Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Blog) Listen to the Science: Experts Say BPA is Safe!
Feb 25, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
To share clear, science-based statements from two prominent government agencies, ACC’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group is encouraging consumers and manufacturers to: “Listen to the Science.” http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/02/listen-to-the-science-experts-say-bpa-is-safe/ -
Study: Common Flame Retardants Linked to Obesity, Liver Problems
Feb 25, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Newly released research by University of New Hampshire scientists linked common flame retardant chemicals to obesity and liver problems in laboratory rats, along with cell behavior that reflected diabetic tendencies. -
US Agencies Issue Alert on Silica Health Hazards
Feb 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has published a hazard alert on exposure to silica for workers involved in the manufacturing, finishing and installing of natural and manufactured stone countertop products. -
Referendum to Overturn Plastic Bag Ban Headed to Voters
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's first-in-the-nation statewide ban on plastic bags won't take effect this summer, after opponents successfully gathered enough signatures to put a measure overturning the prohibition before voters in 2016. -
Obama Creates New Cybersecurity Agency
Feb 25, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett
President Obama on Wednesday authorized the creation of a new government agency for cybersecurity. -
(ACC Blog) Fueling Export Growth (Part 1 of 2): U.S. Chemical Exports Linked to Natural Gas Could Double By 2030; Plastics Products Leading the Surge
Feb 25, 2015 | American Chemistry Council
By Michelle Orfei
On the heels of a wave of new chemical industry investment projects expected to come online over the next few years, gross exports of chemical products linked to natural gas, including plastics, could reach $123 billion by 2030 – more than double what chemical manufacturers exported in 2014, according to a new report from Nexant, Inc., and sponsored by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/02/fueling-export-growth-part-1-of-2-u-s-chemical-exports-linked-to-natural-gas-could-double-by-2030-plastics-products-leading-the-surge/ -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Shale Gas Boom Could Propel Chemical Exports
Feb 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Doug Palmer
U.S. exports of plastics and certain other chemical products are projected to double from $60 billion in 2014 to $123 billion by 2030, thanks to the shale gas revolution that has boosted affordable domestic energy supplies, according to a new report created for the American Chemistry Council. -
House GOP Probes Obama’s Keystone XL Decision
Feb 25, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Oversight Committee is investigating the Obama administration’s ongoing process to review the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. -
What Did Congress Accomplish with Keystone Vote?
Feb 25, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Christopher Sands, contributor
Now that President Obama has vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline bill, the question is: What did this effort accomplish? Was it just a waste of everyone's time and energy? -
Bloomberg: US Should Negotiate with Canada on Keystone
Feb 25, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Wednesday the U.S. should strike a deal with Canada over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. -
GOP Chairman: Interior Funding Request 'Underwhelming'
Feb 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The new chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee sees the Interior Department’s budget as a way to inject creative thinking into issues like oil drilling on federal land and offshore. -
House Republicans Blast Agency's Budget Priorities
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Republican members of two House Energy and Commerce Committee subpanels today blasted U.S. EPA's fiscal 2016 budget request as a catalog of misplaced priorities and misspent funds. -
McCarthy: Overlapping Ozone Rules Isn't A Problem
Feb 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy argued today that it’s not a problem to continue reviewing the ozone air quality standards while the most recent revisions are still being implemented. -
Republicans Ready Bills To Ease, Not Scuttle, EPA's Power Plant GHG Rules
Feb 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By John Siciliano
Top House and Senate Republicans are jointly crafting a pair of bills aimed at easing EPA's proposed rules to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) at new and existing power plants, though they are stopping short of scuttling the rules and challenging EPA's authority to address carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG emissions. -
Judges Signal More Trouble Looms for EPA's Cross-State Rule
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
U.S. EPA's effort to curb air pollution drifting across state lines was under siege in federal court again today, and it appeared vulnerable to the challenge from states and industry despite emerging victorious last year from the Supreme Court. -
Resources Chairman Bishop Discusses Panel Priorities, Plans for Climate, Drilling Action
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - TV
As the Obama administration takes action on drilling, fracking and Arctic exploration, how will the 114th Congress shape its policy priorities on natural resources? -
Crude-By-Rail Safety? There's an App for That
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
If emergency responders point iPhones at the next oil train derailment, they may not be wasting time taking pictures.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Blog) Listen to the Science: Experts Say BPA is Safe!
Feb 25, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
To share clear, science-based statements from two prominent government agencies, ACC’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group is encouraging consumers and manufacturers to: “Listen to the Science.” A campaign with this theme was launched today to highlight recent declarations about the safety of bisphenol A (BPA) from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Readers of USA Today and the Wall Street Journal will see a simple but powerful message as they turn the page of their newspapers – and ultimately turn the page on the costly debate about BPA safety. The ads will also appear on a number of consumer, news and health websites.
Since December, the FDA and EFSA have clearly and unequivocally reaffirmed their findings that BPA is safe to use in products that store and package food and beverages, as well as in other consumer products.
The full page ad can also be found on the Facts About BPA website at www.factsaboutbpa.org.
-
Study: Common Flame Retardants Linked to Obesity, Liver Problems
Feb 25, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Newly released research by University of New Hampshire scientists linked common flame retardant chemicals to obesity and liver problems in laboratory rats, along with cell behavior that reflected diabetic tendencies.
UNH researchers found that rats exposed to high levels of those chemicals daily for one month had fat cells that became more sensitive to epinephrine and less sensitive to insulin. Gale Carey, a UNH nutrition professor and leader of the research team, said that pattern mirrors cells in overweight people and in those developing diabetes.
Carey speculated that exposure to the flame retardants suppressed phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase, a metabolic enzyme in the liver that helps regulate fatty acids. Without normal levels of the enzyme, fatty acids build up in the liver and blood, resulting in metabolic obesity and enlarged livers in exposed rats.
The research involved polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, which are synthetic flame retardants found in couches, carpet padding, electronics and other common household items.Carey said the continued escalation of obesity in the U.S. suggests "other environmental factors may be involved" aside from diet and exercise.
"At the biochemical level there is a growing body of experimental evidence suggesting certain environmental chemicals, or 'obesogens', could disrupt the body's metabolism and contribute to the obesity epidemic," Carey said.
The research will be presented at the annual Experimental Biology conference, which begins late next month in Boston. -
US Agencies Issue Alert on Silica Health Hazards
Feb 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has published a hazard alert on exposure to silica for workers involved in the manufacturing, finishing and installing of natural and manufactured stone countertop products. The hazard can be mitigated with dust controls in most operations, they say.
-
Referendum to Overturn Plastic Bag Ban Headed to Voters
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's first-in-the-nation statewide ban on plastic bags won't take effect this summer, after opponents successfully gathered enough signatures to put a measure overturning the prohibition before voters in 2016.
A proposition largely funded by plastic bag makers qualified for the ballot when petitions with voters' signatures passed a random sampling test, the California secretary of state's office said yesterday. Backers needed 504,760 valid petition signatures, equal to 5 percent of votes cast for governor in 2010.
That success stopped S.B. 270, the measure passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), from going into effect. The would-be ban mandated that grocers, convenience stores and liquor stores stop giving away single-use plastic bags. They could have sold paper bags for 10 cents each, along with plastic bags that could be reused at least 125 times and that didn't contain toxic material. Under the law, retailers could keep the funds charged for those bags.
"S.B. 270 was never a bill about the environment," Lee Califf, executive director of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, said in a statement. "California voters will now have the chance to vote down a terrible law that, if implemented, would kill 2,000 local manufacturing jobs and funnel obscene profits to big grocers without any money going to a public purpose or environmental initiative."
Californians vs. Big Plastic, a coalition supporting the plastic bag ban, said that an alliance of mostly out-of-state plastic bag makers "bought its way onto the California ballot" after pouring $3.2 million into the signature-gathering effort.
"Every poll shows that Californians strongly support the law, and the $30 million to $50 million it will cost the plastics industry to launch a full-fledged campaign in 2016 will be proven to be an act of political malpractice, particularly since nearly half the state will no longer have plastic bags by election day," said Mark Murray of Californians vs. Big Plastic. The group represents environmental, business, consumer and labor organizations.
"We are confident that Californians will protect a law that is already in place in 138 communities [and] that will save marine wildlife, reduce litter and save taxpayers millions of dollars," Murray said.
Californians vs. Big Plastic said more cities and counties planned to move ahead with local plastic bag bans in light of the referendum to undo the statewide ban. Those locations included San Diego, Santa Barbara County, Sacramento, Oceanside and American Canyon. There already are at least 87 cities and counties in the state with plastic bag prohibitions.
Californians consume 14 billion plastic bags annually, according to supporters of the measure.
Murray said nearly all plastic bags sold in California are produced by three out-of-state corporations. "And these corporations and their chemical suppliers have made it clear that they will do and say anything, and pay any price, to continue to sell plastic bags in California," he said.
-
Obama Creates New Cybersecurity Agency
Feb 25, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett
President Obama on Wednesday authorized the creation of a new government agency for cybersecurity.
The Cyber Threat intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC) is intended to combine cybersecurity data from across the intelligence community to give the government a more holistic picture of various cyber threats.
The division will not collect new intelligence but will be housed within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Civilian agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will get access to the CTIIC's cyber analysis.
The White House first announced the new agency in early February.
“Currently, no single government entity is responsible for producing coordinated cyber threat assessments,” Lisa Monaco, homeland security adviser to President Obama, said at the time. “CTIIC is intended to fill these gaps.”
The agency is being formed as part of the White House’s recent push on cyber.
The administration in January unveiled a multi-pronged cyber legislative agenda, and Obama recently signed an executive order intended to facilitate public-private cyber data sharing.
White House officials have promoted the new agency, highlighting it during a recent daylong cybersecurity summit at Stanford University.
But some have questioned the government’s ability to staff the CTIIC, given the ongoing shortages of federal cyber employees.
The White House said Wednesday it anticipated the CTIIC would consist of roughly 50 employees “drawn from relevant departments and agencies.”
FBI officials on Tuesday told reporters it expected to play a large role in the formation of the agency.
Robert Anderson, who leads the FBI’s Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch, said the new department will ensure no cyber information is being “stovepiped” within the government, meaning it is not shared with other agencies.
-
Feb 25, 2015 | American Chemistry Council
By Michelle Orfei
On the heels of a wave of new chemical industry investment projects expected to come online over the next few years, gross exports of chemical products linked to natural gas, including plastics, could reach $123 billion by 2030 – more than double what chemical manufacturers exported in 2014, according to a new report from Nexant, Inc., and sponsored by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Read the Press Release: “U.S. Chemistry Exports Linked to Shale Gas Could Double by 2030, New Report Shows”
The report, “Fueling Export Growth: U.S. Net Export Trade Forecast for Key Chemistries to 2030,” is a follow-up to ACC’s “Keys to Export Growth for the Chemical Sector,” which identified several policy and regulatory changes that could facilitate billions of dollars in new export growth for the industry.
Shale gas investment precipitating surge in exports
223 shale-related projects, $137 billion cumulative investment
While energy markets are dynamic, the conclusions of the report point to a long-term competitive advantage for U.S. manufacturers on shale gas-advantaged chemicals. Even with the recent drop in oil prices, the industry continues to enjoy a distinct competitive advantage in global markets (with an oil-to-natural-gas ratio of approximately 18:1).
Chemical companies have begun or are planning 223 shale-related projects, including eight announced in December, representing a cumulative investment of $137 billion, according to ACC’s latest count (February, 2015). Fully 60 percent is foreign direct investment, driven by the trio of lower-cost feedstock, reliable infrastructure and a U.S. regulatory environment that is moving toward supporting, rather than hindering, competitive success.
One of the biggest upsides from this new wave of investment is that the increased chemical capacity will unlikely be absorbed by the U.S. markets. We’re starting to see the results of this already.
Since the start of the shale gas production boon, exports of manufactured products have risen 6 percent, according to a 2014 International Monetary Fund study. China, Mexico, and other Americas are likely to remain the leading net export destinations for exports through to 2030, the Nexant report indicates.
Plastics helping to make U.S. export growth possible
With more chemistry products, including key plastics, destined for foreign shores, the industry can be a leader in helping to reduce the U.S. trade deficit while creating new economic and job-creation opportunities here at home.
Specifically, the Nexant report details how the biggest driver of the improving U.S. trade surplus will be polymers, with expected growth to nearly $22 billion in net exports by 2030.
“This is a very exciting time for the plastics industry,” said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council. “From exports to jobs, shale-advantaged plastics and the wide range of products they enable are poised to contribute significantly to the U.S. economy.”
Tomorrow: Delivering on the U.S. trade agenda
The massive growth potential for U.S. chemicals exports over the next 15 years does depend on several factors, including the industry’s ability to compete in the global marketplace. ACC has long-supported an ambitious trade agenda that includes robust and comprehensive trade and economic partnerships that can bridge the divide between American chemistry and overseas markets, and that can help facilitate trade movements at lower cost.
In Part Two of this exports blog series, ACC’s senior director of Regulatory and Technical Affairs, Greg Skelton, will share his thoughts on the impact U.S. trade policy can have in capitalizing on the significant boost to U.S. chemical – and broader manufacturing – competitiveness as a result of abundant, affordable shale gas.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Shale Gas Boom Could Propel Chemical Exports
Feb 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Doug Palmer
U.S. exports of plastics and certain other chemical products are projected to double from $60 billion in 2014 to $123 billion by 2030, thanks to the shale gas revolution that has boosted affordable domestic energy supplies, according to a new report created for the American Chemistry Council.
The U.S. trade surplus for the selected chemicals is projected to increase from $19.5 billion to $48.3 billion over the same period, with China, Mexico and other Americas remaining the leading net export destinations.
The report, “Fueling Export Growth: U.S. Net Export Trade Forecast for Key Chemistries to 2030,” estimates annual trade volumes for 66 chemicals derived from unconventional oil, natural gas and gas liquids, as well as their expected destinations and potential trade value.
“Boosting exports is one of the surest paths to a stronger economy and new jobs,” ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley said in a statement. “Even with the recent drop in oil prices, U.S. chemical manufacturers enjoy a distinct competitive advantage in global markets, which will help them ‘grow the pie’ for other sectors of the American economy.”
Chemical companies have begun or are planning 223 shale-related projects to date, including eight announced in December. Those represent a cumulative investment of $137 billion, 60 percent of which is foreign direct investment, ACC said.
The report also found that proposed regional free trade agreements with 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region and the 28 nations of the European Union would give chemical exports a further boost. -
House GOP Probes Obama’s Keystone XL Decision
Feb 25, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Oversight Committee is investigating the Obama administration’s ongoing process to review the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked Secretary of State John Kerry Tuesday to send him everything the State Department received from other federal agencies for its ongoing determination of whether Keystone is in the United States’ “national interest.”
State asked eight agencies to weigh in on the national interest determination, as required under a 2004 executive order. But only the Defense Department has publicly released what it told State, which was that it had “no objection” to the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline.
“Please produce all reports, recommendations, letters, and comments received by the State Department from the advising agencies pursuant to Executive Order 13337 regarding the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline,” Chaffetz wrote in a letter along with Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), chairwoman of the Oversight subcommittee with jurisdiction over environmental and energy policy.
Chaffetz sent his letter the same day President Obama vetoed a bill that would have forced approval of the pipeline. Obama said that the bill “attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.”
But that process has taken more than six years, frustrating Republicans and pipeline’s proponents.
Apart from the Defense Department, State asked for input from the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Justice, Commerce, Interior, Transportation, Energy and Homeland Security.
Kerry will use those comments, which were due Feb. 2, to write a recommendation to Obama about whether or not to approve Keystone. Obama will then decide.
-
What Did Congress Accomplish with Keystone Vote?
Feb 25, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Christopher Sands, contributor
Now that President Obama has vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline bill, the question is: What did this effort accomplish? Was it just a waste of everyone's time and energy?
In short, the answer is "no." All sides in the contentious debate over the extension of an existing oil pipeline that could increase U.S. oil imports from Canada, already the largest foreign oil supplier to the United States, have sent signals in the past few weeks and these will be politically potent in the months ahead.
It is true that the bill's supporters in Congress failed to reach a veto-proof majority of two-thirds of the members in the House and Senate in support of the bill. But both chambers demonstrated bipartisan support for the measure. The Senate voted in favor of the bill by a 62-36 margin, and the House approved the bill by 270-152.
In doing so, congressional Republicans put their votes on record in favor of the popular energy pipeline, knowing that the vote would be available to their opponents in 2016 and beyond. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made this vote an early priority, confident that the public support for the project and what it symbolizes in terms of jobs and lower energy prices would endure.
At the same time, congressional Republicans demonstrated that they could pass bipartisan legislation. Even if the president vetoes the bill, Republicans have used the Keystone XL pipeline to show voters hungry for change that this is what change would look like if you support Republicans and sensible Democrats in 2016. Next up will come bills to repeal and replace ObamaCare, which will also earn a veto, but will help to redefine the Obama administration as obstructionist and position Republicans as the party of constructive, bipartisan change.
The White House has also sent a signal by vetoing the Keystone XL bill. President Obama made it his third veto, and first since 2010, to show that he was still relevant, and not such a lame duck after all. His reluctance to approve the presidential permit for the pipeline will be part of his claim to a legacy that environmentalists and others in his political base will appreciate.
It should be expected that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will respond to the president's veto by sending signals of his own. Canada will have a federal election later this year, and Harper's job is on the line. He will push back, if only to show that he won't allow misinformation about the project, which has become a Canadian foreign policy priority, to go unchallenged. Even before the veto, Canadian Ambassador to the United States Gary Doer, a social democrat and environmentalist and former Manitoba premier, denounced outdated facts and figures in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's statement that the carbon emissions of the oil sands ought to be counted against the project in the next State Department assessment.
The escalation of rhetoric between Washington and Ottawa will continue. Obama has been increasingly sarcastic and undiplomatic toward the Harper government on the subject of Keystone. Yet the bilateral relationship between the two countries continues to be healthy in other areas: Canadian troops and pilots are supporting the United States against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq, and bilateral initiatives on border and regulatory cooperation are proceeding well. Harper may take the signal from this that he has little to lose by punching back against the White House.
All this suggests a remarkable stability underlying the heated rhetoric coming from all sides in the wake of the Keystone XL veto. Congress voted, the president vetoed and Canada voiced its case again. The Keystone pipeline remains unlikely to obtain the necessary U.S. permit before there is a new occupant in the White House in 2017.
And yet, Congress may have sent a signal with this Keystone XL vote that will continue to resonate as Americans make their choices for the next president and the 116th Congress too.
Sands is senior research professor and director of the Center for Canadian Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is also G. Robert Ross Distinguished Professor of Business at Western Washington University.
-
Bloomberg: US Should Negotiate with Canada on Keystone
Feb 25, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Wednesday the U.S. should strike a deal with Canada over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
Bloomberg, who is now the United Nations climate change envoy, wrote in an op-ed that the administration should negotiate a broader climate deal.
"The Canadian government has been pressing the White House to approve the pipeline, which would bring many more economic benefits to Canada than it would to the U.S.," Bloomberg said. "That gives the White House enormous leverage, which it should use to negotiate a broader, climate-friendly deal that far more than offsets the potential impact of the pipeline."
And as global leaders inch closer to the December climate change meeting in Paris, Bloomberg argues, Canada will "face increasing pressure" to bulk up its actions on climate change.
Striking an ambitious climate deal with Canada, similar to what President Obama achieved with China, would give him room to approve Keystone and tout an environmental win, Bloomberg said.
"Here in the U.S., Republicans in Congress could declare economic victory, while Democrats could declare environmental victory," he said. "The president could declare both, while also burnishing his foreign policy legacy and building momentum for the conference in Paris."
The administration has not hinted at such a deal but said earlier on the in the pipeline's permitting process that more action on Canada's part could help the case for Keystone.
The president vetoed legislation on Tuesday that would have approved the $8 billion oil sands project, his first veto since 2010.
The administration's main point of contention with the Republican-backed bill was that it circumvented the ongoing process at the State Department.
Proponents of the pipeline say the process has gone on long enough. Keystone's permit has been under review for six years but the State Department is now nearing the finish line.
-
GOP Chairman: Interior Funding Request 'Underwhelming'
Feb 24, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The new chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee sees the Interior Department’s budget as a way to inject creative thinking into issues like oil drilling on federal land and offshore.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) will hear next week from Interior Secretary Sally Jewell on her agency’s budget request for 2016, and he’s optimistic that he and his colleagues can come up with a better plan than the Obama administration on energy and other priorities.
“We’re going to welcome Sally Jewell, because I think she’s a different kind of Interior secretary. She has a different background, she thinks differently than some who have come around before, and I’m excited to try and work with her,” Bishop said in a Tuesday interview with The Hill.
“At the same time, there’s a difference between what she does and what the president has as far as whom he has surrounded himself in the White House and [Office of Management and Budget].”
Bishop blamed White House officials for submitting a 2016 budget request that he found “underwhelming.”
“There is nothing creative or new or exciting about it,” he said. “And obviously, if the White House is going to leave a void in creativity, that’s where my committee’s going to stand up.”
Bishop said one of his top priorities as chairman and in overseeing Interior’s budget will be to establish an energy portfolio that encourages more oil and natural gas drilling on federally owned lands and offshore.
Bishop spoke with The Hill Tuesday hours after the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on Interior’s budget.
Republicans on that panel, led by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), blasted the Obama administration’s limitations on drilling and proposal to reduce payments to states for offshore drilling, among other policies.
Bishop said federal energy production is a significant issue, and found it “striking” that the Obama administration hasn’t figured out how to increase production.
“We have already surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia in energy production, but if we actually want to be a leader in the world in energy production and provide jobs from it, we’re going to have to develop our resources that are on federal land and offshore and that’s the purview of my committee,” he said.
-
House Republicans Blast Agency's Budget Priorities
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Republican members of two House Energy and Commerce Committee subpanels today blasted U.S. EPA's fiscal 2016 budget request as a catalog of misplaced priorities and misspent funds.
The chairmen of the Energy and Power and Environment and the Economy subcommittees took EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to task for the focus her agency's budget places on regulations and other activities related to climate change and for giving short shrift to other responsibilities such as meeting deadlines mandated by the renewable fuel standard. They also asked for EPA's cooperation on legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Energy and Power Chairman Ed Whitfield (Ky.) said again that he and his fellow Republicans "all recognize that climate change is occurring" but disagree that it is the existential crisis presented by President Obama in his 2013 Climate Action Plan.
Whitfield blasted the administration for requesting $8.6 billion for the next fiscal year -- a $452 million increase over current levels that he said was not needed to allow EPA to perform its "required duties," excluding its climate regime.
Whitfield also accused Obama of seeking to unilaterally commit the United States to emissions reductions without consulting Congress and directing EPA to promulgate rules based on those promises rather than as dictated by law.
McCarthy answered that "EPA is not focusing our legal efforts on any particular international or domestic goal." Her agency's Clean Power Plan draft is "the direct application of the authority Congress gave us to look at establishing best system of emissions reductions for the power sector," she said.
She sidestepped Whitfield's queries about whether the administration can achieve the president's international pledge of a 17 percent reduction in CO2 by 2020 without the rule for existing power plants, saying it did not aim for a particular reduction outcome.
Whitfield also asked how confident EPA is that its rule will withstand legal challenges.
"I feel very confident," she said, pointing to the stakeholder outreach EPA has conducted throughout the rulemaking process.
Environment and the Economy Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said the power plant rule poses a threat to reliability and should be thoroughly vetted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) took aim at EPA's justification for its new power plant rule for carbon, which is set to become final this summer together with rules for modified and existing units.
He noted the Energy Department pulled the plug earlier this month on its FutureGen carbon capture and storage project in Illinois. He said the project was part of EPA's justification for designating partial CCS technology as the best system of emissions reduction for new coal-fired power plants. EPA did not cite the project to support its draft but did name four other plants -- Southern Co.'s Kemper plant in Mississippi, SaskPower's Boundary Dam project in Canada, Summit Power's Texas Clean Energy Project and a venture called Hydrogen Energy California.
Murphy noted that many of those plants have had a bumpy road to completion, especially the Kemper facility, which is hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and well behind schedule.
Murphy said EPA appears to be relying on an unrealistic assumption that CCS will work for new coal plants.
"We can make up Alice in Wonderland here, but I want to make sure it works," he said.
But McCarthy countered that the rule "went well beyond data from those facilities," including substantial literature that shows CCS is "a viable option for coal."
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the full committee chairman, said EPA appeared to be moving forward on rulemakings like the Clean Power Plan and its proposal to tighten the ozone standard at the expense of other priorities.
"I'd like to see EPA focus on its current responsibilities before taking on new ones," he said.
Case in point is EPA's habit of missing its annual deadlines for setting conventional ethanol and advanced biofuels mandates under the renewable fuel standard law, he said, "making this problematic program even more difficult."
McCarthy said again that EPA will release a combined proposal for 2014, 2015 and 2016 this spring. She did not give further details on timing or what it would contain.
Reporter Amanda Peterka contributed.
-
McCarthy: Overlapping Ozone Rules Isn't A Problem
Feb 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy argued today that it’s not a problem to continue reviewing the ozone air quality standards while the most recent revisions are still being implemented.
At a House EPA budget hearing, Rep. Bob Latta pointed out that EPA’s 2008 ozone air quality standards are only now beginning to be implemented, with guidance released last week.
“Am I correct that states have not fully complied?” he asked.
“That is correct. There’s quite a long horizon for states to comply” with the standards when they are tightened, McCarthy said. And “it does not conflict to continue to keep looking — as the statute requires — at whether the standard continues to be protective.”
The administrator also noted that while the agency does do cost estimates for implementing the rule, the law requires that the agency only set the standards based on “what we believe is necessary to protect within an adequate margin of safety.” -
Republicans Ready Bills To Ease, Not Scuttle, EPA's Power Plant GHG Rules
Feb 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By John Siciliano
Top House and Senate Republicans are jointly crafting a pair of bills aimed at easing EPA's proposed rules to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) at new and existing power plants, though they are stopping short of scuttling the rules and challenging EPA's authority to address carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG emissions.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's energy and power subcommittee, said Feb. 24 that the GOP has decided to “acquiesce” to EPA's authority to regulate CO2 but will push forward separate bills aimed at easing the agency's proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) and the existing source performance standards (ESPS).
Whitfield told an energy symposium hosted by consulting firm Faegre Baker Daniels that the bills would seek to retain coal-fired generation as part of the nation's energy resource mix under the NSPS by allowing plants without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) -- such as highly efficient “supercritical” plants -- to comply. The bill addressing the ESPS would push back controversial interim compliance deadlines under the ESPS.
“We are going to be moving on this relatively soon,” Whitfield said, noting that the bills will serve as a marker for the GOP's stance on federal carbon regulations going into the 2016 presidential elections. “We will be passing legislation in the House again. We hope we can get it passed in the Senate. And we want to deliver it right to the president again in preparation for the 2016 elections.”
Although he said that the House will be seeking to reverse the regulations, he explained to reporters after his speech that the bills will be “a reversal in a sense” but will not seek to upend EPA's authority to regulate carbon or eliminate the power plant rules in their entirety.
Ryan Jackson, GOP staff director for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, told InsideEPA/climatethat the committee will be working in conjunction with the House on legislation that addresses the ESPS and NSPS. He said that although the Senate has not developed its legislation, the upper chamber would not seek to develop a measure or measures that are too different from the House bills that Whitfield referenced.
The GOP strategy appears to mirror an approach touted by many industry officials in the wake of the 2014 elections, when Republicans gained control of the Senate and a larger majority in the House, though not enough to override presidential vetoes. As a result, some suggested that lawmakers should consider “tailored” fixes to modify key deadlines and other rule provisions, saying the approach is more likely to win broader bipartisan support.
In addition, they urged Republicans to step up their oversight of EPA's GHG rules in an effort to bolster pending legal challenges and win concessions as the agency softened the proposal.
Their assessment has since been borne out as President Obama Feb. 24 vetoed legislation approving the Keystone pipeline -- an early test of congressional strength on climate issues -- though the bills passed without the votes needed to override the veto.
Two Bills
The upcoming legislation is aimed at the suite of rules EPA is slated to promulgate this summer to limit GHGs from power plants. The NSPS, proposed in January 2014, sets a standard of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour for new coal plants that would require new coal-fired power plants to install partial CCS. But critics like Whitfield say the proposal is unlawful because the technology is not “adequately demonstrated” as the Clean Air Act requires.
Under the ESPS, EPA has proposed rate-based GHG emissions targets for each state, though the issue that has garnered the greatest concern is EPA's proposed interim targets, which require states to demonstrate compliance on an average basis between 2020 and 2029. Critics have charged that the interim goals create a compliance “cliff” in many states by requiring substantial cuts early in the compliance period, and have urged EPA to drop the interim targets and allow states to simply meet final targets in 2030.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy suggested last week that the agency plans to weaken the interim targets, despite environmentalists' concerns that such a move would reduce the cumulative GHG cuts that are required under the rule.
Whitfield said Republicans plan to redouble their efforts to ease the rules. “We're going to do everything we can possibly do to reverse the new coal standards, or new performance standards and also the new proposed rule on existing coal,” he said.
He was especially interested in ensuring coal plants without CCS could be approved under the NSPS. He said he visited the only new “supercritical” coal plant that is being built in Arkansas by a subsidiary of American Electric Power. But under the climate rules these plants will no longer be allowed to be built even though they are highly efficient and cleaner than conventional power plants, he said.
“That plant is now operating, its supercritical technology, very clean and yet we cannot build a plant like that in America today. And once this regulation passes we won't be able to do it later either,” he said.
Whitfield explained the same coal plants are being built in China, India and Europe, but “America not being able to do it is not the right policy, particularly when you consider our CO2 emissions are at the lowest they have been in 20 years.”
State Litigation
While Republicans appear to have given up on scuttling the rules through legislative means, state and other critics are optimistic their pending litigation will result in a quick court decision blocking the ESPS.
West Virginia's Attorney General Patrick Morrisey told the same symposium that he expects ongoing litigation he is leading with a group of states will succeed in blocking the rule before a final version can be promulgated.
The suit, West Virginia, et al v. EPA, charges that the Clean Air Act bars EPA from regulating power plants' GHG emissions under section 111 when the agency is already regulating the plants' air toxics, as the agency did in its mercury standards.
But the issue is complicated because the House and Senate passed two different versions of the section that were both signed into law in 1990. The Senate amendment would explicitly allow EPA's rule, while the House version could be read as prohibiting EPA's proposal because its prohibition centers on source categories and not pollutants.
West Virginia and other states filed a Feb. 24 reply brief where they largely reiterated their arguments that the statute bars EPA from regulating power plants' GHG emissions.
The litigation is slated for oral arguments April 16 and West Virginia's Morrisey said the timing of oral arguments would facilitate a speedy review by the court, given that EPA's release of the final rule is slated for this summer. Once the rule is issued, it will face a D.C. Circuit “that is fully briefed” on the ESPS, which should make for “quick review” and a timely ruling, he said.
-
Judges Signal More Trouble Looms for EPA's Cross-State Rule
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
U.S. EPA's effort to curb air pollution drifting across state lines was under siege in federal court again today, and it appeared vulnerable to the challenge from states and industry despite emerging victorious last year from the Supreme Court.
More than a dozen states are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to throw out all or part of EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR, a regulatory regime for 28 Eastern states.
The Supreme Court last April upheld the program's reliance on costs for determining how much upwind states must reduce emissions of pollutants like nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide.
The justices remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues, and the states as well as a large number of utilities and energy companies are pressing the appeals court to vacate major components of CSAPR that had been finalized in 2011.
In arguments that stretched to more than 90 minutes, energy, mining and labor groups made the principal argument that CSAPR sometimes requires an upwind state to cut its emissions by more than its contribution to a neighboring state exceeding air standards.
Peter Keisler of Sidley Austin, arguing for those industries, said EPA "doesn't deny" that his clients' data show that for more than 10 upwind states, their downwind neighbors would achieve compliance with EPA's ozone standard without any CSAPR controls.
"What is striking," Keisler said, is EPA "had all this data ... [and] they didn't look at it. They didn't do anything with it."
Keisler -- who also argued the case before the Supreme Court last year -- said today it's "arbitrary" of EPA to reject the data without providing an adequate explanation.
That contention -- that CSAPR could require a state to cut emissions by more than it contributes to a downwind state -- gained traction with the same three-judge panel that vacated CSAPR in 2012 in a 2-1 vote.
In particular, the argument seemed to resonate with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican appointee, who criticized that aspect of the program in his opinion for the court in 2012.
"The transport rule includes or excludes an upwind state based on the amount of that upwind state's significant contribution to a nonattainment area in a downwind state," Kavanaugh wrote then. "That much is fine. But under the rule, a state then may be required to reduce its emissions by an amount greater than the 'significant contribution' that brought it into the program in the first place. That much is not fine" (Greenwire, Aug. 21, 2012).
A major issue in the arguments was how to interpret the Supreme Court's 6-2 ruling last April that revived the program. The high court, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upheld EPA's decision to consider costs in determining how much a state must reduce its emissions (Greenwire, April 29, 2014).
But Keisler highlighted part of the opinion, saying it doesn't jell with EPA's insistence on uniform costs across the country -- such as a reduction rate of $100 per ton of particulate matter, for example.
Ginsburg's opinion, Keisler said, expressly says a state may bring an as-applied legal challenge if CSAPR requires it to cut pollution by too much. EPA can't want uniform costs, he said, but also condone as-applied challenges that, if successful, would undercut those uniform costs.
Kavanaugh bit on that point in questioning Justice Department attorney Jessica O'Donnell, who represented EPA.
Referencing the transcript from the Supreme Court's oral arguments, Kavanaugh said, "It seems to me you told the chief justice one thing ... and now you are coming back with uniformity."
O'Donnell countered that nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion says EPA has to set cost thresholds that are individualized for each state.
Judge Judith Rogers, a Democratic appointee who dissented from Kavanaugh's opinion the first time the D.C. Circuit heard the case, also had issues with EPA's data analysis and appeared open to remanding some aspects of the program back to EPA.
In particular, she said EPA didn't seem to give a reasoned analysis of why it disregarded the data submitted by various states.
"All we have here is the data EPA produced," Rogers said, adding that it "may be a jump" from that to understanding the agency's reasoning.SIPs and FIPs
EPA has long struggled to implement a program for pollution that crosses state lines under the Clean Air Act's "Good Neighbor Provision" until the Supreme Court upheld the regime last year.
The agency's past two attempts have been thrown out in court, including the George W. Bush administration's Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR, which the D.C. Circuit tossed in 2008 for being insufficient to protect public health in North Carolina v. EPA.
CSAPR established a two-step process. First, EPA screened states to see if they contributed more than 1 percent to a downwind state's pollution problems. If that state did, EPA used a cost allocation model to determine how much the upwind state must cut emissions.
The 14 states still challenging the regulations today took issue with EPA overruling their state implementation plans, or SIPs, in favor of federal plans, or FIPs.
Much of their argument hinged on how to read the D.C. Circuit's 2008 decision that vacated CAIR. At EPA's request, the court allowed CAIR to remain in effect while EPA drafted a new rule.
The states contend that EPA's approval of their SIPs under CAIR remained valid during that time and the agency therefore had no authority to implement FIPs.
"EPA made the request, and the court granted it," said Bill Davis, an assistant solicitor general for Texas, representing the states.
The 14 states in the lawsuit are Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin.
The panel -- which was missing a member because Judge Thomas Griffith, a Republican appointee, was listening to the arguments from home due to illness -- seemed slightly less receptive to those arguments.
Rogers, for example, acknowledged that it was an "interesting situation" but asked whether EPA had to "return to ground zero."
She also indicated that the Clean Air Act isn't clear on this issue, so perhaps the agency deserved deference.
That point was hammered home by Norman Rave of the Justice Department, also representing EPA.
He argued that EPA asked for CAIR to be left in place because of the environmental benefits it had already produced. But, he added, there is "simply no way" the court's ruling in North Carolina can be interpreted as supporting any part of CAIR, including the SIPs.
"The court spoke very definitively that CAIR was in error," he said, "and therefore the CAIR SIPs were in error."
Ultimately, the complexity of the issues presented in the cases and whether to send some back to EPA for further consideration appeared overwhelming.
"I can only imagine," Kavanaugh joked, "the battles that would happen on remand."
A decision in the case is expected later this year.
-
Resources Chairman Bishop Discusses Panel Priorities, Plans for Climate, Drilling Action
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - TV
As the Obama administration takes action on drilling, fracking and Arctic exploration, how will the 114th Congress shape its policy priorities on natural resources? During today's OnPoint, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, discusses his panel's policy objectives for this session and explains how he plans to frame the conversation on climate change in his committee. Bishop reacts to the Obama administration's action on federal land oil and gas drilling, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge protections, and fracking regulations.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Congressman Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Chairman Bishop, thank you for joining me.
Rob Bishop: Thank you for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Mr. Chairman, you recently took the gavel on the Natural Resources Committee after years of leadership under former Chairman Doc Hastings. What are the biggest changes we can expect to see from your committee with you as the leader?
Rob Bishop: Probably not really a whole heck of a lot. We are very similar I think in our philosophy. Doc did a great job of breaking down the paradigms of the past and allowing people to try and think things anew. So he gave a great foundation, what I want to do is build on that foundation. The most important thing is to realize the solutions of the past don't work.
The precedents that have been established in the past are not solving our problems. I want to do things differently. And that's the key element that I want this committee to be known for, is that we looked for solutions, that we were willing to go out of the proverbial box -- or any other cliché you want -- to try and find a different approach to a problem and we're going to present those type of different approaches.
So I hope people will think this committee is creative and that we're always coming up with different types of ideas. That's our goal.
Monica Trauzzi: And last month the committee voted unanimously to include climate change on its agenda over the next two years. How do you plan to frame the climate conversation on your panel?
Rob Bishop: Well, actually we started that discussion in my subcommittee last year. If the issue is dealing with carbon in the air and there is climate change all the time and I wish there was more global warming right now. Because it's really cold here -- I want it warmer in some way. But if the issue is on carbon, carbon sequestration is something that can easily be accomplished within the purview of my committee.
So if you were dealing with wanting to suck the carbon out of the air, a healthy forest and forest management plan with increased grazing and improvements in the way you manage the grazing can actually take most of our carbon emissions and carbon problems out and put it sequestered into the land itself. We have a perfect way of doing that.
And if you have a program that doesn't burn up all our forests, you're not putting a whole lot of carbon back into the atmosphere. So more than a cap-and-tax approach can do, proper land management, especially on federal lands in the west, can solve a whole lot of the problems people are concerned about. And so that's one of the reasons that I'm more than happy to go into that discussion because using federal lands and managing federal lands in a better way can help solve our problems.
Monica Trauzzi: But something like the Clean Power Plan is still needed to regulate emissions from current power plants.
Rob Bishop: You do a proper land management and you can suck up almost all the emissions coming in there and sequester it again. And that's what people don't realize how significant what we're trying to deal with in talking about sequestration in public lands, what a significant role it can play. It can actually solve most of the problem and then you don't have to have dramatic changes in other areas.
That's one of the things I want to explore.
Monica Trauzzi: How will the committee address the human impacts on climate change?
Rob Bishop: I don't know to be honest with you. We'll cross that bridge when we actually come to it -- or any other cliché I'm throwing at you right now. I apologize for that. We'll be looking at that, but what we're actually going to be looking at is how actual policies within the purview of our committee can actually help solve the problem and doing it in a way that's creative, and so far no one has really looked at this into great detail.
And it's about time we did. We have a great solution here. I'm going to be pushing that solution.
Monica Trauzzi: And is there consensus among your members -- the Republican members -- on the committee that climate change is caused by human activity?
Rob Bishop: I don't even know how to answer that because I haven't polled them. That really isn't the significant issue here. What causes it is insignificant to the fact that we have a solution and that proper land management can be the solution. That unfortunately is what this administration and others have failed to look at. This is a potential solution here. That's what we're going to be emphasizing, that's what we're going to be thinking differently and more creatively, and that's where I think we can have a great impact on the entire country far outside of just the realm of what people have traditionally thought the Resource Committee would handle.
Monica Trauzzi: Last week the president proposed rules to regulate oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. Are these fair, necessary measures to ensure drilling safety?
Rob Bishop: No, no and no. It's a horrible approach. Alaska feels they have been abused, and they have been. And one of the things that once again our committee has illustrated time after time is that if you actually want to look for solutions to some of our management problems and stewardship problems and stewardship issues, you look to the states, the counties and the tribal governments.
They are doing a far better job. And that's what this administration refused to do in not taking into account what's happening in Alaska, what Alaskans want to have happen and they're trying to superimpose an issue on top of them that's not going to work in Alaska, it's not going to solve a problem and it doesn't work anywhere else where that's attempted.
Monica Trauzzi: But they have been working with industry on these rules.
Rob Bishop: However you want to twist an arm, you can twist an arm. The issue is there is a better way of doing it. And those are the things that we're going to bring to the forefront. And what this administration has proposed so far to me lacks any kind of creativity. If I look at the budget they just proposed, there's nothing creative in that. It's the same old let's raise more taxes and spend money and throw it at it. There are a lot of things we could be doing to look at practices that are being used by counties and used by states.
And we could superimpose those and find greater solutions. And I'm sorry, this administration doesn't seem to be desiring that. That's what my committee is going to step in the void and try and solve that. We will be providing the solutions that are different.
Monica Trauzzi: So the Obama administration also recently took a major step on expanding oil and gas drilling on federal lands by proposing to open waters along the Atlantic. The administration has received heat from Republicans for not being aggressive enough on expanding drilling on federal land. We've not seen an expansion like this in decades. So how significant is this and how significant is the step by the administration?
Rob Bishop: I am grateful they finally did something. That's a plus. Calling it major expansion, I would not do that because it's a very timid approach, and when you see what they're willing to do offshore coupled with what they're willing to pull back in Alaska, that does not give me a great deal of hope. Now look, the United States has become a player in the energy world. We have surpassed the Russians and Saudi Arabians in what we've been able to produce in oil and gas. But it's all come in private and state lands. If the United States is going to really become a leader in energy development and actually be a value to our allies and not be pushed around by OPEC anymore, if we're actually going to have the jobs that can be created by affordable energy, if we're going to do that you have to start the advancement of resources on federal lands as well.
Monica Trauzzi: And is this a step in that direction?
Rob Bishop: That's a very, very small step. And what they're doing on offshore, they're not doing on land. And that's the problem. They may say they're offering leases, but they're not. The leases that are being offered are minimal. They are the kinds of leases that will not attract the companies that want to develop them, and they are guaranteed to have a lawsuit attached to it.
That's not the way you actually develop economic resources. They're not doing that, and those are the kinds of things we're going to be pushing back and saying, "There is a better alternative. We have a better way." We will present that.
Monica Trauzzi: And the proposed wilderness protections for ANWR -- how do you expect your committee will address those?
Rob Bishop: With the skepticism they deserve. There are ways of doing things -- it's not an either/or proposition. That's the problem with this administration -- everything is either/or. You can have conservation, you can have wilderness and at the same time guaranteeing economic opportunity and guaranteeing outdoor recreation. But those guarantees have never happened with these programs, and they're not happening with these proposals either.
That's what has to be there. There is a better way of doing it. This administration is not presenting the best possible approach. And if they're not going to, I think our committee needs to start looking at that and saying, "Yeah, we have a better approach to this."
Monica Trauzzi: Interior Secretary Sally Jewel has signaled that final federal land fracking regulations will be released soon. How close to the 2013 draft do you expect the final to be? What role should states be playing?
Rob Bishop: Well once again, I hope it's nowhere near the original draft because that draft was horrible. My fear is it will be too close to that to be effective. And what the federal government needs to realize is that there is no real necessity for moving in there. The states have been working this issue for years. They have been doing it successfully for years.
The federal government has to realize that every energy area has different needs and requirements, which is one of the reasons why the states are far more effective than they are. And the other thing they have to realize is even going after the fracking is there is a misdirection here. It's a sleight of hand. Ms. Jewel has a background -- a better background than other secretary of Interiors that we've had in the past.
She understands this industry and she has repeatedly justified in our committee, it's not the fracking rules or the fracking elements that's going to be a problem. It's the well construction. If you have proper well construction, it doesn't matter what kind of fracking regulations you have. It will be contained. And anyone who is going after fracking and just totally ignoring the well construction approach doesn't understand this issue. And that's why I'm fearful of these regulations will be.
It's a misdirection. You're going after A when you should be looking at B because B is the real issue. She understands that. I don't know what kind of pressure she is under or what kind of pressure the agency is under to actually push something out there. I'm fearful of what it would be because it will I think be a misdirection. And once again, the states have a proven record of experience in these areas. They understand their local areas.
We need to be taking the best practices they have and be emphasizing that, not coming up with a new set of one-size-fits-all regulations, which I'm very fearful is what they will propose.
Monica Trauzzi: What are the biggest opportunities for bipartisanship and working with Democrats that you see on your committee this year?
Rob Bishop: Well, the first thing is at least with the new ranking member, I really like him. He's a good person. I think we get along on a personal level. And that makes a big difference as you're trying to go forward. What we will do is it's not necessarily the constructs of how you actually come up with it, but if we can agree on a common goal then I think we can start throwing out ideas of how to get there and that will promote bipartisanship. If not, I'm still going to throw out solutions.
And we'll see how successful those solutions are. If we have good ideas -- and I think we will have good ideas -- they will be accepted, hopefully.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, Chairman, we'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show. Nice to see you.
Rob Bishop: OK, appreciate the opportunity.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Crude-By-Rail Safety? There's an App for That
Feb 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
If emergency responders point iPhones at the next oil train derailment, they may not be wasting time taking pictures.
They're more likely trying to find information on the train's cargo via a new smartphone application developed by the freight rail industry.
The "AskRail" app, set for full release in April, has been cast as a way for small-town firefighters to figure out the hazards they're dealing with in the event of a derailment.
Zoom in on one tank car's placard, enter any identifying numbers and the app lists what's in the entire train, from chlorine to crude oil.
Normally, the train's crew provides information on the contents of each car after emergency personnel arrive at the scene of a derailment.
But "this is an additional resource in the event that the first responders do not see the train crew immediately and would like to access information on the rail cars involved," said Ed Greenberg, spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, the trade group that developed the app in conjunction with U.S. railroads such as BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Corp.
Don't expect to find it in the app store anytime soon. AskRail is an invite-only affair. Due to security and competitive concerns, the AAR has restricted the program to emergency responders and fire chiefs who say they're ready to add it to their toolbox.
"If you could point your phone at a train car and immediately get consist information ... certainly that puts us that much further ahead in the time curve in dealing with the incident," said Rick Edinger, vice chairman of the hazardous materials committee with the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
Crude-by-rail shipments have grown from fewer than 10,000 carloads in 2008 to about 500,000 carloads last year as unconventional oil production surges in North Dakota, posing new challenges for chiefs like Edinger.
Edinger also serves as assistant chief for the fire and EMS department in Chesterfield, Va., which doesn't lie directly on any oil train routes. However, he said his crews would be expected to respond to a large-scale crude or chemical train derailment in the Richmond area.
Many "unit" trains of crude move mile-long strings of tank cars -- but oil is also transported among mixed freight that can be harder for emergency responders to identify. At night or in the fog of a severe accident, it can be tricky for firefighters to learn about what's in a train.
Retired fire chief Steve Pearson, who led the response to a deadly 2009 ethanol train derailment near Cherry Valley, Ill., reported using binoculars to read tank car signage from afar (EnergyWire, April 28, 2014).
Edinger said zooming up with the AskRail app could replace that old-school approach, provided there's cell service.
"Obviously in some parts of the United States that could be a problem -- cellular coverage is not guaranteed," he said.
There's also the fact that many firefighters opt to leave their smartphones in the station or in their trucks "for obvious reasons," he added.
Still, Edinger said he sees AskRail "as being helpful; it's another step in the progression as we learn how to deal with these hazards."
The app's first-draft "beta" was launched in October but could only identify the contents of a single car.
Greenberg said AAR is working with first responders to make the full app more accessible in advance of the April 1 rollout.
He noted trainers want to make sure firefighters are comfortable using the application "so they don't take up valuable seconds" pressing the wrong buttons during an actual accident. "The intent is to make it very user-friendly," Greenberg said.
Crude-by-rail emergency readiness has been called into question since a 72-car train hauling oil derailed and exploded in downtown Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in 2013, killing 47 people.
The issue was brought to the fore again last week when an oil train derailed and exploded near Mount Carbon, W.Va., injuring one person and drawing several local fire departments to the scene (EnergyWire, Feb. 20).
Yesterday, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) cited the West Virginia accident when reintroducing a bill that would create a Federal Emergency Management Agency panel to review local fire departments' capacity to deal with an oil train disaster (EnergyWire, June 23, 2014).
"As people see high-profile events, that's always going to heighten the awareness and drive demand [for training] up," she said, recalling how interest in crude-by-rail safety surged in North Dakota following a separate oil train derailment and explosion near Casselton a little more than a year ago.
That crash injured no one but drove Heitkamp's calls for firefighters to "have access to information from the railroads regarding what is in those cars, [and] also have access to the kind of training and planning that they need to do to continue to protect their communities."
Railroads have since launched oil-by-rail training exercises in Pueblo, Colo., and elsewhere, as well as less-conventional programs such as the AskRail app.
"Whether they were forced to do it or not, the railroads have stepped up," Edinger said. "From our perspective, they've been cooperative."
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested