ACC PM

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) State Legislatures Taking Aim at Dark Money, Disclosure

   Mar 17, 2015 | The Sunlight Foundation

   By Peter Olsen-Phillips
   
   
   Though "dark money" has become a household term thanks to the role it has played in federal elections, the influence of political spending funded by anonymous donors is becoming just as pernicious in state and local politics.

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Mentioned) Industry Group's Electronic Fingerprints on Bill Raise Suspicions

   Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   An electronic draft of an industry-backed bill to overhaul how the federal government manages toxic substances bore the fingerprints of a key player: the American Chemistry Council.
3. Federal Chemical Safety Bill Would Honor Frank Lautenberg's Environmental Legacy | Opinion

   Mar 16, 2015 | The Star-Ledger

   By By Brendan T. Byrne, Thomas H. Kean and Christine Todd Whitman
   
   
   In the interest of public health and safety, New Jersey is ready to see Congress write a new chapter for one of the oldest environmental statutes of our time: the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
4. Path Forward Seen for Chemical Safety Overhaul

   Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Lydia Wheeler
   
   
   Lawmakers say they’ve cobbled together enough support for a bipartisan coalition to pass a long-sought update to the nation’s outdated chemical safety laws despite opposition from some Democrats and environmental groups pushing a competing bill.
5. Oregon Officials Want to Ban Toxins from Children’s Products. A Federal Bill Could Stop Them.

   Mar 17, 2015 | Center for Effective Government

   By Amanda Frank
   
   
   Leaded gasoline. Lead-based paint chips. Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. These are a few things parents no longer have to worry about, thanks to government standards and safeguards.
6. Safer Chemicals' Igrejas Discusses Competing Senate TSCA Reform Bills

   Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - TV

   The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing this week on a bipartisan measure introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act.
7. Groups Join Voices Against Industry Chemicals Bill

   Mar 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group

   By Robert Coleman
   
   
   A growing chorus is speaking out against legislation to update federal chemical safety law that was introduced last week by Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and David Vitter, R-La.
8. EPA Extends Time For Input On 'Precedent-Setting' Pesticide Risk Review

   Mar 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Dave Reynolds
   
   
   EPA has extended by 45 days -- until April 30 -- the deadline for public input on a draft pesticide human health risk review industry says is "precedent-setting" for how the agency's pesticides office will weigh epidemiological research in future risk assessments -- data environmentalists have long urged EPA to consider in the risk reviews.
9. Want to Avoid Toxic Couch Chemicals? Just Look for New Label!

   Mar 17, 2015 | NRDC Switchboard

   By Veena Singla
   
   
   Last week, there was good news for families looking for safer furniture across the U.S.-- Ashley Furniture, the largest manufacturer and seller of furniture in the country, announced that they are removing toxic flame retardant chemicals from their furniture!

Chemical Security News

10. House Chairman: 'Landmark' Cyber Bill Coming This Week

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity

    By Cory Bennett
    
    
    The cyber bills are starting to multiply.

Energy and Environment News

11. Jewell: Fracking Rule in

    Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro

    By Andrew Restuccia
    
    
    Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said on Tuesday that the Interior Department will release its long-delayed final rule for fracking on public lands in the "coming days."
12. House Republicans' Budget Envisions More Drilling, Fewer Regulations

    Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Nick Juliano
    
    
    The annual spending and policy blueprint House Republicans released today envisions expanded domestic energy production and fewer environmental regulations among its prescriptions to grow the economy and eliminate the federal deficit.
13. Interior’s Energy Path Forward: Drill Less, Go Clean

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Franz A. Matzner
    
    
    “Science is science,” President Obama told an interviewer last year. “And there is no doubt that if we burned all the fossil fuel that’s in the ground right now that the planet’s going to get too hot and the consequences could be dire.”
14. Now Is Not the Time to End Oil Export Ban

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog

    By Tyson Slocum, contributor
    
    
    Only a few years ago, America's oil policy was defined by scarcity and high prices. The consensus solution was characterized by President George W. Bush's 2006 remarks that "America is addicted to oil," when he laid out a blueprint to replace petroleum with alternatives.
15. Thune, Manchin Introduce Bill to Block EPA Smog Rule

    Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Erica Martinson
    
    
    Sens. John Thune and Joe Manchin introduced a bill today to block EPA from tightening the ozone air quality standard.
16. House Lawmakers Debate Power Rule

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch

    By Lydia Wheeler
    
    
    Legal experts spent the majority of Tuesday’s hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power arguing whether a certain amendment to the Clean Air Act prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from adopting it’s proposed clean power rule.
17. Republican Chairman Says EPA Has 'Muzzled Dissenting Voices'

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    Republicans on the House Science Committee questioned Tuesday whether the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to reduce ozone pollution would bring the promised benefits.
18. Obama's Plan is 'Burning the Constitution' -- Laurence Tribe

    Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    President Obama's Harvard Law School mentor delivered a stinging indictment of the president's flagship climate change rule this morning, telling a packed House hearing that the Clean Power Plan violates both the Clean Air Act and the Constitution.
19. EPA is on a 'Constitutionally Reckless Mission,' Obama's Law Professor Testifies

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch

    By Lydia Wheeler
    
    
    The law professor, who taught President Obama says the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the statutory and constitutional authority to force states to implement plans to cut carbon emissions at existing power plants.
20. Legislation Targets EPA Bid to Tighten Ozone Standard

    Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Amanda Peterka
    
    
    Legislation expected in the House and Senate today would block U.S. EPA's efforts to toughen the national ozone standard.
21. House GOP Budget Targets Obama’s Environmental Agenda

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    House Republicans are using their budget proposal to push cuts to renewable energy incentives and climate change programs.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) State Legislatures Taking Aim at Dark Money, Disclosure

   Mar 17, 2015 | The Sunlight Foundation

   By Peter Olsen-Phillips

   Though "dark money" has become a household term thanks to the role it has played in federal elections, the influence of political spending funded by anonymous donors is becoming just as pernicious in state and local politics. In response, lawmakers in 10 states have put forth proposals to shed more light on the unknown interests influencing local elections.

   An analysis of recent bills collected by Sunlight's Open States tool finds 125 pieces of legislation addressing campaign finance reform in states' most recent sessions. Legislators in several states proposed bills aimed at outing the largest donors of politically active dark money operations.

   Increasingly, tactics are shifting to targeting issue advertisements, or electioneering communications in campaign finance parlance, which skirt legal standards of what qualifies as a campaign advertisement. Because these ads do not include terms like "vote for" or "vote against," they are treated differently in federal and state campaign finance laws and often do not trigger public disclosure requirements.

   A subset of the bills aimed specifically at reforming anonymous spending rules.

   Electioneering ads are a time tested way for nondisclosing groups and other political actors to exert political influence while flying under the public's radar. In March of last year, Sunlight reported on the more than $240,000 the American Chemistry Council spent on issue ads supporting lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee in advance of a hearing on an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

   Democratic representatives in Minnesota drew up HF 43 to widen the scope of ads that trigger disclosure to any communication that "is not susceptible to any other interpretation by a reasonable person other than that as advocating the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates."

   In Montana, where Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock has made improving campaign disclosure a tenet of his time in office, Republicans in the state's upper chamber helped to ferry through Senate Bill 289, which would require any group running campaign ads to disclose their largest donors — or the chief executive for corporations or unions.

   Similarly, in Arizona, Senate Bill 1207 would require disclosure of top donors for any group running independent expenditures, that is, ads that contain terms like "vote for" or "vote against." That bill stalled in a Republican-dominated legislature along with a host of other campaign finance reforms. Debate continues on HB 2649, which would more clearly define political committees.

   Dark money has played an outsized role in the Grand Canyon State, where Sunlight and others have reported on the millions of dollars flowing into a race for the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates state utilities. One shadowy nonprofit that spent $2.4 million on commission races had connections to Arizona Public Service, the state's largest power company, via the foundation arm of Arizona State University.

   Full public disclosure in campaigns, however, extends beyond anonymous spending. Here is a quick break down of all 125 campaign finance reform bills Sunlight discovered by their major purpose:

   Note: The "type" of bill was categorized by Sunlight based on our reading of the legislation's major purpose. Many of these bills cut across multiple categories. You can see all the underlying data on state campaign finance reform legislation here.

   A positive trend for transparency advocates: Lawmakers in six states have crafted bills related to the electronic filing of campaign finance reports. In Arkansas, where candidates may file electronically but are not required to, Republican sponsor Jana Della Rosa's told her colleagues, "It's 2015. It's electronic filing. We've had the capability for quite some time," according to reports by the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

   If Arkansas were to enact the bill, it would put them ahead of the U.S. Senate, which has still yet to mandate electronic disclosure.

   Democrats in Maryland are taking online reporting a step further with SB 667, the Real-Time Transparency Act, requiring politicians to disclose large hard money contributions within 48 hours instead of waiting weeks or months until the next regular reporting deadline. The legislation takes its inspiration from a federal bill of the same name that Sunlight helped to draft.

   Other trends in transparency include a push to make politically active corporations beholden to their shareholders by requiring regular disclosures of political activity. As the Center for Public Integrityreported in February, four states are considering proposals that would tie corporate campaign spending to shareholder approval.

   You can see all of the legislation we tracked with Open States — including pushes for constitutional conventions to overhaul campaign finance and new public financing — right here.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Mentioned) Industry Group's Electronic Fingerprints on Bill Raise Suspicions

   Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   An electronic draft of an industry-backed bill to overhaul how the federal government manages toxic substances bore the fingerprints of a key player: the American Chemistry Council.

   A Microsoft Word version of S. 697 distributed by Sen. Tom Udall's (D-N.M.) office and set to be discussed at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing tomorrow listed the American Chemistry Council as the document's author, according to data stored in the file's properties.

   "We can confidently say that the document was created by a user with American Chemistry Council," a Senate information technology staffer said, according to Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D) office. "Their name is specified as author, and their organization is specified as American Chemistry Council."

   The trade organization has been a strong backer of Udall and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), his co-sponsor on the bill.

   "That document originated in our office," Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said. "It was shared with a number of stakeholders, including at least one other senator's office. One of those stakeholders was the ACC."

   Talhelm said the document showed Udall was engaged with all stakeholders.

   "We believe that somebody at the ACC saved the document and sent it back to us," Talhelm said.

   The industry group disputed whether the data showed it created the document.

   ACC spokeswoman Anne Kolton said the document did not prove anything about the bill's origins.

   "It doesn't mean the original document was generated here," Kolton said.

   Boxer said the bill showed the chemical industry's undue influence in the legislation.

   "Call me old-fashioned, but a bill to protect the public from harmful chemicals should not be written by chemical industry lobbyists," Boxer said. "The voices of our families must not be drowned out by the very industry whose documented harmful impacts must be addressed, or the whole exercise is a sham" (David McCumber, San Francisco Chronicle, March 16). -- SP

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. Federal Chemical Safety Bill Would Honor Frank Lautenberg's Environmental Legacy | Opinion

   Mar 16, 2015 | The Star-Ledger

   By By Brendan T. Byrne, Thomas H. Kean and Christine Todd Whitman

   In the interest of public health and safety, New Jersey is ready to see Congress write a new chapter for one of the oldest environmental statutes of our time: the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

   Before Congress passed TSCA in 1976, our nation's chemical industry was largely unregulated. We knew far less at the time than we do now about the harmful effects of certain chemicals and how they interact with the body and our environment. In the absence of updated federal legislation, some states and retailers have taken it upon themselves to decide which products should be made available to sell to customers.

   Fortunately, a bipartisan effort is under way in Congress to bring our federal chemicals management system into the 21st Century to give consumers in New Jersey and around the country confidence in the safety of chemicals while encouraging innovation and protecting jobs in our state.

   There's another reason New Jersey has a big stake in TSCA reform. For years, the effort to improve federal oversight of chemicals was led by one of New Jersey's own--the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg. Before he died in June 2013, he was joined by Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, along with 25 co-sponsors -- 13 Republicans and 12 Democrats -- in introducing the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) of 2013.

   Since Lautenberg's passing, Vitter and Sen. Tom Udall have continued to advance the work he started by working with major stakeholders to improve the bill. The bipartisan pair has carefully refined the legislation to better balance health and environmental protections with factors critical to preserving American innovation and economies heavily reliant on manufacturing, like New Jersey's. In a fitting tribute to his years of hard work on this issue, the new legislation has been named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.#grayscale'); -webkit-filter: grayscale(100%); margin-right: 0px; min-height: 50px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For years, the effort to improve federal oversight of chemicals was led by Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

   For the first time, the compromise legislation will require that all chemicals, including the ones already in use, be systematically evaluated for safety. And it will enhance cooperation between state regulators and federal watchdogs to promote a cohesive national standard that will protect public health and the environment.

   One of the most important things we learned during our years in public office is that no piece of legislation is perfect. Environmental laws are products of compromise -- of give and take to reach a reasonable, effective approach. The effort to update the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act is no different, although the art of the compromise is arguably much trickier in today's highly divisive political environment.

   Certainly, there are things that both environmental advocates and industry would like added to the bill to reform chemical regulation, but the fact is that in a compromise, no one gets exactly what they want. After decades in public service, Frank Lautenberg knew this, which is why he was willing to come to the table when industry signaled they were ready to get serious about reform.

   As former governors who care deeply about the health and environment of the Garden State, we are calling on New Jersey's congressional delegation to support the legislation Vitter and Udall have developed -- the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. There could not be a more perfect time to protect the families of New Jersey and to honor the legacy of Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Path Forward Seen for Chemical Safety Overhaul

   Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Lydia Wheeler

   Lawmakers say they’ve cobbled together enough support for a bipartisan coalition to pass a long-sought update to the nation’s outdated chemical safety laws despite opposition from some Democrats and environmental groups pushing a competing bill.

   The legislation from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) comes after repeated attempts, led by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act 
   (TSCA), faltered in the divided Congress.

   This time around, proponents of the Vitter-Udall bill say, the effort is already gaining traction.

   “We think we have a bill here that has industry support and some support from the environmental community,” said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund. “I think there is enough of a center here and enough recognition that we can’t afford to wait forever for one side or the other to come to the table.” 

   The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, unveiled last week, would force the Environmental Protection Agency to base chemical safety decisions solely on considerations of risk to public health and the environment.

   It would eliminate the “least burdensome” requirement in the TSCA, which also factors in the costs associated with federal rule-makings and has kept the EPA from being able to ban asbestos. 

   Already, the bill has attracted nine Republican co-sponsors and eight Democratic co-sponsors, including Udall and Vitter. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will take up the bill on Wednesday.

   The panel’s chairman, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), said he’s looking forward to working with his colleagues to move the bill.

   “This law has not been updated since 1976, and for the first time we have a real chance at bipartisan reform that will require a review of all active chemicals in commerce,” he said.

   But some environmental groups are already calling for a presidential veto.

   Ken Cook, Environmental Working Group president and co-founder, panned the legislation as written by the chemical industry. He argues it would block states from issuing protections against chemicals under EPA review, a process which could take up to seven years under the proposed legislation.

   Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said the bill reflects a bipartisan compromise that was reached after two years of working with both industry and environmental groups.

   “We invited them to the table and they turned us down,” she said of the EWG.

   In a press conference last week, Udall said, “no one got everything they wanted” in the bill. Opponents argue they got nothing.

   In a statement following the bill’s release, Sen. Barbara Boxer called the bill “worse than current law.”

   “In addition, the bill in its current form devastates the role of states in protecting their people, and the sponsors declined to ensure asbestos and children’s cancer clusters are addressed,” the California Democrat said.

   Boxer countered with her own legislation, co-sponsored by Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), two days later.

   Their bill, the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, requires the EPA to act quickly to consider a ban on asbestos and cements state authority to impose regulations on dangerous toxic chemicals. 

   Supporters claim Boxer’s bill would finally ban asbestos, something they say the Udall-Vitter bill wouldn’t do.

   But in a prepared statement Friday, Udall said his bill doesn’t single out any particular chemical because it gives the EPA authority to regulate any of the 84,000 chemicals in commerce.

   “Our bill gives EPA the strongest possible authority to protect Americans from harmful substances like asbestos, BPA, styrene and other threats to public health,” he said.

   And like Boxer’s bill, Udall said he, too, wanted to give states the strongest laws feasible.  But he said the language in his bill — which includes a provision grandfathering in state actions taken before Jan. 1, 2015 — was a necessary compromise to boost the bill’s chances of passing the Republican-controlled Congress.

   “I respect what Senator Boxer wants to accomplish, but her proposal would ensure that states like New Mexico, which have virtually no ability to test and regulate chemicals, would never be protected,” he said.

   Ben Dunham, director of the law firm McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP and former chief counsel to Lautenberg, called Boxer’s bill a “non-starter politically.”

   “If you’re trying to be constructive you would engage in negotiations on the bill that has bipartisan support,” he said. “If you are trying to wreck the process you introduce a competing bill and try and take the approach she’s taking.”

   With a Republican advantage in committee and eight Democratic co-sponsors, two more than the six needed to break a filibuster, Dunham said the bill has a good chance of passing the Senate.

   “If the House takes up a different bill that could slow things down and complicate things a lot,” he said, “but the House can pass TSCA reform.”

   As for whether the president would sign the bill if it made it to his desk, Dunham said he couldn’t see why not.

   “All this does for the EPA is give it brand new tools and the authority to accomplish its mission in protecting public health and the environment,” he said.

   A White House official said the administration has yet to develop a formal position on the Udall-Vitter bill, but has long supported strengthening and modernizing TSCA to give EPA the tools needed to protect the public.

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Oregon Officials Want to Ban Toxins from Children’s Products. A Federal Bill Could Stop Them.

   Mar 17, 2015 | Center for Effective Government

   By Amanda Frank

   Leaded gasoline. Lead-based paint chips. Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. These are a few things parents no longer have to worry about, thanks to government standards and safeguards. But we still have a long way to go in protecting our children from hazardous chemicals. Manufacturers can still use toxins in children’s products – without disclosing them to consumers.

   A new bill in Oregon would keep toxins out of children’s products sold there.

   Under the proposed legislation, the Oregon Health Authority would create a list of chemicals of high concern. Any manufacturer of children’s products using these chemicals would have to report to the Health Authority and eventually phase out the use of those substances.

   Here’s what makes this a strong bill:It creates a priority list of chemicals that manufacturers are required to report. This includes toxins like cadmium, a heavy metal linked to learning disabilities in children, and bisphenol A (BPA), which can affect children’s developing brains. The Oregon Health Authority would add additional hazardous chemicals to the priority list every three years.
    It establishes a searchable database of chemicals. Parents, child care workers, and other concerned citizens will be able to learn what chemicals are dangerous, how they affect children, and which manufacturers use them.
    It broadly defines “children’s product” to include any product designed for, or marketed to, children under 12. Manufacturers have previously skirted limits on toxic chemicals in products like children’s jewelry by successfully arguing they don’t qualify as “children’s products.” Oregon’s bill specifically covers children’s jewelry and several other categories like clothing and kitchen accessories.
    It gives the Oregon Health Authority the authority to penalize manufacturers who do not comply with the law. This includes fines up to $5,000 for the first violation and $10,000 for subsequent offenses.

   Oregon’s bill is modeled on similar legislation in neighboring Washington State. Maine, Minnesota, and California also have laws restricting toxic chemicals in children’s products. And this January, Albany County, New York enacted a law that bans seven toxic chemicals from children’s products.

   The scary truth is that our primary federal chemical safety law is ineffective and inadequate in testing and restricting thousands of high risk chemicals in commercial use today. 

   The law that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate chemicals – the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – is almost 40 years old. In that time, EPA has reviewed about 250 of the 20,000 new chemicals being used in commercial products, and restricted a mere nine. (There are over 84,000 chemicals registered for use on the TSCA inventory.)

   TSCA was poorly written; public agencies have to show “substantial evidence” of “unreasonable risk” in order to regulate a chemical.  Thus safety assessments and rules are routinely challenged by big chemical companies, and conservative courts have allowed them to endlessly delay restrictions on the most dangerous chemicals. By way of example, an EPA rule in 1989 called for a complete phase-out of asbestos , but the industry took EPA to court, arguing that the rule was too costly to businesses, and the ban was overturned. Today the U.S. is one of the only industrialized nations without a complete ban on asbestos – a deadly substance with no safe level of exposure.

   Congress is divided on how to reform TSCA; two opposing reform bills were introduced last week.

   A bill to revise TSCA introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA) on March 10 threatens to undermine state chemical policies. Whenever EPA identifies a new chemical to review, states would be prevented from taking action on the same chemical. Vitter and Udall claim this is needed to prevent duplicate efforts by state and federal authorities. But it takes EPA seven or more years to issue regulations on a chemical. Blocking state action during this long delay would put people in harm’s way and benefits no one except chemical companies.  This bill is supported by the American Chemical Council, the trade association and lobbying arm of big chemical companies.

   What would passage of the Udall-Vitter bill mean for Oregon?

   The 2015 Udall-Vitter bill would grandfather in some state chemical regulations enacted prior to Jan. 1, 2015. Most state chemical laws passed after this date would be at risk of being overturned. This means that Oregon’s new proposed regulations could be at risk even if they are in effect before the TSCA reform bill is enacted. The Albany County law mentioned above, which prohibits certain toxic metals and benzene (a cancer-causing chemical) in children’s products and apparel, would also be at risk.

   States like Washington and California would retain their current chemical restrictions, but they would be unable to add any chemicals to their priority “chemical of concern” lists once EPA decides to review them. This would prevent states from taking action on toxic chemicals and leave the public at risk for several years while awaiting EPA review.

   Finally, Oregon and other states would be prohibited from co-enforcing any state violations if they also violate federal law. In these instances, states would be prevented from collecting fines from manufacturers that ignore restrictions, which also cuts a source of funding for their chemical programs.

   A bill that would improve chemical safety in the country, without undermining state standards, awaits action in the Senate.

   Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act on March 12. The Boxer-Markey bill would correct major weaknesses in TSCA and preserve the ability of state and local officials to continue to protect their residents by adopting and enforcing stronger laws and rules. Significantly, the bill would require all chemicals be proven to pose “a reasonable certainty of no harm” – the same standard required for pesticides on fruits and vegetables and chemicals used in food.

   After almost 40 years of largely failing to address the impact of toxic chemicals, and more than a decade of effort to address this problem, it’s time for Congress to act and adopt a bill that advances the public’s interest, not industry’s interests, and protects people and the environment from the risks of toxic chemicals.

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Safer Chemicals' Igrejas Discusses Competing Senate TSCA Reform Bills

   Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - TV

   The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing this week on a bipartisan measure introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is one of two bills currently up for consideration, following the introduction of a measure by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) last week. During today's OnPoint, Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, discusses the competing bills and the potential for a compromise within the EPW Committee.Transcript

   Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Andy, thanks for coming back on the show.

   Andy Igrejas: Thank you.

   Monica Trauzzi: Andy, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be holding a hearing this work on the bipartisan Vitter-Udall TSCA reform bill, chemical safety reform. The bill carries former Senator Lautenberg's name. Is the substance of it something that Lautenberg would have championed?

   Andy Igrejas: That's a good question. I'd say not yet. It is -- I consider myself an original member of the Lautenberg fan club. I've worked on these issues for 20 years -- from New Jersey originally actually, from nearby where he was from, and I think always respected his passion for really focusing in on the practicalities of legislation and it having to make a difference for regular people, for working people. And he approached a lot of these environmental issues from the perspective of people that worked in the factories in Paterson and Newark. But the bill has a bunch of holes in it still in terms of the program it creates at EPA, and then on the other hand it takes away things that states are doing now and could do in the future. So we feel on balance it doesn't do what needs to be done. It is -- the negatives still outweigh the positives that the bill does.

   Monica Trauzzi: These discussions on chemical safety reform have been going on for a long time. Is this the compromise bill that industry and environmental groups have been working towards for years?

   Andy Igrejas: Not yet. I mean, you only have one environmental organization that has supported it, and I think they're supporting it for reasons -- well, they can explain why they're supporting it. Our perspective on this is that it really just has to be better than the status quo, which means that EPA needs to be able to do things that they're not doing now, and they need to be able to do them -- play them all the way through so that they have real health impacts for regular people, regular consumers at home. And then it needs to not take away some of the good things that are happening now, which the bill does the way it restricts states. So the sort of meager pace of chemical reviews that's in the bill, the holes that are still there in terms of those reviews especially around products and chemicals in products, is too weak to make up for the fact that it would basically silence states going forward in regulating chemicals, because that's where most of the action has been for the last 10 years.

   Monica Trauzzi: So the politics of this got very interesting at the end of last week when Senators Boxer and Markey introduced a competing measure that takes some would say a more aggressive approach. What are the high points of that legislation from your perspective?

   Andy Igrejas: Sure. I think the biggest high point is that Senator Boxer's bill would have EPA automatically do more to tackle the worst chemicals. It specifically names asbestos in the bill and says, EPA, you have to go out and ban asbestos. It names the category of chemicals that the whole world is basically moving on from; persistent and bioaccumulative toxins they're called. These are the chemicals that build up in the food chains. They're a big problem here, especially in places like Alaska, but actually everywhere. The chemicals are showing up in the nursing mother's breast milk, et cetera. Europe has targeted those chemicals; so has the Stockholm Convention -- it's an international treaty. And Senator Boxer's bill would say that we should, too, and we think she's right to do that. And then a big difference that has gotten a lot of attention is that Senator Boxer's bill would not restrict states at all, whereas Vitter and Udall would restrict them significantly going forward.

   Monica Trauzzi: So how contentious do you expect things to get at the hearing this week?

   Andy Igrejas: I think they might get pretty contentious, surely. We're hopeful that a mid- -- sometimes the debate on this issue has been more like the opening scene of "Bye Bye Birdie" where everyone's talking about who's where and what, as opposed to the substance of the debate. And I think if you look at some of the statements that have been made -- the California attorney general, other attorney generals have weighed in with a very substantive critique of how exactly this bill goes in and restricts states. It doesn't just prevent them from taking new action on chemicals if EPA is just studying a chemical. It actually blocks states from even enforcing the identical restrictions that the federal government has put in place, and that's new, to actually block that, to ban co-enforcement of these chemical restrictions. And I think a lot of us looking at it feel that that's just a blatant attempt to reduce enforcement under the new bill. A lot of laws require or really rely on the states to do the bulk of the enforcing. And so that's among the issues that we hope the hearing teases those out, that it teases out the problems with the products not really being regulated under the bill the way they could be, not really dealing with chemicals coming in from China in imported products -- that's a major hole in the bill -- teases them out so that they can be fixed, not so that nothing happens, but so that those problems are fixed and the high points of the Boxer-Markey bill can be brought in with the Vitter-Udall bill and we can have a compromise that really protects public health in the ...

   Monica Trauzzi: So you really think that there could be a compromise and that this tension is not going to get in the way of seeing something come to the floor.

   Andy Igrejas: Sure. Where there's a will, there's a way, and we think if senators really focus on the substance of this debate, really from across the spectrum -- you have people in Alaska; we have a senator from Alaska on the committee -- who really want action on those persistent bioaccumulative toxins because the higher up you eat on the food chain, like a lot of these Alaskan Native communities, the more of an impact you get from that. And that's been a top priority for them. That's something I think when it comes out, maybe there could be bipartisan support for doing something on that. Asbestos -- most people know it's a substance that's notorious. They're surprised it's not already banned. The idea of doing something on that explicitly I think will make sense to some people. So I'm hopeful that some substantive compromise can emerge after the issues are aired and the bill's support can be broadened, the issues can be addressed, and we can move forward.

   Monica Trauzzi: The Vitter-Udall bill as written is bipartisanship and has really strong co-sponsorship already. Why do you think that is?

   Andy Igrejas: I think they've had very strong support from the chemical industry that is a significant political player, especially in the last election. They've really upped the spending they did in the elections, their lobbying game, et cetera, and they made this their top priority. I think they've done that because of the fact that the world has started to move on from a lot of their products. You have Wal-Mart and Target starting to ban particular chemicals in particular products, you have states regulating them, and you have our trading partners setting the standard for the world in Europe instead of the United States. And they want the law reformed partly to fight back against all of those trends, and where we could come to an agreement I think is if more enlightened people in the chemical industry would like to see -- can live with reform where the only benefit they get is, look, if EPA is deciding if a chemical is safe in ways that public health and environmental groups all agree with are legitimate, that provides a benefit to them at the end of that process. And especially if, at the end of that process, there's uniformity -- the states follow what the federal government has done. That's a legitimate business benefit for them that doesn't require doing anything sneaky or rolling anything back. So I'm hopeful that we can bring the debate back to that.

   And our own perspective is we just -- we don't really care about which politicians are on which side of it or how many people they have. We have to focus on the substance of is public health and the environmental protection being advanced by the bill or not, and it's still not.

   Monica Trauzzi: All right, so this will be a very interesting hearing to watch this week. Thank you for coming on the show.

   Andy Igrejas: I think so -- thank you.

   Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

   [End of Audio]

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Groups Join Voices Against Industry Chemicals Bill

   Mar 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group

   By Robert Coleman

   A growing chorus is speaking out against legislation to update federal chemical safety law that was introduced last week by Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and David Vitter, R-La.  The industry-backed bill would retain the existing weak safety standard for toxic chemicals and limit the ability of states to enact and enforce their own rules to protect public health.

   Environmental Working Group characterized the bill as being “worse than the existing Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA – a law so broken that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been powerless even to ban asbestos.”

   Dozens of other organizations, companies and well-known health advocates and consumer activists have also denounced the Udall-Vitter bill.

   Here is what they are saying:

   Erin Brockovich, consumer advocate, told The Hill newspaper:

   If we take away states’ rights and dump this back on the EPA, which is already overburdened, understaffed and without state funds, to me that’s insanity...

   Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization:

   The fact that the Udall-Vitter bill will not even restrict, much less ban, the deadly substance that claims 30 lives a day is nothing short of a national travesty...

   Daniel Rosenberg, Senior Attorney in the Health Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said:

   The proposal still contains rollbacks and loopholes that make it worse than current law. For example, a lax Environmental Protection Agency could use the bill to give a green light to deregulate hundreds of controversial chemicals with minimal review...

   Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families:

   In its current form it would not make a big dent in the problem of toxic chemical exposure and would even do some harm by restraining state governments...

   Nancy Buermeyer, senior policy strategist at the Breast Cancer Fund:

   Congress negotiated with our health and the American public lost out to chemical industry profits...

   Michael Green, Executive Director of the Center for Environmental Health, said:

   We are terribly disappointed that this long-awaited proposal still retains provisions that put children and families at risk...

   Shaney Jo Darden, Founder of Keep a Breast Foundation, said:

   We need to demand a shift in focus from the welfare of industry to the welfare of humans…

   Sahru Keiser, program manager at Breast Cancer Action:

   The burden of proof still lies with us (and regulatory agencies) to prove chemicals are harmful, rather than requiring corporations to prove chemicals are safe…

   Catherine Thomasson MD, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility said:

   It’s time to put health first. The public wants their children protected from dangerous chemicals. The Udall-Vitter bill is still a step backwards…

   Click here to see a full list of statements from leading groups and individuals who advocate real TSCA reform, not the industry’s bill.

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. EPA Extends Time For Input On 'Precedent-Setting' Pesticide Risk Review

   Mar 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Dave Reynolds

   EPA has extended by 45 days -- until April 30 -- the deadline for public input on a draft pesticide human health risk review industry says is "precedent-setting" for how the agency's pesticides office will weigh epidemiological research in future risk assessments -- data environmentalists have long urged EPA to consider in the risk reviews.

   A source with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says that epidemiology studies, which track illness following exposures to toxic substances, are often not available when EPA first registers a pesticide, though agency officials should consider those studies later when evaluating whether existing regulations are protective. Observers suggest the agency's draft risk review of chlorpyrifos offers insight on how to consider such studies.

   For example, Dow AgroSciences in a Jan. 21 letter to EPA requested a 90-day extension of the comment deadline on the study, arguing the draft revised assessment shows "EPA is taking precedent-setting steps in how to consider and incorporate the results" of epidemiological research in regulatory decision-making, a complex issue that requires careful study.

   The extension of the prior March 16 comment deadline for the risk assessment of chlorpyrifos, which the agency announced in a March 13 Federal Register notice, is in response to a request from pesticide manufacture Dow AgroSciences and citrus growers.

   In a statement, the agency says it granted the requests in part because of the length and complexity of the revised assessment, which shows potential risks to workers using the pesticide. EPA has said based on the draft study that "additional [chlorpyrifos] restrictions may be necessary to ensure that workers who use or work around areas treated with chlorpyrifos are protected and that drinking water sources are protected."

   EPA has said the final revised draft assessment will inform its consideration of advocates' 2007 petition seeking a ban on the commonly-used chlorpyrifos, which groups say poses disproportionate risks to agricultural communities through pesticide drift and volatilization, which occurs when chemicals vaporize and become airborne.

   In the draft assessment, EPA says its review considers three epidemiological studies, including research from Columbia University, the University of California at Berkeley and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and that the agency reviewed those studies in accordance with its "Framework for Incorporating Human Epidemiologic & Incident Data in Health Risk Assessment." The agency released that document in draft form in 2010, and it was reviewed favorably by agency science advisors, according to the draft assessment.

   Draft Review

   In the draft review, EPA backs the epidemiology researchers findings of observed associations between in uteroexposure to chlorpyrifos and adverse neurodevelopmental effects in children, noting that any shortcomings in the studies fail to explain the phenomenon. "EPA performed its review and critical evaluation of these epidemiology studies in an open and transparent manner," the study says. EPA adds that it presented its evaluation of the data before two Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Science Advisory Panels, which agreed with the agency's assessment, concluding that "'chlorpyrifos likely played a role' in the observed neurodevelopmental outcomes."

   In a statement to Inside EPA, Dow criticizes EPA's use of the Columbia University epidemiological study, arguing the study offers no plausible mode of action to explain its results, which have not been replicated.

   Dow also says the study's authors have declined to make the raw data underlying the study available for inspection and independent evaluation by EPA scientists. "EPA is using unsubstantiated research in a nontransparent way to make regulatory decisions," the company statement says. "The Agency's long-established policy has been that in the interest of transparency and reliability of the data it does not make quantitative decisions (e.g., set regulatory endpoints) based on studies for which it does not have access to the raw data," according to the statement.

   Dow says pesticide registrants must share raw data underlying their studies, arguing EPA is using a double-standard in incorporating the Columbia University epidemiology study into its revised assessment. "For EPA to use different standards of transparency and reliability in regulatory evaluations for studies conducted by nonregistrants -- giving equal or even greater weight to researcher claims that cannot be supported by scrutiny of the raw data (vs. those that can) -- is indefensible from the standpoint of strong, reliable science-based regulatory policy," Dow says.

   The criticisms highlight the concerns Dow and others in the pesticide industry have about the signals that the chlorpyrifos review sends on how EPA will consider epidemiological studies in future reviews.

   The California Citrus Quality Council (CCQC) also asked EPA to extend the deadline for commenting on the draft risk review. In a Jan. 26 request, CCQC called chlorpyrifos an important tool for growers to combat pests, and urged EPA to allow adequate time for public comment to ensure the revised assessment is accurate.

   Epidemiology Studies

   The NRDC source says other EPA offices, including the Integrated Risk Information System program often rely on epidemiology studies in their assessments, though the pesticides office traditionally has not.

   The source also says that the pesticide office's use of epidemiology studies in the draft revised chlorpyrifos assessment is limited to informing its selection of uncertainty factors.

   Still, the source called EPA's inclusion of epidemiological data in the chlorpyrifos assessment a step in the right direction, both for the agency's study of chlorpyrifos and for its risk methods more broadly.

   "We want them to rely more heavily on the epi they have," the source says. "When you have it, you should use it," the source adds, arguing that epidemiology can provide "evidence that regulations haven't been working because of misuses" on a large scale, or because legal uses are poisoning people.

   NRDC and the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), in a Feb. 4 letter, urged EPA to deny requests to extend the comment period, saying it would further delay release of the final assessment, which has been years in development.

   They also said it would delay EPA's response to the groups' long-standing petition for EPA to ban chlorpyrifos. The environmental groups late last year filed a lawsuit urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to set deadlines for EPA to answer advocates' 2007 petition seeking a ban on the substance they argue poses neurological and behavioral risks for children and pregnant women.

   EPA, in December, asked the court to dismiss the case, PANNA and NRDC v. EPA, saying its then forthcoming draft revised human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos would address scientific questions raised by the petition, but that the agency needed to take public comment on the document before responding to the petition, which the agency said it intended to answer by summer. 

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Want to Avoid Toxic Couch Chemicals? Just Look for New Label!

   Mar 17, 2015 | NRDC Switchboard

   By Veena Singla

   Last week, there was good news for families looking for safer furniture across the U.S.-- Ashley Furniture, the largest manufacturer and seller of furniture in the country, announced that they are removing toxic flame retardant chemicals from their furniture! Read more about it on Mind the Store's blog. Even better, Ashley announced that ALL of their new furniture, no matter where in the country, will comply with California's new labeling law, so shoppers can easily tell which couches contain toxic flame retardant chemicals and which ones don't.

   Signed by Governor Brown last year, the CA labeling law requires all upholstered furniture (like couches, sofas, loveseats, and recliners) manufactured after January 1, 2015 to have a label that states whether or not harmful flame retardant chemicals were added to the product.

   Simple, right? Well, the new label is easy to understand, but unfortunately the situation is more complicated when you go into a furniture store. Some stores are ahead of the game and are already offering products without these unnecessary and harmful chemicals. (These stores are listed in our furniture store survey and also covered in a recent article from the Chicago Tribune.) But not all the couches in stores will have the simple flame retardant label yet. That's because the labeling law only applies to new furniture that's manufactured this year. Couches made in 2014 or earlier have different labels and may or may not contain flame retardants.

   So, what do you need to look for before you buy?

   First, find the flammability/ law label attached to the furniture. It's usually located underneath the furniture or under the cushions.

   Here are the three different kinds of labels you could see and what they mean:

   _#1

   Best: Flammability requirements label followed by the flame retardant label. Look for flame retardant labels marked "contain NO added flame retardant chemicals."

   You may be able to special order these products if they are not in stores yet.

   _#2

   Ask questions: Flammability requirements label with "Technical Bulletin 117-2013" or "TB117-2013." These products may or may not contain flame retardant chemicals. Ask the store or check with the manufacturer.

   _#3

   Worst: Flammability requirements label with "Technical Bulletin 117" or "TB117." These products almost certainly contain flame retardants.

   As brand new products hit stores later this year, you'll be able to see more and more with the simple flame retardant labels.

   Happy furniture shopping!

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

10. House Chairman: 'Landmark' Cyber Bill Coming This Week

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity

    By Cory Bennett

    The cyber bills are starting to multiply.

    House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said Tuesday he would release this week a draft of a bill to make the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the point agency on public-private cyber threat data sharing.

    “We are in a pre-9/11 moment when it comes to cybersecurity,” McCaul said during remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “In the same way legal barriers and turf wars kept us from connecting the dots before the 9/11 attacks, the lack of cyber threat information sharing is leaving us vulnerable to our enemies.”

    The bill would give companies legal liability protections when sharing cybersecurity information with the DHS cyber hub, known as the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC).

    The measure will join a growing cache of cyber information-sharing bills in the House and Senate.

    Lawmakers, government officials and most industry groups agree the public and private sectors need to exchange more cyber data to bolster the nation’s defenses against hackers.

    But congressional action has been tied up over the specifics.

    The Senate and House Intelligence committees want to allow cyber data sharing directly between private firms and intelligence agencies, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), which has concerned privacy advocates.

    McCaul, the White House and a growing bipartisan group of lawmakers want the DHS to serve as the lead portal for public-private cyber data exchanges.

    “DHS has some of the strongest privacy protection mechanisms in the federal government,” McCaul said. “Such built-in privacy oversight is an important reason why DHS is the leading civilian interface for these exchanges.”

    And the NCCIC, in particular, is ideally suited to manage such an exchange.

    “The NCCIC is not a cyber regulator,” McCaul said. “It cannot prosecute you and it is not a spy agency. It’s a civilian interface.”

    McCaul wants to mark up his bill within the next two weeks and get it to the floor by the end of April.

    That timeline could lead to a direct clash with a Senate Intelligence Committee cyber info-sharing bill that passed out of committee last Thursday. Senate leaders are hoping to get it to a floor vote by mid-April and to the House floor shortly after.

    The Senate bill — the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) — would allow non-electronic info-sharing between private firms and intelligence agencies. All electronic sharing would go through the DHS, a change seen as an attempt to assuage privacy concerns. Privacy groups have thus far been unswayed, arguing the data will be shared within the government anyway.

    The House Intelligence Committee is expected to mark up a similar bill.

    While Senate Democrats and the White House have expressed reservations about CISA’s privacy provisions, McCaul supports the Intelligence panel’s efforts.

    The parallel bills aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, he said.

    “We think DHS is a primary portal, a lead portal because of this civilian interface,” he said. “However, if a member company wants to go to NSA as a portal, we’re going to allow for that as well.”

    Congress’s actions on these bills will determine how the country tackles cyberattacks for years to come, McCaul believes.

    “This will be landmark,” he said. “This will create how we deal with cybersecurity for the next decade.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

11. Jewell: Fracking Rule in

    Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro

    By Andrew Restuccia

    Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said on Tuesday that the Interior Department will release its long-delayed final rule for fracking on public lands in the "coming days."
    
    "The rule will include measures to protect our nation’s groundwater — requiring operators to construct sound wells, to disclose the chemicals they use, and to safely recover and handle fluids used in the process," Jewell said during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
    
    And Jewell preemptively rebutted industry criticism of the rule.
    
    "Some have already labeled these baseline, proven standards as overly burdensome to industry. I think most Americans would call them common sense," she said. "The standards only apply to activity on public and tribal lands, where, as a matter of geology, about 25 percent of America’s unconventional oil and gas sits. You can do the math: that means that three-quarters of the resources are found on state and private lands."
    
    She did not offer any other details on the rule.
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. House Republicans' Budget Envisions More Drilling, Fewer Regulations

    Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Nick Juliano

    The annual spending and policy blueprint House Republicans released today envisions expanded domestic energy production and fewer environmental regulations among its prescriptions to grow the economy and eliminate the federal deficit.

    House Budget Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) unveiled his budget proposal today, outlining a set of policy proposals that tracks closely with the approach Republicans have championed for the last several years.

    "Through policies like fundamental tax reform, expanded energy production and the streamlining or outright elimination of unnecessary regulations, our budget would create an environment where folks can plan for the future with greater confidence and optimism," Price wrote in a USA Today op-ed today.

    The budget is nonbinding but sets a blueprint for spending and policy goals over the coming year. The Senate's budget is expected to be released tomorrow, and both chambers are likely to pass their respective plans before adjourning for recess next week. By mid-April, the Budget committees hope to have their differences reconciled in order to set spending targets for the Appropriations committees to move the dozen annual spending bills before the next fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

    Democrats accused Republicans of relying on gimmicks and overly optimistic assumptions to bring the budget into balance within the 10-year budget window while gutting spending on important domestic priorities.

    "We must ensure that all people who work hard and play by the rules are rewarded with a fair share of a growing economic pie," top House Budget Democrat Chris Van Hollen (Md.), who is running for Senate, said in a statement today. "But all the Republican budget does is rig the system in favor of the elite -- and its phony claim of reaching 'balance' is built on a shaky foundation of huge gimmicks. It is a dangerous recipe for our nation's economic decline."Nixes carbon tax

    The GOP budget report says it "encourages further exploration of oil and natural gas both onshore and offshore in North America on both private and public lands."

    The House Natural Resources Committee is tasked with developing the details of expanded energy production legislation -- which could eventually be addressed through special budget reconciliation procedures that prevent filibuster in the Senate.

    But the committee is directed to find just $100 million in additional revenue over the next decade -- a relative pittance compared with how much the government already earns from oil and natural gas drilling, coal mining, renewable energy siting, and other mineral extraction on the federal estate. In fiscal 2014, the government brought in more than $13 billion in revenue from royalties, rents and other payments associated with energy development on federal lands, according to the Interior Department's Office of Natural Resources Revenue.

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee -- which has jurisdiction over U.S. EPA and the Department of Energy, as well as several agencies charged with implementing the Affordable Care Act that this budget targets for elimination -- is charged with finding $1 billion worth of deficit reduction over the next decade.

    The budget also explicitly rejects the idea of a carbon tax as a revenue raiser. "Such a plan would damage the economy, cost jobs, and raise prices on American consumers," the resolution's legislative text says.

    Following a lengthy critique of various Obama administration regulatory proposals, including EPA's Clean Power Plan, the budget echoes long-standing Republican policy proposals related to regulatory reform. It includes a call to require congressional approval of any rule that would impose more than $100 million in annual economic costs on the economy, a classification that would apply to much of the portfolio at EPA and the Interior Department, among other agencies.

    Department of Energy research and development efforts "should focus solely on breakthrough innovations," the budget says, rather than the application or commercialization of new technologies -- functions of the loan guarantee program, among other offices. And the budget would rescind any remaining green energy funds from the 2009 stimulus law -- a proposal Republicans apparently couldn't resist presenting without a reference to the most infamous loan guarantee recipient.

    "The government cannot recover taxpayer dollars from failed projects like Solyndra," the budget says, referring to the solar panel manufacturer that went bankrupt in 2011, "but it can protect taxpayers from being on the hook for future boondoggles."

    On transportation, the budget continues a prohibition on transferring from the Treasury's general fund to prop up the Highway Trust Fund without offsetting spending cuts, and it leaves open the possibility of adjusting transportation spending levels based on the long-term transportation bill lawmakers hope to enact this year.

    The budget also requires that transfers to the Highway Trust Fund be offset in the same fiscal year in which they occur instead of within the 10-year budget window. That requirement could complicate future transfers to fortify the fund, given that the $10.8 billion bailout included in the most recent transportation bill was offset over a decade.

    Similar transportation offset language was also included in last year's House budget but may stand a better chance of making it into law this year, given Republican control of both the House and Senate for the first time in nine years.

    Reporter Sean Reilly contributed.

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Interior’s Energy Path Forward: Drill Less, Go Clean

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Franz A. Matzner

    “Science is science,” President Obama told an interviewer last year. “And there is no doubt that if we burned all the fossil fuel that’s in the ground right now that the planet’s going to get too hot and the consequences could be dire.” 

    In fact, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to leave three quarters of proven oil, gas and coal reserves in the ground, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned last year. 

    It’s a sobering figure to remember as Interior Department Secretary Sally Jewell prepares to unveil Tuesday at CSIS her blueprint for energy development on federal lands and waters, the source of a quarter of U.S. oil and gas production and half the nation’s coal.

    The president has said that addressing climate change is a moral imperative. If we are to meet this challenge, and meet our obligation to leave a cleaner world for future generations, we need a paradigm shift regarding energy development on public lands. Right now, for every one renewable energy project permit that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approves, it grants 469 applications to drill oil and gas on federal lands. That must change, and change radically. 

    Below are four initial steps the Interior Department should take to match its energy policy with the president’s vision of a cleaner energy future:

    1.      Stop new Offshore Drilling: The administration must abandon its misguided plans to allow oil drilling in the offshore waters of the Arctic and along the Atlantic coast.  Turning these areas over to Big Oil threatens to lock in decades of carbon emissions and represents precisely the type of new oil development the science says we cannot afford. These waters represent a perfect place to stop drilling and instead establish a plan that embraces responsibly-sited clean renewable energy. Drilling in the Arctic is particularly irresponsible considering there are simply no proven technologies to deal with an oil well blowout in the region’s remote seas. Likewise, opening the Atlantic off our east coast –for the first time in more than 30 years—would threaten vital coastal economies.

    2.      “All in” on Renewables: Renewable energy is one of the cornerstones of the president’s Climate Action Plan, and the Interior Department has made remarkable strides in developing wind, solar, and geothermal resources on our federal lands.  Under Obama, the agency has approved 52 utility-scale renewable energy projects, including the permitting of 29 solar projects that could produce enough electricity to power almost five million homes.  Yet Interior continues to aggressively promote fossil fuel development— last year BLM leased enough land to drill the entire state of North Carolina.  The Department must embrace a ‘renewables first’ policy, which means better tools for renewable development and offering renewables the same level of long-term certainty routinely granted to fossil fuel projects. Without a major change in the Department’s culture, clean energy progress will be constantly undermined by entrenched oil and gas interests.

    3.      Coal Leasing Moratorium: No new leases on taxpayer-owned coal should be issued until the currently broken leasing system is fixed. Several studies have found that taxpayers aren’t getting fair value because there’s not enough industry competition for leases and the Interior Department does a poor job in trying to figure out what the right price should be.  But worse, Interior’s chronic undervaluation makes coal artificially cheap and undermines the nation’s goal of shifting toward cleaner, non-polluting alternatives.

    4.    Protect Against Fracking’s Risks: Fracking threatens the health of our communities, clean air, treasured landscapes, wildlife, and sources of drinking water for millions of Americans. Yet, Interior continues to approve new oil and gas fracking on public lands nationwide without sufficient environmental review, relying on outdated, inadequate regulations. And while the agency is in the process of updating some rules, drafts have been woefully inadequate to protect public health or the environment.  Just as the Department should prioritize clean energy development over fossil fuel extraction, it must put people’s health and our natural heritage ahead of industry interests.

    If we are to bequeath to our children a livable planet and sustainable economy, we must stop letting Big Oil, Gas, and Coal dictate energy policy and control our politics. We must act now, before it’s too late. This has to be done across the board, agency by agency, policy by policy, following the best available science.  The Interior Department should be at the forefront of this effort by launching a cleaner, safer, long-term plan to move beyond fossil fuel development.   

    Matzner is the director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Beyond Oil Initiative.

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Now Is Not the Time to End Oil Export Ban

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog

    By Tyson Slocum, contributor

    Only a few years ago, America's oil policy was defined by scarcity and high prices. The consensus solution was characterized by President George W. Bush's 2006 remarks that "America is addicted to oil," when he laid out a blueprint to replace petroleum with alternatives. At the time, we were producing 5 million barrels of oil a day. But the experts and even the industry itself were blindsided by the turnaround in just a few years: Improvements in fracking technology, coupled with key exemptions from federal clean water laws and rising commodity prices, resulted in a pendulum swing to 9 million barrels a day.

    The oil gushing out of the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale formations has drillers swimming in profits and delivering jobs to producing regions, even with the recent price drop. Federal law limiting the export of U.S.-produced oil, combined with flatlining consumption, has led to a domestic glut. This surplus has driven key U.S. benchmark prices down, resulting in sub-$2.50 a gallon gasoline for most Americans.

    Some analysts now claim that the resulting drop in prices, from $100 to $50 a barrel, is actually the new normal, reflecting a repeal of long-held fundamentals and justifying jettisoning the statute limiting the export of domestically produced crude oil. Oil companies (and the consulting firms they hire to produce studies affirming their position) argue that the oversupply has pushed prices down too low. Eleven oil company executives under the guise of their new lobbying group, Producers for American Crude Oil Exports, just met with the White House to urge the ban's repeal, claiming that increased oil production can serve as the foundation of a new American economy, with unfettered oil exports creating even more jobs, lowering gasoline prices and reestablishing U.S. geopolitical supremacy by tipping the global balance of power away from OPEC and Russia. If you think this sounds too good to be true, you're right.

    Oil-exports-as-an-economic-policy sounds a lot like a Nigerian model of growth, a one-trick pony latching the U.S. to the perils of finite natural resources with volatile prices. Look to North Dakota's and Texas's current budget woes to see how tethering growth to fickle commodity prices produces a boom-and-bust economy. What sets America apart is not our aptitude at pulling dinosaur remnants out of the ground, but the value added by our manufacturing and high-tech innovation — competing sectors threatened by the higher petroleum product prices that will result from exporting. Oil is literally a fuel for economic activity. To increase the cost of that feedstock would benefit oil extractors at the expense of everyone else.

    It is bad policy to extrapolate short-term events into long-term trends. Rising oil storage at home helps insulate the American economy from the uncertainty caused by oil supply disruptions abroad, serving as an enhanced Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The American economy remains addicted to oil, and any change in the key variables — Chinese/European growth increasing global demand, unrest in oil producing nations — can move prices to punitive levels. Oil prices have jerked repeatedly since the mid-2000s in response to a dissonance of supply constraints and demand trends. The future will be no less volatile, turning an axiom on its head: What comes down must go up.

    Halliburton's CEO explained recently that when oil exceeds $100 a barrel, oil companies are "printing money like crazy," and falling prices simply force companies to become more efficient. Discarding the export ban would prop prices up and dull the incentive to innovate. Shale frackers will continue to return value to shareholders with the export ban in place.

    But what about studies projecting that unconstrained crude oil exports will lower domestic prices rather than raise them? In general, they conclude that exporting oil will raise the key U.S. oil benchmark price (West Texas Intermediate, or WTI) but will lower an international benchmark by which some portions of the U.S. gasoline market are priced (Brent Crude). Following the money, however, one sees that nearly all of these private studies have been funded by companies that benefit from exporting oil. And a major flaw in the studies is that they dismiss the possibility that more U.S. gasoline markets could link to WTI. A recent Department of Energy study failed to draw conclusions about the impact of lifting the export ban on gasoline prices.

    Indeed, Sen. John Cornyn, Republican majority whip from Texas, wants to attach the nixing of the export ban to legislation funding the next surface transportation reauthorization, claiming that "It seems to me that if our producers would get something closer to the Brent price, as opposed to the West Texas Intermediate price — it fluctuates, but it could be as much as $10 lower a barrel — that that would produce better prices for the producers." Cornyn admits this is all about raising producers' profits at the expense of higher gas prices for consumers. Is it a surprise that the largest contributor to his campaigns since 2009 is the oil industry, at $1.4 million?

    U.S. oil exports can't undercut geopolitical adversaries like Russia and elements of the Middle East without significant impacts to supplying the U.S. market — remember, America still imports 8 million barrels of oil every day. Booming domestic production hasn't brought us anywhere near oil independence. We remain vulnerable to international supply shocks and punishing price swings.

    As with any extractive industry, the impacts of fracking on precious resources — namely water, agriculture and harmful air emissions — will be exacerbated by the resulting increase in fracking activity should the ban be lifted. Indeed, former White House economic adviser and Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers admitted that "the higher domestic price that will result from permitting the export of oil will lead to more drilling."

    That's really the issue at hand. One segment of the economy — the oil industry — is waging a campaign to convince a skeptical public that an economic protection statute is no longer needed, sponsoring studies employing dubious calculations that Americans will be better off shipping our crude directly to China. We must learn from Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela that an economy that prioritizes raw natural resource exports fails to properly develop the true engines of prosperity. Any informed observer of energy markets today recognizes that the real revolution is in clean tech technology. Solar power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in 47 states by 2016. Tesla is building a battery factory that will deliver energy storage at rates lower than the current grid. Exporting oil is great for stagnating states, but terrible for success.

    Slocum is director of Public Citizen's Energy Program.

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Thune, Manchin Introduce Bill to Block EPA Smog Rule

    Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Erica Martinson

     Sens. John Thune and Joe Manchin introduced a bill today to block EPA from tightening the ozone air quality standard.
    
    In November, EPA proposed lowering the current 75 parts per billion standard to between 65 to 70 ppb. The agency is due to issue a final rule by October. Today is the deadline to submit comments on the proposed rule.
    
    The bill would prohibit EPA from lowering the health-based standard until 85 percent of the counties that currently do not meet it are in compliance, and would require EPA to consider the costs and feasibility of meeting the standard, which the Supreme Court has ruled is currently prohibited by the law.
    
    “Lowering the ground-level ozone standard would be a staggering blow to our economy,” Thune said.
    
    Manchin said the bill would “strike a balance between the environment and the economy.”
    
    Tightening the standard when states “have not had sufficient time to comply with the existing standards is unfair. Lowering the ozone standard would cost states billions of dollars and thousands of good-paying jobs,” Manchin said.
    
    Rep. Pete Olson introduced companion legislation in the House.
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. House Lawmakers Debate Power Rule

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch

    By Lydia Wheeler

    Legal experts spent the majority of Tuesday’s hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power arguing whether a certain amendment to the Clean Air Act prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from adopting it’s proposed clean power rule.

    The rule, which EPA proposed in June, would require states to adopt their own plans to cut emissions at existing power plants to meet the agency's goal of reducing carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

    But Allison Wood, a partner with Hunton & Williams LLP, said a House amendment to section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act precludes the EPA from regulating sources of hazardous air pollutants that are already regulated by section 112.

    Though the House and Senate adopted conflicting amendments to section 111(d), both of which appear in the statute, Wood said the House amendment trumps the Senate amendment because it was included in U.S. code

    Richard Revesz, a Lawrence King Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus at the New York University School of Law however, said that argument is “unfounded.”

    When there are two conflicting amendments, Revesz said statutes trump U.S. code unless the code itself was adopted as legislation, which didn’t happen in this case. Revesz said it’s up to the EPA to then interpret the rule.

    Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) took his five minutes of questioning to go down, as he said, “a different rabbit hole.”

    “Professor Revesz, the proposal you make is a departmental procedural impossibility,” he said. "It cannot happen. It doesn’t matter what the issue is.”

    Griffith said the Clean Air Act could not have passed Congress with competing amendments. When there are differences between the House and Senate and both chambers adhere to their position, he said the bill dies.

    “It’s not for you to say today that the bill should die because there’s some confusion because there are two different versions,” he said. “There are not two different versions. It could not have happened.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Republican Chairman Says EPA Has 'Muzzled Dissenting Voices'

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    Republicans on the House Science Committee questioned Tuesday whether the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to reduce ozone pollution would bring the promised benefits.

    The panel, led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), held a hearing with health and economic experts and tried to poke holes in the EPA’s contention that reducing the allowable level of ozone, a component of smog, would improve respiratory health.Republicans on the committee also sought to highlight the forecast from Nera Economic Consulting that the regulation would cost well over $1 trillion, an estimate that the EPA and the rule’s supporters dispute.

    “During earlier stages of this rulemaking, EPA relied on studies with data that was not publicly available,” Smith said at the hearing.

    “This raises a lot of suspicions. Furthermore, the EPA has regularly chosen to disregard inconvenient scientific conclusions and muzzled dissenting voices,” he said.

    Smith used the hearing to promote two of the committee’s bills that would restrict which scientific studies the EPA could use to justify its rules. The House will vote on the bills this week.

    “There is no concrete evidence to support a lower standard for ozone before we have even complied with the last standard,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas). “If anything, more research needs to be done,” he added, while accusing the EPA of using “a very limited set of studies.”

    The EPA proposed in November to limit ground-level ozone concentrations to between 65 and 70 parts per billion, down from the current 75 parts per billion.

    The agency and groups supporting the rule say that it would significantly reduce respiratory problems, including asthma attacks. That would reduce healthcare costs, missed days of school and work and premature deaths.

    “It’s clear that air quality-related illnesses have a very real and destructive effect on the economy — on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars annually — and the benefits of reducing those effects will be seen throughout the country,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the top Democrat on the committee.

    Democrats also pointed to the Clean Air Act, which requires the EPA to set ozone standards based solely on the impact to human health and the environment, and can only consider costs in implementing the standards.

    Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) drew an analogy to medicine, using Dr. Mary Rice, a physician and instructor at Harvard Medical School who testified in support of the rule, as an example.

    “You don’t make your medical diagnosis based on the cost of treatment, you don’t say to your patient ‘this is what you can afford, so this is what I’m going to diagnose,’ ” she said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Obama's Plan is 'Burning the Constitution' -- Laurence Tribe

    Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jean Chemnick

    President Obama's Harvard Law School mentor delivered a stinging indictment of the president's flagship climate change rule this morning, telling a packed House hearing that the Clean Power Plan violates both the Clean Air Act and the Constitution.

    Laurence Tribe, a noted constitutional scholar, told an Energy and Commerce subcommittee that EPA's proposal for carbon dioxide from existing power plants seeks to remake both the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the constitutional division of powers between state and federal governments.

    The EPA proposal conflicts with settled principles of federalism and Supreme Court precedents, he said, "because it would commandeer state governments, treating them more like marionettes dancing to the tune of a federal puppeteer than like laboratories of democracy."

    Tribe, who was once a liberal icon, noted that he had often represented interests seeking to increase environmental regulation. But he said the proposal EPA released last June represented a "breathtaking power grab" on the part of an Obama administration that had evidently grown frustrated waiting for Congress to legislate on climate.

    "EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the states, Congress and the federal courts all at once," he said. "Burning the Constitution should not become part of our national energy policy."

    Tribe has become a controversial figure in the struggle over the Clean Power Plan since he submitted comments on the draft rule last December on behalf of coal producer Peabody Energy Corp., calling it "fatally flawed" (Greenwire, Dec. 8, 2014).

    Tribe's presence at today's Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing raised its profile considerably, prompting supporters and opponents of the rule to trade press releases trumpeting his pre-released opening statement or bashing his motives.

    Mike Duncan, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said in a statement that "should EPA refuse to withdraw or significantly alter its Clean Power Plan, the rule will almost certainly be struck down by the courts, costing taxpayers and electricity ratepayers millions of dollars in legal fees."

    E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.

    John Coequyt, the Sierra Club's director of federal and international climate campaigns, said Tribe's words were "exactly what the coal industry wants to hear."

    "That makes sense, because he is on their payroll," he said, highlighting legal scholars who disagree with Tribe and polls that show the rule has public support.

    The issue of industry support for experts -- both legal and scientific -- has flared recently, with congressional Democrats highlighting the recent revelation that scientist Wei-Hock Soon received at least $409,000 from a subsidiary of Atlanta-based utility Southern Co. to support his research challenging the consensus on climate science.

    Obama said in an interview with the website VICE, released yesterday, that Capitol Hill is populated by "shills" for the fossil fuels industry who spread unfounded doubt about the state of climate science.

    "Typically, in Congress, the committees of jurisdiction, like the energy committees, are populated by folks from places that pump a lot of oil and pump a lot of gas," he said.

    Tribe's statements were praised by panel Republicans, including subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who said EPA had followed a "tortured and circuitous route" in promulgating its rule. Subpanel ranking member Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) said the rule is "reasonable" and addresses the crucial issue of climate change.'Ghost and non-ghost versions'

    One of the chief arguments highlighted during this morning's hearing was a discrepancy in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 that resulted in the apparent enactment of two different versions of the statute -- one crafted by the House, the other by the Senate (Greenwire, Oct. 24, 2013).

    The House language bars EPA from using Section 111(d) to regulate source categories -- such as power plants or refineries -- that are already subject to hazardous emissions rules under the Clean Air Act. The Senate's, meanwhile, prevents its use to regulate a source category for a pollutant that is already being regulated.

    EPA has promulgated a rule for mercury and other toxics from existing power plants, so opponents of the Clean Power Plan point to the House language to argue that the agency lacks authority to regulate carbon from the same sources. This glitch has already figured in litigation to head off the proposal, which is due to be finalized this summer.

    EPA addresses this issue by saying that the statutory language is ambiguous, and that common sense dictates that Congress did not intend to bar the agency from putting forward rules for different pollutants simply because it is regulating other pollutants from the same source.

    But Tribe said EPA seems bent on rewriting the Clean Air Act amendments to suit its own purposes. He called the Senate-produced language a "ghost version" of the law.

    "I don't think the court would accept the agency's interpretation," he said.

    But Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, quipped, "I never knew that laws came in ghost and non-ghost versions."

    He noted that both versions of the statutory language were signed by the president.

    "That makes them law," he said. And even the House version alone includes enough ambiguity to support EPA's interpretation that it can use Section 111(d) to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, Revesz said. Courts have sided with agencies in the vast majority of comparable cases, he added.

    Revesz also took aim at Tribe's argument that the rule "commandeers" state governments to implement its rule, noting the flexibility EPA has incorporated into its proposal and the possibility of federal implementation.

    "States are not required to do anything," he said.

    Allison Wood, a partner at Hunton & Williams, testified that EPA is limited by law to promulgating restrictions not only "inside the fence line" of a power plant, but at the electric generating unit itself. The agency has instead promulgated a rule that draws emissions reductions from renewable energy deployment, demand-side efficiency and other sources -- effectively mandating that the existing coal fleet be used less, she said.

    "It's as if EPA were requiring car owners not only to have catalytic converters on their cars, but also to travel a certain amount of days per week by bus, purchase a certain number of electric vehicles and work from home one day per week," she said.

    But Revesz countered that EPA is regulating the product -- electricity -- not the means of producing it. And power can be generated through many means other than coal, with less carbon emissions, he noted.

    The hearing's first panel this morning did not focus heavily on the "just say no" strategy of state implementation. Rule opponents including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have suggested that states have little to fear by refusing to comply with the rule and inviting a federal implementation plan (FIP).

    But Tribe said EPA's threat of a FIP is a "phantom" that encourages states to write rules that would remake their power sectors for fear of facing a more onerous federal model. And Wood said that while the EPA rule might be on shaky legal ground, states would spend money and resources on compliance while waiting for judicial review.

    EPA has pledged to release a model FIP this summer, when it will also finalize the Clean Power Plan and rules for new and modified power plants.

    The Energy and Power subpanel is also set to hear this afternoon from state officials who would be tasked with implementation of the rule.

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. EPA is on a 'Constitutionally Reckless Mission,' Obama's Law Professor Testifies

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Reg Watch

    By Lydia Wheeler

    The law professor, who taught President Obama says the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the statutory and constitutional authority to force states to implement plans to cut carbon emissions at existing power plants. 

    “In my considered view, EPA is off on a constitutionally reckless mission,” Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School, said in prepared remarks at a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing on Tuesday.

    Tribe was hired to write comments on the rule by Peabody Energy Corp., the largest coal-mining company in the world. 

    The rule, EPA proposed in June, seeks to cut the power sector’s carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030. Under the rule, states would have one year to create and adopt implementation plans.

    “This submissive role for the states confounds the political accountability that the Tenth Amendment is meant to protect,” Tribe said in his remarks. “EPA’s plan will force states to adopt policies that will raise energy costs and prove deeply unpopular, while cloaking those policies in the Emperor’s garb of state “choice” – even though in fact the polices are compelled by EPA.”

    While Subcommittee Chair Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) agreed with Tribe, calling EPA’s plan "a violation of existing law,” not everyone on the committee views the rule as federal overreach.

    “Climate change is here," said Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.). “We need to take action and we need to take it now.”

    McNerney said the EPA rule would force the creation of new technologies and put the U.S. in a leadership role in the world’s efforts to curb climate change.

    “I know the coal producers are worried about this, but my advice to them is to embrace carbon sequestration,” he said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Legislation Targets EPA Bid to Tighten Ozone Standard

    Mar 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Amanda Peterka

    Legislation expected in the House and Senate today would block U.S. EPA's efforts to toughen the national ozone standard.

    The bill would prohibit EPA from setting a more stringent standard until most of the country has complied with the 2008 standard.

    Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) announced the bill today in an op-ed published on the CNBC website. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is an original co-sponsor of the bill with Thune.

    "At a time when our economy is seeking to turn the corner, we must pursue every opportunity to create jobs and strengthen American industry," Inhofe and Thune wrote. "A lower ozone standard would abruptly halt any such progress in many parts of the country and impose expensive and restricting compliance costs in nearly every state."

    The proposed legislation comes as EPA prepares to close at midnight tonight a public comment period on a proposed tightening of the ozone standard that was set by the George W. Bush administration at 75 parts per billion. EPA has proposed to set a new standard in the range of 65 to 70 ppb based on a review of the science on the adverse public health effects tied to ozone exposure.

    The Senate legislation would stop EPA from lowering the national limit until 85 percent of the country is deemed in attainment with the 75 ppb limit.

    In 2012, EPA named 46 areas that don't comply with the 2008 standard. Under the Clean Air Act, those areas must develop state implementation plans to reduce pollution levels. The agency last month released implementation rules to guide states on how to come into compliance.

    The bill -- the "Clean Air, Strong Economies Act" -- would further require EPA to consider costs and feasibility when it sets a new ozone standard, a significant shift from how the agency currently sets national ambient air quality standards. Under the Clean Air Act and affirmed by the Supreme Court, EPA is allowed to consider only public health data when setting a new limit.

    EPA would also be prohibited from using modeling to determine areas of the country that do not meet the standard.

    A spokeswoman for Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), who introduced a version of the bill last year with Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), confirmed that a companion bill would be introduced in the House later this afternoon.

    A broad coalition of industry and business groups last year supported the legislation, including the Chamber of Commerce, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the National Association of Manufacturers. The bill did not receive any votes or hearings in the House or Senate (E&E Daily, Sept. 18, 2014).

    Public health advocates and environmentalists who are calling on EPA to set a new standard no higher than 60 ppb last year strongly opposed the legislation.
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. House GOP Budget Targets Obama’s Environmental Agenda

    Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    House Republicans are using their budget proposal to push cuts to renewable energy incentives and climate change programs.

    The spending blueprint released Tuesday by the GOP says those programs are wasteful and pick winners and losers, and that the government should streamline energy programs and put more effort into increasing domestic oil and natural gas production.“More affordable energy will keep more money in the pockets of hard-working citizens,” the House Budget Committee, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), wrote in its federal budget proposal for fiscal year 2016. “When coupled with limited regulations based on common sense, we will empower American businesses from high tech industries to American farmers.”

    The budget document reflects a common talking point: the United States is in the midst of a major energy renaissance and the federal government needs to get out of the way while doing what it can to help the increase in fossil fuel production.

    It stands in stark contrast with the Obama administration’s attempts to increase renewable energy development and deployment. Secretary of State John Kerry highlighted this position last week when he called fossil fuels like coal and oil “outdated.”

    The GOP wants immediately end green energy loan programs that started with the 2009 stimulus law and take down regulations and subsidies that favor some companies over others.

    Republicans also highlighted climate change programs at the Department of Defense and the CIA as areas ripe for budget cuts.

    “The Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, two of the most important agencies in our national security apparatus, currently spend part of their budget studying climate change,” the GOP said, calling those programs some of the areas “ where there should be room to cut waste, eliminate redundancies and end the abuse or misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

    As a whole, the budget would cut $5.5 trillion in spending over the next decade and balance spending and receipts within eight years.

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time