Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Applauds New Senate TSCA Reform Bill
Mar 11, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Chemical industry groups voiced unequivocal support for the new legislation, introduced in the US Senate on Tuesday to reform the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 10 March 2014). -
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmaker Seeks to Squelch Flame Retardants: Sen. Leno Proposes Bill to Identify Kid’s Products Containing Chemicals
Mar 11, 2015 | The Daily Journal
By Samantha Weigel
Swaddling a newborn against a nursing pillow or laying them on a cozy changing pad may not seem like dangerous behaviors to most parents. -
Working Groups Formed for US-Canada Regulatory Work Plans
Mar 11, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Two technical working groups have been set up for their respective chemical management work plans, that are being developed under the US-Canada Regional Cooperation Council. The plans should be published by the end of this month. -
Lawmakers Near Rollback of Freedom Industries-Inspired Chemical Tank Rules
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Lawmakers in West Virginia appear poised to dismantle much of a chemical tank safety bill approved after the Freedom Industries chemical leak last year, after the legislation cleared a House committee late last night. -
CSB Report Faults Poor Design, Risky Practices in Deadly 2010 Pa. Blast
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Chemical Safety Board formally closed one of its oldest investigations today, releasing a technical report faulting design flaws and risky operating procedures in a 2010 explosion that killed two workers at a Monaca, Pa., zinc refinery. -
Repeal the Decades-Old Oil Export Ban to Help Energy Renaissance
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By George Baker
The ongoing shale oil renaissance and the United States’ abundant natural resources has transformed our energy landscape, allowing American consumers access to affordable fuel supplies and spurring significant investment and job growth across our economy. -
State Lawmakers Demand End to Crude Export Ban
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Texas lawmakers are calling for an end to the U.S. ban on crude exports as an oversupply of oil and natural gas fills up storage tanks and pipelines and drives down oil prices. -
Carnegie Endowment's Gordon Discusses New Oil-Climate Index, Says Industry Lacking Transparency
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - TV
As the range of oils and extraction methods continues to evolve, how do various oils compare with one another on their climate impacts? -
Obama Embraces Keystone Skepticism
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama has increasingly sided with the most negative assessments of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, leading both opponents and supporters to believe that he’ll reject the contentious project’s permit. -
States Raise Reliability Concerns with EPA Carbon Plan
Mar 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
Several state officials raised concerns today that EPA’s greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants could hurt the power system’s reliability. -
Coal States Say Clean Power Plan Falls Short Technically
Mar 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
Officials from Indiana and Wyoming say the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan will harm their manufacturing-heavy and energy-producing states. -
New York, California Urge EPA to Move Forward on Climate Plan
Mar 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
Officials from New York and California argued today that EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants is both necessary and a positive option for state economies. -
State Officials Clash Over Clean Power Plan
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
A key Senate panel today heard conflicting views from states on U.S. EPA's controversial Clean Power Plan. -
Ark. Joins Legal Fight Against EPA's Carbon Rule
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Arkansas has joined 13 states that are asking the courts to block U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, following a Republican takeover of the governor's and attorney general's offices in January. -
Lawmakers Cite EPA Rules In Push For 'Moderate' Regulatory Reform Bills
Mar 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House and Senate lawmakers are citing what they see as burdens from EPA air, water and other rules as justifying their push to advance “moderate” regulatory reform efforts, claiming they could win support from Democrats and other opponents of past reform efforts by using the bills to create a more effective regulatory process. -
Groups Begin To Outline Options For EPA To Drop CCS From NSPS Plan
Mar 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
As EPA considers whether to require new coal plants to install partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), critics and supporters are offering different options for how the agency can drop the requirement without abandoning its effort to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) at new power plants. -
EPA Chief Calls for 'Binding' Global Agreement
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The international community must reach a legally binding agreement on climate change this year, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said today. -
EPA Head Calls for US Leadership in Climate
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The United States ought to lead the way among nations to fight climate change internationally, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said. -
Koch Fighting Climate Research Funding Probe
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The conglomerate owned by conservative activists Charles and David Koch said it won’t cooperate with Senate Democrats’ investigation into its potential funding of skeptical climate research. -
Oil, Rail Groups Head to White House Amid Surge in Crude-Train Derailments
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Representatives from the biggest U.S. freight railroads last week sat down with regulators and White House officials to discuss sweeping new crude-by-rail safety rules.
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Applauds New Senate TSCA Reform Bill
Mar 11, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Chemical industry groups voiced unequivocal support for the new legislation, introduced in the US Senate on Tuesday to reform the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 10 March 2014).
NGOs, however, were quick to say it was flawed and had loopholes that needed fixing, even as they conceded that the bill is an improvement over the previous version, the Chemicals Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) (CW 22 May 2013).
The Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was introduced jointly, by Senators David Vitter (Republican-Louisiana) and Tom Udall (Democrat-New Mexico).
Observing the Vitter-Udall bill is “the best and only opportunity to achieve a pragmatic, bipartisan solution to reform chemical regulation,” American Chemistry Council president Cal Dooley said it will “offer the kind of predictability, consistency and certainty that manufacturers and the national marketplace need, while also strengthening oversight and providing consumers with more confidence in the safety of chemicals.”
Calling for swift passage of the legislation, he said the measure would create a “cohesive, effective national chemical management system that will give consumers, retailers, manufacturers, public health advocates and regulators confidence that the chemicals in commerce are being used safely.”
“The market disruptions caused by emerging international chemical control laws, ‘retail regulation’ imposed by big-box stores, and restrictions and bans imposed by state legislatures are constant reminders that Washington needs to take action,” said Bill Allmond, vice president of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. “Introducing this bill is a step in the right direction and is clearly an improvement over the status quo.” Members of Congress, serious about improving TSCA, should support this bill as a vehicle for reform, he added.
Ernie Rosenberg, president of the American Cleaning Institute, commented that the measure sets “us on a path to passing a more effective law to govern chemicals in commerce”, adding that “a well designed, updated law can further enable our industry’s ongoing work to develop and innovate more sustainable cleaning products.”
Chris Cathcart, president of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, termed the bipartisan introduction of the bill “a great step forward”, and said his group remains confident that “meaningful reform to strengthen the EPA's ability to review and manage chemicals in commerce can be achieved.”
The bill has “improved notably” from the CSIA but it still contains “rollbacks and loopholes that make it worse than current law”, said Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. For example, a “lax EPA” could use the bill to give a green light to deregulate hundreds of controversial chemicals with minimal review, he added. However, “the bill's failings would be easy to remedy, and we we continue to work to get this bill to a point where it would be acceptable,” he said.
While Senators Vitter and Udall have made some “positive changes, the bill is not up to the important task of protecting public health,” said Andy Igrejas, director of the Safer Chemicals, Health Families coalition. “We plan to work with senators from both parties to make the needed improvements.”
NGO Safer States said: “It is bewildering and frustrating that our lawmakers would embrace the chemical industry’s proposal to undermine our best and most productive source of health protections over the last decade: state governments.” Under the bill, the group said, state authorities would be “asked to stand by and watch, hoping the EPA will regulate tens of thousands of chemicals under enormous industry pressure and with very limited resources. Our state governments cannot compromise on their responsibility to protect the health of their residents.”
-
Mar 11, 2015 | The Daily Journal
By Samantha Weigel
Swaddling a newborn against a nursing pillow or laying them on a cozy changing pad may not seem like dangerous behaviors to most parents. But for state Sen. Mark Leno, who’s leading the charge against the ubiquitous use of flame retardant chemicals in polyurethane foam and common household furnishings, everyday children’s products could be causing harm.
Leno, D-San Francisco, announced Tuesday a bill that would enable parents to choose what they expose their children to by requiring juvenile products be clearly labeled with whether they contain flame retardant chemicals tied to health hazards like cancer, infertility, lower IQ levels, hormone disruption and hyperactivity. When burned, flame retardants can create carbon monoxide and are extremely hazardous to firefighters as well, Leno said.
Senate Bill 763 would apply to everyday children’s goods like bassinets, high chair pads, nap mats, strollers, kid’s upholstered furniture, infant seats, baby carriers worn by parents and more.
Leno’s legislation builds off his previous successes to label upholstered furnishings and encouraging state officials to update California’s decades-old flammability standard that led to the pervasive use of fire retardants in the first place.
Opponents of Leno’s efforts fear the public is losing sight of the protective value flame retardant chemicals offer and argue federal authorities already provide regulatory guidance.
Still, Leno contends his efforts are vital to educating consumers and offering them options.
“Over the years we came to understand how dangerous these chemicals are. They bioaccumulate in our body, they’re bio-pervasive, they can be found in our food chain, they can be found in the blood of polar bears in the North Pole,” Leno said. “It’s important to label them because these are products with which our youngest and most vulnerable have their most intimate daily contact. They’re possibly sucking on them, they’ve got their head buried in them, they’re embraced by them and these chemicals are most dangerous to them.”
Surveys conducted by the Center for Environmental Health revealed several leading manufacturers sold children’s products that either contained flame retardants or failed to disclose whether their items were made with these chemicals, said Charles Margulis, spokesman for the center. Furthermore, reports of discrepancies between what a manufacturer, distributor or seller claim is used in a particular children’s product is troubling, Margulis said.
“We tested a wide range of products and quite often when a product is made with foam, that foam is made with flame retardant chemicals. So we’re quite glad the bill is being introduced,” Margulis said. “Having a legal requirement is a very simple matter, these products already have tags, it’s nothing burdensome to the company.”
While many children’s products are exempt under the state’s flammability standards, which spawned the use of flame retardants starting in 1975, Leno said polyurethane foam commonly used in infant’s items is widely treated with the harmful chemicals.
Widespread use
Prior to Gov. Jerry Brown taking action in 2013, the decades-old law Technical Bulletin 117 required upholstered furniture sold in California to be able to withstand a direct flame. Due to the state’s marketplace presence, it resulted in the widespread use of flame retardants across the world, as it was unreasonable for manufacturers to make products for one state alone. Now, the updated requirement known as TB 117-2013 only requires products withstand smoldering and can be met without the use of flame retardant chemicals.
Leno said SB 763 is a continuation of his successful legislation last year that requires upholstered furniture such as beds and couches be labeled as to whether they contain flame retardant chemicals. Ultimately, the hope is informed consumers through market demand will phase out the use of flame retardants, Leno said.
“Our new fire safety standard, equally fire safe … allows for compliance with or without the use of these toxic flame retardants. So it’s really a free market concept, which is why our most recent efforts have enjoyed bipartisan support,” Leno said. “The products will be labeled so a consumer can know and we’ll send a market signal as to which choices they prefer.”
Brian Goodman with the American Chemistry Council, an industry advocacy group, argues flame retardants are a vital tool and already subject to review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies in the United States and around the world.
“We should not lose sight of the fact that flame retardants provide an important layer of fire protection and help save lives,” Goodman wrote in an email. “Rather than focusing on bills that would duplicate the efforts of existing agencies, we would prefer to work with California policymakers and other stakeholders on legislation that would build on the progressive fire safety measures that have been responsible for the reduction in fires and fire deaths in California over the last several decades.”
Years-long effort
Leno’s bill is already garnering support and is co-sponsored by the California Professional Firefighters, Center for Environmental Health and Consumer Federation of California.
Leno cites years of failed legislative efforts to highlight the harmful effects of flame retardants and retract their presence in common household products as a struggle in the face of heavy, and misleading, lobbying efforts.
Several years ago, chemical industry representatives operating under the guise of the group Citizens for Fire Safety and its affiliate Californians for Fire Safety Institute, allegedly supported false testimony, according to Leno. He added the groups’ deceptive fear tactics scared some fellow lawmakers into backing down from attempts to protect the public against flame retardants.
Per Leno’s bill, juvenile products sold in stores would have to have a label. Products sold online or in magazines would have to indicate whether they contained flame retardant chemicals and disobeying the law could result in fines between $1,000 for a first offense and up to a $10,000 penalty for a fourth or subsequent violation.
The Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation — which oversees the state’s flammability standard — would be responsible for regularly ensuring samples of products claiming to be retardant free are tested with a list of violators potentially posted online.
Leno said he’s confident simply providing consumers with the ability to make informed choices about what types of products they want to expose their families to will help change industry practices and the world’s market.
“Parents do their very best to keep their children and toddlers safe. But all of that could be worth little if the consumer products they spend their days with are themselves health risks,” Leno said. Using flame retardants “became a de facto national standard because of the size of California’s market. It was easier for manufacturers to make all of their products comply with our safety standards. Unfortunately we’ll be paying the price of it for decades to come because even though it’s getting easier by the week to find products without these chemicals, sofas often stay in one’s home for 30 years. And there’s the disposable problem that we have not addressed. Where are we going to put all of these products?”
-
Working Groups Formed for US-Canada Regulatory Work Plans
Mar 11, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Two technical working groups have been set up for their respective chemical management work plans, that are being developed under the US-Canada Regional Cooperation Council. The plans should be published by the end of this month.
Giving an overview at the GlobalChem conference last week, Maya Berci of Environment Canada said that the first work plan deals with collaboration between the two countries on the US's significant new use rules (Snurs) and in Canada significant new activity rules (Snacs), and the second pertains to working together on risk assessment.
Snacs and Snurs are similar tools but there are differences of approach, she said. The objective under the RCC is to reduce the differences. “ [These] are often necessary but where they are not, the objective is to try to minimise them.”
Ms Berci said the work plans should “increase predictability for stakeholders and, for the public, increase understanding.” The idea is to “take the best from both regimes, not the lowest common denominator” and look for areas of improvement, she added.
The work plans run from January, this year, to 2017. “There is still work [to be done] to design a more collaborative long-term framework for regulatory cooperation, which is the partnership statement,” Ms Berci said.
The Snur/Snar working group comprises 17 industry representatives and one NGO; the risk assessment group 16 from industry and three NGOs.
Ms Berci is the manager of programme coordination and regulatory measures at Environment Canada's Program Development and Engagement division.
-
Lawmakers Near Rollback of Freedom Industries-Inspired Chemical Tank Rules
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Lawmakers in West Virginia appear poised to dismantle much of a chemical tank safety bill approved after the Freedom Industries chemical leak last year, after the legislation cleared a House committee late last night.
The House Judiciary Committee passed, in a 13-12 vote, the bill to modify the storage tank requirements, which oil and gas firms had criticized as too strict but Democrats called a crucial safety measure.
The bill, which has the support of the state's Department of Environmental Protection, would reduce mandated inspections, allow less stringent safety standards for some tanks and reduce public access to information about chemicals stored near drinking water intakes.
The proposal would be more effective because it "puts our emphasis closer and closest to the water intakes and the tanks that pose the greatest risk," Environmental Protection Secretary Randy Huffman said.
The bill still must be passed by the full House and be approved by the Senate again after the committee made minor changes (Ken Ward Jr., Charleston [W.Va.] Gazette, March 10). -- SP
-
CSB Report Faults Poor Design, Risky Practices in Deadly 2010 Pa. Blast
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Chemical Safety Board formally closed one of its oldest investigations today, releasing a technical report faulting design flaws and risky operating procedures in a 2010 explosion that killed two workers at a Monaca, Pa., zinc refinery.
The 57-page technical analysis prepared by a United Kingdom-based metallurgical consultant found the Horsehead Corp. refinery likely exploded after a buildup of superheated liquid zinc in a distillation column.
James Taylor and Corey Keller were killed while doing unrelated maintenance work in the area when the explosion released zinc vapor, which spontaneously combusted when it mixed with air, the report says.
The report faulted the "New Jersey" method of zinc refining, first developed in the 1920s, as especially unstable.
"Although this particular zinc technology has ceased being used in the U.S., we felt it was important to finally determine why this tragedy occurred," CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso said in a statement. "Our hope is that this will at last provide a measure of closure to family members, as well as inform the safety efforts of overseas companies using similar production methods."
CSB approved closing the Horsehead investigation without issuing a final report in a controversial order issued Jan. 28.
The order, which closed the Horsehead and two other investigations from 2009, also clarified additional authorities that could be taken by the chairman rather than the full board. The move sparked further criticism from lawmakers of both parties on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at a hearing last week (Greenwire, March 4).
The company shut down operations at the Monaca site last year and demolished the refinery, as it shifted production to another site in Mooresboro, N.C., eliminating about 550 jobs, the company said at the time.
Completing the Horsehead investigation leaves CSB with just two investigations more than 2 years old -- a refinery fire at the Caribbean Petroleum Refining oil refinery in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, in 2009 and the agency's complex probe into the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion.
CSB member Manuel Ehrlich explained at the time that "especially with both the plant and the process no longer in existence, it would be fruitless to put more researchers into the case."
-
Repeal the Decades-Old Oil Export Ban to Help Energy Renaissance
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By George Baker
The ongoing shale oil renaissance and the United States’ abundant natural resources has transformed our energy landscape, allowing American consumers access to affordable fuel supplies and spurring significant investment and job growth across our economy.
But in order for this renaissance to continue, it is critical that lawmakers ensure that U.S. policy keeps pace so that our energy resources are being leveraged to provide the maximum benefit to the nation’s economy and international geopolitical interests.
This point was made clear at a recent House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing, where witnesses emphasized the enormous value that the changing dynamics in the global energy markets offered for the U.S. economy and America’s energy security.
The hearing highlighted the fact that all this historic promise is jeopardized by a little known provision of law that was enacted 40 years ago in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, which restricts the export of domestically produced crude oil. And whatever the merits of this policy may have been then, in this new age of energy abundance, prohibiting the export of America’s excess supply of crude oil no longer makes any practical or political sense.
Here’s why.
As the global leader in oil and natural gas production – recently surpassing both Russia and Saudi Arabia – the U.S. has turned global energy markets upside down. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we now produce 9.2 million barrels of crude oil each day – the highest annual average in over three decades. Much of this growth is attributed to shale development and the production of light crude oil.
However, because much of our domestic crude oil refining capacity is configured to refine heavy grades of crude oil which are largely imported, we now find ourselves in a position where there’s a growing “mismatch” between the oil we produce (light) and the type of oil we can refine (heavy).
Domestically produced light oil has already reduced the volume of imported light oil by three million barrels per day. However, given the lack of refining capacity to handle the increased production, crude oil inventories are swelling to record levels, creating a glut of light oil that is depressing domestic crude oil prices. This is causing the spread between international (Brent) and domestic (WTI) crude oil prices to widen.
With the restriction on crude oil exports preventing U.S. producers from accessing global markets – while refiners have the ability to buy and sell freely – drilling rigs are being idled, jobs along the supply chain are being lost and the continued growth of the American shale oil renaissance is at risk.
As for concerns related to gasoline prices, the Subcommittee hearing last week made it quite clear that the reduced cost of domestic crude oil does not translate into lower gasoline prices for U.S. consumers. In fact, every analysis, thought leader and think tank that has weighed-in on this issue acknowledges that the price consumers pay for gasoline here in the U.S. is determined by the higher international crude oil benchmark.
According to ICF International, lifting the ban “could save American consumers up to $5.8 billion per year, on average, over the 2015-2035 period.” Moreover, while the domestic benefits to modernizing our nation’s energy policy are clear, the influx of U.S. crude oil to the global market would better enable our trading partners and allies to reduce their dependence on less reliable and unfriendly sources of energy.
This point was made clear by the White House last month in their National Security Strategy, which noted: “The challenges faced by Ukrainian and European dependence on Russian energy supplies puts a spotlight on the need for an expanded view of energy security.”
Our transformation from a period of perceived energy scarcity to one of energy abundance has been nothing short of a game changer for the United States. It has turned global energy markets upside down and positioned the U.S. to become a global energy superpower. For us to take full advantage of this opportunity, however, we first need to repeal the decades old oil export prohibition standing in our way.
Baker is executive director of the Producers for American Crude Oil Exports, a coalition of independent oil producers.
-
State Lawmakers Demand End to Crude Export Ban
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Texas lawmakers are calling for an end to the U.S. ban on crude exports as an oversupply of oil and natural gas fills up storage tanks and pipelines and drives down oil prices.
"Congress should update our national trade policy to benefit Texas producers and consumers," said state Rep. Drew Darby (R) at a joint hearing of the House Energy Resources Committee on Monday.
More than 100 Texas House members signed a resolution calling for an end to the ban, describing it as a "relic from an era of scarcity and flawed price control policies."
U.S. companies can export refined petroleum products such as diesel and gasoline, but most crude oil stays home thanks to a policy dating back to the 1970s, when the Arab oil embargo jacked up global oil prices.
Proponents of lifting the ban said the action could soften the current crude price downturn and align U.S. prices with the global market. Billions of dollars would then flow to Texas oil producers, royalties and state and federal funds.
"We're sort of driving down the road with the windows open and hundred-dollar bills flying out the window for no reason," said economist James LeBas, a former Texas chief revenue estimator.
Critics assert that shipping U.S. crude overseas threatens American energy security and could raise gasoline prices.
"It is inconceivable that you can export oil and take away the surplus and not have it result in an increase in cost to American consumers," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas office. "It is a fundamental violation of the law of supply and demand."
But the impacts on prices at the pump are still hazy. Some refiners argue against lifting the ban, as well, fearing that doing so could cause them to lose their domestic crude discount.
"The unlimited export of crude is not in the national interest," said Bill Day, spokesman for San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp., the country's largest oil refiner, according to Fuel Fix. "We're not so sure who would support such a thing, unless you were a producer and wanted to get a higher price for what you are producing" (Jim Malewitz, Texas Tribune, March 9). -- KS
-
Carnegie Endowment's Gordon Discusses New Oil-Climate Index, Says Industry Lacking Transparency
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - TV
As the range of oils and extraction methods continues to evolve, how do various oils compare with one another on their climate impacts? During today's OnPoint, Deborah Gordon, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, discusses a new Oil-Climate Index that highlights the changing dynamics of the oil industry and the impacts on climate change. She explains how she believes policymakers should use the index and talks about the need for greater transparency from the oil industry.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Deborah Gordon, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Deborah, thanks for coming back on the show. Nice to see you.
Deborah Gordon: Pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: Deborah, Carnegie has just released an oil climate index. It's the first-of-its-kind tool that models the interaction of oil extraction and production and climate change. You dig into the changing dynamics of the oil industry. How varied are the climate impacts of different oils?
Deborah Gordon: Overall, we have 30 test oils in the first phase of the oil climate index and they're global. They're all over the place. Side note, interestingly we don't have any Frack 2S oils. There just wasn't enough data to model those, but of these global oils, the 30, there's an 80 percent difference between the lowest greenhouse gas-emitting oil and the highest greenhouse gas-emitting oil.
Monica Trauzzi: When we talk about oil, we tend to talk about it so generally. Are people aware, are policymakers aware of the variety of oils that exist?
Deborah Gordon: No, I think that that was one of the reasons why we thought to do this is that, instead of alternatives replacing oil when we saw the run-up in prices over the last five years, we saw oil replacing oil, and those oils were extremely heterogeneous, and so you have -- if you have heterogeneous substances, processes for moving them, different refining techniques, you're going to have different emissions, and that's what we're finding.
Monica Trauzzi: So which oils emerge as having the greatest impact on climate change?
Deborah Gordon: That's a great question. There are four -- of these 30 test oils, I do want to preface it 'cause we'll find new oils out there -- but of the 30 test oils, we have four categories of oil climate concern. The gassy oils that are flared in the Bakken, in Nigeria, those oils become high-emitting greenhouse gas oils. Extra-heavy oils, Canada, Venezuela, those just have a lot of carbon in them to begin with. Those become high-emitting oils. Depleted watery oils, especially in our test run of the California San Joaquin Valley oils, some of those oils are over 100 years operating, there's a lot of water associated with them, become greenhouse gas-intensive to get them out of the ground. And then the fourth category is just the catch-all of extreme oils. We only have one extreme oil in our 30 oils, which is a 30,000-foot-deep Russian chivo oil. It's that deep, but if you're going to go into extreme environments -- the Arctic, permafrost, ultra, ultra-deep, you're going to get different greenhouse gas emissions associated with those oils.
Monica Trauzzi: And you said that U.S. fracked oils are not included in the index because there's not enough data. Is that because industry has not provided enough data or just not enough time has passed?
Deborah Gordon: No, what -- this is actually one of the surprising findings in the oil climate index, besides measuring the greenhouse emissions, was the lack of transparency of data. That has become a huge issue. It's going to become a bigger issue. It's an issue for safety, we already know, but it's going to be an issue for greenhouse gas emissions. It's not a matter of time. It's inconsistency, spotty reporting, a lot of privatized data that either is so expensive or not for sale. It's just not collected uniformly by the government or by the -- by the federal government or by states. So data's a huge opportunity here. I'll put a positive spin on it. If we can get more data, we're moving to Model 50 oils now, but we need consistent data to model these oils.
Monica Trauzzi: There's so much uncertainty right now in the oil market. Does this index help provide any clarity to that effect?
Deborah Gordon: There's a lot of competition between oils, whether the prices are high and there's a lot of competition or the prices are down low now between OPEC and the U.S. or different shale oils, tremendous amount of competition in this market. It will probably always be the case, and where there's competition, you want information, you want market transparency, and we believe that the competition on economics geopolitics of oil, but you have to add this third rung of climate impacts.
Monica Trauzzi: Does the data underscore some of the challenges that address for policymakers in addressing climate change but also trying to grow the economy through energy development?
Deborah Gordon: Yeah, I think that it's a reimagining of how are we going to get alternatives into the marketplace. If it is going to be a market, open market, you know, competition, you're going to have a lot of new oils come to market before you're going to have alternatives, and then the question is are CAFE standards enough? You know, you need some kind of policies around oil supply.
Monica Trauzzi: So how would you like to see or how do you think policymakers should be using this index?
Deborah Gordon: Well, the very first thing I would do is start to create expectations and requirements for better information because I think that that's going to be important moving forward, both for the oil climate index, but for everything we're doing in managing these oils in the 21st century. The second idea would be to go back and think about environmental impact statements and going back to the National Environmental Pollution Act (NEPA) and, at the point in time when you actually are going in to request a drill and do your drilling for oils, that's when the information becomes most important for the whole market, not just for businesses and producers, but also for policymakers and the public. So bringing that information to bear right from the start will help create that type of illumination to make good decisions.
Monica Trauzzi: So bigger picture, then, is it possible for expanded oil production to coexist with emissions reduction?
Deborah Gordon: I don't think that it's going to stop, so we're going to have to think about how to make some of these dirtiest oils dirtier -- make these dirtiest oils cleaner, rather, and then have this race to the top, and this competition from oil should be from a greenhouse gas perspective as well as all these other perspectives.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, very interesting. Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate it.
Deborah Gordon: Pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Obama Embraces Keystone Skepticism
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama has increasingly sided with the most negative assessments of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, leading both opponents and supporters to believe that he’ll reject the contentious project’s permit.
As anger among Republicans in Congress has grown stronger when it comes to Obama’s years-long delay on judging Keystone, the president has gradually abandoned attempts to avoid weighing in on the project’s merits, gravitating instead toward arguments against it.
His most recent comments, centering on the process used to mine Canada’s oil sands, are among his most damning.
“The reason that a lot of environmentalists are concerned about it is the way that you get the oil out in Canada — an extraordinarily dirty way of extracting oil,” he said March 6 in South Carolina.
It was just the latest in a line of negative reviews he’s given on Keystone since November, when the Senate started formally debating a bill to go over Obama’s head and approve the pipeline itself.
Ultimately Obama vetoed a bill approved by the GOP-led Congress. And though his stated objection was that Republicans hadn’t let the approval process run its course, his public remarks indicate strong reservations about letting Keystone proceed.
“It could create a couple of thousand potential jobs in the initial construction of the pipeline, but we’ve got to measure that against whether or not it is going to contribute to an overall warming of the planet that could be disastrous,” he said during an appearance on “The Colbert Report” in December.
The State Department estimated last year that Keystone would support 42,000 jobs. But of the jobs it would create, only 35 would be permanent, while several thousand would be temporary construction positions.
Obama gave one of his worst reviews of Keystone later in December, when he said the project would be “good for the Canadian oil industry but it’s not going to be a huge benefit to U.S. consumers, it’s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.”
All the while, though, Obama has added caveats that he has still not decided whether he would approve the pipeline.
The State Department is taking public comments on the project, proposed by TransCanada Corp. in 2008, and will make a recommendation to Obama on the project’s impact on the national interest.
It is ultimately Obama’s decision on whether Keystone will get a permit to build. He told Reuters early in March that the ruling would come in “weeks or months,” and declined to be more specific.
Obama’s negative rhetoric has various observers thinking his rejection of the pipeline is all but guaranteed.
“The president still stands where he was in the beginning,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), one of the original sponsors of the Senate bill to approve the project. “He dragged it out, but he was against it from Day One and continues to be.”
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) is optimistic that the pipeline will eventually get approved, but he doesn’t think Obama will be the one to do so.
“He’s not giving very many positive signals that he’s going to approve the Keystone pipeline,” he said. “But we’ve got to keep fighting. I think that it will eventually get built.”
A GOP Senate aide was even less hopeful.
“His comments over the past several months indicate he will side with the far-left groups over the science and will likely deny the permit,” the aide said.
Cindy Schild, senior manager for oil sands at the American Petroleum Institute, said supporters of Keystone have reason to be hopeful, but not too hopeful.
“I’d like to be hopeful, but I’m certainly disappointed,” she said. “He certainly seems to be more forceful in his remarks.”
Obama’s new rhetoric is music to environmentalists’ ears.
“We are more confident than ever that the president is going to reject this dirty and dangerous pipeline once and for all,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the top lobbyist for the League of Conservation Voters.
“The fact that he vetoed the bill, that he has been more and more outspoken both about the lack of benefits and the many risks associated with the pipeline, it’s all incredibly encouraging,” she said.
Melinda Pierce, the top lobbyist at the Sierra Club, agrees.
“He is definitely swatting down some of the favorite arguments of the pipeline proponents and definitely calling out the pipeline’s vulnerabilities,” she said.
“As he evaluates the national interest determination, he’s got all the evidence he needs to reject it.”
-
States Raise Reliability Concerns with EPA Carbon Plan
Mar 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
Several state officials raised concerns today that EPA’s greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants could hurt the power system’s reliability.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito brought up the issue at an Environment and Public Works hearing, saying EPA’s carbon reduction goals were “unattainable” for her state of West Virginia. And, she added “EPA has indicated that it does not have any significant concerns about reliability.”
Midwest power operators are “in a jam” as they face rising demand for power and a decreasing supply, said Thomas Easterly, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, who also raised concerns about the dependability of wind and solar.
EPA never asked Midwestern Regional Transmission Organization to conduct any studies of the grid before it released its proposal, said Ellen Nowak, chair of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
Nowak said EPA’s modeling didn’t adequately consider issues related to interstate pipelines, intermittent power or retired units. Nor did EPA’s proposed rule take into account the retirement of nuclear power capacity in Wisconsin, which would is “going to have to be replaced with a carbon neutral source” and could result in increased costs to customers, Nowak said. -
Coal States Say Clean Power Plan Falls Short Technically
Mar 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
Officials from Indiana and Wyoming say the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan will harm their manufacturing-heavy and energy-producing states.
Indiana gets 80 percent of its power from coal, and 28,000 people there work in the coal industry, state environmental management Commissioner Thomas Easterly said this morning during a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on the plan. He also warned of possible “unintended consequences,” such as effects on power reliability or a lack of infrastructure to convert plants to natural gas power.
And Todd Parfitt, director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, said the EPA’s implementation timelines are unrealistic. He also said the agency made “data errors or incorrect assumptions” in each of the four types of carbon-reduction options the agency identified when it set states’ goals.
One major issue for Wyoming is that the state sends 66 percent of the power it produces out of state, including 85 percent of its wind energy. So while it produces a great deal of zero-carbon wind power, other states would get credit for it under the draft the EPA released last year.
Additionally, the EPA assumed that the state could ramp up its wind power by 6 percent, but complications arise when scaling up power generation that quickly, Parfitt said. Most of the state’s land is owned by the federal government, for instance, and federal environmental reviews can add nearly a decade to the planning process for new wind projects. -
New York, California Urge EPA to Move Forward on Climate Plan
Mar 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
Officials from New York and California argued today that EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants is both necessary and a positive option for state economies.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate, said Michael Myers, chief of environmental litigation for the New York state attorney general. Meanwhile, the state has already suffered harm from climate change, he said during a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, touted her state’s success in limiting carbon from its power sources. The state has the ninth-cheapest power prices in the U.S., she said.
The “bottom line is that the Clean Power Plan builds on more than 40 years of Clean Air Act success,” Nichols said. “Climate change now confronts us with both an enormous challenge and an enormous opportunity for creating new jobs and increased energy security nationwide. EPA has, sensibly, turned to the states — not Washington, D.C., alone — to lead the way.” -
State Officials Clash Over Clean Power Plan
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
A key Senate panel today heard conflicting views from states on U.S. EPA's controversial Clean Power Plan.
Officials and public utility regulators from Wisconsin, Indiana and Wyoming told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that EPA's draft rule would ruin state economies and endanger grid reliability. But others from New York and California testified that it would spur investments in new technologies and help expand the economy.
These different perspectives were reflected in the opening statements of the panel's top Republican and Democrat.
"Had EPA engaged in a meaningful dialogue with all the states, the agency would not be rushing ahead to impose such an unfair, unworkable and likely illegal regulation," said Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
But ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) countered, "We know we can reduce carbon pollution while growing the economy." She cited her own state and the nine Northeastern participants in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as proof that emissions curbs aren't incompatible with economic growth.
State officials would have a hand in implementing the existing power plant rule, but some hinted that they might not submit a state plan if EPA finalizes a substantially similar rule this summer.
Ellen Nowak, a Wisconsin Public Service commissioner, said the rule had the potential to squelch her state's burgeoning manufacturing sector by making coal-fired power more expensive and less available. She also said EPA did not adequately model the effect its rule would have on grid reliability before releasing it. Wisconsin has assembled a task force to make up that deficit, she said.
"This is the kind of analysis that should have been done by the EPA to take into account the impacts of this regulation on every family and business in the United States," she said.
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.
Thomas Easterly, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, said the rule would mean that his state's ratepayers would continue to pay for fossil fuels infrastructure that was forced offline -- even after they paid for retrofits to comply with other EPA restrictions.
While the plan allows states to show reductions through a variety of actions, Easterly said, the bulk of the cuts are assumed to come from coal plant closures, a particularly troubling prospect for a state like his that relies on coal for mining jobs and for more than 80 percent of its power.
He also raised worries about grid reliability.
"I am very concerned ... that we will see some catastrophic results somewhere in the implementation of this plan; we just don't know where or when," he said.
Todd Parfitt, director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, raised concerns about how EPA allocates credits for resources between various states. Wyoming exports both fossil fuels and renewable energy across state lines. But while EPA assigns it responsibility for the coal power it generates, neighbors including California get credit for the Wyoming wind energy they import to comply with renewable energy mandates.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) agreed that this aspect of the rule might be unfair and offered the Senate as an intermediary between states and EPA.
"We have to figure out a good compromise here, and you all have to help us," he told the witness panel.
But the panel's two Democratic invitees -- California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols and Michael Myers, who has handled high-profile environmental cases for the New York state attorney general's office -- said their states had profited from their emissions laws.
Nichols said the EPA rule was workable, especially if states cooperate in regional compliance plans.
California's cap-and-trade program is already linked with that of Quebec, and while she acknowledged that states might not want to adopt a similar approach, she said they might benefit from a less sweeping plan that tracks with the interstate nature of the power grid.
Myers, meanwhile, devoted most of his testimony trying to debunk legal arguments made by other states and industry advocates who charge that EPA is outstripping its statutory authority by seeking to regulate power plant CO2.
Fourteen states are already backing litigation to head off the proposal on the grounds that EPA lacks the authority to promulgate the Clean Power Plan because it is already regulating mercury and other toxics under another section of the Clean Air Act. But Myers dismissed this argument as lacking in common sense because it suggests that EPA had to choose between addressing climate change and protecting local populations from exposure to toxins.
-
Ark. Joins Legal Fight Against EPA's Carbon Rule
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Arkansas has joined 13 states that are asking the courts to block U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, following a Republican takeover of the governor's and attorney general's offices in January.
In a statement, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said the draft rule for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector "goes beyond the EPA's authority granted by Congress and seeks to impose a national energy policy that will harm Arkansas's economy."
The lawsuit, brought by coal company Murray Energy Co., is backed by 12 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming. South Carolina is supporting a related challenge brought by West Virginia and 11 states, bringing the total number of states seeking to block the proposal to 14.
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.
Another 14 states are backing EPA in the cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has consolidated the cases and will hear oral arguments on April 16. (For more on court challenges to the draft rule, see thelegal background page on E&E's Power Plan Hub.)
Murray wants the D.C. Circuit to issue an "extraordinary writ" to bar EPA from finalizing the rule (Greenwire, March 10).
The deadline for states to intervene was in November, but Rutledge argued that she only had time to review the case after taking office. The D.C. Circuit approved Arkansas' request Monday.A 'devastating' plan?
Arkansas' last attorney general, Democrat Dustin McDaniel, was also severely critical of the rule in comments to EPA in December, saying it would be "devastating" to electric consumers and the state's economy. McDaniel raised concerns about the deadlines for states to submit and implement plans and EPA's legal authority to propose or enforce the regulation.
"The proposed rule so significantly exceeds the authority granted to EPA by Congress that it should be withdrawn in full," the comments said. "Even if EPA had the authority to promulgate a rule of this breathtaking scope, the unrealistic goals imposed upon Arkansas in the proposed rule are arbitrary and unfair and they should be reconsidered."
Arkansas has the sixth-most-stringent reduction of carbon emissions to reach under the national plan. EPA's proposed rule asks the state to cut its power-sector emissions rate 44 percent between 2012 and 2030.
Judd Deere, a spokesman for Rutledge, attributed Arkansas' late intervention in the challenge to the change in administration.
"This is just a new administration, and the current AG felt that this is something that the state needed to take action on," Deere said. "As for why the previous administration wasn't involved, I don't have an answer."
Two other states, Massachusetts and Maryland, saw Republican governors replace Democrats in January but are still supporting EPA and the Clean Power Plan in legal fights. Both states have Democratic attorneys general.
Some other states have not yet chimed in on the early challenges but have nonetheless argued vehemently that EPA is overstepping its legal authority in proposing the regulation. Texas officials, for example, have discussed the possibility of suing EPA (EnergyWire, Aug. 18, 2014).
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) "will be vigilant in protecting Texans and our economy against any unlawful overreach by the Obama administration," said Paxton spokeswoman Cynthia Meyer when asked for further comment yesterday.
-
Lawmakers Cite EPA Rules In Push For 'Moderate' Regulatory Reform Bills
Mar 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House and Senate lawmakers are citing what they see as burdens from EPA air, water and other rules as justifying their push to advance “moderate” regulatory reform efforts, claiming they could win support from Democrats and other opponents of past reform efforts by using the bills to create a more effective regulatory process.
But several House Democrats that have criticized such measures in the past are downplaying prospects for similar efforts advancing in the 114th Congress, fearing that the bills would largely be vehicles for Republicans and other critics of EPA to block regulations they oppose. They warn that the legislation lawmakers are pushing would largely focus on scrapping existing rules deemed to create burdens and do little to advance new or more effective regulations.
Debate over regulatory review and reform has been ongoing for years, but legislative efforts to resolve the issue have failed to gain traction due to disagreements among lawmakers.
The Obama administration has taken some steps to advance regulatory review, including the president's Executive Order 13563 requiring agencies to undertake retrospective reviews of their policies to reduce burdensome, unnecessary or duplicative rules. EPA has pursued such reviews, most recently in a March 9 Federal Registernotice which seeks public comment on potential options for streamlining reporting requirements in its regulations.
Some lawmakers argue that various EPA policies justify the need for comprehensive legislation to update the regulatory process. At a March 2 Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) event in Washington, D.C., Rep. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) said bills to amend or strike existing rules deemed duplicative or unnecessary are garnering “broad bipartisan support” in part because of what she and other legislators at the event described as regulatory overreach by EPA, and added that the main bar to passing the bills may be scheduling a House floor vote.
“The challenge is just getting the bill on Mr. [House Speaker John] Boehner's radar and getting it to move,” she said during a panel discussion of regulatory reform bills with Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL).
But Sinema told Inside EPA after the event that “I have no idea” whether Obama would veto such bills even if they clear Congress with Democratic support.
Sinema and Yoho are co-sponsors of H.R. 484, which would create an expedited procedure for Congress to vacate or amend through joint resolutions agency rules identified by the Government Accountability Office as “duplicative” in its annual regulatory report. The bill was introduced Jan. 22 and referred to the House rules and government oversight committees.
“For many folks on the left, their goal is to have a well-run regulatory system where there's clarity and safety for consumers, but the best way to get that is to have simple, clear regulations that are easily implemented and understood, and to reduce the number so that people aren't falling into these mistakes,” Sinema said at the March 2 event.
In their remarks at the PPI event, Sinema, Yoho and Sen. Angus King (I-ME) cited EPA rulemakings -- including the final Clean Air Act mercury air toxics standard and the controversial proposed rule on which waters are “jurisdictional” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) -- as evidence of the need for regulatory reform.
“There needs to be a more subtle kind of economic analysis [of regulatory impacts], and I've said this to EPA,” King said. He added later that “I think we're going to have moderate reform but not extreme reform, because . . . Democrats are willing to listen.”
Some agency critics are also calling on Congress to enact a “regulatory budget” that would limit the total compliance costs EPA and other agencies can require regulated entities to shoulder in a given year. Under a regulatory budget an agency would have to loosen existing regulations in order to tighten others or enact new rules.
“By allocating a fixed sum of regulatory costs that an agency can 'spend' each year, a regulatory budget would align the agency's interests with the goal of limiting regulatory burdens. An excessively costly regulation would come at an opportunity cost to the agency because it would (in theory) require the agency to forgo other regulatory initiatives,” attorneys Jeffrey Rosen and Brian Callanan write in an essay published in the fall 2014 edition of theAdministrative Law Review, “The Regulatory Budget Revisited.”
House Legislation
The House Judiciary Committee's panel on regulatory reform held a March 2 hearing on three regulatory review bills. At that hearing, full judiciary panel Chairman Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) singled out the CWA rule and EPA's proposal to tighten the ozone national ambient air quality standard -- which Republicans have attacked as unachievable and expensive -- as underscoring the need for regulatory review.
And Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the self-described “center-right” American Action Forum, who was one of the witnesses at the hearing, pushed for Democratic support of the bills. “The goal is not to undo the regulatory state. The goal is to improve it.” And he touted potential savings for individuals and small business owners from reduced compliance costs as “the equivalent of a progressive tax cut.”
But Democrats appeared to reject the argument that they should back the current push for regulatory review legislation in order to help create a more effective regulatory regime.
For instance, regulatory reform subcommittee ranking member Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) called H.R. 1155 -- which would establish a panel to identify “unnecessarily burdensome” rules -- “a one-way ratchet for prioritizing costs over benefits” because it offers no mechanism for identifying regulations that need to be strengthened or otherwise improved rather than being cut.
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), ranking member on the full judiciary panel, said the bills represent “a blatantly one-sided approach to retrospective rule [review] . . . tellingly, H.R. 1155 does nothing to promote actions that would enhance the benefits of rules.”
Along with H.R. 1155, the bills under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee are H.R. 348, which would accelerate environmental reviews of permits, and H.R. 712, which would set new requirements for public participation in settlements between citizen groups and agencies that would set deadlines for rulemaking -- a practice Republicans have termed “sue and settle” but which EPA and environmentalists have countered does not affect the content of rules.
The House has already approved H.R. 185, which would require agencies crafting new rules to conduct additional analysis, weigh alternatives and choose the lowest cost alternative within statutory guidelines. Agencies would have to consider factors such as the problem the rule would address and the risks and benefits involved when crafting new rules.
But the White House is threatening to veto H.R. 185, arguing in a Jan. 12 statement of administration policy that it “would impose unnecessary new procedures on agencies and invite frivolous litigation.”
Executive Policies
Meanwhile, EPA in its recent Register notice on regulatory review seeks comment through April 8 on a host of issues related to reporting mandates, including suggestions for which regulations that still rely on paper reporting can be transitioned to electronic reports; which rules create redundant or overlapping reporting requirements; and whether any regulations could move away from reporting altogether in favor of advance monitoring techniques.
It also asks whether EPA should “create a joint registry of regulated facilities with states and tribes to streamline electronic reporting to multiple programs and maximize burden reduction.”
Along with bids to reform the regulatory process, some Republicans are also taking aim at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' (OIRA) policies for re-release review of proposed and final rules.
The House Oversight & Government Reform Committee's panels on government operations and health care, benefits and administrative rules, held a March 3 hearing on “Challenges Facing OIRA in Ensuring Transparency and Effective Rulemaking.” At the hearing, GOP lawmakers pressed OIRA chief Howard Shelanski on whether the office has conducted “unofficial reviews” of agency rulemakings before they are formally sent to OIRA for interagency review, focusing specifically on whether EPA sought such review of the CWA jurisdiction rule.
“It is your testimony today that there are no documents, no communication that has taken place between you and the EPA, either informal or formal, in that [CWA] rulemaking process?” asked Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), the government operations subcommittee chairman.
Shelanski responded that OIRA has reviewed agencies' cost-benefit analyses and procedures before a rule is formally submitted, but not the substantive content of a proposed or final regulation.
-
Groups Begin To Outline Options For EPA To Drop CCS From NSPS Plan
Mar 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
As EPA considers whether to require new coal plants to install partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), critics and supporters are offering different options for how the agency can drop the requirement without abandoning its effort to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) at new power plants.
For example, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), a group that charges that the CCS mandate is unlawful because it violates the Data Quality Act (DQA), is suggesting in an options paper that EPA issue an “interim” rule that sets a standard for new coal plants that is just shy of CCS, while conducting a peer review on the state of carbon capture technology.
CRE says this would put the agency in compliance with the DQA and make the new source performance standard (NSPS) much less legally vulnerable.
At the same time, Nathan Richardson, a visiting scholar at Resources for the Future (RFF) and a law professor at the University of South Carolina, is suggesting that EPA avoid the CCS issue entirely by reverting to its original NSPS proposal, issued in 2012, that set a single standard for fossil fuel power plants equivalent to natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC).
Richardson argues this approach is a more legally sound way to achieve the same result as EPA's revised proposal that bifurcates the NSPS into separate categories for coal and gas and declares that the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for coal is partial CCS while BSER for gas is NGCC.
The suggestions come as EPA is considering dropping the CCS requirement from the NSPS proposal to cut GHGs from new coal-fired power plants due to growing agency concern that the provision is legally vulnerable because the technology may not be “adequately demonstrated” as the Clean Air Act requires.
The concern is driven in part by the fact that many of the projects EPA cited in its proposed rule to justify its determination are faltering. In addition, a 2005 energy law prohibits EPA from relying “solely” on projects that receive Department of Energy funds, as the faltering demonstration plants do.
The issue is critical for EPA because the new source rule is a legal predicate for the agency's pending existing source performance standards (ESPS).
EPA has declined to comment on the issue, only saying it intends to finalize the NSPS this summer, alongside the ESPS.
Sources say the agency has not made a decision on whether to drop CCS but has analyzed various “fallback options” for the rule without the requirement. “This is a big political question,” one informed source said late last month.
Whatever the agency decides, the choice will be difficult and will not be a “win-win,” according to a former senior agency official, who added that if EPA “sticks to their guns on CCS, they've got a difficult lawsuit on their hands. But there will be a huge amount of criticism if they back off. Nobody is really going to give them a lot of credit.”
DQA Compliance
In the midst of this, CRE is reiterating charges it first made in February 2014 in its effort to force the agency to drop the CCS mandate.
The group last year sent EPA a “data quality alert” warning that its finding that CCS “is an available technology for use in new coal-fired plants” needed to undergo formal peer review, as required by the DQA.
The data law generally requires agencies to ensure that scientific and other data used to develop policy stances are objective, reproducible and peer-reviewed. But federal courts have determined that they lack jurisdiction to review DQA cases, eliminating an enforcement mechanism for private parties to pursue challenges if agencies deny their petitions.
The alert warned the agency that it had “failed to comply with multiple requirements” of the White House Office of Management & Budget's (OMB) peer review guidelines regarding the DQA and that the agency “must have its CCS determination “subjected to independent external peer review . . . before the rulemaking can go forward.”
Stephen Page, director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, responded in an April 10 letter, indicating that any final rule “will clearly demonstrate the agency's compliance with the [DQA].”
CRE sent its data quality alert to EPA last year just weeks after the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reluctantly declined to review the scientific justification of the CCS proposal.
Some members of an SAB panel voiced concern over EPA's CCS determination and sought to review the scientific basis of the finding. But EPA officials pushed back, arguing a peer review was outside the panel's scope because the NSPS did not explicitly mandate use of the technology, but instead sought its use as a means of complying with an emissions standard. As a result, the panel reversed its prior call and agreed with EPA that policy questions over CCS were beyond its oversight.
Several SAB members noted they were tightly constrained in what they were allowed to review under EPA's legal view that the practice of sequestration was governed by separate regulations -- namely Safe Drinking Water Act underground injection requirements -- rather than the NSPS. An SAB work group, in a 2014 memo, asked the board to review the NSPS after finding EPA's scientific and technological basis for requiring sequestration was “new science” that would benefit from review.
Now CRE is renewing its charges, sending a March 8 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy indicating that the agency is required to subject its CCS determination to peer review in order to comply with OMB peer review guidelines regarding the DQA.
And in its separate options paper, CRE adds that EPA or OMB can use compliance with the DQA as a way to at least temporarily drop the CCS requirement from the proposal and shore up its legality.
The group says OMB can exercise its authorities under the DQA and require peer review of CCS while having EPA issue an interim NSPS that excludes CCS. Based on the review results, EPA could then “make the appropriate changes in the interim rule as needed.”
The March 8 letter does not outline the pathway for EPA but instead notes that concern over the availability of CCS technology has grown over the past year, and cites InsideEPA coverage of the issue. “EPA's current strategy is in legal jeopardy,” the CRE letter says. “Consequently, the prudent way for EPA to ensure that is climate change program continues without burdensome litigation is to either comply with the OMB peer review guidelines by initiating the required peer review prior to the issuance of a final rule or in the alternative eliminate the CCS requirement.”
Reverting To NGCC
Meanwhile, Richardson says EPA should revert to its original 2012 proposal which declared NGCC as BSER for all new fossil plants.
Richardson tells InsideEPA in a March 6 interview that EPA could avoid the thorny issue of CCS entirely if it takes this step, because the original proposal -- which EPA abandoned -- did not bifurcate coal and gas standards as the current proposal does. But EPA dropped that approach in the face of criticisms that this was legally risky because the agency had never set a single standard for both coal and gas plants.
As a result, EPA in 2013 issued a revised NSPS plan, which proposed to bifurcate the standard, identifying NGCC as BSER for gas plants and partial CCS as BSER for coal plants.
But that newer approach is facing more dissent and stronger legal arguments, as well as “a lot less evidence that CCS is demonstrated,” Richardson says. “So EPA is realizing -- and they are right here -- that [they are] on some uncertain legal footing that relies on carbon capture.”
Richardson says EPA should instead revert to its earlier approach, which would overcome many of the legal hurdles curretnly facing EPA's determination on CCS, including that NGCC is installed at hundreds of plants around the country, is clearly demonstrated, and is the only technology that can achieve the emission requirements of the rule, he says.
In response to EPA's “feelers about pulling back,” Richardson notes that EPA dropped its plan for a single standard because officials were afraid of “another set of legal risks” and those are “not as big as the ones we are facing now.”
He says the earlier approach is “cleaner and more convenient.” And he says it will help EPA in its ESPS because it will “merge [the coal and gas] categories in a way that makes trading [between the categories] possible.”
Richardson says he has continued to urge EPA to take this approach in the NSPS ever since it reproposed the rule in the fall of 2013, but he has no “hard evidence” whether this is one of the fallback options EPA is analyzing.
He does acknowledge that if EPA takes this approach it will likely need to repropose the rule. Even though the new NSPS proposed combining the coal and gas categories, the agency would have to change its proposal that CCS is BSER for coal.
-
EPA Chief Calls for 'Binding' Global Agreement
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The international community must reach a legally binding agreement on climate change this year, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said today.
This year's high-stakes round of U.N. negotiations will not produce a "silver bullet" to solve the global problem, the EPA chief said. But the accord expected to be signed in Paris this December must be a meaningful step toward combating a crisis with national security and humanitarian implications, she said.
"We are hoping for a Paris agreement that is binding, that provides us an opportunity to account for greenhouse gases in each nation, that is able to address and commit to specific reductions in a timely way, and that we will be able to understand as a big step forward," she said at an event hosted by the Center for American Progress.
The United States must play a leading role in bringing about the agreement, McCarthy said.
Last year's U.S.-China joint agreement helped pave the way for it, and the United States will continue to engage with India and other major emitters in the run-up to this year's conference, she added.
"In this century -- when it comes to climate action -- we truly are the indispensable nation," she said of the United States.
McCarthy's agency is in the process of promulgating a rule that is the centerpiece of President Obama's second-term climate agenda. The Clean Power Plan, which is set to be finalized this summer, is crucial to the United States' meeting not only its post-2020 commitments but its promise to reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade.
But McCarthy cited the controversial draft for carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants as the next step in a "clean energy revolution" that will deliver positive economic results.
"The global climate fight is a marathon relay race -- there's a lot of ground to cover, and we need everyone to run -- EPA's action gets the U.S. sprinting out of the gate," she said.
McCarthy was asked how international emissions would be monitored and verified to ensure compliance with an international deal. She said EPA is growing its expertise in measuring carbon output, but acknowledged that verification practices will be subject to negotiation.
She said the United States has a strong record of "soft diplomacy" on environmental issues, which will help it reach out to other countries on climate change. "EPA's air monitor diplomacy" helped stoke Chinese public support for improvements in air quality, she said, referring to EPA's use of monitoring equipment at its Beijing embassy to track pollution.
McCarthy's speech comes one day before Secretary of State John Kerry is set to speak on the U.N. negotiations process tomorrow at the Atlantic Council. The United States is expected to unveil more details by the end of the month about how it plans to reach its commitment to slash emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2030.
-
EPA Head Calls for US Leadership in Climate
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The United States ought to lead the way among nations to fight climate change internationally, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said.
Gina McCarthy said climate change causes global unrest and instability, and it is in the United States’ best interests to play a leadership role in stopping it.
“Climate change fuels instability around the world, by amplifying risks to global health, security and to growth,” McCarthy said Wednesday in a speech hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations.
“We have to fight climate change by building it into all of our existing international efforts.”
McCarthy repeated President Obama’s sometimes controversial statement that climate change is a national security risk on par with threats like terrorism and war.
“The Pentagon calls climate change a ‘threat multiplier,’ ” she said. “President Obama’s national security strategy recognizes climate change as the gateway to more natural disasters, refugee flows and conflicts.”
McCarthy used her speech to position the EPA and last year’s sweeping proposal to slash carbon emissions from the power sector as a significant move for the country’s international relations and diplomacy, as well as the worldwide fight against greenhouse gas emissions.
She drew a parallel to the Montreal Protocol of 1989, in which the world’s leading countries agreed to cut down on emissions of chemicals that harm the ozone layer.
“It was us, the United States of America, that paved that path to recovery,” she said.
“Because it was an American university that uncovered the problem. And it was American industry that innovated solution. It was American leadership that forged a global market for better, safer products, and American companies that sold those solutions across the world.”
The power plant rule puts the United States in a leading position in climate change policies, McCarthy said.
Her remarks came as the world’s leaders are working under the United Nations to establish an international agreement in December in Paris that would cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Using Obama’s agreement with China to cut emissions as an example, McCarthy said the United States is taking a leadership role in getting major countries to commit to carbon cuts.
“My hope is that we’ll continue to work with all of the larger countries that really need to come to the table with solutions in Paris,” she said, naming India as one of the top targets the United States is trying to get on board.
-
Koch Fighting Climate Research Funding Probe
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The conglomerate owned by conservative activists Charles and David Koch said it won’t cooperate with Senate Democrats’ investigation into its potential funding of skeptical climate research.
The company’s top lawyer released a letter late Tuesday that he sent last week to Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), invoking the First Amendment to fight the probe.
He further accused the senators of trying to infringe upon the Kochs' free speech and free association rights.
“To the extent that your letter touches on matters that implicate the First Amendment, I am sure you recognize Koch's right to participate in the debate of important public policy issues and its right of free association,” Koch General Counsel Mark Holden wrote in the letter.
He added that the senators did not justify why they would investigate activities protected by the First Amendment’s rights of free speech and free association.
Holden said Koch officials “object to your apparent efforts to infringe upon and potentially stifle fundamental First Amendment activities.”
The Koch brothers are very active in conservative political circles and have pledged to spend nearly $1 billion in the 2016 election cycle to support free-market Republicans.
They have been critical of efforts to fight climate change and greenhouse gases and have donated groups that challenge climate change science, including the American Energy Alliance and the Cato Institute.
Koch, which owns subsidiaries in industries like oil refining, agricultural supply and paper products, was one of 100 companies that Markey, Boxer and Whitehouse are investigating.
The senators launched their probe shortly after climate researcher Willie Soon was accused of accepting more than $1.2 million from oil, gas and coal companies in exchange for his research questioning the role of greenhouse gases in climate change.
Activist group Greenpeace said it has documented that Soon received $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
A similar inquiry by House Democrats led a wide variety of academics and some Republicans to accuse lawmakers of trying to silence skeptical research.
-
Oil, Rail Groups Head to White House Amid Surge in Crude-Train Derailments
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Representatives from the biggest U.S. freight railroads last week sat down with regulators and White House officials to discuss sweeping new crude-by-rail safety rules.
The late Friday afternoon time slot couldn't ease the meeting's urgency. The day before, a 105-car train hauling crude oil from North Dakota derailed and caught fire in rural Illinois.
Attendees didn't go into the details of that BNSF Railway Co. accident, the latest in a string of oil train crashes in the United States.
Instead, they "stuck to the agenda," said Ed Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, the industry group that requested the meeting at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
High on that agenda was a repudiation of potential braking requirements for trains hauling 20 or more cars of crude. In its draft crude-by-rail rulemaking released last summer, the U.S. Department of Transportation suggested adding high-tech, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes to new tank cars laden with oil or ethanol.
"Nowhere does [DOT] assert that any accident will be prevented by ECP brakes," Hamberger said in an interview yesterday. "Instead, they used a study to try to show that the effect on the accident will be mitigated by ECP braking application."
Hamberger said DOT's analysis on ECP brakes' effectiveness, which relied on research from Sharma and Associates Inc., was "flawed."
DOT claimed the braking system, which engages several seconds faster than conventional brakes, would result in 36 percent fewer tank car punctures in the event of a derailment.
AAR countered that existing data from the "very limited" real-world deployments of ECP systems don't back up such a dramatic benefit. Hamberger said the technology would keep about one extra tank car on the tracks on average during a major oil train incident, a "minimal" safety impact for the expense given the single-digit probability of a breach in each car.
"We don't own these cars," he added, "so this isn't us going in there saying, 'Hey, we don't want to spend the money.' But it just isn't a valuable safety technology at this point."
Sources with knowledge of the final rule have said an ECP braking requirement appears in the version presented to OIRA, although officials from that office and DOT have declined to comment on specifics in advance of the provision's scheduled release in May.
OIRA is a small but influential subsection of the Office and Management and Budget charged with reviewing the costs and benefits of proposed rules before they go public. The White House office can tweak the crude-by-rail regulations or send them back to DOT for bigger changes as needed.
DOT spokesman Joe Delcambre deferred comment on details of the meeting with AAR to OIRA, noting that regulators "attend these meetings strictly as observers."
Representatives for OIRA did not respond to request for comment yesterday.Trading barbs over tank cars
AAR isn't the only group to have met with the White House over oil-by-rail issues recently.
The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a leading refining industry group,requested a March 4 meeting that also included representatives from Exxon Mobil and Tesoro.
Several ethanol companies and trade groups, including the Renewable Fuels Association, Cargill and Growth Energy, appeared at OIRA in late February to weigh in on the tank car rule, which applies to all flammable liquids moved in bulk.
Oregon-based manufacturer Greenbrier Companies Inc. also visited OIRA last week to criticize conclusions backed by a leading tank car trade group, records show.
Greenbrier has traded barbs with the Railway Supply Institute's Committee on Tank Cars in the past, despite counting itself as a member of the group (EnergyWire, Jan. 15).
Greenbrier has touted its 9/16th-inch-thick steel "Tank Car of the Future" with customers and regulators, while RSI has pushed for allowing a slightly thinner tank car to haul certain flammable liquids.
But last week's meeting gave Greenbrier the chance to detail its case against an RSI-backed study that put a $60 billion price tag on stringent crude-by-rail regulations (EnergyWire, Dec. 3, 2014).
The manufacturer countered that Brattle Group study with its own: a "critical review" from Cambridge Systematics that claims to refute previous findings on the industry's ability to keep up with tank car repairs mandated by a new safety rule.
The older report makes several conclusions that "are not supportable based on the numbers and analysis used," Cambridge Systematics found, according to a presentation to White House officials.
"Specifically, the [Brattle Group] report underestimates the existing and future capacity of the contract shop industry to complete the proposed retrofits, and likely overestimates the number of cars that would be retired in response to the regulations," the review said.
A representative from RSI-CTC didn't respond to request for comment yesterday afternoon.
Discussion over the fate of older oil tank cars has heated up in recent weeks following a series of derailments involving newer-model cars.
On Saturday, a Canadian National Railway Co. train carrying oil from Alberta derailed near a small town in Ontario, sparking a fire and plunging two tank cars into a river (EnergyWire, March 9). The accident came just weeks after another CN oil train derailed and caught fire in the same area.
Both of those crashes -- as well as recent U.S. oil train derailments in West Virginia and Illinois -- involved type CPC-1232 tank cars built to voluntary standards in place since 2011.
Analysts have said the repeated failure of those newer cars may push regulators to move them into the scrap heap, or at least require more aggressive repairs. DOT's draft rule suggested phasing thousands of the oldest type DOT-111 tank cars out of crude service by 2017, with some cars able to move less volatile liquids through 2020. Type CPC-1232 cars, however, would need only minor upgrades.
"The spate of recent crashes may make it harder for the Obama Administration to finalize an accommodative rule -- especially in terms of tank car design and phase-out timeframes," Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, wrote in a note to clients Monday.
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