states' goals, can be found at E&E's Power Plan Hub.)

    Several have offered alternative approaches.

    Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for U.S. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA.

    Nevada suggested that states be allowed to set their own, EPA-approved milestones for how they ramp up to the eventual 2030 goal. "The final rule will not be issued until June 2014, and states will then have one or two years to submit a plan, an exceptionally short timeframe given the complexity of state planning requirements," the state said in its EPA comments. "Plan approvals at the earliest would be accomplished by June 2017. That would give states a scant two years to implement their plans." (Click here to go to the Power Plan Hub's Nevada page.)

    Other states, like Oklahoma, suggested that EPA delay the interim goals by five years. And some states joined Louisiana in advocating for no interim goals whatsoever.

    The heads of the two groups representing state air quality regulators are on the same page when it comes to the challenge EPA's 2020 goals represent. "I fully expect [EPA] will make some accommodations to address these issues," Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in an email.

    "Nearly all of our members raised significant concerns about the achievability of the interim targets for 2020," Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies Executive Director Clint Woods said in an email. "Elimination of (or substantial changes to) the interim goals appears fairly likely and represents some of the lowest hanging fruit among final rule concessions in response to state comments."

    The Senate committee will soon hear directly from state regulators about some of these concerns. Late yesterday afternoon, EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called for a future state-focused hearing in a statement, saying, "McCabe's responses in today's hearing raised more questions than they answered."

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. EPA Permit Response Further Limits Advocates' Push To Curb Emissions

    Feb 12, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker

    EPA has rejected environmentalists' petition urging it to reject permits for Texas power plants as being too weak, which advocates say further limits their options to cut air pollution from the many major emissions sources in Texas, following federal court rulings last year seen as restricting Clean Air Act citizen suit enforcement in the state.

    Although the permit response and the judges' decisions apply only in Texas, the state is home to a large number of industrial plants, such as refineries and chemical plants, which produce large amounts of air pollution. Those emissions can transport downwind, causing problems for other states in attaining federal air quality standards.

    Environmentalists have long targeted Texas' industrial air pollution sources through legal and regulatory options such as asking EPA to reject air permits for facilities they see as too weak, or filing suit over permits and Texas' air permitting program -- including a lengthy battle over "flexible" air permitting that advocates warned would allow companies to avoid stricter Clean Air Act permitting requirements under certain conditions.

    But a series of recent regulatory and legal setbacks are serving to limit environmentalists' attempts to use the air law in a bid to force stricter emissions controls at various Texas emission sources.

    EPA on Jan. 23 told the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) that it is rejecting EIP's petition asking the agency to declare as insufficiently stringent air permits for three power plants owned by utility Luminant -- Big Brown, Martin Lake and Monticello.

    EIP is one of several environmental groups in Texas that alleges the utility -- now undergoing bankruptcy proceedings -- has a long history of air law violations, and an EIP source says EPA did not address the substance of their petition.

    "EPA completely punted. Instead of answering the question, the agency refused to answer on a technicality; EPA said we didn't raise the issue with enough specificity in our original comments" that the group filed with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on the initial proposed air permits. The source adds, "I guess I'm not surprised, but still very disappointed with EPA -- yet another blown opportunity."

    In the response, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the agency says it is issuing a partial reply to EIP's petitions over the three plants' permits, denying several claims on the basis that EIP failed to raise the issues in its initial comments to TCEQ.

    The issues raised were: The compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) provisions in the permits do not assure compliance with particulate matter (PM) emissions limits during periods of startup, shutdown, maintenance and malfunction; the record supporting the CAM "opacity indicator ranges" for PM for the Monticello plant is deficient and not based on reliable data; and the Big Brown permit must be revised to ensure that "any credible evidence" may be used to demonstrate noncompliance with applicable requirements. Opacity is a measure of visibility in the smoke stack that serves as a proxy for PM.

    "Nowhere did the public comment letter expressly identify any issues relating to the startup, shutdown, maintenance, or malfunction exclusion in the CAM provisions for opacity. Indeed, the comment letter did not identifyany particular provisions of the draft permits that were inconsistent with the requirements of the [Clean Air Act] and therefore that should be removed," McCarthy writes.

    A Luminant spokesman said, "We are pleased with the EPA's decision to reject EIP's objections," adding, "our permits are sound and legally defensible and EIP's objections were without merit, both substantively and procedurally." A TCEQ spokesman declined to comment on EPA's rejection of the permit objection petitions, but cited TCEQ's responses to the issues raised in EIP's comment letters on the three permits. The state agency largely rejected environmentalists' claims on a range of issues, including CAM requirements and violations of regulatory opacity limits.

    Legal Losses

    EPA's permit response is a regulatory setback after two major legal losses last year, the first culminating in a settlement between Sierra Club and Luminant that effectively ended a Clean Air Act citizen suit.

    In litigation brought by Sierra Club against the Big Brown facility, a federal district judge backed the company. InSierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corporation, et al., Judge Walter Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco found Sierra Club's accusations unfounded. Smith ruled that TCEQ correctly handled any enforcement issues with alleged air law violations.

    The judge in his March 28 bench ruling determined that Sierra Club's civil enforcement suit was "frivolous," and later awarded Luminant more than $6 million in legal fees at Sierra Club's expense.

    The ruling was considered unprecedented and a "miscarriage of justice" by environmentalists, as courts typically do not award such large sums in legal fees against environmental groups in air law citizen suits. Environmentalists argued that Luminant and its parent company Energy Future Holdings repeatedly violated permit limits on opacity.

    The EIP source says that had EPA supported the group's permit objections, this would have run counter to the Waco court's opinion -- but instead the agency rejected the organization's request.

    Smith in his March 28 written opinion found that all of the spikes in opacity, or "upset" incidents, recorded by Luminant and flagged by Sierra Club were in fact covered by an "affirmative defense" that provides a shield from emissions limit violation liability in certain circumstances. Also, the Big Brown plant took appropriate steps to minimize such incidents, and properly reported them to TCEQ, Smith found.

    EPA has been taking steps to scrap the affirmative defense from its rules after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the defense was unlawful under the Clean Air Act. But some states and industry supporters of the defense have suggested that the defense is still valid in state rules.

    In the Energy Future Holdings Corporation case, Sierra Club reached a settlement with Luminant to end several citizen suits against the company in return for not having to pay the massive fees in the Big Brown case.

    One pending legal action dropped by the group as a result was an enforcement action against Luminant's Martin Lake power plant for excess emissions.

    Enforcement Action

    Following the Big Brown suit, environmentalists then lost another civil enforcement action in Texas, against ExxonMobil over alleged excess emissions from the company's huge Baytown refinery complex.

    Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled in Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc., et al. v. ExxonMobil Corporation that environmentalists' allegations of excess air toxics emissions, violations of flaring requirements and illegal upset emissions were unfounded.

    Unlike Smith, he was less deferential to TCEQ, examining the issues in the case one-by-one and avoiding any pronouncement on affirmative defense "factors," which are conditions that must be met to assert the affirmative defense.

    The Sierra Club and Environment Texas rulings were blows to citizen enforcement efforts under the Clean Air Act, sources said, and significant victories for industry. However, the influence of both will likely be limited, given that they came from district courts and not appeals courts, sources say.

    Some "chilling" effect on such actions may still be possible in Texas, sources say -- although even this is significant, because much of the current U.S. heavy industrial expansion requiring air permits is taking place in the state.

    While direct citizen enforcement actions might be constrained, challenges to EPA's approval of air permits will continue, the EIP source says. The group currently has another such challenge outstanding with respect to Shell's Deer Park refinery, filed Dec. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Energy Group Pushes Back on NERC's Clean Power Plan Concerns

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Peter Behr

    A coalition of renewable energy, smart grid and energy technology companies today challenged a warning by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. that the Obama administration's proposed Clean Power Plan may threaten electric grid reliability.

    The Advanced Energy Economy Institute issued a report arguing that NERC overstated possible grid operating challenges arising from U.S. EPA's plan to reduce power-sector emissions.

    "Following a review of the reliability concerns raised and the options for mitigating them, we find that compliance with the CPP is unlikely to materially affect reliability," said thestudy by the Brattle Group, an energy-sector consulting firm.

    The report will be presented at the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which begins Saturday in Washington, D.C. It adds another element to a debate swirling around EPA's Clean Power Plan, which seeks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 30 percent between 2005 and 2030, with an initial compliance deadline in 2020. EPA is expected to issue the rule in midsummer.

    NERC, the federally appointed reliability monitor for the interstate high-voltage grid, issued an interim report in November 2014 warning that EPA's proposed timeline "does not provide enough time to develop sufficient resource to ensure continued reliable operation of the grid by 2020." Holding to that deadline increases the potential for "wide-scale, uncontrolled outages," NERC said (EnergyWire, Nov. 5, 2014).

    Several of the largest regional transmission grid operators have also warned that the CPP timetable threatens reliable operations and are asking EPA for more time to comply.

    Jurgen Weiss, lead author of the Brattle Group report, said that NERC overlooked or underestimated strategies that utilities and grid operators can take to manage the reduction on power plant carbon emissions without threatening blackouts. "We think NERC has not taken into consideration a number of factors that would substantially mitigate NERC's concerns," Weiss said.

    "NERC's objective is to maintain reliability. So anything that could be seen as a harm to reliability needs to be raised, one way of the other. The regional system operators by and large get blamed if there is a reliability issue, so they, too, are very conservative about embracing rapid change," Weiss said in an interview.

    E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.

    Weiss pointed to differing assessments by the contesting sides in the debate of how many coal plants would be forced to retire by the proposed EPA regulation, and how grid reliability would be affected as a result.

    EPA assumed that the generation capacity of coal-fired plants -- over 310 gigawatts in 2012 -- would shrink by more than 60 GW by 2020 due to EPA's current Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulation and competition for coal generators from cheap shale gas supplies.

    The agency estimated that as much as 50 GW of additional coal-fired power plant capacity might be retired as a consequence of the Clean Power Plan, under one of several compliance strategies.

    "Developing suitable replacement generation resources to maintain adequate reserve margin levels may represent a significant reliability challenge, given the constrained time period for implementation," NERC's report said. Replacing the bulk of shut-down coal plant capacity with gas-fired generation could strain the gas pipeline infrastructure, NERC warned. Filling part of the gap additionally with wind power would require more transmission lines, with too little time to build them, it said.

    Brattle says it's unrealistic to assume that all of the second 50 GW group of plants would be retired and unavailable to meet peak energy demands. Bruce Tsuchida, another author of the Brattle report, said that was a conclusion that NERC "jumped forward with without thinking really hard about."

    To achieve EPA's carbon emission reduction goals, Tsuchida said, "you don't have to retire [older coal] units. All you have to do is run them less." Cutting into the operating times of the plants affects generating company revenues, but the operators can be compensated to keep the plants available for the relatively small number of peak hours of demand during the year, he said.

    "Since the Clean Power Plan doesn't requirement [coal plant] retirements, you could keep 50 gigawatts around at a very minimum capacity factor cost," Weiss said.Options overlooked?

    Brattle's report also argues that NERC overlooked other options that utilities and state regulators have to add power supply and reduce demand for conventional generation, including biomass- and biogas-fired generation, technologies like dynamic power line ratings that increase capacity of transmission lines, and energy storage.

    "One area that is kind of tricky is how you use new combined-cycle gas plants," Weiss said. States have the option to meet EPA goals based on power plant emissions rates for CO2, or convert those requirements into mass-based volumetric goals, he said. If they choose a mass-based approach, they can include new gas generation units in the calculation, which have roughly half the CO2 emissions per electric power generation of coal-fired generators.

    The Brattle report says EPA could ease uncertainty over its plan by clarifying how it will respond to unexpected reliability challenges as compliance deadlines approached.

    At some fundamental level, the argument over grid reliability reflects political polarization among states and regions over the EPA plan, the Brattle report suggests.

    In issuing the report yesterday, AEE provided an endorsement from Ann Berwick, former chairwoman of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, who said NERC's findings were "both exaggerated and premature."

    "New England has been integrating more variable energy resources into the electric system without threatening reliability and working to increase natural gas supply to the region. There is every reason to believe that the Clean Power Plan will play out the same way across the country, reaching EPA goals and maintaining reliable electric service," she said.

    Massachusetts is one of 30 states with a renewable energy requirement as of 2012, while seven others have voluntary goals, the Energy Department notes. As these states work toward their goals, more renewable energy resources and transmission lines will be scheduled and built regardless of the CPP timetable, Brattle said.

    In most of the country, EPA's goal for additional renewable generation will be met even if the CPP does not take effect, the report said. Likewise, the industry is responding to a range of other transforming forces, helping to bring the EPA goals in reach, Brattle said.

    But there are 13 states that haven't set a renewable energy standard, and among this group are states that are leading a legal challenge to the CPP.

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Bipartisanship Possible After KXL Battle if GOP Doesn't 'Go Too Far Over the Edge' -- Upton

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Nick Juliano

    House Republicans are unlikely to make approval of the Keystone XL pipeline a prerequisite for a broader energy bill later this year -- in part to avoid provoking an immediate veto threat that could stop comprehensive legislation in its tracks, a key GOP chairman said yesterday.

    The House yesterday voted to send President Obama a bill approving the controversial oil sands conduit, but the White House has made clear the bill will be vetoed (see related story).

    House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said he did know for sure whether KXL would come back before the chamber but predicted its approval would not be part of a larger energy bill, which he hopes stays bipartisan and earns support from the administration.

    "We have Keystone on a separate track; we know where the votes are," Upton told reporters ahead of yesterday's vote. "We're not going to keep banging our heads against the wall."

    Upton earlier this week outlined an energy policy framework he hopes to turn into legislation later this year, which focuses on infrastructure, job training, diplomacy and efficiency (E&ENews PM, Feb. 9). The energy bill is not expected to address hot-button issues like U.S. EPA's sweeping rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, given that an attempt to seriously curtail the administration's Clean Power Plan would draw a likely veto threat, although those issues are expected to be addressed separately.

    Upton said he met recently with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and was optimistic they could find ample areas of policy agreement as long as Republicans do not overreach in attempting to enact more partisan priorities.

    "There's a lot of room where we can work together, and we have a very good relationship," Upton said of Moniz. "I don't anticipate any problems. I don't think we're going to go too far over the edge."

    While Upton is attempting to quarantine his bill, Republicans are likely to find other ways to continue to vote on the pipeline given the political dynamics around the issue. KXL's approval is a question on which Republicans are united, while the pipeline splits the Democratic coalition between environmental groups that oppose it due to concerns over climate change and labor unions that want the jobs that would be created through its construction.

    Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who sponsored the KXL bill that won House support yesterday and has already passed the Senate, said approval language could be added to various future pieces of legislation, including a highway bill that will have to be enacted by late spring or annual appropriations bills that need to pass by the fall. He also suggested an energy bill as a possible vehicle, if it had enough other provisions backed by the president.

    "Well, that's why we'll see if it's an energy bill or package that we think he likes, then he may feel it's worthwhile to sign that bill," Hoeven said yesterday.

    Reporter Hannah Northey contributed.

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. House Passes Keystone Bill Despite Obama’s Opposition

    Feb 12, 2015 | The New York TImes

    By Coral Davenport

    The House on Wednesday passed a bill approving construction of the Keystone XL oilpipeline, setting up a confrontation with President Obama, who has vowed to veto the measure.

    The bill, which passed the Senate last month, headed to Mr. Obama’s desk Wednesday night.

    Mr. Obama’s expected veto of the bill will not represent a rejection of the pipeline itself. Because the pipeline crosses an international border — with Canada — the president retains the authority to make the final decision on whether to build it.

    Congressional Republicans chose the Keystone bill as the first measure to send to Mr. Obama this year in order to use his expected rejection of it as a political weapon against Democrats.

    “Instead of listening to the people, the president is standing with a bunch of left-fringe extremists and anarchists,” Speaker John A. Boehner said. “The president needs to listen to the American people and say ‘yes, let’s build the Keystone pipeline.’ ”

    The president has a 10-day window to act on the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 270 to 152. Twenty-nine Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of the measure.

    While it drew bipartisan support, it is not expected to draw the two-thirds majority necessary to override a veto.

    The clash over Keystone is expected to continue for some time.

    The proposed 1,179-mile pipeline, which would carry heavily polluting petroleum from the oil sands of Alberta to ports and refineries on the Gulf Coast, has emerged as a symbol for Democrats’ and Republicans’ fierce fight over energy, climate change and the economy.

    Republicans and the oil industry say the project would create jobs and provide economic growth. Environmental activists have fought the project for years, saying it would harm the environment and could contribute to climate change.

    Despite the debate over the pipeline, and its potency as a symbol of energy and environmental policy, experts have said repeatedly that the symbolism vastly outweighs its substance.

    A State Department environmental review last year concluded that construction of the pipeline would not lead to a significant increase of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, and the number of jobs created by construction of the pipeline represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total economy.

    Still, environmentalists who have spent years marching and rallying to protest the pipeline say they would take Mr. Obama’s expected veto as a sign that he will eventually reject the project.

    “We are very encouraged that the president will veto this bill, and we are more confident than ever that he will soon reject this dirty and dangerous pipeline once and for all,” said Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters.

    The approval process for the pipeline has dragged on for years, but advocates on both sides of the fight are urging the president to make a final decision soon.

    Mr. Obama has said that a key criterion for him in deciding on the pipeline will be whether its construction will contribute to climate change. He has put off his decision so a series of reviews can be completed, including the environmental impact review by the State Department and reviews by the heads of eight other agencies. The last of those reviews was completed last week.

    People on both sides of the debate say that the president’s final decision on whether to build the pipeline could come soon.

    “Merits of the pipeline aside, the timing for a veto is about perfect from the White House perspective, especially given their recent decision to open up the Atlantic to offshore drilling, which they contend shows they are pro-U.S. supply development,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton administration energy and climate aide, now with the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

    Both sides are increasing their lobbying of the administration.

    On Wednesday, a group of more than 90 leading scientists and economists, including a Nobel Prize honoree in economics, a Nobel Prize laureate in physics and lead authors of reports written by the Nobel Prize recipients of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sent a letter to Mr. Obama, urging him to reject the project on the grounds that it could contribute to new development in the Canadian oil sands, thus unlocking more fossil fuels.

    While the State Department’s environmental review of the project concluded that it would not significantly increase the rate of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, an Environmental Protection Agency letter to the State Department last week emphasized that the recent drop in global oil prices might mean that construction of the pipeline could spur increased development of the Canadian oil sands — and thus increase such emissions.

    The E.P.A. said that given lower oil prices, companies might be less likely to develop in the oil sands, because it would be costly for them to ship the oil by rail. But the presence of the pipeline, which offers an inexpensive way to move the oil to market, could increase the likelihood that companies would extract from the oil sands even when prices are low.

    On Tuesday, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Gary Doer, sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, questioning the E.P.A.’s findings.

    “One is left with the conclusion that there has been significant distortion and omission to arrive at E.P.A.’s conclusions,” he wrote. “As compared to rail, Keystone represents lower greenhouse gas emissions as well as lower environmental and safety risks.”

    Some lawmakers have begun expressing frustration that Congress has spent nearly a month debating a bill that they know will be dead on arrival when it reaches the president.

    Representative Bobby L. Rush, Democrat of Illinois, said angrily that while the House took the time to debate the Keystone bill, the Department of Homeland Security is set to run out of money, as lawmakers are at an impasse over how to fund the agency.

    “In just two weeks, the Department of Homeland Security will run out of money, putting all of the American people, our entire nation, at risk. Where are your priorities?” Mr. Rush said. “Why are we wasting time on this?”

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Undisturbed for Decades, Family Forest Finds Itself in Pipeline’s Path

    Feb 12, 2015 | The New York Times

    By Corey Kilgannon

    With snowshoes strapped to his feet and a fedora perched atop his head, Dev Kernan tramped deep into the snowy woods and finally stopped to admire a majestic red oak.

    “Now there’s a beauty,” he said. Then he pointed to a black cherry tree: “There, with the scaly bark — that grows beautifully here.”

    “Here” is the Kernan family forest, which covers a remote patch of upstate New York between Albany and Binghamton. Known as Charlotte Forest, it is a pristine sanctuary of woods and wetlands that the family has maintained for nearly seven decades.

    In 1947, Mr. Kernan’s father, Henry Kernan, a Yale-trained forestry expert, and his wife, Jody, bought nearly 1,000 acres of forest and wetland property straddling Delaware and Otsego Counties. Since then, the land has remained under the close stewardship of the Kernan family, the parents passing it down to their five children as the proud centerpiece of a family of naturalists.

    The forest has been intensively studied and documented by environmentalists and ecologists, including Henry Kernan himself, who wrote about it in two books and in numerous conservation articles.PhotoThe Charlotte Forest has been intensively studied and documented by environmentalists and ecologists. CreditSuzy Allman for The New York Times

    But now, the family says, the forest is threatened by the construction of the Constitution Pipeline, a $700 million, 124-mile conduit designed to transport natural gas from the Marcellus Shale fields of northeast Pennsylvania to Wright, N.Y., 80 miles southwest of Albany, where it will connect with two other pipelines to serve markets in New York and New England.

    The project calls for workers to clear a mile-long, 75-foot-wide swath through the forest, and for the path to be kept clear for perpetuity, at 50 feet.

    Dev Kernan, 68, described this as a gaping wound that would fragment the forest. His family has refused to grant an easement to the pipeline’s developers, who say they may soon pursue eminent domain proceedings so that work on the project can begin this summer.

    The Kernans say they have practiced careful forest management over the years to keep the property intact and the ecosystem undisturbed.

    With no public access, and no public roads running through it, the forest has become one of the biggest pristine parcels remaining in the area, according to the Kernans and the many environmental experts and consultants they have hired to make a case against the pipeline. The pipeline, the forest’s protectors say, would cause irreversible ecological damage by leaving the property vulnerable to invasive species of plants and insects, and alter the hydrology of the wetlands.

    Dr. Bernd Blossey, an invasive plant species expert at Cornell University’s Department of Natural Resources, said that unfragmented forests and wetlands were a rare occurrence in New York State. Pipeline construction, he said, would “compromise the immune system” of this forest’s ecology.

    “We have to protect these places,” Dr. Blossey said.

    Constitution Pipeline officials said they had gone to great expense to minimize any negative environmental impact the project might have.

    More than a dozen different routes for crossing the Kernan property were explored before the least intrusive one was chosen, said Christopher Stockton, a spokesman for Constitution Pipeline, a partnership of four companies. And instead of cutting a much wider path for construction — other stretches along the pipeline route required up to 120 feet — the passage through the Kernans’ property had been reduced to 75 feet across, he said.

    Mr. Stockton said that Constitution had also established “a robust management plan approved by state and federal agencies specifically designed to address concerns related to invasive species.”

    Of the hundreds of landowners affected by the pipeline, about 85 percent have accepted payments in exchange for easement agreements, leaving about 100 who have not agreed to deals.

    On a recent weekday, wind gusts dusted patches of snow off lofty branches, as swaying trees creaked and cracked in the cold. As he snowshoed through thigh-deep powder with his wife, Karen Butler, Mr. Kernan said that his family had planted 80,000 trees on the property over the years.

    He pointed out tree species — maples, oaks, white ash, and a tall stand of red pines — the family had planted when he was a child.

    “Hemlock,” he pointed out, batting snow off a low bough with flattened needles. He ducked under it and trudged toward Clapper Lake, a bowl-shaped body of water that drains the woods and is ringed by sphagnum bog wetland.PhotoDev Kernan and his sister Patricia walking through the Charlotte Forest. The construction of the Constitution Pipeline calls for a mile-long, 75-foot-wide swath clearing through the forest. CreditSuzy Allman for The New York Times

    Over the decades, the challenges to the property have been largely ecological, from the invasive tent caterpillars that cost the Kernans thousands of trees, to the beavers whose dams have raised the lake’s water level and killed off many trees along the shore in the process.

    Mr. Kernan pointed south toward nearby Mud Pond, just off the family property. The pipeline would run across the unspoiled tract between the pond and Clapper Lake, creating an interruption in the contiguous wetland between them and threatening the water's purity as well as many rare plant and animal species, including wild orchids and pitcher plants.

    In December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the pipeline’s construction. The project now awaits approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regarding water quality and wetlands issues along the route, which runs from Susquehanna County in northeastern Pennsylvania across Broome, Chenango, Delaware and Schoharie Counties in New York.

    Constitution will continue seeking easement agreements from the remaining landowners, Mr. Stockton said, adding that “if we can’t reach an agreement, then the last step is eminent domain,” through which landowners can be legally required to offer easements for an amount determined by the courts.

    The pipeline would help connect the plentiful reserves of underground shale gas to the Boston and New York City markets, which currently get natural gas from areas much farther away. It would provide enough gas to power about three million homes at much lower rates, Mr. Stockton said.

    The project would create up to 1,300 construction jobs, and result in millions in local taxes along the route and stimulate local economies, he added.

    “From a consumer standpoint it’s a good story, but sometimes it’s hard for folks to understand the bigger picture,” Mr. Stockton said. “It’s infrastructure that people depend on. When you have to install it, it affects people’s property.”

    Mr. Kernan said his family would reject any financial offer from the company and had already declined an offer of “a substantial amount of money.” He declined to specify how substantial.

    “We regard it as filthy and an unwelcome amount of money,” he said.

    One option the family would consider, he said, was a pipeline that ran underground and avoided disrupting the terrain and wetlands. Constitution officials recently visited Mr. Kernan at his 1830s farmhouse, which overlooks the forest, and arranged for workers to conduct geological and other tests on the property to determine whether a tunneling option was viable.

    Mr. Kernan said it was the family’s duty to protect the forest, which his father fondly called his woodlot and named after the Charlotte River, a Susquehanna River tributary that runs through the land.

    Henry Kernan, now 98, lives in a retirement home in Cooperstown and is oblivious to the battle being waged over the forest.

    “There’s no way we can tell him,” Dev Kernan said. “It would kill him.”

    Over the years, the family has refused to subdivide and sell the land to developers, he said. Instead, they groomed stands of trees, and practiced selective timbering, selling off groupings of trees to pay taxes to break even financially on the land.

    “We’re doing the ethically right thing,” Mr. Kernan said, “to hold onto and steward the land instead of exploiting it.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Watchdog Group Critiques Industry's Case for Fracking

    Feb 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Pamela King

    Industry is presenting a skewed view on hydraulic fracturing science, according to a new report from a nonprofit research group.

    The subject of the Buffalo, N.Y.-based Public Accountability Initiative's (PAI) investigationwas a list of 137 studies cited by the industry-backed research group Energy in Depth (EID) to support the leasing of mineral rights in Pennsylvania's Allegheny County.

    PAI found that 76 percent of those papers had some degree of industry influence -- the most strongly tied were either directly funded or issued by oil and gas companies or were written by authors who worked in the business. Only 14 percent of the studies were peer-reviewed, and EID included discredited shale research from the State University of New York at Buffalo and the University of Texas, Austin, PAI wrote (EnergyWire, Dec. 11, 2012).

    Seventeen of the studies on EID's list were issued by the American Petroleum Institute or the American Gas Association, two of the top energy trade groups.

    "Policymakers should be wary of the research pushed by the oil and gas industry, which is often closer to public relations than to actual science," PAI research analyst Robert Galbraith said in a statement yesterday.

    PAI chose this particular list as the focus of its report because it was the most comprehensive example the institute could find of industry building a research case to influence policymaking, Galbraith told EnergyWire. Though the list was compiled a year and a half ago, by EID's estimate, it appears to have been updated as recently as April 2014.

    "Are these guys literally trying to argue that all these studies are wrong?" EID spokesman Chris Tucker wrote in an email to EnergyWire. "That the views of EPA, the Interior Department, the Department of Energy and the president himself are all contrived?"

    Materials distributed by U.S. EPA, DOE and other federal agencies were among the studies PAI found to have no industry influence.

    A tie to the oil and gas business does not automatically destroy the credibility of a report, Galbraith said. But when readers are not consuming research from a wide range of third-party, peer-reviewed sources, they are less likely to gain an informed perspective on a particular subject, he added.

    PAI's research on the oil and gas industry is funded by the 11th Hour Project of the Schmidt Family Foundation and by the Park Foundation, two prominent backers of the anti-fracking movement.

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. In Climate Change, What’s in a Name?

    Feb 12, 2015 | The New York TImes

    By Justin Gillis

    The words are hurled around like epithets.

    People who reject the findings of climate science are dismissed as “deniers” and “disinformers.” Those who accept the science are attacked as “alarmists” or “warmistas. ” The latter term, evoking the Sandinista revolutionaries of Nicaragua, is perhaps meant to suggest that the science is part of some socialist plot.

    In the long-running political battles over climate change, the fight about what to call the various factions has been going on for a long time. Recently, though, the issue has taken a new turn, with a public appeal that has garnered 22,000 signatures and counting.

    The petition asks the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, “skeptic,” and call them “climate deniers” instead.

    Climate scientists are among the most vocal critics of using the term “climate skeptic” to describe people who flatly reject their findings. They point out that skepticism is the very foundation of the scientific method. The modern consensus about the risks of climate change, they say, is based on evidence that has piled up over the course of decades and has been subjected to critical scrutiny every step of the way.

    Drop into any climate science convention, in fact, and you will hear vigorous debate about the details of the latest studies. While they may disagree over the fine points, those same researchers are virtually unanimous in warning that society is running extraordinary risks by continuing to pump huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    In other words, the climate scientists see themselves as the true skeptics, having arrived at a durable consensus about emissions simply because the evidence of risk has become overwhelming. And in this view, people who reject the evidence are phony skeptics, arguing their case by cherry-picking studies, manipulating data, and refusing to weigh the evidence as a whole.

    The petition asking the media to drop the “climate skeptic” label began with Mark B. Boslough, a physicist in New Mexico who grew increasingly annoyed by the term over several years. The phrase is wrong, he said, because “these people do not embrace the scientific method.”

    Dr. Boslough is active in a group called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which has long battled pseudoscience in all its forms. Late last year, he wrote a public letter on the issue, and dozens of scientists and science advocates associated with the committee quickly signed it. They include Bill Nye, of “Science Guy" fame, and Lawrence M. Krauss, the physicist and best-selling author.

    A climate advocacy organization, Forecast the Facts, picked up on the letter and turned it into a petition. Once the signatures reach 25,000, the group intends to present a formal request to major news organizations to alter their terminology.

    All of which raises an obvious question: If not “skeptic,” what should the opponents of climate science be called?

    As a first step, it helps to understand why they so vigorously denounce the science. The opposition is coming from a certain faction of the political right. Many of these conservatives understand that since greenhouse emissions are caused by virtually every economic activity of modern society, they are likely to be reduced only by extensive government intervention in the market.

    So casting doubt on the science is a way to ward off such regulation. This movement is mainly rooted in ideology, but much of the money to disseminate its writings comes from companies that profit from fossil fuels.

    Despite their shared goal of opposing regulation, however, these opponents of climate science are not all of one mind in other respects, and thus no single term really fits them all.

    Some make scientifically ludicrous claims, such as denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or rejecting the idea that humans are responsible for its increase in the atmosphere. Others deny that Earth is actually warming, despite overwhelming evidence that it is, including the rapid melting of billions of tons of land ice all over the planet.

    Yet the critics of established climate science also include a handful of people with credentials in atmospheric physics, and track records of publishing in the field. They acknowledge the heat-trapping powers of greenhouse gases, and they distance themselves from people who deny such basic points.

    “For God’s sake, I can’t be lumped in with that crowd,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a former University of Virginia scientist employed by the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

    Contrarian scientists like Dr. Michaels tend to argue that the warming will be limited, or will occur so gradually that people will cope with it successfully, or that technology will come along to save the day – or all of the above.

    The contrarian scientists like to present these upbeat scenarios as the only plausible outcomes from runaway emissions growth. Mainstream scientists see them as being the low end of a range of possible outcomes that includes an alarming high end, and they say the only way to reduce the risks is to reduce emissions.

    The dissenting scientists have been called “lukewarmers” by some, for their view that Earth will warm only a little. That is a term Dr. Michaels embraces. “I think it’s wonderful!” he said. He is working on a book, “The Lukewarmers’ Manifesto.”

    When they publish in scientific journals, presenting data and arguments to support their views, these contrarians are practicing science, and perhaps the “skeptic” label is applicable. But not all of them are eager to embrace it.

    “As far as I can tell, skepticism involves doubts about a plausible proposition,” another of these scientists, Richard S. Lindzen, told an audience a few years ago. “I think current global warming alarm does not represent a plausible proposition.”

    Papers by Dr. Lindzen and others disputing the risks of global warming have fared poorly in the scientific literature, with mainstream scientists pointing out what they see as fatal errors. Nonetheless, these contrarian scientists testify before Congress and make statements inconsistent with the vast bulk of the scientific evidence, claiming near certainty that society is not running any risk worth worrying about.

    It is perhaps no surprise that many environmentalists have started to call them deniers.

    The scientific dissenters object to that word, claiming it is a deliberate attempt to link them to Holocaust denial. Some academics sharply dispute having any such intention, but others have started using the slightly softer word “denialist” to make the same point without stirring complaints about evoking the Holocaust.

    Scientific denialism has crept into other aspects of modern life, of course, manifesting itself as creationism, anti-vaccine ideology and the opposition to genetically modified crops, among other doctrines.

    To groups holding such views, “evidence just doesn’t matter any more,” said Riley E. Dunlap, a sociologist at Oklahoma State University. “It becomes possible to create an alternate reality.”

    But Dr. Dunlap pointed out that the stakes with most of these issues are not as high as with climate-change denial, for the simple reason that the fate of the planet may hang in the balance.

    Return to headline | Return to top

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