Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Blog) What Can the U.S. Learn from Other Countries When it Comes to Regulating Chemicals? GlobalChem Keynote Speaker Professor John Graham Weighs In
Mar 2, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
When it comes to building a world-class chemicals management system here in the U.S., some experts have said that one important thing we can do is look at how other countries have tackled key issues. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/03/what-can-the-u-s-learn-from-other-countries-when-it-comes-to-regulating-chemicals-globalchem-keynote-speaker-professor-john-graham-weighs-in/ -
(ACC Mentioned) A Recycle-to-Feedstock Alternative for the Future
Mar 2, 2015 | Environmental Leader
By Jeff Wooster
Changing the way we think about waste in the US and finding new and better end-of-life options for plastic packaging is what we set out to do with our Energy Bag Pilot Program. -
New Regs for Tuesday: Banks, Sharks, Chemicals
Mar 2, 2015 | The Hill - Regwatch
By Tim Devaney
Tuesday's edition of the Federal Register contains new rules for systemically-important banks, chemical manufacturers, ship registrations, and new protections for sharks. -
Shaheen Drafting Separate Ex-Im Renewal Bill
Mar 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Victoria Guida
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is working on a bill to renew the Export-Import Bank as an alternative to legislation being drafted by Sens. Joe Manchin and Mark Kirk, a spokeswoman for the New Hampshire Democrat confirmed today. -
Artificial Food Dyes: Risky Business?
Mar 2, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Katarzyna Strycharz
Artificial food dyes are used to color many foods, snacks, sweets, and beverages in the United States and around the world. -
Industry Impatient for Cyber Bills
Mar 2, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett
Ahead of a spate of House hearings on cybersecurity this week, a coalition of major private companies sent a letter urging congressional leaders to pass cybersecurity legislation. -
Senate Keystone Veto Override Vote Expected Thursday
| The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The Senate will vote to override President Obama's veto of legislation authorizing the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline on Thursday. -
Obama: 'Keystone is for Canadian Oil'
Mar 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 WIre
By Laura Barron-Lopez
President Obama said he vetoed legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline because Congress was "trying to circumvent" the review process. -
First Veto Override Vote Likely Wednesday
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to file cloture tomorrow on the chamber's effort to override President Obama's veto of legislation to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. -
EPA Seeks To Delay Oil, Gas Air Rule Suit Until July
Mar 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is asking a federal appeals court to keep in abeyance until July 17 litigation over the agency's emissions rules for the oil and gas sector, saying that several industry groups that have sued over the regulations do not oppose delaying the case until the summer -- when the agency is poised to propose revisions to the air rules. -
EPA Considers 'Fallback Options' For Dropping CCS From Power Plant NSPS
Mar 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA is analyzing scenarios that would drop its contentious carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) mandate for new coal-fired power plants under its proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for new power plants, amid growing agency concern that the rule is legally vulnerable because the technology may not... -
Immigration Order Could Boost EPA Critics' Data Quality Suits Over Rules
Mar 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
A Texas federal judge's order allowing states to advance with their suit aiming to block President Obama's immigration policy could also boost EPA critics' plans to sue the agency over alleged Information Quality Act (IQA) violations in rules, because the order reinforces states' litigation rights that are similar to those in the planned IQA suits. -
Climate Skeptic Blasts 'Shameless Attempt to Silence' Research
Mar 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A scientist skeptical of climate change, who is at the center of a controversy over his funding from oil and coal interests, said Monday he is “saddened and appalled” by the attacks against him. -
Dems’ Climate Probe Brings ‘Witch Hunt’ Turnabout
Feb 27, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
Now conservatives are the ones complaining about being the victims in a politically motivated “war on science.” -
Oil Train Shipments Expand Under Cuomo
Mar 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Scott Waldman
The companies involved in shipping crude oil through New York State have dramatically expanded their operations in New York during Gov. Andrew Cuomo's first term, while spending nearly $1 million on lobbying efforts. -
New Risk Requirements Could Shed Light on Oil Trains' Disaster Planning
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Federal Railroad Administration has suggested requiring major rail carriers to take a closer look at their risks, including the potential for a crude oil train disaster. -
Train Carrying Crude Oil Derails in New Orleans
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Two train cars carrying crude oil derailed in New Orleans, but officials said no oil was spilled.
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
-
Mar 2, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
When it comes to building a world-class chemicals management system here in the U.S., some experts have said that one important thing we can do is look at how other countries have tackled key issues. One of those experts, Professor John Graham of the University of Indiana, recently coauthored a guest column on lessons for TSCA reform and will share his insights at this year’s GlobalChem conference.
According to Graham, chemical regulatory regimes in Canada, and even Europe’s REACH, can help inform our efforts to enhance public, industry and government confidence in the assessment and regulation of chemicals in the United States.
We asked Professor Graham to share some of his views and provide a preview of his speech at GlobalChem on Tuesday by answering the following three quick questions:
Q1. What can the U.S. learn from chemicals policy in Canada?
Canada has demonstrated a practical priority-setting scheme that allows regulators, industry and NGOs to focus on uses of chemicals that pose the highest risk. Priority setting is critical because there are tens of thousands of chemicals on the market (many with low-volume applications) and the number that require priority risk assessment and management are probably less than 1,000.
Q2. Is Europe’s REACH a good model for chemicals policy reform in the U.S.?
No, not in it’s entirety. It is far too complex and burdensome to be appropriate in America’s market-oriented economy. But it does have two innovations that, if adapted wisely, could help move U.S. policy forward. One places the scientific burden of risk assessment on industry, where it belongs. And one authorizes – and compels — companies and users to collaborate on risk assessment.
Q3. Are you saying the U.S. should merge innovations from both Canada and the USA?
Exactly. The U.S. should “take the best from both worlds” and combine them in a distinctively American approach to chemical regulation. We could have a Canadian-style priority-setting process coupled with an EU-style registration system for a limited number of chemicals.
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Recycle-to-Feedstock Alternative for the Future
Mar 2, 2015 | Environmental Leader
By Jeff Wooster
Changing the way we think about waste in the US and finding new and better end-of-life options for plastic packaging is what we set out to do with our Energy Bag Pilot Program. Through a collaborative effort, the pilot demonstrated that when it comes to reducing plastic waste, there are opportunities to convert non-recycled waste into energy in a way that is complementary to mechanical recycling.
The Energy Bag Pilot Program was designed to show how we could capture the value of previously non-recycled plastics that would otherwise be buried in a landfill by using those materials as an energy resource. It’s a new way of thinking about recovering the value in the resources we have already created and making sure that society gets maximum benefits from those resources. Our long term vision for resource management is one where all materials are recovered and their value is put to beneficial use.
For plastic packaging, this means materials can be collected via the current collection infrastructure and all materials that are suitable for mechanical recycling are turned into plastic pellets for making new plastic articles. Items that can’t be recycled into pellets are converted into chemical feedstock or used as an energy resource.
About the Energy Bag Pilot Program
For three months in the summer of 2014, nearly 26,000 residents of Citrus Heights were asked to place plastic packaging and other plastic items not included in the city’s existing curbside recycling program into specially provided bright purple Energy Bags. Residents were asked to place the filled Energy Bags into their recycling bins so that the contents could then be collected and transported to a material recovery facility (MRF). The energy bags were sorted and then bundled into an “energy bale” for shipment to Agilyx, a plastics-to-oil facility, where the plastics waste was converted into synthetic crude oil.
Partners implementing the pilot program included The Dow Chemical Company, Republic Services, Agilyx, the Flexible Packaging Association, Reynolds Consumer Products, the American Chemistry Council and the amazing residents of the city of Citrus Heights, California.
Pilot Program Results
With more than 8,000 purple Energy Bags collected during the pilot, we diverted approximately 6,000 pounds of typically non-recycled items from landfills and produced 512 gallons of synthetic crude oil from the conversion process.
Our pilot has proven that consumers can collect non-recycled plastic packaging, it can be separated from other recyclable items at a MRF, and that we can convert this otherwise non-recycled material back into its original feedstock – oil and gas.
While this type of recycling to petrochemical feedstock isn’t common today, it’s conceptually similar to using corrugated containers to produce fiber which can then be transformed into something other than corrugated or using beverage cans to produce the aluminum that is incorporated into an automotive application. All these materials are valuable resources that can be used to make a variety of useful products. Collecting flexible packaging and other non-recycled plastic packaging and converting the plastic into oil closes the loop and helps us maximize the use of our natural resources.
The Power of Collaboration
The program was a successful collaboration between a coalition of material suppliers, manufacturers, brand owners, retailers, the waste and recycling industry, non-governmental organizations and most importantly, a community of residents committed to bring about change. Together, we can educate policy makers and the general public about this untapped opportunity to divert valuable resources from landfills.Jeff Wooster is Global Sustainability Director for Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics. To learn more about the Energy Bag Pilot Program, watch our documentary, The Power of Collaboration: the Citrus Heights Energy Bag Pilot Program that captures the leadership, commitment and collaboration required to make the pilot happen.
-
New Regs for Tuesday: Banks, Sharks, Chemicals
Mar 2, 2015 | The Hill - Regwatch
By Tim Devaney
Tuesday's edition of the Federal Register contains new rules for systemically-important banks, chemical manufacturers, ship registrations, and new protections for sharks.
Here's what is happening:
Sharks: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is looking at new protections for certain sharks.
The agency said Monday it is considering a petition to list the common thresher shark as an endangered or threatened species.
The public has 60 days to comment.
Banks: The Federal Reserve is delaying new rules for systemically-important banks.
The Fed proposed new risk-based capital surcharges for certain U.S.-based banks last December, but said Monday it is extending the comment period through April 3 to give the public more time to respond.
Ships: The Coast Guard is looking at whether to extend the registrations for ships.
Certain ships are required to renew their registrations each year, but the Coast Guard is considering allowing multi-year renewals of their certificates of documentation.
The Coast Guard is also looking at whether to update the fee, which is currently $26 per year.
The public has 90 days to comment.
Chemicals: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is delaying new rules for 13 chemical substances.
The EPA proposed in January to require the manufacturers of these chemicals to submit pre-manufacture notices, but said Monday it is extending the comment period through April 23.
Under the EPA's significant new use rules, manufacturers are required to notify the agency at least 90 days in advance of using one of these chemicals. This gives the agency an opportunity to block the project before it begins.
Labor: The Department of Labor is extending a review of its regulations.
The Labor Department began conducting a regulatory review last month to weed out unnecessary rules, but said Monday it is reopening the comment period.
The public now has until March 18 to respond.
-
Shaheen Drafting Separate Ex-Im Renewal Bill
Mar 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Victoria Guida
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is working on a bill to renew the Export-Import Bank as an alternative to legislation being drafted by Sens. Joe Manchin and Mark Kirk, a spokeswoman for the New Hampshire Democrat confirmed today.
Shaheen's office would not provide more details at this time.
The bill could provide an opportunity for Senate Democrats to present a bill with all of their priorities, which might exclude provisions such as those in the Kirk-Manchin bill that would roll back restrictions on coal financing — a non-starter for many House Democrats, according to a House aide.
Senate Democrats that are focused on the environment are likely to have reservations about the provision as well.
Some sort of balance ultimately will have to be struck, the House aide said, adding that Democrats have a lot of leverage because their votes are needed to pass the bill in both chambers.
The House aide also said it's a very real possibility that the bank’s charter may expire at the end of June and not be renewed until the spending bills come up in September. -
Artificial Food Dyes: Risky Business?
Mar 2, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Katarzyna Strycharz
Artificial food dyes are used to color many foods, snacks, sweets, and beverages in the United States and around the world. Nutritionists advise a plate of food to resemble a rainbow, with fruits and vegetables of different colors filling the plate and stomach. In recent decades, artificial dyes have given the illusion of this being achieved. In the last 50 years, the amount of synthetic dye used in foods has increased by 500%. But is this “artificial rainbow” safe for consumption? According to data pouring in that shatters the illusion, no.
Issues with artificial food coloring aren’t new, but the science to back up the concerns continues to flood in. To name a couple, about two years ago, Forbes reported on the “potential dangers” of artificial dyes and just this year Purdue University released a report detailing the risks many children face if they consume more than the “safe” level of 30 mg of dye.Potential health risks
While there are no definitive findings on the effects of artificial dyes on children and adults, excessive consumption has been linked to certain health problems. These include:ADHD in children; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a 41% increase in ADHD diagnoses of high school-aged boys that may be linked to the increased level of usage of artificial dyes in the past decade;Cancer, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) stating that chemicals used to create these artificial dyes can cause mutations or damage to chromosomes in eukaryotic cells; andAllergic reactions, according to CSPIOrgan damage, according to CSPI
More studies are underway, but so far it appears that small levels of artificial dye don’t adversely affect human health. However, many children’s food products contain such a mixture of dyes that kids are consuming far more than the recommended “safe” levels of dye. Artificial dyes are most notably found in beverages and sweets, but make no mistake – you can find them where you least expect them.
For example, cheese can be naturally yellow- but the infamous golden yellow of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is really 17.6 mg of artificial dye (per serving). Cereals are another popular hangout for artificial dyes, with Trix containing 36.4 mg of a combo of Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Red 40. Even the proverbially “healthy” Cheerios has 31 mg of food dyes. It seems that all the foods kids love are teeming with these artificial dyes!Imagine kids eating these meals made up of their favorite foods:
Breakfast:
1 glass of Sunny D Orange Strawberry (41.5 mg of artificial dye)
Cap’n Crunch Oops! All Berries Cereal (41.0 mg)
Lunch:
Kraft Macaroni & Cheese (17.6 mg)
1 glass of Orange Crush (33.6 mg)
1 Target Mini Green Cupcake (55.3 mg)
Total by lunch: 189 mg of artificial dye!
Before dinner, your child has already consumed a scary amount of artificial food dye, since behavioral tests found that as little as 30 mg of artificial dye can cause adverse effects. Moms and dads alike should make sure their picky eater is getting enough of the nutrients they need and not just settling for foods that they know their kids will happily consume every day. As you can see from the breakfast and lunch breakdown above, if you give in to their tantrum of wanting Mac n’ Cheese for lunch daily, there can be serious health consequences.Informed moderation
A Purdue study concluded that children are consuming 5x the 30 mg amount of artificial food dye deemed safe for use. In 2011, the FDA stated that a high dosage of artificial dyes in a child’s diet could be associated with behavioral problems.
The lesson here is informed moderation. Once upon a time, manufacturers were not required to include dyes as ingredients. Although many food companies do, not every company does. It is the responsibility of retailers and producers to clearly label artificial dyes and reduce their proliferation. Similarly, it is the responsibility of consumers to know which foods are unsafe to consume large quantities of.
To help your child have a healthy and balanced diet, limit the processed foods you give them and provide more natural options instead.Go Natural
What else can you do to limit your intake? Substitute food that only has natural dyes.
Alternatives to artificial dyes include:Beetroot extractAnnattoTurmericPaprika extractCaroteneSaffronJuniperIndian madderBerriesRed cabbageCochineal bug (gross, but very natural)
And the best part? They’re all found in nature so they can only do wonders for you and your loved ones.
They give off just as much color naturally and your body will thank you for making the switch!
-
Industry Impatient for Cyber Bills
Mar 2, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett
Ahead of a spate of House hearings on cybersecurity this week, a coalition of major private companies sent a letter urging congressional leaders to pass cybersecurity legislation.
Ranging from defense contractor Lockheed Martin to tech giant Microsoft, and from banking firm Morgan Stanley to car maker Ford Motor, the letter reflects the growing impatience of private firms that have made cybersecurity a top lobbying priority.
“There is an urgent need for action to help bolster our country’s cybersecurity defenses,” said the group, which also includes health insurer Aetna and credit card firm American Express.
Notably absent are Silicon Valley stalwarts such as Apple, Google and Facebook. While these firms support stronger private industry cybersecurity, their relationship with the federal government has been strained by the government’s surveillance efforts.
Government leaders and many in industry agree that the two sides must exchange more cybersecurity data for both to get a better understanding of the cyber threats facing the country.
Only then, they argue, can we properly construct cyber defenses to thwart these cyberattacks.
“A collaborative approach is required to facilitate the real-time identification, detection and mitigation of emerging cyber threats,” the letter said.
Congress has been considering a series of bills that would grant legal liability protection for companies willing to share cyber threat data with the government.
But lawmakers have struggled to come to a consensus on the details and privacy advocates have warned such an exchange of data could lead to more sensitive data in the hands of the government.
Four House committees will hold hearings on cybersecurity this week, which may give some momentum to legislation.
“We urge the administration and Congress to enact legislation that, among other things, facilitates the sharing of cyber threat indicators with reasonable liability and privacy protections,” the group said.
-
Senate Keystone Veto Override Vote Expected Thursday
| The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The Senate will vote to override President Obama's veto of legislation authorizing the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline on Thursday.
Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said the senator will file cloture on Wednesday to set up the final vote.
"The cloture vote would then likely be Wednesday and the override on Thursday," Stewart said.
Republican leadership had originally planned to hold the cloture vote Tuesday, and final override vote on Wednesday, but late action on Friday by the House to fund the Department of Homeland Security changed the schedule.
The Senate will have to hold a cloture vote Monday evening on moving to a conference committee with House lawmakers on funding for DHS, pushing back Keystone action by one day.
The cloture vote on Keystone is needed, Stewart said, since Democrats are prepared to filibuster the override. Sixty votes would be necessary to clear the procedural hurdle.
"[T]o overcome the Democrats’ history-making filibuster of the bipartisan override, the Majority Leader will proceed to the President’s veto message this week and file cloture," Stewart said.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) shot back at the override push.
"This is a ludicrous idea," Boxer said. "First, they hold the homeland security funding bill hostage to immigration. Now they want to hold the highway bill hostage to big polluting Canadian special interests.”
The majority of Democrats in the Senate oppose the Canada-to-Texas pipeline, but nine centrist Democrats support it.
That means supporters are likely to win more than the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles, but they are unlikely to win the 67 votes necessary to override the president's veto. As of Friday, supporters appear to have 63 votes.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told The Hill last week that he was working to get more Democrats on board but that he is also weighing next moves given the likelihood the override effort will fail.
One option is adding Keystone legislation to another bill.
"I think it's more likely we are going to look to something like the highway bill and attaching it there. That's an infrastructure bill, this is about infrastructure. " Hoeven said. "We have strong support in the House. Obviously, we have everybody on our side."
Opponents are optimistic the override vote will fail and are putting increased pressure on Obama to reject the pipeline outright as soon as possible.
-
Obama: 'Keystone is for Canadian Oil'
Mar 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 WIre
By Laura Barron-Lopez
President Obama said he vetoed legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline because Congress was "trying to circumvent" the review process.
"Well initially Keystone was vetoed because Congress was trying to circumvent the process that has been in place for years to evaluate all the aspects of it," Obama said during an interview with WDAY in North Dakota.
But the president didn't stop there when explaining why he rejected the bill.
“Part of the reason North Dakota has done so well is that we have been very much promoting domestic, U.S. energies. I’ve already said I’m happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf," Obama said last week.
Obama added that the pipeline "bypasses the United States" and will create between 250 to 300 permanent jobs.
“We should be focusing more broadly on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers, and that’s something that we very much support," Obama said.
Obama's comments that the pipeline "bypasses" the U.S. and would only carry Canadian oil, received "four pinnocchios" from the Washington Post on Monday.
The Washington Post fact-checker said Keystone would carry oil from North Dakota and Montana to the Gulf region.
Roughly 12 percent of the pipeline's capacity is saved for crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken region, according to a 2013 report from the Congressional Research Service.
Opponents of the pipeline argue the project would not benefit the U.S., increase emissions, and that the majority of the oil would be exported after its refined.
-
First Veto Override Vote Likely Wednesday
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to file cloture tomorrow on the chamber's effort to override President Obama's veto of legislation to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
Filing the motion is necessary because the Democratic minority is planning to object to the override attempt. So the Senate will likely take a cloture vote Wednesday to move forward with the measure and Thursday on whether to bypass the president's veto.SPECIAL REPORT
A look at the far-reaching debate on the Keystone XL pipeline, which could change the energy and economic agenda for both the U.S. and Canada.Click here to view the special report.
Pro-KXL forces are more than likely to get the 60 votes necessary for cloture. They will, however, almost certainly fall short of the 67 votes necessary to override Obama's veto.
Obama has defended vetoing the KXL bill as a way to protect his administration's ongoing review of whether the project is in the national interest.
He also told WDAY-TV, echoing previous statements, that the pipeline simply "bypasses" the United States. "I've already said I'm happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf."
Today, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler took issue with that statement, pointing to reports, including the State Department's scrutiny of KXL, that say the pipeline will carry some U.S. crude.
Other studies, including by analysts at IHS Inc., say much of KXL's refined product would remain in the country. Environmentalists have dismissed those findings.
-
EPA Seeks To Delay Oil, Gas Air Rule Suit Until July
Mar 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is asking a federal appeals court to keep in abeyance until July 17 litigation over the agency's emissions rules for the oil and gas sector, saying that several industry groups that have sued over the regulations do not oppose delaying the case until the summer -- when the agency is poised to propose revisions to the air rules.
The Obama administration has said that it intends to issue in summer a proposed rule to set first-time limits on methane from oil and gas operations, as well as revised limits on volatile organic compounds, from new and modified oil and gas production sources and natural gas processing and transmission sources. EPA's abeyance request could indicate that the summer target for releasing the proposed rule is sometime in July.
In a Feb. 27 motion filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in American Petroleum Institute (API) v. EPA, the agency says that the case should be stayed until July 17, citing as one factor the development of the pending methane plan.
Industry groups have filed suit over various provisions of EPA's oil and gas new source performance standards (NSPS) and national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) issued in August 2012. The court has severed the NSPS and NESHAP fights into two separate cases, both called API v. EPA.
EPA's motion to extend the ongoing abeyance until mid-July is in the litigation over the NSPS. The administration's plan to set first-time limits on new oil and gas operations' emissions of the greenhouse gas methane would be done through a proposed revision to the NSPS, with a final rule slated for issuance in 2016.
In the related litigation over the oil and gas NESHAP, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit in a Feb. 25 motion to keep that case in abeyance through Sept. 16 until it decides on lingering petitions for reconsideration of various parts of those standards.
The court in a brief Feb. 27 order granted the request in the NESHAP suit.
-
EPA Considers 'Fallback Options' For Dropping CCS From Power Plant NSPS
Mar 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA is analyzing scenarios that would drop its contentious carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) mandate for new coal-fired power plants under its proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for new power plants, amid growing agency concern that the rule is legally vulnerable because the technology may not be “adequately demonstrated” as the Clean Air Act requires since most of the demonstration projects cited in the proposal are stymied.
However, one informed source stresses that the agency has made no decision on whether to walk away from the heart of the new source performance standards (NSPS), but says a decision -- one way or the other -- will need to be made soon. The source says it remains unclear how EPA decision makers would respond to a final NSPS that does not require partial CCS for coal plants as the agency's proposal does, and that it is also unclear whether the decision will be made by EPA or the White House.
“This is a big political question,” the source says. “I just don't know whether they're prepared to live with [the] criticism.”
The source says EPA staff have analyzed “fallback options” including ultra super critical pulverized coal (USCPC) and integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) plant without CCS. “IGCC gets you to a lower number than ultra super critical but none of them get you to the number that they were at with mandatory CCS,” the source says. “How the policy makers feel about moving to that option, I have no idea.”
An EPA spokeswoman declined to answer questions about whether agency staff has analyzed scenarios for finalizing the rule without CCS, only responding, “We are working to finalize the rule by this summer.” But EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy earlier this week strongly defended the agency's proposal before House lawmakers, saying she is “very confident” the technology can be used at the levels the agency is proposing.
EPA's proposed NSPS sets an emissions rate for new coal plants of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt hour (lbs CO2/MWh), which it notes can be achieved only by partial CCS. The rate of an IGCC plant without CCS is about 1,450 lbs CO2/MWh while a USCPC plant emits around 1,700 lbs CO2/MWh.
One industry source says backing away from the CCS mandate is “not an attractive option because [the White House appears to be] all in for CCS. . . . What I've heard would lead me to believe that right now the administration is not ready to move from CCS for policy reasons,” despite the acknowledged legal vulnerabilities.
The proposal identifies CCS as the best system of emission reduction (BSER) in particularly strong language that EPA would likely find difficult to walk back in a final rule. The industry source believes the agency would have to supplement its proposal before being able to finalize an NSPS without CCS.
If the agency does drop the CCS mandate, that could ease some of the legal uncertainties associated with the rule. In addition to questions about whether CCS is adequately demonstrated, the air law also requires EPA to have a final NSPS under section 111(b) in place before it can finalize its proposed existing source performance standards under section 111(d), and some sources suggest the agency might be willing to sacrifice some of the stringency in the NSPS in order to help preserve the ESPS.
EPA also faces a restriction in a 2005 energy law from relying “solely” on projects that receive Department of Energy (DOE) funding as the basis for new requirements. The agency says its rule is not based solely on those projects, though that issue is being teed up for litigation.
The informed source says dropping CCS would make legal battles over the NSPS “much less contentious” while not having much of a market impact now “because nobody's really building coal. So I think it probably doesn't change what people are building, which is primarily combined-cycle natural gas.” But “if we see a dramatic change in gas prices . . . that would allow for more diverse choices” in the future.
Pressure In Congress
EPA is under growing pressure from some in Congress to drop the CCS mandate. The agency has faced heated GOP criticism in recent hearings over the fact that DOE-funded advanced CCS demonstration projects, projects that EPA cited to justify it proposal, are faltering, further undermining the rule.
For example, the Kemper CCS project in Mississippi is facing significant construction delays and massive cost overruns, prompting agency officials to shift focus from that project to a Canadian one that recently began operations. However, the relatively small 110-MW Boundary Dam project is a retrofit, rather than a new plant, and, as critics point out, is not a domestic example.
But Boundary Dam is an example of a non-IGCC CCS project, which could be important because it relies on post-combustion carbon capture rather than pre-combustion carbon capture. The post-combustion technology shows that it is possible to use CCS technology for the existing fleet, which typically burns coal in a conventional manner without gasification.
Also, DOE last month pulled the plug on its contribution to the $1 billion FutureGen CCS project. And while EPA and DOE officials stressed that was solely a funding decision unrelated to the state of CCS technology, sources warned the project's demise would legally undermine EPA's CCS justification.
One CCS proponent says it would be “very good news and very prudent” for EPA to drop the CCS requirement from the NSPS. “That is an approach that would allow the technology to continue to develop while not imposing an effective mandate.”
However, one environmentalist questions how the agency can consider dropping the heart of its proposal: to ensure that new coal plants sequester their CO2. If that happens, environmentalists would “be up in arms,” the source warns.
Possible substitute mandates -- including for IGCC or USCPC without CCS -- would result in plants that “emit an awful lot of carbon. CCS can get you to zero,” the source adds.
The source acknowledges that DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz has been talking up USCPC plants in recent congressional testimony, rather than the IGCC demonstration plants. “They're backing away from that a bit. But that doesn't mean they're leaving a whole technology on the cutting room floor.”
Partial Capture
In fact, Moniz in recent testimony has stressed that a USCPC plant with partial CCS can achieve the standard set by th eNSPS. For example, Moniz at a Feb. 25 House science committee hearing downplayed the regulatory burden from EPA's rule for new power plants, noting that it only requires partial carbon capture. And he suggested there is confusion in public debate between DOE-funded CCS projects -- which push the envelope on the technology with high rates of carbon capture -- and the less-ambitious goals in EPA's regulation.
“If you look at the proposed EPA 111(b) rule for new coal plants, if you build an ultra-super critical plant, a very high efficiency plant, which exists, the EPA proposed rule requires only 30 percent capture,” Moniz said.
He added in a Feb. 11 exchange with Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), chair of an energy committee panel, that despite problems with some of the demonstration projects, the CCS technology is proven. He also stressed the viability of a USCPC plant, and offered to discuss the technology more with Whitfield, who is suggesting he will introduce legislation to require EPA to change the NSPS so that a USCPC plant without CCS could comply.
Meanwhile, McCarthy in a Feb. 25 exchange with Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), chair of another House energy panel, acknowledged that the demonstration projects are faltering but also strongly defended CCS' viability.
Murphy asked her if the agency was considering withdrawing the NSPS due to legal questions and the expense of CCS, which he said could “bankrupt” a company. In response, McCarthy said the agency is “very confident that use of CCS technology at the levels we're proposing will be a viable option.”
However, she also stressed that the questions Murphy was raising were based “on a proposal, not a final” rule, and she noted the agency would look at all the comments it received -- many of which asked it to drop the CCS mandate.
EPA's proposal -- issued in September 2013 though not promulgated in the Federal Register until January 2014 -- includes particularly strong language on why CCS is BSER, rather than a specific coal-fired technology such as super critical pulverized coal (SCPC), USCPC or IGCC, which the proposal notes emit CO2 at high rates.
“Emission reductions in the amount that would result from an emission standard based on SCPC/USCPC or even IGCC as the BSER would not be consistent with the purpose of [air act] section 111 to achieve 'as much [emission reduction] as practicable'. . . . [I]dentifying CCS partial capture as the BSER would provide for significantly greater emissions reductions,” the proposal says.
The informed source says that language will weigh heavily on the decision of whether to drop the CCS requirement. “I will grant you that it is a difficult walk back, but apparently it is at least something that's being looked at. The internal analysis on those other options has been completed.”
The industry source suggests EPA could seek to require as BSER a USCPC plant that is “CCS ready” but also downplays that option as difficult. The source also notes that most people read into EPA's proposal the need to build an IGCC plant with CCS rather than one that relies on conventional pulverized coal technology.
But one coal plant expert identifies a way for EPA to “retool” its technology justification for what is “adequately demonstrated” without citing any of the IGCC demonstration projects. However, this would be “taking a big step back if they forgo IGCC examples and need to fall back on non-integrated project technology examples.” The source also notes that even with Boundary Dam, which was a subcritical plant that underwent an upgrade, there “are still no [U]SCPS with CCS demo examples being touted or contemplated in the entire world.”
EPA recently put notices into its regulatory docket about several meetings on the rule, including a Feb. 3 meeting with agency technical staff in North Carolina and representatives of the Edison Electric Institute, a Dec. 18 meeting on geologic sequestration with the Natural Resources Defense Council and a Dec. 11 meeting with general counsel's office staff and environmental law professors.
The final rule is slated to be promulgated this summer, alongside EPA's rules for existing and modified plants.
-
Immigration Order Could Boost EPA Critics' Data Quality Suits Over Rules
Mar 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
A Texas federal judge's order allowing states to advance with their suit aiming to block President Obama's immigration policy could also boost EPA critics' plans to sue the agency over alleged Information Quality Act (IQA) violations in rules, because the order reinforces states' litigation rights that are similar to those in the planned IQA suits.
The immigration order, by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Judge Andrew S. Hanan, embraces the "parens patriae" legal theory, under which states can sue the federal government to defend their citizens' rights as long as those rights have been guaranteed by a federal law even if they are generally barred from challenging federal policies in court outside of an explicit statutory right of action -- the same legal theory underpinning the potential IQA suits.
"I would advise those of you interested in [IQA challenges] to follow" the immigration suit because of its adoption of the parens patriae theory, said Lawrence A. Kogan, a trade lawyer and free-market advocate, during a Feb. 20 roundtable in Washington, D.C., to discuss a February white paper for the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) that encouraged private parties and states to pursue new IQA suits over key EPA climate policies.
"States are not barred outright from suing the federal government based on a parens patriae theory; rather, provided that the states are seeking to enforce -- rather than prevent the enforcement of -- a federal statute, aparens patriae suit between these parties may be maintained," says Hanan's Feb. 16 order in State of Texas, et al., v. USA, et al.
The case deals with President Obama's "deferred action" program announced in November to provide what Hanan calls "legal presence" to more than 4 million individuals currently in the United States illegally, and to enable them to secure various state and federal benefits. Texas and its allies have argued that the program "will injure the economic interests of their residents" by crowding the job market and sending benefits such as unemployment to a population that until the president's action did not qualify for them, among other issues.
Hanan's logic in the order mirrors an argument that Kogan raised in his February white paper, in which he encouraged both private parties and states to claim standing to sue EPA over alleged IQA violations in EPA's determination that greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger human health and welfare -- the basis for many climate regulations -- as a test case for further data act suits.
"The key point here is to consider that states can be players in an action against EPA or other agencies who have been involved in the development or peer review of science assessments underlying proposed rulemakings," he said.
The IQA sets out criteria for the use and peer-review of scientific data in rulemaking actions. Federal courts have long held that private plaintiffs lack standing to challenge agency actions for failing to meet those criteria, finding that the law lacks an explicit right of action. Even though the IQA allows for citizen petitions to address claimed violations, judges have also denied attempts to challenge petition responses under the Administrative Procedure Act on the grounds that the challenged agency actions are not "final."
But Kogan argues in the paper that the IQA can be read to create a "negative right" to be free from regulations founded on flawed science that contravenes the law's intent, and that both states and individuals could sue over new EPA rulemakings and binding actions in order to enforce that right.
Legal Theory
While Kogan's paper focuses mainly on the potential for individuals and private groups to challenge EPA rules, he also addresses state challenges and says they could get a boost from broader adoption of the parens patriaetheory, which he argues would not only allow states to bring IQA suits but allow them to meet a less onerous standard to show that they have been injured by the contested regulations.
"States bringing suit in their quasi-sovereign capacity on behalf of their citizens will arguably be subject to a less rigorous test for standing that requires injury-in-fact to collective, rather than individual, state, and citizen interests. To this end, States should be able to utilize collective statistical and other data, including computer projections of current and future economic harm, to prove injury-in-fact, along with a lesser standard of general causation," the paper says.
The "quasi-sovereign capacity" under the parens patriae doctrine has varied over time, Kogan writes, but generally involves a state's defense of the well-being, "both physical and economic," of its populace, and aiming to protect a state's "rightful place within the federal system," which can extend to situations where a state's residents are denied benefits guaranteed by a federal law -- in this case the IQA's "negative right" against regulations that are alleged to be mis-crafted because they are based on what critics say is flawed data.
If a test case over the climate endangerment finding is successful, Kogan says it would pave the way for further challenges to EPA actions including its pending Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule; the social cost of carbon, which underlies many GHG standards; the proposed national ambient air quality standard for ozone; EPA's study on the human-health and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing; review of the Keystone XL pipeline's environmental impacts; joint EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disapproval of states' coastal nonpoint source pollution control programs; and the Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species designations.
-
Climate Skeptic Blasts 'Shameless Attempt to Silence' Research
Mar 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A scientist skeptical of climate change, who is at the center of a controversy over his funding from oil and coal interests, said Monday he is “saddened and appalled” by the attacks against him.
Willie Soon, who works at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said he’s been the target of attacks from “radical environmental and politically motivated groups” in recent weeks.
“This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming,” Soon said in a statement released by the conservative Heartland Institute, one of the top voices in the movement questioning the scientific consensus that humans' greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change.
In late February, activist group Greenpeace released documents that they said show that Soon took more than $1.2 million from fossil fuel interests and did not properly disclose the funding in at least 11 papers.
Soon, a prominent researcher among climate skeptics, has also testified before Congress about his conclusions that the sun is largely to blame for long-term temperature variations.
“Let me be clear. I have never been motivated by financial gain to write any scientific paper, nor have I ever hidden grants or any other alleged conflict of interest,” Soon said in the statement.
“The fact that my research has been supported in part by donations to the Smithsonian Institution from many sources, including some energy producers, has long been a matter of public record.”
He said he has always disclosed funding in a way that aligns with the practices in his field and those adopted by his colleagues.
And while Soon is open to disclosing more about his potential conflicts of interest, any new standards should be adopted widely, he said.
The Soon documents kicked off congressional investigations into climate skeptics’ funding, leading to charges that lawmakers are trying to silence researchers.
-
Dems’ Climate Probe Brings ‘Witch Hunt’ Turnabout
Feb 27, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
Now conservatives are the ones complaining about being the victims in a politically motivated “war on science.”
In a turnabout from years of debate about intrusion into scientific research, Democratic lawmakers launched investigations this week into the funding sources of several scientists whose work is popular with skeptics of manmade climate change. And that’s bringing a furious counterattack from congressional Republicans and right-wing pundits — including some who cheered on a past probe by former Republican Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli into a leading scientist whose research pointed to man-made causes of climate change.
Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, sparked the latest dispute by asking universities to turn over documents about grants, congressional testimony and other activities involving seven scientists who have testified at congressional climate hearings. Grijalva was following up on a New York Times story reporting that Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had gotten $1.25 million in undisclosed money from fossil fuel companies.
Three Democratic senators then took up the case, asking more than 100 energy companies and trade groups to provide details on their research spending.
Supporters of Soon’s research say it casts doubt on human activity being a major driver of global warming. That made the Times story a public relations coup for the green activists who originally uncovered the documents on his funding. But Grijalva’s broadened inquiry prompted conservatives to accuse him of staging an ideological witch hunt, and even one green-minded science group expressed qualms he may have gone too far. Eleven Republican senators rebuked both Democratic probes on Friday as “wholly inappropriate.”
Still, Democrats are undeterred, saying the two cases are in no way comparable. They note that a strong majority of climate scientists say climate change is real, is primarily driven by human-caused greenhouse gas pollution and poses a threat to civilization.
“Republicans went after amazing scientists doing honest and great work on climate change,” said a spokesman for Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who helped lead the Senate Democrats’ information request to the energy trade groups. Spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder added, “What’s different here are some clear indications that the very same companies and trade groups who have been sowing doubt on climate change and stopping any sort of legislative action in Congress, also may have been participating in these ‘denial for hire’ operations where they would pay very specifically for results.”
Grijalva was unavailable to comment on the flap Thursday.
But critics of his document request were quick to liken it to McCarthyism — or worse.
“Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Climate Skeptic?” asked a headline on the conservative blog Power Line, which appeared atop a post written by one of the researchers Grijalva is probing, Steven F. Hayward of Pepperdine University. The climate skeptic blog Junk Science alleged that Grijalva’s probe “closes in on 1933 Germany, and the Soviet Union.”
But Power Line had a different take on Cuccinelli’s climate probe five years ago, after the then-attorney general ordered the University of Virginia to turn over 11 years of emails and a raft of other documents involving former UVA scientist Michael Mann. Cuccinelli said he wanted to know whether Mann had manipulated data as part of his research, which included a now-famous “hockey stick” graphic showing a sharp increase in global temperatures linked to human activity.
“Cuccinelli’s subpoena has been greeted with howls and protests from warmists and others who view inquiry into a scientist’s work as an infringement of academic freedom — the freedom, that is, to make stuff up, hide or falsify data, and thereby impose trillions of dollars of costs on consumers, all while being supported by taxpayers,” Power Line’s John Hinderaker wrote in May 2010.
Similarly, JunkScience’s Steve Milloy wrote in The Washington Times five years ago that greens’ claims that Cuccinelli was threatening academic freedom were “so much rot.”
“A thorough investigation by someone not in cahoots with the climate mob is the only way to answer legitimate questions related to the expenditure of taxpayer money,” Milloy wrote at the time.
Much like Markey’s spokesman, Hinderaker said Thursday that the Cuccinelli and Grijalva probes are “completely different.”
“The Cuccinelli [document demand] related to the substance of work done by Michael Mann,” Hinderaker wrote in an email to POLITICO. He added: “The Grijalva ‘investigation’ is merely an attempt to smear scientists and others by claiming that they received funding from various private sources; it does not relate to the substance of anything they have written … As you know if you have read my posts, I believe that it is government money, not private money, that is corrupt, because government is the main party in interest in the global warming controversy.”
Cuccinelli’s probe fizzled after the Virginia Supreme Court ruled he did not have the power to demand the university records.
Unlike Cuccinelli, who sought the documents under Virginia’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, Grijalva and the other Democratic lawmakers don’t have subpoena power to back up their requests. But the Democrats are citing a motivation similar to what Cuccinelli had offered: protecting taxpayers from policy influenced by bad science.
“Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science,” Grijalva wrote in letters Tuesday to seven universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Colorado and Georgia Tech. “These conflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions.”
Grijalva requested information dating back to 2007, including all drafts of the scientists’ testimony before government bodies, the researchers’ sources of external funding, their financial disclosure forms and “communications” regarding their testimony and funding sources.
Markey and Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Barbara Boxer of California followed up the next day by asking more than 100 energy companies and trade groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association, to disclose details on their research funding over the past 10 years.
“This investigation will help to determine who is funding these denial-for-hire operations and whether those who are funded by these fossil fuel interests are keeping their funders’ identities secret from the public and legislators,” Markey said in a statement.
The mining association responded to POLITICO that it “has not financed scientific research on climate change,” although it has commissioned studies on topics including “the serious and far reaching economic consequences of proposed policies ostensibly advanced to address climate change.” API said it is looking into the matter.
Grijalva’s investigation and the Democratic senators’ questions got a rebuttal Friday from all 11 Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who wrote to the same universities, energy groups and companies to tell them the inquiry was out of line. “We ask you to not be afraid of political repercussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond,” the Republicans wrote.
The scientists themselves were quick to denounce Grijalva’s probe.
“I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically motivated ‘witch hunt’ designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name,” Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, wrote on his blog Tuesday under a photo of former Sen. Joe McCarthy.
“I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have,” he added, a statement the university backed up.
Pielke rejects the label of climate skeptic but has questioned the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are connected to the increasing costs of natural disasters. He notes that he supports EPA’s climate regulations and has advocated a small tax on carbon emissions. Still, his views have made him a target for liberals, leading him to quickly part ways last year with the website FiveThirtyEight just a few months after its relaunch.
“Incessant attacks and smears are effective,” Pielke lamented this week.
Other researchers Grijalva is targeting include David Legates of the University of Delaware, John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Judith Curry of Georgia Tech and Richard Lindzen of MIT. Many of them reject the notion that they are climate change skeptics, although their work has drawn the attention of the skeptic camp. Christy, for example, testified before Congress that climate models overstate the atmosphere’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases, while Curry has maintained that forecasting the climate is more uncertain that many scientists admit.
Curry took to her own blog to blast Grijalva’s request.
“I don’t think anything good will come of this,” she wrote. “I anticipate that Grijalva will not find any kind of an undisclosed fossil fuel smoking gun from any of the 7 individuals under investigation.”
Hayward, from Pepperdine, wrote on Power Line that he has received “no grants, honoraria, consulting fees, good karma baubles, or even Christmas cards from any fossil fuel interest, though I’d be proud and open about it if I did.” He also questioned the wisdom of judging scientists’ work based on who pays for the research.
“Is the good congressman really telling us that he is incapable of assessing factual claims and judgments about the wisdom of policy on the merits alone?” he wrote. “That doesn’t speak well of his probity.”
Even some groups that support acting on climate change have expressed worries that Grijalva’s questions may intrude on academic freedom. Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote in a blog post that Grijalva’s questions about funding are appropriate, but said his request for drafts of congressional testimony amounts to an investigation into private communications.
“Just as I have supported universities’ efforts to protect communications among academics that constitute the research process, so, too, I see justification in protecting drafts of congressional testimony,” Halpern wrote.
The American Meteorological Society jumped into the fray Friday, writing to Grijalva that “publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed … sends a chilling message to all academic researchers.”
Mann, the former University of Virginia scientist, told National Journal that Grijalva’s letter “does come across as sort of heavy handed and overly aggressive.”
Meanwhile, some climate-skeptic groups chose to mimic Grijalva’s probe by filing a similar request for information about University of Delaware climate scientist John Byrne.
“The sole distinctions are, first, that we far more narrowly tailor our request in comparison to Rep. Grijalva’s; second, our request is made pursuant to statutory authority,” wrote the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and the Caesar Rodney Institute.
-
Oil Train Shipments Expand Under Cuomo
Mar 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Scott Waldman
The companies involved in shipping crude oil through New York State have dramatically expanded their operations in New York during Gov. Andrew Cuomo's first term, while spending nearly $1 million on lobbying efforts.
Administration officials have recently begun to tout New York’s regulatory approach to oil trains as the “most aggressive” in the nation, but with a shortage of pipeline infrastructure relative to regional demand, New York's rail lines, along with the Port of Albany, have become the primary routes for the nation's crude oil shipments. Each day, oil is transported through Buffalo and Syracuse by CSX and down the Champlain Valley by Canadian Pacific. Much of it is offload in Albany on to barges and shipped down the Hudson River.
In all, up to a quarter of the daily output of the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota, Montana and Canada — which together produce a million barrels a day — passes through New York. It is the same light sweet crude that's carried in the same type of tankers that have been involved in accidents across the country, most recently in southern West Virginia last month.
During Cuomo's first term, the companies received state permission to expand the Port of Albany, a once-sleepy port that has received heating oil shipments for decades, into a key way station for the nation's crude-by-rail industry and have received permission to more than double the amount of crude they transport through the state.
Global Partners, which began transporting crude through New York in 2011, received permission a year later to double its shipments through the Port of Albany, to 1.8 billion gallons. In 2012, Buckeye Partners was granted permission from the state to its increase crude shipments from 400,000 gallons to 1 billion gallons.
After significant public outcry in the wake of a 2013 rail train accident in Canada that left 47 people dead, the state's position on crude oil transportation changed. State officials increased inspections of oil tankers and rail lines and began an extensive review of Global Partner's permits.
Cuomo has sought assistance from Washington to address the influx of crude into the state, but claims federal rail laws limit the state's intervention in the industry. The state still says its oversight is more aggressive than any other's.
“Over the past six months, our administration has taken swift and decisive action to increase the state’s preparedness and better protect New Yorkers from the possibility of a crude oil disaster,” Cuomo said in December when he announced another round of train inspections that uncovered minor problems.
Among the rail companies, a Capital review of lobbying records found that during Cuomo's first term, CSX spent $400,000 lobbying the administration and state lawmakers on a variety of issues while Canadian Pacific spent $164,000.
Oil transportation companies also spent a significant amount of money on lobbying efforts. Buckeye has spent $322,500 in New York since 2011. In 2013 alone, it tripled the amount it spent from the previous year.
Last October, after its massive lobbying push, Cuomo announced that Buckeye will hold 2.5 million gallons of upstate's gasoline and diesel fuel reserves at six locations across the state as part of a new Fuel NY program. The program is designed to prepare New York for disasters like Hurricane Sandy.
Global Partners has not reported any state lobbying expenses.
Requests for comment to CSX, Canadian Pacific, Buckeye and Global were not returned. A Cuomo administration spokesman did not respond either.
-
New Risk Requirements Could Shed Light on Oil Trains' Disaster Planning
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Federal Railroad Administration has suggested requiring major rail carriers to take a closer look at their risks, including the potential for a crude oil train disaster.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking published Friday, the FRA laid out mandates for railroad "risk reduction programs," accounting for scenarios "that could result in damage to the environment, such as a derailment that could result in a hazardous materials release."
The proposal brings FRA a step closer to complying with the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which required the regulator to pass a bevy of rules on risks, worker fatigue and train control.
The rule also arrives at a time of heightened scrutiny on the risks posed by trains composed of mile-long strings of crude tank cars. Earlier this month, a 109-car train hauling oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play derailed and exploded near Mount Carbon, W.Va., injuring one resident and forcing hundreds to evacuate (EnergyWire, Feb. 20).
In 2013, a 72-car oil train crashed in downtown Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people in a huge explosion.
Other recent oil train derailments in North Dakota, Virginia and Alabama have brought heightened scrutiny on railroads' handling of hazardous materials transportation.
The freight rail industry has been tight-lipped about the precise threat posed by crude oil train derailments, unsuccessfully lobbying to keep oil train routes out of public view but so far keeping its worst-case scenarios for oil train disasters under wraps.
The Association of American Railroads, which represents freight giants such as BNSF Railway Co. and CSX Corp., has said it is reviewing FRA's proposed rule but offered no further comment Friday. The industry group's members have urged discretion on sharing oil train data, including information on routes and worst-case explosions, citing security concerns.
But rail safety advocates such as Fred Millar have suggested worries over security and liability may be overstated, arguing analyses such as those set out in FRA's new rule should be made public.
He pointed out that the Chlorine Institute already publishes detailed information on tank car breaches releasing chlorine -- a toxic inhalation hazard far riskier to humans than crude oil.
"The thing about worst-case-scenario [analyses] is we know the railroads have done them because they have got to talk to their insurers about it," said Millar, a hazardous materials consultant who has worked with the environmentalist group Friends of the Earth. "They have had the conversations about what those full-blown disasters might look like, but we have no idea what they say -- we only know that then they go and buy as much catastrophic insurance that they can buy."Some states move ahead on risk assessment
It's not clear whether the FRA rule will lead to more transparency with railroads' risk analyses. The 2008 act underpinning the regulations gives FRA discretion to deny Freedom of Information Act requests for such reports if "necessary to promote railroad safety."
Nevertheless, many state agencies and branches within the federal Department of Transportation have conducted their own risk assessments of the fast-growing crude-by-rail business.
In an analysis last summer, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration calculated that a single oil or ethanol train disaster had the potential to cause $5.75 billion worth of damage at some point in the next two decades, barring regulatory action (EnergyWire, Oct. 6, 2014). PHMSA has proposed a "comprehensive" oil-by-rail safety rule that would curb speed limits, improve tank car designs and change other operating practices to cut down on that risk.
AAR has lambasted the cost-benefit analyses accompanying the rule as "speculation."
At the state level, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) recently participated in a lengthy tabletop exercise simulating a crude oil derailment in an urban area such as Philadelphia, where dozens of oil trains pass through weekly.
The governor's press secretary, Jeff Sheridan, said Wolf has planned additional meetings with Norfolk Southern Railway Co. and CSX, two railroads active in the state.
"The governor is committed to making this process more transparent," Sheridan said.
Wolf also sent a letter to President Obama last week calling for the White House to speed up its review of PHMSA's crude-by-rail safety regulations.
"We urge that new federal safety rules be developed and implemented with a sense of urgency appropriate to the risk presented," he wrote.
-
Train Carrying Crude Oil Derails in New Orleans
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Two train cars carrying crude oil derailed in New Orleans, but officials said no oil was spilled.
The New Orleans Public Belt Railroad cars, each carrying 30,000 gallons of crude, derailed last night. Officials said there is no public safety threat.
The cause of the derailment is still under investigation (Associated Press, March 2). -- MH
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