Preview Newsletter
acc feb 24
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report: Chemical Volumes Down in January
Feb 23, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Specialty chemical market volumes declined last month, though their levels were still higher than one year ago, according to the latest numbers from the American Chemistry Council. The industry group's weekly economic report said chemical volume declined 0.5 percent in January compared to the previous month, partially due... -
(ACC Mentioned) $8.9 Billion U.S. Annual Economic Impact for Plastics-to-Oil
Feb 23, 2015 | CNN Money
In its latest report, Economic Impact of Plastics-to-Oil Facilities in the U.S., the American Chemistry Council (ACC) explored the potential impact that building plastics-to-oil (PTO) facilities in the U.S. could have on economic output and job creation. The report concluded that the U.S. could support as many as 600 PTO facilities depending... -
(ACC Mentioned) Pre-Natal Phthalate Exposure May Affect Male Fertility
Feb 23, 2015 | Renal & Urology News
When expectant mothers are exposed to phthalates during the first trimester, their male offspring may have a greater risk of infertility later in life, a new study suggests. The report was published online Feb. 18 in Human Reproduction. Boys exposed to the chemical diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) may be born with a significantly shorter ... -
Key Leaders Set Out Highlights for 2015
Feb 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Chemicals regulation and management leaders at Echa, the US EPA, Health and Environment Canada, the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) and the UN Environment Programme (Unep) have set out their plans and goals for 2015, in a series of exclusive articles for our Global Business Briefing. -
Switchgrass-Bacteria Combination Removes Nearly Half of PCBs, Study Finds
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
Researchers have found switchgrass can remove up to 40 percent of polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) from contaminated soils. That percentage went up when certain bacteria were added. The findings highlight the potential usefulness of combining the remediation strategies of phytoremediation... -
EFSA Publishes Opinions on FCM Recycling Processes
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Greentech, Alimpet and Polyrecycling polyethylene terephthalate (PET) recycling processes are safe for use in the production of food contact materials (FCMs), according to a scientific opinion published by the European Food Safety Authority. -
EFSA Confirms Safety of Three Food Contact Substances
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) has published scientific opinions on three substances, all of which it considers safe for use in food contact materials. They are: the additive methacrylic acid, ethyl acrylate, n-butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate and butadiene copolymer... -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Committee Urged to Approve Bill Setting National Ballast Water Standards
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is being urged by a coalition of shippers, ship builders, seafood processors, port owners and port operators to approve legislation establishing national standards to regulate ballast water discharges. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Advocates Spar Over EPA 'Completion' Of Air Toxics Regulations
Feb 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Industry groups and environmentalists are sparring over EPA's determination that the agency has met its Clean Air Act obligation to regulate air toxics from sources representing 90 percent of emissions of seven hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), with industry backing EPA but advocates warning that the proposed conclusion is unlawful. -
GOP Gov: Obama Open to Discussing Oil Exports
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama is willing to discuss whether to allow companies to export crude oil, Oklahoma’s governor said after meeting with him. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) told reporters Monday that the topic came up after she encouraged Obama to sign the bill authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, which he again said he will veto. -
Senate Efforts to Block Coal Proposal Imperil Surge in U.S. Natural Gas Demand
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christine Buurma
Action by Republicans in the U.S. Senate to block proposed environmental regulations on coal risk curtailing demand for natural gas, the fastest-growing fossil fuel. Lawmakers may seek to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan by limiting the agency's funding, or they can try to overturn the measure using... -
Green Group Challenges U.S. Approval of Fracking Off Calif. Coast
Feb 24, 2015 | Reuters
By Ayesha Rascoe
An environmental group has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department accusing it of allowing hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas drilling off the California coast without proper review of safety hazards and impacts on marine life. -
Fracking Water Is Shaking Oklahoma
Feb 23, 2015 | Bloomberg View
By Mary Duenwald
Not so many years ago, earthquake science was no more relevant to Oklahoma than marine biology. But these days the state is shaking way more often than California, and giving many people there an unwanted crash course in seismology. Last year, Oklahoma had 585 earthquakes with a magnitude 3.0 or greater (big enough for people... -
Keystone Bill Faces Veto Upon Arrival At White House, Press Secretary Says
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
President Barack Obama will veto legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Feb. 23. Separately, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), the author of the bill, said in a statement Feb. 23 the measure would be sent to the White House Feb. 24. -
Obama Will Quickly Veto Keystone Bill
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
President Obama is poised to reject GOP-backed legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline with a swift veto designed to minimize any distraction from a looming shutdown within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Republicans plan to send the bill to Obama’s desk Tuesday morning and intend to flay the president ... -
Five Ways the Keystone Saga Could End
Feb 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
President Barack Obama plans to veto Congress’ Keystone XL pipeline bill soon after he gets it Tuesday — yet that’s just the beginning of the unpredictable next phase in the project’s journey through the Washington wringer. A veto could doom the congressional push for Keystone, since Republicans lack the votes for an override. -
Officials to Assess Need for Fracking Rules In EU to Help Prevent Environmental Damage
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 23 it will assess by August whether to propose a law to help prevent environmental damage from hydraulic fracturing for shale gas. The European Union currently has no single environmental law on fracking, though different aspects of fracking operations fall under laws on issues... -
MATS Proposal Resolved Delay Claim Against EPA
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A proposal to make several technical changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2012 mercury and air toxics standards for power plants resolved a claim that the agency unreasonably delayed action on a petition for reconsideration of the standards, according to court documents (Envtl. Integrity Project v. EPA, D.D.C... -
McCarthy Seeks to Convince Governors Of Merits of Proposed Clean Power Plan
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
States should approach the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan as an opportunity for flexible investments in the best energy mixes for their states rather than pre-judge the proposed rule as one that will harm their economies and cost jobs, Administrator Gina McCarthy told several skeptical governors Feb. 22. -
Clean Power Plan Could Provide Impetus For National Energy Efficiency Registry
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A national registry for state energy efficiency programs would bring about transparency and accountability as states look at efficiency as a strategy to comply with the Clean Power Plan, participants said Feb. 23 during a discussion at the 2015 Climate Leadership Conference. -
Sen. Markey to Investigate Industry Funding of Climate Studies
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wants oil and coal companies to reveal the extent to which they have funded research questioning the causes of climate change. He said he will soon write to various companies, trade organizations and others involved in fossil fuels in an attempt to find whether they are paying for skeptical climate research. -
Bill Gates and Other Business Leaders Urge U.S. to Increase Energy Research
Feb 23, 2015 | The New York Times
By Justin Gillis
The government is spending far too little money on energy research, putting at risk the long-term goals of reducing carbon emissions and alleviating energy poverty, some of the country’s top business leaders found in a new report. The American Energy Innovation Council, a group of six executives that includes the Microsoft co-founder... -
FERC Walks EPA Carbon Referee Tightrope
Feb 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
FERC’s five commissioners are trying to position themselves as impartial referees as they weigh in on EPA’s Clean Power Plan, but it may not be that simple. Utility industry officials, as well as congressional Republicans, hope to turn the independent commission into a battering ram against the administration’s sweeping climate rules that are set... -
PM-2.5 Attainment Plan for L.A. Area Gains Approval by California Regulators
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California air quality officials have approved a revision to a plan to bring the Los Angeles area into attainment with a 2006 standard for fine particulates by the end of 2015, even though local regulators have said the region is likely to miss the deadline. -
Alternative Compliance Rule for Mercury, Air Toxics Challenged by Utility Industry
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A power plant industry group is asking a federal appeals court to consider whether the Environmental Protection Agency complied with Clean Air Act requirements when the agency established an alternative method for compliance with mercury and air toxics standards during startup and shutdown... -
Groups Appeal Court Decision Upholding TVA Plan to Replace Coal-Fired Generators
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Wilhelm
The Kentucky Coal Association is appealing a federal district court opinion upholding the Tennessee Valley Authority's decision to replace two coal-fired power generators with a natural gas-fired plant (Ky. Coal Ass'n v. TVA, 6th Cir., No. 15-5163, 2/19/15). On Feb. 2, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied claims... -
Utilities Say EPA Violated Air Law In Revisions To MACT's SSM Provisions
Feb 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Utilities are claiming that EPA violated the Clean Air Act with its revisions to power plant startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provisions in its maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for the sector, saying the agency failed to follow air law procedures to first allow public comment on the provisions. -
PHMSA to Hold HazMat Research Meeting in April
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration will hold a hazmat transport research and development meeting April 16, the agency recently announced. The office will present the results of studies that have been finished recently, discuss ongoing and upcoming projects and solicit comments on future projects that could be included... -
Oil-By-Rail Shipments are Playing Russian Roulette: Kemp
Feb 23, 2015 | Reuters
By John Kemp
Train derailments involving crude oil and ethanol in the United States will cost more than $18 billion over the next 20 years, according to an assessment by the U.S. Department of Transportation. USDOT forecasts there will be just over 200 derailments involving trains carrying 20 or more tank cars of crude or ethanol between 2015 and 2034...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report: Chemical Volumes Down in January
Feb 23, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Specialty chemical market volumes declined last month, though their levels were still higher than one year ago, according to the latest numbers from the American Chemistry Council. The industry group's weekly economic report said chemical volume declined 0.5 percent in January compared to the previous month, partially due to inclement winter weather but also stemming from weakness in the oil industry and other sectors.
Half of the 28 specialty chemical groups monitored by the ACC expanded their market volumes last month, led by strong gains in electronic chemicals, foundry chemicals, mining chemicals and lubricant additives.
Thirteen segments saw declines while one segment remained flat compared to December numbers.
Overall, the volume of specialty chemicals was up 6.2 percent compared to January 2014, based on a three-month moving average. Antioxidants, cosmetic additives, flame retardants, foundry chemicals and rubber processing each saw year-over-year gains of at least 10 percent; plasticizers and paper additives were the only segments to see declines over that span.
In more good news for the chemical industry, the ACC's tracking of railcar loadings — which the group called the best "real time" indicator of industrial activity — rose by just over 1,000 last month. The 31,878 January loadings represented the highest level since April.
ACC analysts still expect the economy as a whole to grow by 3.2 percent this year, but while their expectations for consumer spending increased slightly, the group tempered their expectations for business investment, which fell from a 5.5 percent projected increase this year to 5.1 percent. -
(ACC Mentioned) $8.9 Billion U.S. Annual Economic Impact for Plastics-to-Oil
Feb 23, 2015 | CNN Money
In its latest report, Economic Impact of Plastics-to-Oil Facilities in the U.S., the American Chemistry Council (ACC) explored the potential impact that building plastics-to-oil (PTO) facilities in the U.S. could have on economic output and job creation. The report concluded that the U.S. could support as many as 600 PTO facilities depending on the production characteristics and size of each facility, generating: Up to 38,900 jobs supported by new PTO operations. 8,800 would be directly employed by the facilities. An additional 17,200 jobs would be in supply chain industries that are related to the plastics recovery industry and supporting the facilities. Another 12,900 payroll-induced jobs would be supported by the spending of the earnings of workers in new PTO plants and throughout the supply chain. $2.1 billion in annual payrolls generated by PTO facilities. $6.6 billion in capital investment by the plastics-to-oil industry to build new facilities. $8.9 billion in U.S. economic output from PTO operations. $3.7 billion related to increased oil production. $5.2 billion in additional supplier and payroll-induced impacts. $18.0 billion of economic output during the investment phase.
To read the full article, please go to: http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Stand-Alone-Content/Economic-Impact-of-Plastics-to-Oil-Facilities.pdf
The recycling of plastics continues to grow and roughly three million tons of plastics will be recycled in the U.S. this year. While reuse and recycling are the preferred methods of plastics recovery, it is not always economically feasible – or even possible - for all plastics to be recycled, illustrating the opportunity for other economic means of recovering plastics.
Because they are derived from hydrocarbons, plastics have a high-energy content that can be converted to crude oil and fuels, synthetic gas, and recycled feedstock for new plastics and other products of chemistry. Various conversion technologies such as mass burn, waste-to-energy, gasification and pyrolysis are able to recover the energy contained in plastics. Recovering this valuable energy through conversion technologies reduces waste sent to landfills and complements plastics recycling. Investment in the technologies — and associated facilities — needed to capture this energy value will contribute to sustainable development, create jobs, and has the potential to contribute billions of dollars to the economy.
"Plastic2Oil, Inc. is an innovation leader in this growing space," said Richard Heddle, CEO. "Our industry is seeing increased demand and our state-of-the-art processors are designed to meet the growing need that underpins this report."
About the Company
Plastic2Oil, Inc. ("P2O") is an innovative North American fuel company that transforms unsorted, unwashed waste plastic into ultra-clean, ultra-low sulphur fuel without the need for refinement. The Company's patent-pending Plastic2Oil® (P2O®) process is a commercially viable, scalable proprietary process designed to provide immediate economic benefit for industry, communities and government organizations with waste plastic recycling challenges.
With its revolutionary P2O technology, P2O has pioneered a process that has the ability to change the way the world handles waste plastic and plastic recycling. P2O is committed to environmental sustainability by diverting plastic waste from landfill and potential incineration.
The Company is also committed to the creation of green employment opportunities and a reduction in the cost of plastic recycling programs for municipalities and business.
U.S. investors can find current financial disclosure and Real-Time Level 2 quotes at http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/PTOI/quote.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release contains statements, which may constitute "forward looking statements" within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). The PSLRA implemented several substantive changes affecting certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation and awards fees, Those statements include statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of Plastic2Oil, and members of its management as well as the assumptions on which such statements are based.
Prospective investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, and that actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by such forward-looking statements. For a more detailed discussion of such risks and other factors, see the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on June 4, 2014, and its other SEC filings. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pre-Natal Phthalate Exposure May Affect Male Fertility
Feb 23, 2015 | Renal & Urology News
When expectant mothers are exposed to phthalates during the first trimester, their male offspring may have a greater risk of infertility later in life, a new study suggests. The report was published online Feb. 18 in Human Reproduction.
Boys exposed to the chemical diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) may be born with a significantly shorter anogenital distance than those not exposed to these chemicals. A shorter anogenital distance has been linked to infertility and low sperm count, the researchers explained.
"We saw these changes even though moms' exposure to DEHP has dropped 50% in the past 10 years," lead researcher Shanna Swan, Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, told HealthDay. "Therefore, we have not found a safe level of phthalate exposure for pregnant women," she contended.
For the study, Swan's team collected data on 753 pregnant women and their infants. Specifically, the researchers found that exposure in the womb to three types of DEHP was associated with a significantly shorter anogenital distance in boys, but not in girls.
In a statement, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) stressed that the study only examined one type of phthalate, not all versions of the chemical. And it said that phthalates are "one of the most widely studied family of chemicals in use today." The ACC added that DEHP "is known to break down into its metabolites within minutes after it enters the body.
Information collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the last 10 years indicates that, despite the fact that phthalates are used in many products, exposure from all sources combined is extremely low -- much lower than the levels established as safe by scientists at regulatory agencies."
-
Key Leaders Set Out Highlights for 2015
Feb 24, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Chemicals regulation and management leaders at Echa, the US EPA, Health and Environment Canada, the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) and the UN Environment Programme (Unep) have set out their plans and goals for 2015, in a series of exclusive articles for our Global Business Briefing.
Echa head Geert Dancet highlights two deadlines scheduled this year – one for the classification and labelling of mixtures, set for 1 June, and the other under the biocidal products Regulation, scheduled for 1 September (GBB February 2015).
Mr Dancet says that after a stock-taking 2014, this year will be more “challenging”. He advises companies to decide early on on the classification of their mixtures, and label them accordingly. On the BPR, Mr Dancet encourages companies affected to check within their supply chain whether their products are covered by a substance or product supplier on the Article 95 list. He also urges companies to start preparing for the 2018 REACH registration deadline in order to meet it successfully.
Across the Atlantic, James Jones of the US EPA says the agency will begin taking action to mitigate the risks associated with several uses of trichloroethylene and methylene chloride (GBB February 2015). It will first try and negotiate voluntary risk reduction measures with chemicals manufacturers, but if these negotiations are unsuccessful, it will propose regulatory risk management under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6 – something the agency has not done in more than 28 years.
Mr Jones also expects 2015 to be a turning point for the agency’s green chemistry programme, as it works to identify barriers to adoption of greener chemistries, as well as to incentivise the use of new technologies.
Those heading up Canada’s Chemical Management Plan (CMP) at the departments of Health and Environment say that draft and/or final screening assessment reports will be prepared during 2015 for the CMP substance groupings (GBB February 2015). These include boron, selenium, cobalt, aromatic azo- and benzidene-based substances, substituted diphenylamines (SDPAs), methylenediphenyl diisocyanates and diamines (MDI/MDA), internationally classified substances and certain organic flame retardants.
The departments also aim to better align Canadian significant new activity conditions (Snacs) and US significant new use rules (Snurs) to enhance North American trade and competitiveness. This is part of a wider government initiative to find opportunities to increase collaboration on risk assessments under TSCA and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa), 1999.
ICCA president Mark C Rohr says the association aims to advance its global product strategy (GPS) – the chemical industry’s stewardship programme to make available plain language safety summaries about its products (GBB February 2015). Mr Rohr says ICCA member associations will also encourage chemical companies to commit to the safe management of chemicals throughout their lifecycle – as required by the industry’s revised Responsible Care Global Charter.
In addition, Unep’s head of chemicals branch, Fatoumata Keita-Ouane, says a critical element on the landscape of chemical management in 2015 will relate to the sustainable financing of activities at national and international levels (GBB February 2015). To “spearhead” the agenda, she says, there is a need to find sustainable approaches to the financing of sound chemicals management. “Mainstreaming goals, targets and indicators for sound chemicals management within the national sustainable development plans and programmes of developing country partners is critical,” she adds.
-
Switchgrass-Bacteria Combination Removes Nearly Half of PCBs, Study Finds
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
Researchers have found switchgrass can remove up to 40 percent of polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) from contaminated soils. That percentage went up when certain bacteria were added.
The findings highlight the potential usefulness of combining the remediation strategies of phytoremediation, the use of plants to remove toxins from contaminated sites, and bioaugmentation, adding microorganisms to remove contaminants.
“There appeared to be some sort of synergistic effect where the plants helped the bacteria survive better. That was really interesting to see,” said Tim Mattes, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Iowa and a co-author on the study.
Switchgrass alone could remove some contaminants, as the researchers had found in previous studies, but in this one they sought to take their previous findings further by adding bacteria that can oxidize PCBs.
Bacteria Allowed to Survive Longer in Soil
Adding the bacteria Burkholderia xenovorans LB400 led to the removal of approximately 47 percent of PCBs. Those bacteria are already present in the root masses of the switchgrass—and likely in other plants—but the breakthrough here was that the switchgrass allowed the additional bacteria to survive longer in the soil and thus remove more PCBs.
Mattes told Bloomberg BNA that switchgrass was chosen because it is native to the prairie region in which his lab is located. He thought it might be possible other species of plant could have the same effect on the bacteria and, in turn, on PCBs levels, but he noted there is the potential for a number of complicating factors that might render those relationships not quite as effective as it was with switchgrass.
The body of research on phytoremediation has been growing over the past two decades and there are now 162 sites in the U.S. in which phytoremediation techniques are being tested, three of which are studying switchgrass, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
A number of other species have proven effective, including poplar trees, which can remove volatile organic compounds and other contaminants in soils and groundwater. Phytoremediation appears to be most effective where the contamination is at shallow depths.
The University of Iowa study was done on planters filled with contaminated soil in a lab. The researchers would like to next set up test plots to study the remediation potential of switchgrass and bacteria at an actual contaminated site in Virginia where test are being conducted by the phytoremediation company Ecolotree Inc.
-
EFSA Publishes Opinions on FCM Recycling Processes
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Greentech, Alimpet and Polyrecycling polyethylene terephthalate (PET) recycling processes are safe for use in the production of food contact materials (FCMs), according to a scientific opinion published by the European Food Safety Authority.
All three processes use the same “EREMA Advanced” technology. Trays made using this method should not be placed in microwave or conventional ovens, Efsa says.
The agency also evaluated the safety of the recycling processes CLRrHDPE and Biffa Polymers, which are used to recycle post-consumer high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles. Efsa says it could not conclude its assessment with regard to the manufacture of recycled bottles for milks and fruit juices and trays for animal products, because additional data is needed. However, it concluded that the processes are safe for the manufacture of recycled trays intended for contact with whole fruits and vegetables, at room temperature or below.
-
EFSA Confirms Safety of Three Food Contact Substances
Feb 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) has published scientific opinions on three substances, all of which it considers safe for use in food contact materials. They are:
the additive methacrylic acid, ethyl acrylate, n-butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate and butadiene copolymer in nanoform, for use at up to 10% weight by weight (w/w) in rigid polyvinylchloride and up to 15% w/w in non-plasticised polylactic acid;
fatty acids, C16–18 saturated, hexaesters with dipentaerythritol, for use as a processing agent at up to 1.5% in various types of plastics; and
ethylene glycol dipalmitate, for use as a processing aid at concentrations of up to 2% in various types of plastics.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Committee Urged to Approve Bill Setting National Ballast Water Standards
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is being urged by a coalition of shippers, ship builders, seafood processors, port owners and port operators to approve legislation establishing national standards to regulate ballast water discharges.
In a Feb. 17 letter, the coalition urged approval of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (S. 373) to deal with “the overlapping patchwork of federal and state regulations” that has made compliance “complicated, confusing and costly” for vessel owners and mariners.
The coalition said two federal agencies, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency, regulate ballast water discharges under separate statutes, the National Invasive Species Act and the Clean Water Act, respectively.
Because neither federal statute preempts state action, 25 states have established their own requirements for many of those same discharges.
Having two sets of federal regulations is “counterproductive” to the goal of enhanced environmental protection, as companies have delayed investment in costly treatment technologies because the companies are uncertain that the ballast water technology they use will be acceptable at a given port within the country, the coalition said.
S. 373 was introduced Feb. 5 by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), John Thune (R-S.D.), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). A day earlier Rubio, who chairs the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, held a hearing on the subject of regulating ballast water and other incidental discharges under the Clean Water Act, and to gauge support for S. 373 (29 DEN A-14, 2/12/15).
Under S. 373, the U.S. Coast Guard would establish national standards based on its 2012 regulations (RIN 1625-AA32) under the National Invasive Species Act rather than the Clean Water Act.
Moreover, the Coast Guard in consultation with the EPA would be required by 2022 to issue a revised rule that, if viable, could be 100 times more stringent than the initial ballast water treatment standard that would be put in place as a result of the bill's enactment.
Within two years of the bill's enactment, S. 373 also would require the two agencies to develop best management practices to regulate incidental discharges. The bill includes deck runoff, fish water effluent and air conditioning condensate among a long list of incidental discharges.
The Feb. 17 letter was addressed to Thune (R-S.D.), the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Nelson, the committee's ranking member. Led by the American Waterways Operators, the letter was signed by 65 groups including the American Association of Port Authorities, National Grain and Feed Association, American Chemistry Council, National Mining Association, World Shipping Council and Pacific Seafood Processors Association.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Advocates Spar Over EPA 'Completion' Of Air Toxics Regulations
Feb 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Industry groups and environmentalists are sparring over EPA's determination that the agency has met its Clean Air Act obligation to regulate air toxics from sources representing 90 percent of emissions of seven hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), with industry backing EPA but advocates warning that the proposed conclusion is unlawful.
The outcome of the fight over the determination could be significant for the future of EPA's air toxics program. If EPA finalizes its conclusion as proposed, environmentalists could sue and seek an appellate order saying the agency has fallen short of the air law requirement. That in turn could trigger a legally binding requirement for EPA to either revise existing air toxics policies or craft new rules in order to satisfy the 90 percent mandate.
Any such additional rulemaking would place additional burdens on EPA's air toxics program, which the agency acknowledges in its fiscal year 2016 budget request has limited resources. EPA has said it is prioritizing various air toxics rulemakings, even as environmentalists seek revisions to a broader set of regulations.
Law firm Earthjustice in early February gave EPA 60 days' notice of its intent to sue the agency to force it to undertake “residual risk” reviews of a slew of air toxics regulations to determine whether there is a need to update them based on threats to public health or new emissions controls becoming available.
In addition to the threat of a lawsuit over the residual risk reviews, environmentalists in their comments on EPA's 90 percent finding are also warning that plan is unlawful and could be the basis for a legal fight.
In a Dec. 16 proposed rule, EPA said its existing air toxics rules are achieving the 90 percent coverage for seven "persistent" and "bioaccumulative" HAPs identified in section 112(c)(6) of the air law.
Some of the obligation is met through the regulation of “surrogate” pollutants that serve as a proxy for each of the seven pollutants: alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
EPA says its air toxics rules satisfy a mandate in section 112(3)(a) of the law that says the agency shall no later than Nov. 15, 1995, "list categories and subcategories of sources assuring that sources accounting for not less than 90 per centum of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are subject to standards" under the law's air toxics program, either with "health-based" standards or maximum achievable control technology limits.
Sierra Club has previously sued EPA in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over the agency's initial failure to issue the finding on whether it has met the 90 percent mandate.
EPA in 2011 issued a finding that it had satisfied the obligation, without taking public comment on that declaration, prompting Sierra Club to file a new suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, claiming that EPA had flouted air law procedural requirements by not seeking public input.
The litigation ultimately resulted in a further order from the district court setting a Dec. 10, 2014, deadline for publication of a formal proposal and a May 25 deadline this year for issuance of a final rule.
Surrogate Emissions
In Feb. 17 comments on the Dec. 16 proposal, Sierra Club says the 90 percent finding is unlawful as it relies on surrogates to meet the 90 percent threshold.
The group says section 112(3)(a) requires that EPA set emissions standards for each individual pollutant, rather than relying on the use of surrogate emissions reductions.
“For sources EPA lists as contributing to 90 percent the total emissions of one or more of these particularly harmful pollutants, EPA must set a standard for that pollutant ensuring the maximum emissions reduction,” the group says. “Congress would hardly have singled out these seven pollutants if it intended for EPA only to set a single limit for the aggregate of emissions of 200 different hazardous air pollutants.”
EPA claims in the declaration that for several industry sectors it has met the 90 percent requirement by regulating total HAPs or total organic HAPs, but Sierra Club says this is unlawful.
Also, while EPA can under certain circumstances use surrogates in air regulation, “EPA’s surrogacy claims in this rule are unlawful and arbitrary because they lack supporting data or analysis.”
Sierra Club says EPA has failed to justify its finding with respect to several industry sectors, including aerospace coatings and other surface coating operations, asphalt roofing manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, internal combustion engines manufacturing, oil refining, lime kilns, kraft pulp furnaces and others.
Industry's Support
Major industry groups, however, are backing EPA's finding that it has met the 90 percent mandate, including sectors that could potentially be subject to additional air toxics rules if the finding is deemed not met.
A broad industry coalition in its Feb. 17 comments notes that, “Most of the emission standards promulgated by EPA directly regulate one or more” of the seven listed HAPs in section 112(c)(6). Some, however, rely on surrogates, but this is permissible under the air law, says the coalition, which includes the American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Wood Council, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and National Mining Association.
EPA's use of surrogates to meet the 90 percent requirement is “scientifically sound,” legally defensible and practical, the industry groups say. “It would be irrational for EPA to propose separate standards and/or emission monitoring for a particular § 112(c)(6) HAP where existing standards control and monitor emissions of that HAP through surrogate pollutants,” they argue.
In its Feb. 16 comments, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) says that “EPA draws reasonable conclusions regarding surrogacy relationships used to establish emission standards for HAP and is therefore within its authority to use surrogates to regulate HAP.” CIBO further supports EPA's legal right to periodically revise the list of source categories that contribute to satisfying the 90 percent requirement. “CIBO supports EPA’s analysis and conclusions, which are reasonable and within its authority,” on this point.
-
GOP Gov: Obama Open to Discussing Oil Exports
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama is willing to discuss whether to allow companies to export crude oil, Oklahoma’s governor said after meeting with him.
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) told reporters Monday that the topic came up after she encouraged Obama to sign the bill authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, which he again said he will veto.
“I asked him if he would consider allowing the United States to export crude oil or [liquefied natural gas] and he said that he was open to that discussion,” Fallin said outside the White House after she and other state governors spoke with Obama as part of the National Governors Association meeting.
“So I was encouraged that there was some areas that we could find to work together,” she said.
The White House did not immediately comment on Fallin’s description of the meeting, which was closed to the press.
Crude oil exports have been all but banned by Congress since the 1970s, and there is little Obama can do on his own to weaken or overturn the prohibition without legislation.
Nonetheless, the Commerce Department last year told oil companies that they can export condensate, a lightly processed oil that is similar to crude.
Exporting natural gas is easier, although any shipments to countries without United States free-trade agreements require approval from the Energy Department.
Fallin’s home state of Oklahoma ranks No. 5 in the country in terms of oil production, behind Texas, North Dakota, California and Alaska, according to the Energy Information Administration.
-
Senate Efforts to Block Coal Proposal Imperil Surge in U.S. Natural Gas Demand
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christine Buurma
Action by Republicans in the U.S. Senate to block proposed environmental regulations on coal risk curtailing demand for natural gas, the fastest-growing fossil fuel.
Lawmakers may seek to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan by limiting the agency's funding, or they can try to overturn the measure using the Congressional Review Act. The plan, which doesn't require Congress' approval, could raise the share of gas used to make electricity by 45 percent from current levels, according to America's Natural Gas Alliance, a Washington-based industry group.
Opposition to the EPA's proposal could slow the shift from coal even as the Republicans tout increased gas production as a way to achieve energy independence, according to Energy Aspects Ltd., a research company in London. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, from coal-rich Kentucky, has said his top priority is thwarting the Obama administration's plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
“Any delays to the Clean Power Plan keep coal in the mix for longer and slow the shift to natural gas,” Trevor Sikorski, head of natural gas, coal and carbon analysis at Energy Aspects, said in a Feb. 2 phone interview. “Natural gas is by far the fuel that benefits the most from coal plant retirements.”
Gas Boost
The Clean Power Plan, released in June 2014, aims to cut carbon emissions from power plants 17 percent by 2030. States could comply by taking steps such as shutting coal-fired plants, building gas generators or boosting existing gas plants. America's Natural Gas Alliance estimates that the plan will boost gas demand from power plants by 8 billion to 10 billion cubic feet a day, or about 13 percent of average 2014 production, to a record 32 billion.
Depending on how the Clean Power Plan is implemented, it may cause the retirement of coal-fired plants capable of generating enough electricity to power 68 million homes in California, according to the North American Electric Reliability Corp., the nonprofit regulator that oversees the U.S. grid. That's the output from more than 400 coal plants, government data show. There were 557 coal-fired generators in the U.S. as of 2012, the most recent year that data is available.
Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which introduces legislation that can alter EPA funding or change how the agency drafts rules, wrote a 2012 book, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.” He has pledged to end “Obama's war on fossil fuels.”
Inhofe Letter
In a Dec. 1, 2014, letter, Inhofe urged EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to withdraw the proposal, saying it was prohibited under the language of the Clean Air Act, and would have a dramatic impact on electric reliability, potentially causing rolling blackouts. McCarthy said Feb. 17 that in response to feedback from utilities, the agency may relax one of proposed deadlines for cutting carbon emissions.
“We could see the timeline for Clean Power Plan compliance extended, which would mean that changes to the power generation mix would take longer to materialize,” Judith Dwarkin, chief energy economist at ITG Investment Research in Calgary, said in a Feb. 2 phone interview. “Under the plan, gas would do the heavy lifting as an incremental source of demand since gas-fired plants” are cheaper to build, she said.
Kristina Baum, a spokeswoman for Inhofe, declined to comment Feb. 13 on the effect of the Republican Party's position on natural gas use.
Republican opposition to the coal rules comes as the industry is already moving away from the fuel. More than half of new utility-scale power capacity additions in 2013 burned gas, compared with 11 percent for coal, according to the Energy Information Administration, the Energy Department's statistical arm.
‘Growing Role.'
Gas producers expect demand will increase regardless of what happens to the Clean Power Plan, according to Marty Durbin, president and chief executive of America's Natural Gas Alliance in Washington.
“Whether or not this rule moves forward, we're going to continue to see a growing role for natural gas in power generation,” Durbin said in a Feb. 13 interview. “There's no question that we will see increased use.”
Production of natural gas has surged in the U.S. as drillers stepped up their use of hydraulic fracturing to break apart rock and extract the fuel from shale formations buried deep underground. Output has reached a record every year since 2011, creating so much supply that it sent gas futures plunging more than 80 percent from an all-time high of $15.78 per million British thermal units in 2005.
Gas Tumbles
Gas for next-month delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange has tumbled 34 percent since June 30 to settle at $2.951 per million Btu on Feb. 20.
Price declines and environmental regulations have boosted gas consumption from power plants and industrial users, with demand from electricity generators climbing 39 percent from 2005 through 2013, according to the government's Energy Information Administration.
Senate efforts to derail the Clean Power Plan dovetail with legislation passed in November by the House of Representatives, which is also controlled by Republicans. Those bills would introduce more stringent scientific criteria for EPA regulations and change how the agency selects members of its advisory boards.
“Curtailing EPA authority is one of Republicans' most important priorities in the energy space,” Patrick Hughes, an analyst at Height Securities LLC in Washington, said by phone Feb. 13. “Congressional leaders want to address it before the agency moves to finalize rules later this year. That could have repercussions for natural gas.”
-
Green Group Challenges U.S. Approval of Fracking Off Calif. Coast
Feb 24, 2015 | Reuters
By Ayesha Rascoe
An environmental group has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department accusing it of allowing hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas drilling off the California coast without proper review of safety hazards and impacts on marine life.
The Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint on Thursday with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The group asked the court to bar the department from issuing permits for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, until it complies with various federal laws.
-
Fracking Water Is Shaking Oklahoma
Feb 23, 2015 | Bloomberg View
By Mary Duenwald
Not so many years ago, earthquake science was no more relevant to Oklahoma than marine biology. But these days the state is shaking way more often than California, and giving many people there an unwanted crash course in seismology.
Last year, Oklahoma had 585 earthquakes with a magnitude 3.0 or greater (big enough for people to easily feel) -- almost three times as many as California had and up from an average of just two a year before 2009. Not coincidentally, that's when oil and gas drillers began injecting wastewater from fracking operations into thousands of underground wells. In the past week alone, Oklahomans have felt the earth move eight times -- which is probably eight times more than nature intended them to. It's enough to get officials, even in a drilling-friendly state, to take action to manage wastewater wells.
The phenomenon isn't mysterious. Geologists have known for many decades that when pressure underground is changed -- when people inject water, for example, or extract geothermal energy -- latent earthquakes can be triggered. While the great majority of fracking-wastewater wells have no such effect, some -- especially those in which great volumes of water reach crystalline basement rock that lies close to a fault -- induce earthquakes that otherwise might not have happened for hundreds of years.
There's also a whole lot more shaking going on in Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas and Virginia, too. But the most tremors have been reported in Oklahoma.
So far, the injuries to humans and damage to chimneys and foundations from the uptick in seismic activity have been mostly minor. But scientists aren't able to predict this seismicity, or whether it is likely to continue to grow in frequency and strength.
What's most scary is that no one knows exactly how big quakes could get in the mid-continent. In 2011, one Oklahoma quake registered magnitude 5.7. And 1,300 years ago, the geological record shows, an area that is now within the state withstood a quake of magnitude 7 -- far more powerful than anything anticipated by local building codes.
For the moment, it's not even clear whether the problems are caused by individual wells or a bunch of them applying pressure in concert. Sometimes well injections can trigger earthquakes miles away, and sometimes the effect is delayed by months or even years.
Yet there are ways to manage the threat, U.S. Geological Survey scientists Arthur McGarr and William Ellsworth and several colleagues argue in an article in Science last week. It would be wise, for example, to keep wastewater wells away from cities. And it's important to monitor seismicity more precisely. By finding out exactly where small quakes are happening, it may be possible to map any larger faults that wastewater injection is nudging to life. At the same time, oil and gas drillers should report publicly where they're drilling wells, how much water they're injecting and how deeply.
Then regulators can keep an eye on any trouble using a so-called traffic-light approach: If seismicity in a certain area reaches a threshold magnitude, injections are slowed. Colorado officials tried this successfully last year with a well that had triggered unaccustomed shaking near Greeley. In some cases, a well may need to be shut down -- as the Oklahoma Corporation Commission did with a well near Cherokee after a 4.1 magnitude quake earlier this month.
The oil and gas industry has every reason to want to track and manage the problem: Injection wells aren't cheap, and no one wants to drill one that can't be used.
To the extent that drillers can learn to clean and re-use their fracking water (up to a million gallons for every wellhead) they'll be able to ensure they maintain a reliable water supply -- and stop shaking things up so much above ground.
-
Keystone Bill Faces Veto Upon Arrival At White House, Press Secretary Says
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
President Barack Obama will veto legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Feb. 23.
Separately, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), the author of the bill, said in a statement Feb. 23 the measure would be sent to the White House Feb. 24.
Obama plans to veto the legislation (S. 1) when it arrives at the White House with little “drama or fanfare,” Earnest said, speaking to reporters at a press conference. “But I would anticipate that as we've been saying for years, the President would veto that legislation and he will.”
The bill would circumvent an ongoing Obama administration review of the $8 billion pipeline project. It passed the Senate by a vote of 62 to 35 and the House by 270 to 152(29 DEN A-12, 2/12/15).
Still Being Considered by State
“The administration has delayed this important infrastructure project for over six years, despite a series of environmental reviews, all of which conclude that the project will have no significant environmental impact,” Hoeven said in his statement. “It has been more than enough time to make a fair decision on the merits of the project.”
The project, first proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. in 2008, is undergoing review by the State Department because it crosses an international boundary. S. 1 would authorize the company to construct the northern portion of the project to carry crude from oil sands in Alberta to refiners along the Gulf Coast.
Earnest, in his remarks to reporters, said the project is still being “carefully considered” by the State Department.
Obama has said he would reject the pipeline if it was found to contribute to climate change, and comments on the pipeline made public Feb. 3 by the Environmental Protection Agency that said the project “represents a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions” have led some analysts to predict the White House will not approve the project (23 DEN A-10, 2/4/15).
“I'm confident that they will consider the EPA analysis as they formulate a final opinion on whether or not the Keystone project is in the national interest of the United States,” Earnest said.
Hoeven has said he plans to attach the legislation to an appropriations bill or some other measure if the president vetoes the bill.
-
Obama Will Quickly Veto Keystone Bill
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
President Obama is poised to reject GOP-backed legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline with a swift veto designed to minimize any distraction from a looming shutdown within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Republicans plan to send the bill to Obama’s desk Tuesday morning and intend to flay the president over his promised veto.
But quick action, Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said, “eliminates any opportunity to take the focus off the bizarre things Republicans are doing on DHS and immigration orders.”
“It would be smart to do it right away,” he said. “The longer they delay it, the longer Republicans are allowed to work on two or three issues at the same time.”
The GOP and some Democratic supporters of the pipeline, however, warn that the president’s rejection of the bill won’t be the last word in the long-running fight over the project.
“We’ll soon learn where American workers and energy independence fall on President Obama’s priority list,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
Republicans are already weighing their next moves, and at the top of that list is a likely attempt to override the veto.
First, the GOP is hoping to win this week’s messaging game after waiting to send the Keystone bill to Obama until after Congress’s Presidents Day recess.
“We didn’t send the bill up last week because we wanted to be here when we sent it because we expect him to veto it,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.).
The White House signaled Monday that Obama would make quick work of rejecting the legislation.
“I would anticipate, as we’ve been saying for years, that the president will veto that legislation, and he will, so I would not anticipate a lot of drama or fanfare around it,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
“I wouldn’t anticipate a lengthy delay” on a veto, he added, hinting at a quick rejection of the bill.
Grijalva called the Keystone bill a “test” and Obama’s chance to show the Republican-controlled Congress that he will stick to his word.
“He is going to get a bunch of these,” Grijalva said of bills meant to draw a veto, which he said could include a Department of Homeland Security funding bill with language on immigration and an education bill opposed by Democrats.
“So this is his chance to show in a definite strong way, ‘I told you no, and this is no.’ This is where the influence and power of the White House comes into play.”
Last month, Republicans pulled out all the stops after taking control of the Senate, making the $8 billion oil sands pipeline project their first order of business in the 114th Congress. Republicans plan to highlight Obama’s use of veto power as evidence of obstructionism.
Asked if Obama would downplay the veto to put the spotlight back on the pending DHS shutdown, Hoeven said “absolutely, because he knows that this is an issue Americans overwhelming support.”
Adam Jentleson, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), called the GOP plans a futile attempt to shift focus off the DHS.
“If Republicans think anything short of averting a shutdown will shift the focus from a potential Homeland Security shutdown on Friday, they are fooling themselves,” Jentleson said.
The Keystone showdown comes as the pipeline has lost some traction among the public. In January, support dropped to 41 percent, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
Still, Republicans are ready for the veto and assessing their options.
“First thing we will do is talk to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle,” Hoeven said. “We may bring it back and try to override it. We will do work there and assess where we are at on votes.”
For opponents of the pipeline, the expected veto marks the beginning of the next phase of the fight.
Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club, told The Hill earlier this month that after the veto, opponents will “need to make sure votes are there to sustain that veto.”
Right now, 63 senators back the pipeline, but 67 would be needed to override Obama. In the House the path to a veto-proof majority — or two-thirds — is harder.
When the House approved the bill two weeks ago, it passed 270-152.
If Republicans fail to override a veto, however, it won’t mean the end of the line for Keystone.
Next up, the GOP will try to attach approval for the project to a broader energy package or an appropriations bill that is harder for the president to veto.
-
Five Ways the Keystone Saga Could End
Feb 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
President Barack Obama plans to veto Congress’ Keystone XL pipeline bill soon after he gets it Tuesday — yet that’s just the beginning of the unpredictable next phase in the project’s journey through the Washington wringer.
A veto could doom the congressional push for Keystone, since Republicans lack the votes for an override. But the White House and State Department still must decide the larger question of whether to allow construction of the $8 billion Canada-to-Texas heavy-oil pipeline, and that means both supporters and opponents will be making a final push in a lobbying feud that has already devoured years and tens of millions of dollars.
Most likely, the Keystone endgame will play out in one of five ways:
1. The safe bet
After the veto, it may take weeks or even months for the administration to render its final verdict on a permit for Keystone, after six years of a State Department analysis that has already seen repeated politically opportune delays. That analysis is now in the final stages, as the department weighs whether building the pipeline’s 1,179-mile northern leg would be in the national interest — a broad question that includes Keystone’s economic and geopolitical impact as well as its effect on the Earth’s climate.
Obama has never said whether he favors or opposes the pipeline, but he has spent months scoffing at GOP arguments that Keystone would bring many economic benefits to a U.S. awash in domestic oil. So that makes environmentalists — who view the carbon-intensive oil industry in western Canada’s “tar sands” region as a disaster for the climate — increasingly confident that Obama will side with them in the end.
The White House’s main objection to Congress’ Keystone bill is that it would upend more than a decade of precedent by taking the approval decision out of the executive branch’s hands. But in recent months, Obama “has shifted his tone from making the procedural argument against Keystone to making the substantive argument against it,” said Karthik Ganapathy, spokesman for the green group 350.org. At this point, Ganapathy said, “it’s very hard to backtrack from that.”
It’s not entirely clear when or even how the administration will announce its decision on the permit, although Obama has said he plans to make the final call. The State Department is also supposed to issue a “determination” on the national interest question, which could come out before or at the same time as Obama’s verdict.
2. The split decision
Obama’s record is riddled with moments of giving to greens with one hand and taking away with the other. So don’t be shocked if he vetoes the bill only to approve the pipeline weeks or months later.
There’s some precedent for this: In late 2011, the administration blindsided green groups and Obama’s own Environmental Protection Agency by killing a proposed ozone pollution rule at the last minute — only to thrill liberals by postponing its decision on Keystone a few months later. Just last month, the administration gave greens a win by prohibiting oil wells on millions of acres in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, only to whack them 48 hours later by proposing to allow drilling off much of the Atlantic Coast.
In that spirit, Obama may well bolster environmentalists’ hopes by vetoing a Keystone bill this week, then dash them by giving TransCanada a permit to build the pipeline. The economic case for building Keystone may have dimmed in recent months, thanks to falling oil prices, but the State Department still has put out five environmental studies concluding that Keystone would probably cause little ecological harm. So the president would have some scientific cover if he decides to OK a project that has big support from pro-Democratic labor unions and close U.S. ally Canada.
3. Hillary’s nightmare
More than four years ago, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played a major role in making Keystone a household name by saying her department was “inclined to” sign off on the pipeline. Greens responded by going to battle against the State Department, accusing it of letting the oil industry influence its review process, and Clinton still faces pressure from top Democratic donors to speak out on Keystone before launching her 2016 presidential campaign.
So the last thing she should want is for Obama to let the decision drift well past Memorial Day. Yet a new delay is not out of the question.
One possible rationale for further delaying the verdict came from the EPA, when it urged the State Department to “revisit” part of its previous pipeline review in light of the past year’s slide in oil prices. Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that he is “confident that they will consider” the EPA’s comments at Foggy Bottom, leaving the door open to a possible new review by the State Department.
The second possibility of a new punt on Keystone comes on the familiar ground of Nebraska, where landowners and anti-pipeline activists have twice forced the federal process to a halt. TransCanada took the first steps toward invoking eminent domain last month against some holdouts who own land in the pipeline’s path, but those cases are now stalled while lawyers opposed to the pipeline press for the Nebraska Supreme Court to hear their arguments.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because the same state court turned back a previous challenge to Keystone’s route just last month. That lawsuit had prompted the State Department to halt its review of the pipeline last spring.
4. The curveball
A surprise deal with Canada could be one way out of Obama’s jobs-versus-climate box on Keystone.
Pundits have speculated for years — without much evidence — that Obama might “trade” Keystone for another desirable item, from a GOP cease-fire against EPA to a new highway bill to measures the White House doesn’t even endorse, such as a carbon tax. But the president pointed a year and a half ago to one thing he could want before approving the pipeline: a stronger commitment from Canada to cutting greenhouse gases.
“I’m going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere,” Obama told The New York Times in August 2013 when asked about Keystone. “And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.”
To date, however, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper hasn’t made any public offers.
Pipeline backers like to note that Keystone’s starting point, the oil-rich province of Alberta, already has a carbon fee that gives the industry an incentive to lessen its pollution. But few environmentalists or oilmen believe Obama would be satisfied with Alberta-only action.
With United Nations climate talks in Paris less than a year away, Obama could cause a global splash by getting Canada’s Conservative government to commit to binding carbon cuts — even if the price is approving Keystone. The chances of Canada agreeing to any such deal without corresponding constraints on U.S. oil companies remain slim, but not zero.
5. The one-two punch
Obama has the power to speed up the molasses-slow Keystone process, and this week’s veto would offer an opportunity to seize the momentum from a GOP that has battered him on the issue for years. So why wouldn’t the president capitalize on the moment by burying Keystone for good — perhaps even on the same day that he whips out his veto pen?
This prospect has stoked speculation among Republicans and environmentalists for weeks. It’s among the less likely outcomes given the legal hurdles that the State Department faces in crafting airtight reasoning for its final Keystone recommendation, but both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton sometimes used vetoes to amplify their public statements on issues like stem cell research or abortion.
The League of Conservation Voters on Monday handed Obama fodder for a quick rejection of the pipeline in a poll that found almost seven in 10 voters want Congress to move on from Keystone. Those voters agreed with a statement that “the Republicans in Congress are wasting time by putting so much focus on the Keystone XL pipeline when there are so many more important things they could be doing to help the country.”
-
Officials to Assess Need for Fracking Rules In EU to Help Prevent Environmental Damage
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 23 it will assess by August whether to propose a law to help prevent environmental damage from hydraulic fracturing for shale gas.
The European Union currently has no single environmental law on fracking, though different aspects of fracking operations fall under laws on issues such as water protection and use of chemicals.
The commission, the EU's executive arm, previously considered introducing a fracking law that would have included provisions on environmental impact assessments and liability for environmental damage, for example, but opted instead for a nonbinding recommendation to EU member states, which was published January 2014 .
On Feb. 27, the commission will issue answers received from EU member states to a questionnaire on measures they have implemented in response to the recommendation, which suggested among other things, that countries ensure that environmental baseline studies are carried out ahead of fracking operations and that inventories of chemicals used in fracking fluid are published.
The commission said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA Feb. 23 that following the publication of the member state answers, it will “review the effectiveness of the recommendation by August 2015, as well as any need for updating the recommendation's provisions or for proposing binding measures.”
Uncertain Prospects
Fracking remains controversial in the European Union, with moratoriums in place in countries including Bulgaria, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
In early February, the government of Scotland also imposed a moratorium, while the parliament of Wales, the Welsh Assembly, voted in favor of a ban .
Fracking researchers at a Feb. 23 workshop in Brussels said there were many knowledge gaps relating to the potential for shale gas exploitation in the EU.
René Peters, coordinator of the shale gas program of the European Energy Research Alliance, a coalition of universities and research centers, said there were no reliable estimates for recoverable volumes of shale gas in the EU and more research was needed into a variety of environmental issues, including how fracking could induce seismicity, how carbon dioxide and methane emissions could be managed, and how fracking fluid could be recycled or treated.
‘Prudent’ Approach
Speakers at the workshop said shale gas exploitation in the EU was unlikely to replicate the experience in the U.S., where production of shale gas has had a significant downward impact on energy prices and carbon dioxide emissions.
Peters said, “European shale gas plays are deeper and more heterogeneous than in the U.S.,” indicating that more well-by-well assessment of the environmental risks would have to be done.
In addition, a denser population means that public resistance to shale gas exploitation has been a “general challenge of Europe,” he said.
Robert-Jan Smits, director-general of the European Commission's research department, said the EU was “prudent,” and the economic case for fracking had to be proved and the regulatory framework had to be developed before widespread shale gas drilling could happen.
The regulatory framework “is not there yet,” and work being done by the commission “will lead to policy decisions and legislation at EU level,” Smits said.
Before his appointment, the EU's Energy and Climate Action Commissioner, Miguel Arias Canete, said during hearings in October 2014 that he would “propose, in case it is necessary, the right legislation” to address environmental concerns fracking raised (192 DEN A-20, 10/3/14).
-
MATS Proposal Resolved Delay Claim Against EPA
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A proposal to make several technical changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2012 mercury and air toxics standards for power plants resolved a claim that the agency unreasonably delayed action on a petition for reconsideration of the standards, according to court documents (Envtl. Integrity Project v. EPA, D.D.C., No. 1:14-cv-1972, joint motion for stay filed 2/20/15). The EPA, the Environmental Integrity Project and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, in a joint motion for a stay filed Feb. 20, said the December proposed rule (RIN 2060-AS41) addressed the substance of a petition filed by the environmental groups that asked the agency to reconsider a monitoring option that existing power plants are allowed to use to demonstrate compliance with emissions limits for non-mercury metals. The groups filed a lawsuit in November seeking a court order that would require an EPA response to the petition, but the issue was resolved because the monitoring issue was addressed in the proposed technical correction rule (227 DEN A-5, 11/25/14). The litigation has been stayed until April 22 while the EPA and environmental groups discuss a settlement regarding attorneys' fees.
-
McCarthy Seeks to Convince Governors Of Merits of Proposed Clean Power Plan
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
States should approach the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan as an opportunity for flexible investments in the best energy mixes for their states rather than pre-judge the proposed rule as one that will harm their economies and cost jobs, Administrator Gina McCarthy told several skeptical governors Feb. 22.
McCarthy, speaking at the 2015 National Governors Association meeting, told skeptics like Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) the proposed carbon pollution limits for power plants would not significantly increase energy costs and would preserve a role for all energy fuel sources, including coal.
“Because we've provided so much flexibility, every state gets to dictate for themselves,” McCarthy said. “I don't believe that any state was asked to do more than they could in a very cost-effective way.”
Governors on the panel peppered McCarthy with questions on a number of controversial regulations, including the proposed carbon pollution limits for power plants (RIN 2060-AR33), proposed revisions to Clean Water Act jurisdiction (RIN 2040-AF30) and the renewable fuel standard, the rulemaking for which is experiencing ongoing delays.. The Clean Power Plan, though, was chief among the concerns of the state leaders.
In June 2014, the EPA issued the first-ever national standards that would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state (79 Fed. Reg. 34,959). The proposal includes interim emissions rate targets to be met between 2020 and 2029 and a final goal for each state that applies beginning in 2030 (106 DEN A-1, 6/3/14).
Several other governors, including Govs. Daniel Malloy (D-Conn.) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), expressed support for the efforts of President Barack Obama's administration to curb carbon emissions and fight climate change.
Not Excluding Energy Sources
Preserving affordable and reliable energy would be among the EPA's chief goals in its final rule, McCarthy said. Coal would remain “quite a significant part” of the nation's energy mix in 2030, McCarthy said in response to a question from Mead, whose home state is by far the largest coal producer in the U.S. Wyoming produced 39.4 percent of all U.S. coal in 2013, according to the National Mining Association.
“Any plan we do should accommodate the use of all energy sources and leave it up to the states in the market to determine what quantity,” McCarthy said. “We see coal as being quite a significant part of the energy mix in 2030 and we see natural gas as a significant part of the energy mix, and we certainly see a growing investment in renewables.”
McCarthy said Feb. 17 that the agency is open to modifying interim targets for each state to reduce its carbon emissions. Multiple states have said the interim goals are far too aggressive and rely on timeframes that are not feasible (32 DEN A-1, 2/18/15).
Embracing the flexibility built into the regulatory structure will enable states to develop the best approach for their individual needs, McCarthy said. States should also recognize there are already costs being imposed on them due to climate change, she said.
“A state that is willing to use the flexibility the optimum way that we have provided could find a way to make this enormously beneficial to their state from an economic development perspective and from a job growth perspective,” McCarthy said. “I do believe that people should be recognizing that the climate is changing, and there are costs associated with that already.”
Concern of Waters Rule
Also during the panel discussion, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) expressed serious reservations over the EPA's proposed waters of the U.S. regulation, which would bring under federal jurisdiction all tributaries of streams, lakes, ponds and impoundments as well as wetlands that affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of larger, navigable downstream waters (79 Fed. Reg. 22,188;.
“When I go back to North Dakota, people will not ask me if I had a chance to meet with the president, they will ask me if I met with the administrator of the EPA,” Dalrymple said. “This notion that somehow you, as EPA, would need to be in charge of every little spot—really is just not commonsense. The people of North Dakota, especially the farmers, when they hear that this is what is being proposed, they really react to that. They really just of sort of feel that it makes no sense whatsoever.”
McCarthy acknowledged the agency needs to significantly clarify the intention of the regulation and work on the language in its final rule.
“If I never hear the word ditch again, it would be such a happy day for me,” McCarthy said. “It is one of the issues that we really need to resolve in this final rule.”
-
Clean Power Plan Could Provide Impetus For National Energy Efficiency Registry
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A national registry for state energy efficiency programs would bring about transparency and accountability as states look at efficiency as a strategy to comply with the Clean Power Plan, participants said Feb. 23 during a discussion at the 2015 Climate Leadership Conference.
Each state measures and records its energy efficiency programs differently, making national consistency difficult, David Rosenheim, executive director of the Climate Registry, said during the discussion. However, the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan could provide the impetus to establish a national registry of energy efficiency programs as state regulators look for tools to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, he said.
“Now we have the Clean Power Plan where the air agencies are responsible for compliance and those agencies don't often have good access to that data and that's within the state,” Rosenheim said.
The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. States would be tasked with developing compliance strategies that could include energy efficiency programs (106 DEN A-1, 6/3/14).
The Energy Department has already begun working with state and local governments to create a voluntary system for measuring emissions reductions attributable to energy efficiency programs, Carla Frisch, director of end use analysis at the Energy Department, said.
“States are doing a lot, but it's often hidden in filings and dockets,” Lars Kvale, head of environmental markets at APX Inc., said.
A national registry would allow states to compare programs and improve verification efforts, he said. Once the registry has been adopted nationally, it would also be relatively easy for states to adapt that into a trading program for energy efficiency, Kvale said.
Water Efficiency Studied
The Climate Registry is also working on methods to calculate energy efficiency savings from the water industry. The group plans to hold a series of workshops in California this spring with final guidance anticipated in the fall.
“We know there is an enormous amount of energy embedded in our nation's water supply,” Jenna Jorns, a policy associate at the Climate Registry, said.
Andrew Schwartz from the California Department of Water Resources said that water systems accounted for 12 percent of the total energy consumption in that state. However, of that figure, only 2 percent is for treatment and conveyance of water while the remaining 10 percent of the energy consumption came from end users, which makes it very difficult to identify easy measures to promote conservation and reduce electricity demand, he said.
“Those are millions and millions of little pieces that are really hard to get at,” Schwartz said.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in 2014 called on the nation's water utility managers and state and local officials to conserve water while addressing the realities of a changing climate (67 DEN A-20, 4/8/14).
-
Sen. Markey to Investigate Industry Funding of Climate Studies
Feb 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wants oil and coal companies to reveal the extent to which they have funded research questioning the causes of climate change.
He said he will soon write to various companies, trade organizations and others involved in fossil fuels in an attempt to find whether they are paying for skeptical climate research.
Markey’s comments came after The New York Times reported that Willie Soon, a prolific scientist questioning the human role in climate change, received more than $1.2 million from the industry and did not consistently report that funding when publishing his research.
Meanwhile, the Smithsonian Institute, which employs Soon, has asked its inspector general to review the allegation that Soon failed to disclose his funding sources.
“For years, fossil fuel interests and front groups have attacked climate scientists and legislation to cut carbon pollution using junk science and debunked arguments,” Markey told the Boston Globe.
“The American public deserve an honest debate that isn’t polluted by the best junk science fossil fuel interests can buy,” he said. “That’s why I will be launching this investigation to see how widespread this denial-for-hire scheme stretches within the anti-climate action cabal.”
Markey staff reviewed the same documents on which the Times reported, obtained by activist group Greenpeace through public-records requests.
They show that various companies and other groups paid Soon to write research, reports and congressional testimony saying that greenhouse gases from human activity have little effect on the climate. Instead, Soon said changes in the sun are the cause of fluctuations in the climate.
In addition to seeking an investigation of its own, the Smithsonian distanced itself from Soon in a Monday statement.
Soon is a “part-time researcher” whose salary is paid entirely with external grants, and the Smithsonian does not agree with his findings on climate change, the institute said.
-
Bill Gates and Other Business Leaders Urge U.S. to Increase Energy Research
Feb 23, 2015 | The New York Times
By Justin Gillis
The government is spending far too little money on energy research, putting at risk the long-term goals of reducing carbon emissions and alleviating energy poverty, some of the country’s top business leaders found in a new report.
The American Energy Innovation Council, a group of six executives that includes the Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and the General Electric chief Jeffrey R. Immelt, urged Congress and the White House to make expanded energy research a strategic national priority.
The leaders pointed out that the United States had fallen behind a slew of other countries in the percentage of economic output being spent on energy research, among them China, Japan, France and South Korea. Their report urged leaders of both political parties to start increasing funds to ultimately triple today’s level of research spending, about $5 billion a year. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage Bill Gates Calls for More U.S. Clean Energy Investment, Urges American Companies to Work With ChinaMAY 11, 2011 A Call to Triple U.S. Spending on Energy ResearchJUNE 9, 2010 Corporate Heavies Urge Tripling U.S. Clean-Energy FundingJUNE 10, 2010
“Growing and consistent appropriations for energy innovation should be a top U.S. priority over the next decade,” the business leaders recommended in their report. “The budget numbers over the last five years are a major failure in U.S. energy policy.”
At stake, Mr. Gates said in an interview, are not just long-term goals like reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, but also American leadership in industries of the future, including advanced nuclear reactors and coal-burning power plants that could capture and bury their emissions.
“Our universities, our national labs are the best in the world,” Mr. Gates said, but he added that a chronic funding shortfall was holding back the pace of their work.
The report did credit the Obama administration and Congress with some gains, including a one-time injection of funds in the economic stimulus bill of 2009. But subsequent budgets have essentially dropped back to prior levels, and spending on American energy research remains far below the high point it reached just after the energy crises of the 1970s.
In the past, the report found, investments in energy innovation have paid major dividends. Mr. Gates cited the example of hydraulic fracturing to unlock gas and oil in shale deposits, a technique developed in part with federal research money that has led to a newfound abundance of oil and gas, lowering prices for consumers.
Similar innovation is needed in low-emission sources of energy, the report found, if the goal of limiting global warming is to be met while making energy more available to poor people around the world. Experts involved in writing the report said the needed breakthroughs included safer types of nuclear reactors, cheaper methods of capturing carbon dioxide emissions at power plants and improved batteries that can store large amounts of energy.
The new report is an update on similar recommendations the same business leaders made five years ago. While the report found that the picture remained generally bleak, it did cite some progress.
For instance, Congress established the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, modeled on the Pentagon research agency that helped create the Internet. And the Energy Department has funded a string of energy innovation hubs across the country.Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
“There’s some very promising things that are in these centers, but the pace is absolutely limited by the modest funding level,” Mr. Gates said. “Those should be funded at a much higher level.”
The report pointed out that funding for ARPA-E was less than $300 million per year, and urged that it be raised closer to $1 billion. The entire federal appropriation for energy research is less than Americans spend every year buying potato and tortilla chips, the report noted.
The recommendations in the report are similar to those made by other groups in recent years. But with the federal budget under pressure, the idea of a major push on energy research has gained little traction in Washington.
The business leaders hope to change that as the 2016 presidential race gets under way, urging both parties to embrace ambitious research plans.
Aside from Mr. Gates and Mr. Immelt, the American Energy Innovation Council comprises Norman R. Augustine, a former chairman and chief executive of Lockheed Martin; John Doerr, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist; Chad Holliday, a former chairman and chief executive of DuPont who soon will become chairman of Shell; and Tom Linebarger, chairman and chief executive of Cummins.
In pushing their case in Washington, the leaders are likely to encounter reluctance on the right to increase government spending, as well as some philosophical objections to expanding the government’s role in the energy market. On the left, they may encounter wariness from environmentalists who, while not opposing new research, do not want that push to detract from rapid deployment of current clean-energy technologies, like wind and solar power.
“I am 100 percent for more research, since who could possibly oppose that?” said Joseph J. Romm, who helped manage federal energy research in the Bill Clinton administration and later founded a widely read blog on climate change. “But it is only a small part of the answer, and certainly not the most important.”
He added that aggressive deployment of existing technologies and a price on emissions of carbon dioxide would go a long way to reduce emissions, and that the latter would help unlock more private innovation.
-
FERC Walks EPA Carbon Referee Tightrope
Feb 24, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
FERC’s five commissioners are trying to position themselves as impartial referees as they weigh in on EPA’s Clean Power Plan, but it may not be that simple.
Utility industry officials, as well as congressional Republicans, hope to turn the independent commission into a battering ram against the administration’s sweeping climate rules that are set to be released this summer.
FERC’s authority to help shape the EPA’s rules is limited, according to former FERC Chairman James Hoecker, and its influence will depend on whether it can persuade EPA to follow its recommendations or use its resources.
“But FERC is an independent regulatory agency, not an arm of the administration, and it wades into this area with some apprehension. I mean, it doesn’t want to participate to the point where it begins to appear to be executing administration policy. That’s not its role,” said Hoecker, who is now primary counsel to the transmission group WIRES.
While the five commissioners are tacitly Democrats or Republicans, they‘re wary of appearing to make political judgments on any of the technical issues they face, former Commissioner Marc Spitzer said.
“When I went to FERC myself, my job was not to be political. Quite the contrary, I thought it was inappropriate for me to be political,” said Spitzer, now an attorney at Steptoe & Johnson.
“My sense would be that the FERC commissioners, all five of them, believe that the reliability of the grid is an electrical engineering issue, not a political issue,” he added.
That pressure on FERC to insert itself into EPA’s efforts was evident during FERC’s technical conference last week as a parade of state regulators, transmission planners and power groups pressed it to help prevent blackouts and speed up infrastructure siting in order to help them prepare for the pending rules to cut their carbon dioxide pollution.
And they weren’t shy in asking FERC to stand up to EPA over those concerns.
American Public Power Association President and CEO Susan Kelly urged the commissioners not to become “chopped liver” in the face of environmental regulations.
“You need to have an active role in this process because you, under the Federal Power Act, have important responsibilities to keep rates reasonable, to ensure reliability of the bulk power system,” she said. “And we believe that EPA’s rule … really [has] kind of swept you into the maelstrom whether you really want to be there or not. But you’re there now, and you really need to be involved and extremely active.”
Echoing Kelly’s comments, Jay Morrison of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association urged FERC not to be simply a “potted plant.”
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans seized on those comments to bash the administration’s climate-change plan, and cited comments from a Texas power regulator that EPA’s rules were “physically impossible” and “completely unattainable.” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will face questions on the rule from that panel during a budget hearing on Wednesday.
FERC’s commissioners have sought to maintain a balanced approach, hewing to its mission to oversee the nation’s electric grid and gas infrastructure as the administration rolls out its climate change initiatives.
Last week’s conference on the Clean Power Plan was intended to focus on specific issues relevant to the commission, not to bemoan environmental regulations or fret about climate change overall, Chairwoman Cheryl LaFleur said.
“She wanted to get into granular details because granular details are the way you avoid the left saying, ‘Well, they’re a bunch of liars’ and the right saying ‘This is the end of the world,’” Spitzer said. “And instead they actually focus on the facts. FERC is on the highest ground discussing granular details.”
FERC’s leaders push back against the idea that it is an environmental policy entity, though they acknowledge its decisions can help address climate change, for example, by helping integrate renewable energy onto the grid.
“I don’t see our role with EPA as adversarial,” said Commissioner Colette Honorable, who recently joined FERC after serving as president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
“I don’t see the FERC as negotiating with EPA,” she added. “I think … we are here to provide advice and counsel, and the EPA has said they want to get that.”
It remains to be seen how much FERC can — or will — influence EPA before the climate rules are finalized. LaFleur told POLITICO that FERC had played a role in the interagency review process before the rule was proposed, and it will do so again for this summer’s final rule.
“But then in a way … the hard work comes of how we interact during implementation, and we’re just working out those processes,” she said. “But the EPA seems very open to it, and we had good interaction on” the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
LaFleur and Commissioner Tony Clark both said FERC would seek to be an “honest broker” on EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
For Hoecker, the issue is where the agency positions itself in that role.
“In terms of being an ‘honest broker,’ it seems to me that [FERC] needs to urge EPA to be realistic about the impact of the final rule on markets, on reliability, on that sort of thing,” he added.
None of the discussions about FERC’s role dissuaded industry officials from asking the commission to press EPA for major changes, even though it can only present them to EPA in an advisory capacity.
Topping FERC’s list of concerns is establishing a so-called reliability safety valve into the rule to prevent the industry from facing a choice between violating the Clean Air Act by running carbon-intensive power plants or shutting them down and violating reliability requirements under the Federal Power Act.
Power providers also asked the commission to pressure EPA for more time to meet the new carbon rules and to allow greater use of natural gas, and for more flexibility to write up compliance plans.
Congressional Republicans have also blasted EPA, saying the agency’s consultations with FERC have been inadequate.
Clark and Philip Moeller, FERC’s two Republican members, told lawmakers in January that they and their staffs had virtually no participation in developing the rule, although LaFleur later told POLITICO that most of those discussions were carried out by FERC’s staff that work more closely with the chairman’s office.
FERC’s two newest members, Honorable and Norman Bay, both joined the commission after EPA had formally proposed the rule.
Still, the Clean Power Plan appeared to frustrate those who see EPA stepping into FERC’s role by implementing rules that will affect the nation’s power supply.
“This is EPA’s rule, and like it or not, they’re injecting themselves into electricity planning for the future of this country,” Moeller said. “So I kind of think it’s their responsibility to address these infrastructure issues and to play a role in that kind of leadership.”
Moeller later told reporters that he is not sure precisely who should coordinate oversight of these issues. “That’s why I asked the question,” he said.
Several federal and non-federal entities will be involved in the process, with FERC overseeing reliability, EPA instituting emissions cuts, and the Departments of the Interior, Energy and Agriculture working alongside the Army Corps of Engineers and states to site and permit the energy infrastructure that will be required to implement the rule.
“Somebody has to show the leadership in the federal government to get everybody together, and if it’s DOE, that’s great. I’m pretty sure this agency would be a big part of that,” Moeller said. “But I think it demonstrates that there are so many moving parts that somebody’s got to kind of sort through this or else it’s not going to work.”
-
PM-2.5 Attainment Plan for L.A. Area Gains Approval by California Regulators
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California air quality officials have approved a revision to a plan to bring the Los Angeles area into attainment with a 2006 standard for fine particulates by the end of 2015, even though local regulators have said the region is likely to miss the deadline.
The California Air Resources Board signed off on the plan at its Feb. 19 meeting in Sacramento, after finding the update to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's 2012 state implementation plan for the 24-hour standard for fine particulates (PM- 2.5) satisfies Clean Air Act requirements.
Environmental and local citizens groups, however, have said the revised plan is flawed, in part because the SCAQMD officials have said meeting the standard by the end of the year is unlikely, especially if drought continues for another year.
“We'll see how the Environmental Protection Agency reacts to the revision,” Earthjustice attorney Adrian Martinez told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 23.
Martinez was among several environmental advocates who testified at the Feb. 6 meeting in which the South Coast Air Quality Management District governing board voted 10-1 to adopt the plan.
Martinez and others urged the board to reject the plan. Earthjustice and other groups will let the EPA know they believe the plan is deficient, he said.
At the meeting, the SCAQMD staff said the state's lack of rain during the past two years is compromising the region's ability to attain the 24-hour national ambient air quality standard for PM-2.5, which is 35 micrograms per cubic meter. Limited rain means more road dust and fugitive dust emissions, the air district said. Plus, fewer wet days mean no “natural cleansing” of the air, according to regulators.
Advocacy groups said the revised plan should include more control measures to address the drought impacts.
State, Locals Worked With EPA
State and local regulators said they worked closely with the EPA on the supplement to the 2012 SIP to address legal issues that arose when a federal appeals court in 2013 struck down rules to implement the 1997 fine particulate standards (Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 08-1250, 1/4/13; 04 DEN A-6, 1/7/13) .
The court found that the EPA erred in implementing the standard through a general process detailed in Subpart 1 of Part D of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act, instead of the more stringent implementation specifically for particulate standards in Subpart 4.
The SCAQMD's initial 2012 state implement plan for the PM-2.5 standard, which is pending approval the EPA, relied on the Subpart 1 process.
Under the revised plan, the air district is using Subpart 4, which actually buys the region another year, until the end of 2015, to attain the standard.
The revised 2012 plan includes a discussion on the drought's impacts on the ability of the regional to attain the standard by Dec. 31, 2015; new transportation conformity budgets; an updated analysis of reasonably available control technologies and measures; demonstration with Subpart 4 requirements involving PM 2.5 precursors, including volatile organic compounds and ammonia; and an updated list of PM 2.5 control measure commitments.
At the Feb. 6 meeting, SCAQMD Executive Officer Barry Wallerstein said that while the revised SIP is “legally appropriate,” staff acknowledges more work is needed to the attain the standard. Additional control measures will be included in the 2016 update of the SIP, which staff is currently working on, Wallerstein said.
-
Alternative Compliance Rule for Mercury, Air Toxics Challenged by Utility Industry
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A power plant industry group is asking a federal appeals court to consider whether the Environmental Protection Agency complied with Clean Air Act requirements when the agency established an alternative method for compliance with mercury and air toxics standards during startup and shutdown (Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1013, statement of issues filed 2/20/15).
The Utility Air Regulatory Group, in a statement of issues filed Feb. 20, questioned whether portions of the alternative work practice standards, associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements and new monitoring requirements for particulate matter “are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”
The alternative work practice standards, established in a November 2014 rulemaking (RIN 2060-AS07), require coal- and oil-fired power plants to initiate startup using clean fuels and to continue using the maximum possible amount of clean fuels during the startup period (79 Fed. Reg. 68,777).
The trade group filed a lawsuit challenging the standards in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in January. The lawsuit was consolidated with two other challenges—one filed by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups and a second filed by five power companies (18 DEN A-21, 1/28/15).
Concerns About Control Technologies
In addition to the alternative work practice, monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, the Utility Air Regulatory Group also raised the issue of whether the EPA's decision to promulgate an alternative compliance method to address industry concerns was legal under the Clean Air Act.
EPA acknowledged that power plant owners and operators were concerned about their ability under the MATS standards' original definition of startup to operate certain pollution control technologies “upon combustion” of the unit's primary fuel, according to the statement of issues. The power plant trade group is asking the D.C. Circuit to consider whether the agency's reliance on an alternative definition of startup and alternative work practices was arbitrary and capricious under the Clean Air Act.
The Utility Air Regulatory Group also questioned the EPA's decision to allow use of a diluent cap when calculating emissions without soliciting public comment on the data analysis used to determine whether such a cap is needed. The EPA said in the reconsideration rule that use of a diluent cap can be important during startup and shutdown periods due to an issue with continuous emissions monitoring system values during those periods.
A diluent cap is a default concentration value that may be substituted for actual measured values in instances where the heat input of a unit approaches zero.
EPA Seeks Abeyance Status
The EPA on Feb. 20 filed an unopposed motion to hold the litigation in abeyance pending resolution of litigation challenging the 2012 mercury and air toxics standards that is being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 25 on whether the EPA unreasonably refused to consider costs when it decided it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate emissions of mercury and other air toxics from power plants (Michigan v. EPA, U.S., No. 14-46, oral arguments scheduled 2/2/15).
The mercury and air toxics standards are estimated to cost the power industry $9.6 billion annually. The EPA said in its motion that the Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v. EPA “could have an impact” on the challenge to the reconsideration rule, so it would be appropriate for the D.C. Circuit to hold the case in abeyance pending the decision.
-
Groups Appeal Court Decision Upholding TVA Plan to Replace Coal-Fired Generators
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Wilhelm
The Kentucky Coal Association is appealing a federal district court opinion upholding the Tennessee Valley Authority's decision to replace two coal-fired power generators with a natural gas-fired plant (Ky. Coal Ass'n v. TVA, 6th Cir., No. 15-5163, 2/19/15).
On Feb. 2, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied claims brought by the association and other parties that the TVA's failure to conduct an appropriate environmental impact study for the $1 billion project violated the National Environmental Policy Act (Ky. Coal Ass'n v. TVA, W.D. Ky., No. 4:14-cv-73, 2/2/15 (24 DEN A-4, 2/5/15)).
The coal association and other parties had asked the court to invalidate the utility's decision and to prohibit it from taking further action unless it first performed the study and conducted a least-cost planning analysis under the Tennessee Valley Authority Act.
The parties filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Feb. 19, seeking review of the district court's ruling that the TVA, which is the nation's largest public utility, did not act arbitrarily and capriciously under NEPA and the TVA Act.
Air Toxics Compliance Drove Decision
Specifically, the district court found that the TVA's decision was supported by two linked environmental reviews, its 2011 integrated resource plan evaluating the merits of using different energy resources to meet forecasted demand for electricity cost-effectively, and the project's final environmental assessment.
In August 2013, the TVA decided to replace two of three coal-fired generators at its Paradise Fossil Plant near Central City, Ky., with a natural gas facility in order to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards. The MATS require operators of coal-fired power plants, including the TVA, to reduce hazardous pollutants emitted from their plants.
Together, the two coal units generate about 1,400 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power more than 500,000 homes.
The appellants' brief is due April 3, and the appellee's brief is due May 6.
-
Utilities Say EPA Violated Air Law In Revisions To MACT's SSM Provisions
Feb 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Utilities are claiming that EPA violated the Clean Air Act with its revisions to power plant startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provisions in its maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for the sector, saying the agency failed to follow air law procedures to first allow public comment on the provisions.
In a Feb. 20 statement of issues in litigation over the revisions, as well as a parallel petition for administrative reconsideration of the changes filed with EPA last month, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) faults the SSM updates that address emissions limit requirements during periods of facility SSMs. But the group notes that EPA has subsequently proposed further updates to the utility MACT that could potentially address some of its concerns.
EPA in the Nov. 19 Federal Register published its rule taking final action on reconsideration of some startup and shutdown provisions in the MACT. The agency's rule created a second compliance option for utilities who said the original rule was too hard to meet. As a result, EPA established an alternative definition of startup and the conditions for when clean fuel must be combusted and when numeric pollution limits apply under the rule.
Initially, EPA proposed changes to the SSM aspects of the MACT Nov. 30, 2012, and later reopened comment on the plan ahead of the November final rule, but UARG says the policy falls short of air law requirements.
In its statement of issues filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its suit over the changes, UARG says the agency did not adequately consult with the public over the revisions. Under section 307(d) of the air law, EPA is obliged to give an opportunity for public comment on substantive changes to its proposal to reconsider certain technical aspects of the MACT rule, but UARG says EPA failed to meet this duty.
The group gives some insight into its arguments in its Jan. 20 petition for administrative reconsideration. EPA in a Dec. 19 proposal announced its intent to reconsider the MACT rule again, in order to make a series of technical corrections and clarifications, several of which address issues raised in earlier comments by UARG.
In its administrative petition, UARG says it welcomes EPA's rulemaking effort to further address alleged shortcomings in the MACT, which will cover two of the three issues raised by the new petition and lawsuit.
“Because two of those issues pertain directly to rule language that is contained in the corrections proposal, we plan to raise the issues in UARG’s comments in the proposed rulemaking in order to provide EPA the opportunity to correct those provisions without convening a new rulemaking. We also present them here in the event that the Agency would prefer to address them separately,” according to UARG's administrative petition.
“The third issue could not be addressed simply by revising regulatory text and therefore we present it only here,” UARG adds in the petition, which was filed with EPA the same day as the lawsuit.
UARG's Criticisms
UARG claims that EPA has unreasonably failed to add specific emissions control technologies -- limestone injection in fluidized bed combustion (FBC) boilers and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) -- to a list of exempted control devices that plants need not engage during a certain phase of startup.
EPA's final reconsidered rule requires that, under a “work practice standard” applicable during startup in lieu of numeric emissions limits, plants engage controls when coal is first combusted.
However, UARG says this is not possible for SNCR or limestone injection, which cannot be engaged until later. “UARG cannot locate any information in the cited comments that clearly supports the contention that SNCR can be engaged or that limestone can be injected in FBC boilers at the point that coal is first combusted,” the group says, citing Sierra Club's comments during the reconsideration process that EPA references in the rule.
EPA's work practice standard allows power plants additional time of up to four hours to engage pollution controls, as sought by industry. However, UARG says the alternative work practice standard offered by the agency has too many caveats. “In finalizing the rule, EPA may have assumed that all [electric generating units] with such controls would opt to utilize the alternative definition because it also provides a few hours of additional time before emission limitations must be met. However, utilization of the startup definition . . . comes at a price in the form of significant additional work practice monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that also were not proposed,” UARG says.
The second issue UARG mentions in its administrative petition is that EPA's methodology in calculating the MACT “floor,” or minimum emissions limit, is flawed and cannot be replicated, in contravention of the air law.
EPA's calculation of the performance of the best-performing 12 percent of power sector sources -- required to set the MACT floor -- is “opaque and cryptic,” UARG claims in the petition for reconsideration. “It is not possible to identify which of the listed sources are the best-performing ones,” the group says.
Finally, the group says EPA has mishandled the issue of how and when to cap “diluent” values -- diluents are diluting agents -- when measuring emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. UARG says “use of a diluent cap is necessary to calculate accurate emissions values during periods when measured diluent values are above or below normal values,” but EPA's policy is inconsistent on the use of such caps. “EPA should convene a proceeding to revise the rule to allow use of the diluent cap during all hours when diluent values may be below the default values, and in particular for those hours immediately following the end of the period EPA has defined as 'startup,'” according to the petition.
-
PHMSA to Hold HazMat Research Meeting in April
Feb 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration will hold a hazmat transport research and development meeting April 16, the agency recently announced. The office will present the results of studies that have been finished recently, discuss ongoing and upcoming projects and solicit comments on future projects that could be included in its strategic plan, PHMSA said in a Feb. 20 Federal Register notice (80 Fed. Reg. 9306). Some of the subjects that will be discussed are Hazardous Materials Automated Cargo Communications for Efficient and Safe Shipments (HM-ACCESS), lithium batteries, bulk transport of liquefied natural gas and crude oil classification, packaging and transport. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the Transportation Department headquarter's Oklahoma City Room. The meeting will also be available via phone and via webcast. The Federal Register notice is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-20/pdf/2015-03488.pdf.
-
Oil-By-Rail Shipments are Playing Russian Roulette: Kemp
Feb 23, 2015 | Reuters
By John Kemp
Train derailments involving crude oil and ethanol in the United States will cost more than $18 billion over the next 20 years, according to an assessment by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
USDOT forecasts there will be just over 200 derailments involving trains carrying 20 or more tank cars of crude or ethanol between 2015 and 2034, an average of more than 10 per year, based on analysis of previous accidents and predicted growth in traffic volumes.
Most will be "lower-consequence events" involving limited damage to property, environmental clean-up and only a few injuries or fatalities, with the bill totaling less than $5 billion.
But up to 10 could have more serious consequences because they occur in more densely populated areas, with an estimated cost of $1.2 billion per incident.
USDOT also considered a tail-risk event occurring in a densely populated urban center such as Chicago and estimated the damages from a single incident could amount to $6 billion.
However, the maximum insurance coverage available in the commercial rail insurance market is limited to around $1 billion per carrier, per incident, according to USDOT, so railroads are under-insured against the risk of a catastrophic accident.
The estimates were first reported by the Associated Press on Sunday (“Fuel-hauling trains could derail at 10 a year”).
They are contained in a draft regulatory impact analysis prepared by USDOT to support its proposed new rules on tank cars and railroad operations, and can be downloaded from www.regulations.gov or the Internet using the document code PHMSA-2012-0082-0179.
MARKET FAILURE
Liabilities arising from the catastrophic train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people in July 2013 and forced the evacuation of 2,000 people, have been conservatively estimated as at least $1.2 billion, but could end up more than double that amount.
In that instance, the railroad operator was covered for only $25 million in insurance liability, and was forced to declare insolvency, throwing the rest of the cost of the accident onto the government.
“Shippers and rail companies are not insured against the full liability of the consequences of incidents involving hazardous materials,” USDOT warns. “Rail carriers and shippers may not bear the entire cost of making whole those affected when an incident ... occurs.”
Moreover, risks and liabilities are not correctly aligned. USDOT explains: “Shippers, although responsible for packaging the material, and buying or leasing the tank cars in which these products are shipped, do not generally bear any liability for an incident once a rail carrier has accepted shipment, and rail carriers cannot refuse shipments.”
Railroad rates cannot always be adjusted to reflect increased risks because they are regulated by the Surface Transportation Board.
USDOT describes under-insurance as a “market failure” and says it justifies regulators to intervene and impose tougher standards on the industry to bring down the probability of catastrophic accidents.
THREAT ASSESSMENT
USDOT calculates the risks posed by oil and ethanol by rail shipments using the same method RAND Corp has developed for estimating risks associated with terrorism.
Risk is the product of threat, vulnerability and consequence. In the case of oil by rail, the threat is the probability of a major rail accident involving multiple tank cars carrying flammable liquid. Vulnerability is the probability flammable liquids will be released and catch fire, given an accident has occurred. And consequence is based on estimated damages.
Potential damages depend to a large extent on whether an accident occurs in an uninhabited rural area, a small town, or a densely built urban center.
USDOT identified 36,500 miles of rail corridors being used to transport crude and ethanol across the United States in 2012. Population density averages about 283 persons per square kilometer along these rail corridors, according to USDOT.
Lac-Megantic had a population density of around 272 persons per square kilometre, and the explosions and fires were concentrated in an area of about one square kilometre. Lac-Megantic is, therefore, in some ways typical of the routes along which crude and ethanol carrying trains pass.
Rural areas are much more sparsely populated, so train fires would do less harm. But in some inner-city urban zones, population density could be five times higher than Lac-Megantic, which is why USDOT estimates high-end catastrophic liabilities could reach five times as much, or $6 billion, if a train derailed in an urban center.
Canada's federal government has introduced legislation that would require railroads to obtain up to C$1 billion in insurance cover. In addition, crude shippers will be required to contribute C$1.65 per tonne of oil shipped to a supplementary to cover the cost of incidents involving crude.
Lac-Megantic was an unusual disaster and unlikely to be exactly replicated elsewhere: a high-speed crash at 65 miles per hour involving a runaway train which resulted in the derailment of 63 tank cars.
Most U.S. derailments have occurred at much slower speeds and involved far fewer cars. But there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the catastrophic impact of even a smaller derailment in an urban area.
The rail industry has underestimated and under-priced the risks involved in shipping flammable liquids like crude oil and ethanol.
These risks were hidden when only small volumes of oil and ethanol were being moved by rail before 2008. But as shipping volumes have soared, the incident rates has become more apparent.
There will always be some risk involved in any commercial activity, especially one as hazardous as the production and distribution of flammable fuels. But 10 train fires per year, with the probability of a catastrophic incident occurring once every two years, is surely too high.
It is essential that regulators, railroads and shippers move swiftly to introduce safer operating practices, and especially more robust tank cars, before a catastrophic incident occurs.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested