Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
EPA Rolls Out its Redesigned Labels Under the Newly Minted Safer Choice Program
Mar 5, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Today, the EPA Design for the Environment Program (DfE) Safer Choice program (formerly, the safer product labeling program) unveiled its newly redesigned family of three product labels. -
US EPA Extends Comment Period on 13 Snurs
Mar 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended the comment period on its proposed significant new use rules (Snurs) for 13 chemicals to 23 April. -
US EPA Exempts Food Contact Biocide from MRL Requirement
Mar 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued a final rule, exempting the biocidal active substance 9-octadecenoic acid (9 Z)-, sulfonated, oxidised and its potassium and sodium salts from the requirement of establishing a maximum residue limit (MRL). -
Candy Addicts Unite! Nestlé USA is Ditching Some Artificial Flavors and Dyes
Mar 5, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Alesia Lucas
I love candy! I love all types of candy. My dentist can attest that I may have a slight candy addiction – just kidding. -
White House Taps Transportation Official To Head Chemical Safety Board
Mar 5, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
President Barack Obama will nominate a Department of Transportation lawyer to become the next chair of the Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), the White House announced on March 3. -
We Need Leadership from Obama on Fracking or History Will Repeat Itself
Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lois Marie Gibbs
When my neighbors and I first put the facts together – that our Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls was built atop a chemical waste dump that made our kids sick – we had many questions. How could our public officials and institutions have let this happen? -
Former Interior Secretary Salazar Talks Obama Admin Action on Power Plan, Oil and Gas Development
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - TV
How will the evolution of the utility industry converge with Clean Power Plan targets and natural gas policy? -
PJM Analysis of EPA Clean Power Plan Puts Price on Carbon
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
A new analysis of the economic impacts of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan by the nation's largest grid operator places a price on carbon dioxide emissions and concludes that under nearly 40 compliance scenarios, a regional solution is less costly than a state-by-state approach. -
In Carbon-Pricing Model, PJM States Benefit from Sharing Clean Power Plan Burdens
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
States that are better-situated to meet carbon emission levels under the Clean Power Plan still might suffer from higher compliance costs if they don't work with their neighbors, according to an economic analysis by the PJM Interconnection. -
GOP Chairman Slams ‘Underimpressive’ Interior Budget Plan
Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) on Thursday blasted the Interior Department’s budget request, arguing it avoided confronting major problems while creating expensive, unnecessary programs. -
EPA Chief Races to Finish Climate Rules Before Obama Leaves Office
Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Gina McCarthy is locked in a race against time to complete landmark climate change regulations before President Obama leaves office. -
'We Are a Separate Nation' -- Brown Touts State's Influence in Global Climate Arena
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) yesterday made clear that the Golden State sees itself as an international superpower in the climate policy arena. -
White House Balked at Regulating Explosive Gas on Oil Trains
Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The White House held back on curbing explosive gas in oil trains last year, Reuters reports. -
Administration Considered, Ruled Out Explosive-Gas Restrictions on Oil Trains
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
The Obama administration last year considered creating national restrictions on transporting explosive gas in oil trains but decided against it.
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
-
EPA Rolls Out its Redesigned Labels Under the Newly Minted Safer Choice Program
Mar 5, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Today, the EPA Design for the Environment Program (DfE) Safer Choice program (formerly, the safer product labeling program) unveiled its newly redesigned family of three product labels. The voluntary Safer Choice program seeks to recognize and bring consumer awareness to those products whose chemical ingredients represent the safest among those within a particular chemical functional class (e.g., solvents). Today’s milestone is the result of a public process led by the EPA DfE program to solicit feedback on a new label that better communicates the goals and purpose of the program. After more than a year, and 1,700 comments and six consumer focus groups later, the new labels will be arriving soon to a store shelf near you. Read on to learn more about the program and the label redesign effort.
The purpose of the EPA DfE program is to drive inherently safer chemicals and products to the marketplace. DfE accomplishes this work through two major activities: the DfE alternatives assessment partnerships and the Safer Choice program. This blog and the new labels pertain to the latter. (To learn more about the DfE alternatives assessment work, please visit this page: http://1.usa.gov/1EKNvxe.)
The Safer Choice program—and the alternatives assessment program for that matter—is not a regulatory program, but an entirely voluntary opportunity for chemical companies and product manufacturers to gain recognition for their leadership in chemical safety. For a product to be recognized under Safer Choice, each ingredient in the product must pass criteria that delineate those chemicals that present the least hazard within that chemical’s functional class (e.g., surfactant, colorant, solvent, etc.).
In addition, a product must meet other requirements for ingredient disclosure, packaging, and performance. Details on the chemical and product criteria are available on the Safer Choice Standard and Criteria website.
Chemicals that have been found to meet the Safer Choice chemical criteria are listed by functional class on Safer Choice’s safer chemical ingredient list. Products that have been awarded the label can be found on the Safer Choice product website. To date, over 2,500 products have received the Safer Choice label and approximately 650 chemicals are listed. Most of the Safer Choice-recognized products to date are household and industrial cleaners, but the program intends to expand into the personal care product space.
As mentioned earlier, the Safer Choice program is rolling out a family of three new labels: the primary Safer Choice label, the Safer Choice label for institutional and industrial products, and the Safer Choice fragrance free label. Identifying fragrance-free products is of particular importance for individuals that have fragrance allergies or sensitization concerns. Indeed, many product manufactures have taken recent steps to disclose more information about the fragrances in products they sell.
All three of the new Safer Choice labels can be viewed here: http://1.usa.gov/1NdPkq2.
So why has EPA decided to refresh its label? According to EPA, the label redesign is intended to accomplish the following goals:Better convey the scientific rigor of EPA's product evaluation and the benefits to people and the environment with a label that is easier to display on products, materials, and in digital mediaIncrease buyers' recognition of products bearing EPA's Safer Product LabelEncourage innovation and development of safer chemicals and chemical-based products
There has indeed been criticism from both the chemical industry and the EPA Inspector General on the adequacy of the prior label for clearly communicating the scope and meaning of the label to consumers. It’s fair to say that putting “Design for the Environment” on a label doesn’t really convey that the program is focused specifically on reducing chemical hazard. The new label and tagline, “Safer Choice, Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” better communicates the chemical focus of the program.
Many shoppers seem to be unfamiliar with the DfE program, especially when compared to programs like EPAEnergy Star. Hopefully the new label and recent commitments from major retailers like Walmart and Wegman’s to the Safer Choice program will increase consumer awareness of the program. Walmart’s sustainable chemistry policy includes a commitment to strive to formulate and label its Walmart brand products under the Safer Choice program. Wegman’s has already made significant strides in getting several of its Wegman’s-brand products recognized by Safer Choice.
We certainly hope that the new labels will inspire more businesses to pursue recognition by the program, whether through chemical and production innovation or through the types of retailer leadership actions we’ve seen taken by Walmart and Wegman’s. The Safer Choice program provides an important and valuable opportunity to drive inherently safer chemicals to the market and to reward, with the credibility and backing of the federal government, those businesses that devote R&D to doing so.
You can find more information about the Safer Choice program at http://www2.epa.gov/saferchoice.
Also check out EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s blog and video announcing the new Safer Choice labels.
-
US EPA Extends Comment Period on 13 Snurs
Mar 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has extended the comment period on its proposed significant new use rules (Snurs) for 13 chemicals to 23 April. They were published in the Federal Register in January (CW 7 January 2015).
The 45-day extension was granted following requests from companies for more time to research and submit more detailed comments.
-
US EPA Exempts Food Contact Biocide from MRL Requirement
Mar 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued a final rule, exempting the biocidal active substance 9-octadecenoic acid (9 Z)-, sulfonated, oxidised and its potassium and sodium salts from the requirement of establishing a maximum residue limit (MRL).
The exemption covers the substance's use in antimicrobial pesticide formulations for use on food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, as well as food processing equipment and utensils, at a maximum end-use concentration below 250 parts per million (ppm).
The EPA's decision follows a request from Ecolab for the exemption. The final rule took effect on 4 March.
-
Candy Addicts Unite! Nestlé USA is Ditching Some Artificial Flavors and Dyes
Mar 5, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Alesia Lucas
I love candy! I love all types of candy. My dentist can attest that I may have a slight candy addiction – just kidding. Halloween was always my favorite holiday growing up. From bite-sized candies to king-sized bars, I always had sweets on hand. So when I heard that Nestlé USA is committing to remove artificial flavors and FDA-certified colors (like Red 40-Eek!) from its chocolate candy, I was excited. Honestly, my love of candy spans decades and I’m not alone. According to Retailing Today, the candy (confectionery) industry increased their sales to a record $33.6 billion in 2013.
They are doing pretty well…
This multi-billion dollar industry has been keeping sweets on the shelves, dentist offices busy, and my stomach full… But there’s a sour side to this industry that’s all about sweets.
In the last 50 years, the amount of synthetic dye used in foods has increased by 500%. Excessive consumption has been linked to hyperactivity, organ damage, and in some cases cancer. With all of this information, it is no surprise that 60% of Americans said that they’d rather purchase products free of artificial coloring or flavoring.
Nestlé USA had sales of 10 billion dollars in 2013 and has been listed (for 17 years!) as one of Fortunemagazine’s “The World’s Most Admired Food Companies.” We wrote about artificial dyes last weekhere and it is great to see a major company like Nestlé take a step in the right direction.
Photo Credit: Schoko Riegel, Flickr
So what does this mean?By the end of 2015, more than 250 products and 10 brands including NESTLE® CRUNCH®, BUTTERFINGER®, BABY RUTH®, SKINNY COW®, RAISINETS®, SNO CAPS®, 100 GRAND® and CHUNKY® will be free of artificial flavors and certified colors.Products will be identified by a “No Artificial Flavors or Colors” claim featured on the packaging.Nestlé is going to replace the artificial flavors and colors with natural ingredients. For example: in CRUNCH®, natural vanilla flavor will replace artificial vanillin.All newly launched chocolate and non-chocolate candy products (gummies, sours, etc.) introduced by Nestlé USA will be made without artificial flavors or colors.
Check out Nestlé USA’s full press release here.
Hopefully more companies will step up and we hope Nestlé will consider finding less toxic ways to package their products. There’s a lot of work to do but each step towards becoming a safer is definitely worth it.
-
White House Taps Transportation Official To Head Chemical Safety Board
Mar 5, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
President Barack Obama will nominate a Department of Transportation lawyer to become the next chair of the Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), the White House announced on March 3.
If confirmed, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chief counsel for the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration since October 2011, would replace CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, whose five-year term expires in June.
Sutherland currently heads a team of lawyers that handles legal, policy, regulatory, and enforcement issues affecting companies that transport hazardous materials.
Prior to joining the Transportation Department, Sutherland worked in the tobacco industry as senior counsel to Altria Client Services from 2008 to 2011 and as counsel to Philip Morris USA from 2004 to 2008. She previously worked in the telecommunications industry, holding multiple legal roles at Digex and MCI, now a part of Verizon Communications.
She is one of two nominees recently selected to join CSB, an independent federal agency charged with investigating serious chemical accidents. In January, Obama nominated Kristen Kulinowski, a researcher at the IDA Science & Technology Policy Institute, to serve on the board.
CSB currently has four Senate-confirmed members for its five positions. But in addition to Moure-Eraso, Mark Griffon, who has served on the board since 2010, is also facing the end of his term in June.
The board has been beset in the past year by a series of management problems, including alleged abuses of power by Moure-Eraso. Several congressional lawmakers have urged him to resign.
“This is a dysfunctional, unfair, and unproductive organization, and good people are suffering,” Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told Moure-Eraso at a hearing held on March 4 by the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight & Government Reform. “Until you leave this organization, these problems will persist.”
But Moure-Eraso responded that he would remain in office until his planned retirement. “I have work to do,” he told the committee.
Both Democrats and Republicans on the panel assailed Moure-Eraso for the alleged illegal use of private e-mail for government business, canceling unfinished investigations, and creating a toxic work environment that has caused staff attrition.
-
We Need Leadership from Obama on Fracking or History Will Repeat Itself
Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lois Marie Gibbs
When my neighbors and I first put the facts together – that our Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls was built atop a chemical waste dump that made our kids sick – we had many questions. How could our public officials and institutions have let this happen?
A decade after we learned our families were being exposed to toxins, then-New York Health Commissioner David Axelrod reflected that the episode would long remain “a national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations.”
Governor Cuomo and his health commissioner clearly learned from these wise words, announcing the state would ban fracking within its borders.
It’s a lesson President Obama and his administration should absorb, because they have consistently failed the American people on this issue by ignoring and minimizing the science on fracking.
By placing public health and safety as a first priority, the Cuomo administration demonstrated national leadership.
New York rightly allowed its health department to direct the final deliberation regarding whether to allow fracking. When Health Commissioner Zucker called his counterparts in states that already permit fracking, he discovered that they “weren’t even at the table” when the initial decisions were made.
With substantial scientific study demonstrating the potential harms of fracking and raising troubling, unanswered questions, the Cuomo administration took the right public health and scientific approach: ban fracking rather than expose New Yorkers to serious potential harm.
In the context of a crisis, Obama’s half-measure – a methane reduction plan for inherently dirty fuel, extracted through a destructive and dangerous process – is inadequate.
It’s time for the president to acknowledge the entire, difficult truth about fracking and take real steps to eliminate its inherent harms.
Oil and gas aren’t bridge fuels. They’re fossil fuels that perpetuate our country’s continued reliance on them - whether through additional infrastructure approved by federal agencies or additional lands opened up for drilling. Further investments in them distract from efforts to move our country to renewable energy, while inevitably contributing towards the exacerbation of climate change.
Leadership on climate change requires departing from these energy sources, not minor fixes around the edges that maintain them.
The Obama administration must also acknowledge the science and experiences of Americans that shows fracking does immense harm to people across our nation by contaminating water, polluting air and threatening public health.
The truth, which Interior Secretary Jewell (a former oil/gas industry engineer) and others in the administration have continued to ignore, is that there’s no comparable body of scientific study that shows fracking is safe.
A Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE) analysis of the more than 400 peer-reviewed studies to date on the impacts of fracking and shale gas development is startling:
· 96 percent of papers published on health impacts indicate potential risks or adverse health outcomes
· 87 percent of original research studies published on health outcomes indicates potential risks or adverse health outcomes
· 92 percent of all original research studies on air quality indicate elevated concentrations of air pollutants
· 73 percent of original research studies on water quality indicate potential, positive association, or actual incidence of water contamination.
The science is quickly emerging, with an overwhelming number of studies coming out in the last two years, and this analysis shows that it’s hardly mixed – it’s nearly all bad news.
Residents in states with fracking have already been subjected to these environmental and public health hazards – the Obama administration isn’t only ignoring science, it’s also ignoring everyday Americans it should represent.
The AP unearthed hundreds of complaints about well-water contamination caused by drilling in four states.
A Colorado School of Public Health study found air pollutants near fracking sites at levels sufficient to raise risks for cancer, neurological deficits and respiratory problems. American Lung Association data showed worse air quality in intensely fracked rural areas than in large metropolitan areas.
These are just a handful of hundreds of studies and problems related to fracking, that also include earthquakes, birth defects, and other social costs and hazards. They’re only the tip of the iceberg, as the science that the industry has attempted to stymie for years now emerges.
These aren’t unproven anecdotes to be marginalized, and neither was the poisoning of our families in Love Canal in the 1970s.
The federal Superfund program derived from that catastrophe: a corporation putting toxic chemicals into the ground. Fracking represents the same threat of public health disaster; with corporations pumping a propriety mix of secret, undisclosed chemicals into our land, air and water. Thanks to the “Halliburton loophole,” fracking fluids are exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act and Superfund law.
But as the peer-reviewed science shows us, those fracking fluids can be incredibly dangerous. Which means that each fracking well-pad represents another potential mini-Superfund site.
The tide is turning against fracking, as science mounts and the American people increasingly oppose it.
Obama has two choices: remain behind the curve with stale, timid leadership on fracking and leave a toxic legacy or demonstrate bold leadership that truly addresses climate change and protects Americans from extreme drilling practices.
Gibbs, a former Love Canal resident, is director of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice in Falls Church, Virginia.Top of Form
-
Former Interior Secretary Salazar Talks Obama Admin Action on Power Plan, Oil and Gas Development
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - TV
How will the evolution of the utility industry converge with Clean Power Plan targets and natural gas policy? During today's OnPoint, former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar discusses the challenges facing U.S. EPA as it crafts its final Clean Power Plan rule and the impact the plan could have on grid reliability. Salazar, now a partner at WilmerHale, also weighs in on expanding oil and gas development in the U.S. and the Interior Department's proposed leasing expansions along the Atlantic and in the Arctic.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Secretary Salazar is now a partner at WilmerHale. Secretary Salazar, I thank you for joining me.
Ken Salazar: Thank you, Monica. It's good to be with you.
Monica Trauzzi: Secretary, since you departed the Obama administration, there have been -- there has been a full-focus surge on climate, in particular on the Clean Power Plan. EPA has received a lot of pushback for the state targets it's established as well as the building blocks it's presented in its draft. How dramatically do you anticipate the agency will change its proposal from what we see in the draft?
Ken Salazar: You know, I think from what I understand is they want to have a rule that's going to withstand the test of time. The reality of it is that this administration EPA has another two years to get some things done and this is a very high priority, so what they want to do, in my view, is come up with something that is going to withstand the test of time, and so I think that's why they have spent so much time meeting with stakeholders and receiving input all around the country. So I think there's still significant improvement that is being considered for the rule and looking at matters including some of the timelines, but at the end of the day, there is going to be a new rule, and it's going to be in the best interest of both industry as well as the administration and the country to make sure that it's a rule that does withstand the test of time.
Monica Trauzzi: There's been a lot of disagreement over the impact the plan could have on reliability. We've heard members of FERC raising concerns. NERC has also raised some questions about grid reliability. Is there a way for this plan to occur and for there to be absolutely no impact on reliability in any regions of the country?
Ken Salazar: Well, I think the state implementation plans that are going to be very much a part of this, or the regional implementation plans will take that into account, and I think that one of the key issues here is the amount of time that it's going to take to implement the rule. But certainly the issues of reliability and affordability, those have always been a part of how we deal with electricity here in the country. The Clean Power Plan rule introduces some other elements into that equation, but at the end of the day, we're seeing a transformation happen within the electrical industry like we've never seen before in the history of the company. Many people say that we will see more transformation in the next 10 years than we've seen in the first 100 years, and so that transformation occurs, we're not only going to be dealing with issues of reliability but also with issues of affordability, renewables and a whole host of other things that are causing this transformation and electrical generation and distribution in the country.
Monica Trauzzi: And this utility, this evolution of the utility industry is more apparent now than ever before. Do you think there's enough of a focus on grid investments?
Ken Salazar: I think there should be more. I think the fact of the matter is that the grid is a very valuable infrastructure asset of the United States, the companies who own, municipalities who own the power lines and the grid, and in truth, it is a system that has not been upgraded, and so it's something that continues to need increasing investment, new power lines and more efficient power lines, all of those kind of things are part of the equation of how we will provide electricity to a growing demand for electricity around the country.
Monica Trauzzi: Many utilities have brought in their portfolios to include significant natural gas investments. Do you think action by local governments on fracking could undermine or derail the overarching national approach on natural gas?
Ken Salazar: I think we all have -- we understand the reality, and that is that we have a natural gas abundance here in this country, a 100-year supply of natural gas that's plentiful in many of the regions of the country and we have a system to distribute and deliver natural gas all over the United States of America. So I don't see the limitations that are being proposed in some states as rolling that back. On the other hand, I do think those limitations ought to be based on the science, and the reality of it is that, when you talk to the scientists, hydraulic fracking is, in fact, safe, and we find ourselves at a very fortunate part of history in the United States of America where we're more energy-independent and job -- manufacturing jobs are coming back to the United States in major ways, and that's all a part of this energy revolution that we find ourselves in. And so in places where I had watched the hydraulic fracking debate take place, I think it's important for the communities that are involved to understand the national security, the economic security and the environmental security implications of the natural gas boom that we're seeing here in this country, which I believe are positive.
Monica Trauzzi: So as we see some U.S. oil and gas operations being negatively affected by the downward swing in oil prices, is there a national interest for those prices to rise? What do you think the impact is on energy security here in the United States of these low oil prices that we're seeing?
Ken Salazar: Well, I think the history of both oil and natural gas prices shows that they go up and they will go down. I think most people who are in the industry and who have been following these issues for a long time know that there will be spikes where it'll go -- it'll be up and it'll be down, but the reality of it is that, when you look at the global realities of oil and gas, we expect that there's going to be increases in the price of oil over time, and here in the United States, for the first time in modern history, we're in the position where we are getting to energy security for our country, and so much of it has to do with the fact that the technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking has allowed the United States to get itself to this fortunate point of view, and that's been coupled with some very smart policy changes as well, including efficiency, higher fuel standards for vehicles and a whole host of other things that have got us to this good place in 2015.
Monica Trauzzi: Let's talk about some drilling in the Atlantic and the Arctic. The Obama administration recently proposed a leasing expansion along the Atlantic and also in portions of the Arctic. How significantly has the game changed since Deepwater Horizon to allow for such a proposal?
Ken Salazar: Well, I think that if you watch what this administration has done from the beginning, the all-of-the-above energy strategy has included oil and gas, and so the critics of the administration that have said that it was not supporting oil and gas need to look at the reality of the facts in terms of the decisions that the administration has made, including opening up parts of the Arctic and in the more recent decisions that were announced by the administration, looking at the Atlantic in terms of finding out what is there. And so there is -- oil and gas are a significant portion of the energy portfolio of the United States of America, and it is, indeed, a part of why we're having the economic resurgence, the best of times that we've had for a long time, and again addressing the fundamental issue of energy security has, I think, been one of the major achievements of the last six, seven years.
Monica Trauzzi: On the Keystone XL pipeline, you've said it should be built and can be done safely as long as conditions are imposed. Having worked directly with the president, how do you think he'll ultimately come down on the pipeline?
Ken Salazar: I have no idea how he will ultimately come down, and obviously he is following the processes that he wants to follow. The reality of it for me is that I do believe the pipeline should be built because I think it is in the national interest and our bi-national interest with Canada as well as the concept of North America energy independence when you see what's happening in Mexico, what's happening in Canada, what's happening here in the United States. We're the focal point of the globe relative to energy, and unfortunately, my own view is that the Keystone pipeline has become mired down in the debate that could have gone in another direction because there was a way, I think, in which that pipeline could have been built where we could have also advanced the concept of carbon capture through the carbon sinks that exist along the pipeline, but it hasn't gone that way. It's been a very bipolar kind of issue for the country that has very much politicized the whole effort of building the pipeline.
Monica Trauzzi: On politics, how do you think climate and energy will play in 2016?
Ken Salazar: I think climate and energy will be part of the debate, and how exactly it comes out, we'll see, but the reality of it is energy plays into our national security, our economic security and our environmental security, and so I think it is important for the candidates who are going to be running for president to be able to articulate their vision about where the United States is going on energy and climate as well. On the climate side, the fact is that the scientists are all in agreement that we have significant global warming. I think the debate today is really what do you do about it, and I think that interestingly enough, what you will find that, since I came to Washington as a U.S. senator a long time ago in -- starting in 2004-2005 as a U.S. senator here, we've already seen significant reductions in CO2 emissions here in the United States, much of that led by the utility industry. You know, 15 percent reduction in CO2 emissions just during the time that I have spent my time in the U.S. Senate and in the Department of Interior. So we're headed in the right direction. I think, Monica, the real question is what is the right model for us to move forward and what are the appropriate targets and what are the timelines for us to meet the CO2 emissions that are required.
Monica Trauzzi: Would you get back into politics if the right opportunity presented itself?
Ken Salazar: You know, I love what I'm doing now. Colorado is my home, and I very much enjoy doing what I'm doing as a practicing lawyer, and that's what I was trained to do and practiced law for a long time. I was attorney general of my state for six years and practicing law and being a -- working on the ranch with my brothers, and my family is also something else that I very much enjoy.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it right there on that note. Thank you for coming on the show.
Ken Salazar: Thank you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
PJM Analysis of EPA Clean Power Plan Puts Price on Carbon
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
A new analysis of the economic impacts of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan by the nation's largest grid operator places a price on carbon dioxide emissions and concludes that under nearly 40 compliance scenarios, a regional solution is less costly than a state-by-state approach.
The model employed by the PJM Interconnection in its analysis also concludes that the retirement of fossil-fueled power plants "will occur gradually" through the 2030 deadline for compliance with the EPA plan.
Running the scenarios through the complex model took more than two months of computational clock time, PJM said.
The analysis was requested by the Organization of PJM States Inc., a group made up of the regulators from the 14 jurisdictions served wholly or in part by PJM -- Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. It was accompanied by an analysis that offers state-level details.
"State-by-state compliance options -- compared to regional compliance options -- likely would result in higher compliance costs for most PJM states because there are fewer low-cost options available within state boundaries than across the entire region," the analysis said. Also, states acting individually "would increase the amount of capacity at risk for retirement because some states would likely face higher CO2 prices" in an individual approach, PJM said.
"Our states have recognized the value of being part of the larger regional [electric power] dispatch, and they're interested in understanding what the implications would be of going on your own versus participating in the region," Michael Kormos, PJM's executive vice president for operations, said in an interview.
The model PJM used to look at both regional and state-by-state compliance "is a representation of how the market is currently dispatched," with least-cost resources being called on for power to meet the electricity needs of the more than 61 million people in PJM's footprint, Kormos said.
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.
For assessing the costs of regional versus state-by-state compliance, the model results in a single price expressed in dollars per ton of CO2 emissions that applies across the entire PJM footprint.
The carbon price "is akin to an emissions tax that is adjusted iteratively to ensure that the region served by PJM achieves" its target, the analysis said. The price easily allows emissions or emission reductions to be exchanged between affected generating units and across states, and the cost of CO2 emissions is treated as an input cost to electricity production, similar to other variable costs such as fuel or operations and maintenance expenses.
A somewhat counterintuitive finding by PJM was that "adding more energy efficiency and renewable energy and retaining more nuclear generation likely would lead to lower CO2 prices and could result in fewer megawatts" of fossil-fueled units at risk of retirement.
"With the renewables and nuclear coming in as basically carbon free, we're actually able to run those coal resources more," Kormos explained, because they are "getting credit from the renewables and the nuclear as zero carbon."
The analysis found that roughly 6,000 megawatts of mostly coal-fired power plants "at some point along the way" to the CPP deadline of 2030 "will most likely retire no matter what," Kormos said.
Roughly 16,000 MW of units make up a middle scenario of plants that are likely to retire, and, under the worst-case scenario, unit retirements are projected to be as high as 31,000 MW, he said. As of December, PJM had a total of 183,604 MW of generation, of which 67,749 MW are coal-fired units.
The economic analysis is feeding into a "well underway" analysis of the reliability implications of compliance with the EPA plan, Kormos said.
"Right now, we're running those retirements through our normal transmission analysis to look at ultimately what would be the upgrades we would need to be put in place to handle those units retiring and the timing of those upgrades. We'll also start to look overall at the ability to replace that capacity, what the timeline of that would look like," Kormos said.
-
In Carbon-Pricing Model, PJM States Benefit from Sharing Clean Power Plan Burdens
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
States that are better-situated to meet carbon emission levels under the Clean Power Plan still might suffer from higher compliance costs if they don't work with their neighbors, according to an economic analysis by the PJM Interconnection.
"State-by-state compliance options, compared to regional compliance options, likely would result in higher compliance costs for most PJM states," according to a report from the regional grid organization, which serves 13 states in or near the Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern regions, as well as the District of Columbia. "This is because there are fewer low-cost options available within state boundaries than across the entire region."
U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan asks states to write their own plans to reduce electricity-sector emissions by differing amounts, either working alone or together.
Because the electric grid is so interconnected, the study implies that states with lower compliance costs might still see higher regional electricity prices if they don't share carbon-reducing resources with states that are working toward tougher goals.
"The implication is that even though the ... regional compliance scenario resulted in a CO2 price of zero, and some states on an individual basis also have a CO2 price of zero, there is still a cost in the form of higher [locational marginal price] and load energy payments to all states by choosing individual state compliance," according to state-level data.
PJM's study instituted a carbon price to predict the impact of the Clean Power Plan in 17 scenarios, examining varying levels of renewable resources, energy efficiency, natural gas prices, nuclear generation and new natural gas combined-cycle units. The report looked at the cost of achieving mass-based targets, or caps on the amount of carbon dioxide that states would emit.
The report says the modeling can be compared to an emissions tax or a system for states to swap credits for emissions or reductions. Either way, compliance would be ensured for the whole region.McConnell urges states to defy EPA
PJM operates in 14 jurisdictions: Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. At least four states -- Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and West Virginia -- would not meet their mass targets for 2020 if they tried to comply individually.
Under the regional modeling, some states would offset other states' emissions to bring down costs overall.
E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.
Kentucky, for example, has less stringent goals than other coal-intensive states. In a regional scenario, it would overshoot its target by 5 million to 8 million tons of carbon emissions by 2029, enabling it to offset emissions in states that fall short of their individual goals.
PJM and other grid organizations have for months been encouraging states to overcome politics and work together to comply with the proposed rule. The research, though, is not meant to advocate particular policy positions.
The findings seem to support arguments for regional compliance, but they also highlight a key obstacle: persuading states with less stringent goals to be part of a multistate compliance plan.
The incentives for regional cooperation may not be enough to overcome the political dynamics in coal-dependent Kentucky -- a state that has enacted a law deeming the regulation illegal and limiting compliance options.
State officials in Kentucky have said they might not need to do anything to comply and may be able to rely on already-planned coal plant shutdowns to reach required emissions levels by 2030 (Greenwire, March 4). And Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, majority leader of the U.S. Senate, wrote an op-ed this week urging other states to refuse to comply with the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, March 4).
Given the political environment, it could be difficult to bring states like Kentucky on board with a regional solution, like a carbon tax or trading system.
-
GOP Chairman Slams ‘Underimpressive’ Interior Budget Plan
Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) on Thursday blasted the Interior Department’s budget request, arguing it avoided confronting major problems while creating expensive, unnecessary programs.
Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the plan was “really underimpressive” and that he “found no idea in there that I consider creative or different or unusual.”
He criticized what he saw as “just the same old, same old, raise taxes, raise fees, write more regulations and then throw money at a problem” in the $13.2 billion budget request, including money to acquire new federal land while current property needs maintenance.
Bishop made the comments at a hearing with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. It was the sole hearing in the House on a day in which both chambers of Congress canceled their sessions because of a winter storm.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) welcomed the budget, pointing out that Interior, which leases land to energy production, proposes to bring more money in than it will spend.
“If Congress simply enacted your budget, we could reduce the deficit by more than half a million dollars,” he said. “Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen.”
Jewell said the proposal is “is a forward-looking budget that provides targeted investments to grow our domestic energy portfolio, creating jobs here at home, building communities resilience and revitalizing our national parks as they approach their 100th anniversary.”
While Republicans were highly critical of Interior policies such as those for endangered species and offshore oil and gas drilling, lawmakers said they were thankful to Jewell and Deputy Interior Secretary Mike Connor for venturing through the poor weather to come to the hearing.
“Secretary Jewell, thank you for being here today despite the fact that the federal government is shut down,” said Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam). “I’m very impressed that our secretary is here.”
Bishop asked that members of the panel submit any opening remarks for the hearing’s record by 5 p.m. “or whenever this building crushes under a blanket of snow ... whichever occurs faster.”
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) said he was thankful for the “Alaskan weather,” and jokingly proposed moving Alaska’s Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race to the streets surrounding the Capitol, because a lack of snow has made planning for the race difficult.
-
EPA Chief Races to Finish Climate Rules Before Obama Leaves Office
Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
Gina McCarthy is locked in a race against time to complete landmark climate change regulations before President Obama leaves office.
With just 22 months left in Obama’s presidency, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator and her team are burning the midnight oil to enshrine emissions regulations for power plants in federal law.
McCarthy says she’s “busier than [she’s] ever been” as the caretaker of what Obama hopes will be a legacy-defining achievement on climate change.
“One of the main focuses of the White House right now is to make sure that the administration is coordinated, so that the entire breadth of the climate action plan can be basically realized before the president leaves office,” McCarthy said during an exclusive sit-down interview in her office.
With the departure of John Podesta, Obama’s former climate adviser, from the White House, McCarthy is meeting more with Obama than ever before.
White House climate and energy adviser Dan Utech called McCarthy’s role “essential” to the president’s vision over his final two years.
“Climate change is a top priority for the president over the next two years and the EPA and Gina McCarthy are really at the center of what the administration is trying to do,” Utech said.
Describing her style as “hands on,” McCarthy said she spends as much time as she needs to at the White House to update the administration and flesh out strategy.
Last week, she met with Brian Deese, who replaced Podesta as adviser to the president, and Utech to walk through “big issues” the agency is dealing with on the carbon pollution standards.
The White House is equally engaged, McCarthy said, which is crucial at a time when the administration will have to be coordinated in order to withstand the onslaught of challenges Republicans and industry opponents plan to throw its way.
Within their first two months of taking control of both chambers, Republicans have held multiple hearings challenging the EPA on the president’s carbon pollution rules, which seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ran his reelection on a promise to dismantle as many pieces of those and other EPA regulations as he possibly could, looking to attach riders to energy packages or spending bills.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack put it bluntly last month, saying, “I wake up every morning, I say my prayers and I’m thankful I’m not the EPA administrator.”
Heather Zichal, Obama’s former climate czar, described the president’s selection of McCarthy as calculated and deliberate. He made it knowing that, after his reelection, climate change would be high on the administration’s to-do list.
“Going back to the very beginning after the president got reelected we asked, ‘how do we make sure this climate legacy piece is done and done as best as we can?’ ” Zichal said.
“We looked at the 111-D regulations as a high priority and a consensus was clearly reached that Gina was perfectly suited to get those regulations across the finish line,” Zichal added, referencing the section of the Clean Air Act section that the administration has used as its statutory authority to impose the carbon pollution rule.
Having helped spearhead the administration’s fuel economy standards and mercury toxics regulations, McCarthy was the clear choice.
“She is respected on both sides of aisle and has a reputation for being pragmatic,” said Zichal, who left the administration in 2013 after a four-year run.
Still, Republicans are adamant that they will fight not only the administration’s proposals to curb carbon emissions from new and existing power plants but the first-ever proposal to rein in methane emissions and a deal struck with China to slash greenhouse gases.
McConnell called upon states this week to defy the EPA and to refuse to comply with the carbon regulations.
“Think twice before submitting a state plan ... when the administration is standing on shaky legal ground,” McConnell wrote in an op-ed.
Opponents argue the administration’s climate regulations will hurt the fossil-fuel industry and damage the economy and are representative of a president that has “unilaterally overreached.”
The EPA logged grueling hours to issue the draft carbon rule on time, and it will be doing that again in the lead-up to its release of the finalized version, McCarthy said.
The work includes poring over the millions of public comments, criticisms and recommendations for the rule that have flooded the agency.
The “specific criticisms that you might hear over and over, they tend to be the ones that you need to pay the most attention to,” she said.
Public submissions that have started to “take a theme” include objections to the interim goals the EPA set for states, which require the majority of their emissions reductions by 2020. State officials, utilities and power plant operators have raised questions about an option the EPA provided for states to cut pollution by going “beyond the fence” of the facility itself.
That means states could avoid retiring a power plant by investing in cleaner technology, pushing energy efficiency programs that will cut demand or investing in wind and solar.
“We certainly have enough information to know what the big issues are that we need to tackle so I have been meeting at least once a week every week with the team of people in the agency that are working on 111-D,” McCarthy said.
In the end, she isn’t terribly worried about attacks on the rule.
“For a rule like this there is no way that we are not going to be challenged,” McCarthy said of pending and future court challenges. “We think we have appropriately used 111-D for this sector and that the rule will be not just be legally defensive, it’s going to be solid.”
Similarly, Zichal said, the “president will have no problem vetoing anything that attacks his authority under the Clean Air Act.”
There is one other elephant in the room that could complicate the administration’s plans, however — the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
Asked if that single decision will make or break the climate change legacy she and the president have set out to achieve, McCarthy answered with an emphatic “no.”
“I don’t think that is really going to speak to the president’s legacy,” McCarthy said. “I think the work that he is doing and the climate action plan is his legacy. I know what this agency needs to provide for him and deliver as part of that plan.”
As for what her own future holds, McCarthy said that as long as she has her “spunk” she is “going to continue to work.”
Asked if she’d be open to returning under a Hillary Clinton presidency, McCarthy laughed and said “I actually think I will consider that at some other point in time.”
“But right now, this is the time of my life,” McCarthy said. “I feel like I’m 25, not 60.”
“I fully expect that any next president will have their own team to pull together, and frankly I’ve had a wonderful run both as assistant administrator and administrator and I don’t expect that I’ll be staying on.”
-
'We Are a Separate Nation' -- Brown Touts State's Influence in Global Climate Arena
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) yesterday made clear that the Golden State sees itself as an international superpower in the climate policy arena.
Brown made explicit this underlying assumption in his state's climate agenda yesterday at a discussion of a wide-ranging 2013 state agreement with China to explore carbon-trading, electric vehicles, building efficiency and other areas.
"It is a little bold to talk about the China-California partnership as though we were a separate nation. But we are a separate nation," he said, to applause and laughter.
Since taking office in 2010, Brown has signed agreements with the national governments of China and Mexico, as well as a subnational agreement with Guangdong province and a regional pact with Oregon, Washington state and British Columbia to work on West Coast low-carbon fuel and energy policies.
His predecessor, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), signed agreements with states in Brazil and Mexico and is now chairman of a climate nonprofit that counts some 45 regional governments as members.
"This is a very unique environment, where we, without even realizing it or planning it, have risen above the partisan divisions that are tearing apart the country, and we've been able to keep our eye on the ball to get this stuff done," Brown said. "And we're still doing stuff. Energy efficiency, storage."A bigger role for Calif. at Paris climate talks?
Brown praised the steps President Obama has taken on climate change, which include the sweeping Clean Power Plan proposal released last year by U.S. EPA for states to collectively reduce emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030.
"If we look to Washington, yes, the executive branch under President Obama is making some very bold moves to deal with climate change and renewable energy," Brown said. "But it's not enough for the global challenge."
The Obama administration has been supportive of California's climate diplomacy efforts, another top state official said.
"Oh, they're very aware of it, and absolutely OK with it," said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, which is in charge of implementing the state's goal of reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020 under the 2006 law A.B. 32. "The White House knows what we're up to; the State Department knows what we're up to."
Nichols said she thinks California will have a bigger role in the upcoming U.N. climate talks in Paris, citing draft documents related to the meeting that she said envision an emphasis on subnational activities as a "key building block" for achieving countrywide pledges.
"Because of that, I think we will also be playing a larger role than we have in some of the recent talks," she said.A call for more out-of-state renewables
Former Energy Secretary Steven Chu also appeared at the forum and praised California's leadership, saying it should have a bigger seat at the table in international climate negotiations.
"It is a good thing that in Paris we're beginning to say, 'Don't look only at the central governments,'" he said. "Look what we're doing at the state level, the city level, that adds up to a national movement."
Chu also offered some constructive criticism, recommending that the state embrace renewable power from outside its borders. The state's current rules for its renewable portfolio standard reserve larger quotas for power that can be easily transmitted to in-state customers. Right now, California gets about 20 percent of its solar and 50 percent of its wind power from outside the state.
"Quite candidly, there are other places that have tremendous solar, and better wind," he said. "Sometimes building in California can be more expensive -- more slow. Longer permitting times."
Yesterday's event was a forum on climate collaboration between California and China, organized to highlight the work the two governments have been doing since well before Brown signed a memorandum of understanding with China's National Development and Reform Commission in 2013 (ClimateWire, Sept. 16, 2013).
The agreement committed the two jurisdictions to cooperating on "activities to implement carbon emissions trading systems and other market-based instruments," as well as actions that reduce buildings' energy consumption, increase the use of electrified transportation and otherwise "mitigate carbon emissions while enabling sustained economic growth."
One of the nonprofits that have been involved in the collaboration, the New York-based Asia Society, put out a report detailing meetings and employee exchanges between a number of government agencies, nonprofits and corporations.
The report was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund; the Energy Foundation; the Annenberg Foundation Trust; the University of Calfornia, San Diego; and Salesforce.com.
-
White House Balked at Regulating Explosive Gas on Oil Trains
Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez
The White House held back on curbing explosive gas in oil trains last year, Reuters reports.
Current and former administration officials told Reuters that after considering regulations that would have controlled explosive gas in oil trains they decided against it and left it to industry.
Reuters reports the White House balked at addressing the problem, instead leaning on North Dakota's push to remove the gas, called "light ends."
In its own regulations on the safety of tanker cars carrying crude oil, the administration sidestepped tackling the volatile gas.
"These trains are going all across the country so it absolutely has to be the feds who are in charge," Karen Darch, mayor of Barrington, Ill., told Reuters.
Barrington's mayor sees a number of oil and ethanol trains pass through weekly.
-
Administration Considered, Ruled Out Explosive-Gas Restrictions on Oil Trains
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
The Obama administration last year considered creating national restrictions on transporting explosive gas in oil trains but decided against it.
Instead, the administration backed a state effort in North Dakota to force the energy industry to drain volatile gas known as light ends from crude oil before transporting it by rail.
Current and former officials said they were unsure whether the federal government had jurisdiction to create such regulations.
This spring, the administration is expected to release new regulations governing crude oil trains. The rule follows an oil train safety plan rolled out in July 2014 that includes requirements for tougher tanker shells, slower oil train deliveries and advanced braking systems.
Environmental and safety advocates say even combined, the efforts are not enough to protect rail neighbors from potentially deadly explosions.
"These trains are going all across the country, so it absolutely has to be the feds who are in charge," Barrington, Ill., Mayor Karen Darch said.
Almost two-thirds of the 1.2 million barrels of crude oil produced in the Bakken Shale daily are transported to refineries by rail.
An Energy Department official said the agency is writing a report on the dangers of Bakken crude that "may be of use to the Department of Transportation, which has regulatory authority over the transport of crude oil" (Patrick Rucker, Reuters, March 5). -- AW
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
Add recipients
Suggested