Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Sector Asks EPA To Remove EGBE From TRI Reporting Program
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Chemical manufacturers are asking EPA to take the rare step of removing a chemical from the agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting program, calling for the delisting of the common cleaning agent ethylene glycol butyl ether (EGBE) from the TRI due to what industry says are low health and environmental risks. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Waste Biz: Consumers Need Help Recycling Plastic
Feb 27, 2015 | Sustainablog
Do you have trouble remembering which plastics can go in your recycling bin? -
California Proposes Prop 65 Listing of Styrene
Feb 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to list styrene as known to the state to cause cancer under Proposition 65. The action is being proposed under the authoritative bodies listing mechanism. -
California Releases Documents Supporting Perchlorate Public Health Goal
Feb 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has published the final technical support document for its updated public health goal (PHG) for perchlorate in drinking water. -
GOP Chairman: White House Not Supporting Intel Cyber Bill
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett
Lack of White House support for the draft of a Senate Intelligence Committee bill to enhance cybersecurity information-sharing may be delaying the measure, which was expected to be released this week. -
3 Burned at Wyo. Explosives Plant
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Three people were burned yesterday morning in a fire at a Wyoming chemical plant, authorities said. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Study: Shale Creating a “Long-term Competitive Advantage for U.S. Manufacturers”
Feb 27, 2015 | Marcellus Shale Coalition Blog
According to a new American Chemistry Council (ACC) study, America’s affordable and abundant supplies of clean-burning natural gas will fuel $63 billion in chemical exports growth by 2030, helping to both further grow our nation’s manufacturing base while also increasing our global economic competitiveness. -
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Environment Official Says New EPA Ozone Rule Just the First Step
Feb 27, 2015 | Watchdog.org
By Rob Nikolewski
A Texas environmental official says ozone pollution regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are just the first step for the EPA to introduce stiffer rules in years to come. -
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline
Feb 27, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
President Barack Obama this week vetoed legislation to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, saying the measure would “circumvent” an ongoing Administration review that will determine whether the project would be beneficial to the U.S. -
FracFocus Promises Improvements in Access, Accuracy
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The groups that run the national fracking chemical registry FracFocus announced plans yesterday to make the site easier to use and less prone to errors. -
Calif. Enviros Push for Emergency Order to Stop Fracking
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups yesterday urged California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to use emergency powers to halt hydraulic fracturing and acid well stimulation in the oil-rich state. -
XL: Vetoing Energy Security and the Evironment
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Paul Sullivan
I testified to Congress in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline system in March 2011. That gives a sense of how long this issue has been dragging on. -
Coal Company Says EPA Climate Rule Already Hurting Industry
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A major coal company is arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed climate rule for power plants is already having an effect on its operations. -
Coal Industry, Enviros Wage PR War Over Clean Power Plan
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
Squeezed by President Obama's rules to combat global warming, the coal industry has countered with a public relations offensive: a messaging barrage, demonstrations, Web videos and cupcakes. -
We Could be Reaping Much Bigger Carbon Cuts by Changing People’s Behavior
Feb 27, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
It may be one of the few parts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” — a regulation to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — that’s not controversial. -
EPA Brief Urges High Court to Uphold Mercury, Toxics Standards
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
U.S. EPA this week urged the Supreme Court to uphold its landmark air standards for mercury and other pollutants, arguing that a challenge from states and industry "defies common sense." -
IG Says EPA's Equity Screening Updates Could Help Air Toxics Inspections
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA's Inspector General (IG) says the agency's updates to its environmental justice (EJ) screening tool could boost efforts by its 10 regional offices to use equity as a factor when inspecting facilities to determine their compliance with air toxics rules, including making it possible to provide data on multiple facilities and locations at once. -
Investing in America’s Next Energy Boom
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Norman Augustine and Chad Holliday
While few outside the industry realize it, the energy boom America enjoys today would not be nearly as robust without substantial investments in energy research and development made by presidents and members of Congress of both parties over the past four decades. -
Getting Educated About Energy
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By former Secy. of the Interior Ken Salazar
Recently, the results of a poll from The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future were splashed across newspapers all over the country.
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 Mentioned) Chemical Sector Asks EPA To Remove EGBE From TRI Reporting Program
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Chemical manufacturers are asking EPA to take the rare step of removing a chemical from the agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting program, calling for the delisting of the common cleaning agent ethylene glycol butyl ether (EGBE) from the TRI due to what industry says are low health and environmental risks.
The chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC) argues that EGBE does not meet the requirements to be among the nearly 700 other chemicals EPA requires to be reported to the TRI program. These data are available to the public in a Web-accessible database, and the agency also publishes an annual report analyzing trends in the most recent data. ACC submitted the petition to EPA late last month, citing sections 313(d) and (e) of the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which authorizes EPA's TRI program.
Jonathon Busch, manager of ACC's Ethylene Glycol Ethers Panel, writes in a Jan. 23 letter to EPA TRI managers that "available scientific data indicate that EGBE poses low potential hazards to human health and the environment, making an assessment of exposure appropriate under EPA's policy for making TRI listing decisions under EPCRA."Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 179167)
Busch goes on to argue that past EPA actions, specifically delisting EGBE from the list of Clean Air Act regulated hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in 2004, provides a precedent for the TRI delisting and that more recent exposure evidence further supports doing so. ACC petitioned EPA to remove EGBE from the HAPs list in 1997 (Inside EPA, Sept. 8, 2005).
"There now is an even stronger basis for making essentially the same statutory findings under EPCRA and removing EGBE from the TRI reporting list," Busch writes. "As shown in this petition, EGBE releases and exposures are now lower than those that formed the basis for EPA's HAPs determinations."
While ACC sources in 2005 suggested the organization might petition for EPA to remove dozens of other glycol ethers from TRI, an ACC spokeswoman says the industry group has no plans to develop other petitions, in part because it took more than a decade to prepare the petition for EGBE.
There are some 594 individual chemicals and 31 chemical categories on the list of chemical releases that industry must report annually to EPA as part of the TRI program. Congress created the program as part of EPCRA following the accidental releases of toxic gases from chemical plants in Bhopal, India, and West Virginia in 1984 and 1985. The Bhopal release killed thousands of people living near the affected Union Carbide Chemical plant.
Following EPA's 2004 decision to remove EGBE from the list of HAPs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2005 ordered a lower court to direct EPA to remove another solvent, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) from the TRI list. The court rejected EPA's argument that MEK is toxic because it is a volatile organic compound (VOC) and should be listed on TRI because it contributes to tropospheric ozone formation. A month later, EPA delisted MEK, with agency air officials telling Inside EPA at the time that the MEK delisting may set a precedent to delist EGBE.
A TRI exemption would provide strong benefits to companies that use EGBE and related chemicals in their products, ACC sources said in 2005. If delisted, EGBE would no longer carry the stigma associated with TRI-listed chemicals and manufacturers and users would no longer have to bear the associated paperwork costs. Such a decision could open the door to delisting the 40 other glycol ethers included in the group on the TRI list because they are weak ozone precursors, an ACC source said in 2005 (Inside EPA, July 22, 2005).
But gathering the necessary evidence to petition for the removal of EGBE from the TRI list took 12 years, the ACC spokeswoman says. In particular, ACC waited to gather chemical production information from EPA collected as part of its Chemical Data Reporting rule, the spokeswoman says. EPA collects this information on industrial chemicals every four years under its Toxic Substances Control Act authority, and often uses it as exposure information in its analyses.
ACC describes EGBE in its petition as "a solvent in the manufacture of paints, coatings, metal cleaners, and household cleaners and as a chemical intermediate in the production of other chemicals. It has been used for more than 60 years because of its valuable and unique properties, especially its ability to make water-based, environmentally sound products work effectively."
"Delisting under EPCRA would remove a significant disincentive to the use of EGBE, a solvent that has proven to be highly effective in a variety of important water-based coating formulations with demonstrable [VOC]-reduction benefits," ACC's petition says.
TRI lists chemicals that cause one or more of the following effects: significant adverse acute human health effects; cancer or teratogenic effects, or serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects; or a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness to warrant reporting of facility releases.
ACC argues that EGBE does not meet any of these criteria. The 491-page petition references, among other sources, EPA's 2010 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of EGBE. These influential documents are often the basis for agency regulations and other decisions, and are used agency wide, as well as cited by other agencies and governments worldwide. ACC argues that the 2010 IRIS assessment "support[s] the conclusions . . . that EGBE is not immunotoxic, genotoxic, or teratogenic, and does not cause adverse reproductive effects. The toxic effects of EGBE are secondary to its irritant and hemolytic [red blood cell] effects, and [EPA] has determined that prevention of hemolytic effects in humans will also protect against all other potential toxic effects."
Further, ACC says, "humans are relatively insensitive to the hemolytic effects of EGBE. Even minor prehemolytic effects are expected to occur in humans, if they occur at all, only at exposure concentrations/doses far in excess of levels that might occur near EGBE-using facilities." The IRIS assessment also concludes that the human cancer potential of EGBE cannot be determined.
The petition argues that because the chemical is of limited toxicity, "EPA's interpretation of EPCRA Section 313(d)(2) calls for the consideration of exposure levels in determining whether to delete EGBE from the TRI reporting list." The petition points to the precedent of the 2004 HAPs delisting decision, where then-Administrator Michael Leavitt relied upon "[a]pplication of conservative exposure models . . . to find that maximum estimated exposures from EGBE-emitting facilities are well below the IRIS reference concentration (RfC) and reference dose (RfD)."
ACC adds that it has "update[ed] the hazard, exposure, and ecological assessments that EPA reviewed and prepared in the HAPs delisting proceeding, consistent with the assumptions and methodologies that EPA found to be 'appropriate,' 'acceptable,' and 'conservative,'" according to the delisting decision.
The petition includes a series of modeling exercises performed by the consulting group Environ International with TRI data regarding EGBE releases in the reporting years 2009-2011 showing total glycol ether releases (estimated to be 52 percent EGBE). The petition also presents screenings of each facility that released EGBE in those three years to determine whether "maximum annual average concentrations of EGBE at or beyond the fenceline [were] greater than the IRIS RfC of 1.6 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)" and "reasonable worst-case assessment of the potential for acute irritation effects from EGBE facility releases using the Margin of Exposure (MOE) methodology EPA has employed in prior TRI listing decisions," among other modeling scenarios.
EPCRA provides EPA 180 days to respond to the petition.
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Waste Biz: Consumers Need Help Recycling Plastic
Feb 27, 2015 | Sustainablog
Do you have trouble remembering which plastics can go in your recycling bin? Even if you can figure out the number on that stamped symbol on the bottom of a plastic container, you may not remember offhand if your recycling program accepts, say, #6 or #7 plastics. You may just toss the item in the bin anyway… or you may put it in the trash. Both of these choices have potential negative repercussions: we know that throwing away a recyclable item creates unnecessary environmental and economic costs, but putting the wrong plastic in your recycling bin can contaminate other materials. Why is recycling plastic so difficult?
Tom Szaky, the founder of Terracycle, addresses this issue in aPackaging Digest article. The current system wasn’t designed for consumers, but for recyclers. And, unlike people in the business, the average person doesn’t understand – or care about – the type of resin in a product, or whether a hybrid package has some materials that can be recycled, and some that can’t. S/he just wants to know if they can toss _____ in the blue bin. Szaky points to the How2Recycle label as a consumer focused alternative: created by GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition, this label focuses on consumer needs… and, if implemented, could help raise plastic recycling rates.
Think it’s time for a different system for recycling plastic? Share your thoughts, or point us to other ideas about how to better serve consumers who want to recycle everything they can.
In other news from the waste sector:
Interactive waste bin gives you a pat on the back: Most of us who recycle do so because we want to do the right thing. The Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in Abu Dhabi has created a waste bin for public spaces that informs you of the environmental impact of the recyclable item you just deposited. When you, for instance, put a plastic bottle in one of these bins (currently a prototype), you might hear “By recycling a plastic bottle you saved enough energy to run your fridge for over 2 hours without having any negative impact on our environment!” Don’t you feel good?
Upcycler wants to take over the world: We feature Donna Fenn’sRemade in Britain a few months ago. This week, Bdaily featured an interview with the entrepreneur about her business, including her plans for global expansion (in the long term).
Plastic film, bags recycling increases: A new report from the American Chemistry Council shows an 11% increase in the recycling of post-consumer plastic wraps, bags, and films. Part of the reason: small and mid-size stores are now offering drop-off centers for these materials. (via Waste Dive)
-
California Proposes Prop 65 Listing of Styrene
Feb 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to list styrene as known to the state to cause cancer under Proposition 65. The action is being proposed under the authoritative bodies listing mechanism.
The agency is basing its listing on the National Toxicology Program's 2011 listing of the substance in its 12th edition of the Report on Carcinogens. This concluded that styrene is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans, sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals, and supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis.”
In using the report as a basis for listing the OEHHA says that it “satisfies the formal identification and sufficiency of evidence criteria in the Proposition 65 regulations for styrene.”
A previous attempt by the OEHHA to list styrene using the Labor Code listing mechanism was withdrawn in March 2013, pending the results of federal litigation and additional peer review of the NTP’s report by the National Research Council (NRC) (CW 21 February 2013).
That litigation was resolved in favour of the NTP and the NRC upheld the NTP's listing of styrene (CW 28 July 2014).
Meanwhile, certain provisions of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations were extensively amended. Those regulations no longer identify the NTP as a definitive source for identifying chemicals for listing via the Labor Code mechanism. Hence the OEHHA proposal to list the substance via the authoritative bodies listing mechanism.
The deadline for comments on the proposed listing is 30 March.
If a chemical is listed on Proposition 65, businesses are required to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to the listed chemical. This warning can take a variety of forms, such as by labelling a consumer product, posting signs at the workplace, distributing notices at a rental housing complex, or publishing notices in a newspaper. Once a chemical is listed, businesses have 12 months to comply with warning requirements.
-
California Releases Documents Supporting Perchlorate Public Health Goal
Feb 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has published the final technical support document for its updated public health goal (PHG) for perchlorate in drinking water.
The PHG was revised in 2012 to 1ppb from 6ppb (CW 7 December 2012). The technical support document provides information on the health effects of perchlorate in drinking water.
-
GOP Chairman: White House Not Supporting Intel Cyber Bill
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett
Lack of White House support for the draft of a Senate Intelligence Committee bill to enhance cybersecurity information-sharing may be delaying the measure, which was expected to be released this week.
Intel’s top two members, Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), have been collaborating on the measure, which would grant some legal liability protection to companies exchanging cyber threat data with intelligence agencies.
“We’re hearing that the agreement between Senator Burr and Senator Feinstein is holding up,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told The Hill off the Senate floor.
The hold could be an attempt to get the White House on board, Johnson indicated.
“The White House is not a supporter, which is troubling,” added Johnson, whose committee is working on its own cyber info-sharing measure. “I’m hoping they reconsider. I think the Intel bill is well considered.”
“What’s holding it up is that people need to look at it, talk about it a little bit, consider the process,” Feinstein, ranking member on Intelligence, told The Hill.
A White House official said the administration doesn't comment on draft legislation.
Government officials, lawmakers and industry groups have been pressing for a bill to grow the level of cybersecurity data-sharing between the government and private sector. It’s necessary, they say, to bolster a nation’s cyber defenses repeatedly breached by cyberattackers.
But privacy advocates have worried that an enhanced data flow could encourage more surveillance of Americans.
Homeland Security has been debating its own cyber info-sharing bill to address the issue.
Ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) even introduced a version of the measure recently. It would place a civilian agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), at the center of the public-private exchange in an effort to quell privacy concerns about intelligence agencies gathering too much sensitive data.
But Johnson has said he wants to wait for the Intelligence bill before his panel moves on anything.
The White House might prefer that Homeland Security move a bill on its own.
The administration wants the DHS at the center of the government’s cyber data-sharing efforts. President Obama recently signed an executive order to make this arrangement more appealingto lawmakers.
The Intelligence Committee bill, modeled after last year’s Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, would allow more direct sharing between private companies and intelligence agencies.
A draft of the Intelligence bill has been circulating since last week
“I feel pretty good about the draft,” Feinstein said. “It’s a bipartisan draft because that’s the only way a bill is going to pass.”
The California senator said the 2015 bill has new language meant to assuage privacy advocates’ concerns.
“We’ve bent over backwards to try and protect the privacy rights,” she said.
The Intel committee is still hoping to keep its measure on track.
“The hope is to mark it up next week,” Feinstein added. “We’ll see.”
“I can’t predict what happens,” Johnson said. “This is something that we’ve got to work our way through.”
-
3 Burned at Wyo. Explosives Plant
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Three people were burned yesterday morning in a fire at a Wyoming chemical plant, authorities said.
Laramie County, Wyo., Fire District 1 Chief Darrick Mittlestadt said firefighters were called to the Dyno Nobel Inc. plant at 9:30 a.m. local time yesterday, but company firefighters had the fire under control by the time they arrived.
Two people were taken by ambulance to a hospital, Mittlestadt said. The plant, west of Cheyenne, Wyo., produces industrial explosives used in mining and other industries.
The company didn't immediately provide the identities or conditions of the burn victims and didn't return a request for comment (AP/Casper [Wyo.] Star-Tribune, Feb. 26). -- SP
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Study: Shale Creating a “Long-term Competitive Advantage for U.S. Manufacturers”
Feb 27, 2015 | Marcellus Shale Coalition Blog
According to a new American Chemistry Council (ACC) study, America’s affordable and abundant supplies of clean-burning natural gas will fuel $63 billion in chemical exports growth by 2030, helping to both further grow our nation’s manufacturing base while also increasing our global economic competitiveness. The report – Fueling Export Growth: U.S. Net Export Trade Forecast for Key Chemistries to 2030 – also states that America’s abundant and reliable energy resources are driving 223 shale-related projects with a cumulative investment impact of $137 billion to the U.S. economy.
This new study echoes many of the findings outlined in a recent White House report, which underscores the “widespread benefits” associated with shale’s positive impact on America’s manufacturing sector. And thanks to responsible shale development in the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania is leading from the front and poised to capitalize on continued job growth and economic opportunity for us all.
Key excerpts from ACC’s release and blog post on the new study:
Gross exports of chemical products, including plastics, linked to plentiful and affordable natural gasare projected to double, from $60 billion in 2014 to $123 billion by 2030.
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.
Chemical companies have begun or are planning 223 shale-related projects to date, including eight announced in December, representing a cumulative investment of $137 billion.
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).
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.
With more chemistry products, including key plastics, destined for foreign shores, the industry can be aleader in helping to reduce the U.S. trade deficit while creating new economic and job-creation opportunities here at home.
“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.”
And key report findings:Refined products and petrochemicals are internationally traded at will based on market supply and demand, and the shale revolution has created a multi-decade opportunity for increased petrochemical production and exports.The success of U.S. E&P firms in shale gas and oil exploitation are unique to the U.S. in most cases and unlikely to be soon matched anywhere else in the world.Gross exports of chemicals could double from $60 billion in 2014 to $123 billion, while net exports are projected to grow from $19.5 billion in 2014 to $48 billion in 2030.On a commodity basis, the biggest driver of the improving U.S. trade surplus will be plastics (reaching $21.5 billion of net exports by 2030, an increase of $15 billion) and specialties (reaching $20.5 billion, an increase of $9.3 billion), with moderate growth in intermediates (reaching $9.15 billion, an increase of $3.1 billion).
To read more shale-related manufacturing success stories, please visit the MSC’s blog, follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Environment Official Says New EPA Ozone Rule Just the First Step
Feb 27, 2015 | Watchdog.org
By Rob Nikolewski
A Texas environmental official says ozone pollution regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are just the first step for the EPA to introduce stiffer rules in years to come.
“I think they’re setting it up for the next round,” Michael Honeycutt, director of the toxicology division at the Texas Commission on Environmental Qualitytold Watchdog.org in a conference call Tuesday.
The EPA-mandated limit for ozone is 75 parts per billion, a level that has not changed since 2008.
The agency wants to stiffen the standard to 65-70 parts per billion and is hearing from health care and environmental advocates who want it even lower — down to 60 parts per billion.
EPA is under a court order to sign off on the new rule by Oct. 1.
Even though states like Texas and industry groups have complained that making the ozone rules more stringent will cost billions, Honeycutt said the EPA will pass the new regulation and then, in time, go further.
“I don’t doubt that EPA will lower the standard (this year), but if you look at what they’re doing, they’re actually setting it up for the next round,” Honeycutt said. “If you look at the EPA documents, they’re telling you that lowering it from 75 (ppb) to 70 or 65 will help, but not much. If you look at their data, you need to get down to 50 or 40 to 35 to actually make big improvements in health.”
Watchdog.org emailed EPA for reaction to Honeycutt’s comments, but while the agency sent a statement about what it’s taking into account for the current ozone decision, it did not respond directly to his remarks.
Honeycutt’s suspicions aren’t the only issue the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has with EPA.
The TCEQ also claims the data EPA is basing its proposal on is wrong — and the TCEQ is mounting a $400,00 campaign to try to persuade EPA to abandon its effort to make the ozone pollution standards tougher.
“We don’t think EPA has shown that it will result in a measurable health benefit,” Honeycutt said.
“What concerns us is, if we’re going to spend that kind of money, we want to make sure we’re addressing the right issue,” said David Brymer, the TCEQ director of air quality.
EPA did not directly address TCEQ’s complaints about its data interpretation.
“We are interested in all information commenters provide us,” the agency said in a statement to Watchdog.org. “Proposing, and then finalizing, an air quality standard involves evaluating the latest available science, and we have more than 1,000 new studies since the last review that we’ve taken into account.”
But Elena Craft, a Texas-based senior health scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the TCEQ is wrong and the EPA derives its data from a variety of well-documented sources.
“There are other issues that might contribute to asthma attacks other than just poor air quality,” Craft said. “Public health officials are in consensus that ozone exposure does contribute to asthma … It’s not like EPA has gone off on their own and made this recommendation willy-nilly. There’s been a lot of sophisticated, scientific analyses and discussion that has been open to the public.”
EPA is wrapping up a 90-day public comment period about its recommendation to adopt more stringent ozone rules across the country.
A main component of smog, ground-level ozone pollution can be generated from sources like tailpipes and smokestacks. It’s a corrosive gas that essentially gets baked into the atmosphere by sunlight — especially during hot summer months — and can affect those who suffer from breathing problems like asthma.
“The American Lung Association can’t see any negative effect to lowering the (current ozone) level,” said Jeff Miracle, executive director of the Dallas board of the ALA. “It will only help people, and that’s why we would like to see the level reduced even more, to 60 (ppb).”
But critics say lowering the level to the EPA-recommended 65-70 ppb will cost states billions.
Leading the charge is the National Association of Manufacturers, which has labeled the proposal “the costliest regulation in history.”
The trade group released a study last year claiming the EPA proposal would cost the national economy $270 billion a year and nine states would lose more than $100 billion in gross domestic product between 2017 and 2040. Update 2/27: The National Association of Manufacturers released an updated study Thursday, claiming that the updated rules would cost the U.S. economy $1.7 trillion between 2017 and 2040.
Another industry study, by the American Chemistry Council, asserted an overwhelming number of communities across the country will not be in compliance at the 65 ppb limit:
Chart from the American Chemistry Council
TAKE A LOOK: The american Chemistry Council’s map points to monitored and unmonitored areas that could violate the EPAs ozone limits.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency has heard these complaints from industry before.
“In the 1970s, those same critics said EPA action to remove toxic lead from gasoline would put the brakes on auto production,” McCarthy wrote in an opinion piece when the new proposal was announced last November. “Instead, blood lead levels in children worst affected have plummeted nearly 90 percent since 1976. And auto makers didn’t fold, they flourished.”
McCarthy and EPA officials say states will be given time — between 2020 and 2037 — to meet the new standards, depending on the level of severity in a given area.
As for complaints about costs, McCarthy said the agency predicts for every dollar invested in cracking down on ozone pollution, $3 will be returned in terms of savings in health-related benefits — up to $38 billion by 2025.
Besides, the courts have ruled that when it comes to health standards, the issue of cost is not be factored.
While officials at the Texas environmental commission are concerned about costs, they are focusing on what they say is faulty data used by the EPA to justify the tougher standard.
“EPA says ozone causes an increase in asthma attacks but if you look, the incidents of asthma attacks is increasing (while) nationwide … ozone levels have decreased,” Honeycutt said. “So it doesn’t make sense that decreasing ozone levels (are) increasing asthma attacks. That just makes no sense at all. So they’re going after the wrong thing.”
Honeycutt also points to a chart tucked in the appendix EPA’s 597-page policy analysisthat showed that 48 more people in Houston would suffer premature deaths with ozone levels toughened at 70 ppb but 47 more would die with ozone levels staying at the current rate of 75 ppb:
Graphic courtesy of TCEQ
DARK NUMBERS: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is challenging EPA science related to ozone levels.
“When you look at the weight of the evidence, when you look at the entirety of the data, it just doesn’t support what EPA is saying,” Honeycutt said.
“In fact, in Texas, our asthmatic hospital admissions increase in the wintertime when we have our lower ozone as opposed to during the ozone season,” TCEQ chairman Bryan W. Shaw told a committee in the Texas House of Representatives on Tuesday.
Shaw, who last November said the metrics behind the proposed EPA ozone regulations “fails miserably”, went on to say the EPA “is chasing the wrong rabbit.”
TCEQ will convene a workshop “to bring some of the leading experts together to hopefully lay out a framework whereby we can have a more meaningful process to identify what the appropriate standard would be,” Shaw said.
Honeycutt said the workshop will bring in economists, public policy and health officials as well as “very good scientists who do very good air pollution work who aren’t funded by EPA directly to talk about the ozone science.”
“We’re looking for an unbiased view of the data,” Honeycutt said, adding the findings will be passed on to EPA chief McCarthy even though the findings would come after the agency’s 90-day public comment period.
Honeycutt said the entire process will cost about $400,000 and the workshop will be held April 7-9 in Austin.
“Instead of just trying to encourage EPA to do better science, we’re trying to do that better science ourselves,” Shaw said.
Craft said the TCEQ is wasting Texas taxpayers’ money, and the $400,000 figure is just a fraction of what the agency has spent battling the EPA.
“Across the board, they have challenged EPA over and over again and they have not been successful,” Craft said. “You have to wonder where the priorities are in terms of public health protection.”
When all is said and done, will the TCEQ’s efforts make any difference?
After all, even though a number of states — such as Kentucky and Louisiana — have expressed opposition to the proposed EPA rules and there’s talk that states will sue the EPA should the new rules be enacted, Honeycutt admitted that historically “courts give deference to EPA” data.
“I don’t know if we’ll be very successful this round, but we’re hopeful for the next round that we’ll make more headway,” Honeycutt said.
TCEQ critics are sure to point out that Texas is a staunch Republican state and the EPA is part of the Obama administration.
“Most people don’t get into the data, they just trust what EPA says,” Honeycutt said. “And on a lot of things, EPA just doesn’t have it right, they’re not correctly representing it or they’re oversimplifying things. So it’s not about red versus blue. It’s about data.”
“TCEQ is in clear violation of the public health principle of protecting those who are most vulnerable in the population,” Craft said. “That’s the bottom line.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline
Feb 27, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
President Barack Obama this week vetoed legislation to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, saying the measure would “circumvent” an ongoing Administration review that will determine whether the project would be beneficial to the U.S.
The bill (S. 1) would have authorized the construction of a 1,179-mile pipeline to transport 800,000 barrels of heavy petroleum a day from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to U.S. refineries and ports along the Gulf Coast.
The legislation was strongly backed by the energy and chemical industries. The American Chemistry Council(ACC), which represents the nation’s largest chemical companies, cited Keystone as “a prime example of new energy infrastructure that will be needed to support U.S. manufacturing growth.”
The chemical industry also would have benefited from provisions in the bill to increase the use of products to boost energy efficiency, such as window and roofing coatings and insulation.
Obama said he vetoed the measure because it would “circumvent long-standing and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.” The State Department is currently reviewing the project and will make a recommendation to the White House about the pipeline. That assessment is taking into account environmental, economic, and national security factors.
But there is no timetable for the assessment, or for Obama to make a final decision. He could approve or deny a permit for the project at any time—or leave the decision to the next president.
On Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared, “This veto doesn’t end the debate” over Keystone. But an attempt to override the President’s veto isn’t likely to succeed. The bill passed the Senate 62-36, well short of the two-thirds majority needed for Keystone supporters to prevail over Obama.
Environmental activists, who argue that the pipeline would increase U.S. dependence on fossil fuels and contribute to climate change, predict Obama will nix the pipeline. “This veto makes us more confident than ever that the President will reject the permit itself once and for all,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.
-
FracFocus Promises Improvements in Access, Accuracy
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The groups that run the national fracking chemical registry FracFocus announced plans yesterday to make the site easier to use and less prone to errors.
The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission also announced a plan to reduce the amount of data kept hidden as trade secrets.
"Once they are implemented, the changes proposed to FracFocus will make a big difference in the quality, transparency and accessibility of information about the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process," said Kate Konschnik, policy director of Harvard Law School's Environmental Law Program. "I look forward to seeing these changes roll out later this year."
Konschnik has been a prominent critic of FracFocus, but she has been working with GWPC for about a year on the changes.
The changes come as the Obama administration prepares to issue new rules governing hydraulic fracturing on federal land. The rules are expected to include chemical disclosure requirements.
The administration has signaled support for using FracFocus. But environmentalists and open-government advocates have said it is inadequate in its current form for mandatory disclosure.
John Amos of the advocacy group SkyTruth has said that the obstacles FracFocus creates for researchers mean that using it would flout an executive order from President Obama on open data.
"If they're implemented in a way that honestly addresses some of the serious functional problems we've identified with the existing FracFocus system, these proposed improvements would be a positive step toward meaningful public disclosure," Amos said.
But he said he is concerned that the administration will approve the use of FracFocus in its fracking rule based on promises rather than proof.
The improvements to FracFocus are to include a "self-checking" feature designed to detect and correct errors when companies are entering the unique numbers for chemicals, called CAS numbers.
The organizations said they will put an "emphasis" on a reporting format called the "systems approach" that they hope will reduce the number of chemical names withheld as trade secrets. Under a systems approach, chemical names are reported separately from the additive products they go into, protecting the companies' proprietary recipes.
When Baker Hughes Inc. announced that it would no longer withhold chemical names as trade secrets, it said it would be using the systems approach (EnergyWire, April 24, 2014).
A Department of Energy panel that reviewed FracFocus for the Obama administration reported last year that at least one chemical ingredient was omitted for 84 percent of the wells listed on the site (EnergyWire, April 25, 2014).
The groups also promised to make the chemical data available in a "machine readable" format. FracFocus records are currently available only in PDF format.
"Improved capability to capture data through the extraction of 'machine readable' data sets will provide wider data access for the public," the groups said in a release yesterday.
They are also planning to make the site itself easier to use, with pull-down menus and new search fields such as the disclosure submission date. A 2013 EnergyWire review of state records showed that more than one-fifth of FracFocus reports were being turned in late (EnergyWire, June 7, 2013).
FracFocus was launched in 2011 as a way for companies to voluntarily disclose their fracking chemicals. Many states have since turned to it as a means for mandatory disclosure. The site has data from 20 states, and a version of the system is operating in five Canadian provinces.
-
Calif. Enviros Push for Emergency Order to Stop Fracking
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups yesterday urged California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to use emergency powers to halt hydraulic fracturing and acid well stimulation in the oil-rich state.
The petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and nearly 150 other groups comes amid a hodgepodge of other legal and legislative actions by Californians hoping to restrict fracking. Several municipalities have passed local ordinances banning or limiting oil and gas production, and environmental groups have sued state regulators for permitting fracking without comprehensive environmental review.
Meanwhile, the state Department of Conservation's newly promulgated drilling and fracking regulations are scheduled to take effect in July. But environmental groups say the new rules don't ease their concerns about potential pollution from drilling and impacts from wastewater disposal, citing recent reports that drillers routinely inject wastewater into aquifers that could be needed for drinking water during droughts (Greenwire Feb. 10).
"Gov. Brown can and should act immediately to protect California's precious water supplies from benzene-laden fracking fluid," CBD attorney Hollin Kretzmann said in a statement. "Oil companies are illegally contaminating our aquifers during a devastating drought. Fracking also pollutes our air and worsens climate change. Our state suffers more damage every day the governor continues allowing fracking to contaminate our air and water."
The petition urges Brown to use executive powers to declare a state of emergency and adopt an immediate moratorium on fracking as a threat to public health until the state completes a "comprehensive, scientific review of the health and environmental consequences of these high-risk activities."
The groups dismiss California regulators' existing draft environmental study as "overly narrow and fundamentally flawed" because it fails to consider life-cycle effects of the oil and gas production process.New York momentum
It's no coincidence that the groups are pressing Brown on fracking just two months after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) capped off four years of waffling on the issue by calling for a permanent ban on fracking in the Empire State.
CBD attorney Kassie Siegel, who helped draft the petition, said the groups hope Brown takes cues from New York.
"It is enormously significant and compelling that Gov. Cuomo banned fracking in New York after the environmental and health study was completed," she told EnergyWire. "It's been quite shocking because Gov. Brown is a climate leader, but fracking may undo all the other progress that our state makes on climate change."
New York also imposed a moratorium on fracking while the process was under review by state regulators, an approach environmentalists hope California adopts.
"It is inexplicable that this could happen in our state while health and environmental studies that should have been completed long ago have only just been initiated, and other states like New York have recognized such harms and banned fracking activities in their jurisdictions," the petition said.
California law requires the governor's office to respond to rulemaking petitions within 30 days.
-
XL: Vetoing Energy Security and the Evironment
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Paul Sullivan
I testified to Congress in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline system in March 2011. That gives a sense of how long this issue has been dragging on.
My argument was that Canada is a great and secure neighbor. It is a democracy. It is peaceful. Our strongest trade, investment, security and other relations with our neighbor to the north, Canada. NORAD is with the Canadians. The Canadians have been a big part of our energy security, our overall security, our economy and even our culture for a very long time.
Canada is our biggest source of imported oil. Most of that is already from the oil sands of Alberta. Much of that oil sands oil, after processing, is brought to us by train, which is a lot more dangerous than brining it by pipeline as the many oil train accidents recently attest. The US has been the market for almost all Canadian oil exports for a very long time. They are a reliable energy partner for the natural gas, coal and energy trade that we have with them.
Why slap the Canadians in the face?
Is it for the environment? Well, that is patent nonsense. The actual increase in CO2 production from using oil sands oil in transport, where most of it would be used is on average about 10-15% compared to much lighter oils. Compared to our own heavy oils it is less, especially the heaviest oils from Kern County in California.
Much more CO2 is produced in coal-fired electricity plants in New England than by the oil sands production in Alberta. Many times more CO2 is produced by coal-fired electricity plants in Texas than in Alberta as a whole.
The time that the most CO2 is produced from using oil or refined oil products is when it is combusted. The real issue is in the combustion of the oil products, and how that combustion is handled and refitted to reduce CO2 emissions.
If the oil sands do not come to the US they will likely go to China, where the combustive methods used produce more CO2 than the combustive methods here – on average. China is not exactly environmental heaven, and yet those who want to stop the XL pipeline want to effectively send the oil sands to China. This is an environmental loss, not a gain. The oil sands will be produced and they will be used.
As the Middle East and other sources of oil become more unstable (think Venezuela another major source of our oil imports), we decide to shut off another route for oil from likely the most stable source of oil in the world outside of our own country.
Yes, we have a huge increase in shale oil production, and this is great light, sweet crude mostly—and made here. And this is much better for the environment than heavier, sourer crudes. However, we will likely never have full oil security independence.
We need Canada. We need diversified supply chains. We need reduced insecurity for those seemingly increasingly inevitable insecurity days in this increasingly insecure world.
Passing XL is a strategic move. It is a smart move for economic, energy and other security reasons. It is a smart move when one thinks in the long run, not just for politics of today.
We have built tens of thousands of miles of oil and gas pipelines since the debate over XL began. Ever wonder why XL is such a target? It is not because of its environmental effects. It is because it could be a target. I wonder how the funding of the targeting groups improved during all of this.
Sullivan is a professor of Economics at the National Defense University and adjunct professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University. All opinions expressed are Sullivan's alone.
-
Coal Company Says EPA Climate Rule Already Hurting Industry
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A major coal company is arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed climate rule for power plants is already having an effect on its operations.
Murray Energy Corp. told the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Thursday that, since the EPA’s proposal is already hurting its finances, it should be allowed to pursue its lawsuit against the rule.
“The mere pendency of the proposed rule causes immediate harm because coal producers and utility customers must make — and are making — current business decisions now,” the company wrote in its final brief to the court before oral arguments for the case in April.
“EPA’s pursuit of this rule-making continues to pressure states and capital markets to dismantle Murray Energy’s customer base,” it said.
Murray’s argument is in response to the EPA’s assertion to the court that since the regulation has only been proposed and has not been enforced, companies like Murray do not have standing to challenge it.
“EPA has only published a proposal for notice and comment; it has not yet considered and responded to those comments as the [Clean Air Act] requires, nor ‘promulgated’ a regulation,” the agency wrote earlier this month to the court. “Thus, it has taken no action that has binding legal effect or determines any entity’s rights or obligations.”
The EPA’s rule, proposed last June, seeks to cut carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030.
The agency estimated that it would reduce coal’s market share for electricity to 31 percent, from the current 39 percent.
It is highly unusual for courts to overturn rules before they are made final, leading the EPA to argue that the challenge is premature.
But Murray says that the egregious violation of the Clean Air Act, along with the effects the proposal has already had, should allow the appeals court to block the EPA from making it final.
-
Coal Industry, Enviros Wage PR War Over Clean Power Plan
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
This story was updated at 1:40 p.m. EST.
Squeezed by President Obama's rules to combat global warming, the coal industry has countered with a public relations offensive: a messaging barrage, demonstrations, Web videos and cupcakes.
Yes, cupcakes.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) marked the anniversary of Obama's Climate Action Plan last year by sending out cupcakes with the Twitter hashtag #AllPainNoGain.
This year, the trade group passed out hand warmers with the hashtag #ColdInTheDark. They were part of a campaign aimed at pounding home a message that U.S. EPA's power plant rule will make electricity more expensive and less reliable.
Laura Sheehan, ACCCE's senior vice president for communications, is helping mastermind such efforts, which she said were "geared toward education and to call attention to this egregious proposal."
The group took its case to energy regulators, setting up outside recent meetings of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with signs that said, "EPA is dreaming. Despite its claims, EPA's regulations will have a major impact on electricity costs and reliability."
The ACCCE's new communications strategy emerged after Obama's re-election in 2012 dashed the trade group's hopes that a fossil-fuel-friendly Republican might replace him.
At that point, the group's CEO, Mike Duncan, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, decided to focus less on paid ads and more on other forms of advocacy.
Duncan hired Sheehan, former communications director for Democrats -- notably for a master in hand-to-hand political and policy combat, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan.
Dingell, who retired in January after 59 years in the House -- the longest uninterrupted congressional tenure in history -- chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee for a staggering 16 years and served as its ranking Democrat for another 12. The Michigan powerhouse was famous for "Dingell-grams," long, highly quotable letters requesting information.
Laura Sheehan has helped revamp the coal industry’s communications strategy.Photo courtesy of Sheehan.
Sheehan quipped she was a teenager when the Dingell-grams were born, but said her time with the former dean of the House influenced her advocacy efforts.
Also on her résumé are stints with former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the American Gas Association, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Burson-Marsteller.
While ACCCE has long tried novel ways to get attention, such as its 2012 deal with NASCAR star Dale Earnhardt Jr., the group's current approach of signs and mittens and cupcakes is new.
"It's tangible. It's not just a message. It's something that you can feel, it's something that you dig into," Sheehan said about the giveaways.
"Yes, [the efforts are] working, and people are paying attention," said Sheehan. "That doesn't mean that EPA is listening, because EPA doesn't listen."
ACCCE is trying to spread its message through social media and several websites, including americaspower.org, keepamericaspoweron.org and coalfacts.org. They all include blog posts, images and videos touting coal.
"Turn the lights off at the EPA so we can keep America's power on," said one recent Webvideo, which shows a cartoon versions of the agency's headquarters and staffers acting rowdy.
ACCCE last year tried to heighten attention on the country's reliance on coal-fired power during the polar vortex. It's looking to do so again this year amid frigid temperatures.
Similarly, the National Mining Association, the other top national pro-coal group opposing EPA's rulemaking, is sounding the alarm about the polar vortex being back. It's calling it "Polar Vortex 2015 -- Close to the Edge (Again!)."
A new video on NMA's countoncoal.org website says, "Help keep Americans warm and energy prices low this winter. Tell your elected officials that you oppose the EPA's new regulations."
While their advocacy often overlaps, NMA spends more time on lobbying, while ACCCE has focused more on the grass-roots aspects of spreading the pro-coal message.
ACCCE has more than 700,000 "likes" on Facebook and more than 15,000 Twitter followers. Sheehan wouldn't reveal her budget but said it was likely much smaller than the combined spending of its foes in major environmental groups.Green outreach
On the green side of the climate fight, the Natural Resources Defense Council, meanwhile, has almost 300,000 "likes" on Facebook and more than 150,000 followers on Twitter.
Pete Altman, head of NRDC's climate campaign, said the group has dozens of people working on advocacy efforts, from working with state regulators on rulemaking to social media.
Keep up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go toE&E's Power Plan Hub.
"This is among NRDC's highest institutional priorities," Altman said during an interview about supporting Obama's climate agenda. "It's a massive effort."
NRDC has increased its reliance on new social media tools. The group has also turned to studies, policy papers and polls -- from both Democratic and Republican firms -- to showcase its side of the argument and help sway policymakers.
"We know there is tremendous public support for taking action on carbon pollution," Altman said. "We have been active in making that clear."
If the coal and environmental groups agree on anything, it's the need to reach the average American.
The coal industry has focused on power prices and energy reliability rather than industry jobs or the well-worn slogan about the administration's "war on coal."
And environmental groups have highlighted the damage done by extreme weather and the cost of inaction on climate.
For example, when it comes to opposing the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, which NRDC says would hurt the overall climate cause, the group has cited potential harms to communities and waters.
This week NRDC's action fund also released an ad in Washington, D.C., and Kentucky markets accusing new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of siding with polluters for opposing the administration's environmental efforts.
For environmentalists, the goal is not only rallying people to the green cause but also counteracting industry opposition. Altman points at 8 million comments on EPA's climate proposal as an example of success. "It's a lot of work to reach out to people on that scale," he said.
"I think we are doing pretty well in understanding that we have to break down this information into bite-size pieces that make social media in a way people can understand," Altman said.
But he added that providing a message in the "simplest, most straightforward manner possible" is a challenge "for an institution full of lawyers and policy experts."
-
We Could be Reaping Much Bigger Carbon Cuts by Changing People’s Behavior
Feb 27, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
It may be one of the few parts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” — a regulation to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — that’s not controversial.
In its proposed rule published back in June, the EPA suggested that one key tool that states and utility companies can use to meet their required emissions reduction goals is what the agency calls “demand side energy efficiency.” For instance, significant energy savings – and emission cuts – could be reaped by programs that incentivize people to more energy-efficient home appliances, that encourage buildings to use energy more efficiently, or that change individual behavior itself to reduce energy consumption.
More specifically, the EPA lists energy efficiency as one of four “building blocks” that can help states reach their emissions reductions goals, calling it “a proven, low-cost way to reduce emissions, which will save consumers and businesses money and mean less carbon pollution.” The agency suggests that a 1.5 percent reduction in a state’s emissions might be achieved through this route.
But according to a group of behavioral researchers writing in the latest issue of Nature Climate Change and led by the University of Colorado, Boulder’s Amanda Carrico, EPA is setting a “very modest” target here. As they note, some estimates for how much energy could be saved by energy efficiency initiatives — including programs that try to directly change people’s behavior — run as high as 23 percent of total U.S. electricity demand. In terms of emissions, they continue, ramping up household focused conservation programs could conceivably lead to a seven percent cut overall.
Indeed, a single behavioral energy intervention that many utilities are already pursuing — sending out home energy reports along with monthly utility bills, which compare people’s usage levels with those of their neighbors — leads to a 2 percent reduction in energy use, on average. The reports are created by Opower, a software firm that helps utility companies better connect with their customers, and they work by letting people see how much they’re using compared with others living near them (we humans are, after all, social animals) and giving encouragement to those who are using less.
Here’s an example:
Credit: OpowerThe EPA says that even programs that “seek to alter consumer and building occupant behavior” can be considered by states — the agency “does not want to discourage their implementation,” though it notes that measuring their effectiveness could present challenges.
At a time when bitter political arguments are beginning over the Clean Power Plan — which is often denounced as the chief vehicle for the “war on coal” — the energy efficiency and behavioral route is notably nonpartisan. After all, nobody, either on the left or the right, is against the prudent conservation of energy, through behavioral change, more efficient appliance purchases, or anything else. And liberals and conservatives alike will surely celebrate the lower utility bills that go hand in hand with greater home energy efficiency.
Indeed, as we’ve reported here at Energy & Environment, the military is already implementing behavioral techniques to help Marines and the Navy save vital fuel – whose conservation translates directly into increased tactical capacity and effectiveness.
Meanwhile, one of the biggest changes in the structure of our energy system in a long time — the rollout of 50 million smart meters, with more on the way — has thus far failed to achieve its full energy-savings potential due to a failure to take human and behavioral factors into account, and to be user-friendly. Simply providing people with smart meter data in real time in a form that helps them understand how much power they’re using and how much it’s costing them could inspire many behavioral changes that could add up to big energy savings — and big emissions cuts.
It’s in this context that Carrico and her colleagues call on EPA to make sure that they carefully design the efficiency-focused, demand-reduction side of the Clean Power Plan. The EPA’s approach, they write, is a “rare move” and represents a major new precedent — or, it could. Behavioral programs are “often viewed as minor adjuncts to more traditional regulatory actions, not as a core part of the response to energy and climate challenges,” they note. The evidence above suggests there are many reasons that should change.
One key problem, though, will be whether an agency like EPA has the DNA to oversee the utility industry’s deployment of social science-heavy behavioral and efficiency programs. It’s not exactly part of the traditional environmental regulatory wheelhouse. “Achieving these objectives,” note Carrico and her colleagues, “will challenge the thinking of regulators who have more experience with mandating the best available technologies than with programs that target decision-making and voluntary behavior.” Measuring how much energy behavioral programs are actually saving – and how many emissions they’ll therefore be averting – is also a challenge.
No one is saying that merely changing people’s behavior, or the objects they use in their homes, will let us stop worrying about coal plants and the emissions they pour into the atmosphere. Nor are they saying that energy efficiency and behavioral change should be the number one strategy for addressing climate change.
Nonetheless, efficiency and behavior could be a much bigger climate wedge than it currently is. And increasing it benefits everybody, and above all the consumer — who ends up paying less on each electricity bill.
-
EPA Brief Urges High Court to Uphold Mercury, Toxics Standards
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
U.S. EPA this week urged the Supreme Court to uphold its landmark air standards for mercury and other pollutants, arguing that a challenge from states and industry "defies common sense."
Twenty-one states and two industry groups -- the Utility Air Regulatory Group and National Mining Association -- contend that EPA should have considered the $9.6 billion price tag of its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, before determining it was "appropriate and necessary" to go forward with the regulations.
The Supreme Court will hear the case March 25, and in court documents EPA said the Clean Air Act is ambiguous on the cost question and, therefore, the agency deserves deference.
"Because EPA's interpretation comports with the Act's text, structure, and purposes," the agency wrote, the court should uphold the ruling under the Supreme Court's 1984 precedent in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Justice Department has also announced that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli will argue the case before the justices, signifying the importance of the MATS regime to the Obama administration.
MATS represented a policy shift after President Obama took office. In 2000, EPA had determined it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate pollutants like mercury, arsenic, cadmium and other emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants because of the threat they pose to Americans and, in particular, women of childbearing age.
During George W. Bush's administration in 2005, EPA sought to delist power plants from the program. That decision was later thrown out in court.
Shortly after Obama took office, his EPA went ahead with the "appropriate and necessary" finding. The rules were signed by then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in December 2011.
With costs estimated at $9.6 billion, the standards are among the most expensive regulations ever promulgated by the agency. EPA, however, touts that once the rule is fully implemented in 2016, it would yield health benefits of between $37 billion and $90 billion.
In its brief to the Supreme Court, EPA emphasized those benefits, noting that they far outweigh the costs, and criticized the challengers for ignoring them.
The challengers' "result-oriented theory is inconsistent with the basic logic of" their "principal statutory argument, and it defies common sense," the brief said.
The states challenging the rule at the Supreme Court are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Last April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld MATS in a 2-1 vote (Greenwire, April 15, 2014).
EPA and environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund, which also submitted a Supreme Court brief this week, highlighted the co-benefits of the regulations.
In particular, EPA noted that the technology used to control mercury emissions has the "significant ancillary benefit" of reducing emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, two criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
"The public health gains this rule will achieve," EDF and other groups wrote, "and in particular those from its dramatic reduction in overall national emissions of pollutants such as mercury, chromium, cadmium, nickel and hydrochloric acid gas place it among the most important air pollution regulations this country has adopted."
Click here for the government's brief.
Click here for the brief from environmental and public health groups.
-
IG Says EPA's Equity Screening Updates Could Help Air Toxics Inspections
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA's Inspector General (IG) says the agency's updates to its environmental justice (EJ) screening tool could boost efforts by its 10 regional offices to use equity as a factor when inspecting facilities to determine their compliance with air toxics rules, including making it possible to provide data on multiple facilities and locations at once.
In a report released Feb. 26, the IG concludes that the agency's regions are already using EJ as a component of their facility air toxics inspections, although to varying degrees. To assist in selecting facilities for inspections, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has developed several tools, including one that combines data from EPA's “EJSCREEN” equity tool with the “GeoPlatform” geographic information system.
The agency released EJSCREEN in 2012 to help incorporate EJ into its work, identifying areas of potential EJ concern at the census block level using demographic information and 12 environmental indicators.
The IG finds that there are some existing hurdles that limit EJSCREEN's usefulness for conducting “up-front” targeting for air toxics inspections, including that the tool identifies areas of EJ concern but not air toxics facilities within those areas, and that it can only provide data on one facility at a time, not multiple facilities at once.
But EPA's updates to EJSCREEN appear likely to address some of the concerns about the tool's use in assessing which facilities to target for inspections of their compliance with air toxics rules, the IG says in the report, “EPA Regions Have Considered Environmental Justice When Targeting Facilities for Air Toxics Inspections.”
“Through the modifications made to EJSCREEN and the new GeoPlatform mapping tools being developed by OECA, the agency is taking important and proactive steps to enhance the ability of EPA regions to consider areas of EJ concern when targeting air toxics inspection,” says the report, which makes no recommendations.
For example, the IG says the updated version of the tool known as EJSCREEN v2.0 will have the capability to overlay facility locations on one screen, rather than only showing one facility at a time. The updated tool also provides information for multiple facilities at once, and the ability to process thousands of locations simultaneously.
“These two new functions will better enable the region to use the EJSCREEN tool to identify potential facilities to inspect based on EJ considerations,” according to the report. But the IG also notes that the updated tool will not overcome an existing limit of only incorporating one environmental indicator at a time.
The IG notes that OECA is also beginning to use the GeoPlatform tool in conjunction with EJSCREEN data to produce better air toxics targeting tools, which the report calls a “promising practice.”
“Using GeoPlatform allows OECA and EPA regions to develop more detailed maps to meet specific regional needs and include information that is not available in EJSCREEN, such as a composite view of selected environmental stressors in a given area,” says the report, which did not include a formal EPA response.
EJSCREEN is part of EPA's “Plan EJ 2014,” an equity agenda established by former Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who aimed to boost EJ's role in EPA decisionmaking.
-
Investing in America’s Next Energy Boom
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Norman Augustine and Chad Holliday
While few outside the industry realize it, the energy boom America enjoys today would not be nearly as robust without substantial investments in energy research and development made by presidents and members of Congress of both parties over the past four decades. These basic science and technology advances, together with private sector innovations and commercialization, helped spawn dozens of technologies, fundamentally transforming America’s oil and gas production, renewable energy, energy efficiency and much else.
Horizontal drilling and advanced seismology, catalyzed by industry visionaries like George Mitchell using government R&D breakthroughs, helped make the shale oil and gas bonanza possible, precipitating the current drop in global oil prices among other economic benefits. Aeroderivative natural gas turbines, which came from military R&D investments in jet engines, have enabled electric utilities to utilize new natural gas supplies more efficiently to increase system reliability and lower costs.
Super-efficient diesel engines, developed by industry in conjunction with our National Laboratories, have enabled a doubling of truck fuel efficiency. High-capacity batteries, with today’s continued federal R&D investments, are driving electric vehicle innovation—with 125,000 electric vehicles manufactured in the US in 2014. Photovoltaic solar technology, first invented by American companies and propelled by NASA, has helped cut costs dramatically, making solar a competitive option in many parts of the country.
And yet, in recent years, many policymakers seem to have forgotten what was behind these successes. Since 2010, real investments in federal government energy R&D have been flat, and actually declined adjusted for inflation. We have in essence been eating the seed corn of decades past.
And because economic benefits of new discoveries in the energy sector are spread across our entire society rather than accruing to individual companies, the private sector has little economic incentive to invest in this kind of basic energy technology research. For energy companies, many long-term R&D investments are simply too risky and cannot be justified to shareholders. That is precisely why federal funding is so critical.
Even amid a surge in domestic production, our energy challenges are more important today than ever: despite recent price drops, affordable energy is still out of reach for many households and businesses; oil and gas development requires renewed focus on sustainability; the electric grid is at risk from physical and cyber-attacks while facing greater challenges integrating new renewable sources; energy price volatility continues; energy remains a global political weapon; and issues of climate change and competition for resources from emerging countries become more threatening with each passing day.
Fortunately, our opportunities are just as great—if we invest in them. We can transform the energy landscape once again by creating breakthrough technologies that alter problematic cost, emissions, and geopolitical dynamics. From developing large-scale electricity storage to breakthroughs in materials science and efficiency, from next-generation biofuels to low-cost distributed power, to advances in emissions management, renewable energy and nuclear power, we can once again revolutionize the world’s energy systems. And American economic competitiveness is at stake; other nations, especially developing nations like China, are making investments to rival or surpass ours in many energy technologies.
This is why we have joined other business and technology leaders -- including John Doerr, partner at Kleiner Perkins; Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of GE; and Tom Linebarger, chairman and CEO of Cummins – in releasing a new report from our group, the American Energy Innovation Council. Our bottom line is this: America is not fulfilling our energy, economic or environmental potential due to a chronic lack of federal energy R&D funding. We must make much greater investments—at least double or triple current levels—in energy technology breakthroughs now to capture our remarkable economic promise and deal with pressing geopolitical challenges.
At the same time, we must reform programs at the Department of Energy and elsewhere, to make each dollar have maximum effectiveness. In particular, we urge that the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (or ARPA-E), which is leading R&D funding reforms, be granted substantially increased financial resources.
We are eager to work closely with the new Congress and with the president to find ways to bring about these critical investments as part of broader energy and infrastructure legislation. And, yes, we believe presidential hopefuls of both parties need to step up to articulate a compelling vision for America’s energy technology future.
Historically, energy innovation has rarely become highly politicized because Republicans, Democrats and independents share a common interest in scientific breakthroughs and technological progress that improve people's lives. America has succeeded because it has created new possibilities for the future, not simply adapted to the status quo. We must preserve that uniquely American tradition and our nation’s competitive advantage by investing, again, in energy innovation.
Augustine is retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin. Holliday is former chairman and CEO of DuPont.
-
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By former Secy. of the Interior Ken Salazar
Recently, the results of a poll from The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future were splashed across newspapers all over the country. One of the key takeaways? Issues related to our country’s energy future are of great concern to the Hispanic population, and our community’s voice will be of increasing importance looking ahead to the 2016 presidential campaign.
These findings underscore that our community has a key role to play in helping to shape our country’s energy future. This is why I am looking forward to joining other minority leaders and key stakeholders at the 2015 Energy Policy Summit being hosted by the American Association of Blacks in Energy and Hispanics in Energy in Washington, D.C. this week to discuss the energy policies impacting minority communities. Through forums like these, minority stakeholder organizations can become better informed about the energy policies that have a real impact on their lives, and ensure our view is heard by policymakers at a national and state level.
Energy is an essential part of our lives, and choosing to get educated and to participate in an active discussion on the issues is critically important.
While you might not give it much thought, we all rely on energy every day. Access to reliable and affordable electricity is essential to growing our economy and for the livelihood of communities everywhere. I’m proud to note that the Hispanic community has made great strides here in recent years. Hispanic-Americans own more than 3.2 million businesses in the U.S., which contribute more than $468 million to the country’s economy each year. The poverty rate among Hispanics in the U.S. has been on the decline, dropping from 25.6 percent in 2012 to 23.5 percent in 2013. So many in our community have achieved and are living the American dream, and we know that even more success is yet to come.
Unfortunately, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012, the bottom fifth of income earners spent nearly 33 percent more of their budget on energy costs than average. If this number were to increase, then these families would be stretched even further, threatening their ability to also achieve the American dream, be it boosting their savings or starting a business. Keeping energy prices manageable remains a key pillar in encouraging minority advancement.
Given the importance of affordable energy and the fact that some Americans are already stretched thin in this regard, we must do everything we can to ensure that energy policies remain fair and equitable for all customers in all communities. For example, policies that result in a cross-subsidization only raise a fundamental question of fairness. It isn’t enough to say we’re becoming greener if it creates a gap between those who can and those who can’t afford cleaner energy. A smarter approach is to get the economics and the priorities in sync so that all Americans can participate and benefit fairly from all sources of electricity.
Educating all constituencies about our America’s evolving energy and environmental policies is something we can all support. That is the best way to ensure a bright energy future for all Americans.
Salazar was secretary of the Interior from 2009 to 2013 and a democratic senator from Colorado from 2005 to 2009.
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