Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Chemical Regulations Conference Agenda Announced
Feb 20, 2015 | Power & Bulk Solids
This year’s Global Chemical Regulations Conference and Exhibition (GlobalChem) will take place March 2-4, at the Hilton Baltimore in Baltimore. -
(ACC Blog) How Many Beagles Does it Take to Prove BPA is Safe?
Feb 20, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
It’s time to call off the dogs, says the Wall Street Journal. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Group Asks for Delay in Phthalate Rule, Questions Data
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A top industry group is asking the Consumer Product Safety Commission to extend the public comment period on proposed new phthalate restrictions as it continues to claim procedural problems in a long-delayed study of the chemicals. -
US EPA Extends Consultation on Toluene Diisocyanates Snur
Feb 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended to 30 April the comment period on the proposed significant new use rule for toluene diisocyanates (CW 9 January 2015). The original deadline was 16 March. -
US EPA Receives 42 Pre-Manufacturing Notices
Feb 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 42 pre-manufacturing notices for new chemicals in December 2014. Several of them have their manufacturer, or importer, protected as confidential business information. -
Flame Retardants & Car Seats: When Parents Do Everything Right and It Is Still Wrong.
Feb 20, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jennifer Hankey
I am an advocate, an educator and a mom. Above all I am a researcher. I spend hours, months and years researching what toxic chemicals are in our products and how to make safe choices. -
Intel Panel Poised to Release New Cyber Bill
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett
The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to introduce legislation next week that would help the public and private sectors share information about cyber threats, sources tell The Hill. -
Embracing America’s Energy Opportunity by Building the ‘Architecture of Abundance’
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - Opinion
By Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.)
America is the world’s largest producer of natural gas, we are on track to soon become the world’s largest crude oil producer, we are a world leader in the development of renewable resources and clean technologies, and we still hold the world’s largest coal reserves. -
Canada Cuts Taxes for Natural Gas Export Projects
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Canada’s federal government is slashing taxes on liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects in an attempt to incentivize the industry. -
Dem Bill Requires Carbon Emissions Permits
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action
By Cristina Marcos
A Democratic bill recently unveiled in the House would require energy producers to purchase permits for carbon dioxide emissions. -
Energy Experts Seek Consensus on Clean Power Plan's Timeline, Reliability Fixes
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Two changes top the wish lists of regulators, state officials and electric companies tasked by U.S. EPA with cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector: a smoother trajectory for working toward 2030 goals and an escape hatch for any unforeseeable problems. -
Utilities to Offer EPA, FERC Specifics on Designing Clean Power Plan 'Glide Path'
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
The nation's investor-owned utilities plan to give federal regulators a more specific series of recommendations for creating a "glide path" to meeting U.S. EPA carbon-cutting targets through 2030. -
Ill. Bill Calls for Cap-and-Invest Program to Meet EPA Carbon Goal
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
A bipartisan group of almost three dozen Illinois lawmakers yesterday proposed measures that would expand the state's energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements and establish a carbon market to help the state comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Greenwire's Northey Discusses Growing Pressure for FERC to Act on Clean Power Plan
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - TV
Following yesterday's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission technical conference on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, is there any more clarity on exactly what FERC's role is, or could be, on EPA's regulations? -
EPA Regulation Of ‘Ultrafine’ PM Still Distant Prospect Despite Health Risks
Feb 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Air quality experts at a recent scientific workshop on “ultrafine” particulate matter (UFP) agreed that tiny particles pose significant health risks compared to larger fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter (PM10), but any EPA regulation of UFP appears to be a distant prospect given doubts about how to craft such rules. -
Experts Outline Key Scientific Issues For EPA’s Particulate NAAQS Review
Feb 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lea Radick
EPA officials, university researchers and others say that key scientific and policy issues for the agency’s latest review of its particulate matter (PM) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) include how to respond to new science on shorter-term exposures to the pollutant and better information on identifying the sources of PM. -
Energy Sustainability Requires Strong Leadership
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Charles McConnell
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was recently quoted as the Senate Energy Committee continues to develop broad energy policy and legislation to define our nation's future. -
It’s a Lot Riskier to Move Oil By Train Instead of Pipeline
Feb 20, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Christopher Ingraham
The recent explosive train derailment in West Virginia has policymakers considering relative merits of moving oil by pipe or rail, particularly against the backdrop of a national debate over the Keystone XL oil pipeline. -
Wyden to White House: Oil Train Rule Should Address Newer Cars
Feb 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
A Transportation Department oil train safety rule now under review by the White House budget office should address the potential risks of newer rail cars involved in two derailments this month in addition to the older cars still in use, Sen. Ron Wyden said today. -
Senator Presses OMB to Act on New Crude-By-Rail Concerns
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Following fiery oil train derailments in West Virginia and Canada in the last week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is calling on the Obama administration to address fresh concerns surrounding tank cars that are supposed to be safer than the older, puncture-prone DOT-111 models. -
For People of W.Va., Oil Train Inferno Kindles Fears of Environmental Disaster
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A pillar of snow and smoke washed over Lora Scarbrough's trailer home "like a monster." -
Feds: Speed Not a Factor in West Virginia Oil Train Crash
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Federal officials say speed appears to not have been a factor in the oil train derailment in West Virginia that occurred earlier this week.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
Chemical Regulations Conference Agenda Announced
Feb 20, 2015 | Power & Bulk Solids
This year’s Global Chemical Regulations Conference and Exhibition (GlobalChem) will take place March 2-4, at the Hilton Baltimore in Baltimore. The annual conference provides industry leaders, regulators, and stakeholders an opportunity to learn more about the latest developments around the world for managing the safe use of chemicals.
Hosted by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), the three-day conference kicks off with a fundamentals workshop that will take a comprehensive look at the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as well as federal regulatory compliance and international chemical regulation. The agenda features two keynote speakers. Professor John Graham of the University of Indiana will discuss lessons from current regulatory programs in Europe, Canada, and the U.S., and Dr. Tom Lyon of the University of Michigan will discuss the intersection of voluntary environmental programs and corporate social responsibility.
Additionally, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will provide insight into the Agency’s regulatory priorities for this year. Over the course of the conference, attendees will also hear from experts on a wide range of important topics, including risk assessments, green chemistry, and nanotechnology.
“GlobalChem provides an invaluable forum to discuss the most pressing issues that are shaping the development of regulations to protect public health, as well as how we put chemistry to work in order to meet the world’s challenges,” said ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley. “This year represents a unique opportunity to make significant improvements to how chemicals are managed, especially here in the United States. Working together to pass meaningful, bipartisan reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act will be vital to ensure the safety of chemicals, help grow our economy and foster innovation in our industry.”
“Keeping up with the changing world of chemical regulation is becoming more challenging, especially for small- and medium-sized companies,” said SOCMA president and CEO Lawrence D. Sloan. “Fortunately, GlobalChem provides a thorough look at existing, as well as developing, chemical policy by some of the most knowledgeable experts from around the globe. With a program that dives deep into key issues—from TSCA to international trade—we anticipate another productive dialogue about regulatory and legislative challenges and opportunities facing our industry.”
For real-time news updates from the conference, follow ACC (@AmChemistry) and SOCMA (@SOCMA) on Twitter. You may also join the conversation by using #GlobalChem. -
(ACC Blog) How Many Beagles Does it Take to Prove BPA is Safe?
Feb 20, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
It’s time to call off the dogs, says the Wall Street Journal.
The WSJ recently highlighted announcements from important scientific and regulatory bodies in Europe and the United States that bisphenol A (BPA) is safe for use in consumer products for people of all ages, including unborn children and infants.
The Journal also criticized the absurdity of further government-funded study of BPA driven by “periodic scares over chemicals in vaccines, foods and other products”. In its opinion piece “Snoopy Is Safe After All,” the publication states that BPA “deserves exoneration”.
“The fear that BPA might be absorbed into the bloodstream caught traction thanks in part to a 2013 study in which the authors slipped BPA solutions under the tongues of sleeping beagles and found that the pups absorbed more BPA in their blood than other animals had in previous studies. BPA opponents waved around the Snoopy scare as evidence that the chemical was unsafe, calling on regulators to reconsider their all-clear messages,” the Journal stated. “Three prominent BPA critics have received $20 million and have failed to turn up causation between BPA and adverse health effects.”
Pointing to a recent study by Justin Teeguarden of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory the Journal explains that research conducted on human volunteers dispels fears raised by BPA critics and “knocks down the idea that humans could be at risk of absorbing high levels of BPA in the bloodstream.”
The Wall Street Journal also references recent updates from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which have confirmed the safety of BPA in recently released statements. After a comprehensive re-evaluation of BPA exposure and toxicity, an expert panel at EFSA concluded earlier this year that “BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants and adolescents) at current exposure levels.”
Similar to EFSA’s conclusion, FDA responded to the question, “Is BPA safe?” with one unambiguous word: “Yes.” Supporting this clear conclusion is one of the largest studies ever conducted on BPA, which was published by FDA researchers in 2014, and extensive scientific documentation on numerous other studies that was recently released.
With concrete evidence like this, let’s listen to the science and silence the alarm.
Download the Infographic: “What does U.S. government research tell us about BPA?“
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Group Asks for Delay in Phthalate Rule, Questions Data
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A top industry group is asking the Consumer Product Safety Commission to extend the public comment period on proposed new phthalate restrictions as it continues to claim procedural problems in a long-delayed study of the chemicals.
American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley wrote to CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye this week reiterating the group's "serious concerns" with a proposed rule to make permanent an interim ban on certain phthalates.
The industry group has mounted a swift defense of the phthalates in line for bans, arguing a scientific report CPSC relied on does not justify the restrictions (Greenwire, Dec. 18, 2014).
CPSC's action threatens to create an "irresponsible and scientifically unsound precedent" for future regulatory moves, Dooley wrote, because it received a closed rather than open peer review, used a cumulative risk assessment and was not put on hold to account for new exposure data. CPSC staff have said they don't believe the updated exposure data would change the report's conclusions, though they plan to analyze it during the public comment period set to end next month.
Dooley wrote that given the dispute, the public comment period should be extended another 60 days to allow the agency to resolve the issue.
Many scientists and public interest groups have said the use of a cumulative risk assessment is a more accurate measurement of chemical health risks, though the chemical industry disputes its utility. Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which Congress passed in 2008, CPSC is required to use a cumulative risk assessment and to "consider the level at which there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals and their offspring."
Kaye said in a statement the panel of scientists were highly respected and had spent years reviewing existing research on phthalates and phthalate alternatives.
"As required by federal law, CPSC staff used the CHAP report findings as the basis for developing a notice of proposed rulemaking," Kaye said. "CPSC has an open comment period, and we would like to see input from all interested parties. This is a critically important rulemaking, and we are determined to follow the law and to get it right, for the sake of consumer safety and the businesses impacted."
Kaye voted with two other CPSC commissioners to propose the phthalate restrictions last year and has indicated he is uncomfortable with what he's described at public meetings as heavy-handed chemical industry lobbying.
"If these chemicals are harmful and exposure is a concern, then we need to act responsibly and quickly to protect the public, especially pregnant women and children," Kaye said at the meeting.
Further delay would harm those populations, said Daniel Rosenberg, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The chemical industry is making yet another play to delay a rule that is years overdue, repeating meritless arguments already considered and rejected by the CPSC," Rosenberg said in a statement. "CPSC should follow the direction of Congress and move forward with its rulemaking to protect children from unsafe chemicals."
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act banned certain phthalates immediately from children's products and child care items, while requiring that others be studied and evaluated for future action by a panel of scientists called the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Phthalates, whose members were nominated by the National Academy of Sciences. Unlike many chemical evaluation programs, Congress mandated that the CHAP report be completed within 18 months, though that deadline was not met.
The CHAP report, which was published last year, recommended that CPSC make permanent an interim ban on diisononyl phthalate, or DINP. The report also recommended permanently banning four other phthalates -- diisobutyl phthalate, or DIBP; di-n-pentyl phthalate, or DPENP; di-n-hexyl phthalate, or DHEXP; and dicyclohexyl phthalate, or DCHP -- all of which are not currently subject to restrictions (Greenwire, July 21, 2014).
ACC commissioned its own review of the CHAP report through a contractor, ToxStrategies Inc. Scientists that worked on the report expressed doubts about the CPSC review during a media call earlier this week.
"While I'm not weighing in on regulation or policy, I find a very weak scientific basis for doing anything from this report," said Raphael Witorsch, a professor of medicine at the Medical College of Virginia at Virginia Commonwealth University.
-
US EPA Extends Consultation on Toluene Diisocyanates Snur
Feb 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended to 30 April the comment period on the proposed significant new use rule fortoluene diisocyanates (CW 9 January 2015). The original deadline was 16 March.
-
US EPA Receives 42 Pre-Manufacturing Notices
Feb 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 42 pre-manufacturing notices for new chemicals in December 2014. Several of them have their manufacturer, or importer, protected as confidential business information.
During the month the agency also received 28 notices of commencement to manufacture chemicals.
-
Flame Retardants & Car Seats: When Parents Do Everything Right and It Is Still Wrong.
Feb 20, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jennifer Hankey
I am an advocate, an educator and a mom. Above all I am a researcher. I spend hours, months and years researching what toxic chemicals are in our products and how to make safe choices. I contact companies over and over to make sure I am getting the same response about the chemicals in our products. I’m willing to spend extra to buy safe products (a lot extra). I ask the right questions, press and go to the top of the company.Sadly I discovered it isn’t enough.
At Organic Baby University we uncovered and spread the news that even the companies that I have endorsed, companies that have promised us safer products, are selling the same toxic products as the other companies. Several months ago I, and many of my followers, received results from Duke University about the flame retardant chemicals found in our foams.
I was so excited to hear in March that Duke University was running a superfund to test toxic flame retardants and to find out which products contained toxic flame retardants. For 5 years I have had to trust that the companies told the truth when asked about the chemicals they used. Most refuse to answer and use words like “proprietary” , but there were a few that seemed to be doing the right thing. Orbitbaby claimed to have Oeko-tek certified fabrics and foams every time I had contacted them. I spoke with a higher up and was reassured that this was the case. I purchased an Orbitbaby on the spot because of that information and screamed from the hills that there was finally a less toxic car seat on the market. Not too long afterward, Diono made an announcement that they were making two of their seats, Storm and Rugby, without the use of any chemical flame retardants at all. What a health victory for moms and babies everywhere!But don’t start the party yet.
Due to this testing, as parents we were finally empowered to find out what was truly in our foams. No more “proprietary”, no more run-arounds. Just black and white names of chemicals in our foams.
The tests came back. Bad. Both Orbitbaby and Diono had test results come back positive for TDCPP, or “tris”, a toxic flame retardant according to Duke University that “is a probable carcinogen and a developmental neurotoxicant, as well as an endocrine disruptor …” A natural latex mattress I purchased with organic cotton and wool tested for bromine. A “green” foam I purchased to recover my couches because it claimed to have no flame retardants from White Lotus Home tested positive for TDCPP.
As a mom I was furious. As a promoter of these products to my followers as safe, I was devastated. It was a lesson learned. As consumers we declare victory when a company such as Graco or Britax announces that they are removing all toxic flame retardants. But when we research further, we learn that they are removing halogenated FR and switching to other toxic chemicals.
Act Now: Tell Chicco, Graco, Britax, Peg Perego, Evenflo, Diono, Orbitbaby, and Dorrel to use truly non-toxic options!This is what I learnedEven companies that claim to try to do the right thing apparently still have no idea what is in their products, and until these chemicals are regulated because they are toxic at a federal level this will continue to happenEven when you research everything and spend more for non-toxic products, there is no guarantee that you are actually getting safe products.
As a parents and as a people it is time we demand better for our children. It is time to have chemicals proved safe before we use them on and around our children. This is common sense. I am an entrepreneur; I am not a regulation lover by any strength of the imagination. But there are times when it is the only way to protect our most vulnerable. Cigarettes, asbestos and DDT were times that required federal intervention and regulation. This is another.TAKE Action Here: Stop The Toxic Flame Retardant Treadmill! Use Truly Non-Toxic Options!
To have your foam tested visit click here and share your results with us!
-
Intel Panel Poised to Release New Cyber Bill
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett
The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to introduce legislation next week that would help the public and private sectors share information about cyber threats, sources tell The Hill.
A draft of the bill is now being circulated, according to multiple people, in anticipation of a markup being held in the coming weeks.
Although the details of the bill are still being finalized, it will likely resemble the controversial Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), which came close to passing the last Congress. Several industry groups and lobbyists said the new bill includes updated language to ameliorate some of the privacy concerns that derailed the measure last year.
Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — the Intelligence Committee’s top two members — are likely behind the new bill, sources say.
CISA was intended to facilitate a cyber threat data exchange between private companies and intelligence agencies by giving legal liability protections to the companies that share information.
Both industry groups and government officials argue such an exchange is necessary to prop up the country's faltering cyber defenses.
"There’s only one way to defend America from these cyber threats, and that is through government and industry working together, sharing appropriate information as true partners," President Obama said at a White House cybersecurity summit last Friday.
A rash of high-profile breaches across the public and private sectors have raised pressure on lawmakers to pass legislation enabling data sharing.
But privacy advocates worry the National Security Agency (NSA) might abuse sensitive data obtained under such an arrangement. They have insisted on reining in NSA authority before moving on a CISA-type bill.
When the Senate was unable to move forward with an NSA reform bill in November, CISA was largely considered dead.
The cyber bill’s 2015 iteration is sure to generate a new round of controversy, despite its enhanced privacy provisions.
Lawmakers face a looming June 1 deadline to reauthorize sections of the Patriot Act that authorize the NSA’s most controversial surveillance programs. Several senators are expected to use the deadline as leverage to try and curb the NSA's authority.
The outcome of that debate could make or break the Intelligence committee's cyber bill.
The measure will face other hurdles as well.
The White House has been making a big push to put the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), not the intelligence community, at the center of the public-privacy cyber data exchange program. The move is a nod to privacy advocates, who would prefer a civilian agency like the DHS at the head of the government's information-sharing efforts.
The administration released its own legislative proposal in January, and Obama last week signedan executive order to make the offering more attractive to lawmakers.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has already introduced a bill that closely mirrors the White House proposal.
The committee’s chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), has said he wants to wait and see the Intelligence committee’s bill before moving forward with anything in his committee.
The dual path approach has left many wondering whether a final info-sharing bill will be some combination of the two measures or if one will win out over the other.
The Intelligence Committee bill and markup could help provide some answers.
-
Embracing America’s Energy Opportunity by Building the ‘Architecture of Abundance’
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - Opinion
By Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.)
America is the world’s largest producer of natural gas, we are on track to soon become the world’s largest crude oil producer, we are a world leader in the development of renewable resources and clean technologies, and we still hold the world’s largest coal reserves. The U.S. is now unquestionably the world’s greatest energy superpower.
As a global energy leader, we hold the power to fuel an American manufacturing renaissance, improve the standard of living for millions of families, and rewrite geopolitical rules to favor America’s global standing and diminish the influence of dangerous regimes. But it’s up to Congress and the administration to seize this opportunity.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has spent the last four years examining the stunning changes in our energy landscape and advancing a series of bipartisan solutions to harness America’s energy abundance. Despite our best efforts, many of these bills failed to overcome political gridlock. But America’s New Congress brings renewed focus to maximize our nation’s energy potential.
This Congress, working across the aisle and with our counterparts across the Capitol, the committee will advance a comprehensive energy package designed to build what we call the Architecture of Abundance. Our efforts will focus on four key policy areas: modern infrastructure, a 21st Century energy workforce, energy diplomacy, and efficiency and accountability. By addressing regulatory challenges in these four areas we can begin to fully enjoy the benefits of America’s energy abundance.
The increases in North American energy production can lower prices for consumers, but we need to build a modern and effective infrastructure system to transport our affordable energy supplies to those homes and businesses that need them. The American energy boom offers countless opportunities for good-paying jobs, but aspiring energy workers need the right tools and resources to get a foot in the door. America can leverage its position as an energy superpower to achieve diplomatic goals, but policymakers need to understand how domestic energy decisions affect foreign policy. Cutting-edge energy technologies offer efficient new ways to utilize our abundant resources, but we need to cut red tape and encourage further private sector innovation.
We are incredibly fortunate to be in control of our energy destiny, and it’s time to change the course of America’s policy. Instead of outdated laws that hold on to an era of energy scarcity, we need a comprehensive energy policy that matches today’s era of abundance. This is our moment to make the most of our energy greatness. By building the Architecture of Abundance we can embrace the American energy opportunity before us.
Upton has represented Michigan’s 6th Congressional District since 1987. He is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Whitfield has represented Kentucky’s 1st Congressional Distyrict since 1995. He is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
-
Canada Cuts Taxes for Natural Gas Export Projects
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Canada’s federal government is slashing taxes on liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects in an attempt to incentivize the industry.
The tax breaks would mostly help British Columbia, where a dozen LNG export terminals have been proposed but no investment decisions have been finalized, according to the Vancouver Sun.
“Through our ambitious trade agenda, we are opening new markets for Canadian businesses and developing the infrastructure to transport Canadian products to new markets, which is essential for Canada’s future prosperity and security,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a Thursday statement.
The tax incentives could ramp up competition with the United States, where government leaders are trying to encourage LNG exports by improving the process for obtaining export permits. The contiguous states in the U.S. also do not have any active gas export terminals, though some are under construction and more have been proposed.
The new Canadian policy cuts taxes for natural gas liquefaction equipment and the buildings that house the systems. They will last until 2024 and provide about C$50 million over the next five years to the budding industry.
“With oil prices where they are — and all the global uncertainty — the change the federal government has made is going to be a big help in making sure LNG companies get to that final investment decision,” British Columbia Premier Christy Clark said, according to the Sun.
“We have to be more competitive today than we had to be six months ago.”
Clark said Canadian leaders want the country’s gas to be more competitive with the United States and Australia, which exports the most gas of any country in the world.
-
Dem Bill Requires Carbon Emissions Permits
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action
By Cristina Marcos
A Democratic bill recently unveiled in the House would require energy producers to purchase permits for carbon dioxide emissions.
Under Rep. Jim McDermott's (D-Wash.) legislation, producers of coal, natural gas and oil would have to buy permits from the Treasury Department equivalent to the costs of carbon dioxide created.
McDermott argued his proposal would help combat climate change.
"The evidence is crystal clear that climate change is real and already wreaking irreparable harm to our planet," McDermott said in a statement. "With 2014 registering as the hottest year on record, it’s time that Congress gets serious about protecting our planet’s future by curbing carbon emissions that are polluting our air, warming our oceans and creating destructive weather patterns across the globe."
The price for buying a federal emission permit would be $12.50 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2016. The Treasury Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department would establish permit prices in subsequent years.
In addition, the bill would set greenhouse gas emissions targets to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2060.
Energy producers that don't comply with the permit requirements would be subject to fines.
-
Energy Experts Seek Consensus on Clean Power Plan's Timeline, Reliability Fixes
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Two changes top the wish lists of regulators, state officials and electric companies tasked by U.S. EPA with cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector: a smoother trajectory for working toward 2030 goals and an escape hatch for any unforeseeable problems. But what exactly those revisions should look like is still up for debate.
EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan asks states to write their own plans for achieving individual carbon-reduction targets by 2030, but it requires them to show progress toward those levels between 2020 and 2030.
Those interim goals are the most criticized element of the draft rule, and they are the crux of concerns that the rule could cause electric reliability problems. EPA has repeatedly hinted that the interim goals will change, but the agency hasn't explained what will replace them in a final rule due this summer (Greenwire, Feb. 17).
In a technical conference yesterday on the Clean Power Plan, representatives of reliability coordinators, state environmental agencies and utilities told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the interim timeline must be flexible but enforceable.
And they said any "safety valve" for avoiding reliability problems must be able to address a number of situations but can't be a free pass for states.States vs. EPA on interim targets
States advocate for writing their own plans for proving progress, but EPA might have trouble accepting that option.
The utility trade group Edison Electric Institute is working on a specific proposal for what EPA could replace the interim goals with, DTE Energy Co. Chief Executive and EEI representative Gerard Anderson told E&E after a conference panel yesterday (see related story).
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.
"Most states, the vast majority of states simply wanted complete flexibility to define the transition as it suited that state," Anderson said. "It's not clear that EPA and the administration will go that far."
EPA could also simply move the starting year to 2025, but that wouldn't give states as much time to work on regional coordination, build power plants, and bulk up pipeline and power line infrastructure.
Anderson told FERC members that 11 states -- including Michigan, where DTE operates -- would have to achieve 75 percent of reductions by 2020 under the proposed rule. That would be just a couple of years after state compliance plans were approved.5 'flavors' of reliability insurance
FERC Chairwoman Cheryl LaFleur said testimony from witnesses at the technical conference -- a who's who of the energy world -- showed five "flavors" of how to write a reliability safety valve for the Clean Power Plan. LaFleur said there is little precedent for this kind of backstop because the rule is so different from previous regulations, like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants.
"The reliability safety valve that was crafted in MATS was really quite specific ... given in mind that [it] applied to specific plants," LaFleur said. "This is just such a different rule because of the breadth and scope and geographic scope of the rule."
LaFleur said the most spelled-out proposal, from the ISO/RTO Council, the association of regional grid operators, suggests allowing states to contact FERC and others when they need more time to work on state implementation plans (SIPs) and explain why they need more time. EPA then would make a final decision.
A second concept LaFleur described would be similar but more dynamic, allowing states that realize late in the game they need more time to request an extension.
Third, some suggested FERC could compare state and regional plans, or "put the map out and put all the SIPs next to each other and find places where they don't jive," she said. FERC Commissioners Philip Moeller and Tony Clark have advocated for FERC to take this kind of formal role (Greenwire, Feb. 19).
LaFleur also said some wanted an "old-fashioned, dare I say, reliability must-run" backstop. A reliability must-run contract allows plants to stay in operation when they are otherwise due to shut down, in order to avoid power outages.
"We thought we were working toward our SIP, but now we're not there ... so we need an exception for this plant in some way," LaFleur explained.
Finally, some recommended a real-time dispatch option for operators to ask for an exception to violate state plans if they realize carrying them out might cause blackouts.Planning for the unknown
Craig Glazer, the vice president of federal policy for grid operator PJM Interconnection who was representing the ISO/RTO Council, said all five reliability mechanisms might be necessary.
"Everybody's for it, but nobody can define it," Glazer said.
States should do the upfront work to avoid reliability problems as best they can, but they also need a backup option if something goes wrong, he added.
"What you've described are five tools that can be taken out of the toolbox at different times," Glazer said, adding that "it can't be a free pass, no one can come in and say I want to exempt my state the next five years because I just don't want to do this."
Whatever EPA chooses should be written into the rule, not added on later, Glazer added.
Still, Anderson said the truly troubling reliability problems are those that are completely unforeseen.
"Reliability events rarely come from the place you anticipated when you do your plan," Anderson said. "They usually are the confluence of unforgiving environment and some unanticipated or unexpected event. And we are going to be making the environment substantially less forgiving as we work our way through this. It's just undeniable."
Reporter Rod Kuckro contributed.
-
Utilities to Offer EPA, FERC Specifics on Designing Clean Power Plan 'Glide Path'
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
The nation's investor-owned utilities plan to give federal regulators a more specific series of recommendations for creating a "glide path" to meeting U.S. EPA carbon-cutting targets through 2030.
While 2030 is the ultimate deadline for state compliance with U.S. EPA's goals for emissions reduction under the proposed Clean Power Plan, interim compliance targets beginning in 2020 have been widely likened to a "cliff" because of how much states would have to accomplish in such a short period of time and the effects that compliance could have on electric reliability.
Agreement on that one change in the proposed EPA rule to curb greenhouse gas emissions was reached by utility CEOs "almost without discussion" at an Edison Electric Institute meeting in Chicago last October, said Gerard Anderson, chairman and CEO of Michigan utility DTE Energy.
Changing the time frame of the EPA proposal is far more important to EEI member companies than establishing a so-called reliability safety valve to prevent power outages and ensure reliability, Anderson said.
"We haven't reached an agreement on what a reliability safety valve would look like," he said. In fact, moving the timeline for compliance would reduce the occasion to use a safety valve, he said.
Anderson, who leads EEI's environment committee, was in Washington, D.C., yesterday to speak at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's technical conference on the Clean Power Plan.
"I do think EPA is listening, and I think FERC is listening, as well. The key will be what that glide path actually looks like," Anderson said in an interview. "It's not clear they will move the 2020 date, but they will probably re-time compliance, or at least we hope they will."
He said most states simply want complete flexibility to define the transition as they see fit for their state. "It's not clear that EPA and the administration will go that far," he said. "So we're going to bring a specific proposal as a group of EEI companies."
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.
The formal deadline for comments to EPA on its proposed rule was Dec. 1, 2014.
"We need to give some specific thoughts and proposals to the EPA," Anderson said, as to what a glide path for compliance through 2030 means and what flexibility individual states need.
"I was amazed at how quickly we reached consensus around that 2020 time line," Anderson said, reflecting on that day in October.
"Typically, our states and generation companies are all over the map. We just didn't have that," he said. "And I think there were some [companies] who even from a selfish perspective thought [the proposed timeline] could have been a good thing. But they realized that from a reliability perspective, it was just the wrong position to take."
Changing the timeline for implementing carbon reductions has been a mantra for power company CEOs and grid operators. And while top EPA officials have said they're looking closely at the rationale for pushing initial 2020 emissions targets further out, it's clear the agency wants a mechanism in place to ensure states start implementing plans around cutting emissions sooner rather than later.
Even as EEI and others are prepared to bring specific suggestions to the table, there are a slew of states where the EPA proposal with its linkage to climate change has become a divisive political issue.
"One of the reasons that we're going through enabling legislation in Michigan is in fact to establish a process that ensures that we don't end up in those sorts of political deliberations when we really need to be about executing the plan," Anderson said.
Led by Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and leading lawmakers, the Michigan legislation would "put that authority likely with the companies and the PSC and other entities that are well-positioned to move it forward," he said.
"The process will likely give a period for plenty of diverse input, so there will be a political element to any of these plans that get defined but that, once done, will move forward," Anderson said.
"Each state is going to have to come up with its own approach to ensuring that they've got a workable process to move through something that's going to be incredibly complex," he added.
Ultimately, Anderson said, the Midwest's grid operator, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, will "play a valuable and important role" in helping member states such as Michigan comply with the Clean Power Plan. "Power crosses state and regional lines and there needs to be an accounting system for that at a minimum. Optimally, you'd have some way for states to coordinate," he said.
Utilities and grid operators are in the early stages of interstate and regional coordination. "That's because there's so much basic work to be done within the state to legislate, to conceive plans," Anderson said. "Then, when you've conceived a plan, there's a lot of work to be done yet to execute the plan. You typically have to go through an entire approval process for very, very large investments."
Working with other neighboring states has its own challenges, he noted. "And if that 2020 cliff stays there, the amount [of cooperation] that people will probably do will be minimized."
-
Ill. Bill Calls for Cap-and-Invest Program to Meet EPA Carbon Goal
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
A bipartisan group of almost three dozen Illinois lawmakers yesterday proposed measures that would expand the state's energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements and establish a carbon market to help the state comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
S.B. 1485 and H.B. 2607 specifically directs the Illinois EPA to develop a market-based approach to comply with EPA's proposal to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
The program would include a cap on carbon emissions and an auction of allowances with about two-thirds of the proceeds directed to be spent on renewable energy and efficiency. Other proceeds would go for low-income utility bill assistance, to help communities affected by power plant pollution and for workforce development.
The legislation is being pushed by a recently announced coalition led by environmental and clean energy advocates. Other notable members of the group include Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and the Citizens Utility Board, a consumer advocate (EnergyWire, Feb. 6).
Jack Darin, director of the Sierra Club's Illinois chapter, said the legislation introduced yesterday will accomplish several important policy goals. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs and help continue the long-term, transformation of the state's energy sector.
Beside the carbon market proposal, the bills would require a 20 percent reduction in electricity use by 2025 -- a 50 percent increase in energy savings compared with what would occur under existing policies. It would also expand Illinois' renewable energy standard to 35 percent by 2030. Illinois law requires 25 percent of electricity sales in parts of the state served by investor-owned utilities to come from renewable resources by 2025.
"We think that the three major pillars of this proposal work well together," Darin said.
The cap-and-invest proposal would establish a policy framework to enable the state EPA to meet carbon reduction targets. As such, it represents one of the most specific plans put forward aimed at compliance with the Clean Power Plan.
"This could be the overall umbrella," Darin said, noting that it's a concept that "would need a lot more development and discussion."
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.
Unlike California's broader cap-and-trade program, the Illinois proposal would be limited to the electricity sector. Carbon offsets would be prohibited and there would be no free allowances.
The legislation also specifically allows Illinois to enter multi-state agreements for the purpose of compliance if it's proven to be in the state's best interest.
Former Illinois Commerce Commission Chairman Doug Scott led a group of state regulators looking at options for multi-state collaboration on Clean Power Plan compliance (EnergyWire, Dec. 3, 2014).
The Illinois clean energy bill, announced at a news conference at the state capitol, is just one of at least two major energy-related bills expected to be filed this spring.
Last Friday, Chicago-based Exelon Corp. said there would be a bipartisan bill filed within the next month aimed at improving the competitiveness of its Illinois nuclear fleet (EnergyWire, Feb. 17).
The company has warned over the past year that it may be forced to close three of its six Illinois nuclear plants unless it sees a pathway to sustained profits. The plants have sustained losses in recent years because of pressure from relatively inexpensive natural gas and wind power.
In an emailed statement, Exelon spokesman Paul Elsberg said the power producer supports maintaining the state's position as a leader on clean energy -- a future that must include nuclear power.
"Illinois cannot achieve its clean energy goals without nuclear energy," the statement said. "In Illinois, over 90 percent of the emissions free electricity is produced by six state-of-the-art nuclear plants. Today, some of these plants are at risk of closure because nuclear energy has been excluded from many of Illinois' programs that support other zero-carbon resources."
A spokeswoman at Dynegy Inc., which owns the state's largest fleet of coal-fired power plants, said the company needed more time to review the legislation before commenting on it.
Representative of the clean energy coalition briefed Exelon and other energy company representatives Wednesday, Darin said. But the group didn't formally solicit support for the bill.
-
Greenwire's Northey Discusses Growing Pressure for FERC to Act on Clean Power Plan
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - TV
Following yesterday's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission technical conference on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, is there any more clarity on exactly what FERC's role is, or could be, on EPA's regulations? On today's The Cutting Edge,Greenwire reporter Hannah Northey discusses questions on infrastructure and a reliability safety valve emerging from the meeting.Transcript
The transcript for this video is currently not available. Please check back later
-
EPA Regulation Of ‘Ultrafine’ PM Still Distant Prospect Despite Health Risks
Feb 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Air quality experts at a recent scientific workshop on “ultrafine” particulate matter (UFP) agreed that tiny particles pose significant health risks compared to larger fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter (PM10), but any EPA regulation of UFP appears to be a distant prospect given doubts about how to craft such rules.
UFP penetrates cells in the body more readily than larger particles, experts said, making it potentially more dangerous. While several experts at the workshop agreed on UFP’s risks to the public, they thought it unlikely that regulators would be able to set federal or state air standards for the pollutant in the near future.
Questions that remain to be answered prior to regulation of the particles include how to define the components of UFP, what size of UFP to regulate, and how to measure concentrations of UFP emissions.
Without more scientific evidence on UFP to answer those questions, it “would be premature” for EPA to pursue a first-time national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for UFP separate from its existing NAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10, said Alberto Ayala, deputy executive officer with the California Resources Board (CARB), at the recent conference. EPA hosted the UFP workshop from Feb. 11-13 in Research Triangle Park, NC.
Ayala said “we don’t have an ambient air standard, and we are probably not going to have one in the near term” for UFP, and also noted that CARB is unlikely to pursue UFP rules in the near-term.
The Clean Air Act gives California authority to set air regulations for mobile sources -- one of several sources of PM pollution -- stricter than the federal government. But Ayala said that without more data on UFP, it would be hard to craft the right state or federal rules to reduce those risks. Nevertheless, he said there is sufficient proof of UFP’s harm to humans that the state will still seek to mitigate emissions without rules in place.
EPA and state air regulators have for some years been studying the adverse health effects of ultrafine particles, which are much smaller even than PM2.5, which is blamed for a variety of ailments including cardiovascular disease and pulmonary effects such as asthma. The agency is currently pursuing a review of its PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 micrograms per cubic meter last updated in 2012, and could potentially alter that standard.
However, the agency is not expected to include direct or distinct regulation of UFP in the upcoming revision to its PM2.5 NAAQS given the various scientific doubts about how to define and control it.
UFP is conventionally defined as particles 100 nanometers (nm) or less in diameter, but not all experts agree that this is necessarily the most useful threshold for the purposes of regulation.
Some experts at the workshop suggested that more than one size category smaller than PM2.5 may be required -- for example, a “very fine particles” category smaller than PM2.5 but larger than 100 nm.
Lack Of Data
In its last review of PM NAAQS standards, EPA found the available scientific evidence was “suggestive” of a causal relationship between UFP and short-term health effects, such as cardiovascular effects and mortality, said Scott Jenkins, of EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, during the workshop. The agency, however, found the evidence inadequate to suggest a causal relationship for other health effects.
The agency also noted the ongoing difficulty in measuring the ambient concentration of UFP, due to a lack of air quality monitoring networks aimed specifically at the class of tiny particles.
In a 2013 survey of scientific studies on UFP, the Health Effects Institute (HEI) found that “Several factors -- the unique physical properties of UFPs, their interactions with tissues and cells, their potential for translocation beyond the lung -- have led scientists to expect that UFPs may have specific or enhanced toxicity relative to other particle size fractions and may contribute to effects beyond the respiratory system. However, the considerable body of research that has been conducted has not provided a definitive answer to this question.”
HEI concluded that, “The current evidence does not support a conclusion that exposures to UFPs alone can account in substantial ways for the adverse effects that have been associated with other ambient pollutants such as PM2.5,” but cautioned that more research is required and that unique health effects caused by UFP cannot be ruled out.
HEI, a research organization funded half by EPA and half by the auto and other industries, found a striking absence of long-term studies from which to draw conclusions about possible long-term health effects.
During EPA’s workshop and a related event, experts’ comments highlighted there is no consensus about the size of particles that EPA should regulate if it chooses to eventually set a NAAQS for UFP.
For example, Professor Michael Kleeman, a clean air expert with the University of California, Davis, said in a Feb. 11 presentation at an earlier “kick-off” conference hosted by EPA in Research Triangle Park to inform the current PM2.5 NAAQS review, that it is “not clear” that the 100 nm threshold is the correct one.
Participants at the Feb. 13 UFP event also discussed the arbitrary nature of the 100 nm cutoff, and discussed whether EPA should perhaps consider other thresholds and maybe more than one additional size class of particles, such as PM0.5 or PM1. Particles smaller than PM2.5 but larger than 100 nm could quite plausibly be responsible for specific health effects, participants noted.
Another ongoing debate is how to measure UFP concentrations. Because of its small size, UFP typically makes up a very small portion by mass of larger PM classes of which it is a constituent, but accounts for a large number of particles in any given air sample. However, counting the number of ultrafine particles may not be the best way of determining the health risk of UFP, participants agreed, as the number of particles does not necessary equate to their toxicity.
CARB’s Ayala noted that California recently considered determining compliance with its Low-Emission Vehicle III standards using particulate-count, but reverted to a mass-based system when faced with public criticism over the approach’s drawbacks.
Participants in the Feb. 13 meeting broadly agreed with the findings of HEI’s 2013 study, however, that a variety of existing regulations aimed at reducing PM2.5 will also curb UFP. Ultrafine particles from vehicles, in particular, should be relatively easy to mitigate using existing technology, meeting participants said.
Diesel particulate filters are already in widespread use and are very efficient at reducing UFP if correctly maintained, participants said, while similar filters could be introduced for gasoline-powered vehicles. Should filters for gasoline vehicles prove too costly, improving the efficiency of combustion systems offers similar benefits, various speakers said.
-
Experts Outline Key Scientific Issues For EPA’s Particulate NAAQS Review
Feb 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lea Radick
EPA officials, university researchers and others say that key scientific and policy issues for the agency’s latest review of its particulate matter (PM) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) include how to respond to new science on shorter-term exposures to the pollutant and better information on identifying the sources of PM.
Whatever the agency decides in response to those issues could be central to its eventual decision on whether to revise or retain the existing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) set in 2012, which is stricter than the previous 15 ug/m3 standard issued in 1997. EPA in its 2012 rulemaking retained its prior separate NAAQS for larger coarse PM (PM10) of 150 ug/m3 over a 24-hour period.
The Clean Air Act mandates that EPA review its various NAAQS every five years, and the agency Feb. 9-11 held a workshop in Research Triangle Park, NC, to help inform its review of the PM standard. Immediately after that event, the agency also held a Feb. 11-13 workshop to discuss the science on smaller “ultrafine” particles (UFP).
EPA staff announced during the PM NAAQS workshop that it expects a draft integrated review plan outlining how the agency will conduct the review will be ready by fall or winter of 2015. The agency will then craft an integrated science assessment (ISA) outlining the most policy-relevant science on PM pollution and its impacts on public health and the environment, and plans to have a first draft review by its air advisors in late 2016.
Scott Jenkins of EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards said in a Feb. 9 presentation to the workshop that some key considerations in the current review include the extent to which new scientific evidence reinforces, extends or calls into question the data EPA assessed in previous PM NAAQS reviews; and the extent to which uncertainties in data from the last review of the standard have been reduced and/or whether new uncertainties have emerged.
These uncertainties include EPA’s understanding of PM-attributable health effects, particularly at low ambient concentrations, and at-risk populations; uncertainties in the agency’s characterization of PM emissions, ambient concentrations and exposures (i.e., monitoring and modeling); and uncertainties in the public welfare implications of visibility and non-visibility effects, and uncertainties in monitoring for welfare effects.
During a recap of a session on broad scientific issues of atmospheric science, modeling and monitoring of PM, panelist Mike Kleeman with the University of California, Davis, said there is an extensive amount of new data on PM from modeling and monitoring, but a question is how the “power of data can be harnessed.”
Kleeman also said that studies that identify PM sources that are harmful to human health and ecosystems exist but their results are “unsatisfactory,” and that the panel “articulated a wish to continue studying that.”
Targeted Regulation
Regulators have long debated speciation, or the ability to define the individual components of PM and their sources. Speciation could potentially allow for more-targeted regulation of PM than setting an overall NAAQS, because it might allow officials to regulate those sources of PM that contribute the most harmful or largest components of particles. PM is emitted from a host of mobile and stationary sources, including cars and power plants.
One panelist said during a Feb. 9 discussion that since the last NAAQS review there have been a number of field studies done on the characterization of secondary aerosol emissions, and “a lot of new instrumentation” used, such as maps and the online measure of organic PM, to better characterize the pollutant.
Panelists also talked about the emergence of new findings related to local-scale efforts of near-road monitoring and being able to get more “complex” gradations of PM size distribution and particle composition, and learning what sources are large contributors of PM -- which could potentially help speciation efforts.
Near-road monitoring is crucial given mobile source emissions of PM, and the need to better understand their impacts on human health. EPA’s Gayle Hagler said that the upcoming ISA will need to include a “significant” new volume of literature on near-road trends using a “wide variety” of measurement techniques.
Discussing key messages from a workshop session on linkages from atmospheric science, exposure characterization and interpretation of results from health studies, EPA’s Tom Long summarized panelists’ comments on a need to start thinking about PM exposures, efforts to characterize exposures in health studies, and options for improving ways to model exposure. The “gap for personal exposures” is “huge and complex,” he said.
Exposure plays an important role in the NAAQS review process, because EPA sets the standards for PM, ozone, carbon monoxide, and other criteria pollutants based on the level it believes is necessary to provide an adequate level of protection to public health based on the level of exposure humans face from a pollutant. Long said that there is better data available now that can help to refine exposure and clarify the interpretation of study results.
Scientific Advances
Some uncertainties from the 2009 ISA that informed the last PM standard review included spatial and temporal variability of UFP, PM components and PM sized between PM2.5 and PM10, and how exposure measurement error changes across PM size and composition influence health effect estimates; and characterization of how ambient exposure is influenced by climate, season, housing stock, and proximity to roads or other sources.
Scientific advances could help to address some of those questions in the upcoming NAAQS review, panelists suggested, for example increasing use of satellite data that provides better information on PM.
Within the last five years, the use of satellite information has been “finding its way into a wide range of health applications” and its use is “ready to be thought about in the ISA.” Satellites have enabled the “ability to characterize exposures to many more people and a wider exposure range,” Long said, which is “useful.”
Panelists suggested that EPA in the review should increase its research on assessing PM emissions and exposures in different areas, for example better comparisons of rural and urban or eastern and western locations.
This approach “may provide insights specifically to coarse particles” that are regulated under the PM10 NAAQS and different compositions of coarse particles, another panelist said. Monitoring low-density populations in agricultural areas “may provide additional insights” on particle size differences, the panelist suggested.
Research studies on PM in the United States have advanced to assessing “lower and lower concentrations” of PM, which is helping to provide “more and more precision” in ambient concentrations and estimates at lower concentrations, putting “pressure” on thinking about health effects at even lower concentrations of PM, said another panelist, which could be important in EPA’s decision on whether to tighten the NAAQS.
During a wrap-up discussion of all of the key messages from the various sessions, some panelists emphasized a need for EPA in the upcoming NAAQS review to focus on predicting how PM exposures will change over time -- by the year 2030, for example -- while others emphasized focusing on current PM exposures.
One panelist pointed out that while “big changes are hard to predict,” small changes are occurring with respect to vehicle technology and gas mileage, which could impact mobile sources’ contribution to PM formation.
-
Energy Sustainability Requires Strong Leadership
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Charles McConnell
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was recently quoted as the Senate Energy Committee continues to develop broad energy policy and legislation to define our nation's future. She stated that good policy for energy must include the concepts of "abundant, affordable, clean, diverse and secure." How incredibly refreshing that the complete concept of energy sustainability is considered and that she embraces the totality of the challenge. It's not just convenient politics or ideology, but honest-to-goodness leadership.
I believe in the past several years that the conversation has been taken from what energy sustainability really is, and what Murkowski has described as good policy, and has degenerated into a winner-and-loser discussion with polling as a defining metric. What do voters want? Do they want coal or natural gas or wind or solar or nuclear? They don't want or love fuels — they want security of supply, affordability and environmentally responsible performance. If you love energy security, then one must embrace diversity of supply. Betting on one solution is naive and dangerous. We're better than that.
So we're blessed with abundant resources and we're the world's leading energy producer. We have the most affordable portfolio for our citizens and industry in the world. And we can't solve environmental responsibility challenges without sacrificing our energy security and affordability? I don't buy it, and neither does Murkowski.
Senator, you were a big supporter of my nomination and confirmation several years ago and I pledged to you and the committee that we would do all in our power to advance technology and assure that fossil fuels would be secure, affordable and environmentally responsible. We would advance technology and be state-of-the-world leaders in extracting resources productively and efficiently; ensuring our deep-water offshore efforts were safe and operationally secure; and addressing the carbon dioxider challenges of fossil fuels with environmental technologies that would safely and permanently reduce greenhouse gas emissions and be accretive to our nation's energy security and affordability. Technologies that create a global marketplace pathway to deployment to ensure the outcome of reduced carbon dioxide. We needed the support of government to advance the technologies and invest in the research, development and commercial deployment. We didn't ask for punitive taxes or penalties to level playing fields — we asked for real technology development support.
These past few years have seen too much bickering politically and now Murkowski has taken on the real challenge in front of us as a nation, but I would argue even more so the challenge of our world. American technology leadership is our gift to the world — always has been. And we can't shirk our responsibilities and hide behind narrow-minded thinking. We need to accept the global challenge, ensure fuel diversity, make our energy more affordable and meet the environmental challenges. You can't run from the reality of the world's energy mix, so let's all take on a bipartisan effort to take that challenge and support Sen. Murkowski's efforts to lead.
McConnell is executive director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice University and a former assistant secretary of energy at the Department of Energy from 2011 to 2013.
-
It’s a Lot Riskier to Move Oil By Train Instead of Pipeline
Feb 20, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Christopher Ingraham
The recent explosive train derailment in West Virginia has policymakers considering relative merits of moving oil by pipe or rail, particularly against the backdrop of a national debate over the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The question on everyone's mind: which is safer?
Pipeline supporters say that accidents happen more frequently on the rails. Rail proponents counter that when pipes do fill, they spill a lot more oil. And according to spill data compiled by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (part of the DoT), they're both right.
But we're missing a key piece of information here: the total amount of oil transported via rail and pipeline.
In 2013, we moved about 8.3 billion barrels of crude oil via pipeline, according to the Association of Oil Pipelines. By contrast, only about 291 million barrels of oil moved by rail in 2013, according to theAssociation of American Railroads. In other words, pipeline oil volume was about 29 times greater than rail oil volume in 2013.
So using industry figures from the past several years in conjunction with the federal spill data, we can get a good sense of the rate of accidents and spillage per billion barrels of oil transported. I've charted that below.
-
Wyden to White House: Oil Train Rule Should Address Newer Cars
Feb 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
A Transportation Department oil train safety rule now under review by the White House budget office should address the potential risks of newer rail cars involved in two derailments this month in addition to the older cars still in use, Sen. Ron Wyden said today.
The Oregon Democrat wrote to the Office of Management and Budget in the wake of a fiery West Virginia incident as well as a separate heavy oil-by-rail accident in Ontario, both of which involved CPC-1232 cars, a newer model than the DOT-111 cars that have driven DOT’s rulemaking effort to strengthen the crashworthiness of tank cars.
Wyden described “deep concerns” about the fitness of the newer cars for service.
“Recent crude-by-rail accidents involving these cars demonstrate the importance of ensuring that CPC-1232s are quickly upgraded to a higher safety standard,” he wrote.
A final version of the DOT oil-train safety rule is expected sometime this spring. -
Senator Presses OMB to Act on New Crude-By-Rail Concerns
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Following fiery oil train derailments in West Virginia and Canada in the last week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is calling on the Obama administration to address fresh concerns surrounding tank cars that are supposed to be safer than the older, puncture-prone DOT-111 models.
Both the accidents in Mount Carbon, W.Va., and in rural Ontario involved trains using the CPC-1232 cars, Wyden said in a letter today to Shaun Donovan, head of the White House Office of Management and Budget. With OMB now reviewing proposed regulations governing tank car standards, "please ensure that safety concerns regarding the CPC-1232 cars are addressed in the final rule," Wyden wrote (EnergyWire, Feb. 6).
While thousands of the newer cars are already in service, Deborah Hersman, then-chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, last year told a Senate committee that the board was not convinced the modifications incorporated into the CPC-1232 cars offered "significant safety improvements" over the DOT-111 versions, he added.
OMB should heed those concerns, Wyden said. As serious accidents involving the CPC-1232 cars continue to occur, he concluded, OMB should consult with both the safety board and the Transportation Department "to ensure that a final rule addresses the safety of all tank cars carrying flammable liquids, not just DOT-111 cars."
Wyden is a member and former chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
-
For People of W.Va., Oil Train Inferno Kindles Fears of Environmental Disaster
Feb 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A pillar of snow and smoke washed over Lora Scarbrough's trailer home "like a monster."
Next came the explosions -- loud and close enough to rattle the walls.
Scarbrough fled with her partner, Michael Tatum, 41, and his son, 8-year-old Bradden Tatum, to a nearby parking lot where they watched more fiery blasts light up the afternoon sky in the wake of a CSX Corp. oil train derailment Monday.
Their home, about a thousand feet from the site of the accident, was frozen over but otherwise unscathed when they returned the next day to check in on their six pets.
Another house in Adena Village burned to the ground after its elderly owner narrowly escaped with his life, The Charleston Gazette reported.
"It's something that you never dreamed would happen this close to you," Scarbrough recalled Wednesday as the train's wreckage still smoldered nearby. "We're very, very lucky ... if that had happened here, it would have taken all these trailers out."
The accident marked another explosive chapter in a string of similar tank car disasters in small towns across North America.
The most devastating oil train derailment killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in July 2013.
Michael Tatum, 41, was in a trailer home about a thousand feet away from the site of the derailment when the first explosion went off, rattling the walls. "I grabbed my son and ran," he said. Photo by Blake Sobczak.
Monday's fiery accident was minor by comparison, causing no serious injuries and forcing a few hundred people to evacuate. The CSX train involved consisted of 107 tank cars built to a tougher standard than the ones that leveled downtown Lac-Mégantic. Little, if any, crude oil leaked into the Kanawha River, officials say, and the local water utility lifted its boil water notice yesterday afternoon.
When avoiding death and large-scale contamination passes as fortunate, residents across the river in tiny Boomer, W.Va., were fed up with their luck.
"Nobody should have to go through what we all went through, what [Lac-Mégantic] went through," said Malinda Sigmon, who called the event "traumatic."
As tank cars erupted across the river, Sigmon fled on foot to her friend's house a mile away, bringing her 16-year-old daughter, her 12-year-old son and their two dogs through the snow. Sigmon's husband, an underground coal miner who survived the 2010 Upper Big Branch mine explosion, was away at work (Greenwire, April 6, 2010).
"I thought we were going to die," Sigmon said, noting that she didn't bother to turn off the TV or lock the doors in her haste to get away. "I've heard them call them now a 'train bomb,' and that's exactly what it was."'Déjà vu'
Trucks hauling bottled water rumbled toward evacuation sites in Montgomery farther north, an eerie echo of last year's Freedom Industries Inc. chemical spill that left hundreds of thousands without clean tap water in the Charleston area (Greenwire, Jan. 10, 2014).
The incident was also reminiscent of another CSX oil train derailment in Lynchburg, Va., last year, which hurt no one but spilled crude into the James River (EnergyWire, May 2, 2014).
The CSX train that derailed Monday would have eventually passed through Lynchburg en route to a refinery in Yorktown, Va.
"It's kind of like we're having flashbacks, like déjà vu," said Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition. "There are so many things going on in West Virginia, from chemical threats to natural gas development ... [the derailment] just adds to our list."
Icy conditions Monday may have been a double-edged sword for the health of the river, according to Kelley Gillenwater, spokeswoman for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. The derailment spilled some oil into a creek that connects to the Kanawha.
"The ice is actually helping and hurting in a way because the ice has blocked some of the material that has gotten into the creek, which has allowed us to go in and vacuum that material," Gillenwater said. "But the ice has also hindered efforts to put booms out, as well."
[+] Oil tank cars still smoldered Wednesday, two days after an explosive CSX Corp. train derailment near Mount Carbon, W.Va., destroyed one home and prompted hundreds of nearby residents to evacuate. Photo by Blake Sobczak.
The Department of Transportation said that about 6,800 gallons of oily water mixture had been recovered from trenches dug along the river near the derailment site. The agency is investigating the derailment but has not yet determined a cause.
CSX said it was continuing cleanup efforts yesterday, and spokesman Gary Sease apologized for the derailment in a regional newspaper.
The incident has already frayed trust in Boomer and the surrounding area, leading to calls for CSX to permanently redirect its oil trains around the town. The company is unlikely to find new routes for trains laden with crude from North Dakota, however, barring federal action. Local and even state governments typically lack authority to regulate interstate freight movements.
"Most of us have just tolerated the rails -- a lot of us have had bad experiences," said James Bowles, a network engineering technician and Boomer resident who was forced to evacuate the area with his two young daughters. "I do respect how [rail] does help our economy in the area, but on the same token, there needs to be more safety measures in place."
Bowles' personal history is intertwined with coal, which typically leaves West Virginia by rail or by barge. His father and grandfather both worked in the coal industry, he said, while his great-grandfather died in a nearby mine.
"It's just unfortunate our area has been prone to industrial accidents over the years, whether it's coal mining, the industrial plants, the chemical plants down in the lower part of the valley or train derailments," Bowles said.Return to normalcy
By Wednesday, many residents of both Adena Village and Boomer had gone back to their homes despite an outstanding evacuation order.
For Tatum and Scarbrough, their return was made all the more pressing due to an 8-year-old with borderline Asperger's syndrome.
"He doesn't do well with change," Scarbrough said of Bradden. "We try to keep a routine here, and anything that throws him off-track really throws him off-track."
"He's comfortable here," she added.
The local fire chief recommended that the family stay clear, although he admitted that the police wouldn't stop Scarbrough from going back home after a night spent in the station. Beds for the Adena Village evacuees didn't arrive until around 1:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Armstrong Creek Fire Department, and local volunteer firefighters contributed food from their homes until help from the Red Cross could arrive.
"The only good thing to come out of this is [Bradden] finally got to spend a night in the firehouse," said Michael Tatum as Bradden played with a toy fire truck in the trailer.
Tatum said he was now keenly aware of the fact that train tracks run by his son's school as well as the homes in Adena Village.
"This could have been a smoldering ruin," he said.
-
Feds: Speed Not a Factor in West Virginia Oil Train Crash
Feb 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Federal officials say speed appears to not have been a factor in the oil train derailment in West Virginia that occurred earlier this week.
The Federal Railroad Administration said Thursday that the CSX train was traveling at 33 mph at the time of Monday's crash. The speed limit at the the site was 50 mph.
With fires still burning at the site of the crash, however, officials have yet to access the scene.
Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator for the Federal Railroad Administration, said the train started to "accelerate at the time of derailment," according to ABC News.
Response teams are also working quickly to get residents back in their homes, officials said.
The crash involved a train carrying more than 100 tanker cars filled with crude oil. The derailment caused multiple explosions and sent some tankers into the nearby Kanawha River.
Causing further alarm, the tankers were newer models, which are expected to be safer than the older tank cars the majority of trains currently use.
The administration is currently reviewing the final version of regulations aimed at bulking up the safety of oil trains.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested