Preview Newsletter
ACC AM March 16
-
Oversight Hearing on "Examining the Spending Priorities and Missions of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) in the President's FY 2016 B
Mar 17, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building / 10:00 AM -
Budget Hearing - Department of Energy, Applied Energy Programs
Mar 17, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM -
EPA’s Proposed 111(d) Rule for Existing Power Plants: Legal and Cost Issues
Mar 17, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM -
Oversight Hearing on "Effect of the President’s FY 2016 Budget and Legislative Proposals for the Office of Surface Mining on Private Sector Job Creation, Domestic Energy Production, State Programs and Deficit Reduction.”
Mar 17, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building / 10:30 AM -
Budget Hearing - National Science Foundation
Mar 17, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: H-309 Capitol Building / 10:30 AM -
Budget Hearing - Department of Energy, Office of Science
Mar 17, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building / 1:00 PM -
TSA Oversight and Examination of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request
Mar 17, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, RM 253 / 2:30 PM -
Budget Hearing - Department of Energy, Environmental Management
Mar 18, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building / 9:30 AM -
Discussion Draft of H.R. ___, Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2015
Mar 18, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM -
H.R. ___, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015
Mar 18, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:15 AM -
The President’s Fiscal Year 2016 Budget: Administration Priorities for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mar 18, 2015 | Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:30 AM -
Tangled in Red Tape: New Challenges for Small Manufacturers
Mar 18, 2015 | House Committee on Small Business
Location: 2360 Rayburn House Office Building / 11:00 AM -
United States Crude Export Policy Hearing
Mar 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, RM 366 / 10:00 AM -
Examining Federal Rulemaking Challenges and Areas of Improvement Within the Existing Regulatory Process
Mar 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, SD-342 / 10:00 AM -
Examining the Evolving Cyber Insurance Marketplace
Mar 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, RM 253 / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry-Supported Chemical Bill Straight From 'Merchants Of Doubt' Playbook, Critics Say
Mar 14, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Lynne Peeples
Tuesday's unveiling of a bipartisan bill in Congress that would reform how the nation regulates toxic chemicals sparked fervor among environmental and public health advocates. One group said the legislation may improve public health protections, but many more warned it may prove a step backward -- notably by stymying chemical-safety... -
(ACC Mentioned) Washington Watch: Vitter Crosses the Aisle on Chemicals Bill
Mar 14, 2015 | The Advocate
By Gregory Roberts
For a moment or two last week, it looked like U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., had hit a sweet spot between business interests and environmental movement. A conservative considered a friend of industry, he joined in the public rollout of a chemical regulation bill he cosponsored with U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who has enjoyed a reputation... -
(ACC Mentioned) Carper, Coons Back Overhaul of Toxic Chemicals Law
Mar 13, 2015 | Delaware Online
By Nicole Gaudiano
Delaware’s U.S. senators are backing a controversial overhaul of a law designed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals and substances in consumer products. Some environmental and health groups say the bipartisan legislation that Democratic Sens. Tom Carper and Chris Coons cosponsored this week would weaken current law... -
(ACC Mentioned) Udall and Heinrich Building Coalitions in the Senate
Mar 15, 2015 | Albuquerque Journal
By Michael Coleman
It’s tough to find bipartisan agreement in the contentious and divided U.S. Senate, but New Mexico’s U.S. senators may have found the sweet spot with separate pieces of legislation early in the 115th Congress. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., last week introduced a bill that would rewrite the 40-year-old Toxic Chemicals Control Act of ... -
EPA Data Transparency Bill Could Cost $250 Million to Implement, CBO Estimates
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Implementing a bill that would require all Environmental Protection Agency actions to be based on publicly available and independently replicable data would cost the agency $250 million a year to implement, the Congressional Budget Office said. According to the CBO, new activities mandated by the legislation would require the EPA... -
EAB Scraps Landmark TSCA Penalty But Rejects Enforcement Time Limit
Mar 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has scrapped the agency's landmark $2.5 million penalty against a chemical company for an alleged violation of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting rules, but EAB is backing EPA's position that some reporting violations are “continuing” and not subject to a statute of limitations. -
Committee to Mull Bipartisan TSCA Reform Bill
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A bipartisan group of lawmakers will have their first chance to talk up a new bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 -- a top priority of the business community this Congress. S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," is the result of negotiations between Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.)... -
The "Best Chance in a Generation" to Protect Us From Toxic Chemicals
Mar 13, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
There isn’t much to celebrate from Congress these days, but something big happened this week: 17 senators from both sides of the aisle came together to protect Americans from hazardous chemicals in detergents, upholstery fabric, cleaning agents and thousands of other household products. -
Work on Nanotech Risks Gets Increasing Investment in Obama's Fiscal 2016 Budget
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The White House wants to continue the trend of devoting more of the federal government's billion-dollar nanotechnology budget to environmental, health and safety issues, according to supplemental budget figures released March 11. The proposed fiscal year 2016 budget allocates 7.1 percent of the National Nanotechnology... -
Report Calls for Interagency Effort To Accelerate Bioengineering of Chemicals
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A systematic interagency effort to support research and standards for biotechnology-based chemicals and an updated regulatory approach to safe entry into commerce are needed, the National Academies said in a report issued March 13. An appendix to the report raised many concerns about whether the Toxic Substances Control Act gives... -
Guest Op-Ed: Don’t Turn Back the Clock on Fire Safety
Mar 16, 2015 | Washington State Wire
By Gordon L. Nelson
One of the unfortunate aspects of human progress is that people often forget or discount what life was like before that progress was made. We have seen this in recent years with the debate over issues like the use of chlorine to treat the drinking water supply. There are a number of people who question the use of disinfectants in drinking water... -
West Virginia Rolls Back Tough Rules on Above-Ground Storage Tanks
Mar 14, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
West Virginia lawmakers approved a measure on Saturday to roll back strict water-protection rules enacted last year after a chemical spill contaminated drinking water for 300,000 people in West Virginia’s capital. The bill, which exempts thousands of above-ground storage tanks statewide from last year’s rules, is expected to be signed by Gov.... -
Oil Executives Said to Ask Obama Administration to Lift Export Ban
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dawn Kopecki and Bradley Olson
ficer Ryan Lance, were in Washington this week trying to persuade White House officials and lawmakers to lift the 40-year ban on U.S. oil exports, according to two people familiar with the meetings. Chief executives from the lobbying group Producers for American Crude Oil Exports, or PACE, met with White House... -
Senate Panel to Consider Crude Export Policy
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set to hear testimony Thursday on whether to lift the ban on exporting domestic crude oil that has been in place for the last four decades. The hearing follows a similar session in the House this month, but it is unlikely to usher in quick legislative action... -
House Panel to Review Agency's Offshore Energy Programs
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A House Natural Resources panel tomorrow will review the Interior Department's offshore energy and revenue collection programs, a hearing likely to spotlight the Obama administration's 2017-2022 offshore oil and gas leasing plan. The Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee will review the missions and spending priorities of ... -
Stand Up to Junk Science on Fracking
Mar 13, 2015 | The Hill - Blog
By Thomas Pyle
America’s smart drilling revolution has bestowed numerous economic and environmental benefits. Innovative entrepreneurs who combined horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing have led to huge increases of domestic energy production, making the U.S. the number one oil and gas producer in the world. We did all this while reducing... -
Feds to Buy 5M Barrels of Oil for Reserve
Mar 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Energy Department is planning to buy up to 5 million barrels of oil to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it said Friday. The oil would refill the reserve after a test sale last year of the same amount of oil, designed to test the processes and systems that agency uses to distribute oil. -
U.S. Seeks More Crude for Strategic Reserve After 2014 Sale
Mar 13, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Sarita Williams & Dan Murtaugh
The U.S. government wants to buy up to 5 million barrels of crude to store in its strategic reserve on the Gulf Coast. The Energy Department wants the crude delivered to its Bryan Mound storage cavern near Freeport, Texas, in June or July, according to a pre-solicitation notice posted on federal websites today. The purchase follows a 5 million-barrel... -
U.S. Producers Ready New Oil Wave
Mar 13, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth & Benoît Faucon
The ocean of oil from U.S. shale drove crude prices back toward six-year lows Friday, and American energy companies say they are poised to unleash a further flood that would keep prices from returning to lofty levels for a long time. The International Energy Agency reinforced the prospect of a prolonged slump in energy prices Friday, saying U.S. oil... -
Obama's Newly Harsh Tone On Keystone XL Seen Signaling Rejection
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Snyder and Rebecca Penty
Facing re-election and $4 a gallon gasoline, President Barack Obama sounded like an enthusiastic supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline at a March 2012 campaign rally. “I'm directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority,” he said in a speech in Cushing, Okla... -
TransCanada Lobbies for Energy East Pipeline
Mar 13, 2015 | E&E News PM
After struggling to convince the U.S. government to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada Corp. is taking a proactive approach in garnering local support for the proposed Energy East pipeline project in Canada. The company started public outreach for the proposed 4,600-kilometer crude pipeline a year and a half before it filed a regulatory... -
ECOS' Air, Methane Database Could Help Shape EPA Oil, Gas Sector Rules
Mar 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is crafting a major new database of states' best practices to cut volatile organic compound (VOC) and methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, which sources say may help shape EPA's pending first-time methane rule for new drilling sources and VOC guidelines for existing sources. -
Michigan Governor Pushes for More Energy From Efficiency, Renewables, Natural Gas
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Renewable energy sources and reduction of energy waste could account for 30 percent to 40 percent of Michigan's energy generation by 2025, under a plan put forward by Gov. Rick Snyder (R). Natural gas also should play a big role in shifting Michigan's energy mix away from coal, Snyder said in a March 13 speech at an International Brotherhood... -
Senate Bill Would Allow Long-Term Energy Contracts at Federal Agencies
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Federal agencies would be allowed to enter into long-term contracts with utilities for energy-saving services under legislation introduced March 12 by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). The Utility Energy Service Contracts Improvement Act of 2015 (S. 723) clarifies an existing law that allows federal agencies to enter into utility energy service ... -
Federal Subsidies Decreased for Energy Overall but Rose for Renewables, EIA Says
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Federal energy subsidies dropped 23 percent between fiscal years 2010 and 2013, declining from $38 billion to $29.3 billion, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a new report. Despite the overall decrease, federal subsidies for renewable energy increased $2.9 billion to $8.4 billion in FY 2013, largely driven by increased ... -
Battle Over EPA Proposal Heats Up in Southeast, Midwest
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
Conservative lawmakers in the Southeast and Midwest are redoubling their efforts to enact legislation that would give legislatures the final word on any plan to comply with U.S. EPA's proposed rule to cut carbon emissions from power plants. This week, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hear from lawyers and state regulators... -
Dow to Become One of the Largest Industrial Buyers of Renewable Energy Dow Accelerates Sustainability with New Wind Farm Agreement for Texas Facility
Mar 13, 2015 | Business Wire
By Rachelle Schikorra
As a part of Dow’s Energy Plan and its Sustainability Goals, The Dow Chemical Company (NYSE:DOW) has taken another step towards reducing its own carbon “footprint.” Marking milestone progress, Dow’s Energy business has signed a long-term agreement with a new wind farm, currently under development in South Texas by a subsidiary... -
House Subcommittee to Consider Looming Rule Utilities Say Threatens Demand-Response Programs
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
Less than a month remains before the Department of Energy is set to begin enforcing an energy efficiency rule that some utilities say imperils their efforts to save energy. A House subcommittee this week plans to highlight the issue as lawmakers from both parties and a diverse set of outside stakeholders push Congress to act before the April... -
Florida Governor's Stance on Climate Seen Having Broad Policy-Making Impacts
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
Florida Gov. Rick Scott's (R) views on climate change have broad policy-making effects beyond a reported ban on using the phrase, sources told Bloomberg BNA, pointing to the upcoming implementation of a conservation funding measure and federal carbon emission rules as notable examples. Scott's office and the Florida Department of... -
California Court to Hear Case Challenging San Diego Transport Plan's GHG Provisions
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Siciliano
The California Supreme Court has granted the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) petition for review of a ruling that invalidated its regional transportation plan over inadequate consideration of greenhouse gas emissions (Cleveland National Forest v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts, Cal., No. S5223603, review granted, 3/11/15). -
Emissions by Makers of Energy Level Off
Mar 13, 2015 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
Somebody tapped the brakes. Carbon dioxide emissions from the world’s energy producers stalled in 2014, the first time in 40 years of measurement that the level did not increase during a period of economic expansion, according to preliminary estimates from the International Energy Agency. -
GOP States’ Choice on Carbon Emissions: Negligence or Logic
Mar 15, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Stephen Stromberg
The Environmental Protection Agency will soon demand that states cut their greenhouse-gas emissions. You would think that state leaders, particularly Republicans warning of an EPA regulatory apocalypse, would be frantically reaching for the least onerous strategies to comply. But so far many have shown more interest in lambasting... -
Energy-Linked Emissions Stable in 2014 Despite Economic Growth -- IEA
Mar 13, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
For the first time in 40 years of record keeping, carbon dioxide emissions from energy use were steady in 2014 even as the global economy grew, the International Energy Agency reported today. CO2 from energy weighed in at 32.3 billion metric tons in both 2013 and 2014, the Paris-based research organization said. -
Computers and Monitors Are Targets of Latest Energy-Efficiency Rules
Mar 15, 2015 | LA Times
By Marc Lifsher
California regulators are intensifying efforts to wring every possible electron out of common household devices. This time, the focus is on cutting the use of electricity by power-hungry computers and monitors. The California Energy Commission just released the latest in a long line of energy-efficiency standards that made the... -
Utah Tax Credit Approved to Retrofit Refinery Producing Fuel Compliant With Tier 3 Rule
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Utah Legislature approved a bill (S.B. 216) providing tax credits to retrofit a refinery to make it capable of producing fuel compliant with the Environmental Protection Agency's Tier 3 sulfur standard for gasoline. The bill directs the Utah Office of Energy Development to issue a tax credit to an entity developing a high-cost... -
DeFazio Asks GAO to Assess Capabilities For Response to Crude-by-Rail Incidents
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) asked the Government Accountability Office to examine emergency response capabilities related to the rail transport of crude oil. The GAO should specifically assess the preparedness of railroads to respond to these incidents, the established coordination between railroads and communities and the availability... -
Philadelphia Asks Federal Government, Rail Companies to Address Crude Oil Risks
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Philadelphia has urged the federal government to set new safety standards and called on rail companies to replace aging DOT-111 tank cars to mitigate the “increasing risks” of transporting oil from the Bakken Shale formation by rail into the city. In a resolution unanimously adopted March 12, the Philadelphia City Council also called... -
Speed Limits May Not Stop Fiery Oil Spills, U.S. Railroad Regulator Says
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Snyder
Lower speed limits for railroads may be ineffective at keeping oil trains on the tracks and preventing spills and explosions, such as those triggered in a series of recent derailments, the chief U.S. railroad regulator said March 13. “If you're going to slow trains down, you're going to have to slow them down to 12 miles an hour,” Sarah Feinberg... -
Feds Require Removal of Oil Train Parts Involved in Leaks
Mar 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Keith Laing
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is ordering freight rail companies to remove faulty parts it says have been involved in multiple oil train leaks recently. The agency said the parts, which are valves that were manufactured by Tennessee-based company McKenzie Valve & Machining LLC, are resulting in “tank cars leaking small quantities ... -
Vacancies at Transport Agencies Sow Angst
Mar 14, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
Vacancies atop several regulatory agencies within the Obama administration are prompting concerns about transportation safety after a series of recent accidents across the nation. Leadership positions at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety...
Congressional Hearings
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
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Mar 17, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building / 10:00 AM
-
Budget Hearing - Department of Energy, Applied Energy Programs
Mar 17, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM
-
EPA’s Proposed 111(d) Rule for Existing Power Plants: Legal and Cost Issues
Mar 17, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM
-
Mar 17, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building / 10:30 AM
-
Budget Hearing - National Science Foundation
Mar 17, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: H-309 Capitol Building / 10:30 AM
-
Budget Hearing - Department of Energy, Office of Science
Mar 17, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building / 1:00 PM
-
TSA Oversight and Examination of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request
Mar 17, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, RM 253 / 2:30 PM
-
Budget Hearing - Department of Energy, Environmental Management
Mar 18, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building / 9:30 AM
-
Discussion Draft of H.R. ___, Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2015
Mar 18, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM
-
H.R. ___, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015
Mar 18, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:15 AM
-
Mar 18, 2015 | Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:30 AM
-
Tangled in Red Tape: New Challenges for Small Manufacturers
Mar 18, 2015 | House Committee on Small Business
Location: 2360 Rayburn House Office Building / 11:00 AM
-
United States Crude Export Policy Hearing
Mar 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, RM 366 / 10:00 AM
-
Mar 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, SD-342 / 10:00 AM
-
Examining the Evolving Cyber Insurance Marketplace
Mar 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, RM 253 / 10:00 AM
-
Mar 14, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Lynne Peeples
Tuesday's unveiling of a bipartisan bill in Congress that would reform how the nation regulates toxic chemicals sparked fervor among environmental and public health advocates. One group said the legislation may improve public health protections, but many more warned it may prove a step backward -- notably by stymying chemical-safety efforts by states.
Critics also said they're suspicious of the chemical industry's role in drafting and garnering support for the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the proposed update to a nearly 40-year-old law that just about everyone agrees is too weak and outdated. The industry's involvement, the groups added, fits a strategic playbook used by industry to protect its profit.
That playbook -- largely written by Big Tobacco and updated and expanded by climate skeptics as well as the makers of flame retardants and other chemical products -- is the central theme of "Merchants of Doubt," a Sony Pictures Classics documentary released widely on Friday.
"The chemical industry has hijacked the narrative around protecting the environment and public health," said Ansje Miller of the nonprofit Center for Environmental Health, noting the environmental health community's widespread support for the Safe Chemicals Act when it was introduced in 2013 by the late Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). "They have come in with an entirely different bill that is more about creating a system that gives a false sense of security."
Ken Cook, president of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, referred to industry's "bag of tricks" during a press call on Wednesday. His group reported last week that the chemical industry has spent $190 million lobbying Congress over the past three years. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), has received campaign support from the chemical industry.
"It is possible the first environmental law that will emerge from Congress in almost a generation is one that has originated in the chemical industry -- the very industry this legislation purports to regulate," Cook said.
The American Chemistry Council, the industry's national trade group, has endorsed the bill. "Stakeholders from industry, environment, public health, civil justice and labor organizations have provided input over more than two years of negotiations, and this bill is the best and only opportunity to achieve a pragmatic, bipartisan solution to reform chemical regulation," Cal Dooley, president of the group, said in a statement.
The nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund suggested that the bill is the first viable chance to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. Central to the improvements is a reversal of the burden of proof. The old law allows companies to use chemicals in products without first demonstrating safety. The new law would require safety tests for new chemicals before they go on the market.
"It is bipartisan legislation and you need it to be bipartisan if it's ever going to pass into law," said Richard Denison, the Environmental Defense Fund's lead senior scientist.
A separate chemical safety reform bill introduced by Sens. Barabara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Thursday enjoys broader support from environmental groups. But like the original Safe Chemicals Act, it's unlikely to "get off the ground" or achieve "bipartisan support," said Denison. Both bills will be the subject of a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Wednesday.
Denison said that he, too, is not pleased with everything in the Vitter-Udall legislation, including the aspect gaining the most criticism from opposing groups: federal pre-emption, in certain cases, of a state's authority to enact new toxic chemical regulations.
Under the Vitter-Udall bill, once the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency begins assessing a chemical deemed "high priority" due to its suspected toxicity, states are barred from imposing new restrictions on that chemical for the same uses the EPA is investigating. Existing state laws, enacted before Jan. 1, 2015, would be allowed to stand.
The danger, according to Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategies Center, is that it may take the EPA a decade or more to complete its investigation and enact any regulations. Technically, the EPA has seven years to reach a final action on a high-priority chemical that fails the safety standard. But Belliveau suggested that a "10- to 20-year waiting period for federal action is realistic," as the understaffed and underfunded agency "routinely" misses deadlines. The EPA also could add a compliance phase-in period, and may face lawsuits and other actions such as congressional riders that further impede action.
"So, under the bill, for a chemical that everyone agrees is unsafe, states can't act, even when EPA is not acting," said Belliveau. "It's the best of both worlds for the toxic chemical industry -- the bill blocks state action, while slow-walking EPA through endless delay tactics."
In a letter to Sen. Markey on Tuesday, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey underscored the Vitter-Udall bill's potential for a "inexplicable regulatory vacuum for a chemical that the state and federal government have recognized as potentially high risk."
The EPA has banned just five chemicals and has required testing for only about 200 of the more than 80,000 permitted for use in the U.S. But many states, including California, Maine, Washington and New York, have found success with their own regulations in recent years.
Last week, for example, the Washington state House of Representatives passed a ban on toxic flame retardants in home furniture and children's products. The bill would also provide the state's Department of Ecology with the authority to ban additional harmful chemicals from being used as flame retardants -- future actions that may be hindered by federal pre-emption. The proposal will be heard in the state Senate on Tuesday.
Randi Abrams-Caras, of the Washington Toxics Coalition, noted that her state's progress has come despite maneuvers from the chemical industry, including a flame retardant front group called "Citizens for Fire Safety" and the industry's continued "coziness" with local trade groups that testify against state regulations.
"We could see a lot of things we've worked on to protect people completely undone," said Abrams-Caras. "I think we have a better chance here of doing the right thing."
That's why the industry is looking to Congress, said Cook of the Environmental Working Group. "They want protection from the backlash and the mistrust that their industry has engendered among consumers and legislatures in dozens of states who have enacted laws to fill in the void created by federal inaction," he said.
Denison agreed that "success at the state level" has "driven industry to the federal table." Still, he emphasized that "some level of pre-emption in the bill is politically necessary." Too much pushback, or attempts to make changes, may further weaken regulations, he said, or worse: "The whole deal could fall apart and we get nothing."
Lobbying by Dow, Du Pont and other chemical companies against tighter regulations isn't limited to Washington D.C., or even to U.S. states. Negotiations are ongoing for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a proposed free trade agreement between the European Union and the U.S. The Center for Environmental Health's Miller is among advocates who suggest the industry may be motivated to use a U.S. bill to water-down international law.
Last fall, French investigative filmmaker Stephane Horel released a documentary, "Endocrination," detailing what she said is an offensive by corporations to thwart regulation of hormone-disrupting chemicals. The chemical industry's influence on regulations is also the topic of other recent films, including "Toxic Hot Seat," "The Human Experiment," and now "Merchants of Doubt."
"I make an honest living," says professional magician Jamy Ian Swiss in "Merchants of Doubt," as he performs a sleight-of-hand trick. "Therefore it offends me when someone takes the skills of my honest living and uses it to twist and distort and manipulate people and their sense of reality and how the world works."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Washington Watch: Vitter Crosses the Aisle on Chemicals Bill
Mar 14, 2015 | The Advocate
By Gregory Roberts
For a moment or two last week, it looked like U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., had hit a sweet spot between business interests and environmental movement.
A conservative considered a friend of industry, he joined in the public rollout of a chemical regulation bill he cosponsored with U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who has enjoyed a reputation as an environmentalist. Udall was a leader in the fight against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and his father, Stewart, who was secretary of the interior in the Kennedy administration, championed the far-reaching Clean Air and Clean Water acts.
Not only that, the measure was saluted by the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group that pioneered the successful effort to ban the insecticide DDT from the environment. Founded in 1967, the EDF has pushed to ban whale hunting, phase out lead from gasoline, get McDonald’s to adopt biodegradable packaging and tackle the problems of global warming and climate change.
“Americans shouldn’t have to worry whether chemicals in their homes pose a threat to their families,” EDF President Fred Krupp said in a statement. “With lawmakers coming together from both sides of the aisle, this is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans. We look forward to working with Senator Udall, the environmental community and other stakeholders to get the strongest bill possible enacted into law. Congress cannot afford to let this historic opportunity slip from its grasp. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to seize the moment and act.”
Louisiana is home to the second-largest chemical industry in the country (Texas is No. 1). Industry groups also support the proposal, which is designed to rewrite the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, a law widely regarded as outmoded and ineffective.
“This legislation 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,” the American Chemistry Council said.
That was Tuesday. On Thursday, two other senators — Democrats Barbara Boxer, of California, and Ed Markey, of Massachusetts — released their version of a TSCA update.
“Our citizens deserve nothing less than a bill that protects them — not chemical companies,” Boxer said in a statement.
Boxer has said the Udall-Vitter bill actually will make things worse and result in less protection from toxic chemicals in the environment. An array of environmental organizations have joined in backing her measure in preference to the Udall-Vitter bill. The Natural Resources Defense Council has criticized the Udall-Vitter proposal, and it has tangled with Vitter before: In 2014, he protested what he saw as a too-cozy relationship between the organization and the Environmental Protection Agency in drafting regulations for carbon emissions from power plants and in other matters.
A key point of disagreement over the two TSCA measures involves the degree to which the Udall-Vitter bill would pre-empt state regulations of toxic chemicals in clothing, furniture and elsewhere in the environment. Critics of the legislation say it would rob the states of power to restrict the chemicals in the future and open the way to lengthy delays in federal regulation.
Vitter collaborated in the previous Congress with a Democrat, the late Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey, on a TSCA rewrite (the new bill is named after Lautenberg). But in that Congress, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and Boxer was chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, with jurisdiction over the measure. Despite a lengthy list of bipartisan cosponsors, the bill never made it out of Boxer’s committee.
The 2014 elections gave Republicans a 54-46 majority in the Senate and also expanded their majority in the House. Besides Udall and Vitter, their bill has 15 cosponsors, including Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., Bill Cassidy, R-La., and seven Democrats. That’s enough Democratic support to provide a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, if all Republicans line up behind the bill. Boxer and Markey have so far rounded up one cosponsor: Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
The Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to take up the bill Wednesday.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Carper, Coons Back Overhaul of Toxic Chemicals Law
Mar 13, 2015 | Delaware Online
By Nicole Gaudiano
Delaware’s U.S. senators are backing a controversial overhaul of a law designed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals and substances in consumer products.
Some environmental and health groups say the bipartisan legislation that Democratic Sens. Tom Carper and Chris Coons cosponsored this week would weaken current law and undermine efforts to protect the public’s health.
The two senators counter that the bill includes provisions they requested to promote safety.
“My goal has always been to advance legislation that balances the critical need to protect the public health from certain harmful chemicals with a regulatory process that is manageable for the businesses that produce the many safe products that we rely on each day,” Carper wrote in a March 10 letter to the bill’s lead sponsors, Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Tom Udall, D-N.M.
The letter also went to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Coons said the reform measure includes provisions he wrote to support the research and development of sustainable chemistry, which helps eliminate health risks.
“From the University of Delaware to the Delaware Sustainable Chemistry Alliance, our state is leading the way in developing safe products and processes, and this bill will support that important work,” he said in a statement.
The current Toxic Substances Control Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate chemicals in consumer products. But the 1976 law, which doesn’t even ban even asbestos, a known carcinogen, is widely considered outdated.
Carper and Coons noted in a 2014 letter to Vitter that the law’s shortcomings were obvious when federal officials couldn’t obtain basic public health information last year about a chemical that had contaminated drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people in West Virginia.
The Vitter-Udall bill aims to boost chemical safety by:
•Ensuring that cost can’t be considered in safety evaluations.
•Mandating safety reviews for all chemicals in commerce.
•Strengthening protections for vulnerable populations.
•Strengthening deadlines for EPA evaluations.
•Adding new requirements for confidential business information.
•Mandating that new chemicals can’t be manufactured until the EPA approves them.
The proposal would allow states to restrict a chemical – but only until EPA evaluates it. EPA standards for chemical substances would be applied across the nation.
Carper and Coons were among 15 lawmakers – seven Democrats and eight Republicans – to sign on as original cosponsors of the Vitter-Udall bill.
The bill is supported by the American Chemistry Council and the chemical giant DuPont, a major employer in Delaware. The company’s employees and political action committee are among the top political contributors to Carper and Coons, according to OpenSecrets.org.
“This bill is critical not only to ensuring increased public confidence in chemical safety in the U.S., but also to protecting U.S. competitiveness in the global economy,” said Aaron Woods, a spokesman for DuPont.
Groups opposing the bill say it would block states from restricting use of a chemical in cases where the EPA has said it plans to merely initiate a review of the chemical’s safety. At that point, the agency is still years away from taking action to protect the public.
“That gap in time creates a ‘regulatory void’ where harm will go unaddressed,” Safer Chemicals, Health Families, a coalition of public health, labor, environmental and green businesses, wrote in a letter to senators this week asking them to withhold support for the bill.
Carper cited the same issue in his March 10 letter to the bill’s sponsors, saying states should be allowed to take action to protect people between the time EPA officials determine that a substance may pose an unreasonable risk and the time they finalize national regulations.
He also wants the bill to give states an “appropriate role” in working with the EPA to restrict the use of possibly dangerous chemicals, and to let the public review EPA decisions on substances that the agency deems are probably safe.
“My enthusiasm to further advance the bill will depend on the extent to which we can resolve these remaining issues,” Carper wrote.
He said the Vitter-Udall bill includes a provision he requested to ensure the EPA makes chemical safety decisions based solely on a substance’s risk to health and the environment.
But Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group wrote in a blog post that chemical company costs will still trump health under the bill because of seemingly conflicting language.
Faber also said that under the bill’s deadlines, it would take “hundreds of years” to review roughly 1,000 chemicals the EPA says need immediate attention. In addition, the bill’s health standards for toxic industrial chemicals are weaker than standards applied to pesticides on produce and food additives, he wrote.
Faber’s group and Safer Chemicals, Healthy families support competing legislation by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that would set up a rapid schedule for reviewing chemicals and would apply tougher health standards.
The Vitter-Udall bill “would fail to ensure that chemicals are safe, fail to set meaningful deadlines for safety reviews, fail to provide EPA with adequate resources and deny states the ability to protect public health and the environment,” Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said in the March 10 blog post.
But the bill’s backers point to support from the Environmental Defense Fund as well as from labor, health and industry groups.
“With lawmakers coming together from both sides of the aisle, this is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Udall and Heinrich Building Coalitions in the Senate
Mar 15, 2015 | Albuquerque Journal
By Michael Coleman
It’s tough to find bipartisan agreement in the contentious and divided U.S. Senate, but New Mexico’s U.S. senators may have found the sweet spot with separate pieces of legislation early in the 115th Congress.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., last week introduced a bill that would rewrite the 40-year-old Toxic Chemicals Control Act of 1976. The legislation has been criticized by Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, as a step backward. But the American Chemical Council – the national trade group for chemical companies such as Dow and DuPont – has endorsed it, as has the national Environment Defense Fund.
At a press conference last week, Udall said while “nobody got everything they wanted,” the legislation provides more safeguards against dangerous chemicals than existing law. Although the bill is sure to see some concerted opposition, Udall has cobbled together a coalition of seven other Democrats, including Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, to co-sponsor the bill.
“Eight Democrats, eight Republicans are on the bill on this first day of introduction,” Vitter said. “That’s a very, very strong statement in terms of our ability to move forward and pass this legislation. It’s a testament to all of the outreach and substantive work we’ve done….”
The bill’s first committee hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.
At the same time, Heinrich’s longstanding effort to open more Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands to hunting, fishing and other recreational pursuits is also gaining traction. He has introduced the bill in previous congresses, but Capitol Hill observers think its chance of finally making it to President Obama’s desk is improved this year with the addition of Republican support.
Heinrich’s so-called Sportsman Act counts among its Republican co-sponsors Sen. Jim Risch of Nebraska, Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska and, most importantly, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
“Growing support for the bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act shows that increasing access and providing greater opportunities are important to America’s sportsmen and sportswomen,” Murkowski said last week.
Like millions of other Americans, Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.M., is the primary caregiver for an elderly and ailing mother.
For people in this position, the commitment – in terms of time, money and emotion – is significant. That’s why Lujan Grisham and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., this month launched the Assisting Caregivers Today — or ACT — congressional caucus.
The caucus will aim to raise awareness on Capitol Hill of the challenges and hardships endured by those who provide caregiving for families members who are sick or mentally ill. Although there are some federal programs offering financial assistance and other support for such care, Lujan Grisham – a former New Mexico Secretary for Aging – says it’s not enough.
In addition to the caucus, Lujan Grisham has proposed the National Care Corps Act, modeled on the AmeriCorps, that would place volunteers in communities to work with seniors and individuals with disabilities who need extra support to live independently. In exchange, volunteers would receive health insurance and other benefits, such as tuition assistance.
In my column last week, I wrote about my discussion with Amy Dowd, director of the New Mexico Health Care Exchange, when she came to Washington to meet with federal health officials. Dowd emailed to tell me she read the column with interest but wanted to clarify a couple of points.
First of all, she said, New Mexico’s rejected grant application for a new website to run the health exchange was for $97 million, not $100 million as I reported. I wrote that she was in D.C. to discuss the rejected grant application, but Dowd wanted to add that the meeting was primarily to talk about New Mexico’s options “for enrollment technology moving forward.”
The cost of building a new state exchange website may be passed on to New Mexico health insurance carriers, or the New Mexico exchange could seek to lease the technology from the federal government.
The exchange’s budget and start-up costs were initially paid for with federal tax dollars. In 2015, it is being paid with a mix of federal dollars for development of the individual exchange and fees on all major medical insurance carriers to pay for the small business exchange.
“In 2016, both the small business exchange and the individual exchange will be funded through an assessment of all major medical carriers in New Mexico on and off the exchange,” Dowd said.
-
EPA Data Transparency Bill Could Cost $250 Million to Implement, CBO Estimates
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Implementing a bill that would require all Environmental Protection Agency actions to be based on publicly available and independently replicable data would cost the agency $250 million a year to implement, the Congressional Budget Office said.
According to the CBO, new activities mandated by the legislation would require the EPA to spend between $10,000 and $30,000 for each scientific study. The agency currently uses about 50,000 studies annually in pursuit of its mission, according to the estimate.
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee, chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) who wrote the legislation (H.R. 1030), disputed the estimate and said the CBO's March 11 finding was based on a “misunderstanding” of the bill's intent.
An aide to the committee told Bloomberg BNA March 13 that the Secret Science Reform Act wouldn't require to the agency to disseminate information and “simply says that EPA must utilize data that is already public and available to independent scientists.”
Another provision in the bill would require the EPA administrator to carry out provisions for under $1 million annually, thereby making the CBO estimate “inconsistent with the intent of the bill.”
It is unclear, however, what would happen if the EPA couldn't comply with the bill for less than $1 million annually. No additional appropriations would be made to help the agency comply, according to the bill.
The full House will consider the Secret Science Reform Act and another science-related bill, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act (H.R. 1029), the week of March 16, according to a memo from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
The White House has threatened to veto both pieces of legislation (42 DEN A-1, 3/4/15).
The EPA declined to comment on the CBO's estimate.
Uncertainty Exists About Estimate
Great uncertainty exists with the estimate, the CBO said, because it remains unclear how the agency would implement the legislation.
“CBO expects that EPA would modify its practices, at least to some extent, and would base its future work on fewer scientific studies, and especially those studies that have easily accessible or transparent data,” the estimate said. “We expect that the agency would seek to reduce its reliance on numerous studies without sacrificing the quality of the agency's covered actions related to research and development.”
The EPA likely would reduce the number of studies used in its regulatory actions by about one-half, according to the CBO.
-
EAB Scraps Landmark TSCA Penalty But Rejects Enforcement Time Limit
Mar 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has scrapped the agency's landmark $2.5 million penalty against a chemical company for an alleged violation of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting rules, but EAB is backing EPA's position that some reporting violations are “continuing” and not subject to a statute of limitations.
The board's March 13 decision therefore gives wins to both the company Elementis Chromium Inc. -- which said EPA guidelines were so ambiguous as to make the company's TSCA reporting obligations unclear -- by reversing the penalty, and to the agency which could cite the ruling in future enforcement actions over years-old reporting violations.
EAB's unanimous ruling in In re: Elementis Chromium Inc. for now resolves a case that is seen as a test of the reach of TSCA section 8(e), which generally requires domestic chemical manufacturers, distributors and importers to report information showing their chemicals or mixtures pose “substantial” health or environmental risks, unless industry has “actual knowledge” that the administrator has been “adequately informed” of such information.
Industry representatives have said that despite several guidance documents that EPA has published to clarify section 8(e) reporting requirements, confusion persists over what must be reported, particularly in cases when a study is corroborative of known risks and could be exempted from disclosure under the law.
An EPA administrative law judge (ALJ) in November 2013 ruled that Elementis violated section 8(e) of TSCA by failing to forward to EPA a 2002 study showing increased risk of lung cancer to workers exposed to hexavalent chromium (Cr6), widely used as an anti-corrosive agent in pigments, dyes, paints and plastics and in the production of stainless steel. As part of the proceeding, the ALJ upheld the $2.5 million penalty EPA imposed.
Elementis, the only domestic manufacturer of Cr6, urged EAB to overturn the penalty, arguing EPA's guidance on information that must be reported under the law is ambiguous and contending the company could not have known to report the 2002 health study which another federal agency found lacked new risk information.
EAB Challenge
In the case, Elementis also argued that EPA's penalty was time-barred because a five-year statute of limitations lapsed between when the company received the study in 2002 and when EPA brought its enforcement action in 2010 -- two years after Elementis eventually forwarded the study to EPA after a subpoena.
In the March 13 ruling, EAB's judges backed Elementis' arguments that the company was not required to submit the 2002 risk study showing Cr6 causes lung cancer because the study is merely corroborative of what the agency already knew.
“It has been well-established for decades that hexavalent chromium causes the effect of lung cancer,” EAB Judges Leslye M. Fraser and Kathie A. Stein say in the decision. “Moreover, the epidemiology study Elementis received identified a lung cancer effect only at a substantially higher cumulative dose level than the cumulative dose level showing lung cancer in a pre-existing EPA epidemiology study on hexavalent chromium.”
EPA had argued that while a correlation between Cr6 exposure and increased risk of lung cancer was already known, the industry-funded study should have been reported to it because it includes new exposure information and shows the risk to workers continues in modern facilities, despite industry efforts to mitigate the Cr6 risk.
While EAB found Elementis was not required to report the study and reversed the ALJ ruling on the penalty, the board backed EPA's arguments that some violations of section 8(e) obligation to report health and safety information can be continuing and therefore not subject to a statute of limitations for enforcement actions. “This duty continues for as long as reportable information is required and not provided,” the judges say. “The period of limitations for a section 8(e) violation runs anew each day the obligation to provide reportable information remains unfulfilled.”
-
Committee to Mull Bipartisan TSCA Reform Bill
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A bipartisan group of lawmakers will have their first chance to talk up a new bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 -- a top priority of the business community this Congress.
S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," is the result of negotiations between Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) that began after Udall took over as chairman of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, which he assumed after Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D-N.J.) death in June 2013. The bill was introduced last week with seven Democratic co-sponsors and nine Republicans.
A counterproposal also introduced last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) would keep state's regulatory authority in place while increasing the pace of chemical assessments and requiring chemical companies to contribute larger amounts of funding to the program. Boxer's proposal was co-sponsored by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Boxer, the panel's ranking member, is expected to contrast the provisions of her bill and the shortcomings of Udall's legislation.
While Udall gave up his seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee this year to join the Commerce Committee, he is expected to testify on the proposal, and Lautenberg's widow, Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg, is also expected to speak in support of the bill.
Although the committee has not yet announced a slate of witnesses, other representatives of industry groups, public health organizations and Jim Jones, U.S. EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, are likely to testify. Among the issues expected to be discussed is how the Udall-Vitter proposal stacks up in comparison to the Obama administration's principles for TSCA reform.
Lawmakers who support the Udall-Vitter bill dispute Boxer's and some environmental groups' position that the bill is too lenient on the chemical industry and insufficiently protective of the public health.
The bill "represents a compromise that was worked out with both industry and environmental groups," Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said last week.
Udall has "made it clear" that he hopes EPA reviews chemicals like asbestos, bisphenol-A -- or BPA -- and styrene if the bill becomes law, Talhelm said.
Opponents, groups cite asbestos hazard
EPA's troubled history of asbestos regulation is already playing a role in the debate over the two bills.
Boxer's bill would immediately add asbestos as a high priority chemical, requiring that a safety assessment of asbestos be completed within two years, leading to a final rule on asbestos within three years. In comparison, the Udall-Vitter bill has avoided carving out exemptions for specific chemicals.
"The fact that the Vitter-Udall bill will not even restrict, much less ban, the deadly substance that claims 30 lives a day is nothing short of a national travesty," said Linda Reinstein, the president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, in a statement. "Any senator who supports this industry proposal is in essence supporting the continuation of the toll asbestos has already had on millions of American families."
Still, the bill would allow EPA to regulate and eventually propose a ban on asbestos if it chose, but it would have to go through the same process afforded to other chemicals. While asbestos would not receive the special attention called for under the Boxer bill, it would be a significant change from current law, which was severely limited under a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 1991 that EPA had not provided enough evidence to show that asbestos posed an unreasonable risk.
"The two key legal problems in the original law -- that prevented EPA from even regulating asbestos -- have been removed," Andy Igrejas, the director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, wrote in a blog post last week. "The EPA will now be able to evaluate chemicals against a health-based safety standard."
The Udall bill "fixes the problem that was caused by the Corrosion Pipe Fittings case and allows EPA to take action" on asbestos, Talhelm said. "This law is designed to give EPA authority over all of the chemicals that are now all in commerce and in manufacturing."
Under the Udall-Vitter bill, EPA would be required to add at least 10 chemicals to the high-priority list within six months but would also have to declare 10 low-priority substances. Within three years, the agency would have to designate at least 20 high-priority chemicals and 20 low-priority chemicals. Unlike Boxer's plan, the agency would be required to designate the chemicals set for safety assessments at the beginning of each year. Boxer's bill also has no minimum level of low-priority designations required.
Both bills would allow states and citizen groups to sue EPA if they suspect the agency improperly designated a low-priority chemical, and the bills require that low-priority chemicals must have "information sufficient to establish it is likely to meet the safety standard."
The Boxer-Markey safety standard is similar to the one in the Udall-Vitter bill but removes language limiting the standard to a chemical's "conditions of use."
The Boxer-Markey bill requires chemicals meet a standard that "ensures with reasonable certainty, without taking into consideration cost or other non-risk factors, that no harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the intended or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, including no harm to the general population or to any potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation that the Administrator has identified as relevant to the safety assessment and determination for a chemical substance."
The Udall bill requires that EPA "ensures, without taking into consideration cost or other nonrisk factors, that no unreasonable risk of harm to health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the conditions of use, including no unreasonable risk of harm to (A) the general population; or (B) any potentially exposed or susceptible population that the Administrator has identified as relevant to the safety assessment and safety determination for a chemical substance."
The Boxer bill would also require that EPA publish a list of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, or PBTs, within six months, and within two years of completing an exposure assessment of the chemicals publish regulations to achieve the maximum possible reduction in exposure.
The Udall-Vitter bill contains language mandating that assumptions and methods "are clearly and completely described and documented," "variability and uncertainty are evaluated and characterized," and requires documents be "subject to independent verification and peer review." The bill also mandates the use of "a systematic and integrative framework to consider the relevance of different information." In contrast, the Boxer-Markey bill requires the use of peer review and standardized methods "to the extent practicable" and that best laboratory practices "will be encouraged," and EPA is also required to follow recommendations outlined in specified National Academy of Sciences reports.
The Boxer-Markey bill also differs from the Udall-Vitter bill by limiting testing on mammals, rather than vertebrate animals, without considering other options, leaving fewer restrictions for EPA to use tests on zebrafish, for example -- sometimes used by researchers to estimate the effects of a chemical's exposure to humans.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, March 18, at 9:30 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses: TBA.
-
The "Best Chance in a Generation" to Protect Us From Toxic Chemicals
Mar 13, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
There isn’t much to celebrate from Congress these days, but something big happened this week: 17 senators from both sides of the aisle came together to protect Americans from hazardous chemicals in detergents, upholstery fabric, cleaning agents and thousands of other household products.
Their bill represents the “best chance in a generation” to fix America’s now-badly broken chemical safety law, noted Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp. It’s an opportunity we can’t afford to lose.
The current chemical safety law is as old as I am - 39 - but it's aged like milk. The Environmental Protection Agency lacks the power to ensure the safety of chemicals we use every day. The agency can't even effectively restrict the ones we know are dangerous, including identified carcinogens.
It's absolutely insane, but it doesn't have to be that way. The new Senate bill would fundamentally change the chemical safety system for the better. It would: Require a safety review for all chemicals in use today.Ensure all new chemicals pass a safety check before they can be sold on the market.Explicitly require protection for those most at risk from toxic chemicals, such as children and pregnant women.Give the EPA new authority to require companies to test new and existing chemicals for safety.Keep all current state actions on chemicals in place, and only replace state authority when EPA takes the lead on a specific chemical.
But all that can happen only if this legislation becomes law. And after years of trying, we’ve finally got a bill with a realistic chance of passing.
This is why members of Congress needs to hear from every American who wants safety for themselves and their families.
“Rare political circumstances have opened a narrow window to pass meaningful reform that protects the health of American families,” said EDF Lead Senior Scientist Richard Denison, Ph.D. “It’s essential Congress act now.”
Don't get me wrong: This proposal isn't perfect. But even a perfect bill with no hope of passing does nothing to protect American families.
It's time Congress finally does something to make us safer.
-
Work on Nanotech Risks Gets Increasing Investment in Obama's Fiscal 2016 Budget
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The White House wants to continue the trend of devoting more of the federal government's billion-dollar nanotechnology budget to environmental, health and safety issues, according to supplemental budget figures released March 11.
The proposed fiscal year 2016 budget allocates 7.1 percent of the National Nanotechnology Initiative's $1.5 billion budget to environmental, health and safety work. The share of the government's nanotechnology spending earmarked for protecting people and the environment has steadily increased from 2.8 percent in fiscal 2006 to an estimated 6.6 percent in fiscal 2015.
“There's a true realization on the part of NNI agencies that the environment, health and safety are important aspects of the development of nanotechnology,” Michael Meador, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, told Bloomberg BNA March 12. “It's important to understand the risks of nanoscale material to workers exposed in the manufacturing process, it's important to understand the risks posed to consumers who used nano-enhanced products and it's also important to understand the risks posed to the environment.”
In addition to the 7.1 percent of the proposed fiscal 2016 budget dedicated to the environmental, health and safety implications of nanotechnology, there's another 3 percent from related investments within the spending on nanosensors and knowledge infrastructure programs, bringing total spending on human and environmental implications to about 10 percent. The nanotechnology coordination office didn't break out the additional investments in previous budgets.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative coordinates the nanotechnology work of 20 federal departments and agencies, 11 of which get direct funding. Participating agencies have spent more than $22 billion on nanotechnology since the initiative was first announced in 2000. The vast majority of spending has focused on the commercialization of nanotechnology.
Nano in Marketplace
The increasing share of government investment in understanding the environmental, safety and health implications reflects the rise in the commercialization of nanotechnology and the penetration of nano-enhanced products in industry and the marketplace, nanotechnology law and policy specialists told Bloomberg BNA.
“As the commercial applications of nanotechnology have increased and as the federal government has become more engaged, agencies have been very clear about the need for targeted, focused investment in environmental, safety and health for data development, protocols and analytic techniques,” Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, told Bloomberg BNA March 12.
The International Center for Technology Assessment has documented at least 1,200 products containing nanomaterials that consumers come in direct physical contact with, Jaydee Hanson, the group's policy director, told Bloomberg BNA March 12.
The proposed budget would give the Consumer Product Safety Commission an additional $5 million to establish a research center focused on safe commercialization of consumer products containing nanomaterials. The center's research would include the development of methods for quantifying and characterizing the presence, release, and mechanisms of consumer exposure to nanomaterials. The commission is slated to spend just $2 million on nano-related projects in fiscal 2015.
Agencies Spending for Data
The increasing share of the nanotechnology budget devoted to human and environmental implications suggests agencies are realizing the paucity of data on many types of nanomaterials constitutes a significant problem, Hanson said. There is a real lack of data on neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity and mutagenic effects, Hanson said.
Under the fiscal 2016 budget proposal, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health would get $11 million for its health and safety nanotechnology work. That is consistent with the institute's estimated funding for fiscal 2015.
The proposal asks for the Environmental Protection Agency to get $14.8 million, all of it devoted to environmental, health and safety research. That represents a slight dip from the $15.1 million estimated for fiscal 2015.
The top agencies for environmental, health and safety spending in the fiscal 2016 proposal are the National Institutes of Health with $23 million and the National Science Foundation with $22.5 million.
-
Report Calls for Interagency Effort To Accelerate Bioengineering of Chemicals
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A systematic interagency effort to support research and standards for biotechnology-based chemicals and an updated regulatory approach to safe entry into commerce are needed, the National Academies said in a report issued March 13.
An appendix to the report raised many concerns about whether the Toxic Substances Control Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency sufficient authority to oversee the safe entry of bioengineered chemicals into commerce. It also questioned whether the agency has the models, workforce experience and capacity to manage the range of chemicals that could result from biotechnologies.
Biotechnology-based products contribute $353 billion to the U.S. economy, or 2.2 percent of gross domestic product, according to the report, “Industrialization of Biology: A Road Map to Accelerate the Advanced Manufacturing of Chemicals.”
The potential of biotechnology-based chemicals to be designed with special properties with pharmaceutical and industrial applications and to lower fossil fuel consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions depends on a coordinated interagency effort that could enable companies to develop high-value speciality chemicals through biomanufacturing processes, the academies said.
-
Guest Op-Ed: Don’t Turn Back the Clock on Fire Safety
Mar 16, 2015 | Washington State Wire
By Gordon L. Nelson
One of the unfortunate aspects of human progress is that people often forget or discount what life was like before that progress was made. We have seen this in recent years with the debate over issues like the use of chlorine to treat the drinking water supply. There are a number of people who question the use of disinfectants in drinking water despite the fact that these chemistries virtually eliminated cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery and hepatitis A in this country. A similar experience is happening with life-saving fire safety measures. Washington state legislators are currently considering two bills that would ban specific flame retardants from certain products, and groups opposed to flame retardants are eagerly encouraging policymakers to pass the legislation. What is missing from this debate is historical context and science-based fact.
Most people today were not alive during a period when terrible building fires ravaged life and property during the early to mid-part of the 20th century. Indeed, fires like the ones that swept through Boston’s Cocoanut Grove night club in 1942, killing 492 people, as well as the one that burned through Manhattan’s Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, killing 146 people in 1911, are virtually unheard of in the U.S. today.
This progress is due in no small part to the many fire safety regulations that were enacted over the intervening decades, as well as to fire safety tools, like fire alarms, fire extinguishers and flame retardants, that are used to help meet these regulations.
As a result, we’ve seen tremendous progress in fire safety statistics in almost every sector. For example, no one these days thinks about fire safety and televisions. That’s because they don’t have to. Televisions produced in the U.S. have complied with a voluntary standard since the 1970s, and manufacturers have used flame retardants to help meet the standard. Before this measure was put in place, television fires killed an average of 160 people a year in the United States. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission credited the voluntary standard with an immediate and drastic drop in television fires.
Still, similar to the issues related to drinking water, some people have expressed concern about health and safety consequences associated with flame retardants. It is important for these people to understand that there are a number of different flame retardants made from many different chemistries. These flame retardants, like all chemicals, are subject to review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies in the U.S. and around the world. The EPA has the authority to limit or even prohibit a chemical’s use if it has questions concerning safety of any chemicals. During a recent review of data, the EPA identified approximately 50 flame retardants that are unlikely to pose a risk to human health.
Additionally, other government and industry-sponsored peer-reviewed research has been conducted on these chemicals, and the results show that for many of these flame retardants human exposure is well below the level associated with significant health effects.
Given these facts, it is clear Washingtonians and their elected representatives should not have to make the choice between fire safety and chemical safety. They can have both.
We should not turn the clock back on the progress on fire safety. Washington state policymakers should oppose any restrictions on flame retardants that are not clearly grounded in sound science.
-
West Virginia Rolls Back Tough Rules on Above-Ground Storage Tanks
Mar 14, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
West Virginia lawmakers approved a measure on Saturday to roll back strict water-protection rules enacted last year after a chemical spill contaminated drinking water for 300,000 people in West Virginia’s capital.
The bill, which exempts thousands of above-ground storage tanks statewide from last year’s rules, is expected to be signed by Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, a Democrat who had supported easing some regulations. Spokesman Chris Stadelman said Gov. Tomblin would review the bill before making a final decision.
A final version of the bill was passed on Saturday morning, ahead of the end of the legislative session at midnight.
The new measure would leave about 12,000 tanks covered by tougher environmental rules. Last year’s law covered all 50,000 of the state’s above-ground tanks. Republican lawmakers who proposed the measure said the new rules will be sufficient to protect drinking water resources.
The bill had the backing of several industry groups, including the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, based in Charleston. “This new legislation really narrows the focus of the regulations on the tanks that are by definition the ones that would present the most danger to drinking water supplies,” said Rebecca Randolph, president of the group.
Environmental groups fought the measure. “It reduces the regulation of tens of thousands of above-ground storage tanks, some of which have the potential to contaminate drinking water,” said Evan Hansen, president of Downstream Strategies, an environmental consulting company based in Morgantown, W.Va.
Mr. Hansen said opponents of the bill had presented alternatives that were all rejected. “There were compromises that were possible that would have provided regulatory relief for thousands of tanks while still protecting the integrity of the act,” he said.
Until the passage of last year’s law, one of the strictest in the nation, environmental officials didn’t know how many above-ground storage tanks were in the state.
Under the new measure, stricter rules regarding inspections and maintenance are required for about 5,000 tanks. Those contain at least 50,000 gallons, store certain hazardous substances or are within a “zone of critical concern,” defined as falling within five hours travel time along a river to a drinking water system intake.
Another 7,000 tanks that are within 10 hours travel time of a water intake would also be covered but with less stringent requirements. Other changes include scaling back what were annual state inspections of tanks in the zone of critical concern to once every three years.
Passage of last year’s law came shortly after a chemical spill on Jan. 9, 2014 contaminated the water supply for the Charleston, W.Va., region for as many as nine days, one of the worst disruptions of a water supply in U.S. history.
The 2014 spill was traced to a leak of a little-known coal-processing chemical called Crude MCHM from a one-inch hole in a storage tank near the Elk River outside Charleston. The tank had been installed in 1938, records showed.
Four former officials at Freedom Industries, the company whose tank ruptured, face criminal charges in connection with the spill. A plea hearing is scheduled for this month for two officials who prosecutors said have agreed to plead guilty. Two other former officials still face charges that they violated the Clean Water Act.
The new measure would allow companies to opt out of stricter requirements for inspections and maintenance if they already have other plans in place to protect groundwater and prevent spills. Freedom Industries was required to have such a plan in place but didn’t, according to state officials who investigated the accident.
-
Oil Executives Said to Ask Obama Administration to Lift Export Ban
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dawn Kopecki and Bradley Olson
ficer Ryan Lance, were in Washington this week trying to persuade White House officials and lawmakers to lift the 40-year ban on U.S. oil exports, according to two people familiar with the meetings.
Chief executives from the lobbying group Producers for American Crude Oil Exports, or PACE, met with White House senior energy policy adviser Brian Deese March 11 seeking a rollback of the U.S. oil export ban imposed after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, according to two people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions weren't public.
Producers are eager to lift the ban because oil in the U.S. is selling for about $10 less than the global benchmark. The meeting preceded a report Friday by the International Energy Agency that record U.S. crude supplies may soon test the limits of the nation's storage capacity, further threatening prices.
“We've had a series of very productive meetings with senators from both parties and the administration and look forward to continuing those conversations in the months ahead,” George Baker, PACE's executive director, said in a statement that didn't outline what the talks included.
CEOs from 11 of PACE's 16 member companies flew to Washington to meet with administration officials and lawmakers, including Marathon Oil Corp. CEO Lee Tillman, Chesapeake Energy Corp. CEO Doug Lawler and Occidental Petroleum Corp. CEO Steve Chazen, according to the group. They also briefed federal officials and lawmakers on market conditions, including industry job cuts, oil-production levels and the idling of oil rigs, said one of the people who was briefed on the discussions.
More Conversations
Frank Benenati, a White House spokesman, didn't respond to a request for comment.
Administration officials, including Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, have called the restrictions antiquated, and they are being reviewed in a years-long study in the department.
U.S. oil supply will expand this year by about 750,000 barrels a day to 12.56 million a day, up from a projection of 12.41 million in last month's report, the Paris-based IEA, which advises 29 nations, said in a monthly market report. The agency boosted estimates for North American output in the fourth quarter of 2014 by 300,000 barrels a day.
U.S. energy policies severely restrict crude exports while applying no such limits to products processed in refineries. U.S. refiners are exporting record amounts of gasoline, while producers contend with depressed oil prices. The U.S. has surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Free Trade
Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson, who isn't a member of PACE, also urged the government and Congress to allow U.S. exports of oil and gas in a speech in Washington March 12.
“With free trade in energy and common-sense regulatory reforms, the U.S. energy industry can strengthen U.S. energy security and continue to pioneer the innovations that make possible the safe and responsible development of energy,” Tillerson said in remarks to the Economic Club of Washington D.C., according to an Exxon statement.
Executives also met on Capitol Hill with aides to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Murkowski has publicly backed lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports and is working on a broad rewrite of U.S. energy laws (04 DEN A-10, 1/7/15).
‘Listening Sessions.’
“We've been holding a series of listening sessions and PACE has been part of that,” said energy committee spokesman Robert Dillon. Oil executives met with Republican and Democratic committee staff this week. “As we start to draft legislation, we want to make sure we gather all the ideas. We want to hear from everybody.”
Producers calling for an end to the ban have been beset by the biggest oil-market crash since 2009, which has made it harder to turn a profit by drilling in shale, a technological achievement that helped unlock a boom in North American supply.
In 2014, the Department of Commerce began to clarify some rules relating to a kind of ultra-light crude called condensate. That review allowed companies including Pioneer Natural Resources Co. to export condensate after a minimal amount of processing, akin to existing regulations that allow refined products such as gasoline and diesel to be exported.
It isn't clear how much exports have increased because of those allowances, since government data don't release a separate tally of how much condensate has been shipped abroad. U.S. crude exports rose 11 percent in January from December, to 491,000 barrels a day, according to Bloomberg calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data. Of that total, 400,000 barrels a day went to Canada, where U.S. producers and traders are allowed to export under federal rules.
-
Senate Panel to Consider Crude Export Policy
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set to hear testimony Thursday on whether to lift the ban on exporting domestic crude oil that has been in place for the last four decades.
The hearing follows a similar session in the House this month, but it is unlikely to usher in quick legislative action to reverse the export ban. ENR Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was instrumental in elevating the discussion of potential crude exports more than a year ago, but she says the Obama administration has all the authority it needs to allow exports and is not in a hurry to pursue crude export legislation.
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) has introduced a bill to lift the ban, with the support of more than a dozen colleagues mostly hailing from oil-producing states. But GOP leaders are taking a more cautious approach amid the potential for the issue to be derailed by gasoline price politics (E&E Daily, March 4).
U.S. oil producers have been pushing to lift the export ban in an effort to find new customers and close the gap between domestic crude prices typically measured by the West Texas Intermediate benchmark and the international Brent benchmark, which has typically been about $10 to $15 higher per barrel than WTI for the last several years. That means lifting the ban would cause domestic oil prices to increase, but industry supporters point to several recent studies showing that crude exports would have little effect on gasoline prices because refined fuels can be exported under current law, hence their price is tied to the Brent benchmark already.
"There's no benefit for consumers" to the spread between WTI and Brent prices, Pioneer Natural Resources CEO Scott Sheffield testified at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing last month. "Consumers are paying world gasoline prices."
Some refiners have resisted lifting the crude export ban, arguing that doing so would risk job losses by cutting into already thin profit margins domestic refiners enjoy.
If the export ban is to be lifted, refiners say, Congress also must overhaul the century-old Jones Act, which requires U.S.-flagged vessels to transport goods between domestic ports, driving up transportation costs. With the crude export ban gone and the Jones Act in place, refinery officials have argued, it would be cheaper to ship a barrel of oil from the U.S. Gulf Coast to a refinery in Europe and back than to send it to the East Coast to be refined.
Environmental groups also have reacted warily to calls to lift the export ban, worrying that added incentives to drill for oil could lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, March 19, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: TBA.
-
House Panel to Review Agency's Offshore Energy Programs
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A House Natural Resources panel tomorrow will review the Interior Department's offshore energy and revenue collection programs, a hearing likely to spotlight the Obama administration's 2017-2022 offshore oil and gas leasing plan.
The Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee will review the missions and spending priorities of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
BOEM, which requested a $171 million fiscal 2016 budget, a $1 million increase over current funding levels, oversees offshore oil and gas leasing, wind development, and sand and gravel mining on the outer continental shelf.
BSEE, which requested a $205 million budget, roughly level with current funding, conducts inspections of offshore energy facilities, researches oil spill response equipment, establishes regulations and investigates accidents.
ONRR, which is responsible for collecting and disbursing energy revenues from federal and American Indian lands, is requesting $129 million for its receipts management programs, a $7 million increase over current spending.
BOEM Director Abigail Hopper will be making her first appearance on Capitol Hill since taking her post last December.
Panel Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) and ranking member Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) will likely grill Hopper on BOEM's 2017-2022 oil and gas leasing proposal, which includes what would be the first sale in the Atlantic Ocean in a generation. The single sale, proposed for 2021, would include waters from Virginia to Georgia.
Republicans have criticized the five-year leasing plan as too restrictive, pointing to BOEM's proposed 50-mile buffer from the East Coast shore and its low number of lease sales, among other aspects. Democrats, particularly senators in Florida, Maryland and New Jersey, have criticized BOEM's proposal to open the Atlantic at all, warning that an oil spill similar to BP PLC's in the Gulf of Mexico could easily reach the shores of neighboring states.
But Hopper and BSEE Director Brian Salerno will come to tomorrow's hearing with some good news for pro-oil members. According to recently released sales data from ONRR, companies coaxed more than 500 million barrels of oil from offshore federal waters in fiscal 2014, up from roughly 476 million the year before.
It marked the first significant oil production increase since the 2010 BP oil spill and deepwater drilling moratorium.
Hopper and Salerno may also be pressed to discuss their agencies' release last month of comprehensive draft Arctic drilling standards for future offshore oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The standards included a controversial requirement for developers to have a second oil rig available at Arctic drill sites to sink a relief well in case of a blowout.
The proposed standards would also require developers to submit region-specific oil spill response plans and to have immediate access to spill control and containment equipment, among other requirements (E&ENews PM, Feb. 20).
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, March 17, at 10 a.m. in 1324 Longworth.
Witnesses: BOEM Director Abigail Hopper, BSEE Director Brian Salerno and ONRR Director Gregory Gould.
-
Stand Up to Junk Science on Fracking
Mar 13, 2015 | The Hill - Blog
By Thomas Pyle
America’s smart drilling revolution has bestowed numerous economic and environmental benefits. Innovative entrepreneurs who combined horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing have led to huge increases of domestic energy production, making the U.S. the number one oil and gas producer in the world. We did all this while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.
It’s puzzling, then, that Lois Marie Gibbs would claim in an op-ed on this site that “the science and experiences of Americans” show that hydraulic fracturing poses “immense harm to people across the nation.”
The reality is exactly the opposite.ADVERTISEMENTIn her piece, Gibbs rehashes the discredited talking points of environmental activists who reflexively oppose any oil and natural gas production.
As just one example, she claims a report from the Colorado School of Public Health “found air pollutants near fracking sites at levels sufficient to raise risks for cancer,” among other ailments, especially among pregnant women. But Gibbs failed to acknowledge that the study was swiftly condemned after its release.
Larry Wolk, director and chief medical officer at the Colorado Department of Public Health, issued a statement warning expectant mothers “not to rely on this study as an explanation of why one of their children might have had a birth defect. Many factors known to contribute to birth defects were ignored in this study.”
As is typical among anti-energy activists, Gibbs employs vague language to stoke unfounded fears. She says, “fracking fluids can be incredibly dangerous.” But anything “can be dangerous” in theory—you can get into an accident driving your car or overdose from drinking too much water. Gibbs’ framing sheds no light on the degree of risk involved in energy development.
All energy sources carry a degree of risk, but science and experience consistently show that hydraulic fracturing poses minimal risks and offers substantial rewards. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, for instance, explains, “When properly conducted, modern fracing is a safe, sophisticated, highly engineered and controlled procedure.” Officials from Michigan, California, Pennsylvania, California and elsewhere, including the Obama administration, have reached similar conclusions.
Gibbs’ other tactic is to try and pass off studies funded by agenda-driven environmental groups as dispassionate science. Take the “analysis” from the Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy. Gibbs fires off bullet points hyping “potential risks or adverse health outcomes” from hydraulic fracturing, but fails to disclose that this group is funded by the left-wing Park Foundation, which bankrolls a variety of anti-energy causes. The group also signed a “pledge of resistance” to hydraulic fracturing along with radical activists such as Bill McKibben and Josh Fox.
The reality is that our environment has improved as energy development has increased. We’re producing more oil than we have in more than two decades, yet greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change dropped by 10 percent between 2005 and 2012, according to EPA data. Meanwhile, the six common air pollutants EPA measures have declined by 62 percent over the last three decades.
Amid all this progress, somehow all Gibbs sees is a “public health disaster.”
Baseless fear-mongering on hydraulic fracturing has serious economic consequences for American families. Just look at New York, where Governor Cuomo recently opted to ban the well-completion process. New York State’s Southern Tier is an economically depressed region thought to contain vast supplies of natural gas. The New York Times reported on the “deep disappointment felt by many” after Cuomo announced the fracking ban—one resident described the area as “dead in the water” thanks to Cuomo’s decision. Now officials in some of the towns in the area want to secede from New York to join neighboring Pennsylvania, where natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale has shot up 700 percent since 2007.
Gibbs is right about one thing: history repeats itself. Her junk science on fracking is nothing new. We just hope discerning readers will allow reality to trump rhetoric.
-
Feds to Buy 5M Barrels of Oil for Reserve
Mar 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Energy Department is planning to buy up to 5 million barrels of oil to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it said Friday.
The oil would refill the reserve after a test sale last year of the same amount of oil, designed to test the processes and systems that agency uses to distribute oil.
The sale “provided the department with valuable information about the state of the US crude oil emergency reserves,” a spokeswoman said.
Even though oil prices are near six-year lows, Energy is required by law to replenish the SPR within a year after any sale.
Because oil is significantly cheaper now than it was during last year’s sale, Energy was able to use some of the proceeds from the sale to establish a gasoline reserve in the Northeast while still having enough money on hand for the replenishment this year, the spokeswoman said.
Energy plans to buy the oil this summer and have it delivered to a reserve site in Freeport, Texas.
The SPR is an emergency fuel supply established in 1975, and the oil can only be released under very limited circumstances. Other than the test sale, it was last used in 2011 to ease oil markets amid unrest in the Middle East.
-
U.S. Seeks More Crude for Strategic Reserve After 2014 Sale
Mar 13, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Sarita Williams & Dan Murtaugh
The U.S. government wants to buy up to 5 million barrels of crude to store in its strategic reserve on the Gulf Coast.
The Energy Department wants the crude delivered to its Bryan Mound storage cavern near Freeport, Texas, in June or July, according to a pre-solicitation notice posted on federal websites today. The purchase follows a 5 million-barrel test sale last spring, when oil prices were nearly double what they are now.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve purchase comes as booming shale oil production has pushed private oil inventories in the U.S. to 449 million barrels, the most in records dating back to 1982. The reserve has 691 million barrels and 36 million barrels of empty space.
“Commercial storage is filling up,” said David Hackett, president of Stillwater Associates, an energy consulting firm in Irvine, California. “If they buy domestic oil and put it in the SPR, that creates 5 million more barrels of space in commercial storage.”
The law requires the Energy Department to use the funds from last year’s test sale to purchase replacement crude, Robert Dillon, spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said in an e-mail.
The government plans to officially post its tender offer on its websites about March 23, according to the notice. Peak Inventory
The purchase will be the first for the reserve since it reached its peak inventory level of about 727 million barrels in December 2009. It released 31 million barrels in 2011 to help offset supply disruptions caused by upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa, and exchanged 1 million with Marathon Petroleum Corp. after Hurricane Isaac blocked tankers from delivering crude to the company’s Garyville refinery in Louisiana.
The SPR, which was created in the 1970s in response to the Arab oil embargo, has four underground storage caverns in Texas and Louisiana. The Bryan Mound site has 241 million barrels in storage now.
When the reserve finished filling in 2009, it held the equivalent of 80 days worth of crude imports to the U.S. Booming domestic oil production from shale wells has cut inbound shipments since then, and the reserve now holds 94 days of imports based on 2014 data.
“This is all happening at the same time that a debate is going on about whether we really need 700 million barrels in the SPR given the increase in production in the U.S., so it is surprising,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates LLC in Houston.
-
U.S. Producers Ready New Oil Wave
Mar 13, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth & Benoît Faucon
The ocean of oil from U.S. shale drove crude prices back toward six-year lows Friday, and American energy companies say they are poised to unleash a further flood that would keep prices from returning to lofty levels for a long time.
The International Energy Agency reinforced the prospect of a prolonged slump in energy prices Friday, saying U.S. oil output was surprisingly strong in February and rapidly filling all available storage tanks. The Paris-based energy watchdog said this could lead to another sharp drop in crude prices, which fell by about 50% late last year. Related The Saturday Essay: Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really) U.S. to Buy Oil for Strategic Reserves Oil Prices Tumble
The report sent oil prices tumbling around the world, with the global benchmark Brent crude falling $2.41 to $54.67 a barrel. The U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate lost $2.21 to settle at $44.84, less than 40 cents above a six-year low it reached in late January. Last summer, both traded well above $100.
It was only last month that the IEA said a price recovery seemed inevitable because the U.S. production boom was likely to cool. Instead, “U.S. supply so far shows precious little sign of slowing down,” the agency said Friday. “Quite to the contrary, it continues to defy expectations.”
Independent shale-oil producers have slashed their planned 2015 spending on drilling by $50 billion, compared with last year’s, but have promised to increase production by focusing on their best oil fields. Total U.S. crude oil production hit a high of 9.4 million barrels a day in the week ended March 6, according to federal data.
Now many are adopting a new strategy that will allow them to pump even more crude as soon as oil prices begin to rise. They are drilling wells but holding off on hydraulic fracturing, or forcing in water and chemicals to free oil from shale formations. The delay in the start of fracking lets companies store oil in the ground in a way that enables them to tap it unusually quickly if they wish—and flood the market again.
This strategy could put a cap on how high oil prices can rise once they are recovering, said Ed Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup Inc.
“We’re in slightly unexplored territory,” Mr. Morse said. “It’s an experiment—a big, big experiment.”
EOG Resources Inc., an oil producer based in Texas, is drilling about 285 wells that it won’t start finishing off until crude oil’s price rebounds to between $60 and $65 a barrel.
“When oil prices recover, EOG will be prepared to resume strong double-digit oil growth,” Chief Executive Bill Thomas said recently.
Some other big names in U.S. energy also are delaying well completions, among them Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Apache Corp., Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Continental Resources Inc. These four plus EOG pumped 312 million barrels of oil in the U.S. in 2014, or almost 10% of American crude production.
The number of wells in Texas and North Dakota that have been drilled but aren’t yet pumping is at least 3,000, RBC Capital Markets estimates. That oil still in the ground “provides a war chest that could temper fundamental price spikes in the coming year,” RBC analyst Scott Hanold wrote in a Friday note.
This essentially is more U.S. crude in storage, akin to that in the tanks now brimming. The U.S. has 449 million barrels of oil sloshing around in tanks, the highest level on record and almost 70% of capacity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Even so, Jim Krane, an energy fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, questioned whether U.S. producers would be able to adjust oil production as quickly as, for instance, Saudi Arabia has proved able to do in the past. “We’ll probably have more price volatility because even as nimble as shale is, it’s not as nimble as OPEC,” he said. The shale producers “can’t just go out and turn a valve.”
It isn’t as though the price plunge hasn’t affected production.
The number of oil rigs drilling in the U.S. declined by 56 this week to 866, a 46% drop since early October when oil was traded for about $90 a barrel, according to oilfield-service company Baker Hughes Inc. Some production cutbacks are starting to materialize.
North Dakota regulators said Thursday the state’s oil output declined 3% in January from the record level reached in December.
Market observers have been waiting for U.S. shale production to cool down since November, when Saudi Arabia said it would keep pumping oil at high levels to preserve its own customer base. Some members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said at the time that the move would force American producers to cut pumping because their oil is relatively expensive to produce.
U.S. companies aren’t necessarily looking to fill OPEC’s shoes as the so-called swing producer that can adjust production to help set price levels.
For many, delaying oil production from drilled wells is a financial decision; finishing off a well and putting it into service accounts for 60% of the well’s total price.
By pushing off that expense, companies hope they can earn more from higher oil prices once they finally do pump and sell their crude. They also are expecting their costs will fall as oilfield-service providers vie for their business.
Harold Hamm, chief executive of Continental Resources Inc., a producer in North Dakota, has urged peers to hold off on completing as many wells as possible.
Continental is waiting to hook up 127 already-drilled wells, postponing up to $1 million in spending apiece.
“Save that money,” Mr. Hamm said recently.
“Avoid selling that production in this poor market and wait for service costs to fall before completing those wells. Most people are doing that,” he said.
-
Obama's Newly Harsh Tone On Keystone XL Seen Signaling Rejection
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Snyder and Rebecca Penty
Facing re-election and $4 a gallon gasoline, President Barack Obama sounded like an enthusiastic supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline at a March 2012 campaign rally.
“I'm directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority,” he said in a speech in Cushing, Okla., referring to a southern leg of the long-delayed project.
Those days are gone. Now when Obama describes the next proposed Keystone segment he says it will only create about 300 jobs. He calls the Calgary-based pipeline builder TransCanada Corp. a “foreign company” and says the oil won't benefit American motorists.
And last week, he even said the process of extracting crude from the Alberta oil sands is “extraordinarily dirty.”
After years of review, Obama may be finally nearing a decision on the $8 billion project. The State Department has restarted a review it had paused while a challenge to the pipeline's route worked its way through Nebraska's high court. And by vetoing Republican-backed legislation last month to force approval, Obama preserved for himself the final say.
While the White House insists Obama hasn't made up his mind, some analysts say his rhetorical shift suggests otherwise.
“Our view is that it's pretty crystal-clear it's not going to be approved under this administration,” said Patrick Kenny, an analyst at National Bank Financial in Calgary.
Project Split
TransCanada first applied to build Keystone XL in September 2008 to link Canada's abundant crude oil with a cluster of refineries along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. After objections to its original proposal, the company split the project in two and, with Obama's support, built the lower section within the U.S., a segment that didn't need a presidential permit.
Backers, including congressional Republicans, say finishing the Alberta-to-Nebraska segment would create thousands of jobs and improve U.S. energy security by strengthening ties to a key ally in Canada.
For months Obama has been knocking down the case for it, while saying he awaits the outcome of the State Department report before making up his mind.
During a White House press conference in December, Obama said: “There's been this tendency to really hype this thing as some magic formula … to what ails the U.S. economy. And it's hard to see on paper where exactly they're getting that information from.”
Denigrated Project Overseas
“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” Obama said during a visit to Myanmar in November.
In the South Carolina address last week, Obama called the process for extracting oil in Alberta “extraordinary dirty” and said Keystone XL wouldn't provide many permanent jobs.
For pipeline opponents, his comments are being taken as confirmation that their rallies and protests have brought the president around to their way of thinking.
“It would be extraordinarily difficult for him to approve Keystone after all these things he's said, from an integrity standpoint,” said Elijah Zarlin, a senior campaigner for Credo Action, an advocacy group that opposes Keystone. Environmentalists expect Obama to reject the project, he said.
Zarlin worked for Obama during his 2008 campaign for president.
Burdett Loomis, a political science professor at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, said Obama's recent critical comments on Keystone fall in line with a more aggressive political posture in general.
Challenging Republicans
He's appeared more willing to challenge Republicans on issues like immigration policy or environmental rules regarding power plants.
A March 9 letter warning Iran that any nuclear deal could be struck down after Obama leaves office, signed by 47 Republican senators and blasted by the White House, probably means Obama is even less likely to yield on a party priority like Keystone, Loomis said.
“Without question, it's become even more personal,” Loomis said in an e-mail.
Bruce Oppenheimer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University who studies energy issues, said the policy and political dynamics surrounding Keystone XL have changed since 2012.
Prices, Supplies
Falling gasoline prices and increasing domestic supply of crude mean Americans are less likely to care much one way or the other on the outcome, he said.
Meanwhile, Obama is freed from having to consider the electoral implications of his decision.
“Everybody thinks this president is a lame duck, but lame ducks have flexibility you don't have when you're running for re-election,” Oppenheimer said in a phone interview.
Mark Cooper, a spokesman for TransCanada, defended the project, saying the carbon footprint of the oil it would carry is similar to heavy crudes in use by the U.S. for years and that come from nations not as friendly as Canada, such as Venezuela.
“Instead of sending billions of dollars overseas to regimes that are fundamentally opposed to American values, the oil that is needed can be sourced right here in North America,” Cooper said in an e-mail.
-
TransCanada Lobbies for Energy East Pipeline
Mar 13, 2015 | E&E News PM
After struggling to convince the U.S. government to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada Corp. is taking a proactive approach in garnering local support for the proposed Energy East pipeline project in Canada.
The company started public outreach for the proposed 4,600-kilometer crude pipeline a year and a half before it filed a regulatory application for the project.
The pipeline would ship crude oil from the Alberta oil sands to eastern ports and refineries. To win over the support of provincial lawmakers, the company has hired lobbying firms in each of the provinces the $12 billion pipeline would pass through.
In addition to lobbying local lawmakers, TransCanada has held more than 100 community open houses along the route and launched a public relations website that details local events, posts "clarifications" about information reported in the media and offers a platform for people to voice their support (Simon Doyle, Toronto Globe and Mail, March 13). -- MH
-
ECOS' Air, Methane Database Could Help Shape EPA Oil, Gas Sector Rules
Mar 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is crafting a major new database of states' best practices to cut volatile organic compound (VOC) and methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, which sources say may help shape EPA's pending first-time methane rule for new drilling sources and VOC guidelines for existing sources.
The database -- which will cite state efforts such as Colorado's landmark methane rules for the sector -- could also help inform whether EPA targets methane directly at existing sources, observers say. It will cover all aspects of the oil and gas "value chain" from drilling, to pipeline distribution and storage, to distribution to consumers, outlining available technologies as well as voluntary and mandatory options for reducing emissions.
"The thought is that EPA will probably take a good close look at the database," and could use some of the measures, which will include a mix of regulatory and voluntary efforts to reduce methane and VOC emissions from the sector's sources across the value chain, to inform the policy decisions, an ECOS source says of the database.
ECOS, representing many state environmental agencies, will discuss its upcoming ECOS Shale Gas Caucus (SGC) Methane and Air Toxics Reduction Information Exchange (e-MATRIX) at the group's spring meeting taking place March 16-18 in Washington, D.C. "As U.S. EPA looks to states for input on the agency's forthcoming proposal to impose first-time direct limits on methane, the [SGC] is at work developing a database of best practices already employed in several states to mitigate methane and VOC emissions from the oil and gas sector," according to the event's agenda.
The database of state measures could help EPA both as it develops its planned new source performance standards (NSPS) rule for cutting VOCs and imposing first-time limits on the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from new and modified oil and natural gas sources, slated for proposal release some time this summer.
The plan, which EPA announced in January, calls for the agency to craft under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act a new source rule that builds on its 2012 NSPS rules for the sector, which only targets VOCs.
The e-MATRIX could also play a key role in how EPA addresses existing oil and gas operations. The agency plans to develop "control technique guidelines" for proposal during the summer to help states curb ozone-forming pollutants such as VOCs in areas currently out of attainment with the agency's ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and in the Ozone Transport Region of states with high ozone levels.
Methane Limits
But the database could also inform how EPA, states and industry groups debate the case for deferring any first-time limits on methane from existing sources that environmentalists have long sought.
Under the Clean Air Act, once EPA sets regulations for new and modified sources under section 111(b), the agency "shall prescribe regulations" that would require states to craft plans for meeting standards for existing sources under section 111(d) -- as the agency is doing in its existing source performance standards for the power sector. That rule would set GHG limits for states and then defer to them on writing compliance plans.
For the oil and gas sector, EPA chief Gina McCarthy has said the air law gives EPA considerable discretion on when to promulgate a rule. EPA has indicated that if drilling operators work through voluntary measures to reduce existing sources' methane emissions within the next several years, it could negate the need for regulation of those sources, since the Clean Air Act mandates that regulations must be based on the best technology that is economically achievable.
But EPA is facing calls from environmentalists to directly curb emissions of methane and other pollutants from existing sources in the sector immediately after promulgating the section 111(b) rule, saying that the air law does not grant EPA endless discretion in holding off on regulating existing sources once it establishes an NSPS.
The ECOS source says that the database will help inform EPA of its regulatory and voluntary options for the drilling sector. "I think EPA is open to voluntary options," that source says, noting that the agency's plans to expand its Gas Star voluntary GHG reduction program to include a "Gas Star Gold" status coincide with the NSPS rulemaking. "I think EPA has been thoughtful in trying to go about this in the most strategic way."
And a state source says that "something we're looking at is measures employed at existing sources" to reduce the oil and gas sector's emissions. Curbing ozone-forming VOCs and other emissions from the industry could become more important for states if EPA finalizes its proposal to tighten its ozone NAAQS.
ECOS members will discuss the e-MATRIX database at the meeting during a broader March 16 discussion about VOC and methane from the oil and gas industry, with speakers including regulators from Colorado and other states, and representatives from the Environmental Defense Fund and the American Gas Association.
'State Perspective'
The ECOS source says that EPA is holding a series of outreach calls with states to "get a state perspective" on the pending federal drilling emissions policies, adding that the agency "wants states to be active participants," but adds that the group is unlikely to form a formal position on the upcoming rulemaking efforts.
The e-MATRIX database will include a range of options states have pursued across the entire natural gas value chain, including Colorado's precedential requirements aimed at curbing methane and other emissions.
Those rules, issued in 2014 by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment adopted EPA's 2012 rules for the sector but also for the first time included controls for total hydrocarbons, including methane, ethane, and other components of natural gas emissions along with VOCs.
The rules also implement extensive leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements to a multitude of sources across the entire production chain, which is broader than EPA's 2012 NSPS that only required LDAR for natural gas processors.
Colorado crafted the rules in partial response to a call from Gov John Hickenlooper (D-CO) to adopt a "zero tolerance" approach to methane emissions, and the rulemaking drew support from environmental groups and several energy producers, including Noble Energy, Encana Corporation, and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, though other industry groups opposed some of the specific measures.
The ECOS database will also include recent emissions studies, such as those Environmental Defense Fund in collaboration with industry groups and academic researchers is conducting, as well as streamlined general air permits, voluntary leak reduction programs and other mitigation measures, the state source says. Fourteen state, industry and environmental entities contributed submissions to the database, the ECOS source says.
An industry source says the database will be provide "useful information" for state regulators in assessing various programs, including voluntary programs, but that EPA is likely to rely more heavily on its white papers examining five sources of methane emissions from the sector -- crafted ahead of the rulemaking announcement -- to inform its policies.
A second state source says that "what we're really trying to do is put everything in one compendium," and that while it may not provide EPA with a "lot of new information" because the agency has been in close contact with the states on oil and gas emissions measures, it will put the data in a place where EPA and state regulators can quickly access it. EPA appears to be working to "develop regulatory actions that really work, from a technical standpoint, and that are economically reasonable," the source says. -
-
Michigan Governor Pushes for More Energy From Efficiency, Renewables, Natural Gas
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Renewable energy sources and reduction of energy waste could account for 30 percent to 40 percent of Michigan's energy generation by 2025, under a plan put forward by Gov. Rick Snyder (R).
Natural gas also should play a big role in shifting Michigan's energy mix away from coal, Snyder said in a March 13 speech at an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers training center in Warren, Mich.
“Coal has lots of challenges,” particularly because of the environmental issues associated with its use, Snyder said. “In Michigan, you're going to see us making a major move from coal to other sources of energy. The federal government is pushing us in that direction.”
Michigan could benefit from the shift if its energy policy is crafted correctly, Snyder said. Reducing energy waste provides a “huge opportunity” for energy and cost savings, and the state could eliminate enough waste to account for 15 percent of the energy Michigan would otherwise use, he said.
Allowing utilities—Michigan's two largest are DTE Energy Co. and CMS Energy Corp.—to offer “on-bill financing” for consumer purchases of new appliances, eliminating a law that caps utilities' spending on waste reduction and allowing the Public Service Commission to weigh the benefits of waste reduction in the same way it weighs other expenses are among his suggestions.
Part of the balance between natural gas and renewables should be left to the market, Snyder said, calling his renewables-plus-waste-reduction target “cost based.”
Snyder Sees ‘Upside’ in 40 Percent Scenario
“I believe there's even upside from the 40 percent scenario,” he said. Snyder didn't call for an increase in the state's renewable portfolio standard, which currently requires that 10 percent of electricity generation come from renewable sources.
Outside of generation, “we need to continue to work on alternative-fuel vehicles and intelligent, connected vehicles” to reduce energy use, Snyder said.
The Michigan League of Conservation Voters called the plan “a welcome contrast” to one proposed by Rep. Aric Nesbitt (R), which calls for, among other things, expansion of the definition of renewable energy to include solid waste. House Bills 4297-4304 are currently before the House Energy Policy Committee, which Nesbitt chairs.
Nesbitt said he was “encouraged” by the governor's plan. “Coordinating an ‘all-of-the-above’ plan that takes a holistic view of energy production will give us the flexibility to adapt to federal regulations and changes in the electric market,” he said in a statement issued after Snyder's speech.
Snyder also said new rules governing high-volume hydraulic fracturing have been finalized and were effective as of March 13 (233 DEN A-4, 12/4/14).
-
Senate Bill Would Allow Long-Term Energy Contracts at Federal Agencies
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Federal agencies would be allowed to enter into long-term contracts with utilities for energy-saving services under legislation introduced March 12 by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).
The Utility Energy Service Contracts Improvement Act of 2015 (S. 723) clarifies an existing law that allows federal agencies to enter into utility energy service contracts (UESCs) of up to 25 years, provided certain conditions are met, according to a bill summary.
“This legislation lets the federal government negotiate longer-term contracts with utilities, just as businesses would, to provide more certainty and reduce taxpayers’ energy costs,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a bill cosponsor, said in a statement.
The legislation is designed to make it easier for federal agencies to enter energy performance contracts in which an energy services company or a utility negotiates a contract with a federal agency that specifies the amount of energy savings it will achieve through retrofits and other measures, and the utility or services company is paid for its performance out of the savings it achieves, rather than through appropriated funds.
“Renewable energy projects, long-term energy security projects, and large scale energy conservation measures often are simply not cost-effective with a 10-year contract period,” the bill summary said. “To date, federal agencies have used UESCs to invest approximately $2.7 billion in their facilities, however a much greater potential exists.”
Additional sponsors of the legislation are Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.).
“As the largest consumer of energy in the country, the federal government needs to do everything it can to save energy and taxpayer dollars,” Schatz said in a statement.
-
Federal Subsidies Decreased for Energy Overall but Rose for Renewables, EIA Says
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Federal energy subsidies dropped 23 percent between fiscal years 2010 and 2013, declining from $38 billion to $29.3 billion, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a new report.
Despite the overall decrease, federal subsidies for renewable energy increased $2.9 billion to $8.4 billion in FY 2013, largely driven by increased support for solar and wind energy, the EIA said.
Solar energy increased $4.2 billion, rising from $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2013, “reflecting a large increase in the installation rate of solar facilities utilizing” an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. No. 111–5) program that provided cash grants in lieu of a 30 percent investment tax credit, the report said.
Total subsidies to wind energy also increased between fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2013, rising from $5.5 billion to $5.9 billion, according to the report, which was released March 12.
“Wind energy received the largest share of direct federal subsidies and support in FY 2013, accounting for 37% of total electricity-related subsidies,” the report said.
The report, requested by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield, (R-Ky.), included information on subsidies such as direct expenditures, tax credits, research and development funding, loan guarantees and other programs.
Among the energy sources that experienced a substantial drop in support during the four-year period were biofuels, where subsidies declined from $7 billion in fiscal 2010 to $1.8 billion in fiscal 2013. That decline was driven mainly by the expiration in 2011 of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which provided a 45-cent credit per gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline.
In addition, the report said natural gas and petroleum-related subsidies fell from $2.7 billion to $2.2 billion over the four year period.
-
Battle Over EPA Proposal Heats Up in Southeast, Midwest
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
Conservative lawmakers in the Southeast and Midwest are redoubling their efforts to enact legislation that would give legislatures the final word on any plan to comply with U.S. EPA's proposed rule to cut carbon emissions from power plants.
This week, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hear from lawyers and state regulators on "legal and cost issues" surrounding the Clean Power Plan.
New briefs were filed last week in a challenge to the proposed rule brought by Murray Energy Corp. See them at the bottom of our Legal Challenges page. Also, check our Eastern state pages for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and congressional testimony on the draft rule.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub for the latest news, state summaries and developments.
-
Mar 13, 2015 | Business Wire
By Rachelle Schikorra
As a part of Dow’s Energy Plan and its Sustainability Goals, The Dow Chemical Company (NYSE:DOW) has taken another step towards reducing its own carbon “footprint.” Marking milestone progress, Dow’s Energy business has signed a long-term agreement with a new wind farm, currently under development in South Texas by a subsidiary of Bordas Wind Energy, LLC, a joint venture between MAP® and Enerverse, LLC. The wind farm, to be complete in first quarter 2016, will span nearly 35,000 acres, and will supply Dow’s Freeport Texas Manufacturing facility with 200 MW of wind power annually, equivalent to the amount of electricity needed to power more than 55,000 homes. As a direct result, Dow is the first company in the U.S. to power a manufacturing site with renewable energy at this scale, and will become the third largest corporate purchaser of wind energy in the United States. As one of the largest industrial energy consumers in the world, Dow has consistently been on the forefront of new energy technology improvements. Dow is on track to meet its 2025 renewable energy goal as part of its Sustainability Goal commitments.
“Dow is always looking for win-win solutions – good for the environment and good for business,” said Jim Fitterling, vice chairman of business operations at Dow. “By entering into this agreement, Dow is taking a serious approach to our future energy needs in Texas and cost-competitive wind energy is a great opportunity.”
“Adding large scale renewable energy to Dow's manufacturing process is just one smart move that we can make to secure a future of sustainability, growth, and long-term competitive advantage,” said Seth Roberts, global business director of the Energy and Climate Change portfolio at Dow. “This decision also serves as a systemic hedge against both energy and power price volatility, while improving our overall carbon footprint.”
This new wind deal results from Dow’s long-term COAT vision and strategy as outlined in the Dow Energy Plan, a four pillared, global approach to Energy and Sustainability:
Conserve by aggressively pursuing energy efficiency and conservation.
Optimize, increase and diversify domestic hydrocarbon resources.
Accelerate the development of cost effective clean energy alternatives.
Transition to a Sustainable Energy Future.
As a business and sustainability leader, Dow recognizes that today’s unprecedented challenges also represent a tremendous opportunity for those who dare to envision a different future. Under Dow’s Sustainability Goals, Dow commits to continuing to reduce our own footprint, including securing 400 MW of clean power by 2025.
About Dow
Dow (NYSE: DOW) combines the power of science and technology to passionately innovate what is essential to human progress. The Company is driving innovations that extract value from the intersection of chemical, physical and biological sciences to help address many of the world's most challenging problems such as the need for clean water, clean energy generation and conservation, and increasing agricultural productivity. Dow's integrated, market-driven, industry-leading portfolio of specialty chemical, advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics businesses delivers a broad range of technology-based products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries and in high-growth sectors such as packaging, electronics, water, coatings and agriculture. In 2014, Dow had annual sales of more than $58 billion and employed approximately 53,000 people worldwide. The Company's more than 6,000 products are manufactured at 201 sites in 35 countries across the globe. References to "Dow" or the "Company" mean The Dow Chemical Company and its consolidated subsidiaries unless otherwise expressly noted. More information about Dow can be found at www.dow.com.
-
House Subcommittee to Consider Looming Rule Utilities Say Threatens Demand-Response Programs
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
Less than a month remains before the Department of Energy is set to begin enforcing an energy efficiency rule that some utilities say imperils their efforts to save energy.
A House subcommittee this week plans to highlight the issue as lawmakers from both parties and a diverse set of outside stakeholders push Congress to act before the April 15 deadline. A proposed legislative fix has demonstrated overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, but supporters have so far struggled to push it over the finish line amid prevailing partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill that makes even popular bills difficult to enact.
At issue is a rule finalized in 2010 that would require manufacturers of large residential water heaters to make the products drastically more efficient. The rule, which takes effect April 15, effectively requires manufactures to produce only "heat pump" units. But some rural cooperatives and municipal utilities have complained that those units do not perform as well in demand-response programs as less efficient, less expensive and more widely available "electric resistance" water heaters.
Gary Connett, who directs demand-response programs for Great River Energy, said about 100,000 customers participate in demand-response programs that allow the Minnesota-based generation and transmission cooperative to run the units overnight and effectively store energy as hot water that is available throughout the day.
The program allows Great River to provide more than a gigawatt-hour per night of energy storage -- "It's the biggest battery, I like to say, in the entire upper Midwest," Connett quips -- but the co-op already is unable to add new participants with the DOE rule on the horizon because manufacturers cannot keep up with demand for electric resistance water heaters. Connett said he expects to testify at the hearing Thursday.
The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on Thursday plans a hearing on the issue; witnesses likely will include representatives for utilities, manufacturers and environmentalists, although a list had yet to be finalized Friday.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the subcommittee, has introduced H.R. 906, which would authorize continued manufacturing of the less efficient electric resistance water heaters so long as they are deployed in a certified utility demand-response program, and companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
The legislation is based on an agreement negotiated among various companies and organizations affected by the rule, including General Electric Co., a strong supporter of the DOE rule, whose Louisville, Ky.-based appliance unit made the first compliant water heater, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, whose members rely on less efficient models for their demand-response programs (E&E Daily, Feb. 12).
The water heater language was packaged with the so-called "Better Buildings Act," which the Senate voted 94-5 to attach as an amendment to the Senate's bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, and similar legislation passed the House 375-76 last year.
"There is no reason not to pass this bill. It has passed the House twice and the Senate once," Debbie Wing, an NRECA spokeswoman, said in an email last week. "The bill provides a bi-partisan, negotiated solution with wide support among utilities, manufacturers, environmental groups and efficiency advocates."
Objections from conservatives, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), to the "Better Buildings Act" have prevented the bill from passing via unanimous consent in the Senate, and some Democrats previously objected to moving the water heater legislation without the building efficiency provision, aides have said. Next steps remain unclear.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, March 19, at 9:30 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn.
Witnesses: TBA.
-
Florida Governor's Stance on Climate Seen Having Broad Policy-Making Impacts
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
Florida Gov. Rick Scott's (R) views on climate change have broad policy-making effects beyond a reported ban on using the phrase, sources told Bloomberg BNA, pointing to the upcoming implementation of a conservation funding measure and federal carbon emission rules as notable examples.
Scott's office and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection have denied the claims of a March 8 report from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, which cited former DEP staff members as saying Scott's administration actively discourages the use of the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in e-mails and government reports.
Nevertheless, observers see the effects of a skeptical view toward climate change on policy considerations including energy policy, transportation planning, Everglades restoration and water supply planning, among others.
“We lose a lot in the way of opportunities when investments are being made and policies are being planned that don't account for climate change,” Jennifer Jurado, director of environmental planning for Broward County, Fla., told Bloomberg BNA March 12. Broward is one of four counties that have signed onto the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact.
The county and the regional initiative have had some positive experiences with state agencies in terms of adaptation planning for sea-level rise, Jurado said. But on the whole, she added, the state isn't playing the leadership role that it should on a problem that is expected to affect Florida more severely than any other state.
Large Conservation Investment Coming
One near-term example, she said, lies in the implementation of the Florida Water and Land Conservation Amendment, which Florida voters passed in November with 74 percent support. The constitutional amendment designates an expected $20 billion over the next 20 years for conservation purposes, although the state legislature has flexibility in how it allocates the money (215 DEN B-15, 11/6/14).
Under ideal conditions, the decisions on how to spend that money would consider factors related to global warming and sea-level rise, Jurado said. The state could buy land for buffer zones to deal with saltwater intrusion or to maintain freshwater recharge areas, to keep freshwater moving into the state's aquifers.
“We're on the cusp of making a very large investment,” Jurado said of the conservation amendment funds. “It would be useful to have climate change considered as a part of that process.”
‘Sea-Level Rise’ Less Taboo
The governor and state leaders do acknowledge the problem of sea-level rise, said David Guest, managing attorney for Earthjustice in Tallahassee, Fla., but they reject the severe predictions of climate scientists regarding how Florida will be affected.
“They see [climate change predictions] as one more liberal conspiracy to bring down industrial America,” Guest told Bloomberg BNA March 11.
Guest cited figures showing sea level along Florida's coasts has risen 5 to 8 inches since the 1960s and said municipal utilities are having to abandon drinking water wells as saltwater from rising seas intrudes into the state's groundwater.
Nevertheless, the state doesn't have “uniform and consistent” policies to consider sea-level increases in issues such as coastal construction regulations or building new highways and bridges, Jurado said.
“We have seen some transportation projects where sea-level rise has been considered, but it's not a uniform policy,” she said.
State Cites Active Sea-Level Planning
Dee Ann Miller, a spokeswoman for the Florida DEP, said the agency is actively involved in planning for sea-level rise, particularly with respect to how it affects water supply and flood control.
The DEP and the state's five water management districts formed a Sea Level Rise Workgroup in 2013 to address these impacts.
“DEP will examine current water level monitoring protocols and engage local, state, and federal partners to determine the most effective way to monitor sea-level changes,” Miller told Bloomberg BNA March 12. “In addition, the agency will administer the Salinity Monitoring Network, and will continue to address beach erosion through its beach restoration and nourishment program.”
The department also is partnering with other state agencies on a five-year pilot project to help two local communities evaluate comprehensive planning needs and mitigation strategies as the sea level increases, she said.
Miller also said the DEP has no policy to prohibit or discourage the use of the phrases “climate change” or “global warming.”
“This assertion is simply not true,” she said.
The governor's office didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment, but Scott was cited in Florida press reports as denying his administration discourages using the phrases.
Energy policy is perhaps the most obvious area where the state is ignoring the warnings of climate scientists, Guest said.
“The cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels,” he said. “The policy of many states is to acknowledge this is as an existential threat to our society.”
Given the state's recent approach to energy policy, Guest said he doubts there will be a meaningful response by the state to the upcoming power plant carbon emissions rule from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If the EPA rule is finalized, all states will be required to develop a state implementation plan to meet mandated carbon-reduction goals, but Guest predicted Florida will likely rely heavily on converting coal-fired plants to natural gas with little or no effort in the area of promoting renewable energy.
Some Advocacy Groups Oppose EPA Rule
Not everyone agrees with Guest's dire assessment of the governor's energy policy, which tends toward limited regulation. A major business advocacy group in the state, Associated Industries of Florida, is one of many groups that have voiced opposition to the EPA rule, which they say would harm the affordability and reliability of electricity in Florida.
“These new onerous regulations will weigh down businesses and make it more difficult for them to expand here in Florida and across our nation,” AIF said in a written statement after the draft version of the EPA rule was released in June 2014 (RIN 2060-AR33)(106 DEN A-1, 6/3/14)..
A bill proposed in Florida's current legislative session, SB 1076, would require legislative ratification of the Florida DEP's implementation plan for the EPA carbon rule. Under the rule, the EPA will develop the implementation plan for any state that fails to develop its own.
Beyond just the EPA carbon rule, the state's energy policy under Scott largely favors fossil fuels and does little or nothing to promote renewable energy, Guest and Jurado said.
A solar rebate program was one of several climate policies undone shortly after Scott took office, another included an automobile emissions regulation, Jurado noted. The Florida Energy and Climate Commission, which was part of the governor's office under previous Gov. Charlie Crist (a Republican at the time who later left the party), also was eliminated after Scott took office.
But AIF makes the case that individual incentives such as the solar rebate program aren't good policy, as the group says such incentives raise the overall cost of electricity for everyone else.
Advocate ‘Exasperated With Labels.’
One South Florida climate policy advocate said she has had good experiences with state agencies on sea-level adaptation initiatives and coastal planning, and she added she is “very exasperated with all the labels,” such as calling people climate-change deniers.
State Rep. Kristin Jacobs (D), who was a long-time Broward County commissioner before her election to the state House in 2014, said it doesn't bother her that cities, counties and regional cooperatives around Florida are taking the lead for now on adaptation planning. Change is coming in the policy-making approaches at the state and federal level, she predicted, but change takes time.
“I take a pragmatic approach,” Jacobs told Bloomberg BNA March 11. “I don't tend to set my hair on fire because it isn't happening now.”
-
California Court to Hear Case Challenging San Diego Transport Plan's GHG Provisions
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Siciliano
The California Supreme Court has granted the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) petition for review of a ruling that invalidated its regional transportation plan over inadequate consideration of greenhouse gas emissions (Cleveland National Forest v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts, Cal., No. S5223603, review granted, 3/11/15).
On Nov. 24, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District agreed with plaintiff Cleveland National Forest Foundation that SANDAG failed to adequately consider greenhouse gas emissions impacts in developing its regional transportation plan and sustainable communities plan (Cleveland National Forest v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts, Cal. Ct. App., No. D063288, 11/24/14;(228 DEN A-7, 11/26/14)).
In its split decision, the appellate court expanded on the lower court ruling, finding further deficiencies in a corresponding environmental impact report.
“The appellate decision left agencies throughout the state with questions on what standards to apply,” SANDAG Chairman Jack Dale said in a March 12 statement. “We are hopeful the [Supreme] Court will help resolve the confusion.”
Supreme Court Declines Review of CEQA Case
The Supreme Court declined to review another ruling from the same appellate district that upheld a lower court finding that San Diego County's climate action plan violates the California Environmental Quality Act, according to plaintiff Sierra Club (Sierra Club v. County of San Diego, No. S223591, review denied, 3/11/14).
In that case, the appellate court ordered the county to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report to its climate action plan that takes a more detailed look at the impact of greenhouse gas emissions that will result from its implementation (Sierra Club v. Cnty. of San Diego, Cal. Ct. App., No. 37-2012-00101054, 4/19/13; (78 DEN A-1, 4/23/13)).
-
Emissions by Makers of Energy Level Off
Mar 13, 2015 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
Somebody tapped the brakes.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the world’s energy producers stalled in 2014, the first time in 40 years of measurement that the level did not increase during a period of economic expansion, according to preliminary estimates from the International Energy Agency.
The research suggests that efforts to counteract climate change by reducing carbon emissions and promoting energy efficiency could be working, said Fatih Birol, the agency’s chief economist and incoming executive director. “This is definitely good news,” he said.
Dr. Birol noted that many nations have promoted energy efficiency and low-carbon energy sources like hydroelectric, solar, wind and nuclear power. China, he noted, has worked to reduce carbon emissions as part of an intensive effort to limit environmental damage from economic development. That China appears to be successfully moving down that path, he said, portends well for the deal struck with the United States in November. China committed in that agreement to turning around its growth in carbon emissions by 2030, or earlier if possible, while increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in energy production to 20 percent of its menu.
The agency has been collecting data on carbon dioxide emissions for 40 years, and in that time emissions have stalled or dropped only three times; each of those coincided with weakness in the global economy. The last instance was in 2009, during a global economic slump. In 2014, however, the economy expanded by about 3 percent.
The agency reported that global emissions of carbon dioxide in 2013 and in 2014 were 32.3 billion metric tons. The figures were first published by The Financial Times in an interview with Dr. Birol. The organization said that these preliminary figures will be contained in a report scheduled to appear in June. That report, Dr. Birol said, could provide guidance for negotiators seeking a global climate deal in Paris in December.
“The numbers I announced are definitely encouraging, but it doesn’t bring us to a happy ending yet,” he said. “If you want to see a happy ending, you want to see an agreement in Paris that will send a powerful signal to investors to go in the direction of low-carbon technologies.”
Some energy experts sounded a note of caution about the research, while applauding it. Steven Smith, a senior scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, warned that even a two- or three-year shift in emissions “doesn’t tell you anything,” and that “what’s important is the long-term trend.”
Hal Harvey, who runs a policy research group called Energy Innovation in San Francisco, agreed, saying, “One year does not a trend make.” Still, he said, “This is a big deal: China is starting to reverse its carbon trend, as are others. But much more is necessary,” including strong government policies to keep the trend going in the right direction.
The renewable energy sector has grown tremendously as costs of the technology have come down and new vehicles have become more fuel-efficient, said Michael B. Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University Law School. The possibility that these shifts could already be affecting overall carbon emissions, he said, “is a welcome splash of light amid all the gloom surrounding climate projections.”
For all of the progress, however, billions of people will be entering the middle class in coming years, noted Steven Cohen, the executive director of the Earth Institute at Columbia. “Some of these early gains are going to be wiped out pretty quickly unless we develop some of the renewable energy sources that can replace fossil fuels,” he said. The technologies to address those problems have not yet been developed, he added.
-
GOP States’ Choice on Carbon Emissions: Negligence or Logic
Mar 15, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Stephen Stromberg
The Environmental Protection Agency will soon demand that states cut their greenhouse-gas emissions. You would think that state leaders, particularly Republicans warning of an EPA regulatory apocalypse, would be frantically reaching for the least onerous strategies to comply. But so far many have shown more interest in lambasting the EPA than in accepting the sorts of policies that would make new carbon regulations easiest on people. Their citizens will pay if they don’t change course.
The way states comply with the EPA matters. The agency figures that if states banded together into regional greenhouse-gas-cutting pacts, the total cost of the Obama administration’s clean power rule would drop by 17 percent. Even absent a push from the EPA, states should adopt regional, market-based carbon policy because it’s the cheapest way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a goal all states should share. With the EPA’s impending carbon mandate, it’s an even easier policy choice. But with a few exceptions, it’s one that states still aren’t making.
California is one of the exceptions. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) touted his state’s carbon dioxide program at a Friday meeting with Post writers and editors, drawing particular attention to its cap-and-trade program. Cap-and-trade has endured a lot of right-wing abuse over the past several years, but a well-designed program is, in fact, a market-based approach and among the most efficient ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Many Republicans were for this sort of plan before their party turned against it. Indeed, several Western states moved to cooperate with California in the so-called Western Climate Initiative, which would have created a regional carbon market under a multi-state cap-and-trade agreement. But California was the only state that followed through.
Now that the federal government is set to demand that the states cut their carbon emissions, one would expect Western governors to beat down Jerry Brown’s door, seeking to join California, revive the regional cap-and-trade plan and ask the EPA to give them credit for the resulting carbon dioxide cuts. But, astonishingly, Brown said that not a single governor has asked him about this possibility, and he seemed surprised I would even suggest such a thing.
Then again, perhaps Brown’s answer isn’t so astonishing. Around the same time California created its carbon market, a group of Northeastern states established their own functional cap-and-trade scheme, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Just as Western states can link up with California in the Western Climate Initiative, Eastern states can join RGGI and take that to the EPA. Some Republicans have acknowledged the idea’s merit. Virginia Del. Ronald A. Villanueva (Virginia Beach) tried to convince his fellow GOP legislators to join RGGI in the state legislature’s latest session. They didn’t take his good advice. Instead, Virginia Republicans have thrown a lot of angry rhetoric at the EPA, but they haven’t done much to prepare for the regulatory onslaught they claim is coming.
The positive view is that state leaders still have time before the EPA’s rules phase in, and more will accept the smart approach as the EPA clarifies its requirements and as deadlines approach. Officials from several states, for example, have been discussing the creation of a regional initiative based in the Midwest, perhaps building on a previous Midwestern cap-and-trade plan that never launched. But they have not gotten very far.
The negative view is that, whether out of ideology or poor judgment, state officials will continue their negligent approach to carbon dioxide emissions. States such as Texas have made a virtue of defying the EPA in the past. But states will have to comply, the easy way or the hard way. Which to choose should already be a matter of bipartisan consensus in every statehouse.
-
Energy-Linked Emissions Stable in 2014 Despite Economic Growth -- IEA
Mar 13, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
For the first time in 40 years of record keeping, carbon dioxide emissions from energy use were steady in 2014 even as the global economy grew, the International Energy Agency reported today.
CO2 from energy weighed in at 32.3 billion metric tons in both 2013 and 2014, the Paris-based research organization said.
Previous downturns in heat-trapping emissions have been linked to global recessions. The most recent decline, in 2009, was in response to the 2008 financial collapse.
But the global economy expanded by 3 percent last year, leading IEA and other observers to trumpet the success of energy efficiency policies. China expanded its reliance on renewable energy and burned less coal last year, decoupling energy-sector CO2 emissions and economic growth.
"This gives me even more hope that humankind will be able to work together to combat climate change, the most important threat facing us today," IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol said in a statement.
Kelly Levin of the World Resources Institute said the report helped show that CO2 emissions and economic growth are not inextricably linked.
"At the same time while a stalling of emissions is essential -- global emissions need to peak by 2020 for a least cost, good chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees C -- emissions will not only have to be flattened, but they will have to be steeply reduced and phased out over the long term," she said in an email.
The report comes as the clock ticks toward December's U.N. negotiations in Paris aimed at finalizing a global emissions deal.
"It should provide new momentum for a deal in Paris because it shows we are on the right track and can address climate effectively with good policy. But one year is not a trend -- and complacency would be dangerous," said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate official now with the U.S. German Marshall Fund.
Future years will show whether China's move away from high-carbon fuels will continue or whether 2014 was a blip, Levin said.
-
Computers and Monitors Are Targets of Latest Energy-Efficiency Rules
Mar 15, 2015 | LA Times
By Marc Lifsher
California regulators are intensifying efforts to wring every possible electron out of common household devices.
This time, the focus is on cutting the use of electricity by power-hungry computers and monitors.
The California Energy Commission just released the latest in a long line of energy-efficiency standards that made the Golden State a world leader in saving electricity. Past targets have included refrigerators, air conditioners, flat-screen televisions, battery chargers and dozens of other appliances and electronic devices.
The commission is writing proposed minimum power consumption standards that it estimates would save 2,702 gigawatt hours a year of electricity. That's roughly the combined usage of the cities of Long Beach, Anaheim, Huntington Beach and Riverside. Utility customers could shave a total of $430 million off their annual electric bills, or about $20 a year for a household that owns one desktop computer, one laptop and one monitor.
Computers and monitors are among the leading users of energy in California and "spend roughly half their time ... on but not being used." Commissioner Andrew McAllister said.
Boosting efficiency is a good deal, he said. For example, a $2 investment in manufacturing a more power-stingy desktop computer would save $69 over five years, he said.
Electronics manufacturers question the commission's arithmetic. They prefer voluntary efficiency programs, such as a 2012 manufacturers' agreement that reduced the energy consumption of cable and satellite television set-top boxes. Consumers saved $168 million in 2013, according to an industry report.
California should let electronics makers develop their own products, said Douglas Johnson, vice president for technology policy for the Consumer Electronics Assn. "We don't wait for regulations to make products more efficient."
Aggressive energy-efficiency standards, the commission argues, has helped California keep its per-capital electric power consumption flat for the last 30 years, while the rest of the country's has seen power use jump 40%.
Small-business skeptics
Many of California's small-business owners say they're doing better financially.
But they're still wary about hiring new workers and new government regulations such as computer-efficiency standards.
An annual informal survey of 676 executives by Small Business California, which advocates at the Capitol for 10,000 entrepreneurs, shows that 43% think the economy has improved in the last six months. That's up from 38% in the previous year's survey. Roughly the same percentage of respondents said they plan to hire new workers in the next six months, a slight jump from 2014.
Almost 70% of small-business owners surveyed called it a "top" or a "high" priority to curb excessive government regulation.
"They're skeptical," said Small Business California President Scott Hauge in San Francisco, "especially when regulations are going to cost them more."
-
Utah Tax Credit Approved to Retrofit Refinery Producing Fuel Compliant With Tier 3 Rule
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Utah Legislature approved a bill (S.B. 216) providing tax credits to retrofit a refinery to make it capable of producing fuel compliant with the Environmental Protection Agency's Tier 3 sulfur standard for gasoline.
The bill directs the Utah Office of Energy Development to issue a tax credit to an entity developing a high-cost infrastructure project, including certain fuel standard compliance projects. The bill defines such projects as those designed to retrofit a refinery, so it can make Tier 3-compliant gasoline as described under federal law.
Nearly $8 million in tax credits could be approved under the bill, the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel said.
The Utah Senate March 11 concurred with House amendments to the bill. Earlier in the day, the House approved the bill.
The Environmental Protection Agency in 2014 issued Tier 3 standards to cut sulfur in gasoline and strengthen vehicle emissions standards, which states have said are necessary to meet air quality standards for ozone and other pollutants (42 DEN A-1, 3/4/14).
Other Air Quality Bills
The bill was one of a handful of air quality bills that were approved during the 2015 session of the Utah Legislature, which adjourned March 12.
The Legislature approved a measure (H.B. 226) authorizing the state Division of Air Quality to create rules that are different than federal regulations if the additional regulations will provide more protection to public health and the environment. The House concurred in Senate amendments to the bill March 11.
The Senate March 12 approved a bill (H.B. 15) extending tax credits for energy-efficient vehicles.
The same day, the House approved a bill (H.B. 406) providing an income tax credit for the purchase of a natural gas heavy duty vehicle.
The bills now go to Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) for consideration.
-
DeFazio Asks GAO to Assess Capabilities For Response to Crude-by-Rail Incidents
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) asked the Government Accountability Office to examine emergency response capabilities related to the rail transport of crude oil.
The GAO should specifically assess the preparedness of railroads to respond to these incidents, the established coordination between railroads and communities and the availability of federal resources to assist communities, DeFazio said in the March 12 letter. The GAO also should take a look at any steps taken by the Transportation Department to improve emergency response efforts and any additional actions the department should take, he said.
“As trains travel from oil production areas such as the Bakken in North Dakota to refineries along the Gulf, East and West Coasts, they pass through a number of states, including very rural areas,” DeFazio, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said.
“I have significant concerns that emergency responders in these states, particularly in the most remote and environmentally sensitive areas, may not be sufficiently prepared to respond to a serious rail accident involving the transportation of crude oil, such as what happened in Lac-Megantic, Quebec; Casselton, North Dakota; or Lynchburg, Virginia,” he said in the letter to Comptroller General of the United States Gene Dodaro, the head of the GAO.
A surge in domestic oil production and a lack of pipeline infrastructure have pushed significantly more oil to be shipped by rail in recent years. The higher frequency of this type of transport has resulted in increased derailments that have led to environmental and property damage and loss of human lives, as well as more public awareness of the risks of crude-by-rail shipments.
-
Philadelphia Asks Federal Government, Rail Companies to Address Crude Oil Risks
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Philadelphia has urged the federal government to set new safety standards and called on rail companies to replace aging DOT-111 tank cars to mitigate the “increasing risks” of transporting oil from the Bakken Shale formation by rail into the city.
In a resolution unanimously adopted March 12, the Philadelphia City Council also called on emergency management agencies in the state and city to publicly disclose train schedules, hold workshops about derailment for local communities and review and update emergency response plans within 60 days.
Two trains per day with about 120 tank cars each take domestic crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale region to city refineries, the resolution said, adding that Philadelphia avoided a “near disaster” on Jan. 20, 2015, when a train derailed on a CSX Transportation rail over the Schuylkill Expressway and Schuylkill River.
The resolution comes less than a month after Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) wrote a letter to President Barack Obama on Feb. 27, raising safety concerns about the 60 to 70 trains per day that pass through the state carrying Bakken crude. There have been four train derailments in Pennsylvania since January 2014, including two within Philadelphia, the letter said (41 DEN A-4, 3/3/15).
Environmental groups and local governments in other states, including Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota and New York, have challenged the rail transport of crude oil, citing safety concerns.
A derailment and explosion in July 2013 killed 47 people in Quebec, and later accidents in Virginia and West Virginia resulted in fires that burned for several days (37 DEN A-3, 2/25/15).
-
Speed Limits May Not Stop Fiery Oil Spills, U.S. Railroad Regulator Says
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Snyder
Lower speed limits for railroads may be ineffective at keeping oil trains on the tracks and preventing spills and explosions, such as those triggered in a series of recent derailments, the chief U.S. railroad regulator said March 13.
“If you're going to slow trains down, you're going to have to slow them down to 12 miles an hour,” Sarah Feinberg, acting chief of the Federal Railroad Administration, told reporters in Washington.
“And then you would just have other dangers. People queuing up at grade crossings while train car after train car of volatile product goes by,” she said. “That's not good either.”
A surge in U.S. oil production has increased the amount of crude moved by rail 5,000 percent since 2009, much of it from North Dakota's booming Bakken field.
A corresponding jump in accidents, including a 2013 oil-train derailment and explosion that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, have led U.S. and Canadian regulators to propose tougher standards for trains (38 DEN A-15, 2/26/15).
Speeds higher than 25 mph are “irresponsible” given the known weakness of the tank cars carrying the crude, Jim Hall, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said in written comments to the Transportation Department.
Hall was responding to a proposed department rule that would require the current fleet of tank cars to be replaced. A draft is being reviewed at the White House Office of Management and Budget and is expected to be finalized in May (39 DEN A-3, 2/27/15).
Sloshing Effect Examined
The Federal Railroad Administration also is studying whether slower speeds can cause a sloshing effect in tank cars, making it harder to prevent the rolling stock from wobbling off the tracks, Feinberg said.
Railroads have lobbied against new speed limits, saying they would result in costly delays for many of the goods hauled by rail.
Two oil trains that derailed in the past month, in West Virginia and Illinois, in each case igniting an explosion, were traveling well below federal speed limits, Feinberg said.
Railroads last year agreed to slow trains to 40 mph from 50 mph when carrying crude oil through High Urban Threat Areas, a designation that covers more than three dozen U.S. communities.
“We are running out of things that I think we can ask for the railroads to do, and there have to be other industries that have skin in the game,” Feinberg said. “There also has to be attention placed on the product actually going into the railcar.”
North Dakota to Address Volatility
In April, a regulation in North Dakota that requires oil to be kept at a vapor pressure below 13.7 pounds per square inch goes into effect. Feinberg said a process known as conditioning, which companies can use to meet that standard, is the “bare minimum” step to control volatility.
Feinberg said the administration is considering further steps to reduce oil's explosivity before it's loaded into tank cars, though the draft rule under review is silent on the issue.
-
Feds Require Removal of Oil Train Parts Involved in Leaks
Mar 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Keith Laing
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is ordering freight rail companies to remove faulty parts it says have been involved in multiple oil train leaks recently.
The agency said the parts, which are valves that were manufactured by Tennessee-based company McKenzie Valve & Machining LLC, are resulting in “tank cars leaking small quantities of hazardous materials” when they are not properly configured.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said it was important that oil train operators use equipment that meets federal regulations after a string of high-profile explosions have raised questions about the safety of shipping large amounts of crude oil by train.
“Ensuring the safe transport of hazardous materials is a top priority for the Department of Transportation,” Foxx said in a statement. “I expect this audit to force a stricter adherence to the structures in place to keep our railways safe.”
The transportation of crude oil by freight rail has emerged as a contentious issue in Washington. Lawmakers have sought widespread reforms since a pair of 2013 accidents in Casselton, N.D., and Quebec, Canada, spilled thousands of gallons of oil and caused explosions.
“North Dakota has reaped tremendous economic benefits from our energy boom, but the derailment in Casselton shook our collective community, and there have been more derailments of crude oil trains across the country — including in the past few weeks,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said in a statement this week calling on federal regulators to finalize a slate of new oil train regulations that are still pending.
The Transportation Department said Friday that “federal regulations require all valves applied to tank cars must be of an approved design by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Tank Car Committee.
“FRA’s investigations demonstrate clear inconsistencies between the type of valve design that AAR approved versus the design of the valve actually being used, which raises questions about the approval process and a manufacturer’s adherence to an approved design type,” the agency said about the valve is directing freight rail companies to replace.
The Railroad Administration said it is giving freight rail companies 60 days to replace the faulty oil valves.
“The Directive requires all tank car owners to remove, within 60 days, any 3 inch McKenzie UNNR ball valves in tank cars used to transport any hazardous material described in 49 CFR 172.101,” the agency said. “Further, the Directive requires all tank car owners to remove the 1 inch and 2 inch valves within 90 days. The Directive requires tank car owners to replace the valves with valves approved for use on railroad tank cars.”
Acting FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg said the amount of oil that the agency’s investigation found to have leaked because of the banned valves is small, but she said it was important to address the problem now before it grew bigger.
“Any type of hazardous materials release, no matter how small, is completely unacceptable,” Feinberg said. “The removal of these valves from service will help to reduce the number of non-accident hazardous materials releases.”
-
Vacancies at Transport Agencies Sow Angst
Mar 14, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
Vacancies atop several regulatory agencies within the Obama administration are prompting concerns about transportation safety after a series of recent accidents across the nation.
Leadership positions at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHSMA), as well as the high-profile Transportation Security Administration (TSA), are currently being filled with interim chiefs.
A recent spate of accidents involving commuter, subway and oil trains have raised awareness about the number of vacancies atop the federal government’s transportation watchdogs.
The vacant transportation positions all require confirmation from the Senate, which is in control of Republicans now for the first time since 2006.
At the same time, many of the interim officials appointments came with expiration dates.
“There are five, I think, acting administrators…out of the nine modal administrations, including one at FMCSA [who] will no longer be able to serve in that capacity by the end of the month,” Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said during a hearing earlier this month about federal transportation funding.
Thune said the Obama administration has been slow to send the Senate nominees for the critical transportation oversight posts.
“We have only gotten one nomination…so we can't even begin the confirmation process for the rest of these important safety agencies,” he said to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx at the March 3 hearing.
“And I just want to convey to you the importance of getting those up here,” Thune continued. “It seems like it's awfully important and I think that the sooner we can get those leadership posts filled the better off we're going to be.”
Foxx maintained that there is “an awful lot of work underway” to fill the positions.
The Senate approved the Obama administration's nominee for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration late last year, but that was before Republicans took control of the chamber. A pair of appointments to the National Transportation Safety Board were cleared by the GOP-led chamber on Thursday.
“But also we have good leaders in place, even if they are acting," Foxx said. "And the expectation is that there's no drop-off in our ability to focus."
The interim transportation chiefs have been put to the test this year with accidents involving Amtrak, commuter railways in New York and Chicago and the Washington, D.C. Metrorail subway system. Oil trains have been in the spotlight as well as lawmakers push for regulatory changes to prevent explosive crashes like recent accidents in North Dakota and Canada.
Transportation department officials declined to comment about the regulatory vacancies on Friday.
Joshua Schank, president of the non-partisan Eno Center for Transportation, told The Hill that it is unlikely the recent spike in accidents is related to the regulatory vacancies at the Transportation Department.
But Schank said “the fact that there’s a number of positions unfilled is problematic.”
“It makes it harder for people to do their jobs,” he said.
Schank said the Obama administration could be facing difficulties finding candidates for the positions so late in the president’s final term. He said the Obama administration might let many of interim transportation chiefs stay in place for the remainder of the president’s tenure in office.
“At some point, that’s the only option,” he said. “We’re getting to the point where sometimes you let them finish out the rest of the term as if they are not interim and don’t both getting them confirmed”
Schank said the U.S. transportation system is safe for passengers, despite both the regulatory vacancies and the recent string of accidents.
“The system is overwhelmingly safe, so it’s difficult to draw correlations between vacancies at the U.S. DOT and accidents that have happened because there are so few data points,” he said.
Schank said critics might say the higher number of transportation-related vacancies “raises questions about whether there are too many regulatory agencies within the U.S. DOT,” however
Lawmakers on the Senate transportation panel have also criticized the Obama administration for delays in nominating a TSA chief, although the airport security agency falls under the Department of Homeland Security.
Acting Administrator Melvin Carraway assumed his position in January following the retirement of Administrator John Pistole.
“Administrator Pistole announced his plans to step down on October 16, 2014,” the committee said in a notice announcing the hearing. “A recent bipartisan letter from Senate Commerce Committee leaders urged President Obama to prioritize the formal nomination of a permanent TSA Administrator in this time of evolving terror threats.”
Sens. Thune, Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) sent the Obama administration a letter in January calling for a full-time TSA nominee.
Carraway was meanwhile thrust into the spotlight last month when a standoff over the Department of Homeland Security's funding threatened TSA workers' paychecks.
"If DHS does not receive funding, these employees would not receive biweekly paychecks for their work during the shutdown until Congress acts,” Carraway said during the Homeland Security funding debate. “They deserve better than the proposition of coming to work every day on an IOU."
The appeal was successful, despite Carraway's interim status.
Congressional Hearings
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
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested